Incest replied by nehpyh @ Mon, 26 May 2008 14:28:25 +0800

nehpyh — Mon, 26 May 2008 14:28:25 +0800

i feel you....

Incest replied by domonkassyu @ Mon, 26 May 2008 14:26:39 +0800

domonkassyu — Mon, 26 May 2008 14:26:39 +0800

Bible never said whether can marry other tribes or not hor?? What's not written is not wrong, right? Or is it right to say that what was right is wrong? umm...

in the OT days,intermarriges with other tribes were not that encouraged. for fear of falling to their paganistic and immoral ways.eg canaan.

whats not written dont mean its not wrong.its simply not written.can see your point but dun utd why i bother to respond to this.

Incest replied by nehpyh @ Mon, 26 May 2008 11:43:22 +0800

nehpyh — Mon, 26 May 2008 11:43:22 +0800

Bible never said whether can marry other tribes or not hor?? What's not written is not wrong, right? Or is it right to say that what was right is wrong? umm...

Incest replied by domonkassyu @ Mon, 26 May 2008 10:35:33 +0800

domonkassyu — Mon, 26 May 2008 10:35:33 +0800

in the beginning, God created Adam and Eve and told them to re produce,enjoy live and fill the earth with humans. NOTE that God created Adam and eve only..not adam and steve nor was there any john and mary,peter and jane...whatsoever.

the whole idea was through incest. in Noah's time, again incest was the only way to go.in fact there was at least one more a/c of incest in the bible about 2 dauhters and the father in a cave or something.

but why incest is punishable by death in the mosiac law? go back to adam n eve time and we noticed they are no longer perfect.every person is born sinful.the same reason why some babies are born with aids. and with this effect, the degradation worsen. God knew that will adversely affect human kind and thus the law for no incest and death to incest lovers.

hope this answer your qn.

Incest replied by dumbdumb! @ Tue, 20 May 2008 12:56:17 +0800

dumbdumb! — Tue, 20 May 2008 12:56:17 +0800

ok, i'm thinking in a simpler term. we usually tell kids, not to play with power outlets, and we set it as a rule, telling them "it's wrong to play with power outlets"

the reason is, we know it isn't safe, if not handled properly. there could be accidents and death. but it's pointless telling them how electricity works and how they will die from it. they don't even know the concept of death.

but as they grow older, they know how to protect themselves, and are now allowed to plug in power etc.

so is playing with power outlet "wrong" as in simple black or white terms? sometimes we cannot see things that way, there's a reason why at that time, incest was allowed, and then later on, it isn't.

it's not so much "wrong" wrong, but actually it's just bad for us in the long run.

Incest replied by 24/7 @ Tue, 20 May 2008 12:28:53 +0800

24/7 — Tue, 20 May 2008 12:28:53 +0800

Originally posted by Icemoon:

Truth be told, I have yet to hear from a trustworthy rabbi about the Jewish stand on the issue.

The problem is how they reconcile the act with the commandment against sexual immorality, given since Adam. If you are Christian, you have no such problem 'cos the prohibition was only given at Sinai. So a Christian answer to your question will be ......... yes it is fair for the atheist to say that?

I found a creative way around the problem. Looking at the prohibitions for incest, it is possible to avoid committing the "sin" by marrying your cousins. Or, for the case of Cain, marry somebody who is not a descendant of Adam.

After some poking around, I found out some of the more creative explanation given by Tradition. For instance, somebody said that Cain and Abel each has a twin sister, meant for the other brother, to minimize the effect of incest.

As with many things found in Tradition, read it with a pinch of salt, for not everything found inside is authoritative, i.e. aggadah.

This interface is kooky, sometimes it works, some times it doesnt

Understand cousins are left out of the equation, but with A&E, one of their children have to marry each other to produce cousins for Cain to marry in the first place. Even if Cain and Abel had twins, they still remain siblings. Some sources believe that A&E werent the only people around. But my POV, is that they were.

When GOD created A&E, he called it 'very good'. Sin entered the picture and the effects of His curse were soon felt. Generations of genetic degradation meant that by the time Sinai came about, people could no longer have close marriages. Also there were more than enough people to around anyway. Commandments were given to distinguish Israel from the pagan nations around and to put a complete stop.

There was some law going around before Sinai, probably laid down by GOD thru the Jewish Tradition or some other way, such that people could still marry within the family out of desperate circumstances.

To the atheist, yes, GOD allowed incest but for the abovementioned reasons. Does GOD practise double standards? Nope, not if you understand that this was in His plans. Will it happen again such that there won't be anybody around for one to multiply with and he has to engage in incest? For everybody's sake, when that time comes, that shouldnt be the foremost question on his mind, but why is he left behind?

