Incest MAY be ok

[neo-x]

Neo wrote:
Yes Rick, it would be always wrong and it was wrong. The same as before the levi law, murder was still murder. Cain slew Abel. If we say that incest is not sin before the Leviticus law was given, then we also must concede that murder was not murder before the law and so was not lying, stealing, idolatry etc. But we do know that these sins were sins and were recognized by God as such even before the law was given. There is a reason why the flood of Noah happened, before the law and not after.

Neo, you're convinced that incest is objectively wrong, like murder. I'm not convinced. While I'm repulsed by the thought of incest, even between consenting adult relatives, I want to make sure it's not just an emotional argument for me.

Those of you who believe incest is objectively wrong, why is it?

(And, I'm only talking about incest between consenting adults, who could be legally married. In any other instance, I believe it is a sin.)

Because it is dysfunctional in its nature, a perversion. It is unnatural in the same sense as sodomy and gay relationships.

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
Because it is dysfunctional in its nature, a perversion. It is unnatural in the same sense as sodomy and gay relationships.

Unnatural, how so?

How is it dysfunctional?

[neo-x]

Neo wrote:
Because it is dysfunctional in its nature, a perversion. It is unnatural in the same sense as sodomy and gay relationships.

Unnatural, how so?

How is it dysfunctional?

I think it spiritually destroys the relationship and love and the sense of love without sex, among the practitioners. e.g for fathers to bed their daughters. I think God forbade it for the same reason he forbade homosexual sex or lying. These are perversions of reality. Consent has nothing to do with it.

And more so, imo, sex among a family can distort the family dynamics. I also think that almost 9 out of ten incest relationships are not consensual really. An elder will always have a higher coercive power.

I can understand incest when the population of the world was very low but today its hard to accept that eyeing your sister or daughter or boy for sexual purposes is moral.

[Jac3510]

It's clear enough the first degree, in line incest (parents and children) is unnatural. It is not as obvious that second degree, lateral incest (brothers and sisters) is unnatural. Strictly, I don't see anything unnatural about such relationships, even while I think society does well to discourage them. To that end, the argument from psychological coercion works, but it has nothing to do with relational proximity; so again, I wouldn't say it demonstrates that such relationships are unnatural. Better to say that such relationships tend to be harmful. But there is a world of difference between "tend to be harmful" and "unnatural" on the level of moral analysis.

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
Because it is dysfunctional in its nature, a perversion. It is unnatural in the same sense as sodomy and gay relationships.

Unnatural, how so?

How is it dysfunctional?

I think it spiritually destroys the relationship and love and the sense of love without sex, among the practitioners. e.g for fathers to bed their daughters. I think God forbade it for the same reason he forbade homosexual sex or lying. These are perversions of reality. Consent has nothing to do with it.

And more so, imo, sex among a family can distort the family dynamics. I also think that almost 9 out of ten incest relationships are not consensual really. An elder will always have a higher coercive power.

I can understand incest when the population of the world was very low but today its hard to accept that eyeing your sister or daughter or boy for sexual purposes is moral.

Ok. But how does an adult sibling relationship, or cousin relationship fit into your argument?

[RickD]

It's clear enough the first degree, in line incest (parents and children) is unnatural. It is not as obvious that second degree, lateral incest (brothers and sisters) is unnatural. Strictly, I don't see anything unnatural about such relationships, even while I think society does well to discourage them. To that end, the argument from psychological coercion works, but it has nothing to do with relational proximity; so again, I wouldn't say it demonstrates that such relationships are unnatural. Better to say that such relationships tend to be harmful. But there is a world of difference between "tend to be harmful" and "unnatural" on the level of moral analysis.

So it seems like you're saying that incest isn't objectively wrong?

[Jac3510]

I'm saying that incestuous relationships between (grand)parents and (grand)children are objectively wrong because such relationships are intrinsically disordered. I'm saying that incestuous relationships between siblings are highly problematic, imprudent, likely psychologically damaging, and so far from the ideal that they a prudent society will discourage them as a matter of law, and in this way, such relationships are really wrong both in terms of valid law as well as being vicious (in the sense that they are opposed to the virtues). But as you can see from the second sentence, the list of qualifications suggests that those types of relationships are not intrinsically disordered. As such, while they are wrong, they are wrong for different reasons. The former are always wrong, and that by nature. The latter are just usually always wrong, and that by circumstance.

