Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-06-2015, 12:03 PM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(28-05-2015 09:27 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(28-05-2015 07:48 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Of course there's a gap. Human pain in childbirth. Anyone growing up on a farm or doing fieldwork as a veterinarian knows "the curse of Eve".

That's not a gap. For it to be a gap, it would have to be something that didn't make sense under science. If women magically levitated during childbirth, THAT would be a gap. Feeling pain when passing something the size of a watermelon is not. Childbirth being an especially painful process for human women, with the aforementioned overlarge natal cranium coupled with a pelvic region recently reshaped for upright walking, is hardly something that requires a god to explain.

Also, that curse of Eve business makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER even in the Bible. Why do the children get cursed too? Is that somehow justice, cursing umpteen hundred generations for the actions of their ancestors? If that's somehow justice, why do the female descendents inherit the curses of both ancestors (because farming's no easier for them than for men), but are the only ones who get the curse of Eve? It's not like MEN aren't supposedly descended from her as well. If it's just to curse the descendents, why do women get both sets of curse but men only one set of curses? Men magically sharing the pain of childbirth would also be a gap that would need explaining, would correct some of the gender inequity of men being able to treat pregnancy more lightly than women, and would be useful in establishing paternity for those who care about such things.

But rather than play the god-of-the-gaps game, I'd like to take a step back and talk about what a STUPID GAME IT IS TO PLAY.

First of all, it's a complete logical fallacy. Suppose you actually were to find a gap in current scientific explanations. (This is doubtful. Not because current science has no gaps. But you are so quick to declare victory without actually checking whether you've found a real gap, and that makes you give up looking before you find one.)

All that would prove is that modern scientific understanding is incomplete, which even without that purely-hypothetical effort on your part any scientist will readily admit. (Cheerfully. It's why they have jobs, after all.) It would not prove the existence of your god, or of Thor, or of Horus, or of any god at all. It wouldn't rule them out, mind you, but neither would it rule them in. Therefore, pointing at such a gap and screaming "THERE'S THE THING THAT PROVES MY GOD!" is a falsehood. A lie. Even if your god were the cause of it, it would not be proof.

(I'll also note that this is especially stupid if one believes in the Christian god. Something that is presented as a wrathful god of truth isn't going to be very happy about being extolled with falsehoods.)

Furthermore, we can look at the history of knowledge and see how this REPEATEDLY gets screwed up. God has at various times cited by believers as the direct explanation for: celestial motion, sunrise, plants growing, rain falling, droughts, and AIDS, to name a VERY small number of things. The DIRECT explanation mind you -- not "god created the human immunodeficiency virus however-many years ago and now it's propagating by natural means through humanity", but "god is striking down each individual victim directly." Hunting around for a gap and saying GODDUNNIT! is a thought process that has a demonstrably lousy, lousy, lousy track record, to the point that if you ever get it RIGHT it will be less a matter of logically uncovering the truth and more a matter of a broken clock being right twice per day. (Though "right twice per day" would be an IMPROVEMENT.) But part of its track record is that it somehow manages to keep suckering people into believing it with its siren song of you-get-to-be-lazy-and-smugly-superior. Something that leads you to be often wrong but simultaneously secure that you are right is something that honest seekers of truth avoid like quicksand.

... not that you embracing it constitutes a gap, there. I'm just explaining why the rest of us want nothing to do with it.

But the god of the gaps thinking is worse than that.

Every time you get this wrong, it's a discredit to your faith. Every time you make a clown of yourself, you also make a clown of your position. This is half of why Christianity is hemorrhaging youth in modern America. When you put yourself to the task of being a representative of your beliefs in a public forum such as this, and when you set yourself to it in such an incompetent manner, you spoil not only your own reputation but the reputation of your beliefs. You harm your cause, rather than help it. Better to do nothing than to do that.

But the god of the gaps thinking is even worse than that.

Promiscuously sticking your god in every gap you can find gets in the way of real explanations. We don't learn why the sun rises when we are secure in the belief that it's some flaming dude on a flying chariot. We don't learn where babies come from when we're busy declaring them a miracle from above. If we bought into a god of the gaps, then we would never find the REAL explanations for those gaps. Sticking a god in there doesn't just deceive us into thinking we've found the truth, it prevents us from finding the REAL truth.

But the god of the gaps thinking even worse than that.

