| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Aaron Kim" |
| Date: |
18 Jun 2007 05:28:49 PM |
| Object: |
Genesis Account Vs. Adam God Doctrine |
From: "Aaron Kim"
Subject: Genesis Account Vs. Adam God Doctrine
Date: Monday, June 18, 2007 3:23 PM
by Ogden Kraut
But regarding the Genesis account of creation, we need to keep in mind the
type of people and conditions existing at the time Moses wrote this early
portion of the Old Testament. The children of Israel were then ignorant and
idolatrous and certainly not ready for the "pearls" of the real Gospel.
These people were hardly capable of thinking for themselves, so Moses could
give them only an abbreviated and symbolic story of the creation. This is
somewhat the same as when Christian parents tell their children that a stork
brought them, satisfying them for the present.
For many centuries the children of Israel had been slaves in Egypt. Their
religion had been reduced to the same level as that of the
Egyptians --worshipping statues and cows. It was a primitive religion, yet
it still persists in India to this day. As ignorant as they were, Moses
tried to give them something they could understand that would elevate their
thinking about the true God. He began with the creation, and wrote Genesis
in hopes they would turn from idolatry because of this new understanding of
their relationship with the Creator. You, too, apparently do not believe
Moses' account of Adam's genesis because in your conference talk you raised
this question by asking: "Is any child ever begotten without a father?"
(Ensign, p. 18) The Old Testament says that Adam was made like an adobe, but
the New Testament traces the genealogy of Christ back to "Adam which was the
son of God" (Luke 3:38) Either Adam was made like a brick or he was begotten
in the flesh by his father in heaven.
INTRODUCTION:
THE MYSTERY OF CREATION
Theologians, scientists, philosophers, in fact nearly all mortals, at
some time, have wondered how mankind got on this earth. For many centuries
various theories have been pro-pounded and discussed, but seldom have any of
them carried the spirit of truth. Until the time of the Gospel Restoration
in 1830, speculation and disputation had caused contention and division
among religious sects and scientists alike. Most people still remember the
famous "Monkey Trial" that was debated for several days in the
courts--between Darwin's theory and Biblical statements. Nothing was proved
or resolved, and people remained in the same state of confusion as before.
With the restoration of the Gospel, the Lord said:
For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from
before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation
of the fulness of times. (D & C. 124:41)
The great prophet, Joseph Smith, understood what the Lord was saying and
he commented:
There are many things which belong to the powers of the Priesthood and
the keys thereof, that have been kept hid from before the foundation of the
[8] world; they are hid from the wise and prudent to be revealed in the last
times. (DHC 4:209-210)
The restoration has brought a flood of light upon many hidden and lost
truths. However, many more remain, as the Prophet Joseph said he could
divulge only a very few of the things which the Lord had revealed to him.
Brigham Young said the Prophet left the Elders of Israel in the dark on many
mysteries because they were unable to receive the knowledge that God wanted
them to understand. Joseph revealed a few of these mysteries in one of his
last and greatest addresses called "The King Follett Discourse". Other
information was revealed by him to a few trusted friends--at least once
concerning some of the mysteries of creation and the Godhead, part of which
was later made public by President Brigham Young.
Still, in the world today, there exist many theories about God, man and
animals, and the creation of this earth. Some are interesting, some are
humorous, and others are figments of an active imagination. Very few come
even close to the truth. Consider the following possibilities and theories
for the origin of man:
1. Some scientists say that man "evolved" from a little bug that came
creeping up out of a swamp and gradually grew legs and arms and stood
upright to become a man. Evolution is perhaps the most popular belief
and is even taught as factual in public schools. However, science has
never yet produced the "missing link" in these evolutions. It is the
wildest, unscientific speculation ever published under the title of
fact.
2. The Bible presents a few short sentences about the beginning of man by
saying he was scooped up like an adobe, some special breathings were blown
into it, and suddenly man popped up out of the mud to become a [9] real
live mortal. This has been taken literally by some, but at best it is
merely a figurative representation that Moses used for the rebellious
children of Israel.
3. So, too, the Bible makes a strange statement about the creation of woman:
that a rib was taken out of the man's side and was used as a crucible for
the beginning of females. By some mysterious power this rib was added to,
molded, and breathed on to miraculously become a woman. This is certainly
an interesting story, but neither can it be taken literally--so the mystery
continues.
