Some basic logic for Christians.
1. There is proof now that Adam and eve were not actual people. This is elementary biology.
2. Without an actual Adam and Eve - there can be no original sin.
3. Without original sin - there would be no need for a Jesus Christ to deliver us from that sin.
Therefore the Christian myth is false, and this is the reason there is no evidence of this person.
Don't waste your time, delusion is not a disease to be cured.
You may be right. Having just been threatened with a slap because that is what Jesus actually says to do after turning the other cheek - anything is possible.
This is a pretty blatant logical flaw though.
I agree with Jomine. You'll have a better time reasoning with a brick wall. I do admire your persistence though.
Well, gee, Mark, give us time. lol
Eh. Okay. So, prove to me that Adam and Eve never existed.
Or were not "actual people".
I actually didn't know there was proof either. Im curious too? I guess I should probably just google it....
You are not serious are you? You think Adam and Eve were actual, real people?
No, I don't. I reread thru all this and I "get it" now, I was having one of those moments I have sometimes. I was all "Really? Cool. Proof!!" Not enough sleep teh past few weeks I guess.
No "real people" - as you agree.
No - original sin.
No need for Jesus to save ya.
I don't know, what if there was still a God? Or do you simply say that that's elementary bioloby as well? Don't presuppositions unsuported by proof mean that sijmply insulting the other side makes you right? Or is it not that way simply because it's your side doing it? I understand that some did that to you, but the fact that some of us didn't turn the other cheek doesn't make it okay for others, does it? Or is the failure of one simply the excuse for the collapse of all?
The story of Adam and Eve is a nice story. Every culture throught the world has a myth or story on how the earth was formed and how two individuals, a male and female "god", in most cases, kick started human kind and follow a set of rules. The ancent Jews had 10 Commandments which was based on the Ancient Egyptians who had 40 Commandments. The Jewish Bible was based on the Eqyptian Book of the Dead, which later spawned the Bible and Koran. And yes, every cultue who lives next to a river or ocean tells a story of a great flood. Different characters, same story. These were in the days when the common thought that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe, the sky and clouds was held together by a great canopy, and the "world" was from here to that mountain range over there. The average person up to the mid 19th century, was born, lived and died within a 25 mile radius. Science like biology, geology, archiology, palentology, astronomy, etc. etc. didn't come along until recently.
1. Christians never used "elementary biology" to base their faith in the truth of A & E.
That being the case, the rest of your points are irrelevant!
Yes. Only if you ignore proven scientific facts - such as elementary biology - which proves that 2 members of a species are not a viable gene pool - the rest of the points are irrelevent.
Did not really answer the question though - did you dj?
1st biology is anything BUT elementary!
2nd, what question? (they usually end with a "?".)
I don't see one. Do YOU??
One man's "elementary" is another man's "too hard to understand" I suppose. How about "basic" biology? As you seem intent on attacking the semantics instead of addressing the actual issue?
The question? Oh - I see - you did not understand that your response to my statement was non-relevant. There was no direct question. I made a statement - you attempted to refute it and your statement was not relevant and did not go to the heart of my statement. Sorry if I made things unclear by calling it a question. Semantics.
Any time you care to address my statement instead of arguing semantics - I would be interested. I think you are more a science denier though - am I right? Evolution is a lie and biology is all lies?
Where words are many, sin is not absent.
A roundabout way of saying you think biology is a lie?
Great job on avoiding the issue. Well done.
This is your proof? Two persons a gene pool does not make? This is very anticlimactic. I'm pretty sure an almighty God could create two people (bam, bam) and figure out what to do with the gene pool. It starts with the existence of God, pure and simple. If you deny that, you will surely deny the rest of it. If you accept that... then the rest of it works perfectly. Your "proof" is meaningless because it only holds water in the absence of a Creator Almighty God. Your search for proof is futile. Either God exists or He doesn't. You choose what you believe. I'll choose what I believe. I have already written a hub about the supporting evidence for what I believe. Either way, it's still a matter of faith. You have your faith. I have mine.
So - majik was involved. We already agreed that denying science is a great cop out. "Sure - 2 members is not a viable gene pool, but god can do anything, and evolution is a lie," does not really cut it.
We didn't agree on anything of the kind, my friend. The Bible contains tons of examples of events where the laws of nature are bent in a Matrix-like fashion to show God's power. You want to focus on this one issue knowing that the Bible has Jesus walking on water, raising from the dead, etc. Science cannot be used to disprove a God who can bend the laws of nature at his whim. Your argument is still futile. It's still a matter of faith.
Sonfollowers wrote: ...I'm pretty sure an almighty God could create two people (bam, bam) and figure out what to do with the gene pool. It starts with the existence of God, pure and simple. If you deny that, you will surely deny the rest of it. If you accept that... then the rest of it works perfectly. Your "proof" is meaningless because it only holds water in the absence of a Creator Almighty God. Your search for proof is futile. Either God exists or He doesn't. You choose what you believe. I'll choose what I believe. I have already written a hub about the supporting evidence for what I believe. Either way, it's still a matter of faith. You have your faith.
[snicker] The only 'faith' involved is on your end-as your holy tome states.
The Babylonian Creation Myth is some 5,500 years old and credits Tiamat the Dragon. Your particularly favoured myth is just over 2,000 years old. Your 'deity' is as a babe at the first suck compared to all the older myths.
As for [snicker] the Almighty descriptor; your deity couldn't even handle primitive chariots on a level plain-because they were made of iron!
As for 'starting with the existence of your deity construct' there's no reason to. There is, literally, nothing to deny. It all fails at the faintest glance.
The older Tiamat the Dragon-along with the Norse, Greek, Egyptian, and other Pantheons fail for the same reasons.
Objective supporting evidence the universe was manufactured? Objective supporting evidence for giving credit to your particular deity construct?
If you claim all things must be 'created' (manufactured) when 'who' created your deity?
Whoopsies. You've now got the never ending chain of prior 'Creators'. At the first step your deity is knocked out of the credit list.
Any Christian giving their deity 'credit' is 'begging the question.' Furthermore, their exempting their deity from having to be manufactured offers the same exemption for the universe as well. The same failure extends to all other folks who make 'Creator' claims for their particular deity.
Your statement about the Bible is quite amusing. You've just validated every statement/claim people have made about anything with the ability to do anything out of the ordinary.
Interesting arguments (each is a little flawed though).
Argument #1: Christianity is only 2000 years old (ie. late comer).
The birth of Jesus was 2000 years ago. True enough. But Christianity is essentially an extension of Judaeism (or an offshoot, depending on your perspective I guess). The God of the New Testament is in fact the God of the Old Testament. So the Biblical account of creation is actually plenty old.
Argument #2: Chariots.
Huh? I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Argument #3: Show me the evidence.
The existence and crucifixion of Jesus is verified by secular documents from that time. The widespread belief that he was seen walking around and talking again afterwards is corroborated by secular documents as well (Tacitus, for instance). Also, Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies written hundreds if not over a thousand years before He was born. These (plus other details) are explained in more detail in one of my hubs.
Argument #4: Who created God?
Answer: According to Christianity, nobody. God has always existed. In fact, God is not bound by the time dimension (he sees and moves forward and backward through it). So there is no need to ask when God started who who created Him. He just IS. Therefore, there is no "whoopsies."
When it comes to who created God we need to understand that only WE need an explanation for this, more importantly is the reason we need to know this.
Because we are born, WE see a beginning
Because we see death, WE see an ending
All we can deduce from this is that flesh is both born and dies.
But do other lifeforms? Perhaps there is one lifeform existing in some other plane that is neither born nor dies. For those of us who believe in ghosts.. when will a ghost die? or will it continue forever?
But is that really all there is?
Scientists say our sun will not burn out for another 4 billion years is that not a good equivalent to forever or eternal? If our sun can last, 4 billion plus years how is it we need to know who created God and because we cannot wrap our finite minds around this question does that make it even a viable question?
No, of course they don't use it to support the idea of ID. The biological facts being referenced here refute the possibility of the Christian story being true and thus are not only not used to support that story they are ignored in their entirety.
This demonstrates why the atheists and scientific community don't pay much attention to the "proofs" of religion - data that is contrary to the desired conclusion is simply ignored instead of being used to disprove that conclusion. Although that is considered to be OK and is an accepted method of "proof" and "learning" by the religious it is considered dishonest by the rest of the world.
What "biological facts" are you referring to?
See EG's post; 2 individuals are not enough to perpetuate the species. Severe inbreeding will cause extinction.
Even though I see references that Eve was Adams second wife (indicating a third person created) and that, if true, could give rise to there being dozens or hundreds more, either way it refutes the concept of Adam and Eve.
I suppose it is possible that Cain, Abel and any daughters were all subjected to massive evolutionary changes (far beyond anything reasonable) this again gives serious doubt to the story. It simply adds to the idea that "goddunnit" and God can do anything, so it must be true. More of the same childish reasoning predestined to a preordained conclusion without logic or factual evidence.
Thanks for the expansion.
However, I see ou use assumptions to formulate your point of view. (entirely OK with me).
But, just to answer one simple(?) point you raised re inbreeding.
This is also based on an assumption.
We have no evidence that our genetic makeup (prone to so much degenerative mutation) was always as it is today!@
Adam and Eve were (in effect) created "perfect". Therefore their genes would have contained no (or very few) "mistakes".
This would then, not have led to species extinction.
Secondly, it also (partly) explains the long life times they had, as noted in Genesis. We know that ageing is caused by certain changes in DNA, which, once reaching a certain level, cannot replicate the cell to a vibrant level, strong enough to live as when "young". Bringing on death.
How funny that you talk of evidence. We have ample evidence that 2 is not a viable gene pool. Unless there is majik invoked.
I see you still don't read!
That's ok. I understand your handicap. It's called tunnel vision!
If two is not a good gene pool, then we must have come from multiple Adams and Eves.
How many do you suggest is acceptable?
We evolved from earlier species. I don't know exactly the size of the population that involved, but stochastic variation rates are greatly increased in small populations and humans seem no more or less prone to mutations that any other animal - so it must have been sizeable.
Even that "sizeable" must have been reduced to a lower number.
I mean, lets play the game on a level playing field.
Life originated from a single source.
It's mere speculation, and fanciful dreaming to think millions of highly complex structures required to sustain life in a single cell, suddenly sprang up out of nowhere, all at the same time.
YET. I say, YET go on to become NON identical life forms/species thereafter.
I can swallow a lot of evolutionary tripe (theory), but that's too big even for me.
But, hey, YOU'RE the Evolution Guy, you must have it all down pat!
You seem (Hell) bent on educating all of us on your POV.
What is too big for you is that you have an ingrowing imagination, an inability to comprehend the time involved and envisage the passing of that amazing amount of time is what blinds you, apart from your own self induced blindness of course.
It is not my POV - it is fact. These organisms did not suddenly spring up out of nowhere all at the same time. That is what you believe - just that god dunnit.
Depends on what you call as life. Prions, which can produce its own copies, are just proteins, just a single protein. No "million complex" structure.
So is . .
Jesus died on the Cross, 2000 + years ago, and rose again!
You believe your FACT, and I'll believe MINE.
Quite elementary, really
One individual is sufficient IF it has an indefinite life span and reproduces asexually. (think amoeba here, or something considerably simpler). Genetic diversity doesn't matter (it all comes from one set of genes) and one organism will reproduce millions of times.
More advanced organisms will also only need one individual that is mutated slightly from a much larger general population. That one, IF lucky enough to produce several generations of offspring, will eventually fill the species will its particular mutation. Here, that one individual must be a part of a much larger community of genetically viable individuals - the only reason it is set apart is that one minor mutation.
Agreed. I wonder if there is an answer to dj's question - not that he actually wants an answer - he asks questions in order to attack science - not for the answers. But - I will look into it - see if I could answer it. What was the likely starting population of modern humans?
Purely a guess, but I would think a few dozen maximum. This is figuring that the pre-man creature was similar in social structure to others of the ape family and lived in small groups. One such group "found" the mutation to become man (and yes, I know that there isn't a complete record and that actual point of change isn't defined, but suppose it was found and defined) was limited to reproduction almost exclusively within that group. Eventually that group would interbreed (witness Neanderthal) but the basis for home sapiens would still be limited to the small group that originated it.
That is once more some of what I indicated. Biology disproves the idea, so we'll change the idea with more impossible hypothesis' because, after all, God can do anything. It is dishonest.
In addition, Adam and Eve were not perfect; the only perfect "human" was Christ. This is but conjecture and again flies in the face of biology; even if they were perfect, it is not possible to see the degradation you refer to in only the few thousand years since their creation (at least without Gods intervention with more impossible actions). The long lifetimes you refer to will only exacerbate this problem as there will be fewer generations to evolve.
In a reasoned, logical discourse, you are not allowed to continually add more and more impossible solutions to refute contradictory evidence and maintain the final conclusion simply because God can do anything. It is, once more, dishonest. Eventually a reasonable person must simply accept that that conclusion that is wanted so badly just isn't in the cards.
I will only address one point here.
According to the Bible, Christ is compared to Adam. He is called the SECOND Adam.
Meaning? They were, for all intents and purposes IDENTICAL.
The first one sinned. Brought death to all.
Christ did NOT sin, but took sin upon Himself. Brought (Eternal) Life.
Read Hebrews for all this.
Adam could have lived forever, had He not sinned.
Jesus DOES live, because He DIDN'T sin.
Thus being the "life giving Spirit", seated on the throne of Heaven, in Human form!
Adam and Jesus are IDENTICAL but one sinned and one didn't. We must have different definitions of identical.
But this is minor compared to the other point; that religion ignores evidence that is contrary to their beliefs. Lets discuss what it takes to find Adam and Eve as the first people from a biological standpoint.
You have provided an answer for survival of the species with inadequate genetic base (Adam and Eve were perfect genetically) but this then gives rise to additional problems in an impossible rate of evolution since then as well as it being in a negative direction. How do we address this problem without simply saying Goddunit? After all, perfect genetics coupled with long life spans will result in a great reproduction rate but your theory says that evolution has resulted in non-perfect genetics and a lower reproduction rate - the antithesis of evolution. Goddunit in other words, once more in violation of natural laws.
It seems that you are now proposing that God made Adam and Eve (in violation of natural laws), with a perfect genetic code (in violation of anything ever seen and while contradicting yourself), they then devolved (in violation of natural laws) and at a rate that is not possible (in violation of natural laws). The list of impossibilities grows ever larger just trying to maintain the hypothesis of ID. When do we stop and just accept that the hypothesis is wrong?
My proposal for a (near) perfect genetic genesis is not "out of the range" of possibility.
But, I only stated that as my personal belief, so, I don't mind you rejecting it.
The bigger issue is that you are saying that know natural law is contravened by the implications of my hypothesis, namely, DE-volution.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but everything is moving toward chaos, and disorder, and NOT to greater order.
So, you are the one who needs to re-evaluate your claim.
Evolution is a MYTH, supported by faulty assumptions and twisting natural laws to suit.
Incredible complexity, and super intricate order in the function of living things CANNOT, HAS NOT and NEVER WILL "just happen at random" just because you want it to.
I have argued a-biogenesis before, and the TRUTH is, no evolutionist has put forth a SINGLE model that is viable.
EVERY one has flaws, when scrutinsed by others (of your own peers--- not ID, or creation proponents, I might add.
Just have a look at Wiki-pedia for a short summary for yourself.
I may not know much, but I have enough common sense to know, something greater is at work here than mere chance , accidents or "Mother Nature".
I hold to the "Goddunit" scenario, NO question. Only, I have to add, NOT the flimsy, religious worldly concept of Him, that you may see.
You need to read a little closer - I agree that it is possible that a near perfect set of genes could come to exist. At least near perfect for the environment then is existence. It may be unlikely, but it is possible.
