God created Adam, then he created Eve from Adam, then they fucked and made babies, Cain And Abel, by then sin was already around, which meant that incest was something that would have occured, so when Eve gave birth to a daughter and Cain or Abel fucked their sister that would have created a reterded person, thus the whole planet would be retarded.

First, back then they were MUCH closer to perfection, second, they didn't have as many mutations and defects in them (we are much less healthy bad food, bad air etc.) thidly, god might have done something to their seeds to make it so they didn't end up retarded.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

thidly, god might have done something to their seeds to make it so they didn't end up retarded.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

No.

Incest itself does not cause genetic defects. This is a MYTH.

What happens is that any genetically carried diseases have a higher chance of being pronounced if the same family keeps marrying in-wards. Chromosomes (and therefore their genes) come in pairs. The diseases are often caused by recessive genes, and it is only by having both chromosomes with a recessive gene that it will take effect.

Here's an example:

Generation A is our Adam and Eve. Generation B is their children, Generation C is B's children through incest.

Assuming Adam and Eve each have 1 gene for a recessive disease, the odds are:

25% of generation B will be affected by the disease.

50% will be carriers, but not affected.

25% will not have the disease at all.

The same would be true of Generation C if the affected mated as well, but if those affected do not reproduce the abundance of the disease actually decreases!

11% of generation C will be affected by the disease.

44% will be carriers, but not affected.

44% will not have the disease at all.

This is all assuming that God created Adam and Eve with genetic defects. If he didn't, the only way the genetic diseases can arrise is through mutation, and the incest at the start of the world will be of little to no harm.

-- a supporter of incest :)

^^^Your point: Very good

Your support of incest: Not very good



I just have to ask though, isn't incest a sin?

I don't believe so.

flatplat: ^^^Your point: Very good

Your support of incest: Not very good

I just have to ask though, isn't incest a sin?

It is forbidden in the Mosaic law, yes indeed. But I was just kidding about being a supporter of incest. I don't really care one way or the other about it.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

No.

Incest itself does not cause genetic defects. This is a MYTH.

What happens is that any genetically carried diseases have a higher chance of being pronounced if the same family keeps marrying in-wards. Chromosomes (and therefore their genes) come in pairs. The diseases are often caused by recessive genes, and it is only by having both chromosomes with a recessive gene that it will take effect.

Here's an example:

Generation A is our Adam and Eve. Generation B is their children, Generation C is B's children through incest.

Assuming Adam and Eve each have 1 gene for a recessive disease, the odds are:

25% of generation B will be affected by the disease.

50% will be carriers, but not affected.

25% will not have the disease at all.

The same would be true of Generation C if the affected mated as well, but if those affected do not reproduce the abundance of the disease actually decreases!

11% of generation C will be affected by the disease.

44% will be carriers, but not affected.

44% will not have the disease at all.

This is all assuming that God created Adam and Eve with genetic defects. If he didn't, the only way the genetic diseases can arrise is through mutation, and the incest at the start of the world will be of little to no harm.

-- a supporter of incest http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



If this is true, why then incest is a taboo to almost every human? Even those tribesmen have an incest taboo. Evolution must have realised that in-breeding is not beneficial to the gene pool.

quasicurus: If this is true, why then incest is a taboo to almost every human? Even those tribesmen have an incest taboo. Evolution must have realised that in-breeding is not beneficial to the gene pool.

By outbreeding, the diseased ones have the rest of the species take some of the load. It's advantageous to the ones with the mutation, but not the species as a whole.

When you take a people that normally marry away from the family, they're likely to have a lot of carriers for genetic diseases. A little incest will bring out the diseases. The people see the diseases, and they think the gods were angry at the family for inbreeding, so they mark down incest as taboo.

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 07-22-2005).]

It's called genetic diversity, and THAT helps the gene pool, not inbreeding.

Sure incest is a sin. But when your God is stupid enough to create only two people to start the human race, or when he kills everyone but a family, he needs to bend the rules a bit to fix his screw up. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Incest is one of those funny sins that only became a sin after God was finished using it.

maybe God created more than two people? Just didn't put them in the story?

