Religious People Maby should Not read this. [Archive]

View Full Version : Religious People Maby should Not read this.

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 04:13

Right.

If you get offended Dont blame me.
You rpobably didnt pay attention of the post topic.

Any way heres my problem.

Its with the history of man "or the bible version"

Now in the bible it says there was adam and eve.
god made adam from dust.
then used one of adams ribs to make eve, (guess you cant make a woman from dust)

now lets supose thats just some liberal interpritation Of how adam and eve were created.
(so i can actualy beleve they existed)

Now it says They had Children (Good step towards populating the earth)

But there children happend to be 2 males......
(see a problem arizing yet?)

And then one of em kills the other one....

so for the world to have been poulated. eve would have had to sleep with her own son.
Or give birth to a daughter who could then sleep with her Brother or father???

So does this mean insest is something that god Smiles upon?
or does it just show how much BS goes in to the bible?

Personally I think it shows the amounts of BS, that goes in to the bible.

Prehaps others have diferent views or more insight on the matter.

And dont give me that metaphore bull.
It says adam and eve had 2 kids Blaitantly. Its not a metaphore thats saying 2000 people had 4000 children between em,

The bibles alredy tried to get out of saying catagorically that the world was made in 6 days,
and that the planet is only 6 thousan years old
by stating that time in the bible is relative to 100's of years.

More BS if you ask me.

any way chew on it. Mull it over,
tell me what your oppinions are.

Strike For The South

01-27-2006, 04:36

The old testament bible IMO needs to be taken in metaphors later than literal meaning. While I realize this may go against many christains beleif that the bible is divinely inspired. In the old testament a more metaphorical apporach is needed

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 04:37

But i said....

And dont give me that metaphore bull.
It says adam and eve had 2 kids Blaitantly. Its not a metaphore thats saying 2000 people had 4000 children between em,

The bibles alredy tried to get out of saying catagorically that the world was made in 6 days,
and that the planet is only 6 thousan years old
by stating that time in the bible is relative to 100's of years.

More BS if you ask me.

any way chew on it. Mull it over,
tell me what your oppinions are.

And now you say that :(
Well never mind, Oppinions is what I asked 4.

Gawain of Orkeny

01-27-2006, 04:39

So does this mean insest is something that god Smiles upon?
or does it just show how much BS goes in to the bible?

Your leaving out Noah and that his family also practised incest. It wasnt until much later that incest became taboo.

Strike For The South

01-27-2006, 04:42

well thats my opinon:laugh4: . Seriously though There is another theory which intrests me. While Adam and Eve may have been the crux and the first humans. God created more so incest wouldnt be a problem.

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 04:42

Your leaving out Noah and that his family also practised incest. It wasnt until much later that incest became taboo.

So do you think That means That god Is ok with insest.
And that humans got it all wrong at a later date?

Or is it more realistic That the humans who wrothe the old testament, thought insest was ok, so just Imagined thats what happend.
And at a later date humans relized Insest Really F's up the gene pool.

Reenk Roink

01-27-2006, 04:43

Actually, I got a pretty blunt, but now that I think about it, satisfactory answer from someone who said that brother-sister incest was allowed then because it was neccesary, and that later on this was revoked.

Whatever you accept, it's pretty clear that we came from some sort of incest. Not a thought I really like to entertain so I think I'll have some ice cream.

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 04:52

Ok so given the fact that On avarage Children born from Insest have.
Either extra toes webed feet or some other Abnormalay..

How can we Be "in gods image"

for insest to have been the reason behind the population of earth, This would mean. Compared to adam and eve, We would be hugley deformed hidious monsters.

(did adam and eve only have 1 toe and the years of insest have biven us the other 4?)

or is it mopre likley that we always had 5 toes and 4 fingers and oposable thumbs?
And that insets was not a huge contibutor to the population otherwize there would be MANY more variations of humans.
Some who have distinct chariteristics compared to avarage humans.

I.E

a race of people who all have 6 toes.
or several tribes of natives who all have webbed feet?

----

These days I bleve pakistani's are allowed to marry their 1rst cousins.
this also has a habit of creating deformed offspring.
So Insest between brother and sister/ father/daughte mother/son Would Definatly Irepirably damage the gene pool if it was The Only method of populating the world.

--------

STFS....

"i had a look but cant see where it says that happend in the bible... ? What page am i looking at?"

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 04:56

I hope you guys arent religious...

Cos i realy didnt intend on discussing this with religious people.
I respect that your allowed to beleve what you like,
and its a lot les bleak than what i beleve in.

So i really wouldnt want to end up making some 1 who was religious not religious.

Strike For The South

01-27-2006, 04:57

NodachiSam

01-27-2006, 04:58

Haha, yep. A similar thing happens after the flood. Only Noah and his sons are left to re-populate the Earth. Unlike poor lonely Cane who perhaps reproduces asexually, Noah's sons at least have wives. If you take it seriously (which I don't), you can answer with, "God works in mysterious ways"

Reenk Roink

01-27-2006, 05:01

I guess it would only take a few generations until people could do others that were quite distant relatives...

On the first cousin thing, that intrigued me but I found this link:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/healthscience/science/2002-04-04-cousins.htm

Anyway, the other way it could happen (and this is my personal conjecture) is that the first evolved man (or woman) would do a similar species ape to get babies and then they would do it etc...etc...etc...

Anyway, this topic is really getting me sick, so I'm going to eat some candy...

Papewaio

01-27-2006, 05:10

I hope you guys arent religious...

I'm a NPG... non practicing Grammarist... but I'm thinking on joining the crusades against netspeak with your writing style.

It gives me headaches trying to figure out what you actually mean. And you're neighbours with the English! It is not like it is English as a foreign language.

Proletariat

01-27-2006, 05:17

Huh. So that's it. I just figured s/he/it meant to title the thread 'Religious People Maby canNot read this.'

Strike For The South

01-27-2006, 05:19

wait are Just A Girl and ShambelS married??//

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 05:21

You guys Cant seriously beleve we were all populeted thru Insest?

You must know about the effect insest has on out gene pool.
You need Variation in the gene pool for any society to evolve,

At The VERY least. ther Has to have been 2 sets of adam and evers, Who wernt related by blood at all.

Although.
Science keeps showing us glimpses how we eveolved.

and have finaly abandoned darwin theory of evolution (at least most modern scientists have)

Now conventional science beleves we were a spearat species to apes but closley related.
we evolved and so did they.
We always had the upper hand over apes "we didnt evolve form them"

Now its beleved that there were
homo sapian. (us)
homo erectus (other human version was still around when we wer around)
and Hobits (Small pigmy people Recently discoverd on a small islan, And named after fictional boock charicters)
Living on earth at the same time.

All human like ALL, with qualaties that we would call Human.

It seems There was some sort of volcanic eruption. That caused a Huge extinction of all Races of humans..
Apart from homo sapiens.
But Homo sapien numbers Dwindeld dramatically.

Homo sapiens Had 1 thing the other humans didnt,
and that was the abilaty to survive through Adaptation.

Not all Homosapiens were this evolved at the time.
but records show atleast 2000 homosapians did survive,
Where as the hobits Died.
as well as other human species.

Now ive see these scelingtons
and they all have Similar scelital structure.
Which ALSO implys that weve always been this hape,
And insest has not been the leading contirbutor to our populus..

Personally.
I beleve that these 2000 homosapiens. (they were in africa btw)
Then went to populate the world.

