Because the consequences over time can be disastrous.*
*And please, do not use this as a springboard to go off on the Mormon church. These people are NOT LDS, they are just a bunch of wackos who claim to be a certain faith.
No, I agree with you. But when Adam and Eve were created, they were in a perfect world, and there was no consequences of sin. Sickness came as a result of the fall, so it is quite possible that the genetic abnormalities didn’t exist then. If that is the case, then there would be no reason for it to be considered as gross as it is now. Why do I believe they had less sickness? Well, if men lived as long as they did then, there was obviously something different. Not only that, but if you think about Abraham, why was he worried about anyone desiring his wife, who was almost 90 years old, unless they didn’t age like we do. So I believe it’s pretty safe to say they didn’t have to deal with the same issues of sickness.
- Who was Moses married to?
- What are the specific circumstance surrounding the one time it’s mentioned?
- Could you give me a cite for that please, and church tradition isn’t good enough?
I’m not sure I follow you. Are the three questions you ask in reference to what I posted? In any event, I was thinking of American law rather than the Bible, and my post was deliberately tongue in cheek, citing three examples of things that most people don’t care about today.
… and it’s not Sunday, it’s Friday night and Saturday 
But no, really – as I mentioned above (and many others have in other threads), the fundamental legal prohibition on incest has to do with the structure of the family and the society. Marrying/mating within the tribe, but outside your specific family, builds bonds that help strengthen the tribe. Forbidding sexually-based relationships within the immediate family also prevents the insertion into the family’s tent of jealousies and confrontations that you can’t resolve as easily as you would with those outside the family --how the hell do you tell your dad you want to “break up and still be friends”? It also makes the wealth, such as it is, circulate (through dowries and the splitting of inheritances).
Reading the proscriptions in Leviticus 18, I can’t help but notice that the justification is often by reference to how the incestuous act violates the honor (“nakedness” or “shame” or “disgrace”, depending on your translation) of the head of the family or of the person’s elders – again supporting the POV that it’s about not wrecking the household, not about it being intrinsically gross to boink your son-in-law.
Aversion to incest is also advantageous in a real-world sense in that you don’t have all your eggs (literally) in one basket (= line of descent). Having each person be potentially, through their grandparents, related to four different clans, and themselves may be related by mating to yet another, and then to however many their own children may choose to get mates from, means it’s harder to wipe out one bloodline completely and there’s a greater range of people who have an obligation to take care for the weaker or helpless in that line.
One thing that is also to be noted – most animals in the wild tend to NOT mate with their litter-mates if they have a suitable choice, absent a decimation of population, isolating disaster or other such crisis. Deliberate inbreeding happens mostly among domesticated or captive animals as part of human activity. Now, this is not to say that the avoidance of incest is virtuous due to being “nature’s way” – that would be the Naturalistic Fallacy – but that it is very likely that the general squickness at close-relative incest IS more than an artificial sociolegal construct.
And before anyone jumps on Svt4Him – since the OP is necessarily based on “Assume for the purpose of this argument that indeed Genesis was how mankind originated” and challenges “how is that consistent with Leviticus?”, then the explanation has to be based on one of the theories that go with that assumption and challenge – e.g. ill health effects being the result of degeneracy brought about by sin. But meanwhile, yes: Genesis does clearly state that Adam begat many other sons and daughters over an 800-year lifespan, they just mention the 3 that are important to the point of the story.
It used to be fairly common for first cousins to marry; Victorians did it all the time.* The cultural prohibition against marrying your own cousin is relatively recent, and does not exist all over the world now.
*OK, not all the time, but you see what I mean. It wasn’t uncommon.
1. Who was Moses married to?
Zipporah. Moses was pretty much an absentee father, though. Had 2 boys with her and she went on back home while he was tromping around in the desert. I get the feeling she wasn’t cut out to be a preacher’s wife, even though her daddy was a high priest. We don’t hear from her much in the OT.
As for Leviticus 18, keep in mind that the law was given roughly 2,000 years after Adam and Eve hit the scene. The reason incest was going on before that is because it took a while for the gene pool to be polluted, so it wasn’t dangerous back then like it is today. However, even before the law, incest had its limits.
For example, Abraham and Sarah were half siblings. They shared a father. I have not once found an account of any righteous men/women in the Bible that were half siblings and shared a mother. AFAIK there was no prohibition against that but to me there is just something about sharing a womb with someone, even if it’s 10 years apart. Perhaps people back then had an aversion to half siblings connected by a mother but were okay with people having the same father and still marrying.
Also, bear in mind what happened to Lot. First off, he was saved only because of his righteous uncle, Abraham. You never hear another word about Lot after he gets drunk and impregnates his daughters. And the two sons he had by his girls ended up fathering really rotten peoples who were later conquered. Not a good legacy.
