Aspies/auties and f***ed up beliefs

Post Reply New Topic

Of course there is a lot of incest even in the Old Testament. Adam married his daughter by means of asexual reproduction. The children of Adam and Eve had to commit incest in order to reproduce. Only when the genetic code became corrupted were incest laws introduced. And even then Abraham married his half sister, first cousins were allowed to marry, an uncle could marry his neice but an Aunt could not marry her nephew. In Levirate marriage a brother was obligated to marry his dead brothers widow even though this would be considered incest if his brother were still alive. A man was forbidden to have a mother daughter harem but a close friend of mine married her mothers husband after her mother died which by the way was perfectly legal to do so.

Even the most obscene forms of incest were sometimes justified. After Sodom was destroyed and Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt Lot's daughters gave him alcohol so that their family would not become extinct. Even today with the threat of nuclear annihilation incest may be the only way to prevent the extinction of the human race.

I think, for the most part, what consenting adults do to each other in the privacy of their own home is no business of the state or its actors.

You had me up to this point.

Actually, this does NOT justify incest. Not even close. First of all, the daughters had to get dad drunk. It seems Lot was unconscious when it happened, too, so Lot is quite possibly a victim of rape. So that tells me Lot would have never justified sleeping with his daughters had he been in his right mind. That they were able to get him drunk at all speaks to a disturbed mind that was probably quite familiar with the numbing effects of alcohol to begin with, and it reflects poorly on Lot's character. That it's possible Lot was suffering from PTSD is no excuse. The Bible does paint a portrait of him as a reclusive and paranoid man, so PTSD cannot be ruled out--still doesn't excuse the behavior. He should have moved out of the valley and found replacements for his daughters' would-be husbands.

The Ammonites and Moabites were Lot's descendants. The Bible speaks highly UNfavorable of these people. Perhaps part of that is their heritage as a bunch of inbreeds, like how we Mississippi people talk about Arkansas people (and vice versa). They made themselves enemies of Israel during and after the exodus. Ruth was "adopted in" by marrying an Israelite and later redeemed by Boaz, but even she would have been prohibited from entering the assembly during religious festivals because she was a descendant of Moab--forbidden to enter the assembly for 10 generations (I think-- someone check me on that one).

Using Lot as a Biblical justification for incest is a poor example. Nothing good came out of Lot's union with his daughters.

Pun intended?

The other thing about OT incest--sure, if there is a situation where there are only two people left in the world, a man and a woman, it's difficult to repopulate when you're short on people! I don't see what it would be unjustified in that situation simply because you don't really have any better choice.

What always confuses me, though, is Genesis 1, where God says "Let's make man in our image," and then it proceeds to say that "God made man in his own image; in His own likeness He created him; male and female, etc., etc." Adam doesn't even show up until chapter 2. So what was it? Was Adam rather a special representative of man, which is what the name "Adam" means if I understand correctly, specially created by God for that purpose and thus bringing sin on all of creation in his fall from glory? If so, saying Adam is the "first man" is nothing other than referring to the special nature of Adam's creation for the high purpose God called him to. He is the first named man of the Bible. He is also the ancestor of all now living since everyone else except his descendent Noah died in the deluge. That would suggest that there were predecessors to human beings before Adam and that his sons and daughters mixed with them post-Eden. For example, it is written that Cain built a city and named it after his son. You can't build a city without people to populate it, and you can't become a great leader if there's no one around to lead. If human beings already existed pre-fall and given the commandment to "be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it," then there's no need to assume any incest EVER took place.

Personally, I identify as a conservative, mainline, Protestant evangelical and my peers would probably call me a heretic for pointing this out. Whether humans existed prior to Adam in no way challenges or changes doctrine. What's plain is that the patriarchs somehow knew what was expected of them even though the law had not yet been written. Obviously there was already an oral tradition in place. Even Cain and Abel brought regular sacrifices, something they'd have been taught by their own parents to do. So if they were aware of how to worship God, then they'd have been instructed against incest.

The typical justification in favor of patriarchal incest is what has already been mentioned, that the DNA had not yet been corrupted and thus no reason NOT to father children through a sibling or a cousin, assuming Adam and Eve to be the only two humans alive after the creation. I don't see this as inherently wrong, either. The law of Moses changes this, reflecting a new stage in human development. The Bible doesn't speak well of Egyptian/Israelite relations, since Egyptians did not like hairy, smelly herdsmen. The Egyptian nobility had a tradition of sibling unions, and avoiding such in the future, i.e. after the patriarchal period, would function to separate Israel from the practices of other nations deemed by God to be wicked.

Of course.


Great discussion going on here. Immensely enjoyable and thought provoking.

No, just select few. I was not referring to everyone on WP.

I don't know. Could it be the fact that I grew up in a civilized country and a civilized family, unlike you?

I am having difficulty interpreting whether you are sincere or joking, and what you mean by that last sentence.

I do believe that in the US, it is possible and required to report illegal income (without stating it is illegal) for taxation purposes, as all income is supposed to be taxed

Verdandi: Indeed, Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion, not of any of the various other illegal activities he committed. One can joke that it wasn't the murders and bootlegging and such that so offended the government, but that he wasn't letting them tax him on it.

I find this response interesting too.

The person is joking. The 'laughing at the end' along with the subsequent emotionally intense and negative response indicates sarcasm.

When a person says something "supportive"/"positive", then either laughs or does something to indicate jocularity (Like a heightened tone or they end their sentences in a more excited / higher tone, or there's a laughing smiley), and then ends their paragraph / spiel with a message that has the opposite effect (Like an emotionally intense negative reaction or saying something that's opposite in meaning), or says something with a "serious tone", or otherwise indicates seriousness, then you have sarcasm on your hands.

Last edited by swbluto on 04 Apr 2011, 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Okay then based off that let's make it a crime!!

See, that's what I thought, but the rest of the post was fairly reasonable. It'd be like reciting a grocery list and laughing at it.

Hehe, yeah, I guess it depends on your perspective.

Some of the following seem like they could have ridiculous consequences, though.



Personally, I don't see a problem with them, though some might object to the "laid off" clause (Although I don't see how one could get laid off given the demand enormously outstrips supply.). And, one probably could object to the health reasons reasoning because health risks are an inherent part of prostitution, but I think that protection could minimize that risk.

There's also an undercurrent of "No way could prostitutes have those rights! [implied underclass who don't deserve rights]" that 'normal people' possess, that makes the above list seem immediately objectionable which is probably the source of the poster's objections to it.

Besides the moral implications the reason why prostitution is illegal is because it increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases so it cannot be argued that it is a victimless crime.

Also most states have laws allowing minors as young as 14 to have sex with adults if they are married which of course means minors must first get parental consent in order to get a marriage license.