Creationist Wisdom #963: All Taboos Are Lifted

This is your lucky day, dear reader. We have a second letter-to-the-editor for you. This one appears in the Palladium-Item of Richmond, Indiana. The letter is titled Time to reject amoral thinking, return to God’s word, and the newspaper has a comments section.

The letter-writer may be the author of this self-published book: The Silence of Heaven. If that’s our man, this press release says he’s a retired preacher. But we can’t be sure it’s our man.

Because the writer may not be a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Harold. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

When we decided to jettison God and His word as our moral authority and decided we were nothing but an accident of evolution [Gasp!] we became by nature amoral beings having no moral authority to guide us.

Evolution and atheism are the same to Harold. And if you’re one of those hell-bound evolutionists, you have no morals, dear reader. Harold says:

I once asked an atheist who was his moral authority. He replied, “The group.” “The group” who at one time thought it was moral to kill Jewish people and to enslave people of a different race. [Religious folks have done the same.] That amoral thinking believes it is a moral act to slaughter innocent unborn children. Even now they are discussing the taking the lives of some born alive.

According to Harold, no religious person — presumably also a creationist — would ever be involved in abortions. But that’s not atheists’ only depravity. In addition to that he tells us:

If one person asks another to perform a sexual act which may bring on serious illness, even death [Huh?], it is acceptable if it is done under the guise of a “loving relationship.” We redefined traditional marriage to include any who have a “consensual loving relationship.”

What kind of sex is Harold talking about? Anyway, he continues:

Now all taboos are lifted. [Hooray!] Age limits, incest, polygamy are all acceptable once the participants claim a “consensual loving relationship.” The precedent has been set. [Who set the precedent — Darwin?] However, do not be shocked by what is coming.

Egad, what’s coming? Let’s read on:

From 1974 to 1984, in the U.K. the Pedophile Information Exchange [The what?] was allowed to openly lobby Parliament for legal acceptance of pedophilia.

Anything else? Apparently so. Here’s another excerpt:

On Feb. 28, 2011, psychology experts claimed before the Canadian parliament that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation” comparable to homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Look what Darwin has unleashed upon us! Harold finishes his frightening letter with this:

Maybe it’s time to get back to God and His word.

Maybe. Or maybe not. What do you think, dear reader?

Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

26 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #963: All Taboos Are Lifted

  1. I’d like to leave a comment however I’m watching “The Big Bang” right now.
    Harold would really not like the introduction to Big Bang episodes.Two of the leading actors are in a gay relationship with each other. I believe this would be extremely upsetting to Harold. Lets not tell him about it. No use agitating the poor man more than he already apparently is. Love the introductory scenes for “Big Bang” episodes. There are galaxies, the date “14 billion years ago” AND T Rex images. Harold would be devastated.

  2. Charles Deetz ;)

    And following the interpretations of biblical laws written over 2000 years ago, but only the parts you agree with, that seems so much better.

  3. Michael Fugate

    Weren’t many of the biblical patriarchs polygamists?

  4. Dave Luckett

    “If one person asks another to perform a sexual act which may bring on serious illness, even death, it is acceptable if it is done under the guise of a “loving relationship…””

    So says Our Correspondent, deploring this modern acceptance of dreadful perversion.

    My paternal grandmother died in agony at the age of 42, after giving birth to her thirteenth child, out of at least seventeen pregnancies, with at least four stillbirths. I never knew her, nor my grandfather, nor my multitudinous uncles and aunts on that side – this due to family politics too tedious to recount. I did meet my uncle Andrew once, when I travelled to Britain in 1979. We were looking through old photos when he told me of her life and death. I must have looked at him a little funny, for he protested, “It was all out of love.” I could only shake my head and remark that it was an odd way to show love for a woman, killing her like that. The visit kind of went downhill after that.

    I wonder how many women passed under that particular harrow, doing what the vows of a Christian marriage required. Things have changed, but it was not the Christian church that changed them, out of its compassion and respect for life. No, it was people like Marie Stopes and Margaret Sanger, while the church lobbied against it. But not people like Harold.

    Up yours, Harold.

  5. Let us hear about the testimony of morals given by Christian denominations: slavery, pedophilia
    2 Peter 2

  6. “by nature amoral beings”
    “it was moral to….. That amoral thinking …..”
    “….. amoral thinking believes it is a moral act ….”
    So Harold doesn’t understand the difference between amoral and immoral.

    “a sexual act which may bring on serious illness, even death [Huh?]”
    Fundagelical speak for gay sex. This goes back to the 1980’s and the AIDS epidemic.

    “What do you think, dear reader?”
    That Harold embodies about everything that’s wrong with fundagelical thinking. So nothing special.

  7. Michael Fugate

    One wonders, do any of these people read the Bible?

  8. @MichaelF:

    Don’t worry, there are dozens of YouTube videos explaining this problem away. Also Ol’Hambo, “the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else” has shed light on this topic.

    https://answersingenesis.org/family/marriage/what-about-polygamy-in-the-bible/

    Me being an amoral/immoral evilutionist who doesn’t understand the difference between right and wrong naturally never will be able to grasp the depth of Ol’Hambo’s thinking. So I haven’t read it and immediately went for the conclusion: “the Bible makes it clear that He intends marriage to be between one man and one woman.”
    But perhaps you still can be saved from yourself, MichaelF. So read it. When the miracle of the rescue of your precious soul has happened I will scoff at you, but know that deep down in the darkest corner of my heart I am jealous. Tell us what change in your life Ol’Hambo’s wise words have made.
    Now I have to run for a toilet pot.

