sandor606
epistemologist
Hi Dezzie,
I am also an evolutionist and I am intrigued: What parts of the Bible do you think are just stories and why do you love reading it ?
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
how did man appear on earth
- Thread starter zenzero
- Start date
Hi Dezzie,
I am also an evolutionist and I am intrigued: What parts of the Bible do you think are just stories and why do you love reading it ?
sandor606
epistemologist
Hi Dezzie,
I am also an evolutionst and I amintrigued: What parts of the Bible do you think are stories and why do you love reading it ?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Evolutionist? Are you sure?
wa:do
wa:do
capslockf9
Active Member
And as everybody else does they pick and choose what pertains and blockout the rest. The writing is; one or the other. It is either all true or it is not.
sandor606
epistemologist
Absolutely. I share the view of those scientists who believe that evolution took place not according to Darwinian principles but was instead directed. The original life plasm contained all information necessary to bring about all the genetic changes and modifications. This is one of the key points in Michael Denton's "Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe."
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Intelligent Design supporter then....
Generally biologists don't use the term 'evolutionist'.
wa:do
"...original life plasm contained all information necessary to bring about all the genetic changes and modifications."
Life plasm huh! Are you a Urantian or theosophist by any chance? 'Cause all you've posted so far shows you know next to nothing about biology.
But the problem here is that if the information was encoded in the DNA of that original life in a inactive form it would still be subject to mutations. And if you are educated in biology you know what happens to genes that are not active. If they are not expressed then they are not subject to natural selection which would tend to weed out genetic mistakes. So such genes would quickly accumulate errors, you can imagine what would happen over 4 billion years, we would end up with nothing but gobblygook. Any information that was encoded in that original life would not last long, certainly it would not last till today.
Kurgan
Member
Adam and Eve are myths and they show up in other religious beliefs before Moses was born about 2000 years before as a matter of fact. The story is an allegory to explain mans existance. the principle is that man is flawed and needs to control his desires and emotions in order to have a harmonious existance with his neighbor.
JustWondering
Jerk
Stated like a true Vulcan. If humanity does not destroy itself first, logic will eventually prevail.
JustWondering
Jerk
Don't you mean caves?
eclectic23
eclectic23
evolution is obviously true, but what about genetic manipulation? im not sure what i believe but i find that the truth usually lies somewhere in between. scientific proof leads me to believe that some type of intervention has happenend in the past. ancient knoledge was just too great to explain without that assumtion. so what if our ancient teachers took an interest in us because we were deliberatly created. a planned evolution. you have to read things like the bible as an inteligent being that recognises the ignorance of the times. there was no language to explain what they were experiencing. think of the referance to the rib. DNA maybe? who knows? we are told that quantum physics exsists, how would you explain it? like a friggin idiot, thats how. i think that they did the best they could to explain things that they had no grasp on. its one thing to be told something and another to understand how it works.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I would think that (like when we do genetic manipulation) there would be some sort of trace of it in our genome.
wa:do
George Desnoyers
New Member
George Desnoyers here.
The first woman was Lilith, not Eve. Lilith had been created from the dirt, just like Adam (whose name means "dirt") had been. Since Lilith was created the same way as Adam, she demanded equality, as seen from the fact that she demanded equal rights to being the active partner during sexual intercourse. Adam complained to God about this equality, so God made Eve from Adam's rib and made Eve Adams new companion. That Eve was made from Adam's rib became a basis for billions of folks through plural millennia in being taught and holding the belief that males are superior to females. Even the Bible has evidence that sex with the woman on top (and presumably the active partner) was sinful. Lilith, by the way, retaliated for being replaced by Eve by having sex with males during their sleeping. The story of Lilith is very well known from extra-Biblical accounts. The canonized Jewish and Christian scriptures dont mention the story of Lilith due to those scriptures being authored and compiled by men who strongly favored the ideas of male superiority and male ownership of females.
Lets look, for a moment, at the Christian tradition. Did Christians really believe in the inferiority and immorality of women? Yes and yes!
First of all, its taken for granted throughout the Bible. That was why women who gave birth (even Mary, who gave birth to the divine Jesus see Luke 2:22) needed ritual purification, and why women who gave birth to girls were unclean twice as long as women who gave birth to boys (Lev. 12:2-5). [The idea of male superiority was already old when the Bible was being written, and at least many hundreds of years old during the time of Christ.]
Second, the leaders on whom the Christian Church most relied in establishing its teachings and practices regarding sexuality and gender believed in the inferiority of women. Augustine (354-430) was by far the Churchs leading authority on sexuality and gender from the fourth though the twelfth centuries. Unfortunately, Augustines Manichaean past, and his personal hang-ups that resulted from it, things which should have disqualified him from even having input on a lot of sex and gender issues, were the very reasons why the Church held Augustines ideas on sex and gender in such high regard. What did he believe?
