| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"DanielSan" |
| Date: |
07 Apr 2005 09:57:29 PM |
| Object: |
Adam and Eve question |
Pardon me if this was discussed before, but I have a question.
Is the Christian God for incest and inbreeding?
According to Genesis, after God made man and then made woman from man,
they had two kids, Cain and Abel. Then the writers got a bit hazy about
what happened afterwards. Cain suddenly killed Abel. So, at this time,
there are three people on earth; the ousted Cain, Adam, and Eve. Am I
right?
Suddenly, Cain marries an unnamed woman in Genesis 2:17 in the land of
Nod and they had a child named Enoch. From this unnamed woman and Cain,
presumably become the population of Earth.
Now, I wonder. If all these names (Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, Lamech,
etc.) were painstakingly written down, why does Cain's wife remain unnamed?
It simply reads, after God exiled Cain to Nod:
"Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to
Enoch. (Gen 2:17)
Who, pray tell, is "his wife"? At the time of ousting, there should've
been only three people on the earth. Cain, a male, Adam, a male, and
Eve, a female. So, what, he married Eve, his mother and had Enoch by her?
And the fuzziness continues. Enoch, a male, vicariously had a son named
Irad... by whom? Eve again? By Genesis 2:19, Lamech (another in the
line of males, presumably by Eve), married TWO women. Their names?
Adah and Zillah. Where did Adah and Zillah come from?
I'm sure the Christians here could help me on this.
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
10 Apr 2005 09:40:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:42:00 -0700, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
In article <1112992629.052978.81560@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
skyeyes <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote:
Frank J. Warner wrote:
The Judeo-Christian apologetic answer is simple. Nowhere in Genesis
does it say that God did not create other people after he created Adam
& Eve.
Here's the problem with that, from the fundies' viewpoint: if God
created other people beside Adam and Eve, then it's perfectly possible
to *not* have Adam and Eve for ancestors - therefore the whole Original
Sin thing doesn't apply to some people.
Goddidit is a pretty powerful if inane argment. All the fundies have to
do is stipulate that the "later" creations inherited the sins of the
"first" ones, by God's fiat. They are, after all, the same "kind."
Fundies are the failed intelligences.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
10 Apr 2005 09:38:45 PM |
|
|
On 8 Apr 2005 13:37:09 -0700, "skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote:
Frank J. Warner wrote:
The Judeo-Christian apologetic answer is simple. Nowhere in Genesis
does it say that God did not create other people after he created Adam
& Eve.
Here's the problem with that, from the fundies' viewpoint: if God
created other people beside Adam and Eve, then it's perfectly possible
to *not* have Adam and Eve for ancestors - therefore the whole Original
Sin thing doesn't apply to some people.
It doesn't apply anyway since A&E were mere actors in a pointless play
hitting their marks and speaking their lines as was scripted.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
08 Apr 2005 07:13:39 AM |
|
|
It is generally agreed by mainline and some evangelical biblical
scholars that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are pre-history
mythology. Their significance is strictly theological, and not to be
understood as history or science. To approach the stories of Adam &
Eve, Cain & Abel, Noah & the flood, and the Tower of Babble with the
question, "Did it happen?" is implausible and misleading. The
legitimate question to ask is, "What does it mean?" The which is a
theological question, for the Bible is a book of theology, and not a
history or science text.
Denny
DanielSan wrote:
Pardon me if this was discussed before, but I have a question.
Is the Christian God for incest and inbreeding?
According to Genesis, after God made man and then made woman from man,
they had two kids, Cain and Abel. Then the writers got a bit hazy about
what happened afterwards. Cain suddenly killed Abel. So, at this time,
there are three people on earth; the ousted Cain, Adam, and Eve. Am I
right?
Suddenly, Cain marries an unnamed woman in Genesis 2:17 in the land of
Nod and they had a child named Enoch. From this unnamed woman and Cain,
presumably become the population of Earth.
