• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!

Why is incest a sin?

Status
Not open for further replies.

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Unlike the references to homosexuality, the references to incest are clear and reasons are given for the ban. So it is easy to explain why incest is a sin. What is the problem with incest? Why is it a sin? (I'm talking here about consenting adults.)

[I have not suddenly lost it and gone beyond liberal. I am planning on making a point, which may wind up causing this thread to be moved to DoH. But for now, it fits here better.]
 

gold_wings

Newbie
Jun 2, 2008
17
1
Toronto
✟15,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Lots of things in the Bible are meant to protect humanity. So why is it a sin? I'm not an expert in the Bible but I do think that whoever placed it in there had people's best interest in mind. Back when humanity was still young people need a little incentive/deterrent to follow and not disobey certain rules. Now we know the reason and effects because we have grown up so now not only is it a sin but something that went against common sense. Yes, common sense, the very same one God gave you so you wouldn't hurt yourself.
 
Upvote 0

Bablefish

Junior Member
May 31, 2008
33
4
✟22,673.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It's likely that the whole idea of it being labeled a sin was originally created with a legalistic intention of keeping the people in a state of fear, not of the degenerative risks, but of the wrath of god. This is nothing new. Incest has been proven to be the cause of many complications among sparsely populated species. So I can understand the concerns of the people. However, as to the actuality of it being a sin, well, that remains quite suspect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OllieFranz
Upvote 0

Armistead

Veteran
Aug 11, 2007
1,852
91
61
NC
✟2,439.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Some will argue incest biblically was having sex with the father only.

However, these laws were given to the jews only. Incest continued throughout history and still does today by many tribes. Incest was also used to insure royal blood lines.

Most agree it was a cultural issue and no longer needed.

So why not just tell us what your after....
 
Upvote 0

dayhiker

Mature veteran
Sep 13, 2006
15,561
5,305
MA
✟231,925.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I once read an interesting article about how Eygpt has problems with incest because the leaders had worked to have intermarriage with the wealthy. Then as people started to look to them as gods because they were so wealthy they started to marry brother and sister so as to not dilute this idea that their family was different from all other families. Ofcourse after a few years the recesive gene's started to kick in adn cause all kinds of problems.

Thus when Moses left Eygpt he put the incest laws into effect in Isreal as a way to limit the accumulation of wealth.

only one aspect of the incest question
dayhiker
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Actually, if you look at the history of the patriarchs and at the actual laws in Leviticus 18 and 20, the sin was not incest as we know it. The Bible is not concerned with the problems inherent in high degrees of consanguinity. Abraham and Sarah are claimed to be brother and sister (or at least half-brother and half-sister) -- although some apologists are quick to point out that the phrase used can sometimes be used of close cousins raised as siblings. Isaac and Rebbecca were first cousins, as were Jacob and both Leah and Rachel. Both Leverate marriage and laws limiting the choices of the priests and Levites were intended to keep the priestly and later the royal blood as pure and strong as possible.

Leviticus 18 and 20, were not about shared blood. Some of the forbidden liasons were with the uncle's (unrelated) wife, and a sister whether natural or adopted. There were two concerns. One, adultery was especially heinous when it was within the family, bringing a double measure of shame on the cuckolded husband.

And two, since an unmarried woman gets her status from her father, but a married woman gets it from her husband, a woman's status within the family can suddenly and dramatically change after marriage. There can be contention within the family when the status quo between two members suddenly changes. This is the specific reason given in Leviticus as to why marriage to two sisters or other closely related women was discouraged. It is also the subject of several proverbs that speak of marital peace, or more to the point, the lack of peace in a marriage.

The patriarchs' marriages were blessed because they removed their wives from their childhood homes and away from this kind of contention.

In any case, my point is that Leviticus 18 and 20 are not about incest as we know it, and so there are relationships included in the ban that are not incestuous, and relationships not banned that we consider incestuous. The Bible does not condemn marriage between first cousins, provided they were not raised in the same household, nor would it have a problem with taking a concubine whom, it turns out, was sired by a close relative (other than one's own father -- and then only because it might embarrass him).

So modern views of incest -- even conservative ones -- are completely different from Biblical ones. Although the "fundies" may give lip service to Leviticus 18 and 20, they ignore the definitions and some of the types of incestuous relationships expounded in those verses.

So they no longer follow the "moral" sexual propriety laws than they do the "ceremonial" dietary and anti-mixing laws. And it makes their focus on a ban on homosexuality as the ultimate sexual morality law seem deliberately hypocritical.
 
