Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Jesus


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
371 replies to this topic

#346    Kismit

Kismit

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,680 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2001
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New zealand

Posted 30 May 2004 - 07:19 AM

QUOTE (saucybetterbesquirmingandwillbebythetimeI'mfinishedwithyou)
Let's just say Adam was getting a little tired of watching the monkeys and wanted some for himself. Woman was made for that reason.


I missed that one thank you Aslan ..


So Saucy,  I'm asuming you mean women were made for parasite removel ,
  in a social grooming sence . Or was it something else ?

  








#347    trublvr

trublvr

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 214 posts
  • Joined:05 Apr 2004
  • Location:New Orleans

  • An open mind is like an open mouth: Every now and then it must bite down on something solid.

Posted 30 May 2004 - 07:30 AM

QUOTE
QUOTE
Why would creating Eve from Adam's rib make make the Eve subordinate?


The implied notion here is that only 'man' was created in the exact image of god, Eve then appears to have been chosen/created second. Why did God not create them both at the exact same time? Why was Adams rib necessary first in order to make Eve?


   The Hebrew word for "man" you are referring to could mean "humankind" and "man" (in term of maleness) depending upon the context.  Genesis ch 1, v 27 goes like this: So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.   Both "man" and "him" here refer to humankind in general, not a male/males specifically.  Jewish commentators routinely point this out.

   The only reason I could muster for God creating Eve second was that he wanted to show Adam his need for her (and not just for sex) before creating her (with the animal-naming event).  But why should being created second point to inferiority?  For example, kids who are born second in the bible sometimes fare better than those born first (Manassah and Ephraim, Esau and Jacob, for example).  

    As it pertains to the creation of Eve from Adam's rib, why does this point to inferiority?  I don't understand all the in's and out's of why God did things this way, but I don't see any inferior status demonstrated.  

    

If truth is not a matter of majority vote, neither is it a matter of minority dissent.        

                                                --Douglas Groothius

#348    Dan Luna

Dan Luna

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Joined:30 May 2004
  • Location:Manchester

  • Ghost of a moon technician from a future long ago.

Posted 30 May 2004 - 02:58 PM

Hi, I just joined having given up debating with creationists on another site, but the same tangled arguments seem to be going on here. I finally got free by realising that this is a complete non issue for professional scientists. You don't get a chapter at the start of every scientific paper explaining why creationism is wrong, they just get on with the research based on the enormous amount of scientific knowledge we already have. Now I'm going to just walk away and look for a topic where I might learn something about the real world.


#349    saucy

saucy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

  • Peter Piper picked a pack of pickled peppers.

Posted 30 May 2004 - 09:09 PM

sorry if what I said sounded offensive to some of you, but the way I interpreted it was that Adam was grieved he didn't have a mate after seeing all the other animals had one.  Genesis Chapter 2, verse 18 "and the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him"

Then in verse 20. Adam was giving names to all the animals and "for there was not found a help meet for him."

"meet" is hebrew meaning "opposite", literally it is "according to the opposite of him, meaning that she will correspond to him.  God delegated authority to man, since the act of naming the animals shows lordship or dominion.  It was also a spiritual exercise to prepare Adam and to make him aware of his aloneness as verse 20 indicates.  None of the animals "corresponds" with him.  That's the literal intrepretation of the first part of the bible as explained in my King James Verison of the bible.  Adam saw the animals had other mates that "corresponded" with each other and he didn't, which made him lonely.  It isn't really 21st century and you can call me a sexist if you want, but woman was created so man can have someone to correspond with him.  God said to go forth and be fruitful.  Without women, how can we do that?  Truly, if men weren't lonely and didn't need to multiply, why would he have made women?  Now, I'm not saying women were just created for man's sexual pleasure.  Man was given his organs for the very same reason.  We were all part of the same plan, to go forth and multiply.  That's why we were given sex organs, to reproduce and the pleasure part of it was a gift from God.  That's all I'm saying.  Casual sex is wrong.  I don't know about anyones sexual history here and I don't care, so I really didn't say you specifically shouldn't have casual sex.  Nobody should.  If you choose to, that's your business.  The way I interpreted the bible, women were created because man was lonely and saw all the other animals had mates and he didn't.  Am I wrong?



