Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Craziness Of Genesis In The Bible


Margee

Recommended Posts

  • Super Moderator

 

Here is a fun little factoid for you Margee: the majority of godlings do not actually know what the first sin ever committed was. If you ask them, "What was the first sin?", nine times out of eight they will tell you that eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the first sin. However, if you read the text, the serpent asks Eve, "Hath god said...?" And Eve replies, "Yes, God hath said that of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we may not eat, nor even touch it, lest we surely die." Well, actually, God never said anything about them touching the fruit, so either Eve lied to the serpent, or Adam lied to Eve in his zeal that god's words be obeyed. Either way, there was deceit involved before the eating of the fruit.

 

Also, I posted a topic in the Humor and Jokes Forum a few days ago called "Spencer and The Godling" that addresses when and how Original Sin entered into the nature of humans. It might give you some more ammunition against Genesis.

It gets better. God commanded adam and eve not to eat from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." Do you see the irony? How could they be able to tell right from wrong? They were set up from the beginning. They were in an impossible situation. They didn't stand and a chance. Now god is going to punish all mankind in eternal hell fire for an action that was a pre-planned failure. If true(not likely) that is not a god worthy of worship. That is a sadist. They never even had a chance.

 

 

Isn't it ironic that the serpent, who supposedly represents satan, was the only one being truly honest?  Adam and/or Eve were lying about the "touching the fruit" issue. Meanwhile, god had said that in the day they would eat the fruit, they would surely die. Now, st. paul tried to clear this issue up by making the claim that a day with god is like a thousand years, thereby justifying the idea that Adam lived for over 900 years. However, this claim doesn't stand up against the text of Genesis, which states plainly that the evening and the morning were a day. 

 

Contrariwise, the serpent was the only one to put the complete and honest truth on the table, saying, "You will be like god, knowing the difference between good and evil." I agree, god is a complete sadist to hang the fate of the entire human race on a decision made by two people who didn't even know the difference between the options they were meant to choose from. Moreover, the rat-bastard didn't even take the time to explain the difference to them, despite walking with them in the cool of the day.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

 

Isn't it ironic that the serpent, who supposedly represents satan, was the only one being truly honest?  Adam and/or Eve were lying about the "touching the fruit" issue. Meanwhile, god had said that in the day they would eat the fruit, they would surely die. Now, st. paul tried to clear this issue up by making the claim that a day with god is like a thousand years, thereby justifying the idea that Adam lived for over 900 years. However, this claim doesn't stand up against the text of Genesis, which states plainly that the evening and the morning were a day. 

 

Contrariwise, the serpent was the only one to put the complete and honest truth on the table, saying, "You will be like god, knowing the difference between good and evil." I agree, god is a complete sadist to hang the fate of the entire human race on a decision made by two people who didn't even know the difference between the options they were meant to choose from. Moreover, the rat-bastard didn't even take the time to explain the difference to them, despite walking with them in the cool of the day.

 

 

I tell ya Professor, I think I'm more angry 3 years into my deconversion than I was the day I started to question!! I analyze the shit out of everything now. I only wish I wasn't so old. I would have worked life soooo much different!!!!!  woohoo.gif I intuitively knew in my heart that this book was the beginning of bullshit. I asked my pastors about this book when I was 20 years old. They were as brainwashed as me and convinced me not to question God's wonderful plan....I heard it all through the years how 'his' ways are mysterious and shouldn't be questioned.....Wendybanghead.gif

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Diverging from the creation narrative for a moment, there is another fun little nugget at the beginning of Genesis chapter 6. This passage renders an account in which the sons of god come down and "married" the daughters of men. Now, in the old testament, the term "marry" very often means simply "had sex with". So here we have an account of women becoming impregnated by the "sons of god". The passage goes on to describe the children born of these strange unions as "giants in the land and men of great renown." 

 

I absolutely cannot believe that no one ever realized that this passage above all others should have been taken out of the scriptures all together. The reason is simple: every major culture in antiquity, from the Romans on back to the empire of Hammurabi, had its share of young maidens running around with their bellies tucked under their chins and claiming that the child had been sired by some god, or son of god, or other celestial being. Both Helen of Troy and Alexander the Great were supposedly sired by Zeus; Julius Caesar was the son of one of the gods (I can't remember which, at the moment). Here we see that immediately after humans were created, women started getting themselves into sticky situations before they were married, just as Mary did.

