Bible and Incest

[tobinatorstark]

But we may morally only do that when we are certain, to a point of moral certainty, that the Magisterial Teaching is in error.

Please explain this profound statement

 

[tobinatorstark]

I would never consider the teaching of Christ in error.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I would never consider the teaching of Christ in error.

By saying “of Christ” instead of “by a bishop” or “by a pope,” Toby, you are radicalizing my position.

Instead, talk about Liberrius and Athanasius.

Or, talk about this:

The plain language of the Bible seems to imply with clarity that Mary bled in giving birth to Jesus. Luke 2:24 says that at the time of the Presentation…

22 When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord,
23 just as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord,”
24 and to offer the sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,” in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord. Luke 2:22-24.

Now, here is the problem. The “law of the Lord” being referred to is Leviticus 12:6-8. The purpose of the sacrifice is to cleanse a woman who has experienced a flow of blood in giving birth to a child. Read it. You will see that this is true.

Now, suppose Mary had experienced no “flow of blood” in giving birth. Would her actions have been “in accordance with the dictate of the law of the Lord”?

Scripture is infallible, right?

Yet, in 649 A.D., Pope Martin I signed-off on a decree by a Synod that Mary brought forth Jesus “with integrity,” where “with integrity” refers to, “Without breach of any tissues.”

Mary didn’t break water.

In other words, Jesus was “born” in a non-typical fashion, in which he made it out of the womb miraculously.

The Synod did not discuss Luke 2:24.

So, which is correct?

THAT’S how you should discuss these things, Toby. Don’t turn the person’s belief into a radicalized principle. Instead, discuss the hard things, frankly, hoinestly, with love.

 

[David_Zampino]

You too are taking out of context. I only recommend the Douay-Rheims. That doesn’t mean that is only Bible one should read.The Confraternity and Ronald Knox are good too. If am not mistaking, you think that we should be reading the NIV!!! A Bible not even approved by the Catholic Church and this Bible is missing several verses in addition to the 7 deutrocanonical books and the rest of Esther and Daniel.This Bible is a poor excuse for a Bible (NIV). In fact will go as far as saying it is the worst Bible next to the Jehovah Witness Bible, New World Translation. I have heard 1 idea that is true from Mr. Dawson. My heart is always open. We are not to have harden hearts. I have learned something. Many people do not take the Magesterium seriously and or do not even know what it is.

I wouldn’t even consider the “New World Translation” a Bible, in any meaningful sense of the word!

And I agree about the deficiencies in the NIV. But I can easily think of some worse English-language translations. There is some pretty awful stuff out there! A couple of years ago, I taught a course called “The Bible Through the Ages” – and even I was surprised at some of the stuff out there!

 

[Peter_Dawson]

tobinatorstark:
Please explain this profound statement

I did, when I gave you the example of Bishop Athanasius.

Pope Liberius condemned Bishjop Athanasius, and taught “X” about the Trinity.

Athanasius and Jerome both regarded “X” as heresy, and publicly opposed the Holy Father, the Pope.,

That would be being sure that the Pope was mistaken, to a moral certainty.

Pope Liberius afterwards confirmed that the Magisterium was mistaken by condemning his own prior teaching.

Athanasius’ famous victory in the controversy confirms the value of, and therefore the importance of, dissent when one is sure to a moral certainty.

 

[tobinatorstark]

By saying “of Christ” instead of “by a bishop” or “by a pope,” Toby, you are radicalizing my position.

Instead, talk about Liberrius and Athanasius.

Or, talk about this:

The plain language of the Bible seems to imply with clarity that Mary bled in giving birth to Jesus. Luke 2:24 says that at the time of the Presentation…

22 When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord,
23 just as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord,”
24 and to offer the sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,” in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord. Luke 2:22-24.

Now, here is the problem. The “law of the Lord” being referred to is Leviticus 12:6-8. The purpose of the sacrifice is to cleanse a woman who has experienced a flow of blood in giving birth to a child. Read it. You will see that this is true.