#350    Kismit

Kismit

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,680 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2001
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New zealand

Posted 30 May 2004 - 09:49 PM



Saucy ,
      look at that, and you did it without alienating half the posters on the board this time.
   Much better .

And it's a good thing too because I believe, atleast this woman was created for tick
   removal and pest control . original.gif  


#351    madelyne

madelyne

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 34 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2004
  • Location:los angeles

  • Being powerful is like being a lady, if you have to say you are you aren't.-Margaret Thatcher

Posted 30 May 2004 - 10:45 PM

so, I know this is moving way off topic, but the theory that woman was made after adam as a helpmeet/mate, is this literally or just symbolic.  As there is very strong scientific information pointing towards evolution.  I might be wrong but I have read that male genitalia didn't even evolve untill thousands of years after life began.  (just a thought)


#352    saucy

saucy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

  • Peter Piper picked a pack of pickled peppers.

Posted 31 May 2004 - 04:39 PM

That's just further proof that evolution didn't happen.  I don't want to turn this into another long, never ending debate on evolution, but if they say that the male parts didn't evolve until later, then that has to be wrong.  It's common sense that females can't reproduce without males.  Females can't get other females pregnant.  You can look at biblical interpretation the way you want.  If you believe in evolution, it's impossible to believe in the bible.  The bible says God created man, then created woman from man.  The way I described it is directly from the bible and should be interpreted literally.  How you believe may be different, but that's up to you.  If you refuse that women were created just for a mate/meet for man, then that's up to you.  Thought I believe that is true, I do not believe males should treat females as they have over the years.  Women should have opinions and have credability and be able to work if she wants and her body is her temple and she shouldn't be a sex-slave for man.  Sex is purely for reproduction, not for any other reason.  I think women who has the strength and will to tell men no and who want to wait until marriage are awesome.  I'm looking for a girl like that.  Sorry if I sound preachy, but i'm a preacher so I tend to preach.  Man was created first and it was God's vision that man populate the face of the earth and in order to do that, he had to of created women.  That's why there are males and females so the human race can multiply.

Oh yeah, Kismit, can I stop squirming now?  

Edited by saucy, 31 May 2004 - 04:40 PM.


#353    Fluffybunny

Fluffybunny

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,136 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male

  • "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
    Thomas Paine

Posted 31 May 2004 - 04:43 PM

QUOTE
Sex is purely for reproduction, not for any other reason.


Only if you aren't doing it correctly. rolleyes.gif

I can't believe that some folks still hold onto this opinion. Amazing.

Too many people on both sides of the spectrum have fallen into this mentality that a full one half of the country are the enemy for having different beliefs...in a country based on freedom of expression. It is this infighting that allows the focus to be taken away from "we the people" being able to watch, and have control over government corruption and ineptitude that is running rampant in our leadership.

People should be working towards fixing problems, not creating them.

#354    Chauncy

Chauncy

    Quixotic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts
  • Joined:13 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

  • "Sanity may be madness but the maddest of all is to see life as it is and not as it should be." (from) Don Quixote

Posted 31 May 2004 - 05:34 PM

QUOTE
That's just further proof that evolution didn't happen


After getting ripped to shreds via the evolution debate, you still say stuff like this.
There is NO proof that says evolution didn't happen, let alone 'further' proof.

If you have said proof saucy then submit it to the scientific community for analysis.

It gives me a lump in my gut when you say these things because you are not saying them based on scientific evidence,but to prove biblical creation.


QUOTE
Man was created first and it was God's vision that man populate the face of the earth and in order to do that, he had to of created women. That's why there are males and females so the human race can multiply.