And with carbondating We can follow them on there jorney from africa to europe and beond.

These recent discoverys trurned Alot of conventional Evolution theorys on there heads.

Then given the fact that the Legendary Missing link Was found alive and well at the bottom of the sea and its known as a sealer camp.
That kind of makes darwins theory obsoleet,

But darwins monkey story is still better than a man made from dust had a woman made from his rib, Who then went to poulate the world through insest.

Papewaio

01-27-2006, 05:29

wait are Just A Girl and ShambelS married??//

and with your gRammar are you their sun? :idea2:

Reenk Roink

01-27-2006, 05:29

Any view of human origin, whether it be creation or evolution, has got to include some incest....

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 05:30

I dunno why you gusy complain.
If it gives you a head ache dont read it.
if your not contibuting to the thread, Dont post.

Why would Any 1 go out of there way to publicly express distain over some 1s grammer.
In a post which they have no real contribution to add ?

Im begining to expect this from some of the newest members.
And obviously some members just try to lighten the mood of any given topic with a witizism,

but For a mod to publicy Come and tell me I give him head aches.

There only 1 thing i can say.

"You know where Ignoe is"

Proletariat

01-27-2006, 05:35

Edit: Forget it. Waay too much to ask.

Reenk Roink

01-27-2006, 05:35

Also incest sometimes causes mutations, which would explain our diversity(and how messed up we are...).

Still, I don't know, and nobody really does, so my advice is to talk about something else, but not pick on spelling or grammer guys...TaHt esss Ju5t 50 n00Beschh and i YoUse h4x...

Papewaio

01-27-2006, 05:35

Now now Shambles if you are going to point out the splinters in peoples eyes be expected to be niggled about the beams in yours. And as a Mod I cannot ignore people and on the same note I am not a Mod in this forum... and I definitly like reading about peoples convictions... more the way they conclude things then the conclusions.

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 05:39

Never the less.
Its advisable Not to antagonize any poster By entering a topic,
With an off topic Comment about The members Grammer And Further more adding that It gives you head aches.

Its Not Acceptable behaviour for a member,
So why is it acceptable for a mod to storm in to a perfectly civilized topic With this bull?

Now.
You havent seen me Picking fights with any 1 of late.
Beirut is on my ignore list,
and I dont view the front room,

So whats your problem?

Strike For The South

01-27-2006, 05:40

before this becomes a thing. I suggest we stop

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 05:42

I made a topic.
we were here all civilised Then MOD of the month barges in.
With his Great debate about the origins of humans,
And look at this,

Great moding M8.
Way to keep the forum in line

NodachiSam

01-27-2006, 05:43

Like I said, I don't take it seriously, but maybe you weren't talking to me.

Just a note though, homo-erectus is a common ancestor of both homo sapiens and neanderthals who I think you intended as they did in live at the same time as our ancestors.

Papewaio: Admittedly, that post wasn't the cleanest but I don't see how lacking a single apostrophe renders the sentence unintelligable.

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 05:49

Yes i did mean neanderthal's.

although i had assumed they were one in the same.
Due to neanderthals and homo-erectus having almost the same bone structure.

Never the less these days neither are conciderd a decendant from apes. Mearly a relative.

but this does not change the fact that there were a few diferent types of humans Living in diferent places.
And the hobits were all alone on an island Inhabited only by them .

This some what renders the insest populated the world thanx to adam and ever obsolete.

Papewaio

01-27-2006, 06:02

Get off your high horse. A thread that will antagonise anyone who is religious. Mixing metaphors with literal sentences. Sentence structure that makes it hard to figure out what you are saying let alone decide if there is anything deep within the structure. It is the visual equivalent of a drunkards slurring.

The onus in communication does not lie with the listener, it lies with the sender in sending understandable information.

If you want to have a deep and meaningful discussion about things, at least match it with the prose.

Netspeak makes for poor communication and for misunderstandings.

Unintelligeble sentences are not conducive to intelligent converstations.

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 06:13

Lemur

01-27-2006, 06:13

I can't believe nobody's brought up Lot and his daughters. That's some freaky stuff. They get him drunk, then they decide to have sex with the old man so that their family won't die out. And they do it in a cave, right after mom turns into a pillar of salt.

Either people were way way kinkier five thousand years ago, or the Old Testament has a lot of metaphor in it.

Why on earth would a discussion of incest make people lose their religion? Incest isn't even nearly the worst stuff that happens in the OT. Check out what God does to Job, and all because Satan hits him up with a bet. Or read the part where God tells Abraham a thing or two about child care.

God is, by definition, unkowable. We can't understand him, or his motives; if we could, he wouldn't be God. Why people beat their heads bloody trying to unravel this paradox or that is beyond this Lemur. It's as though we're insects trying to unravel the meaning of a 747 widebody. Give it up. The unknowable is unknowable, the divine is unfathomable. Don't let a little trans-human weirdness put you off the whole God thing.

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 06:18

Well God is not In question here.....
its the bible more than anything.

Im all for people beleving what they like,
But i dont like the bible as some dirty old monk who liked a bit of incest wrote it.

And now its the basis of more than 1 religion.

Papewaio

01-27-2006, 06:21

Lemur

01-27-2006, 06:23

Well, for starters you can leave monks out of it. If memory serves, the first monastary was founded in the Desert of Skete somewhere between 100 AD and 200 AD (if I could be bothered to go to Wikipedia, I'm sure I'd have the date down better). The Old Testament pre-dates the first monks by at least 2,000 years, and probably much more.

So we can talk about dirty court scribes, or dirty village storytellers, but the monks are blameless.

Just a Girl, if you're really curious about the OT, there are some wonderful books you could read. Forensic linguistics have done a lot to tell us when certain parts of it were written, and quite a lot is known about the later editings and revisions (Almost all of which pre-date Christianity).

Remember, the Bible is not a book -- it's a library. A subtle but important distinction.

[edit -- addendum]

I see Pape has finally decoded the true meaning of Lot and his daughters. "What happens in Sodom stays in Sodom."

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 06:35

Hey dont get me wrong.
thi bible's great as a history referance (new testament)

But thats Not the bible in my eyes.

The bible is the old testament. And any thing els is just an addition,

So the OT was the definition of the lords word, before the new testament came allong.

And every 1 beleved in it's literal meaning And vilagers were hapy to say that there daugter was posessed by a demon cos she was hot to the touch.
And white as a sheet.
"cours science would call this a fever. But back then people were Reallly dumb, so they called it Demons, and Tried to preform exorzism"

Thats not bad, Cant blame them At the time thats The best explanation they could offer as to why Little suzie was 120 degrees and Throwing up green bile.

But thats how most of it goes.
Simple things, they could not explain get put down to either Miracles or act of god,

If it realy was anything to do with god.
Dont you think he/she would have pointed out...

"Well there not actualy the devil there viruses...
If you just collect some of that mold and make some penicilin.."

i mean its obvious... Now what caused them back then to beleve in such things,

These days Weve explained that the stars ARENT heaven.
(dont know where you guys think heaven is now)

weve showed that people Dont get posessed by deamons,
there viruses and colds.

A mental illnes does not mean you ar satan's love child.

Yet this Book is THE fundimental building blocks of some of the most influential religions today.

And its just a load of dumb storys strung together To try and explain The mysterys of life before science arived.

