afdave
Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006
|
| Quote | | Since an ancient divine rule was necessarily changed for no other reason than to avoid newly emerging concequenses, wouldn't elimination of the possibilty of those consequenses mean it would apply again? If God allowed incest when offspring were not a problem, then would a person completely incapable of having offspring, who commits incest, sin in the eyes of the lord? |
That is very good logic and I do follow it. From my understanding of Scripture, the word "sin" simply means "opposition to the will of God." The primary guideline which we have to determine the will of God is the Bible as far as I know. We have the one written guideline against incest at the time of Moses, but there are other guidelines for marriage in Scripture which may or may not apply, i.e. one question I can think of is "What is the Biblical PURPOSE of marriage?" Remember that IF God approves of brother/sister no-offspring marriages NOW, this would mean He would be approving of a marriage which WILL NEVER have any kids. Notice that this situation, too, would be different than my supposed Cain's Wife scenario. My tentative answer without further study would be that this unique situation still would not meet God's approval because one of his designs for marriage is to have children, but it does not appear to me to be some kind of "heinous sin," but I could be wrong ... maybe He's fine with it.
I'm curious what you are driving at ... are you considering doing this? Are you concerned that you would somehow "fall out of Grace" under the Catholic conception of this term if you did? Do you know someone who is? Like hehe? :-) Or are just trying to investigate if you think God is consistent?
--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|