Evolution, however, does not work backwards; a near perfect genetic structure can't and won't become less perfect.
You, acknowledge that evolution exists and works; it is the method you propose that the perfect genes become less perfect. You obviously don't understand the concept very well, but you know it happens.
You are confusing (intentionally, I believe) the concept of entropy with biology; if it were so a baby could not develop into an adult as the adult is much larger and thereby more complex.
No, you don't know much (neither do I) but at least I don't make up theories with evidence as you do and then call them fact. You know, based only on your ignorance of the exact methodology of the evolutionary trail, that God exists. It's nice you can come with that declaration but there is no evidence of its truth. Some try to find truth (with much stumbling, false starts and dead ends), others invent fiction and declare it to be truth without ever checking.
If the genetic code has built into it, the proces of germination, fetal development, birth, growth to adult stage ending in old age and death, it is a "program" that is deterministic. Hence, it overcomes entropy, but only for the duration of the process.
Hence, it actually does follow entropy laws, but only because of predetermined energies and processes put there by the Creator.
You reply to my posts as if God did NOT exist, nor cause that which I describe.
Of course, I'd have to concede there is no natural explanation, but, for the ID concept to "work", the creator (IE designe) HAS to be factored into the equation.
I DO try, really hard to see it from the NO GOD perspective, every time I comment to evolutionary concepts. Without God, evolution MUST, by default rely on some other causes. Be they randomness, accident, chemical reactions, energy exchange,...whatever. BUT, there is no design, NOR intelligence in either the process, NOR the explanation.
THAT'S the basic, and real objection I have, and have ALWAYS had to ET.
You're correct - my posts for the most part assume God does not exist, while your posts assume that He does. Without God evolution does indeed rely on other "causes" (using the term loosely) - they are the natural laws and forces present everywhere in the universe.
Why does there have to be a design or intelligence behind those forces? Can you not see that random changes will eventually change a gene to one that is better suited for survival? 10,000 changes may result in death while one is an improvement, yes, but when you have billions happening it is inevitable that somewhere, sometime, there will be a beneficial change. It doesn't require intelligence OR design to work, just large numbers.
True, the human mind has a hard time actually understanding the size of the numbers evolution works with. We may blithely throw around things like "millions of $$", but when it becomes millions of years instead few can comprehend what that means - it is too far outside our experience, where even 100 years is something few people see. Is that the problem here - you just can't visualize or comprehend what these numbers mean in real life? It's not easy but it can be done with some effort.
That's true. When I worked at Harris, I was assigned as a graphic/technical artist to a group of engineers who were working on some cutting edge electronics technology. They requested me, because I didn't get agitated making the excruciating, endless changes to their designs. They were more creative than any artist I have ever known. They applied the math to reality. I could only work out set formulas for my part, and could not comprehend their ability to realize formulas anew. Once they left me figuring "wait times" (for a theoretical neuron "laser blast" communication system) on the weekend while they were out sailing to the Grant Islands.
Anyway, these guys were freakish brainiacs. I'm not in the same league. I have to take the math wizs' word for it . . . random selection don't add up . . . the odds are stacked infinitely against it. They were all believers and sometimes insisted that God woke them up in the middle of the night to help them with a new formula.
Fish are like manna. You should only keep enough for one day.
Your post indicates the problem; the odds are not infinitely against evolution. Very high, yes, but certainly not infinite. A billion to one against a useful mutation is far, far outside our experience and we would all count that as a big zero, but it is not. When the odds are a billion to one but there are a trillion actions taking place, it becomes a near certainty to happen instead of a zero chance.
Interesting that you attempt to divert away from the actual issue that a savior is not needed and instead attack proven science. I understand science-deniers have found their get out.
"Science is a lie therefore god dunnit like wot the bible sez and I need saving." Gotcha.
Seriously - is there not a single educated Christian willing to tackle this logical flaw?
I don't think that your hypothesis is correct.
Where do you get that Adam and Eve were not the actual persons?
I thought it said he died on the cross for ALL of our sins, not an original sin.
Those sins stem from the original one. If there had been no original sin - we would still be living in the Garden of Eden.
Nonsense. Want to have a go at the logical flaw in your religion? No one else seems to have an answer. In case you missed it
No Adam and Eve
No Original sin
No need for a savior
Christianity is false
Unless you are just here to preach nonsense and hell?
"Unless you are just here to preach nonsense and hell?"
No thanks, EG...We'll leave that up to you!
Drivel. What a shock. Sorry if logic and reason are nonsense to you. Not surprised mind you. Hell does not exist.
Evolution Guy: You claim that there is some sort of proof that Adam and Eve were notactual people. My source the Holy Bible says you are wrong. Since the Holy Bible is recognized as a valid Historically correct source book, you have to do better than to simply state your own opinion without validation.
Are you trying to state with fact, that "Biologically" man and woman do not exist, or that it is impossible "Biologically" for Homo Sapien Man to have existed say 6,000 years ago? Maybe you are trying to tell us all that we today, we the population of today's earth are not Homo Sapien but machines. Have you looked in a mirror lateley, better check and see if you have a pulse or not.
The bible is recognized as a valid historically correct source book ONLY by those that have decided to swallow wholesale the myths and lies perpetuated there.
While the bible does appear to have some reasonably accurate history in it, it also has reams of "history" that are patently false and impossible.
Wilderness: You have recognized that The Holy Bible is recognized as a historically correct source book, whether or not you are a believer of the facts within it or not is your choice, it is still a valid historical reference text, corroborated by other historical documentation gathered from that period. The only way that history can be wrong is if all the historians lied and manufactured evidence to try and substantiate their lie. The Jews Torah, along with the Gospels of Jesus span several thousands of years. I dare say that any one writer lived that long. History is documentation proving the facts of life from period to period and the Holy Bible is a History text doing just that.
I have yet to find even one historian that will declare that the entire world was flooded at one point, or that humanity started a few thousand years ago from 8 people. Just the bible makes this ridiculous claim.
I have never seen a historical account of anyone walking on water or turning water to wine. Again, just the bible.
No historian lists anyone turning into salt, just the bible.
Nowhere is history does it record anyone living inside a fish, just the bible.
Do not twist my words or make them more than they plainly state. The bible has some historical accuracy, along with a great many lies and exaggerations. Which is exactly what I said, not that the Holy Bible is recognized as a historically correct source book. That some small part is actually accurate and correct does not in any way make it a reference text.
The Bible is recognized as no such thing.
Not sure what the machine thing is all about - that is just gibberish.
I will not waste anymore of my valuable time or effort to prove God's Holy Bible as Historical fact to a person who sees only what he wants to see as truth. I hope you open your eyes in time.
Well - don't let me keep you. Don't you have some children to frighten or something?
As it can only be proven to be a lie, it is well that you won't waste time.
Noah's flood, covering the world and killing all life not on board the ark just a few thousand years ago, never happened. The bible lied and therefore cannot be taken as historical fact.
I just want to say, faith doesn't need logic or science.
If someone believes in Jesus Christ and the teachings of Christianity, then let him be. Respect his beliefs, just like you would respect your own.
So - no rebuttal still? OK
Didn't Einstein think your religion was childish and silly?
Come on - make an argument instead of attacking me as a fool and posting silly pictures.
No Adam and Eve
No original sin
No savior needed
Mark, you are ONLY ever here to cause disruption, and you are very good at doing that, I grant you, but whatever anyone posted it would only be met with ghetto speak of inane comments, so why bother?
Just because you think that God does not exist does not mean we all need play your silly little games.
Stop worshipping the creation and start worshipping the Creator, which was basically what Einstein was stating, and which again you glibly ignore and try to goad me into sinking to your level, sorry, I'm only passing through to expose your game plan, and now (as it is 4.34am where I am), I'm off to bed.
Goodnight Mark, no doubt you will be haunting the forum again when I visit, have you no sites to SEO or advise on?
Einstein was saying no such thing. Please either rebut my statement or stop telling me what I should be doing. I glibly ignored nothing - your misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Einstein is of no interest or value. He is on record as saying your religion is childish nonsense.
Odd you continue to not address my opening statement. Or not.
Where is your Proof? You wrote a bunch on pointless gibberish, and claimed proof of something, so where is your proof?
Mark does not need proof to write gibberish, he only demands proof, which he can never receive or understand, for whilst he is in rebellion against God, his ears are sealed by his masters to hearing what God would say to him.
aguasilver Our Lord has told us there will be many people like this. This doesn't surprise me. Only a few will make it to heaven he said. Sad, but true.
If God came down and kicked these types in the face, they wouldn't know it was him.
It's ironic that many of you(religious people} are gullible enough to believe religion. Especially, when Jesus despised it and it's false god.
"Especially, when Jesus despised it and it's false god." Huh...?
I figured at least one person would respond as you have. It's not a surprise.
So glad to be so perdictable to you...Are you always so "all-knowing" ?
Ego much? It has nothing to do with being "all knowing" and only religious folk like yourself make that claim. People like yourself always apply "all-knowing" when they don't have any other defense.
What makes you think I have to come to a "defense" of all your jibberish?
Too bad you cannot see beyond yourself to recognize truth. And, everything you do is in defense of a book and belief, you apparently have no understanding of. So please.
Hey Cags -serious question
Whats the difference 'tween ego and self confidence?
So please what? Let you go on and write like you know "everything"...I like how you can tell someone about not understanding a "book"...that you defy. And then tell someone who...you know have no idea about...how they do not understand it...the "book". Then, speak of knowing what truth is...and what it isn't. That is delusional thinking...at the upmost!
You are the one that clearly does not understand...Can you understand that?
Actually, that would be your bad perception.
A book I defy? I defy your understanding of said book. I don't defy the existence of said book. I know for a fact that it was manipulated before it was ever put into book form. How about you?
It's simple to do that, when they talk about said book. Duh! If you didn't know it was manipulated before you ever read the damn thing, then you would be defending it. Otherwise, you would defend it.
Because I am of the understand that TRUTH is universal. Too bad you don't understand what that means.
Lies are not truth. Get the point. Truth is recognized when seen, just like you recognize wisdom when it is seen.
It is only to a delusion individual.
I can understand your refusal which comes from ego and why you do it. The better question is do you? Probably not.
Better than you can.
Cag..I mean gag, it's people like you who are gullible and misguided, especially when you have to lie to make a point. Jesus has never said anywhere that he despised His Father,. False gods were engravened and carved images used for worship. Get your info right, and you can only do that by actually reading the bible. They do make them in easy read versions if you need one.
Explain how giving up something you can simply bring right back is a sacrifice and your cult beliefs will make more sense, perhaps.
And the Old Testament prophecies concerning the messiah? Have you really compared them to your Yoshua myth?
It's no lie. The book you supposedly have read was completely manipulated long before it was ever written in book form for you to read. The fact that you're not willing to understand that FACT is why you're gullible. It's not me and making it about me and not about your nonsensical belief shows your selfish side.
I guess you have a reading comprehension problem with my post. Did I say that he had a problem with HIS father? No, I did not.
I did say that Jesus despised RELIGION and IT's FALSE god. Is that clear enough for you?
That's not the only flaw. Even if the story of Adam and Eve were true, Jesus as saviour makes no sense. How is it moral for one being to take on the burden of another's misdeed? If I commit an immoral act and a self-sacrifing man decides to suffer what should be my guilt and/or punishment, does that mean I'm morally off the hook? Delivered from evil? No! How does it in any way redress the original sin? In fact, all it does is compound the wrongness.
Well, unfortunately I wouldn't be able to explain my beliefs about Adam and Eve sufficiently without a long discussion explaining many other things... suffice it to say my belief about certain 'standard Christian topics' is different from the norm.
I don't believe in original sin. I believe every child is born perfect(look to Christ's teaching about becoming as a child), and we all sin unto ourselves. That is why we need Christ's atonement. Because we are, every one of us, imperfect.
Besides, who's to say that God didn't use evolution to create Adam and Eve's bodies, and once the form was evolved enough, they were just the first ones to receive a human spirit. Not what I believe, but a possibility.
Don't you mean the more than 38,000 different denominations of the 'standard Christian topics' apart from the norm?
Am I not allowed to remain imperfect?
Evolution would say that.
I mean certain aspects that are taken by most sects as basic principles.
Not if you believe the bible. No unclean thing will remain at the end. We have to be cleansed to live with the Father eternally, and we can't cleanse ourselves.
Not if evolution is a tool that God used. There is no way to prove it one way or another. It's like trying to prove that you're not just part of a butterfly's dream. It's the very fact that it can neither be proven nor disproven that allows for people to expand their thinking and develop faith.
Yet, it is the very basic principles of Christianity that are in heated debate amongst those 38,000 sects, not to mention from one individual self-proclaimed Christian to the next.
So, you believe everything in the Bible, word for word? Be very careful how you answer that question.
Nonsense, evolution easily shows Gods are not required for anything in nature. In fact, if we were to turn to the Bible, we can find ample quotes that show exclusively the Bible is in direct contradiction to evolution.
Genesis, for starters.
If you really want to nit-pick that much, then fine, but I'll just tell you I've never had a discussion with a Christian of a different faith than mine that views these things the same way I do. That's all I was trying to say.
No, I don't believe everything in the bible. I do believe the multiple instances when we are commanded to be perfect, or perfection is referenced, or the truth of total cleanliness in heaven is presented.
Again, there is no way to prove that God didn't use evolution. You say it's possible without a Diety... well, go back to the very beginning and tell me what started it all. Then go back to what started that... science will fall short my friend.
Nor do I believe that evolution and the bible are mutually exclusive as to the method of creation. I'll give you an analogy.
I go to a bowling alley, walk down the lane, and knock down the pins. You can say I knocked down the pins. Next, I throw a ball and knock down the pins. You can say I knocked down the pins, or that I knocked down the pins with a ball.
Same with creation. If God used a tool, or created bodies from scratch, either way He started it.
So you, like so many others, cherry pick the Bible for your religious agenda. In other words, YOU decide what it is that you're going to believe as opposed to what the Bible wants you to believe.
Perhaps, you didn't read my post, evolution already has shown no gods were required in the evolution of our universe. That would make your statement rather pointless.
Once again, you invite logical fallacies into your explanations.
Science understands quite a lot of what happened back then while your religion offers magical tales of silliness to explain it.
Or, are you saying the believers who wrote the Bible were there to witness Genesis?
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the universe and only applies to what occurred afterward.
<--- That one deserves the coveted double-laughie.
Sorry, I missed this reply.
Let me ask you a question. What interpretation of the Bible are you even talking about? Septuagint or Masoretic or Samaritan? Including the Apocrypha or not?
'The Bible' isn't a set term. Different translations, different texts, and different books, all contain different ideas... even contradictions.
Nor is the Bible the only religious text I believe is inspired.
My basic approach is from general to the parts. I study to get the best general idea I can, and focus in more and more on details. That way, if I come to a scripture that says 'this is impossible', but I know of 20 others that say 'this is possible', I'm likely to go with the majority.
Let me ask you a question. Have you ever learned a foreign language fluently? If you have, you would probably have learned that some things translate easily, and some things are difficult, and some things don't really translate at all.
When I spent a few years really studying the bible in-depth, I did so with a greek and hebrew lexicon, so I could get a grasp for the original meaning, rather than the translated meaning.
I hope that helps you to understand a little. It's not about cherry picking, it's about finding the truth. Unfortunately, in my belief, there are certain things that were included in the Bible that weren't inspired, certain books that were left out that were inspired, and certain passages that were simply changed, whether intentional or not.
Technically, your statement is false. We have not shown life to be created spontaneously.
Even if we did show life can appear from inorganic material, who is to say that it's not a tool that God created and uses? You can't.
No, science understands NOTHING about the earliest moments of the Big Bang(which is in itself just a theory). We can't even come close to testing the conditions that would have existed. We only have ideas, but no understanding.
