Ladies and gentlemen, I think you will remember a few weeks ago when a religious bigot quoted me in his article. Well folk, he’s at it again with a new article focused solely on attempting to debunk my refutation of his original article. Naturally, it is only fitting I debunk this latest assault on our form of sexuality. I have to admit, I am surprised he is willing to debate me, considering how my comments in response to his article were so rudely deleted from their website last time. Well, this consanguinamorous woman is NOT about to be silenced so easily. Actually I am glad he has actually put his article up, as it gives me another opportunity to demonstrate the flaws of his arguments.
Now that the background information is out of the way, let’s get stuck in shall we.
Recently we at the IRD exposed the existence of a small, but growing pro-incest lobby that is making use of the very same arguments the gay rights movement used to overthrow traditional marriage.
Marriage is a secular civil contract between people, it is currently defined as between two people of the opposite sex or two people of the same sex. I would strongly argue that this definition should also include incestuous marriage and polyamorous marriage.
This would do nothing to prevent people from having a traditional marriage if that is what they want to do. Of course, it is up to each individual church what kinds of marriage it wishes to endorse, however, it does not detract from the fact that denying others their equal rights by using the law is bigoted and wrong. People who wish to follow certain forms of Christian marriage should be free to do that, just as people who wish to marry a family member should also be free to do so. Churches need to understand that in a secular society, they are competing against other ways of life, and that they should treat others who are different with love and respect, not with condemnation and hate.
One of the sexual revolutionaries quoted in our exposé penned a response to our article, a response that we can use as an object lesson in how the body of Christ should address these new sexual radicals.
As you might have gathered, this ‘revolutionary’ to which they refer is yours truly. Let’s continue.
This sexual revolutionary identifies herself as “Janedoeofks” or as we shall call her in this article “Jane Doe.” She runs a website dedicated to the “intelligent discussion of romantic relationships between family members.” By her own admission she has had sexual relations with her own father since she “was almost 20 up until [she] was in [her] late 20s.” Her father broke off the relationship because he feared getting caught and had a pang of conscience about the taboo nature of their liaison.
The purpose of my site is to educate people about consensual adult incest, to let the world know that we are not perverts, monsters or freaks, and also to help my own community, some of whom may be struggling with coming to terms with their sexuality. Unfortunately, my father was one of these struggling ones and I really do wish he would come into the community to learn and accept himself. As for myself, I’m still in love with him because he truly is a wonderful man and fantastic person, as well as an amazing dad.
She blames society’s “ridiculous taboo” against incest for the failure of their relationship. Most shocking, however, is that Jane Doe claims that she would “consider [her]self Christian” and uses theological arguments to make the case that God is okay with incestuous behavior.
Well perhaps that’s because the taboo is ridiculous and it causes people to feel guilty about relationships that are loving and healthy. It does cause people to break up sometimes, even if they are deeply in love, as we were.
Yes, I am an incestuous Christian, just as there are LGBT Christians, Christians who are into BDSM and other forms of sexuality. These things have nothing to do with Gods love and do not diminish Gods love. Live and let live.
Now that the table is set, we will begin with a refutation of her position. Not every point will be addressed, as we are primarily interested in theological and moral frameworks. Our critique will be formatted in the same manner as her article, namely a quote from her piece followed by our response.
That’s fair. I will also stick to the same format for my critique too.
Can this religious person DENY that Jesus did not mention either homosexuality or incest, and provide a quote from Jesus to prove me wrong? No, he cannot, because no such quote exists.
Jesus didn’t mention rape or pedophilia in his earthly ministry either. If Jane Doe insists that things that are not included in the earthly ministry of Jesus are “irrelevant to the faith,” then she would have to say that ethics and laws against rape and pedophilia are “irrelevant to the faith” as well.
The parts in blue are my words, the rest are from his article.
You’re right about that, Jesus didn’t mention those things. Therefore for the condemnation of rape and pedophilia, we have to look at sources outside the Bible… SECULAR morality. If something hurts other people, then it is by definition wrong. Therefore we can all agree, whether we are Christians or not, that raping people is wrong, and child molestation is wrong. Even an atheist would very quickly and easily condemn these things because they cause harm. In both instances, somebody is unable to consent. Rape is non-consensual, and children are too young to give meaningful consent, so both require the rapist to use force, blackmail or intimidation. You don’t need to a Christian to condemn these abhorrent activities.
They are irrelevant to the faith in the sense that Jesus did not specifically condemn them, however, given that Jesus never harmed anyone in any way, it is reasonable to conclude that God disapproves of harmful activities, including abusive sexual practices.
