Was Adam really the first human and if so...

[007]

If you don't believe me you can look it up.

Link? And if you send me off to read the bible, that's not evidence, it's fantasy.

You can no more claim the Bible is fantasy than someone claiming it's fact, especially when much of the Bible has been proven factually true.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is easy to imagine stories that are fantasy, yet include facts.

 

[Picaro]

Ironically the trilogy was a story about Christianity. Tolkien was a devout Catholic.

The return of the king. Raising the army of the dead. The ring symbolizes the self and what it does to men and the need to destroy it.

Dying to self is a central theme of all the major religions. It’s the only way one can see reality.

Indeed it was just that. Most of the Angry deviants here are illiterates, and completely ignorant of literary methods. All the know is is Da Evul Xians frown on adult males butt raping 8 year old boys and other such 'prudery' and 'Hate', and they are responsible for laws against raping the neighborhood pets, too, something the deviants and homos all share fond memories of.

 

[there4eyeM]

So Eve's sons took "beasts of the fields" as wives?

Nowhere does it say god made any other people than Adam and Eve

Yup. There were plenty of wild women to choose from in the city. And yeah, it doesn't say that God made any other people into living beings , it calls other existing peoples the beasts of the field that the Lord God also made. Just like Adam was an existing animal, taken from the scum of the earth, before he was formed into a living being.

If you thought about Adam being formed into a living being intelligently, you might understand the true subject of the resurrection of the dead.

According to the story a person is not a living being until he tills his own earth and subdues his animal nature.

Thats what Jesus meant by saying that a person must be born again, not by the fleshy desire of a human father that forms the body of an animal, but by the spirit of God that forms the mind and produces a new creature, a living- thinking intelligent and rational - "living being".

So the beasts of the field were people not deer, mice, wolves, foxes, bobcats. or any insect or bird etc?

That is the most ridiculous rationalization I have ever heard

Yes. But its not a rationalization, its the only answer that resolves every mystery including kosher law, ritual sacrifice, what Jesus was actually doing while living in the wilderness among the wild beasts, etc... The truth, the very truth.

Angels, demons, the living and the dead, talking serpents, talking donkeys, wolves, sheep, goats, cattle, rats, worms, parasites, bottom feeders, swine that do not ruminate, teeming vermin who go down on all fours, are all metaphors for people that reflect the heights and depths of human potential in the kingdom of God.

I appreciate your posting, but (no offense) I find that harder to believe than even the explanations for "why didn't Frodo just ride the giant eagles to Mordor in the FIRST damn place - Jeez!?"

Have a great week.

Ironically the trilogy was a story about Christianity. Tolkien was a devout Catholic.

The return of the king. Raising the army of the dead. The ring symbolizes the self and what it does to men and the need to destroy it.

Dying to self is a central theme of all the major religions. It’s the only way one can see reality.

No wonder most of you can’t see God.

That small "self" we are all sentenced to having to pass through has to be transcended.It is the product of the lie(s) we are so lovingly immersed in from birth.
It does not die, however. In fact, we need its memory as the standard of our former error and stimulus to greater effort. Thus, it could be said to be 'reborn' and live on in enlightenment.
That "self" is the 'fallen' (hu)man. Really, it is rather the lesser "self", the self which must be grown out of. Then, something genuine may emerge.
The duality we impose on an otherwise indivisible being/existence is the fall from the grace of feeling and living the unity.that any possible 'God' would be.

 

[NathanCross]

The Bible is a testimony to the wisdom and folly of a population that is representative of all. It points at something, but that something remains to be discovered by the individual through personal revelation. The major problem with this, as with all religions, is imposing interpretations on others who do not share them.

The problem is a bunch of people just making up stupid stuff to suit themselves, and making no attempt at all to actually read and study the books and the history and context of them.

We've been doing that forever, with no resolution. The point is the Bible alone cannot unify Christians, because everyone is capable of interpreting it differently. Also, the Catholic Church, when it assembled the New Testament, sought a balanced effect (faith vs. works), and therefore compiled a collection of works that doesn't put forth a single teaching, but many teachings, some of which contradict each other. This is why I look to the history of Christian culture for our unity. The Bible is still very important, of course.

 

[Taz]

If they made Eve out of one of Adam’s ribs, why doesn’t Adam have a scar?

Who said Adam Didn't? I see a reason why Adam may have had a scar and a reason Adam may not have had one. But just because Adam may have had a scar, doesn't mean that all males would then have this scar...

Adam had no chest hair, so why do most men have chest hair then?

 

[Taz]

Anyone who literally believes the Biblical Creation Story has committed intellectual suicide.

Like the Pope?

