Freethought & Rationalism Archive

christ-on-a-stick · 03-07-2003, 12:15 PM

Hi Kevin,

I thought I'd start a new thread for us on this to avoid sidetracking the "Why Gay People Are Screwed" thread any further.

In our discussion about what would be categorized as ritual law vs. moral law, I asked:

Quote:

Kevin, how exactly - using what objective criteria - has it been decided which laws are "ritual" and which laws are "moral"?

You replied (in part - please let me know if you are opposed to my not posting your whole reply):

Quote:

Yet a third way to see which laws are moral laws is to look and see what principles and laws were in effect before the Mosaic covenant was put into effect (i.e., in the book of Genesis). There were moral laws that GOd expected his people to abide by there that superseded the Mosaic covenant instituted in Exodus.

To which I replied,

Quote:

Do you consider incest to be a sin? I think that most Christians today do, and people in NT and a large portion of OT times would have as well. However, in Genesis, it seems clear that the only way for Adam & Eve's offspring to.. multiply would have been, well, through incest.
Is incest a sin or not? If so, why wasn't it originally (in Genesis)? Would this not fall under the "moral law" category?

Your reply:

Quote:

Yes, the prohibition against incest would fall under the category of the moral law and not the ritual law. Yet if the Genesis story is correct, that in the beginning there were only two people, then in order to carry out God's command to multiply and fill the earth, incest would have had to happen at the beginning.

I guess God could have created more people than just two at the beginning, but as far as we know he didn't, so I will not offer that as a way out like some people would.

The only reason I can think of from this side of the fence is that in the beginning God protected the human race by keeping the problems that come about from incest and inbreeding from affecting the rest of the human race.

How did he do this? I don't know. But if the Biblical story is correct, within Adam and Eve was the genetic structure for the entire human race - all possibilities were present in the first two creatures. Maybe, (and this is only conjecture and I might change my answer tomorrow after thinking about it more) since Adam and Eve were so close to the time of perfection in the garden of Eden, when they didn't have the genetic problems that people would have further down the human chain.

Then, once there were enough people to continue the human race without incest, God put an end to it to keep us from the genetic problems and the family problems that come with incest.

How early did this happen. At least by the time of Abraham and Lot. Lot was a righteous man and he knew incest was wrong. To get him to participate, his daughters had to get him drunk. It was at least considered a moral sin by Genesis 19.

WHEW!!! Ok, now that we're up-to-speed I will address your most recent post.

The above explanation seems to present a major problem to the concept of objective morality and God being "the same yesterday, today and forever". Many Christians are fond of saying that certain things the secular world accepts (more) today, like sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, etc. are "still wrong" because although society's moral values change over time, "God's laws don't change".

However, as illustrated by my incest point, the OT seems rife with "exceptions" to God's supposedly unchanging moral law, even leaving the alleged "ritual law" out of it. Is incest moral, or immoral? What about having multiple wives - Solomon was blessed by God and had scores of wives. If, as many Christians say, marriage (and sex within it) is "ordained by God" to be a holy union between one man and one woman, a moral issue, not a ritual/cultural one, then why was Solomon not condemned for this?

One more - why was Lot considered righteous by God when he turned out his daughters into the street to be raped by an angry mob??? Would you consider a man today who did the same thing to be "righteous"? Would you not consider this a heinous thing for a father to do, and expect that a loving and God-fearing father would rather fight to the death than willingly give his children over to be abused? Why would God have not expected a "righteous" man to not only refuse to give the angels up to the angry mob but also refuse his daughters, asking for God's protection?

I think you can see what the main gist of my questioning is. The above examples contradict the concept of God's morality being absolute and unchanging. You give a possible explanation for "why" incest might not have been a "bad thing" for Adam & Eve, genetically speaking etc., but this does not explain the fact that it appears to be a concrete example of "moral laws" being changeable.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Glass*Soul · 03-07-2003, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Then, once there were enough people to continue the human race without incest, God put an end to it to keep us from the genetic problems and the family problems that come with incest.

How early did this happen. At least by the time of Abraham and Lot.

I might mention here that Abraham's wife was his half-sister, the daughter of his father but not of his mother. (Gen 20:12) He exploited this fact to his advantage when he wanted to use the beautiful Sarah to make alliances with powerful leaders of whom he was afraid. He would tell the half lie, "She is my sister," and allow them to have sex with her. God then supposedly punished (or threatened to punish) the persons to whom Abraham gave his wife/sister in this fashion... not Abraham.

That creates quite a moral delimma, doesn't it.

christ-on-a-stick · 03-07-2003, 02:28 PM

Good point, Glass*Soul!!!

That adds one to my "master list" (not exhaustive yet, just a start!) of things that are considered sins now but were allowed and in some cases *commanded* in the OT:

* Incest (Adam & Eve's offspring)
* Multiple wives (Solomon among others)
* Killing babies (The Flood, the Israelite's slaughters, Egypt)
* Child abuse (giving your daughters to a mob to be raped)
* Slavery
* Pimping - looks like that's essentially what Abraham did.

