Sunday, January 4, 2009

thought of the day.174

Shouldn’t we question the intelligence of a god who deems incest the best way to populate a world?
Posted by at

17 comments:

homesicksooner said...

Where in scripture does God command people to populate the the world incestuously?

January 4, 2009 at 6:26 PM
john evans said...

His grand “perfect” plan from the beginning had incest at the heart of it. Clearly, Adam had to sleep with his daughters and grand daughters or else Eve did the same with her sons. Or perhaps it was brothers and sisters who had sex with each other.

And the bible God seemed so enamored of incest that after killing every single soul on earth save Noah’s family, his plan was to repopulate it again through family members sleeping with each other.

January 5, 2009 at 6:17 AM
homesicksooner said...

You still have provided NOTHING directly from the Bible to substantiate your claims. I need something more convincing. The word incest is not mentioned in the accounts you just gave. No command is given by God to populate the world through incest. You are saying there is an implication but I don't see it. Surely you have something more substantial than an argument from silence.

Reverend E, you are seeming more and more like a man of great faith!

January 5, 2009 at 7:14 AM
homesicksooner said...

Could you kindly point me to the passage from the Bible that specifically states His "grand, perfect" plan? I'm having trouble finding it.

January 5, 2009 at 7:17 AM
john evans said...

Fair enough. There is obviously only the clear implication not a direct command to populate the world through incest.

Do you believe the Genesis account to be history or myth? Were Adam and Eve the first people created? Adam out of dirt and Eve out of his rib?

January 5, 2009 at 7:53 AM
homesicksooner said...

You should edit your initial post so that you are not misleading people.

January 5, 2009 at 7:56 PM
john evans said...

If you can tell me how the world was populated both before and after the Flood without incest I will be happy to stand corrected and gladly revise my original post.

January 5, 2009 at 10:58 PM
homesicksooner said...

The burden of proof is on you my friend as you are the one making the claim. Unless you are willing to substantiate your claims with evidence, you shouldn't be making them.

January 6, 2009 at 5:08 AM
john evans said...

My evidence is the biblical stories. You don‘t seem to accept your own holy book as evidence but that is all I can offer.

Of course, I could say, the burden of proof for our entire conversation is on you my friend as you are the one making the claim about the existence of a thing you call “God”. Unless you are willing to substantiate your claims with evidence, you shouldn't be making them.

You have no evidence—only faith. If you had evidence, you would not need faith.

January 6, 2009 at 6:22 AM
homesicksooner said...

Faith is not lacking in atheism. There is much the atheist takes by faith.

I can demonstrate this if need be, but I think you probably know this. We can spend more time here if you'd like, but I think our time is better spent elsewhere.

I am not using the Bible, because it's not a credible source for you (unless it supports your worldview).
Quoting the Bible with an atheist is not the smartest thing to do.

No evidence? I don't think you mean what you are saying here.

Atheism has epistemological flaws. When you speak of evidence, you want something empirical right?

If you think empiricism or science is the only means of truth or knowing your epistemology self refutes. You can't make such a claim without doing so philosophically. At that point rationalism or philosophy becomes your starting point rather than empiricism.

January 7, 2009 at 5:39 AM
john evans said...

Why are you talking about atheism? Please stay focused on the topic. I thought the subject was incest and that God, according to the story in Genesis must have planned on incest to populate the earth both at the beginning when he still liked his creation and later, after he hated it so much he killed “everything that breathed” save those on a boat. And let’s not forget his grand plan for Abraham who of course married his sister. Or do you think having sex with your sister isn’t incest?

January 22, 2009 at 6:35 AM
Order/Peace said...

What's wrong with incest? From a naturalist/humanist position, how can you argue (or at least imply) a moral position against it? Especially when we see the benefits of it. All of these people engaged in incest:
1. Johann Sebastian Bach
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
3. H.G. Wells
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Albert Einstein
6. Charles Darwin married his first cousin Emma Wedgwood.
As a humanist, I'd have thought incest would have been commendable.

January 28, 2009 at 2:16 PM
john evans said...

Order/peace, dig the name and welcome. Was not aware that all those people were involved with incest. Will take your word for it as the question is, as you put it, what’s wrong with incest? I am assuming you know the genetic and psychiatric problems that are associated with it and just want to see how a godless person justifies condemning it. Is that right? If so, I just gave you a couple of reasons. Or do you truly think incest is good, as the bible god clearly does?
Here are a few more names to add to your list:

Abraham married his sister Sarah.

Amnon raped his sister.

Lot’s two daughters had sex with daddy.

Amram married his father’s sister Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses.

Esau married his cousin, Mahalath.

Jacob worked for his uncle, Laban, 7 years to be able to marry his cousin Rachel. Then
worked another 7 years after his uncle tricked him into sleeping with his cousin Leah.

Nahor married his brother’s daughter, Milcah.

Isaac married his cousin, Rebekah.

I do appreciate your comments and hope you visit often.

January 28, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Order/Peace said...

Evans - I think homesicksooner nailed it when asking, does God command incest? Permitting it and commanding it are two different things. You've certainly resolved to such an approach, with loving intentions, if you are a parent.
BUT your contention with incest is the societal harm, as a result of the genetic and psychiatric harm it causes, as opposed to a moral problem? Is that correct?

January 29, 2009 at 1:39 PM
john evans said...

Well, I never said “commanded”, “deemed” was the word. Very different.

I recently read an interesting ethical dilemma posed about a brother and sister who are driving home from college or something and they decide to have sex. i am sure I am leaving out some key information but basically she is on the pill and he uses a condom so there is no chance of pregnancy, they are both consenting adults, both disease free, both quite enjoy it and both decide that it was a one time thing and will keep it a secret between them. We are naturally repulsed by the idea of such an incestuous act (a product of evolution i would suggest) but there is really no ethically grounds for condemning it. Interesting.

To me, morality is best simplified to asking what causes suffering and what fosters happiness. In this strange hypothetical case since only happiness came of it how would it me immoral? It would only be so if an outside authority (god) said it was.

January 29, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Order/Peace said...

OK - if we're just dealing with hypotheticals... What if the brother and sister were your son and daughter. Would you encourage them in this happy endeavor?
Or how about this. Have you ever heard of KOKO the gorilla? A very intelligent animal, and rightly so since KOKO is really just a family member that hasn't shaved. (See your clip on man as monkey/ape). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla) Koko is able to understand more than a 1000 signs and has over a 2000 word vocabulary. Let's say a young man falls in love with koko and they willingly consent to sex, taking all the necessary precautions. Are you ok with bestiality? Only "happiness" comes of it. What if it was your son? Would you want him to be happy?

January 30, 2009 at 10:06 AM
john evans said...

Just to be clear. The whole idea of the hypotheical I relayed grosses me out and in no way would I encourage such behavior. The point of the thought exercise was that though we naturally are repulsed by the thought there is not always clear ethical reasons to be.

In answer to your question. You have changed the dynamic by adding a third person to the equation. I would be horrified so I would not encourage such a thing.

As to bestiality. I believe we have to have respect for an animal in a similar fashion we would have respect for a minor. Realizing that because of their lack of maturity (in an animal's case, lack of understanding) to engage in such a relationship would be to take advantage of the other rather than having respect for them.

January 30, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)