Adam and Eve

@PhilosophyForum,

Katherin: It's quite something to say that you have the ultimate Truth of the universe and beyond in your hands when you swear in. Could you perhaps provide a reason why it's more true than what our reasoning can provide (science)?

1 Reply

@pokemasterat,

pokemasterat wrote:

Katherin: It's quite something to say that you have the ultimate Truth of the universe and beyond in your hands when you swear in. Could you perhaps provide a reason why it's more true than what our reasoning can provide (science)?

I hold no truth, but I have found it. Truth is evident and it trumps reason. Think about it, if you witness something happening but can't understand why, do you deny you witnessed it simply because you can't explain it with your reason? Of course not. Why would you apply that to anything else? This makes no sense. Reason is God-given and it is important, but it makes a lousy god in and of itself.

Remember the science about the bumble bee? Science has proven that it is impossible for the bumble bee to fly. It's wings aren't large enough, body not aerodynamic enough, etc. And yet it does. So what do you believe, scientific reason or the truth? Don't be deceived.

I'm not here to preach, but my experience and the testimony of Scripture and millions and millions of believers is that if you would like to know the truth about God, all you have to do is ask Him. He is quick to reply and has a flair for the dramatic at times, and you still won't understand it, but you will know without a doubt and your life will be transformed! Or you can follow your reason . . . it just sounds like a meaningless and defeated existence to me since I have indulged a more fulfilling one.

0 Replies

@PhilosophyForum,

How can you even say that your existence is more fulfilling than mine? You can't possibly understand the meaning of my life, ESPECIALLY since I never explained my life's meaning, so you can't possibly compare our existences without assuming that somehow you're right and I'm wrong. What are those reasons again? Oh, you never gave them. Lots of people agreeing with you doesn't make it any more true. Just because there were a whole bunch of Jew-haters in Martin Luther's times didn't give them or the Nazis a reason to commit mass murder. But they all did! What makes them exempt from your protection? What makes your acting unnatural and refraining from your animal instincts any better than their unnaturality in magnifying their animal instincts with unnatural motives? Your faith?

Bumblebees fly because we have watched them do so. Who caught Genesis on video? (and I don't mean Peter Gabriel) And, could you provide a reliable resource that describes how impossible the bumblebee flying is? If nothing else, it's neat science. Smile

1 Reply

@pokemasterat,

pokemasterat wrote:

How can you even say that your existence is more fulfilling than mine? You can't possibly understand the meaning of my life, ESPECIALLY since I never explained my life's meaning, so you can't possibly compare our existences without assuming that somehow you're right and I'm wrong. What are those reasons again? Oh, you never gave them. Lots of people agreeing with you doesn't make it any more true. Just because there were a whole bunch of Jew-haters in Martin Luther's times didn't give them or the Nazis a reason to commit mass murder. But they all did! What makes them exempt from your protection? What makes your acting unnatural and refraining from your animal instincts any better than their unnaturality in magnifying their animal instincts with unnatural motives? Your faith?

Bumblebees fly because we have watched them do so. Who caught Genesis on video? (and I don't mean Peter Gabriel) And, could you provide a reliable resource that describes how impossible the bumblebee flying is? If nothing else, it's neat science.

A very emotional response. Is it really reasonable to simlpy ignore so many first hand accounts of the character of the information as a whole? No, of course not. I'm glad our justice system doesn't operate on such 'reason' as to exclude the evidence of millions of testimonies from first hand witnesses just because the situation itself if beyond the reasoning of the jury.

The bumble bee example is pretty popular. You can google it yourself if interested.

Is the same person who posted on having sex with animals? :eek:

1 Reply

@Katherine phil,

Katherine wrote:

A very emotional response. Is it really reasonable to simlpy ignore so many first hand accounts of the character of the information as a whole? No, of course not. I'm glad our justice system doesn't operate on such 'reason' as to exclude the evidence of millions of testimonies from first hand witnesses just because the situation itself if beyond the reasoning of the jury.

The bumble bee example is pretty popular. You can google it yourself if interested.

