Should incest be banned?

[Tiberius]

There is probably some food for thought there.

I'm glad you think so.

off topic comment coming up: (Matthew 16:16 is the refutation I would use for your shellfish example if you are interested)

Huh? Are you sure that's the right passage?

Matthew 16:16

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.​

Sorry, but I don't see what that has to do with it.

 

[ChristineES]

I'm glad you think so.



Huh? Are you sure that's the right passage?

Matthew 16:16

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.​

Sorry, but I don't see what that has to do with it.

Hey, you're right! I looked it up on my e-sword (electronic bible) to make sure. I looked up the same chapter and verse in the other gospels and I didn't come up with shellfish.

 

[Protester]

Just as for bestiality I do not think the law WILL be changed, but I think it SHOULD be changed - for the same reasons I have stated in the other thread; if there is no victim, there is no crime. This IS something that society should take into account, rather than merely reinforcing taboo for the sake of it.


I agree completely which is why I said 'may'; I was attempting to give as generous a response to my interpretation of the potential arguments against incest as is possible.

I agree, which is why I stress the 'significant history of sustained interbreeding (over generations)' in simple fact, the biological case against incest is VERY shaky, it is a case of people stressing the potential negatives as much as possible as a means of justifying their own perspective.

Well, with inbreeding, you might get people with floppy ears and less intelligence than you would from a more varied background of ancestors. How Did Wolves Become Dogs? the idea of, victimless crimes Is certainly not a new one, but these crimes can lead to even worse results. It is even part of the 10 Commandments that one of them calls a type of thinking not to be done let alone acting upon it-- Why is "You shall not covet" in the Ten Commandments? This little monograph explains why some "victimless" thoughts and actions are condemned.

I would suppose, someone has already brought up the question, http://www.gotquestions.org/incest-in-the-Bible.html and that short, little monograph does an adequate job of explaining that also.

 

[Protester]

Just as for bestiality I do not think the law WILL be changed, but I think it SHOULD be changed - for the same reasons I have stated in the other thread; if there is no victim, there is no crime. This IS something that society should take into account, rather than merely reinforcing taboo for the sake of it.


I agree completely which is why I said 'may'; I was attempting to give as generous a response to my interpretation of the potential arguments against incest as is possible.

I agree, which is why I stress the 'significant history of sustained interbreeding (over generations)' in simple fact, the biological case against incest is VERY shaky, it is a case of people stressing the potential negatives as much as possible as a means of justifying their own perspective.

Well, with inbreeding, you might get people with floppy ears and less intelligence than you would from a more varied background of ancestors. How Did Wolves Become Dogs? the idea of, victimless crimes Is certainly not a new one, but these crimes can lead to even worse results. It is even part of the 10 Commandments that one of them calls a type of thinking not to be done let alone acting upon it-- Why is "You shall not covet" in the Ten Commandments? This little monograph explains why some "victimless" thoughts and actions are condemned.

I would suppose, someone has already brought up the question, Why Did God Allow Incest in the Bible? and that short, little monograph does an adequate job of explaining that also.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, with inbreeding, you might get people with floppy ears and less intelligence than you would from a more varied background of ancestors. How Did Wolves Become Dogs? the idea of, victimless crimes Is certainly not a new one, but these crimes can lead to even worse results. It is even part of the 10 Commandments that one of them calls a type of thinking not to be done let alone acting upon it-- Why is "You shall not covet" in the Ten Commandments? This little monograph explains why some "victimless" thoughts and actions are condemned.

I would suppose, someone has already brought up the question, Why did God allow incest in the Bible? and that short, little monograph does an adequate job of explaining that also.

You do realise that any biological problems due to inbreeding don't appear for a few generations at least, yes? And it applies only in cases where the union produces children.

 

[nnmartin]

Given you said that to make up your own interpretation would be fueling your own ego, I was wondering whose ego you were fueling.
I.E. whose interpretation you use.

I'd use the interpretation of one of the various churches or standard theological institutes which best fiitted my own outlook.

That is not to say I would just be making it up though.

It is more a question of give and take.

ie: I'd follow a theological system of my choosing yet would have to give back by following some of the general codes that my ego would be trying to reject (such as being selfish, corrupt and greedy for instance)

 

[nnmartin]

lol, I love this. An authority on the Bible. A book that depends on people's interpretation. So an authority on the Bible would be someone who's opinion is more important than yours, despite the fact that there's nothing to show that their opinion is more important.

I would rate the opinion of a 2000 year old church higher than my own for sure, yes.

Ok, some churches are far more recent than that but most are a lot older than myself and contain the amalgamated opinions of many people.

So then you agree that the law does not always accurately represent the people. For example, the law says that 14 year olds are not mature enough to have sex, hence it is illegal for them to do so, but you agree with me that some 14 year olds are mature enough.

There will always be aspects of most laws that some people disagree with - however , someone has to make the decision over what is acceptable or not in the eyes of the law. Otherwise everyone would just sit on the fence.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, and for the greater good it is deemed that 16 is to be the legal age.

Yes, I agree that some 14 year olds may be mature enough but I would say that they would be in the minority.

 

[nnmartin]

Huh? Are you sure that's the right passage?

Matthew 16:16

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.​

Sorry, but I don't see what that has to do with it.

oops, my mistake .........I meant Luke 16:16 , which reads -

"Until John the Baptist, the law of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides. But now the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is eager to get in'


so this is taken to mean that with the coming of Jesus all the old Judaic laws of men were passed over to be superseded by the New Word of Christ. Hence, the eating of shellfish is no longer of concern.