I didn't say they were there to witness Genesis. Did I say that? Stop trying to put arguments in my mouth.
All I said is, when we can't even explain the first moments of our current theory of the creation of the universe, who are you to say it wasn't started by Deity?
When I say 'method of creation', I refer to both the creation of the world, and the creation of the earth, and the creation of life. Creation in its entirety.
Do you want to talk about logical fallacies?
Appeal to ridicule: an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous. You quote my argument and laugh at it.
One could say it is contrived as opposed to inspired. Lame dodge, though.
So, your fallacies here is Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Popularity and Begging the Question.
No, everything translates just fine.
Really sorry to hear that, you have my sympathies for wasting so much of your life.
You're the one that didn't answer my question. You claim I cherry pick what I want to believe, as if there is only one version of the Bible. Believing in the bible depends on what version you read, what books it includes, and who translated it. Since there is no set definition of what the Bible is, there is no such thing as 'cherry picking' it.
No, appeal to belief or popularity is trying to prove that something is right logically because a large number of people believe it. That doesn't apply to trying to decide, personally, if 20 scriptures that say 'Yes' are right, or if the one scripture that says 'No' is right.
You asked me how I determine what is true in the scriptures, I told you. I'm not proving it to you, only to myself. So no, neither of those fallacies.
For begging the question, again, I am not making a logical argument to prove to you what is right. Again, you asked me how I choose what scriptures are true. It is a personal belief, not a logical argument.
Nor have you shown how any of those fallacies applies. I applaud your efforts, but it's not enough to list fallacies without showing how they were used.
What languages do you know? I'll come up with an example for you.
There is a reason why translation dictionaries don't have just one word to translate each word into. There are multiple words or phrases used to try and describe the foreign word. Most words just don't translate perfectly. But again, tell me what language you know and I'll show you an example.
It wasn't a waste of my life... or are you trying to define reality with your personal view of the veracity of the Bible? That would be mind-projection.
See how that works? I tell you you used logical fallacy, and I explain why.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Maybe you can try using your words?
Did you have something to say about the rest?
Not a problem, that is no different than any other believer, the all do the same thing. It's called hypocrisy.
Well, that makes sense, I can easily see how you would use fallacies but never recognize them when proving something to yourself. LOL!
Yes, you have convinced yourself. I applaud your efforts, but it's not enough to list fallacies without showing how they were used.
The fact that it may take more than a single word to translate a word from another language correctly, but they still translate just fine.
Evidently, it was, according to your posts.
No, are you an authority on the Bible? Are you going to give us the correct interpretation?
Again, you don't comprehend what I'm saying. Oh well.
LOL! It could have also been a tool used by the invisible purple rhinoceros living in my garage. Hilarious logic.
Or, a Star Goat, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or it was the result of a sneeze from the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure.
I can understand why some Christians refuse to believe the fact of evolution, because only a belief in Original Sin can make sense of the whole Jesus story. This is why some repeat the mantra "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" Or another popular one is "Why are there missing links, if one species evolved into another?" Or "Why don't we see evolution happening with our eyes today?"
However, there are many Christians who do accept all that science has discovered, including the age of the universe and the evolution of species. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury believes Adam and Eve are only metaphor. Yet, such Christians still somehow manage to combine this with their Christian faith. So, they accept that there was no real Adam and Eve, yet still believe in Original Sin and that Jesus came as an atonement for that sin. I find this position even more perplexing than that of the creationist, who understands that to deny Adam and Eve is to deny everything they believe about Jesus.
Then why do you people keep insisting that Adam was a chimp? Do you have an ape fetish?
Considering that humans are only 2 DNA points away from a chimp. Hmmm.
We all do. It's called the coccyx. We must, therefore, all be monkeys.
True. Ok, let me rephrase. Some people have an external tail that can be up to 6 inches long or so.
Humans, chimps, and gorillas (and maybe a couple others) don't have tails but have tail bones.
Evolution is taking place, just not fast enough for us to witness it. We didn't descend from apes. We are a separate species. No missing link, no evolution from planet of the apes, no Adam and Eve. Just great balls of fire.
Mark, do you mean Lyology instead of Biology?
Or maybe Confusology?
(In keeping with liberalists these days, I coined several new words.)
the habit of manipulating the legitimate definition of biology in an effort to make it define the theory of evolution.
Another mindless O.P. from an army of those who drivel on and on about something they don't believe in anyway?1?!? Bla blah, bla blah! Evolution guy : listen to the music of folk singer Tom Rush he wrote a song for you! about a guy in a bar Blah bla blahing!
Could be a result of the much larger army of those who drivel on and on about something they do believe.
Why don't you answer my argument instead of attacking me as being mindless and drivelling?
No Adam and Eve = No original sin = No need for a savior = Christianity is nonsense.
I was rather hoping a few educated Christians might stop by instead of the science deniers.
Come on - there must be one educated Christian who is prepared to tackle this obvious flaw in their religion?
Might I recommend a book by Dr Francis Collins 'The Language of God'. He is a devout Christian, was the director of the Human Genome Project, and has spent his career in genetic research. Let me quote you a few lines from his book:
"The study of genomes leads inexorably to the conclusion that we humans share a common ancestor with other living things."
When discussing the AREs (ancient repetitive elements) found in similar locations in the genomes of mice and humans "unless one is willing to take the position that God has placed these decapitated AREs in these precise positions to confuse and mislead us, the conclusion of a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable. This kind of recent genome data thus presents an overwhelming challenge to those who hold to the idea that all species were created ex nihilo."
".....believers would be well advised to look carefully at the overwhelming weight of scientific data supporting this view of the relatedness of all living things, including ourselves."
"....I spoke to a national gathering of Christian physicians explaining how I had found great joy in being both a scientist studying the genome a d a follower of Christ. Warm smiles abounded, but then I mentioned how overwhelming the scientific evidence for evolution is, and suggested that in my view evolution might have been God's elegant plan for creating humankind. The warmth left the room, so did sone of the attendees."
Completely irrelevant to the point I made.
No Adam and Eve = No original sin = No need for a savior = Christianity is nonsense.
Not really as the general thrust of your arguments are that all Christians are science denyers and in particular they all deny evolution. My post demonstrates your assumption is incorrect.
Not at all. I never said any such thing. Please stop lying about me and try answering my argument instead. What I said was:
No Adam and Eve = No original sin = No need for a savior = Christianity is nonsense.
No Adam and Eve. Not as the progenitors of humanity but perhaps the first two individuals to know God.
No original sin either. It's a willfull false doctrine made up by Origen. It is completely unbiblical as a concept with numerous passages that contradict it, as well as common sense of course. It is also flatly denied by Judaism.
I do not believe there was ever a fall of man either; the term never appears in the bible but was coined by the Catholic Church.
Man has the ability to choose to sin or not but because every man has chosen to sin in contradiction of their inbuilt moral compass, there is still a requirement for God to step into the world as a sacrifice for that sin. Simples.
Apologies. It was Augustine not Origin who invented the original sin doctrine. My bad.
Inbuilt moral compass? LOL
Awesome job at avoiding my point.
No original sin then? We agree. No need for majik saviors. Thanks.
Ok Evoluton Guy; I'm a Christian with a passion for both science and Christ, my quest is to find truth about how God created all of this and who or what else shares these cosmos. All things being made by God, includng primates and perhaps evolving into homo erectus and further homo sapiens, then as animals they would have no knowledge of sin, but as man absolutely they would discover not only sin, but also the consequences of their actions.
There is more to my thought, but for brevity, there you are.
Science is clear - no god needed. Therefore there is no sin. God did not create it. Easy huh? Evolution has no destination.
Great job on not answering my point.
No Adam and Eve = No original sin = No need for a savior = Christianity is nonsense.
I think your point was adequately addressed and your argument:
No Adam and Eve = no original sin = no need for a saviour = Christianity is nonsense, is flawed.
You assume: no original sin = no need for a saviour, even though it has been pointed out to you that original sin is not a valid Jewish concept and yet Judaism acknowledges sin and the requirement of a Messiah.
You really should stop assuming that evangelical and Catholicism hold all the religious truth.
So - no savior needed then? Sorry - I was not talking about Jews. I was talking about Christians.
Sorry you are incapable of understanding that.
Are you going to lie at me again and say you are now a Jew instead of a Christian?
Even though it has been pointed out to you that you claim to be a Christian?
Debunking the Christian Myth.
Liars Fer Jeebus (TM)
What you patently fail to see is that your argument is invalid and illogical. It falls down because you assume that original sin is a Christian doctrine when it is not; it was added by the Catholic Church much later than the apostolic Church.
Additionally since when did the concept of Adam and Eve being allegorical negate the requirement of a saviour? What have these two characters got to do with whether or not you sin?
You have constructed your whole argument upon evangelical and catholic doctrine and assumed that these are valid.
Please stick to subjects of which you have some understanding.
Awww. No original sin then? LOLOL Kinda makes the Kristian religion utter garbage. Seeing as Jeebus came to save us from the sin.
Please stick to religions you actually understand in future. Or get an education. LOL
Let me guess.
Fighting For Jesus (TM)
So - no sin. Messiah needed fer wot? LOLOLO Now u is a jew?
Something wrong with your spelling
How many more times before the penny drops? The lack of original sin does not mean that sin is absent. Man sins of his own accord not by inheritance therefore a saviour is required. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Oh yes you've lost your case that's what you don't get?
No I'm not Welsh, but what has my nationality got to do with your illogical argument? I look at your posts, the lights are on but no one is home.
Sorry you cannot understand. No god = no sin. Guess you have a comprehension problem.
You do realize your last comment makes no sense? Right?
You do realise your argument makes no sense.
Goodbye. See you when you have some other illogical argument in forumland.
Still did not answer my argument I see. You did throw up lots more interesting logical fallacies to Christianity, but - still ignored the main issue. Lying about what the bible says does not really make any sort of argument, because I am sure you will agree that most Christians accept the concept of original sin - as do you apparently - you just rephrased it to, "every man has chosen to sin in contradiction of their inbuilt moral compass."
I mean - if we had an inbuilt moral compass - why would God have needed to give Moses a bunch of rules? Still - that is another discussion, but a fantastic contradiction. Thanks for that one.
Come on - there must be one educated Christian with an answer other than "The Catholics and Protestants have got it wrong,"
No God no sin
Yes and no
No, If there is no God then there is no sin. Sin is a concept of God and no amount of repetition is going to make a person who doesn't believe in God, agree that sin exists. In your statement this is applicable but is a flawed concept.
yes, sin exists like the pen not discovered under your desk, or like the name for a protoplasmic entity yet unnamed. Just because its not known does not unmake the entity; just because something is not discovered doesn't cause it to not exist. This is the reason for the flaw in the above concept.
The moral compass, to some extent is written upon the hearts of everyone, this is loosely compared to, the age of civilization or the age of being civil. Civility is people treating people courteously and why do they do that, because the difference between right and wrong is common knowledge. transgressing the moral compass produces sin, even though sin may not be in that persons dictionary.
Please stop speaking nonsense at me cousin. Sin does not exist. It is a purely religious term. God does not exist - therefore sin does not.
Where is this moral compass mentioned in the bible? I though god was the moral compass? Now transgressing the moral compass produces sin? Your ramblings make no sense cousin. Either god told us what the sins are - or we can decide for ourselves using our inbuilt moral compass.
So - as I do not think homosexual behavior is wrong - that is not a sin - right?
Off topic drivel as usual.
You have not disproven the existence of God. Your arguments are primarily invalid because they use your disbelief in God like a crutch. But you have not sufficiently proven your point. You have no way to disprove the existence of God and you know it. So, you are content to simply declare that He doesn;'t exist and act like you've found the Holy Grail. But, you essentially have nothing but harsh words (more annoyance than anything). Unless you would like to produce something that actually disproves that God Himself cannot exist? I'm certainly all ears.
God does not exist. Surely I do not need to prove this? It is a self evident Truth. You are the one making the claim - perhaps you would care to prove it instead? The burden of proof is yours.
My arguments are not invalid:
No actual Adam and eve
No original sin
No need for a savior
Christianity is nonsense
Agreed. Your claims are very, very simple. And invalid. Both are true. I've already discussed this in an earlier comment.
Actually, I was minding my own business perusing HubPages when you started a forum stating that the "Christian myth is debunked." So, having made the claim, the burden of proof is clearly yours. I understand why you would want to wriggle out of it, but I think it's clear that you have gone on the offensive here--not me.
You have failed to address my earlier rebuttal comment which addresses the flaws in your logic. Your entire argument hinges on an assumption that there is no God but you are completely powerless to validate your claim. This is why you fall back on your "self evident truth" argument which adds no value to the conversation other than to express "I'm right, you're wrong, so there" like a kid at the playground. You have nothing tangible to leverage. This is not due to lack of trying. No tangible support for your argument exists.
It's amazing how atheists accuse Christians of trying to beat or force them into believing something they don't want to believe and yet they don't see their own offense. I have consistently said that in the many similar forums that have been created that I believe that you have the right to choose what you believe and that I don't have the right to attack or ridicule you for it. You fail to do the same. Are some Christians antagonistic and offensive? Of course, and I am equally critical of them as well. You represent the worst kind of atheist. Your efforts add no value other than to foster hostility (a pointless goal if ever there was one).
So - no rebuttal other than to attack me personally. How am I trying to beat or force you exactly? By applying logical thinking to your religion? I would prefer it if you stopped bearing false witness against me please.
I have debunked the Christian myth in simple terms. Please address that instead.
Please explain why my argument is invalid. My argument does not rest on the nonexistence of god. It rests on the non existence of an actual Adam and Eve.
My post was clear
You just had fog in your head
Where is the passion for science here, I only see a passion for belief?
Why bother in a debate with someone that is only here to antagonize because thats what they do best! There are those here who only try to disprove your belief out of their own insecurity and lack of faith in any spiritual being . They are emptyof soul If they didn't read it in the wall street journal , or in popular science ....then it just can't be so. . The world is flat ...remember? That was the 'evolutions' belief a couple of centuries ago?
Cool, science has proven that there was no Adam and Eve... Link me please.
Nah! Common sense should do the trick without any help from science.
I thought you were a big fan of science. Odd you did not know that we evolved from less advanced primates - or that 2 is not a viable gene pool.
Unless of course - you have some argument as to how this evidence that we evolved fits with Adam and Eve being actual people? And you do not think this disproves the idea in some way?
As usual science has many "alternative hypothesis" and " Evidence 'suggests'", "may have contributed" - this all sounds very speculative as usual.
"Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of the similarities and differences between humans and apes"
Its as i have always said, ' the knee bone is connected to the thigh bone and the thigh bone to the hip bone...' Of course there are similarities, all are flesh, flesh means, skin, fat, muscle, ligament and ooh boy, guess what.. bones. Its like looking at two different puzzles of sky and taking a piece from one puzzle and putting it into the other puzzle... oh look, it fits.
And as much as darwins theory - or as i like to call it, reverse mechanics and hindsight blunder - doesn't account for the brain differences and thought differences... but i am sure many evolutionists will just vote for evolution having 'keen insight' too know what would be handy dandy. lol.
"he classification of humans and their relatives has changed considerably over time" of course it has, man is always changing theories, machines, ideas. Inventing ways to make theories work, like krauss and dark matter, 'we haven't found it yet, but we have this neat flat universe theory that includes it'.
"Richard Dawkins in his book The Ancestor's tale proposes that robust Australopithecines: Paranthropus, are the ancestors of gorillas, whereas some of the gracile australopithecus are the ancestors of chimpanzees, the others being human ancestors (see Homininae)"
Make sure you cover all the bases doctor. Pick and choose... this looks more like this one and this more like this one but it doesn't matter because i have all these important letters beside my name.. who can argue
hey earnest look this one theory traces man right back to your ice ball idea "The evolutionary history of the primates can be traced back 65 million years, as one of the oldest of all surviving placental mammal groups", oooh how messy is that and further on it says
"of the first Antarctic ice in the early Oligocene around 30 million years ago" Gee that musta stopped some sort of evolution. Take a break guys..
