Yet another religion-focused poll...

[bradleybadly]

here's a thought, adam and eve supposidly had 2 sons, cab and abel if i remember right. cabe kills abel, so they have one son left...then there is suddenly cities full of peoples...? um....where did the other son get his wife from because the only woman around is his mother and..... u get the point

Which is why it's such a fairy tale

[Jenos Ridan]

Yes! 4,000 years ago, two people ate a piece of fruit, and therefore, you are a sinful little bastard and will burn in hell for all eternity.

According to a strict, literal interpretation, yes, that is how it happened.

Please find my post on page 2.

[tzor]

Okay, picky here, but its a paradox, not an paradox lol (feel free to reciprocate)

I sit corrected, I can't believe I actually wrote that as I tend to speak the words as I write.

I'll go off topic for a moment:

• Specific relativity says that when two objects are conserned you can't tell which one is moving relative to the other.
• But in the twins paradox you can tell, the one who travelled is clearly younger.
• However in order for the twin to return he has to reverse direction.
• Changing direction is a type of acceleration. (Even if you make a curve, acceleration is based on the change in angular momentum so the change in direction is an acceleration.)
• Specific relativity doesn't involve acceleration so it no longer applies.

Tzor, I know what you mean, but check out that you've just assigned a "point of view" to a photon...

Yes I did assign a point of view to a photon. The photonic pov has interesting implications for our own pov. The same paradoxes that happen in the photonic pov might also happen in our own pov when considering what may or may be outside of our own spacetime. But then again I'm going off subject. We are supposed to be talking about the literalist view of Genesis and I keep trying to take us to the back door to the Catholic view of Genesis. Naughty Tzor.

[PLAYER57832]

Okay, picky here, but its a paradox, not an paradox lol (feel free to reciprocate)

Changing direction is a type of acceleration. (Even if you make a curve, acceleration is based on the change in angular momentum so the change in direction is an acceleration.)

Only if you define decceleration as a kind of acceleration (and yes, for you non-math types.. things are often so defined... because it is often easier to talk about the absolute numbers and the direction/signs "later" or seperately. So that you might talk of positive and negative acceleration, or just "acceleration" with the understanding that it includes both positive and negative numbers, rather than decceleration and acceleration)

[tzor]

Well it's get stranger than that. All decelerations are to some extent accelerations since you can always define the frame of reference to be such that you aren't moving in the first place, thus deceleration in one frame of reference could be acceleration in another. But even if the velocity was not changed (say a car going around a curve at a constant speed) the change in vector is an acceleration. (In part because it can be broken down into two sepeate vectors at 90 degree angles to each other and each of these vectors will see increases and decreases in their scalar values.

Note that while you can not tell which of the two objects is moving and which is not, you can tell which of the two objects is acceleating and which is not. The force of acceleration cannot be distinguished from the force of gravity, according to general relativity.

[rocky mountain]

here's a thought, adam and eve supposidly had 2 sons, cab and abel if i remember right. cabe kills abel, so they have one son left...then there is suddenly cities full of peoples...? um....where did the other son get his wife from because the only woman around is his mother and..... u get the point

Which is why it's such a fairy tale

*ahem*
Adam and Eve di not only have 2 sons. they had many more children (after all, they did live for a couple hundred years). Cain (not cab) and Abel were just the first and more highlighted because of Cain killing Abel.
Genesis 5:3-5: "When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died."
Everyone lived so long back then because the air was much purer, the Earth was quite new, and a few other things i knew, but have forgotten.
Seth was Adams 3rd son. Cain was first, then Abel. yes, the only other girls were their sisters, but that was not bad back then. the world needed population. it was all they could do at the time. after a while, families branched out and people would marry their cousins, then it was what it is now. it was fine back then.
so there you go. Cain and Abel were not Adam and Eve's only 2 sons. it is not "such a fairy tale."

[Ntetos]

Oh people would marry their sisters and brothers. It makes sense now.

[rocky mountain]

was that an honest post, or was it sarcastic? if it was a negative post then:

yes, the only other girls were their sisters, but that was not bad back then. the world needed population. it was all they could do at the time.

its not good now, but things change. i knew people would see it as disgusting or wrong or something. IT WAS FINE BACK THEN!!!

[MeDeFe]

I thought Seth was some ancient Egyptian god.

[tzor]

I thought Seth was some ancient Egyptian god.

