So there were Adam and Eve and they had two boys Cain and Abel .....

[underpants]

and......


can someone fill in for me how the human race started from that struture?

[sfwriter]

1. The bible mentions "other" people. They just weren't god's people...

It would be like they were separate brands. Imagine Hasbro's G.I. Joe sleeping with Mattel's Barbie and you get the idea.

[sfwriter]

3. By which I should say it is total bollocks anyhow...

[underpants]

5. That really doesn't work either

Joe and Barbie are not uh ....well lets say they can't ... you know ... what with the plastic molding and all

[Nihil]

35. But, but, but ...

... they did it on TV in "Team America" (part of the historical documents) ...

Don't tell me they were both faking instead of ...?

[DJ13]

9. Apes?

Genetic engineering?

[roguevalley]

30. actually, only a nut would take it literally. its a tale told about faith

and betrayal and whatnot.

[laconicsax]

39. So how do you determine which parts are meant to be taken literally?

Which parts do you take literally? How do you know they're meant to be taken literally? How do you know that other parts aren't meant to be taken literally?

[AlinPA]

2. A: God works in mysterious ways.

[scarletwoman]

4. Why do you hate Jesus?

[underpants]

7. I have no problem with people who come here for more opportunity

regardless of how they get here

:shrug:

[NC_Nurse]

6. So you're saying the Oedipal complex began then?

;-)

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

8. Uhh, not to be condescending, but I thought it was fairly common knowledge that

Cain had a vagina.

Epic fail, of biblical proportions.

[underpants]

10. Oh

so it was like Indiana with the siblings and such

:hide:

as the son of a native West Virginian I went with Indiana :shrug:

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

13. No, not quite.

They hadn't invented driver's ed yet.

Oh, boy, it's really going downhill now.

[glitch]

27. So they were self-impregnating hermaphrodites. Explains a lot, actually. nt

[immune]

11. Men are from Mars

[eShirl]

12. After you think about that, think about the single arkload of survivors of the Great Flood

[underpants]

17. The other story my wife and I pondered on a drive back from Ohio this weekend

Noah (gets off the ark): See, what what happened was.....

we have one persons take on history. It's like watching Pat Buchanan on Morning Joe.

[AlinPA]

23. First, think about how they loaded the ark with two of every animal- the worst

to get would be a wolverine - they are nasty. Grizzlies would have been a challenge.

[Booster]

28. And Joseph buying that lame story from Mary. LOL

[doc03]

14. My born again preacher friend told me Adam and Eve also

daughters. So that means Cain and Able had sex with their sister.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Because it's a fairy tale.

That's how.

[Vickers]

16. Check out Genesis 6:4 ...it's crazy.

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

What the...???

[immune]

19. Sons of God?

I thought it read "the sons of the gods"

[Vickers]

26. I posted the exact text of the KJV. n/t

[dmallind]

37. Which of course is not the original, which uses the plural elohiym

You can of course take the position, hardly implausible, that the plural acts as an intensifier.

Which just leaves us the problem of when God uses the same word in speaking to.....well who knows but surely not himslef....in other passages.

[eShirl]

20. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men"

so, Jesus wasn't God's only son after all? oh my

[rbixby]

33. Oh boy, I can't resist

So I guess this was before the 'pullout' method was invented....haha

[mwb970]

18. It's all nonsense.

Imagine believing in a totally illogical, contradictory, crazily impossible fairy tale with all of your heart. (I can't do it, but maybe you can.) That is the mental state you have to be in to be a religious conservative.

You didn't even mention the second creation myth, also found in Genesis, which completely contradicts the first one. But of course they are both true anyway, since God said so.

Trying to answer questions like the one you pose is like trying to make sense of the rantings one hears in an insane asylum. What's the point?

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpNoQaB2LT0

[underpants]

24. Thanks.

:rofl:

that explains everything

great playing

[Parche]

22. Run Eve Run

:woohoo: :woohoo: :hi:

I thought it started with Genesis????



:rofl::rofl:

[underpants]

25. LMFAO

my daughter is right beside me saying "What? WHAT daddy?"

too funny

:hi: Parche

[struggle4progress]

29. The general consensus, among people I know, religious or not,

is that the story should not be read literally as history

[Iggo]

31. Eve, I guess.

[trotsky]

32. It's quite simple. Just ask any Christian.

The bible is literal where s/he says it is, and allegorical everywhere else.

(Well, uh, just don't ask 2 of them to agree on exactly which parts of the bible fall into which bucket.)

