quote:

Originally posted by level Joe:
Yes, I believe.
Adam was the first man.
If there is no first man, then we are all still animals ( no soul/conscience). Evolutionists must also recognize a first man. It's either that or we are still monkeys, and we are not.

We ARE still animals. You need only read a newspaper to find a story of base behavior or people who are subhuman trash. Man is the Apex Predator. We don't have the speed, strength, or senses that other animals do. We evolved a large complex brain. Animals do have souls, you can find many examples of complex behavior across "the animal kingdom."

Evolution does recognize a "first man," but there is more than one, and they existed with their forebears.

The problem with insisting that the Bible is truth, is that it is demonstrably not true when it comes down to things like the age of the earth, and other factual nuts and bolts. But why do those things need to be true from the Bible? They don't. There are many questions we have yet to answer, and many we may never get the answers to.

Every day as we all walk about, we're surrounded by anger, fear, mental illness, the basest behaviors that one can term "savage." It takes work to be a religious, and/or decent person. I'm not a religious person, but I can take lessons from the bible about how to behave and treat others. It takes work every day to be human.

Frankly, the problem today, is that we've got Athiests out there who behave like non-belief _is_ their religion. They want to attack religion and _prove_ there is no god, for whomever they're currently attacking. Fuuuuuuck those people. By all appearances they have empty, petty lives. Because of assholes like that, folks seem anxious to prove that the content of the Bible is truth/fact. That isn't what the Bible is for.

I know lots of folks don't like rap, but give this a short listen:


Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. That's what the bible is for. Also, if you believe in God and all the rest, why do you need the Bible to be factually correct? It's even less important than it would be to someone who doesn't believe, and wants the Bible to describe the physical world.

I don't believe in God, or that any of the stories of the Bible happened. I do own a King James that I've read a few times, and what is true is that it is a Good Book. There are some other really good religious texts out there, and worthy faiths. If you take what they have to say about how to be a good person, and do that, it is extremely valuable.

If you're reading the Bible for factual accuracy and absolute truth, you're doing it wrong, because you should be following all the rules. I think we can agree that even the best Christians aren't doing everything to the letter these days. The idea that you can ignore some of the tenets and say "they meant it X way," but that oh, the story of Adam & Eve actually happened, naw dog. Evolution could have happened right along side the garden of eden, outside the garden was mans savage precursor, and God anointed two to be the first people perhaps?

It's good to discuss it, it gets shitty here in 2020, because there are people out there, for whom religion is not truth, who want to make it not true for others. Fuck those people. If I had faith life might be easier for me, I'd have more concrete incentive to be a good person and treat others with dignity and respect. As it stands, all I have is my own word and bond, and I want to do right to be treated right.

The only time I have a problem with religious folks, is when they're driving planes into buildings, or any other example of use of force to impose religious will. The Muslims need to cut the shit. Almost all religions have blood on their hands, that is history, but considering how long they've been at it, it might be about time to go harder.

I'm not a fan of the use of legislative tools either, I don't think the govmint should be involved in a host of issues. Opening that door has meant that people now try to use the legislative process to attack religious rights and practices. Fuck that too.

Faith can't be disproved. That is why it is faith. Faith is a relationship with God, it doesn't need to have all the answers. Science can't disprove faith, people who are trying to go there should mind their business. Faith can't disprove science either, because if anything is true of the Bible, it was written a long time ago when man knew less of the world around him.

It is also worth noting this: Does anyone here believe in or worship Zeus or Hera? Odin? If you do, great! Everyone believes your religion is at best charming fiction, cultural fables. So if you believe in God, but not all those other ones, well, you disbelieve one fewer god than I.

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:
The Atheist Test:

One thing this thread has demonstrated once again is how many people seem to be fundamentally insecure about their own beliefs and feel compelled to aggressively defend them by making a sally even when there are no barbarians outside trying to batter down the gates.

The poll asked a very simple, very limited question about a specific part of the biblical narrative, nothing more. When someone says, “I don’t believe that,” it’s a statement of his/her belief, not an assault on another’s. And by aggressive defense, I’m not referring to explaining or stating one’s own belief, as many people have done, and which I appreciate.

