Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Homosexuality VS. Incest

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by creekster View Post
    So then how do you explain it? Does God change? Or are some of the things we think are moral imperatives erally jusdt situational rules that don't matterm uch eternally? Or are those rules really inconsequential to God and simple artifacts of man's struggle to articulate the divine?
    From an eternal perspective, every relationship is incestuous -- from God and Mary to you and your spiritual sister being married for eternity. With the origin of man, incest was a necessity. When did it become verboten? Polygamous unions have vacillated between been OK and then not OK.

    There must simply be a complicated hierarchy of rules and objectives that results in modifications to the boundaries of acceptable human sexual behavior. When is our revulsion at certain types of sexual relationships an innate reaction that is in harmony with eternal righteous principles or simply the result of deeply ingrained cultural biases?
    Everything in life is an approximation.

    http://twitter.com/CougarStats

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Indy Coug View Post
      From an eternal perspective, every relationship is incestuous -- from God and Mary to you and your spiritual sister being married for eternity. With the origin of man, incest was a necessity. When did it become verboten? Polygamous unions have vacillated between been OK and then not OK.

      There must simply be a complicated hierarchy of rules and objectives that results in modifications to the boundaries of acceptable human sexual behavior. When is our revulsion at certain types of sexual relationships an innate reaction that is in harmony with eternal righteous principles or simply the result of deeply ingrained cultural biases?
      This is something I brought up yesterday with the youth in the class. My daughter was getting upset with me that I didn't have a huge issue with what Lot and his daughter did.

      So...we started a little geneology tree on the chalk board. We started with Adam and Eve. Then we went down to Able and Cain and obviously two sisters.

      We then married the two sisters to....Able and Cain.

      It all started out incestually.

      Kids had the "deer in the headlights" look. Could have blown a few of them over with a feather.

      My daughter said..."Well...Lot is still gross because of what he did." And I responded with "Lot isn't the one who did wrong. His daughters got him drunk and took advantage of him. Once again...the girls caused the problem."

      The boys all cracked up. My daughter was burning a hole through my forehead with her eyes.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Indy Coug View Post
        From an eternal perspective, every relationship is incestuous -- from God and Mary to you and your spiritual sister being married for eternity. With the origin of man, incest was a necessity. When did it become verboten? Polygamous unions have vacillated between been OK and then not OK.
        It is not a necessity if you see Adam and Eve as allegory and imagine the establishment of the human race through natural means leading to a population of hominids with a large gene pool.


        There must simply be a complicated hierarchy of rules and objectives that results in modifications to the boundaries of acceptable human sexual behavior. When is our revulsion at certain types of sexual relationships an innate reaction that is in harmony with eternal righteous principles or simply the result of deeply ingrained cultural biases?
        Good question which is sort of a recast of a couple of my possibilitiues. IOW you dont know either, I gather?
        PLesa excuse the tpyos.

        Comment


        • #34
          Please, nobody take my post to mean that I have a liberal attitude about what is CURRENTLY acceptable sexual behavior. I think that has been adequately spelled out by church leadership. I simply believe there is ample historical precedent to show that those rules are subject to revision.
          Everything in life is an approximation.

          http://twitter.com/CougarStats

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by creekster View Post
            Good question which is sort of a recast of a couple of my possibilitiues. IOW you dont know either, I gather?
            How would I possibly know?
            Everything in life is an approximation.

            http://twitter.com/CougarStats

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Indy Coug View Post
              When is our revulsion at certain types of sexual relationships an innate reaction that is in harmony with eternal righteous principles or simply the result of deeply ingrained cultural biases?
              I read a paper on incest once. It said that every single culture regards incest as taboo; the only difference is what the level of forbidden incest is. For some cultures, a neice and uncle are ok, for others a cousin's cousin is wrong. I don't know what the genetic barrier is, and I speculate that the genetics start getting messed up depending on the level of long term chronic incest, not the closeness of a specific tie.

              If we base our revulsion of incest on the genetics of the problem, does this issue exist in heaven or anyplace where human comingling of DNA is not imperative?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Indy Coug View Post
                How would I possibly know?
                You are so literal. I meant you have no more reasoned opinion on it than what you have offered, which is to say that you have no idea.
                PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Katy Lied View Post

                  If we base our revulsion of incest on the genetics of the problem, does this issue exist in heaven or anyplace where human comingling of DNA is not imperative?
                  It sounds like our revulsion is not based on the perception of a genetic problem but that genetics gives rise to our revulsion.
                  Last edited by creekster; 03-01-2010, 09:22 AM.
                  PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
                    And yet you've acknowledged elsewhere that the OT is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, works in literature, irrespective of its truthfulness or historical accuracy. Why should it amuse you (to the point of roaring laughter) then that mature adults take interest in parsing through seemingly weird or irreconcilable passages of that work?

