A forum to discuss how ex-Christians have dealt with family members, replaced the church as a place of community, reactions of your family, friends, church, acquaintances upon learning of the de-conversion, or anything else relevant to the Ex-Christian Life.
The bulk of science does not support belief in a deity, or does it? This is an open discussion area to hone your skills at supporting and understanding the various positions. Feel free to post any links of value in this important topic.
This section is confined to serious and formal debate. New topics will not appear in this section until approved by a moderator. For best results, contact a moderator before attempting to post a new topic in this section.
The book of Genesis is a redacted version of the Babylonian creation myth. It was copied & edited during the Jewish Babylonian captivity by five anonymous writers/scribes. Basically it's Babylonian theology that was edited & redacted so that it would appear to have Jewish origins.
Whatever the source it is clearly a myth that attempts, in story form, to explain how life began & how evil entered the world. There is nothing sacred about it.
Oh yeah, it is likely Paul was a literary figure too. Evidence suggests Simon Magus & Marcion were the authors of Paul's authentic Epistles & they wrote them in the 2nd century. Polycarp is the likely author of 1st & 2nd Timothy. Polycarp was a bitter enemy of Simon & Marcion who were Gnostic's. Polycarp was Catholic.
A great book to read on this subject is "The Fabricated Paul" by Hermann Detering
That would depend on the definition of "consciousness". You seem to require that the definition include the property of self-awareness. Other's may define the term without that specific property. That's fine, but I suggest you propose a definition and seek agreement before you or MOHO argue about a term of which neither of you have reached consensus.
Computers can't be conscious. That's science fiction. A computer crunches numbers in binary. It's like saying your calculator will become self-aware. You might program one to simulate things that conscious beings do, even very well, but it will not be conscious.
Man created god in order to become immortal, to become part of some larger cosmic narrative, when he was never more to nature than fertilizer.
“Yet, at the same time, as the Eastern sages also knew, man is a worm and food for worms. This is the paradox: he is out of nature and hopelessly in it; he is dual, up in the stars and yet housed in a heart-pumping, breath-gasping body that once belonged to a fish and still carries the gill-marks to prove it. His body is a material fleshy casing that is alien to him in many ways—the strangest and most repugnant way being that it aches and bleeds and will decay and die. Man is literally split in two: he has an awareness of his own splendid uniqueness in that he sticks out of nature with a towering majesty, and yet he goes back into the ground a few feet in order to blindly and dumbly rot and disappear forever. It is a terrifying dilemma to be in and to have to live with. The lower animals are, of course, spared this painful contradiction, as they lack a symbolic identity and the self-consciousness that goes with it. They merely act and move reflexively as they are driven by their instincts. If they pause at all, it is only a physical pause; inside they are anonymous, and even their faces have no name. They live in a world without time, pulsating, as it were, in a state of dumb being. This is what has made it so simple to shoot down whole herds of buffalo or elephants. The animals don't know that death is happening and continue grazing placidly while others drop alongside them. The knowledge of death is reflective and conceptual, and animals are spared it. They live and they disappear with the same thoughtlessness: a few minutes of fear, a few seconds of anguish, and it is over. But to live a whole lifetime with the fate of death haunting one's dreams and even the most sun-filled days—that's something else.” ― Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death
1 Timothy 2
9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Of course, they were really both "deceived" according to Genesis. Both ate the forbidden fruit. I have the audacity to question Paul and a literal interpretation of Genesis anyway. How dare I. When Paul wrote stuff down, did he really intend for his writings to span all generations and were they infallible? Anyway, it sounds like you want a Matriarchy, which I find as undesirable as Cheauvanism.