J
JCC
Guest
Why do you think that it was the woman that doomed mankind? That was the message.
God, the Father...?
- Thread starter Tru Mackney
- Start date
Angel's vision
Silence! I Keel you!
Both did. ^^^ I never meant to imply that is was all Eve's fault!
yes she took part in the event,after the tempter put the doubt in her mind, but Adam knew his own mind enough to make the choice not to "Doom mankind" as much as Eve. As the story goes.
yes she took part in the event,after the tempter put the doubt in her mind, but Adam knew his own mind enough to make the choice not to "Doom mankind" as much as Eve. As the story goes.
J
JCC
Guest
ILLYRIAN
Druish Pervonian Wizard
Here we go, religion bashing. As Angel's Vision says the bible states.....what religion is that?, cos I was talking about Jewish Mythology.
InsaneMystyic, I used the bible as a tool, for a timeline. I know that there's a difference between the religions as to what happened and when. The bible puts it that the world started October 23rd 4004 BC. I couldn't find a date for the Mesopotanian/Babylonian
legends.
InsaneMystyic, I used the bible as a tool, for a timeline. I know that there's a difference between the religions as to what happened and when. The bible puts it that the world started October 23rd 4004 BC. I couldn't find a date for the Mesopotanian/Babylonian
legends.
T
T.I.P
Guest
Blondie Bear
Zydrate Addict
Is that date actually in the Bible somewhere, or is that the date from people extrapolating the "begats?"
InsaneMystic
Ex-Scooby
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,505
- Age
- 52
Actually, I was talking about when the believers wrote down the stories about their faith. And if I'm not totally wrong, the Mesopotamian legends are significantly older than the Jewish creation stories.
Though noone can prove it this way or the other, even as a religious person I tend to disregard the Biblical claim of a 6000 year old world since Adam and Eve physically walked Eden as "erm, probably not correct". :wink:
The latter. 🙂
ILLYRIAN
Druish Pervonian Wizard
The only time I've read the bible would have been when I was blind drunk, and I can't remember it. I've used the bible several times though, in seances, after being in contact with dead people just to see if they were telling the truth.
I was told about that date by a Catholic and it was on a tv show by some religious bloke. Think he was a Southern Baptist or Mormon, I think his name was Copeland.
I wouldn't believe the Adam and Eve stories either, as I heard all life came from them. Or that the world is only 6000 years old, I like there being dinosaurs on earth.
Edit:
Ye gods, I've just been to look about that date, didn't know there was so many bibles. And all those people having different opinions about the same thing.
To my way of thinking if its all the same thing, shouldn't they agree?
Anyway, James Usher, Anglican Archbishop of Amagh, Primate of all Ireland came up with 23/10/4004
and Dr John Lightfoot Hebrew Scholar said it was 9 am
couldn't count how many disagreed with them.
I'm tempted to use The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy here. The answer to the question is 42, and the question is ......what is, 9 X 6 =
I was told about that date by a Catholic and it was on a tv show by some religious bloke. Think he was a Southern Baptist or Mormon, I think his name was Copeland.
I wouldn't believe the Adam and Eve stories either, as I heard all life came from them. Or that the world is only 6000 years old, I like there being dinosaurs on earth.
Edit:
Ye gods, I've just been to look about that date, didn't know there was so many bibles. And all those people having different opinions about the same thing.
To my way of thinking if its all the same thing, shouldn't they agree?
Anyway, James Usher, Anglican Archbishop of Amagh, Primate of all Ireland came up with 23/10/4004
and Dr John Lightfoot Hebrew Scholar said it was 9 am
couldn't count how many disagreed with them.
I'm tempted to use The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy here. The answer to the question is 42, and the question is ......what is, 9 X 6 =
I believe that the only reason that god is seen as a guy is because back in the day, girls didn't really have a right to anything did they? Everyone thought men were like higher beings to women.
(Then Buffy changed that train of thought. 😉 )
(Then Buffy changed that train of thought. 😉 )
N
Nabila
Love the Buffy reference LOL
Lou
Scooby
I agree with Palabra. I think the "He" was just passed down. I also think it has a LOT to do with men being the superior ones back in the Biblical times.
