Religious People Maby should Not read this.

[Proletariat]

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

Still, I would definitely shake his hand...

Never took you for a Calvin and Hobbes fan.

[Sardo]

(we may be able to breed with chimps, to my knoledge n o one has tried, thank god)

Don't be too sure.

[Reenk Roink]

Never took you for a Calvin and Hobbes fan.

And that would be because...?

[Proletariat]

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

[Reenk Roink]

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 .

[Copperhaired Berserker!]

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.

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.)

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Don't be too sure.

well i never, it doen't surpirse me that it didn't work, interspecies breeding very rarely works very well

[Just A Girl]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Just A Girl]

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,

[Kommodus]

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]

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]

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]

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!]

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

[Just A Girl]

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

[Just A Girl]

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]

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!]

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! 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]

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

[Reenk Roink]

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 and got out of there.

[Just A Girl]

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]

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]

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.....

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

[Slyspy]

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]

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]

Edit: Nm.

[solypsist]

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.

anyway....

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