Because once we find the real explanation, we reap the benefits of it! Once we stop explaining celestial motion with "goddunnit" and discover astrophysics, we are able to put satellites into orbit and establish global telecommunications. (Okay, fine, we need to develop rocketry and radio as well, but it's a necessary step.) Once we stop explaining AIDS with "goddunnit" and identify HIV and how it works, we can develop retro viral treatments, promote safe procedures that prevents the spread of the disease, and start working for an outright cure... preferably BEFORE our indifference to truth and our god-hates-fags mindset gets little hemophiliac kids infected via blood transfusions. (THANKS REAGAN!) Once we stop explaining the growth of crops with "goddunnit", we can get down to the science of how crops grow, and have ourselves a little green revolution that could (if we could only work out the logistics of distribution) end famine entirely. And so on, and so on. None of this can happen until we get the god OUT of the gap and find the real explanation that fits there instead! Don't speak to me of sacrificing birds to cure a household of leprosy because goddunnit. Speak to me of leaving the birds be and using dapsone, rifampicin, and clofazimine instead.

But the god of the gaps thinking is even worse than that.

Because it's not enough for many god-of-the-gaps thinkers to just think this on their own. They have to go ruin life for EVERYONE ELSE AS WELL. There's a science program threatening to fill his favorite gap with something other than his god? CAN'T HAVE THAT! CUT ITS FUNDING! There's a high school teaching future doctors about some explanation for biological fact that isn't his god? PASS LAWS! FINE THE TEACHERS! DEFUND PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND ISSUE VOUCHERS FOR PRIVATE CHRISTIAN INDOCTRINATION INSTITUTES! SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Some people are actually educating each other on an online forum about how evolution works? DERAIL IT! TALK ABOUT ADAM AND EVE AND THE FALL INSTEAD! Even if some people don't get into others' business like this, they can persuade and indoctrinate those who will.

Angry

So since we're making "don't speak to me about ____" statements to each other? Don't speak to me about gaps that your god "explains".

(Edit addendum: Please note that the above complaints about "god of the gaps" thinking work just as well when coming from a believing Christian. This isn't atheist-versus-theist. It's cares-about-truth-versus-doesn't.)

I appreciate your passion in these matters, however, you began with a false premise, as if it's a matter of human female childbearing being a "little more painful" that that of other mammals. Give us all a break, please! A dog can have a litter of 11 puppies and then play fetch with you an hour later. And a woman that has multiple births risks what? It isn't that you dislike my god of the gaps, you dislike the biblical explanations of gaps. For millennia, many people have noted the sagacity of biblical instruction re: child bearing.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2015, 12:17 PM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(01-06-2015 11:57 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(28-05-2015 08:13 AM)jennybee Wrote:  I will give you the marriage part because some translations refer to Eve as Adam's wife (even though there was no actual ceremony in the garden of Eden). Where does it say they were having sex before the Fall?

Gen.3:8-12

When they heard the sound of the Lord God walking about in the garden at the breezy time of the day,[c] the man and his wife hid themselves from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 The Lord God then called to the man and asked him: Where are you? 10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden; but I was afraid, because I was naked, so I hid.” 11 Then God asked: Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat? 12 The man replied, “The woman whom you put here with me—she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.”

There is no asexual or platonic marriage in either testament. Pleasure, companionship and procreation are some of the benefits. However, God's benediction was not that Adam and Eve become one mind (that is a part of marriage) but one flesh. "For this reason... become one flesh."

I'd also say with respect, that whether they had sex or not is irrelevant, because sex in marriage isn't sin. The Fall was about disobedience, not carnal knowledge. When my wife and I have sex or make love, it's clean, not unclean, from a Bible perspective.

Thanks.

I am going to post this link because it sums up my point quite nicely...

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cd...sinned.htm

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
01-06-2015, 02:37 PM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2015 02:50 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(01-06-2015 12:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(28-05-2015 09:27 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  That's not a gap. For it to be a gap, it would have to be something that didn't make sense under science. If women magically levitated during childbirth, THAT would be a gap. Feeling pain when passing something the size of a watermelon is not. Childbirth being an especially painful process for human women, with the aforementioned overlarge natal cranium coupled with a pelvic region recently reshaped for upright walking, is hardly something that requires a god to explain.

Also, that curse of Eve business makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER even in the Bible. Why do the children get cursed too? Is that somehow justice, cursing umpteen hundred generations for the actions of their ancestors? If that's somehow justice, why do the female descendents inherit the curses of both ancestors (because farming's no easier for them than for men), but are the only ones who get the curse of Eve? It's not like MEN aren't supposedly descended from her as well. If it's just to curse the descendents, why do women get both sets of curse but men only one set of curses? Men magically sharing the pain of childbirth would also be a gap that would need explaining, would correct some of the gender inequity of men being able to treat pregnancy more lightly than women, and would be useful in establishing paternity for those who care about such things.