Incest replied by Icemoon @ Tue, 20 May 2008 01:07:35 +0800

Icemoon — Tue, 20 May 2008 01:07:35 +0800

Originally posted by 24/7:

If Satan's not as evil as Christians think, what is the Judaistic idea of Satan then?

A big topic by itself, but suffice to say ..

Satan is a servant of God, the divine prosecutor during Judgement, and essential for your growth in this world. ^^

Incest replied by Icemoon @ Tue, 20 May 2008 01:03:14 +0800

Icemoon — Tue, 20 May 2008 01:03:14 +0800

Originally posted by 24/7:

Understand it's not Judaistic practice to proselytize, but would it be fair for an atheist to say that G-D allowed the children of Adam and Eve to have incest with each other, and again with Noah's children, while forbidding it after that?

Truth be told, I have yet to hear from a trustworthy rabbi about the Jewish stand on the issue.

The problem is how they reconcile the act with the commandment against sexual immorality, given since Adam. If you are Christian, you have no such problem 'cos the prohibition was only given at Sinai. So a Christian answer to your question will be ......... yes it is fair for the atheist to say that?

I found a creative way around the problem. Looking at the prohibitions for incest, it is possible to avoid committing the "sin" by marrying your cousins. Or, for the case of Cain, marry somebody who is not a descendant of Adam.

After some poking around, I found out some of the more creative explanation given by Tradition. For instance, somebody said that Cain and Abel each has a twin sister, meant for the other brother, to minimize the effect of incest.

As with many things found in Tradition, read it with a pinch of salt, for not everything found inside is authoritative, i.e. aggadah.

Incest replied by Icemoon @ Tue, 20 May 2008 00:39:07 +0800

Icemoon — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:39:07 +0800

Originally posted by 24/7:

Icemoon:

Rambam = Maimonides? He lived in the 1100s, between then and Noah's time, why would the Oral Tradition be so silent on the topic?

The Oral Tradition is not silent about whether the prohibition against sexual immorality was given before Moses.

The problem, as I see it, is what constitute sexual immorality.

Incest replied by Hogzilla @ Tue, 20 May 2008 00:29:40 +0800

Hogzilla — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:29:40 +0800

wah lao, idiots who think that wat the book written is all correct. I dunno should pity you or wat.

*Sigh

Incest replied by 24/7 @ Tue, 20 May 2008 00:22:58 +0800

24/7 — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:22:58 +0800

Icemoon:

Rambam = Maimonides? He lived in the 1100s, between then and Noah's time, why would the Oral Tradition be so silent on the topic?

Understand it's not Judaistic practice to proselytize, but would it be fair for an atheist to say that G-D allowed the children of Adam and Eve to have incest with each other, and again with Noah's children, while forbidding it after that?

If Satan's not as evil as Christians think, what is the Judaistic idea of Satan then?

Incest replied by Icemoon @ Mon, 19 May 2008 22:37:09 +0800

Icemoon — Mon, 19 May 2008 22:37:09 +0800

Originally posted by 24/7:

So now, from Judaistic perspective, could you tell me more about whether G-D practised double standards regarding incest? Do you have commandments that predate incest before Moses? This has been asked since pg 1.

Honestly, I'm not sure whether God practised double standards regarding incest. We are like operating on two levels here, commandments and sins. Like you said, no such commandment before Moses. But no commandment doesn't mean no sin because sin means missing the target/expectation of the person. Sin doesn't mean doing something evil, as commonly [mis]understood.

Incest falls under the general category of sexual immorality. So you'd have sins like adultery and homosexuality inside also.

The Judaistic perspective is six commandments were given to Adam, one more to Noah, and the seven "social" commandments form the bedrock of civilization. Creation1656 talked about this in this thread.

So sexual immorality happens to be one of the seven. Granted, the Oral Tradition did not specifically point out incest, but it is included by at least Rambam.

In my view, the beauty of Judaistic perspective is that sin and mitzvah are separated by a thin line. Nothing is intrinsically evil; even Satan is not considered evil like how he is seen in Christian circles.

For the case of Lot, while God did not specifically say the act was a sin, the result pretty well says it all. It is like the saying a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. Like the offspring of Esau, Amalek.

Incest replied by Icemoon @ Mon, 19 May 2008 22:08:42 +0800

Icemoon — Mon, 19 May 2008 22:08:42 +0800

Originally posted by 24/7:

Icemoon: Hmm.. i did acknowledge the existence of some kind of law that the pre-Moses characters followed. Whether it's a commandment and specifically outlawed and disallowed under all kinds of situations, from the biblical perspective, its not. Could it be the effects of the fruit that Adam ate? Maybe, what do you think?

