Incest

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Sure, the OT and the NT.

Of course!

 

[sparklecat]

Could you be more specific, CC? Where do the OT and the NT state which laws apply to whom?

 

[John812]

Actually John812,

That is a common example that people whom aren't familiar with the OT use; whereas the sexual immorality laws (Leviticus 18) were shown to be a judgment of Gentiles and the law was given to both the Jew and apply to the non-Jew that dwelled among them, the other laws as the ones given there with breeding, planting, and clothing were only for the Jew. Apples and Oranges.
As far as the mixing of different materials, it was to be a constant reminder of the law that they were not to marry non-Jews, because just as the fabric when washed would tear apart due to different reactions in shrinking during wash, the mixing of religion would tear at their beliefs and their foundation in God would likewise fall apart. The Jewish law is for my learning, but I am not a Jew. Likewise, there were laws for the Levite Jew that did not apply to the non-Levite Jew. The sexual immorality law is not confined to only Jews.

I agree. I was going to add to my statement that I believed that some laws were meant specifically for Jews whereas other laws were meant for everybody. Thank you for explaining the mixing of different materials law.

God Bless!

 

[beechy]

I read an article in college (I think in a psychology course) that dealt with sexual relationships between family members, and how (aside from the usual genetic arguments) it makes sense to discourage these types of relationships because it is good to have certain people in your life so sexually off limits that you can be assured this unique core group will be there to nurture you and you can be as close to them as you need them to be without ever having to worry about the potential complications that a sexual relationship or tension might bring. Your father will always be your father, for example, never your jilted lover. This is, according to the article, what allows for close heterosexual father-daughter / mother-son / brother-sister relationships throughout one's lifetime.

I wish I could remember the name of the article, and I'm sure I'm paraphrasing it imperfectly, but it was a long time ago now. Just thought it was interesting, and thought I'd throw it out there (as vague as my recollection is) as something perhaps a bit different than the usual genetic defect argument against consanguineous sexual relationships.

 

[Zaac]

I read an article in college (I think in a psychology course) that dealt with sexual relationships between family members, and how (aside from the usual genetic arguments) it makes sense to discourage these types of relationships because it is good to have certain people in your life so sexually off limits that you can be assured this unique core group will be there to nurture you and you can be as close to them as you need them to be without ever having to worry about the potential complications that a sexual relationship or tension might bring. Your father will always be your father, for example, never your jilted lover. This is, according to the article, what allows for close heterosexual father-daughter / mother-son / brother-sister relationships throughout one's lifetime.

I wish I could remember the name of the article, and I'm sure I'm paraphrasing it imperfectly, but it was a long time ago now. Just thought it was interesting, and thought I'd throw it out there (as vague as my recollection is) as something perhaps a bit different than the usual genetic defect argument against consanguineous sexual relationships.

It's just wrong on so many levels.

But it goes right back to God's Order. He divined that a man leave his mother and father and be united with his wife. That means no to the mother or to siblings. And as marriage is a covenant between the individuals and God, He ain't entering with you in anything that does not glorify HIM.

That leaves a relationship of incestuous adultery or fornication and either way you look at it, it remains wrong.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

My initial reaction would be to go find the nearest cliff and throw myself off it.

And after that?

Hi Sparklecat,

I replied with my initial thought and then left for a few hours and just came back now and saw your question to me. You've gotten lots of replies since then.

When I read the question all I could comment on was what my initial reaction would be. I think I would be shocked, especially if I had no prior indications that this situation would develop. It is very difficult for me to know with any certainty or speculate about which actions I would take beyond that point. It's definitely a hypothetical situation and one I wouldn't ever want to confront in reality. Honestly, it’s harder for me to get past the dysfunctional dynamics involved to even begin to think about the moral implications involved. Sorry but that's the best I can offer and I realize that probably falls flat.


For what it’s worth, I actually have seen this situation. No surprise, it was on an episode of Jerry Springer.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Could you be more specific, CC? Where do the OT and the NT state which laws apply to whom?