Now, I wonder. If all these names (Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, Lamech,
etc.) were painstakingly written down, why does Cain's wife remain unnamed?
It simply reads, after God exiled Cain to Nod:
"Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to
Enoch. (Gen 2:17)
Who, pray tell, is "his wife"? At the time of ousting, there should've
been only three people on the earth. Cain, a male, Adam, a male, and
Eve, a female. So, what, he married Eve, his mother and had Enoch by her?
And the fuzziness continues. Enoch, a male, vicariously had a son named
Irad... by whom? Eve again? By Genesis 2:19, Lamech (another in the
line of males, presumably by Eve), married TWO women. Their names?
Adah and Zillah. Where did Adah and Zillah come from?
I'm sure the Christians here could help me on this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
08 Apr 2005 11:24:00 PM |
|
|
dgillesp wrote:
It is generally agreed by mainline and some evangelical biblical
scholars that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are pre-history
mythology. Their significance is strictly theological, and not to be
understood as history or science. To approach the stories of Adam &
Eve, Cain & Abel, Noah & the flood,
and the Tower of Babble
Simply exquisite slip-of-the-keyboard!
with the
question, "Did it happen?" is implausible and misleading. The
legitimate question to ask is, "What does it mean?" The which is a
theological question, for the Bible is a book of theology, and not a
history or science text.
Denny
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
09 Apr 2005 07:55:57 AM |
|
|
Olrik wrote:
dgillesp wrote:
It is generally agreed by mainline and some evangelical biblical
scholars that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are pre-history
mythology. Their significance is strictly theological, and not to be
understood as history or science. To approach the stories of Adam &
Eve, Cain & Abel, Noah & the flood,
and the Tower of Babble
Simply exquisite slip-of-the-keyboard!
Not too serious an error, considering that the English word 'babble' is
descriptive of what happened at the Tower of Babel with the confusion of
languages so that the people couldn't understand each other. I've seen
the 'babble' word so often on this NG that it seemed natural.
with the
question, "Did it happen?" is implausible and misleading. The
legitimate question to ask is, "What does it mean?" The which is a
theological question, for the Bible is a book of theology, and not a
history or science text.
Denny
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
10 Apr 2005 07:46:41 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 08:55:57 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Olrik wrote:
dgillesp wrote:
It is generally agreed by mainline and some evangelical biblical
scholars that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are pre-history
mythology. Their significance is strictly theological, and not to be
understood as history or science. To approach the stories of Adam &
Eve, Cain & Abel, Noah & the flood,
and the Tower of Babble
Simply exquisite slip-of-the-keyboard!
Not too serious an error, considering that the English word 'babble' is
descriptive of what happened at the Tower of Babel with the confusion of
languages so that the people couldn't understand each other. I've seen
the 'babble' word so often on this NG that it seemed natural.
(chuckling) And fundies are from Babble-On. :)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
08 Apr 2005 12:23:02 PM |
|
|
dgillesp wrote:
It is generally agreed by mainline and some evangelical biblical
scholars that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are pre-history
mythology. Their significance is strictly theological, and not to be
understood as history or science. To approach the stories of Adam &
Eve, Cain & Abel, Noah & the flood, and the Tower of Babble with the
question, "Did it happen?" is implausible and misleading. The
legitimate question to ask is, "What does it mean?" The which is a
theological question, for the Bible is a book of theology, and not a
history or science text.
Yes, but that is a rational answer and the fundies that show up here believe
the stories to be absolutely and literally true.
All you have to do is read it (and agree with how they interpret it.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
08 Apr 2005 01:05:04 PM |
|
|
on 08 Apr 2005 in alt.atheism, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
It is generally agreed by mainline and some evangelical biblical
scholars that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are pre-history
mythology. Their significance is strictly theological, and not to be
understood as history or science. To approach the stories of Adam &
Eve, Cain & Abel, Noah & the flood, and the Tower of Babble with the
question, "Did it happen?" is implausible and misleading. The
legitimate question to ask is, "What does it mean?" The which is a
theological question, for the Bible is a book of theology, and not a
history or science text.
