Why is incest between siblings not intrinsically evil?

[1Lord1Faith]

Where is there incest in the story of Adam and Eve?

 

[Beryllos]

apparently approves incest?

Does it really approve? No. It seems to me that the Bible is silent on this matter. It says nothing about the marriages or intimate relations of the children of Adam and Eve. It neither approves nor disapproves of anything that they did, apart from Cain’s murder of Abel.

what am I supposed to answer

Who is asking you? Are you supposed to answer?

 

[enoch1]

this is exactly why this forum is being terminated,… genisis is a myth. dont read the bible like a bunch of fundamentalist…

 

[Fauken]

genisis is a myth. dont read the bible like a bunch of fundamentalist…

The Bible is not a book to be read literally on every page and verse. You do not read the Psalms like you would Deuteronomy.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I mean, it’s certainly gross.

 

[Juvenal]

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.

My favorite outlandish origins theory was presented by the biblically-literalist, old earth evolutionist, and geophysicist author of Morton’s Demon, who passed this year after a long battle with cancer. In order to reconcile the flood narrative with the geological record, he placed the flood in the Mediterranean basin during the Messinian salinity crisis, c. 5.5 Ma.

The corollary made the human Adam et al. hominins — rather than the anatomically modern humans the rest of us use in restricting the term — contemporaries of Ardipithecus, more than a million years prior to Lucy, with a side argument that 5 Ma isn’t so large a gap as to preclude fertility.

His was a theory in crisis, but it still had a lot going for it. By pushing Genesis that far back in time, issues with the later cross-breeding with our Neanderthal and Denisovan cousins were neatly resolved. Similarly, the inescapable genetic bottleneck occasioned by the need to assume a single founding pair.

Glenn Morton

There’s simply no way to account for today’s human genetic diversity if we assume a founding pair inside a 200 kya horizon. A bottleneck in the tens of thousands is likely, and in the thousands is at least remotely possible, but two and only two is not. Too many alleles to fit in too few generations.

I’m not a Catholic, but I’m reasonably well informed that the Church requires a distinct founding pair paralleling the Adam and Eve story, give or take poetic license and a dip into metaphor. It’s a poor idea, in my opinion, anytime a religious body sets itself up with a religious doctrine that can’t be guaranteed compatible with scientific discovery.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

It’s a poor idea, in my opinion, anytime a religious body sets itself up with a religious doctrine that can’t be guaranteed compatible with scientific discovery.

Of course, the Truth is Truth and must be shared, even when it’s not convenient. We don’t choose what we teach.

 

[Zaccheus]

Why is incest between siblings not intrinsically evil?

Who says it’s not?

We don’t know the conditions that obtained in the first few generations after Adam and Eve. That it could be allowed then does not mean it can be alowed now.

 

[Guilherme1]

Why is incest between siblings not intrinsically evil?

Who says it’s not?

We don’t know the conditions that obtained in the first few generations after Adam and Eve. That it could be allowed then does not mean it can be alowed now.

1. Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” ( intrinsece malum ): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”. (Veritatis Splendor)

 

[Beryllos]

the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object

Yes, the Church teaches that there are intrinsically disordered acts. It appears that you believe that incest is intrinsically disordered and you are asking us to agree, but you haven’t proven it.

Earlier I wrote about circumstances that define incest. I was hoping that you would use that to solve your conundrum.

Try going back to basics and figure out why incest is sinful. Hint: How does it go against the law of love?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

My pet theory is that the children of Adam and Eve intermarried with almost-human, highly functioning hominids who had considerable intelligence, lacking only an immortal soul, and that ensoulment passed down the line until such time as the almost-human race died out. (Whether Adam and/or Eve came from these almost-humans, i.e., whether one or both of them had navels or not, I’m going to beg off on that — far above my pay grade, and can be argued either way.) Whether these almost-humans were Neandertals, or Denisovans, or whatever, likewise, I’m going to beg off on that too. If they were “almost-all-the-way-there-human”, I think to call it “bestiality” is a bit too harsh. These AATWYT-humans couldn’t help not having immortal souls. If it did happen this way, obviously they were genetically close enough to interbreed with ensouled full-humans.

Again, just a pet theory. It is also entirely possible that Adam and Eve were created exactly the way the Bible says they were, and that their children, having no other choice, intermarried and possibly had an elaborated system of out-marriage, so that over time, their descendants would be less and less closely related.

 

[Rau]

My pet theory is that the children of Adam and Eve intermarried with almost-human, highly functioning hominids who had considerable intelligence, lacking only an immortal soul,

An interesting speculation. And interesting that today, there is not a creature alive whose intellect & capacities are within a bull’s roar of our own.

 

[Benadam]

It is an evil to deny children grandparents.

 

[Zaccheus]

the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”. (Veritatis Splendor)

I stand corrected.

