Religious People Maby should Not read this.

[Navaros]

Yes there was incest after Adam and Eve but as far as I know, it was not God's intention or an endorsement by God of incest.

You see, Adam and Eve orginally were never meant to be reproducing new humans via sexual relations. At least not until such time as God would have told them he wanted them to. Whether God would have done that or not, I do not know.

When they committed original sin and had sexual relations against God's will, that is when corruption and evil came into the world and made way for things like incest.

Before that, incest was not necessary, nor were sexual relations of any kind.

[Sardo]

So... make a thread about the Bible, but bar religious people from the discussion. Contributors to the thread are also not allowed to give the "metaphore b(ovine excrement)". The idea of the thread being, what? To have a big atheist lovefest to quack on about how dumb this origin story is because it must be taken at face value, and the resulting idiocy of all religion? Mind you, I'm not religious at all, but this doesn't really seem to me at all like a sincere effort at starting a decent discussion.

Apart then from all that, the heaps of vague personal pseudo-science about (for instance) evolution, casually defining the 'Bible' as only being the Old Testament because that's how you like it, and the outrageous insults thrown at people now dead who tried to make sense of their world long ago, and therefore were "dumb" - I would just like to ask why it must be absolutely impossible for it to be meant in a metaphorical way. Just because the authors of the text didn't attach any footnotes along the lines of "just to clarify, folks, we didn't actually mean that God made the world in literally six days or that Eve was grown from a rib - it was just metaphore"? Why should they have bothered with the metaphores in the first place, if they were then required to explain the whole thing all over again for those who didn't get it? Maybe some people did and do believe that all of the Bible should be taken at face value, but that doesn't mean you can simply throw all the other interpretations out the window, just because they don't fit your anti-religion crusade.
On another note, I don't think many people would agree that religion became obsolete when modern science reared its head. Science can not nor will it ever disprove religion. Even if all the Universe were explained from the tiniest neutron to the vast expanses of space, you could still always claim that yet, there is more to this world than science can measure. That's not my position - I don't have to believe it, but I can't refute it.

Now, I do apologise if all this has been offensive or insulting to some, I just felt the need to write something when the implication was made that all of our ancestors before, say, the 17th century were just plain "dumb". That sort of thing never goes down well with me, is all. It may also be part of my big procrastination scheme, I should really be studying instead of writing stuff here.