The children of Adam and Eve, why look so different?

Gustav Davidson on "Lilith"

Cris--

I don't know why it took a couple days to click.... Lilith!

Davidson, Gustav. A Dictionary of Angels. New York: Free Press, 1967.

Don't ask me why I gave you the whole entry. It's just that funny, I guess. And, just to keep up the comedy bit, I'll even give the Appendix entry.

But there you go. Inasmuch as one engages the subjectivity of religion at all, I figure this is as legitimate as the next. And since I've dragged out the idea that a demon bore Adam's children this far, I might note that I really do need to find out where M. Gaster got his data, because I'm officially interested in the names. Abeko, Ita, Kali, Kea, Odam, Satrina, and Talto all ring bells with me in ways that, if I give some time to Karen Armstrong this weekend, I might be able to get a foothold on and start searching for documents. If it's late enough, you just have bastardizations of prior mythologies, including the taltos of Romany, which incidentally plays a strong role in the work of Steven Brust (it's his best-known character's name), and even trickled into Anne Rice, but only after Mr Brust had taken a couple of whacks at the Booklist bestsellers for genre.

But, yeah ... if a fraction of this religious fervor had been devoted to economic and situational progress among society, utopia might not be so laughable. I mean, some people devote their lives to the art of lovemaking, some to the art of scaring themselves senseless about God, and even I am a poster boy for a National Tokers League so don't think I'm ducking that generalization. In the end, however, I wonder if society hasn't devoted itself to religion because it is afraid of itself. Anyone I know will accept the individual conclusions, but is it possible that society refuses to progress except by necessity because it is afraid to try? I mean, I'll admit my theism any day of the week, but I think we all know that the good Mr Davidson has documented one giant heap of social delusion.

As a note, I made no stylistic changes to the presentation of Davidson's text except that I didn't list the names in two columns. Othewise, I have attempted to preserve the entries verbatim.

But I thought that might make you chuckle some.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

um...no?...maybe

Um...hey, you guys...there were other people just there...at least that's what "It" said. But, uh, the race thing...That has been explained too many times on the discovery channel...people migrate. Some people went south of the homeland (Africa) and got dark 'cause its real hot. Some people went northerly (European/Saxons) and became light 'cause it's kinda cold. Some of your forefathers (but not mine) went across one of those land bridge thingies (Native Americans) and got to be red 'cause, well... you all know about that ozone thing! Just a joke. Anyway, just to say something. Oh! Can anyone perhaps start a new thread about where the dinosaurs come into play in the Bible? Thanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"My husband is a dinasawuh and he really wants to know."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dinosaurs

... the dinosaur bones were just a joke that the paleontologists haven't figured out yet. (Gaiman and Pratchett, Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch)
I believe the Christian-accepted literalist date for creation is September, 4004 BCE; in fact, the aforementioned authors place the quoted line immediately after a review of this date; the dinosaur bones bit essentially is the punchline. I'm going to have to learn a couple of hitherto-untouched social sciences (e.g. formal demographics) to pull it off. Specifically, I have a vague notion of simple arithmetic, calculating the number of generations, then, 'twixt Genesis and today using any of a number of biblically-derived assertions for the date of creation.

Thus, how fast are people reproducing? How quickly are we accomplishing intra-species genetic diversity? Is it possible to go from 2 people of similar genetic stock (Adam and Eve are, essentially, the same genetic material, with revisions thrown into the production sequence) to 6,000,000,000 people of magnanimous diversity so quickly? How low must the mortality rate be to achieve this? What must happen to cause such a flourishing of species within the space of 6000 years?

Could interspecies reproduction contribute to human diversity? Perhaps not interspecies--it's all a matter of degree. But if we might envision a small series of genetic mutations that establishes itself over a subsequent generation, what is the network compatibility between two sets of genes attemting to create a new system? Look at a bonobo, which is noted to be our closest genetic relative on the planet; it is asserted that the genetic difference 'twixt humans and bonobos is approximately the difference between the family dog and a fox. I would not assert here that humans reproduced with bonobos or macacques, but did humanity evolve at a uniform pace? Perhaps the settlement in one valley passes a certain set of higher traits to a lower evolutionary entity: the idea of "missing link". If we mark two successive phases of human evolution, what comes between?

As I look at them, however, such assertions have vaguely eugenic overtones, so I must be cautious. But if the genetic difference 'twixt one human settlement and the next is a minute fraction of the dog/fox or human/bonobo separation, we might see reproduction occurring between what we had previously classified under separate species, or perhaps even genuses.

I'm not seeking a macacque homonunculus here but admittedly some degree of reproductive interaction between genetic codes largely considered disparate by classification.