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

quasicurus: If this is true, why then incest is a taboo to almost every human? Even those tribesmen have an incest taboo. Evolution must have realised that in-breeding is not beneficial to the gene pool.

By outbreeding, the diseased ones have the rest of the species take some of the load. It's advantageous to the ones with the mutation, but not the species as a whole.

When you take a people that normally marry away from the family, they're likely to have a lot of carriers for genetic diseases. A little incest will bring out the diseases. The people see the diseases, and they think the gods were angry at the family for inbreeding, so they mark down incest as taboo.



The incest taboo is in hard-wired into humans. Even in tribes that don't belief or have any concept of God, they will still have

the incest taboo. This incest taboo can also be found in some mammals, for example, lions.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

maybe God created more than two people? Just didn't put them in the story?

Then the bible doesn't tell us the real story...

quasicurus: The incest taboo is in hard-wired into humans. Even in tribes that don't belief or have any concept of God, they will still have

the incest taboo. This incest taboo can also be found in some mammals, for example, lions.

Like I already said, outbreeding is beneficial to a family with a bad mutation, but not the entire species. Because the entire species lives in groups of families, the tendency for outbreeding will be highly pronounced.

Or at least that's my guess. Speaking of lions, do you remember how a new male lion of a pride will kill all the young cubs that were from another male? Well, that isn't exactly beneficial to the species, is it? It just happened to be a mutation that was more likely to be passed on than the lions that didn't kill the cubs.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Then the bible doesn't tell us the real story...

no, it just leaves out something that is irrevalent

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

no, it just leaves out something that is irrevalent

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

1. Yes. God forcing Adam and Eve to either not procreate or sin (i.e. to inbreed) is "irrelevant". How convenient.

2. That still means it doesn't tell us the true story. The true story would be that they didn't only just cave Caine and Abel.

So again, the bible wouldn't be telling us the true story.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-23-2005).]

I didn't say anything about forcing Adam and Eve to not procreate or inbreed...

What I said was irrevalent was the other people that logically would've been there. The Bible doesn't say there was only one family does it?

Its irrevalent, because anybody could figure out that there must have been more than two people, and what would this family have to do with any thing the Bible has to teach?

Rust: 2. That still means it doesn't tell us the true story. The true story would be that they didn't only just cave Caine and Abel.

Don't forget Seth! He was the third son, and the direct male-line ancestor of Noah.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

I didn't say anything about forcing Adam and Eve to not procreate or inbreed...



Did I say you did? No. I'm saying that what would be the case if god had only created Adam and Eve. The descendants would have to either procreate with each other (sin according to the bible) or die off and not create humanity. So god forced them to either sin or have humanity as we know it never created.

quote:

What I said was irrevalent was the other people that logically would've been there. The Bible doesn't say there was only one family does it?

It enumerates the descendants of Adam and Eve and it does not mention anyone else. Thus, if you claim there was some else, then the bible doesn't represent the true story.

quote:

Its irrevalent, because anybody could figure out that there must have been more than two people, and what would this family have to do with any thing the Bible has to teach?

Wrong. There is no reason why there "must" be more than two people. They could have inbred... That's the point! That we don't know if they inbred or if there were more people not related to them; so it's a very relevant thing that the bible doesn't tell us.

So I was entirely correct in saying that the bible would not be representing the truth, if there were more people. You're just grasping at straws.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:



Don't forget Seth! He was the third son, and the direct male-line ancestor of Noah.

Ok, God didn't force anyone to sin. It wasn't the case that God only created Adam and Eve. There was lots of other families during times books in the Bible were written and it doesn't talk about them...

I take it as logic that there would've been other people besides them. The Bible usually tends to teach lessons, and other peoples' history and family lines are irrelevant.

And no I am not wrong in saying there must have been more than two people. Sure, they could've imbred, but not because there was no one else. Why can't the Bible leave things to common sense?

quote:Ok, God didn't force anyone to sin.

You're quite simply not reading. I never said he forced them to sin, I said he forced them to choose either sining, or not creating humanity as we know it by procreating. That's a fact.

quote: It wasn't the case that God only created Adam and Eve.

That's exactly what the bible states. If that is not the case, then the bible is false.

quote:I take it as logic that there would've been other people besides them. The Bible usually tends to teach lessons, and other peoples' history and family lines are irrelevant.