4. If God really did use mud and a rib for His method of propagation, it
seems He would have continued to use such a method from then on. There
would be no reason for adopting some other system. On the other hand, if
propagation, as we see it in living things today, was the original method
of introducing man to the earth, there would be no reason to use mud and a
rib.
5. Some maintain a belief that a space ship came to this planet leaving some
"garbage", from which bacteria gradually evolved into all the living things
on the earth.
6. Stories exist of how the embryos of man were hurled through space,
perhaps in ice, and landed here to thaw and become mankind.
7. Some postulate that a space vehicle landed here and left a small colony
of beings to populate this globe.
8. A popular belief exists that God came upon the earth to have a son called
Adam and a daughter, Eve, who were to carry on the work of creation by
propagation. But it is impossible for an immortal being to produce mortal
children.
[10] These are just some of the assumptions and speculations, but none
really reveals the mystery of man's true beginning. To find the accurate
account, we need to turn to the prophets of God who receive(d) revelation.
Certainly for our dispensation the Prophet Joseph Smith and his successor,
Brigham Young, should be the main prophets to look to for answers.
Even though the actual public announcement clarifying these mysteries
came from Brigham Young, he undoubtedly learned the answers from Joseph
Smith.
On April 9, 1852, Brigham Young delivered a sermon at a conference
session in Salt Lake City. This discourse became the cause of more heated
arguments, doctrinal controversy, and violent reaction from both member and
non-member alike than any other oration ever delivered in the Church. Since
then, Brigham Young has been the victim of more slander, ridicule, and
derision than any other president of the Latter-day Saints. Such reactions
and contempt were aroused when he taught the position of Adam to the human
race. But, in spite of the furor against this Adam/God doctrine by those
both in and out of the Church, many of the members acclaimed it to be one of
the most important and disclosing revelations ever given to the Saints. In
later years, some members would even be excommunicated for advocating it.
The doctrine still stands as a classic in theological expose.
Because this doctrine is not incorporated into the Articles of Faith, nor
is it now recognized as truth by the LDS Church, both the student of
scripture and the lay member should, on his own, become acquainted with the
history, the basis for, and the principles behind that doctrine--rather than
just ignoring it or saying it never existed in the Church. History shows
that it was publicly announced, published on [11] two continents, advocated
by members of the First Presidency and most Apostles, and even taught by
many missionaries. For this reason it cannot be concealed, especially in
light of the fact that so many opponents of the Church today continue to
expose this doctrine in their attempts to discredit the validity of the LDS
Church and the teachings of Brigham Young.
And here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon the earth;
when you tell me that Father Adam was made as we make adobes from the earth,
you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of
the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle words devoid
of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods
dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were
first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to
propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish
the earth. (Brigham Young, JD 7:285)
Man moulded from the earth, as a brick!
Woman, manufactured from a rib!
Thus, parents still would fain conceal from budding manhood the mysteries
of procreation, or the sources of life's ever-flowing river, by relating
some childish tale of new born life, engendered in the hollow trunk of some
old tree, or springing with spontaneous growth like mushrooms from out of
the heaps of rubbish. O man! When wilt thou cease to be a child of
knowledge? (Key to Theology, p. 56)
October 9, 1859
When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobes from the
earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the
beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle
words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where
the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents
who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to
propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish
the earth. (Brigham Young, JD 7:285)
(end)
The following is the true account of how the world and mankind came about
spoken above:
Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and
sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into
it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him.
He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the archangel,
the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken. HE is
our FATHER and our GOD, and the Only God with whom WE have to do. Every
man upon the earth, professing Christians and non-professing, must hear
it, and will know it sooner or later . . . When Adam and Eve had eaten
of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects and
therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived
the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was
not begotten of the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first
of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by
his Father in heaven . . . Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the
flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Ede, and who is
our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause
before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for
they will prove their salvation or damnation. (Brigham Young, Journal of
Discourses,
1:50-51 1854)
Friday 9th April 1852 . . . Another meeting this evening. President
B. Young taught that adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to
us. That he came to this world in a resurrected boy &c more hereafter.