Rather than bend to eugenics, I suppose one could use such an idea to rewrite evolutionary genetics, though I would not be surprised if grad students far brighter than I got around to the idea years ago at Stanford and discarded it for reasons I'm incapable of seeing.

But, to be honest, when this post started, I figured only on the wisecrack from Gaiman and Pratchett.

But a few unorganized thoughts, and probably worth a halfpenny ....

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Dinosaurs

When I was a kid, I was fascinated beyond belief about the idea of enormous beasts roaming the land freely. Hell, I still am.

One of the theories that a certain Christian religion passed around about the dinosaurs (which is reminiscent of tiassa's quote from <i>Good Omens</i>) was that the dinosaurs existed within the crust of the Earth already. That when God was creating (organizing) the Earth, He took pre-existing materials, which included bits and chunks scattered about and composed the planet. Thus, dinosaurs never really existed in Earth's past, they were just part of the soil to begin with.

I thought this to be an ignoble explanation. The dinosaurs pretty much got shorted on this description of history. Interesting that as more information was literally unearthed about the physiology and cranial capacity of dinosaurs, that those theories gradually began to be displaced by other, less thought-provoking possibilites. For example, another theory was that they were created solely for the purpose of future fossil fueling for humans. Whether one believes in God or not, this is a terrible ethnocentric assumption. By the same token, perhaps humans are future fodder for other, more advanced terrestrials.

But to return to what tiassa was talking about. Specifically genetic diversity.

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
<i>Originally posted by tiassa:</i>
How quickly are we accomplishing intra-species genetic diversity?
<hr>
</blockquote>

Exactly. The Bible says (in Genesis) that man was created after the animals. By this, would fundamental literalists take this to mean that any Neandertal or dinosaurs that roamed the Earth during Adam and Eve's time were classified as animals? If so, would it then be okay to eat them? The point is that, as tiassa was saying, if there are only two phases of human evolution, what constitutes the interim periods? Six thousand years seems an awfully miniscule amount of time in which to diversify the human species, even allowing the classic rejoinder from religionists "With God, all things are possible." Melatonin levels would need to be calibrated at an unprecedented pace to accomodate the diversity that peoples the world over represent; color of skin suggests quite a few years of adaptation in particular climates, not just some random offshoot of a mutation within a gene, even allowing for albinism.

Some humans have hamstrings at slightly higher positions than others, allowing for faster movement of the legs. Could this be a trait that somehow mutated and became generalized in only 6,000 years?

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
I would not assert here that humans reproduced with bonobos or macacques, but did humanity evolve at a uniform pace? Perhaps the settlement in one valley passes a certain set of higher traits to a lower evolutionary entity: the idea of "missing link".
<hr>
</blockquote>

Another theory within some sects of Christendom is that perhaps Adam was the first Homo-sapien, although everything else in his ancestry would be classified as Neandertal or animal. Thus, rather than say that we evolved from monkeys or their closest analog, Christians can claim that Adam made that evolutionary jump from animal to a being with the ability of sentience. God recognized this and the rest is history, though muffled. Which lends some recognition to that one question: Did Adam have a navel?

But, again to return to tiassa's point, perhaps something else entirely occurred. Perhaps there happened to be a common stock of man (a certain genus) that managed to procreate successfully, but which roamed the land in all kinds of directions. Then, this pre-Man (can't think of 'before' in Latin), due to his being relatively young in his genetic structure and makeup was able to diversify very differently with respect to his surroundings. A common ancestor so to speak, though not necessarily human.

Well, that's what's on my mind, anyway. Thanks for the direction this took, tiassa.

prag

 

A note and a silly notion

I think the prefix is ante-, as in antebellum (before the US Civil War), or antechamber (a smaller room that one enters before entering their destination). Of course, that just confuses some people too much, dealing with antehuman and antechristian ideas.

Which requires some recognition of Bloom County: "And just who is going to rock me to sleep tonight, Milo Binkley!"

One of my favorites actually reflects the Gaiman/Pratchett line by accident. A Seventh-Day Adventist associate of mine was taught in home, church, and school, that dinosaur bones weren't really from dinosaurs, but that the flood had washed caused the land of the earth to restratify, settling heavy bones to the bottom, and that these bones and their accompanient oil and gas deposits are actually the mortal remains of the antediluvian inhabitants of a damned Earth. (I hope Boris gets a smile there.)

I really should get along, though ... the clock says its time to make my graceful exit from this farcical stage called the office.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why we are not like God?