So you believe that we were started with only two people and through incestual relations populated the globe?......doesn't make a lot of sense when we know how detrimental incest can be to the offspring, not to mention the perils of a limited gene pool......but this makes more sense to you then evolution?

user posted image


As long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost and science can never regress.
Julius Robert Oppenheimer. (1904-1967)
Posted Image

#355    Fluffybunny

Fluffybunny

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,136 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male

  • "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
    Thomas Paine

Posted 31 May 2004 - 06:02 PM

QUOTE (saucy @ May 31 2004, 09:39 AM)
Women should have opinions and have credability and be able to work if she wants and her body is her temple and she shouldn't be a sex-slave for man.  

I am glad we agree on that matter, it is good to find common ground in such a difficult topic. I wonder what the bible says about that though? hmmm...

In Corinthians it says:
14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

14:35
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

And in ephesians it says:
5:22
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

5:24
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Well I thought we were onto something there, but I guess not.

QUOTE
It's common sense that females can't reproduce without males.


Wouldn't common sense also say that all that is would have taken more than six days to create?

QUOTE
If you believe in evolution, it's impossible to believe in the bible.
The literal translation anyway. In the bible Jesus was big on parables...could the genesis story be a parable as well?



Too many people on both sides of the spectrum have fallen into this mentality that a full one half of the country are the enemy for having different beliefs...in a country based on freedom of expression. It is this infighting that allows the focus to be taken away from "we the people" being able to watch, and have control over government corruption and ineptitude that is running rampant in our leadership.

People should be working towards fixing problems, not creating them.

#356    saucy

saucy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

  • Peter Piper picked a pack of pickled peppers.

Posted 31 May 2004 - 06:45 PM

Chauncy, I don't need a freakin' scientist to tell me that females can't reproduce with females.  If your precious evolution tells us that male reproductive organs didn't start to form for thousands of years later, then how did we reproduce?  Duh!  We couldn't have.  Adam and Eve had sons, three of them.  One killed another one.  Each of them went out and found a wife, which leads me to believe that God created them a wife as well, but it wasn't mentioned in the bible.  Cain was roaming around after leaving his parents and found a woman in the woods.  

Let me explain something to you.  You don't seem to understand that you need little pieces of the puzzle to make up the whole big picture.  If one little piece is missing from the puzzle, you do not have a complete picture.  That's the way evolution is.  I have provided the small little details that prove evolution couldn't have happened.  You all think you debunked my arguments, but you haven't.  All you keep saying is because the scientific evidence is geared towards creationism, it isn't really scientific evidence and shouldn't be trusted.  That's wrong.  I'm willing to bet that all we thought about evolution right now will be proven wrong in ten years and there will be more theories stuffed down our throats that really don't make sense.  Just because a scientist says something doesn't make it true.  If humans have evolved from a simple ape-like creature, then there should be millions of years of transitional species to prove it.  There aren't any.  You keep saying there is and stick your tongues out at me, but you can't prove it.  You can't prove it because indeed there are none.  If you can't find the overall, 100% damning evidence that evolution happen, then how can you say it happened?  Evolution is simply an idea one, yes one, scientist thought could've been a possibility after looking at birds on an island.  He saw that the finches beaks have grown in size, but we now know the beaks of the finches change size yearly according to the environment.  Language is proof that evolution didn't happen.  Wasn't language suppose to get more difficult as we evolved into smarter species?  Weren't we supposed to have larger skulls now?  We don't.  Someone showed me a picture of skulls and the neanderthal's skull was larger than ours.  When scientists dig up a species, how do they know it's not an ape or a disfigured human?  They simply pass it off as a transitional species.  They can't even find a complete skeleton.  The most they've ever found is 40% of a skeleton.  In most cases they find a jaw bone or a tooth and saw it's proof of neanderthal man, but find out later it's a donkey or a horse.  

