incest and the god concept

Discussion in 'Religion, Beliefs and Spirituality' started by negligent, Apr 8, 2008.

  1. ok, its well known that royalty would breed within itself as to keep the bloodline pure for the next prince n what not (but retardation did not seem to occur). its also known that we only use a small portion of our brain. so do you think perhaps that its possible that back in BC times that our brains had a much stronger connection to a psychic ability that enabled humans to communicate with god (or multiple different gods) that has simply been bred out of us through incest, since the human race has obviously expanded greatly through the years, and if the bible is correct we all came from adam and eve, so years of incest (incest causes mental retardation) could have first started eating away at psychic ability, but now we're to the point that incest causes retardation to the point of being dysfunctional to human society

    maybe at one point we had say 80% power of our overall brain, but through years of breeding with 2nd,3rd,4th cousins and what not it has fucked up the human brain down to only 20% (or whatever percent we use)

    i dunno, i'm just ramblin, maybe one of u will get what i'm tryin to say
     
  2. I've thought about that myself(everything except the incest). I never considered that a possible answer to us not using our brains. I can't say that its not the cause but I believe a little differently. I believe society has destroyed our connection with "God". As our society becomes more in depth and intricate we lose touch with the simple things in life. Honestly to me it feels like we live in a man-made world where we manufacture nature. To be in touch with "God" I believe you need to be in touch with everything and that includes nature.

    But on the other hand you could be completely correct. Maybe incest caused us to lose our connection with "god"/nature. Then not knowing or caring about our "psychic" abilities we go on and advance the best way we know.
     
  3. well hell yeah we all committed incest back when we were frikkin' animals-- jesus tapdancing christ, just look at the domestic cat or dog-- i have 6 cats and one ripe female-- when she goes to heat, her old man, her first born son and her second litter born son ALL go after her-- and u may not believe me, but all of the males are 'fixed'-- but when she smells that smell and makes her calls, not one of them can resist and they all try to mount one after the other and she lets them-- so yeah, i'd say that there was lot's of incest when we were animals and unfortunately there is still a lot of incest even with God around-- man, it's all over the place and it's wrong but it has nothing to do with God-- it's us-- we have met the enemy and he is us-- Regards, probus
     
  4. You gotta wonder this: what enabled modern man to step out of the realm of being just another animal, to thinking and having the capability of having an imagination?
     
  5. herb and moonshine-- Regards, probus
     
  6. the 10% thing kinda bugs me because doctors or whoever researches it really doesn't know that for sure...10% of something that they don't know 100% about is a little iffy to me....seems more like the percentage of our brains we use at any given moment (and even still..where does 10% come from?)
     
  7. It's not actually that having a child with a blood relative causes retardation, it just increases the chances of it because of genes. If you need 2 recessive genes for like autism or something, and that gene happens to run in the family, then having sex with your sister is a problem because you both probably have that recessive gene
     
  8. Royal Families would not engage in incest a lot. Remember, marrying your cousin is not incest, as the bloodline is different enough for the problems not to crop up. At least, not much more than usual. Not a great many people have actually had children from incest that I have ever heard of, certainly not enough to breed an entire ability out of the species. Mental retardation would not be the only issue they would have to deal with and if generations upon generations of people only procreated via incest, we probably would not be here right now.
     
  9. "durr durr **drool** bleebbidow bidabah TIMMY!"
     
  10. On a side note, we use all of our brains. The idea that we only use 10% is a myth.
     
  11. Um... no it's not. We may use a little more than 10%, but not much over that. Why don't you show us some proof ? Can you honestly, and correctly, say we use 100% of our brain ?
     
  12. :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:
     
  13. To all of you interested in this I reccomend you look up dysgenics

    It's pretty much the exact process negligent stated, but it deals more with evolution

    it is a natural fact that less intelligent humans breed more then more intelligent, therefore the evolutionary tree is constantly weakening over thousands and thousands of years

    I'm not going to go into your telepathy with god discussion (because lets be honest here, that just sounds fucking dumb) but humans in the past were much much more intelligent then we are now a days.
     
  14. Qft..... The Ancients, had to build the building blocks, that we use today. We have only added to these blocks. The Ancients, would of had to been, immensely more intellgent, than modern day humans.
     
  15. Technically the entire human race is inbred, and so is any other species that is able to sustain itself for more than a generation.

