Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 78965

[re: implicit incest in creationist account of early human history]

It seems that you want to make this "incest" out to be something bad. You think that the fact that it is incest should be noted in the article, but I've never disagreed with mentioning that it occurred, but object to putting it in a way that suggests that there was something wrong with it. Even just the use of the word "incest", although technically correct, is problematic because of the connotations surrounding the term. As far as putting in bits that aren't in the account is concerned, I previously pointed out that you were doing that anyway. The bits that explain that incest wasn't a problem come directly from what you want to do—applying logic to the accounts, but unlike you, I don't come with the presupposition that they are mythological stories that therefore must have problems.

Philip J. Rayment, Conservapedia, Talk:Garden of Eden 59 Comments [1/22/2011 10:54:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 104
Submitted By: Night Jaguar
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Godbuster

I dance I dance I dance
around the mexican hat
and that's and that's and that's
the end of that

1/22/2011 11:04:54 AM

Mr. Creazil

Why am I not surprised that a creationist supports incest?

1/22/2011 11:12:35 AM

666USA

If incest is ok then why is it illegal for me to be in a relationship with my cousin?

1/22/2011 11:13:03 AM

Night Jaguar

The creationists always complain about (alleged) moral relativism, but when you point to the Bible they always seem to say 'it was alright to do it back then'.

1/22/2011 11:16:03 AM

Alencon

Just for information purposes, the semi-official Christian Apologetic on incest is it was ok early because mankind hadn't yet degraded. Adam & Eve were originally perfect and mankind only began to degrade after they were kicked out of the garden.

This is easy to "prove," look how long Adam and his early descendants lived compared to how long we live today *cough, cough*.

Incest doesn't "officially" become a no-no until the law of Moses. Before that, it was G-OK.

In other words, fundies are idiots.

1/22/2011 11:22:26 AM

jas43

this shows you that stupid people will defend anything.

1/22/2011 11:37:48 AM

schism

this shows you that stupid people will defend anything.

That wasn't even a defense, really, just empty babbling.

1/22/2011 11:42:08 AM



From the same guys that say, "if gay marriage is approved, people will marry their sisters"

1/22/2011 11:43:03 AM

jas43

this shows you that stupid people will defend anything.

That wasn't even a defense, really, just empty babbling.

you're right. after a second read it really isnt a defense haha
im faded

1/22/2011 11:50:03 AM



The problem isn't the fact that it's called incest. The problem is breeding with close relatives leads to fetal development problems which means that the human race would not have carried on, which is why your bible story doesn't work.

1/22/2011 11:56:15 AM

Captain Klamydia

I dub this the "incest is wincest" thread

1/22/2011 12:05:23 PM

Percy Q. Shunn


1/22/2011 12:15:30 PM

farpadokly

This makes no sense. What connotations does "incest" have, except having sex with a family member? The selfsame thing that is later explicitly prohibited in the same book.
So, the biblical accounts are literal, problem-free stories about actual events to which logic should on no account be applied??

1/22/2011 12:29:08 PM

Gordon Godsboy

Indeed, incest is the backbone upon which human civilization is founded. All the greatest religious leaders throughout history were incestuous, or wankers, and many of the world's leading thinkers in the current Christian fundamentalist movements are the product of generations of practitioners of the sacred rights of incest.

Certainly, we know that the tight bonds of incestuous families, also help to bind whole communities together. My advice to you, if you wish to dedicate your life to Jesus, then make sure that tonight you behave in the most biblical way that you can by first praying for God and Jesus to kill some homos, and then get down to some incestuous relations with your relations.

1/22/2011 12:33:47 PM



@ Gordon Godsboy

Well, that certainly explains everything about people like Fred Phelps.

Anyway, those are some pure, unadulterated lulz you got there.

1/22/2011 12:54:30 PM

lisamariefan

Um...no, you don't get it.

Incest becomes a problem only when you humor the idea that the stories are real. And it has nothing to do with the fact that it's viewed as gross by most people. It has to do with a genetic defects becoming very prevalent due to a lack of genetic diversity. Well, that and the fact that there's nothing in the DNA of humans to suggest a low gene diversity in the first place.

You see, it's by first assuming that your story is real and then considering the implications of that story that we come to the conclusion that it is false. That's how logic works.

1/22/2011 12:58:02 PM

gaijinlaw

I'm convinced. Philip J. Rayment, go f#@% your mother.

1/22/2011 12:58:13 PM

Canadia

@666USA

Laws need not be just, I know the reasons behind you saying this but the logic is just as much not there as in Phil's quote.

@Phil

All 'incest' implies is intercourse with relatives, that's it, nothing inherently negative to be found.

1/22/2011 1:02:06 PM

WWWWolf

> problematic because of the connotations surrounding the term

No, it's problematic because of the nature of the issue itself.

1/22/2011 1:38:57 PM



What the shiz...is anyone else getting a 403 Forbidden when attempting to access Conservapedia? Is there an atheist-librul-commie shield up there?

1/22/2011 2:03:42 PM

JSS

Ah those pesky connotations. What business do they have making things like incest, rape, murder, genocide, molestation and infanticide look bad?

1/22/2011 2:05:04 PM

Canadia

No problem accessing it, here.

1/22/2011 2:05:17 PM

TGRwulf

So it's only incest when you say it is, even when it's incest? WHAT??

1/22/2011 2:13:07 PM

Draken

Looking at that talk page, I'm beginning to wonder if half of the editors there aren't deepcover liberals.

1/22/2011 2:18:55 PM

Night Jaguar

"What the shiz...is anyone else getting a 403 Forbidden when attempting to access Conservapedia? Is there an atheist-librul-commie shield up there?"

They actually sorta have one. Conservapedia has done a massive amount of IP range blocking. They have blocked over 20 million IP addresses.

They usually do the blocks after they ban a parodist, vandal, or person with a view different from their own.

1/22/2011 2:25:57 PM
1 2 3