More importantly, her claim that Jesus never spoke against homosexuality and incest is demonstrably false. Jesus claims to be one with the Father (John 10:30), which means all of God’s dialogue in the Old Testament belongs to Jesus. In Leviticus chapter 18:6-17 God (Jesus) condemns incest, calling it “depravity.”
There is a problem with this line of reasoning. That is that the words in the old Testament were written by many authors over the centuries, and that none of these authors were Jesus. Each may have made claim to prophethood, but none of them were Christ, and in fact there is NO book even in the New Testament which was written directly by Jesus. It is reasonable that the personal views and opinions of these various authors made their way into Scripture as well as the bits that were inspired by God. If it goes against love and freedom, it can’t be from God because God is Love… according to Jesus.
Prove me wrong pastor… where apart from a single passage in leviticus (a book most people now largely ignore because of the stupidity of it’s regulations and it’s irrelevance to modern life) is there any condemnation of Incest?
In I Corinthians 5:1 Paul condemns the Corinthian church for allowing “immorality…of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.” In verse five, Paul doubles down, saying that he has “decided to deliver [the incestuous man] to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” [Emphasis Added].
Well if a man is sleeping with his fathers wife, that is adultery. Adultery is wrong because it hurts people, it is breaking a vow to another person. If however the father is divorced from the wife, then she is clearly available to any interested man. If that man happens to be her son, there should be no problem because there is no adultery involved. Futhermore, even if they are still married, it shouldn’t be classed as adultery if the father chooses to share her with him. If the son could ALSO marry her then it would be polyamory and consanguinamory.
It is worth noting that the term “father’s wife” was a Hebrew euphemism for stepmother. If relations between stepfamily members are considered so immoral that it is “not tolerated even among the pagans,” and it is so horrible that Paul felt compelled to “deliverer [the man] to Satan” to save him from the sin, then it stands to reason that relations between actual blood relatives would be just as, if not more evil in the sight of God. In short, not only is incest condemned outside of Leviticus, it is condemned in the strongest possible terms.
Well, amongst these ‘pagans’ are the ancient Egyptians, many of which married their immediate family. How do two people who love each other suddenly become ‘evil’ just because they are closely related? They don’t, that makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. Furthermore, the immorality being lambasted here is NOT because it is incest, it is because it is adultery.
Furthermore, if incest was so bad, why in Genesis is Abraham a prophet when he is [incestuous] himself, being wed to his sister Sarah? If God was anti-incest, he would not choose a[n] [incestuous] person to be the founder of the three largest religions of the world, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Can’t have been that much of an issue now… can it?
There are three ways to answer this objection.
First, we must remember that God’s selection of human agents is not a validation of their life choices. When God raises up men to do His bidding He is choosing from a pool of sinful people (Rom. 3:23). God chose Paul to spread the gospel, despite the fact that he murdered Christians. God chose Sampson and he was a promiscuous womanizer. God chose David to be king knowing he would commit murder and adultery. If we take Jane Doe’s argument to its logical extension she would be forced to say that God’s selection of these people means that God approves of murder, adultery, and promiscuous womanizing. This is obviously false. God selected Abraham as the father of the faith in spite of his incest rather than because of it.
You misunderstand me here just a little. What I am saying is that prophets are held to a higher standard than the rest of the population, most Christians can agree on that. So either, God is okay with incest, or Abraham is not a prophet. If the latter is the case, the ALL THREE Abrahamic faiths are in serious trouble. Personally, I would hold the former to be true. As for the others, for secular reasons we can view their behavior as immoral and for religious reasons we can discount them as prophets. Especially Paul who was a misogynist who wanted all woman to remain silent and subservient to their husbands. It is because of him that women were until relatively recently barred from serving as Ministers! Yet Christ treated women with respect and treated them as people not property. For this reason alone, I am shocked that Pauls bigoted views ever got into the Bible to begin with.
Jane Doe’s position can also be refuted by the progressive revelation of God’s law. For example, in Genesis 9:6 God said that murder is to always be punished by death. And yet when Cain killed Abel in Genesis 4, God not only abstained from executing him, but he put a mark of protection on him. Why did God do this? We don’t know, but it is ultimately irrelevant for contemporary times because Genesis 9:6 inaugurated a new paradigm in which murder is punished by death.