Papewaio

01-27-2006, 06:35

And your Input to this thread Is not needed Nor wanted Papewaio.

maby the new members dont Mind your Antagonistic belitteling and Patronizing remarks.

But i wont take any of it,

if you have a problem with me Spit it out.
Stop hiding behind This bull shit.

Its obvious You have been offended by Mo topic,
Which you shouldnt have read if your Religious,.
The Damn Topic name name is enough for that.

Its not like You needed to check to make shure it was all ok in here As you dont even mod the back room,

Your intentions seem to be obvious.

1. Insult grammer Insite of topic debate and Distrupt topic.

2. Antagonize response which could warrant thread closure.

3, Be happy in knowing that your presious religion hasent come under close scrutiny.

Im gonna ask you 1ce more,

If you dont have Anything worth will to add to this topic PLEASE dont post in here,
You are distrupting a civilized conversation,

Well atleat it was civilized till You arived.

I have been very upfront, it is deciphering the sentences that is annoying. I am very direct with people.

I don't require perfect grammar or spelling, the occasional mistake is overlooked because I can get the context of what is meant by reading the entire sentence. However when entire sentences have to be deciphered it brings into question what is the idea that is being tried to be delivered.

I am not the kind of person who clings to religion, and I am quite happy to take an idea that I cherish and examine it in the light of day. I just prefer to see ideas under a decent wattage. If you wish to enlighten your fellow man, please try and post something that is understandable.

When you are the Emperor of Rome or a master poet you can freely ignore grammar.

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 06:42

Friends romans.... Genetlmen and ladies.

i have but this quote to post in my defence.

Papewaio: Admittedly, that post wasn't the cleanest but I don't see how lacking a single apostrophe renders the sentence unintelligable.

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 06:50

Actually.
Ive recently deleted most of the pm's I had.
now i only have 11 pm's that i wish to keep.

This means theres no reason as to why we cant take this OFF-TOPIC debate to PM's

Honestly though I type what i type and then i hit ALT and S
(icq habbit)

Then i re-read what i just posted. Usualy i would go edit it to make it more understandable,
But unfortunatly I dont have an edit button at the moment.

And I doubt il be able to stop a 5-10 year old habbit, Just becous it gives you a head ache.

Aslong as 1 person other than I can read and comprehend what i have said.
It is adequate for all English speaking cultures.

Lemur

01-27-2006, 06:50

I second Pape's motion -- you would do us all a great kindness if you would follow the basic traffic rules of written communication. In fact, you would do your arguments more justice if your readers didn't have to struggle so much.

Or I suppose you could go the opposite route -- abandon convention completely! The comma was another invention of those monks you dislike, so get rid of it! And putting spaces between words only came into vogue after the Roman Empire -- who needs them? Rock out, J.A.G., and show us the new/old form of English!

And its just a load of dumb storys strung together To try and explain The mysterys of life before science arived.

This seems to be the crux of your objection. You don't see any value to pre-science systems of belief, correct? And you don't see that they add any value to modern life.

It's very important to understand everything a tradition does before you throw it away. The French found this out in their revolution. The Russians found this out in theirs. It's no accident that the biggest auto-genocides in history happened in atheist states.

Human beings respond to a belief in a higher power. I don't care whether you are religious or not, you can't argue with this demonstrably true aspect of human nature. Since not everybody is going to be a super-evolved I-don't-need-no-stinkin'-belief-sysem kind of person, what do you propose they believe in? Science has no answers to ethical/moral problems. Science just examines what is, not what ought to be. Science is a methodology, not a religion. So why does religion bug you, J.A.G.?

Papewaio

01-27-2006, 06:58

Spellchecked variant:

Right. If you get offended don’t blame me. You probably didn’t pay attention to the title of the post topic.

Anyway here’s my problem.

It’s with the history of man "or the bible version". Now in the bible it says there was Adam and eve. God made Adam from dust. Then God used one of Adams ribs to make Eve, (guess you can’t make a woman from dust).

Now let us suppose that’s just some liberal interpretation of how Adam and eve were created. (So I can actually believe they existed now it says they had Children (Good step towards populating the earth). But there children happened to be 2 males......(See a problem arising yet?)

And then one of them kills the other one....so for the world to have been populated. Eve would have had to sleep with her own son. Or give birth to a daughter who could then sleep with her brother or father???

So does this mean incest is something that God smiles upon? Or does it just show how much BS goes into the bible?

Personally I think it shows the amounts of BS, which goes in to the bible.

Perhaps others have different views or more insight on the matter.

And don’t give me that metaphor bull. It says Adam and eve had 2 kids blatantly. Its not a metaphor that’s saying 2000 people had 4000 children between them. The bibles already tried to get out of saying categorically that the world was made in 6 days, and that the planet is only 6 thousand years old by stating that time in the bible is relative to 100's of years.

More BS if you ask me.

Any way chew on it. Mull it over and tell me what your opinions are.

So which number wife was Eve?
And was Eve the first woman too?
What happened to Seth the third son of Adam and Eve?
Or the mentioning of other sons and daughters?

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 07:08

Human beings respond to a belief in a higher power. I don't care whether you are religious or not, you can't argue with this demonstrably true aspect of human nature. Since not everybody is going to be a super-evolved I-don't-need-no-stinkin'-belief-sysem kind of person, what do you propose they believe in? Science has no answers to ethical/moral problems. Science just examines what is, not what ought to be. Science is a methodology, not a religion. So why does religion bug you, J.A.G.?

I hope you guys arent religious...

Cos i realy didnt intend on discussing this with religious people.
I respect that your allowed to beleve what you like,
and its a lot les bleak than what i beleve in.

So i really wouldnt want to end up making some 1 who was religious not religious.

Well God is not In question here.....
its the bible more than anything.

Im all for people beleving what they like,
But i dont like the bible as some dirty old monk who liked a bit of incest wrote it.

And now its the basis of more than 1 religion.

I think its catagorically clear, that its the use of Silly storys dumb people wrote to explain things they did not understand, That is buging me.

All the reasons for having beleif in the old testament as the word of gone have disipated since the advent of science.
As now we can explain away The Deamons, and speaking in toungs, as mearly being viruses or fevers.

Now i know i just said its the old testament that bugs me but other things bug me to.

like the old soothe sayers "i think"
Who saw visions, but spoke in riddles.

Just so u know who i mean il describe them,

They were always women, Who were deemd to be able to have visions,
they were given a special room in there monestrys "or whatever they were"
Where thwy would go to receve these visions.

These days we Know why they had visions...
Its becous they built the damn room on natural gas vents!

I mean,
these things are The VERY foundation of these religions.
yet even when they are gone and proven to be nothing but a bunch of storys to explain things that werent possible to explain yet. The religion still professes they are correct.

It makes no sence to me.

I beleve in logic.
Things CAN be explained. We just havent figured it out yet.
Like they hadnt figured out little suzie had a feever, So they said she was posessed.

I beleve in the big bang,
We can watch stars die and come to life out there in space. So theres no reason not to beleieve in that.

but, il also admit that The matter to create the big bang must have come from some where.
And then you can say God created it, And he was always there.
To me that means i can use the same argument.

The matter to create the big bang was always there.

But Thats Illogical.
Just like saying God was always there is illogical.

Any way like i said Im not against religion per say,
more against its foundations.

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 07:12

i dont see any referance to anything other than 1 eve here in this book....
And your edit of my post is missing a
)
and the sentance that starts after the ) you deleted Should be in a new paragraph as thats how i worte it...