God being seen as the "Father" I feel is just a metaphor. Maybe because Mother's are typically more "hands on" while Father's have been seen as venturing out in the world, making the living and kind of "guiding" the family more from afar than Mothers. (At least back in the day.)
I fail to see how God would have a need for a penis or any other reproductive part of the body. If he's God, who's he gonna reproduce with and why would he NEED to? If he's the almighty creator and able to make the world, animals....us. Couldn't he just say, "You there! You're pregnant!" and POOF!
God being seen as the "Father" I feel is just a metaphor. Maybe because Mother's are typically more "hands on" while Father's have been seen as venturing out in the world, making the living and kind of "guiding" the family more from afar than Mothers. (At least back in the day.)
I fail to see how God would have a need for a penis or any other reproductive part of the body. If he's God, who's he gonna reproduce with and why would he NEED to? If he's the almighty creator and able to make the world, animals....us. Couldn't he just say, "You there! You're pregnant!" and POOF!
ILLYRIAN
Strange thought process I have, your last line makes me wonder if god like cigars?
Blondie Bear
Zydrate Addict
The problem I've heard with that one (and I'm not a Bible scholar, so this is hearsay), is that the chroniclers used to skip over entire generations if they weren't interesting or had done something really wrong. And it didn't change the truth of it in their eyes; if you were descended from someone, you were their "son," or "begat" from them. We see this in "Jesus, son of David," even though King David was TONS of generations before Jesus.
Also, the word "day" in Genesis can apparently also be translated from the Aramaic as "an age"; hence it's possible that it wasn't a literal day but just a span of time. It's entirely possible that it took several million years for God to create the earth. I personally don't see why He/She/It wouldn't choose to use evolution as His/Her/It's method of creation if He/She/It felt like it.
This is, of course, assuming that there IS a God and that the Bible is an account of His/Her/It's activity.
T
T.I.P
Guest
^ Thats how i look at it, God basically put all the ingrdients for universe/life out there and let them develope and evolve throgh time.
Speaking of which, evolution. I watch quite alot of stuff on the internet about the universe and evolution on earth.
And thing is, do people on this board believe that humans evolved from fish? although things can and do evolve, theres never been any evidence of one species evolving into another entirely different species. and the chart showing an ape changing into a man, thats totally just theory.
No proof at all to back that up. To think that EVERYTHING living on this planet came originaly from one type of single celled organism, changing into a billion different things from spiders to birds to elephants to people seems a bit insane. Is this any more sane than believing a god could have created everything.
Speaking of which, evolution. I watch quite alot of stuff on the internet about the universe and evolution on earth.
And thing is, do people on this board believe that humans evolved from fish? although things can and do evolve, theres never been any evidence of one species evolving into another entirely different species. and the chart showing an ape changing into a man, thats totally just theory.
No proof at all to back that up. To think that EVERYTHING living on this planet came originaly from one type of single celled organism, changing into a billion different things from spiders to birds to elephants to people seems a bit insane. Is this any more sane than believing a god could have created everything.
Lou
Scooby
Someone said people evolved from fish? I don't think that's what we learned in school.
Maybe evolved from something that once broke off into branches and one was a fish, but not FROM fish...right?
Maybe evolved from something that once broke off into branches and one was a fish, but not FROM fish...right?
palabravampiress
Bidet of Evil
I'm more with Diou444 on this one.
We find intermediate species in the fossil record all the time. What about all of those winged, feathered dinosaurs with hollow bones and other bird-like features that they're finding? What about freakin' ostriches? I mean... yes, there are gaps in the fossil record, but it doesn't take a genius to follow that pattern to its logical conclusion, which is that it is very likely that birds (themselves possessing vestigial reptilian traits, like scaled legs) share a common reptilian ancestor from the era in which reptiles are known to have developed flight, feathers, and sometimes both. No one is saying that starling on your telephone wire had a great-great-great... great-grandpa who was a T-Rex -- or even that that T-Rex had a great-great-great... grandma who was a fish. Evolution just looks at the pattern and theorizes a connection in the form of a common ancestor of some sort, likely one of the light, feathered, flying creatures that sort of straddle the line between dino and bird.
