It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Pell says Adam and Eve didn't exist

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:21 PM
we had to come from some where ..

the question is, did we evolve? or were we designed for a purpose? ...both sides of the argument have pro's and cons

i would like to believe that some higher being either God, or a god with a small g played a part in our existence

i always thought Adam n Eve represented the first hybrid humans ...the snake (reptile) the apple (forbidden knowledge) ..

reading the bible from a none religious view point can make you look at in a completely different fashion

tbh we have no idea how long we have been around .. not even convinced on the dinosaur extinction theory never mind the complexity's of how our species came about

edit on 06/-05004/2011 by sitchin because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:23 PM

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by SeventhSeal

Totally agree. But don't you think that the mere fact it has been said poses further questions about the foundations of catholic religion? I.e. after all this was "the beginning" in "their" eyes.......and now it's been publicly admitted that it's all a story. That’s got to hurt a little wouldn't you say?

You know what I mean?

Screw it. If someone is so convinced that they know all the answers and carry an arrogant "I know what happens after death" attitude and then finds out what they believe in is absolute BULLSH*T, I can't help but sit back and smile.

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:32 PM
reply to post by italiansomeone

So the question is...........if that didn't happen (it didn't) where did life come from then? Or is the catholic religion now admitting they don't know, which means the rest of "the story" is a crock. Every story has a beggining and a end?

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:35 PM
reply to post 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.

So naturally anyone that doesn't believe what you do and decides to climb out of the box, is "retarded"
. Way to sling that judgement of yours about

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:35 PM
I don't know why everyone is freaking out about this statement. The fact is the bible has always been a spiritual book, one which even openly says it speaks in symbols and metaphors and it's true value is the meaning of those symbols not as a literal history book. And really the statement only will have baring on people who interpret the bible literally; which is good they shouldn't have been reading the bible in the first place apparently.

As, far as the garden of Eden, though it has some problematic philosophical implications it's actually a pretty interesting philosophical story when you understand what it is saying.

In the beginning man was like the animals, living in the garden of Eden; ie living in the forests and jungles like animals, and knowing not of the knowledge of good and evil; ie the ability to judge things and see their differences; which is the foundation of intellect and reason; and also knowing not of death; because it is intellect and reason that gives mankind the ability to realize and contemplate their own mortality, unlike the animals.

Then, the serpent comes along and convinces man to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and when they do, they gain the ability to judge things as good and evil; to discern the difference between things and forces, thereby gaining the very thing they need to develop, reason,intellect, civilization, science and technology.

At that moment humanity was placed on a path apart from the other animals, the path to become like unto the Elohim, or gods, so to speak. And at the same time the price for intellect and reason, was the knowledge of their own mortality; ie tasting of death, and toiling in the fields to gain food and sustenance; ie actually struggling and working to grow food and farm, instead of just picking fruit and berries of bushes like other primates. And also at that moment they were driven from the garden of Eden with no way back; ie once mankind gained reason and intellect there was no going back to being like the other animals living in a blissful, ignorant primal state in the woods and jungle.

Further, there is a great deal of philosophical ideas in the meaning the serpent and etc as well. For one, though man kind had the capability for free will they never exercised it until the moment they disobeyed god, so one could say that mankind had no freewill until that moment.

Also, if you look at the idea that intellect and reason, brings much suffering and pain with it which it does; what animals lament or worry about the day they will die unlike humans, or wrestle with great philosophical concepts like the afterlife or lack of, or even wrestle with the intellectual ideas of the meaning of it all or if it even has one, like humans? No other animals do only us and since reason brings great suffering, then if there were a creator and it were benevolent it would not force such a state on people, it would give them a choice and in the story of the garden of Eden, the creator did.

Now, of course all of that is just my philosophical interpretation, but I think it is one far closer to the one intended by the authors of genesis, rather then people running around believing it be literal fact and hating and despising the serpent and wanting to go back to the garden of which there is no return. etc. The story of the garden of eden is an early philosophical examination of what sets us apart from other animals and an attempt to explain how we got set apart in the first place, why does man have reason and intellect and not other animals?

There is actually a great deal of symbolic and philosophical information in the bible, when you realize especially with genesis that the characters are not individuals, but people and groups of people in general.

Just, like the battle between Cain and Able clearly outlines the great struggle between agricultural and civilization based people, vs the hunter gather herder based people.