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 07:21

Thats Cheating.
I didnt see you edited.

I will need to read more in to the bible to answer your new aditional questions.

So dont be suprized if theres no reply in here for a while and then I post a 6 page essay.

Papewaio

01-27-2006, 07:24

“We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”

The story of Adam and Eve relates to this in that it is primarily a morality tale about easily gained knowledge sans effort.

The story also relates to Summerian tales as well.

As for the Big Bang... the matter did not exist before it. Neither the matter, energy, space or time existed. In all likely hood the Big Bang also defined in its start what the laws of physics would be for this universe. So even the laws of physics are not considered to have existed in their current set prior to the Big Bang. :dizzy2:

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 07:25

Ok.
Just for reference...

This is what i will be using as my referance. If any 1 cares.

The day Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens
5 no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung; Yahweh God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to work the ground.
6 but streams arose from the earth and watered the entire surface of the ground.
7 And Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.
8 Now Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he put the man he had formed.
9 And Yahweh God made every kind of tree grow from the ground, trees pleasant to the sight and good for food. And the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the garden.
10 And a river flowing from Eden watered the garden, and from there it divided and became four headstreams.
11 The name of the first is the Pishon, and it winds through the entire land of the Havilah where there is gold.
12 And the gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx stone are also there.
13 And the name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through all of the land of Cush.
14 And the name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs the east of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 And Yahweh God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and care for it.
16 And Yahweh God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat.
17 But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat, for on the day you eat of it you will die."
18 And Yahweh God said, "It is not good that the man is alone. I will make for him a suitable helper."
19 Now Yahweh God formed from the ground all the animals of the field and all the birds of the air and he brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man named every living creature, that was its name.
20 So the man named all the cattle, and the birds of the air and every animal of the field. But for Adam he found no suitable helper.
21 So Yahweh God made the man fall into a deep sleep. And while he slept, he took one of the man's ribs and closed its place with flesh.
22 Then Yahweh God made a woman from the rib he had taken from the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 And the man said:
"This is now bone from my bone
and flesh from my flesh;
She shall be called woman,
for she was taken from man.
24 For this a man will leave his father and mother and will unite with to his wife, and they will become as one flesh."
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, but they felt no shame.

Chapter 3: 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than all the animals of the field which Yahweh God had made, and it said to the woman, "Did God really say you were not to eat from any tree of the garden?"
2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden. 3 But of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God said, 'You must not eat from it and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"
4 And the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die!
5 for God knows that on the day you eat from it your eyes will he opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 And the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasant to the eyes, and desired to gain knowledge. And she took some fruit and ate it, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from Yahweh God among the trees of the garden.
9 But Yahweh God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"
10 And he answered, "I heard the sound of you in the garden and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid."
11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree I commanded you not to eat from?"
12 And the man said, "It was the woman you put with me; she gave to me from the tree and I ate."
13 And Yahweh God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me and I ate."
14 And Yahweh God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Be accursed above all cattle,
and all the animals of the field.
On your belly you will crawl and dust you will eat
all the days of your life.
15
And I will put enmity between you and the woman:
and between your offspring and her offspring.
He 3 will crush your head
and you will strike his heel."
16 To the woman he said:
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbirth;
in pain you will bear children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
17 And to Adam he said, "Because you listened to the voice of your wife and you ate from the tree I commanded, saying "you must not eat from it,"
"Cursed be the ground because of you.
With painful toil you will eat from it
all the days of your life.
18
It shall produce brambles and thistles for you,
and you shall eat wild plants.
19
By the sweat of your brow
will you eat food,
until you return to the ground,
since you were taken from it.
For dust you are
and to dust you will return."
20 And the man named his wife "Eve" because she would be the mother of all the living.
21 And Yahweh God made garments out of skins for the man and his wife, and he clothed them.
22 And Yahweh God said, "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. And now he must be prevented from reaching out his hand and taking also from the tree of life and eating and so living forever."
23 So Yahweh God sent him from the garden of Eden, to work the ground from which he had been taken.
24 And he drove out the man, and he placed on the east side of the garden of Eden the cherubim and a flaming sword flashing around to guard the way to the tree of life.

Chapter 4: 1 And the man had knowledge of 4 Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. And she said, "I have brought forth a man with the help of Yahweh." 5
2 And she continued to bear his brother, Abel. Now Abel kept flocks and Cain worked the soil.
3 And in the course of days Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering for Yahweh,
4 but Abel brought the fatty portions from the first-born of his flock and some of their fat as well and Yahweh showed favor to Abel and his offering.
5 But on Cain and his offering he did not show favor, so Cain was very angry and his face was downcast.
6 Then Yahweh said to Cain, "Why are you angry and why is your face downcast?
7 If you do rightly, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do rightly, is not sin crouching at the door? It desires you, but you must master it."
8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "[Let us go into the field.]" And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
9 And Yahweh said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" And he replied, "I know not. Am I my brother's keeper?"
10 And he said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.
11 Now you are cursed by the ground that has opened her mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.
12 When you work the ground she will no longer yield to you her crops. You will be restless and wandering over the earth."
13 And Cain said to Yahweh, "My punishment is greater than I can bear.
14 See! You drive me today from the face of the land, and from your presence I will be hidden, and I will be restless and wandering over the earth, and every one who finds me will kill me."
15 But Yahweh said to him, "Very well; 6 if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times greater." Then Yahweh put a mark on Cain, so that anyone who found him would not kill him.
16 So Cain went out from the presence of Yahweh and he lived in the land of Nod, 7 east of Eden.

17 Cain had knowledge of his wife, and she became pregnant and bore Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named the city after the name of his son, Enoch.
18 And to Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech.
19 Lamech married two women: the name of the first was Adah and the name of the second was Zillah
20 Adah bore Jabal: he was the father of all those who live in tents and raise livestock.
21 And the name of his brother was Jubal: he was the father of all those who play the harp and the flute.
22 And Zillah also bore Tubal-Cain who forged every kind of tool from bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.
23 And Lamech said to his wives:
"Adah and Zillah, listen to my voice,
wives of Lamech, hear my word:
For I killed a man for wounding me,
a youth for injuring me.
24
If Cain is avenged seven times,
then Lamech [is avenged] seventy-seven times."
25 And Adam again had knowledge of his wife, and she bore a son and she called his name Seth, 8 "for God has granted me other offspring in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."
26 And to Seth was also born a son, and he called his name Enosh. Then he began to call on the name of Yahweh

Papewaio

01-27-2006, 07:30

Yeap and there is a difference between chapters 1 and 2... which is because the Book of Gensis is a grouping of like books... there is a hint that Adam is a name for more then one person, and that God created man and woman at the same time... this and other books hint that Eve is the third option for Adams wife (apparently wives made the sameway as Adam are too independent).

Anyhow most of the stories can be traced back in pieces to other older civilisations.

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 07:37

I dont see where cane found a wife, to have a son...

And where did the son get a wife to get his son. and so on...
"seems to say they all had a wife, dosent say where they came from, so to me = BS"

Papewaio

01-27-2006, 07:40

Its like a movie, you don't get a listing of all the extras running around in the background.

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 07:57

You may not get a listing,
But you know there there.

there is only referance to 1 woman, eve,
And then Several men,
Adam is called man.
not men.
but this sentance is strctured in the old fasioned way

"And Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being."

