Adam and Eve and the Tree of Life

[Peter_Dawson]

Do you think the moral indignation attached to sex with a sibling is natural or learned?

Natural. I believe that it evolved to keep contenders from competing with mom and pop’s “reproductive rights” in the nuclear family with sibling sex between contenders, and it also evolved because girls trapped in families for upbringing purposes with usuaslly-more-physically-powerful males needed the dignity of their sexuality protected from those males; otherwise human frailty and Nature’s response to that frailty – the protection of the nuclear family – would serve as a trap for the females being victimized by male siblings.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

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.

Come back a year from now a re-read your post, here.

In the Old Testament, the abandonement of Judaism is a foreshadowed thing. Jewish Christ is one of the foreshadowers, when He declares that the fig tree generates no fruit, curses it, and it shrivels.

Despite all of the fuss about the importance of Jesus being of the bloodline of David, Matthew’s and Mark’s gospel both expressly connect Jesus to David through His non-father Joseph, don’t they? See Matthew 1:16, Luke 3:23. Luke even says, “He was the son, AS WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph…”!!! I’d be a little humble on this issue, if I were you.

When you write, “But Peter, in your scenario God was not making good out of past sin. He was commanding Abraham and Sarah to continue sinning!,” aren’t you being a little deceptive? Why do you assume that rapists sin when they “obey” God’s command, but those engaging in sibling incest don’t?

“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”

God also loved and prtotected the victims of her disobedience, Hagar and Ishmael.

God really is a clever guy, who makes use of sin all of the time to achieve good.

 

[bookgirl32]

Come back a year from now a re-read your post, here.

Why a year?

In the Old Testament, the abandonement of Judaism is a foreshadowed thing. Jewish Christ is one of the foreshadowers, when He declares that the fig tree generates no fruit, curses it, and it shrivels.

I still don’t understand why you call it an abandonment. Jesus fulfilling the covenant allowed everyone, of any lineage, into the new covenant, but how did it abandon the Jews?

Despite all of the fuss about the importance of Jesus being of the bloodline of David, Matthew’s and Mark’s gospel both expressly connect Jesus to David through His non-father Joseph, don’t they? See Matthew 1:16, Luke 3:23. Luke even says, “He was the son, AS WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph…”!!! I’d be a little humble on this issue, if I were you.

Yes, and in Judaism at the time, Joseph being his adoptive father was equivalent to being his biological father. And there’s still Mary being of the house of David, what was the point of that then?

When you write, “But Peter, in your scenario God was not making good out of past sin. He was commanding Abraham and Sarah to continue sinning!,” aren’t you being a little deceptive? Why do you assume that rapists sin when they “obey” God’s command, but those engaging in sibling incest don’t?

I don’t think I’m understanding you here? Are you saying Abraham raped Sarah? How are rapists obeying God’s command?

God also loved and prtotected the victims of her disobedience, Hagar and Ishmael.

And it also led to Islam in one way or another, whether Muhammed was really a descendant of his, or whether Muslims claims he was. Was that in God’s plan?

God really is a clever guy, who makes use of sin all of the time to achieve good.

Agree. I just don’t happen to agree that Isaac was the result of a sinful action, an action that God told Abraham and Sarah to do.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

bookgirl32:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Dawson
Come back a year from now a re-read your post, here.

Why a year?

We are frequently shocked at our own opinions after substantial time has passed. Many of my clients are astonished at the difference between what they said in depositions the year before, and what they believe is the truth they want to testify to at trial.

Quote:
In the Old Testament, the abandonement of Judaism is a foreshadowed thing. Jewish Christ is one of the foreshadowers, when He declares that the fig tree generates no fruit, curses it, and it shrivels.

I still don’t understand why you call it an abandonment. Jesus fulfilling the covenant allowed everyone, of any lineage, into the new covenant, but how did it abandon the Jews?

Read Matthew 23:38.

Quote:
Despite all of the fuss about the importance of Jesus being of the bloodline of David, Matthew’s and Mark’s gospel both expressly connect Jesus to David through His non-father Joseph, don’t they? See Matthew 1:16, Luke 3:23. Luke even says, “He was the son, AS WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph…”!!! I’d be a little humble on this issue, if I were you.

Yes, and in Judaism at the time, Joseph being his adoptive father was equivalent to being his biological father. And there’s still Mary being of the house of David, what was the point of that then?

Who said that Joseph adopted Jesus, or that he even married Mary?

How do you know that Mary or her kinswoman Elizabeth were of the Family of David?

Quote:
When you write, “But Peter, in your scenario God was not making good out of past sin. He was commanding Abraham and Sarah to continue sinning!,” aren’t you being a little deceptive? Why do you assume that rapists sin when they “obey” God’s command, but those engaging in sibling incest don’t?

I don’t think I’m understanding you here? Are you saying Abraham raped Sarah? How are rapists obeying God’s command?

Forgive me. I wasn’t clear. Let me be more straightforward.

My point was this: Just because God blessed Sarah with pregnancy does not mean that sex with her brother was not a sin.

Just because God gave Cain special protection against execution does not mean that Cain killing Abel was not a sin.

Quote:
God also loved and prtotected the victims of her disobedience, Hagar and Ishmael.

And it also led to Islam in one way or another, whether Muhammed was really a descendant of his, or whether Muslims claims he was. Was that in God’s plan?

Islam may have been an evil foreseen by God.

One of these days by the way, I’ll entertain you by republishing the “9-11 Verses” and the accompanying analysis.

Quote:
God really is a clever guy, who makes use of sin all of the time to achieve good.

Agree. I just don’t happen to agree that Isaac was the result of a sinful action, an action that God told Abraham and Sarah to do.

You’re assuming that God “told” them to have sex, rather than assuming that God just resigned Himself to their sin, just as He resigned Himself to Jewish divorce in the Old Testament.

 

[Benadam]

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.

But if you were the first human beings and no one else existed the sexual urge would seek the same stimulus and the meaning would be to generate your kind. These conditions could hardly offer a negative view towards a sibling to form the indignation attached to incest. The conscience is the sanctuary where God has spoken to and speaks to man.

The conscience wouldn’t accuse under these conditions. Why would there be law in the heart attached to conditions that may never exist? The fact that law had to be written with such severe punishments means it was law written after the conditions arose that made it necessary. The urge for generative supremacy was the beginning these laws. It was the sin of uncovering the father’s nakedness.
[

](Douay-Rheims Bible, Leviticus Chapter 18)

Leviticus 18[

8](Douay-Rheims Bible, Leviticus Chapter 18) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s wife: for it is the nakedness of thy father.

It’s the most common vulgarity for a reason. It is the most ancient sin between the generations. An external manifestation of the powers of nature’s rebellion against the higher faculties. Made visible by the sons who lay with their father’s wives so as to replace them as patriarch of the following generations. This was a power play exclusive to the beginning of generations. When dueteronomy say’s something is written on the heart it doesn’t mean it was always there it means conditions arose that caused it to be written there. Otherwise acts that are necessary for man to return to God could possibly be unnatural to do.