Religious Morals Invading Our Secular Life

[Kemosloby]

Obviously Noah is pure fiction.

We will see.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

We will see.

So, let me get this straight... you seem to think that at some point, "God" (or some supernatural agency of some kind) is going to share all the secrets and knowledge of the universe with you. That about right?

 

[sayak83]

We will see.

I already have, you too will see in time.

 

[Kemosloby]

So, let me get this straight... you see to think that at some point, "God" (or some supernatural agency of some kind) is going to share all the secrets and knowledge of the universe with you. That about right?

I was just saying if we are resurrected and meet Jesus we will know the whole story is true. But scripture also says that on the judgement day everything will be laid bare, we will know everything and everything we have done in life will be laid bare and known to all. Which is why some will be resurrected to glory while others resurrected to eternal shame and torment.

 

[Valjean]

Not to mention that some westerners I know, if placed in a survival situation, would probably die of starvation before even thinking of insects as a possible food source. The "icky" reaction is very often culturally driven, is almost never going to be universally applicable, and isn't necessarily helpful.

I do remember finding it a bit odd seeing giant water bugs in the fridge at a local oriental market, being sold as snacks.

 

[Kemosloby]

I already have, you too will see in time.

You have seen it huh? You time travel back to Noah's days and see him building a bridge with the lumber?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I do remember finding it a bit odd seeing giant water bugs in the fridge at a local oriental market, sold as snacks.

I do have to wonder if such fare would ever appear "appealing" to me. I wouldn't be one to die before I accepted eating insects... far from it. But I can certainly be counted among the victims of the western mentality in this area currently.

 

[Father Heathen]

I thought is more about determining what is legal.

Nevertheless, if you take the position that moral questions should be completely determined within a framework of reductive consequentialist reasoning then you're on the path to justifying pretty much anything and everything.

No, not really. Weighing things by their effects and consequences provide pretty solid, strait forward criteria.

From homosexuality (today) to incest to pederasty to bestiality to necrophilia. Depravity isn't a consequence, it's an innate quality of these things because these things are depraved by nature; no matter how much the loud voices in this culture are hellbent on denying that. There is a reason all these things have always been condemned near universally. There a reason they make us sick.

What an asinine analogy. Animals, children, and the dead cannot give informed consent.

And the reason humans are sickened by incest is precisely because it is sick. Should an adult go to jail for consensual sex? No, but I maintain that any attempt to justify that depravity with consequentialism is always slimy.

I wasn't "justifying" incest. In fact I imagine that such relationships are rather psychologically unhealthy. What I was saying was that what goes on in the privacy of other people's bedrooms (provided it doesn't victimize or violate the rights of others) shouldn't be my nor anyone else's business.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Is it always good?

Leviticus is pretty clear about whom a person (mainly males) should not have sexual relations with. Everybody from one's mother, to a sister, to a daughter, to a granddaughter, or an aunt is off limits (no mention is made of first cousins).

Leviticus 18:6-7 “You must never have sexual relations with a close relative, for I am the LORD. “Do not violate your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; you must not have sexual relations with her.

Leviticus 18:8-10 “Do not have sexual relations with your sister or half sister, whether she is your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born into your household or someone else’s. “Do not have sexual relations with your granddaughter, whether she is your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, for this would violate yourself.

Leviticus 18:11-17 “Do not have sexual relations with your stepsister, the daughter of any of your father’s wives, for she is your sister. “Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister, for she is your father’s close relative. “Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s close relative. “Do not violate your uncle, your father’s brother, by having sexual relations with his wife, for she is your aunt.

Leviticus 20:19-21 “Do not have sexual relations with your aunt, whether your mother’s sister or your father’s sister. This would dishonor a close relative. Both parties are guilty and will be punished for their sin. “If a man has sex with his uncle’s wife, he has violated his uncle. Both the man and woman will be punished for their sin, and they will die childless.
​

Although god does make exceptions.

Genesis 19:13, 35
So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father. So they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him,
​

Nothing is said to have befallen any of the three for their incest; both daughters became pregnant.


Interestingly, no rational for these prohibitions is given other than how such relationships "violates" oneself or others.

"this would violate yourself."
"Do not violate your father."
"this would violate your brother."​

or

it "would be a wicked act"​

Why these would violate oneself or others is not explained, nor is it explained why it would be a wicked act. In short then, Biblical incest is forbidden and evidently a sin for no apparent reason other than god simply doesn't like it and want it, which for Christians is understandably good enough.

However, such prohibition has found its way into secular law in the USA, where in some states it's violation can result in life imprisonment (Idaho).

I'm sure many Christians have no problem with these Biblical prohibitions being adopted into secular life, and may even defend them. "The Bible says it's a sin to have sex with one's sister, which is quite reasonable, so it should be good enough for everyone else."
But is this truly fair?

Why shouldn't two consenting adults be able to do whatever they wish with each other no matter who those adult are, as long as no one is hurt? Of course, because of the possibility of genetic defects arising in a child who's the product of such a sexual relationship, one would have to insure pregnancy never occurs. And, one could even argue that god knew of this possibility all along, which is why he didn't want people committing incest; however, this is never even hinted at in the Bible. And for people today the wide availability of various birth control measures makes god's possible concern a moot issue.