Upvote 0

Crazy Liz

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2003
17,090
1,106
California
✟23,305.00
Faith
Christian
Actually, if you look at the history of the patriarchs and at the actual laws in Leviticus 18 and 20, the sin was not incest as we know it. The Bible is not concerned with the problems inherent in high degrees of consanguinity. Abraham and Sarah are claimed to be brother and sister (or at least half-brother and half-sister) -- although some apologists are quick to point out that the phrase used can sometimes be used of close cousins raised as siblings. Isaac and Rebbecca were first cousins, as were Jacob and both Leah and Rachel. Both Leverate marriage and laws limiting the choices of the priests and Levites were intended to keep the priestly and later the royal blood as pure and strong as possible.

Leviticus 18 and 20, were not about shared blood. Some of the forbidden liasons were with the uncle's (unrelated) wife, and a sister whether natural or adopted. There were two concerns. One, adultery was especially heinous when it was within the family, bringing a double measure of shame on the cuckolded husband.

And two, since an unmarried woman gets her status from her father, but a married woman gets it from her husband, a woman's status within the family can suddenly and dramatically change after marriage. There can be contention within the family when the status quo between two members suddenly changes. This is the specific reason given in Leviticus as to why marriage to two sisters or other closely related women was discouraged. It is also the subject of several proverbs that speak of marital peace, or more to the point, the lack of peace in a marriage.

So far, I'm in agreement.

The patriarchs' marriages were blessed because they removed their wives from their childhood homes and away from this kind of contention.

Not so sure about this. Apparently, the pre-fall intent of God was that men should leave their families and join their wife's family, rather than the other way around.

In any case, my point is that Leviticus 18 and 20 are not about incest as we know it, and so there are relationships included in the ban that are not incestuous, and relationships not banned that we consider incestuous. The Bible does not condemn marriage between first cousins, provided they were not raised in the same household, nor would it have a problem with taking a concubine whom, it turns out, was sired by a close relative (other than one's own father -- and then only because it might embarrass him).

So modern views of incest -- even conservative ones -- are completely different from Biblical ones. Although the "fundies" may give lip service to Leviticus 18 and 20, they ignore the definitions and some of the types of incestuous relationships expounded in those verses.

Modern Western views of incest are quite different from these views and the views of a lot of cultures. In some cultures, incest is defined by the clans of your father and mother. I know of one where it is considered incest to marry anyone in your father's clan (no matter how remote - they don't even have to be actually related by blood) but a first cousin on your mother's side is considered the best possible choice for a spouse. In the US, some states allow first cousins to marry and some do not.

Modern Western views of adultery are also quite different from what was considered adultery in the Bible.

So they no longer follow the "moral" sexual propriety laws than they do the "ceremonial" dietary and anti-mixing laws. And it makes their focus on a ban on homosexuality as the ultimate sexual morality law seem deliberately hypocritical.

Recently, there was a thread that began to touch on whether the concept of sexual immorality should be interpreted according to the cultures in which the Bible was written or the cultures in which we happen to find ourselves. It's an interesting question I'd be very interested in exploring.
 
Upvote 0

plmarquette

Veteran
Oct 5, 2004
3,254
192
73
Auburn , IL.
✟4,379.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Republican
Keyword search results
21 Results
"the" is a very common word, and was not included in your search.​
  1. Leviticus 18:6
    None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
    Leviticus 18:5-7 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  2. Leviticus 18:7
    The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
    Leviticus 18:6-8 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  3. Leviticus 18:8
    The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
    Leviticus 18:7-9 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  4. Leviticus 18:9
    The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
    Leviticus 18:8-10 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  5. Leviticus 18:10
    The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
    Leviticus 18:9-11 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  6. Leviticus 18:11
    The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
    Leviticus 18:10-12 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  7. Leviticus 18:12
    Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
    Leviticus 18:11-13 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  8. Leviticus 18:13
    Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
    Leviticus 18:12-14 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  9. Leviticus 18:14
    Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
    Leviticus 18:13-15 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  10. Leviticus 18:15
    Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
    Leviticus 18:14-16 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So far, I'm in agreement.



Not so sure about this. Apparently, the pre-fall intent of God was that men should leave their families and join their wife's family, rather than the other way around.

I'm quite willing to concede here. I am not a professional anthropologist, and my sources are limited and dated. And often mis-remembered.

It does not change my conclusion that the Levitical bans are evidence that the ancient Israelites held a different understanding of what family relations were than the modern one, and that the modern concept if consaguinous incest was foreign to them.