Augustine believed that women were useless other than for their role in procreation: "I don't see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes the purpose of procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and woman cohabitate." (De genesi ad litteram 9, 5-9, emphasis mine)
Look at this quote of Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274). Hes the theologian who finally replaced Augustine as the Churchs leading authority on matters of sex and gender - "Since any supremacy of rank cannot be expressed in the female sex, which has the status of an inferior, that sex cannot receive ordination." (Summa Theologiae Suppl. Q. 39r). Is that quote enough to the point, i.e., in showing how the Christian Church accepted and taught male superiority?
[By the way, Aquinas was canonized in 1323, had his doctrine declared sound in 1342, and was made a doctor of the church in 1568. After the urging of Pope Leo XIII (in 1879) that Catholics study the philosophy and theology of Aquinas, most Catholic colleges structured many of their philosophy courses around Aquinas' writings and ideas. He is still considered by many educated Catholics to be the Church's greatest philosopher and theologian. No wonder the RCCs official male leadership still refuses to ordain women as priests.]
Here are a few more quotes by very influential Christian theologians of the past.
Clement of Alexandria (c.150 - c. 215) - "A woman, considering what her nature is, must be ashamed of it."
Turtullian (c. 155 - c. 220) - Women are "the gateway through which the devil comes."
Epiphanius, the bishop of Cyprus (c. 315 - 403 A.D.) - "Women are easily seduced, weak and lacking in reason. The devil works to spew his chaos out through them."
Synod of Paris (829) - "In some provinces it happens that women press around the altar, touch the holy vessels, hand the clerics the priestly vestments, indeed even dispense the body and blood of the Lord to the people. This is shameful and must not take place...No doubt such customs have arisen because of the carelessness and negligence of the bishops." [Emphasis mine. Wasn't that awful? They handed robes to the priests.]
Albert the Great, well-known teacher of Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century) - "Woman is less qualified [than man] for moral behavior. For the woman contains more liquid than the man, and it is a property of liquid to take things up easily, and to hold onto them poorly. Liquids are easily moved, hence women are inconstant and curious. When a woman has relations with a man, she would like, as much as possible, to be lying with another man at the same time. Woman knows nothing of fidelity. Believe me, if you give her your trust, you will be disappointed. Trust an experienced teacher. For this reason prudent men share their plans and actions least of all with their wives. Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison with his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she herself cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. If I could say what I know about women, the world would be astonished. Woman is strictly speaking not cleverer, but slyer (more cunning) than man. Cleverness sounds like something good, slyness sounds like something evil. Thus in evil and perverse doings, woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good" (Quaestiones super de animalibus XV q. 11).
Would you like your church to allow the ordination of women like that? Neither did Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas. Incidentally, Aquinas believed at least most of the above teaching of Albertus Magnus, and quoted from it on multiple occasions. The feeling expressed in the last quote, that woman was a misbegotten man, was a teaching of Aristotle that was truly believed by Albert and Aquinas. The whole teaching included the idea that the woman is a flowerpot for the man's semen (the role of the ovum in regeneration was not conclusively demonstrated until 1827). If conception took place during moist south winds, the excessive amount of water produced defective humans instead of the intended perfect humans (men) (Summa Theologiae I q. 92 a. 1). Aristotle taught that too much moisture would lead to defective humans in this increasing order of defectiveness: a male that looks like the mother, a female that looks like the father, or a female that looks like the mother. This teaching was held by many for centuries because it was supposedly based on scientific experiments, e.g., the dissection of pregnant animals.
St. Bonaventure (thirteenth century) - Wrote that since only the male was made in the image of God, only the male can receive the godlike office of priest.
Other quotes and beliefs like the above could be given, but I think I have provided enough. I have omitted quotes regarding the menstruation of women, often considered the source and evidence of their impurity. Although Leviticus 15:19-30, as it relates to the female's discharge, has its parallel in the consideration of the male's discharge in Lev. 15:2-18, the temple-related practices of the Jews did not reflect the similarities in the treatments of males and females in Lev. 15. The patriarchal Jews placed much tougher restrictions on women due to the supposed impurity linked with their menstruation. Many of the women-restricting Jewish temple practices were later incorporated into the thinking of the Christian church. Women were, as a rule, kept away from all things holy. For instance, since it was thought that choirs should be behind or aside the altar, many bishops in the early church required eunuchs to sing the higher pitched (feminine) parts. Eunuchs were not viewed favorably, but they were considered superior to women. Several of the Catholic Church's rules to keep women away from the "sacred" articles of the church lasted until well into the twentieth century.