Now, suppose Mary had experienced no “flow of blood” in giving birth. Would her actions have been “in accordance with the dictate of the law of the Lord”?

Scripture is infallible, right?

Yet, in 649 A.D., Pope Martin I signed-off on a decree by a Synod that Mary brought forth Jesus “with integrity,” where “with integrity” refers to, “Without breach of any tissues.”

Mary didn’t break water.

In other words, Jesus was “born” in a non-typical fashion, in which he made it out of the womb miraculously.

The Synod did not discuss Luke 2:24.

So, which is correct?

THAT’S how you should discuss these things, Toby. Don’t turn the person’s belief into a radicalized principle. Instead, discuss the hard things, frankly, hoinestly, with love.

The Synod is not dogmatic I believe. Nor or we obligated to it. Mary was an unique person. The Bible is infallable, but not 100% accurate. Yes the Bible is accurate but not totally accurate due to translation barriers. Pope Martin I didn’t speak of any ex-cathedra in this case. Vatican II on the other hand like all Ecumenical councils before hand are dogmatic and obligated to obey it.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I wouldn’t even consider the “New World Translation” a Bible, in any meaningful sense of the word!

And I agree about the deficiencies in the NIV. But I can easily think of some worse English-language translations. There is some pretty awful stuff out there! A couple of years ago, I taught a course called “The Bible Through the Ages” – and even I was surprised at some of the stuff out there!

I can see where you come from. People consider the NWT a Bible. I don’t really either. In fact I don’t see the Jehovah Witnesses as Christians. I also don’t consider the likes of The Message a Bible either, much or less a paraphrase. I am too surprised at some of the stuff out there. That is why I stick to my Douay-Rheims and the Clementine Vulgate. I urge all Catholics to stick to approved translations

 

[Peter_Dawson]

The Synod is not dogmatic I believe. Nor or we obligated to it. Mary was an unique person. The Bible is infallable, but not 100% accurate. Yes the Bible is accurate but not totally accurate due to translation barriers. Pope Martin I didn’t speak of any ex-cathedra in this case. Vatican II on the other hand like all Ecumenical councils before hand are dogmatic and obligated to obey it.

Thank you for actually grabbing a bull by the horns and wrestling with it a little bit. Thank you, no joke at all.

And Christine, thank you for your support, instead of leaving me all alone, out there. You’ve got dignity. I will say a prayer of thanks to St. Athanasius for you.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Thank you for actually grabbing a bull by the horns and wrestling with it a little bit. Thank you, no joke at all.

And Christine, thank you for your support, instead of leaving me all alone, out there. You’ve got dignity. I will say a prayer of thanks to St. Athanasius for you.

BTW we are still obligated to obey Christ and his word in the Bible as well. I forgot to mention that.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Thank you for actually grabbing a bull by the horns and wrestling with it a little bit. Thank you, no joke at all.

And Christine, thank you for your support, instead of leaving me all alone, out there. You’ve got dignity. I will say a prayer of thanks to St. Athanasius for you.

You are welcome, but really I am absolutely stunned by your knowledge (and graciousness!). Everything you say opens that Door wider and wider for me. I just want to keep hearing more and more. You are a rare and amazing person.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Thank you for actually grabbing a bull by the horns and wrestling with it a little bit. Thank you, no joke at all.

And Christine, thank you for your support, instead of leaving me all alone, out there. You’ve got dignity. I will say a prayer of thanks to St. Athanasius for you.

I always have to grab the bull by the horns or else I don’t get my point across. I don’t have anything against you Peter, nor do I have anything against you Christine

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I always have to grab the bull by the horns or else I don’t get my point across. I don’t have anything against you Peter, nor do I have anything against you Christine

Nor I you, Tobinator! (other than the fact that you drive me nuts!) By the way, what does your name mean?

 

[tobinatorstark]

Nor I you, Tobinator! (other than the fact that you drive me nuts!) By the way, what does your name mean?