I'm just starting to mock it now so i quit. What a bunch of loose rubbish.
Not impressed at all.
Adam and eve being two people.
Adam was the governor (like any other time God had some people, someone was in charge, moses, joshua, Abraham - the list is long) and eve was his wife. There were other people, not important enough to be mentioned directly, but how did Cain find a wife somewhere else?
Does it really satisfy common sense that God would create all the cosmos for only 2 people. There was no command to reproduce in the garden, that command was given after the expulsion. Do we think women had menstrual cycles in the garden?
For once we agree - the bible makes no sense. But thanks for editing it and adding a bunch of stuff for me. Did god tell you this into your head or did you just make it up to fill in the obvious logical flaws and contradiction in your religion?
Does it really satisfy common sense that god would create the cosmos for 9 billion humans? Any idea how big the cosmos is cousin? I don't know how much space 9 billion humans take up in the whole thing, but I am going with "microscopic". And - you think it was made for us? How arrogant cousin.
Its not arrogant when the bible says god created and then man and made only two people.
You need to understand that i draw my conclusions from a bible perspective and my points come from that angle.
When reading my posts i will give you a clue to understanding them, they come from a bible perspective.
It makes more sense that all things would be created for a larger number of people than 2, whether it be 9 billion, twice that amount or half and yes microscopic is a valid observation, but how big do we have to be? How big does our planet have to be? The biggest in the whole cosmos or one of the smallest? Do we need to be 60 feet tall to be worthy of being created? or is 5 and 6 feet just the right size. One might think that too cram all that dna in those tiny strands it may have been more wiser or more convenient to make us way bigger, but apparently, microscopic is not that small to God and the cosmos is not that big either.
You comment "how arrogant" is extremely arrogant and it seems to be your stance throughout this entire thread. Is there any way you can come across differently?
Let me go check it out and I'll get back to you.
apparently the universe if flat but its only flat because flat fits the expectation of the scientist, whereas, spherical and convex do not meet the expectation because of an element not found yet, and because a positive and a negative equal zero, yet zero has weight, so nothing is something and something comes from nothing.
How cool is that!
There is no original sin....ergo there is no need for redemption. We are just living creatures like everything else on this planet. We are born, we live briefly, and we pass back from whence we came.
The ridiculousness that religiously dogmatic people stir up over this very simple issue of living life and moving on is largely saddening.
Now, if all religions agreed that each path to the "divine" was a unique and equally valid path, then perhaps we can find some peace...
Until then, we are stuck with this type of stupidity...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world … ganda.html
Yes, our missionaries spread the word of God throughout the world. Isn't it wonderful when it works and an entire nation takes of the sword of Christianity for fight evil?
This is sad and pathetic beyond words. The stupidity and ignorance of the self righteous is beyond belief.
This is a great point. I believe it was first brought up a long time ago shortly after the theory of evolution came around. It helps us to understand why so many Christians are SO pathologically obsessed with disproving evolution.
It's worth noting that many less rigid Christians, and many other religious groups, gladly accept evolution as scientifically verified. If evolution really was as weak as these creationists say, then others aside from fundamentalist creationists (to say nothing of legitimate scientists) would be poking holes in it all day.
Ultimately, as knowledge expands and evolution theory becomes stronger and stronger, Christianity as we know it will whither. It will split into 2 groups. One, a tiny backward community of irrational science-deniers (mainly concentrated in the developing world), being left behind as the rest of humanity advances and modernizes. And the other, a larger community of milquetoast Christians with a watered down version of the religion, who cast Adam/ Eve, the resurrection and others as simply metaphors or moral lessons.
The evolution theory is called a theory because it is a... theory. It doesn't really make much difference to me since I don't see how the evolution theory (if it were true) says anything about or has any impact on the existence of the God of the Bible. You assume that it does and I agree that people have attempted to use it that way. But I see no correlation between a proven evolution theory (should that happen one day) and the existence of God. So for Christians to fear the evolution theory isn't rational. Besides, truth is truth and that is not truly a thread to anyone.
So no, I do not buy your assertion in the slightest. Christianity isn't going anywhere, and certainly the theory of evolution will in no way be a flaming arrow that takes it down.
Go ahead and address my points then. Evolution proves there was no Adam and Eve.
I did address them earlier, but I'll try it again here.
The foundation of your logic is the fact that the God of the Bible does NOT exist. This is true regardless of whether or not this is stated in your assertions. As I said, the Bible is liberally peppered with events where the laws of nature are bent in a Matrix-like fashion to show God's power. You choose to focus on this one issue (Adam and Eve) knowing that the Bible has Jesus walking on water, raising from the dead, turning water into wine, etc. You are smart enough not to try to use the same logic regarding Jesus walking on water or being raised from the dead. This is because you know that Christians will ascribe these events to miracles created by the power of God, for whom the laws of nature are no barrier (based on the description of God found in the Biblical text). This one is more tricky (primarily for newbie Christians) because Adam and Eve procreating is generally not considered a miracle. Regardless, it fits into the same category as water to wine or walking on water. I say again, science simply cannot be used to disprove a God who can bend the laws of nature at his whim. This is the root of your flawed logic. Everything hinges not on Adam and Eve as you suppose but rather on the existence and power of God. You think Christians ignore perfectly good evidence. But in reality, your evidence proves nothing because you're trying to answer the wrong question.
You assert that God does not exist. You also assert that it's stupid to believe otherwise. But you cannot disprove the existence of the God of the Bible (if you could, you would have done it). You ignore and refuse to address evidence provided that contradicts your claims (which is funny since that's what you accuse Christians of doing). But this one thing should be the focus of the discussion. Adam and Eve are simply not relevent.
You are a timewaster. PERIOD
Your stupid logic has been addressed, (also) debunked, yet you persist in your evangelistic quest to exalt evolution to heights it never meant to go, NOR deserves.
Yes, I said STUPID, because, as has been clearly stated by myself and others, that evolution assumes NO GOD, therefore . . . this or that...
Assuming there is no God, is where your "debunking" falls flat on it's face, before it ever takes off.
Adam & Eve would have been more than adequate for a human gene pool. Deal with it.
I see. You had me confused by keep asking for proof and evidence. When I offered proof and evidence that 2 is too small a gene pool because this has been tested many times - that doesn't matter because god can do majik and make the impossible possible.
Why ask for proof in that case? If you are going to reject it in favor of majik?
Does not alter the fact that the fossil record shows that humans evolved and there was no first 2 humans called Adam and Eve in a majik garden.
No actual Adam and Eve
No original sin
No savior needed
Telling me my logic is STUPID because I reject the impossible being possible does not make sense. I don't base my logic on there being no god. I base it on the fossil record showing no original 2 humans and the fact that 2 could not possibly (without majik) be the sole basis for the human gene pool.
Plus - of course - as you readily admitted - flaws and mutations would have immediately started to be introduced into the gene pool, so by the time Noah started another too-small gene pool - they would not have been perfect by majik - would they?
1. Man evolved and there is no bar on first person who who had converse with the Creator God having name Adam and his wife having name Eve.
2. I agree that there is no original sin that is hereditary.
3.Jesus was no savior.
4. Christianity is a misnomer invented by Paul; it has nothing to do with Jesus- his teachings and beliefs.
Hereditary? If it did not start somewhere - it does not exist - therefore you cannot inherit something that does not exist. Please stop speaking nonsense and try to say reasonable logical things instead of these unreasonable and illogical things. Thank you.
I did not say anything about the existence of God. The existence of God is perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution.
I said Christianity. Christianity has traditionally held that Jesus is the savior of humanity. Humanity needs to be saved because of original sin. If there is no original sin (no Adam/ Eve), then there is no need for humanity to be saved. If there is no need for us to be saved, there is no need for Christ. (This is a simplification, of course, but that is the general idea.)
You are wrong to reduce the religion of Christianity to simply belief in God. There are many people who believe in God but are not Christian.
Ironically, your less literalistic beliefs are exactly the kind of thing I am talking about regarding Christianity's future.
As far as Christianity's decline, sorry to burst your bubble, but it's already happening. It has been happening gradually for the last 500 years. I have several hubs dealing with this phenomenon. The western world has become overwhelmingly secular in character. Today, religion plays little meaningful role in it.
Humanity needs to be saved because of sin, no matter how you want to dress the matter, sin came into the world and we all sin daily.
So we did and do need a Saviour, because I have never met a human who did not sin, and if anyone claims they have never sinned, they are deceived at best and a liar at worst.
Children sin naturally (which is precisely why they sin, because they are in the 'natural' world) and need no training to do so, but often they start sinning because they follow their guardians behaviour, or are encouraged to sin by what the enemy teaches them in secular education.
Sin is ALWAYS the rebellion against God that we all choose to do when we do OUR WILL rather than His will.
How did sin come into the world exactly?
Are you now saying the bible is wrong?
Is there no original sin now?
Sin is not doing wot god sed huh?
You do not seem to have understood the word you keep preaching do you? The bible is clear that sin entered the world when Adam and Eve were conned into disobeying The Lord. Now you are saying this is not the case?
belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning: The book still has its original binding.
new; fresh; inventive; novel: an original way of advertising.
arising or proceeding independently of anything else: an original view of history.
capable of or given to thinking or acting in an independent, creative, or individual manner: an original thinker.
created, undertaken, or presented for the first time: to give the original performance of a string quartet.
I accept that it began with Adam and Eve, whether they are a type to describe the first sinners, or whatever, your desperate clinging to literal translation would do any Pharisee proud.
Sin is rebellion against God, which you perpetuate with every word you pronounce.
Bye Ghetto Boy
I see - so sin did not enter the world because of Adam and Eve? Thanks for explaining that the bible is wrong.
The bible is not literal?
Adam and Eve were not real people?
There was no actual flood?
Jesus was not an actual person then?
Sin is rebellion against God, which you perpetuate with every word you pronounce.
Sin exists, you personify the active and I suspect in your case willing sinner who relishes the fact that they are in rebellion to God.
You are fooled by an enemy who has persuaded you they do not exist, for to recognise your enemy as the real entity they are, would be to destroy your hope of nothingness, and your increasingly desperate attempt to discredit Christ, who so many know personally, and ironically, in doing so you make believers realise how near His return we may be, and when we can fellowship together without your incessant attempts to disrupt, we find we all share the same Christ you try to denigrate.
I think I shall ignore you now Mark, for you are infinitely suitable for indifference, having set out to destroy Christ, you merely make Him more relevant to believers.
Classic Romans 8:28 scenario.
Odd that you chose to ignore my statement and questions once again.
Is Jesus a literal figure or not?
I am not fooled by anyone. Just because I ask questions you cannot answer does not make me any of the things you judge me of being.
Increasingly desperate? You mean pointing out the logical flaw in your religion and asking questions to which you have no answers?
But - sure - ignoring my questions is probably the best way for you. Discredit Christ? Destroy Christ? By asking questions? How so?
Haven't you found any work to do, yet? When you wake up from your nap, I can help you find something constructive to do with your time. Don't waste the one life you have on this garbage!
2, 4, 8, 16 ... how can you always have MORE ancestors as you go back in time?
August 21, 1987
Have you ever considered the puzzle of doubling ancestors? Everybody has two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, and so on back through time, with the number of ancestors doubling in each generation. Go back 30 generations and the number of ancestors tops one billion. Eventually we arrive at a time when we have more ancestors than there could have been people in the world. How can this be? Common sense, not to mention the book of Genesis, suggests the human race started off with a handful of individuals whose numbers steadily increased. What are the implications of these two surging numerical tides, ancestors and descendants, butting head to head? Enclosed is a $10 check for the trouble of a personal reply.
— George M., Monrovia, California
You ask a question as cosmic as this one and you think a lousy sawbuck is going to cover it? Keep your money until you can fork over some real cash. The ancestor puzzle has its explanation in what one genealogist has called "pedigree collapse." This occurs when relatives, usually cousins, marry, in effect narrowing the family tree. (Fortunately for the gene pool, most of the cousins are only distantly related.) When this happens you find that many of the "slots" in a given generation of your family tree are filled by duplicates.
Consider an extreme case. Mr. and Mrs. Nosepicker have two children, a girl and a boy. These two develop an unnatural yen for one another and marry. Six months later the girl gives birth to an eight-pound horseradish with a lisp. In theory, the horseradish has four grandparents. In reality, its maternal and paternal grandparents are identical. Two of the four grandparent slots are thus filled by duplicates — pedigree collapse with a vengeance. Only slightly less extreme is the case of Alfonso XIII of Spain (1886-1941). Because of inbreeding in the royal family, he had only ten great-great-grandparents instead of the expected 16.
If you go back far enough, however, pedigree collapse happens to everybody. Think of your personal family tree as a diamond-shaped array imposed on the ever-spreading fan of human generations. (I told you this was cosmic.) As you trace your pedigree back, the number of ancestors in each generation increases steadily up to a point, then slows, stops, and finally collapses. Go back far enough and no doubt you would find that you and all your ancestors were descended from the first human tribe in some remote Mesopotamian village. Or, if you like, from Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
These simple facts have given rise to some remarkable displays of statistical pyrotechnics. Demographer Kenneth Wachtel estimates that the typical English child born in 1947 would have had around 60,000 theoretical ancestors at the time of the discovery of America. Of this number, 95 percent would have been different individuals and 5 percent duplicates. (Sounds like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but you know what I mean.) Twenty generations back the kid would have 600,000 ancestors, one-third of which would be duplicates. At the time of the Black Death, he'd have had 3.5 million — 30 percent real, 70 percent duplicates. The maximum number of "real" ancestors occurs around 1200 AD — 2 million, some 80 percent of the population of England.
Pedigree collapse explains why it's so easy for professional genealogists to trace your lineage back to royalty — go far enough back and you're related to everybody. For that matter, you're probably related to everybody alive today. Some geneticists believe that everybody on earth is at least 50th cousin to everybody else. For a fuller discussion of the above, see The Mountain of Names, by Alex Shoumatoff (1985).
— Cecil Adams
That does not apply to species - just individuals. It does not change the fact that no advanced species can create itself from 2 members. Of course we are all related. All life on planet earth is related. Some more distant than others. There is some argument as to whether Chimpanzees or Orangutans are our closest relative, but we are related for certain.
But - let me get this straight? Now the bible is literal? There was an Adam and Eve? Because you said it was not. Which is it? Literal or not?
Awesome job on avoiding the questions I posed though.
No Adam and Eve
No original sin
No savior needed
Christianity is nonsense
WD, I leave this to you, as you are more capable of expressing the truth of the situation than I am!
Loved the comment, so apt!
Still dodging meaningful purpose for your efforts?
No, just refusing to play your puerile little game of Christian baiting, get a life, you are wasting this one and you don't want to do that, it's too short, and you don't like the thought of having to give account for how you spent it.
WE have your mark, Mark, and if you look over the way you are being handled, it's with bemused humour, your rants and repetition are futile.
Now, wonder what inane repetition you will use to reply to this (yawn)
Well - until I get an educated Christian - I will keep repeating the same point until someone rebuts it. So far you have taken 2 attempts. 1 - the bible is not literal and 2 - the bible is literal - neither of which addressed the fact that I have proven - using logic - that your religion is based on a falsehood and Jesus could not have existed.
