>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> The first man on earth?
Bookmark topic
Ok ok I didn't want to sound too harsh.
I don't want to offend anyone or question their beliefs.
I am Christian, too, you know, but I accept the fact that a number of statements in the Bible, logically, cannot be true.
Again, I do not want to sound mean or something. I am expressing my thoughts as delicately as I can.
Sorry
Moving on...
PS. Thanks for the PM, Anthony.
[ This Message was edited by: NightBlade on 2007-09-10 22:31 ]
--
Posted: 2007-09-10 23:29:07
Edit :
Quote
This is becoming very interesting, I am keen to see where this topic goes. As a satanist Im not sure any one realy cares what I think on the topic, however I think the idea that at one point in time there was only one human walking the earth is a little far fetched, but I am open to sugestion.
--
Posted: 2007-09-10 23:43:28
Edit :
Quote
On 2007-09-10 20:22:17, KingBooker5 wrote:
Nightblade, who are you to judge which part of religion is fact and fiction? Its peoples beliefs. You have very or no right at all to say which is fact or fiction. Are you a king or somthing that decides what belief is true or not,
or am I missing somthing? You arnt saying any facts, what you are saying is a load of rubbish and your exploiting YOUR beliefs of what is true or not, and others may beg to differ.
Anthony
People are entitled to believe whatever they wish, but that does not make it true. It states in the Bible that the Earth was created in six days and yet we have good evidence to show that the Earth, as well as the rest of the universe, took considerably longer than six days to reach the state it was in even a few thousand years B.C.
The ancient Egyptians believed that the Sun travelled in a boat as part of their religious beliefs. According to your argument we have no right to say that that is untrue since it was a religious belief.
As human beings with reason and consciousness we are perfectly entitled to question and decide which parts of a religion are true or not. Where something is clearly not true people are entitled to point that out. It is up to those who believe in whatever religion holds that belief to decide whether or not they will continue to believe in it.
--
Posted: 2007-09-11 01:34:21
Edit :
Quote
Thanks, dude.
You saved me.
--
Posted: 2007-09-11 01:42:41
Edit :
Quote
.... little known biblical fact....
The snake that tempted Eve was called Nokia
--
Posted: 2007-09-11 01:57:03
Edit :
Quote
the way I look at it, there are hundreds, no thousands of religious books. Each one claiming to be inspired by God, and this is used as the primary proof of the book's truth. Most of those books have some support in archeological and historical evidence, but none of them are proved by this evidence, only hinted at.
So to interpret a religious text as a literal account of early times, you must make a leap of faith based on that book and that book alone.
So how should I (as a spiritually inclined person), decide which of these religious books is the true account of creation? The only logical, and the only intuitive answer I can arrive at, is that either none of the books have any grain of truth at all and are just someone's philosophical theories, or all of them are inspired but that none of them hold the complete truth.
This is the view I prefer, so I read all different faiths and try and understand them as being small parts of a larger puzzle.
In this view there is no literal translation of religious text, which instead is seen more as symbolic representation of truth, with cultural biases. In this way, both creation and evolution can exist side by side as complementary theologies/sciences. It is plausible that "adam" is the symbolic representation of the first tribes of human's created by God's hand working through the agent of evolution.
Therefore there is no "first man", but rather an emergence of Man from the pre-existing primates.
--
Posted: 2007-09-11 02:24:23
Edit :
Quote
On 2007-09-11 01:57:03, grizlore wrote:
.... little known biblical fact....
The snake that tempted Eve was called Nokia
OMG really?
Hahaha, wait till my friends hear about this. Mwahaha
[ This Message was edited by: NightBlade on 2007-09-11 10:55 ]
--
Posted: 2007-09-11 02:54:36
Edit :
Quote
On 2007-09-11 02:24:23, max_wedge wrote:
the way I look at it, there are hundreds, no thousands of religious books. Each one claiming to be inspired by God, and this is used as the primary proof of the book's truth. Most of those books have some support in archeological and historical evidence, but none of them are proved by this evidence, only hinted at.
So to interpret a religious text as a literal account of early times, you must make a leap of faith based on that book and that book alone.
So how should I (as a spiritually inclined person), decide which of these religious books is the true account of creation? The only logical, and the only intuitive answer I can arrive at, is that either none of the books have any grain of truth at all and are just someone's philosophical theories, or all of them are inspired but that none of them hold the complete truth.
This is the view I prefer, so I read all different faiths and try and understand them as being small parts of a larger puzzle.
In this view there is no literal translation of religious text, which instead is seen more as symbolic representation of truth, with cultural biases. In this way, both creation and evolution can exist side by side as complementary theologies/sciences. It is plausible that "adam" is the symbolic representation of the first tribes of human's created by God's hand working through the agent of evolution.
Therefore there is no "first man", but rather an emergence of Man from the pre-existing primates.
Well at max I like your response because it is not judgementive but open to all possible lnterpretations. What I was actually saying was that As much as we entiltled to interpretations of different thought we should not turn a blind eye on the mortal truth.
Its that none of the biblical religous books can be proven to our satisfaction but a very close relevance and a spiritual understanding can be reached.
As far as that are these books true or not which leads to that how true are the things we believe in? This is what I can sa:
Belief is mostly based on things that we have not seen but deep down we admit that they exist. Take for instance the bible itself, it has been altered a lot of times to bring what we call th holy bible today. Most Gospels were ommitted for personal and intellectual resons. More than seventy of them, eg The Gospel of Marry Magdalene, The gospel of St Phllip and many more.
The first Church hid a lot of facts and mortal evidence to us. Where are today? We are somewhere ahere we believe in things which most of them we can not proove. It goes back to the Sanhadrine Commeetee during the time of Jesus, the Scribes, Sadduces and many more. Constatine continued on the same verge in about 325AD.
As far as who was the firs man on earth is a matter opened to interpratations.
[ This Message was edited by: Twometre on 2008-04-23 13:03 ]
--
Posted: 2007-09-11 11:17:14
Edit :
Quote
On 2007-09-11 02:54:36, NightBlade wrote:
On 2007-09-11 01:57:03, grizlore wrote:
.... little known biblical fact....
The snake that tempted Eve was called Nokia
OMG really?
Hahaha, wait till my friends hear about this. Mwahaha
[ This Message was edited by: NightBlade on 2007-09-11 10:55 ]
Also, the Apple Mac icon, with the bite taken out of it, was inspired by the apple Eve ate.
--
Posted: 2007-09-11 13:21:25
Edit :
Quote
What shocks me is the number of people who still believe in god. I guess it's sort of an atheist's mentality, but when people tell me they're christian or don't believe in evolution or whatever I still do a double-take!
--
Posted: 2007-09-11 13:28:05
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