Is the same person who posted on having sex with animals? :eek:

If it seemed emotional, it was only because I was having such fun with what I could say. Smile

There are, of course, there were many "first hand accounts" of witches in the Colonial US, so you're saying we were right in regarding all of those as highly as we did? I think it's reasonable to look for some evidence the accounts are unbiased and doubtlessly to be from God.

This is what I found:

Wikipedia.org/wiki/bumblebee wrote:

Flight

According to 20th century folklore, the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee should be incapable of flight, as it does not have the capacity (in terms of wing size or beat per second) to achieve flight with the degree of wing loading necessary. Not being aware of scientists 'proving' it cannot fly, the bumblebee succeeds under "the power of its own arrogance" (McFadden et. al. 2007). The origin of this myth has been difficult to pin down with any certainty. John McMasters recounted an anecdote about an unnamed Swiss aerodynamicist at a dinner party who performed some rough calculations and concluded, presumably in jest, that according to the equations, bumblebees cannot fly.[8] In later years McMasters has backed away from this origin, suggesting that there could be multiple sources, and that the earliest he has found was a reference in the 1934 French book Le vol des insectes by M. Magnan. Magnan is reported to have written that he and a Mr. Saint-Lague had applied the equations of air resistance to insects and found that their flight was impossible, but that "One shouldn't be surprised that the results of the calculations don't square with reality".[9]
It is believed[citation needed] that the calculations which purported to show that bumblebees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations without flow separation. This ignores the effect of dynamic stall, an airflow separation inducing a large vortex above the wing, which briefly produces several times the lift of the aerofoil in regular flight. More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle.

AND: The Straight Dope: Is it aerodynamically impossible for bumblebees to fly?
AND, of course, even a Church-going physicist agrees with science!: Flight of a Bumble Bee
Popular girls don't have to be smart, they just have to look pretty and act nice. Wink

Why don't you clarify that last question? And, perhaps, clarify why that's so surprising? Perhaps you should reply on that thread, if you're so appalled. The use of the bug-eyed smiley (:eek:) indicates that you found it outrageous, or shocking. Perhaps against your arbitrary beliefs, which you still haven't backed up with any sort of evidence or specific incident that either I or another member of philosophyforum.com could most likely explain. If you thought it would stand up to scrutiny, then you probably would've shared it by now, especially since I asked for evidence of your argument... twice, I believe. Would you like to ignore this question thrice, therefore casting your credibility into unquenchable flames in the manner of baseball, or provide a reason behind your arguments?

0 Replies

@PhilosophyForum,

What would have helped greatly is if Jesus would have described or discussed Adam and Eve and the beginning. Instead he spoke only of eternity.

Adam and Eve is a story out of the Old Testament which was written 4000 years after of which the Adam and Eve story would have taken place. It was not explained by Jesus that I can find in any of the writings. So, it's difficult for me to take what was written so long after the fact and base my life and all my beliefs on a story that Jesus Christ himself didn't verify.

Another school of thought is why wasn't Adam and Eve documented or stories told prior to the actual writing of Genesis? One of the ancestors of Adam and Eve should have documented something about the beginning of time. Maybe it was because our level of consciousness during those times was not advanced enough to even think of something like that. I can visualize cave men scratching on stone...

Then again, maybe there were teachings about this that weren't put into the Bible at that time. I mean, think about it, the entire life of Jesus between the ages of 14 to 36 is a mystery and doesn't show up in the Bible. Who accounted for all those years? We know that everyone claimed that their writings were words of God, but all those writings never made it into the Bible. Very interesting indeed.

So is Adam and Eve true?... If so, the way it was written in Genesis would describe people of a much higher level of consciousness that could have in fact documented the event when God came into the garden of Eden. Maybe the could have documented the 100 years to follow.

It was a mystery then and it's still a mystery today. We can choose to live in blind faith believing in the Adam and Eve story or we can choose the life and works of Jesus... and the messengers that Jesus said would follow.

Adam and Eve is an interesting subject none-the-less. Anyone care to bring some good material to the table?