You have called me a fool, puerile, worthless and deceived, accused me of wasting my time (could be true - none of you want to hear the truth) and ranting when I have been nothing but reasonable, and constantly attacked me rather than address the point I made. I know that as a "good Christian" you are required to attack anyone who questions your beliefs but - try addressing the point again:
No Adam and Eve
No Original sin
No need for a savior
Christianity is false
No Adam and Eve
Unproven, God created the life we call humanity, an actual Adam and Eve or a hypothetical starter generation of created humans makes no difference, plus some scientist stating that two people are insufficient gene pool to start humanity means nothing and is not truth, it's his opinion, and as far as I have seen you have produced no 'proof' that would meet your standards.
No Original sin
Sin exists in the world, therefore it had a start point when it entered the world, and if that is true, which it is, then there was an origin for sin to commence.
So there was original sin.
No need for a Savior
If there was original sin, we needed a Saviour who could break the pattern and destroy the power it gave to humanities enemy. There is sin, we all sin and you are no exception, tell me Mark that at no time in your life you have NOT committed one of these sins:
Lusted after a woman (or man)?
Told a lie?
If your answer is NO, then you just broke your record because that's the third question and you just lied, because we have ALL done at least these sins.
Christianity is false
Purely your opinion, fortunately not held by over 2 billion believers.
You ONLY post here because you wish to cause dissensions and disrupt civilised communication between believers, for that alone you are a sad person.
If Christianity is a failing religion, why are you so afraid of believers fellowshipping peacefully with each other?
Actually you protesteth too much and I believe that you had one major disaster in your life for which you blame God, and are seeking your revenge against a God you claim does not exist.
Better to spend you time boosting other people sites for a fee, rather than waste your life here trying to reach people who have been warned against you for 2,000 years, yep that's right, God told us 2,000 years ago you would be here seeking to pester we believers:
But you must remember, beloved, the predictions which were made by the apostles (the special messengers) of our Lord Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One).
They told you beforehand, In the last days (in the end time) there will be scoffers [who seek to gratify their own unholy desires], following after their own ungodly passions.
It is these who are [agitators] setting up distinctions and causing divisions--merely sensual [creatures, carnal, worldly-minded people], devoid of the [Holy] Spirit and destitute of any higher spiritual life.
Sadly Mr Mark Knowles you fit this description 100%
And that ladies and gents is why I never tell anyone their religion is worthless.
@ (science guy / evolution guy)
Science corrects itself on a daily basis but yet your so quick to stand behind that 24/7?Science guy/evolution guy, same person, different forum.
Guess this isn't the only place you attack people and their faith is it?
Please stop making assumptions and lying about me.
I never said it was worthless - simply false.
The term worthless means ' having no good qualities'.Everything you are saying about the Christian faith is negative.You might as well call that faith worthless.And spreading lies is not my cup of tea.It's just that calling me a liar was your only way out of being put on the spot. Unless you can "prove" that the other person on the other forum isn't you, going by my evidence i'll continue to assume it is you. Science guy / evolution guy (maybe you to have a thing for the word guy) Talking down to others in forums (maybe you both have no respect for anyone but yourself) sharing the same icon but in different hues (there's no doubt in my mind it isn't you).Simply not worth my time...
I see. How can I prove this exactly? LOL Unless I can "prove" I am not what you say I am?
Sounds like religion to me.
Please stop lying about me. Thank you.
It's so funny how you expect proof from others, but when the tables turn proof is then considered impossible to gather. I gave reason to my 'assumption'. You however just called me a liar for the second time.What you believe is your thing,I'm not saying your wrong. I'm just saying it's wrong to belittle ones religion for the sake of your own.
Just exactly how am I supposed to prove I am not someone I have never heard of LOLOLOLOL?
Please stop lying about me. Thank you. You are TKsensei - right? Please prove you are not. Go!
See how making a claim and demanding proof against it is religion?
I don't put quotations around my words to make them look cute. I was being sarcastic when asking for proof.Your all for facts and certainty, figured it would be a fine time to be a wise ass.We can't agree and that's fine, call me a liar.Your high level of self assurance stops you from holding a productive conversation about religion. Which in return makes if pointless for others to reply.
"My personal opinion is i think we have been lied to for so many generations nobody has a clear view of the big picture.There's bits and peices of truth
but is buried in a mountain of lies.
I'm just a student trying to pick through that mountain.
The truth is important to me no matter if it falls in line with my current beleif system or not."
Let us pick through the mountain in peace!
Last time, your welcome
Welcome for what? Attacking me because I question religion?
Please stop lying about me - thanks. Guess you forgot to put quotations around this huh?
I told you I don't care about what you believe, question it all you want. It's how you treat people.Sorry for attacking you,going by your other posts I figured you were use to that sort of approach.I'm not a religious person but I have something called respect for myself and others. No quotations were added for a reason. Unless of course your as brilliant as you claim to be and know what I mean before I even do. Wouldn't surprise me.Your just here to argue, "waiting until you see a reasonable argument" People like that never have reasonable arguments, just arguments.
Your still welcome
Just another religious troll then? OK
Sorry you are incapable of understanding. Not really my fault you did not have an education - blame your mother like everyone else.
You are welcome. I like teaching people stuff. Any time. Any time you care to answer my logical flaw in your belief system - I am open. Sorry if you think asking questions is not respecting others. Awesome amount of respect you showed me.... oh wait............. Yup - another religious troll who lies. lol
What part of ' i'm not religious' did you not comprehend.And are you really going to tell me how much schooling I have had?I thought you base your beliefs on facts, whatever happened to that? You remain delusional and act as if anyone has anything to learn from you in this subject.As for me not showing you respect, you get what you give. I've seen about 4 other people consider you a troll,you calling me one is about as laughable as this topic. Now run back to your favorite atheist website and figure out another way to talk down to Christians.
Sorry - not interested in your lies any more. Clearly you are religious and delusional.
You are welcome. I am happy to teach you any time you want - just ask again. I love teaching people like you. It makes my day to educate ignorant people such as yourself. You will thank me later when you understand.
Want to take a crack at disproving the logical flaw in your religion?
No Adam and Eve
No Original sin
No need for a savior
Christianity is false
No one else has managed - they just do what you do and attack me personally. Like real Christians.
Yes - it does make a difference. There was no created generation - we evolved.
Or are you now saying that Jesus is allegorical?
The fact that 2 is not enough to create a viable gene pool has been tested many times - it is proven fact - not opinion.
No Adam and Eve - No original sin.
Sin does not exist in the world. This is religious nonsense. The bible says there was original sin - now you say there was not. OK. Thanks for rewriting the bible for me.
But - you just told me there was no original sin, therefore you just reiterated my point that your religion is false.
These are not sins. Lusting after some one is natural human behavior. This is how we perpetuate the species. Stealing food to feed your children is a sin? Lying to spare some one pain is a sin?
You majik book is full of lies and you lie about me all the time - how can that be a sin?
I never said it was failing - I am sure aggressive people such as yourself will continue to brainwash peopel with it. Having said that - membership is falling - sure.
I said it was false - and gave my reasoning - you choose not to address that and instead attack me.
You are the one causing division. I am asking you to stop. You are the one saying "Follow Jesus or Burn!" - are you not? You are the one saying you speak for a god and tell me what I should be doing. Are you not? Plus you accuse me of being devoid of something that you claim to be - yet cannot demonstrate. This is the divisive behavior I am asking you to stop.
Still did not address my point:
No Adam and Eve
No Original sin
No need for a savior
Christianity is false
Thank you but I will not waste any more time on your nonsense, and stand by what I have written and the bible has confirmed.
Go find a kindergarten to play in.
Just because you have no answer - does not make it nonsense. Your bible has not answered this logical flaw:
No Adam and Eve
No Original sin
No need for a savior
Christianity is false
Nor have you. Calling me names does not count as an answer.
Mark, I gave you an answer, your denial is expected but not anything more than your usual banter to keep up the disruption you seek to cause.
I cannot be bothered to keep replying to someone who is spiritually dead, it's like trying to hold a discussion with a corpse.
The same could be said for those who claim spirituality is true....intellectually dishonest.
You did not give me an answer. You lied about what the bible says, attacked me in numerous ways and distracted away from the point I have made.
Attacking me does not go to the issue. If you cannot answer - I understand why you would need to run away. If you like - we can take each step one at a time:
Were Adam and Eve actual people, created from dust - or is that allegorical?
You tell me Mark, you were obviously there to witness the whole thing?
I answered it, you just don't agree, simple, we agree to disagree, end of story.
"You tell me, you were obviously there to witness the whole thing?" Is an answer?
Seems like a sarcastic question to me.
I don't blame you though - You have no answer to my question. Nor have you responded with anything other than attacks and accusations to my original point:
No Adam and Eve
No Original sin
No need for a savior
Christianity is false
Were Adam and Eve actual people, created from dust - or is that allegorical? As you have dodged this question.
According to abcnews.com, 83% of the United States population claims to follow Christianity. Again, Christianity is not going anywhere. I would agree that the various forms of media are catering less to that majority than they used to. The minority voice is significantly louder in this country than the majority is (which is funny since atheists paint Christians as being so pushy and dogmatic). Consider for a moment who it is that is on the war path in this forum (and others like it). While some Christians have become retaliatory and seem to lash out (which I don't think is a good thing), people do tend to respond badly when under attack. I think we all do that at some level. Still, it's clear that EG's goal when he created this forum was antagonistic in nature. As a side note, I would also agree that some Christian churches are being infiltrated by some opposing values and beliefs from the outside. In essence, some Christian churches are starting to sound more like the secular world than they did in the past. This does contribute to the idea that Christianity is in decline because it's voice is less clear. This is not the case with all Christian churches, however, and Christianity as a whole is far from being irradicated.
I'm actually not reducing the belief in Christianity to the belief in God. Not at all. I'm saying that, in order to accurately claim to have disproved the story of Adam and Eve, you MUST first disprove the existence of the God of the Bible. You cannot reasonably perform one without first dealing with the other. I have said this in other posts as well (none of which have received a response).
The fossil record and the lack of diversity in 2 members of a species disprove Adam and Eve's existence. If we have to disprove Majik and Mirakles - otherwise known as god making the impossible possible - that is going to be rather difficult as there is no evidence of them.
Perhaps you could prove them instead?
Waiting on the proof. lolololo
There it is. You are exactly right. None of us were there when the earth was formed. None of us were there physically when Jesus lived, died, and resurrected. While I have provided the evidence I have (which you choose not to discuss), we have no physical proof on either side. All we have is my faith that the Biblical account is true and your faith that it is not. Faith: believing in something that cannot be proven or disproven.
The problem is that you started this forum claiming to have proof, yet the "proof" you offer will not logically validate your assertions without making an assumption that you know is not accepted by those you try to convince. Furthermore, you know your assumption (ie. God doesn't exist) cannot be validated or proven. The hole in your logic can't be spackled over or hidden. It is essentially the centerpiece and foundation of the faith you want to dismantle.
I believe in the evidence I have tried to communicate and share. You don't. That's fine with me. We should both finally be able to walk away respecting the position of the other. You believe what you believe... I believe what I believe. End of story. Further antagonism is a waste of time for all involved.
Gotcha. Majik over rides proof. LOLO
I was not there when the earth was formed therefore god dunnit. OK LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
This is why your religion causes so many wars.
So - not one educated Christian wants to tackle this?
Actually no. You were not there, therefore you cannot prove who or what dunnit (nor can you disprove a belief that contradicts yours). Again, you set out to disprove something. Not me.
"I was not there when the earth was formed therefore god dunnit. OK LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO"
Somehow you've decided to accuse me of saying that you must believe what I believe, when you're the one ridiculing beliefs other than yours. Funny. In fact, it's VERY funny. That's what you call "ironic"!
Of course most Americans call themselves "Christian." They cannot properly call themselves Jews, Muslims or Hindus. They are loath to call themselves atheists or agnostics because of the negative connotations. (Although, the "nonreligious" label is the fastest growing category, and most of their growth is coming from the ranks of Christian defectors.)
America is not a Christian nation. The vast majority of Americans, whatever they may call themselves, are not truly "Christian." Sure, they may believe in God, and in Jesus, and they go to church once a year at Christmas. But that's about it. The culture and dominant lifestyle of this society betrays a distinctly secular people, with small pockets of practicing Christians.
Although they believe in God, the majority lead lives largely unaffected by religion. This is even more pronounced in other rich countries.
Don't go by what people say, go by what they do.
"in order to accurately claim to have disproved the story of Adam and Eve, you MUST first disprove the existence of the God of the Bible"
Well obviously it is impossible to disprove the existence of a being that, by definition, does not lend itself to proof!
The burden is on the person submitting the claim. The Christian must prove his God exists. The burden is on him, not me. I didn't make any claim. I'm just questioning the claim being made.
Moreover, there is an abundance of logic indicating that God probably does not exist--at least as he has been defined. (I have a few hubs addressing these topics, and you are welcome to read and comment on them.)
So this would indicate that the Adam and Eve story is not true, according to your statement.
Finally, your statement is incorrect. It is not necessary to throw out God to undermine Adam and Eve. I'm sure there are a number of things you disagree with fellow Christians on--but nevertheless you all still believe in the same God, don't you?
To sit here and say religion is just one big game of telephone that lasted this long, as if it was some form of trickery is hurting my heart. If you want your proof, there are plenty of books showing you paintings and drawing from different cultures . Religion back then was so spread out. Not just by opinions but by land. They didn't have cell phones,youtube and Yahoo. So how can different cultures, and lands come up with the same paintings, structures, and ideas,when they don't even know of each others existence to begin with? Or is "imagination really that good" to the point they all had the same "illusion"? Not saying you have to be a Catholic . But who are any of us to pick apart any ones religion? We can't all grab for he cookie at once so lets all just take our time and honestly say this is one heck of a puzzle!
Sorry E.G. for showing up late to the party. I like logic (built a career on it).
1. Where is your proof? (link perhaps?)
Even the Bible says that Adam was all of humanity (Gen. 5:2) -- both male and female. Genesis 5 talks of the physical humankind. The early patriarchs were possibly individuals, but also tribes. The incredible longevity of those early patriarchs was for the tribes, not the individuals, and those years are too short. But no problem. Genesis also has clues to the needed multiplication factors, too.
2. The Adam and Eve of the Garden were spiritual, not physical. But shucks! You wanted to read it literally, like all the Christian Fundamentalists. Egad, E.G. Did you know you had something so illogical in common with them?
Original sin was a spiritual thing, not a physical thing. Original sin was the great "falling spiritually asleep" -- the "long sleep" of spiritual "death."
All that Homo sapiens and evolution stuff came later. (Yes, God created evolution.)
3. See my #1 and #2. There's no need for your #3.
Therefore, your argument is full of holes.
Oh, BTW... Genesis wasn't only Christian but Jewish, too.
I'm afraid your "debunk" has been debunked.
Yes, but the Jewish understanding of Adam and Eve was one of allegory. They are not understood to be actual human beings by anyone except fringe groups since the time of Maimonides. Maimonides said that if there is a conflict between science and Torah, then it must be a matter of the wrong interpretation of Torah or the misunderstanding of science. Which do you think might apply here when it comes to fundamentalist Christian readings of Genesis?
Furthermore, it is not a story of "original sin" or "the fall of man," both of which are Christian inventions. There is no concept of salvation in Judaism, because there's nothing to be saved from (no hell, either).
Just another example of where the Jewish concept of something in the Bible was twisted to mean something completely else by Christians. And probably another good example of where Christians should not be speaking on behalf of Judaism.
Actually the jewish don't figure much to be allegorical, they are literalists. They take the bible literally and still do in the New Testament.
There is a huge belief in salvation, it is just in a different way. What do you think all the sacrificing was about? It was their saving grace and covering for their transgressions or sins.
The OT people did believe in an afterlife. Abraham and King David knew of this so did others. It was not the big deal as we think of it today. They understood that God would give them a good on earth in the life they were living and that was the important thing, with warring tribes all around and walking to wells for water, living in harsher times that we have today, as to the afterlife, prior to jesus expounding on it a bit, the Hebrew people left that aspect up to God.
