Adam + Eve + Incest

[Abbadon]

For a psych paper a friend had topic of incest and we got into deep discussions about it. And we got into religions view of it. I talked about how as catholics incest is taboo, pointed out Leviticus and said i would search from more.

But then the conversation went into Adam and Eve paradox. The resources and previous discussions on the net weren’t very helpful. In general it seems to be roughly this answer

biblebell.org/mbag/mailbagae.html

scroll down to the incest question. And there are so many things wrong with it. Gods law doesn’t change i thought, but according to this it does. he’s okay with incest then not okay then okay again? And according to this the genetic decay began from noah which means shouldn’t that incest not have been okay and there would have been major problems?

My only quam is that in the past incest is okay but it’s not okay now why?

A secondary question, how come king David can have multiple wives and concubines and be a “key child of god” but today we can only have one partner? 2 Samuel 5:13 which is direct contradiction to Genesis 2:24 and Deut 17:17.

Sorry about my constant questions but i tend to think alot and observing answers on this forum helps me deal with my own questions.

 

[1ke]

Indeed, the divine law does not change. Incest in the direct line (child/parent/grandparent) is against the divine law and is intrinsically wrong.

Incest in the collateral line (siblings/cousins/etc) is not intrinsically wrong-- and as you have pointed out was allowed for a time in Genesis. It was later proscribed due to sin in the world-- it became necessary. It is not part of the divine law-- and even today is merely regulated by canon law and it can be dispensed.

Polygamy has never been part God’s Law. The Jews-- like the pagans around them allowed it-- along with divorce-- through their own earthly authority. Remember, Jesus chastized the Jews for their denigration of marriage and says “in the beginning it was not so”. Jesus restores marriage to what it was originally.

 

[TC2]

It’s always been interesting to me, about the direct line inscest, that Lot and his daughters are part of Christ’s lineage.

 

[DaveBj]

Incest was not a problem for the immediate descendants of Adam and Eve. It became a problem when the deterioration of the gene pool meant that there was an increased likelihood that the offspring of the unions of near relatives would inherit physical or mental problems. Adam’s immediate descendants inherited perfect or nearly perfect genes, so the unions of near relatives were not a problem. Besides, near relatives were the only people who existed.

DaveBj

 

[Abbadon]

Okay so it is firmly established that it is wrong yes…

So then why would god create a situation (two including Noah) where people were forced to have incest?

I’m not really interested in the genetics and the possibility or not if adam and eve are true. I’m more interested in the moral implications of this creation story. I mean anyone can say anything like “oh adam and eves genes were perfect” blah blah without any real evidence and belive it, so lets just skip that.

Same with Noah, how could god expect these two families to propagate the human species without sining? And then why put them in a situation where they had to sin?

Even if the stories are merely metaphors there is still the question of the morality of the actions. I can’t really figure out how to solve this one so I’m hoping other people have…

Polygamy has never been part God’s Law. The Jews-- like the pagans around them allowed it-- along with divorce-- through their own earthly authority. Remember, Jesus chastized the Jews for their denigration of marriage and says “in the beginning it was not so”. Jesus restores marriage to what it was originally.

Thats fine and understandable, but David was meant to be an example to others of what people should look up to. As he was specially chosen by god. And there are always quotes such as “god is surely with him”. Why would god be with a polygamist?

 

[1ke]

Okay so it is firmly established that it is wrong yes…

So then why would god create a situation (two including Noah) where people were forced to have incest?

No, it is not firmly established that it is “wrong”. As I said before it is NOT intrinsically disordered.

Same with Noah, how could god expect these two families to propagate the human species without sining? And then why put them in a situation where they had to sin?

There is no sin in inter-marrying in the collateral line in the examples you give. It is not against the divine law, and at that time God had not given any disciplinary laws against it either (which is what canon law is). It became necessary to restrict marriage over time due to **man’s **sin, not due to any inherent wrongness of marrying close relatives.

Even if the stories are merely metaphors there is still the question of the morality of the actions. I can’t really figure out how to solve this one so I’m hoping other people have…

It’s easy: it’s not immoral.

Thats fine and understandable, but David was meant to be an example to others of what people should look up to. As he was specially chosen by god. And there are always quotes such as “god is surely with him”. Why would god be with a polygamist?

He was specially chosen by God to be the king. That does not mean he was sinless nor should his every action be emulated-- he had Uriah killed to marry Bathsheba. He was a sinner. God brings good out of evil. And, David paid for his sins.

 

[Joyousguard]

Did the mustard seed actual exist? Was there really a prodigal son? Who was the good samaritan?

There is some excellent theology in the creation story, but that Adam and Eve really existed or more approprietly, that they were only two people with all of humanity coming from them is not meant to be taken literaly. Adam and Eve could in fact be considered a representaion of the creation of mankind simplified to 2 persons for the people of the time to better understand and thus accept. Adam and Eve where not 2 people but possibly thousands i fnot more. The important concept to understand is that Adam and Eve are representaion of mankind in its origins.