Hmm, to answer this, I have to study more thoroughly why commandments given openly at Sinai leh. Haha, maybe you'd like to tell me why.

But suffice to say, isn't it the case it's better that the law not be given at Sinai? 'cos like you said, commandment came and specifically outlawed and disallowed under all kinds of situation, kaoz. Suddenly become stricter. No room for wriggling. Jialat leh.

Just like why it's better that gospel not be given. Give liao no excuse. Don't give at least some wriggling room, like if you're from other religions.

Incest replied by Icemoon @ Mon, 19 May 2008 22:02:20 +0800

Icemoon — Mon, 19 May 2008 22:02:20 +0800

Originally posted by 24/7:

As to why Lot was not asked openly, 2 Peter (Bible) testifies that Lot is a righteous man, so for him not to cooperate isnt a surprise.

Very funny. Lot righteous means cannot cooperate? Don't cooperate then expect God to create Adam and Eve again ah?

About Lot being a righteous man, many readers will beg to differ. The fact that Lot offered his daughters to save the strangers in Sodom offend female sensibilities you know?

Lot did make a strange decision, to leave Abraham and live among the Sodomites. Why would he leave the righteous Abraham and live among the sinful people of Sodom is a question.

Perhaps we understand righteousness differently from what the biblical authors intended?

Incest replied by 24/7 @ Mon, 19 May 2008 19:22:44 +0800

24/7 — Mon, 19 May 2008 19:22:44 +0800

Icemoon: Hmm.. i did acknowledge the existence of some kind of law that the pre-Moses characters followed. Whether it's a commandment and specifically outlawed and disallowed under all kinds of situations, from the biblical perspective, its not. Could it be the effects of the fruit that Adam ate? Maybe, what do you think?

As to why Lot was not asked openly, 2 Peter (Bible) testifies that Lot is a righteous man, so for him not to cooperate isnt a surprise.

So now, from Judaistic perspective, could you tell me more about whether G-D practised double standards regarding incest? Do you have commandments that predate incest before Moses? This has been asked since pg 1.

Incest replied by Creation1656 @ Mon, 19 May 2008 11:13:53 +0800

Creation1656 — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:13:53 +0800

Originally posted by 24/7:

Sober or not, fact is he's conscious enough to have his seed emerge during copulation. Twice.

There is another incident in genesis that mirrors this incestuous relationship between Lot and his daughters. The case of Judah and his daughter-in-law, Tamar. In both cases, both Lot and Judah never "Lay" with their daughters or daughter-in-law again. Did they repented from their errors?

Incest replied by Icemoon @ Sun, 18 May 2008 23:59:09 +0800

Icemoon — Sun, 18 May 2008 23:59:09 +0800

Originally posted by 24/7:

Icemoon: Is there some kind of a gag order on you and your beliefs in this forum? If this is a respectable discussion, why the need to hint something? You're quite a slippery fish, so elusive about your answers. *amused*

You have disappointed me by not considering the questions I put forth.

I did pose the challenge to you - if what they did was considered necessary, why did they not enlist Lot's help openly?

Incest replied by Icemoon @ Sun, 18 May 2008 23:51:28 +0800

Icemoon — Sun, 18 May 2008 23:51:28 +0800

Originally posted by 24/7:

You challenged readers to think why it is considered that the daughters sinned... I felt that there was no sin that was emphasized by Moses as he wrote it (I assume your position is somewhere in your replies to me, so we've to read between the lines to get it). But i recognize that there was some sort of law back then (on their hearts? officially?), but GOD certainly didnt forbid the act until Moses came about.

So now, i'm sure you're waiting to tell us where you think the incest commandment came about, long before the time of Moses?

I don't get you as your position is inconsistent as well.

For example, you insist God only forbid an act until Moses came about. Pretty well covers most of the acts, as most of the prohibitions were only explicitly stated at Sinai.

In that case, does God forbid adultery or not, during Joseph's time?

Incest replied by 24/7 @ Sun, 18 May 2008 23:49:30 +0800

24/7 — Sun, 18 May 2008 23:49:30 +0800

Icemoon: Appreciate your humour. But i'm still curious about how Tradition would answer a skeptic about incest and the children of Adam and Eve.

Incest replied by Icemoon @ Sun, 18 May 2008 23:47:34 +0800

Icemoon — Sun, 18 May 2008 23:47:34 +0800

Originally posted by 24/7:

Or why Lot chose to stay at Sodom. Bible is silent on this matter, i wouldnt want to comment.