That's exactly what makes it relevant.

To have God force his creation to either sin or not create humanity is VERY relevant.

quote:And no I am not wrong in saying there must have been more than two people. Sure, they could've imbred, but not because there was no one else. Why can't the Bible leave things to common sense?

You are most certainly wrong. You may believe that there was more than two, but you cannot say there MUST have been more than two.

Do you know the definition of "must"? That implies that there is absolutely no other possible scenario, which is wrong because there clearly is: they could have procreated with each other, hence no need for anyone else.

So saying "must" is wrong. That's my point.

quote: Why can't the Bible leave things to common sense?

Because nobody dictates common sense! It changes! Moreover, it's certainly not common sense that there were more people than Adam and Eve. The majority of the people in the U.S. believe the literal interpretation of the bible, which would mean the "common" sense, the common interpretation of the story, is that there weren't more people.

Ok, you said He forced them to make a choice between sinning and not procreating...whatever you said, He did not force them to do that. There is no right thing to do in that situation, why would God do that? Thats the logic I'm talking about. Its called inference.

Yes, there must have been more than two because God would have needed to let them have a way to do the right thing.



Just because the Bible leaves something out, doesn't make the Bible false.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

Ok, you said He forced them to make a choice between sinning and not procreating...whatever you said, He did not force them to do that. There is no right thing to do in that situation, why would God do that? Thats the logic I'm talking about. Its called inference.

He DID force them to choose that if he didn't create more people, since there would be no other choices, which is exactly why it's a relevant piece of information that was left out.

As I showed, you cannot use "common" sense to know there were more people.



quote:

Yes, there must have been more than two because God would have needed to let them have a way to do the right thing.



Wrong. The possibility exists that he wanted the to sin, so there must NOT be more people. There COULD be more people which is very different.

quote:

Just because the Bible leaves something out, doesn't make the Bible false.



It does makes it a false representation of the true story. You're just grasping at straws because this represents an evident gap in Christianity.

The fact is, if there were more people, then the bible does not represent the true story. Period.

how cute. but this ones gonna blow up in your face.

on a science rss newsfeed a couple months ago, they published a summarization of a finding about something like this.

the story of that article goes like this:

about 6-10,000 years ago a massive amount of ppl died. i dont remember if they mentioned how that happened or what they theorized did it. but basically, the only ppl who made it out were a large group who ended up somewhere in central asia.

now, back in the day groups like that were basically a whole family. 2-3 generations of the same ppl and there siblings who stuck together as a method of survival. all these ppl would be very closely related obviously and would inbreed mostly. you didnt mingle much back then for fear of fightig or passing diseases etc.

from that single group, every person alive traces a common lineage back to.

back before this massive dying off period, ppl were much more genetically diverse. they found the first skeletons and DNA of a prson who doesnt share our genes somewhere in australia a few years ago. no im not talking about the hobbit ppl either.

so i dunno about you, but im not retarded.

i only read the article once, so the timeline may be off thanks to my memory. if you want to read the article in full, i beleive i saw it on sciencedaily.

You're the one that is grasping at straws. Its totally stupid what you are saying.

I'm saying God wouldn't expect the impossible. So saying more people were there isn't too far fetched is it?

And if God wanted them to sin, He still wouldn't have been justified in not leaving a right thing to do.

Leaving something out that you should be able to figure out on your own is leaving out something that doesn't really need to be in there. Leaving something out that doesn't need to be in there does not make the story a false represenation of the true story. That is stupid. Period.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

You're the one that is grasping at straws. Its totally stupid what you are saying.

No, it's totally true.

Fact: The bible wouldn't be representing the true story if it didn't tell us of the more people he created other than Adam and Eve.

Fact: Whether Adam and Eve were forced to either sin or not procreate (and thus not create humanity as we know it) is relevant.

That's what my argument consists of, facts. Facts which you can't refute so you grasp at straws.

quote:

I'm saying God wouldn't expect the impossible. So saying more people were there isn't too far fetched is it?



It ISN'T impossible, that's the whole point! You're not reading.

quote:

And if God wanted them to sin, He still wouldn't have been justified in not leaving a right thing to do.



