You have my blessing to post it as a classic quote. Anyways, so you are saying the children of Adam and Eve bred with each other. Interesting. That's MUCH better than reading the story as an allegory.
I respect people of faith, I really do, as long as they respect my not having any. Max does, as do several others here. When someone just "blows off" the convictions of others, with an air of superiority, then they fall into the same, "holier than thou," mindset I dislike so much, that permeates religious fundamentalism and fanaticism, wherever you meet it. In my opinion. Keep D&D Civil.
Topics like these (especially with the provocative title...) get amplified out of proportion. I have to constantly remind myself that the "holier than thou" attitude isn't an aspect of religion or spirituality, but rather an aspect of human nature...
Indeed. The problems that crop up concerning religions are usually caused by people twisting their own faith, or that of others, rather than the problems being the Faith itself. In my opinion. Keep D&D Civil.
No it wouldn't because clearly I exist and that existence is predicated upon the existence of my ancestors existing. Of course I could've been artificially created and there's a big conspiracy to hid that fact from me but that's not very likely. The existence of Christianity isn't necessarily predicated on the apriori physical existence of Jesus. It is a matter of faith which is why I asked the question in the first place. How important to Christians is the factual existence of Jesus? How much does faith need to be bolstered by facts? So then you're saying everything is relative then and nothing is fixed? So because of stuff like that you reject science? Interesting considering you're gladly here chatting with us using many products of science. I agree that there are fundamental unknowns but that doesn't mean that all of science falls apart since you deal with the proof of the scientific method practically every moment.
I don't want to lump everyone in a 'category' or anything, but just reading through this thread among a few others in the past convinces me only further of how smug some secularists are, you only need to read through this thread to see the 'hollier than thou' attitude on display here by some of the posters who are mocking -- in a provocative fashion -- every person of faith. It's ok to question things, it's ok to believe the other side is wrong, but to belittle people and mock their faiths and things/people they hold in high esteem just goes to show that things wouldn't be any better if the secularists ruled the world, because in many cases they will merely mock / oppress those who disagree with them as 'backwards' or 'stupid' or 'sheep' or whatever else. I guess being 'enlightened' doesn't include being 'tolerant' and 'respectful' of differing opinions.
On the other hand, if you believe in evolution, then the first people didn't mate with their siblings, they mated with MONKEYS. It's beastiality or incest people, take your pick.
Not monkeys but something closer to chimpanzees. It also wouldn't be incest unless those chimps and protohumans were in the immediate family with each other. Anyway it wasn't like one day there was a chimp and then there was suddenly a modern human. This was a long process with many intermediate steps. It was more like less hairy and more upright chimps breeding with other chimps.
So, the entire question of human origins can now be accurately summarized as either; A. Incest from the very beginning. B. Sex with monkeys. This would explain the appeal of tacky internet p*rn. It's connected to our primordial origins.
I sure hope I do not come off this way. I have a great deal of respect for those who have faith, particularly those who let their faith grow and change as they learn. I'm somewhat envious, from a certain point of view. I have very little respect for those who use faith as a weapon, be it regarding social change, scientific inquiry, or political power.
Rimbaud- First, you are right, I read the book over 22 yrs ago. I forgot it was an attack against the Catholic faith. I was wrong to cite that book. I was just thinking of a book that characterized the similarities to pagan tradition and Catholic traditions. There are more scholarly books. Bottom line Iwas wrong and I apologize. Especially to the Catholics I want to say that was careless, unthoughtful and prideful to list Hissop's book. I am well aware of the anti-Catholic content. Second- My opinion of a Contemporary Christians being ignorant of the Bible is not without some justification. As a pastor I attend many seminars, read research and study polls that reflect just that. It is only an opinion of mine but a Christian research group - Barna Research has made recent studies that indicate that less than 50% of Christians read the Bible. Roughly 50% of protestants and 50% of Catholics attend a weekly church service. So in any sampling of Christians (such as this message board) you will likely have a group who are not reading the Bible and sharing a 'Christian' opinion. That is a problem for Christendom IMHO. I am a pastor I read the Bible every day, I did that before I was a pastor. No law says Christians must read the Bible, especially every day. And I don't expect anyone to read the Bible every day. I do it by habit. But I wonder how many Christians study the Bible? Many I am sure. But I think more reading the words of Christ would eliminate so much confusion. The message seems clear and simple to me- Simple enough for a child to understand and believe. And deep enough for an adult to make it so complicated we can all debate it. I do believe we could all understand the origins of Christianity better if we looked for them in the Bible. Thanks for your input.
Well, in the bible it is pretty clear that Noah's family was the only one left after the flood, Genesis 6: 17-18: Genesis 7: 23: So, the bible is pretty clear that is was only Noah's family populating the Earth after the flood. Either way, incest is a pretty big factor in the bible's account of the history of the human species.
I'm sure everyone has an ancestor who boned his sister. This is true whether you believe in the Bible or in evolution.
This is a bit misleading. I think that historians would be morely to say that there is a x% chance of a historical Jesus, versus the black and white of either he existed or not.
That's one thing, but to have one family produce the entire human species is on an entirely different level.
In addition to Testimonium Flavianum's authenticity, one needs to consider that it was published in 93 AD, 60 years after the death of Jesus. Josephus did not give a first person account of Jesus. In fact, there is no historian comtemporary with Jesus's life that wrote about him.