Thoughts?

.

How can you critique the Bible when you seem to have not read it?

Although god does make exceptions [Lot].

The most cursory reading of the scriptures show that Lot's family was deceived, starting with an erroneous perception (we're the only people left on Earth, so let's get dad drunk and take his seed) and that the descendants of Lot were enemies of the Jews for millennia!

Read the Bible! And pray when you read it!

 

[Nakosis]

Thoughts?

.

I suspect genetics plays a role.

Evolving a Mechanism to Avoid Sex with Siblings

Morals are based IMO on feelings. Genetics I suspect has quite of bit of influence on your feelings.

The biblical authors were most likely relying on their personal feelings. Since it being genetic based it was likely accepted as a moral absolute among the tribe.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It's not possible to ensure pregnancy never occurs, people aren't responsible.

In addition to surgical methods, obviously gay, lesbian, and bisexuals with a same-sex partner will not be getting pregnant anytime soon.
And while it's laudable to try and prevent deformity due to incest, I'd like to point out that smoking and drinking while pregnant is not illegal and poses a high risk of deformity and infant mortality. Same with not taking prenatal vitamins and supplements.
Further we do not prevent the coupling of any two people with serious illnesses that can be passed on, such as HIV, rare cancers, or predispositions to a number of ailments.

At taxpayers expense, we could make a system of 'incest licencing' for certified post-menopausal woman.

Or you could just modify existing law to allow exemptions like we do in many states for a number of subjects. Licensing would prevent more infractions, sure, but so would licensing to have children full stop and that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Still doesn't fix the other problems due to imbalance of power, etc

Imbalance of power considerations are super useful for preventing abusive coercion, but they aren't set in stone and they don't always apply. For example, an estranged uncle you've never met until adulthood has no power over you (than any other adult in any case). Similarly, there's no reason to assume the power dynamic is inequitable between two siblings of close age (Which is also why we have exemptions for, say, I 17 and 18 year old having sex and not calling it statutory rape.)

 

[Skwim]

Religious morals are not supposed to be separate from secular life.

They are instead supposed to strive to be good enough to be acceptable for secular life.

And when they fail to be good enough

.​

 

[Skwim]

Sex with family members is easily coerced or worse forced and then denied or protected by the family. The victims and there are victims today with it being a crime in some states, would be hard to find and help. In an effort to save 1 child or 1 rape victim even without religion these acts would be discouraged and some criminal violations enforced by any logical people.

And your point is?

.

 

[MonkeyFire]

You don't need faith to figure this one out.

 

[Skwim]

How can you critique the Bible when you seem to have not read it?

Although god does make exceptions [Lot].

The most cursory reading of the scriptures show that Lot's family was deceived, starting with an erroneous perception (we're the only people left on Earth, so let's get dad drunk and take his seed) and that the descendants of Lot were enemies of the Jews for millennia!

Why would they think this when the angels told Lot "This city will be punished, so take your wife and your two daughters who are still with you and leave this place. Then you will not be destroyed with the city.” (Genesis 19:15)
Do you not read your Bible anymore?

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not to mention that some westerners I know, if placed in a survival situation, would probably die of starvation before even thinking of insects as a possible food source. The "icky" reaction is very often culturally driven, is almost never going to be universally applicable, and isn't necessarily helpful.

The insect eating is such a great counter argument to policing morality based on "ick" factor I'm jealous I didn't think of it

I do have to wonder if such fare would ever appear "appealing" to me. I wouldn't be one to die before I accepted eating insects... far from it. But I can certainly be counted among the victims of the western mentality in this area currently.

One of my anthropology told the class he used to be a vegetarian until he did field work in Mexico, and started eating insects. He seemed to be sold on the idea that anyone can learn to like them, once you get past the initial ick factor. And eating insects has been such a part of human culture for so long, and presently even, that I'm inclined to agree.

Further we do not prevent the coupling of any two people with serious illnesses that can be passed on, such as HIV, rare cancers, or predispositions to a number of ailments.

It's for those reasons I think we should promote a "self eugenics" type of thing were people with various genetic disorders and such (or are carriers) that are either fatal and/or severely impede on quality of life should consider the life of any potential child, the future of humanity, and consider if it would be better if they didn't reproduce. We have too high of a population as it is, and plenty of kids who need a home anyways.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You don't need faith to figure this one out.

To figure out that god wants you to blow your dad, boink your sister, and take granny all the way home?

 

[bobhikes]

And your point is?

.

Religious morals are not invading secular life but Rational laws exist concerning sexual encounters.

 

[LuisDantas]

And when they fail to be good enough

That happens plenty often enough, of course. And when that happens, it falls to the adherents to improve on them and to everyone to reject them until they earn reconsideration.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Religious Morals Invading Our Secular Life. Is it always good?


.

It's never good.

Religion should not be invading any life. It should play no role in any life into which it is not invited.