Were Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?

Trump is your President - as was foreseen by the folks who do take the nonsense theisms and the importance of disrespecting them seriously.
Just sayin'.

For example, the guy who told me that my emotional attachment to my gun was motivating my advocacy for stalking. (In language decorated with such terms as "bawling", "screeching", "whining", "lying", etc etc)
How does one respond to such folk, on a forum like this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you consider that to be a ''root of racism'', then what is this:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dave, from your other quite reasonable posts, I would say that this extremely prejudicial statement was posted in haste and without proper reflection. Belief is not a talent. Usually it is a result of inculcation.
Now is the time to correct that error.

What say you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're "explaining" what you want it to mean, in opposition to what it actually says.

That's just silly. The vast majority of Christians read it the same way I do - not because they want to denigrate the Bible but because that's what it says.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Legends can be …: Never mind.​

Nothing about a misogynist deriving his analysis from typal misogyny precludes a stopped-clock coincedence, especially when so comfortably tapping traditional sentiment. That is to say, something about how it takes one to know one can easily go here, e.g., you know your birds of a fellow feather well. Still, though, you piss away your own righteous pretense with lazy bigotry, and kind of like the bit about storytelling, Iceaura, it is either significant or not that you decided to lift a finger to do your part in service of fallacy.

In the present issue, where we ought to be able to find some common cause, you're actually part of the problem. That is: You do nothing to help alleviate the problems religion, religious behavior, and especially religious supremacism and bigotry; the way you go about it, here, makes you part of the problem. And unlike being born black or white or red or yellow, this outcome is your choice.

The only things you achieve by your disrespect are whatever ephemeral satisfaction you find in the moment, and reinforcement of superstition.

For all you screech about Abramism and theists, your behavior, here, only makes things worse, and the mitigating pretense is the same as it is for the evangelist, that this is Sciforums and seemingly rather quite inconsequential in any larger societal effect. Considering the presupposition of stupidity about religious people inherent in the critique you present, it is hard to figure what utility the argument, if writ large unto society, would serve. Well, I suppose we could raise the question of how we define utility.

Still, when it comes to men chasing women into bathrooms to demand a public pubic peek, or even the question of why the men aren't chasing each other into public restrooms and demanding to see each other's parts, or even, say, supporting a Christianist terror organization like Operation Rescue, or putting bombs in parks in hopes of framing Muslims, no, you're not going to be winning those arguments that way, but what is even more problematic is that your vice will encourage sympathy among other Christians.

Then again, while there is already enough to say about the next part, quoted below, an aspect applies here. The first couple, or maybe few, subsequent occasions I gave you shit about that post it was because it kept coming back to haunt discussions insofar as it coincided with other behavior in related issues. But your response to your own post has become itself significant. That point aside, however, there is also a hovering question by which I want to ask how you could miss something, but, in fact, this range about misogyny we dispute so personally helps illuminate the answer.

How could you miss what? Well, it's true I didn't take certain rightist warnings seriously enough because, to borrow from a cartoon, I understimated Americans' potential for malice. The idea that this is all somehow worth it to a bunch of lulzycucks is certainly its own indictment of our society, but what of those who would claim to not be lulzycucks? You know, who would pretend there is a reason for their behavior? A societal suicide pact of this scale really did sound, as a dystopian projection, extreme; hindsight simply shrugs.

So, yeah, I can see a bit about what I missed. But, similarly, if simply not getting their way, such as in the Gay Fray, sets them off so badly, what do you think you're accomplishing by proclaiming and acting on "the importance of disrespecting them seriously"?

And how could you miss that? Well, you have exposure to a common-cause phenomenon much similar to theirs, and not without Venn overlap between otherwise seemingly disparate identity politics.

It's something I saw in the Gay Fray; women see it all the time, and people of color see it all the time. And I've described it before. In the Fray, it was the friend or ostensible fence-sitter suddenly enraged to the point of being forced to side with the anti-gay because someone called a bigoted remark by a preacher the friend or fence-sitter doesn't like any other day of the week bigoted. It happened enough to teach fairly quickly they never really were on our side. I'm quite certain you know this phenomenon.

It happened in the Gay Fray; I'm sure it happens in Christianist-masculinist peepee wars, but whether it's rare for having shaken out by now or simply such a steady murmur I don't notice, I actually couldn't tell you. But it also happens in white supremacist apologistic narrative, and with misogyny, among other prejudices. More directly, the connection is supremacism.

So regardless of what you think about my assessment of your outlook on human rights, there remains a question of what you, who is allegedly smarter than them, think you or anyone else accomplishes by generating sympathy among less extreme expressions of common cause? And, sure, part of me wonders how you could miss this aspect, but there is also the the point of you being steeped in a similar creeping sympathy.

If it's important enough to go out of your way to be disrespectful, it ought to be important enough to get a clue, or, at least, not make things worse.

So, yeah, thing is, I stand by my posts, Iceaura, and don't need to blame them on other people.

It may be worth enough for you to pitch a hissy-fit about, but not so much to put any real effort into.

Meanwhile, as to your question: You could always try being honest.

That's just a suggestion, though. I mean, y'know, since you did ask. Otherwise, yes, I'm generally aware of what happens when the recommendation is to violate one's own conscience or pretense thereof.

