Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radcliffe Emerson · 03-08-2002, 06:33 AM

I've also read Revelation is referring to Nero and Rome too, not to a coming "end-time". It was written around 90 ad, the John who wrote it was directing it to his followers, who were being persecuted and killed by the Romans. He told them not to worry, Jesus would return soon to save them.
Guess what? Didn't happen.....

03-08-2002, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by A3:

And also that the name Adam really means 'man' like 'the people', not one individual.

Not really Adrian because Man became Adam in Gen 3 after God place a-dam before him with the first "thou shalt not."

theyeti · 03-08-2002, 10:12 AM

This thread from the E/C archives might be of interest: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001440" target="_blank">Adam and Eve??</a> Only the first couple of pages are likely of any interest; after that, a creationist troll takes it totally off topic.

theyeti

emphryio · 03-10-2002, 12:05 PM

I met a really nice guy recently who is getting his Ph.D. in Engineering. He beleives that the world shall be completely destroyed within the next 20 years based on his reading of Revelations.

MortalWombat · 03-15-2002, 12:11 PM

Quote:

I met a really nice guy recently who is getting his Ph.D. in Engineering. He beleives that the world shall be completely destroyed within the next 20 years based on his reading of Revelations.

Then why is he bothering finishing his Ph.D.? Seems like a waste of about a quarter of his remaining life on earth.

doodad · 03-19-2002, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Payne:
... Equally disturbing to me is the obvious moral implications of all this incest and inbreeding. All moral codes I know of, especially religious codes, forbid this kind of activity for well-known reasons. While it may be fun to imagine that this explains some of our weird relatives, it is difficult for me to square this with the moralizing we get from the theist set about sex and proper moral behavior. ...

What are the obvious moral implications of all this incest and inbreeding? What are the well-known reasons why moral codes forbid this kind of activity? Explain or elaborate on the moralizing we get from the theist set about sex and proper moral behavior.

Godless Dave · 03-19-2002, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Echo:
I can trot out the standard fundie explanation that is always given to me: Incest was okay at that time. It didn't become "wrong" until later.

That clears things up , eh?

Sounds like moral relativism to me!

Curious Mind · 03-20-2002, 12:37 PM

I've heard two theistic explanations for this, neither of which seemed satisfactory:

1. As was alluded to earlier, incest was "okay" then because the gene pool was so vast (or small?) that incest wouldn't scramble your genes up and lead to deformities and defects. So by this line of apologetics, incest wasn't harmful until the population grew signifigantly. Personally, I'd like to know just where the fellow thought the line was drawn. Now that I think about it, I think it was Ken Ham who I read saying this stuff...

2. A more interesting explanation was that God created lots of other people besides Adam and Eve, but only their family was told about (in the Bible) because their family line eventually lead to Jesus. In this belief, Eve is called "mother of all living" because through her line Christ eventually comes. I can't see this as being what Biblical authors intended, however.

03-20-2002, 12:45 PM

originally posted by emphryio:

Quote:

He beleives that the world shall be completely destroyed within the next 20 years based on his reading of Revelations.

Don't any of these people ever learn about all the failed prophets of the end of the world who preceded them?

03-20-2002, 12:50 PM

Of course, one could argue that since A and E lived so soon after the big bang, there would have been a lot of very high energy stuff around and hence an enormously high mutation rate in humans, thus effectively wiping out the relatedness of the happily copulating relations. Presumably, Cain and Abel bred with their mother Eve, since no daughters are mentioned.

We have a similar problem for the descendants of the animals in the ark, with everything being traced back to a single pair. What a lot of genetic bottlenecks!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-08-2002, 06:33 AM	#11
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	I've also read Revelation is referring to Nero and Rome too, not to a coming "end-time". It was written around 90 ad, the John who wrote it was directing it to his followers, who were being persecuted and killed by the Romans. He told them not to worry, Jesus would return soon to save them. Guess what? Didn't happen.....

03-08-2002, 10:12 AM	#13
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	This thread from the E/C archives might be of interest: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001440" target="_blank">Adam and Eve??</a> Only the first couple of pages are likely of any interest; after that, a creationist troll takes it totally off topic. theyeti

03-10-2002, 12:05 PM	#14
emphryio Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: WV Posts: 4,369	I met a really nice guy recently who is getting his Ph.D. in Engineering. He beleives that the world shall be completely destroyed within the next 20 years based on his reading of Revelations.

03-20-2002, 12:37 PM	#18
Curious Mind Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Georgia Posts: 20	I've heard two theistic explanations for this, neither of which seemed satisfactory: 1. As was alluded to earlier, incest was "okay" then because the gene pool was so vast (or small?) that incest wouldn't scramble your genes up and lead to deformities and defects. So by this line of apologetics, incest wasn't harmful until the population grew signifigantly. Personally, I'd like to know just where the fellow thought the line was drawn. Now that I think about it, I think it was Ken Ham who I read saying this stuff... 2. A more interesting explanation was that God created lots of other people besides Adam and Eve, but only their family was told about (in the Bible) because their family line eventually lead to Jesus. In this belief, Eve is called "mother of all living" because through her line Christ eventually comes. I can't see this as being what Biblical authors intended, however.

03-20-2002, 12:50 PM	#20
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	Of course, one could argue that since A and E lived so soon after the big bang, there would have been a lot of very high energy stuff around and hence an enormously high mutation rate in humans, thus effectively wiping out the relatedness of the happily copulating relations. Presumably, Cain and Abel bred with their mother Eve, since no daughters are mentioned. We have a similar problem for the descendants of the animals in the ark, with everything being traced back to a single pair. What a lot of genetic bottlenecks!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.