| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > The Bible and Incest |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 14 2004, 11:33 AM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Sex and Christianity > Bible And Incest. Posted by: HaveUseenMyDaddy? Feb 29 2004, 10:20 AM QUOTE 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 36 But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. 37 But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over F86 his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. 38 So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better. In browsing through the bible and it's thoughts on, or lack there of, women; I came across these verses. May I ask what the fuck ??!? As I said in my testimony, I am no expert on the bible, but have read a lot of intelligent interpretations here, and was hoping I could get some clarifications. Is god condoning, not just condoning, but saying a man who has sex with his daughter will do better in life than a man who gives his daughter away in marriage? In fact, that a man who keeps her for himself is not sinning-- that he can do what he wants???? Do I have this right? Sickened even further, Nikki Posted by: .:WebMaster:. Feb 29 2004, 10:33 AM Actually the interpretations on what the writer of this verse meant are varied and contradictory. Since the quotation is poorly written and vague, no one can say with inconvertible authority exactly what the writer was talking about. However, the majority of commentators agree that it is probably about not allowing a virgin daughter to marry. Fathers in that culture and time period had total power over such decisions in their daughter's lives. The Catholic Church picked up this concept and created Nuns as an outworking of the verse. The version of the buy bull you are using has filled in extra words to give it this traditional meaning, but the original languages are very vague. It is even possible that the verse is about someone not giving up their own virginity, though there is less agreement on that view. Regardless, I don't know of anyone who thinks this is a verse condoning incest. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Feb 29 2004, 02:41 PM Summary: All closest relatives. Technically, under that you could marry a first cousin, but that is maintained as a comfort zone, so you wouldn't be likely to do that. # Not to indulge in familiarities with relatives, such as kissing, embracing, winking, skipping, which may lead to incest (Lev. 18:6) (CCN110). # Not to commit incest with one's mother (Lev. 18:7) (CCN112). # Not to commit sodomy with one's father (Lev. 18:7) (CCN111). # Not to commit incest with one's father's wife (Lev. 18:8) (CCN113). # Not to commit incest with one's sister (Lev. 18:9) (CCN127). # Not to commit incest with one's father's wife's daughter (Lev. 18:9) (CCN128). # Not to commit incest with one's son's daughter (Lev. 18:10) (CCN119) (Note: CC treats this and the next as one commandment; however, Rambam treats them as two). # Not to commit incest with one's daughter's daughter (Lev. 18:10) (CCN119) (Note: CC treats this and the previous as one commandment; however, Rambam treats them as two). # Not to commit incest with one's daughter (this is not explicitly in the Torah but is inferred from other explicit commands that would include it) (CCN120). # Not to commit incest with one's fathers sister (Lev. 18:12) (CCN129). # Not to commit incest with one's mother's sister (Lev. 18:13) (CCN130). # Not to commit incest with one's father's brothers wife (Lev. 18:14) (CCN125). # Not to commit sodomy with one's father's brother (Lev. 18:14) (CCN114). # Not to commit incest with one's son's wife (Lev. 18:15) (CCN115). # Not to commit incest with one's brother's wife (Lev. 18:16) (CCN126). # Not to commit incest with one's wife's daughter (Lev. 18:17) (CCN121). # Not to commit incest with the daughter of one's wife's son (Lev. 18:17) (CCN122). # Not to commit incest with the daughter of one's wife's daughter (Lev. 18:17) (CCN123). # Not to commit incest with one's wife's sister (Lev. 18:18) (CCN131). Outside of that, The offspring of such a marriage are mamzerim (bastards, illegitimate), and subject to a variety of restrictions; however it is important to note that only the offspring of these incestuous or forbidden marriages are mamzerim. Children born out of wedlock are not mamzerim in Jewish law and bear no stigma, unless the marriage would have been prohibited for the reasons above. Posted by: jacksonprice Mar 6 2004, 04:10 PM Of course the bible condones incest, read genesis right after the creation. God creates adam, god creates eve, then adam and eve have all these kids...you know that adam had to be getting it on with his daughters. There's no other way all those people couldn't have sprung up from just two people. Not to mention his daughters had to be boinking their brothers. Hey, its only natural. Put a bull out in a field, miles away from any cows and he's gonna start attacking anything that moves and try to mount it. People with un-neutered dogs know exactly what i'm talking about. Your burning effigy Jackson Price Posted by: ericf Mar 6 2004, 04:31 PM This has actually been discussed at some of the churches I have attended. Oddly enough they use science to explain this away. We all know that incest is bad biologically because it tends to exacerbate harmful mutations (*as well as good ones but that is neither here nor there*) . Well, Adam and Eve would have had perfect genetics with zero mutations. Their children would have also had very few and for several generations their inbreeding would have been genetically okay. As their diversity grew they just had to continually select mates who were farthest away biologically. Eventually, this mutated into the anti-incest laws you see later. I know, apologetics, but if you are going to believe the faith at least that makes a little sense with your reality. Posted by: Reach Mar 6 2004, 04:45 PM QUOTE (jacksonprice @ Mar 6 2004, 07:10 PM) Of course the bible condones incest, read genesis right after the creation. God creates adam, god creates eve, then adam and eve have all these kids...you know that adam had to be getting it on with his daughters. There's no other way all