It is nickname given to me by my best friend when she and I were in college. Since my name is Toby and somehow Tobinator fit and has stuck with me ever since.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi, NotWorthy.

Many Protestant fundamentalists – and probably most non-fundamentalist Protestants, and many Catholics – view the Adam and Eve story as “history.”

This limits the number of people on Earth available to have sex with to the first generation of children beneath Adam and Eve.

Reproduction, if we view that as “perfectly accurate history,” is impossible unless brothers and sisters were “rolling around in the hay,” together – unbridled incest.

So, critics of Christianity make fun of Protestants and Catholics for contending that God intended, and therefore loved, incestuous sex!!!

Can you blame them for the criticism?

To be honest with you, I could care less. We give them the Truth as the Church teaches it, heaping with a healthy does of compassion, and then pray that the Holy Spirit guides them to the Truth.

But we don’t change our teaching just to appease the skeptics.

I can’t because I think that that version of history is absurd, and a moral outrage.

There are many in the Catholic Church that would disagree with you - those with a lot more teaching authority than you, my brother.

The incest taboo isn’t some social rule, dismissible on a whim if non-incest is inconvenient.

It is a “pre-wired” moral norm, implanted in our persons by God with the rest of our conscience. As Moses taught,

11 "For this command which I enjoin on you today is not too mysterious and remote for you.
12 It is not up in the sky, that you should say, ‘Who will go up in the sky to get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?’
13 Nor is it across the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea to get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?’
14 No, it is something very near to you, already in your mouths and in your hearts; you have only to carry it out. Deuteronomy 30:11-14.

Many try to get around this problem by arguing that mankind was generationally closer to God, then – i.e., still falling – and that this somehow made having sex with one’s sister “A-OK.”

Nonsense. That is the most palpable, embarrassing nonsense.

In truth, Adam and Eve are a myth to teach theology. Cain and Abel are a myth to teach theology. We’re not supposed to go beyond the terms of the myth, as though there were underlying historical events crying out for an explanation. The myths aren’t intended to be viewed as history.

In truth, the incest taboo was in our species from the start. Why? Because the FAMILY concept was in our species from the start. In a family, the girls being raised, and the wife, need to know that their sexuality is innately untouchable to all males in the convenient nuclear family, except that the dad is the owner of the mom’s sexuality, and the mom is the owner of the dad’s sexuality.

And God puts this in our minds, when He forms us.

Those who preach that Adam and Eve are history are giving enormous strength to the enemies of religion.

In truth, what probably happened historically is this.

Our bodies and our minds probably evolved in a line of soulless intelligent hominids lacking a free will.

When it was time for our species to “become human,” God probably ensouled two of the hominids in the troupe. They would have had common ancestors several generations back (so that they were “monogenetic”). God, in his cleverness, probably ensouled the two whom He knew would meet and mate.

Their children would have all been ensouled at conception. But, they need not have incestuously married siblings to perpetuate the ensouled humans on Earth. God in His perfect wisdom could simply have ensouled non-sibling distant cousins in the hominid troupe (“monogenetic” because they shared the same common ancestors, many generations back) at their conception, so that when they met their mates, there was a non-incestuous, non-bestial relationship between ensouled humans.

Presto!!! Primordial human sex which is monogenetic but without incestuous sex between brothers and sisters and without bestial sex between ensouled descendents of the first humans and unensouled members of the hominid troupe!!!

My brother, you claim to be Catholic. You may want to look again at what the Church teaches about Adam and Eve, for your thoughts are very contrary to what the Church is teaching. You may have no problem with that, but I would.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

To be honest with you, I could care less. We give them the Truth as the Church teaches it, heaping with a healthy does of compassion, and then pray that the Holy Spirit guides them to the Truth.

But we don’t change our teaching just to appease the skeptics.
There are many in the Catholic Church that would disagree with you - those with a lot more teaching authority than you, my brother.
My brother, you claim to be Catholic. You may want to look again at what the Church teaches about Adam and Eve, for your thoughts are very contrary to what the Church is teaching. You may have no problem with that, but I would.