Aside from genetic reasons, I suspect part of the reason God laid down all the rules about who you can and can’t sleep with in Leviticus is because the Israelites were to be a “peculiar people.” They were unlike their contemporaries, who worshipped other gods and did all sorts of nasty things. Those people probably WERE sleeping with their siblings and other close relatives, and perhaps God commanded the Israelites not to, partially, because they were to be better than the other groups.
If I remember the story correctly it was thedaughters fault. They got him drunk and he is not held accountable for his actions. The girls believed that no one would be left for them.
Although one of them also becomes an ancestor of King David. And you can’t really blame Lot’s daughters for doing what they did. Remember, they thought they were the only people still alive in the entire world. So they were, in their own minds, at least, in the same situation as Adam and Eve or Noah.
No, I think you have to consider the story in a little more depth. Consider: in Gen. 13:12, as Abram and Lot separate their families, Lot settles in the plains near Sodom. The very next verse clearly sets the tone by noting that the “men of Sodom were wicked and sinning greatly against the LORD.” So, Lot has chosen the fertile plains, the better choice of the options offered by Abram, yet close to a corrupt culture, and the days are early. The next mention of Lot, Gen. 14:12 notes that he is now living in Sodom. Rather than be offended by the goings on of the city, Lot has apparently sought closer ties; whether familial or business, or both, it’s interesting to speculate. Next, in Gen. 18, the LORD prepares to journey directly to Sodom because “the outcry (prayers?) against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous”. Yet, on Abraham’s behest, the LORD agrees to spare the cities if even ten righteous men can be found. Indeed, had Lot’s entire family been spared, the number would have been eight, yet the fact that the cities were destroyed would lead me to believe that those spared were not righteous, but spared due to Abraham’s righteous intercession. Surely this is the point of God allowing Abraham prior knowledge of His intent? To argue on behalf of Lot, his nephew? In Gen. 19:1, two angels arrive in Sodom, and find Lot sitting in the gateway of the city. In this period, the gateway was the location for conduct of commerce and government, so Lot had now become an important member of that society. He had been corrupted by exposure to the culture. Bear with me, as this point isn’t completely clear quite yet. Notice that Lot “insists strongly” (Gen. 19:3) that the two “men” stay in his home, not find accommodation in the city proper. Surely strangers journeyed regularly into and through Sodom; curious, isn’t it, that Lot takes such care of these two “men”, and is only concerned about their safety during the evening hours, indicating that daytime movement did not carry the same risk. (Note, he specifically tells them they will be able to continue on their way “in the early morning”.) Next, the well-known passages indicating that the entire male population of the town arrives at Lot’s door, demanding entrance. Here is another example of Lot’s corruption, as in Gen. 19:6-8, he actually offers his virginal daughters, already engaged to other men, to the townfolk. He surely understood the intent of the men at his door. Another curious mention: when the two angels urge him to gather those who belong to him (Gen. 19:12-14), Lot has to “go outside” the home to speak with his sons-in-law, the two pledged to his daughters. This would seem to indicate they also are part of the mob outside Lot’s home. It indeed sounds like Lot has been vastly corrupted by the ongoings of the town; his own daughters are pledged to marry men such as this. Just to remind everyone, the two angels lead Lot, his wife and two daughters to safety before destruction befalls the cities on the plain. The interlude here is also interesting. Lot begs the angels, who have directed him to flee to the mountains, to instead allow him to abide in the small town of Zoar, which they allow, and Zoar is spared the ensuing destruction. Lot and his daughters then leave Zoar, fearing to remain for some reason, (knowledge of the disaster would, of course, be known, and Lot’s part in it, perhaps?)and move into a cave in the mountains. But, the story is not over yet. The corrupting influences of Sodom have now had an impact upon Lot’s daughters. Notice in Gen.19:31-38 that the two daughters conspire to get their father drunk in order to become pregnant by him. Not once do they do this, but twice. Lot, for his part, is also not entirely without blame. Just how drunk do you suppose one man has to get, not once, but twice, still remain capable of sexual activity, yet apparently not remember? In addition, the lie the two daughters use in their conspiracy is self-evident; they are quite well aware that there are other men, having lived in Zoar immediately after the destruction of Sodom. They lie to convince themselves of the justification for their deeds, yet the intentional drugging, twice, of their father, betrays the lie.
All in all, it’s quite an interesting story. One man’s downfall, through his own actions in compromising with corruption in the world right outside his own door, impacting his own family, carries a great moral lesson.
Read: six. D’oh! :smack:
points to NaSultainne
What she (he?) said.
I know Rashi seems to think that Lot’s daughters are blameless for what they did, even though Lot isn’t. I’d have to do research to figure out why he said that, though, and if he has any answer to the “what about the people of Tzoar” question.