Being so vague you can draw your own conclusions.

(they were good at that back then, Saying things with multiple meanings so even if they were wrong they were technicaly right)

But if we take that above sentance to mean, that Man as in all human males.

Then this...
"And the man had knowledge of Eve"
Implys eve was pounced on by the entier male populous.
So i guess we can dissregard Man as meaning all men.

they even HAD to have children as they couldnt manage the old farming..

"and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. And she said, "I have brought forth a man with the help of Yahweh." 5
2 And she continued to bear his brother, Abel. Now Abel kept flocks and Cain worked the soil."

So i dont see how You can say it's
"all the men and women in the world were just given the name adam and eve to save having to mention the extras"

They went on to mention all the sons....
and not 1 daughter
but there were these 2

"Lamech married two women: the name of the first was Adah and the name of the second was Zillah"

But, i must admit.
The bible isnt the best for having women in it.
actualy there usualy vilans...

Still.
I dont see how you can Build a religion on a bunch of storys.
And then when there shown to be improbable/faulse/Ludicrous.
or the miracles/possesions are easily explained by science.

The rligion does not re evaluate its position.

2 me
religion is a science,
Its a really basic science, Its just people want an explanation for stuff.
Religion is a nice few storys with a happy ending.
Unless you dont do what society wants you to do to make it richer that is,
then its a hell fire n brimstone ending.

But unlike Scienece, Religion dosent re asses its position on the matter when new evidence comes to life.

religion puts the blinkers on and Choses ignorence over knowlage.

And that bugs me 2.

Papewaio

01-27-2006, 08:12

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 08:36

Literature normally has multiple layers of meaning... otherwise Oscar Wilde could be a tad boring if taken literally to the nth degree.

Also remember that the bible is a reduced collection of many other books and versions of other myths of times even older.

As a method of describing the world given its time period it isn't too bad.

BTW we are all formed of at least 3rd generation star dust. :inquisitive:
Well atleast we agree on something.

although for some 1 who seems to understand that we wernt literaly made as the bible says.
you seem to have a hard time with what i am saying.

You have stated this.
Also remember that the bible is a reduced collection of many other books and versions of other myths of times even older.

Which isprety much what I mean...
myths arent real. There usualy based on some actual event but thats not always true either.
And then they go and add lots of exiting things to keep the story's interesting and memorable.

From this came some religions.
And now we have proven that most of whats writen is not fact.
And the rest is probably metaphore.

yet the religions still insist that they are correct,
Even though The very foundations of the religion have been removed.

I beleve its time for religion to Moove on from this pre historic version of religion.
Where all the diferent things of life are explained my silly little storys.

There are Logical ways to explain these things now. Scientific ways.

And although they technically undermine the teachings of the bible.
They in actual fact dont.

They just say well actualy thats wrong. But its a nice story and has a good ending and a nice morral to it.

Science Hasent disproven god.
And if anything will ever prove there is a god it will be science.
So i beleve religions should take a more scientific aproch to life.

And beleve in the big bang,
and evolution.

But it does not mean they cant belive in god.
After al i have already said, something must have created the big bang.
now the way i figure it, there has to have been something to beable to create dust,

I know that space sonsists of matter and anti matter.
and its not actualy just empty space at all.
its full to the brim with all kinds of stuff,
(dont ask me what anti matter is, Il tell you when the scientists know)

so i guess they could have caused the big bang just by there being amtter and anti matter.

But then again There still has to be a source for this matter and anti matter.

so that is why i dont tell you there is no god.
i just say i dont think there is one.
"atleast not in the conventional sence"

As far as i know there is only 1 creature in the universe that can make something out of nothing.

And thats a woman.

And you guys say god is a man.

Byzantine Mercenary

01-27-2006, 09:58

Your central point in this thread seems to be that the Old Testament is a story about what actually happened, but you must remember it was written a long time ago and includes stories from even long ago, one of which may be genesis.

The fact it that the naming system back then was different, Adam could have been the tribe led by Adam with all the associated slaves wives and children.

That is a possible explanation however I prefer this one:
The process of evolution works on single individuals so at one point there was one ''human'' who was the child of successive mutations through the first generations. In early human history a certain degree of incest would have been needed in order to increase the frequency of the unique human genes. So the model of Adam then eve is fine as their children could have easily married proto humans who were themselves slightly genetically different. Incest was not as large a problem in the past as it is now because natural selection would have killed off any mutants with disadvantageous genes, indeed it is used in dog and other animal breeding regularly and is only a problem when those with defective traits are allowed to reproduce.
Evidence of this is furthered by science apparently all the Native American populations are descended form 6 men and 4 women (don't ask me how that works!) this is also furthered by mitochondrial DNA evidence which alludes to a singe female descendant for the entire human race!

The fact is there was a great catastrophe in our ancient history which you have already alluded to and this could either be the basis of the Noah's arc story or the story of Adam and eve as after a freak disaster that has changed the world, the few human survivors feel as though they are in a newly created world.

Navaros

01-27-2006, 11:25

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

01-27-2006, 12:55

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.

Vladimir

01-27-2006, 14:31

I can't believe nobody's brought up Lot and his daughters. That's some freaky stuff. They get him drunk, then they decide to have sex with the old man so that their family won't die out. And they do it in a cave, right after mom turns into a pillar of salt.

You beat me to it. I think though that somethings should be kept in the family because they're just too much fun.

Reenk Roink

01-27-2006, 17:02

Byzantine Mercenary

01-27-2006, 17:25

I still maintain that whatever theory you accept about the origins of life, there had to be a degree of incestuousness. The theory with the 2000 men and 2000 women has a point, but it would be quite a strech that all those groups evolved in the same lifetime...

I still think that there is incest and maybe even bestaility in our ancestery...

there must be im afraid, but as i have said it does have less bad effects when natural selection is around to mop up any mutations and it has been proved that we are decended from a single female individual who lived a long time ago (nicknamed Eve!)

bestiality would have had no effect on our species evolution unless it was a close animal relative (we may be able to breed with chimps, to my knoledge n o one has tried, thank god)
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Reenk Roink

01-27-2006, 17:30

there must be im afraid, but as i have said it does have less bad effects when natural selection is around to mop up any mutations and it has been proved that we are decended from a single female individual who lived a long time ago (nicknamed Eve!)

bestiality would have had no effect on our species evolution unless it was a close animal relative (we may be able to breed with chimps, to my knoledge n o one has tried, thank god)
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Then again, all of this is conjecture, and so the truth could be weirder still...all the more reason to go and eat some ice cream...

Byzantine Mercenary

01-27-2006, 17:32

yeah, go eat frozen cow juice, thats not one bit weird
:laugh4: :laugh4:

Reenk Roink

01-27-2006, 17:34

yeah, go eat frozen cow juice, thats not one bit weird
:laugh4: :laugh4:

I've always wondered, who was that guy who first decided to squeeze udders just to see what would happen...:laugh4:

Still, I would definitely shake his hand...

master of the puppets

01-27-2006, 17:40

...would'nt it be funny if god got distracted and arrived to late to save Issac, he would be sacrificed by his own pater (:laugh4: ) i wonder where the bible would have gone from there.

Proletariat

01-27-2006, 17:47

I've always wondered, who was that guy who first decided to squeeze udders just to see what would happen...:laugh4:

Still, I would definitely shake his hand...

Never took you for a Calvin and Hobbes fan.