those people couldn't have sprung up from just two people. Not to mention his daughters had to be boinking their brothers. Hey, its only natural. Put a bull out in a field, miles away from any cows and he's gonna start attacking anything that moves and try to mount it. People with un-neutered dogs know exactly what i'm talking about. If Adam and Eve were the first two people then naturally their children were marrying each other. Of course if you live about 900 years you might have many, many children. Defining this as incest in some derogatory way is intellectually dishonest OR not enough thought has gone into the subject perhaps. There simply wasn't any other choice. In addition to what Eric has stated, God did not condemn incest until many generations later when there was a choice to not marry within the immediate family. EDIT: What wasn't yet condemned was clearly allowed. Do you have any scripture for Adam "doing" his daughters? It seems to me that by the time those daughters would be at an age of reproduction, there would be brothers desiring the same. Amazing what ends one goes to, to twist what one doesn't believe in anyway. ;-) Welcome to the board, Jackson Price! Good to have you here. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Mar 6 2004, 05:17 PM It clearly doesn't condone it, but accepts that it does happen in circumstances. Obvisously if one man and one women were left in the world, are they going to let people just die? or essencially begin to repopulate the world which includes incest? Of course by the same idea you put forth by saying that incest is condoned: If a case of incest happens (and it has happend before), even though incest is illegal, does that make it nessicarily acceptable? Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Mar 6 2004, 05:22 PM QUOTE (ericf @ Mar 6 2004, 07:31 PM) Well, Adam and Eve would have had perfect genetics with zero mutations. Their children would have also had very few and for several generations their inbreeding would have been genetically okay. As their diversity grew they just had to continually select mates who were farthest away biologically. Eventually, this mutated into the anti-incest laws you see later. Actuall in that outcome, there would be no mutations. The fact is, sometimes the body chooses to mutate certain parts, i.e. cancer. Mutations can also be caused by Radiation, UV or otherwise. Sometimes it's totally random and everything explodes, i.e. Mad cow. Posted by: Reach Mar 6 2004, 05:27 PM QUOTE (SpaceFalcon2001 @ Mar 6 2004, 08:17 PM) Of course by the same idea you put forth by saying that incest is condoned: If a case of incest happens (and it has happend before), even though incest is illegal, does that make it nessicarily acceptable? No. I NEVER said it "is condoned." I said it WAS condoned while there was no other choice. Big difference. I said this. QUOTE There simply wasn't any other choice. In addition to what Eric has stated, God did not condemn incest until many generations later when there was a choice to not marry within the immediate family. From that statement, if you read it, you ought to be able to surmise what I believe is acceptable. Posted by: ericf Mar 6 2004, 05:32 PM You say the mutations would remain zero if Adam and Eve had started with perfect genes? At least I think that is what you were saying. But random mutations occur at a constant rate over generations (each child has a small minute random mutation in their genes). Even if they had started at 100% perfect we would still have mutations. Just one of the wonderful things about genetics. Sometimes you have a healthy girl, sometimes a healthy boy, and some very small percentage of the time you give birth to Bat-Boy -- sorry, been reading my weekly world news again. Posted by: Doug2 Mar 6 2004, 08:33 PM I think (don't know) that the reason procreation with a close family member is contraindicated is due to the likelihood of each sibling having the same recessive gene or the same genetic errors, that would pile up on their offspring. I don't think random genetic mutations would be any greater. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Mar 6 2004, 09:15 PM QUOTE (reach @ Mar 6 2004, 08:27 PM) From that statement, if you read it, you ought to be able to surmise what I believe is acceptable. Correct. But jacksonprice said it, and that's what I was responding to. Sorry reach Posted by: moorezw Mar 7 2004, 07:45 AM Incest taboos have more to do with conflicting social relationships than the dangers of genetic abnormalities. Posted by: Lokmer Mar 7 2004, 12:46 PM To underscore what Moorezw just said, there have been notable inbreeding experiments over the centuries - Egyptian Royalty was a good example - where the genetic stock started out good and did not degenerate. Incest taboos are concerned with social order and protecting minor children in most cultures. Incest taboos vary widely in size or scope, from forbidding people closer than cousins from marrying to forbidding only parent-child matrimony to practically non-existanant once the child has reached the cultural age of majority. What acts are considered incest also very widely. Ah, the joys of comparative anthropology (Which is another way of saying "People are pretty weird things"). -Lokmer Posted by: Reach Mar 7 2004, 01:06 PM QUOTE (SpaceFalcon2001 @ Mar 7 2004, 12:15 AM) Correct. But jacksonprice said it, and that's what I was responding to. Sorry reach Sorry SF. Same here. We are definitely weird. Most of it is worth celebrating. Well, on second thought, some of it is. Posted by: jacksonprice Mar 10 2004, 11:19 PM QUOTE (reach @ Mar 6 2004, 04:45 PM) Do you have any scripture for Adam "doing" his daughters? It seems to me that by the time those daughters would be at an age of reproduction, there would be brothers desiring the same. Amazing what ends one goes to, to twist what one doesn't believe in anyway. ;-) Well, I dont have a bible around me anymore, but i doubt there's a passage about Adam and his daughters, or sons and daughters doing the nasty. And i wouldn't call it twisting, so much as hypothesizing. Your burning effigy, Jackson Price Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com) © Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com) |