Why is incest between siblings not intrinsically evil?

[Guilherme1]

I’m not sure why you think it’s intrinsically evil.

Any genetic disorder that become likely with inbreeding can also appear by chance when an unrelated father and mother both have the gene associated with that disorder. That tells us that the evil of incest is not due to genetics.

If I recall correctly, incest also occurs in the case of intimate relations between siblings by marriage (step-siblings), or siblings by adoption, but may not apply to siblings separated at birth who meet later as adults.

Therefore I think incest is defined in terms of living circumstances. How do we get from that to intrinsic evil?

Genetic disorders are not the only problem with incest. Even the Cathecism doesn’t use “genetic disorders” as an argument to condemn incest, but instead says “Incest corrupts family relationships and marks a regression toward animality”.

 

[po18guy]

Yes, but I have made enemies here, so am treading lightly.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I have made enemies here

I assume you’re referring to me, based on your conduct in this and other threads.

Get over yourself. You’re not my enemy.

The Church doesn’t make a pronouncement on the “how”, or the science of it.

That’s what I’m aware of. I fully agree that all are children of Adam and Eve, but don’t think that they were the only Homo Sapiens at that point.

 

[goout]

Rau:

it doesn’t work like that.

So, where exactly does it say that Adam and Eve were the only first humans, and that there are no other ancestors but them among man? I’ve never seen that before.

Quite a mystery. The Church doesn’t make a pronouncement on the “how”, or the science of it. Which is what you are getting at I believe.

 

[Guilherme1]

I imagine that it was a command of God. Human DNA was rather pure then, lacking the mutations which have occurred as time passed. As well, the world had to be populated somehow. If two original limes of humans were created at the beginning, then there might not be the lines of descent which God desired.

As it is with the taking of life, when God commands it, morality is not involved, as morality does not apply to God. Laws were made for man, not for God. The genetic errors which occur now from “in-breeding” are a man-made construct, not God’s.

The problem is that many today see God as just a hugely powerful man Whom we cannot see. When one’s fundamental understanding is so profoundly mistaken, thought which flow from that misunderstanding will also be flawed.

Just opinion.

I really don’t like the idea of morality being so subjective, so arbitrary to God. The idea of things like rape ceasing to be a sin and becoming a “virtue” just because God said it is a virtue now, is not very cool.

 

[po18guy]

Morality is God’s set of rules for ordering human behavior, both toward the self, as well as for the common good. Morality does not apply to God, as morality places limits on the imperfect so as to avoid evil/wrong/bad things - whatever. Our free will allows us to detour around morality, but it always exacts a heavy price.

God is all Good and such constraints placed upon imperfect humans do not and cannot apply to Him. He is the Lawgiver.

 

[goout]

God is not subject to morality, as morality evaluates human action in reference to the good. The good is God himself.
Human understanding develops over time. God does not change. The change in moral understanding is on our end.

 

[Guilherme1]

Guilherme1:

Some people when trying to justify the incest that the children of Adam and Eve probably committed to continue humanity,

Big assumption there as to how God accomplished human flourishing.

I’m taking suggestions.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Of course, if we are literalists, after the great flood incest was again used to populate the earth.

 

[goout]

goout:

Guilherme1:

Some people when trying to justify the incest that the children of Adam and Eve probably committed to continue humanity,

Big assumption there as to how God accomplished human flourishing.

I’m taking suggestions.

I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about how this happened, but @Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman’s suggestion gets at the best explanation that might not include incest.

You will never get a pat answer.

 

[Guilherme1]

Rau:

It required interbreeding of siblings.

Or with the unensouled, and that the children of ensouled and unensouled humans have souls.

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37)

These hominids were not “real men”, so instead of the sin of incest, the children of Adam committed the sin of bestiality.

 

[goout]

Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman:

Rau:

It required interbreeding of siblings.

Or with the unensouled, and that the children of ensouled and unensouled humans have souls.

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37)

These hominids were not “real men”, so instead of the sin of incest, the children of Adam committed the sin of bestiality.

Ok, they committed the sin of bestiality then.

You are imagining primitive human beings/hominids with modern moral sensibilities.
What if they committed incest or bestiality? Not much you can do.

I had a child out of wedlock with a woman who is basically mentally ill 30 years ago. She is now changing the world around her for the good. God didn’t make me do stupid things, nor did God make me do things I was morally ignorant of, but God did provide a path for redemption.
Sometimes the shittiest soil makes the best flowers.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

the children of Adam committed the sin of bestiality.

Define bestiality, please. I don’t know what the Church defines it to be. Couldn’t find it.

 

[phil19034]

Guilherme1:

the children of Adam committed the sin of bestiality.

Define bestiality, please. I don’t know what the Church defines it to be. Couldn’t find it.

Sexual relations with animals (or as some are proposing, with all unsouled creatures)

The argument is: if some descendants of Adam and Eve had relations (and children) with unsouled Hominids, they were not Homo Sapien Sapien and therefore they committed bestiality.

However, this does raise some interesting questions:

• if alien hominids land on Earth and our biology is compatible with them in order to have children without medical assistance (which I highly doubt), would such relations be considered bestiality? What if we cannot have children? Then would it be considered bestiality?
• or what if Neanderthals never died out and lived alongside of humans to this very day? Would interspecies marriages between two hominids be considered bestality?

Interesting questions.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Well, Neanderthal genes exist in our population.

AFIK, the Church has not defined that early humans, or Neanderthal, were animals. I also am unaware that the Church defines our first parent as Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

 

[phil19034]

Well, Neanderthal genes exist in our population.

AFIK, the Church has not defined that early humans, or Neanderthal, were animals. I also am unaware that the Church defines our first parent as Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

I agree.

It’s just my THEORY (at least for hard core evolutionists) that Adam & Eve may have been the First Homo Sapien Sapiens. The Biblical timeline might fit pretty well.

 

[goout]

TheLittleLady:

Well, Neanderthal genes exist in our population.

AFIK, the Church has not defined that early humans, or Neanderthal, were animals. I also am unaware that the Church defines our first parent as Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

I agree.

It’s just my THEORY (at least for hard core evolutionists) that Adam & Eve may have been the First Homo Sapien Sapiens. The Biblical timeline might fit pretty well.

Whatever the case, I hope this issue is solved before Dec 31 at midnight, because if it’s not, whole lotta people be cryin on their keyboards.

 

[goout]

In all seriousness, this brings up the real thread question which is:
Why are human beings unable to deal with mysteries?

 

[Guilherme1]

In all seriousness, this brings up the real thread question which is:
Why are human beings unable to deal with mysteries?

I mean, what am I supposed to answer when someone asks me why the Bible, one of our great moral guides, apparently approves incest?

 

[Freddy]

If reproducing within the family was an evolutionary plus (as opposed to being a negative) then incest wouldn’t be immoral. It would be entirely natural. And having sex with a non-family member might seem…unatural.