Bible and Incest

[Peter_Dawson]

Peter, you were questioning my understanding of Catholic teaching. Here’s what I understand about Creation and Church teaching. This comes from AgapeBibleStudy.Com
Point 4 is what leads me to understand the necessity of incest in our early heritage.

You didn’t actually answer my question, still.

Incest is not just some 20rh century rule. It’s built into the synderesis. It’s part of the conscience which Moses said was already written into our minds and hearts.

If I hear that some client is having sex with his mother, I become ill, because God has programmed me to become ill at such a prospect.

This does not happen to you? Or is it just one of “my moral rules,” or “a 20th century rule,” to you?

Why do you think Adam and Eve were said to have covered up their nakedness in the Garden?

Because they had NO consciences?

In fact, it was because they had BIG consciences, isn’t it?

Now, don’t you think that Eve, and the girls in the family, would all have needed conscience to protect the sanctity of their sexuality?

Sorry, but your assumption about the incest taboo is simply wrong.

Now, here is how God could have created unity of the human race – monogenesis: Every single hominid ensouled by God was descended from the same unensouled remote ancestor.

 

[Nita]

Incest is not just some 20rh century rule. It’s built into the synderesis. It’s part of the conscience which Moses said was already written into our minds and hearts.

How do you know whether or not incest was inscribed as part of the natural law in the hearts of those earliest humans. It is God who does the inscribing and He may well have chosen not to at that time.

Why do you think Adam and Eve were said to have covered up their nakedness in the Garden?

Because they had NO consciences?

In fact, it was because they had BIG consciences, isn’t it?

Now, don’t you think that Eve, and the girls in the family, would all have needed conscience to protect the sanctity of their sexuality?

This has no bearing on whether or not marriage between siblings was acceptable to God in those early days.

Something is a sin, if and when God decrees it is wrong and sinful.
There is nothing in the early chapters of Genesis that indicates God forbade incest to Adam, Eve, and their offspring.
But they do record a command God did give them –
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it;

The only other “command” in those early chapters regarding the marital union is the implied one that Jesus spoke about. That is, that the marriage bond was to be an indissoluble bond between a man and a woman. (Mt. 19:4-6)

 

[NotWorthy]

You didn’t actually answer my question, still.

Incest is not just some 20rh century rule. It’s built into the synderesis. It’s part of the conscience which Moses said was already written into our minds and hearts.

If I hear that some client is having sex with his mother, I become ill, because God has programmed me to become ill at such a prospect.

This does not happen to you? Or is it just one of “my moral rules,” or “a 20th century rule,” to you?

Actually, if I find out that someone is eating cooked cabbage, I become ill. But that wouldn’t stop me from eating it if my survival depended on it.

Loathsome or not by our standards is irrelevant. Think about it, Peter. Eve was created from who? Adam. “Bone of my bone. Flesh of my flesh”. What does that tell you?

Does it make you ill?

 

[Benadam]

Any act that is necessary for man to return to God is natural and good to do. There were no inhibitions among the first humans attached to procreation. If Adam had died before daughters were born it would have been natural for Cain to have offspring with his mother Eve. Participating in the blessing and command to populate, subdue and rule only had one boundary attached to it. The temptation for a man to replace his generator overcame even that boundary.

Our hearts are entrenched with hard earned taboo’s. The disgust we feel for certain acts were instilled with hard dicipline. We can thank the likes of Moses for the archetypical experiences that instilled most of our natural disdain for seeking sexual stimulus with family.

Noah’s son Ham uncovered his father’s nakedness. To uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife is to uncover your father’s nakedness.

Leviticus 18
*8 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s wife: for it is the nakedness of thy father. *
The very need to write that into law reveals something of the weakness of the taboo’s we feel strongly today.

Some theologians think it possible that Ham attempted to co-father humanity by doing this and that the people decended from Ham , the Cainanites were known for the abominable practice of sexual relations between mothers and sons due to it.

It raised it’s ancient head in the story of David’s children. The inhibitions attached to the bonds of family as structured by the marital bond have been learned in relation to the experience of being in the beginning.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Having a debate with an atheist so please help me. He says that the bible does not seem to have a problem with incest and that it can be found throught the old testament. It apparently starts with Adam and Eve’s kids and goes from there. Can you please let me know how i can respond to that acccusation?

There are two types of incest:

1. in the direct line (parent-child, grandparent-grandchild, etc); this type of incest is intrinsically evil and not necessary for all persons to be descended from Adam and Eve.
2. in the colateral line (siblings, cousins); this type of incest is a matter of degree. Currently, Canon Law forbids marriages in the first and second degree (siblings, first cousins), permits marriages in the third and fourth degree only with a dispensation (second and third cousins), allows marriages beyond the fourth degree (we are all distantly related as members of the same human family).