Good point.... He has to say he does, when actually he doesn't. Catholic Biblical doctrine teaches that literal interpretation is inappropriate.Yet our admitting that in a Protestant country would prove disastrous, from a PR perspective. The Bible must be put in historical and cultural perspective.

In other words, the bible is a load of camel turds.

 

[Meriweather]

the bread dipped in wine

The bread was not dipped in wine.

 

[Taz]

Who were Adam's parents? or were they just poofed into existence?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Anyone who literally believes the Biblical Creation Story has committed intellectual suicide.

Anyone who literally believes the Biblical Creation Story has committed intellectual suicide.

1 Corinthians 1:27

“But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;”

Prometheus Crucified

Paul despises intelligence and manliness, putting them in the same category as the undeserved birth privileges as the aristocracy (eugeneis). This jealous, predatory, and hypocritical attitude was the first coffin nail leading to the Fall of Rome and the onset of the Dark Ages (The "Age of Faith).

 

[hobelim]

If you don't believe me you can look it up.

Link? And if you send me off to read the bible, that's not evidence, it's fantasy.

Duh, so what. The guy claims to believe everything in the story. Its right there in black and white and always was. Jesus was identifying his betrayer.

"As soon as Judas received the bread, Satan entered him."

Its actually helpful information. Find someone who thinks that Jesus is present in a matzo, and you'll find a duplicitous backstabber who is full of shit.

 

[BreezeWood]

...did he look like us? And if the answer is "yes", then what is or was Homo naledi?

I would go with 'Yes', they did look like us. there is nothing in the Genesis story or any other that leads to anything else. Bones of extinct species of apes don't prove human ancestry. From evidence popping up around the world the last few decades, there is also no longer any reason to assume an African origin for humanity either, or even a single origin.

The reference to Adam as 'The First Man' in the Jewish writings could also be merely Jewish racism at work, 'Adam' being the first 'Man' might just mean the first Jew, with others not being considered real ' humans', hence the existence of others outside the 'Garden' that aren't considered full humans by tribal Jews. This mentality exists right up to today among some Jewish sects and rabbis.

When tracing the origins of the majority of the ancient languages, they center on a region around the northern Caucuses or the Black Sea, according to whose map you like the best. That would indicate an area probably closer to human origins than some backwater like Africa, where the 'originals' never got far, despite thousands of years of a head start, so the entire 'out of Africa' nonsense is ridiculous on its face..

.

I would go with 'Yes', they did look like us. there is nothing in the Genesis story or any other that leads to anything else ... or even a single origin.

nothing in the Genesis story or any other that leads to anything else ... or even a single origin.

you are a joke -

have you dug up one of your ancestors yet eaten by T-Rex ...

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Anyone who literally believes the Biblical Creation Story has committed intellectual suicide.

Anyone who literally believes the Biblical Creation Story has committed intellectual suicide.

1 Corinthians 1:27

“But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;”

Don't start, Fundie. I can produce a slew of totally insane quotes from the Bible. For example, please explain the story about 40 kids who were eaten by a bear, because they called an old man bald.

Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts

"Who loves ya, baby?" said Kojack.

 

[Picaro]

...did he look like us? And if the answer is "yes", then what is or was Homo naledi?

I would go with 'Yes', they did look like us. there is nothing in the Genesis story or any other that leads to anything else. Bones of extinct species of apes don't prove human ancestry. From evidence popping up around the world the last few decades, there is also no longer any reason to assume an African origin for humanity either, or even a single origin.

The reference to Adam as 'The First Man' in the Jewish writings could also be merely Jewish racism at work, 'Adam' being the first 'Man' might just mean the first Jew, with others not being considered real ' humans', hence the existence of others outside the 'Garden' that aren't considered full humans by tribal Jews. This mentality exists right up to today among some Jewish sects and rabbis.

When tracing the origins of the majority of the ancient languages, they center on a region around the northern Caucuses or the Black Sea, according to whose map you like the best. That would indicate an area probably closer to human origins than some backwater like Africa, where the 'originals' never got far, despite thousands of years of a head start, so the entire 'out of Africa' nonsense is ridiculous on its face..

.

I would go with 'Yes', they did look like us. there is nothing in the Genesis story or any other that leads to anything else ... or even a single origin.

nothing in the Genesis story or any other that leads to anything else ... or even a single origin.

you are a joke -

have you dug up one of your ancestors yet eaten by T-Rex ...

Pipe down, faggot. Adults are trying to talk here. Go cruise some toilets somewhere if you need male attention so badly.

 

[ding]

Ironically the trilogy was a story about Christianity. Tolkien was a devout Catholic.

The return of the king. Raising the army of the dead. The ring symbolizes the self and what it does to men and the need to destroy it.

