Pell says Adam and Eve didn't exist

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 


It is my belief that it was by the God of the bible.




posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
this is a valid point. i am not catholic, but pell doesn't necessarily represent the catholic church. my understanding is that only when the pope speaks via "papal bull" or as the entire line of the papacy, he is infallible. otherwise, he and his minions, including pell, can and do make errors/mistakes. most people's understanding of the christian bible is rather limited. its what they think they remember their sunday school teacher tell them. its what they think they heard in church or from their parents.
the bible does not say all people came from adam and eve. it says god created man and woman.
whether you believe it is fiction or not, the bible never says god created adam and eve, and never created any more people. before everyone goes jumping to conclusion about what pell's statement means for the catholic church, keep in mind that the pope has not made a statement regarding pell's statement. and the rest of the protestant side has not commented.
its similar in vein to any idiotic statement that palin makes. other republicans can't be charged with her assinine comments.
whether the bible is fiction or not, it is the basis of belief that has inspired 2000 yrs of mainstream religion. whether i believe what they believe, i will not insult their beliefs. i may agree to disagree.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 

I hope that wasn't sarcastic

Even as an Atheist, i believe that too. No matter what his true name is (Zeus, Odin, Yahwe, Allah). Like an old saying say: There is no smoke without fire. If all our mythology or religions says that we were created from God's hands, it must have a slight truth in it.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 





And?
How many wars has religion started again?

How many lives has religion claimed in the name of God?

What does written history have to do with what is contained in the bible? The bible is a compilation of fairy tales, not historical fact.


What does this have to do with the price of rice in China? Men are men, you dont need religion to make war, thats just a cop-out where secular people want to blame religion for war and is utter rubbish. Men were making war on eachother before religion was ever created. The men in ancient times didn't give a damn who your god was or if you didn't have one, if they wanted your food because they were starving, oh sure they'd pray to whatever gods they had for "help" and then try to take your sh*t because it was what they wanted.

You're just one more secular person spouting the same trash Dawkins spouts. It is the nature of man to make war, if there were no religions men would still find reason to kill eachother, get real and get informed
. Even in todays societies, specifically in america and the west we have this thing called "seperation of church and state" and wars still are fought...and over recources not religion but oil.

100 years from now there won't be any religions and wars will still be fought, what will be your excuse then? Oh "wars are fought now because religions that went extinct 100 years ago influenced it". You're just looking for a scapegoat for humanitys' failures.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 


It was not sarcasm. I try to avoid sarcasm when writing posts in the religious threads because I do not want to be accused of being a condescending, narrow-minded Christian.

I really just try to lay out the terms of the current debate and ask relevant questions. I try to keep it civil and never insulting. I truly enjoy the debate as long as it doesn't descend into a bashing session.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
. Even in todays societies, specifically in america and the west we have this thing called "seperation of church and state" and wars still are fought...and over recources not religion but oil.


And why do they fight?
Why does the middle east have suicide bombers and Jihad? Because they think their religion will reward them for killing innocents/dissenters of Islam. Infidels.

It is fact. When it is proven why wars have been fought, it is not a 'scapegoat,' it is a fact.



100 years from now there won't be any religions and wars will still be fought, what will be your excuse then? Oh "wars are fought now because religions that went extinct 100 years ago influenced it". You're just looking for a scapegoat for humanitys' failures.


Well if I were alive in 100 years when religion is extinct, obviously I wouldn't be blaming religion for wars. I blame religion for wars when it is proven wars are fought for religion!
edit on 4-10-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


The U.S. says we liberate Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, etc. due to human rights atrocities or to promote democracy and we say bull*.

But some crazed bomb wearing maniac says this is in the name of religion and that is accepted as fact? Do you honestly believe that the above is the position of every practicing Muslim? Do you believe that it is the official stance of the religion? Really?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci

But some crazed bomb wearing maniac says this is in the name of religion and that is accepted as fact? Do you honestly believe that the above is the position of every practicing Muslim? Do you believe that it is the official stance of the religion? Really?


It is. Please look up Jihad and what is permitted in Islamic law, then feel free to come back and discuss.

I can tell you have done no research in this area.


And where did I say it is the position of every Muslim?
Religion has its extremists, but it is done for religion nonetheless!
edit on 4-10-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I think you have to be semi-retarded to insist that Adam and Eve were historical figures. Of COURSE THEY ARE MYTHS! Undoubtedly. Now, what does the word 'myth' mean to you? If it doesn't connote archetypal-metaphysical reality, then you are just not getting the significance of that biblical narrative.

