Was Adam really the first human and if so...

[RWS]

I want to share something with you before Thanksgiving...

One of the greatest movies ever! And I went to college with the guy!

Make sure you have something to eat while you watch, and turn up the volume! Hope you can find the movie!

 

[RWS]

I don't care what religion you are... If you watch "Chef", we will all understand food heaven.

I'm watching it again right now, for like the 30th time. Eating home-cooked lemon-pepper chicken with white rice, and steamed asparagus...

Problem is that I need to reload every 30 minutes.... this movie makes you want to eat!!! It is food porn!!!

I'm Cuban, and Cubanos are a staple food of mine.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Adam is a character in a fiction story that tries to explain the origin of humankind.

 

[Slyhunter]

If Eve was the first and only woman god supposedly created then she fucked her sons

Cain found women out in the wilds to propagate with that wasn't related to Adam.

 

[RWS]

Heck ya, CA.IN got laid....

 

[RWS]

 

[Wayne Adams]

Religious people have very little to offer except to make fun and provide mythical versions of reality provided by their rulers.

They don't understand that all you need is faith.

They require a religion, and the rules imposed by the leaders, and follow them like lemmings to destruction.

I just wish they lose the religion, and keep the faith. Stop following other people's orders about your faith, and be you... That's all i ask...

The real issue is, where did the truth originate from in the first place. You're selling your version of the truth, proclaiming that Christians stole their doctrines from some other source. That means we should find out where your sources got their ideas from.

Most religious people do not "rightly divide the word of God" as the Bible instructs, but that does not mean your version has any greater validity than the Bible. The fact that the Bible does not teach that Adam was the first man is key to understanding how your sources began adopting their belief system.

The biblical sources are far more ancient Sumerian and Babylonian writings. Atrahasis is one, The Epic of Gilgamesh is another, Enuma Elish comes to mind... When you read those, you realize that the OT is mostly a plagiarized recounting of previous events documented by previous societies.

The thing is, they told a different tale about our "gods". So they copied many things, but left out the parts about the Anunnaki, and condensed them into one schizophrenic god, that loves us in one sentence, and hates us in the other. There's a reason why the biblical god is schizo. And it's because it's a mixture of Enlil and Enki, and other Anunnaki.

So the three religions today based on the OT, really have no basis. Except the military forces that forced people to accept them, and wiped out anyone who wouldn't accept. The remainders then accepted the OT as an original document, which it isn't.

LMAO. Your sources stole their ideas from the originals. Don't kid yourself. The spawn of Satan, sticking a word here and there into the different translations has confused a lot of people.

When we straighten out the false presuppositions that people like you sell, the Bible becomes much clearer:

1) Adam was not the first man

2) There was no universal flood

3) The Bible does not claim to be a book about all of mankind (which is why pagan religions copied the good parts of the Bible and made myths out of real people and events.)

Wow... geez... You sound like you're listening at first, but then you go way off. You're another brother for dingother.

HI! Nice to meet you!

I aimed my response to the thread as a whole. I've read it. The disconnects are pretty well obvious. So, what needs to be said was not being considered.

Amateur historians and people taught in seminaries see the world from their own little box. Neither would be willing to consider the fact that they might have something wrong.

 

[Wayne Adams]

Adam is a character in a fiction story that tries to explain the origin of humankind.

FALSE. There were many people on this earth before Adam was formed.

 

[RWS]

Religious people have very little to offer except to make fun and provide mythical versions of reality provided by their rulers.

They don't understand that all you need is faith.

They require a religion, and the rules imposed by the leaders, and follow them like lemmings to destruction.

I just wish they lose the religion, and keep the faith. Stop following other people's orders about your faith, and be you... That's all i ask...

The real issue is, where did the truth originate from in the first place. You're selling your version of the truth, proclaiming that Christians stole their doctrines from some other source. That means we should find out where your sources got their ideas from.

Most religious people do not "rightly divide the word of God" as the Bible instructs, but that does not mean your version has any greater validity than the Bible. The fact that the Bible does not teach that Adam was the first man is key to understanding how your sources began adopting their belief system.

The biblical sources are far more ancient Sumerian and Babylonian writings. Atrahasis is one, The Epic of Gilgamesh is another, Enuma Elish comes to mind... When you read those, you realize that the OT is mostly a plagiarized recounting of previous events documented by previous societies.