 

The point is, nobody ever really believed these young maidens' accounts concerning the dubious legitimacy of their sons.  

So, why are we to believe Mary's account of the fathering of jesus? In every other example, people just played along with a knowing smile; why should Mary be any different? How the bible passed through so many generations of scholars, priests, and rabbis without somebody realizing how this passage could place Mary's "Immaculate Conception" into a precarious state is quite beyond me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diverging from the creation narrative for a moment, there is another fun little nugget at the beginning of Genesis chapter 6. This passage renders an account in which the sons of god come down and "married" the daughters of men. Now, in the old testament, the term "marry" very often means simply "had sex with". So here we have an account of women becoming impregnated by the "sons of god". The passage goes on to describe the children born of these strange unions as "giants in the land and men of great renown."

 

I absolutely cannot believe that no one ever realized that this passage above all others should have been taken out of the scriptures all together. The reason is simple: every major culture in antiquity, from the Romans on back to the empire of Hammurabi, had its share of young maidens running around with their bellies tucked under their chins and claiming that the child had been sired by some god, or son of god, or other celestial being. Both Helen of Troy and Alexander the Great were supposedly sired by Zeus; Julius Caesar was the son of one of the gods (I can't remember which, at the moment). Here we see that immediately after humans were created, women started getting themselves into sticky situations before they were married, just as Mary did.

 

The point is, nobody ever really believed these young maidens' accounts concerning the dubious legitimacy of their sons.

So, why are we to believe Mary's account of the fathering of jesus? In every other example, people just played along with a knowing smile; why should Mary be any different? How the bible passed through so many generations of scholars, priests, and rabbis without somebody realizing how this passage could place Mary's "Immaculate Conception" into a precarious state is quite beyond me.

I never noticed this before. Verses 2 and 4 clearl use the word "sons." Plural, more than 1. Jesus was not the only son of god. This wrecka the concept of the trinity. The concept of gods coming down is clearly from greek mythology or greek mythology borrowed it. I'm not sure.

 

Then in verse 6 we read about how god regrets creating man. A perfect creator with regrets?!? A god who sends his only begotten son to save hunanity when he had multiple sons?

 

I never truly realized just how quickly it unravels itself. For those doubtig their deconversion, read Genesis 1-6. You will remember why you left.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

 

Diverging from the creation narrative for a moment, there is another fun little nugget at the beginning of Genesis chapter 6. This passage renders an account in which the sons of god come down and "married" the daughters of men. Now, in the old testament, the term "marry" very often means simply "had sex with". So here we have an account of women becoming impregnated by the "sons of god". The passage goes on to describe the children born of these strange unions as "giants in the land and men of great renown."

 

I absolutely cannot believe that no one ever realized that this passage above all others should have been taken out of the scriptures all together. The reason is simple: every major culture in antiquity, from the Romans on back to the empire of Hammurabi, had its share of young maidens running around with their bellies tucked under their chins and claiming that the child had been sired by some god, or son of god, or other celestial being. Both Helen of Troy and Alexander the Great were supposedly sired by Zeus; Julius Caesar was the son of one of the gods (I can't remember which, at the moment). Here we see that immediately after humans were created, women started getting themselves into sticky situations before they were married, just as Mary did.

 

The point is, nobody ever really believed these young maidens' accounts concerning the dubious legitimacy of their sons.

So, why are we to believe Mary's account of the fathering of jesus? In every other example, people just played along with a knowing smile; why should Mary be any different? How the bible passed through so many generations of scholars, priests, and rabbis without somebody realizing how this passage could place Mary's "Immaculate Conception" into a precarious state is quite beyond me.

I never noticed this before. Verses 2 and 4 clearl use the word "sons." Plural, more than 1. Jesus was not the only son of god. This wrecka the concept of the trinity. The concept of gods coming down is clearly from greek mythology or greek mythology borrowed it. I'm not sure.

 

Then in verse 6 we read about how god regrets creating man. A perfect creator with regrets?!? A god who sends his only begotten son to save hunanity when he had multiple sons?

 

I never truly realized just how quickly it unravels itself. For those doubtig their deconversion, read Genesis 1-6. You will remember why you left.