Human fossils offer up similar sorts of evidence. So do modern chimps. Chimps share somewhere between 94% and 99% of our DNA. In theory, it would be possible to breed hybrids (like we do with horses and donkeys or with lions and tigers or with buffalo and cattle). That's a pretty compelling argument for some sort of genetic relationship between two species. Now, no one is saying humans came FROM chimps; instead, what the theory of evolution says is that the evidence supports the notion that there is almost certainly a common ancestor between chimps and humans. No one is saying anyone's great-great-great...great-grandma was a chimp (well, that's not entirely true; I've seen one or two studies suggest that the human and chimp lines split, interbred again, and then split once more) or that her great-great-great... great-grandpa was a fish. They're just saying that when combined with the striking genetic similarities between the two species, the fossil evidence supports the notion that a common ancestor once existed.
To say humans "come from" fish is really sort of oversimplifying matters. It's not like a fish gives birth to a frog, which in turn gives birth to a newt, which in turn gives birth to a rat, which in turn gives birth to a monkey, which in turn gives birth to a person. It is more likely that a few fish species developed traits that allowed them to seek out a coastal or shallow-water niche, that some of these species developed into amphibians or possibly other types of creatures, that some of these developed into reptiles or other types of creatures, that some of these developed into mammals or other types of creatures (like birds, as mentioned above), that some of these developed into primates or other types of creatures, that some of these developed into hominids or other types of creatures, and that some of these developed into what we would now call humans, and then -- and this is really the part that is weird -- that from all of the various hominid types that evolved, only homo sapiens sapiens survived. There is a lot of room in this theory for stagnation (some fish, for example, have lungs to this very day; others have legs), for reverse evolution (aquatic mammals making the opposite journey from seashore to sea), and for tons and tons of variation (note the absolute plethora of avian species) within closely related groups. With all of this diversity, it would be nearly impossible to trace a line back from one human to one fish. It's less of a stretch, though, to say that humans probably share, along with other mammals (except those that may have developed mammalian traits independently, as sometimes happens in nature) a common ancestor that was some sort of fish.
T
T.I.P
Guest
Yeah, there are quite a few different scientific theories to how we came to be here.
But, my point was, out of all the fossils discovered in the history of mankind, there has never been one
single fossil, ever, to be found to support the thoery that species can evolve into a different kind of animal,(like a missing link bone/s) which going
by the general evolution theory, must have happened, and happened quite alot.(im not saying a fish gave birth to a frog or a mouse turned into a bird) but to get to the amount of different animals we have today, alot of species must have changed.
another recent theory i seen was, now this may seem far fatched but, that the reason modern humans are here is a meteor from space.
Now, humans need so much to survive, air, water, heat, vitamins and even iron and carbon(to name a few)
Now thousands of years ago there was lots of different types of humanoids, but only one type survived.
What if a meteor stuck earth, releasing a vital ingredient(eg. something like carbon) and that was the thing that one
of the human types needed , like a trigger, to evolve further and become more intelligent!
(this is an actal theory i seen on the internet)
these theorys ive written aint my point of view exactly, just some ive seen or heard and im just puting them out there.
No one theory seems more likely than the other to me.
But one thing for sure, whatever crazy theory turns out to be true, with how amazing the universe is, is it that hard to believe
some being/conscience could be responsible for it all?
pS. one more thing, if anyones interested, go and look up DNA on the internet.
You will see that chimps having simelar DNA to us actually means nothing.
There is an INSECT that shares....... 99% DNA with us.
lots of other theories to suggest simelar DNA dosnt prove anything on the net too.
But, my point was, out of all the fossils discovered in the history of mankind, there has never been one
single fossil, ever, to be found to support the thoery that species can evolve into a different kind of animal,(like a missing link bone/s) which going
by the general evolution theory, must have happened, and happened quite alot.(im not saying a fish gave birth to a frog or a mouse turned into a bird) but to get to the amount of different animals we have today, alot of species must have changed.
another recent theory i seen was, now this may seem far fatched but, that the reason modern humans are here is a meteor from space.
