A
Aulef
Guest
I don’t see what you mean. Would you clarify, please?
- Status
T
tomscf
Guest
We are all descendent’s of one man and women, Adam and Eve! Therefore there is no escaping the fact that we are all born via incest? Since no other humans could have been before Adam and Eve!
Last edited:
A
Aulef
Guest
You shouldn’t worry so much about this. In fact, it is because of this exception in the beginning that we may call ourselves brothers in flesh, sons of the first Adam.
The more importantly, those who follow Our Lord Jesus Christ (the “second Adam”) and His Holy Church and are not in state of mortal sin are brothers in spirit.
The more importantly, those who follow Our Lord Jesus Christ (the “second Adam”) and His Holy Church and are not in state of mortal sin are brothers in spirit.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
Yes. This is the doctrine of monogenism.
Incest in the direct line (parent/child) is and always has been immoral. It was allowed in the collateral line (siblings).
B
Benadam
Guest
Gotta admit, when you’re the only people around and you marry your sister, It’s all about the kids:smile:
T
tomscf
Guest
Quote>>>>>>You shouldn’t worry so much about this. In fact, it is because of this exception in the beginning that we may call ourselves brothers in flesh, sons of the first Adam.
The more importantly, those who follow Our Lord Jesus Christ (the “second Adam”) and His Holy Church and are not in state of mortal sin are brothers in spirit.
Quote>>>>>Incest in the direct line (parent/child) is and always has been immoral. It was allowed in the collateral line (siblings).
But Cain would have been knowing his own sister? Thats what this person maybe doing. shall i tell them it is ok? No way.
Please understand, i am by no means trying to argue in any way with what you are all saying, BUT,
how do you tell a person who is committing incest now, that is was ok in the beginning but it is a
mortal sin now? they already know God does not ever change.
They have a legitimate question here and as I had told them the Roman Catholic church is the only one jesus himself started. there for we should have all the answers.
God always reveals to us what is a sin, he would never have us just guessing or we would never be responsible for it.
The more importantly, those who follow Our Lord Jesus Christ (the “second Adam”) and His Holy Church and are not in state of mortal sin are brothers in spirit.
Quote>>>>>Incest in the direct line (parent/child) is and always has been immoral. It was allowed in the collateral line (siblings).
But Cain would have been knowing his own sister? Thats what this person maybe doing. shall i tell them it is ok? No way.
Please understand, i am by no means trying to argue in any way with what you are all saying, BUT,
how do you tell a person who is committing incest now, that is was ok in the beginning but it is a
mortal sin now? they already know God does not ever change.
They have a legitimate question here and as I had told them the Roman Catholic church is the only one jesus himself started. there for we should have all the answers.
God always reveals to us what is a sin, he would never have us just guessing or we would never be responsible for it.
P
PrisonerOfChrist
Guest
“Adam lived eight hundred years after the birth of Seth, and he had other sons and daughters.” - Genesis 5:4
J
joeybaggz
Guest
I’ve always wondered that too; that Adam and Eve were the first two homo erectus who because homo sapiens through the direct action of the Creator. Is it possible that after the fall, all those other home erectus were infused by God with reason, will, and higher emotion? That suddenly there were a multitude of “human beings” in creation. IMO the Genesis creation account is allegory, not necessary historical or scientific fact.
Then again, that is only my personal understanding of Scripture. I am open to many possibilities prior to the advent of Abraham and the beginning of actual salvation history.
T
tomscf
Guest
Quote from joeybaggz>>>>There were likely many humans who had a natural soul living in the land, Adam and Eve were the first who were endowed with immortal souls from God. From these two and their children we are all descended. That fact does not mean that the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve could not have had children with the natural souled humans living around them.
You have a very good point up to the point where you say there were others that did not have immortal souls, this is not possible for God created all of us past or future with an immortal soul. the soul cannot die therefore they all are immortal.
but you had me going there for a minute!
Thank you for the reply while we still toss this question around. btw Prisoner of Christ, it does not matter how many years on leave we all must be direct descends of Adam and Eve and it still looks like incest.
Hope someone can come up with another theory on this, it is one of the most difficult Roman Catholic bible question of all time!
I know you will say Trust God that it is ok and I will but, we must have answers for non believers or non catholics
May the wisdom of the Holy Spirit bring light to his faithful regarding this matter?
You have a very good point up to the point where you say there were others that did not have immortal souls, this is not possible for God created all of us past or future with an immortal soul. the soul cannot die therefore they all are immortal.
but you had me going there for a minute!