0 Replies

@PhilosophyForum,

Good point, Justin. I just can't put faith in a story that disregards all evidence that would suggest otherwise; that Darwin was at least on the right track. It easily fits the views of mysoginists, too, which would incline me to discredit it even if I believed that was what happened. I think that the woman-inferiority thing is just a bunch of absurdity. It seems supressing, because many a man could easily, physically dominate a woman, in which case men should not use even more 'evidence' that they are better and more dominant, in ethical tems.

1 Reply

@pokemasterat,

In a court of law, first hand accounts are evidence enough to send someone to the electric chair. God has been experienced and His Word has been proven true by millions and million of people as first hand witnesses. Answer my question, is this an illogical or unreasonable practice of justice? You want evidence, the first hand testimonies are limitless!!

My apologies for using an example I had not verfied. Thank you for your correction The point however remains. Science & reason have very little to do with the origin of our world. Since science is the study of observable facts and reason doesn't explain big bang or macro evolution, those theories are based on faith as well. Why would you assume your faith in unsubstantiated origins is better than anyone else's? It's all faith when you get down to it. Actually, hasn't science proven that life cannot come from non-living things? Matter can neither be created or destroyed? No missing links, no direct lineage, etc, etc. Not much to go on here.

As far as Adam & Eve, I do not know. The Bible contains some of the greatest poetry and most majestic language known to man. The truth, I stated earlier, is not in the literal interpretation of the story, but in the majesty and purpose of it. That makes it no less true or no less literal, but more so. The Bible was written to adults to define the indefinable. Not to concrete operationalists who need each word defined for them.

1 Reply

@PhilosophyForum,

Justin

Abraham was 58 yr's old when Noah died. Noah was 84 yr's old when Enos died and Enos was son of Seth who was son of Adam. So all that was required was Adam who experienced the garden and Seth Enos and Noah for Abraham to get the story of the garden. And from what I understand Shem, son of Noah was still alive when Jacob the grandson of Abraham was alive.
From Adam to the flood 1656 yr's from flood to call of Abraham to new land 365 years after Arphaxad was born who was son of Shem. Same as age of Enoch who walked with God. Enoch compared to others die very young.

Now granted the story has to be past from Abraham to Moses who wrote down these books (the first five) also known as the tora. But Moses talked to the Living God as plain as day.

If my memory serves me correctly I do believe you are correct on Jesus not saying anything on Adam. But in :
Luke 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."

Which is significant in understanding who Adam was before leaving the garden. And that we are born into the flesh from him. And what we are redeemed to in Jesus the Christ.

0 Replies

@PhilosophyForum,

Aren't we all Son's of God?

1 Reply

@Justin,

Justin wrote:

Aren't we all Son's of God?

Off topic, but

No, none of us are Sons of God, there was only One.

But sons of God on the otherhand: No, not everyone. There is specific criteria for them. Only those who stop doing wrong and live according to the Holy Spirit.

Romans 8:13-15

13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship.

1 Reply

@PhilosophyForum,

Agreed:
In Christ Jesus are you born of the Holy Spirit therefore the potential of becoming sons of God.
No acceptance of Christ Jesus no Holy Spirit no potential of son of God.

Sorry thought that was understood.

0 Replies

@Katherine phil,

This is all totally irrelevant to Adam and Eve, sadly, but it is really good discussion, so I digress...

Katherine: I looked back at some of what you said. I can't let any of this just go undchallenged:

Katherine wrote:

Truth is evident and it trumps reason.

Reason is used to arrive at truth. Reason is the path, and truth is the destination. Sometimes reason can be so simple as "I see a book, therefore it's there", but it is never nonexistant. Sometimes arriving at the truth requires reasoning resources we don't have, but you can't just poof the the finishing line in the race of reason.

Katherine wrote:

He is quick to reply and has a flair for the dramatic at times, and you still won't understand it, but you will know without a doubt and your life will be transformed!

I have yet for this to happen. If I pray that a hungry person receives food, you know why they do? Because hungry people get fed all the time. Not because it's "GOD'S DIVINE WILL". Should I summarize God's will, the way I've interpreted Christians to believe it?