Now, humans need so much to survive, air, water, heat, vitamins and even iron and carbon(to name a few)
Now thousands of years ago there was lots of different types of humanoids, but only one type survived.
What if a meteor stuck earth, releasing a vital ingredient(eg. something like carbon) and that was the thing that one
of the human types needed , like a trigger, to evolve further and become more intelligent!
(this is an actal theory i seen on the internet)
these theorys ive written aint my point of view exactly, just some ive seen or heard and im just puting them out there.
No one theory seems more likely than the other to me.
But one thing for sure, whatever crazy theory turns out to be true, with how amazing the universe is, is it that hard to believe
some being/conscience could be responsible for it all?
pS. one more thing, if anyones interested, go and look up DNA on the internet.
You will see that chimps having simelar DNA to us actually means nothing.
There is an INSECT that shares....... 99% DNA with us.
lots of other theories to suggest simelar DNA dosnt prove anything on the net too.
Lou
Scooby
LTH: I'm not sure I get you.
We can see evolution in LOTS of places. If you take a species of frogs and disperse them all over the planet, some will die, some will live, and in a hundred or so years the ones that lived will look little to nothing like either what you put there or their "family" that you dropped someplace else.
Evolution works in the way that the strongest survives and that usually happens because one is a mutant and ends up forming something that helps them in their habitat.
I've never heard anyone supporting evolution that says anything about one species TURNING INTO another. Giraffes don't give birth to sperm whales and anyone would be stupid to say otherwise.
I HAVE heard that giraffes didn't always have long necks. And that over time, the ones with the longer necks survived better because they could reach the higher branches, they mate, they're kids have longer necks, the live, they mate, their kids have longer necks.
I can go with the the idea that God put "life" on the planet. Now whether God is some mystical being in the clouds or an Alien race, like the Mayan's believed or time in general, is up in the air.
But, I DO believe life started with a single cell. In order to survive, those cells had to mutate or they'd just all grow and multiply eat all the food and die out.
So, eventually one had to learn to eat the others, one had to mutate to venture onto the land.
Men didn't "evolve" from chimpanzees in the sense that one day a chimp popped out a human. More like the branch of a tree. We're a LOT like apes in many ways, not just DNA. A tree branch pops off and it one pretty BIG thing. On it are TONS of tiny branches where one evolved into cute tree monkeys, one in to chimps, one into gorillas and one into our earliest ancestors...be that Adam and Eve or Cavemen.
Actually, not much different than a FAMILY tree. Sure, you can have a group of 100 people with the same last name, does that mean they're remotely similar or even LIKE each other? No. It does mean that when looking closely at the group you probably COULD be able to say, "Hmmm, this eye color seems prominate and so do these two nose structures" but that's about it.
There most certainly ARE fossils that document the animals of today with the ones of before. We can show how elephants and whales evolved from something almost totally unrecognizable into the animals we have today.
http://www.sanparks.org/parks/kruger/elephants/images/elephant-evolution.jpg
We can see evolution in LOTS of places. If you take a species of frogs and disperse them all over the planet, some will die, some will live, and in a hundred or so years the ones that lived will look little to nothing like either what you put there or their "family" that you dropped someplace else.
Evolution works in the way that the strongest survives and that usually happens because one is a mutant and ends up forming something that helps them in their habitat.
I've never heard anyone supporting evolution that says anything about one species TURNING INTO another. Giraffes don't give birth to sperm whales and anyone would be stupid to say otherwise.
I HAVE heard that giraffes didn't always have long necks. And that over time, the ones with the longer necks survived better because they could reach the higher branches, they mate, they're kids have longer necks, the live, they mate, their kids have longer necks.
I can go with the the idea that God put "life" on the planet. Now whether God is some mystical being in the clouds or an Alien race, like the Mayan's believed or time in general, is up in the air.
But, I DO believe life started with a single cell. In order to survive, those cells had to mutate or they'd just all grow and multiply eat all the food and die out.
So, eventually one had to learn to eat the others, one had to mutate to venture onto the land.
Men didn't "evolve" from chimpanzees in the sense that one day a chimp popped out a human. More like the branch of a tree. We're a LOT like apes in many ways, not just DNA. A tree branch pops off and it one pretty BIG thing. On it are TONS of tiny branches where one evolved into cute tree monkeys, one in to chimps, one into gorillas and one into our earliest ancestors...be that Adam and Eve or Cavemen.
