Adam and Eve as a Myth

[Looncall]

Ok, well, I don't agree with you. I believe the Bible.

I guess some folks attack evolution. I just don't believe in it from a scientific, religious or common sense perspective. You know what they teach people in communist countries when they indoctrinate them? The first thing they teach is not communism or socialist ideas, its evolution. They do so to erase belief in God and moral absolute truths so the strong can control the weak, the bully makes the rules.

All this demonstrates the negative effects of religion on the human intellect.

 

[javajo]

All this demonstrates the negative effects of religion on the human intellect.

I think I just got called dumb again.

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise... from 1 cor 1

 

[fantome profane]

The first thing they teach is not communism or socialist ideas, its evolution.

I am not sure what you are referring to but the fact is that the Soviet Union rejected the idea of evolution by natural selection. Scientist in the U.S.S.R were imprisoned or "disappeared" because they publicly supported the idea of darwinian evolution.

I heard the commie thing on the radio so take it how you wish.

I would recommend that you do your own research or at least check things like this out for yourself. Don't believe everything you hear.

 

[javajo]

Karl Marx loved Darwin and embraced evolution and used it as a basis for many of his communist ideas. He wrote in a letter to Engels about Origin of Species, “...this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view..."

 

[fantome profane]

Karl Marx loved Darwin and embraced evolution and used it as a basis for many of his communist ideas. He wrote in a letter to Engels about Origin of Species, “...this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view..."

Marx might have. Stalin certainly did not.

And not to get this thread further off topic, but I don't think Marx is actually responsible for the evils that occurred under communism, much less Darwin.

edit.

And also Marx was influenced by the works of Sir Issac Newton. Is physics suspect because of that?

 

[javajo]

Marx might have. Stalin certainly did not.

And not to get this thread further off topic, but I don't think Marx is actually responsible for the evils that occurred under communism, much less Darwin.

edit.

And also Marx was influenced by the works of Sir Issac Newton. Is physics suspect because of that?

Yeah, I don't really want to discuss that. I think all of them, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Engels all embraced Darwin. Stalin is the one that had so many people killed. He left believing in God for atheism partly because of evolution after reading Darwin, too. Anyway, sorry for getting off topic and I think I've said all I have to say about Adam and Eve too for now.

 

[fantome profane]

Yeah, I don't really want to discuss that. I think all of them, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Engels all embraced Darwin. Stalin is the one that had so many people killed. He left believing in God for atheism partly because of evolution after reading Darwin, too. Anyway, sorry for getting off topic and I think I've said all I have to say about Adam and Eve too for now.

Any evidence that Darwin had anything to do with Stalin's atheism? As I said Stalin rejected Darwinism.

 

[javajo]

Any evidence that Darwin had anything to do with Stalin's atheism? As I said Stalin rejected Darwinism.

Well, Yaroslavsky, in Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, pages 8-9, wrote that while still a theology student he, "began to read Darwin and became an atheist." And ended up an, "avid Darwinian, abandoned the faith in God, and began to tell his fellow seminarians that people were descended from apes and not from Adam." Also, Koster, in The Atheist Syndrome, p. 177, wrote, "His brutal childhood and the worldview he acquired in that childhood, reinforced by reading Darwin, convinced him that mercy and forbearance were weak and stupid. He killed with a coldness that even Hitler might have envied—and in even greater numbers than Hitler did."

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yaroslavsky's work is an adoring hagiography of Stalin worship that has little to do with actual history, and more to do with elevating Stalin as a cultic Soviet Saint.

The book also has Stalin, as a very young boy; "explain[ing] step by step why the peasants lived so poorly, who exploited them, who were their friends and who their enemies. he spoke so simply and interestingly that the peasants begged him to come and talk to them."

There are much better histories and documents on Stalin, but they may not fit into your mold of Darwin=Evil, or Atheism=Evil, or whatever other target that does not fit your beliefs.


