Things I learned in church

[Fruity]

My last pastor:

"The day my son masturbates will be the day I failed as a pastor."

No joke.

[Mystical]

FUCK that guy. and Fuck your whole goddamned congregation. The day you had to stand up in front of hundreds and apologize for being pregnant would have been the day I taped a red A to the pastors chest and flipped off the whole lot while yelling God isn't even real you stupid motherfuckers! I still can't believe people watched that shit.

[Esquilax]

My last pastor:

"The day my son masturbates will be the day I failed as a pastor."

No joke.

Take your pleasure in knowing that that pastor has already failed. Sometimes multiple times a day.

It's just a known fact about young men.

[Fruity]

My last pastor:

"The day my son masturbates will be the day I failed as a pastor."

No joke.

Take your pleasure in knowing that that pastor has already failed. Sometimes multiple times a day.

It's just a known fact about young men.

Oh, of course. He also thinks his son's first kiss was at the altar. His son told me once that he made out with the Sunday school teacher. lol Viva el pastor!

[Mystical]

Don't play, baby. its a well known fact you're a young man too

also Ivy: bah ha hahahaha hah ha haaaaaa

[T.J.]

My last pastor:

"The day my son masturbates will be the day I failed as a pastor."

No joke.

How soon can we expect his resignation?

[Drich]

I've seen the case made for no specific timeline given in Genesis between creation and the Fall of Man before. You have to take the book as non-literal in some areas in order to accomplish this, which is an easy enough argument to make if you concede that the book was written by a Hebrew man who had limited knowledge of the world (I'm sure the world back then was basically just the general area of where they lived) and the whole different language thing.

Again in my thread creation/evolution2 I make it perfectly clear that one could take a literal seven day account of creation and still reconcile all of evolution.

I believe Moses is actually credited with writing the first five books of the Old Testament. But in order to do that you have to say the bible is inspired by God which opens up a whole new can of worms. I'm getting off track, though.

Some believe it to be a collaberation, Moses, Arron, Abraham, and maybe a few others.

The Garden of Eden being seen as a paradise and specialize as a kind of heaven or place where time moves more slowly makes sense at least in the context of the bible because of how much importance is put on man in getting back to paradise with God.

That is not what my theory is about at all. I simply say the bible does not express a time line between creation and the fall of man. It could have been a day week month year or the bazillions of years that evolution say it was. Bottom line without a time line the time between creation and the fall means there still could have been a literal seven days.

Problem. You can't exactly separate man in the way you did because we did not evolve from monkeys, or apes. We share a common ancestor.

My use of the term monkey man simple denotes the existance of a possiable theory. Meaning whether my theory is proven to be right or wrong, one has the room to insert any time line or another facts for that matter into the creation account.

Also, there are animals in the Garden that was with Adam and Eve. How do you account for the similar animals between the Garden and outside the Garden?

In the OP i explain that the garden (per Genesis 2) is created apart from the rest of the world. that it was made to be a sanctuary or a reflection of what the world was to look like. It was completed before the planet was completed. I add that it was made to reflect what the world would have looked like at the time of the fall. so as to ease the transition of Man made in the image of God to 'monkey man's' world.

And as for my third point, you make the common mistake of using the bible as the source to proving an account in the bible. That's like me saying Obama is building his own secret army and citing Fox News as a source. It just doesn't work.

Why?
If Fox news was speaking the truth, then does the truth suddenly change because of the source?

But let's for a moment assume for sake of argument, there are two types of human beings in the world. One with a soul and one without a soul. How do you tell them apart? I mean, right now a Christian somewhere could be trying to convert a person who has no soul and won't be going to heaven anyway. Actually, a lot of believers right now could be wasting their time because they don't have a soul so they aren't going to see an afterlife, or any afterlife.

There is only one type of man on the planet today. Man with a soul. Why? As I point out in my OP there was an event that wiped out all of the monkey men, only leaving the decendants of Adam.

[T.J.]

I knew I shouldn't have used the Fox News analogy. What I meant was the bible as a source can be viewed as biased because it's trying to present the existence of Adam and Eve in the first place. Or lacking because there aren't additional sources outside it that can be used. You'll notice in many debates that people attach multiple sources to their argument because at times one source isn't enough. Even people who follow the news will look at multiple news medias to be certain of a story's credibility.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Drich]

I knew I shouldn't have used the Fox News analogy. What I meant was the bible as a source can be viewed as biased because it's trying to present the existence of Adam and Eve in the first place. Or lacking because there aren't additional sources outside it that can be used. You'll notice in many debates that people attach multiple sources to their argument because at times one source isn't enough. Even people who follow the news will look at multiple news medias to be certain of a story's credibility.

Thanks for the clarification.

If the bible is not 'good enough' then why use it as a single source to point out the inconsistancy between evolution and creation in the first place?

Your arguement did not consider the bible as being an illegitmate source till you had exhausted all other avenues to defend your position. prior to this the bible was considered a valid source to disproove the legitmacy of creation. When the same bible was used to assimilate evolution into the creation account, then magically the bible lost all legitmacy.

If you can't or don't want to discuss this anymore then know we do not have to, but know you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are going to use the bible to 'disproove' God/Christianity then know it then by your use of it becomes a viable source to refute your bible based claims.

[T.J.]

Exhausted? I mentioned it alongside the other points I brought up not after. I'm not pushing the issue because if you want to acknowledge Evolution alongside your own religious beliefs then that's fine by me. I did the same thing when I was a theist.