Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WWSD · 03-07-2003, 04:23 PM

Whether or not Lot is culpable for his incestous ways doesn't seem to matter to YHWH.

Here are some more interesting references to incestous marriages.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.co...ra/incest.html

livius drusus · 03-07-2003, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spurly
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.

I see no explicit condemnation of incest as a moral sin in the story of Lot and his daughters (see King James text below). Just because they had to get him so drunk he couldn't tell who they were (which brings up a whole other moral issue of a "righteous man" engaging in drunken, promiscuous sex with unknown harlots not once but twice in a row) doesn't imply that a moral law of God's was violated. Maybe his daughters just weren't Lot's type, hence the deploying of the mead goggles. God himself is downright noncommital in Genesis 19:30-38, and there are no negative repercussions whatsoever on the girls, daddy dearest or their incestuous offspring.

Furthermore, Lot's daughters clearly believed God had killed everyone in the world (again) and therefore felt compelled to repopulate the world much like Adam and Eve had done. If there is indeed a get out of moral law free card for the original two, then why not for Lot's girls?

Quote:

30: And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
31: And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
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.
34: And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our Father.
35: And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36: Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
37: And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
38: And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

christ-on-a-stick · 03-07-2003, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Maybe his daughters just weren't Lot's type, hence the deploying of the mead goggles.

Hey livius... for some reason that put me into a fit of giggles. Mead goggles... priceless.

Quote:

Furthermore, Lot's daughters clearly believed God had killed everyone in the world (again) and therefore felt compelled to repopulate the world much like Adam and Eve had done. If there is indeed a get out of moral law free card for the original two, then why not for Lot's girls?

Excellent point. Obviously, after the first (apparently) sanctioned instances of incest by Adam & Eve's offspring, when Yahweh then took it upon himself to wipe out the rest of the planet as well save a select few, they had little choice but to propogate however they could. Can they be blamed???

Yahweh seems to be a Bad Planner.

Jobar · 03-07-2003, 08:32 PM

The Ammonites and Moabites were peoples very similar to the Israelites, but in the seventh century BC, when the core of the OT was written, they were enemies and competitors- and the tale of Lot was thus a sort of racial slur, so that the people of Judah could snicker at the drunken and inbred neighbors.

Sort of like what we Georgians do to Alabama.

I learned this neat little factoid in The Bible Unearthed- a book I cannot recommend highly enough to all interested in things biblical.

VivaHedone · 03-08-2003, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Then, once there were enough people to continue the human race without incest

However many people there are, if they allcome from the same ancestors any sexual relations between them is still incest.

Quote:

God put an end to it to keep us from the genetic problems and the family problems that come with incest.

So incest is not immoral, as long as the participants use contraception?

Lobstrosity · 03-08-2003, 06:06 AM

Not wholly on topic, but something that's been bugging me: If we were all spawned by the same two people and there's no evolution, where does all of the genetic diversity of the human race come from? The human mutation rate must be fantastically high, and it's clearly adding information to DNA (though creationists say this is impossible) because today there are black people, asians, polynesians, etc.

I hope spurly realizes that the same genetic problems that arise through inbreeding would be occur and be many, many times worse if all humans came from exactly two individuals. Of course, I guess Spurly's defense will be that God made the first two individuals perfect, so there would be no repercussions.

wade-w · 03-08-2003, 12:54 PM

Let us not forget that in the mythology presented in the bible, there is yet another genetic bottleneck created by the flood. For humanity, that would mean we are all descended from Noah's family, which implies a little more diversity since his sons already had wives, but their children would be stuck with only cousins for potential mates. For other animal species, the only available mates would have been siblings.

And this time, there can be no "genetic perfection" defense.

Glass*Soul · 03-08-2003, 05:08 PM

Marrying one's first counsin is not considered incest in all societies. That lets the survivors of the Great Flood off the hook, I'm afraid. However, that doesn't address the problems posed by such a deplorable lack of genetic diversity, does it.

Another disturbing story regarding incest in the Old Testament surrounds the children of King David. Amnon "fell in love" with his half sister Tamar, each of them children of King David by different wives. She was a virgin. He knew there was little chance of getting her into the sack through a simple seduction. He pretended to be sick and when she came to take care of him, he raped her. As he attacked her, she begged him not to disgrace her in this fashion as King David would surely give her to him to be his wife if he would only ask. He raped her anyway. Afterward, predictably, he hater her and wanted nothing further to do with her. He was killed by Tamar's full brother Absalom two years later in a cold act of revenge. (II Sam 13)

spurly · 03-08-2003, 06:58 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.......

Christ-on-a-stick,

I have been out of town at a Christian conference this weekend and I just returned and found this thread. Sorry it took me so long to reply.

In looking at your list of sins that were "allowed" or "commanded" in the OT, some of them are easy to explain. For example, when God set up Kings over his people Israel he specifically told them not to multiply wives. When Solomon did that, he was sinning. The Bible doesn't hide the ugly part of our sinful nature. Solomon is not praised for this fact, as a matter of fact the Bible tells us that his many wives led to turning his heart away from God - and probably contributed to the division of God's chosen people into Israel and Judah.

Also, Abraham's actions with his wife Sarai are never condoned in Scripture. Instead, they show a lack of his faith in God. Again the Bible does not make attempts to hide the faults of its heroes and heroines. To me, that only adds to the veracity of the Scripture - it doesn't erase the bad parts of human personality but shows how God worked through fallen men and women to bring us back to himself.