Actually, not much different than a FAMILY tree. Sure, you can have a group of 100 people with the same last name, does that mean they're remotely similar or even LIKE each other? No. It does mean that when looking closely at the group you probably COULD be able to say, "Hmmm, this eye color seems prominate and so do these two nose structures" but that's about it.
There most certainly ARE fossils that document the animals of today with the ones of before. We can show how elephants and whales evolved from something almost totally unrecognizable into the animals we have today.
http://www.sanparks.org/parks/kruger/elephants/images/elephant-evolution.jpg
palabravampiress
I was totally gonna bring up the whales... what with their vestigial leg bones and all. Some snakes, too.
J
JCC
Guest
Evolution started in the bacteria that developed in the Archean era. This was then affected by the Oxygen Catastrophe whereby oxygen was released by the photosynthesizing foliage, killing all of the anaerobic bacteria of the time and forcing it to change to cyanobacteria, bacteria that respirates through oxygen. That is the basis of life.
It's basic Geology.
It's basic Geology.
palabravampiress
Bidet of Evil
I don't really wanna get into an Evolution vs. Creationism debate. I believe in Evolution because I think it makes sense. I think science finds evidence of transitional species all the time, as with whales, but how you interpret that evidence is up to you and probably has no influence on the question of God's gender. When push comes to shove, I'm with those who don't understand why Evolution and Creationism are in opposition to one another. Evolution can only go so far. Eventually, it draws a blank. There is nothing saying a creator God can't be that blank. There is nothing saying multiple creator gods can't be that blank. If a single deity is in fact that blank, though, I'm gonna agree with the majority and say that he/she/it creates via some method other than sexual reproduction and therefore has no need of a gender.
Of course... then there is the question of sex vs. gender to consider. The hard and social sciences are increasingly considering gender and sex as two separate concepts, with sex describing a genetic trait and gender describing a social construct. Marginalized populations, like hermaphrodites or transgendered people, tend to bring that difference into sharp focus. For example, someone who is genetically male but raised to serve a female role in society would have a male sex and a female gender. So perhaps God has no sex, but the pronoun "he" is in reference to character traits or duties that human society has generally and traditionally interpreted as male (at least in the societies that adopted the monotheistic worldview). Maybe there is something about patriarchal societies that leaves them more open to the idea of monotheism, and so the monotheistic concept of God as a father figure grew out of those societies as a direct result of that cultural value?
Of course... then there is the question of sex vs. gender to consider. The hard and social sciences are increasingly considering gender and sex as two separate concepts, with sex describing a genetic trait and gender describing a social construct. Marginalized populations, like hermaphrodites or transgendered people, tend to bring that difference into sharp focus. For example, someone who is genetically male but raised to serve a female role in society would have a male sex and a female gender. So perhaps God has no sex, but the pronoun "he" is in reference to character traits or duties that human society has generally and traditionally interpreted as male (at least in the societies that adopted the monotheistic worldview). Maybe there is something about patriarchal societies that leaves them more open to the idea of monotheism, and so the monotheistic concept of God as a father figure grew out of those societies as a direct result of that cultural value?
ILLYRIAN
Druish Pervonian Wizard
Here's a thought, if God was both sexes and he/she gives life by some means or other. Isn't the life that is from another form of life evolution? and because it is of god, creationalism?
IF that is true, then no to the initial question.
IF that is true, then no to the initial question.
Lou
Scooby
I wouldn't call just giving life evolution. Animals give birth to "mutated" forms all the time that die quickly instead of it being an improvement. So, the general idea would be that technically, I can (PERSONALLY) give God credit for creating life in single cell or other form on this planet and it moving on from there. In which case, many of these forms have turned out to be horrible. I don't think that's God's design that sometimes things are born flawed.
IF we were to say God "gave birth" to us, and God being different from us, for it to be evolution, we'd have to be better than God. Personally, I'm not sure we're even better than monkeys or gophers most of the time.
But, I'm not sure that answers anything.