And, of course, this means that original sin is a metaphor; it never really
happened. Therefore there is nothing for Jesus to save us from.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
10 Apr 2005 07:44:57 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:05:04 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
on 08 Apr 2005 in alt.atheism, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
It is generally agreed by mainline and some evangelical biblical
scholars that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are pre-history
mythology. Their significance is strictly theological, and not to be
understood as history or science. To approach the stories of Adam &
Eve, Cain & Abel, Noah & the flood, and the Tower of Babble with the
question, "Did it happen?" is implausible and misleading. The
legitimate question to ask is, "What does it mean?" The which is a
theological question, for the Bible is a book of theology, and not a
history or science text.
And, of course, this means that original sin is a metaphor; it never really
happened. Therefore there is nothing for Jesus to save us from.
/Denny
Heavy sputtering.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
12 Apr 2005 09:06:08 AM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
on 08 Apr 2005 in alt.atheism, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
It is generally agreed by mainline and some evangelical biblical
scholars that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are pre-history
mythology. Their significance is strictly theological, and not to be
understood as history or science. To approach the stories of Adam &
Eve, Cain & Abel, Noah & the flood, and the Tower of Babble with the
question, "Did it happen?" is implausible and misleading. The
legitimate question to ask is, "What does it mean?" The which is a
theological question, for the Bible is a book of theology, and not a
history or science text.
And, of course, this means that original sin is a metaphor; it never really
happened. Therefore there is nothing for Jesus to save us from.
One more time! To ask whether original sin "really happened" is not the
appropriate question to ask of biblical pre-history mythology, but
rather "what does 'original sin' mean?" It means that humanity finds
itself in a state of alienation. Alienated from God by distrust and
desire to be "like God" on our own terms (Gen 2.5). Alienated from each
other: Man blames Woman given him by God (indirectly blaming God, and
Woman blames the serpent (who didn't have a leg to stand on, as the
saying goes). Alienated from creation itself: viewing the world as one
great big orange from which we intend to squeeze every last drop of
juice.
Eastern Orthodox speak of "ancestral sin" rather than original sin
recognizing the corporate nature of humanity. We inherit alienated
nature from our forebears, but we do not inherit guilt because of it, as
western Christians believe. Guilt occurs only when we act out of our
alienation.
If you see war, distrust, greed, hate, lying, cheating, stealing, fraud,
committing adultery, child abuse, spousal abuse, jealousy, alcoholism,
addictions galore, etc., etc., etc. as nothing for which we need any
help, then I suppose no higher power is necessary.
Denny
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
12 Apr 2005 07:56:11 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
....
And, of course, this means that original sin is a metaphor; it never really
happened. Therefore there is nothing for Jesus to save us from.
....
If you see war, distrust, greed, hate, lying, cheating, stealing, fraud,
committing adultery, child abuse, spousal abuse, jealousy, alcoholism,
addictions galore, etc., etc., etc. as nothing for which we need any
help, then I suppose no higher power is necessary.
I see that you took my advice from a previous thread, and saved some
straw for future use.
There was no suggestion that these problems do not need to be addressed.
But if you feel that supernatural help is needed here then that is a
claim that you need to support. And as I have pointed out to you
previously, the concepts of sin and salvation commit the Naturalistic
Fallacy. I have yet to see your refutation of my argument.
Regards,
Josef
If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only
moral commandment is: Thou shalt think.
-- Ayn Rand
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
13 Apr 2005 05:51:15 PM |
|
|
Josef Balluch wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
...
And, of course, this means that original sin is a metaphor; it never really
happened. Therefore there is nothing for Jesus to save us from.
...