The thing is, they told a different tale about our "gods". So they copied many things, but left out the parts about the Anunnaki, and condensed them into one schizophrenic god, that loves us in one sentence, and hates us in the other. There's a reason why the biblical god is schizo. And it's because it's a mixture of Enlil and Enki, and other Anunnaki.

So the three religions today based on the OT, really have no basis. Except the military forces that forced people to accept them, and wiped out anyone who wouldn't accept. The remainders then accepted the OT as an original document, which it isn't.

LMAO. Your sources stole their ideas from the originals. Don't kid yourself. The spawn of Satan, sticking a word here and there into the different translations has confused a lot of people.

When we straighten out the false presuppositions that people like you sell, the Bible becomes much clearer:

1) Adam was not the first man

2) There was no universal flood

3) The Bible does not claim to be a book about all of mankind (which is why pagan religions copied the good parts of the Bible and made myths out of real people and events.)

Wow... geez... You sound like you're listening at first, but then you go way off. You're another brother for dingother.

HI! Nice to meet you!

I aimed my response to the thread as a whole. I've read it. The disconnects are pretty well obvious. So, what needs to be said was not being considered.

Amateur historians and people taught in seminaries see the world from their own little box. Neither would be willing to consider the fact that they might have something wrong.

Ummmm, you're just a little ant waiting for someone to jump on.

Good luck!

Please don't jump on me.

 

[Wayne Adams]

The real issue is, where did the truth originate from in the first place. You're selling your version of the truth, proclaiming that Christians stole their doctrines from some other source. That means we should find out where your sources got their ideas from.

Most religious people do not "rightly divide the word of God" as the Bible instructs, but that does not mean your version has any greater validity than the Bible. The fact that the Bible does not teach that Adam was the first man is key to understanding how your sources began adopting their belief system.

The biblical sources are far more ancient Sumerian and Babylonian writings. Atrahasis is one, The Epic of Gilgamesh is another, Enuma Elish comes to mind... When you read those, you realize that the OT is mostly a plagiarized recounting of previous events documented by previous societies.

The thing is, they told a different tale about our "gods". So they copied many things, but left out the parts about the Anunnaki, and condensed them into one schizophrenic god, that loves us in one sentence, and hates us in the other. There's a reason why the biblical god is schizo. And it's because it's a mixture of Enlil and Enki, and other Anunnaki.

So the three religions today based on the OT, really have no basis. Except the military forces that forced people to accept them, and wiped out anyone who wouldn't accept. The remainders then accepted the OT as an original document, which it isn't.

LMAO. Your sources stole their ideas from the originals. Don't kid yourself. The spawn of Satan, sticking a word here and there into the different translations has confused a lot of people.

When we straighten out the false presuppositions that people like you sell, the Bible becomes much clearer:

1) Adam was not the first man

2) There was no universal flood

3) The Bible does not claim to be a book about all of mankind (which is why pagan religions copied the good parts of the Bible and made myths out of real people and events.)

Wow... geez... You sound like you're listening at first, but then you go way off. You're another brother for dingother.

HI! Nice to meet you!

I aimed my response to the thread as a whole. I've read it. The disconnects are pretty well obvious. So, what needs to be said was not being considered.

Amateur historians and people taught in seminaries see the world from their own little box. Neither would be willing to consider the fact that they might have something wrong.

Ummmm, you're just a little ant waiting for someone to jump on.

Good luck!

Please don't jump on me.

Even a little ant can have a stinging bite.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

LMAO. Your sources stole their ideas from the originals. Don't kid yourself. The spawn of Satan, sticking a word here and there into the different translations has confused a lot of people.

When we straighten out the false presuppositions that people like you sell, the Bible becomes much clearer:

1) Adam was not the first man

2) There was no universal flood

3) The Bible does not claim to be a book about all of mankind (which is why pagan religions copied the good parts of the Bible and made myths out of real people and events.)

Wow... geez... You sound like you're listening at first, but then you go way off. You're another brother for dingother.

HI! Nice to meet you!

I aimed my response to the thread as a whole. I've read it. The disconnects are pretty well obvious. So, what needs to be said was not being considered.

Amateur historians and people taught in seminaries see the world from their own little box. Neither would be willing to consider the fact that they might have something wrong.

Ummmm, you're just a little ant waiting for someone to jump on.

Good luck!

Please don't jump on me.

Even a little ant can have a stinging bite.