If you wish to discuss this further, I would suggest starting another thread and getting this one back on target.

 

[gnostic]

I guess some folks attack evolution. I just don't believe in it from a scientific, religious or common sense perspective. You know what they teach people in communist countries when they indoctrinate them? The first thing they teach is not communism or socialist ideas, its evolution. They do so to erase belief in God and moral absolute truths so the strong can control the weak, the bully makes the rules.

Great, another set of stereotyping:

communism = atheism = evil
evolution = atheism = evil
communism = evolution = evil
communism = atheism = evolution = evil
​

It is pretty typical of creationists to use tactics of associating evolution with atheism, and now you are associating evolution with communism.

Do all Christian creationists have education gap? Or do they use it so

Darwin didn't come from communist country. Great Britain at the time of Darwin's works were in the period of constitutional monarchy, which had democratic elected leaders and parties.

Why is evolution associated with communism, and not with democracy or monarchy?

I am not saying that the constitution monarchy of Britain had anything to do with evolution. I am saying your claim about evolution and communism is baseless.

And another thing, is that Darwin was not atheist.

Evolution, like all other fields of biology, as well as other branches of science, are religion-free, where anyone can learn or teach science, regardless if the person is religious or not.

There are many Christians (therefore theists) here, who understand evolution and have accepted evolution (theory) is the best scientific explanation (theory) of why creatures or plants change over time.

You don't have to atheist to understand and accept evolution.

The same go with politics.

Science, including evolution, should be free from politics and political agendas. Anyone with whatever political background, can learn about evolution. Evolution deal with biological changes, not political agenda of communism, or any other political systems (including democracy and monarchy).

It is really pathetic attack.

If you don't want people to think you're being "ignorant" (or a "liar"), then you need to stop making baseless claims with science or religion, javajo.

If you believe in your god and your religion, then that's great, because your belief is your own. But if you are going to debate "what you believe" with science, then you need to back it (it, as in whatever your claims are) up with evidences, and not just with your belief.

Your belief won't mean much, in a science-religion debate, especially when you try to link religion with science.

 

[InfidelRiot]

It is not a difficult algorithm or mildly entertaining cryptograph that needs solving. It is simply a mind set of understanding or believing. Those who understand, know. Those who believe, know nothing. Believing is easy, because no evidence is needed. Those who know, have proof. Religion claims to know, but there is no proof. Science claims to know, and experiment backs up the proof.

 

[Looncall]

I think I just got called dumb again.

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise... from 1 cor 1

That is not so. I merely pointed out that your religious outlook has evidently degraded your reasoning ability, judging from the absurdities you have posted here. You might be quite intelligent for all I know.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is not a difficult algorithm or mildly entertaining cryptograph that needs solving. It is simply a mind set of understanding or believing. Those who understand, know. Those who believe, know nothing. Believing is easy, because no evidence is needed. Those who know, have proof. Religion claims to know, but there is no proof. Science claims to know, and experiment backs up the proof.

Let's start with what you 'know', starting here ...

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to javajo: Do you have any scientific, and historical evidence that the story of Adam and Eve is true?

Do you know enough about biology to adequately discredit theistic evolution? One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. The vast majority of people in the world are not experts in biology, or biochemistry. Why isn't it reasonable for them to accept the opinions of such a lrage consensus, or at least be agnostic about naturalistic, or theistic evolution?

Your criticism of Charles Darwin will not work. First of all, when he wrote "On the Origin of Species," he was a theist, not an atheist.

Second, the theory of evolution is not anti-Christian since millions of Christians accept theistic evolution. Do you believe that God requires that Christians reject theistic evolution, and believe that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true? If not, why are you discussing evolution at all if you believe that God does not require that Christians reject it?

Third, today, when evolutionary research is conducted, the kind of person that Charles Darwin was is quite obviously completely irrelevant. Scientific advances are not limited to people whose character and morality you approve of. The greatest scientists in history were ancient Greeks (not to mention their expertise in philosophy, and literature), probably none of whom (the scientists) accepted the God of the Bible.

