Incest, sexual morality, and Adam and Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
How can incest be objectively wrong if our first parents’ children would have had incestuous sexual relationships?

Trent Horn has a blog post up on the homepage of Catholic Answers, arguing that there is no other alternative sexual ethic that can explain why incest is wrong. He basically argues that the consensual basis of sexual relationships is not a good basis, for after all, family members can consent.

But Catholic morality says incest is inherently sinful. How so, if Adam and Eve’s children had such relationships?
 
You will see some Catholics take it “symbolically” or “allegorically” for Genesis 1-11 (wow, that’s a lot of allegory; Moses could’ve saved some room when writing by taking it out).

In fact, I’m surprised that some Christians haven’t started to ignore it and take it out of the biblical canon. Incest is naturally (in natural law, not through revelation) wrong because it can wreak havoc on the resulting offspring’s health.

Adam and Eve were made “good” at first, so genetic disorders, issues and diseases resulting from incest must have occurred later through genetic development and microevolution (not species to species, but simple micro-change).
 
catholic1seeks said:
How can incest be objectively wrong if our first parents’ children would have had incestuous sexual relationships?

Trent Horn has a blog post up on the homepage of Catholic Answers, arguing that there is no other alternative sexual ethic that can explain why incest is wrong. He basically argues that the consensual basis of sexual relationships is not a good basis, for after all, family members can consent.

But Catholic morality says incest is inherently sinful. How so, if Adam and Eve’s children had such relationships?
Click to expand...
That’s a good question. I have always wondered this as well.
 
catholic1seeks said:
How can incest be objectively wrong if our first parents’ children would have had incestuous sexual relationships?

Trent Horn has a blog post up on the homepage of Catholic Answers, arguing that there is no other alternative sexual ethic that can explain why incest is wrong. He basically argues that the consensual basis of sexual relationships is not a good basis, for after all, family members can consent.

But Catholic morality says incest is inherently sinful. How so, if Adam and Eve’s children had such relationships?
Click to expand...
Put simply, there was no other option, and they didn’t know any better.

Keep in mind, Adam and Eve may not have been privy to the fullness of God’s Moral Law, and their children would be even less likely to have full knowledge because they were never in a state of grace. Much like things such as divorce with the Jewish people, certain behaviors, while being inherently immoral, were tolerated due to where a particular culture fell in salvation history. At the time of Adam and Eve’s children, there were no ten commandments, no bushes in the desert, no moral revelation, apart from the reality of sin’s affects on humanity. The children simply did not know that incest was immoral and so, while it is an objectively immoral act, they were not culpable for engaging in it because there was no way they could have known better at that time.

I know others have talked about it, and this is just a cursory explanation, but I hope it helps.
 
1ke said:
Incest in the direct line is objectively wrong, i.e. a divine law impediment.

The Church doesn’t teach relations in the collateral line are “objectively wrong”.
Click to expand...
So when the offspring of Adam and Eve mated, were they committing a sin?
 
It is situational like stealing vs takingup refuge in a vacation cabin in the woods and drinking stored bottled water to avoid death.

Incest causes many many issues so if it is not necessary it is not good.

Like cohabitation, in a world of saints it would be fine…

So incest aside from close insest often leading to some serious biological issues, also leaves family ripe for abuse.

When incrst is considered A-OK, Uncle Johnny can coach and teach little suzie into marrying him someday later without any scrutiny.

Let alone an older brother who is warped etc.

Plus if an older brother or sister however rarer it would be is inclined today to be a creeper, they usually cant easily do so to a sibling in that they are taught it is extra bad. So plenty of creepers dont touch family, but if you tell them family is the same as the iffy aged girl/boy down the street, you’ll see the creepers coaching way more.

Heck age limits are rather arbitrary and it sucks when two people are a week off the mark and can go to jail, but we all know what 50yr old Joe is doing to 8 yr old Jane…

So we need some fix lol.
 
A&E had genetically perfect bodies; we do not.

They did not have the revealed law of God; we do.

Taken together, their situation was completely different to ours.

ICXC NIKA
 
Alex_H said:
So If someone today mates with his sister, would they be committing sin?
Click to expand...
The Church currently prohibits marriage between siblings, and does not dispense from this impediment. Civil authorities also prohibit sibling marriages. Therefore, they cannot validly marry.

Sexual relations outside of marriage is a sin, so yes because they would be fornicating because they cannot marry under current canon or civil law.
 
catholic1seeks said:
How can incest be objectively wrong if our first parents’ children would have had incestuous sexual relationships?

Trent Horn has a blog post up on the homepage of Catholic Answers, arguing that there is no other alternative sexual ethic that can explain why incest is wrong. He basically argues that the consensual basis of sexual relationships is not a good basis, for after all, family members can consent.

But Catholic morality says incest is inherently sinful. How so, if Adam and Eve’s children had such relationships?
Click to expand...
Various theologians have addressed this matter. Marriage (and thus sexual relations) between a parent and child is objectively (inherently) sinful, and is never permitted.

However, marriage between siblings can be permitted under sufficiently *grave * (serious) cause. The generation of an entire new species is pretty much the only such cause…

In royal families, Papal dispensation was occasionally granted for a woman to marry a biological uncle or visa versa. I know of no cases where siblings were lawfully allowed to wed. Among non-Christians, it is rare, but not unheard of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top