Well some of it is based on common sense or reasoning given the situation, such as the fabric. Jesus used the same principle when He spoke of the New Covenant as new wine in old skins. The people of the time were well familiar that if you put new wine that expands during fermenting that the old skins that have already shrunk and were no longer elastic would rupture. There was no reason for Jesus to spell it out when using parables that the people would understand - the principles behind it could be seen to be true and thus His use of them. It was also not establishing something new per se, the Old Testament constantly foreshadows the New Testament - in the case of marrying one from a different religion, the NT would be 1 Corinthians 7:16 .

The part that tells that it applies as a judgment to the Gentiles and would continue to apply to Jew and non-Jew after the Promised Land was taken would be found in Leviticus 18 as I mentioned in the previous post... read the ending of the chapter.

The Levite Priests were set apart from the rest of the Jews and had additional laws due to their being God's communication to the Nation; this is found throughout after the Exodus, but I would imagine that it would be especially dominant in Leviticus (Levite) portion of the OT. I do not have the time necessary to do this justice at the moment, but perhaps one that is intimately familiar with Jewish law may help in this. These things are known by study and seeing how all of the Bible fits together as one masterpiece; to look at the tree, the forest usually can't be appreciated and the tree doesn't really get it's full perspective without the whole.

Sorry, that's the best I can do for now.

Shalom

 

[beechy]

It's just wrong on so many levels.

But it goes right back to God's Order. He divined that a man leave his mother and father and be united with his wife. That means no to the mother or to siblings. And as marriage is a covenant between the individuals and God, He ain't entering with you in anything that does not glorify HIM.

That leaves a relationship of incestuous adultery or fornication and either way you look at it, it remains wrong.

Do you think the Bible condemns intra-family sexual relationships for the same reasons it condemns homosexual relationships (i.e., man+woman outside of man's family=marriage. anything else=fornication or adultery=sin)?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Do you think the Bible condemns intra-family sexual relationships for the same reasons it condemns homosexual relationships (i.e., man+woman outside of man's family=marriage. anything else=fornication or adultery=sin)?

There are several instances where there are examples of before the law and after such as Lot and his daughters (example of bad) and King David with the inheritance of another man's sinful legacy (Saul's wives). That is what makes the Bible grand, it doesn't hide the failures or the bad examples that we can learn by.

 

[beechy]

There are several instances where there are examples of before the law and after such as Lot and his daughters (example of bad) and King David with the inheritance of another man's sinful legacy (Saul's wives). That is what makes the Bible grand, it doesn't hide the failures or the bad examples that we can learn by.

I was just asking whether Zaac felt that the same principles used to condemn sexual relationships within families applied to condemn homosexuality.

 

[wowbagger]

Do you think the Bible condemns intra-family sexual relationships for the same reasons it condemns homosexual relationships (i.e., man+woman outside of man's family=marriage. anything else=fornication or adultery=sin)?

My guess? I think the bible condemns it by law because it was a burden on society to have young unmarried women turn up pregnant by their own fathers. There weren't many options for her or the baby in those days. I think the other types of incest were rare but you need to mention them so it doesn't look like you approve.

 

[Zaac]

Do you think the Bible condemns intra-family sexual relationships for the same reasons it condemns homosexual relationships (i.e., man+woman outside of man's family=marriage. anything else=fornication or adultery=sin)?

ChristianCenturion is right on it. And just like the homosexual relationships, it undermines God's structure of what the family is supposed to be. And I said this in another thread and more than a few people chuckled. But the devil is smart and deceptive. All of this stuff is undermining what God says the family is supposed to be. If you destroy those Godly families, you can destroy the basis of successive genrations being trained in Godliness and the way that they SHOULD go. And we are currently looking at a society that is just about to this point.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I was just asking whether Zaac felt that the same principles used to condemn sexual relationships within families applied to condemn homosexuality.