  9. “Maybe it’s time to get back to God and His word.”

    What number commandment is “Thou shalt not rape the kids?”

    Maybe God didn’t think it necessary to spell that one out, since what sort of loyal devotee of the One True God to Rule Them All could possibly ever get confused over something like that?

  10. “One wonders, do any of these people read the Bible?”

    They strongly tend towards reading only those parts that they agree with and which some religious leader* has clearly pointed out to them.

    *The bar that must be hurdled to be considered a leader of the supremely superstitious is located so far underground that no one has ever seen it.

  11. One thing that I learned early on about creationists was their ignorance of the Bible. And I’m not talking about ignorance of scholarship like the Documentary Hypothesis, or ignorance of the original languages.

  12. David Evans

    It seems to me that if you start humanity with just one couple, incest is unavoidable at some point. Also Lot, who was described as a righteous man, committed incest with his daughters.

  13. Eddie Janssen

    @David. I think it would be more correct to say that his daughters committed incest with him (Genesis 19:31-38).
    (I believe they were the same daughters he would have happily handed over to a bunch of rapists prior to the destruction of S&G.)

  14. @TomS: ” their ignorance of the Bible”.
    Duh. The Bible is written in plain English! The language of God’s Own Country! If something is not clear there are sites like AIG who explains it all (away) for them! What more would they need? Bats are birds, do you (or rather me) say? Bodie Hodges knows better.

    https://answersingenesis.org/birds/bats-of-a-feather/

    Checkmate, athiest! And if you call yourself a christian because you believe and still think seperation of state and church a good idea you’r also an athiest.

  15. Re “That amoral thinking believes it is a moral act to slaughter innocent unborn children. Even now they are discussing the taking the lives of some born alive.” The second part is a Trump Lie being recirculated.
    The first is a contradiction of scripture. According to the Bible (OT, as NT doesn’t say a thing) a baby becomes a person, with rights, at birth, not before. Mention is made of the mother’s rights being superior to those of the unborn. This “life begins at conception” is nonsense made up to support the anti-abortion tropes of idiots like this. And if this were so danged important why do neither St. Paul, nor Jesus say one single word on the topic … not one.
    Danged clerics are ignorant of their own scripture.

  16. Much of what is common knowledge about reproduction has been discovered in the 19th and even 20th century.
    @FrankB
    I’m not talking about difficult passages in the Bible. I’m talking like,
    “What are the Books of Moses”?
    “Who delivered the Sermon on the Mount?”
    “Did John the Baptist write any books of the Bible?”

  17. Karl Goldsmith

    So just this year the BBC had America’s Child Brides, religion being used to marry off pregnant teenages to men that should have been charged with rape. Faux News wrote an article but didn’t seem to understand the girls being forced into marriage, as a way to legitimise the child in the eyes of God.

  18. @TomS: if you’re not talking difficult passages then the creacrapper has even less reason to start thinking for him/herself.

  19. The Parable of the Good Samaritan .
    I suppose that many people would be shocked to hear it explained as the Prable of the Good Despicable Alien. And then there is the “difficult” story of Sodom and Gemorrah, about protecting guests in one’s house.
    Or to hear about the many passages which make a point of treating the stranger from another country well. As well as if they were neighbors, or angels, or the Lord.
    I can imagine many a preacher who realizes that he’d better not bring up such a text, if he wants to keep his job., or not face excummication from his
    demonination.

  20. Michael Fugate

    It is also only very recently in our supposed “post-Christian” immorality that we have passed laws protecting women from their abusive husbands and still women and children are dying everyday.
    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jun/10/no-visible-bruises-what-we-dont-know-about-domestic-violence-rachel-louise-snyder-review

  21. The Paedophile Information Exchange (UK spelling there) was much in the news during the period mentioned by our writer, and it was the general public revulsion to this group’s activities, which had been little recognized until then, which led to changes in UK law.

    One unfortunate legacy of this episode was the hijacking of the word paedophile, which simply means one who likes children — but we all like children, don’t we? There’s a better word for what the PIE were, which is pederasts, but it seems to have vanished.

  22. Dave Luckett

    A similar state of affairs occurred in the US, where it was said (by extremists) that NAMBLA (the North American man-boy love association, ugh, ptui) had a delegation or something at the Democratic National Congress. If NAMBLA exists at all, that is. Of course the story was a furphy, fake news, whatever you call it these days. The version I heard was that the DNC has to consider applications from anybody, but this one was rejected with contumely. Or maybe it never happened at all. Don’t know. The rumour, the smear, was all that the pushers were aiming for, a talking point for local shills over the business breakfasts. Joe Bageant mentioned it in “Deer Hunting with Jesus”, his account of the attitudes and culture of poor whites in the South, who were, as he said, his own people. He is gone now, but damn, that man could write.

  23. jimroberts

    @FrankB: “Bodie Hodges knows better.”
    Bodie does know better. Ancient Hebrew has a word meaning something like “thing that can fly”. Obviously both birds and bats fall under this definition. So far as I know, ancient Hebrew lacks words for “animals that feed their young on milk” or “feathered theropod dinosaur”. This makes it difficult for the author of the Mosaic law to express himself in terms that we, as scientifically-minded English speakers, would find totally acceptable.
    I wonder whether “Moses” would have considered an ostrich a bird?

  24. Dave Luckett:
    I can attest that NAMBLA existed in the 70’s and 80’s. They used to openly pass out flyers in Westwood, CA (near UCLA) when I would go to see movies there.