Set (also spelled Seth, Sutekh or Seteh) is an ancient god, who was originally the god of the desert, storms, and chaos. Because of the developments in the Egyptian language over the 3,000 years that Set was worshipped, by the Greek period, the t in Set was pronounced so indistinguishably from th that the Greeks spelled it as (Seth).

[jonesthecurl]

It is clear that Adam fathers no girls Seth, who is born when Adam is 130. Eve is stated to be the mother of all. And yet Cain goes and starts a family before Seth is born.

[rocky mountain]

I thought Seth was some ancient Egyptian god.

even if Seth was an egyptian god, it doesn't mean its the same person. there are people named seth today that aren't the egyptian god.

[rocky mountain]

It is clear that Adam fathers no girls Seth, who is born when Adam is 130. Eve is stated to be the mother of all. And yet Cain goes and starts a family before Seth is born.

what do you mean Adam fathered no girls? how is that clear?

Genesis 5:4 "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters".

where does it say Cain started a family before Seth was born? it would be pretty hard for that to happen considering there were no females aside from his mother! (no he did not do anything with her!!!)

[jonesthecurl]

Sorry: that should read "before Seth".

[Ntetos]

was that an honest post, or was it sarcastic? if it was a negative post then:

yes, the only other girls were their sisters, but that was not bad back then. the world needed population. it was all they could do at the time.

its not good now, but things change. i knew people would see it as disgusting or wrong or something. IT WAS FINE BACK THEN!!!

When you say it was fine back then do you mean from moral or from biological view? It is proved that children whose parents are close relatives most of the times have health problems. Many members of royal families had such problems, because they could only marry royalty and often they could have some dinstinct relation. Not to mention how ridicoulous it is to say that Adam lived for 930 years.

[rocky mountain]

When you say it was fine back then do you mean from moral or from biological view?

both, i guess...
you may think that Adam living for 930 years is ridiculous, but i don't... neither one of us is going to change our opinion so there is no point in explaining/debating it.

[joecoolfrog]

When you say it was fine back then do you mean from moral or from biological view?

both, i guess...
you may think that Adam living for 930 years is ridiculous, but i don't... neither one of us is going to change our opinion so there is no point in explaining/debating it.

So do you know anybody 930 years old,read about it in any text book ?
It says so in the old Testament so it must be true yes ?
Come on you have a brain, you know deep down that it is ridiculous, learn to reconcile your faith with science, dont just swallow nonsense as literal truth.

[Juan_Bottom]

So do you know anybody 930 years old,read about it in any text book ?

Go to the Evolution Vs Creationism thread and see what PACKRAT had to say about that. Something about greenhouse effects making people giants and helping them to living longer....


I like how as time goes on people DO realize how silly the Bible sounds. But instead of abandoning it, in general they just get a looser and looser interpretaion of it.
Let it go people, you sound retarded.(no offence, retards!)jk!

It isn't literal anymore, now we have to read between the lines!?!

[PLAYER57832]

So do you know anybody 930 years old,read about it in any text book ?

Go to the Evolution Vs Creationism thread and see what PACKRAT had to say about that. Something about greenhouse effects making people giants and helping them to living longer....


I like how as time goes on people DO realize how silly the Bible sounds. But instead of abandoning it, in general they just get a looser and looser interpretaion of it.
Let it go people, you sound retarded.(no offence, retards!)jk!

It isn't literal anymore, now we have to read between the lines!?!

There are two common answers. One is that "years" was either outright mistranslated or used to mean "seasons". The other is that perhaps people DID live that long.

There are also references to Giants, born of sons of God and daughters of man... etc.

"literal" is spoken of within the Christian church in different contexts. My church considers it the literal world of God, BUT, there is a big problem when God tries to communicate concepts to our limited understanding. The failing is ours. Some things are literal in the sense that if I tell my son his grandmother or his pet each went to a "happier place", I am being literal. Literal, but not exactly the same as either a full blown medical description of death or an in depth analysis of what really happens to the soul ... even including the fact that his grandmother (despite any belief I have to the contrary) might not have ended up in the "happy place" and that whether animals go to heaven is debatable.

It is a miracle that this book has survived, essentially intact, with very, very little discrepancy or change for as long as it has across as many cultures as it has... particularly taking the Pre-Christian ages into account. That there might be so puzzles, discrepancies is no mystery. These things are outside of the prime context that God created all and is in control, that Christ died on the cross for our sins ... that there is good and bad and certain laws that people should follow, capped by the ultimate law of Christ to "love thy God and love thy neighbor as thyself". THAT that truth comes through, DESPITE these other failings (which it might actually turn out are not really failings, jsut things we could not understand at first), THAT is the miracle! And goes a long way toward "proving", to those of us who believe, that there is more than just a bunch of stories to this particular book.