(Hosea Stout, Private Journal)
April 16, 1852 . . . We had the best Conference that I ever
attended during the time of the Conference President Brigham Young said
that our spirits were begotten before Adam came to the Earth, and that
Adam helped to make the Earth, that he had a Celestial boddy when he
came to the Earth, and that he brought he wife or one of his wives with
him, and that Eave was allso a Celestial being, that they eat of the
fruit of the grond untill they begat children from the Earth, he said
that Adam was onley God we would have, and that Christ was not begotten
of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father Adam. (Samuel Roger, Private
Journal MSS)
President Young followed & made many good remarks . . . He said
that our God was Father Adam. He was thewas Father Adam. He was the
Father of the Savior Jesus Christ--Our God was no more or less than Adam
..(Wilford Woodruff Private Journal, Feb 19. 1854)
I have learned by experience that there is but one God that
pertains to this people, and He is the Lord that pertains this
earth--the first man. That first man sent his own son to redeem the
world. (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 4:1:)
Is there in heaven of heavens a leader? Yes, and we cannot do
without one and that being the case, whoever he is may be called God.
Joseph said that Adam was our Father and God (Brigham Young, Journal
History of the Church, May 14, 1876)
At meeting of school of the prophet, President Young said Adam was
Michael, the Archangel and he was the Father of Jesus Christ and is our
God & that Joseph taught this principle. (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Dec.
16, 1867)
Listen to Zion Redemption's Radio hosted by Art Bulla and Aaron Kim on
Sunday from 3 to 4 (pst). Just go to
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?host_id=3513 All are invited to
call in live, email at art@artbulla.com, or by MSM artbulla@hotmail.com.
This show is dedicated to the redemption of Zion, revelations of Jesus
Christ, authority, Priesthood, Kingdom of God, doctrine discussed pertaining
to the salvation of Ephraim and Manasseh. During non broadcast hours you can
also listen to archived shows. Aaron Kim www.artbulla.com �
.
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis Account Vs. Adam God Doctrine |
18 Jun 2007 07:01:08 PM |
|
|
"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in
news:5dof91F356cqsU1@mid.individual.net:
But regarding the Genesis account of creation, we need to keep in mind
the type of people and conditions existing at the time Moses wrote
this early portion of the Old Testament. The children of Israel were
then ignorant and idolatrous and certainly not ready for the "pearls"
of the real Gospel.
Soft, brown pearls, perhaps.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
People in general do not know what wickedness there is in this pretended
Word of God. Brought up in habits of superstition, they take it for
granted that the Bible is true, and that it is good... Good heavens! it
is quite another thing; it is a book of lies wickedness and blasphemy;
for what can be a greater blasphemy than to ascribe the wickedness of man
to the orders of the Almighty?
- Thomas Paine, 'The Age of Reason', Citadel Press
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis Account Vs. Adam God Doctrine |
18 Jun 2007 10:28:07 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, Enkidu <fox_rgfszx@trashmail.net> bloodied us
up with this:
"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in
news:5dof91F356cqsU1@mid.individual.net:
But regarding the Genesis account of creation, we need to keep in mind
the type of people and conditions existing at the time Moses wrote
this early portion of the Old Testament. The children of Israel were
then ignorant and idolatrous and certainly not ready for the "pearls"
of the real Gospel.
Soft, brown pearls, perhaps.
Dripping out of a pig's *****.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis Account Vs. Adam God Doctrine |
18 Jun 2007 07:48:17 PM |
|
|
"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in message
news:5dof91F356cqsU1@mid.individual.net...
From: "Aaron Kim"
Subject: Genesis Account Vs. Adam God Doctrine
Date: Monday, June 18, 2007 3:23 PM
by Ogden Kraut
But regarding the Genesis account of creation, we need to keep in mind the
type of people and conditions existing at the time Moses wrote this early
portion of the Old Testament.
There is scant evidence that "Moses" even existed, and certainly none that
he wrote the old testiment.
The children of Israel were then ignorant and
idolatrous and certainly not ready for the "pearls" of the real Gospel.
Pearls? like preparing to murder your own son because some deranged "gawd"
is just testing (teasing) you?
