• 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

Skwim

Veteran Member
If it comes from God it is good. If from man it is bad. .
"Cuase nothing good ever came from man. Whereas we have god to thank or all the evil goodness he creates.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Thanks for the evil, god. :thumbsup: You're A-OK in my book.

.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
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.
That still varies. It's not always the same first-degree relatives, it sometimes goes further than first degree, and even second degree, sometimes only certain first-degree family members are off limits, and sometimes it specifically legally requires vaginal penetration. It's kind of like god or religion: it's there just about any where you look, but the answers are not consistent. Or even how culture plays a huge role in telling us what parts of the body are sexually attractive. It may very well be a part of our bio-psycho-social nature, but from there the similarities end.
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.
I very highly doubt those studies mentioned involved randomly sampled wild animals. If they mixed siblings and non siblings, I very highly doubt any wild animals were used at all. I've also seen dogs and cats both clearly not uphold any sort of our own understanding of sexuality and sexual orientation, including incest.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
That he doesn't want that.
You didn't say what we don't need faith to figure out. Just that we don't need faith to figure "it" out, whatever "it" is. And if there is a god, or gods, how can we humans ever hope to ever honestly say we can know that this being wants?
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
There are already states where full blooded incest is legal among consensual adults (rhode island and one other state that escapes me at the moment) and we haven't seen a slippery slope of child grooming or increased infant mortality due to inbreeding. It just means police have to actually check and see if abuse is happening instead of just assuming that an incestuous situation is abuse by default.
Other states only have heterosexual clauses specifically because of mentioned same sex being unable to contribute to inbreeding issues.
And once again, we do not forbid relationships between people with inheritable disease of equal or greater severity or conditions which have a greater than average abuse history (certain psychological illnesses and alcoholism) for not being in the 'public interest' (though lord knows they've tried especially in regards to homosexual men and the HIV epidemic.)
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It's not always the same first-degree relatives
What country does not prohibit sexual activity or marriage between first-degree relatives? Cite your sources.

I very highly doubt those studies mentioned involved randomly sampled wild animals. If they mixed siblings and non siblings, I very highly doubt any wild animals were used at all. I've also seen dogs and cats both clearly not uphold any sort of our own understanding of sexuality and sexual orientation, including incest.
In case you haven't understood yet, the reason that mating between first-degree relatives among animals in the wild is not ordinarily seen is because it's a behavior that decreases the species fitness. Get it?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
There are already states where full blooded incest is legal among consensual adults (rhode island and one other state that escapes me at the moment)
I think RI is the only state that doesn't specifically criminalize incestuous sexual activity.

However, first- and second-degree relatives can't get married in RI:

No person shall marry his or her sibling, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, stepparent, grandparents' spouse, spouse's child, spouse's grandchild, sibling's child or parent's sibling.​

15-1-2

Apparently there isn't any sort of strong approval of such sexual relationships.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
There are already states where full blooded incest is legal among consensual adults (rhode island and one other state that escapes me at the moment)
You're right. I'm wrong. Good job. New Jersey is another state that doesn't criminalize incest except when one party is less than 18.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Hmm. I do a good job of not letting secular views invade my life. I just ignore them.
I mostly agree with you. I'm in a fortunate enough position where very little religious views are something I can't ignore. Not everyone is so lucky though, when it dictates policy. (Re: gay marriage.)
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
What country does not prohibit sexual activity or marriage between first-degree relatives? Cite your sources.
You already did cite it.
In case you haven't understood yet, the reason that mating between first-degree relatives among animals in the wild is not ordinarily seen is because it's a behavior that decreases the species fitness. Get it?
Do you "get it," is that a lot of animals do not give one rat's *** about "incest." It's like trying to say other animals practice homosexuality or bisexuality. From our understanding, yes, but when you actually watch them it doesn't really seem to work that way for them, not in how we would conventionally approach sexuality.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You already did cite it.
I didn't see it. Just copy and paste.

