dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (03/21/85)
These questions and comments were asked of me by mail:
The answers will follow:
--
The explanation that you proposed has several points that seem
hard to explain:
When God took away his permission to commit incest - how
could it have been done?
Global announcement of type:
As of this moment incest is sin.
or
For anybody born after this moment it would be
illegal to screw their sibling, while older folks still can
keep helping themselves.
When did this major change of policies took place?
How was the announcement made?
I do not, to be sure, expect you to have exact answers, but
rather would be interested in opinion of modern theology.
Please post the answer (if any) to net.religion - it looks
like a topic.
Thanks
Mike Cherepov
My reply:
The first time that incest is referred to in the Bible is in Leviticus
chap.20. Here, God is giving Isreal the Law. The Law strictly forbids
any act of incest. Up until that time, God never addressed the issue.
The only other mention of it is in Gen. 19 with Lot and his daughters.
Here, the scriptures are silent as far as moral judgement. The implication
however seems to be deceit.
The key to understanding this is in the Mosaic Law. Many of the laws
given to Isreal were not moral issues. The food consumption laws,
circumcision, etc. were laws to seperate Isreal from the rest of the
nations. There was also another motive. Many of the ancient Hebrew
laws were to protect their health. The Hebrew race was a strong race
because of nutritional habits, sexual purity, and cleanliness.
By this time in human history, the effects of sin were obvious. Life
span had drastically dropped, meat eating (1) had been encouraged to
supplement the scarcity of and difficulty of obtaining plant nutrition,
(famines were quite common) (1) See Gen.6&7, and sin had even effected
genetics.
The sin diseased genes of Adam and Eve had mutated enough down through
time to cause serious health defects in the offspring of those closely
related (As we can see today). God, knowing this, and in his effort to
preserve His chosen people, proclaimed incest a sin and commanded the
Isrealites to abstain from it.
Incest became known as a sin and was carried down as such through
Judea-Christian teachings. The New Testament calls Christians to
a higher law than the Mosaic Law. The New Testament uses the word
(porneia) which means sexual immorality. Christians are commanded to
abstain from all types of "porneia". This would include incest, rape,
adultery, fornication (pre-marital sex), homosexuality, and beasteality.
In effect, all sexual immorality as defined in the Old Covenant.
Christians, with the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit, are called
to abstain from "porneia". This higher Law is the Law of Love. Jesus
said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments". Then He sent us
the Holy Spirit as a sign of His promise; To save whosoever would believe
in Him. The indwelling Holy Spirit is the sign of the Christian. The
Spirit teaches him, controls him, and seals him. The Spirit has been
called in scripture, an engagement ring. With the blessed assurance of
salvation, the Christian is no longer under the bondage of a law that he
cannot keep. Herein is freedom, Who the son sets free, shall be free
indeed. To serve Him out of Love.
So as you see, God did not impose a sudden change of heart and a
consequent new Law on the world, but mercifully presented the solution
to a serious problem. This problem of course was brought on by mankinds
own initiation. God was protecting His people as He originally strove
to protect Adam with His famous warning, "In the day that you eat of
it, you shall surely die!"
Dan Boskovichroot@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (03/24/85)
> The first time that incest is referred to in the Bible is in Leviticus > chap.20. Here, God is giving Isreal the Law. The Law strictly forbids > any act of incest. The only other mention of it is in Gen. 19 with Lot > and his daughters. > > By this time in human history, the effects of sin were obvious. Life > span had drastically dropped, meat eating (1) had been encouraged to > supplement the scarcity of and difficulty of obtaining plant nutrition, > (famines were quite common) (1) See Gen.6&7, and sin had even effected > genetics. > > The sin diseased genes of Adam and Eve had mutated enough down through > time to cause serious health defects in the offspring of those closely > related (As we can see today). God, knowing this, and in his effort to > preserve His chosen people, proclaimed incest a sin and commanded the > Isrealites to abstain from it. > > Dan Boskovich Here we are asked to believe that somehow ethical and moral conduct producess genetic changes; changes that are not only inherited, but control our behavior on a daily basis. Claims like this had better be substantiated with physical evidence if anyone is going to take them seriously. It is interesting to note here that Jesus is a descendent of David, who in turn was descended from Lot through this same incestuous relationship with his daughters. If sin WERE transmitted genetically, then God might have found someone more "sin free" amoung the levites. I don't think, however, that he is as interested in the purity of a man's genes as he is in the purity of his heart, which is most likely not guided by genetics or ridiculous theories determined to justify a particular belief system. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "And Frith made the world"
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (03/29/85)