 

 

This is getting even juicier that what I ever imagined!!  Wendytwitch.gif eek.gif  Getting my holy bibble out right now to follow you guys!! Thanks! *hug*

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

Diverging from the creation narrative for a moment, there is another fun little nugget at the beginning of Genesis chapter 6. This passage renders an account in which the sons of god come down and "married" the daughters of men. Now, in the old testament, the term "marry" very often means simply "had sex with". So here we have an account of women becoming impregnated by the "sons of god". The passage goes on to describe the children born of these strange unions as "giants in the land and men of great renown."

 

I absolutely cannot believe that no one ever realized that this passage above all others should have been taken out of the scriptures all together. The reason is simple: every major culture in antiquity, from the Romans on back to the empire of Hammurabi, had its share of young maidens running around with their bellies tucked under their chins and claiming that the child had been sired by some god, or son of god, or other celestial being. Both Helen of Troy and Alexander the Great were supposedly sired by Zeus; Julius Caesar was the son of one of the gods (I can't remember which, at the moment). Here we see that immediately after humans were created, women started getting themselves into sticky situations before they were married, just as Mary did.

 

The point is, nobody ever really believed these young maidens' accounts concerning the dubious legitimacy of their sons.

So, why are we to believe Mary's account of the fathering of jesus? In every other example, people just played along with a knowing smile; why should Mary be any different? How the bible passed through so many generations of scholars, priests, and rabbis without somebody realizing how this passage could place Mary's "Immaculate Conception" into a precarious state is quite beyond me.

I never noticed this before. Verses 2 and 4 clearl use the word "sons." Plural, more than 1. Jesus was not the only son of god. This wrecka the concept of the trinity. The concept of gods coming down is clearly from greek mythology or greek mythology borrowed it. I'm not sure.

 

Then in verse 6 we read about how god regrets creating man. A perfect creator with regrets?!? A god who sends his only begotten son to save hunanity when he had multiple sons?

 

I never truly realized just how quickly it unravels itself. For those doubtig their deconversion, read Genesis 1-6. You will remember why you left.

 

 

What I find ironic is that god starts having regrets immediately after his sons start fornicating with the daughters of men. It's almost as if humans were progressing along just fine in gods eyes, but then when his sons came, they brought wickedness and all manner of evil with them, to the point that god was ready to destroy the earth with a flood. Then again, maybe it wasn't the wickedness of men that he was worried about; maybe what he really wanted to do was to get his DNA, which his sons had brought into the human gene pool through their lasciviousness, back out again. Maybe the flood was actually just god's way of covering up the debauchery of his sons, and the human race, with the exception of Noah's family whose bloodline hadn't been infiltrated, was just collateral damage. Either way, this passage is seriously damaging to the claims of christianity.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silliness about Noah's Ark:  We're all taught in Sunday school that the flood with the ark was 40 days, then they landed and a raven was sent out, then a dove.  Well, if you actually read the bible it says it rained for 40 days, then water higher than all the mountains prevails on the earth for another 150 days, then the water began receding and the ark landed on Ararat where the ark sat for another 40 days waiting.  Then Noah sent out the raven which flew "here and there" until the water dried from the earth (time frame, not sure?), then Noah sent the dove out and the water was drying but the dove couldn't find a place to land so returned to the ark.  So another week passed, and seven days later Noah sent the dove out again and the dove returned with the olive leaf.  Then Noah waited another week, sent the dove out again, and this time the dove did not return.  So then Noah and everyone and everything waited on the ark for another "month and 27 days" until god told Noah they could leave the ark.

 

There are other time references in the story which don't make sense to me so I'm not even trying to figure it out.

 

But with those clear numbers from the bible, all those animals and Noah's family were in the ark for at least 301 days.  Besides every other silliness of the story (millions of species of animals, animals from countries not even known about such as penguins and koalas, size of the ark making no sense to number of animals, inability of one family to care for this many animals, animals needing special habitats which could not be replicated on an ark, mixing of fresh and salt water which would kill marine life, an omniscient god having to destroy his entire creation because they all somehow [even babies] turned bad on him, explosions of methane gas from animal poop, etc) there is no way enough food and clean water could have been on board for at least 301 days.