Dying to self is a central theme of all the major religions. It’s the only way one can see reality.

Indeed it was just that. Most of the Angry deviants here are illiterates, and completely ignorant of literary methods. All the know is is Da Evul Xians frown on adult males butt raping 8 year old boys and other such 'prudery' and 'Hate', and they are responsible for laws against raping the neighborhood pets, too, something the deviants and homos all share fond memories of.

So true.

Not very bright and extremely bitter with life.

 

[ding]

Yup. There were plenty of wild women to choose from in the city. And yeah, it doesn't say that God made any other people into living beings , it calls other existing peoples the beasts of the field that the Lord God also made. Just like Adam was an existing animal, taken from the scum of the earth, before he was formed into a living being.

If you thought about Adam being formed into a living being intelligently, you might understand the true subject of the resurrection of the dead.

According to the story a person is not a living being until he tills his own earth and subdues his animal nature.

Thats what Jesus meant by saying that a person must be born again, not by the fleshy desire of a human father that forms the body of an animal, but by the spirit of God that forms the mind and produces a new creature, a living- thinking intelligent and rational - "living being".

So the beasts of the field were people not deer, mice, wolves, foxes, bobcats. or any insect or bird etc?

That is the most ridiculous rationalization I have ever heard

Yes. But its not a rationalization, its the only answer that resolves every mystery including kosher law, ritual sacrifice, what Jesus was actually doing while living in the wilderness among the wild beasts, etc... The truth, the very truth.

Angels, demons, the living and the dead, talking serpents, talking donkeys, wolves, sheep, goats, cattle, rats, worms, parasites, bottom feeders, swine that do not ruminate, teeming vermin who go down on all fours, are all metaphors for people that reflect the heights and depths of human potential in the kingdom of God.

I appreciate your posting, but (no offense) I find that harder to believe than even the explanations for "why didn't Frodo just ride the giant eagles to Mordor in the FIRST damn place - Jeez!?"

Have a great week.

Ironically the trilogy was a story about Christianity. Tolkien was a devout Catholic.

The return of the king. Raising the army of the dead. The ring symbolizes the self and what it does to men and the need to destroy it.

Dying to self is a central theme of all the major religions. It’s the only way one can see reality.

No wonder most of you can’t see God.

That small "self" we are all sentenced to having to pass through has to be transcended.It is the product of the lie(s) we are so lovingly immersed in from birth.
It does not die, however. In fact, we need its memory as the standard of our former error and stimulus to greater effort. Thus, it could be said to be 'reborn' and live on in enlightenment.
That "self" is the 'fallen' (hu)man. Really, it is rather the lesser "self", the self which must be grown out of. Then, something genuine may emerge.
The duality we impose on an otherwise indivisible being/existence is the fall from the grace of feeling and living the unity.that any possible 'God' would be.

There is little doubt that we are rebels.

 

[NathanCross]

Anyone who literally believes the Biblical Creation Story has committed intellectual suicide.

Anyone who literally believes the Biblical Creation Story has committed intellectual suicide.

1 Corinthians 1:27

“But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;”

Prometheus Crucified

Paul despises intelligence and manliness, putting them in the same category as the undeserved birth privileges as the aristocracy (eugeneis). This jealous, predatory, and hypocritical attitude was the first coffin nail leading to the Fall of Rome and the onset of the Dark Ages (The "Age of Faith).

Paul's shortcomings have caused a lot of damage to Christianity. Yes, he was great, and I appreciate his genius, courage and diligence. Nonetheless, he was wrong, on a number of critical issues.

 

[NathanCross]

Anyone who literally believes the Biblical Creation Story has committed intellectual suicide.

Like the Pope?

Good point.... He has to say he does, when actually he doesn't. Catholic Biblical doctrine teaches that literal interpretation is inappropriate.Yet our admitting that in a Protestant country would prove disastrous, from a PR perspective. The Bible must be put in historical and cultural perspective.

In other words, the bible is a load of camel turds.

No. It's a collection of religious literature. In and of itself, the Bible is not divine. God is not a book.

 

[there4eyeM]

Anyone who literally believes the Biblical Creation Story has committed intellectual suicide.

Like the Pope?

Good point.... He has to say he does, when actually he doesn't. Catholic Biblical doctrine teaches that literal interpretation is inappropriate.Yet our admitting that in a Protestant country would prove disastrous, from a PR perspective. The Bible must be put in historical and cultural perspective.

In other words, the bible is a load of camel turds.

No. It's a collection of religious literature. In and of itself, the Bible is not divine. God is not a book.

Certainly, 'God' could be no 'thing'.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I am a child of God. He created me in His image. I am certain though that my wife evolved from a monkey.