Hence why it is a relevant piece of information! Information, which according to you, was left out, and but according to some (the majority of people actually), wasn't left out because it didn't happen like that.

So it would be completely relevant to know this.

quote:

Leaving something out that you should be able to figure out on your own is leaving out something that doesn't really need to be in there. Leaving something out that doesn't need to be in there does not make the story a false represenation of the true story. That is stupid. Period.

Wrong.

What's the true story? According to you it is that god created Adam, Eve, and others.

Does the bible say that? No. Then it does not represent the true story. Period. There is no debate. That's a fact.

Now, you may claim it wasn't a wrong thing to do because we could deduce it by "common sense" which would be a legitimate justification... but then I point out how "common sense" varies, and how the majority DOESN'T deduce it by common sense, since the majority doesn't agree with you! They believe the literal word that god created Adam and Eve, and only Adam and Eve.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Then the bible doesn't tell us the real story...

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

no, it just leaves out something that is irrevalent

So, let's put in all the relevant details and see what we get. http://www.carm.org/rael/raelian_nutshell.htm

No, those are not facts.

The Bible would be representing the true story for leaving out other people, because they are irrelevant, because you don't need the Bible to spell it out for you. God didn't force them to choose between two evils. What's so hard to understand about that? Huh?

Ok, and maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to hear an argument from a Christian point of view, something that gives another angle.

But thats total crap that you think the Bible doesn't represent the true story etc...that's stupid logic

[This message has been edited by Zman (edited 07-24-2005).]

We are all retarded.

Zman: But thats total crap that you think the Bible doesn't represent the true story etc...that's stupid logic

"Stupid logic"? That's a joke, right? If one has a skeptical view of the Bible, it cannot be countered with the assumption that the Bible is completely true, for that very assumption is what is being put to the test. Assumptions must be agreed to by both sides of an argument in order for them to be effective.

I see nothing wrong with the Bible being fallible. After all, even assuming divine inspiration, can the Word of God be perfectly contained by a writing system designed by men? Scriptures are fallible: they can be corrupted just like any other earthly thing we know of. It is foolishness, perhaps even blasphemy, to put your complete faith in them.

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 07-24-2005).]

what is said was stupid logic were rusts comments that if the Bible doesn't say something about other people in Genesis, something irrelevant, then the Bible doesn't tell the whole story. Read the rest of the posts.

Well then, pardon moi. But try to be a little more clear with your wording.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

Ok, and maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to hear an argument from a Christian point of view, something that gives another angle.

But thats total crap that you think the Bible doesn't represent the true story etc...that's stupid logic

Sorry Z, but Rust is basically right. The Bible explicitly says that Adam and Eve were the very first two people and that Eve was to be the mother of all living (and note that Adam named her after they had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and after they had been convicted of their Sin). It can be assumed (because of 'Original Sin') that they had no children prior to getting kicked out of the Garden, since those kids would not have Original Sin. We can also be pretty darn sure that God did not create other people, since sin entered the world before A & E got evicted, and that all people have original sin. If there were other created people (Created in the same way as Adam and Eve), it would be possible that some people do not have Original Sin, and thus would not need Salvation... rendering the work of Christ unnecessary (He died ONCE, for ALL) AND rendering the Bible a lie.

As far as 'incest' goes, it was not forbidden until it was Commanded. Beta69 said, "Incest is one of those funny sins that only became a sin after God was finished using it". We dont know the reason that God Commanded against it. Perhaps, like Beta says, it was not needed any more. But it could have just as likely have been because of the "hearts of man" were becoming more and more defiled. Simply put, incest became an act of lust, not love. And procreation became (more and more) a result of horniness and self-gratification.

So, if it were not a sin at that point, then there was not a choice between sin and procreation.

But Rust, as was pointed out, it was more than just Cain and Abel. But there was also more than them and Seth. Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters (Gen 5:4). That means that Adam and Eve had a minimun of 7 (sorry, from the KJV, it is possible that the minimum was five kids, but there is no maximum stated in the Bible) progeny during Adam's 930 years.