I was indirectly answering it by showing that God allowed certain instances to be done to show the downfall played out of not keeping His law. King David was not known for being a great father.
Others, such as homosexuality, were not allowed and were strictly judged by God. I added my voice in stating that no, they are different - one of my freedoms and I'm sure Zaac doesn't mind my posting on one of "his" questions.

 

[beechy]

I was indirectly answering it by showing that God allowed certain instances to be done to show the downfall played out of not keeping His law. King David was not known for being a great father.
Others, such as homosexuality, were not allowed and were strictly judged by God.

I don't get it. Stuff happened and God "showed the downfall" of "not keeping His law." What does this have to do with whether the underlying wrong is at some level the same for homosexual relationships as it is for intra-family sexual relationships: That is, you have people sexually involved with one another that are not man + wife as prescribed by God, and such relationships necessarily involve fornication and/or adultery, both of which are sins?

I added my voice in stating that no, they are different - one of my freedoms and I'm sure Zaac doesn't mind my posting on one of "his" questions.

I don't care that you answered instead of Zaac . . . I just didn't understand how your "answer" responded to the question at all.

 

[beechy]

ChristianCenturion is right on it. And just like the homosexual relationships, it undermines God's structure of what the family is supposed to be. And I said this in another thread and more than a few people chuckled. But the devil is smart and deceptive. All of this stuff is undermining what God says the family is supposed to be. If you destroy those Godly families, you can destroy the basis of successive genrations being trained in Godliness and the way that they SHOULD go. And we are currently looking at a society that is just about to this point.

So the shared, underlying wrong here is a perversion of God's approved family structure. I agree that God seems to like one man and one woman together in marriage, but does that mean that this is the only type of family God will accept? Does God's family structure include polygamy? (e.g., Genesis 4:19, Lamech & his two wives) How about the forced marriage of a virgin rape victim to her attacker? (Deuteronomy 22:28)?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I don't get it. Stuff happened and God "showed the downfall" of "not keeping His law." What does this have to do with whether the underlying wrong is at some level the same for homosexual relationships as it is for intra-family sexual relationships: That is, you have people sexually involved with one another that are not man + wife as prescribed by God, and such relationships necessarily involve fornication and/or adultery, both of which are sins?

Despite the OP drift, I will try to answer this some more. Incest is different in that it was not a law at one point and it later became a law in response to man's progression (and progression is not necessarily a 'good' thing in that use). Your stating that incest equales not married does not cover before Moses and therefore cannot be generalized as same gender relations. Why is same gender before Moses? It doesn't meet the defined reason for marriage from the beginning and doesn't have the exceptions:

Genesis 2:18-24
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.


23 The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called 'woman',

for she was taken out of man." 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

To go with another template would be to say that God's way is not good enough and the person(s) knows better than God. Men and women are different and the successful love relationship between the distinctly different two is what is reflective of not only Jesus and the Church, but the completion and the obstacles inherently develops us into a what God would have us be. IOW - there is no inherent condition where two women or two men can see the differences and how the other sex both needs each other and the opposite gender has an aspect that the other gender does not. It is a relationship that gives (by necessity) respect to each sex and keeps each sex in check from being indifferent to the other. Two moms or two dads cannot fully represent an example of this to each other or to children learning from example (if children were brought into that relationship by donation from the true model or correct sex). The same gender model can only hope to simulate or come close to the one God has judged as proper by nature.

This was also referenced by Jesus and Disciples showing that God's way was correct from the beginning:

Matthew 19:3-12
Mark 10:3-9
Ephesians 5:25-33

I don't care that you answered instead of Zaac . . . I just didn't understand how your "answer" responded to the question at all.