[laconicsax]

34. Here's God's answer.

http://stuffgodhates.com/2008/12/ask-god-november/

QUESTION 5:
Jurobei: What are your views on incest? I mean, since there weren’t two original families, somebody had to screw their sister at SOME point. I tried looking to the Bible, but they didn’t have any passages like ‘And Cain screwethed his younger sister of unknown name, and they begat Joseph, and it was good, and everyone dug it.’ Or, did Adam have a secret mistress who the Bible does not talk about? This has been on my mind for quite some time now.

ALMIGHTY GOD: Yes, of course. Everyone screwed their sister at first and knocked her up dozens of times and everyone dug it. You have to start somewhere. Later on, when there were a couple thousand humans I made it clear this was no longer ok. This explains why you humans are all such retards. You’re all inbred. Feel better now?

[Nihil]

36. That's one to remember ...

> ALMIGHTY GOD: Yes, of course. Everyone screwed their sister at first and
> knocked her up dozens of times and everyone dug it. You have to start somewhere.
> Later on, when there were a couple thousand humans I made it clear this was no
> longer ok. This explains why you humans are all such retards. You’re all inbred.
> Feel better now?

:rofl:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Even liberal Christians accept the Genesis story as myth

(Yawn)

[Cleobulus]

40. Wait, so if Genesis is myth, what makes the other books of the Bible more valid?

What's the criteria, I mean, obviously many Christians don't take the story literally, mostly because it runs up against common sense, but its not the only part of the Bible that has that problem.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. I can't answer for all liberal Christians, but

my denomination bases its doctrine on the "three-legged stool" of Scripture, tradition, and reason.

For one thing, not all of the Bible is stories. Some of it is poetry, some of it is essays on human nature, some of it is like an anthropological account of the culture of an ancient people.

It varies with the section. If you do an in-depth study, you ask questions about why a particular story or episode was included, what historical corroboration there is for the stories (there is some, starting in the period of Kings and Chronicles), and what part is ancient PR, who might have written each section and for what purpose.

You may have heard of retired Bishop John Shelby Spong and may know that he is very much a non-literalist and critical of fundamentalism and the evangelical movement.

Well, he preached at my former parish one Sunday, and the text was the book of Jonah. Now he didn't waste time on whether Jonah could have really lived for three days inside a whale (or even a big fish, which is what the text actually says). Of course Jonah couldn't have. But that's not the point of the story, which is about more than being fish bait. It's about letting your prejudices and self-centeredness get in the way of what you're supposed to do.

[Cleobulus]

42. But again, it runs into the problem of how to determine what to "follow" as it were...

and what to outright ignore. Things should be put in a historical context, that's true, however, even so, this would make the Bible nothing more than stories, poetry, pronouncements from a God, etc. I don't see how this could be considered any more valid than, for example, Greek myths, which also have similar constructions, though aren't all bound in one book.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. It's our culture's way of approaching the unknowable

It is meaningful to those who take part.

That's all I can say.

The Greeks had their way. We have ours.

[Leontius]

44. Greek myths are still a valuable tool

of teaching about the human condition. Some "truths" are found in almost all myth.

[Cleobulus]

47. In that context "truths" are found in practically all fiction...

Moby Dick illustrates how obsession can destroy you, Frankenstein how your creations can supersede you, and indeed, you own inhumanity to your creations. And those are just 2 19th century examples, there are numerous examples from throughout history, quite a few repeating themes, many reflections of their cultures of the time, but all contain "truth".

[Cleobulus]

45. That's makes even less sense...

First off, its presumptuous to say its "ours" when I don't use it, I use something that works, science. In addition "unknowables" are rather meaningless unless we find a way to make them knowable, to call it an unsolved mystery and leave it at that means nothing. Also, using this argument as a basis means either one of two things, one that all religions and myths are factually based, or two, they are all wrong. So which is it?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. YMMV

It is meaningful to those who participate. If it's not, then nothing will convince you, any more than I could convince you through logic to love a specific person.

[Cleobulus]

48. My only question in that regard is, is she hot?

:)

OK, to be serious for a moment, I'm just trying to understand the mental gymnastics needed to call some parts of a single book true, and other parts false when they aren't labeled as such in said book. That's my problem, is a claim that the Bible contains "truths", now, if we are talking about the context I mentioned above, that's fine, its similar to all literature, ancient and modern, people find meaning in all those. But when someone finds meaning in a story such as "I, Robot", they rarely say the story or characters exist or its based on a true story.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. People find meaning in different contexts

I've noticed that a lot (not all) of atheists are ardent sci fi fans.