Bible question: Did Adam & Eve's kids commit incest?

[Fortigurn]

Read Karen Armstrong's books. You'll ask different questions.

Read a deconverted ex-nun's personal reinterpretation of religious sociological history as seen through her personal bias? No thanks. When it comes to studies in comparative religion, you might as well read James Frazer as read Karen Armstrong ('Golden Bough' anyone?). For those interested in how post-modernism distorts historical research, the book is instructive, but there's not much else there.

Comparative religion is best left to those actually properly qualified in the subject. Books written by the qualified are far more useful and interesting.

But you don't have to choose. Read both?

No you don't have to choose, but you should. People shouldn't be indiscriminate in their reading. If they want to be informed on a given topic they should read works which will properly inform them on the topic. They shouldn't waste their time reading trash. You can read both the Apple Daily and the New York Times, but which is going to be a more reputable news source?

That's the beauty of religion. Nobody is qualified.

Plenty of people are qualified.

[Buttercup]

But how would I know that unless I'd read them? By trusting my elders and betters? By looking at the pictures first?

[Fortigurn]

But how would I know that unless I'd read them? By trusting my elders and betters? By looking at the pictures first?

Through the process of peer review. If you're uninformed on the subject, then you are not in a position to judge which of the works is the best one to read. This means you should be guided by the process of peer review.

If you find one of the works appearing in a number of peer reviewed journals, then you should assess their treatment of it and act accordingly. If you find one of them isn't even mentioned in the peer reviewed journals, you should do the same. In this case it's very likely that the reason why it doesn't appear is because the work is not recognized by the academic community, or not considered significantly important to notice.

Of course, it would also pay you to check the author's credentials and academic qualifications.

[urodacus]

the apple daily has academic credentials?

I must say, they do a much better job of lascivious 'hypothetical dramatic receations' of crime scenes than the NYT ever dreamed of. you just can't buy that kind of genius outlook on Taiwan affairs anywhere else. and sometimes the heads on people's bodies are even two or three times bigger than normal, which is as it should be. class all over, the Apple.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

Hmm, I'm not sure about that. I don't think everything worth reading is going to be peer-reviewed. There can be opinions expressed that are interesting, but not of scientific quality.

[Buttercup]

Dunno, I just whizz through the bookshop and choose the ones with pretty colours. I don't read academic journals about religious stuffs, only about my own field, generally.

I consider myself able to read a pop religion book without assistance, praise be.

Life would be pretty boring, not to mention time-consuming, if I waited for an expert to tell me what to read, every time I felt the urge to look at a book.

[Screaming Jesus]

In certain controversial fields, it is unclear which set of would-be peer reviewers ought to be relied upon for their judgment. Christian theology is cousin to astrology, psi research, and Scientology--the consensus of "the field" may be suspect.

[Fortigurn]

the apple daily has academic credentials?

<- You. The point. ->

Hmm, I'm not sure about that. I don't think everything worth reading is going to be peer-reviewed. There can be opinions expressed that are interesting, but not of scientific quality.

Not everything worth reading is going to be peer reviewed, but if you're wanting to know if a work on a certain standard scholarly subject is worth reading or not, chances are that it will have been subject to peer review if it's worth reading.

Dunno, I just whizz through the bookshop and choose the ones with pretty colours. I don't read academic journals about religious stuffs, only about my own field, generally.

That's fine, do that by all means. But when you recommend your favourite pop religion book to others as a reliable factual source (as you did), then you'll have to be prepared for other people to critique the recommendation, explain the source's deficiencies, and recommend actual reliable sources.

I consider myself able to read a pop religion book without assistance, praise be.

Most people are. That's precisely what pop religion books are all about.

Life would be pretty boring, not to mention time-consuming, if I waited for an expert to tell me what to read, every time I felt the urge to look at a book.

No one has suggested any such thing.

In certain controversial fields, it is unclear which set of would-be peer reviewers ought to be relied upon for their judgment.

There are many different sources of peer review in any standard professionally organized academic field of study. Standard works and articles are usually reviewed by a number of different peers in a number of different peer sources. It's a major strength of the peer review process.

What typically happens is that over time certain peer review sources develop a reputation for reliability. Taking Biblical studies as an example, there's Bibliotheca Sacra, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, and the Journal of Biblical Literature, all of which have a high reputation for reliability based on their academic rigor and long service life.

If people are unclear as to which peer reviewers in a given field ought to be relied upon for their judgment, it's very likely that they are insufficiently educated on the subject to read the kind of work which would be peer reviewed. They will find alternative literature at their own level, but it may or may not be accurate.

Christian theology is cousin to astrology, psi research, and Scientology--the consensus of "the field" may be suspect.

I believe the consensus of the field with regard to astrology, psi research and Scientology is very far from suspect. As for the consensus on Christian theology, there isn't one. There is a consensus on a large range of issues related to Christian theology, but that's about as far as it gets. In any case, a consensus view is always testable and under the peer review process is always going to be tested.

[Screaming Jesus]

Anyway, back to incest:

Father / daughter incest--Lot and his daughters (Gen. 19)
Father / son incest--Ham and Noah (Gen. 9)
Brother / sister incest--Amnon and Tamar (2 Samuel 13)
A postive gay relationship--God and Jacob at Peniel (Gen. 32)
A positive bestiality relationship--Jesus marries a sheep (Rev. 19)

[Fortigurn]

Anyway, back to incest:

Father / daughter incest--Lot and his daughters (Gen. 19)

Yes.

Father / son incest--Ham and Noah (Gen. 9)

No. No sexual encounter takes place here.

Brother / sister incest--Amnon and Tamar (2 Samuel 13)

Yes.

A postive gay relationship--God and Jacob at Peniel (Gen. 32)
A positive bestiality relationship--Jesus marries a sheep (Rev. 19)

I'm assuming these were simply thrown in as an example of the intellectual rigor we are to expect from the non-Christians here.