Adam And Eve, Noah And The Origion Of Man

[MaryLupin]

Ultimately, I don't think anybody interprets the Bible with 100% accuracy - because we ultimately do not understand the mind of God. The "correct" interpretation of the Bible is the one that is consistent with two things:

1. The context provided by the rest of the Bible
2. The character of God; things that contradict the character of God (suicide bombers, "Christian" protestors chanting "God hates fags!") are incorrect interpretations.

Except of course the bible is rife with judgment against men who have sex with other men. In a Catholic interpretation of scripture with regard to homosexuality it says of
"Gen. 19:24-28 - the Lord rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah as punishment for the sin of homosexuality. Homosexuality perverts God’s covenant with humanity." This particular site has a lot of similar pieces of text-god's "compassion" to share. Given a textual-god that visits a holocaust on his own (regardless of whether it did it because of the general licentiousness or because of a particular brand of sexual expression) it seems perfectly logical that the belief system that develops from such a text would chant "God hates fags!" So how can this be incorrect...unless you want to ignore the "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" bits of the Bible. And if you do, on what authority?

What would you like yourself to be judged upon? Your lapses of character and judgment (I'm assuming you're human and have these like I do) or on the times where you were noble, honorable and admirable?

Oh I am human. I can be a mean ***** at times. But to answer your question...I am going to assume a world for a moment where I will be judged by some being capable of rendering and enforcing its assessment of me. In that world I would most defiantly want to be judged on everything I had thought, done and felt. I mean it is all me and if I am being judged then "I" want to be judged. Really, what integrity would I have if I conveniently forgot the nasty **** I have done? And lastly, in this temporarily assumed reality, cheeky ***** that I am, I would ask by what right it thought it could judge a human life when it could not live one without getting slaughtered at the age of 33.

The focus on the "Christian" miscreants is like a flashlight beam focused on the offenders; outside that shaft of focused light is a large contingent of humble, obedient Christians who serve the needy, contribute to their community and bring relief, aid and health services to devastated countries. But it's no fun to pay any attention to them - much easier to point at the Crusades et al.

For me it is because of the cost of those services. They are never offered freely. It is a religion (like Islam) that has a strong need to convert. Anyone who, without knowing me, thinks they know more about my origins, needs, desires, purpose than I do insults me by trying to make me conform or espouse the belief. Only if I invite the discussion (as I have done here by joining this forum) can I deem it acceptable that someone should tell me "what I truly desire." I have never once in my entire life gone to someone's home, or stopped someone crossing campus, to tell them the "truth." I would never be so rude.

[MaryLupin]

I don't know Hebrew at all, but the
Online Etymology Dictionary is same definition

Cool. Thanks Logos.

[MaryLupin]

Wikipedia has an uncited mention no surprise there: "Adam's name is a reference to red earth or red clay, but it also can be interpreted as 'the one who blushes' or 'turns rosy'. etc."

You know I like Wikipedia; my daughter wrote an entry on bubbles, but I have to tell you I hate it when people use "facts" to support an important argument when they don't share (or can't share) the reference so we can all do our bit for intellectual integrity and go read it for ourselves. Especially since so many people make the mistake of thinking because it is in print it's probably true.

Okay, so someone needs to call their Rabbi and ask if Adam as a word can refer to the color red, and if it does, under what contexts. Anyone have a Rabbi?

[Redzeppelin]

Except of course the bible is rife with judgment against men who have sex with other men. In a Catholic interpretation of scripture with regard to homosexuality it says of
"Gen. 19:24-28 - the Lord rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah as punishment for the sin of homosexuality. Homosexuality perverts God’s covenant with humanity." This particular site has a lot of similar pieces of text-god's "compassion" to share. Given a textual-god that visits a holocaust on his own (regardless of whether it did it because of the general licentiousness or because of a particular brand of sexual expression) it seems perfectly logical that the belief system that develops from such a text would chant "God hates fags!" So how can this be incorrect...unless you want to ignore the "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" bits of the Bible. And if you do, on what authority?