 

Then, when Noah and family leave the ark, they take one of each clean animal and bird to sacrifice to god, and the aroma of burning flesh is sweet to god.  OH MY GOD, YOU JUST KILLED BILLIONS OF ANIMALS, WHY ARE YOU DEMANDING YET ANOTHER SACRIFICE?  STOP THE CRAZINESS!

 

These stories are just absolutely ridiculous.  They make sense in the context of myths and stories that explain where people came from and explanations of nature (rainbows) and as morality tales, made up and told by people who understood what they understood of the world in the time they lived.  But they are not reality, they are not real, and they fly in the face of hundreds of discoveries, both scientific and natural, that have happened in the last few thousands of years.

 

It is so unfortunate that we are taught these stories as literal truth from early childhood, so we are forced as intelligent children and adults to try to wrap our brains around out-and-out insane, impossible stories.  If we had been taught them like we learned greek mythology in school, we'd know the concept of the stories but have no desire or need to defend their veracity to the death.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I will see in my generation(I am 22) the abrahamic religions tossed into the dustbin of history much like greek mythology was. In the age of space travel we know the sky isn't an ocean, we know the stars aren't in the firmament, we know the impossible amount of water that would have been required to cover the entire earth etc etc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Silliness about Noah's Ark:  We're all taught in Sunday school that the flood with the ark was 40 days, then they landed and a raven was sent out, then a dove.  Well, if you actually read the bible it says it rained for 40 days, then water higher than all the mountains prevails on the earth for another 150 days, then the water began receding and the ark landed on Ararat where the ark sat for another 40 days waiting.  Then Noah sent out the raven which flew "here and there" until the water dried from the earth (time frame, not sure?), then Noah sent the dove out and the water was drying but the dove couldn't find a place to land so returned to the ark.  So another week passed, and seven days later Noah sent the dove out again and the dove returned with the olive leaf.  Then Noah waited another week, sent the dove out again, and this time the dove did not return.  So then Noah and everyone and everything waited on the ark for another "month and 27 days" until god told Noah they could leave the ark.

 

There are other time references in the story which don't make sense to me so I'm not even trying to figure it out.

 

But with those clear numbers from the bible, all those animals and Noah's family were in the ark for at least 301 days.  Besides every other silliness of the story (millions of species of animals, animals from countries not even known about such as penguins and koalas, size of the ark making no sense to number of animals, inability of one family to care for this many animals, animals needing special habitats which could not be replicated on an ark, mixing of fresh and salt water which would kill marine life, an omniscient god having to destroy his entire creation because they all somehow [even babies] turned bad on him, explosions of methane gas from animal poop, etc) there is no way enough food and clean water could have been on board for at least 301 days.

 

Then, when Noah and family leave the ark, they take one of each clean animal and bird to sacrifice to god, and the aroma of burning flesh is sweet to god.  OH MY GOD, YOU JUST KILLED BILLIONS OF ANIMALS, WHY ARE YOU DEMANDING YET ANOTHER SACRIFICE?  STOP THE CRAZINESS!

 

These stories are just absolutely ridiculous.  They make sense in the context of myths and stories that explain where people came from and explanations of nature (rainbows) and as morality tales, made up and told by people who understood what they understood of the world in the time they lived.  But they are not reality, they are not real, and they fly in the face of hundreds of discoveries, both scientific and natural, that have happened in the last few thousands of years.

 

It is so unfortunate that we are taught these stories as literal truth from early childhood, so we are forced as intelligent children and adults to try to wrap our brains around out-and-out insane, impossible stories.  If we had been taught them like we learned greek mythology in school, we'd know the concept of the stories but have no desire or need to defend their veracity to the death.

 

good post amateur!!  Charles Templeton in his book, 'Farewell to God'', one of the first books I ever read on deconversion, has a whole chapter dedicated to the huge efforts it would have taken to even build an ark and make room for all these animals.

 

As far as 'his' precious rainbow that he gave as sign, to tell the world he wouldn't flood it again....he's been lying again......... He just doesn't do it all at once anymore cause he loves to torture.......

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that when something goes wrong, it would be the creator's fault and not the created. Yet the God(s) of genesis blame(s) the created. Talk about not taking responsibility for one's ineptitude - the stories of Genesis are masterpieces of "passing the buck".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reading this link and is blowing my mind.

http://see_the_truth.webs.com/Old%20Testament.html

Much of the old testament was stolen from other mythologies.