In article <778@trwatf.UUCP> root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) writes: >> The first time that incest is referred to in the Bible is in Leviticus >> chap.20. Here, God is giving Isreal the Law. The Law strictly forbids >> any act of incest. The only other mention of it is in Gen. 19 with Lot >> and his daughters. >> >> By this time in human history, the effects of sin were obvious. Life >> span had drastically dropped, meat eating (1) had been encouraged to >> supplement the scarcity of and difficulty of obtaining plant nutrition, >> (famines were quite common) (1) See Gen.6&7, and sin had even effected >> genetics. >> >> The sin diseased genes of Adam and Eve had mutated enough down through >> time to cause serious health defects in the offspring of those closely >> related (As we can see today). God, knowing this, and in his effort to >> preserve His chosen people, proclaimed incest a sin and commanded the >> Isrealites to abstain from it. >> >> Dan Boskovich > >Here we are asked to believe that somehow ethical and moral conduct >producess genetic changes; changes that are not only inherited, but >control our behavior on a daily basis. Claims like this had better be >substantiated with physical evidence if anyone is going to take them >seriously. You are not asked to believe anything! This is net.religion where we discuss theological positions. If you want physical evidence for every religous belief, you are reading the wrong newsgroup. God said, in Genesis, "In the day that you eat of this fruit, you shall die." This is theology, not science! > >It is interesting to note here that Jesus is a descendent of David, who >in turn was descended from Lot through this same incestuous >relationship with his daughters. If sin WERE transmitted genetically, >then God might have found someone more "sin free" amoung the levites. Genetics are inherited when the egg becomes fertile through the penetration of the sperm. Since Jesus was born of a virgin, there was no such process. Don't ask me how God did it! I don't know! Remember, this is net.religion! If God can create the world and everything in it, I'm sure He can protect Jesus from inheriting the harmful effects of sin. After all, this was the purpose of the virgin birth. In order for Christ to be sinless, He first had to be born without sin. Since the bible teaches that we all inherit sin from Adam, the virgin birth was imperative! If you want scripture references, I will furnish them upon request. I don't have my bible handy! > >I don't think, however, that he is as interested in the purity of a >man's genes as he is in the purity of his heart, which is most likely >not guided by genetics or ridiculous theories determined to justify a >particular belief system. >-- >UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith >ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO You are right! God is interested in the heart! Such is the theme of New Testament. Because Christ who knew NO sin, became sin for us all. I John: If we say that we have no sin, we are liars and deceive ourselves. Beloved, I write these thing to you that you may not sin, but if any man sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. Romans 7: That which I wish to do, I do not; that very thing I hate to do, I do! Oh wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death! Romans 8:1 There is therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. Dan
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (04/03/85)
> >Here we are asked to believe that somehow ethical and moral conduct > >producess genetic changes; changes that are not only inherited, but > >control our behavior on a daily basis. Claims like this had better be > >substantiated with physical evidence if anyone is going to take them > >seriously. > > You are not asked to believe anything! This is net.religion where we > discuss theological positions. If you want physical evidence for every > religous belief, you are reading the wrong newsgroup. Touche'. However, we are in a domain where science and religion overlap. If you're going to hypothesis some physical explanation for sin then it makes sense for you to provide physical proof. Not just a label like, "well sin is transmitted genetically." > God said, in Genesis, "In the day that you eat of this fruit, you shall > die." This is theology, not science! Correct. So why start mucking about with genetics when your domain is belief? If you want a physical explanation for sin being transmitted from the father to the son... then you WILL need more than just a hypothesis because a LOT of devout scientist types will offer up tons of evidence to contradict you. Of course you can believe in what you want to believe, but that doesn't make it right. > >It is interesting to note here that Jesus is a descendent of David, who > >in turn was descended from Lot through this same incestuous > >relationship with his daughters. If sin WERE transmitted genetically, > >then God might have found someone more "sin free" amoung the levites. > > Genetics are inherited when the egg becomes fertile through the > penetration of the sperm. Since Jesus was born of a virgin, there > was no such process. Don't ask me how God did it! I don't know! The point is that Jesus has the sinfull genetic roots of all of us, if you believe that sin is inherited. But Jesus' behavior was far from the sinfull. Ergo, sinfull genes did not determine his destiny and probably have nothing to do with OUR behavior as well. > Remember, this is net.religion! If God can create the world and > everything in it, I'm sure He can protect Jesus from inheriting > the harmful effects of sin. Why hypothesis protection from something you haven't yet shown to exist? > After all, this was the purpose of the virgin birth. In order for > Christ to be