I haven't been ripped to shreds on evolution.  The fact that you believe it just shows you're the one who really doesn't know what you're talking about.  You keep defending the idea, but you yourself have no proof to back up what you say.  The true idea of science is learning, but nobody here is willing to learn.  You think you know all there is, but in fact just took in what someone else told you, like a teacher who probably didn't know what he or she was talking about.  You have to look at both sides of the spectrum before coming to the final conclusion.  Like I just said, you cannot have the whole picture if some of the smaller pieces are missing.  Too many small pieces are missing when it comes to evolution.  In fact, those pieces didn't even come in the box.


#357    Aslan

Aslan

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,523 posts
  • Joined:05 Jun 2003
  • Location:Czech Republic

  • Scariest Member of the Six Worst Men of the Apfelschnaps

Posted 31 May 2004 - 06:52 PM

This thread is, I feel, lurching toward death. dontgetit.gif  


#358    Mentalcase

Mentalcase

    Space Cadet

  • Member
  • 5,346 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chi-Town

  • Most Thugish Member of the Six Worst Men of the Apfelschnaps

Posted 31 May 2004 - 06:54 PM

Uh huh.

http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/  <~Ancient Aliens DEBUNKED!
I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence ~Richard Feynman http://www.myspace.com/7leafclover

#359    Fluffybunny

Fluffybunny

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,136 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male

  • "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
    Thomas Paine

Posted 31 May 2004 - 07:09 PM

QUOTE (saucy @ May 31 2004, 11:45 AM)
Let me explain something to you.  You don't seem to understand that you need little pieces of the puzzle to make up the whole big picture.  If one little piece is missing from the puzzle, you do not have a complete picture.  That's the way evolution is.

Hopefully I can get this in before this is shut down.

To add to your puzzle analogy: (I think that you should be aware that the puzzle is a good analogy. I like it. )

From a point of view of someone who believes in evolution, I think that we do have several pieces of the puzzle. As we add pieces it may or may not change the overall picture. Science is able to change when theories are shown to be incorrect, it is part of the scientific process, and we have seen theories get adapted when new information is found to change the picture of the puzzle. Science can and does adapt.

Creationism seems to already have and idea of what they want the picture to be, and only add the pieces of the puzzle if it were to fit the picture that they want. Anytime a piece of the puzzle comes along that doesn't fit the predestined picture, it is ignored. Like the evidence that support evolution, old earth...whatever the case may be.

Of course to keep this somewhat on topic, I think we would have to look at the parables of Jesus, and how helpful they were to peoples' understanding; what if the creation story was simply a parable to help simple minded folk to understand where they came from until they could take a better understanding of the matter.



Too many people on both sides of the spectrum have fallen into this mentality that a full one half of the country are the enemy for having different beliefs...in a country based on freedom of expression. It is this infighting that allows the focus to be taken away from "we the people" being able to watch, and have control over government corruption and ineptitude that is running rampant in our leadership.

People should be working towards fixing problems, not creating them.

#360    jeceris

jeceris

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,553 posts
  • Joined:19 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

  • THERE AIN'T NO DEVIL, IT'S JUST GOD WHEN HE'S DRUNK- TOM WAITS

Posted 31 May 2004 - 07:15 PM


To Saucy:

wow saucy, it's pretty clear which camp you stand in.
i don't believe in creationalism at all, presently i prefer evolution, and if another theory comes along which makes more sense to me in this world, then i will hold onto it.
i can't prove to you evolution makes more sense if you can't see it now, and none of us ever will.
on your point of language, i would have to disagree.
if the answer was creationalism, wouldn't we all be speaking the same language originally spoken to adam by god? sure there would be different dialects, but everybody, being a decendant of adam and eve would be speaking the same language.
because it's more likely we evolved, in tiny isolated pockets around the world, language became different for every community.
and if we were descedants of a & e, and one group started their own language, wouldn't god smite them for not speaking the "original lingo"
don't hang your hat on language as proof for creationalism, it doesn't work.

Edited by Aslan, 31 May 2004 - 07:48 PM.

ottawa senators hockey


there was THIS year




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users