 

I didn't know this but the oldest surviving copy of Genesis is from 150 BC. That is pathetic. We have Egyptian texts going back 2000 years further.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheRedneckProfessor: Good point about touching the fruit. While the following has been discussed before

in this forum (I think), it bears repeating. How could Adam or Eve be guilty of doing evil by eating

the forbidden fruit? The act that caused them to be given the death penalty was not known by them to be

evil until they ate it, at which time the deed was already done or being done. It's like someone

telling you that a poison apple you are eating is poisonous. Adam and Eve weren't capable of knowing

what was good or evil until they had done or were doing the deed. A little late, don't you think? Even though God had told Adam not to eat the fruit, Adam had no way of knowing it would be evil to do so. Nor that there would be anything wrong with God lying to him about the death penalty for eating the fruit. Even though this is, admittedly a technical argument, God should easily have understood that I'm

technically right. bill

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Diverging from the creation narrative for a moment, there is another fun little nugget at the beginning of Genesis chapter 6. This passage renders an account in which the sons of god come down and "married" the daughters of men. Now, in the old testament, the term "marry" very often means simply "had sex with". So here we have an account of women becoming impregnated by the "sons of god". The passage goes on to describe the children born of these strange unions as "giants in the land and men of great renown."

 

I absolutely cannot believe that no one ever realized that this passage above all others should have been taken out of the scriptures all together. The reason is simple: every major culture in antiquity, from the Romans on back to the empire of Hammurabi, had its share of young maidens running around with their bellies tucked under their chins and claiming that the child had been sired by some god, or son of god, or other celestial being. Both Helen of Troy and Alexander the Great were supposedly sired by Zeus; Julius Caesar was the son of one of the gods (I can't remember which, at the moment). Here we see that immediately after humans were created, women started getting themselves into sticky situations before they were married, just as Mary did.

 

The point is, nobody ever really believed these young maidens' accounts concerning the dubious legitimacy of their sons.

So, why are we to believe Mary's account of the fathering of jesus? In every other example, people just played along with a knowing smile; why should Mary be any different? How the bible passed through so many generations of scholars, priests, and rabbis without somebody realizing how this passage could place Mary's "Immaculate Conception" into a precarious state is quite beyond me.

I never noticed this before. Verses 2 and 4 clearl use the word "sons." Plural, more than 1. Jesus was not the only son of god. This wrecka the concept of the trinity. The concept of gods coming down is clearly from greek mythology or greek mythology borrowed it. I'm not sure.

 

Then in verse 6 we read about how god regrets creating man. A perfect creator with regrets?!? A god who sends his only begotten son to save hunanity when he had multiple sons?

 

I never truly realized just how quickly it unravels itself. For those doubtig their deconversion, read Genesis 1-6. You will remember why you left.

 

 

What I find ironic is that god starts having regrets immediately after his sons start fornicating with the daughters of men. It's almost as if humans were progressing along just fine in gods eyes, but then when his sons came, they brought wickedness and all manner of evil with them, to the point that god was ready to destroy the earth with a flood. Then again, maybe it wasn't the wickedness of men that he was worried about; maybe what he really wanted to do was to get his DNA, which his sons had brought into the human gene pool through their lasciviousness, back out again. Maybe the flood was actually just god's way of covering up the debauchery of his sons, and the human race, with the exception of Noah's family whose bloodline hadn't been infiltrated, was just collateral damage. Either way, this passage is seriously damaging to the claims of christianity.

 

 

That's kind of what I was taught...only that 'sons of god' was another term for 'angels' (in this case fallen) and they came down to fill the earth with their seed, to combat the holy lineage of god. Their evil DNA corrupted mankind so that in a little while, all the deeds and thoughts were of humanity to do evil. God killed them in a flood to wipe out all traces of mutant genes -- notice how it says Noah was both righteous and "pure in his generations". Basically, by sheer luck, his family line was the only one left untouched by demonic DNA.

 

And it was then god decided he better do something about all this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beetles. Seriously.

