| Author |
The first man on earth? |
chili
Joined: Dec 09, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Philippines
PM, WWW
|
The mere thought of organized religion makes me so damn angry. It disgusts me that religions claim to be enlightenment, and people who dare question things due to common sense are ostracized their respective societies  |
|
|
carkitter
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Auckland, NZ
PM |
@all
The only people arguing here with circular logic are the religion haters.
The questions in the first post are about Bible verses. I replied with Bible Quotes and a link to Bible dot com to prove I didn't make it up. Making things up is what Christians get accused of by religion haters all the time.
Alcohol is not a sin. Disobeying God's commandments is Sin. The ten commandments are spelled out pretty clearly.
As I said earlier, the Bible is the most heavily researched document in history. Many universities do Degree, Masters and Doctorate courses in Bible Theology, partly because it has had the most profound impact on Western society of any type of philosophy. It's hardly a fairy tale...
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
I never said I hate religion. I think it's a noble thing to attempt to understand God's will. But to profess righteousness because of the words in a book will only ever lead to misunderstanding and conflict, because there is always going to be more than one book.
The only true path to God's wisdom is through your own heart, not through marks on an ancient piece of paper. If you can't trust your own heart and instead rely on words in an old document to understand God, then do you really Know God at all? If God is not in your heart, if you need a book to be your spiritual compass, then where is God in your life?
That's my question.
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
there are some Christians who believe in pre-adam humans, but imho they are even more desparate at trying to explain the inconsistancies than creationists. 
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/humans.asp
_________________
File System Tweaks for the K750 K750 Tricks
K800 Tips and Themes
Max's K800 Page
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2007-09-16 14:39 ]
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2007-09-16 14:40 ] |
KingBooker5
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: London, England
PM |
On 2007-09-16 06:20:22, goldenface wrote:
@Max
Very well put. Chinese civilistation stretches back thousands of years and are believers of Pagan culture also to burn in hell as non-believers too?
Also, one could argue that sciences such as Genetics and other modern sciences might never need to be reconciled with scripture, simply because it would have been impossible to explain such complex concepts to the culture at the time it was written.
I mean, how would one explain the concepts of Genetics and Evolution to cultures where the masses were unfamiliar with even the less advanced sciences of mathematics and Astronomy, which were still in their infancy?
Holy scriptures version of the First Man and Woman and creation arguably would be the most acceptable and easily understood version, would it not?
Just a thought.
[ This Message was edited by: goldenface on 2007-09-16 05:34 ]
You get some people who think that aliens came down and interbread with humans and those were the chinese! lol You really have to laugh at these theories. There could be good comedy films. "The Chinese! Half man, Half ET!
Holy scriptures are not the causes for modern science and genetics. Science has grown and been influanced from the sciences before it, back to the days of the Egyptians and Greeks. It started of by the first intelligent civilizations like Greece, then passed on to Rome, then again and again to the present day were the science has been improved over and over. This is fact. If the human civilization is still around in a 1000 years time, the science would have come from us and have been improved and the ideas would have been reused to invent new things.
The reason why religion hates science is because science contradicts what religion teaches. One may say that science is kind of a religion in its self. A faith people believe in, where as other people have faith in religion, while some people believe in the science and a god
|
goldenface
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Liverpool City Centre
PM |
On 2007-09-16 16:58:12, KingBooker5 wrote:
On 2007-09-16 06:20:22, goldenface wrote:
@Max
Very well put. Chinese civilistation stretches back thousands of years and are believers of Pagan culture also to burn in hell as non-believers too?
Also, one could argue that sciences such as Genetics and other modern sciences might never need to be reconciled with scripture, simply because it would have been impossible to explain such complex concepts to the culture at the time it was written.
I mean, how would one explain the concepts of Genetics and Evolution to cultures where the masses were unfamiliar with even the less advanced sciences of mathematics and Astronomy, which were still in their infancy?
Holy scriptures version of the First Man and Woman and creation arguably would be the most acceptable and easily understood version, would it not?
Just a thought.
[ This Message was edited by: goldenface on 2007-09-16 05:34 ]
The reason why religion hates science is because science contradicts what religion teaches.
This is exactly my point. In the holy book God created man but doesn't say how exactly. Would it really be easier if the bible explained how the process of evolution came to be, the great dinosaur extinction, Genetics and the formation of the universe? No, I think not as those sciences weren't around then.