That is completely different from the defensive reaction of a test that says, “Justify yourself. How can you believe Y when X is so obvious?” When we do that and the question was simply what our own belief was, we publicly admit that our beliefs cannot stand on their own, and we have fallen prey to the logical fallacy of thinking that because someone else cannot prove his beliefs, that that somehow proves ours.

In discussions about religion that approach to self-justification is sometimes called “the God of the gaps”: “Your beliefs and science can’t explain everything [the gaps in our understanding and knowledge], and therefore my alternate explanation must be correct.” It’s as if you said that because I can’t prove that JFK killed Hoffa, it proves your contention that FDR killed him.

Earlier in the thread I was asked what my personal opinion was about the original poll question regarding the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden. At this moment in the thread’s progression, I still won’t comment further about my own beliefs for the reasons I explained at the time. Later, however, after discussion has died down, I may comment further, but in the meantime I’m still interested in how many people believe the literal account of that event.

Again, thanks for all replies to the question.

Part of the difficulty (a significant part) in discussing scientific or religious topics (and science has actually been used to explain religion, a lot) is the inability of our post-reptilian brains to understand concepts like infinity. Or even time. Looking up, if you could see with your eye the edge of the discoverable Universe (what we can sense with our most advanced instrumentation, now), it's almost 50 billion light years away. Light years. A diameter of almost a hundred billion light years. If you calculate the history of man (scientifically) - true man, as we essentially are today - it spans perhaps 100,000 years. Thats one ten-thousanth of a percent of a single billion year period. Rome, as an Empire, rose and fell in something over a thousand years. We are something over a thousand years away from that last fall. Both periods combined wouldn't even register on that Universal scale. We can say "a billion." We can measure "a billion" But we can't understand it with regard to time, any more than a squirrel understands how to make pasta. Or any more than we can understand "infinity." "Science" and "religion" aren't mutually exclusive - they are the same. In fact, religion is a subset of science. Science measures what we can measure, or tries. Religion tries to explain it. They both frequently get it wrong, they subsequently find. They both frequently conflict in their views, as often as do proponents of different scientific "theories." It's the nature of man.

But there is now, as we "scientifically" know (today), one hard point of agreement. The Universe, everything that we can sense or see, had a beginning. We can't imagine when - that is beyond our understanding. We can measure it, but we can't comprehend it. We can't imagine how - that too escapes us. We have no reference for the immense power it would take to produce - everything. And more relevantly, we don't know why. Science, at least the science of measuring things, falls woefully short here. The subset of religion tries to use our admittedly poor human intellect to answer this, to supply that imagination, to explain. Perhaps, as a theory, the Universe was created. On purpose. And perhaps, somewhere, some way within our squirrel brains, there is a kernel of truth that might help explain it, among the myriad religions of Earth. Somewhere.

Yes I do believe the Bible and all of its stories. Even though I like and respect science, there are always new discoveries that changes the belief in science. The God of the Bible that I believe and have Faith in, is BEYOND everything including science, physics, etc. If he were not, then he would not be God. Thank you for allowing me to share what I believe. God Bless you all !!!

I think the whole Adam and Eve and the apple are allegories to evolution. I don't see why evolution and religion have to be separate beliefs. The Apple represents knowledge, man's awakening and learning and science and technology. As these things expand we don't "need" God anymore. What was once attributed to miracles and divinity can now be explained by science.

I do and I believe the bible to be the inspired word of God.

Adam's first wife was Lilith. Didn't work out apparently.
Anyway if you believe Adam, Eve and incest then evolution has incest too. Not unless there were hundreds of humans that all evolved at the same exact time in the same exact area.
Unfortunately I am in the middle. I believe in both.

I strongly subscribe to the allegorical nature of the Garden of Eden narrative. One thing that supports this is that the word Adam means "man" (as in "mankind"), and thus does not name a specific individual.

Simply put yes.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
I strongly subscribe to the allegorical nature of the Garden of Eden narrative. One thing that supports this is that the word Adam means "man" (as in "mankind"), and thus does not name a specific individual.