If you see war, distrust, greed, hate, lying, cheating, stealing, fraud,
committing adultery, child abuse, spousal abuse, jealousy, alcoholism,
addictions galore, etc., etc., etc. as nothing for which we need any
help, then I suppose no higher power is necessary.
I see that you took my advice from a previous thread, and saved some
straw for future use.
There was no suggestion that these problems do not need to be addressed.
But if you feel that supernatural help is needed here then that is a
claim that you need to support. And as I have pointed out to you
previously, the concepts of sin and salvation commit the Naturalistic
Fallacy. I have yet to see your refutation of my argument.
"So the so-called naturalistic fallacy is no fallacy at all. Rather, if
[G.E.] Moore is right then the so-called naturalistic fallacy actually
embodies a mistaken belief about the reducibility of goodness, perhaps
the belief that ‘good’ just means ‘pleasant’ (or whatever). However, to
suppose that whenever someone is metaphysically or semantically confused
he is guilty of a ‘fallacy’ robs the term of its more standard and
useful meaning." - from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy web
site
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/#1
Denny
Regards,
Josef
If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only
moral commandment is: Thou shalt think.
-- Ayn Rand
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
13 Apr 2005 07:18:26 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Josef Balluch wrote:
....
There was no suggestion that these problems do not need to be addressed.
But if you feel that supernatural help is needed here then that is a
claim that you need to support. And as I have pointed out to you
previously, the concepts of sin and salvation commit the Naturalistic
Fallacy. I have yet to see your refutation of my argument.
"So the so-called naturalistic fallacy is no fallacy at all. Rather, if
[G.E.] Moore is right then the so-called naturalistic fallacy actually
embodies a mistaken belief about the reducibility of goodness, perhaps
the belief that ‘good’ just means ‘pleasant’ (or whatever). However, to
suppose that whenever someone is metaphysically or semantically confused
he is guilty of a ‘fallacy’ robs the term of its more standard and
useful meaning." - from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy web
site
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/#1
Bravo, Denny !! Very good !!
Having dismissed the Naturalistic Fallacy, you then agree that values
can be derived from fact and that values then have a natural origin.
This, of course, renders your deity as irrelevant.
Regards,
Josef
There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair.
-- Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
13 Apr 2005 12:14:47 AM |
|
|
Josef Balluch wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
...
And, of course, this means that original sin is a metaphor; it never really
happened. Therefore there is nothing for Jesus to save us from.
...
If you see war, distrust, greed, hate, lying, cheating, stealing, fraud,
committing adultery, child abuse, spousal abuse, jealousy, alcoholism,
addictions galore, etc., etc., etc. as nothing for which we need any
help, then I suppose no higher power is necessary.
I see that you took my advice from a previous thread, and saved some
straw for future use.
There was no suggestion that these problems do not need to be addressed.
But if you feel that supernatural help is needed here then that is a
claim that you need to support. And as I have pointed out to you
previously, the concepts of sin and salvation commit the Naturalistic
Fallacy. I have yet to see your refutation of my argument.
And yet, from my research, war, distrust, greed, hate, lying, cheating,
tealing, fraud, committing adultery, child abuse, spousal abuse,
jealousy, alcoholism, addictions galore, etc., etc., etc. is done at a
greater percentage of a the population by theists than atheists.
For example:
Divorce between Born-Again-Christians are 250% more probable than
divorce between Atheists.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
12 Apr 2005 03:41:15 PM |
|
|
On 12 Apr 2005, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
And, of course, this means that original sin is a metaphor; it never
really happened. Therefore there is nothing for Jesus to save us
from.
One more time! To ask whether original sin "really happened" is not
the appropriate question to ask of biblical pre-history mythology, but
rather "what does 'original sin' mean?"
If it never happened, what's the point of Christianity?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
13 Apr 2005 09:49:40 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:41:15 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2005, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
And, of course, this means that original sin is a metaphor; it never
really happened. Therefore there is nothing for Jesus to save us
from.