Zman, you ask "why the Bible cant leave things to common sense". It does (atleast as far as the literal history goes-- in the New Testement, reguarding spirituality, it is still common sense, but it is based on and built upon the prior parts in the Bible.. especially the first 11 chapters of Genesis), some of the main difficulties that make it appear as not common sense, are; language, time and culture barriers. Not to mention translations, compromise, human intentions, demonic intentions, ignorance (yes, i am pointing finger, but not directly at you. I am pointing finger at all, including myself), fictional works eg. DaVinci Code, Dante's Infernal, TV and Movies.

You also said, "Yes, there must have been more than two because God would have needed to let them have a way to do the right thing." The fact that it was not a sin at that point (not until it was Commanded from God to Moses), means that incest was not wrong at that point. Thus, there is no need for other families.

I agree with you, that some things are not mentioned in the Bible, because they are irrelevant. There are other reasons that things are left out, but Rust is correct when he says that the number of original families are totally relevant to the Truth of the Bible, and to the doctrine that is taught by Christianity (and Judaism).

Sorry Zman, but Rust was basically right.

Rust was not basically right. The Bible tells the true story, and whether or not there were more people is irrelevant. The Bible is telling a story.

Ok, if it was not sinning, because God hadn't commanded it yet, then God did not force the choice of incest. And if there were more people is it not possible they sinned too? The statement of wheter or not there were other people is irrelevant. It doesn't matter.

[This message has been edited by Zman (edited 07-24-2005).]

I can't believe you people are seriously discussing Adam and Eve as literal truth and then worry about the ensuing incest. When will a concept like symbolism be able to fit in your tiny heads? Not taking something literally does not undermine its message. You can still argue about and support the existence of "original sin", even when you strongly believe in darwinian evolution.

QUOTE Originally posted by elfstone:

Not taking something literally does not undermine its message.

You can still argue about and support the existence of "original sin", even when you strongly believe in darwinian evolution.

LOL, is that a Literal "Darwinian Evolution" or a 'symbolic' one?

LOL... sorry, i can not help laughing... LOL

Darwinian, Neo-Darwinian and Theistic evolution all undermine the Bible, and the message.

Simply put, there can not be that big of gaps in the Bible. The Bible does not support the idea of sun and stars created prior to the earth. The Bible even has 'light' Created prior to the things that emit 'light'. Not to mention, the eons of plantlife, before the sun (and animals). And finally, the Bible can not support those evolutionary ideas, with death and destruction prior to the "Fall of Mankind".

So, if these are taken symbolically, or metaphorically, then they are in direct contrast with 'naturalistic' origins of evolution and the Big Bang. Which, in effect, would prove the Bible as 'NOT GOD'S WORD'.

It is either God's Word, or it is not. Period. The symbolism of Genesis Chapters 1-11, is secondary to the literal Truth. The symbolism is not for uniting what man says about the Bible. But it is for the Bible to explain/show things about the Bible. And that cant be done, until it has defined itself.. just like it defines "day"... "evening and morning, day (x)"

Sorry for laughing... but it was a Literal laugh.

QUOTE Originally posted by Zman:

Rust was not basically right. The Bible tells the true story, and whether or not there were more people is irrelevant. The Bible is telling a story.

It is very relevant, Zman. But yes, the Bible is telling a story. Is it possible to tell a story that is true? Or are stories always false?

You are Christian.. Catholic, right?

Do you believe that Christ died for our sins?

Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ?

That He is God's only begotten Son?

So, if you believe those things, then how can you not see that Adam & Eve were the first and only two Created by the Hand of God?

Do you believe that the Bible is God's Word?



And if there were more people is it not possible they sinned too?

No, it is not possible because Eve is the mother of all living. And, A & E were the vehicle that sin entered the world.

The statement of wheter or not there were other people is irrelevant. It doesn't matter.

I hope you see that it does matter.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Sure incest is a sin. But when your God is stupid enough to create only two people to start the human race, or when he kills everyone but a family, he needs to bend the rules a bit to fix his screw up. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Incest is one of those funny sins that only became a sin after God was finished using it.



your a fucking idiot. It wouldn't matter if he created two people to start humans, they were perfect when he created them, and until it started making gene defects, there were no consequences to making babies with your family.

