Cousin marriage laws outdated

Nonsense. See my posts.

Inbreeding concentrates traits, good and bad. With animal breeding, the offspring with bad traits are euthanized or spayed. That is not (currently) an option in human breeding.

You said — “Just having fun with you. We all learn everyday, the day we don’t learn something we are dead. In all my years of studying the Bible, I learn something new each and every day. Jesus be praised. ;-)”

Thank you and I’m including here, a post that I included on another thread, about the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures, the Word of God. I think that it’s good to know that we have an “absolute” authority on all things spoken about in the Scriptures whether they speak to matters of faith and practice or matters related to the world in general and even to matters of history and cosmology and the ways the earth was formed. It’s *all* authoritative and inerrant and infallible...

The following is the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”, put out by many well-known Evangelicals, coming together to put forth a statement which addresses this (something very useful for all believers to know and acknowledge, as they make this statement from many verses in the Word of God).

Part of the statement from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy ...

[from http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html ]

A Short Statement

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

—

Articles of Affirmation and Denial

Article I.

WE AFFIRM that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.

WE DENY that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

—

Article II.

WE AFFIRM that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.

WE DENY that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III.

WE AFFIRM that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.

WE DENY that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

—

Article IV.

WE AFFIRM that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.

WE DENY that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God’s work of inspiration.

—

Article V.

WE AFFIRM that God’s revelation within the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

WE DENY that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

—

Article VI.

WE AFFIRM that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

WE DENY that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

—

Article VII.

WE AFFIRM that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.

WE DENY that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

—

Article VIII.

WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

WE DENY that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

—

Article IX.

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

WE DENY that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.

—

Article X.

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

—

Article XI.

WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

WE DENY that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

—

Article XII.

WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

—

Article XIII.

WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

—

Article XIV.

WE AFFIRM the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

WE DENY that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

—

Article XV.

WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.

WE DENY that Jesus’ teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

—

Article XVI.

WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history.

WE DENY that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

—

Article XVII.

WE AFFIRM that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God’s written Word.

WE DENY that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

—

Article XVIII.

WE AFFIRM that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

WE DENY the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

—

Article XIX.

WE AFFIRM that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

WE DENY that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.

And also, you will find a follow-up section on Hermeneutics, which is also somethig that people will often fail to understand and apply properly. If one understands these, then they will understand and know exactly what the Bible, the Word of God is saying...

That follow-up section is at — http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html

—

Inbreeding does eventually lead to problems.

They already know things like ‘don’t cross corn strain x and y together”. They don’t want to end up with crops that all share a common weakness that can take them all down.

Further inbreeding decreses genetic potential of a species. As traits are enhanced or disappear, the amount of genetic potential goes down. To the point that from a wolf mutt eventually came a chihuaha, but because the chihuaha has been bred and inbred for so long, in the chihuaha DNA that remains, there’s no way to get that wolf/mutt back.

Inbreeding gets rid of genetic potential. When you have populations of animals that are ALL susceptible to the same disease or they all are prone to the same genetic defects that affect them negatively because that trait or traits have been multiplied by inbreeding, you have a much less hearty species than you otherwise would have.

Yup! And you might end up with someone like my husband, who jokes about looking like a caveman. His family came straight down a royal line, so you know his tree rarely branched.

They aren’t always caught. That is not an absolute the way you state it. Further, some animals are bred specifically because they have negative traits (for them). Hairless dogs and cats for example, hardly a trait that is beneficial for a dog or cat. Animals that have a flattened face that makes them look cuter to people (often leads to dental problems).

Well, please don’t think I am saying ALL royal lines are inbred and therefore they all have genetic problems. Some certainly have more close relations than others and history can show which ones resulted in real problems for them. Intermarriage between two different lines of royalty from different countries, often was with non-family or family far removed so that it wouldn’t be a problem.

LOL! It’s actually just an ongoing joke with my husband. Because he does have the sloped forehead, caveman look, yet many say he is good looking. He will say he’s proof of what inbreeding does.

BTW, looking at his family tree a lot of cousins were marrying. Some places looked like only two families lived in the same town, as the line kept intersecting.

There was a thread on FR about this a couple of years ago. I recall that the excess risk of a genetic defect for the offspring of first cousins was about two-fold - considerably more than this article claims and about the same as that faced by the offspring of a 40-year-old mother.

A new game from Mattel this Christmas: INCEST ( A fun game the whole family can play)

LOL

most of us will live to see legalized polygamy

Most of us can't wait!

INCEST ( A fun game the whole family can play)

It's the best!

You are assuming the worst, however. This is the case always with people against inbreeding (whether human, or canine).

Along with being wise about what dogs NOT to breed, there is also wisdom about what SHOULD be bred - perhaps inbred -to concentrate the great traits.

You can continue bad traits with total outcrosses.

I agree with many of your points, but viewing it only negatively is half the story.

Actually, it leads to breathing problems.

Good one!