Sardo

01-27-2006, 17:48

(we may be able to breed with chimps, to my knoledge n o one has tried, thank god)
Don't be too sure. (http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2434192005)

Reenk Roink

01-27-2006, 17:51

Never took you for a Calvin and Hobbes fan.

And that would be because...?

Proletariat

01-27-2006, 17:54

Honestly, I never took you for one thing or another. I just wanted to point out a classic C&H quote.

Reenk Roink

01-27-2006, 17:59

Honestly, I never took you for one thing or another. I just wanted to point out a classic C&H quote.

Nice to see someone who appreciates true art :2thumbsup:.

Copperhaired Berserker!

01-27-2006, 18:04

Byzantine Mercenary

01-27-2006, 18:04

Don't be too sure. (http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2434192005)
well i never, it doen't surpirse me that it didn't work, interspecies breeding very rarely works very well

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 18:35

Ok. First of all, look at the way you write. You write your stuff like" Oh I'm the poor pserson and people bully me". You always start a post with saying you are not trying to offend. And you need to learn grammar and spelling. AND you have lost your crediblity by posting porn (Which was why your ShambleS account got locked.)

way to troll Kid....

Why dont you go to a post where you have something worth while to say

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 18:44

and actualy. For your info.
My shambles account was Locked, And thats why I posted A Pic. (multiple times)
And if you Call them porn OBVIOUSLY you didnt see It.

Your floging a dead horse though kid.
If you cant let it drop thats your problem,

Kommodus

01-27-2006, 20:49

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond to this, since normally I just ignore such ignorance, but regardless... look, Just A Girl, it's not my intent to offend you, but I think you'd be better off speaking of things of which you have some knowledge. Your initial post makes it seem as if you haven't even read the biblical passages in question, and if you have, you haven't made a serious attempt at understanding them. Where to begin?

1. Your assertion that Adam and Eve only had two male sons is false. I assume you mean Cain and Able, but another son (Seth) comes along at a later date. Then there's this from Genesis 5:

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

Notice the "other sons and daughters" part. This pattern, BTW, repeats itself often in Genesis; the genealogies are not complete, and we should not assume so.

2. If you can find the place in the Bible where it says the earth is 6K years old, point it out to me. Actually, don't bother - I've read it through and know that it's not in there (just like it never says the earth is flat, or at the center of the universe, as some believe). Some have tried to calculate the age based on biblical genealogies, which as I've already shown, are incomplete (and were never intended for that purpose anyway).

3. You don't seem to understand genetics any more than you understand the Bible - otherwise you might know the actual reason that incest has a tendency to produce visible genetic defects. I could go into a lengthy description of it here, but suffice it to say that it doesn't cause any problems until genetic defects/mutations have had sufficient time to accumulate in the gene pool. People who are closely related are more likely to share the same genetic defect; thus, if they breed, it is more likely that the offspring will inherit the same defect from both parents, resulting in its physical manifestation.

Thus, if the literal interpretation of Genesis (which you, for some unfathomable reason, insist upon) is correct, you shouldn't be surprised at incest going on in the early eras of humanity. It would never have become a problem until much later, when mutations and defects began to accumulate in the gene pool.

4. The above is only relevant if you insist on the literal interpretation of everything (which is unusual, especially for non-believers). Listen: the Bible is literature. Just like most other literature, it makes use of literary devices: metaphor, allegory, imagery, etc. Do you remember the primary way in which Jesus taught? It was in parables - stories meant to teach something. Do you think he intended for the parables to be interpreted literally? Or do you remember what he said to the disciples when they made that mistake? It was something like this: "Are you still so stupid?"

I could go on, but that's enough for now. Please understand that the last thing I want is to be disrespectful or insulting; I can't stand rancorous debates. But these are all relatively basic, introductory considerations; I am neither a biblical scholar nor a scientist or a literary critic. You have a lot to learn before you can meaningfully contribute to adult discussions of these topics.

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 23:14

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 23:18

Kommodus

01-27-2006, 23:21

Actualy if you look a few posts back.
I have actualy posted quite a bit of genisi Mainly the adam and eve story,
That is what i am using as referance,

And i dont see it says they had more than 2 sons.

Prehaps you could go and quote the part hwhere it says ther for my persusal?

I read that post; you didn't post enough of Genesis. Please re-read my original post; it's in there, near the beginning. Once more, from Genesis 5:

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 23:29

So im to beleve

"3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died."

And im suposed to beleve that Time in the bible is not relitive to our time as 1 day reprisents thousands of years
"biblical people say that to explain how the world was made in 6 days"

If I am suposed to beleve that.
Adam would still be alive

Cos he would not be 930 years old yet if each day was thousands of years.

Kommodus

01-27-2006, 23:37

And i already Said the new testament isnt a problem,
Its the old testament.
Which was writen before jesu's so he wouldnt have had any better idea than you or I.

And i dont see where you can say I have more to learn before staring a discussion/debate.

Isnt the whole point of a debate to share oppinions And then learn from others input as well.

A ignorant stance of this is how it is, and thats all there is to it is the problem here.
And thats not on my part.

And it does say its 6k years old,
But it NEVER said the earth was flat.
Thats a modern day myth,
he may have said they were metaphores but that was HIS oppinion,

I'm not saying you need to learn more before starting a discussion or debate. I'm saying you should learn more before you start making sweeping, bold, confident assertions, as you did. Examples include calling the Old Testament a bunch of "dumb stories," claiming that people in ancient (pre-scientific) times were "really dumb," and the claims I refuted in my first post.

Unfortunately you continue to do it with this post.

For example, you continue to claim that the Bible says the earth is 6K years old. I challenged you to prove this, since I know it to be false. However, you continue to make the claim, even though you will never be able to demonstrate it.

Also, you claim that Jesus "wouldn't have had any better idea than you or I" about the Old Testament. Once again you make a confident claim without knowledge of the facts: if you had learned about Jewish culture during the life of Jesus - especially about what it meant to be a "rabbi" - or even read some of the early chapters in the gospels, you would never have made this claim. The depth of knowledge Jesus and other rabbis would have had about the O.T. is greater than you or I will ever fathom.

Finally, the use of metaphor, imagery, and other literary devices in the Bible does not originate with Jesus. It is prevalent throughout the entire writing - the prophets, the history, the poetry and wisdom books.

Once again, I'm not saying you can't participate in discussions on these topics. I'm saying you should come to ask questions and to learn, not to put your "know-it-all" ignorance on display. BTW, that's what I do all the time; like I said, I am not "learned" by any stretch of the imagination. Do you remember why Socrates considered himself the wisest man in Athens?

Because of all the philosophers there, he alone knew that he knew nothing.

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 23:50

Im quite asertive bold and confrontetional.
I find its the best way to get people to express there real feelingas about the matter.

I have no problems in saying people were Dumb back then,
But i supose i shoud say Un-educated.

But again, The fact that i said dumb Has provoked an input from you,
And you seem to have Plenty of info to share,
So I dont see the problem.

I may have a strange almost agressive stype of puting my point across,
But im quite open minded,
"so long as you can demonstarte logically your point"

telling me Jesus said its a metaphore, isnt going to cuch much ice with me,

I beleve Jesus was nothing more than a Jewish carpenter Who recited fable's and myths trying to spread jewish beleifs. Then he married mary magnolyn, As Told by the scrolls mohamed found. This is most probably true as It would have been a GREAT stigma to any Male jew not to be married,. (But I dont think thats a bad thing)

I also beleve that the new testament is prety damn good as a historical referance.
But thats as about as far as i will endorce it.