Although I don't believe in god, it was possible for adam and eve to start everything. Whenever a new species is created, the originals made are always the best ones. This is true whether or not the first humans were evolved or created. I know this because when you breed two strains of pot together, the resulting strains won't be very consistent, but will very the most. Since you just created the strain, you take your favourite males and females and breed them together with a result of less diversity with greater numbers. The first two humans, would be the purest free of diseases that could effect the new species. Their resulting offspring would also be very pure, and you wouldn't see any mutations for quite some time. By the time mutations started we would start breeding more diversely to water down these mutations and those who didn't would die of a single disease, possibly a cold. We are the result of this watering down. If everyone was really interested in strengthening our genes, you should breed outside of your family, and your kids should breed within the family, alternating back and forth with each generation. When I say within your family, I mean a second cousin or cousin at the closest. This isn't likely to start happening very soon as most people don't want to marry their cousin. What this does is removes the weak genes from crossbreading and brings back fresh new genes into the family. The Royal families did this for a very long time, and some still do to this day.

People with the least amount of genetic problems tend to be better looking, physically well, smart, and tend to end up quite successful. These people, usually men, attract females with good genes with their money, stature, or power and have children with good genes. The problem lately is that these people have the least amount of children if any at all, so only recessive gene carriers are spreading their seed, which is weakening the gene pool severely. If you have good genes, it's your duty to have children to water down the weak genes that have developed.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

QUOTE Originally posted by elfstone:

Not taking something literally does not undermine its message.

You can still argue about and support the existence of "original sin", even when you strongly believe in darwinian evolution.

LOL, is that a Literal "Darwinian Evolution" or a 'symbolic' one?

LOL... sorry, i can not help laughing... LOL

Darwinian, Neo-Darwinian and Theistic evolution all undermine the Bible, and the message.

Simply put, there can not be that big of gaps in the Bible. The Bible does not support the idea of sun and stars created prior to the earth. The Bible even has 'light' Created prior to the things that emit 'light'. Not to mention, the eons of plantlife, before the sun (and animals). And finally, the Bible can not support those evolutionary ideas, with death and destruction prior to the "Fall of Mankind".

So, if these are taken symbolically, or metaphorically, then they are in direct contrast with 'naturalistic' origins of evolution and the Big Bang. Which, in effect, would prove the Bible as 'NOT GOD'S WORD'.

Glad to have entertained you but all you've managed is confirm that christians have low iq. I don't think you even understand what symbolism and metaphor means.

You got the story of creation in Genesis and you got the scientific theory of evolution. Those two are in conflict. But if the first is symbolic then it could be about something else besides "creation" and there would be no conflict with evolution. It seems a pretty simple concept to me, but I guess I really overestimate you christians.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



It is either God's Word, or it is not. Period. The symbolism of Genesis Chapters 1-11, is secondary to the literal Truth. The symbolism is not for uniting what man says about the Bible. But it is for the Bible to explain/show things about the Bible. And that cant be done, until it has defined itself.. just like it defines "day"... "evening and morning, day (x)"

Sorry for laughing... but it was a Literal laugh.

You obviously can't comprehend anything besides "literal". Symbolism being "secondary" to Literal truth?? It either is symbolism or literal truth! Not both. But what can I expect from someone who expects everything to be explained and handed to them so they won't need to use their head. Is "ask and you shall find" simple and literal enough for you at least? It is for the bible to explain things about the bible...sure, but explain to who and how? Man's intelligence and judgement just never enter into it for you christians...And quit the absurd nonsense about "until it has defined itself"...like it's some living entity. Think for yourself for once.

Assuming that the story is true:

No. 1: It is possible for a brother and sister to have children and have them not be born with three heads.

No. 2: There's several stories claiming that Cain mated with a serpent and not a woman at all. Didn't they make you read Beowulf in high school?

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

You obviously can't comprehend anything besides "literal". Symbolism being "secondary" to Literal truth?? It either is symbolism or literal truth! Not both. But what can I expect from someone who expects everything to be explained and handed to them so they won't need to use their head. Is "ask and you shall find" simple and literal enough for you at least? It is for the bible to explain things about the bible...sure, but explain to who and how? Man's intelligence and judgement just never enter into it for you christians...And quit the absurd nonsense about "until it has defined itself"...like it's some living entity.