But rather than play the god-of-the-gaps game, I'd like to take a step back and talk about what a STUPID GAME IT IS TO PLAY.

First of all, it's a complete logical fallacy. Suppose you actually were to find a gap in current scientific explanations. (This is doubtful. Not because current science has no gaps. But you are so quick to declare victory without actually checking whether you've found a real gap, and that makes you give up looking before you find one.)

All that would prove is that modern scientific understanding is incomplete, which even without that purely-hypothetical effort on your part any scientist will readily admit. (Cheerfully. It's why they have jobs, after all.) It would not prove the existence of your god, or of Thor, or of Horus, or of any god at all. It wouldn't rule them out, mind you, but neither would it rule them in. Therefore, pointing at such a gap and screaming "THERE'S THE THING THAT PROVES MY GOD!" is a falsehood. A lie. Even if your god were the cause of it, it would not be proof.

(I'll also note that this is especially stupid if one believes in the Christian god. Something that is presented as a wrathful god of truth isn't going to be very happy about being extolled with falsehoods.)

Furthermore, we can look at the history of knowledge and see how this REPEATEDLY gets screwed up. God has at various times cited by believers as the direct explanation for: celestial motion, sunrise, plants growing, rain falling, droughts, and AIDS, to name a VERY small number of things. The DIRECT explanation mind you -- not "god created the human immunodeficiency virus however-many years ago and now it's propagating by natural means through humanity", but "god is striking down each individual victim directly." Hunting around for a gap and saying GODDUNNIT! is a thought process that has a demonstrably lousy, lousy, lousy track record, to the point that if you ever get it RIGHT it will be less a matter of logically uncovering the truth and more a matter of a broken clock being right twice per day. (Though "right twice per day" would be an IMPROVEMENT.) But part of its track record is that it somehow manages to keep suckering people into believing it with its siren song of you-get-to-be-lazy-and-smugly-superior. Something that leads you to be often wrong but simultaneously secure that you are right is something that honest seekers of truth avoid like quicksand.

... not that you embracing it constitutes a gap, there. I'm just explaining why the rest of us want nothing to do with it.

But the god of the gaps thinking is worse than that.

Every time you get this wrong, it's a discredit to your faith. Every time you make a clown of yourself, you also make a clown of your position. This is half of why Christianity is hemorrhaging youth in modern America. When you put yourself to the task of being a representative of your beliefs in a public forum such as this, and when you set yourself to it in such an incompetent manner, you spoil not only your own reputation but the reputation of your beliefs. You harm your cause, rather than help it. Better to do nothing than to do that.

But the god of the gaps thinking is even worse than that.

Promiscuously sticking your god in every gap you can find gets in the way of real explanations. We don't learn why the sun rises when we are secure in the belief that it's some flaming dude on a flying chariot. We don't learn where babies come from when we're busy declaring them a miracle from above. If we bought into a god of the gaps, then we would never find the REAL explanations for those gaps. Sticking a god in there doesn't just deceive us into thinking we've found the truth, it prevents us from finding the REAL truth.

But the god of the gaps thinking even worse than that.

Because once we find the real explanation, we reap the benefits of it! Once we stop explaining celestial motion with "goddunnit" and discover astrophysics, we are able to put satellites into orbit and establish global telecommunications. (Okay, fine, we need to develop rocketry and radio as well, but it's a necessary step.) Once we stop explaining AIDS with "goddunnit" and identify HIV and how it works, we can develop retro viral treatments, promote safe procedures that prevents the spread of the disease, and start working for an outright cure... preferably BEFORE our indifference to truth and our god-hates-fags mindset gets little hemophiliac kids infected via blood transfusions. (THANKS REAGAN!) Once we stop explaining the growth of crops with "goddunnit", we can get down to the science of how crops grow, and have ourselves a little green revolution that could (if we could only work out the logistics of distribution) end famine entirely. And so on, and so on. None of this can happen until we get the god OUT of the gap and find the real explanation that fits there instead! Don't speak to me of sacrificing birds to cure a household of leprosy because goddunnit. Speak to me of leaving the birds be and using dapsone, rifampicin, and clofazimine instead.

But the god of the gaps thinking is even worse than that.

