• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Religious Morals Invading Our Secular Life

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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?

.
I haven't read the thread. Hopefully others have pointed out some of the below.

Prohibitions against incest with a first-degree relative are universal: Laws regarding incest - Wikipedia I can't think of any country that doesn't forbid sexual activity or marriage between first-degree relatives. Thus, it seems to be a mischaracterization to claim that such laws are a matter of “religious morals invading our secular life.” Incest prohibitions are obviously not something peculiar to countries with a Judeo-Christian heritage.

It has long been argued by many competent people that the incest taboo is innate. It makes evolutionary sense to avoid first-degree mating as the offspring concentrate genetic flaws. A Scientific American article, "Evolving a Mechanism to Avoid Sex with Siblings" notes:

Given the deleterious genetic impacts of offspring from such mating, some researchers have suggested that there may be an evolved mechanism designed to prevent that from occurring. And now evolutionary psychologist Debra Lieberman of the University of Hawaii–Honolulu believes she may have elicited some of its functions from this simple questionnaire.

Many animals show such "kin radar." By mixing siblings in a litter, for example, scientists have shown that animals that grow up together appear to avoid mating, whether genetically related or not, largely based on recognizing specific smells.​

Evolving a Mechanism to Avoid Sex with Siblings
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I haven't read the thread. Hopefully others have pointed out some of the below.

Prohibitions against incest with a first-degree relative are universal: Laws regarding incest - Wikipedia I can't think of any country that doesn't forbid sexual activity or marriage between first-degree relatives. Thus, it seems to be a mischaracterization to claim that such laws are a matter of “religious morals invading our secular life.” Incest prohibitions are obviously not something peculiar to countries with a Judeo-Christian heritage.

It has long been argued by many competent people that the incest taboo is innate. It makes evolutionary sense to avoid first-degree mating as the offspring concentrate genetic flaws. A Scientific American article, "Evolving a Mechanism to Avoid Sex with Siblings" notes:

Given the deleterious genetic impacts of offspring from such mating, some researchers have suggested that there may be an evolved mechanism designed to prevent that from occurring. And now evolutionary psychologist Debra Lieberman of the University of Hawaii–Honolulu believes she may have elicited some of its functions from this simple questionnaire.

Many animals show such "kin radar." By mixing siblings in a litter, for example, scientists have shown that animals that grow up together appear to avoid mating, whether genetically related or not, largely based on recognizing specific smells.​

Evolving a Mechanism to Avoid Sex with Siblings
The implications of this finding on sexual morality will be ignored by those who are promoting ethics of a different kind or in general attacking religion in cases where morality and evolution coincide.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The implications of this finding on sexual morality will be ignored by those who are promoting ethics of a different kind or in general attacking religion in cases where morality and evolution coincide.
Yes, facts don't matter to most people. The incest taboo is universal among humans, amoung countries, and has obviously increased our genetic fitness. There is no rational reason to complain about it. The fact that Biblical scriptures forbid incest is not a rational reason to complain about it or to mischaracterize it as something peculiarly Judeo-Christian.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Religious morals haven't invaded my secular life.

Perhaps because you've so tightly tied your secular life to your religious precepts?

.
One of the better aspects of the modern world is religionists adopting secular humanist values and acting like their religion always taught that, mainly by employing the "No True Scotsman " fallacy.
Not always, but it happens a lot.
Slavery is now opposed and representative government is supported by many Christians, Scripture notwithstanding.
Tom
 
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.)

Were it legal, you could also have issues of intra-family grooming, then there are issues with very emotionally immature people of those with learning difficulties.

There might be cases where potential prosecutions for incest are deemed not in the public interest, but i see no reason to legalise it which makes abusive incest much harder to prevent.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Prohibitions against incest with a first-degree relative are universal: Laws regarding incest - Wikipedia I can't think of any country that doesn't forbid sexual activity or marriage between first-degree relatives. Thus, it seems to be a mischaracterization to claim that such laws are a matter of “religious morals invading our secular life.” Incest prohibitions are obviously not something peculiar to countries with a Judeo-Christian heritage.
While it's true that pretty much every culture has had some incest taboo, it's also true that is where the commonality begins and ends. From there you have to ask each culture what specifically they consider incest. In this regard, it's similar to how pretty much every culture has had some concept of marriage/formal pairings, but from there on there similarities are scant. Even from your link:
Laws regarding incest (i.e. sexual activity between family members or close relatives) vary considerably between jurisdictions, and depend on the type of sexual activity and the nature of the family relationship of the parties involved, as well as the age and sex of the parties. Besides legal prohibitions, at least some forms of incest are also socially taboo or frowned upon in most cultures around the world.
And looking further, a lot of places it seems do not have laws against incest, even in the West, with a good number only having legal prohibitions against incest where they already have laws baring the same behavior: An adult having sex with a child. A good number of places in the contemporary world seem to give no legal cares as long as it's between/among consenting adults. And I suspect, though today strongly taboo, most of us probably have some first-cousin incest in our own families only a few generations back (if that long), and during that time nothing was thought of it.

