9
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 51:
Line 51: + +
no edit summary
::"''Applying logic to these cultural myths is what leads people to realize what they really are: creative stories, not historic facts.''". Which you've failed to demonstrate because your "logic" has failed. Would you agree that when criticism of an argument can't be found, the argument is more likely to be correct?
::"''Applying logic to these cultural myths is what leads people to realize what they really are: creative stories, not historic facts.''". Which you've failed to demonstrate because your "logic" has failed. Would you agree that when criticism of an argument can't be found, the argument is more likely to be correct?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Philip - I agree, the issue here isn't whether or not the sexual reproduction among the Biblical Adam and Eve and their direct decendents constitutes incest -- clearly it does -- but rather if it is reasonable to note this fact in the article. It seems that you think there are factors mitigating this which bear mentioning, but thusfar your additions are either purely rhetorical: "brother-sister incest isn't as bad as mother-son incest" or speculative innovations: "incest wasn't a problem because genetic defects wouldn't have had time to occur." Neither of these or other explanations appear in the ''Biblical account'', which is what this article is about. If these opinions and speculation merit inclusion in the entry, there should be some citation and considerable explanation. From my perspective, so far it seems your efforts have been directed towards softening the hard realities that result from applying logic to mythology, to make them more acceptable to modern standards. --[[User:TheDecider|TheDecider]] 16:06, 16 May 2007 (EDT)