Don’t threaten other posters.

Stop threatening him.

 

[Unkotare]

Wow... geez... You sound like you're listening at first, but then you go way off. You're another brother for dingother.

HI! Nice to meet you!

I aimed my response to the thread as a whole. I've read it. The disconnects are pretty well obvious. So, what needs to be said was not being considered.

Amateur historians and people taught in seminaries see the world from their own little box. Neither would be willing to consider the fact that they might have something wrong.

Ummmm, you're just a little ant waiting for someone to jump on.

Good luck!

Please don't jump on me.

Even a little ant can have a stinging bite.

Don’t threaten other posters.

Stop threatening him.

I haven’t, of course.

 

[RWS]

The biblical sources are far more ancient Sumerian and Babylonian writings. Atrahasis is one, The Epic of Gilgamesh is another, Enuma Elish comes to mind... When you read those, you realize that the OT is mostly a plagiarized recounting of previous events documented by previous societies.

The thing is, they told a different tale about our "gods". So they copied many things, but left out the parts about the Anunnaki, and condensed them into one schizophrenic god, that loves us in one sentence, and hates us in the other. There's a reason why the biblical god is schizo. And it's because it's a mixture of Enlil and Enki, and other Anunnaki.

So the three religions today based on the OT, really have no basis. Except the military forces that forced people to accept them, and wiped out anyone who wouldn't accept. The remainders then accepted the OT as an original document, which it isn't.

LMAO. Your sources stole their ideas from the originals. Don't kid yourself. The spawn of Satan, sticking a word here and there into the different translations has confused a lot of people.

When we straighten out the false presuppositions that people like you sell, the Bible becomes much clearer:

1) Adam was not the first man

2) There was no universal flood

3) The Bible does not claim to be a book about all of mankind (which is why pagan religions copied the good parts of the Bible and made myths out of real people and events.)

Wow... geez... You sound like you're listening at first, but then you go way off. You're another brother for dingother.

HI! Nice to meet you!

I aimed my response to the thread as a whole. I've read it. The disconnects are pretty well obvious. So, what needs to be said was not being considered.

Amateur historians and people taught in seminaries see the world from their own little box. Neither would be willing to consider the fact that they might have something wrong.

Ummmm, you're just a little ant waiting for someone to jump on.

Good luck!

Please don't jump on me.

Even a little ant can have a stinging bite.

And I agree with you, I think we're thinking on the same side, sans alcohol.

And i mean me, not you. You're absolutely right. Religions are in terrible boxes, and I don't how to break the boxes without violence. Because it should not take violence to make people see the truth.

 

[RWS]

Just follow your ideal of Jesus. Doesn't matter if he existed or not. It's the ideal of Jesus.

Follow your life based on the ideal of Jesus. Ask what your ideal of Jesus would do in any particular matter, when you're at a crossroads.

There's no religion necessary. It's just the belief in an ideal. Can be many other figures than Jesus. The point is doing what is "good" for humanity.

 

[Slyhunter]

Just follow your ideal of Jesus. Doesn't matter if he existed or not. It's the ideal of Jesus.

Follow your life based on the ideal of Jesus. Ask what your ideal of Jesus would do in any particular matter, when you're at a crossroads.

There's no religion necessary. It's just the belief in an ideal. Can be many other figures than Jesus. The point is doing what is "good" for humanity.

What is good for Humanity? Isn't necessarily what is good for a particular Human.

 

[ding]

LMAO. Your sources stole their ideas from the originals. Don't kid yourself. The spawn of Satan, sticking a word here and there into the different translations has confused a lot of people.

When we straighten out the false presuppositions that people like you sell, the Bible becomes much clearer:

1) Adam was not the first man

2) There was no universal flood

3) The Bible does not claim to be a book about all of mankind (which is why pagan religions copied the good parts of the Bible and made myths out of real people and events.)

Wow... geez... You sound like you're listening at first, but then you go way off. You're another brother for dingother.

HI! Nice to meet you!

I aimed my response to the thread as a whole. I've read it. The disconnects are pretty well obvious. So, what needs to be said was not being considered.

Amateur historians and people taught in seminaries see the world from their own little box. Neither would be willing to consider the fact that they might have something wrong.

Ummmm, you're just a little ant waiting for someone to jump on.

Good luck!

Please don't jump on me.

Even a little ant can have a stinging bite.