OK - you brought up the issue of homosexuality. The Bible lists homosexuality as sin - a choice to violate God's intenced design for human sexual relationships. People have a huge problem with the OT character of God because what they seem to want is a God who is all mercy and no justice. Because we don't fully understand the effects of sin on the human heart and psyche, we assume that God's decision to destroy Sodom is a tyrannical thing to do - but we are making that assessment based on limited information: only God knows the human heart to its depths and the full effects of sin (which, according to the Bible - leads to death - not because God "decided" that that was the penalty, but because that is the natural consequence of turning away from God [the source of all life]). I sometimes wonder if we were capable of knowing the details as God does if we might not see His choice as a mercy of sorts. I hesitate to say this because I'm sure it opens me up to all kinds of attacks, but the point I wish to stick on is that we are judging a decision by a Being who describes Himself as a God of love - if He does something like destroy a city, then I must assume He had a good reason to do so. This is what we call "faith" - the character of God being what it is dictates that any act of violence done by God is done so for a legitimate reason (though we may not be able to see this at the time - but all will be revealed someday).

Oh I am human. I can be a mean ***** at times. But to answer your question...I am going to assume a world for a moment where I will be judged by some being capable of rendering and enforcing its assessment of me. In that world I would most defiantly want to be judged on everything I had thought, done and felt. I mean it is all me and if I am being judged then "I" want to be judged. Really, what integrity would I have if I conveniently forgot the nasty **** I have done? And lastly, in this temporarily assumed reality, cheeky ***** that I am, I would ask by what right it thought it could judge a human life when it could not live one without getting slaughtered at the age of 33.

Two issues:

1. I'm not suggesting that the bad be ignored; I'm suggesting that it be balanced by the good.

2. Christ was not killed against His will. He submitted to death because His purpose was to pay the death penalty that all of humanity earned via its sinful nature (inherited from Adam and Eve). Only the death of a sinless person could atone for the sin of all humanity. Christ died at 33 because His ministry was done and he had done what He came to do. How about this: that the Being who will judge you loved you enough to send His own Son down to redeem you whether you asked Him to or not: He offered His sinless and perfect Son so that you could have eternal life.

For me it is because of the cost of those services. They are never offered freely. It is a religion (like Islam) that has a strong need to convert. Anyone who, without knowing me, thinks they know more about my origins, needs, desires, purpose than I do insults me by trying to make me conform or espouse the belief. Only if I invite the discussion (as I have done here by joining this forum) can I deem it acceptable that someone should tell me "what I truly desire." I have never once in my entire life gone to someone's home, or stopped someone crossing campus, to tell them the "truth." I would never be so rude.

That is not true; plenty of Christian organizations serve freely with no thought, desire, or request for return.

Secondly: but what if you believed that it was a matter of eternal life and death? If I believed that there was a murderer hiding in your car, would you want me to warn you of my suspicion - even if I might have been mistaken in what I saw? Christians try to share the truth because it is not just "conversions" they care about - we believe that someday all will be held accountable, and those who did not hear the truth (and I believe many chances are given to us) face serious consequences.

[Warm-Blooded]

I have something to say

you should believe that this is real why ..? why ?
try to contemplate how we were created , you should have been acquainted with a fact of existing since we could live in this life via our parent and our parent had been nothing except for their parent had been marred and so on ..
I then can deduce that we have entirely parent as all of you have but the parent I talked about are your father and mother either .they are , ADAM and EVE and this is a real story unlike all of those saying "we were nothing but we became everything .
So , we must believe in GOD ...

ohh I am sorry for my bad english

[MaryLupin]

Christ was not killed against His will. He submitted to death because His purpose was to pay the death penalty that all of humanity earned via its sinful nature (inherited from Adam and Eve). Only the death of a sinless person could atone for the sin of all humanity. Christ died at 33 because His ministry was done and he had done what He came to do. How about this: that the Being who will judge you loved you enough to send His own Son down to redeem you whether you asked Him to or not: He offered His sinless and perfect Son so that you could have eternal life.