Its the old contradiction's and Ludicrous claims made by people who wrote the Old testament Thats the problem,

The people who wrote it Tried to explain away the misterys of science befor they invented science,
and religion was the best explanation.

Science has since proven the eareth was not made in 6 days.

BUT.
So i dont get totaly 1 sided here.

In the early history of the earth we had much more ozone.
Which allowed animals and plants to Live longer and grow larger than there modern counterparts.

So its plausable that the early humans could have lived in to there 100's "baring illnes and injury"
However

930 yers at multiple thousand years per day = Total BS.

Copperhaired Berserker!

01-27-2006, 23:54

None will really care unless the spelling and grammar is fixed.

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 23:56

What ever you say, Good to see you had Some Input on the matter LOL

Just A Girl

01-27-2006, 23:59

I really Love these people who come in here with No real reply so they try theold "grammer, Spelling" remarks.

Just shows how petty some really are

Proletariat

01-28-2006, 00:02

Im quite asertive bold and confrontetional.
I find its the best way to get people to express there real feelingas about the matter.

You think this because you have no idea how many people aren't bothering in attempting to debate with you because of your arrogant ignorance coupled with horrid grammar.

Copperhaired Berserker!

01-28-2006, 00:03

I haven't read much of the bible. But then again, one thing you need to know is that the bible is to explain the mysteries of life. I don't like it when people say that science is BS. You are saying that the bible is BS. WRONG!:no: You are as bad as the people who say science is rubbish. So stop. You are not impressing anybody. And talking about petty people, how petty is it to complain about beirut even after apoligising and saying you wouldn't complain? Quite a lot. Your whining and moping annoys me.

solypsist

01-28-2006, 00:18

holy cow some people maybe should learn to quit with a bad idea.

https://i1.tinypic.com/mn13c8.jpg

Reenk Roink

01-28-2006, 00:20

The first part of the discussion was quite interesting (in an untasteful sort of way), as we discussed the different theories of origin and incest's role in them. By the time it got to spelling and grammar and a little religious flame, I gave my little fly-bye :flybye: and got out of there.

Just A Girl

01-28-2006, 00:21

whats all that about btw?

And wheres the whining and moping Bezerker?

Your the one Banging on about Old news.
You can Drop it and moove on.
Or of cours you can chose to be A pointless adition to this debate.

Kommodus

01-28-2006, 02:01

I will make one final post here; then I'm done with this thread.

So im to beleve

"3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died."

And im suposed to beleve that Time in the bible is not relitive to our time as 1 day reprisents thousands of years
"biblical people say that to explain how the world was made in 6 days"

If I am suposed to beleve that.
Adam would still be alive

Cos he would not be 930 years old yet if each day was thousands of years.

Pause for a moment: I'm not telling you what to believe. I'm simply sharing the text of the Bible with you. What you choose to believe is up to you.

I'm also not claiming that Jesus said the first few chapters of Genesis are metaphorical; I know of no documentation indicating such a thing. I'm not even claiming that they are metaphorical myself. I'm simply saying that the Bible uses a lot of metaphor and other literary device throughout; therefore, it's absurd to insist on a literal interpretation of everything. It's better to consider the text with an open mind to possibilities.

At least it's good to see that we're past the issue of how many sons and daughters Adam had. I'd say we're making progress, except that unfortunately you've simply rushed ahead to the next available roadblock: the age of Adam.

How can we even discuss this when you are intent to rush to the most absurd conclusion possible? No one ever said that there is a universal condition that every day mentioned in the Bible represents thousands of years. Many have suggested that the six days of creation represent a much longer period of time. And why not? If you recall, on the first day of creation, on which God creates light, there's not even a sun or a moon to mark the days.

From here we could go on to talk about whether or not it's possible that Adam actually lived 930 years (in which each day is a 24-hour period). But what would be the point? You've claimed that these "stupid stories" form the basis for modern religion. Well, I've given some thought to what actually forms the basis of the Christian worldview, and I'm pretty sure that the age of Adam isn't part of it.

Since you seem to know what forms the foundations of the Christian worldview, maybe we should consider the first few chapters of Genesis and see if we can deduce anything that's actually part of this foundation. Consider the general outline of the story:

1. God calls the cosmos - everything that is, including space, time, energy, and matter - into being. Physical laws are established, giving the universe an inherent order and rationality. It is all according to His purpose and plan; it is not random. He is God and is in full control. That's pretty foundational.

2. God creates man and woman in His own image. Humanity reflects God's nature - His creativity, His ability to love, to feel, to think rationally, to develop relationships, etc. By virtue of this, all humans have inherent value because they matter to God. Yet another foundational principle.

3. God gives man a mission and a purpose - to multiply, to fill the earth, to explore, discover, learn, grow, and build. He also gives them much for their enjoyment - Himself, each other, and a garden filled with good things. Yet again we learn a foundational principle - each of us fits into God's plan somehow, and He has our good in mind.

4. Man chooses to disbelieve the previous principle, instead deciding that he knows better than God and would be better off as his own god. As a result of walking away from God, a predictable thing happens - man's relationship with God is broken, the very definition of spiritual death. What's the foundational principle here? Humanity, by rejecting God and attempting to become their own gods, is responsible for the situation we find ourselves in today. Each one of us is individually responsible for our choices and the consequences thereof. Another consideration from this is that man has the will to make choices, a will that God chooses not to force. We're not robots; we are capable of genuine moral decisions.

5. God predicts redemption for humanity, and that evil will one day be defeated. The foundational principle here is that failure is not final, because God is full of love, grace, and mercy, and would rather show these than punishment. Christians believe that this redemption is through Jesus.

Of course, the story goes on after this - we observe humanity's decent into selfishness and depravity, God's response to this and attempts to restore the broken relationship, and so forth. But details such as what ages the people lived to, what sons and daughters everyone had, whether "let there be light" implies the Big Bang, and how much of the earth the flood actually covered, are hardly foundational. One can get into long and technical discussions of these matters that touch studies from many different fields; the answers, when discovered, are often very interesting and intellectually stimulating. When it comes to spiritual matters, however, these questions are scarcely relevant at all.

You see, J.A.G., you seem to believe that science somehow "replaces" faith and makes it unnecessary and obsolete. Not so. Science deals with the physical universe; the "what" and "how" of things. It's invaluable for understanding the world we live in, and for bettering our lives and satisfying our thirst for discovery. I love to study it myself.

Faith, on the other hand, deals with the spiritual - the heart and soul. Try as it may, science can never answer the "why" - why are we here? What is our purpose? Why is there suffering in the universe, and what are we to do about it? Why is real contentment so elusive, and is there something more that we were made for? These are among the questions that cause people to reach out for God, and potentially find Him.

Thank you for the discussion. There is so much more that could be said. I hope you will take some time to educate yourself. I certainly plan to, as it's an ongoing quest for me. Have a great weekend.

Yours,

Ken

Just A Girl

01-28-2006, 02:54

I will make one final post here; then I'm done with this thread.

Pause for a moment: I'm not telling you what to believe. I'm simply sharing the text of the Bible with you. What you choose to believe is up to you.