Anyway, the cardinal's statement doesn't really surprise me, what surprises me is the people that hold the bible as literal fact and not what it is intended to be, a book of symbols, allegories and parables, with deeper philosophical meaning.
edit on 10-4-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by starheart
reply to post by Jordan River

I see. Well, just got to wait a couples of years, when archeologists will dig there, and see if we find Adam and Eve body. It will solve alot of questions.

i believe adam and eve. (or whatever their real names were in some semtic language) epic of gilgmesh/ enuma elisha whatever... if buried, would be buried beneath the persian gulf

Now we are getting closer to the truth, Sumer is yet to give up all its secrets, and I'd like to think that we just haven't dug down far enough yet.

The ELITES have kept the truth from us for all time and its about time people wake up to the fact that we are being lied to on a MONUMENTAL SCALE.

I watched the programme and thought Dawkins won it hands down, but I also thought the "quality' of the questions was poor.

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:46 PM
reply to post by CaptainBeno

both sides of the issue of our origins should get a real kick out of this:

"To the House of Life Enki led them; in strong cages there were some of the beings (read: hominoids ala Lloyd Pye).

At the sight of Enki and the others they jumped up, with fists on the cage bars they were beating.

They were grunting and snorting; no words were they speaking.

Male and female they are! Enki was saying; malehoods and femalehoods they have,

Like us, from Nibiru coming, they are procreating.

Ningishzidda, my son, their Fashioning Essence (DNA) has tested;

Akin to ours it is, like two serpents it is entwined (double helix);

When their (dna) with our life essence (dna) shall be combined, our mark upon them shall be,

A Primitive Worker (slaves) shall be created! Our commands will he understand,

Our tools he will handle, the toil in the excavations he shall perform;

To the Anunnaki in the Abzu (S.E. African gold mines, ala Michael Tellinger) relief shall come! "

neither side likes this "myth" but to me, all ego aside, it is the most plausible and more than likely most probable.

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:52 PM
Now im not religious, but most of the religious people i have met agree that the adam and eve story was just a simple way of explaining what happened.

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:55 PM
Been around a little while but first post here - hope I've done all the linky things right!

I'm posting because I get kind of frustrated by the lack of knowledge on which people base their assumptions about the catholic church - for instance the reaction to Pell's "amazing" admission.

Not getting into the creation / evolution debate - as far as I am concerned science wins on that one. The thing is, the catholic church pretty much thinks so too - although they, of course, have some theological provisos about the creation of the soul and where God fits into the whole deal. George Pell is just saying something that has been acceptable in the church for at least 60 years. He has to be one of the least progressive, most traditional clergymen I have ever had the displeasure to come across. If he is getting up and publicly saying that Genesis is a myth you can bet everything you own or will ever own that this is not in conflict with the teaching of the catholic church.

And it is not.

I am 47 years of age and my education was within the catholic education system. I was never taught creationism and was taught evolution as a matter of accepted science. This is not because I was in some weird, progressive catholic school. It is because the catholic church does not teach creationism. In 1950 Pope Pius (admittedly in a pretty lukewarm manner) declared that evolutionary theory was not in conflict with the catholic faith. Pope John Paul II acknowledged evolution as fact:

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation.
Today, [1996] almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis


If a catholic is a creationist it is a personal belief. There are catholic teachers /clergy who hold that belief. But, it is not, and has not been for a some time, the doctrine of the church.
Acceptance of evolution and the understanding of Genesis as a myth by the catholic church is just not news.

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:58 PM

Originally posted by italiansomeone
reply to post by InfaRedMan

Hello, first post on ATS.
First of all, forgive me for my bad english but I'm italian

Second thing: I am writing using my mobile, therefore I won't write a lot of things, I just would like to reply to some of your statements by giving my opinion.

As you may know Italy is a country where Christianity is widely accepted and almost every child here is taught about the stories both from Bible and Gospel.
For what concerns Adam and Eve, you will never find anybody that states that they really existed.
Everyone knows that that tale is merely a way to justify the malicious tendencies common to all human beings. I wonder why mr. Pell's statement heats some of you so much...

The user I am quoting (edit. I don't know how to quote people, I am referring to InfaRedMan on first page) probably did not read the bible, otherwise he/she would know that there is no lineal correlation between Adam and Eve and the people whose vicissitudes are later described in the book.

