Wormwood said:
pom, my point is that there was a literal, physical obedience to law (diets, circumcision, etc.) that existed under the Old Covenant. It was clearly sin not to circumcise a male under the OC regulations. We are not under that covenant so we see those regulations pointed to something more significant and meaningful than the food, foreskin, etc. You are arguing that if God said something was a sin in the Mosaic Law, then it is always a sin. My point is that God has interacted with people differently in different eras. The way God interacted with people prior to the Mosaic Law when there were just a few humans on the earth is obviously quite different from how he interacted with people under the Law of Moses...which is different from how he interacts with people under the New Covenant.
I don't know what "outside knowledge" you are referring to in this discussion. I am referring to this statement you made:
So what "outside knowledge" do you have? Do you have the "genetic data" for the first human beings who walked the earth? How do you know their DNA was the same as ours? Clearly it wasn't since people lived for 900 years in those days. Once again, you are missing the point. The point is that God interacts differently with different people in different eras. There are some things that reflect God's character that are ALWAYS sin (lying, murder, hatred, stealing, etc). However, ceremonial laws, covenantal law, etc are examples that things are not "once a sin always a sin." It was sinful to eat shellfish as a Jew in the Old Covenant. That "sin" is not a "sin" for those who are in Christ because we are in a different covenant.
In the same way, the situation for people when there were only a few humans on earth was clearly different than thousands of years later and I think it is misguided to say that the same rules applied to human procreation at the beginning of the world as applied later.
When The King came he said to take up his yoke for it is light. He pared down the 603 commands to the Two for us.
Following those Two we follow ALL the 603. So we are circumcised in every way, shape and form to the letter of the Law. Done deal, easy peasy.
Now as for sin. God does not change what he considers sin for ANYONE.
So incest is still sin whether it was Adam and Eve's time or Noah's.
Why?
Well we have the Two Great Commands, so let us see how they would apply to incest.
Second Great Command says to love each other as yourself.
Incest, even with Aunt/Uncle and Nephew/Niece would be psychologically dysfunction and unloving.
These pairings are NOT to be done among higher sentience animals like man. We walk on two legs not on four (Thank you H.G.!)
It does not matter what genetics come into play, it is unloving to commit incest and more so if it brings about a child.
The second great command always boils down to this one question we need to ask ourselves before doing ANYTHING in our lives.
If this was done to ME, would I like that?
If you say NO, then the it breaks the Second Command.
If you say YES, and it is ethically incorrect, then you need to seek immediate professional psychological help. As your mind has formed in dysfunctional ways.
Ex. (Gentle) It would not make me feel good if someone spread a rumour about me. So I should not spread a rumour about my boss.
Ex. (Extreme) I would not like to be raped. So I should not rape another person.
It is pretty simple really.
In cases of incest I would not like mother to tell me I had to have sex with her it would make me feel disgusted, shameful and wrong. So I should not tell my mother she needs to have sex with me.
Incest, then and now, is clearly sin as it violates the Second Great Command.
And if we violate the second, we violate the first automatically as if we do not love God's creation, we do not love God. We do not KNOW love.
So people can bicker and say well it was different then to know, but God does not change. And his Second Great Command is a command he too obeys. For he loves himself as he does us.