Thank you for the reply while we still toss this question around. btw Prisoner of Christ, it does not matter how many years on leave we all must be direct descends of Adam and Eve and it still looks like incest.
Hope someone can come up with another theory on this, it is one of the most difficult Roman Catholic bible question of all time!
I know you will say Trust God that it is ok and I will but, we must have answers for non believers or non catholics
May the wisdom of the Holy Spirit bring light to his faithful regarding this matter?
N
Nita
Guest
God does not change, but humans do (their needs, their culture, level of spiritual development, etc.) There are other instances of God changing moral laws - making them more restrictive than what was originally allowed. Read Matthew 5:21 et. seq.
T
tomscf
Guest
Oh, but God did not change the moral law, he added to it. Matthew 5:21:
A
Aulef
Guest
Maybe my wording wasn’t good enough. When I said “God allowed”, I meant He tolerated it for some time. He allowed it to happen even though it is against His Law.
Usually God allows evil so greater good may arise. In this case, in order for humanity to multiply (which is good), He tolerated procreation among siblings for a short while.
Usually God allows evil so greater good may arise. In this case, in order for humanity to multiply (which is good), He tolerated procreation among siblings for a short while.
Last edited:
J
joeybaggz
Guest
I’m a little confused here. I have gone back and read the thread, and the only quote I made was not the one you cited. I don’t find that quote anywhere. Did you just make up a quote for me? Or did the moderators delete it, unbeknownst to me?
Rather than dispute you, maybe I should offer some clarity. I am open to the possibility that there existed many homo erectus with souls, not yet “infused” with the image and likeness of God. Much like an infant does not have a “worthy” ( for lack of a better word) soul, until it is baptized. Baptism enlightens the soul. Might this be what God did after the fall of Adam and Eve; give to all homo erectus the light of reason, will, and the higher emotions. Did God simply “turn on the light” for all mankind, with Adam and Eve having made the choice of human direction. Sort of how God turns on the light for the infant at baptism?
Last edited:
N
Nita
Guest
Divorce was allowed in the Old Testament (Deut. 24:1). Jesus forbids it. Don’t you consider that a “change”.
Multiple wives were allowed. (Deut. 21:15-23) They no longer are.
Concubines were allowed. (Abraham & Hagar; Jacob & Bilbah) They no longer are.
Likewise, incest was “allowed” (no commandment given forbidding it) at first, but later was forbidden (Lev. 18:8-18; 20:11-21
. At the time of Moses, God did not change a moral law, because no moral law against incest existed. God had not yet given such a command.
Last edited:
A
Aulef
Guest
Maybe incest isn’t explicitly forbidden before Moses, but it is shown as very bad since the times of Noe right after the flood. And we know this because the most evil enemies the people of God had back then were all fruit of incest: moabites, amonites and chanaanites. Besides, God disapproved every time someone from the line of Abraham breeded with these people.
B
Benadam
Guest
The sin of incest is primarily about the social character of human nature. It’s a sin against human nature. It’s a sin to not offer children four grandparents instead of two. It’s a sin to forego the opportunity to unite two families into one.
Last edited:
N
Nita
Guest
I agree, Aulef. The same can be said for divorce and concubinage.
However, circumstances can make a difference - even as to whether a certain action can be good most of the time but not good at another time. For example: Attending Mass on Sunday is a Church law. However, circumstances can affect whether or not it is good to do so. If a mother has a sick child who needs attention, it would be wrong for her to leave that child and go to Mass. (The church teaching does allow for circumstances, but does not specify.)
Likewise, there is a big difference between marital union when the only unmarried people in existence are your brothers and sisters (especially keeping in mind that God did command them to multiply) and later in history when the population has vastly increased. It could well be that the reason God did not have the law instituted prior to the flood was that he knew circumstances would arise again that would require marital union between family members.
However, circumstances can make a difference - even as to whether a certain action can be good most of the time but not good at another time. For example: Attending Mass on Sunday is a Church law. However, circumstances can affect whether or not it is good to do so. If a mother has a sick child who needs attention, it would be wrong for her to leave that child and go to Mass. (The church teaching does allow for circumstances, but does not specify.)
Likewise, there is a big difference between marital union when the only unmarried people in existence are your brothers and sisters (especially keeping in mind that God did command them to multiply) and later in history when the population has vastly increased. It could well be that the reason God did not have the law instituted prior to the flood was that he knew circumstances would arise again that would require marital union between family members.