God permitted marriages in the first and second degree in the very early years of humanity after Adam and Eve, as a necessity for the propagation of the species. But very shortly thereafter, such marriages were not permitted: once the absolute necessity was removed, such marriages were immoral.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

How do you know whether or not incest was inscribed as part of the natural law in the hearts of those earliest humans. It is God who does the inscribing and He may well have chosen not to at that time.

Okay, was there no natural law, then, against Cain making love to Eve? Or Eve making love to Abel? Or are you only going to permit the incest which suits you?

Note the questions arise from YOUR contention, not mine.

 

[NotWorthy]

Okay, was there no natural law, then, against Cain making love to Eve? Or Eve making love to Abel? Or are you only going to permit the incest which suits you?

Note the questions arise from YOUR contention, not mine.

Why does Eve need to be a part of this scenario. Would Adam and Eve had more children than those mentioned?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Why does Eve need to be a part of this scenario. Would Adam and Eve had more children than those mentioned?

Because folks trying to ridiculously jam the story of Adam and Eve into history insist that there was no incest taboo, then. Therefore, Eve would have viewed Cain and Abel, entering puberty, as sex objects, and Cain and Abel, entering puberty, would have viewed Eve as a sex object. Hormones do it! Especially really perfect hormones!

The answer is, no incest occurred, because the Adam-and-Eve-and-Cain-and-Abel story is not history.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Because folks trying to ridiculously jam the story of Adam and Eve into history insist that there was no incest taboo, then. Therefore, Eve would have viewed Cain and Abel, entering puberty, as sex objects, and Cain and Abel, entering puberty, would have viewed Eve as a sex object. Hormones do it! Especially really perfect hormones!

The answer is, no incest occurred, because the Adam-and-Eve-and-Cain-and-Abel story is not history.

You have no proof of what you just said.

 

[NotWorthy]

Because folks trying to ridiculously jam the story of Adam and Eve into history insist that there was no incest taboo, then. Therefore, Eve would have viewed Cain and Abel, entering puberty, as sex objects, and Cain and Abel, entering puberty, would have viewed Eve as a sex object. Hormones do it! Especially really perfect hormones!

But I thought you said this would turn the stomach of any human. How could Eve be the sex object of people with upset stomaches.

The answer is, no incest occurred, because the Adam-and-Eve-and-Cain-and-Abel story is not history.

I’m sorry. I don’t recall any white smoke coming out of the vatican indicating a new Pope was elected. I must have missed it.

I hope I didn’t offend you, your holiness!

BTW, Peter, this statement above is one of the reasons I am so wary of your unique revelations of Typology.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

But I thought you said this would turn the stomach of any human. How could Eve be the sex object of people with upset stomaches.
I’m sorry. I don’t recall any white smoke coming out of the vatican indicating a new Pope was elected. I must have missed it.

I hope I didn’t offend you, your holiness!

BTW, Peter, this statement above is one of the reasons I am so wary of your unique revelations of Typology.

Hi, NotWorthy, my friend. Think about your contention, here: You are making fun of the idea that incest was morally repulsive from the beginning, whereas I say that God’s laws, including the incest law, were in effect from the first moment of humanity’s arrival on Earth. Which position is more innately morally repulsive?

When you twist the natural law to fit your prejudice in favor of the Bible being “the Perfect History Book,” you also create other problems for yourself. For example, because the story of Adam and Eve is really a Dr.-Seuss-level ancient Hebrew myth, it portays God as somewhat moronically trying to match-up Adam with animals, before He thought of Eve. Genesis 2:18-22.

So, confronted with this, do you suddenly say, “Oops! I forgot to mention something! ‘Perfect History’ stops just before Verse 18!!!”?

Also, do you re-suspend the incest rule after the flood?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

You have no proof of what you just said.

Hi, Toby.

The Adam and Eve story, and Can and Abel story, are each characterized by several indicators that they are Dr.-Seuss-level ancient Hebrew myths.

In other words, though you bow to the stories as pure, error-free history, even the Hebrew children knew that this was not true.

In my opinion, if I brought two Hebrew 5 year olds forward in time, and had them read your position, they would look at each other with complete astonishment, and then laugh. I’m not making fun of you. I believe that this would happen.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Hi, Toby.