 

[Agnostic75]

I believe the Bible. Jesus mentioned Adam and Eve when he talked about divorce and how it came with the Law because of the hardness of men's hearts, but that it was not so in the beginning. Jesus mentions Noah as well as the Flood. Jesus' lineage is traced to Adam in the book of Luke. Interesting thing there, is before the destruction of the Temple and genealogical records in 70 AD, every Levite Priest could prove he came from the tribe of Levi, one of the twelve sons of Abraham, who lived only nine generations from Noah and Noah lived only nine generations from Adam. That, to me, is very significant as well as all the other genealogies in the Old Testament and Christ's in Mathew going back to Abraham. Just think, it is pretty well accepted that Abraham was a real person and the father of the Hebrew nation, and he was only 18 generations from Adam. Also, the Bible states that sin was passed to all men through Adam but by Jesus we may be made righteous, so not to believe in Adam is to deny the whole New Testament theology. Also, some scientists say we all came from a common set of parents from somewhere in the middle east.

"Jesus mentioned Adam and Eve when he talked about divorce and how it came with the Law because of the hardness of men's hearts, but that it was not so in the beginning."

Even some conservative Christian Bible scholars inow that it is impossible to be reasonably certain about everything that Jesus said, or did not say.

"Jesus mentions Noah as well as the Flood."

Same as before.

"Jesus' lineage is traced to Adam in the book of Luke."

There is not any credible historical evidence that Noah, and Adam, existed. Even if Adam existed, that would not reasonably prove anything about theistic evolution, and how many people existed before Adam.

"Interesting thing there, is before the destruction of the Temple and genealogical records in 70 AD, every Levite Priest could prove he came from the tribe of Levi, one of the twelve sons of Abraham, who lived only nine generations from Noah and Noah lived only nine generations from Adam. That, to me, is very significant as well as all the other genealogies in the Old Testament and Christ's in Mathew going back to Abraham. Just think, it is pretty well accepted that Abraham was a real person and the father of the Hebrew nation, and he was only 18 generations from Adam."

Why is any of that significant?

 

[Agnostic75]

.......the Bible states that sin was passed to all men through Adam but by Jesus we may be made righteous, so not to believe in Adam is to deny the whole New Testament theology.

Liberal and moderate Christians know that if a God inspired the Bible, the story of Adam and Eve can be allegorical, as well as what Jesus supposedly said about Adam, and not interfere at all with New Testament theology. In order for the Bible to be literally true, no one was alive in China around 2300 B.C. because of the global flood. Surely most geologists, and historians, including most Christian geologists, and Christian historians, reject that claim.

Are you implying that God requires that Christians accept the story of Adam and Eve, and reject theistic evolution? You previously said "I don't believe in 'atheistic' or theistic evolution, myself. And as I said, to be a Christian one must simply trust Christ to have paid their sin debt." In your opinion, can theistic evolutionists "simply trust Christ to have paid their sin debt."

Are you implying that God requires that Christians accept the global flood story?

 

[McBell]

I think ...

It seems that you are much more interested in what you think than in truth or facts...

 

[javajo]

Yaroslavsky's work is an adoring hagiography of Stalin worship that has little to do with actual history, and more to do with elevating Stalin as a cultic Soviet Saint.

The book also has Stalin, as a very young boy; "explain[ing] step by step why the peasants lived so poorly, who exploited them, who were their friends and who their enemies. he spoke so simply and interestingly that the peasants begged him to come and talk to them."

There are much better histories and documents on Stalin, but they may not fit into your mold of Darwin=Evil, or Atheism=Evil, or whatever other target that does not fit your beliefs.If you wish to discuss this further, I would suggest starting another thread and getting this one back on target.