That passage could mean that Lot had to go to his future sons-in-laws’ homes to talk to them. (Wives usually joined the family of their husbands, not vice-versa.) There’s no reason to assume that they were part of the mob simply because the passage indicates they were not in the house with Lot.
I sincerely doubt that “all” of the men of the town were hammering at the door. I think that it’s just a turn of phrase, indicating that the mob was large. (Surely, someone had plans for the evening that didn’t involve assaulting strangers.)
**
Don’t judge Lot by 20th century standards. A “good” husband for your daughter was a man of acceptably high status, who had the money to pay a handsome bride-price. The bride groom’s moral character and your daughter’s happiness were of little concern in arranging a “good” marriage.
**
I have often wondered if this story hasn’t been grossly slanted to to take the edge off of a distasteful story of a father sexually abusing his children. It makes the tale of incest slightly more palatable if the daughters “wanted” it, and neatly removes the blame from a biblical hero.
Don’t judge Lot by 20th century standards.
Okay, how about we judge Lot by the standards of the day in which he lived? He was a PIG! Had he not been Abraham’s nephew, he woulda gone down in flames just like everyone else in Sodom.
It makes the tale of incest slightly more palatable if the daughters “wanted” it, and neatly removes the blame from a biblical hero.
Lot? A biblical hero? Do you even know who Lot is, much less read the passages we’re discussing?
Had to read 'em pretty frequently during my time in a Christian school.
Okay, perhaps I shouldn’t have used hero. I was using it more in the loose sense of the main male character in a story as the “hero” and as a female main character is a “heroine.”
“Patriarch” might have been a better term. Or “oft-cited figure.”
The story of his pleading for God to spare the cities was was taught to me in Sunday School, along with the tale of how his wife turned into a pillar of salt. (So, yes, in a way, he’s presented as sort of a “hero.”) In my Christian school classes, they skipped the unflattering parts, and basically stayed with the Sunday School version.
This is very similar to what I was taught in school by “Lot apologists.”
While I certainly don’t agree that Lot was a righteous or even likable man, I don’t really think that he was more of a “pig” than other men of his day. Callous disregard of the women in a man’s life was so commonplace as to be the norm.
Actually, he didn’t plead with God, Abraham did.
Whoops.
Although, ironically, Lot managed to accomplish more for the cities of the plain than Abraham, because, for all his pleading, Abraham couldn’t convince God to save the cities, but Lot just by saying, “I can’t walk to the mountains”, saved the city of Tzoar.
Hmmm, I think you’re far more generous here than am I. Consider: God is sending angels to the city because of the wicked and sinful behavior of the people. The outcry to God has, at least in part, brought this on. Lot clearly begs his two guests to stay with him, indicating what is clearly a reasoned fear for their safety. The subsequent use of all the men in the city, with further emphasis on young and old would make more sense if understood in its literal meaning. Recall, God has pledged to Abraham to spare the city if even ten righteous men can be found; quite obviously there are not such a small number to be found.
As to your point about the sons-in-law, again, consider the picture being presented. The men, however many, surely we agree it is a substantial number, are outside, having been struck blind by the angels. This would result in, what, anger, panic, retaliation? And it’s at this point that Lot ventures *outside (outside? Among the mob? How far? Is this likely?) to find his sons-in-law to urge them to flee. As to whether someone had plans for the evening that didn’t include assaulting strangers, as you put it, we have no evidence in the text to indicate so. In light of the behavior of Lot and his daughters, and based on the little provided explicitly, I wouldn’t find it credible that the sons-in-law, who laugh at their father-in-law’s concerns, are themselves righteous rather than part of the corrupted city. Whether they are equally guilty, on a scale measure, is worth consideration. Yet, they too are destroyed.
Boy, you couldn’t be more wrong, here. Consider the society we’re talking about. Abraham, Lot’s uncle, has been brought on this journey directly by God, clearly Lot would know this. Lot has been rescued from slavery by Abraham, another sign of favor by God. Would one expect Lot to have higher standards of behavior? Surely, yes. Remember, God has described the behavior as sinful indicating intentional, wilfull disobedience to a known law. Though we are far ahead of the Ten Commandments, there is no reason to presuppose that Lot or his family were completely unaware of the nature of the behavior God would shortly condemn.
Again, you’re reading modern sensibilities into your position. Lot is hardly held blameless: he does, twice, get drunk, allowing such behavior to occur. In addition, it’s Lot’s direct responsiblity that his daughters even consider such an act; he exposed them to a corrupted standard of behavior by his proximity to Sodom. As a result of his own behavior, he has lost his home, possessions, status. His now fears for his safety from neighboring towns. This episode has cost him dearly. He is no hero. As for the daughters being “children”, clearly they are of marriageable age, not children. No one comes out of this story looking good, except Abraham.