Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Houston, we have a problem....

And the problem is this: Incest, whether your imaginary friend says it is a sin or not, is WRONG. Period. No exceptions. Vera, however, doesn't seem to think so.

"Also, the incest between Adam etc, was not sin. Sin is not imputed where there is no law. Obviously, to get the human race going, there had to be this type of thing. But God destroyed all but eight people to preserve mankind."

Sooooo....per usual, saying that your sky daddy says something is ok automatically makes it so. Also, Vera, if your deity wanted to get the human race going without the vileness of incest all he had to do was just pop into existence enough people that were not related in the first place. But no, if your beliefs are true he purposefully caused incestuous acts to happen, which you are perfectly ok with.

I am in no way implying that Vera would be ok with incest now, but that she could condone it at all just because her deity once thought it was ok, to me at least, is disgusting. But then again, murder and genocide are ok with fundies as long as their sky friend says it's ok.

And by the way, don't ya think that if a god wanted to 'preserve mankind' that he could have come up with a better way of doing it than ....DESTROYING MANKIND????

Jesus Fucking Christ, this kind of reasoning makes me want to vomit.

24 comments:

  1. This post hits on many of my frustrations with fundy thinking, including the fact that they conveniently ignore the idea of God's omnipotence:

    "Also, Vera, if your deity wanted to get the human race going without the vileness of incest all he had to do was just pop into existence enough people that were not related in the first place."

    I posted the text below to Ray's site. We'll see if he deletes it.


    Vera wrote (in a previous post):

    Also, the incest between Adam etc, was not sin. Sin is not imputed where there is no law. Obviously, to get the human race going, there had to be this type of thing. But God destroyed all but eight people to preserve mankind.

    A few questions (for Vera or anyone else...the more viewpoints on these questions, the better):


    Did the people involved have a choice about whether to engage in these acts?

    When parents copulated with their children, did the parents maintain authority over their children?


    When parents copulated with their children, was the parent-child relationship affected? For instance, were the children still able to see their parents as protectors and teachers?

    Did these people engage in incest because they felt an obligation to perpetuate the human race, or did they do so out of the usual human motives for sex, such as a desire for intimacy and lust?

    Why didn't God create more people in the same manner that he created Adam?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I doubt Ray will post anything about copulation, but we shall see. Testicles and penis were too racy for him.

    Why didn't God create a bunch of new people? I think that is an excellent point. Oh, but I guess that would dilute the sin gene we are all born with and weaken the case for salvation. Also why did Abraham marry his half sister Sarah? There were plenty of people around by that time. Of course no law then either.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Copulation is apparently a word that Ray approves. Comment was posted!

    ReplyDelete
  4. According to his last post, Ray thinks that "what greater hatred can you have for a person than to use their name as a cuss word?"

    To that, I'd just like to say that the rayhead is out of his raying mind. I always knew that he didn't give a ray about lying, but now he's just fooling himself.
    So, ray Ray (and the horse he rode in on).

    ReplyDelete
  5. BTW Ray, if you read this. I like you really. Just demonstrating you're wrong. Cussing using someone's name can be fun, and not necessarily from a place of hatred.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jason, the short answer is: It's not wrong. Not necessarily.

    It's taboo. Which is quite another matter.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wee, I believe it is both wrong and taboo. I can not imagine a circumstance under which it could be ok.

    I hope Jason's question was rhetorical.

    ReplyDelete
  8. NM,

    What is your definition of incest? First cousins marrying was common not too long ago. (at least in our family according to the genealogy research I have done)(btw- not my side if you are thinking that explains a lot)

    Morman polygamist fundamentalists marry relatives all the time. Only some of their children are born defective.

    ReplyDelete
  9. NM,

    I can imagine it. But then I've read every one of Robert Heinlein's and Spider Robinson's novels (I think) and liked most of them, so that might account for it.

    Don't get me wrong: Non-consensual sex is rape no matter whose idea it was to begin with. Moreover, adults in positions of authority have an additional burden of responsibility with respect to their children or any young person who looks up to them.

    I don't agree with the idea that kids under a certain age can or should be prevented from having sex. When they decide they're gonna, then they're gonna, and Mom & Dad can't do much about it. 'Twas ever thus. I don't say this is an altogether good state of affairs, but that's how it is. It makes no sense to brand a 16-year-old as a sex offender for life when all s/he did was get caught giving his/her 15-year-old playmate a blowjob. (This has happened.)

    As for the potential for that playmate to be a family member -- well, who else are you gonna trust with your naked body at that age?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here's a post from fourkid (Patti). I think it is the essence of circular thinking.