This is the case because God is LOVE, and one quality of love is mercy. This is the difference between the SPIRIT OF THE LAW and the LETTER OF THE LAW. Do you not remember the story in the new Testament about the woman who was about to be stoned to death for adultery, and Christ said ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’, thus sparing her life. According to the letter of the law, she should have been ritually murdered by her friends and family, but Jesus could see the obvious injustice in this and put a stop to this barbaric practice. Jesus was acting in the SPIRIT of the law. The law of Love, because God is love, and Jesus is the physical incarnation of God.
In the same way, we are not told why God did not crackdown on incest at the time of Abraham, nor are we told why God had Cain marry one of his sisters at the beginning of the human race. But it ultimately doesn’t matter. What is important is that God’s standing order is that incest is illegitimate in all circumstances (Lev. 18:6-17).
Well, that is still to be determined. As with all scriptures of all religions, Christianity has scriptures that sometimes contradict each other and therefore is open to a variety of interpretations. My interpretation is that God does not see any issue with incest but is against cheating. There are several instances of incest in the Bible, none of which are condemned or spoken of in negative terms. The Bible doesn’t even condemn Lot’s daughters who got him so drunk he wasn’t aware he had had sex with them… I would take issue with that because there was clearly a consent issue… a drunk cannot consent. That said, I am surprised he could perform if he was in such a state he didn’t know what he was doing.
Finally, fornication and adultery are clearly condemned in scripture-including in the New Testament in general and the direct ministry of Jesus in particular (Matt 15:19, I Cor. 6:9;18, I Thess. 4:3). Incestuous activity always necessitates at least one of these practices. It is therefore considered evil in the eyes of God.
Well, if incestuous couples were given equal rights and were allowed to marry, there would be no fornication or adultery necessary. As I stated earlier, marriage is a civil secular contract between two people. Therefore this point only highlights the ignorance in your statement. It is certainly the case in the old testament that there were incestuous marriages, which were NOT frowned upon by God.
Desperate and out of options, Jane Doe, like the gay rights activists before her, attacks the scriptures themselves in an attempt to separate them from the words of our Lord.
No, I am pointing out that the Bible is not the literal word of God, is the words of people, some of whom were inspired by God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the direct word of God, only that Jesus is God in the flesh… same cannot be said of the old testament, or many of the new testament books. It is a book that has been translated and retranslated over the centuries, heavily edited and several books thrown out by the Council of Nicea, like any other book it should be treated with a hefty dose of rationality and common sense.
Do we follow the letter of the Bible which is as flawed as the humans that wrote and translated it, or the spirit of God’s law, which is the law of love, which requires freedom?
This question is as problematic as it is contradictory. First, how does Jane Doe know that God’s law is the law of love apart from the words of Christ as reported in the Bible?
Not at all contradictory. God is LOVE according to your own Bible, therefore it stands to reason that Gods law is the law of love. Where is the contradiction? Um… there isn’t one so far as I can see.
If the Bible is as flawed as the people who wrote it, how do we know it is accurate when it claims that Christ told us to love God and love others?
Well, we have to take that one on faith, don’t we. It’s all common sense really.
Apart from the Bible, how does Jane Doe know how God defines “love?” How does she know that God’s definition of “love” requires “freedom?” How does she know for certain how God defines “freedom?”
Love is showing empathy and compassion for others, not hurting people, not stealing from them or being a general arsehole to them. To show others love is to respect them as fellow human beings and to treat them accordingly. Showing respect means allowing for other peoples different lifestyles and ways of being providing that they are not violating the rights of other people. Obviously when somebody does treat others with disrespect, this is not the way of love. I think that it is a shame that the Church shows no empathy, compassion or understanding for our people, merely judging and condemnation. Doesn’t the Bible say ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’.
Without the scriptures, we have no way of knowing the answers to these questions. When one looks at the scriptures one finds that Christ said we demonstrate love by obeying his commandments (John 14:15), one of which was to abstain from incestuous behavior. It is therefore incoherent to say that God’s definition of love includes approval of incestuous relations.
The commandments to love God and to love your neighbor, not to condemn, ridicule, belittle and remove the rights of others. As I said, whether incest is condemned or not is still to be determined, it is open to interpretation because the Bible is contradictory in places. We shouldn’t take the most restrictive course all the time and deny others equality based upon such interpretations. Legality is a secular matter anyway.
Second, it is impossible to be an informed Christian and claim that the Bible is “as flawed as the humans that wrote and translated it.” The Bible presents itself as the word of God rather than the word of man. II Peter 1:20-21 states “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” [Emphasis Added].
