Incest

[floo]

deleted

[Hope]

One for the creationists. Why is it that incest was apparently rife in the book of Genesis and looked upon favourably by the deity, but subsequently became a BIG NO NO for very good reasons?

Not sure why you're asking 'only' creationists, Floo.  After all, just about every incidence of incest in the OT is quickly followed by divine retribution.  The fact that something is rife doesn't mean that it is acceptable.  Look at violent crime, or theft; or financial impropriety, or insurance fraud nowadays.  The latter 2 seem pretty common, but that doesn't make them acceptable.

[Spud]

Hope,
I think Floo means: if Adam and Eve really were the first humans, then why did God condone marriage within the immediate family in the beginning, but prohibit it in the law of Moses?

[Hope]

Hope,
I think Floo means: if Adam and Eve really were the first humans, then why did God condone marriage within the immediate family in the beginning, but prohibit it in the law of Moses?

If they were, who else were they going to mate with?  But my concern was that, by using the term 'rife', was she referring to much more than just A&E.

[Owlswing]

If they were, who else were they going to mate with?  But my concern was that, by using the term 'rife', was she referring to much more than just A&E.

. . . and their two sons (no daughters) of course!

[Hope]

. . . and their two sons (no daughters) of course!

This answer highlights the likelihood that the story is a theological treatment, rather than a historical one.

[Gordon]

This answer highlights the likelihood that the story is a theological treatment, rather than a historical one.

I'm other words the A&E stuff isn't true and anyone who thinks it is in this day and age is quite simply wrong - works for me!

[ad_orientem]

This answer highlights the likelihood that the story is a theological treatment, rather than a historical one.

You keep on saying that but it's only until recently that it's regarded only as theological. How do you explain that?

[Hope]

You keep on saying that but it's only until recently that it's regarded only as theological. How do you explain that?

I suppose it can be explained by referring to the fact that some Jews prior to Jesus' life also regarded it as theological.  In a way, its a bit like some of the early medical discoveries in the mi-2nd millennium which later turned out to be 'rediscoveries' of stuff that was known in earlier eras, such as early Islamic periods.

[Hope]

I'm other words the A&E stuff isn't true and anyone who thinks it is in this day and age is quite simply wrong - works for me!

Well, as I've said before, tere have been people within both Judaism and Christianity who have argued for a theological treatise explanation for centuries.  The concept as only 'rediscovered' some decades ago when we understood the dating of the material we have better.

[ad_orientem]

I suppose it can be explained by referring to the fact that some Jews prior to Jesus' life also regarded it as theological.  In a way, its a bit like some of the early medical discoveries in the mi-2nd millennium which later turned out to be 'rediscoveries' of stuff that was known in earlier eras, such as early Islamic periods.

Then give us all examples. You know, evidence that Jews prior to Jesus saw it as purely theological or "treatise" as you call it. I'm calling bollocks on the whole suggestion. When Moses was writing under the direction of the Spirit he was not writing a "treatise". The early Church also would have understood it first and foremost in the literal sense. Nowhere will you find any suggestion that the literal sense was denied. That's not to deny the allegorical sense, rather the literal and allegorical senses go hand-in-hand. Allegory loses all of its meaning if it is not founded in the literal.

[Bubbles]

Then give us all examples. You know, evidence that Jews prior to Jesus saw it as purely theological or "treatise" as you call it. I'm calling bollocks on the whole suggestion. When Moses was writing under the direction of the Spirit he was not writing a "treatise". The early Church also would have understood it first and foremost in the literal sense. Nowhere will you find any suggestion that the literal sense was denied. That's not to deny the allegorical sense, rather the literal and allegorical senses go hand-in-hand. Allegory loses all of its meaning if it is not founded in the literal.

Lots of stories in Judaism are allegorical, but I wasn't aware Adam and Eve was ( apart from perhaps reform etc).

However this suggests it might have been.

But, as Steven Katz notes…, "In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so." In fact, as we shall argue below, even the compilers of the Bible do not seem to have been concerned with a literal reading of the text. They were prepared to have at least parts of it read non-literally.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/genesis-as-allegory/

If you read the whole thing, it makes the point that it's a Jewish tradition not to take all the stories literally.

