Incest

[beechy]

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!).

Wow -- I can't believe you just said that!!!! ACKK!!!! Even the best people out there might commit rape if they're overcome with lust???? Then the victim's father gets to decide whether or not the "good rapist" gets to marry his violated daughter???? And then the rapist's "punishment" is a 50 shekel payment to the father??? And the victim has nothing to do with any of these decisions???? You think this rapist-father-victim theory of family is something we should be practicing??????????????

 

[Zaac]

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?

Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Matthew 19:4-6

God sanctioned one man for one wife. Anything outside of that was in violation of His Word. Did people disobey? Yep. Does that mean that God has ever had an intent that a man have more than one wife just because someof the big Biblical names disobeyed and did so? Nope. King Solomon was the wisest man who ever lived and he should have known better, yet he still took more than one wife in opposition to God's prescribed order for what a marriage is. And he paid the consequences.

 

[John812]

Wow -- I can't believe you just said that!!!! ACKK!!!! Even the best people out there might commit rape if they're overcome with lust???? Then the victim's father gets to decide whether or not the "good rapist" gets to marry his violated daughter???? And then the rapist's "punishment" is a 50 shekel payment to the father??? And the victim has nothing to do with any of these decisions???? You think this rapist-father-victim theory of family is something we should be practicing??????????????

I am simply trying to explain to you a law that God ordained.

And the victim has nothing to do with any of these decisions????

I never said she doesn't. I am positive that she would have influence in the matter, especially if her father loves her very much. You have to understand, also, that those days were a bit different than the 21st century Western World. Women in the days of Moses did not have much say in too many matters.

God Bless!

 

[beechy]

God sanctioned one man for one wife. Anything outside of that was in violation of His Word. Did people disobey? Yep. Does that mean that God has ever had an intent that a man have more than one wife just because someof the big Biblical names disobeyed and did so? Nope. King Solomon was the wisest man who ever lived and he should have known better, yet he still took more than one wife in opposition to God's prescribed order for what a marriage is. And he paid the consequences.

Looks to me like God was angry with Solomon because he and some of his wives were idolatrous. 1 Kings 11:9. And Genesis didn't say anywhere that Lamech was doing anything wrong or bad by having two wives. It just named them and their progeny. God did sanction marriage between a man and a woman. But He didn't say you couldn't be polygamous. And people did it throughout the Bible with no consequence.

I don't like the idea of incest either, but I find genetic consequences and the psychological arguments I alluded to earlier more compelling than scripture you interpret as saying there is only one way a family can look.

 

[beechy]

IYou have to understand, also, that those days were a bit different than the 21st century Western World. Women in the days of Moses did not have much say in too many matters.

Right. The Bible contains a lot of specifics written in the context of and for the people of the time in which it was written. Perhaps a lot of these specific laws aren't meant to apply to us today. Perhaps the moral is: Love is good. People should be together in ways that honor their love and commitment to each other.

 

[John812]

Right. The Bible contains a lot of specifics written in the context of and for the people of the time in which it was written. Perhaps a lot of these specific laws aren't meant to apply to us today.

To be quite honest, I would choose the Judaic law over the Canadian law that I am under (with some exceptions being made with regards to the Judaic law, such as "an eye for an eye", a law that Jesus specifically condemned). There are many things in the Canadian law which I very much disagree with, such as the legality of homosexual marriage, which God finds detestable.

Leviticus 18:22

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Perhaps the moral is: Love is good. People should be together in ways that honor their love and commitment to each other.

Love is AWEESSSOOOMMMMEEEE!!!! - but there is more to the old testament than just this one moral.

God Bless!

 

[beechy]

Right. The Bible contains a lot of specifics written in the context of and for the people of the time in which it was written. Perhaps a lot of these specific laws aren't meant to apply to us today. Perhaps the moral is: Love is good. People should be together in ways that honor their love and commitment to each other.

And, above all, to God of course. But maybe loving God doesn't mean following every single archaic rule set forth in these passages. I propose that it is the spirit in which we do what we do, whether we follow Jesus' golden rule, and our love of God as our Lord and savior, that matters more than our ability to follow the minutia of rules setting forth how many silver shekels should be paid as the bride price for raping a virgin.

 

[wowbagger]

I am simply trying to explain to you a law that God ordained.