The Adam and Eve story, and Can and Abel story, are each characterized by several indicators that they are Dr.-Seuss-level ancient Hebrew myths.

In other words, though you bow to the stories as pure, error-free history, even the Hebrew children knew that this was not true.

In my opinion, if I brought two Hebrew 5 year olds forward in time, and had them read your position, they would look at each other with complete astonishment, and then laugh. I’m not making fun of you. I believe that this would happen.

Still I am looking for proof. Instead of denying the Magisterium and what she teaches I listen and accept what she teaches. In this case Magisterium says we must believe that Adam and Eve are real people and we must accept that they are our first parents. Can you provide any credible proof?? That is what everyone is looking for.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi, NotWorthy, my friend. Think about your contention, here: You are making fun of the idea that incest was morally repulsive from the beginning, whereas I say that God’s laws, including the incest law, were in effect from the first moment of humanity’s arrival on Earth. Which position is more innately morally repulsive?

When you twist the natural law to fit your prejudice in favor of the Bible being “the Perfect History Book,” you also create other problems for yourself. For example, because the story of Adam and Eve is really a Dr.-Seuss-level ancient Hebrew myth, it portays God as somewhat moronically trying to match-up Adam with animals, before He thought of Eve. Genesis 2:18-22.

So, confronted with this, do you suddenly say, “Oops! I forgot to mention something! ‘Perfect History’ stops just before Verse 18!!!”?

Also, do you re-suspend the incest rule after the flood?

My brother, I don’t recall saying that Genesis is the perfect history book. Read over my posts and correct me if I’m wrong.

You are the one that said:
a) the thought of incest is morally repulsive.
b) Cain and Abel would look at Eve and say, “Hoochie, Mama!”.

You are the one that is inconsistent in your postings.

I post on my profile that I am a Catholic, and agree with what the Catholic Church teaches.

You list yourself as Catholic, but have made yourself the Holy Pontiff.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi, Toby.

The Adam and Eve story, and Can and Abel story, are each characterized by several indicators that they are Dr.-Seuss-level ancient Hebrew myths.

In other words, though you bow to the stories as pure, error-free history, even the Hebrew children knew that this was not true.

In my opinion, if I brought two Hebrew 5 year olds forward in time, and had them read your position, they would look at each other with complete astonishment, and then laugh. I’m not making fun of you. I believe that this would happen.

Peter, now are adding Toby to the list of posters who claim that Genesis is pure history.

Where are we making this claim, and if we are not, please quit stating that we are!

 

[tobinatorstark]

My brother, I don’t recall saying that Genesis is the perfect history book. Read over my posts and correct me if I’m wrong.

You are the one that said:
a) the thought of incest is morally repulsive.
b) Cain and Abel would look at Eve and say, “Hoochie, Mama!”.

You are the one that is inconsistent in your postings.

I post on my profile that I am a Catholic, and agree with what the Catholic Church teaches.

You list yourself as Catholic, but have made yourself the Holy Pontiff.

I didn’t realize that Pope Benedict had passed and we had an another Papal Conclave

 

[NotWorthy]

I didn’t realize that Pope Benedict had passed and we had an another Papal Conclave

You miss ONE DAY of Foxnews…uch:

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I didn’t realize that Pope Benedict had passed and we had an another Papal Conclave

Sometimes, Toby, you are not clear, because I think that you are more afraid of appearing imperfect than you are proud of your beliefs.

Did Cain have sex with his sister?

And what will you say? Will you say “Yes?” Will you say “No.” No. What do you answer?

With other people’s work and quotes and claims that you already answered.

Anything but “Yes.” Anything but “No.”

I don’t think that you want to really discuss eye-to-eye.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

My brother, I don’t recall saying that Genesis is the perfect history book. Read over my posts and correct me if I’m wrong.

You are the one that said:
a) the thought of incest is morally repulsive.
b) Cain and Abel would look at Eve and say, “Hoochie, Mama!”.

You are the one that is inconsistent in your postings.

I post on my profile that I am a Catholic, and agree with what the Catholic Church teaches.

You list yourself as Catholic, but have made yourself the Holy Pontiff.

Okay, NotWorthy. Why bother talking about my talking? Stick to the issue. Tell us: Is the Adam and Eve story imperfectly historical?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Still I am looking for proof. Instead of denying the Magisterium and what she teaches I listen and accept what she teaches. In this case Magisterium says we must believe that Adam and Eve are real people and we must accept that they are our first parents. Can you provide any credible proof?? That is what everyone is looking for.

Let me ask you this clear question, friend: We this Adam and Eve you are referring to two people talked to by a talking serpent?