 

Indeed I am, so people can see that you're lying about what I said.

 

There's the willfully oblivious disrespect, and

There's the ignorance - likewise willful.

"Rightist" warnings?
You also name-called, whined, bawled, slandered, screeched, spewed, mewled, spittled, and generally embarrassed yourself throwing tantrums all over this forum when addressing the people who were simply and in all sober reality correctly assessing a bad situation and describing it to you.
Clinton was a lame, compromised, semi-competent, and generally bad politician - the wrong person at the wrong time. Her record was one of few accomplishments, many betrayals, and occasional flat out cowardice. Her nomination was a disaster for the good guys, regardless of its outcome. And everybody who pointed that out you berated with ignorant disrespect - invective, calumny, accusation, anything but reason and sense. You drank the koolaid, and it blinded you.

"Screeching"?
Aside from extracting another wall of bullshit prose from you, which I agree is slightly damaging, I can't see how.

You got things badly wrong, and you doubled down, and you got stuck - and that's the only "significance" of any of your posting in the matter.
- - - -
Side issue:

That kind of response from the cornered in fact - the comeback emphasis on who thinks they're smarter than whom, on who's more arrogant than whom - is even more familiar. Characteristic, even.
We're getting a lot of it from the "neverTrump" and "centrist" and "Biden!" wastes of airtime on the major media, for example.
I believe I once described them - that "side" - as authoritarian gits - which you interpreted as misogyny, because the directly labeled was female and among the Clinton contingent.

No, I am not on that "side".

 

Thanks for the reply. It is always sad to find out about religion, an idea and practice meant to bring good will and happiness to humankind, used in a wrongful way. Do you recall that religious groups exact motivation for killing those kids? Was it just because those children, or their parents, did not hold the exact same beliefs as they did?

 

You can entertain anything, belief does not need to be a given.

Educated in what?

jan.

 

Why not?

jan.

 

Incest has to do with sexual relations between close family members.

The bible says Eve was created out of Adam, not that woman was created out of man.
On the sixth day, the bible says it created mankind, both male and female. Nothing about a rib.

jan,

 

No. I explained what the words mean, and I have shown that the whole bible makes sense using the correct translation, whereas now, it makes no sense at all.
Even if you still maintain the belief, why can't you at least accept that it makes more sense?

Like you, the vast majority of Christians need A+E to be the first ever people to run in line with their religion.
But if you take religion out of the equation, and just try to make sense of the bible, it clearly shows that A+E were the first of a new race of people, amongst the rest of the world that were alive at that time.

jan

 

Why on Earth would you change it just to fit your prejudice on what "makes sense?"

It is what it is - a translated version of an oral history, mostly over 2000 years old. It is self-contradictory and factually incorrect. Scholars study these contradictions and errors to learn more about how the story was created, and the time in which they were created. From those studies we have learned a lot about the early days of the Church and the society at the time it was written.

It is a fool's errand to try to change it to make it into what you think it should be.

 

That's not the point of God-centered religion.
The point is to relinquish the false-identity we assume in this life, and realize the truth, by first realizing the self.

jan,

 

As I have said, what "makes sense" is not relevant. There are a lot of things in the Bible that don't make sense. Trying to make sense of them is futile.

Why would atheists, agnostics and Christians (not to mention Jews and Muslims) all have the same "need"?

You can't make sense out of the Bible.

 

Consider this.
A Muslim woman walks in public and her ankles are showing. The "moral police" will stop her and cane her legs to teach her that a modest Muslim woman does not tempt men with showing her ankles in public.
If she shows more, she gets publicly stoned. If she blasphemes she gets beheaded.
A wonderfully symbiotic religion.

You do know that Islam blames women for being attractive to men and are responsible for controlling men's base thoughts and behavior. When a woman gets raped, she is the responsible party for being present during that event. She is responsible for the event.

And here comes the kicker; men are unable to control their base instincts. Therefore, women must never tempt their feeble resistance and self-control. What a compliment to Muslim men.....they're just uncivilized beasts. Can't keep it in their pants, no matter how hard they try. They're men!

What do you expect, a gentleman?

 

They don't but they are "required to conform" to their "exclusive" religious scripture and mores.

IOW, free will has been removed and replaced by commandments.

 

It has been changed.
The bible contradicts what you believers say.
If religionists want to believe the altered version, they're entitled to, but their belief is not a part of what the bible says. or means.
You can argue all you like, but you cannot show where God created two human beings, to incestuously create the diversity we see in the human race today.
That is fundamentally absurd.
It makes me wonder what Christians think of such a limited God, that He couldn't do what is said He did in the bible, and every other scripture that depicts God.

It says what it says. I would be lying to myself, if I believed the belief.
I would have to ignore the translated words, I would have to pretend that incest was used to create human race.
I would have to turn a blind eye to the variety in humans we see today,
You may as well free yourself of pretense, and see where just honestly looking for the truth of the scripture leads.

jan

 

The truth of the scripture is that it's a fairy tale.

 

Unfortunately, many people believe it is true and when you tell them it's a fairy tale, you become the Devil who seeks to "corrupt" them, and eventually destroy and devour them.

An eternal adversary.

This is what you will look like to them.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Don't forget, they are the ones dwelling in the fairy tale.

Uncontrolled Hallucinations (Anil Seth)