Yah gentile thinking is off based a bit, but not that far off base that it is irretrievable.
This was really amusing.
I'll repeat: Christians really shouldn't speak on behalf of Judaism, because they usually don't know what they're talking about.
oh so that sacrifice bit was somewhat of a stumper huh.
I have some Jewish friends and have taken courses in Jewish perspective, they are quite literalistic, don't know how you would not notice this.
That sacrifice bit ended quite officially almost 2,000 years ago. Some Christians' conception of Judaism stopped a few decades before then.
What do you mean your Jewish friends are literalistic? They believe Adam and Eve were actual persons? Are they by any chance "Messianic Jews"?
The christian myth has been thoroughly debunked a hundred times here and will reach it's final demise as soon as a few countries educate to college level where the sciences simply make the invisible fairy go away.
A lot of beliefs have dropped off as time has gone by, and this one is well overdue/
Any belief that sets down rules for others to live by that are impossible will simply disappear.
There are no real christians, just those who pretend to be.
A real christian would be one who followed the faith, and not a single one of you can.
Not now, not ever. Read your book.
I've heard, the last Christian died on cross at calvery!
So much judgment huh, and so little time you actually had to go ahead and post what you did. Maybe one day, you will fulfill your quota of judging everyone and realize you just convicted yourself in the process.
I thought I read somewhere that Christians would be known by their love for one another.........maybe I was wrong but that's what sticks out in my head pretty clear.
John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
John 15:17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.
the another are christians.
John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
and of course we are to love our enemies and our neighbors.
Love wears many hats. Love has a part in many roles. When to use it and when not to use it are always considerations. If someone needs a stern rebuking, it can be given in love and still be firm.
The application is always important. Did jesus not love when he overturned the money tables in the temple? Or when he said to Peter, "get thee behind me satan" and when jesus told Peter of the rooster crowing after Peter would deny him 3 times, was there no love in that?
Lets face it, my posts tackle tough situations and tough cookies, sternness is required to drive a point home through the thick cloud of obscurity, but if I didn't love at least a little bit, i would just simply not care.
Love is necessary and commanded for us to do, so, is it easily attained? Some people have lives full of love, family, marriage, grandchildren, parents who were not distant, bad experiences, people who let them down, a cheating spouse and divorce can create a slow progress toward the attitude of freely loving. The kind of love that the spirit produces is not just walked into or dispensed by reading some verses, it needs to be prayed about and sought earnestly, this may take time as other areas of the christians new life are being worked on.
There is a time for everything and everything a time.
Part of my problem is that if i come across as loving it always sounds like a$$ ki$$ing. It's different in real life, but type on a screen, weirdness.
Thanks for the heads up
I will consider that more closely and more often.
sorry for the offense.
Oh, I wasn't offended by anything you said! I was just posting a reply. But thanks for the quick apology! That's a pretty strong indication of a man striving to walk in love isn't it?
I perceive in my spirit that God loves me (this was an answer to my prayer - show me your love) but how do i love? Sometimes i think i barely appreciate.
Its a work in progress. I will stumble but keep trying
Amen dude lol My wife and I have been sitting here for the last two hours watching The Big Debate on You tube talking about faith and God and how we act as men and women of God and how exactly it is that we show that. Anyways, always enjoy reading your posts.
Mahatma Gandhi said something like . . . I would gladly become a Christian except that I have never met one. If he followed me around all day, his opinion might be reinforced.
That being said, I have no compulsion to prove anything. The Lord has given me too much work to do. Besides, the Great Spirit can fend for himself.
The Lord tells you to be obnoxious? And that is work? No wonder you Christians cause so much ill will and hatred. I am certain Jesus is very proud.
There must be one educated Christian who can challenge this logical flaw in their religion?
Too bad you don't have any work to do. It might make you feel better to find a hobby.
5:11 Concerning whom / which we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the words of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is an infant.14 But solid food is for the perfect, who have their faculties trained by habit to discern good and evil. 6:1 Therefore leaving the basic teachings about Christ, let us press on to perfection, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith in God, 2 of instructions about baptisms and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. 3 And this we shall do, if God permits. 4 For it is impossible for those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to their detriment the son of God and hold him up to contempt. 7 For ground that drinks the rain that often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 but, if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned. 9 But we are convinced of better things concerning you, beloved, and things accompanying salvation, though we are speaking in this way. 10 For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love that you have shown for the name of God, in having served and in still serving the saints. 11 And we desire that each one of you show the same zeal so as to realize the fullness of hope until the end, 12 in order that you not be indolent, but imitators of those who through faith and perseverance inherit the promises.
http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NewTestame … 1-6-12.htm
Please 'Evolution Guy' tell me about the proof that Adam and Eve were not actual people and how this is elementary biology.
Scroll up - I am not going to repeat myself.
So - really? Not one educated Christian who does not insist on ignoring basic biology?
Scroll up yourself EG I'm not going to repeat myself.
Nonsense and misrepresentation does not count. I answered your nonsense. Repeating is will not make it any less nonsensical.
Tell me about the built in moral compass.
I know I'm going to regret this
Your moral compass is, as I'm sure you are familiar, a term used to describe your inner sense of right and wrong.
And it's a sin not to follow it. So we need saving by jesus?
Way off topic dude.
I'm bored now. I'm going to watch some telly before bedtime. Think I'll have a nice cup of tea too.
Definition: anything which serves to guide a person's decisions based on morals or virtues
Example: Hopefully, the lawyer has a moral compass
So the compass points the way.
Is it a sin not to follow it? Yep. Does God throw us away when we fail to follow it 10% of the time? 30%, 50%, 75%, 90%. Well that depends on the length of time, sincerity, devotion and doctrine.
Concerning length of time, Christians are supposed to grow, mature in the things of God, this happens over time. A 5yr christian should not be doing the same things they were as a 6 month christian and likewise when they are 15yr christians.
Sincerity, how sincere is the christian, how much does the christian desire the things of God.
Devotion is slightly different, it reflects more about the way of the life, walking according to Gods ways.
Sincerity helps this as does time. Next is doctrine. Its very important to have the proper doctrine. Again not talking about a literal snake in a literal tree but in the basic beliefs of christlikenians. Christ centered, Godly doctrine.
So what about the moral compass?
Its actually irrelevant, God is the moral compass and coincidentally God is raising His children, He is the teacher and brings us into all truth when we are ready for it. Not just because you can hold up signs that upon each are written various sins. You see, that's the Law and Christ freed us from that.
If you want to judge me as a bad christian because i am not all ooey gooey full of love in here. I leave that in Gods hands, He will work it out. Not tomorrow or next week, but keep holding that sign up if it works for you.
Do you have any idea at all that on a cosmic scale the size of the earth is so very tiny that it is invisible? Do we insignificants have to challenge the obvious, that there is indeed a power beyond our comprehension? Do we have to use our own limited perception abilities and limited scientific knowledge to explain or refute existence in general? Did you know that our bodies are in fact 99% vacant space? More later....
Please don't bother yourself on my account. If you cannot be bothered to address the logical flaw I posed in your religion - I do not need more word salad. At least you agree it is all beyond your comprehension. Please don't lump me in with that. Just because you cannot understand - does not mean no one else is able to.
Thanks for not telling me I am stupid.
No bother 'Evolution Guy'
Try this salad...
Ring a bell?
California / Berkerly
Hello biologist !
Still not getting it. This expression does not represent an actual Adam an Eve - it is a cultural expression for religionists to understand. More word salad that does not go to the heart of the logical flaw I described.
Obviously you consider yourself an intellectual and anyone who does not agree with you is a moron, right. This is your first error.
Are you telling us 'Evolution Guy' that you found the missing link? Tell us about your personal observational evidence.
There is no missing link. Look - is there an actual educated Christian prepared to answer this logical flaw? Because attacking science is not doing anything.
I never said you were a moron. Nor have I made any errors. If you have something other than an attack on science - I would love to hear it. It is a great distraction and I understand saying science is all BS is a way out for you - but still.
Come one - there must be one educated Christian who understands biology and is prepared to tackle this. Surely.
My dear 'Evolution Guy',
Error one=no missing link
Error two= that I am not educated nor a Christian
Error three= That logic will provide an answer
Error four= that science is being attacked
Error five= that I said science is all BS
You really must excuse me from here on.
As usual, everything this poster has to say is so flawed and intellectual lacking that it's amazing. Not much evidence of an intelligence here - just more agenda, and poorly disguised hate mongering.
Such as the biological evidence that Adam and Eve were not real people, therefore there was no original sin, therefore there is no need for a savior, therefore Christianity is nonsense?
How do you explain this logical flaw in your religion?
THIS STATEMENT RIGHT HERE IS THE
FOR ALL ATHEIST AGENDA.
Yes, I was shouting, because it's important people understand this.
Anything they can say to do away with Jesus (Saviour)
will be used to further this agenda!
Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel, Jesus ben Sirach, Jesus ben Pandira, Jesus ben Ananias, Jesus ben Saphat, Jesus ben Gamala, Jesus ben Thebuth, Jesus ben Stada or the mythical Jesus ben Joseph?
I KNOW Him Whom I serve, and it ain't one a deeze.
That is what is called hallucination, seeing one when there is none!
Just how does your comment relate?
You must have this confused with another post.
"I KNOW Him Whom I serve"
From your previous forum posts, it is the mythical Jesus ben joseph(though illegitimate, as per modern adoption laws ). So you know him, who never lived, that is a hallucination/delusion.
There are two camps.
One that BELIEVES He was mythical, which you seem to belong to.
The other, the one I belong to (and I'm by no means alone) BELIEVES that He actually lived, died and rose again! Therefore is alive today, which makes Him "knowable".
You might feel justified in accusing me of hallucinating, but you don't know me. Have never met me, and have NO knowledge whatsoever about my past or present behaviour, on which to base this on. Isn't this called "judging"?
But, I understand!
I never have to meet you, know you or see you. I only have to hear(read) what you say, and make inferences. If I say there is a dragon that lives in my cupboard, by definition of the word hallucination and delusion, I'll be hallucinating/deluding. Your case about Jesus ben Joseph is no different.
That's still your opinion!
A wrong judgment of me, and Him.
I have been a non-believer, and have had an encounter with Him (this non-existent Jesus).
I assure you, it was no delusion, nor hallucination.
That was 35 years ago. A VERY longlasting hallucination, don't you think?
Plus, there are millions of people around the globe that have had (similar) the same experiences.
Again, just because YOU haven't experienced it, you are in NO position to declare any judgment about it.
I suggest you go and have one of these life changing encounters yourself, and we'll speak again.
I've seen people who have delusions as young as 15 years to as old as 80 years. I have seen people who have prolonged history of delusion. In fact, some delusional disorders are never cured, controlled with drugs, but never cured.
Millions of people never "experience". In fact most people never think much about god except at church, prayer time or difficulties and most do only because they were taught so from childhood, do it without consciously thinking about.
Experience are ok, it is the interpretation of the experience that matters. Neurology and psychiatry tell as very much about why we experience what we experience and how we are "biased" and "skewed" to interpret it to some past "beliefs" and how we see patterns where there is none.
Its very easy to get the experience you say, stimulate appropriate areas of brain with drugs, meditation or shock(physical or mental). That will not tell you anything about god or jesus.(It will be better to remember that you a non-believer who was raised in a christian nation got "jesus" experience, while a muslim get allah experience, a hindu get vishnu or rama experience, a buddhist get buddha experience and an atheist get a natural experience.
It looks to me like you have this "lecture" down pat.
Please go and waste it on someone who cares.
I'll just go and stimulate my hallucination, and delusion with something called
Certainly, you are here to preach, not listen to logic and reason.
Everyone is here to preach!
I just don't like being psychoanalysed by people who are clueless about me, other than a few posts they read.
In the least, it would be "nice" to have someone say, "oh, I see. i think I understand your point of view". etc.
That does NOT happen here, I assure you.
Take this thread , and EG, for instance , (even the above post of his), as a perfect example.
Unlike most of you (evolutionists), I have a clue of your position, because I was on your side once.
BUT, I chose to step out into the light, because the answers I get are more reasonable now, than before.
Again, you can disagree, I don't care. I'm fully satisfied with my worldview!
I dunno about you - but when I went to school I studied literature and literary devices.
"Archetype" is a word that comes to mind, as is "Allegory.
Now, it's very possible that those types of things are beyond your learning or abilities to comprehend - or it could just be that you're a faceless coward who's full of hatred and bullshit.
And it's obvious that you don't spend enough time in the forums, since you don't know WHO Evolution Guy actually is.
Hatred? I won't burn you for not believing. How about that for love?
So - Adam and Eve did not actually exist then? But - I like where you are going with this. Was Jesus allegorical as well? He did not exist either? Cool. Is god allegorical also? And original sin? The whole shebang is allegorical.
Maybe we are getting some where? An educated Christian who thinks Jesus was not a real person either? And god is not an actual being? Wonderful. Perhaps you could elaborate?
This "Evolution Guy" - I see the exact same typical cowards on ever website - it's so easy to hide behind a fake name and avatar and spout ridiculous hatred all the time.
I'm Wesman Todd Shaw.
I live at 9919 County Road 158
"Evolution Guy" is a pathetic coward with no intellectual ability whatsoever - most probably that person is a paid propaganda poster.
"He" doesn't write hubs - "he" only exists on this site to cause trouble, and make a general ass of himself.
What a coward!
Wow, I admire your forwardness but posting your home address on a public forum where anyone could get to you, especially people hiding behind a fake name and avatar.........................................................could get to you is stupid. I would move if I were you. Pride goeth before the fall my friend, wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove you know. The serpent never tells his aggresser where his hole in the ground is does he?
Don't mess with Texas! Florida has your back!
Are you seriously saying it was smart for him to post his home address?! If you have his back why don't you put up your personal info?
No. But . . . if you don't know Texas, go looking for him! You probably won't come back. You guys from Ohio are slow learners. You always think you have the best team in the country . . . until you play the Gators!
If you want to see the best team in the WORLD watch the final this Sunday
Oh and thats Rugby not Football.
I feel you sister! You must keep your pride. Remember, we don't allow our good players to fool around with Rugby. That is for the wussies who can't make the team!
Well said, WD! The loser players end up with the rugby consolation prize when they can't make it in football.
After all, why not? Those darn "down unders" won't know the difference anyway!
For once EagleKiwi and I are in agreement (except the other team will win). Girls wear body armor and have 400 team members in case they get hurt.
Sports are one of the worst things to happen to America, Tressel made millions off those boys and so did the school but they didn't recieve a dime for the blood and sweat they spilled on that field and not to mention the billions that the professionals make all the while schools in my city are closing because there isn't enough money to keep them up! No I could care less about your gators or Ohio's idiotic Brutus. And "Texas" doesn't intimidate me, it is Texas that should b mindful of the cardel inching it's way from Mexico in force.
Get a life! By the way . . . that's cartel . . . and those boys know how to deal with that, Go back to sleep!
Ohhhhh..but in Rugby only the women wear pads..
(ducks for cover)
Besides when in Rome,
I love this guy
Vivre Le France. Come on Les Bleus.
And for good measure, this was a most precious moment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOlpiDYR … ata_player
If there was no adam and eve,then where did you come from? It had to start somewhere.Your words are of the devil and those of us who are believers and have seen the work of our lord Jesus Christ would never listen to such nonsense.
No actual Adam and eve = Blind man cannot see
No original sin = there could not be any colour
No need for a savior = light does not exist
Christianity is nonsense" = light is scientific nonsense
EG is spiritually blind.
Cannot "see" God
God must not exist.
Everyone who DOES must be looney!
Dear me dj. Sorry scientific knowledge upsets you so much. More drivel I see. Oh well.
This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.
I also see your defense mechanism hasn't changed either.