One more time! To ask whether original sin "really happened" is not
the appropriate question to ask of biblical pre-history mythology, but
rather "what does 'original sin' mean?"
If it never happened, what's the point of Christianity?
Power, control, and income from a bunch of stupid sheep.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
13 Apr 2005 03:40:10 PM |
|
|
on 13 Apr 2005 in alt.atheism, stoney dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:41:15 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2005, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
And, of course, this means that original sin is a metaphor; it never
really happened. Therefore there is nothing for Jesus to save us
from.
One more time! To ask whether original sin "really happened" is not
the appropriate question to ask of biblical pre-history mythology, but
rather "what does 'original sin' mean?"
If it never happened, what's the point of Christianity?
Power, control, and income from a bunch of stupid sheep.
Well, yeah, besides that....
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
14 Apr 2005 04:11:55 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:40:10 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
on 13 Apr 2005 in alt.atheism, stoney dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:41:15 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2005, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
And, of course, this means that original sin is a metaphor; it never
really happened. Therefore there is nothing for Jesus to save us
from.
One more time! To ask whether original sin "really happened" is not
the appropriate question to ask of biblical pre-history mythology, but
rather "what does 'original sin' mean?"
If it never happened, what's the point of Christianity?
Power, control, and income from a bunch of stupid sheep.
Well, yeah, besides that....
As somebody once said:
"Yes yes, very interesting, but what is it for?"
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
13 Apr 2005 06:00:53 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
On 12 Apr 2005, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
And, of course, this means that original sin is a metaphor; it never
really happened. Therefore there is nothing for Jesus to save us
from.
One more time! To ask whether original sin "really happened" is not
the appropriate question to ask of biblical pre-history mythology, but
rather "what does 'original sin' mean?"
If it never happened, what's the point of Christianity?
It happens always, in every time and place and by all, as evidenced in
the inevitable--but not necessary-- wrong doing by each and all. Adam
is representative "man"--which is the meaning of his name. Thus every
man is his own Adam and inevitably follows in his footsteps of his own
accord.
Denny
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
08 Apr 2005 03:15:33 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
on 08 Apr 2005 in alt.atheism, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
It is generally agreed by mainline and some evangelical biblical
scholars that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are pre-history
mythology. Their significance is strictly theological, and not to be
understood as history or science. To approach the stories of Adam &
Eve, Cain & Abel, Noah & the flood, and the Tower of Babble with the
question, "Did it happen?" is implausible and misleading. The
legitimate question to ask is, "What does it mean?" The which is a
theological question, for the Bible is a book of theology, and not a
history or science text.
And, of course, this means that original sin is a metaphor; it never really
happened. Therefore there is nothing for Jesus to save us from.
So, I posted this almost 24 hours ago and no God-fearing Christian has
decided to step up to the plate and respond? This is a question about
your book. Why can't anyone respond?
(I'm not looking for atheists to respond; I know how you guys feel. ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
07 Apr 2005 11:16:38 PM |
|
|
On 07 Apr 2005, DanielSan dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
I'm sure the Christians here could help me on this.
If you like lies, rationalization and personal interpretation, I'm sure
they could. If you like reality, you'd get a better story from a Lemur.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
07 Apr 2005 11:39:42 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
On 07 Apr 2005, DanielSan dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
I'm sure the Christians here could help me on this.
If you like lies, rationalization and personal interpretation, I'm sure
they could. If you like reality, you'd get a better story from a Lemur.
Now now, Vic. I just want to see how they spin this. Surely they have
an answer. So, I wonder if any Christians would like to step up to the
podium and answer my simplest of simple questions about Genesis 2. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
07 Apr 2005 11:46:42 PM |
|
|
On 07 Apr 2005, DanielSan dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
On 07 Apr 2005, DanielSan dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
I'm sure the Christians here could help me on this.
If you like lies, rationalization and personal interpretation, I'm sure
they could. If you like reality, you'd get a better story from a Lemur.
