Jesus

[madelyne]

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)

[saucy]

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 May 31, 2004 by saucy

[Fluffybunny]

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

Only if you aren't doing it correctly.

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

[Chauncy]

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.

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?

[Fluffybunny]

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.

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?

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?

[saucy]

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.

[Aslan]

This thread is, I feel, lurching toward death.

[Mentalcase]

Uh huh.

[Fluffybunny]

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.

[jeceris]

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 May 31, 2004 by Aslan

[jeceris]

speaking of creationalism vs evolution, ignore the long quote.

i try to pick out the one line i want, and CREATE the memo, but i don't seem to have EVOLVED enough in computer land to get the one line i want. i just get the whole quote.

have decided to stop EVOLVING and will CREATE only with my own words

[saucy]

Not to sound like I'm insulting you, which I am not, but you obviously never read the bible. There's a story in there about the tower of babel where everyone was trying to reach heaven by building a tower and God didn't like that so to mix them all up, changed the language of the people so everyone spoke a different language. It would seem to me that if men were a form of ape or something, language wouldn't be more than a howel or something. Then, language takes a huge turn and is greatly more advanced then slowly starts to become less complicated? I don't think so. Every language on the planet is simply derived from one original word, but another way of saying it. That's why the King James Version of the bible is so damn hard to understand because they translated it into english from Hebrew and Greek. It seems like the world is starting to accept one form of lanuage, that being english.

Edit; removed question regarding evolution, which is entirely off-topic.

Edited May 31, 2004 by Magikman

[Fluffybunny]

I don't know, that seems to be that course of man and it goes along with the bible.

Not to sound like I'm insulting you, which I am not, but you obviously never read the bible.

I have been reading the bible for many years, I would be willing to bet longer than you have been alive...good try though. You assume that because I bring up mistakes that are in the bible that I haven't studied it. I say that because I have studied the bible with an open mind I am able to see the flaws in an "unnerrant" book.

I also took many a biology course too when I was in college. I have looked at both sides of the matter, which from your posts seems to be more than you did. There is much to support evolution.

It would seem to me that if men were a form of ape or something, language wouldn't be more than a howel or something. 

For some it seems to be, but we are not apes, so that argument is null. The ape thing would be a good thread in yet another creationism vs. evolution debate.

Then, language takes a huge turn and is greatly more advanced then slowly starts to become less complicated?

I don't understand where you are coming from on this? How is it that language has become less complicated?

It seems like the world is starting to accept one form of lanuage, that being english. 

That would be nice. Lets hope that happens.

Edit; removed references to evolution

That's why the King James Version of the bible is so damn hard to understand because they translated it into english from Hebrew and Greek.

And sometimes mistranslated too. The councel of Nicea under constantine seemed to have done some interesting editing. I would hope that in your study of the bible you would look at the Apocrypha as well, as in my opinion it adds to a fuller picture of who Jesus was and what he may have been.

Edited May 31, 2004 by Magikman

[Stellar]

Oh god, I so want to comment on Saucy's post... but its not on topic and i fear that if theres one more post about it the thread will get closed (mods, if saucy makes a post just TO get this thread closed, please take action). I do however feel confident that there will not be another theory to replace evolution... adaptations at most. And if there is a new theory, it'll be very similar to that of evolution since we're already dealing with evidence.

[Chauncy]

Then, language takes a huge turn and is greatly more advanced then slowly starts to become less complicated? I don't think so.

Language evolved untill it reached a point where full communication became possible. If you are communicating with someone effectively then you don't need to change it. Language is still evolving for sure, look at all the new slang terms and what not. Also if you look at how language forms then you get a good idea of how languages evolves, look up 'creoles' and 'pigeons'.

I always pictured our language to be a direct result of our emotions.

Here's a good study of language.

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/5/2/4.html

Man started out in the middle east and history shows that civilization moved outward from the middle east, up into Europe and Asia, down into Egypt and Africa, then moved across the pond to America. I don't know, that seems to be that course of man and it goes along with the bible.

Mankind didn't start there, civilization did.

[Magikman]

Oh god, I so want to comment on Saucy's post... but its not on topic and i fear that if theres one more post about it the thread will get closed.

Without hesitation.

Saucy, please refrain from mentioning anything relating to or dealing with evolution. This topic was allowed as it touches on the historical aspect of Jesus and whether or not he really existed. Let's keep the debate focused on that particular subject, please.

[Chauncy]

Here's a good link that deals with the life of Jesus, this link will bring you to a page where the prophecies in the OT are listed, other info is found elsewhere on the site. Its an interesting read regardless of your religious stance.

http://www.whoisjesus-really.com/english/preview.htm

[Stellar]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Check out that article on the proof of the existance of Jesus.

[trublvr]

And sometimes mistranslated too. The councel of Nicea under constantine seemed to have done some interesting editing. I would hope that in your study of the bible you would look at the Apocrypha as well, as in my opinion it adds to a fuller picture of who Jesus was and what he may have been.

Fluffybunny,

Glad that you mentioned this. The Council of Nicea has become quite the target for folks who believe that the New Testament as we have come to know it has been altered by some stodgy old fundamentalist dudes from the 4th century who acted at the behest of Constantine to take all the cool stuff about Jesus out of the New Testament.

The primary reason for the Nicean Council getting together in AD 325 was to address a heresy concerning the divinity of Jesus. Regardless of what one thinks of the Nicean Council or Constantine (can't stand this dude, myself ), they made no pronouncements about the New Testament documents! Below is a very thorough and meticulous site which includes every scrap of minutae you could ever want to know concerning the Nicean Council:

The Council of Nicaea and the Bible

Whether folks believe the New Testament documents or the Christian Way, this is a myth that needs to expire in light of the facts.

[Chauncy]

Here's another thorough website about the Council

http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum01.htm

There was more than just the one council of Nicea there was subsequent ones as well. The first one was in 325.

[Stellar]

Check it out: The Dark Side of Jesus http://www.nobeliefs.com/jesus.htm

[Kismit]

I'm going to end this one , on the most part people where behaved ,however I'm at my witt's end with the creationist /Evolutionist bickering that takes place on a regular basis . I am sorry that the ones who did post well and apropriately have to be punished because of a topic that seems to be able to leek its way into just about every thread on the forum lately .

Edited June 1, 2004 by Kismit