From my perspective what he did (regardless of the rationale behind his behavior) is commit a kind of suicide. Martyrdom is easy. Living for a cause is much more demanding.

Secondly: but what if you believed that it was a matter of eternal life and death?

I meant this literally. That is, accepting for a moment this world of eternal damnation is real, and real the one who would do such a thing, I would still stand by what I have become through the exigencies of living. I mean if this judge is omniscient, what good would it do to hide behind a meek face. If that is what is expected, false piety, then I don't stand a chance anyway and I would rather go down as myself than as a lie. And on my way down, I would make it clear that I too am capable of judgment.

[Pendragon]

I think I know what you are trying to say here...that Jesus was from an ethnic/racial group that would have meant he had black hair, brown eyes and dark brown skin. What I want to point out is that being a Jew is a multi-colored designation. That is there are white blond Jews, black Jews, even Asian Jews. In short--Jew does not equal brown.

Not in the time period in which Jesus was to have come, and to me, anyway, they are more olive-skined to brown, but it is a point not worth arguing. The real point is that The Protestants were just making a conveinent excuse at the moment for slavery purposes and nowadays people of every race and color may be seen in a Protestant church.

Today when I signed on the computer, I noted that The Pope has declared that there is only one true church, again.

Well if you are talking about the mitochondrial "Eve" then our "Eve" was black.

I'll read this, thanks.

God Bless

Pen

[PrinceMyshkin]

Not in the time period in which Jesus was to have come, and to me, anyway, they are more olive-skined to brown, but it is a point not worth arguing.

This is your first post (so far as I'm aware) in which you alluded to your prior statement that "Jesus was a Jew, not a white man," and to me it is a point very much worth arguing inasmuch as "white man" is so often synonymous with the natural rulers of the earth or the only men worth considering AS men.

Today when I signed on the computer, I noted that The Pope has declared that there is only one true church, again.

In which regard he closely resembles some others who post here apropos their particular church or version of Christianity.

[MaryLupin]

Not in the time period in which Jesus was to have come...

Referring back to the question of the spread of Judaism prior to the Common Era...The Exile pretty much guaranteed that long before Jesus was a twinkle in his mother's eye there were Jews of myriad skin tone. The site above gives some broad sweeps. It indications the presence of large populations of Jewish people in a variety of geographic and cultural locales. With intermarrying this meant that the Judaic population was ethnically diverse while still claiming kinship through religious ideal. The later diaspora after the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE just amped up an already extant trend. Jews, after all, claim a nomadic tribal origin.

[Pendragon]

This is your first post (so far as I'm aware) in which you alluded to your prior statement that "Jesus was a Jew, not a white man," and to me it is a point very much worth arguing inasmuch as "white man" is so often synonymous with the natural rulers of the earth or the only men worth considering AS men.

Putting it that way, and remembering that I can directly trace my decent from my great-grandfather who was a member of the Cherokee Nation, and fondly remember my half-breed grandmother, that I grew up in the 60's in a town that had decided to throw segregation out, many of my neighbors were black and respected, I will point out that I am far from prejudiced. It is my opinion that Jesus would have been a man of color, for to me, Jews of
that era were. If someone wishes to start an argument, Jerry, I have no time for arguments. The "Master Race" stuff that lead to the Holocaust is a blot on humanity that time cannot and should not erase. It was horrible beyond words. Remember that about me, my people were deemed inferior also. Sand Creek, The Trail of Tears. and Wounded Knee come to mind.


God Bless

Pen

[Redzeppelin]

From my perspective what he did (regardless of the rationale behind his behavior) is commit a kind of suicide. Martyrdom is easy. Living for a cause is much more demanding.

With all due respect, these comments reveal that you do not understand Christ's mission here on earth. He did not come here to "live for a cause" - He came here for two reasons:

1. To reveal the character of God
2. To sacrifice His spotless/sinless life as an atonement for the sin of humanity.

Jesus picked the time of His death - His life was not cut short against His will. You may call it suicide if you wish - but please don't give me the rather glib suggestion that what Christ did was "easy" - such a comment from someone with your clear intellect would be outrageous.