    All religious connotations aside, it is a proven fact that we are all descendants from a woman who lived 140,000 years ago and a man who lived 60,000 years ago. This has been proven through analysis of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes, using the molecular clock technique of correlating elapsed time with observed genetic drift.

    However, these two ancestors are not even our most recent common ancestors. According to probabilistic studies, the most recent common ancestor lived between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago or 75 to 150 generations.

    I've also heard a statistic that almost half the population of Mongolia is descended from Genghis Kahn in some way, and a similar proportion of Americans are descended from passengers on the Mayflower. Some geneticists believe that everyone on Earth is at least 50th cousins with each other.

    It really is a strange concept that we're all distant cousins... yet it's pretty much undeniable. Genealogy happens to be a hobby of mine and so I've traced some parts of my family tree as far back as the 1300's. I'm related to at least three presidents, eight first ladies, and various historical and famous people. You probably are too, you just haven't done the research and established the connections.

    Queen Elizabeth II is my seventh cousin three times removed, meaning I'm distantly related to the incestuous family pool of European royalty. My fourth great-grandfather married his first cousin as well. I also have a 3rd great-grandfather who had an affair with his own half-niece, and thus my great-great-grandfather was born. Yet there have been no birth defects or any form of mental disability in my family's recent history (by recent I mean the last 100 years).

    This is because the potential risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins is insignificantly higher than the risk associated with a non-cousin couple. The Journal of Genetic Counseling estimates the increased risk for first cousins at 1.7 - 2.8 % over the base risk of about 3%, or about the same as that of any woman over age 40, or of a still younger man. Put differently, first-cousin marriages entail roughly the same increased risk of birth defects as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 (roughly 6%) rather than at 30 (roughly 3%). However, repeated generations of first cousin inbreeding are thought to increase the risk substantially, like with the royal families of Europe.

    In my opinion the entire human race is a giant mixed up genetic melting pot as a result of our "superior intelligence". Animals for the most part have sex with whoever they can... they don't migrate across continents for generations or spend years dating different people before they decide on the right person to reproduce with. Humans pick and choose because of physical attraction, social status, community, arranged marriages, etc. Then we get hit by plagues or wars that wipe out huge chunks of the population. People get displaced, populations merge, families migrate, and we're left with such a diverse gene pool like we have now. No one is genetically pure. Our genetic pool is directly influenced by our culture, otherwise we wouldn't even have separate "races". Not a single living person shares more than a tiny minute sliver of the same DNA as the first humans. It's evolution directly observable.

    Interesting links:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_results_derived_from_historical_figures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Daughters_of_Eve
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_couple
     
  16. some one mentioned marrying cousins isnt insect by having a child w/ you cousin is (which is what queen victoria of england did). and we probably use 10 or so % of our brain per task but within a day well use all 100% (10 for dreaming 10 for reading etc through out the day) also it is possible that evolution from ape to man occurred in multiple places in the world at the same time

    // the idea of adam and eve is false, not even worth bring up
     
  17. What about intelligent humans giving birth to intelligent children, or stupid humans giving birth to intelligent humans, or intelligent humans giving birth to stupid children? You're certain that there is a steady decline, even though the research on it seems to show that it fluctuates going up and down? There is even something called the Flynn Effect that suggest that the environment might have something to do with it, as in education and parental involvement, amongst other factors?

    Also, if dysgenics is correct (I am not willing to make that claim as of yet) then when natural selection is present the population would be healthy and IQ would slowly increase, which would mean that the "Ancients" were not smarter than us, as the IQ would slowly grow until a time when natural selection was taken from the equation. Which would probably be around the time of the Industrial Revolution if I wanted to make a guess about it. So, we would thus be smarter than the Ancients, because our IQ had a lot more time to grow under a healthy natural selection process.

    Cosmic, She was simply the oldest human we had found and we do indeed trace back to her, but I am sure there were other people in her tribe, and probably some other tribes, and we would probably trace back to them as well. Such is the nature of ancestors.

    No, it is not considered incest by any definition I have ever read. It is what many royal families did. Many times a prince would marry his cousin, or vice versa. :p

    The evidence does not suggest that.

    Man did not evolve from an ape. We evolved from a primate, though, which is no longer around except in the form of us.

    Yes, indeed, I agree. :)
     
  18. ^ i'm not saying we're getting stupider, i'm saying maybe psychic ability was bred out of us, and thats the reason there are only a few psychics compared to the entire population
     

Share This Page