Because we are mutts? The product of "THE SONS OF GOD, BREEDING THE DAUGHTERS OF MAN".... unless of course a million years of water washing up on the beach can make a GOLD PLATED TIMEX!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So, let me see if I got this right, what you are say is that the world, particularly the US FUNDAMENTALLY fails to understand that the objectives of the Roman Catholic church are the opposite of theirs? The PRIME OBJECTIVE of the CATHOLIC CHURCH is not to avoid Armageddon, but to TRIGGER IT? The root doctrine is approxiamtely as such... The church exists as a log-term, but nonetheless temporary institution to avait the return of Jesus? He will appear, airlift the true believers to safety and then the world blows up? THe objective of the Catholic church is to give everyone the chance for a free ticket off the planet before catastrophe and see that the return of Jesus is as swift as possible?

As stated in other posts the logic about the bible code is seriously upside down, assuming that it is "mystic forces" that make it an accurate predicting tool rather than the possibility of the reverse? Whilst NOT Scientologist, you accept the concept that the possitioning of words on a page can cause subliminal suggestive programming? The random occurance of words on a page, not only of the Bible, but also of Mody Dick, might be enough to gently manoevre mankind into doing what it supposedly predicts and, as such, makes it a frighteningly accurate predictive tool, albeit through a self-fuilfilling prophecy basis?

It is well-established that he was a fan of Science Fiction and loved "The FOundation" series by IOssac Asimov? Translated into arabic, The FOundation is "Al Qaeda" and it`s history is an embarrassing parallel of the book?

Likewise, the Catholic Church was established at the time of the Roman Empire and, not only adopted much of its culture, but also has changed little? As such, it does tend to believe inherently in "acts of God" as a substitute for superstition and so tends to try to MAKE prophecies come true? "The Shoes of the Fisherman" film about an Eastern European bishop who becomes Pope and undermines Communism is said to have been "prophetic" when the opposite is nearer the truth? Maybe the Cardinals just unofficially adopted it as a workable plan, electing John-Paul II to put it into progress?

Malachi, the eleventh century prophet has accurately predicted 111 popes, but maybe not through mystic forces, but because they Cathlic Church actually WANTED it to come true? According to Malachi, the next Pope is the last? Various other prophecies also conclude the same, variously suggesting that he will be JEWISH, FRENCH and die in Avignon? There is good reason for this - the catholic church is stuck with the fact there are clear safety catches that PREVENT the prophecies of Armageddon taking place? The first is that Christianity must have been spread to all parts of the world to give everyone a chance of a free ticket off the planet, so to say? John Paul II did most of this by undermining Communism, leaving only really South Korea to go and China that would probably be a push over in the future? SECONDLY, the BIG stumbling block to Armageddon and it`s a HUGE ONE for the Catholic Church is that it CLEARLY states in the Bible that the JEWS WILL BE CONVERTED FIRST? The Catholics have been battering away for two milenia at thsi one without any success, but then again Communism seems that way one a decade ago? Hence, they might try the same tactic, have a "man on the inside", a converted Jew? Also, they need to block Western European secularism, so he probably needs to come from Europe, but Italy will be unacceptable as they would be seen as going back to hide in the bunker?
Futhermore, they need a fearless b`stard who`s used to repression and has experience of it?

Lustiger was born a Jew? He was the righthand man of John-Paul II? He is French? He lived under the Nazis?

My guess is that the conclave will "tilt the machine" and make history fit the prophecy? They will elect Lustiger as Pope and he will take Peter as his name?He will visit Israel and he will mass convert large numbers fo Jews?As they "start turning the other cheek", it will further destabilise the middle east?

3rd August is the aniversary of the Romans destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem? Bin Laden will also try to make history fir the prophecies and Drosnin`s prophecies in the Bible Code will come true?

...And the Catholic Church will have had it`s way and Armageddon will be upon us?

 

I actually agree with that. I have said before to SL that I am quite happy with the Theory of Evolution. But being a Thiest I like to think of it more as controlled evolution rather pure chance. I came to this conlusion looking at the absolutely incredible makeup of our human bodies and the world we live in.

And this notion of how evolution can't work with a Perfect God. Well it seems like a "perfect" experiment to me. We only have to look at the end results to realise this. I mean this might sound like a wacky notion to some, (well actually most people on this forum

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) but the way I see it is that out of all the planets God touched this one with his love and so life started to form here. He watched it grow and when he was happy with the development of one particular species he breathed this "soul" into them. We were the chosen species for this gift. He wanted us to love him back and so sent his prophets to guide us. He even gav us 10 rules as a base to live a moral happy life. When that didn't work, God himself came down and gave us just 2 rules to live by and so on....

Sorry, I waffled on there a bit. But IMHO Evolution can go very nicely hand in hand with God.