'Adam means 'man' in Turkish.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

That is completely different from the defensive reaction of a test that says, “Justify yourself. How can you believe Y when X is so obvious?” When we do that and the question was simply what our own belief was, we publicly admit that our beliefs cannot stand on their own, and we have fallen prey to the logical fallacy of thinking that because someone else cannot prove his beliefs, that that somehow proves ours.

In discussions about religion that approach to self-justification is sometimes called “the God of the gaps”: “Your beliefs and science can’t explain everything [the gaps in our understanding and knowledge], and therefore my alternate explanation must be correct.” It’s as if you said that because I can’t prove that JFK killed Hoffa, it proves your contention that FDR killed him.

These are wise words that apply in many discussions, not only (but more especially) in religious debates.

'If you believe a = 1, and either will not, or cannot justify your reasoning, then obviously I, who believes that a = 2, regardless of any other explanation, must be right'

quote:

Originally posted by soflaac:

quote:

Originally posted by dan03833:
So, God created Adam & Eve. They had two sons; Cain & Abel. Cain killed Abel, leaving Adam, Eve and Cain. How did these three people spawn the entire human race?

There were daughters also born to Adam & Eve who were married to Cain & Abel. Seth was another son, but that's not the one you're asking about.

Sounds pretty incestuous to me. Wouldn't there be genetic issues with the offspring?

quote:

Originally posted by dan03833:
Sounds pretty incestuous to me. Wouldn't there be genetic issues with the offspring?

I presume that God, in His wisdom, took care of that issue.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by dan03833:
Sounds pretty incestuous to me. Wouldn't there be genetic issues with the offspring?

I presume that God, in His wisdom, took care of that issue.

flashguy

Or... it's allegory.

Consider the problems that many "royal" bloodlines have had, and the problems present today in cultures that permit marrying family. India, Pakistan, and other immigrant communities here in the US and also in England suffer alarming rates of birth defects and disability. Lucky for us all that there are numerous bloodlines out there.

Honestly guys, the Bible doesn't have all the answers, and it doesn't need to. There are all kinds of ridiculous details, Abraham living some 900 years, whatever, there are oddities all over the place. Adam and Eve doesn't explain all the different races and ancient cultures.. so?

The idea that science is unreliable because it can change... um that's how science works. It learns. Carl Sagan had the right idea about science and religion.

No.

quote:

Originally posted by SevenPlusOne:
No.

No, what?

Kindly put a little more effort into it if you're going to bother responding to a discussion.

Genesis 25:7
And these are the days of the years of Abraham's life which he lived, an hundred threescore and fifteen years.

I don’t normally use the KJV but I thought you’d appreciate the effort. And that’s 175 for those of us that don’t normally use old English.

I believe it as it is written.

"And just exactly as it is written in plain English..."

I must point out the story was written in Hebrew. It is translated into English.

quote:

Originally posted by clayflingythingy:
"And just exactly as it is written in plain English..."

I must point out the story was written in Hebrew. It is translated into English.

and Aramaic.

I believe the Bible is a collection of stories based in truth, whether absolute or allegorical. As someone trained in Anthropology and Archaeology, it's amazing that so much of the story in the Bible has been proven out in what we've found.

That said, it's not literal for me but sought to explain the world before modern science had the tools to do so. Still, there's an element of "chance", luck and goodwill that science cannot explain.

Two things strike me on why "Adam and Eve" can't be literally accurate; 1st is that there are stories of "the wild people", i.e. we co-existed with an earlier form of man. Science has proven our DNA intermingled and ultimately drove the extinction of Neanderthal and in some cultures, we have oral history of "tiny people" which again, science has born out as distant relatives of homo sapiens (several examples, the latest is homo luzonensis found in the Phillippines).

2nd is prehistory; i.e. dinosaurs and other very old species which are incontrovertably found in the scientific record. The timeline in the Bible doesn't account for this and having been told in church in the last year that "evolution and dinosaurs are a false narrative"...yeah, my scientific brain calls BS.

The thing about doctrine and dogma (from my Anthro background), the faithful require complete adherence to be "part of the group". I do believe there's a middle ground where both are true but coming at history from different perspectives.