Noah's Ark, right? You can see, on US 40, this hilarious thing made of I-beams. (No, they still haven't finished it. It stands, gloriously decrepit and skeletal by the side of the road, in a field, behind a rather desperate sounding "coming soon!" sign.) Take a good look. It's the size of a large-ish barn. Maybe 3 stories tall. 2 of every animal, male and female? ... You're going to need a bigger boat... for the beetles alone. There's well over 400,000 species of beetles, and counting. Can this tiny boat even remotely come close to simply fitting 800,000 beetles on it? Let alone the food and water and substrate to live in and everything those beetles would need for the duration of the flood. No? Didn't think so. Noah's Ark is possibly the stupidest part of the whole Bible, and that's saying something.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beetles. Seriously.

Noah's Ark, right? You can see, on US 40, this hilarious thing made of I-beams. (No, they still haven't finished it. It stands, gloriously decrepit and skeletal by the side of the road, in a field, behind a rather desperate sounding "coming soon!" sign.) Take a good look. It's the size of a large-ish barn. Maybe 3 stories tall. 2 of every animal, male and female? ... You're going to need a bigger boat... for the beetles alone. There's well over 400,000 species of beetles, and counting. Can this tiny boat even remotely come close to simply fitting 800,000 beetles on it? Let alone the food and water and substrate to live in and everything those beetles would need for the duration of the flood. No? Didn't think so. Noah's Ark is possibly the stupidest part of the whole Bible, and that's saying something.

 

And then there's all the gasoline you need for all those beetles.  Sorry, I couldn't resist.  :)

 

VolkswagenBeetle-001.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, everybody, PLEASE click on the link above of this I-beam remake of Noah's Ark!!!  It's a wonderful mixture of hilarity, pathetic innocence, desperation, blind belief, and complete inability to grasp even a tenuous clawhold on reality.  I am alternately weeping for AND seriously mocking the person who thought this was at all a good idea.

 

This atrocity, this abortion of an idea, was started in 1974 and is still not complete.  Oh, I cannot image why!  We need to raise funds HERE, ON THIS SITE, and SEND IT IN so that this man will not die before his life's grand ambition, his vision to the world, can be completed!!

 

THIS MAN NEEDS GOPHER WOOD, AND HE NEEDS IT NOW!!!  If there have already been MIRACLES at this site, with I-beams alone, image the lives transformed, the amputated limbs regrown, the cancers flying out of bodies, when the gopher wood skin is placed on this MOST HOLY of completely unfloatable skeletons!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Oh, everybody, PLEASE click on the link above of this I-beam remake of Noah's Ark!!

 

I did.... Now I have another website bookmarked in my "Christians-Looney" folder.   

 

yelrotflmao.gif yelrotflmao.gif yelrotflmao.gif yelrotflmao.gif yelrotflmao.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Beetles. Seriously.

Noah's Ark, right? You can see, on US 40, this hilarious thing made of I-beams. (No, they still haven't finished it. It stands, gloriously decrepit and skeletal by the side of the road, in a field, behind a rather desperate sounding "coming soon!" sign.) Take a good look. It's the size of a large-ish barn. Maybe 3 stories tall. 2 of every animal, male and female? ... You're going to need a bigger boat... for the beetles alone. There's well over 400,000 species of beetles, and counting. Can this tiny boat even remotely come close to simply fitting 800,000 beetles on it? Let alone the food and water and substrate to live in and everything those beetles would need for the duration of the flood. No? Didn't think so. Noah's Ark is possibly the stupidest part of the whole Bible, and that's saying something.

 

And then there's all the gasoline you need for all those beetles.  Sorry, I couldn't resist.  smile.png

 

 

 

GONZ9729CustomImage1541245.gif

 

Nicely done.

I see your German insect and raise you one "Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang" reference. This thing would've saved time, to be honest:

 

It flies, too. No need to send out the dove or anything.

 

 

'Fantasmagorical' is right...rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to defend the Genesis origin story, but just to give historical context... All religions in that age had an origin story (the first couple chapters borrow heavily from Babylonian and Syrian mythology already in place)--but origin stories were for answering: how we got here as humans and what does a godlike creature have to do with it, and what is its relationship to humanity and what is expected of us? Just trying to answer the questions: Why are we here? How are we here? What are we supposed to do while we're here? 