Well, I hope I explained it better, because I'm now out of time for sure and I don't want to derail the thread - especially to a subject that has different forum specific rules.
And to top off my post - I'll simply qualify all that as IMO, so as to be compliant... I'll leave sound doctrine to be my source.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

So the shared, underlying wrong here is a perversion of God's approved family structure. I agree that God seems to like one man and one woman together in marriage, but does that mean that this is the only type of family God will accept? Does God's family structure include polygamy? (e.g., Genesis 4:19, Lamech & his two wives) How about the forced marriage of a virgin rape victim to her attacker? (Deuteronomy 22:28)?

If you're going to cite those as you are, the burden is on you to show that they were examples of good.

 

[beechy]

If you're going to cite those as you are, the burden is on you to show that they were examples of good.

I'm not setting them forth as "examples of good." Just as examples of other marriage structures mentioned in the Bible. If the argument is that same-sex marriage and intra-family marriage are not ok because the Bible condones a single family/marriage structure, I'm wondering where these other passages fit into our understanding of God's sanctioned family.

 

[beechy]

Despite the OP drift, I will try to answer this some more. Incest is different in that it was not a law at one point and it later became a law in response to man's progression (and progression is not necessarily a 'good' thing in that use). Your stating that incest equales not married does not cover before Moses and therefore cannot be generalized as same gender relations. Why is same gender before Moses? It doesn't meet the defined reason for marriage from the beginning and doesn't have the exceptions:

Genesis 2:18-24
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.


23 The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called 'woman',

for she was taken out of man." 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

To go with another template would be to say that God's way is not good enough and the person(s) knows better than God. Men and women are different and the successful love relationship between the distinctly different two is what is reflective of not only Jesus and the Church, but the completion and the obstacles inherently develops us into a what God would have us be. IOW - there is no inherent condition where two women or two men can see the differences and how the other sex both needs each other and the opposite gender has an aspect that the other gender does not. It is a relationship that gives (by necessity) respect to each sex and keeps each sex in check from being indifferent to the other. Two moms or two dads cannot fully represent an example of this to each other or to children learning from example (if children were brought into that relationship by donation from the true model or correct sex). The same gender model can only hope to simulate or come close to the one God has judged as proper by nature.

This was also referenced by Jesus and Disciples showing that God's way was correct from the beginning:

Matthew 19:3-12
Mark 10:3-9
Ephesians 5:25-33


Well, I hope I explained it better, because I'm now out of time for sure and I don't want to derail the thread - especially to a subject that has different forum specific rules.
And to top off my post - I'll simply qualify all that as IMO, so as to be compliant... I'll leave sound doctrine to be my source.

Woah, woah woah. Yeah, I didn't mean to derail the thread this far either. What I was trying to get at is that I understood Zaac to be impliedly arguing that homosexual relationships and intra-family sexual relationships are both wrong according to the Bible because they (each in their own way) go against God's sanctioned family structure, which is: "one man who has left his family" + "one woman" = marriage. That much, I think even you would agree with, right?

 

[John812]

With regards to Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, the man who raped her must give the young woman's father 50 silver shekels, and she must become his wife because he violated her. He cannot divorce her as long as he lives.

This passage would also apply:

Exodus 22:16-17

When a man seduces a virgin who was not promised in marriage, and he has sexual relations with her, he must certainly pay the bridal price for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must pay an amount in silver equal to the bridal price for virgins.


Taking both into context with eachother, it seems the father has a say as to whether or not to give his daughter away. Now, if the man who raped her was known to be a really bad apple, violent, no control, etc., I would imagine that a good father would not let this man have his daughter as his wife. However, if for instance, the man has had an extremely good reputation up to that point, has generally been peace-loving, perhaps the father will make a judgement to let his daughter be married to him. Ofcourse, rape is wrong, but I think even the best people out there are not totally immune to being able to do this crime. Lust may take hold temporarily, he has sex with her, and afterwards if her father decides to give her as a wife to him (this man with a generally good reputation before the incident) he may go, "hmmm... I now have a wife... I have to pay her father 50 shekels... oyyyy... shouldn't have done that (not everybody is ready for marriage!).

God Bless!