                    Comments like the one quoted provide support for my suspicion that you're a kind of cultural Charlie the Tuna, one who likes to surround himself with the trappings of class and sophistication, but for whom such things are a veneer that is gossamer-thin.
                    lol

                    It IS an interesting passage. Most of all for what it says about the author(s?) and those who kept it in the OT. I was talking about puzzling over how to reconcile this with God's strange ways, as you know.

                    This during the Ring Cycle I attended a series of lectures preceding the operas. There was some remark, even a little humor over all the incest among the gods in the story. We did not anguish over how to reconcile this with society's and god's taboo against incest.
                    Last edited by SeattleUte; 03-01-2010, 09:28 AM.
                    When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

                    --Jonathan Swift

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by SeattleUte View Post
                      lol

                      It IS an interesting passage. Most of all for what it says about the author(s?) and those who kept it in the OT. I was talking about puzzling over how to reconcile this with God's strange ways, as you know.

                      This during the Ring Cycle I attended a series of lectures preceding the operas. There was some remark, even a little humor over all the incest among the gods in the story. We did not anguish over how to reconcile this with society's and god's taboo against incest.
                      Well then given your gracious volte face, I extend a hand of fellowship and invite you to attend our class next week. We'll be talking about Abraham, Isaac and the three-day hike to Moriah. I'm going to lead with Kierkegaard's Panegyric Upon Abraham. You'll be a worthy Shana Alexander to Kiekegaard's James Kilpatrick.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Katy Lied View Post
                        I read a paper on incest once. It said that every single culture regards incest as taboo; the only difference is what the level of forbidden incest is. For some cultures, a neice and uncle are ok, for others a cousin's cousin is wrong. I don't know what the genetic barrier is, and I speculate that the genetics start getting messed up depending on the level of long term chronic incest, not the closeness of a specific tie.

                        If we base our revulsion of incest on the genetics of the problem, does this issue exist in heaven or anyplace where human comingling of DNA is not imperative?
                        But we (humans) have no problem with mythical/theological incest - Zeus + Hera; Pharaoh + Sister; Hyperion + Theia. I'm sure there are lots more.

                        It's a mystery.
                        Last edited by Solon; 03-01-2010, 10:25 AM.
                        "More crazy people to Provo go than to any other town in the state."
                        -- Iron County Record. 23 August, 1912. (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lc...23/ed-1/seq-4/)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
                          ... I'm going to talk more about Ezekiel 16:49-50:

                          49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
                          50 And they were haughty, and committed aabomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

                          ... But pride, fulness of bread, idleness and failure to strengthen those in need... those are a problem, and are the real lessons of Sodom.
                          This is what our lesson focused on a well.
                          This space is available.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
                            And yet you've acknowledged elsewhere that the OT is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, works in literature, irrespective of its truthfulness or historical accuracy. Why should it amuse you (to the point of roaring laughter) then that mature adults take interest in parsing through seemingly weird or irreconcilable passages of that work?

                            Comments like the one quoted provide support for my suspicion that you're a kind of cultural Charlie the Tuna, one who likes to surround himself with the trappings of class and sophistication, but for whom such things are a veneer that is gossamer-thin.
                            PAC is the Henry James of insults. Exquisite little barbed skewers.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by SeattleUte View Post
                              lol


                              This during the Ring Cycle I attended a series of lectures preceding the operas. There was some remark, even a little humor over all the incest among the gods in the story. We did not anguish over how to reconcile this with society's and god's taboo against incest.
                              Why do visualize Niles and Frasier Crane when I think of this humorous meeting? Wild guess- the laughter became so intense some of the participants nearly spilled their white wine or cognacs?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by The_Tick View Post
                                This is something I brought up yesterday with the youth in the class. My daughter was getting upset with me that I didn't have a huge issue with what Lot and his daughter did.

                                So...we started a little geneology tree on the chalk board. We started with Adam and Eve. Then we went down to Able and Cain and obviously two sisters.

                                We then married the two sisters to....Able and Cain.

                                It all started out incestually.

                                Kids had the "deer in the headlights" look. Could have blown a few of them over with a feather.

                                My daughter said..."Well...Lot is still gross because of what he did." And I responded with "Lot isn't the one who did wrong. His daughters got him drunk and took advantage of him. Once again...the girls caused the problem."

                                The boys all cracked up. My daughter was burning a hole through my forehead with her eyes.
                                and yet, they still knew it was wrong because they had to get him drunk to lay with him and get his seed. Lot would not have laid with them if he were not intoxicated.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X