I never said she doesn't. I am positive that she would have influence in the matter, especially if her father loves her very much. You have to understand, also, that those days were a bit different than the 21st century Western World. Women in the days of Moses did not have much say in too many matters.

God Bless!

Women didn't have much say, but an all-knowing all-powerful god would. These laws are obviously written by an ancient male-dominated culture. No loving god would permit violence against young girls and then allow the rapist to marry her. It sickens me that you even TRY to justify this behavior as OK to god. God does not need to bow down to the culture of the day. He can just tell them to change it or go to hell.

These ancient, antiquated, and barbaric laws are nothing to be proud of. They are part of a history which humans should move away from. Do you know that there are countries in the world who still have cultures like the OT laws? We call them "human rights violators", and sometimes we bomb them. Maybe you should tell the UN that god said it was OK as long as the man pays and had a good rep. Or did god change his mind?

Hell, even John Wayne Gacy had a good reputation until they found that he raped tortured and killed 33 boys as young as 9.

I even think the OT should be heavily censored for kids so that they don't read that highly innappropriate material. Thank goodness it says "go in unto her" most of the time instead of "forcibly rape" so that they don't understand.

 

[beechy]

To be quite honest, I would choose the Judaic law over the Canadian law that I am under (with some exceptions being made with regards to the Judaic law, such as "an eye for an eye", a law that Jesus specifically condemned). There are many things in the Canadian law which I very much disagree with, such as the legality of homosexual marriage, which God finds detestable.

Leviticus 18:22

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

You don't think this might be a case of context again? There are many scholars today who think this passage had to do with ritual sex practices in ancient temples. Are you into all the Jewish laws, then (except for the eye for an eye thing)? You try to keep away from polyester blends, for example? There may have been passages of texts that were divinely inspired, but unfortunately it seems like a lot of what got edited in to the actual book we call the Bible was written by humans with a very human agenda. This doesn't mean it isn't important, just that we have to read it with our brains on. And trying to justify rape seems a little naive (and scary).

Love is AWEESSSOOOMMMMEEEE!!!! - but there is more to the old testament than just this one moral.

Yeah, I agree. But there's only one way a family should look isn't one of them.

 

[John812]

Are you into all the Jewish laws, then (except for the eye for an eye thing)? You try to keep away from polyester blends, for example?

I think the Jewish law is a great tool that helps us know what sin is. Ofcourse, we are not justified by works, but by faith + works, in my opinion. The law helps us identify some sins and so we know to stay away from such things.

Well, Jesus said that no food is unclean in itself. I think the meaning could be applied to clothing as well, makes logical sense, I think. As to other specific laws, let's leave that alone for now and keep our focus on the OP - we have already probably strayed a little bit from it... sry

God Bless!

 

[beechy]

I think the Jewish law is a great tool that helps us know what sin is. Ofcourse, we are not justified by works, but by faith + works, in my opinion. The law helps us identify some sins and so we know to stay away from such things.

Well, Jesus said that no food is unclean in itself. I think the meaning could be applied to clothing as well, makes logical sense, I think. As to other specific laws, let's leave that alone for now and keep our focus on the OP - we have already probably strayed a little bit from it... sry

God Bless!

So we should pick and choose based on what we think makes logical sense? I like that, actually. And when it comes to families and who and how we are to love one another, I'm going to choose those parts of the Bible that talk about selflessness, commitment, and integrity. Makes logical sense, I think.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

Let's say you had two children, a boy and a girl. One day, when they're both around 20 or so, they come to you and tell you that they're in love and are going to pursue a romantic relationship. They won't try to have any children themselves. What do you think your reaction would be?

It would take a little getting used to, but I could adjust

 

[Aimee30]

"Weird" is the first thing that popped into my head.
But really, you could tell them your feelings on the issue and explain to them why you think its wrong and what you feel society will think of it. You could tell them"No, not in my house." If they don't obey you and run off and get a house of their own, then you can't do much, unless it was a legal issue, but i would still let them find out on their own or the hard way, since they did not listen to me in the first place. The situation would be up to God then, since i had done my part and warning them and trying to prevent them from doing it. I wouldn't like it though. They can still talk to me, I suppose, but asking for money and other things would be out, unless they would say like die without assistance. I would say it's like this--they made their choice, now they must deal with the consequences of it.