At least, that's how it seems to me. I'm open to being corrected.

Here's a link that explains some of my reasoning.

Yes, I like NewAdvent.

[Lonewolf]

Neo wrote:
Yes Rick, it would be always wrong and it was wrong. The same as before the levi law, murder was still murder. Cain slew Abel. If we say that incest is not sin before the Leviticus law was given, then we also must concede that murder was not murder before the law and so was not lying, stealing, idolatry etc. But we do know that these sins were sins and were recognized by God as such even before the law was given. There is a reason why the flood of Noah happened, before the law and not after.

Neo, you're convinced that incest is objectively wrong, like murder. I'm not convinced. While I'm repulsed by the thought of incest, even between consenting adult relatives, I want to make sure it's not just an emotional argument for me.

Those of you who believe incest is objectively wrong, why is it?

(And, I'm only talking about incest between consenting adults, who could be legally married. In any other instance, I believe it is a sin.)

^ ^ and see, that's where i was going with this., there's two types of incest that can be deduced by the posts made here., one type is the horrible sinful one where one abuses another., the other one is the taboo type which as a society we tend to associate with incest., that taboo type can include relatives marrying each other out of "love" ., there is well documented world history in which clans and tribes are made up almost entirely out of related kinsfolk, is there not?

[PaulSacramento]

Paul, Neo, I get what you guys are saying. But it is clear that SOME things WERE forbiden by God - and thus a sin - and later God changed such things to being ok to do or to consume. So you just can't get around the fact that once something was a sin and then later God considered it perfectly fine. And I wonder how much one's belief in there having also been other humans, perhaps outside the Garden of Eden, that is mandating that you not believe it necessary for brothers and sisters to procreate before there were more people (at least, cousins). To believe this one cannot be certain about that from reading Scripture. And you've got to dismiss verses like Genesis 3:20 ("The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of ALL living."), and, of course, the descriptions of how Adam and Eve were created. Even as an allegorical tale, the story has a definitive disconnect between the creation of all of the animals and Adam and Eve and their creation in the Image of God. But once you're on the allegorical road, you can make just about any Scripture mean whatever you want it to.

Let's say other humans besides Adam and Eve DID exist. Are you insisting that God transformed multiple former evolved creatures into men and women all at once? Unless so, any first human couple would be faced with the very same necessity - of their offspring having to marry. But if one insists on pre-law sibling relationships being looked at by God as the same as the post-law commands about such unions, then you have to say that God starts His own people (Israel) by Abraham marrying his half-sister, and thus He started them by blessing an incestuous relationship. And from there, you have to say that God appeared to at least tolerate and not severely punish His people for long practicing plural marriages - post-law would be considered adultery. He is strangely silent about David's great number of wives, mostly only warning about marriage to heathens. My point is that there are things God seemed to allow for a time without blatantly declaring it sin, that later was obviously considered such. In fact, one could argue that the very reason Israel exploded in population so fast was due to the plural marriages. IF God considered this sin, at the time, He certainly did not make this obvious - which is very strange if He considered adulterous and a common abomination in His eyes. I think the necessity of Adam and Eve children procreating together may have meant that God looked at that differently - as He did with other things, depending upon the context and time frame. Again, if you did not believe in evolution, the existence of other humans besides Adam and Eve, and did not view their creation as being allegorical, would you so strongly believe as you do about the sibling issue?

