You married your relative

So, was the title catchy enough? Time to get back to my more... philosophical (?) posts now. Aren't all my posts though? Nevermind that.

Now, not everyone who will read this has been married. But something we all must realize is that no matter who you marry... you marry your relative. Whether it's your cousin or a stranger from across the globe. There are multiple ways to look at this and explain this, multiple ways to ponder this concept, so I will choose to look at it through the Bible. What else can you expect?

So, Day 6. There were two people. One male, and one female. 6,000 years later, you have over 7 billion people. That's quite the family there! But looking back, I noticed something interesting. In those early days, not only was it acceptable to marry close relatives, but common. As a matter of fact, there were at least two major times in history (creation and the flood) where it was not only common and acceptable to marry close relatives, but necessary as well.

This is a very interesting thought, considering Moses was told by God that close relatives couldn't marry, yet God made two major instances where that was absolutely vital. Now this seems very strange, a contradiction even. Well, what better reason to ponder the subject?

Everything looks different when you consider genetics. If Adam and Eve are our ultimate ancestors, that means all of the genetic material and variability for all of mankind was built into them. Also, since creation was originally "very good", there would be no faults in their DNA. We also now know that information is lost from generation to generation, and errors build up in the DNA.

A simple example I heard is two dogs, each with a gene for long hair and short hair, mate. They produce some puppies with both genes, but some with only long hair genes and others with only short hair genes. The puppies with only one type of gene have lost information and variability.

This is the same thing that happens when humans reproduce. And when you add in the mistakes and genetic diseases, then when two people with similar (imperfect) DNA reproduce, those mistakes compound on each other. However, early in history, with improved health and perfect DNA, these mistakes at first would be nonexistent, and later come about much more slowly.

It would take so long for these mistakes to manifest themself in a dangerous form, that for thousands of years we could intermarry with no problems. And when you look at the timing of things, it makes sense as well. Moses was told that close relatives couldn't marry about 2,000 years (I believe) after the flood. That's a long time for mistakes to build upon each other. When you consider the fact that intermarriage was allowed, and even made necessary, by God early on, and the effects of the fall on genetics, it actually seems to indicate that marrying a cousin or sibling isn't actually wrong morally. At least that's what I get out of it.

But, of course, times have changed. Now it is dangerous for close relatives to reproduce, because of what could happen to the kids. But before these mistakes existed, what reason would there be to keep close relatives from marrying? When we read the Bible, it seems God simply wants marriage to be between one man and one woman (although He also allowed multiple wives for a time... need to ponder that as well), what difference does it make how closely they are related? Assuming no genetics mistakes, of course.

My conclusion after pondering this issue? Well, we all marry our relatives anyway, what difference does it make how closely they're related to us? So I guess that means... incest isn't actually wrong (on a moral level). At least that's what I get out of it. That was really weird to say...

A Break from Silence

It is hard to believe how much has changed in one month, since my last post. There is to much for me to touch on, or even remember, right now. Instead, I will be writing regularly again and you should hear about some of it!

I have been meaning to make another post, but lacked the will to. I kept on waiting for something to happen that I wanted to talk about, and for it to happen at a time where I had lots of spare time to write (while being bored). Well... that time is now! I don't want to play computer games, don't want to eat, am tired from an active weekend, and have something to talk about. Step one to becoming active again.

There has been a recent craze going around about the Hunger Games. A popular book series that has had a movie adaptation. I haven't read the books yet because it would take time from school, but I plan to this summer.

Now, for the reason I mention this. For a reason I couldn't identify at first, the very mention of the Hunger Games stirred up lots of emotions. As I heard the story described, and later saw the movie, I had one of the deepest emotional connections yet. I wasn't completely sure why. Even the cover of the book or mention of the name would do it for me. And there's more to it than the fact that most of the action takes place in a forest. I enjoy forests and trees... but that didn't justify the way I felt when I thought about it.

I believe it is a combination of many different things, but the biggest is the games themselves. The games are a means of public entertainment, pitting kids against other kids. The rules are set up in a way that would potentially allow for an 18 year old male to fight against a 12 year old little girl, for the entertainment of the masses. It is in my nature to protect, especially the weak. That is why I am so emotionally connected to this series, because I want to protect these kids, especially the little girls. But instead, their slaughter is for nothing more than the amusement of the masses (and as punishment for a previous "rebellion").

Were the rules to bring the two champions, the greatest fighters, from each district, I would probably feel different. First off, because of the basic way biology and society works, most, if not all, of the "tributes" would be mature males. There is a reason armies are usually made up of men. However, the rules often force small children who couldn't even survive a night on their own in the wilderness to fight against others who are much older and stronger.

Part of the reason the rules would be set up like this was as a reminder to the twelve districts who is in control, and to make them feel helpless. Seeing their young children slaughtered for entertainment would have quite a heavy effect on people. Especially when that had been done as long as they could remember.

That is the main reason, I believe, why this series sticks out so much to me.

What do you think? Have you read the books or seen the movie? What do you like or not like about it? And why? Comment!