It seems to me that incest by Cain and Seth – ##5, 54 and 65 up above – is a mere assumption you make, and you seem to infer that it is “Church teaching.”

Does the Church’s chosen Bible canon actually say that they had sex with sisters, and that God only later put restrictions on it? Or, do you just assume this?

If there were no restrictions on it, how did the sons, including Abel, look upon their mother? Was their family unit safe for the women? That seems ridiculous or blasphemous, doesn’t it? But note that it is the product of your assumption, not mine.

But do you want to see how evil the people in this family were?

8 When they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. Genesis 4:8.

**9 Then the LORD asked Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” He answered, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” Genesis 4:9. **

In other words, the story portrays a deeply dysfunctional male – a cold hearted killer – and your assumption also frees him up from the incest taboo. If you were Eve, would you stay in the same room with such a man, if your assumptions are valid?

Could the real problem be this?: You are speculating about as much as suits you, against morality, and then you call it Church teaching, and do not ask yourself, "Could it be that the story is pure fiction, and that God is cleverer than me – that He preserved the incest taboo from the first moment in time, while also preserving monogenesis?

And because of your assumptions – NOT because of Church teaching – the Church is held up to ridicule?

Your brother in Christ,
Peter

 

[NotWorthy]

It seems to me that incest by Cain and Seth – ##5, 54 and 65 up above – is a mere assumption you make, and you seem to infer that it is “Church teaching.”

Does the Church’s chosen Bible canon actually say that they had sex with sisters, and that God only later put restrictions on it? Or, do you just assumje this?

If there were no restrictions on it, how did the sons, including Abel, look upon their mother? Was their family unit safe for the women? That seems ridiculous or blasphemous, doesn’t it? But note that it is the product of your assumption, not mine.

But do you want to see how evil the people in this family were?

8 When they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. Genesis 4:8.

**9 Then the LORD asked Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” He answered, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” Genesis 4:9. **

In other words, the story portrays a deeply dysfunctional male – a cold hearted killer – and your assumption also frees him up from the incest taboo. If you were Eve, would you stay in the same room with such a man?

Could the real problem be this?: You are speculating about as much as suits you, against morality, and then you call it Church teaching, and do not ask yourself, "Could it be that the story is pure fiction, that God was cleverer than me – that He preserved the incest taboo from the first moment in time, while also preserving monogenesis?

And because of your assumptions – NOT because of Church teaching – the Church is held up to ridicule?

Your brother in Christ,
Peter

Did we all descend from Adam and Eve? Do you want to go over the teaching of Original Sin one more time? Do you really want to impose 20th century rules to the first family? We have to suppose similar circumstances after Noah’s little escapade, you know?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Did we all descend from Adam and Eve? Do you want to go over the teaching of Original Sin one more time? Do you really want to impose 20th century rules to the first family? We have to suppose similar circumstances after Noah’s little escapade, you know?

What rule is a 20th century rule? I don’t understand?

 

[NotWorthy]

What rule is a 20th century rule? I don’t understand?

You’re imposing your rule of morals on a group of humans that have the more important job of simply surviving.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

You’re imposing your rule of morals on a group of humans that have the more important job of simply surviving.

What rule of morals that is mine? I don’t understand.

 

[NotWorthy]

Peter, you were questioning my understanding of Catholic teaching. Here’s what I understand about Creation and Church teaching. This comes from AgapeBibleStudy.Com

WHAT CATHOLICS MUST BELIEVE ABOUT CREATION

1. The creation by God of all things at the beginning of time

2.  The special creation by God of man

3.  The formation of woman from man

4.  The unity of the human race

5.  The original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice

6.  The divine command laid upon  man by God to prove obedience

7.  The transgression of that command at the instigation of the devil in the form of a serpent

8.  The fall of our original parents from their primitive state of innocence.

9. The promise of a future redeemer

Point 4 is what leads me to understand the necessity of incest in our early heritage.