In the end, though, there is no "proof". You either believe or you don't. If you don't ... it is as puzzling (probably more) as understanding why your best friend might actually and truly fall in love with someone you detest. Or why your brother/sister, raised in virtually the same environment, might take such a very, very different track in life ... even in complete opposition to that you take.

I don't ask that you believe. I DO ask that you let me believe ... and, for the most part, show basic respect for my beliefs.

Of course, here in the forums, the rules are slightly different. We come here precisely TO debate. If I speak of Christianity, you are free to debate .. including telling me that you think my beliefs are akin to worshipping fairies or trees. ... and I will disagree.

(not to mention the fact that some people, myself NOT included, are almost certainly voicing opinions strictly for debate... )

[jonesthecurl]

A friend of mine once converted to a particular branch of Christianity, I'll think of the name in a moment. He seemed quite convinced, and it was, he said, an instant thing. He went along to the church, becuasse a friend was a member, and while there had a moment of revelation, and joined the church on the spot (with much "praise Jesus" from the congregation).

This was a guy I respected, and I was interested - interested enough to go along. The ceremony was a happy thing, much clapping of hands and people actually singing along in a very un-English way.

I asked him what the difference in doctrine was between this and, say, the Anglican church. He had no idea really. I asked, how could he be converted to a set of ideas and rules and ideals when he didn't really know what they were? "I don't know, I just am" he said.

It seems to me that this is a small example of what happens in any religion - first you decide that you believe, then (if you are devout and thoughtful) you spend time checking through whatever your holy writings might be to find out what you've decided to believe in.

Does it seem odd to anyone else that you believe first and then find out what you believe?

[PLAYER57832]

Does it seem odd to anyone else that you believe first and then find out what you believe?

It would be if that were really how all faiths actually worked.

Some people think that way... some faiths encourage it. I find it rather frightening.

[Juan_Bottom]

Does it seem odd to anyone else that you believe first and then find out what you believe?

It would be if that were really how all faiths actually worked.

Some people think that way... some faiths encourage it. I find it rather frightening.

Sure, but isn't this how children are indoctrinated? Go first, figure yourself out later.....

[tzor]

Sure, but isn't this how children are indoctrinated? Go first, figure yourself out later.....

It shouldn't be. In fact it's the worst way you can do it.

The reason why it's a bad way to do this is that anyone can walk up to the person throw a bunch of confusing questions and totally convince them about something else because they didn't know what they believed well enough to defend it.

No it has to be taught, simply at first and then deeper and deeper as you go along. Like everything else in life. You don't start with differential equations on day one, you start off with addition, but you are still giving the groundwork for what should be taught later on.

[PLAYER57832]

Sure, but isn't this how children are indoctrinated? Go first, figure yourself out later.....

It shouldn't be. In fact it's the worst way you can do it.

The reason why it's a bad way to do this is that anyone can walk up to the person throw a bunch of confusing questions and totally convince them about something else because they didn't know what they believed well enough to defend it.

No it has to be taught, simply at first and then deeper and deeper as you go along. Like everything else in life. You don't start with differential equations on day one, you start off with addition, but you are still giving the groundwork for what should be taught later on.

And REAL teaching involves not only letting your children criticize (with manners), but even exposing them to other doctrines ... and why they are not your own.

I cannot count the number of young 18 and 19 year olds, raised Christian, who would "discover" the environment or other issues where the Christian Church has not always had a stellar performance and suddenly decide that they were converting to things that pretended to be Native American, Hinduism or Buddhism ... etc.

Understand, I respect those religions (though they have been "used and abused" by leaders also), but I would enter into discussions about why they were switching and almost always quickly realize that I knew more about THEIR supposed religions than they did (and I am definitely not a world religion expert!!!). Usually, they had a mish-mash that true practitioners tended to find almost insulting. (not to mention a fair number who's real interest was the substances they thought these religions used without oberving the limits involved in the religions)

Sort of like an old sitcom episode where a boy decides he is going to convert to Islam. Instead of reacting, his very Christian father simply says "OK, but you better let me have that bacon"... and mentioned a couple of other limitations. The best part was that when the boy decided he was happy being a Christian, the father assigned him to read up on Islam and learn more of what it really and truly meant.

[brooksieb]

It's official gay people believe in adam and steve.