Many animals show such "kin radar." By mixing siblings in a litter, for example, scientists have shown that animals that grow up together appear to avoid mating, whether genetically related or not, largely based on recognizing specific smells.
There are plenty of examples to the contrary. Farming, for example, often depends on having animals that grew up together reproducing.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
You can find Christians opposing slavery based on scripture as early as the 3rd C.
And you will find Christians supporting slavery based on Scripture well into the 19th century.
Better Scripture, I might add.

But yes, I recognize that Christians have been retrofitting their personal beliefs into Scripture for as long as there have been Christians.
It has, however, gotten even better in the post-Enlightenment era.
Tom
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
So why have you let religious morals into your entirely secular life? Why not just ignore them?
Because I'm not stupid. Just because some good morals may have come out of religion isn't reason enough to dump them. And, just because some religious morals happen to coincide with good, secular morals isn't reason enough to dump them. Good is good, but bad isn't good. The thing is to tell them apart and be willing to discard the bad regardless of where it comes from.


Two teachers, one in England and the other in the USA, having sex with16 year-old students is evidence that " Many countries prohibit it even for students over the age of consent."
You have to be kidding!

tenor.gif

.

.
 
But yes, I recognize that Christians have been retrofitting their personal beliefs into Scripture for as long as there have been Christians.
It has, however, gotten even better in the post-Enlightenment era.

Seems very anachronistic to apply modern mindsets to people in the 3rd C.

While people today may well try to reconcile modern ethics to ancient scriptures, back then people were starting with the scriptures and reasoning from them.

Also modern post-religious ethics didn't magically appear out of a vacuum, they evolved gradually from religious ethics. Secular Humanism is the child of Christianity (and to a lesser extent Judaism) and Greek philosophy which is why it is predominantly limited to the West.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
While it's true that pretty much every culture has had some incest taboo, it's also true that is where the commonality begins and ends. From there you have to ask each culture what specifically they consider incest. In this regard, it's similar to how pretty much every culture has had some concept of marriage/formal pairings, but from there on there similarities are scant. Even from your link:
Laws regarding incest (i.e. sexual activity between family members or close relatives) vary considerably between jurisdictions, and depend on the type of sexual activity and the nature of the family relationship of the parties involved, as well as the age and sex of the parties.
I don't deny any of that; I agree with all of that. My statements were very specific. The fact remains that all incest prohibitions at least include prohibitions on sexual activity or marriage between first-degree relatives--whose offspring are genetically the most degenerate.

.
There are plenty of examples to the contrary. Farming, for example, often depends on having animals that grew up together reproducing.
Yes, farms are perfect breeding grounds for producing animal behavior that doesn't ordinarily happen in the wild. I think they breed with first degree relatives because they often have no other choice.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Because I'm not stupid. Just because some good morals may have come out of religion isn't reason enough to dump them. And, just because some religious morals happen to coincide with good, secular morals isn't reason enough to dump them. Good is good, but bad isn't good. The thing is to tell them apart and be willing to discard the bad regardless of where it comes from.



Two teachers, one in England and the other in the USA, having sex with16 year-old students is evidence that " Many countries prohibit it even for students over the age of consent."
You have to be kidding!

tenor.gif

.

.

Hmm. I do a good job of not letting secular views invade my life. I just ignore them.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
If it comes from God it is good. If from man it is bad. The few good laws of men are based on the laws of God. Do not steal, do not kill , do not commit adultery, etc.
 
Two teachers, one in England and the other in the USA, having sex with16 year-old students is evidence that " Many countries prohibit it even for students over the age of consent."
You have to be kidding!

Jesus wept. You even used a large font, exclamation mark and a gif to be that inane :clapping::clapping::clapping::tophat:

Yes, Britain and America are such outliers that no other countries could possibly have similar restrictions.

No other countries have similar laws. None at all. This is a fact.

You definitely couldn't find out any more about this yourself via www.google.com.
 

Vee

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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?

.

Independently of being written in the bible or not I find it quite disgusting and unnatural. I love my brother very much but would I want to have sex with him? No, never, absolutely no way!
 
Top