They, not just Adam and Eve, reject the will of God and thus were thrown out of paradise and there children, Cain and Able (simplified to 2 but possibly representing thousands) represent the first generation of mankind outside of paradise and we start to see mankind change with issues of jealous deciet and even murder come into existence.

The theology in Genesis is excellent but not meant to be always taken literally

 

[geauxtigers]

It’s always been interesting to me, about the direct line inscest, that Lot and his daughters are part of Christ’s lineage.

I was going to say that Lot and his daughters were NOT in Christ’s direct lineage, but then I remembered that Ruth was a Moabitess (sp?)

Genesis 19:37
The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab ; he is the father of the Moabites of today.

With Noah and his family, the three sons were already married, so the only incest that would have occurred is between first cousins, when their children married, and I don’t think that was forbidden in the Bible.

 

[fix]

Did the mustard seed actual exist? Was there really a prodigal son? Who was the good samaritan?

There is some excellent theology in the creation story, but that Adam and Eve really existed or more approprietly, that they were only two people with all of humanity coming from them is not meant to be taken literaly. Adam and Eve could in fact be considered a representaion of the creation of mankind simplified to 2 persons for the people of the time to better understand and thus accept. Adam and Eve where not 2 people but possibly thousands i fnot more. The important concept to understand is that Adam and Eve are representaion of mankind in its origins.

They, not just Adam and Eve, reject the will of God and thus were thrown out of paradise and there children, Cain and Able (simplified to 2 but possibly representing thousands) represent the first generation of mankind outside of paradise and we start to see mankind change with issues of jealous deciet and even murder come into existence.

The theology in Genesis is excellent but not meant to be always taken literally

HUMANI GENERIS

For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

 

[1ke]

There is some excellent theology in the creation story, but that Adam and Eve really existed or more approprietly, that they were only two people with all of humanity coming from them is not meant to be taken literaly.

This is incompatible with Catholic doctrine. Monogenesis is absolutely required belief.

Adam and Eve could in fact be considered a representaion of the creation of mankind simplified to 2 persons for the people of the time to better understand and thus accept.

Nope. The Church teaches that we had a real set of first parents, from whom all descend and from whom Original Sin is inherited. This is not open to other interpretations.

The theology in Genesis is excellent but not meant to be always taken literally

But, the Church does teach definitively which parts are to be taken literally. Therefore, your explanation cannot be reconciled with Church teaching.

 

[Joyousguard]

I guess that shoots down that theory

 

[Abbadon]

Okay so let me get this straight marrying my sister is not immoral? What about mother?

 

[adrift]

**Indeed, the divine law does not change. Incest in the direct line (child/parent/grandparent) is against the divine law and is intrinsically wrong.
**
Incest in the collateral line (siblings/cousins/etc) is not intrinsically wrong-- and as you have pointed out was allowed for a time in Genesis. It was later proscribed due to sin in the world-- it became necessary. It is not part of the divine law-- and even today is merely regulated by canon law and it can be dispensed.

Okay so let me get this straight marrying my sister is not immoral? What about mother?

 

[Abbadon]

edit double post

 

[Abbadon]

It was later proscribed due to sin in the world-- it became necessary. It is not part of the divine law-- and even today is merely regulated by canon law and it can be dispensed.

I don’t understand what does that (above) mean? If cain/able were allowed to sleep with his mother/sisters why can’t I?

And what is canon law?

 

[Abbadon]

Then what about Leviticus 18:6-18

Isn’t Leviticus the law of god?

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018:6-18

 

[adrift]

Then what about Leviticus 18:6-18

Isn’t Leviticus the law of god?

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018:6-18

The Book of Leviticus was written between 1440 and 1400 B.C.
ike

There is no sin in inter-marrying in the collateral line in the examples you give. It is not against the divine law, and **at that time God had not given any disciplinary laws against it either **(which is what canon law is). It became necessary to restrict marriage over time due to man’s sin, not due to any inherent wrongness of marrying close relatives.

 

[Abbadon]

So at some point god just changed his mind about incest?
So does divine law overide cannon law?

I’m really sorry about this but this doesn’t make sense. Hence all the questions.

“It became necessary to restrict marriage over time due to man’s sin, not due to any inherent wrongness of marrying close relatives.”

Incest is okay. But at some point people started starteed sinning more then it became not okay? If it’s not a sin in the first place how does it become a sin later on.

Is it a sin? Ahhhh so confusing… =.=

 

[1ke]

Okay so let me get this straight marrying my sister is not immoral?

Marrying your sister is currently a violation of canon law and a violation of civil law.

Violating laws is immoral.

Marrying your sister is not intrinsically wrong. It is today a violaiton of Church Law not divine law.

What about mother?

Incest in the direct line is intrinsically wrong and against the divine law.

 

[1ke]

If cain/able were allowed to sleep with his mother/sisters why can’t I?

Neither Cain nor Abel were “allowed to sleep with his mother”. That is a violation of divine law in the direct line.

Siblings are in the collateral line, and that is not a violation of the divine law as I have already explained.

And what is canon law?

Are you a Catholic?

Canon Law is the law of the church.