Well, the parts that condemn incest are not prophecies, they are statements, therefore this does not apply to those parts. I’d have thought that yourself, as a religious man would have been able to tell the difference.
Jesus, who all Christians acknowledge as God, said that the Holy Spirit would echo what He tells Him to say to His disciples (John 16:13-15). The Holy Spirit is God, just as Christ is God (Acts 5:3-4). In Acts chapter 2, the Holy Spirit fell upon Peter. Peter said that Paul’s writings were scripture (2 Peter 3:16). Paul said in II Timothy 3:16-17 that all scripture is “God Breathed.” Since Jesus is God that means that all scripture is “Jesus breathed.” That means that the scripture-the Bible-ultimately came from Jesus not men.
Again, this is flawed reasoning. The Bible then, is the word of God because the Bible says that it is. Surely you can see that this is circular logic. That’s just as flawed as saying, “the sky is green because I say it is, and I say it is green because it is” See the flaw here?
To drive a wedge between Jesus and the scriptures is therefore unsound, as they will never contradict. Since the Biblical scriptures are the Word of God, they reveal the “spirit of God’s law.” The scriptures clearly forbid incest in all circumstances, which means incest is against the “spirit of God’s law.”
Not at all… you’ve just used circular logic to try to prove your point, and that is a flawed debate tactic if ever I saw one. As I stated, several incestuous marriages were not condemned in the old testament, and since God transcends time, if incest was okay then, it is okay now.
[T]he Holy Spirit, trumps legalisms. Didn’t Jesus himself break Judaisms laws by doing good deeds on the Sabbath, thus enraging religious authorities? Yes he did… therefore it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus would not want the ancient Judaic law enforced, especially not in this day and age. We should have moved past such BS by now.
Sexual revolutionaries have always capitalized on ignorance and there is an abundance of ignorance in the Christian community when it comes to Christ’s dispute with the Pharisees. People who just give a surface glance of the disputes would think that Christ was criticizing/abolishing the Law of Moses, despite his clear declaration to the contrary (Matt 5:17-19).
A more careful look at the tenants of the Pharisees shows a different picture. Christ never criticized the Mosaic Law in his dispute with the Pharisees. He criticized their traditions, their unbiblical additions to it. For example, there was no law in the Mosaic code that forbade Jesus from healing on the Sabbath; it merely forbade “work” on the Sabbath. The Pharisees made up additional regulations to the statue that God never authorized. Christ was merely demonstrating the inconsistency-and hypocrisy-of their position (Luke 13:15-16).
Just like people now demonstrate the hypocracy of the church when it makes statements such as these and does not forbid it’s followers from the following, ALSO condemned in Leviticus and elsewhere:
- Working on Sunday
- Wearing cotton/polyester hybrid shirts
- Eating leavened bread (any bread which uses yeast… so basically ALL those nice fresh loaves of bread you buy from your local supermarket are forbidden)
- Women speaking in church
Gosh, I could go on and on, but I won’t… this is sufficient to make my point. You either live ALL of the Judaic code, according to you, or you’re not a Christian. I’d bet you’ve broken more than one of these rules yourself, and you are clearly still a Christian.
At no time did Christ call for the abolition of the legal and moral prohibition against incest
That’s true, but he didn’t condemn it either, as I have explained.
Jane Doe’s inconsistency is on full display here. She dismisses “Judiasms [sic] laws” as something Jesus would “not want enforced” and then she turns around and appeals to Abraham and Sarah’s half sibling marriage as a model for people to follow today.
Why not? It’s there, it wasn’t condemned, incest shouldn’t even be an issue. All we want is our equal rights. You can have your traditional marriages if you want to, just don’t deny the rights of others who want something different.
Next, Jane Doe takes issue with the idea of people letting disgust with incest justify laws against it.
Legitimate question… should legislation be based upon freedom and logic, or on what some other persons may find disgusting? Personally, I find it a no-brainer. Obviously since one could find anyone to find any other act disgusting, personal disgust should play no part in the legislative arm of government.
Jane Doe’s position collapses in on itself. She doesn’t want disgust dictating our legislation because she is disgusted with the idea.
You’re really clutching at straws here , aren’t you? I am using logic here, not my feelings of disgust. I am saying that disgust should not dictate the legality of any act. I may personally find BDSM weird and gross… but I would never say that is a sound basis for making it illegal. Why should anyone have the right to make something illegal based on disgust? I acknowledge that many people find incest disgusting, however, that is NOT a sound basis for legislation. I advocate for the rights of ALL CONSENTING ADULTS to be allowed to do whatever they please without being legally harassed.