This said, I have chosen not to be religious, but that does not mean I did not read the Bible since it is nevertheless a most interesting reading. Also, you cannot judge something you do not know.

That's all.

edit on 10-4-2012 by italiansomeone because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-4-2012 by italiansomeone because: (no reason given)

And cain and able where made up to? i think not

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Bixxi3
Now im not religious, but most of the religious people i have met agree that the adam and eve story was just a simple way of explaining what happened.

Yes it's true what you say - Every religion has a creation story.
If the Bible is wrong does it mean the Big Bang is is the real creation story and if so what caused it.
Genesis is a story that attempts to explain Creation in non scientific terms.
Creation is a reality - How would you or any describe it - Science perhaps but science just does not do it for me as it can not explain the first cause.

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 06:22 PM
Well, my mind is officially blown. I am going to have a hard time getting over the idea that a book of bronze age fairy tales does not accurately reflect reality.

It is the 21st century. Get with the program.

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 06:28 PM
reply to post by KringleFantastico

Love ya work

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 06:32 PM

Originally posted by KringleFantastico
Well, my mind is officially blown. I am going to have a hard time getting over the idea that a book of bronze age fairy tales does not accurately reflect reality.

It is the 21st century. Get with the program.

Yes 21st Century yet reality is far from being explained
Maybe in the 22nd century those who hold fast the ideas of the 21st century will be spoken of as you do to Christians.

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 06:52 PM

Originally posted by CaptainBeno

Pell says Adam and Eve didn't exist

In comments that may shock some staunch Catholics, Cardinal George Pell has described the biblical story of Adam and Eve as a myth.

He appeared alongside renowned evolutionary biologist and atheist, Professor Richard Dawkins, on the ABC's Q&A program last night.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Wow! Thanks for bringing this up. I watched it and was stunned to find the poll showing 76% of the 20,000 that voted didn't believe that religious belief makes the world a better place. Could've watched another hour of that discussion.

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 06:54 PM
reply to post by artistpoet

I sincerely hope that they do. We are really, really, really, incredibly stupid. But that does not mean that we should retreat to mythology that was created thousands of years ago to help explain why the river sometimes flooded and killed all of our livestock and family.

A pillar of salt? Seriously? Guy survives inside of a fish for three days and is spat ashore at the whim of a god? Seven headed dragons? Burning bushes? A boat that carried two of every species (for the moment, we will overlook the obvious genetic bottle-necking problem), including all of the freshwater fish (aquariums? you tell me). And let us not forget Exodus 21, where the rules for beating your slave are pretty clearly outlined.

And then there is the whole Jesus thing. The very most "moderate" and "progressive" Christian has to at the very least believe that there was some lady who was a virgin (critical to the integrity of the story for some reason or another), who was then raped by a god, who then gave birth to a wizard, that wizard did some magic tricks, was nailed to some wood, died, put into a cave, and then flew away into the sky. That is the very least that a Christian must believe to be a Christian.

I for one find all of that to be completely outside of the context of what I perceive to be reality. And so back to point...

Get with the program. It is the 21st century.

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 06:59 PM

Originally posted by MisterFister103

Religion fails to see its own hypocrisy......

even when they admit it.

I expect soon they will say, "No Jesus wasn't god, but he was a nice guy. So, who wouldn't want to follow the teachings of a nice guy?" Followed by, "No, there's no god of the bible, but we'll continue to practice our faith according to the idea of IF there was a god, how would he want us to live our lives?"

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:00 PM
reply to post by KringleFantastico

What reality in the 21st Century should I get with?
Pray tell I am curious

Oh I misread so there is a programme - what is it?

edit on 10-4-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-4-2012 by artistpoet because: typo

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:11 PM

Originally posted by micmerci
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?

It says right in the Koran, Kill the infidels. Would an atheist blow himself up for atheism? Well, not this one, that's for sure.

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Bixxi3
Now im not religious, but most of the religious people i have met agree that the adam and eve story was just a simple way of explaining what happened.

So, how do the religious justify believing one part of the bible as fact and another, myth?

Adam and Eve? Myth.
Noah's ark? Myth.
Jesus walking on water and raising the dead and ascending into heaven? Oh, that's 100% true!

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in