So, you do not believe evolution had anything to do with Stalin's actions, ok, then. Back to Adam and Eve, then. I simply believe the story is true. That's all.

Great, another set of stereotyping:

communism = atheism = evil
evolution = atheism = evil
communism = evolution = evil
communism = atheism = evolution = evil​

Inserts evil laugh...mwooha ha ha ha ha ha.....
​

It is pretty typical of creationists to use tactics of associating evolution with atheism, and now you are associating evolution with communism.

Do all Christian creationists have education gap? Or do they use it so

Darwin didn't come from communist country. Great Britain at the time of Darwin's works were in the period of constitutional monarchy, which had democratic elected leaders and parties.

Why is evolution associated with communism, and not with democracy or monarchy?

I am not saying that the constitution monarchy of Britain had anything to do with evolution. I am saying your claim about evolution and communism is baseless.

And another thing, is that Darwin was not atheist.

Evolution, like all other fields of biology, as well as other branches of science, are religion-free, where anyone can learn or teach science, regardless if the person is religious or not.

There are many Christians (therefore theists) here, who understand evolution and have accepted evolution (theory) is the best scientific explanation (theory) of why creatures or plants change over time.

You don't have to atheist to understand and accept evolution.

The same go with politics.

Science, including evolution, should be free from politics and political agendas. Anyone with whatever political background, can learn about evolution. Evolution deal with biological changes, not political agenda of communism, or any other political systems (including democracy and monarchy).

It is really pathetic attack.

If you don't want people to think you're being "ignorant" (or a "liar"), then you need to stop making baseless claims with science or religion, javajo.

If you believe in your god and your religion, then that's great, because your belief is your own. But if you are going to debate "what you believe" with science, then you need to back it (it, as in whatever your claims are) up with evidences, and not just with your belief.

Your belief won't mean much, in a science-religion debate, especially when you try to link religion with science.

I do believe atheism and communism and evolution go hand in hand and feed upon one another and it seems quite evident to me at least. I do love science, both origins science and process or operational science. The latter is cut and dry and not open to interpretation or subject to one's "beliefs". The former is. Depending on one's worldview, one will come to different conclusions about how something may have played out in the past. In my view, Adam and Eve and Creation and the Flood fit with what I observe. Others observe the same thing and say it was something else. I look at the ocean and see evidence for a worldwide flood. When I put all the evidence presented to me from the Bible together, historical, geological, archeological, prophetic and spiritual, it leads me to believe that Adam and Eve were indeed real people, the first. I cannot prove it, you may call it faith. I call it faith based upon the evidence that was presented to me.

For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. Hebrew 4:2

It is not a difficult algorithm or mildly entertaining cryptograph that needs solving. It is simply a mind set of understanding or believing. Those who understand, know. Those who believe, know nothing. Believing is easy, because no evidence is needed. Those who know, have proof. Religion claims to know, but there is no proof. Science claims to know, and experiment backs up the proof.

Process science, not origins science.

That is not so. I merely pointed out that your religious outlook has evidently degraded your reasoning ability, judging from the absurdities you have posted here. You might be quite intelligent for all I know.

Called dumb again...

 

[javajo]

Message to javajo: Do you have any scientific, and historical evidence that the story of Adam and Eve is true?

I simply believe it is true.

Do you know enough about biology to adequately discredit theistic evolution?

I know enough to be convinced of it myself. The battle between theistic evolution and creation rages on. I know that the Bible says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. The vast majority of people in the world are not experts in biology, or biochemistry. Why isn't it reasonable for them to accept the opinions of such a lrage consensus, or at least be agnostic about naturalistic, or theistic evolution?

You are asking me to be an expert but saying others don't need to be...?

Your criticism of Charles Darwin will not work. First of all, when he wrote "On the Origin of Species," he was a theist, not an atheist.

Good for him.

Second, the theory of evolution is not anti-Christian since millions of Christians accept theistic evolution. Do you believe that God requires that Christians reject theistic evolution, and believe that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true?