The prime importance of the story is in it's mythological, or, if you will, metaphysical-ontological meaning. It's speaks about man's spiritual origin, not his material/physical origin.

Can any religious believer in the Bible/Torah really believe, in all intellectual honesty, that a tree of good and evil existed? Does this NOT SOUND LIKE A METAPHOR?
edit on 10-4-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


Here's an article discussing and rebuking Dennis Venema and his theory:


About 700 million information-packed DNA differences exist—including genetic and genomic differences—between humans and chimpanzees.3 Each of these changes would need to become "fixed" into the whole population of primates in order to transform them into humans.

But even if a single human-like mutation fortuitously occurred in both members of a reproducing pair, it would have virtually no chance of spreading to all 10,000 "emerging" humans. Instead, through interbreeding with non-mutants, the mutation would diffuse and disappear after only a few generations.

The only way for that mutation to spread throughout the population is for enough of the non-mutants to die, producing a preponderance of mutants. The problem is that the number of those who would have to be eliminated in order for the mutants to outnumber the non-mutants is more than the population could afford to sacrifice.4 Humans could not possibly have evolved from primates through lucky genetic accidents.


www.icr.org...



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by micmerci

But some crazed bomb wearing maniac says this is in the name of religion and that is accepted as fact? Do you honestly believe that the above is the position of every practicing Muslim? Do you believe that it is the official stance of the religion? Really?


It is. Please look up Jihad and what is permitted in Islamic law, then feel free to come back and discuss.

I can tell you have done no research in this area.


And where did I say it is the position of every Muslim?
Religion has its extremists, but it is done for religion nonetheless!
edit on 4-10-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)


FYI, my research in this area took place in that area- so I am not sure what you can tell or not but I do know a little something about it.
Like I said before, I enjoy debate until it degrades and I believe our debate has reached that point. It's been fun.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by starheart
 


It was not sarcasm. I try to avoid sarcasm when writing posts in the religious threads because I do not want to be accused of being a condescending, narrow-minded Christian.

I really just try to lay out the terms of the current debate and ask relevant questions. I try to keep it civil and never insulting. I truly enjoy the debate as long as it doesn't descend into a bashing session.



I know, i was joking. Sorry. Now, so many people don't try to consider the point of view of the other one.

Perhaps Adam and Eve existed, not as our direct ancestors, but pershaps as being the two most popular humans that fell under the Serpent's trap.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 


No need to apologize, I am not offended. I was just hoping not to offend.

Perhaps Adam and Eve were the first created but God created others.

For example:

So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

This is in Genesis in the chapter before the account of Eve being created from the rib of Adam. Maybe God created many. This would solve the "incest" problem and also explain how Cain had children when he was banished to the land of Nod.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


See, this is what happens when religion opposes science: now they want to say that Mitochondrial Eve doesn't exist! After all science did to prove it?!!



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
I think you have to be semi-retarded to insist that Adam and Eve were historical figures. Of COURSE THEY ARE MYTHS! Undoubtedly. Now, what does the word 'myth' mean to you? If it doesn't connote archetypal-metaphysical reality, then you are just not getting the significance of that biblical narrative.

The prime importance of the story is in it's mythological, or, if you will, metaphysical-ontological meaning. It's speaks about man's spiritual origin, not his material/physical origin.

Can any religious believer in the Bible/Torah really believe, in all intellectual honesty, that a tree of good and evil existed? Does this NOT SOUND LIKE A METAPHOR?
edit on 10-4-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)


Why not? The New Jerusalem is supposed to have a River and Tree of Life:

Revelation 22:1-2


1) And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

2) In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
The dubbing of a single, common maternal ancestor of homo sapiens "Eve" has absolutely nothing to do with the Biblical story of Adam & Eve.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


Because they didn't.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 


Right. And even if the science say that Adam and Eve didn't exist, how could they know? They were 6000 years ago, and unless they were momified or in the desert, their bodies are long gone!



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by starheart
reply to post by micmerci
 


Right. And even if the science say that Adam and Eve didn't exist, how could they know? They were 6000 years ago, and unless they were momified or in the desert, their bodies are long gone!


there were four rivers that mouthed up to up to the garden. two of them are fossilzed as well. ldolphin.org...

also on some history channel show as well.

anyways, i am gonna say that the garden was an actual magical area that once existed , but is now the Persian gulf . and adam and eve were around the ssame time other civilizations exited too which answers other odd questions in the bible, like who did so and so go off with and have kids in genesis. cannot think of name...



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


And you think there is such a thing as a literal tree of life, as opposed to a tree of the knowledge of good and evil? So in your mind, these are actual physical trees - and not literary instruments conveying abstract-archetypal concepts?





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join