Unchanging moral laws? The above are some things that make me go hmmmmm.......

WWSD · 03-07-2003, 03:19 PM

christ,

Don't forget to add Gen 19:30-36 where Lot impregnates his daughters!!

christ-on-a-stick · 03-07-2003, 03:23 PM

WWSD,

GOOD POINT!!!!! Oh those family values...

Debbie T · 03-07-2003, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by christ-on-a-stick
Good point, Glass*Soul!!!

That adds one to my "master list" (not exhaustive yet, just a start!) of things that are considered sins now but were allowed and in some cases *commanded* in the OT:

* Incest (Adam & Eve's offspring)
* Multiple wives (Solomon among others)
* Killing babies (The Flood, the Israelite's slaughters, Egypt)
* Child abuse (giving your daughters to a mob to be raped)
* Slavery
* Pimping - looks like that's essentially what Abraham did.

Unchanging moral laws? The above are some things that make me go hmmmmm.......

How about adding that after the destruction of the two cities Lot and his daughters had sex. Lot I suppose could fall back on the excuse that his daughters got him drunk and had their way with him.

Talk about a dysfunctional family!

Edit: Ooops WWSD just saw your post and you beat me to it.

Debbie T · 03-07-2003, 03:42 PM

How about this one. A rapist rapes a virgin and is caught. He then has to pay the father for the girl and take her for a wife.

I wonder how many women in the OT had to marry their rapists?

Plus this:
Exocus 22:16
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
22:17
If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

christ-on-a-stick · 03-07-2003, 03:45 PM

Hi DebbieT,

There's currently a discussion on this in MF&P - "Biblical Rape". Seems the theists (Old Man in particular) are mighty flexible judging from the awesome display of gymnastics in "explaining away" that nasty little bit.

Debbie T · 03-07-2003, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by christ-on-a-stick
Hi DebbieT,

There's currently a discussion on this in MF&P - "Biblical Rape". Seems the theists (Old Man in particular) are mighty flexible judging from the awesome display of gymnastics in "explaining away" that nasty little bit.

Thanks I will check it out. Yes there are many verses in the old t that takes huge mental gymnastics to make acceptable.

christ-on-a-stick · 03-07-2003, 03:53 PM

The funniest thing to me about the Lot-impregnating-his-daughters story is this part:

(Genesis 19:33): And they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

1. How exactly did the "make" him drink wine??? Did one of them hold him down while the other poured it down his gullet?

2. Even curiouser - exactly how was he able to get/maintain an erection and come to ejaculation (necessary for impregnation after all!!!) without knowing it??? As far as I know, men who are passed out stone-cold-drunk aren't physically capable of having sex without their knowledge.

But I guess they had to write it that way to make him the "innocent party".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-07-2003, 02:28 PM	#3
christ-on-a-stick Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Durango, Colorado Posts: 7,116	Good point, GlassSoul!!! That adds one to my "master list" (not exhaustive yet, just a start!) of things that are considered sins now but were allowed and in some cases commanded* in the OT: * Incest (Adam & Eve's offspring) * Multiple wives (Solomon among others) * Killing babies (The Flood, the Israelite's slaughters, Egypt) * Child abuse (giving your daughters to a mob to be raped) * Slavery * Pimping - looks like that's essentially what Abraham did. Unchanging moral laws? The above are some things that make me go hmmmmm.......

03-07-2003, 03:19 PM	#4
WWSD Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Albucrazy, New Mexico Posts: 1,425	christ, Don't forget to add Gen 19:30-36 where Lot impregnates his daughters!!

03-07-2003, 03:23 PM	#5
christ-on-a-stick Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Durango, Colorado Posts: 7,116	WWSD, GOOD POINT!!!!! Oh those family values...

03-07-2003, 03:42 PM	#7
Debbie T Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Washington the state Posts: 406	How about this one. A rapist rapes a virgin and is caught. He then has to pay the father for the girl and take her for a wife. I wonder how many women in the OT had to marry their rapists? Plus this: Exocus 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 22:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

03-07-2003, 03:45 PM	#8
christ-on-a-stick Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Durango, Colorado Posts: 7,116	Hi DebbieT, There's currently a discussion on this in MF&P - "Biblical Rape". Seems the theists (Old Man in particular) are mighty flexible judging from the awesome display of gymnastics in "explaining away" that nasty little bit.

03-07-2003, 03:53 PM	#10
christ-on-a-stick Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Durango, Colorado Posts: 7,116	The funniest thing to me about the Lot-impregnating-his-daughters story is this part: (Genesis 19:33): And they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 1. How exactly did the "make" him drink wine??? Did one of them hold him down while the other poured it down his gullet? 2. Even curiouser - exactly how was he able to get/maintain an erection and come to ejaculation (necessary for impregnation after all!!!) without knowing it??? As far as I know, men who are passed out stone-cold-drunk aren't physically capable of having sex without their knowledge. But I guess they had to write it that way to make him the "innocent party".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.