The story of Lilith, so often ignored when the story of Adam and Eve is told, actually provides important background information for attitudes still in existence today.
George Desnoyers
The first woman was Lilith, not Eve. Lilith had been created from the dirt, just like Adam (whose name means "dirt") had been. Since Lilith was created the same way as Adam, she demanded equality, as seen from the fact that she demanded equal rights to being the active partner during sexual intercourse. Adam complained to God about this equality, so God made Eve from Adam's rib and made Eve Adams new companion. That Eve was made from Adam's rib became a basis for billions of folks through plural millennia in being taught and holding the belief that males are superior to females. Even the Bible has evidence that sex with the woman on top (and presumably the active partner) was sinful. Lilith, by the way, retaliated for being replaced by Eve by having sex with males during their sleeping. The story of Lilith is very well known from extra-Biblical accounts. The canonized Jewish and Christian scriptures dont mention the story of Lilith due to those scriptures being authored and compiled by men who strongly favored the ideas of male superiority and male ownership of females.
Lets look, for a moment, at the Christian tradition. Did Christians really believe in the inferiority and immorality of women? Yes and yes!
First of all, its taken for granted throughout the Bible. That was why women who gave birth (even Mary, who gave birth to the divine Jesus see Luke 2:22) needed ritual purification, and why women who gave birth to girls were unclean twice as long as women who gave birth to boys (Lev. 12:2-5). [The idea of male superiority was already old when the Bible was being written, and at least many hundreds of years old during the time of Christ.]
Second, the leaders on whom the Christian Church most relied in establishing its teachings and practices regarding sexuality and gender believed in the inferiority of women. Augustine (354-430) was by far the Churchs leading authority on sexuality and gender from the fourth though the twelfth centuries. Unfortunately, Augustines Manichaean past, and his personal hang-ups that resulted from it, things which should have disqualified him from even having input on a lot of sex and gender issues, were the very reasons why the Church held Augustines ideas on sex and gender in such high regard. What did he believe?
Augustine believed that women were useless other than for their role in procreation: "I don't see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes the purpose of procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and woman cohabitate." (De genesi ad litteram 9, 5-9, emphasis mine)
Look at this quote of Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274). Hes the theologian who finally replaced Augustine as the Churchs leading authority on matters of sex and gender - "Since any supremacy of rank cannot be expressed in the female sex, which has the status of an inferior, that sex cannot receive ordination." (Summa Theologiae Suppl. Q. 39r). Is that quote enough to the point, i.e., in showing how the Christian Church accepted and taught male superiority?
[By the way, Aquinas was canonized in 1323, had his doctrine declared sound in 1342, and was made a doctor of the church in 1568. After the urging of Pope Leo XIII (in 1879) that Catholics study the philosophy and theology of Aquinas, most Catholic colleges structured many of their philosophy courses around Aquinas' writings and ideas. He is still considered by many educated Catholics to be the Church's greatest philosopher and theologian. No wonder the RCCs official male leadership still refuses to ordain women as priests.]
Here are a few more quotes by very influential Christian theologians of the past.
Clement of Alexandria (c.150 - c. 215) - "A woman, considering what her nature is, must be ashamed of it."
Turtullian (c. 155 - c. 220) - Women are "the gateway through which the devil comes."
Epiphanius, the bishop of Cyprus (c. 315 - 403 A.D.) - "Women are easily seduced, weak and lacking in reason. The devil works to spew his chaos out through them."
Synod of Paris (829) - "In some provinces it happens that women press around the altar, touch the holy vessels, hand the clerics the priestly vestments, indeed even dispense the body and blood of the Lord to the people. This is shameful and must not take place...No doubt such customs have arisen because of the carelessness and negligence of the bishops." [Emphasis mine. Wasn't that awful? They handed robes to the priests.]
Albert the Great, well-known teacher of Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century) - "Woman is less qualified [than man] for moral behavior. For the woman contains more liquid than the man, and it is a property of liquid to take things up easily, and to hold onto them poorly. Liquids are easily moved, hence women are inconstant and curious. When a woman has relations with a man, she would like, as much as possible, to be lying with another man at the same time. Woman knows nothing of fidelity. Believe me, if you give her your trust, you will be disappointed. Trust an experienced teacher. For this reason prudent men share their plans and actions least of all with their wives. Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison with his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she herself cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. If I could say what I know about women, the world would be astonished. Woman is strictly speaking not cleverer, but slyer (more cunning) than man. Cleverness sounds like something good, slyness sounds like something evil. Thus in evil and perverse doings, woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good" (Quaestiones super de animalibus XV q. 11).
