|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 3496 days) Posts: 28 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What is your evidence that you know that no first man ever existed ? Um, don't you know how babies are born? You don't really think that God poofed some dude into existence, do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I like the way all you guys come over from the science forums to argue with this Christian in the Bible Study room. Excuse me? Besides the Coffee House, the forum I post most into is the Faith and Belief forum. Most of my posts are outside of the science forums. And I am a Christian. WTF?
proof If I believed that - "poof" when some lightening struck on a pool of primordial soup and, presto, the first living micro organism came into being, would that be less miraculous ? I would have to go with "yes". That would be less miraculous than the hand of God being involved. And you seem to only include natural processes. But I don't know why you picked that particular scenario... Anyways, now answer my questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
From Message 79
I believe that last posts I read from you were in the Intelligent Design area. Maybe you should base your next judgement of a full assessment, then.
I think abiogenesis in this proposed manner would be no less miraculous than God forming man from the dust of the ground and breathing the breath of life into his nostrils and man becomming a living soul. What do you mean by "miraculous"? I don't see how anything can be as miraculous as the actual hand of God being involved.
But I don't know why you picked that particular scenario... It is a good example of something asked of me to believe by some antitheistic evolutionists. Oh, well they're wrong. But let's not get into abiogenesis, this thread is about the first man not the first life.
Anyways, now answer my questions. Sure, after I leave this writing field and take a quick re-look at your question. Then I'll quote you and give you my reply. You could've right-clicked on the link to the message you were replying to that was below the writing field, and then picked "open in new tab". Then you could've reviewed the message and replied to my question in this same post rather than submitting this one and starting a new one. Just sayin' From Message 80 Um, don't you know how babies are born?
Yes. That's how the "first man" got here too. I use scare quotes, though, because its fairly impossible to draw a line to say that this particular hominin counts as a 'man' while that hominin that it came out of does not count as a 'man'. But, assuming that we wanted to draw that line somewhere, the first hominin that we would call a 'man' must have come out of a womb. We know that's how babies are born. Surely you can follow that logic, regardless of if you think its correct, yes?
You don't really think that God poofed some dude into existence, do you? When I first became a reader of the Bible I had my doubts. But I did not start my reading in the Old Testament. I was very suspicious of it and had a very large naturalistic filter. In my case I first became impressed with the character of Jesus in the New Testament. And that to the point that I eventually settled on deciding that His integrity, wisdom and knowledge in this pertaining to God's work and human life was trustworthy. So I gradually developed an attitude that what was believed by Christ must be true. And you say you don't have enough faith for abiogenesis... You have an awful lot of assumptions and unknowns in your case, like whether or not the people who were saying that Jesus said something were correct in what he said. There's just not enough factual information there to be basing a denial of basic known biology on. I mean, maybe everything written really is correct and its just your own personal interpretation that is faulty. You must have a huge amount of trust in your own self to figure that you got this one right, and all the scientists are just wrong about biology.
And I noticed that Christ took the Tanach (Old Testament) seriously indeed. So I decided that if Jesus took it seriously then I should also take it seriously. Took it seriously, sure. Thought that the events they described definitely happened in real life? Not so much. Jesus's audience would have been familiar with those stories. Jesus was found of using parables to make a point. I don't see that Jesus using the myths that people were familiar with as being an endorsement that those myths definitely happened for real. I could use the phrase: "just like Dark Vader was Luke Skywalkers father...." and that would not mean that I thought that story actually happened. It just means that I think you are familiar with story and it will make my point. You know, Jesus referenced Jonah being in the whale for 3 days, do you think that one really happened too? Come on now, a guy living in a whales belly for three days!? Don't you think that's a bit ridiculous?
Reading how the Lord Jesus referred to these portions of Genesis and the story of the beginning of creation, I decided that if it was good enough for Jesus to teach from, then I should take the history seriously. What if you're wrong? Is it really worth a public denial of some of the most basic know biology, because you think that you're correctly interpreting What Jesus must have thought?
Adam was not born out of a previous female womb of any kind. But he was formed from the dust of the ground and God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and Adam became a living soul. Mmhmm, and some guy totally lived in a whale for three days
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
As you can see in the above samples Jesus was not speaking in these instances in parables, though in other places He did. Right, sometimes he used parables and sometimes he didn't. Neneveh was a real place, the Garden of Eden was not. As I said, referencing a place that is not real is not saying that you think it actually existed.
Loving Jesus Christ and living in oneness with Him was the best possible human life I could have lived. Its a win win situation, I feel. I see. So you are willing to deny basic known biology to hold up your preferred version of reality. The thing that I think is dangerous, is that you're putting all your chips on your own interpretation of the particulars. What if you're wrong and Jesus knew that the Garden of Eden was a myth but he was just using a story that his audience was familiar with? Is it really worth denying some very basic and known biology because you think that you're correct in interpreting Jesus as saying that the story actually did happen in real life?
Exactly where in your post did you prove that there was no first man named Adam ? You've seen where babies come from with your own eyes: they are born out of wombs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why not cut to the chase and present your proof that Adam the first man never existed? You, yourself, have seen how babies are born. That's how men get here. They come out of wombs. There could not be a first man because he would have no womb to come out of.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
There could not be a first man because he would have no womb to come out of.
That is true unless special creation was involved. Well there you go. You're willing to deny a basic known fact of biology to uphold your preferred version of reality. And you're willing to do this based on your own interpretation about what a book says that a guy said about a myth because you think that him mentioning the myth means that he thought the myth really happened. You don't see any issues with that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
And I responded that its not enough for me to move to a position that Jesus was deluded or lied. You forgot about the scenario where you're just misunderstanding him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What is your FACT that you think I am suppressing ? Men are born out of wombs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Men are born out of wombs.
1.) Men are born out of wombs 2.) Adam (if he existed) was a man. 3.) Therefore Adam (if he existed) was born out of a womb ? Is that your line of reasoning ? More like: 1) Men are born out of wombs.2) Adam wasn't. C) The story of Adam is a myth and didn't really happen. Ya know, the story has a talking snake in it too... Its obviously not a for-real story.
Well, I don't agree that the first man could not be an exception if it serve the Creator's purpose to make Adam another way. I'm not saying that God couldn't have created the first man. I'm saying that you're denying some basic known biology. And further, that your reasoning for doing so is too thin and weak to support such a blatant denial of something so basic and known.
Do you consider it a small thing that Jesus Christ seems to have regarded Genesis as history? I'm not convinced that he did regard it as history. I think he just used a story that his audience was familiar with. Kinda like if I said something about Darth Vader being Luke Skywalker's father.
I've consider that. And that is always a consideration as I progress through the years studying the Bible. But some things are repeated from more than one angle. This repetition tends to suggest that I didn't get His teaching wrong on the matter. Repeated where? Within the synotpic gospels? Those are just telling the same story. Heck, let's look at your passages:
quote: Jesus is just reiterating what his audience knew of as what Moses had written for them. That isn't necessarily saying that the events actually happened.
quote: If you change that too: "Haven't you seen, that Darth Vader is Luke's father", then you can see that it is not necessarily saying that the things actually happened.
quote: That one's a real stretch to take him speaking generally and then say that he must not only be directly reference Genesis, but also that he must have taken it as actually happening. Do you have any other passages where Jesus seems to be taking Genesis as actual events?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
...Jesus would be as ignorant about the fables in Genesis as those who lived alongside him. How do you know? Supporting your claim is not only good for your argument, but even those who don't disagree with you will get the opportunity to look into it and find something to learn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Oh okay, I see what you're saying now. I misunderstood you before. Thanks for explaining.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024