I'm also not claim.....ing that Jesus said the first few chapters of Genesis are metaphorical; I know of no documentation indicating such a thing. I'm not even claiming that they are metaphorical myself. I'm simply saying that the Bible uses a lot of metaphor and other literary device throughout; therefore, it's absurd to insist on a literal interpretation of everything. It's better to consider the text with an open mind to possibilities.

At least it's good to see that we're past the issue of how many sons and daughters Adam had. I'd say we're making progress, except that unfortunately you've simply rushed ahead to the next available roadblock: the age of Adam.

How can we even discuss this when you are intent to rush to the most absurd conclusion possible? No one ever said that there is a universal condition that every day mentioned in the Bible represents thousands of years. Many have suggested that the six days of creation represent a much longer period of time. And why not? If you recall, on the first day of creation, on which God creates light, there's not even a sun or a moon to mark the days.

From here we could go on to talk about whether or not it's possible that Adam actually lived 930 years (in which each day is a 24-hour period). But what would be the point? You've claimed that these "stupid stories" form the basis for modern religion. Well, I've given some thought to what actually forms the basis of the Christian worldview, and I'm pretty sure that the age of Adam isn't part of it.

Since you seem to know what forms the foundations of the Christian worldview, maybe we should consider the first few chapters of Genesis and see if we can deduce anything that's actually part of this foundation. Consider the general outline of the story:

1. God calls the cosmos - everything that is, including space, time, energy, and matter - into being. Physical laws are established, giving the universe an inherent order and rationality. It is all according to His purpose and plan; it is not random. He is God and is in full control. That's pretty foundational.

2. God creates man and woman in His own image. Humanity reflects God's nature - His creativity, His ability to love, to feel, to think rationally, to develop relationships, etc. By virtue of this, all humans have inherent value because they matter to God. Yet another foundational principle.

3. God gives man a mission and a purpose - to multiply, to fill the earth, to explore, discover, learn, grow, and build. He also gives them much for their enjoyment - Himself, each other, and a garden filled with good things. Yet again we learn a foundational principle - each of us fits into God's plan somehow, and He has our good in mind.

4. Man chooses to disbelieve the previous principle, instead deciding that he knows better than God and would be better off as his own god. As a result of walking away from God, a predictable thing happens - man's relationship with God is broken, the very definition of spiritual death. What's the foundational principle here? Humanity, by rejecting God and attempting to become their own gods, is responsible for the situation we find ourselves in today. Each one of us is individually responsible for our choices and the consequences thereof. Another consideration from this is that man has the will to make choices, a will that God chooses not to force. We're not robots; we are capable of genuine moral decisions.

5. God predicts redemption for humanity, and that evil will one day be defeated. The foundational principle here is that failure is not final, because God is full of love, grace, and mercy, and would rather show these than punishment. Christians believe that this redemption is through Jesus.

Of course, the story goes on after this - we observe humanity's decent into selfishness and depravity, God's response to this and attempts to restore the broken relationship, and so forth. But details such as what ages the people lived to, what sons and daughters everyone had, whether "let there be light" implies the Big Bang, and how much of the earth the flood actually covered, are hardly foundational. One can get into long and technical discussions of these matters that touch studies from many different fields; the answers, when discovered, are often very interesting and intellectually stimulating. When it comes to spiritual matters, however, these questions are scarcely relevant at all.

You see, J.A.G., you seem to believe that science somehow "replaces" faith and makes it unnecessary and obsolete. Not so. Science deals with the physical universe; the "what" and "how" of things. It's invaluable for understanding the world we live in, and for bettering our lives and satisfying our thirst for discovery. I love to study it myself.

Faith, on the other hand, deals with the spiritual - the heart and soul. Try as it may, science can never answer the "why" - why are we here? What is our purpose? Why is there suffering in the universe, and what are we to do about it? Why is real contentment so elusive, and is there something more that we were made for? These are among the questions that cause people to reach out for God, and potentially find Him.

Thank you for the discussion. There is so much more that could be said. I hope you will take some time to educate yourself. I certainly plan to, as it's an ongoing quest for me. Have a great weekend.

Yours,

Ken

Well i dont believe science replaces faith.
Im saying Faith should re asses its views.

Many religions hold on to old beileifs that Are stemed from things science would not have called "Spiritual or godly".

Like i pointed out Viruses and feevers were often conciderd to be Demons that have enterd the human body,
Which in some ways is a prety apt yet basic description.

But there not demons there viruses, and the people "IMHO" only said there were demons sent by the devil becous of things like this.
and people didnt get posessed by the devil either.

yet these are parts of these beleifs.
You can probably get a preist to come exorzise the demons from your house if you tried..

all though rentaKill would probably be a better place to call.

I dont really see any problem In beleiving there is a god.

but i do think religion should stop being ignorant to science,
and accept it as a part of religion.
theres no reason why science and religion cant get along,
other than every time science says.
Oh look Weve found this..
that means you were wrong about that bit...

all the Religion's Yells.
BLASTFAMY. CRUSADE!!, JIHAD!!!,
And Then after the everything calms down
(Without any fighting)

Religion goes on thinking people can get possesd by deamons.
And they need to Exorzise houses.
And baptize babys.. (Although that may not be why they baptize babys I must admit Im a bit Ignorant on that)

So i dont have a problem with religion.

I have a problem on them holding on to outdated and disproven subjects Relating to religion.

you try telling a few jahovas witneses i know that there was more than 1 man and 1 woman in the beginig.

or how there was big bang..

You wont get far.

Its Literaly what the bible says is the truth.
and i aint listening to none of it.
:wall:

Slyspy

01-28-2006, 03:11

I really Love these people who come in here with No real reply so they try theold "grammer, Spelling" remarks.

Just shows how petty some really are

You would get more people involved if you changed your posting style. It is hard to follow and looks childish so it detracts from that actual content of your posts, and makes people quick to dismiss you. Also, in an international forum it is wise to use standard English wording and structure because this is what they learn in other countries. People of other nationalities with English as a secondary language are likely to find your posts even harder to follow and so are more likely to misunderstand or to simply ignore you.

On topic I agree in some respects. The Bible, specifically Genesis in this case, is a jumbled collection of myths, explanatory stories and actual history. This means that it cannot be reasonably be taken literally whether you are religious or not. It is no more true than the Aztec theory of creation. However, this does not mean that it ceases to be relevant - faith is a strange thing.

Just A Girl

01-28-2006, 03:26

Im sure people will get acustomed to how i type,

Im not in any rush to change anything.
I take the time to read other peoples posts Even if they are almost totaly unreadable.
and il go to the trouble of deciphering it.
And il reply.

Dosent take much effort.
And you dont see me complaining.

But this was suposed to be a discussion about religion, and how illogical It is.

Theres no specific topic i know,
But its not.
"grammer spelling and punctuation, A rhetoric of."

Religion is fine in here all aspects of it,
Now my views tend to get up religious peoples noses.

So i named this thread a name that reflects that,

But it seems Most of you just want to Talk about grammer.
or come in and start Insulting me becous i said something you didnt like.

It's sad really.

Proletariat

01-28-2006, 04:22

Edit: Nm.

solypsist

01-28-2006, 04:45

But it seems Most of you just want to Talk about grammer.
or come in and start Insulting me becous i said something you didnt like.

http://home.socal.rr.com/kfa/images/kleenex.jpg

anyway....

closed due to lack of direction. next time, people, try to focus on the subject, not the person who wrote it.