So, I think the bible shouldn't be taken too literally when it comes to explaining how man and earth came to be. I think it was the best explanation around when we take into account the time it was written.
|
amnesia
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Doha, London, Tokyo, Shanghai
PM, WWW
|
I will repeat since it seems people do not grasp logic.
Adam was the first person on earth it doesn't MATTER what you believe.
If you are a Christian or Muslim you'll believe God created Adam first.
If you don't have a religion, then the first man on earth is simply called Adam.
|
Superluminova
Joined: Feb 24, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: ...Mummies Tummy!
PM |
On 2007-09-16 17:49:26, amnesia wrote:
If you don't have a religion, then the first man on earth is simply called Adam.
Eh how's tht then?
OBEY GAINT |
KingBooker5
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: London, England
PM |
On 2007-09-16 17:49:26, amnesia wrote:
I will repeat since it seems people do not grasp logic.
Adam was the first person on earth it doesn't MATTER what you believe.
If you are a Christian or Muslim you'll believe God created Adam first.
If you don't have a religion, then the first man on earth is simply called Adam.
So what was Earth like back then? Were you around when Earth was Pangea?
You obviously must be very old to say it like a fact! Only if you were there, in those days it can be fact! Its your faith that tells you Adam is the first man!
I am a Christian. I believe there was a first man and woman, if there names were Adam or Eve, it dont matter. You have twisted your faiths, your BELIEFS, into a fact, swimming in the fantasty of your mind! |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-09-16 17:49:26, amnesia wrote:
I will repeat since it seems people do not grasp logic.
Adam was the first person on earth it doesn't MATTER what you believe.
If you are a Christian or Muslim you'll believe God created Adam first.
If you don't have a religion, then the first man on earth is simply called Adam.
I think I understand what you mean here; irrespective of one's religious beliefs there was a first man and he might as well be called Adam. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Personally I don't agree with that. I accept evolutionary theory as the best explanation as to how life developed on this planet and as such I don't think there was a 'first man' at all, but rather a series of species that gradually evolved over millions of years until the species of Homo Sapiens evolved, which is where we are currently.
It might be worth asking at this point what exactly we are defining as a man. Homo Sapiens are obviously included in the definition, but are other members of the Homo genus included? Homo Neanderthalensis lived alongside Homo Sapiens until around 24,000 years ago and we know they were sentient, capable of making and using tools, etc. Homo Floresiensis may have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago, which would put them at just before the dawn of recorded history.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2007-09-16 22:52 ] |
Yoruichi
Joined: May 10, 2007
Posts: 82
From: Many Places
PM |
the first mans name may or may not have been adam. as to historical texts being accurate- doubtful as they dont always contain the entire truth. they show the view of the winning side at the time and change over time with retelling.
Namo Amitabha |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-09-17 03:01:42, Yoruichi wrote:
the first mans name may or may not have been adam. as to historical texts being accurate- doubtful as they dont always contain the entire truth. they show the view of the winning side at the time and change over time with retelling.
I reckon the first man was called Bob.
|
carkitter
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Auckland, NZ
PM |
@scotsboyuk
So according to evolution, at some point a homosapien/genus etc must have become Man as we are now. And Mankind being social creatures, names would be required. What then does evolution say is the first instance of a named person?
_________________
SE and Vodafone sponsor Motorsport in OZ
If a man speaks in the woods and there's no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?
[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2007-09-17 10:37 ] |
Twometre
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Manzini, Swaziland
PM, WWW
|
[quote]
On 2007-09-16 18:22:00, Superluminova wrote:
On 2007-09-16 17:49:26, amnesia wrote:
If you don't have a religion, then the first man on earth is simply called Adam.
Eh!!! how's that then?
How would you even know the name Adam lol if you have no religion.
_________________
I think Bush is The Antichrist
The First Man On Earth
[ This Message was edited by: twometre on 2008-08-25 15:31 ] |
KingBooker5
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: London, England
PM |
On 2007-09-17 04:52:54, max_wedge wrote:
On 2007-09-17 03:01:42, Yoruichi wrote:
the first mans name may or may not have been adam. as to historical texts being accurate- doubtful as they dont always contain the entire truth. they show the view of the winning side at the time and change over time with retelling.
I reckon the first man was called Bob.
I reckon the first woman was called Barbara |
|
|
Posted: 2007-09-16 08:32