 

[nnmartin]

However the OT laws relating to morality as ordained by God are still relevant.

This obviously includes the prohibition of incest.

 

[Tiberius]

I would rate the opinion of a 2000 year old church higher than my own for sure, yes.

Actually, you are holding the views of people 2000 years ago as higher than your own.

There will always be aspects of most laws that some people disagree with - however , someone has to make the decision over what is acceptable or not in the eyes of the law. Otherwise everyone would just sit on the fence.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, and for the greater good it is deemed that 16 is to be the legal age.

Yes, I agree that some 14 year olds may be mature enough but I would say that they would be in the minority.

So if you found out that one of these emotionally mature 14 year olds had had sex, would you dob them in? Assume that you can prove that they had sex, and they would be guaranteed to be found guilty of underage sex. But you also knew for a fact that they were emotionally mature enough to have sex.

 

[Tiberius]

oops, my mistake .........I meant Luke 16:16 , which reads -

"Until John the Baptist, the law of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides. But now the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is eager to get in'


so this is taken to mean that with the coming of Jesus all the old Judaic laws of men were passed over to be superseded by the New Word of Christ. Hence, the eating of shellfish is no longer of concern.

However the OT laws relating to morality as ordained by God are still relevant.

This obviously includes the prohibition of incest.

So you say the old laws were superseded, but then you say that some still apply.

How have you determined which still apply and which don't?

BTW, if incest is so bad, how is it that Lot could get both his daughters pregnant (as in Genesis 19:32-36) and still be considered a just and righteous man by God?

 

[nnmartin]

ok, well these questions again have fairly standard theological explanations.

anyway, I have started a thread in the main Religious Debates section titled:

'Interpreting the Bible - who decides the meaning?'

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2779546-post1.html

let's discuss it there

 

[nnmartin]

So if you found out that one of these emotionally mature 14 year olds had had sex, would you dob them in? Assume that you can prove that they had sex, and they would be guaranteed to be found guilty of underage sex. But you also knew for a fact that they were emotionally mature enough to have sex.

so back to the topic......

I wouldn't dob anyone in, no - but that is a separate topic really.

What I would say to this in general though , as before, is that a rule is needed to set the bar.

It would be impossible to deal with everyone in a country on a case by case basis.

 

[Tiberius]

What I would say to this in general though , as before, is that a rule is needed to set the bar.

The rules are intended to protect us from harm, yes?

 

[McBell]

I'd use the interpretation of one of the various churches or standard theological institutes which best fiitted my own outlook.

That is not to say I would just be making it up though.

It is more a question of give and take.

ie: I'd follow a theological system of my choosing yet would have to give back by following some of the general codes that my ego would be trying to reject (such as being selfish, corrupt and greedy for instance)

So you are saying that instead of making it up for yourself, you hunt for the one that fits yours anyway?

How is that any different other than you can say YOU did not make up your own interpretation?

 

[nnmartin]

because it would be impossible to find a church or Christian code that exactly fits you as a person. This would be the same with any religion or spiritual movement for that matter.

No one is born with the correct behaviour pattern to fully embrace the Word of the Lord - some compromise and learning is required here to become at one with the Light.

The same applies to how a child may need to be corrected in order to become a humanist or atheist.

 

[nnmartin]

The rules are intended to protect us from harm, yes?

In the case you are mentioning then the rules are there to protect the emotionally young from harm, either direct or indirect , subjective or objective.

This can also apply to the young of mind, slow of mind or even wayward of mind.

 

[Duck]

If two adults are consenting to sex, that's all that matters in my book. An exception to this I grant is for individuals who lack sufficient agency to be consenting in an informed fashion (e.g. minors, comatose/unconscious, mentally retarded).

I tend to agree, and personally that is my major hangup with a number of sexually active relationships that human beings enter. My primary (aside from my personal ick, I mean, my siblings and parents -- not attractive to me, a couple of cousins, not too bad) objection to incestuous relationships is the consent issue. The normal power dynamics found in a familial relationship (parent-child, older-younger sibling, grandparent-grandchild, aunt/uncle-niece/nephew) lead me to question whether consent can be truly given, even in adulthood. As for relationships when one partner is under the age of legal consent, well, that has its own legal category regulating it and should remain illegal in my mind, regardless of other issues (incest or not).

For me the morality of a sexually active relationship really boils down to consent - can ALL parties give informed, sober, legal consent? (IOW for those people that think this position supports ******* the family dog - could all of the people involved sign a mortgage contract (or some other contract)? If NOT legally capable, guess what - there is no consent and the relationship is immoral at the least, and probably ought to be illegal)

 

[Tiberius]

In the case you are mentioning then the rules are there to protect the emotionally young from harm, either direct or indirect , subjective or objective.

This can also apply to the young of mind, slow of mind or even wayward of mind.

Do you think it is appropriate for laws to be made which prohibit something which causes no harm?

 

[McBell]

because it would be impossible to find a church or Christian code that exactly fits you as a person. This would be the same with any religion or spiritual movement for that matter.

No one is born with the correct behaviour pattern to fully embrace the Word of the Lord - some compromise and learning is required here to become at one with the Light.

The same applies to how a child may need to be corrected in order to become a humanist or atheist.

You did not answer either question