The use of words like "drivel" "semantics" "conflict", "religionist" etc
does nothing for the argument. If you have no answer, say so.
I say you are spiritually blind. (Worse yet, spiritually dead)
Yes - you are talking drivel as usual. You have no rebuttal to the logical flaw I described, thus the need to attack me as being some how inferior to yourself. You claim to see things I cannot see. These claims of superiority are one of the main reasons your beliefs cause so many fights.
Now try rebutting my claim - without resorting to pretending Adam and Eve were actual people and evolution is a lie. If you would care to rebut my claim with reasonable or logical arguments, I will listen and respond. All the time you resort to "majik" and "you wouldn't understand" I will accuse you of semantics and drivel.
Your age is starting to show. (loss of memory).
I answered your "logical" (?) postulation.
As I said, to repeat myself, (just to help you out, of course)
Our faith in the ACTUAL physical existence of Adam & Eve is not based in elementary biology, but the Bible account.
The rest of you "logic" is meaningless.
Keep enjoying your delusions of "science" being the be-all and end-all of your life.
ATTACKING you? GMAB!
That's like the pot calling the kettle black.
Yes - I know dj. Science has proven it to be a lie, but you still believe it anyway. Gotcha.
As I said - I was really hoping an educated Christian might have ago instead of the science deniers.
Now you are telling lies.
Nothing is PROVEN.
Oh, unless you are reading likeminded writers to yourself, who write whatever it takes to support their own beliefs.
I doubt you'd read anything authoritative on the subject, so I won't expect much from you.
PS, I'm flattered you considered, for a moment, that I might be an educated christian.
I'm nothing more than a sheeple, remember?
Better to be a sheep with a shepherd ,than a lone wolf
This statement truly shows you lack understanding of living your own life. To be a sheep is to do the bidding of others upon command and shows you have no clear direction for yourself. What a waste of a life.
This statement shows your ignorance for the shepherd used in my context.
For if you knew him,you would know the defination of 'sheep' was to do with humble obedience, born out of trust and safety for their shepherd.
"My sheep know my voice" said the Lord, and indeed I do
I do HIS bidding ,not any man ,or latest fad.
Of course another group of people think of 'sheep' as being gullible and unitelligent.
You say "What a waste of a life"
Jesus says "I am worthy and more precious than Gold"
Lemme think ...whose voice should I listen too-hard choice
Many within the religion of self omits lots of jesus teachings, they have to or the self philosophy gets smashed to pieces.
We will find these believers in self in their old age doing yoga for enlightenment.
Yes - we have proven that 2 is not a viable gene pool for a complex organism such as a mammal. Proven and tested many times over. Proven. Tested. Sorry.
Now do you see where I am coming from? Not conjecture. Not a guess. Proven and tested many times.
Classic Mark Knowles grinding the same old axe again, hoping to do what he has done, waste peoples time with worthless attacks on faith.
Get some real information from a woman who is not afraid to confront these fools.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quVmg1c9 … re=related
Glad I am not even bothering to rise to his bait and give him more bandwidth to waste.
Oh are you Mark Knowles? THE legendary Mark Knowles? Wow!
Not playing Mark, just wanted to reveal who is behind the 'mask'.
Why waste my life entertaining someone who had a fine mind and is squandering it in such futile posts.
You haven't debunked anything. Every time someone asks for your so called proof that Adam and Eve didn't exist you avoid it.
Man was created by the Creator God and got evolved in millions of year; till such time man was responsible enough to shoulder responsibilities for which man was created, to accumplish the purpose of human life set by the Creator God; so at that time two individual were name Adam and Eve.
What is wrong there? What objection to the names? After are they, they human beings, needed names to be recognized distinctively as one needs in the present era.
I don't see any wrong in the names Adam and Eve; even presently some people like to name their children Adam and Eve.
The first humans did not develop language - and thus names - for around 170,000 years.
Wot wuz man created to accumplish zackly?
Whenever; let it be in the years 170,001 man was evolved enough to have names; then two individual were named Adam and Eve.
So what is the objection? It has to start at some time after all.
Nonsense. These were not the first humans then.
But - now you think Jesus was the son of god sent to save mankind from original sin?
Please make your writing meaningful, if you may.
I never said that Jesus was Son of God; he was a messenger prophet of the Creator God; an innocent person as are all the messengers prophets of the Creator God.
So you did not bother reading the opening statement pointing out the logical flaw in Christianity?
You just want to sell your nonsensical beliefs and sow fear of Allah?
I agree that Christianity is wrong in making Jesus a son of god; Jesus was neither god nor son of god. Jesus was a son of Mary; and we know that Mary did not have any husband with the name or attributes of god.
Christianity needs to correct this mistake.
@ "Evolution proves there was no Adam and Eve."
People have the names Adam and Eve; so evolution does not prove that humans in the present or past or in future cannot have these names.
He's not referring to people's names, he's referring to the idea that one man was created from the dust of the earth named Adam and from his rib a woman was formed named Eve. However now that I think about it in this way that kind of sounds like a cell dividing doesnt it? lol
This is getting boring now as no matter who says what in each thread, Mark keeps repeating the same mantra.
My point is there is no original sin anyway as this was a concept invented by the Catholic Church. Therefore Mark's OP falls apart as it's illogical.
Awesome! We don't need to be saved then? Great stuff. No need for a savior. No Jesus. Christianity is false. We agree.
Christianity is false but not Jesus the truthful messenger prophet of the Creator God.
Adam and Eve ?
Adam and Steve?
Jesus son of God?
Jesus an imaginary figure?
Heres an idea ,check a box and play nicely until the bell rings
Not interesting in addressing the logical flaw in your religion then? Shocker - I would have thought a highly educated intellectual such as yourself would have jumped at the chance to explain this one away. Instead you offer more drivel to add to the pile. Go on:
No Adam and Eve
No Original sin
No need for a savior
Christianity is false
Your logic is false because:
1. There is a God
2. He talks to people (maybe not you, but He does talk to people)
3. Jesus did die for our sins
4. Jesus lives!
Simply repeating nonsense does not refute the logical flaw I presented.
Your delusions do not really count.
If you would care to attempt to refute my logic - I would love to hear it. Telling me it is false because you said so? Not working - sorry.
Surely there is one educated Christian on hubpages with something to add?
That's a nice try but simply calling me deluded and uneducated is not the same as proving me wrong.
A miracle is something that defies the laws of nature (scientific law if you will.) God created nature therefore He can suspend them when He sees fit.
Presupposing that there is no God is not the same thing as proving there is no God.
How does that deal with the logical flaw in your religion exactly?
Majik? The laws of nature are just that - laws of nature - it is not possible to break them.
I was not speaking to the existence of a god or not. Your claim that you hear a voice in your head is not really something I can disprove is it?
This is the logical flaw I posed:
No Adam and Eve
No Original sin
No need for a savior
Christianity is false
If you would care to answer that - I would love to hear it. Simply telling me that god dun majik does not really count as a rebuttal. Does it? We know that there was not an actual Adam and Eve - this is basic biology.
I have pointed out your flaw, you simply refuse to see anything beyond one very specific point. If the story of Adam and Eve is true, Christianity stands. If it is allegorical, Christianity stands. God is bigger than your small little point or mine. Your logic is akin to Bill O'Reilly, who sets up point by point to "demolish" the arguments of his opponents and ends up missing the bigger picture. If in your mind you have found one devastating point that completely negates the entire premise of Christianity, you have missed far more than you've hit. If my failing to produce "proof" of Adam and Eve's literal existence is all you care about, then congratulate yourself on a job well done and move on. I've dealt with a few "burning bushers" (people who demand a burning bush a la Moses to prove the truth of the Bible.) I've learned they wouldn't believe in God even if a burning bush actually dropped out of the sky at their feet. And they are just as condescending. So yeah, I believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve, but you know what? If they didn't literally exist, Jesus still needed to come and die on the cross for you and me.
Please try and explain using some sort of reason other than "majik".
As I have said - majik is no answer. If there was no Adam and Eve - which there was not - Christianity is false.
You have failed to produce anything other than to tell me you don't understand what I have said - and don't care in any case. My logic is simple - this is my premise:
No Adam and Eve
No Original sin
No need for a savior
Christianity is false
If you care to address this point I will happily listen and discuss. If Adam and Eve are allegorical - then surely all the other majik stuff is as well? Jesus is allegorical - surely? Either way - Christianity is false.
This is the big picture. There is no other big picture that you understand and I do not. Your "logic," misses the crucial point. You believe because you believe, therefore it is true - this does not negate the point I have made, nor does it mean my logic is flawed in some way. All this means is that you believe without using logic or reason. Not that my reasoning is faulty because I reject the idea of the impossible as being possible.
Mark you keep saying the same thing over and over again. When one person gets bored with your mantra, you rake it up with another person in another thread, on and on and on. You are like a yapping puppy pleading for constant attention.
I have yet to receive an answer from a Christian who can explain this logical flaw. People keep saying "majik" in order to bury the logical flaw that I posed - so I bring the question back. Sorry it upsets you so much that you cannot help but insult me.
This is why your religion causes so much ill will.
No Adam and Eve
No Original sin
No need for a savior
Christianity is false
You have the gall to say I'm insulting you. Mark your posts are laden with insults. Who is causing the I'll will here? Look back at your own posts. Hello pot I'm kettle, you're black.
"You have failed to produce anything other than to tell me you don't understand what I have said - and don't care in any case." -
That's pretty much how I see your dogged sticking to your one little point as if you had the argument that will rock the world. I've addressed your point, you won't accept it, thank you for your time.
One little point? The fact that your religion is completely false? OK then. Just a small point.
You have no addressed my point in any way shape or form. I already told you I do not accept that "god did a miracle," addresses my point. Sorry.
This is the logical flaw in your religion:
No Adam and Eve
No Original sin
No need for a savior
Christianity is false
If you can address that without resorting to miracles - I would be interested in hearing and discussing.
Yes, you told me.
Now I'm telling you that whether you accept it or not, it's true. Failure to accept it for yourself does not constitute absolute refutation of my point.
Try thinking about why so many people accept the existence of God and even many scientists believe in Him. I mean, in a deeper way than Richard Dawkins has.
You don't have to accept it for yourself, but again, one little point does not crumble the whole Bible.
And Monty Python's "Argument Clinic" is not a valid model for rational discourse.
How is "God did a miracle" rational discourse?
I asked you to address the point I made:
No Adam and Eve
No Original sin
No need for a savior
Christianity is false
You said god did a miracle and then made it seem to be totally impossible by providing evidence that a group of humans evolved rather than 2 were majikally created from dust and making it so that 2 members of a "complex" species is not a big enough gene pool for survival.
OK - I don't accept this and it is not true. No matter how many times you repeat it.
So I am asking for any other educated Christians to answer it - you keep repeating "Majik Majik Majik" over and over does not help.
As I said - If you would care to offer some reasonable opinion - I would be happy to discuss it.
I didn't want to keep going with this. You obviously believe what you want to believe and are perfectly prepared to dismiss out of hand anyone who disagrees with you.
Gods' been talking to me. Don't shut it off here, read what I have to say. I will say that I've been impressed with your cleverness, but I don't think I'm as impressed with it as you are. Nevertheless, God has pointed out that I've been guilty of that too. What I should have said from the beginning is that there is a point, a single point, on which Christianity lives or dies, and it ain't Adam and Eve.
It's the death and resurrection of Christ.
Jesus didn't come to save us from Original Sin. Not one place in the Bible does it ever hint that His purpose was to protect us from the legacy of Adam and Eve. He came to save us from our own sin, the things that every human being does every day which separated us from a holy, perfect God. Whether you believe in God or not doesn't matter. Discuss this with any theologian and they will tell you that Original Sin was not what Jesus came to save us from. He died on the cross to become sin for us and take it away. He rose again so that we can share in His everlasting life. If He's alive, then Christianity is the only hope of human kind. If He stayed dead, then we're all just waisting our time and nobody more so right now than the two of us.
If all you read here is "Majik, Majik, Majik," then, as I keep saying, you've missed far, far more than you think. There's so much more to Christianity than whether there was a literal Adam and Eve. It's not about whether they were right with God, it's about whether you and me are right with God.
I hope that you will read and think about this. You seem like a very intelligent person and I hope you will reason and reflect on it. You may not agree with it, but it is the best answer to your hyppothesis.
What is this "god"? If it is guy said in bible, its a myth.
When people start hearing voices in their head, it means they missed their drug.
Where is adam and eve?
Just now you were saying he died.
Or is it, the emperor is dead, long live the emperor?
I suggest that we leave Mark Knowles to his error and let this parody of a topic die a natural death, allowing him his inane comments is akin to feeding a tumour with sugar, it just encourages it.
We have a sad individual here who has been (in his eyes) let down by God, I fear he is a hopeless case that even prayer cannot help.
Just ignore his repetitions.
God is no myth.
Adam and Eve are dead and in the ground.
Jesus died, Jesus rose from the dead.
There are no gods, Adam and Eve is ridiculous, Jesus is an unproven myth.
No sky fairies, we checked there already.
Jesus is an unproven myth? Really? Whether you mean the literal man Jesus of Nazareth or the Biblical Jesus the Messiah, you are wrong. The historical evidence for Jesus' existence is uncontested by any serious scholar.
Jesuses were a dime a dozen at the time, it was an easy way to earn a living being the son of a god ya know.
Watch a few late model docos, read ALL the bible..... it ain't brain surgery to get to the bottom of the myth.
I half agree with you. Read ALL the Bible. I've done it twice and have read most of it many more times than that.
As for "late model docos," they tend to be all late model and almost no doco. A few facts, a lot guesses, a lot of interpolations that disagree with what the Bible actually said. Seen those too, by the way, I'm not just talking.
"Jesuses were a dime a dozen at the time, it was an easy way to earn a living being the son of a god ya know" actually is true EXCEPT that none of the other "Jesuses" actually were willing to die (especially when they didn't have to) and NONE of them inspired their followers to be willing to die, especially two thousand years later.
That the written myth has lasted so long is no surprise to psychology.
It's the old Amygdala again I'm afraid.
Easy answers always miss the bigger picture. Sometimes they're right, but 99% of the time they simply fit the preconceived notions of the person who ocmes up with them. This is definitely one of those...
Fine! So how is it a sacrifice if dad can simply bring jr. back whenever he pleases? Big deal inconvenience! He really cares, huh!
I've heard that one before, and for now all I'll say is that you're speaking out of ignorance. I mean that literally, you don't know your Bible or your theology well enough.
And for now, I'll just say you are another indoctrinated fundie who believes what he was told and has no idea where the novel actually came from. So where did the water drain off to after the mythical great flood? Let me guess, your god sent a great sponge to sop up all of the excess water?
Then you call it sleep or coma not dead.
Not a myth, can you substantiate the claim?
Monkey Boy.... Your just retarded, I have finally come to this understanding.
Christianity Is about having faith,believing in things you can not see or prove.
Christianity Is about having faith,believing in things you can not see or prove.
Believers in Leprechauns and unicorns, as well as bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster, feel the same way about those who doubt these creatures exist. So Christians have plenty of company in this phenomenon.
Not that I'm so eager to get in between two guys sticking out their tongues at each other, but just how many people really believe in Bigfoot and Nessie and Lucky? Do Christians really have that much company, relatively speaking?
I forgot to mention all of the ghost and paranormal reality shows available these days. People believe in all sorts of things. This certainly doesn't meant the things they believe are true though.
A large percentage of earth's population once believed our planet was flat and, according to the PTB speaking for the Christian god at the time, it was indeed.
My god Moe doesn't forgive willful ignorance. Unlucky for you!
Yes A -large percentage- including some brilliant minds, so why would anyone think that there are not more things to be discoverd. If we can discover new planets, and new species what makes you think that one day we will not find the things many say do not exist.