God's Will:
Good happens: because of a divine plan that we can understand
Bad happens: because of a divine plan that we can't understand

And, think of all the weird things about the number 23! Look at this page for examples: 23 (number) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Isn't that weird? It must be a sign from heaven! ... You'll find what you're looking for if you choose to do so, no matter what it is. God in social events, magic in the number 23, you name it.

Katherine wrote:

Is it really reasonable to simlpy ignore so many first hand accounts of the character of the information as a whole? No, of course not. I'm glad our justice system doesn't operate on such 'reason' as to exclude the evidence of millions of testimonies from first hand witnesses just because the situation itself if beyond the reasoning of the jury
...
In a court of law, first hand accounts are evidence enough to send someone to the electric chair.

Imagine I knew you in real life. You invite me over for dinner, and I don't like it that much. Your dad, let's say, hates it so much that he takes a pill to kill himself. I tell the court that you gave him a pill in the dinner. You get the electric chair? I can't imagine where you live, but in the US (which includes TN) among other countries, that wouldn't happen. Witness accounts are secondary to physical evidence and such. To specifically answer your question, it's highly unreasonable to use first-hand accounts without evidence backing them. Who knows how many of those accounts were dreams based on thoughts the "witnesses" had that day, were illusions that appeared to them when they were high on drugs, or were made up to encourage your religious belief? Plus, people lie!

Katherine wrote:

My apologies for using an example I had not verfied. Thank you for your correction The point however remains. Science & reason have very little to do with the origin of our world. Since science is the study of observable facts and reason doesn't explain big bang or macro evolution, those theories are based on faith as well. Why would you assume your faith in unsubstantiated origins is better than anyone else's? It's all faith when you get down to it. Actually, hasn't science proven that life cannot come from non-living things? Matter can neither be created or destroyed? No missing links, no direct lineage, etc, etc. Not much to go on here.

Should I clarify immensely the question which I asked? What universal proof is there that Christianity's Bible-described God created the universe, and Adam and Eve, which ALSO proves that there is no other possibility?
And what do you mean science & reason have very little to do with the origin of our world? Do you understand the Big Bang? Evolution? You don't make it sound like you do. Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. That's my four links, so the real resources are found on that page, for reliability.

And, if you don't want to show the proper courtesy and respond to my question about the :eek: face, or can't at least try to make a case against the argument in this or that thread, then I think it's fair to say the standpoint I took is more rational than the one you took/take, and/or you're overreacting.

0 Replies

@PhilosophyForum,

Pokemasterat,

The only way to respond to your post is a way that is going to be accused of trying to be preachy and make converts here or repeating what I have already said. I can't see the productivity of it. Reason is not the only tool we have in understanding the world around us. To use it only is the equivilant of looking out only one window of your house to understand the place in which you live.

And if anyone considers sex with animals appropriate or even rational they have checked reason at the door anyway, so to pursue would be ridiculous. It seems here you are using reason to justify insanity--what an amazing paradox!

1 Reply

@Katherine phil,

Katherine wrote:

Off topic, but

No, none of us are Sons of God, there was only One.

But sons of God on the otherhand: No, not everyone. There is specific criteria for them. Only those who stop doing wrong and live according to the Holy Spirit.

Romans 8:13-15

13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship.

Katherine,

The Thomas gospel: He who drinks from my mouth shall become as I am,and I shall be he.:eek: Identification with instead of relationship,this is what Christ was crucified for was it not?

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Katherine,

The Thomas gospel: He who drinks from my mouth shall become as I am,and I shall be he.:eek: Identification with instead of relationship,this is what Christ was crucified for was it not?

"drinks from my mouth" in biblical language is to live by the Word, drinking is a continuous thing that would imply relationship, and have nothing to do with identification. Though Thomas was written, I believe, over 200 years after the resurrection of Christ. So not considered a reliable source.

Christianity is nothing but relationship. Identification is worthless seeing Christ told even the chosen people not to trust in their status as Abraham's children. You must be in relationship, as stated below, no one gets to heaven unless Jesus personally knows them, not even those who do works in His Name.