These people were hardly capable of thinking for themselves, so Moses
could
give them only an abbreviated and symbolic story of the creation. This is
somewhat the same as when Christian parents tell their children that a
stork
brought them, satisfying them for the present.
The problem is, a fairy tale - different, but no less a fairy tale, WAS told
to them ........ and the TRUTH was never covered no matter how mush older
and smarter they became.
For many centuries the children of Israel had been slaves in Egypt.
Bull *****!
Their
religion had been reduced to the same level as that of the
Egyptians --worshipping statues and cows. It was a primitive religion, yet
it still persists in India to this day.
ALL religions are primative; they center on, and abuse, the basic fears,
hops and childish ignorance of human beings.
As ignorant as they were, Moses
tried to give them something they could understand that would elevate
their
thinking about the true God.
What "True God" (TM)?
You have EVIDENCE of this "True God"(TM)?
He began with the creation, and wrote Genesis
in hopes they would turn from idolatry because of this new understanding
of
their relationship with the Creator. You, too, apparently do not believe
Moses' account of Adam's genesis because in your conference talk you
raised
this question by asking: "Is any child ever begotten without a father?"
There is NO REASON ANYONE whould believe an invented fairy tale, allegedly
penned by some non-existant "prophet" about some unsupportable gawd!
(Ensign, p. 18) The Old Testament says that Adam was made like an adobe,
but
the New Testament traces the genealogy of Christ back to "Adam which was
the
son of God" (Luke 3:38) Either Adam was made like a brick or he was
begotten
in the flesh by his father in heaven.
(ppssssttttt.... that's one of the reasons the bible, and your crap, is so
insane; EVERYONE had to have been traced back to Adam - according to your
fable!)
INTRODUCTION:
THE MYSTERY OF CREATION
Theologians, scientists, philosophers, in fact nearly all mortals, at
some time, have wondered how mankind got on this earth. For many centuries
various theories have been pro-pounded and discussed, but seldom have any
of
them carried the spirit of truth.
Until science became more prominent, there were NO "theories" about life on
earth, only your, and a bunch of other, fairy tales!
Until the time of the Gospel Restoration
in 1830, speculation and disputation had caused contention and division
among religious sects and scientists alike. Most people still remember the
famous "Monkey Trial" that was debated for several days in the
courts--between Darwin's theory and Biblical statements. Nothing was
proved
or resolved, and people remained in the same state of confusion as before.
Gospel restoration? What the hell is that supposed to be .... spin?
The "monkey" trail was about whether a particular law was broken - not
whether evolution of cration were right.
With the restoration of the Gospel, the Lord said:
For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid
from
before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the
dispensation
of the fulness of times. (D & C. 124:41)
The great prophet, Joseph Smith, understood what the Lord was saying and
he commented:
Ahhhh..... so this is Mormon bull *****, instead of the usual fanatical
christian bull *****.
Funny how they all look the same.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RetroProphet" |
|
| Title: Re: Ribs and parthenogenesis |
19 Jun 2007 01:24:41 AM |
|
|
3. So, too, the Bible makes a strange statement about the creation of woman:
that a rib was taken out of the man's side and was used as a crucible for
the beginning of females. By some mysterious power this rib was added to,
molded, and breathed on to miraculously become a woman. This is certainly
an interesting story, but neither can it be taken literally--so the mystery
continues.
4. If God really did use mud and a rib for His method of propagation, it
seems He would have continued to use such a method from then on. There
would be no reason for adopting some other system. On the other hand, if
propagation, as we see it in living things today, was the original method
of introducing man to the earth, there would be no reason to use mud and a
rib.
I believe that this is actually a pretty good description. If you made a
man, probably out of whatever life was already existing but not quite a
man, or making a hybrid, to make a female of the same thing you need a
stem cell -- an undifferentiated cell. This kind of cell can be found in
bone marrow if I remember right. Anyway, if you clone it you'll just get
another man. But, male has an XY chromosome pair, and female has XX
chromosome pair. If you remove the Y from a stem cell and replace it with
another X, in theory at least you'd clone a woman from the man. You
cannot do it the other way; you cannot clone a man from a woman because a
woman does not have a Y chromosome.
There are two major types of stem cells:
embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells,
which are also called tissue stem cells.
Tissue stem cells found in a differentiated tissue
can only differentiate to yield all the specialised cell
types of the tissue from which it originated.