Last edited:
A
Aulef
Guest
Well, you made a good point. I’ll think about it
T
The_Old_Maid
Guest
In this lifetime we cannot know what God might have planned for procreation if Adam and Eve had not fallen. Perhaps He would have created spouses for their children.
Unfortunately I was told as a child that maybe God created “spirit wives” for Cain, etc. The obvious implication is that anything Cain did, Seth had to do too. So it was okay to assume that Cain was the sort of bad man who would do incest if he could get away with it – but he couldn’t have, because we are descended from Seth, who had to do the same thing.
But if anyone is descended from a spirit wife, then that person is descended from someone other than only Adam and only Eve. That would make it hard for them to obtain the salvation that Christ obtained for the children of Adam and Eve. Just like angels don’t qualify for the salvation that Christ obtained for the children of Adam and Eve, because they are not children of Adam and Eve. Christ would address the angels some other way.
(Sort of off-topic but on-topic too: I tend to get annoyed when people say that “animals cannot go to Heaven because animals cannot get saved by grace through faith,” etc. Animals never rebelled against God. Therefore it is irrelevant that they cannot comprehend sin, confess sin, or repent of sin. And some would say, cannot commit sin, since they have instincts rather than sentience. But if someone insists that Adam and Eve’s children interbred with hominid animals, they would have to include animals in God’s plan of salvation. Otherwise, Christ’s death wouldn’t apply to the animal mates that your Sethite line “married.” Therefore Christ’s death wouldn’t apply to you either.)
A passage I like to quote is that Cain was the ancestor of Noah’s wife, and that is why God let Cain live. They’re using the interpretation of “prophet” in which a man is a prophets if God speaks to him (cf. Balaam). Whether he turns to evil is his choice and his problem; he’s still a prophet and God will call him out on it.
The Bible does list many saints and sinners among Christ’s ancestors. Jesus was descended from David and Bath-sheba (adultery, murder), from Tamar and Judah (adultery, technical incest), and Lot and both daughters (Ruth the Moabite, Queen Naamah the Ammonite; Solomon’s wife). But the Antediluvians are ancestors of the Gentiles as well. Some people don’t mind their Savior being descended from some of the worst sinners on earth, but they flip and freak out when they realize that they are too!
Unfortunately I was told as a child that maybe God created “spirit wives” for Cain, etc. The obvious implication is that anything Cain did, Seth had to do too. So it was okay to assume that Cain was the sort of bad man who would do incest if he could get away with it – but he couldn’t have, because we are descended from Seth, who had to do the same thing.
But if anyone is descended from a spirit wife, then that person is descended from someone other than only Adam and only Eve. That would make it hard for them to obtain the salvation that Christ obtained for the children of Adam and Eve. Just like angels don’t qualify for the salvation that Christ obtained for the children of Adam and Eve, because they are not children of Adam and Eve. Christ would address the angels some other way.
(Sort of off-topic but on-topic too: I tend to get annoyed when people say that “animals cannot go to Heaven because animals cannot get saved by grace through faith,” etc. Animals never rebelled against God. Therefore it is irrelevant that they cannot comprehend sin, confess sin, or repent of sin. And some would say, cannot commit sin, since they have instincts rather than sentience. But if someone insists that Adam and Eve’s children interbred with hominid animals, they would have to include animals in God’s plan of salvation. Otherwise, Christ’s death wouldn’t apply to the animal mates that your Sethite line “married.” Therefore Christ’s death wouldn’t apply to you either.)
A passage I like to quote is that Cain was the ancestor of Noah’s wife, and that is why God let Cain live. They’re using the interpretation of “prophet” in which a man is a prophets if God speaks to him (cf. Balaam). Whether he turns to evil is his choice and his problem; he’s still a prophet and God will call him out on it.
The Bible does list many saints and sinners among Christ’s ancestors. Jesus was descended from David and Bath-sheba (adultery, murder), from Tamar and Judah (adultery, technical incest), and Lot and both daughters (Ruth the Moabite, Queen Naamah the Ammonite; Solomon’s wife). But the Antediluvians are ancestors of the Gentiles as well. Some people don’t mind their Savior being descended from some of the worst sinners on earth, but they flip and freak out when they realize that they are too!
Last edited:
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
Well, yes and no.
So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people. Exod 32:14
…and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them. Jer 26:19
The LORD changed His mind about this. “It shall not be,” said the LORD. Amos 7:3
- Status