No. Its just my belief.

If not, why are you discussing evolution at all if you believe that God does not require that Christians reject it?

Did I bring up evolution? In my belief, I think that when one first reads the Bible and reads about Adam and Eve and a talking serpent and a tree and whatnot, they say, okay this can't be true, so when they read the rest about how Jesus died for them, they don't accept that as true either. I know some may feel it is mythical story with a "spiritual" truth but that is not what I believe. I'm just sayin'. When I was young it confused me as well. It may seem far out, but it is what I believe. And I believe in Christ, that he loves us and died for us so we may be freely saved.

Third, today, when evolutionary research is conducted, the kind of person that Charles Darwin was is quite obviously completely irrelevant. Scientific advances are not limited to people whose character and morality you approve of.

Copy that.

The greatest scientists in history were ancient Greeks (not to mention their expertise in philosophy, and literature), probably none of whom (the scientists) accepted the God of the Bible.

Yeah, they had many gods, even an unknown god.

"Jesus mentioned Adam and Eve when he talked about divorce and how it came with the Law because of the hardness of men's hearts, but that it was not so in the beginning."

Even some conservative Christian Bible scholars inow that it is impossible to be reasonably certain about everything that Jesus said, or did not say.

"Jesus mentions Noah as well as the Flood."

Same as before.

"Jesus' lineage is traced to Adam in the book of Luke."

There is not any credible historical evidence that Noah, and Adam, existed. Even if Adam existed, that would not reasonably prove anything about theistic evolution, and how many people existed before Adam.

"Interesting thing there, is before the destruction of the Temple and genealogical records in 70 AD, every Levite Priest could prove he came from the tribe of Levi, one of the twelve sons of Abraham, who lived only nine generations from Noah and Noah lived only nine generations from Adam. That, to me, is very significant as well as all the other genealogies in the Old Testament and Christ's in Mathew going back to Abraham. Just think, it is pretty well accepted that Abraham was a real person and the father of the Hebrew nation, and he was only 18 generations from Adam."

Why is any of that significant?

It is significant to me. its kind of a connect the dots sort of thing with the evidence. Once one puts it all together there is kind of an "aha" moment. If one is open to finding God. The first lie of the Father of Lies was in the garden, "Yea, hath God said?"

Liberal and moderate Christians know that if a God inspired the Bible, the story of Adam and Eve can be allegorical, as well as what Jesus supposedly said about Adam, and not interfere at all with New Testament theology.

Jesus and the New Testament say Adam and Eve and the Flood were very real, and it does matter to theology in that by one man sin and death entered the world and was passed to all, and by one man, Jesus we may be saved.

In order for the Bible to be literally true, no one was alive in China around 2300 B.C. because of the global flood. Surely most geologists, and historians, including most Christian geologists, and Christian historians, reject that claim.

I'm not dogmatic about the exact timing of the flood, I have my theories and of course I believe it happened before any of the civilizations that exist now.

Are you implying that God requires that Christians accept the story of Adam and Eve, and reject theistic evolution? You previously said "I don't believe in 'atheistic' or theistic evolution, myself. And as I said, to be a Christian one must simply trust Christ to have paid their sin debt." In your opinion, can theistic evolutionists "simply trust Christ to have paid their sin debt."

Are you implying that God requires that Christians accept the global flood story?

No. I'm just sayin' I believe it and that it fits with what the Bible actually says. I believe that to be saved from Hell, one must only trust Christ to have paid their sin debt.

It seems that you are much more interested in what you think than in truth or facts...

Yup, its all about what I think, forget truth and facts, they mean nothing to me. (jk). Actually, I believe the Bible is the truth and the facts and that it can, does and will harmonize with scientific facts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I know that the Bible says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Do you know that many very competent Torah translations render this as "in the beginning of God creating the heavens and the earth," thereby eliminating the sense of creation ex nihilo?