P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Canon Law can not reverse Natural Law.
The Bible says that the sibling incest prohibition is already in our hearts. Therefore, it has been around as long as encouled Homo sapiens sapiens.
- Status
The Bible says that the sibling incest prohibition is already in our hearts. Therefore, it has been around as long as encouled Homo sapiens sapiens.
B
buffalo
Guest
Genesis questions and one that isn’t
Question from Jack on 5/6/2009:
In addition the book of Jubilees (non-canonical) states that Cain married his twin sister, Avan.
Question from Jack on 5/6/2009:
In addition the book of Jubilees (non-canonical) states that Cain married his twin sister, Avan.
F
fhansen
Guest
I think that to choose life was to eat from the Tree of Life-which is probably God, Himself-and to choose death was to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which, essentially was to seek life outside of God –by disobeying and thereby rejecting His godhood-believing the lie that they didn’t need Him in order to live. The banishment ends up being self-imposed from that perspective-with man actually preferring his separation from God according to the CCC’s teaching on the fall.
G
grannymh
Guest
Which edition of “this book of the law” “…which I enjoin on you today…” did the immediate children of Adam and Eve have ? (Deuteronomy, chapter 30)
I say immediate children as different from the descendents who received teachings from Moses. Immediate children could very well be exempt from the genetic diseases which developed over time. Since Adam and Ever were created first, their genes are pristine. Pleae note that I am just expressing an opinion which should not be confused with interpretation.
G
grannymh
Guest
There are lots of things in one’s hearts. But I certainly would not assume that everything in one’s heart is natural law. Besides, the purpose of Deuteronomy Chapter 30 is to return to the Lord, your God, with all your heart and all your soul. Seeking God is what is in our hearts.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
So what about Abraham and Sarah?
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Their consciences would have rebelled.
The subsequent inclusion in Deuteronomy by the Holy Spirit of the curse upon those who have sex with their siblings, and the Holy Spirit’s declaration shortly thereaftyer that this rule is already in their hearts, verifies this.
The fact that Sarah and Abraham did it is implicitly condemned in Deureronomy.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Natural Law is Natural Law because it is in the heart, Granny.
Natural Law is vast beyond expression. It is conscience, “the Knowledge of Good and Evil.”
B
bookgirl32
Guest
God specifically, not implicitly, told Abraham that, in His will, his descendants would “number the stars”. The descendants of Abraham and Sarah. Their consciences rebelled against something that God wanted them to do?
G
grannymh
Guest
There are two kinds of natural law. One that governs nature and one that express the truths of God. It is not conscience per se, because it exists outside of the human being. Thus the location of natural law being in the heart is only descriptive. You must have researched the many ways people in the Old Testament used the word heart. One of the ways is to use heart like we use brain. Thus the heart sees and knows and of course the human being knows good and evil. But as one can easily tell, natural law is not the knowledge of good and evil.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Well, first asking “what the children of Adam and Eve had” is for me like asking where Mickey’s son and Donald’s daughter went for their honeymoon after their mouse/duck wedding. You’re asking details about the lives of hypothetical people – abstractions.
By the way, the assumption of the Adam and Eve hypothetical in Genesis 3 is precisely that Eve had a conscience. When the serpent says, “No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad,” that is humor. The audience is supposed to snicker, “Tee, hee, hee! You bet she’ll ‘know what is good and what is bad’! Her conscience will kick in, and it will sting like crazy, saying, ‘You shouldn’t have done that!’ Tee, hee, hee.”
So, ironically, Eve’s own guilty conscience, exhibited when they hide from God, and when they point the finger to blame someone else, exhibits this.
The Natural Law taboo against sibling sex would have arisen from the nuclear family structures within the troupe, probably as a consequence of the intellect perceiving the dynamics of family structure. I.e., dependent members of the troupe stay within their family to enjoy the support of the male and female family unit leaders, which is innately primary to reproduction and reproductive behavior, which would invade the dynamics of the leading couple – the parents. I.e., the family unit is their reproductive nest. If the kids want to enjoy the assets and time of the parents, they had darn well better not compete with family resources with reproductive behavior of their own.
To simply the protection of interest, pre-wired taboos simply ban sex between siblings. That way, they’re not sitting there “checking each other out” at the dinner table, so that sexual desire stops being a competing dynamic.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
I don’t care about the term “natural law” to the extent that it does not refer to the Synderesis – the prewired innate moral sense, probably fundamentally geared to protecting the sanctity of human dignity.
Natural Law as used in classic writing on morality refers to the requirements of a healthy human conscience. That classic sense is what I am referring to, here. Not something else.
Sorry. I’m just not talking about other things one can, which imagination, jam into the definitions of the words.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
The promise was fulfilled not by “10 to the nth power” great grandchilden.
The promise was fulfilled by “10 to the nth power” Catholics.
Sometimes, God achieves good through evil.
For example, our salvation, through the torture and murder of God’s Own beloved Son.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
So I suppose that means that you don’t think that the actual genetic connection between Abraham and his “descendants” really means anything either? That was all allegorical as well? The promise was fulfilled because Jesus did what Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, and Solomon, all biologically in the same line as Jesus, could not do, which was keep and fulfill the covenant. God meant Abraham’s biological descendants. And he meant them to be biological children of Abraham and Sarah. Otherwise, He would not have been displeased with Sarah’s offering of Hagar to Abraham, and he would’ve been fine with choosing from Hagar’s descendants with which to make His covenant. The biological line mattered. Maybe you don’t disagree with me and I’m not following you correctly?
So you’re saying that the union of Sarah and Abraham was not God’s will?
G
grannymh
Guest
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
At a particular point, bookgirl, God indicates that He’s finally giving-up on Judaism and going with another group and another covenant.
In the meantime, Abraham’s biological descendants have been vastly, vastly outnumbered by the world’s population.
God, being deeply clever, frequently makes use of sin to achieve a good. Is the sin God’s will?
No.
Does God knowingly permit it to happen, after He cleverly designs the world around it to result in the sin ultimately generating salvation?
Of course!
B
Benadam
Guest
Any act necessary for man to return to God is natural and good.
B
Benadam
Guest
Do you think the moral indignation attached to sex with a sibling is natural or learned?
B
bookgirl32
Guest
First of all, Jesus wasn’t Jewish?
Secondly, He wasn’t “going with another covenant”, He was fulfilling the same covenant that the others had been unable to fulfill. If God was “going with another group”, then why all the fuss about Jesus having to be of the line of David?
Check out Jeff Cavins.
Of course they have. And all of the world’s population has the potential to enter into the New Covenant because of Jesus. This doesn’t negate that God originally chose Abraham, and that Jesus was genetically related to Abraham. And that there was a point to all of that.
But Peter, in your scenario God was not making good out of past sin. He was commanding Abraham and Sarah to continue sinning!
Again, He doesn’t command people to sin in order to overcome sin. God commanded Abraham and Sarah to pro-create, they did so in obedience to Him. Sarah was in fact being disobedient when she presented Abraham with Hagar, since she was not trusting that God would do what He said if she kept her end of the bargain.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
The beauty of conscience is that it speaks even if one has a mixed motive.
If someone sees that his sister is dying to have a kid, any kid, and that her husband has suffered an injury which prohibits procreation, and so the someone decides to engage in adulterous incestuous sex with his own sister for the “noble” purpose of giving her children, the someone’s conscience will scream in protest, anyway.
That’s how Natural Law works.
And do you want to know something? GOD put that objection there, in his conscience.
It wasn’t because someone read the Book of Deuteronomy to him.
- Status