That said, without Tradition, it is hard to make sense of many things in the Bible.

Cheers.

Incest replied by 24/7 @ Sun, 18 May 2008 23:41:56 +0800

24/7 — Sun, 18 May 2008 23:41:56 +0800

Icemoon: Is there some kind of a gag order on you and your beliefs in this forum? If this is a respectable discussion, why the need to hint something? You're quite a slippery fish, so elusive about your answers. *amused*

I wouldnt want to infer whether the daughters were super horny at that time and wanted their father to impregnate them. Or why Lot chose to stay at Sodom. Bible is silent on this matter, i wouldnt want to comment.

You challenged readers to think why it is considered that the daughters sinned... I felt that there was no sin that was emphasized by Moses as he wrote it (I assume your position is somewhere in your replies to me, so we've to read between the lines to get it). But i recognize that there was some sort of law back then (on their hearts? officially?), but GOD certainly didnt forbid the act until Moses came about.

So now, i'm sure you're waiting to tell us where you think the incest commandment came about, long before the time of Moses?

Incest replied by Icemoon @ Sun, 18 May 2008 23:34:17 +0800

Icemoon — Sun, 18 May 2008 23:34:17 +0800

Originally posted by 24/7:

Sober or not, fact is he's conscious enough to have his seed emerge during copulation. Twice.

Don't so chim leh. Biologically just semen only mah. But I not tried ONS before, in drunken state no less. So I dunno how is it like, sorry. Heehee.

Incest replied by Icemoon @ Sun, 18 May 2008 23:29:31 +0800

Icemoon — Sun, 18 May 2008 23:29:31 +0800

Originally posted by 24/7:

Creation: "Lot's daughters made their father drink wine before they lay with him. In fact Lot did not know when his daughters lay down or when they rose. Would Lot lay with his daughters if he is sober?"

If i remember correctly, Lot was considered righteous, thus he was spared the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Why would he, on the run, have taken so much wine with him (enough to get dead drunk. Twice). Why would he drink (so much)? Sober or not, fact is he's conscious enough to have his seed emerge during copulation. Twice.

The argument is quite subtle and without Tradition, it is hard to understand why Lot is "not so good after all". (We all know Lot was considered righteous by God)

Heehee, I realized you replied the above only after I finished my previous reply. Seems that we can look at the drunken sex incident from two diametrically opposite angles. Cool.

Incest replied by 24/7 @ Sun, 18 May 2008 23:23:25 +0800

24/7 — Sun, 18 May 2008 23:23:25 +0800

Creation: "Lot's daughters made their father drink wine before they lay with him. In fact Lot did not know when his daughters lay down or when they rose. Would Lot lay with his daughters if he is sober?"

If i remember correctly, Lot was considered righteous, thus he was spared the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Why would he, on the run, have taken so much wine with him (enough to get dead drunk. Twice). Why would he drink (so much)? Sober or not, fact is he's conscious enough to have his seed emerge during copulation. Twice.

Incest replied by Icemoon @ Sun, 18 May 2008 23:23:24 +0800

Icemoon — Sun, 18 May 2008 23:23:24 +0800

Originally posted by 24/7:

Technically, was it a sin for Lot's daughters? No, because they thought what they were doing was to repopulate the earth and not for the pleasure, and as Origen said, it was a one off incident and not meant to repeat again such that it becomes a consistent vice. Is it a sin now? Definitely! Because GOD has specifically disallowed it in Leviticus.

My friend, 24/7, think harder. =)

I pose the following questions to you:

1. Imagine you are the daughter. You think only three of you left in the world .. or is it? If truly you have such virtuous motives [to repopulate the world], why don't you *openly* ask for Lot's cooperation?

2. The fact you have to take Lot by surprise means you already know Lot is reluctant to cooperate with you. And why should he, if it is a noble task after all? Does it mean Lot is committed to some kind of incest commandment, issued long before Moses? *hint hint*

3. On the other hand, what makes you think you are the only three left in the world? If you know the righteousness of your relative Abraham, is it not possible God could have saved him and Sarah as well?

Of course lah, Lot 也不是什么好东西. He started to turn bad after parting from the righteous Abraham and moved to Sodom. Kaoz, of all places, he chose Sodom. Granted, he is still good or else the angels won't save him. However Lot is not that holy after all and as the Jewish commentator Rashi pointed out, "Lot knew what had happened the first night with his first daughter and did nothing to avoid the situation with the second daughter."