sinless, He first had to be born without sin. Since the > bible teaches that we all inherit sin from Adam, the virgin birth was > imperative! If you want scripture references, I will furnish them upon > request. I don't have my bible handy! Wrong! If Jesus had been born of a non-virgin he would have the SAME genes as those of a virgin. I submit that being born of a virgin has noothing to do with wanting to shield Jesus from sinfull genes. It has everything to do with seperating him from the nature of man, yet retaining his identity as both a man and God. He becomes the son of both man and of God and thus both the model and the reconciliation between the two. Note that this is a status all the sons of man shall inherit... But not through our genes. > >I don't think, however, that he is as interested in the purity of a > >man's genes as he is in the purity of his heart, which is most likely > >not guided by genetics or ridiculous theories determined to justify a > >particular belief system. > > You are right! God is interested in the heart! Such is the theme of > New Testament. Because Christ who knew NO sin, became sin for us all. He that sees the truth... hears my voice. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "And he made the stars, too, and the world is one of the stars"
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (04/05/85)
> Perhaps there are people on this net who can supply me with an > answer to my question. > > If man descended from Adam and Eve, where did the generations > after their children come from? Did these early people commit > INCEST? Or, were there other ancestors of man lurking about? As I recall (and I don't have a Bible handy so don't quote me on this), the descendents of Adam and Eve mingled with other humans in nearby villages. In other words, there were already human colonies established elsewhere at the time of Cain and Able. Now don't everyone jump all over me because I CAN'T verify this right now. But this is what I recall. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "And he made the stars, too, and the world is one of the stars"
todd@reed.UUCP (Todd Ellner) (04/05/85)
Wasn't net.origins created (sorry) to accomodate discussions of this sort?
Todd Ellnerjcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (04/06/85)
> > Perhaps there are people on this net who can supply me with an > > answer to my question. > > > > If man descended from Adam and Eve, where did the generations > > after their children come from? Did these early people commit > > INCEST? Or, were there other ancestors of man lurking about? > > As I recall (and I don't have a Bible handy so don't quote me on this), > the descendents of Adam and Eve mingled with other humans in nearby > villages. In other words, there were already human colonies established > elsewhere at the time of Cain and Able. > I've always wondered about this one too. It says that Cain went off and took a wife from some other people. *What* other people ? Were there humans lurking around not made by God (or at least the god that supposedly made Adam and Eve) ? Kinda blows a whole in creationist theory, doesn't it ? -- jcpatilla "'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."
lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (04/08/85)
> > > If man descended from Adam and Eve, where did the generations > > > after their children come from? Did these early people commit > > > INCEST? Or, were there other ancestors of man lurking about? > > > > As I recall (and I don't have a Bible handy so don't quote me on this), > > the descendents of Adam and Eve mingled with other humans in nearby > > villages. In other words, there were already human colonies established > > elsewhere at the time of Cain and Able. > > > I've always wondered about this one too. It says that Cain went > off and took a wife from some other people. *What* other people ? Were > there humans lurking around not made by God (or at least the god that > supposedly made Adam and Eve) ? Kinda blows a whole in creationist theory, > doesn't it ? This is probably not relevant, but I saw a booklet in the humor section at B. Dalton's yesterday concerning someone's cracked science. It was mostly a waste, but there was a section which showed the (more or less) standard evolutionary family tree, with branches for all the genii, and on the facing page a standard family tree with A&E at the top, and their sons below, mated with women with a ? above them, and the author's new "synthesis", with the two figures overlapped, the son's wives being supplied from the evolutionary tree. Maybe he's got something there. -- Lyle McElhaney {hao, stcvax, brl-bmd, nbires, csu-cs} !denelcor!lmc
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (04/16/85)
> > > If man descended from Adam and Eve, where did the generations > > > after their children come from? Did these early people commit > > > INCEST? Or, were there other ancestors of man lurking about? > > I've always wondered about this one too. It says that Cain went > off and took a wife from some other people. *What* other people ? Were > there humans lurking around not made by God (or at least the god that > supposedly made Adam and Eve) ? Kinda blows a whole in creationist theory, > doesn't it ? Sorry to disagree. The Bible ( Genesis ch. 4, v. 16,17 ) states, And Cain went out from before G-D, and he lived in the land of Node, to the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife and she conceived and bore him Chanoch. ( Let's not get into the discussion of what knowing means again ). The Bible does not state where Cain's wife came from, so no theory is proved or disproved. [ The quotes are translations of the original hebrew ]. Eliyahu Teitz.