Do you "get it," is that a lot of animals do not give one rat's *** about "incest." It's like trying to say other animals practice homosexuality or bisexuality. From our understanding, yes, but when you actually watch them it doesn't really seem to work that way for them, not in how we would conventionally approach sexuality.
Well, apparently you haven't gotten it yet. The behaviors that are ordinarily observed among animals in the wild are generally those behaviors that are (genertically) advantageous to them, not those that decrease their genetic fitness. Behaviors that decrease genetic fitness are selected out. Ever heard of natural selection?

BTW, you haven't cited a single example where a wild species ordinarily engages in mating among first-degree relatives. Can you cite some examples?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
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 apparently no other reason 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'm going to ignore the vast majority of that, and just jump instantly from notions of "violating yourself" to Abraham's impregnation of Hagar -- without the slightest biblical note of how she might have felt violated as a consequence. (Although, as I recall, Sarai was allowed to mistreat Hagar after she was thus violated.)

Why on earth would anybody look to the Bible for moral guidance? 'Tis a great, great mystery to me!
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The behaviors that are ordinarily observed among animals in the wild are generally those behaviors that are (genertically) advantageous to them, not those that decrease their genetic fitness. Behaviors that decrease genetic fitness are selected out. Ever heard of natural selection?
That doesn't mean other animals have their own psychological barriers over incest. And even with apex predators, sometimes the bulk majority don't even live long enough to reach physical maturation and do not produce. When you watch other animals, they just are not as picky about sex partners as humans are.
BTW, you haven't cited a single example where a wild species ordinarily engages in mating among first-degree relatives. Can you cite some examples?
You haven't even established that it doesn't, but rather domesticated animals under a lab setting were observed to display a certain behavior.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
That doesn't mean other animals have their own psychological barriers over incest. And even with apex predators, sometimes the bulk majority don't even live long enough to reach physical maturation and do not produce. When you watch other animals, they just are not as picky about sex partners as humans are.
I'll make it easy for you. (1) Cite all the examples of species in the wild for which it has been shown mating among first-degree relatives is usual behavior. (2) Provide the explanation for how the genetically disadvantageous behavior was selected for.
BTW, you haven't cited a single example where a wild species ordinarily engages in mating among first-degree relatives. Can you cite some examples?
You haven't even established that it doesn't
Here is a list of all the species in the wild where, to the best of my knowledge, observational evidence shows that mating between first-degree relatives is usual behavior:

1.
2.
3.
etc.

Give your list.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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.
Agree.
In these traditional societies there wasn't a clear divide between the religious and secular. Some Iron age Emily Post writes an article on local rules of etiquette and propriety, and they end up in an anthology of "divinely inspired" sacred writings, as God's commandments for all time.
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.
and to continue: don't eat pork or lobsters, don't wear mixed fabrics or the clothes of the other sex, wear tzitzit on your garments, don't work or walk outside town on Saturday, Hate idolaters and burn their cities, Kill all witches, sorcerers and idolaters, kill anyone cursing his parents, don't shave, no tattoos, put a mezuzah on your doorpost, circumcise males, rapists must marry their victims, forgive loans every seven years, don't make any pictures or carvings of things, a menstruating woman and anything touching her is unclean for a week....

Comes from God, so it's all good.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Man's limited mind cannot understand God. Surely there is some reason for these rules but people are not able to see or understand. That does not mean the rules are wrong. A child in school does not understand why he cannot talk in class and run around hitting other kids. That does not mean these rules are wrong. Many people do not understand why they cannot drive 80 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. That does not mean the traffic laws are wrong. It is not God who is wrong but man's limited understanding that makes him think the laws are wrong.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
And each religion understands their moral agenda to serve the 'common good'. I don't think anyone would disagree that the forth-10th commandments do serve the common good of any society. But society has evolved and religion has not. Religion and politics make dangerous bed fellows. We had an eight year reprieve, but the future looks dim.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Man's limited mind cannot understand God. Surely there is some reason for these rules but people are not able to see or understand.
Why surely? Is it because you feel god is incapable of making mistakes? If so, there are several passages in the Bible that show just this.

That does not mean the rules are wrong.
it certainly can. God hasn't always been right.

1 Samuel 15:11
"I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions."

genesis 6:6

The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.


.
 
Top