Matthew 7:21-23

21"(A)Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22"(B)Many will say to Me on (C)that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; (D)DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

1 Reply

@Katherine phil,

Katherine wrote:

Pokemasterat,

The only way to respond to your post is a way that is going to be accused of trying to be preachy and make converts here or repeating what I have already said. I can't see the productivity of it. Reason is not the only tool we have in understanding the world around us. To use it only is the equivilant of looking out only one window of your house to understand the place in which you live.

And if anyone considers sex with animals appropriate or even rational they have checked reason at the door anyway, so to pursue would be ridiculous. It seems here you are using reason to justify insanity--what an amazing paradox!

Katherine, Smile

Would you mind listing for us those tools you use in your understand.Reason and intution,intution being the less relyable is all we poor Pagans have at our disposal.In a world where all things are temporal and ever changing,you attribute change which you judge good to divine intervention,are the bad things that happen to you the devil? Please do not be offened if this is not the case,many many of your fellow Christians do believe this.The big bang theory is indeed a theory NOT fantasy,biological evolution is fact,when will Christians get a grip.The precieve conflict between science and religion is in reality a conflict between the science of two thousand five hundred years ago and the science of today.I wonder why Christians with so little reguard for reason would want to take party in a philosophy site -----please explain?
To Christians in general,you do not have faculties at your disposal that the rest of humanity does not,your arrogance is insulting,offensive,and deserveing of disrespect.:p As to sex with animals,you do seem to be able to use reason when it suit you.:eek:

1 Reply

@Katherine phil,

Katherine wrote:

"drinks from my mouth" in biblical language is to live by the Word, drinking is a continuous thing that would imply relationship, and have nothing to do with identification. Though Thomas was written, I believe, over 200 years after the resurrection of Christ. So not considered a reliable source.

Christianity is nothing but relationship. Identification is worthless seeing Christ told even the chosen people not to trust in their status as Abraham's children. You must be in relationship, as stated below, no one gets to heaven unless Jesus personally knows them, not even those who do works in His Name.

Katherine,

Actually many experts disgree with you,how do you not see identification is the following words: "He who drinks from my mouth,shall become as I am,and I shall be he."That means Katherine,I and the father are one,precisely what Jesus was crucified for saying.It might help in ones understanding to realize the church largely ignores the Thomas gospel,as it does reality in general.

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Katherine,

Would you mind listing for us those tools you use in your understand.Reason and intution,intution being the less relyable is all we poor Pagans have at our disposal.In a world where are all thing are temporal and ever changing,you attribute change which you judge good to divine intervention,are the bad things that happen to you the devil? Please do not be offened if this is not the case,many many of your fellow Christians do believe this.The big bang theory is indeed a theory NOT fantasy,biological evolution is fact,when will Christians get a grip.The precieve conflict between science and religion is in reality a conflict between the science of two thousand five hundred years ago and the science of today.I wonder why Christians with so little reguard for reason would want to take party in a philosophy site -----please explain?
To Christians in general,you do not have faculties at your disposal that the rest of humanity does not,your arrogance is insulting,offensive,and deserveing of disrespect.:p As to sex with animals,you do seem to be able to use reason when it suit you.:eek:

I see a great deal of ranting, but I was only able to find one legitimate question. What other tools? Let's start with wisdom. Wisdom would help in knowing when reason has reached its limits and where knowledge is far too limited. Wisdom is a tool that society has lost in exchange for knowledge.

I love reason, I just have the wisdom to understand when it is not enough. And those who have Christ as their Savior have the Holy Spirit which guides us into all truth and understanding that is beyond our human ability. You're not arguing with me on this, you're arguing the Bible. So, as I said before, this is a fruitless discussion because it continues to be an attack on some 'Christian' you met's beliefs. If you love reason so much, why do you stray so quickly from the topic for emotional outbursts?

1 Reply

@Katherine phil,

Kathrine,

Just answer the questions,you entered here for debate did you not,this is a philosophy site even if it has been usurped by holyrollers.What of all the other people in the world Katherine,believers in something else or the believers in no supernatural beings,do they not have wisdom Kathrine Christian property is it?:p By the way,do you believe in the devil? Do you believe that nature is corrupt,the world is evil?Kathrine,not ranting,just intellectual disrespect for your beliefs.:cool:

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know