I know there are some stories that are made to make a point rather than to be believed as a literal account, even in Orthodox Judaism.

[ad_orientem]

Lots of stories in Judaism are allegorical, but I wasn't aware Adam and Eve was ( apart from perhaps reform etc).

However this suggests it might have been.

If you read the whole thing, it makes the point that it's a Jewish tradition not to take all the stories literally.

I know there are some stories that are made to make a point rather than to be believed as a literal account, even in Orthodox Judaism.

It's a rather poor attempt to justify his rejection of the literal sense. He refers to someone from the Middle-Ages and some tradition without showing any sort of continuity.

[Gordon]

Moderator:

It seems that within this thread there is a discussion about the civil aspects of incest as opposed to the Christian aspect envisioned in the OP.

Therefore, I'm going to split the topic and moved the posts on the civil aspects to a new thread on Ethics & Freethought. Locking this temporarily to do the split.

O.K that is done, so those wishing to discuss the civil as opposed to Christian aspects of incest should do so here.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11479.msg585055#new

[floo]

If they were, who else were they going to mate with?  But my concern was that, by using the term 'rife', was she referring to much more than just A&E.

If all the population of the planet drowned in the flood except Noah and his family, they would have had to bonk like rabbits to repopulate the Earth!

[Hope]

If all the population of the planet drowned in the flood except Noah and his family, they would have had to bonk like rabbits to repopulate the Earth!

It depends on how many people there were on the earth at the time of the theological Flood.

[Sebastian Toe]

It depends on how many people there were on the earth at the time of the theological Flood.

Before or after?

[floo]

It depends on how many people there were on the earth at the time of the theological Flood.

Meaning?

[Nearly Sane]

Meaning?

Hope doesn't believe in a literal flood where only 8 people survived. That is the why he uses the phrase 'theological' as opposed to literal. He has covered this in detail in posts to you.

And to Hope, it is clear in floo's use of creationist in the OP she is talking about a literalist YEC, and I know you know that so stop playing dumb as if it's clever, it's not even big.

[floo]

Hope doesn't believe in a literal flood where only 8 people survived. That is the why he uses the phrase 'theological' as opposed to literal. He has covered this in detail in posts to you.

And to Hope, it is clear in floo's use of creationist in the OP she is talking about a literalist YEC, and I know you know that so stop playing dumb as if it's clever, it's not even big.

Was I talking about YECs?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

If they were, who else were they going to mate with?  But my concern was that, by using the term 'rife', was she referring to much more than just A&E.

Have a read of the apocryphal book "The Lives of Adam and Eve".

[Nearly Sane]

Was I talking about YECs?

Well if you weren't your post makes no sense. Your choice!

[jeremyp]

Then give us all examples. You know, evidence that Jews prior to Jesus saw it as purely theological or "treatise" as you call it. I'm calling bollocks on the whole suggestion. When Moses was writing under the direction of the Spirit he was not writing a "treatise".

Has ha. You're calling Hope on lack of evidence (correctly IMO) whilst simultaneously making a completely unsupported assertion yourself.

Spoing!

[Brownie]

. . . and their two sons (no daughters) of course!

According to the Bible, they had several sons and daughters but only three are named.

Incest was not defined until much later.   When it was defined it went much further than the civil laws we have nowadays and didn't just concern blood relatives, for example not getting jiggy with stepchildren or late siblings' spouses.  Pity it isn't still like that now imo, anything else  confuses family relationships.  It is still legal - though discouraged - for first cousins to marry.  The Royal Family stopped doing that after Queen Victoria's time and the Catholic Church forbids marriage between first cousins.  Distant cousins is OK.

Incest is horrible but I can quite understand that, in the long ago days of the Bible, when there were undoubtedly less genetic problems, close relatives married and had children.  If they hadn't, there would have been very few people around.  It wasn't incest then, there was no such word or concept.  We cannot judge early man by the standards of today.

[Shaker]

Incest is horrible but I can quite understand that, in the long ago days of the Bible, when there were undoubtedly less genetic problems

Why so?