I meant this literally. That is, accepting for a moment this world of eternal damnation is real, and real the one who would do such a thing, I would still stand by what I have become through the exigencies of living. I mean if this judge is omniscient, what good would it do to hide behind a meek face. If that is what is expected, false piety, then I don't stand a chance anyway and I would rather go down as myself than as a lie. And on my way down, I would make it clear that I too am capable of judgment.

God does not wish for "piety" - He wishes for believers to accept the gift of salvation and to enter into relationship with Him. Your vision of God is one of an arbitrary judge - as opposed to what Christianity teaches - that He desires all to be saved, and wants "obedience more than sacrifices." Once one acknowledges what God has given and sacrificed to have us with Him in heaven, it gets much easier to humble ourselves and serve such a God. I'm not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean - that your judgment is a valid as God's? Hardly. Only God sees all clearly, is in command of all the facts and is completely impartial. In the end, all will agree with His judgment.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Putting it that way, and remembering that I can directly trace my decent from my great-grandfather who was a member of the Cherokee Nation, and fondly remember my half-breed grandmother, that I grew up in the 60's in a town that had decided to throw segregation out, many of my neighbors were black and respected, I will point out that I am far from prejudiced. It is my opinion that Jesus would have been a man of color, for to me, Jews of
that era were. If someone wishes to start an argument, Jerry, I have no time for arguments. The "Master Race" stuff that lead to the Holocaust is a blot on humanity that time cannot and should not erase. It was horrible beyond words. Remember that about me, my people were deemed inferior also. Sand Creek, The Trail of Tears. and Wounded Knee come to mind.


God Bless

Pen

It was just that the contraposition of "Jew" and "white man" struck an uncomfortable chord. I hope you can understand that.

I have encountered the fact that even in the most tolerant of folk, there is sometimes a deeply buried stereotype re Jews, and I tend to see that as the fallow ground for some new nurturer of anti-Semitism. There is a book on the subject called The Longest Hatred. I live with the fear that it might also be the longest-lasting.

[Pendragon]

Referring back to the question of the spread of Judaism prior to the Common Era...The Exile pretty much guaranteed that long before Jesus was a twinkle in his mother's eye there were Jews of myriad skin tone. The site above gives some broad sweeps. It indications the presence of large populations of Jewish people in a variety of geographic and cultural locales. With intermarrying this meant that the Judaic population was ethnically diverse while still claiming kinship through religious ideal. The later diaspora after the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE just amped up an already extant trend. Jews, after all, claim a nomadic tribal origin.

Yes, the Exile to Babylon was a way for the Jews to become mixed with other races. But Jewish Law forbids marriage to Gentiles and declares that any children born of such a union are not Jewish. By Jesus' day, The San Hedrin were strict about the laws once more and very quick to point out from whom they were descended. I'm merely pointing out that Jesus came of a race that is prone to people of color, not your average blonde hair, blue eyed white man.

Now before we get locked up, can we get back on the subject? We know that the super-continent broke up, and continental drift arranged the world as it is today. What if the flood was the catastrophe that broke the super-continent?

God Bless

Pen

[kilted exile]

Now before we get locked up, can we get back on the subject? We know that the super-continent broke up, and continental drift arranged the world as it is today. What if the flood was the catastrophe that broke the super-continent?

Just wanted to address this point. We know why the super continent broke up. It was due to tectonic plate movements. The continents are still breaking up (of course at an infinitesimally slow rate)., at some stage California is going to break off from the continental US and move further northwards towards Alaska

[Niamh]

And i've already mentioned some possible geological evidence that might show that there may possibly been a swelling of water in Iraq. But what of the other stories in the O.T? There is so Archaeological evidence in the form of Hiroglyphs on one of the temples of Ramses in Egypt, that show there was a mass exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.(no staffs and snakes mumbo jumbo). Would anyone like to suggest a story and we can discuss if there is possible evidence behind it? I do think this thread has got great potential to be interesting if we can stick to its original purpose set by Kiobe.