 

[Seeking...]

I don't know if this has been addressed or not, but I would be concerned because (I would imagine) the majority of of incest relationships involve some sort of abuse/domination/emotional codependence that would not be the sign of a healthy relationship.

A non-abusive family structure where the children are raised together as siblings with the appropriate boundaries as they age doesn't foster this type of development. I would not act agressively to end the relationship - but I would spend a lot of time with each adult child to figure out how the relationship started and provide counselling where needed.

It would make sense if the children were not reared together and spent such little time together as children as to not form a familial bond.

A healthy, intact family is an emotional safety net. Whether you like/love each other all the time or not, you tend to try to have each others best interests at heart and protect/comfort each other. Pubescent teenagers tend to range far afield when they are looking to mate - you intrinsically search out someone a little different to bring back home. The only reason I could imagine that you would search for a partner within your home (especially if you had been raised not to do so) is that you were not emotionally secure enough to venture out.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen. I am saying that the only instances I know of incest involve: 1 sibling who is stronger, 1 sibling who is weaker, a lot of manipulation mixed with real/implied threats and no one thought they were in love.

 

[David Gould]

The big problem with incest is that the relationship between brother and sister is very different than the relationship between any two individuals. Children are competitors for their parents attention, for instance; they also have waged power games with each other from the very beginning. An incestuous relationship is not dysfunctional because the people involved are blood relatives - after all, adopted children may well end up having sexual relationships with blood relatives and not know it. An incestuous relationship is dysfunctional because of the family structure and the relationships within it.

Parent/child relationships have similar problems. The problems are not the biology; they are the result of the family structure.

And these are the reasons why I oppose incest. And I oppose relationships between stepparents and stepchildren and adopted children and their adopted kin. Nothing to do with biology; all to do with the family structure.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

The big problem with incest is that the relationship between brother and sister is very different than the relationship between any two individuals. Children are competitors for their parents attention, for instance; they also have waged power games with each other from the very beginning. An incestuous relationship is not dysfunctional because the people involved are blood relatives - after all, adopted children may well end up having sexual relationships with blood relatives and not know it. An incestuous relationship is dysfunctional because of the family structure and the relationships within it.

Parent/child relationships have similar problems. The problems are not the biology; they are the result of the family structure.

And these are the reasons why I oppose incest. And I oppose relationships between stepparents and stepchildren and adopted children and their adopted kin. Nothing to do with biology; all to do with the family structure.

It also implies that the parents did not teach the children what is right or wrong, a possible neglect in their duties. The other aspect is the neglect in the role of siblings and the responsibility of older or male/female hierarchy (if it is valued in that family). IOW - one of the children should have had the default burden to keep the level of morality up.

~ Another little aspect that some would hold true based on some family structures. BTW - these principles are also found in the scripture.

 

[David Gould]

It also implies that the parents did not teach the children what is right or wrong, a possible neglect in their duties. The other aspect is the neglect in the role of siblings and the responsibility of older or male/female hierarchy (if it is valued in that family). IOW - one of the children should have had the default burden to keep the level of morality up.

~ Another little aspect that some would hold true based on some family structures. BTW - these principles are also found in the scripture.

It is not a moral question. It is a question of the way human relationships form inside and outside of a family structure.

 

[bouncer]

An incestuous relationship is dysfunctional because of the family structure and the relationships within it.

What do you mean ?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

It is not a moral question. It is a question of the way human relationships form inside and outside of a family structure.

You say it's not a moral question, I say it is a morality based on reasons. I can live with that.

 

[David Gould]

What do you mean ?

The relationship between a brother and a sister growing up together in the same household has specific characteristics.

It is a relationship that is competitive right off the bat. This competition is usually not in any way balanced. The battle between siblings, whether overt or subtle, also never ends.

A sexual relationship with such a competitive relationship is extremely likely to have some coercive element to it. Siblings have an emotional hold on one another that can be used to very powerful effect. When sex is involved, that emotional hold can be magnified greatly.

I guess what I am mainly saying is that incestuous relationships are many times more likely to result in suffering for the people involved, and for those around them.

This is why I also do not like sexual relationships where there are extreme power imbalances - teachers and students, for example.