First off, going down the allegorical road with allegory or what MAY be allegory has nothing to do with the parts of the bible that clearly are not, so lets not try that argument that so many people that are bible literalists take Even THOUGH they do the same thing in their interpretation of the bible.
I agree that God does make some sins OK or at least it may seem that way.
Dietary restrictions for one.
So, yes it is a possibility that God was OK with incest during a time that it was needed ( of course that can lead us to the argument as to WHY it was needed, I am we are talking about God right? He could have simply made more people, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion).
I don't think anyone is denying that possibility.
The issue is though, that if God can change His mind about a moral act, then what cane we know for sure about absolute morals?
It does open up a can of worms to a certain degree.
Will God in the future decide that adultery is not a sin? that homosexuality is ok?
I mean, we don't know do we?
If at one time something is ok and then it is not and at one time something is a sin and then it is not, doesn't that leave us in a bit of a bind for what the future may bring?

[PaulSacramento]

OK, to all of you who think there were other humans around for Adam & Eve's children to procreate with, what about Noah? What about Noah and his little group? They were the sole survivors of the Flood, acording to the Bible. Where did their spouses come from? Do you think other humans were around who floated around in rubber dinghies until the waters receded?

I guess believing in a local ''worldwide'' Flood would solve this dilema. There is, after all, precedent: the ''World'' Series of baseball is only played in the USA; the Formula 1 ''World'' Championship only happens in about 15 out of...197 countries or so.

Isn't there a ''World'' championship of cricket too? (I mean, who plays championship cricket, really???)

FL

It was a local flood.

[PaulSacramento]

Neo wrote:
Yes Rick, it would be always wrong and it was wrong. The same as before the levi law, murder was still murder. Cain slew Abel. If we say that incest is not sin before the Leviticus law was given, then we also must concede that murder was not murder before the law and so was not lying, stealing, idolatry etc. But we do know that these sins were sins and were recognized by God as such even before the law was given. There is a reason why the flood of Noah happened, before the law and not after.

Neo, you're convinced that incest is objectively wrong, like murder. I'm not convinced. While I'm repulsed by the thought of incest, even between consenting adult relatives, I want to make sure it's not just an emotional argument for me.

Those of you who believe incest is objectively wrong, why is it?

(And, I'm only talking about incest between consenting adults, who could be legally married. In any other instance, I believe it is a sin.)

Oh, I don't know of it OBJECTIVELY wrong but that it is a biblical sin is clear:
http://www.esvbible.org/Leviticus%2018% ... 0%3A11-21/

Now, maybe that doesn't mean sin, maybe it just means "don't do it, its wrong", I don't know BUT what we do know is that IF Leviticus was from God that God did NOT want that going on.

So, if that law, that moral lookout was subjective, what made it so? and if so, does that mean that other moral laws are/can be subjective too?

[PaulSacramento]

As for natural or not, I don't think that is relevant because MANY things that are natural to us ( because of our fallen natural state) are NOT good for us and NOT good in the eyes of God.

[Jac3510]

There is nothing natural to us in our fallen state not natural to us in the garden. You are confusing natural with habitual. In the fall, our nature was broken so that we now have trouble doing what is natural. The resulting acts are often actually unnatural.

And be careful not to set up a divine command theory of goodness. Euthyphro is not far away.

[PaulSacramento]

There is nothing natural to us in our fallen state not natural to us in the garden. You are confusing natural with habitual. In the fall, our nature was broken so that we now have trouble doing what is natural. The resulting acts are often actually unnatural.

And be careful not to set up a divine command theory of goodness. Euthyphro is not far away.

Fair enough.

[Lonewolf]

Natural or not can be an argument for or against., truth be said, there are "natural" laws written in everyone's heart., one can neglect, deny or refuse such laws, but they're there nevertheless ~> they pick and stab at you all the time., and that same natural law say's that incest is not o.k., you just can't mess around a "certain" way., but how do we know what was or how it was in the early days., in the early history of mankind? .. ??

.. what we do know is that right is right, and wrong is wrong., Love is right., lust is wrong., lust is what brought the nephilin down, per say., but Love., Love can't be wrong! .. Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails; ..

.. An example of an (un-icestuous) love can be like my wifey's first-cousins married to each other some 30 years now., with grown up successful healthy offspring., and with a marriage still going strong., may the Lord bless them!

Incest is of a diff kind of going on's., and true incest is not Love oriented., for Love can not be incestual!