I disagree. The "brilliant" men dared to disagree with the church's insistence of the world being flat. Some died because they searched for truth despite the prohibition placed on them by the followers of "God's inspired word."
I wonder, do you think they died in vain because they wanted truth to be revealed, or merely to expose the faulty christian beliefs controlling most of their world at the time.
Most of the brilliant men were still believers who simply were going against church dogma. To confuse the church with the Bible is a continual error that allows people who don't like Christianity to feel good about misrepresenting history. The Founding Fathers were not atheists, niether were the overwhelming majority of early scientists, including Galileo. They weren't trying to expose faults in Christian belief, nor did they. They did try to get the truth out, and they did. Read the history.
Quite a statement. Since denying god, and the church, could get one killed or tortured in those days, I'd wager confessing disbelief in the christian god wasn't considered advantageous to some of those brilliant men.
Fine, chuck the novel out the window. Now, tell me how religious history is so precise when people are afraid to be open about what they really believe because they may be persecuted.
If they didn't believe in those times, most had no choice but to play along. The common uneducated man had little problem believing what the church said, he knew no better if they told him the world was flat or a great flood covered the earth.
Yep, I've read the history, but we both know it only relates the viewpoint of the particular writers of the times. And they too knew better than to write anything which disagreed with church doctrine.
What we both know is that history is written by the victor and now that atheism thinks it's winning it can't rewrite history fast enough. You're right that being a true unbeliever was dangerous back then but to extrapolate that out to say that there were mass numbers of educated unbelievers is not good history (it's great polemic though.) Good history is that most of the true reformers back then were devout believers who bucked the church. Many payed with their lives, but their belief in God trumped their fear of the church.
If you read the history and then declare it wrong because it doesn't agree with what you think it should be, be careful. Someday the histories you think are correct will be rewritten in exactly the same way.
Well said, Chris. Christians are, by definition, sinners very conscious of their failures, but grateful for the saving grace of God. So the Church will be full of true Christians who make mistakes and sometimes hold non Christian attitudes and beliefs. But we're saved by grace not by the precision of our theology. Those that debunk Christianity are fond of calling attention to our failures. By so doing, they show how little they understand the Christian faith. Some of the greatest men and women in history have been followers of the Savior.
You want to debunk the Christian Myth, known as Christianity?
Easily done- it claims there's a higher authority. This is the myth. Just because there might be a higher power, doesn't make that higher power a higher authority.
Plain and simple.
Maybe...it is just a "myth" to you...for now!
For now? Common sense and wisdom says that the highest authority can only be self. If you let anything else dictate authority then you are not being responsible about living.
Sorry, no other way about it.
Sorry...just 'cause that is your Common sense and wisdom...don't make it everyones. "And not being responsible about living" is a bogus charge...What does that mean anyways?
This statement just goes to show you lack understanding of your own life.
It means what it says. I don't talk in metaphors, like your bible does, which you don't understand.
If you let any other source dictate authority, then YOU are not being responsible for living your own life. What part do you not understand? I cannot use any smaller words to explain it.
Cagsil...you are the one that clearly lacks any understanding of life, of people, of the bible, and of the ability to use words that explain...whatever it is...that you're trying to sell about being your own "whatever" person!?
Your silly explanations of not understanding the bible and life...clearly show you lack any kind of deep understanding for what others have learned on their own...with out guidance or instruction by you.
Which in and of itself...to just try and impart that you have all the answers...and others are wrong...is just nonsense...much like the "myth" thing you always try to breed across the religion forum here.
Why do you hold to your beliefs so strong that you feel compelled to countlessly come on here and dispell other peoples own carefully inter-personal beliefs? It is absurd. You may be the one who is need of understanding...a larger understanding that there is more to life!
So, it's okay for someone or something else to tell you what to do? Can you not figure it out on your own?
And, you're the one telling me I don't understand life? How pathetic.
And, really,....apparently someone needs to teach you a lesson in humility.
Read my hub "What Is Life's Purpose?", if you don't agree, then obviously you choose ignorance over learning.
I don't hold beliefs. I'm of the understanding that beliefs are NEVER to be solidified. Why? Because, life is ever changing and that means beliefs are always to be changed.
There's only ONE thing larger in understanding and that is purpose. Something you obviously don't understand.
Wait...let me get this straight...You come on here and tell me you have all the answers...and I am in need of understanding life...and you would dare say that I need to be taught a lession in humility...ha...Your a jokester...right?
That is real funny...Please....Please...Cagsil...teach me "humility"! That would be rich!
"Humilty" like I have seen from your replies...and others on here who boldly proclaim how believers are so mistaken in their beliefs?
Yeah...Oh Yeah, Please do that!
Why on earth...after the tolerance you have demonstrated here...would I want to read about "What Is Life's Purpose?", from your perspective. Honestly...your so mixed-up from what I have read here in you're beliefs...that I would rather...not. But thanks for the offer anyways!
Please...quit using that line-by-line answering stuff when you reply...and please quit using the same old drug-out phrases that you "lobbyists against believers" always use...i.e.: you choose ignorance, your pathetic in your beliefs, you lack humility, that is not very "christian" or whatever you would like to copy from the list of responses that ya'll give. Use some new dialogue for a change. This matireal is "well-overdone"
BTW...Who ever said that beliefs are not subject to change?
Are you so rigid in your thinking...that you believe...that people can not change around their belief system. Please...try and learn more about beliefs...and how people actually grow in their beliefs...before you start attacking others beliefs.
Really...It is not very civil of you to show such lack of understanding!
All the answers? And when did I say that?
Please, show me where at any time that I made that claim.
Oh...you don't have all the answers...after all?
You're the one making the claim that I've said it. Yes, that is YOUR mistake.
Oh good...now you get to play referee to everything, too...
Is there no end to your boastings?
I'm sure it would be something new to you, that's for sure.
Really? And, how do you figure that? Come on, bring more of your irrational beliefs to the fore-front so they can be dismantled.
Funny thing is I don't go around all the time...stating my beliefs.
Unlike...say...you for instance...who is always doing it!
Yes, mistaken is a great word for the beliefs. It clearly show that they know nothing.
I don't demonstrate tolerance when it comes to irrationality, because it's not to be tolerated.
My perspective? Get real. Try being objective for once in your life.
Name ONE time I've laid out a belief? Find one.
Get real. You love hearing the sound of your voice, in this case ego.
You're a walking example...duh?
I know how people grow into their beliefs. Nothing else to learn in that department, but thank you.
It's not very civil? Look who's talking.
Wait...let me get this straight...you can "Debunk the Christian Myth" all you want? But if I say anything...I'm a perfect example?
Guess you got it all figured out...in typical fashion. If someone makes a comment against what you say they are wrong. And they were certainly wrong to begin with...as your countless postings can attest. So everyone who does not listen to what you have to say is wrong?
Am I getting this part of your delusion correct?
You're an example of what's wrong with. You let something other than yourself dictate how you live your life. Btw- I noticed how you skipped right my questions-
So, it's okay for someone or something else to dictate you living your life? *you never bothered to answer*
Really, actually I have made statements which I was wrong and I admitted I was wrong. When was the last time YOU did?
My countless postings address the number idiotic irrational postings posted on the forums and nothing more. Not to mention, the number of people I have helped out on these forums. Which YOU don't seem to do? Good show on you and your character, which derives from your irrational beliefs based on your reading of said bible. Good job.
No. As I have stated before and will gladly do it again, just for you....rational thinking beats irrationality every time.
You're deluded, not me. You're just not seeing for a good number of reasons.
So, it's okay for someone or something else to dictate you living your life? *you never bothered to answer*
As compared to what...you telling "What Is Life's Purpose?"
Answering a question with a question. Nice avoidance.
That hub talks about Life's purpose. It explains purpose so the simple minded can understand it. Again, I use plenty of small words to create the explanation. I'm not telling people what their purpose is.
"It explains purpose so the simple minded can understand it."
W0W...sounds like advanced reading...way over my head.
Apparently, now you've resorted to putting yourself down. Well, that was a quick change in tune.
I see a great deal of "humility" in your comments
Yes...I admit that I do have "avoidance" for your narrow-mindedeness. That is no secret!
My narrow-mindedness? You cannot even honestly answer a question. Talk about narrow-minded.
Honestly answer what question, Cagsil. Please tell me what question I have to answer for all of you comments to be valid?
Is it okay for someone or something else to dictate how you live? If so, then how are you being responsible about living your life if you let something else dictate how you live your life?
Those two questions you have continued to avoid.
I'll give you a simple answer to both: John 3:16
You know, that's part of the problem. Your answer doesn't actually answer the question, because the verse you provided doesn't do anything.
The first question is a yes or no? The second question is based on the yes answer.
Aside from that- it negates responsibility, in understanding living life in this world and said value of this life.
Good show....your true character is finally showing.
"Good show....your true character is finally showing!"
You've said that already...in fact many times. Likewise...YOURS!
Yes, I know my character is on display. And, it's always in good character to point out those who are not. Too bad when you do it, it actually works against you. It shows that you're twisting things, just to show an appearance.
What a shame you don't realize it.
Are you the "opposite man"? It is sad that you think your delusions put you in a wonderful light. That by "cutting down" others peoples beliefs and then by stating that "Believers" are displayed in poor character...is true one-sided thinking. Demonstrating that you lack the ability to see all parameters of how people think and believe.
There is a big world out there filled with "Believers"...this is just a wee little internet forum thread on "Religion". Let the ones who accidentally stumble upon this thread decide who is in poor character...or not. That would be who I would seek my evaluation on...by their standards. Certainly, not by someone with the endless attacks that you have made on here against those who don't think as you.
I'm out...Have a good day, Cagsil. I've had my say for now...Later!
"Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet." (Phrase used by Rudyard Kipling, Barrack Room ballads, 1892)
Yet again, your character as a person is on display because you're defending your position and attempting to twist things. It's a real shame you're not truly gifted with understanding. There's no delusion with my understanding...it's pretty much straight forward. So, you must be projecting your own self hatred(delusion).
Again, I'm not doing no such thing. I'm only pointing out the irrational nature of said belief. You and others are the ones' taking offense(being defensive). Your precious bible tells you that you will be persecuted for your belief and you believe it, so you're already standing in a hole and every time you open your mouth, you dig that hole deeper.
It's not a lack of ability. I have already seen how believers think and why they believe what they believe. It's all irrational.
Yes, you're correct. There are plenty of people walking around aimlessly, acting stupid and causing huge amounts of problems. And, most of them are believers more so than there are others. It's a proven fact- just look at any of the statistics about prison inmates and religious faith. Just look at the pure and simple fact that over 66% of the world has or holds beliefs as irrational as yours.....then look at the state of the world? You and others like you do more damage than you ever thought possible.
I'm sure a lot of people will stumble upon this thread and as I said, I'm only dealing with irrational nature of the belief. My pointing out that isn't going to work against me. Especially, with a rational explanation that is always forth-coming.
Their standards? Most of those who live by a religion have no moral standard. Why not? Because, they live in conflict with themselves and purposely cause conflict with others. How? Because they live on the defensiveness. It's a shame you fail to see that.
Irrationality must be addressed. If it is not addressed then PEACE cannot ever happen. You want to cause conflict with your defensive beliefs and I want you to stay the hell out of other people's life and live by your beliefs. If you actually stood tall to your beliefs and lived by the bible, or the message of Jesus, then YOU and I wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. Yet, another thing YOU fail to realize.
See this is what I'm talking about...you think you know both sides of the coin...and all there is to know. You think you are "all-knowing"!
I would like to end in "amicable" fashion...but you go on the attack...thinking you have some right to judge what type of a "Christian" I am. But then...how dare I say this...you are to be admired for your stance.
Drink your own "Kool-aid'...but don't act like you have the slightest understanding of "believers". You have not met and learned from enough of them...to even think you you have an understanding. And if you knew so much of Jesus' teachings...you wouldn't go on the side that tries to debunk them.
Face it...you mock that which you have no understanding of!
I love that "for now" part...
For the past 2000 years Christians have been waiting for the return Jesus claimed would happen within the lifespans of those he was directly addressing...
Jesus mistakenly tells his followers that he will return and establish his kingdom within their lifetime. Matthew 23:36 & 24:34
"Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation." (Matthew 23:36 NAB)
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. "Learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branch becomes tender and sprouts leaves, you know that summer is near. In the same way, when you see all these things, know that he is near, at the gates. Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." (Matthew 24:29-35 NAB)
And 2000 years later people are still calling out and waiting for what never will occur...
Yet, with this said, without original sin there is no need for Jesus....without the nonsensical competition between the supposedly all powerful God and some exaggerated former underling (the Devil) there is nothing at all....
It amazes me how many "intelligent" people still fall under the spell of this tripe...
Sigh. I am an atheist, and I am quite frankly offended to be represented by you. Your "proof" is imbecilic and juvenile and will serve to convince absolutely no one of your rightness. When questioned about how you know Adam and Eve are not real people you respond by insulting the asker. That is not an acceptable method of debate. Do me a favor and get more information before you post ignorant crap like this. Also, your winky face at the end of the post was totally professional.
An exasperated atheist.
Jesus was not a myth; he was a real person.
Christianity invented by Paul in opposition of Jesus is really a myth; I agree.
Ok..I've had enough. I read this whole conversation and have come to the conclusion that the author, while possessing intelligence and a certain gift for expostulation, has placed more value on hearing "no Adam and Eve-no original sin-no need for Jesus Christ" than in exchanging ideas and philosophies. I've watched him continually ignore points made by others and evidence brought forth from experts in both theology and science. My leaving has nothing to do with my beliefs either way (and if you think I'm telling what those are in here, you're nuts). The conversation is "moderated" (read dictated) by someone who thirsts for attention and an acknowledgement to his superiority. gagsil isn't as refined-he is simply an insulting little minion in all this, riding on evolutuionary guy's coattails. Now...a prediction:
I will be dismissed as a buffoon who simply has no opinion and any value I may possess is negated by my narrow-minded ignorance and oh my GOD, why can't I just answer the question of "no Adam and Eve-no original sin-no need for Jesus Christ". So be it...at least I won't be wasting any more of my time with a cretin (yes, indeed, E-man, I'm reverting to insult) who rely on slurs and an insistance on answering one little now-almost-cliche question you choose to chant in priest-like fashion.
The bottom line is this. We are all of us free to believe as we will, whether it's life granted through a God Eternal, evolving from a common ancestor with the apes, or being deposited on Earth by aliens, we've been given our freedom to believe. In PEACE. God bless you all.
I don't actually agree with everything you wrote, but I do agree with the sentiment.
by LewSethics 6 years ago
Only they would exist, cruising Eden, all innocent. Naming things, etc.
by paarsurrey 7 years ago
Is it not a Christian doctrine that every human beings is sinful except Jesus?
by Motown2Chitown 4 years ago
There are a gazillion misconceptions floating around the HP clan of Christians about the beliefs and practices of Catholicism. Who told you what you know? What makes you think it's true? Wanna ask questions of someone who practices her faith within the denomination and not get answers from an...
by Ahmad Usman 8 years ago
Every Christian believes that their sins are forgiven by the blessed name and blood of Jesus on the Cross. The concept that Jesus (PBUH) died for the SINS of Mankind (Original Sin/Blood Atonement) runs contrary to not only rational thinking and common sense, but more importantly, to the teachings...
by Jesus_saves_us_7 9 years ago
should a person still be considered a christian if he or she believes in evilution (evolution?)? God created everything, not some big bang theory. just a little over 6000 years ago, not millions. just my thoughts.
by Sondra Rochelle 3 years ago
How do you define the word "Christian"?The word Christian is used so casually anymore. I often wonder if people really understand what it means to be a true Christian. Is it just all about religion, or is there a deeper meaning? I am curious to hear your thoughts.
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|