 

So the Adam and Eve story... (Adam literally means "a man") was meant to be allegory from the beginning. Mankind was made, mankind chose knowledge of good and evil rather than everlasting life, and so man is physical with a limited life span, here in physical mortal form to find out what good and evil is (because you can't kill another spirit being, but you can kill another mortal) so humans were cast into the physical world where they could feel and inflict pain upon one another. BUT mankind, although cast out of the "garden" still has a way of redemption (so the promise goes), although will suffer through his/her life. They were just trying to explain things and put a hopeful, positive spin on it. 

 

And Cain and Able's sacrifice... burning a sacrifice to appease the gods was already around. It appeased their wrath, it created a "sweet savor" and the Greeks explained it as how humans were first given fire. A naughty god sympathetic to humans gave it to them, but then taught them to burn animals on an altar as thanks... and so the gods were forgiving that they'd gotten this precious secret gift of fire.

 

But... yeah. Mythology. Obviously. All of it. We ought to all be smart enough to see it now. Because... you know... science. History. Facts.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without original sin from genesis, christianity has not validity. For christians, they cannot concede that genesis is mythology or they give up their religion. If god knew the real story why tell a fairy tale?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Nobody got to this? PUNCH-BUGGY WHITE!!! *slugs somebody*

(On a similar note, there's a quote, attributed to J. B. S. Haldane, that if there is a God, it must be "inordinately fond of beetles." Beetles are also really cool. I confess to having planted morning glories, partly for the flowers, and partly because I really wanted some Golden Tortoise Beetles... they didn't show up this year, but maybe next?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Margee!

 

Let's have some fun by using the Bible to destroy itself, ok?  smile.png

 

The Book of Genesis makes this real easy.

 

Genesis 5:24

24 Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

 

 

Hebrews 11:5 & 6

By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.” For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

 

See that?

Enoch never died, but was taken up to heaven alive - because he pleased God. 

Oopsie!  So it looks like you can avoid death and go to heaven... without needing Jesus to die for your sins.

.

.

.

But what about 1 Timothy 6: 15 & 16...?

"...God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."

 

The apostle Paul (a Pharisee of Pharisees when he was Saul and who therefore knew the Hebrew scriptures backwards)  seems to be telling his protégé Timothy that Enoch hasn't seen God - in clear and indisputable contradiction to both Genesis 5:24 and Hebrews 11:5 & 6.  Really?  And just who is the Book of Hebrews attributed to then? 

 

Saul of Tarsus.  Yep!  None other than the apostle Paul himself.

 

Or 1 John 4:12?

"No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us."

 

Or John 1:18?

"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."

 

It seems that the apostle John hadn't heard about Enoch seeing God either. (Nor read about it!)

Jesus has seen the Father, but not Enoch.  But perhaps John can be forgiven though - seeing as he was a fisherman and was described in Acts 4:13 as an unschooled, ordinary man (agrammatoi idiotes in the NT Greek) ...and therefore was unable to read or write.  But, you'd think that God, in his complete foreknowledge and infinite wisdom would have informed John about Enoch (via the Holy Spirit, perhaps?) ... BEFORE John's words were written down and included in the canon of the infallible and inerrant Bible, right?

 

Wendyshrug.gif 

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

 

p.s.

What about Elijah then? 

Like Enoch, he never died and went up to heaven - in contradiction to Paul and John... again.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i thot adam and eve saw and talked to god? or even cain?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crap, I almost forgot, apparently, not just any two of each will do, it has to be a pair, the male and his mate. Um. There's actually quite a few species of ALL FEMALE animals out there. The New Mexico Whiptail Lizard (Cnemidophorus neomexicanus) is probably the most famous of these, because it is the state lizard of New Mexico. They are parthenogenic, which means they lay eggs that are scrambled genetic clones of the mother, and they do exhibit mounting behaviour, which apparently increases fertility. That's right... they're lesbians. On a similar note, swans, actually, are known to form male/male pairs - they bond with each other, and raise cygnets together, but mate with and then chase off passing female swans. Do those count? What if your pair of swans, a male and his mate, were both male? How do you tell? I mean, we were only able to figure this out recently, due to DNA testing returning a lot of birds that we thought were male/female pairs to have high rates of same sex pairs. Birds sometimes don't have identifiable bits that make them easy to tell apart at first glance, and Noah was in a heck of a hurry. Unfortunately for Genesis, nature just doesn't conform to bronze-age assumptions about animal behaviour...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.