    {{{What is it about evolution that you find so heinous? Is evolution the true God-killer?
    TEMPLE}}}

    If Genesis is incorrect, then so could any other part of the Bible - who would decide? how would we know?
    *The virgin birth? It is critical that Jesus was born without the sin of man.
    *The Resurrection? If Jesus didn't come back from the dead then we have no hope of conquering death.
    Genesis stands literally and without error.
    Blessings,
    Patti

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hmm. That's a very telling comment from Patti.

    ReplyDelete
  12. NM, I really wanted to know. Do you think it's wrong even if it's consensual and doesn't result in flipper babies?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Milo,

    What do I consider incest? People that are having sex with their kids or sibling sex.

    If first cousins want to get nasty, then whatever.

    Jason, given my above definition of incest, yes.

    Wee,

    I think a 16 year old being branded a sex offender because he got a blowjob from a 15 year old is insane, too. But if they are siblings, I still think it's wrong. Do I think anyone should go to jail for it if it was consensual? No?

    ReplyDelete
  14. That last word was supposed to have a period, not a question mark. *sigh*

    ReplyDelete
  15. NM,

    When I moved to North Carolina from Florida (apparently EVERYONE in North Carolina is from Florida), I took an "Appalachian Culture" class in college.

    Now, we've all heard the stories (and quite a bit of pig squealing, too) and my instructor (a native) never denied incest took place. His explanation was "You work with what you've got".

    In extreme cases of isolation (like with SOME early Appalachian pioneers) there is still a biological imperative to procreate. And in such a situation, rape is not necessarily involved.

    The Genesis incest argument is only relative to today's standards. If the story were actually true (which it isn't), these humans would be justified in their actions.

    I mean, cannibalism, unpalatable as it is, has saved many a life and allowed survivors to live to have children and pass on their genes.

    Certainly, this doesn't speak to the rightness or wrongness of such an act. It speaks to necessity.

    As I stated, I don't believe the Genesis myth. I'm just playing "devil's" advocate.

    Personally, the incest angle isn't one I would take. Especially with so many other immoral actions in the bible to choose from.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mike I'm originally from NC. I personally didn't know of any pig squealing type of activities, but then again, I wasn't raised anywhere near the mountains or the eastern part of the state.

    I understand what you are saying about the biological imperative to procreate, but I still don't agree with it. There isn't any way I ever would. Is that close minded of me? Yep. I suppose that's my Achilles Heel where I pretty much do not listen to reason on that subject. Then again, I was also molested as a child ( so maybe that's why I'm so against this)and even though the perpetrator was not a family member there was some very inappropriate sexual behavior within the walls of my home. Sexual behavior between family members is not ever going to be ok with me, even if it is consensual, even if the people involved are adults. So, if being closed minded about incest is my biggest worry, I think I'll be ok.

    I also think that if you can justify immoral actions in the Bible just because a deity said it is ok, then you can use the same argument to justify those actions now and claim that it is ok because your deity said so.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Getting back to God destroying mankind - Flood, 8 survivors etc, you have to remember that the plan DIDN'T WORK.
    because Noha's decendants were just as wicked and god displeasing as before.
    So god wiped out all those people and animals for nothing.

    Nice one, god.

    And I love the rainbow thing. God puts this sign n the sky as a promise that he will never again destroy the world by water.

    Note, he's not promising not to destroy the world, just that he won't use water next time.

    Doncha love him?

    ReplyDelete
  18. NM,

    I definitely wasn't citing a deity to defend such actions. Nor was I saying such actions were at all moral. I was merely pointing out that, in extreme cases, there are pressures other than morality.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Noha's decendants were just as wicked and god displeasing as before

    Noah himself was hardly a paragon of virtue. First thing he does when he gets of the Ark is plant vines as he is obviously parched for a drink. Anyhoo, he brews up some homebrew, gets blind drunk and falls asleep stark naked in his tent. His youngest son finds him naked, and what does Noah do? Apologize for getting into such a state? Noooo, he damns his the child and all his offspring to slavery.

    It is a complete mystery to me how grown adults can take the story literally.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mike,

    I didn't say that you were citing a deity to defend such actions or that you were saying such actions were moral, I was stating my opinion and explanation behind said opinion.

    I was merely pointing out that, in extreme cases, there are pressures other than morality.

    I understood that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. HEY GUYS! WHO LIKES ICE CREAM???

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jason,

    Is it incest flavored?


    Mike,

    Cool.

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.