 

[Juvenal]

Of course, the Truth is Truth and must be shared, even when it’s not convenient. We don’t choose what we teach.

A woman is lying next to her car, dying. In the backseat her infant was crushed and has passed. She asks, frantically, “Is my baby okay?”

There are good people on both sides of “tell her the truth.” I’m a good person on the “tell her a comforting lie” side. If I thought the non-existence of a literal founding pair put Christianity, or even a profound respect for your sacred texts, at risk, I’d lie to you, too.

Because I believe none of us are getting out of this alive, and when we’re dead, we’re dead, there is no point at all in making anyone’s last moments even more miserable.

I’m sure of that, morally certain even, but my certainty is as nothing compared to the everyday certainty that a founding pair for humanity on a timeline that restricts us to the anatomically human is mathematically impossible.

 

[Juvenal]

My pet theory is that the children of Adam and Eve intermarried with almost-human, highly functioning hominids who had considerable intelligence, lacking only an immortal soul, and that ensoulment passed down the line until such time as the almost-human race died out. (Whether Adam and/or Eve came from these almost-humans, i.e., whether one or both of them had navels or not, I’m going to beg off on that — far above my pay grade, and can be argued either way.) Whether these almost-humans were Neandertals, or Denisovans, or whatever, likewise, I’m going to beg off on that too. If they were “almost-all-the-way-there-human”, I think to call it “bestiality” is a bit too harsh. These AATWYT-humans couldn’t help not having immortal souls. If it did happen this way, obviously they were genetically close enough to interbreed with ensouled full-humans.

Humans interbreeding with our species’ closest cousins is the standard theory, so there’s no need to be hesitant.

The details are fascinating to some of us, and less approachable for others, but the feat itself should be celebrated, not least by a religious tradition that prides itself on its embrace of its Doctors of the Church. I’m quite impressed by Catholics, generally.

Again, just a pet theory. It is also entirely possible that Adam and Eve were created exactly the way the Bible says they were, and that their children, having no other choice, intermarried and possibly had an elaborated system of out-marriage, so that over time, their descendants would be less and less closely related.

The simplest answer to the Adam and Eve vs. incest conundrum is that Adam and Eve are placemarkers for the generators of humanity, and all of their children have always had a wider community from which to choose their mates.

Once we allow for the miraculous, anything is possible, but the genomic editing necessary to make a founding pair conform to the genetic diversity we measure today creates its own theological hurdles. On that path lies the assumption that the world was created in an act of deliberate deception as a test of faith.

Or we could assume the obvious, that thousands of years ago religious tradents, at the request of their followers, created narratives to “fill the gaps,” borrowing from the mythos of to-them-ancient nearby cultures to create an extended metaphor advancing the cause of their Creator.

No miracles are needed to explain the existence of this story, nor disrespect for their ernest beliefs. On the contrary, constraining the value of their narrative to whether it is physically descriptive of a reality beyond their view is an unnecessary and unwarranted disservice.

 

[Juvenal]

An interesting speculation. And interesting that today, there is not a creature alive whose intellect & capacities are within a bull’s roar of our own.

Soon enough, the great apes will be gone too, and the gap will become wider.

 

[catholiclala]

A woman is lying next to her car, dying. In the backseat her infant was crushed and has passed. She asks, frantically, “Is my baby okay?”

There are good people on both sides of “tell her the truth.” I’m a good person on the “tell her a comforting lie” side. If I thought the non-existence of a literal founding pair put Christianity, or even a profound respect for your sacred texts, at risk, I’d lie to you, too.

Because I believe none of us are getting out of this alive, and when we’re dead, we’re dead, there is no point at all in making anyone’s last moments even more miserable.

I’m sure of that, morally certain even, but my certainty is as nothing compared to the everyday certainty that a founding pair for humanity on a timeline that restricts us to the anatomically human is mathematically impossible.

Interesting scenario, but your decision would be under the assumption the mother thinking the baby is alive is in her best interest. We don’t know the situation. The mother could find more peace knowing the baby passed and would not have to grow up without her, she may find comfort knowing the baby is with Jesus, she may think the baby is alive but suffering from an injury. It’s not black and white. I’m not saying she should or shouldn’t be told the truth. I don’t know and have no idea what I would do in the actual situation but it’s simplistic to assume the lie is the best answer.

 

[Benadam]

Well, if the last two human beings are brother and sister incest would not be evil.

 

[goout]

goout:

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?

The burden of proof is on the person who asserts that the bible (and by extension Christian morality) approves incest. Has the person making this assertion proved that? No. If they insist on the issue, ask them to show you the hammered metal dome in the sky, because that’s in Genesis too. That ought to show any common sense person the foolishness of literalist fundamentalism.

(you will however get those people who refuse to come to the water of common sense… shake the dust off your feet and move on. There’s an ongoing evolution thread here that has thousands of posts. You don’t have to engage every wrong-headed idea that comes along)