In other words, you can't use bone marrow tissue stem
cells to "get another man" or "a woman from the man"
-- you can only get specialized bone marrow cell-types
from them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis Account Vs. Adam God Doctrine |
18 Jun 2007 05:36:14 PM |
|
|
On Jun 18, 11:28 pm, "Aaron Kim" <a...@artbulla.com> wrote:
From: "Aaron Kim"
Subject: Genesis Account Vs. Adam God Doctrine
Date: Monday, June 18, 2007 3:23 PM
by Ogden Kraut
But regarding the Genesis account of creation, we need to keep in mind the
type of people and conditions existing at the time Moses wrote this early
portion of the Old Testament. The children of Israel were then ignorant and
idolatrous and certainly not ready for the "pearls" of the real Gospel.
These people were hardly capable of thinking for themselves, so Moses could
give them only an abbreviated and symbolic story of the creation. This is
somewhat the same as when Christian parents tell their children that a stork
brought them, satisfying them for the present.
So, you think that people should be told that the universe was created
by some sort of god, because they are not capable of grasping the
intricacies of cosmology, astrophysics etc.
The human race told me to tell you to go ***** yourself.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis Account Vs. Adam God Doctrine |
19 Jun 2007 02:21:21 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:28:49 -0700, "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com>
wrote:
<snip>
There's something profoundly satisfying about being able to tell that
a post is completely unadulterated crap just from the subject line.
Sometimes one *can* judge a book by its cover.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis Account Vs. Adam God Doctrine |
18 Jun 2007 08:05:16 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:28:49 -0700, Aaron Kim <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote:
From: "Aaron Kim"
Subject: Genesis Account Vs. Adam God Doctrine
Date: Monday, June 18, 2007 3:23 PM
by Ogden Kraut
But regarding the Genesis account of creation, we need to keep in mind the
type of people and conditions existing at the time Moses wrote this early
Next time you feel a need to pass along another giant turd, leave alt.atheism
out. We're not fecal conasours such as yourself.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Ribs and parthenogenesis |
18 Jun 2007 11:41:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:28:49 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
3. So, too, the Bible makes a strange statement about the creation of woman:
that a rib was taken out of the man's side and was used as a crucible for
the beginning of females. By some mysterious power this rib was added to,
molded, and breathed on to miraculously become a woman. This is certainly
an interesting story, but neither can it be taken literally--so the mystery
continues.
4. If God really did use mud and a rib for His method of propagation, it
seems He would have continued to use such a method from then on. There
would be no reason for adopting some other system. On the other hand, if
propagation, as we see it in living things today, was the original method
of introducing man to the earth, there would be no reason to use mud and a
rib.
I believe that this is actually a pretty good description. If you made a
man, probably out of whatever life was already existing but not quite a
man, or making a hybrid, to make a female of the same thing you need a
stem cell -- an undifferentiated cell. This kind of cell can be found in
bone marrow if I remember right. Anyway, if you clone it you'll just get
another man. But, male has an XY chromosome pair, and female has XX
chromosome pair. If you remove the Y from a stem cell and replace it with
another X, in theory at least you'd clone a woman from the man. You
cannot do it the other way; you cannot clone a man from a woman because a
woman does not have a Y chromosome.
As to why God didn't continue this method, that would seem obvious --
engaging a complex laboratory procedure or just let your men and women
breed. If they are the very first of their kind, they may not know much
about it and will probably have to be told what to do, "multiply and
replenish the earth." No indication is given as to when the earth could
be considered replenished but I suspect we are pretty close to full.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Ribs and parthenogenesis |
19 Jun 2007 03:24:00 AM |
|
|
"Michael" <newsuser2@orneveien.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.06.19.04.40.56.529119@orneveien.org...
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:28:49 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
3. So, too, the Bible makes a strange statement about the creation of
woman:
that a rib was taken out of the man's side and was used as a crucible for
the beginning of females. By some mysterious power this rib was added to,
molded, and breathed on to miraculously become a woman. This is certainly
an interesting story, but neither can it be taken literally--so the
mystery
continues.
4. If God really did use mud and a rib for His method of propagation, it
seems He would have continued to use such a method from then on.