Modern Western views of incest are quite different from these views and the views of a lot of cultures. In some cultures, incest is defined by the clans of your father and mother. I know of one where it is considered incest to marry anyone in your father's clan (no matter how remote - they don't even have to be actually related by blood) but a first cousin on your mother's side is considered the best possible choice for a spouse. In the US, some states allow first cousins to marry and some do not.

Modern Western views of adultery are also quite different from what was considered adultery in the Bible.



Recently, there was a thread that began to touch on whether the concept of sexual immorality should be interpreted according to the cultures in which the Bible was written or the cultures in which we happen to find ourselves. It's an interesting question I'd be very interested in exploring.

I wholeheartedly agree.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Keyword search results
21 Results
"the" is a very common word, and was not included in your search.
  1. Leviticus 18:6
    None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
    Leviticus 18:5-7 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  2. Leviticus 18:7
    The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
    Leviticus 18:6-8 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  3. Leviticus 18:8
    The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
    Leviticus 18:7-9 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  4. Leviticus 18:9
    The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
    Leviticus 18:8-10 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  5. Leviticus 18:10
    The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
    Leviticus 18:9-11 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  6. Leviticus 18:11
    The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
    Leviticus 18:10-12 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  7. Leviticus 18:12
    Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
    Leviticus 18:11-13 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  8. Leviticus 18:13
    Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
    Leviticus 18:12-14 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  9. Leviticus 18:14
    Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
    Leviticus 18:13-15 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
  10. Leviticus 18:15
    Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
    Leviticus 18:14-16 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)

I'm not sure what point you wanted to make with your search on "uncover the nakedness," but the use of that phrase, and applying it to the parents and/or husband of the woman in question clearly suggest bringing shame to the whole family by adultery within the family unit. It was that very same odd phrasing that pointed out to me the difference between biblical and modern concepts of incest.


BTW, and slightly off-topic, when Saul blew up at Jonathan over his friendship with David, he appears to be accusing Jonathan of some sort of sexual immorality:
"Then Saul's anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?"
1 Samuel 20:30

And yet, some people claim there is absolutely no evidence concerning "that kind of relationship" between David and Jonathan. The evidence may (or may not), when tested, prove to be too weak to sustain the claim, but it does exist.
 
Upvote 0

Crazy Liz

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2003
17,090
1,106
California
✟23,305.00
Faith
Christian
I'm quite willing to concede here. I am not a professional anthropologist, and my sources are limited and dated. And often mis-remembered.

It's OK. It's not from anthropology (apart from theological anthropology). It's from Genesis: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." According to Genesis 2:24, it is the man who is supposed to leave his family when he marries, not the woman.

It does not change my conclusion that the Levitical bans are evidence that the ancient Israelites held a different understanding of what family relations were than the modern one, and that the modern concept if consaguinous incest was foreign to them.



I wholeheartedly agree.

:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Crazy Liz

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2003
17,090
1,106
California
✟23,305.00
Faith
Christian
BTW, and slightly off-topic, when Saul blew up at Jonathan over his friendship with David, he appears to be accusing Jonathan of some sort of sexual immorality:
"Then Saul's anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?"
1 Samuel 20:30

And yet, some people claim there is absolutely no evidence concerning "that kind of relationship" between David and Jonathan. The evidence may (or may not), when tested, prove to be too weak to sustain the claim, but it does exist.

Would that be because David was married to Jonathan's half-sister?
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Would that be because David was married to Jonathan's half-sister?

I'd like to address this question further with you. I'll start a topic about it in DoH, tonight, unless you start it before I get back online. But I have to leave in less than two minutes.
 
Upvote 0
O

onemessiah

Guest
God said it was prohibited and having sex with a close relative is disobedient to God's command. It's that disobedience that is sinful. He had good reason for prohibiting it as has been pointed out.


Then didn't god encourage incest by only creating Adam and Eve and directing them to populate the earth (their descendants would have been blood related).
And same with Noah and his wife. Their children would have had to do the same (commit incest in order to populate the planet).
 
Upvote 0

revrobor

Veteran
Jun 24, 2003
3,993
367
93
Checotah, OK
Visit site
✟28,505.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Then didn't god encourage incest by only creating Adam and Eve and directing them to populate the earth (their descendants would have been blood related).
And same with Noah and his wife. Their children would have had to do the same (commit incest in order to populate the planet).

It was not incest at the time as the race was pure and God had not issued that command.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.