1 2 3
As weak and ineffectual as all else on the site, though, no doubt.
Edit: At least when it comes to stopping anyone who disagrees with them, one thing that seems to be high on their list of priorities. It's going to be funny if they keep it up and end up with a site almost nobody can use at all, though.
1/22/2011 2:27:35 PM
I really hope that this is a very good parody.
1/22/2011 2:41:49 PM
The sad thing is that this guy was actually one of the more reasonable people at Conservapedia. He eventually left the site, fed up with the paranoia, abuses of power, and idiocy. He detailed his problems with Conservapedia in a lengthy essay: I was a Conservapedia Administrator
. There's an entire section just on Andy Schlafly.
1/22/2011 3:21:04 PM
The morality of an act is relative to the time it occurred?
1/22/2011 5:00:33 PM
Personally I find incest relatively amusing. Especially in Genesis - which is a word of the same root as genitals, (pro)genitor... et cetera.
If Genesis is to be taken literally as the inerrant word of the Deity, then there is no escaping the fact of brother/sister sexual relations. Or even mother/son, or father daughter.
The Noachic story implies first cousing sexual activity too. There is simply no avoiding the issue if the Bible is to be taken literally.
This raises the interesting question: at what point did incest cease to be OK? Where in the Bible does it say that there shall be no more incest as it is sinful? I have never come across it in Genesis. Leviticus, referring to a time much later than the supposed time of Genesis does make prescription, but after how many thousands of years - about 3,600, if we take a creationist timeline. Rather late in the day, no?
To take the early part of the Bible as historical, in the context of it being the inerrant word of God is against reason and therefore cannot be regarded as holy or sane. It requires mental contortions to accept that God allows what is later condemned as sin, thus making the Deity into a changing and whimsical being. So much for 'O Thou that changest not...' It is saner and reasonable to regard Genesis as man's attempt to approach his own existence and how he came into being. his sense of the transcendent and his relationship to it by use of allegory. This in no wise violates the creator role of any Deity. Rather it freely admits that things have happened of which the human species has only the most limited understanding, and towards which humans will ever strive to understand more fully.
To recede into the cosy error of Biblical inerrancy and foundationless claims of creationism is obscurantism and stupidity that fly in the face of the Deity by denying the intelligence that raises humanity above the level of the beast.
1/22/2011 5:45:02 PM
Wow, Andy's section is practically nightmare-fuel stupid. On Andy's end, that is, granted Phil still gets some points for moronic statements or illogical arguments here and there.
1/22/2011 5:49:22 PM
HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY!!! The only incest I want to hear about is brother/brother incest in animes you gross inbred fuckers.
1/22/2011 5:51:00 PM
You know, I know somebody who does not have a problem with incest. Nevertheless, if he knew that there are creationists who agree, he would most likely be horrified.
Other than that, this really isn't that fundie.
1/22/2011 6:14:16 PM
I had a dog that was the product of incest, she had so many genetic problems she shouldve been put to sleep. Moral of the story: Incest is bad, REAL BAD!
1/22/2011 7:21:59 PM
@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.
But the incest occurred after they were kicked out of the garden. Childbirth was one of the punishments Eve incurred after she ate the magic fruit. How could Seth (Adam's son) "beget" Enosh (at least 105 years after they left the Garden) except by mating with one of his sisters?
1/22/2011 8:10:27 PM
You are arguing semantics, and doing it poorly, and what's more you haven't actually tried to explain why YOUR incest is good but all other incest is bad.
1/22/2011 8:27:17 PM
Ummmm, what? You lost me after "It seems that you want to make this "incest" out to be something bad." Oh yeah, forcing rape victims to marry their rapist; widows to marrying their brother-in-law, stoning people, having slaves, etc. were all a good thing. Are they bad now or do you need a new chapter in The Bible to help you decide?
@ gaijinlaw LOL!!!!!
1/22/2011 8:28:22 PM
1/22/2011 8:45:14 PM
So, Phil, how long have you been fucking your daughter, cuz you sound like an incest apologist.
1/22/2011 8:54:52 PM
Thank the heavenly lord that incest has nowadays deemed to be illegal and unacceptable. These kinds of degenerites are fast coming a minority because of that sort of a restriction, which is a good thing.
EDIT: lol, my IP range has been blocked from CP xD Well, Tor-button gets rid of that, and got to read all of the horseshit. I can't even understand why should my IP range be blocked, since i'm not an Assfly approved(TM) editor around there, so can't participate in anything, not even the talk pages... Never the less troll the place.
Sorry, had to pick up this mother of funny among others:
"I'm not happy about the reference to intercourse with Eve (besides, why not a daughter with Adam?), as that would be adultery, but between married brother and sister it would have been okay at the time. "
WTF is this guy thinking?
1/22/2011 10:50:06 PM
Dr. Steve Brule
An awesome PJR moment to be sure, however it is a wee bit dated....
1/22/2011 11:15:29 PM
Conservapetan knows you're going to hell for defending incest, Philip J. Rayment!!!
Have a blessed day!!!
1/23/2011 1:49:12 AM
Hold on, I think I finally get it:
Incest: Not so bad, and still legal in some states.
Gay marriage: A Horrible Sin (TM), and only currently allowed in five (?) states...which will lead to incest...
1/23/2011 1:58:04 AM
Don't you just love it when the jokes write themselves?
1/23/2011 1:58:18 AM
"I don't come with the presupposition that they are mythological stories that therefore must have problems"
What an odd thing to say. Mythology tends to hold together quite well.
1/23/2011 4:49:12 AM
"It's okay if it's in the Bible"
The beginning and end of fundie morality.
1/23/2011 6:15:45 AM
I read about the afterlife
And yet, I bet gay sex is the big no-no. But shacking up with your sister? A-OK, my friend.
1/23/2011 9:23:56 AM
Bah! We've always known they're okay with incest. Nothing to see here.
1/23/2011 11:16:50 AM
Calling this guy a "motherfucker" gives the insult more literal meaning.
1/23/2011 11:53:43 PM
Funny, I seem to remember most Christians having a problem with incest. Apparently I'm wrong and it's no big deal. I think I'll go fuck Phillip's s family in a massive orgy to celebrate.
(Phil, I'm just pretending to be an asshole--what's your excuse?)
1/24/2011 4:10:10 AM
1 2 3