The fact is we let disgust dictate our policy all the time. Why is rape and child abuse outlawed, except for the disgust their harming properties bring to God and man?
We should retain the anti rape and anti child abuse laws because…. rape and child abuse hurt people. This has nothing to do with disgust (I am disgusted by such practices, but that is besides the point), and everything to do with legislation being structured in such a way as to prevent harm while respecting the rights of all consenting adults.
Questions of legislation are ultimately questions of justice and questions of justice are ultimately questions of authority. The question then becomes who is the final authority in the world? Man or God? Jane Doe appeals to her own opinion as the authority.
Every religion has it’s own ‘legal code’… would you be so willing to let ‘God dictate’ if it was the Muslim God and it brought Sharia to us all? I think not because the Sharia is full of human rights abuses. Logic and common sense should be the thing that dictates legislation, not any religious group, Christian or otherwise.
The problem with this becomes apparent when we realize that she is just one of six billion people with an opinion. What makes her pro-incest opinion intrinsically better than an anti-incest opinion? And by what standard can she judge?
True we all have various views… HOWEVER, which is the right one is determined by which view respects peoples rights to be with whoever they like without fear of intimidation, harassment, persecution and prosecution.
Without a standard that transcends human opinion (God), she can’t. She is asking everyone to accept that incest should be decriminalized for no other reason except that she says so. This is how a tyrant thinks; their opinion is law because they say so.
Not at all. I think it should be decriminalized because the anti-incest laws cause more harm than good. The path of least harm is always the right one.
Jane Doe is beat either way on this point. She can’t justify her pro-incest position because she lacks the authority to do so, and God-the one person who has authority to justify his position-has sided against her and said that incest is evil.
Again, I completely disagree. Please read my whole refutation.
I have no beef with Christianity, I would consider myself Christian, I do have a major beef with those who use their religion to justify the denial of other people’s rights.
By this point it is obvious that Jane Doe DOES have a “beef with Christianity.” She hates its regulations against incest. In fact, she hates Christianity so much that she is willing to put words in God’s mouth in an attempt to deceive his Church into blessing a practice that He has forbidden.
Again, the regulations are a matter of interpretation, and I interpret them differently than you, that’s all. As a reasonably intelligent person, you should be able to tell the difference between an attempt at deception, and a genuine disagreement on interpretation of scripture.
Such blatant libel against God demonstrates nothing less than utter contempt for the Christian faith.
Not at all. You completely misunderstand me, as is expected.
The only “Christianity” Jane Doe tolerates is one that is made in her image rather than God’s. Furthermore, on what authority is incest a fundamental right? Again, Jane Doe is expecting everyone to ignore the centuries of legislation against the practice throughout history and believe that incest is a right because she said so.
Most of that legislation is based on ignorance and fear. Just because something has traditionally been the so, does not mean that view is correct. This is an ‘appeal to tradition’ logical fallacy you’re employing here. I claim that incest is a fundamental right based on the fact that it is a fundamental right to choose ones own partner so long as that partner is also a consenting adult.
The rebuttals presented in this article provide a sound Biblical defense against the incest lobby. However, these arguments will not be sufficient to change Jane Doe’s mind.
You’re quite right they won’t, because they’re full of logical fallacies and personal interpretations of the Bible, and you know it. I expected better to be honest.
Jane Doe is enslaved to her sin of incest (II Peter 2:19). Her enslavement has blinded her to the most obvious of facts. She already genuinely believes that incestuous activity does not bring family instability, despite the fact that she was a party to adultery with her father and had to go behind the backs of her mother and sisters to do so.
Yes, I admit that the sin of adultery was committed at the beginning of the relationship. I am not proud of this fact, actually it is the ONLY part I feel any guilt about. Incest does NOT in and of itself cause family instability. After my mother sadly passed away, our relationship continued for years and it was happy and loving. Has it ever occurred to you that we only have to hide such relationships because of the kind of bigotry you are spouting? Many of us would love to be out in the open, but such bigotry and prejudice makes it impossible for us.
She firmly believes that legalizing incest will not lead to a slippery slope towards other sexual depravity, even though her own cause is poof that the legitimization of homosexuality has opened the doors to the legitimization of other behaviors like incest.
If you’d bothered to read my articles, you would understand my position, which is that if it is between consenting adults it should be legal, if not then it should be illegal.
Her enslavement to this sin has destroyed her ability to have relationships with normal men.