Would you like your church to allow the ordination of women like that? Neither did Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas. Incidentally, Aquinas believed at least most of the above teaching of Albertus Magnus, and quoted from it on multiple occasions. The feeling expressed in the last quote, that woman was a misbegotten man, was a teaching of Aristotle that was truly believed by Albert and Aquinas. The whole teaching included the idea that the woman is a flowerpot for the man's semen (the role of the ovum in regeneration was not conclusively demonstrated until 1827). If conception took place during moist south winds, the excessive amount of water produced defective humans instead of the intended perfect humans (men) (Summa Theologiae I q. 92 a. 1). Aristotle taught that too much moisture would lead to defective humans in this increasing order of defectiveness: a male that looks like the mother, a female that looks like the father, or a female that looks like the mother. This teaching was held by many for centuries because it was supposedly based on scientific experiments, e.g., the dissection of pregnant animals.
St. Bonaventure (thirteenth century) - Wrote that since only the male was made in the image of God, only the male can receive the godlike office of priest.
Other quotes and beliefs like the above could be given, but I think I have provided enough. I have omitted quotes regarding the menstruation of women, often considered the source and evidence of their impurity. Although Leviticus 15:19-30, as it relates to the female's discharge, has its parallel in the consideration of the male's discharge in Lev. 15:2-18, the temple-related practices of the Jews did not reflect the similarities in the treatments of males and females in Lev. 15. The patriarchal Jews placed much tougher restrictions on women due to the supposed impurity linked with their menstruation. Many of the women-restricting Jewish temple practices were later incorporated into the thinking of the Christian church. Women were, as a rule, kept away from all things holy. For instance, since it was thought that choirs should be behind or aside the altar, many bishops in the early church required eunuchs to sing the higher pitched (feminine) parts. Eunuchs were not viewed favorably, but they were considered superior to women. Several of the Catholic Church's rules to keep women away from the "sacred" articles of the church lasted until well into the twentieth century.
The story of Lilith, so often ignored when the story of Adam and Eve is told, actually provides important background information for attitudes still in existence today.
George Desnoyers
CatLover 412
New Member
Well, I am a person of science. So, really, I am in MAJOR confusion, because, I read the bible, and based on it, Adam and Eve are the ones who started our species. But in science terms, which is basically how we, and our planet works, I've learned that comets can start life. Maybe, bacteria, was first life on earth, then it evolved into microscopic bugs, then small fish, then large fish, then early reptiles, then dinosaurs, then mammals, apes, Neanderthals, then humans. Also, if god created the earth, then why do SCIENTIST, believe that it's was formed by the Big Bang? And is 4.8 billion years old? I don't know, 
like I said, I'm confused.
like I said, I'm confused.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Well, I am a person of science. So, really, I am in MAJOR confusion, because, I read the bible, and based on it, Adam and Eve are the ones who started our species. But in science terms, which is basically how we, and our planet works, I've learned that comets can start life. Maybe, bacteria, was first life on earth, then it evolved into microscopic bugs, then small fish, then large fish, then early reptiles, then dinosaurs, then mammals, apes, Neanderthals, then humans. Also, if god created the earth, then why do SCIENTIST, believe that it's was formed by the Big Bang? And is 4.8 billion years old? I don't know,
Why do scientists believe all the things science says? Mostly because that's what the evidence seems to point at. Science is about studying nature from an objective point of view, without adding any extra flair of faith, belief, or supernatural (unexplainable) explanations. Science is about finding how nature works from the view of nature itself. What does nature do? How does nature work? And so on. And the evidence over the last couple of hundred years point to a very old universe, very old Earth, very old Moon, and very old fossils from animals that we've never seen alive thousands or even millions of years.
Take a simple thing as a supernova exploding far, far away. The light from the supernova reaches us, but it also spreads to other parts and reflects from gas clouds, and the reflection from the gas clouds creates for us a triangle. By using simple trigonometric equations and knowing the speed of light, we can establish how far away that supernova is from us and how long it took the light to reach us. One example of this is SN1987A. It took that light about 150,000 years to reach us. Just simply from a trigonometric equation (invented 350 years before Jesus) and fundamental knowledge of speed of light (which can be measured in modern time).
So why do scientists believe what they believe? Because much of what they believe is what they know based on facts and what truth matches those facts the best. In other words, if you're a person of science, it would be natural to believe the things science says about this world.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I don't know. It's possible, but maybe not probable since it would show more in the DNA. We're too similar and the differences between us and chimps are quite random. No one has pinned down a "human gene" because there are so many small things here and there. With that said, I've had similar thoughts. There's another explanation, that the Universe itself strives for and reaches for awareness/discernment/consciousness to evolve through life. Perhaps consciousness is as natural as gravity and inescapable in a Universe like ours? Somehow, somewhere, through something, it will always and would have evolved.