And I agree with you, I think we're thinking on the same side, sans alcohol.

And i mean me, not you. You're absolutely right. Religions are in terrible boxes, and I don't how to break the boxes without violence. Because it should not take violence to make people see the truth.

A lot of people talk about truth. Most of them are talking about subjective truth.

Do you know how to see objective truth?

 

[hobelim]

Wow... geez... You sound like you're listening at first, but then you go way off. You're another brother for dingother.

HI! Nice to meet you!

I aimed my response to the thread as a whole. I've read it. The disconnects are pretty well obvious. So, what needs to be said was not being considered.

Amateur historians and people taught in seminaries see the world from their own little box. Neither would be willing to consider the fact that they might have something wrong.

Ummmm, you're just a little ant waiting for someone to jump on.

Good luck!

Please don't jump on me.

Even a little ant can have a stinging bite.

And I agree with you, I think we're thinking on the same side, sans alcohol.

And i mean me, not you. You're absolutely right. Religions are in terrible boxes, and I don't how to break the boxes without violence. Because it should not take violence to make people see the truth.

A lot of people talk about truth. Most of them are talking about subjective truth.

Do you know how to see objective truth?

Can I try?

Those who believe that God can be handed out and eaten like a cheap snack food are at best, not too swift.

Hows that for objective truth?

 

[ding]

I aimed my response to the thread as a whole. I've read it. The disconnects are pretty well obvious. So, what needs to be said was not being considered.

Amateur historians and people taught in seminaries see the world from their own little box. Neither would be willing to consider the fact that they might have something wrong.

Ummmm, you're just a little ant waiting for someone to jump on.

Good luck!

Please don't jump on me.

Even a little ant can have a stinging bite.

And I agree with you, I think we're thinking on the same side, sans alcohol.

And i mean me, not you. You're absolutely right. Religions are in terrible boxes, and I don't how to break the boxes without violence. Because it should not take violence to make people see the truth.

A lot of people talk about truth. Most of them are talking about subjective truth.

Do you know how to see objective truth?

Can I try?

Those who believe that God can be handed out and eaten like a cheap snack food are at best, not too swift.

Hows that for objective truth?

That would be an example of subjective truth.

The question wasn’t give an example of subjective truth. The question was how does one go about seeing objective truth.

 

[hobelim]

Ummmm, you're just a little ant waiting for someone to jump on.

Good luck!

Please don't jump on me.

Even a little ant can have a stinging bite.

And I agree with you, I think we're thinking on the same side, sans alcohol.

And i mean me, not you. You're absolutely right. Religions are in terrible boxes, and I don't how to break the boxes without violence. Because it should not take violence to make people see the truth.

A lot of people talk about truth. Most of them are talking about subjective truth.

Do you know how to see objective truth?

Can I try?

Those who believe that God can be handed out and eaten like a cheap snack food are at best, not too swift.

Hows that for objective truth?

That would be an example of subjective truth.

The question wasn’t give an example of subjective truth. The question was how does one go about seeing objective truth.

No, it is an objectively stupid thing to believe because it contradicts the entire teaching of the bible upon which you base this belief on.

Even the mice infesting the walls of your church know that its stupid.

You want to know how one goes about seeing this particular objective truth?

Try being honest.

The more you try to deceive others, the more you will go blind.

 

[ding]

Even a little ant can have a stinging bite.

And I agree with you, I think we're thinking on the same side, sans alcohol.

And i mean me, not you. You're absolutely right. Religions are in terrible boxes, and I don't how to break the boxes without violence. Because it should not take violence to make people see the truth.

A lot of people talk about truth. Most of them are talking about subjective truth.

Do you know how to see objective truth?

Can I try?

Those who believe that God can be handed out and eaten like a cheap snack food are at best, not too swift.

Hows that for objective truth?

That would be an example of subjective truth.

The question wasn’t give an example of subjective truth. The question was how does one go about seeing objective truth.

No, it is an objectively stupid thing to believe because it contradicts the entire teaching of the bible upon which you base this belief on.

Even the mice infesting the walls of your church know that its stupid.

You want to know how one goes about seeing this particular objective truth?

Try being honest.

The more you try to deceive others, the more you will go blind.

How does one be honest and know the truth he sees is objective truth and not subjective truth?

For example I believe you believe you are being honest but I don’t believe you have the slightest idea of how to differentiate between subjective truth and objective truth.