Think for yourself for once.

And you are saying that you have?

You have been spoon fed evolution way back when you were still in your little "footie" pajamas while you were getting a sugar high, eating your cereal while watching Saturday morning cartoons.

guess the same could go to about 90 percent of christians... sunday school an' all that.

I was spoonfed young earth creationism until around 6th grade. Then around 8th grade my opinion changed about it, and I became a theistic evolutionist. It wasn't exactly an easy step, but my curiosity is probably what kept me going.

So no, I wasn't spoonfed evolution from childhood. It was something constantly described to me as evil lies made up by demon possessed atheists. Although not in those exact words, that was the impression I got.

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

guess the same could go to about 90 percent of christians... sunday school an' all that.



exactly, but more than likely, not to the same degree.

the 'brainwashing' card is played over and over, directed at religions, but how often do you see brainwashing pointed out, about evolution?

I remember an episode of 'Leave it to Beaver' that mentioned "millions of years ago" (After Wally told Beaver this, he thought it might be a good excuse to not take a bath).

There was a scene in the old "absent minded professor" (or one of the sequels) where his aunt mentioned evolution and millions of years... i saw this again, about a year ago, and i really (literally) laughed.. the comment had absolutly no bearing on the story, let alone the scene.. it seemed so out of place, like an advertisement or something.

It is so much a part of society, that any and all mentions of it are totally unquestioned and often, not even noticed.

Think about that when you watch old movies and TV shows..

And i see another trend that has been happening more and more since the late 70's... "aliens are real, and many are the good guys". Granted, i am skeptical of life (inteligent or otherwise) on other planets; but i see this as another brainwash. The motive behind it might be "warming" us to the idea, so there is no panick when they are 'unvieled'. Or it could be another way to instill the evolution story deeper.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

No, those are not facts.

The Bible would be representing the true story for leaving out other people, because they are irrelevant, because you don't need the Bible to spell it out for you. God didn't force them to choose between two evils. What's so hard to understand about that? Huh?



They are not facts? Then show how they are not facts. You don't because you cannot. You run from them and repeat yourself as if that were going to change them.

Again:

What is the true story (according to you)? That god created more people than just Adam and Eve.

Does the bible say this? No.

Then would the bible be representing the true story? No.

So the bible does not represent the true story. Period. There is no escaping this, which is exactly why xtreem, another Christian, disagrees with you, and agrees with me.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

I was spoonfed young earth creationism until around 6th grade. Then around 8th grade my opinion changed about it, and I became a theistic evolutionist. It wasn't exactly an easy step, but my curiosity is probably what kept me going.

So no, I wasn't spoonfed evolution from childhood. It was something constantly described to me as evil lies made up by demon possessed atheists. Although not in those exact words, that was the impression I got.



And i was taught that Theistic Evolution was the probable meaning of Genesis. I can still hear my mother saying, "We dont know if the days then, were the same length as now".

My understanding changed after i read Genesis for the first time. And continued to change the more i read (both the Bible and Science Textbooks), and the more i thought about it.

Only about 5 or so years ago, did i hear about 'Creation Science'... and i said to myself, "good, atleast i am not the only one that sees and understands it that way".

In fact, it wasnt until last year, that i found out that the Pastor of my old church and the Pastor of the church i attend now, both take the Bible literal, including a literal Creation. Unfortunately, the Lutheran church (Wisconsin Synod), spends nearly all the sermons on the NT teachings... which is great, but people NEED the foundation, especially to understand how evolution undermines God's Word and produces lukewarm Christians when confronted with so-called "scientific evidence".

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



... when confronted with so-called "scientific evidence".

You mean facts.

Maybe we should have a thread dealing with this as well, besides the Pi thread...

sort of like this one:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum25/HTML/002241.html

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

And you are saying that you have?

You have been spoon fed evolution way back when you were still in your little "footie" pajamas while you were getting a sugar high, eating your cereal while watching Saturday morning cartoons.



Haha...now, we're even, thanx for the laugh!!

That's your answer? Pathetic.