I have tried to have such relationships, even one BEFORE me and dad got together in the first place. All of these relationships felt empty to me. Why? Because the family bond aspect was missing. I am incestuous by ORIENTATION, it’s my nature, the way I was meant to be. I am not this way because of the relationship I had with my dad, I had that relationship because I am this way (obviously, so is he). Why would I, after having failed ‘normal’ relationships that felt wrong to me, try again? Just as gay people cannot be happy in a heterosexual relationship, many incestuous people cannot be happy in a ‘normal’ relationship either. It isn’t true of everyone in the community, but there are many of us who do feel this way.
Worst of all, her enslavement to sin has brought catastrophic harm to others. She serves as a moderator for an online incest community, which no doubt validates the perverse impulses of people who would otherwise seek help with their lust problems.
Validation and a sense of community and belonging is very important to our people in an otherwise very hostile world. What I help to provide is a sense of understanding for people who are struggling in a nonjudgmental environment. Furthermore, the forum is NOT about lust problems and we actually do not allow pornographic materials of any kind. It is a support group, that’s all. How does that harm anyone? It doesn’t, it undoes some of the harm society inflicts upon us by demonizing what it doesn’t understand.
When a man with pronounced pedophiliac intentions entered the forum she and this incest community refused to give the man’s IP address to the authorities via anonymous tip because, as she said, “we were not sure about how to make an anonymous report without bringing unwanted police attention to [our incest forum].”
A concern I share, which is why I was appealing to my audience for anyone to get in touch if they knew how. This is the harm caused by these insane laws against us.
Anyone who would put the preservation of their perversion ahead of the safety of children is too blinded by sin to be persuaded by reason alone.
I do not, and will never condone pedophilia on any forum or social space I help moderate, it is my job to help keep our community clean. I WANTED to report that creep, so much, but I was afraid to, and I was not going to endanger the security of my people in order to do it. I really do hope that bastard is caught before he does find a woman to sire his kids for him to abuse. People like that make me sick to the stomach. I am not ‘blinded’ at all, I am a reasonable woman and I would have done the right thing had that have been possible. Our community WANT to play our part in protecting children, but the laws you endorse make that impossible for us. I banned him obviously, and I am sorry I was unable to do more.
Penetrating such a hard heart requires the power of the Word of God, which is “living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb. 4:12).
I am not hard of heart at all, in fact all of the people who have gotten to know me would never describe me in such terms. I am usually a warm and friendly person who loves social conversation and just chilling out and having fun. However, I am also an activist and a prominent and vocal person within my community. I have a job to do, and that is defending my people and arguing for our equal rights. I took up this because it is important to me that loving couples do not have to break up because of fear and misplaced guilt. I know what that is like because I’ve gone though it, I really truly was in love with my father, and he with me, and yet he could not continue because of these issues. I don’t want others to suffer the same heartbreak of knowing that they have their one and only, and having to break it off just because society does not approve just because it is incest… how would you react in my shoes? I couldn’t stand by and do nothing while this continues to happen to people when I have the necessary skills and free time to help out. It would be immoral of me not to fight for justice and equality!
Jane Doe’s greatest hope is not found in defending her depravity. It is found in God the Father, who, rather than abuse her as her earthly father did, offers her the righteousness of Christ, which can make even the worst of sinners clean.
“Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you;but you were washed, but you weresanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (I Cor. 6:9-11). [Emphasis added]
I am not depraved… I’m a pretty average woman apart from my sexuality, and incestuous people have more in common with everyone else than you’d think. Also, if you think that people can pray away their sexuality, you’re wrong… how many homosexual people have tried to ‘pray the gay away’ and found that it doesn’t work? Likewise for us. I accept myself as I am, I would not change it even if I could, for me it has been a blessing, not a curse. I think this is what scares you the most, somebody like me being so comfortable and confident within my own skin and identity as a consanguinamorous person that I actively help others who are still struggling. How terrible of me.
We must pray that Jane Doe and those like her act on Christ’s offer of salvation and restoration, just as we do for the gay rights activists.
In the end, Christians can defend against the sexual revolutionary attacks with the authority of the Word of God, but can overcome and convert them only by the Spirit that gave us the Word of God.
And perhaps too I will pray, for open minds and hearts and for equality for everyone who deserves it, oppressed people everywhere. I pray for the person who wrote this article, who does not realize he is part of the problem and not the solution. God is love…. and only with love and understanding can this issue be resolved.
Again I thank the author of this article for his response, it has given me, once again, the opportunity to demonstrate the logical fallacies behind the Churches arguments.