Now now, Vic. I just want to see how they spin this. Surely they have
an answer. So, I wonder if any Christians would like to step up to the
podium and answer my simplest of simple questions about Genesis 2. :-)
Well, there's always Duke...
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
08 Apr 2005 08:31:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:57:29 -0700 the ET form known as
DanielSan<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> sent a radio signal across the
vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Pardon me if this was discussed before, but I have a question.
Is the Christian God for incest and inbreeding?
According to Genesis, after God made man and then made woman from man,
they had two kids, Cain and Abel. Then the writers got a bit hazy about
what happened afterwards. Cain suddenly killed Abel. So, at this time,
there are three people on earth; the ousted Cain, Adam, and Eve. Am I
right?
Suddenly, Cain marries an unnamed woman in Genesis 2:17 in the land of
Nod and they had a child named Enoch. From this unnamed woman and Cain,
presumably become the population of Earth.
Now, I wonder. If all these names (Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, Lamech,
etc.) were painstakingly written down, why does Cain's wife remain unnamed?
It simply reads, after God exiled Cain to Nod:
"Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to
Enoch. (Gen 2:17)
Who, pray tell, is "his wife"? At the time of ousting, there should've
been only three people on the earth. Cain, a male, Adam, a male, and
Eve, a female. So, what, he married Eve, his mother and had Enoch by her?
And the fuzziness continues. Enoch, a male, vicariously had a son named
Irad... by whom? Eve again? By Genesis 2:19, Lamech (another in the
line of males, presumably by Eve), married TWO women. Their names?
Adah and Zillah. Where did Adah and Zillah come from?
I'm sure the Christians here could help me on this.
Could be a defect. Enoch, a defect, an inbred defect so God "took him
away" in I think chap. 6 and thus became the first raptured person. If
xians expect to rapture are they also defective?
--
rot13
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
Sunday: A day given over by Americans to wishing that they themselves
were dead and in Heaven, and that their neighbors were dead and in
Hell.
-Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
10 Apr 2005 09:42:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 11:01:12 +0930, Meteorite Debris
<abuse@optusnet,com.au> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:57:29 -0700 the ET form known as
DanielSan<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> sent a radio signal across the
vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Pardon me if this was discussed before, but I have a question.
Is the Christian God for incest and inbreeding?
According to Genesis, after God made man and then made woman from man,
they had two kids, Cain and Abel. Then the writers got a bit hazy about
what happened afterwards. Cain suddenly killed Abel. So, at this time,
there are three people on earth; the ousted Cain, Adam, and Eve. Am I
right?
Suddenly, Cain marries an unnamed woman in Genesis 2:17 in the land of
Nod and they had a child named Enoch. From this unnamed woman and Cain,
presumably become the population of Earth.
Now, I wonder. If all these names (Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, Lamech,
etc.) were painstakingly written down, why does Cain's wife remain unnamed?
It simply reads, after God exiled Cain to Nod:
"Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to
Enoch. (Gen 2:17)
Who, pray tell, is "his wife"? At the time of ousting, there should've
been only three people on the earth. Cain, a male, Adam, a male, and
Eve, a female. So, what, he married Eve, his mother and had Enoch by her?
And the fuzziness continues. Enoch, a male, vicariously had a son named
Irad... by whom? Eve again? By Genesis 2:19, Lamech (another in the
line of males, presumably by Eve), married TWO women. Their names?
Adah and Zillah. Where did Adah and Zillah come from?
I'm sure the Christians here could help me on this.
Could be a defect. Enoch, a defect, an inbred defect so God "took him
away" in I think chap. 6 and thus became the first raptured person. If
xians expect to rapture are they also defective?
Clearly, since they've no concept of reality.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam and Eve question |
10 Apr 2005 06:01:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:57:29 -0700, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Pardon me if this was discussed before, but I have a question.
Is the Christian God for incest and inbreeding?
Yes, and it shows.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