As far as the flood and the Israelite slaughters go, both of those fall under the category of the judgments of God. God could not let sin continue to go unchecked forever, so he sent the flood to cleanse his creation from evil. When the Israelites took possession of the Promised Land (I assume these are the Israelite slaughters you are referring to), they were moving into an area where many different gods (idols) were worshipped. Israel was God's tool of judgment on a people who worshipped fertility gods and goddesses, and other assorted gods and goddesses. Why would God tell Israel to wipe them out? God was going to use Israel to bring about his salvation. Because of that Israel had to remain pure if there was going to be any hope for the rest of us. So God didn't want his people polluted by and tempted to worship false gods. So, in a sense, this was a judgment on sin and a protection of God's holy people so that he could accomplish the salvation of the world through them.

As far as slavery goes, I haven't studied Biblical slavery enough to give you an educated response, so I will refrain my fingers for now. As soon as I have one - I will let you know.

I guess one of the points you are trying to make is that God "changes his mind" through time on morality, what is right and what is wrong. To be honest, I don't see that. Maybe I am deluded, but I don't think I am.

This is all I can write fro now. I will write more later.

Kevin

Glass*Soul · 03-08-2003, 07:46 PM

My point in bringing up the story of Abraham and Sarah was that although God was willing to punish the poor dupes who unknowingly took the married Sarah into their beds, he did not indicate in any way that he was against Abraham being married to his half-sister. In fact he blessed their union by making them the mother and father of his chosen people.

In our society, we are much harsher in judging someone who knowingly has sexual relations with his half sister, marries her, and has a child by her than we are against someone who unknowingly commits adultery.

The story of Tamar and Amnon, although shocking, doesn't present quite the same moral dilemma for God. Although it does seem to indicate that Kind David had no qualms against giving his children in marriage to one another, it doesn't directly implicate God as actively condoning this practice as does the story of Abraham and Sarah.

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

03-07-2003, 04:23 PM	#11
WWSD Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Albucrazy, New Mexico Posts: 1,425	Whether or not Lot is culpable for his incestous ways doesn't seem to matter to YHWH. Here are some more interesting references to incestous marriages. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.co...ra/incest.html

03-07-2003, 08:32 PM	#14
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	The Ammonites and Moabites were peoples very similar to the Israelites, but in the seventh century BC, when the core of the OT was written, they were enemies and competitors- and the tale of Lot was thus a sort of racial slur, so that the people of Judah could snicker at the drunken and inbred neighbors. Sort of like what we Georgians do to Alabama. I learned this neat little factoid in The Bible Unearthed- a book I cannot recommend highly enough to all interested in things biblical.

03-08-2003, 06:06 AM	#16
Lobstrosity Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 719	Not wholly on topic, but something that's been bugging me: If we were all spawned by the same two people and there's no evolution, where does all of the genetic diversity of the human race come from? The human mutation rate must be fantastically high, and it's clearly adding information to DNA (though creationists say this is impossible) because today there are black people, asians, polynesians, etc. I hope spurly realizes that the same genetic problems that arise through inbreeding would be occur and be many, many times worse if all humans came from exactly two individuals. Of course, I guess Spurly's defense will be that God made the first two individuals perfect, so there would be no repercussions.

03-08-2003, 12:54 PM	#17
wade-w Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Silver City, New Mexico Posts: 1,872	Let us not forget that in the mythology presented in the bible, there is yet another genetic bottleneck created by the flood. For humanity, that would mean we are all descended from Noah's family, which implies a little more diversity since his sons already had wives, but their children would be stuck with only cousins for potential mates. For other animal species, the only available mates would have been siblings. And this time, there can be no "genetic perfection" defense.

03-08-2003, 05:08 PM	#18
Glass*Soul Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Beneath the Tree of Knowlege of Good and Evil. Posts: 985	Marrying one's first counsin is not considered incest in all societies. That lets the survivors of the Great Flood off the hook, I'm afraid. However, that doesn't address the problems posed by such a deplorable lack of genetic diversity, does it. Another disturbing story regarding incest in the Old Testament surrounds the children of King David. Amnon "fell in love" with his half sister Tamar, each of them children of King David by different wives. She was a virgin. He knew there was little chance of getting her into the sack through a simple seduction. He pretended to be sick and when she came to take care of him, he raped her. As he attacked her, she begged him not to disgrace her in this fashion as King David would surely give her to him to be his wife if he would only ask. He raped her anyway. Afterward, predictably, he hater her and wanted nothing further to do with her. He was killed by Tamar's full brother Absalom two years later in a cold act of revenge. (II Sam 13)

03-08-2003, 07:46 PM	#20
Glass*Soul Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Beneath the Tree of Knowlege of Good and Evil. Posts: 985	My point in bringing up the story of Abraham and Sarah was that although God was willing to punish the poor dupes who unknowingly took the married Sarah into their beds, he did not indicate in any way that he was against Abraham being married to his half-sister. In fact he blessed their union by making them the mother and father of his chosen people. In our society, we are much harsher in judging someone who knowingly has sexual relations with his half sister, marries her, and has a child by her than we are against someone who unknowingly commits adultery. The story of Tamar and Amnon, although shocking, doesn't present quite the same moral dilemma for God. Although it does seem to indicate that Kind David had no qualms against giving his children in marriage to one another, it doesn't directly implicate God as actively condoning this practice as does the story of Abraham and Sarah.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.