There
would be no reason for adopting some other system. On the other hand,
if
propagation, as we see it in living things today, was the original method
of introducing man to the earth, there would be no reason to use mud and
a
rib.
I believe that this is actually a pretty good description. If you made a
man, probably out of whatever life was already existing but not quite a
man, or making a hybrid, to make a female of the same thing you need a
stem cell -- an undifferentiated cell. This kind of cell can be found in
bone marrow if I remember right. Anyway, if you clone it you'll just get
another man. But, male has an XY chromosome pair, and female has XX
chromosome pair. If you remove the Y from a stem cell and replace it with
another X, in theory at least you'd clone a woman from the man. You
cannot do it the other way; you cannot clone a man from a woman because a
woman does not have a Y chromosome.
IOW - Adam "married and screwed" his own female altered clone.
Hell, that type of warped incest isn't even in the law books yet.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Ribs and parthenogenesis |
19 Jun 2007 01:43:31 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:41:00 -0600, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2007.06.19.04.40.56.529119@orneveien.org>
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:28:49 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
3. So, too, the Bible makes a strange statement about the creation of woman:
that a rib was taken out of the man's side and was used as a crucible for
the beginning of females. By some mysterious power this rib was added to,
molded, and breathed on to miraculously become a woman. This is certainly
an interesting story, but neither can it be taken literally--so the mystery
continues.
4. If God really did use mud and a rib for His method of propagation, it
seems He would have continued to use such a method from then on. There
would be no reason for adopting some other system. On the other hand, if
propagation, as we see it in living things today, was the original method
of introducing man to the earth, there would be no reason to use mud and a
rib.
I believe that this is actually a pretty good description. If you made a
man, probably out of whatever life was already existing but not quite a
man, or making a hybrid, to make a female of the same thing you need a
stem cell -- an undifferentiated cell. This kind of cell can be found in
bone marrow if I remember right. Anyway, if you clone it you'll just get
another man. But, male has an XY chromosome pair, and female has XX
chromosome pair. If you remove the Y from a stem cell and replace it with
another X, in theory at least you'd clone a woman from the man. You
cannot do it the other way; you cannot clone a man from a woman because a
woman does not have a Y chromosome.
As to why God didn't continue this method, that would seem obvious --
Yeah, very bloody obvious!
There is no such thing as a "God", outside of some childish and naive
imaginations.
engaging a complex laboratory procedure or just let your men and women
breed. If they are the very first of their kind, they may not know much
about it and will probably have to be told what to do, "multiply and
replenish the earth." No indication is given as to when the earth could
be considered replenished but I suspect we are pretty close to full.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis Account Vs. Adam God Doctrine |
18 Jun 2007 11:34:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:28:49 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
Either Adam was made like a brick or he was begotten
in the flesh by his father in heaven.
Quite often I believe that both presentations can be correct, but
incomplete. We have little doubt that Adam's body was "made", but we also
know that Adam is called a son of God. Therefore, there's a portion of
Adam that was made (just as a portion of each of us that is made) and a
portion of Adam was eternal, just as a portion of each of us is eternal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nosterill" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis Account Vs. Adam God Doctrine |
19 Jun 2007 04:31:02 AM |
|
|
On Jun 19, 5:34 am, Michael <newsus...@orneveien.org> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:28:49 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
Either Adam was made like a brick or he was begotten
in the flesh by his father in heaven.
Quite often I believe that both presentations can be correct, but
incomplete. We have little doubt that Adam's body was "made",
Who is "we" in this context? It certainly doesn't include me and
practically none of the aa regulars.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis Account Vs. Adam God Doctrine |
18 Jun 2007 06:27:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:28:49 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
Subject: Genesis Account
More badly done fiction...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis Account Vs. Adam God Doctrine |
19 Jun 2007 02:22:30 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:27:19 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:28:49 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
Subject: Genesis Account
More badly done fiction...
"The Wrath of Khan" was *superbly* done fiction...!
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis Account Vs. Adam God Doctrine |
18 Jun 2007 10:27:14 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> bloodied us
up with this:
Subject: Genesis Account Vs. Adam God Doctrine
Please take notice:
Only atheists reply to your preaching, because it violates our charter. In
the Christian groups you are preaching to the choir. Here, you are fair
game.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