Because it's not enough for many god-of-the-gaps thinkers to just think this on their own. They have to go ruin life for EVERYONE ELSE AS WELL. There's a science program threatening to fill his favorite gap with something other than his god? CAN'T HAVE THAT! CUT ITS FUNDING! There's a high school teaching future doctors about some explanation for biological fact that isn't his god? PASS LAWS! FINE THE TEACHERS! DEFUND PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND ISSUE VOUCHERS FOR PRIVATE CHRISTIAN INDOCTRINATION INSTITUTES! SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Some people are actually educating each other on an online forum about how evolution works? DERAIL IT! TALK ABOUT ADAM AND EVE AND THE FALL INSTEAD! Even if some people don't get into others' business like this, they can persuade and indoctrinate those who will.

Angry

So since we're making "don't speak to me about ____" statements to each other? Don't speak to me about gaps that your god "explains".

(Edit addendum: Please note that the above complaints about "god of the gaps" thinking work just as well when coming from a believing Christian. This isn't atheist-versus-theist. It's cares-about-truth-versus-doesn't.)

I appreciate your passion in these matters, however, you began with a false premise, as if it's a matter of human female childbearing being a "little more painful" that that of other mammals. Give us all a break, please! A dog can have a litter of 11 puppies and then play fetch with you an hour later. And a woman that has multiple births risks what? It isn't that you dislike my god of the gaps, you dislike the biblical explanations of gaps. For millennia, many people have noted the sagacity of biblical instruction re: child bearing.

Actually, the premise I begin with is that we should seek the truth honestly, with the best methods of doing so, and that we can identify these best methods by looking at and comparing their track records for success. That is why I dislike any god of the gaps argument. That type of logic has an abysmal track record, with a proven tendency to lead people into error and away from truth. Biblical instruction does have a few good points and many bad. For example, keeping kosher involves not eating shellfish, which with waste runoff into the inlet seas surrounding the holy land may have been quite toxic. Biblical instruction ALSO involves, among other things, the penalty of death for the imaginary crime of witchcraft, sorcery, or however you wish to translate the word. In the modern day, we are comfortably secure that every person who followed Biblical advice on this matter, EVER, executed an innocent person. So following Biblical advice has a track record that is... mixed, at best. (Witness, also, slavery and killing of homosexuals.)

Approaching the same subjects in a humanist, skeptically empirical will produce unarguably better results. It will discern the dangers of shellfish and also warn against them... and additionally begin to discover ways in which they can be cultivated WITHOUT becoming toxic. It will discern (not hard!) that childbirth is a painful and dangerous process... and develop medical techniques and painkillers to offset some of that pain and danger. It will also discern that witchcraft is a myth and that slavery is wrong, something that Biblical instruction has NEVER done. So comparing the track records of the two, I will take empiricism over the Bible as a source of truth, and humanism over the Bible as a source of morals, any day of the week, and twice over on Sunday. Going with the one that gets it right most of the time instead of the one that gets it right almost never, THAT is my starting premise.

Which is NOT what you said.

(01-06-2015 12:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  you began with a false premise, as if it's a matter of human female childbearing being a "little more painful" that that of other mammals.

I did? Really? I don't recall saying that. What did I say? Hmmm... I'd have to track it down. Okay, it's understandable that you couldn't find it OH WAIT YOU QUOTED IT IN THAT VERY POST!

(01-06-2015 12:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(28-05-2015 09:27 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Childbirth being an especially painful process for human women, with the aforementioned overlarge natal cranium coupled with a pelvic region recently reshaped for upright walking, is hardly something that requires a god to explain.

Did everyone see that? Did everyone see that blindingly and brazenly dishonest straw-manning? Everyone? No? Let me make it clearer.

(01-06-2015 12:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  you began with a false premise, as if it's a matter of human female childbearing being a "little more painful" that that of other mammals.

(01-06-2015 12:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(28-05-2015 09:27 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Childbirth being an especially painful process for human women, with the aforementioned overlarge natal cranium coupled with a pelvic region recently reshaped for upright walking, is hardly something that requires a god to explain.

...

(01-06-2015 12:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  a "little more painful"

(01-06-2015 12:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(28-05-2015 09:27 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  an especially painful process

....

And, of course, you missed the point that the question was WHETHER the heightened pain of human births vis-a-vis other mammals required a god to explain it or was easily explained by natural distinctions. You seem to be attempting to make what I said about WHETHER human childbirths are more painful... and then outright LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID... than the ACTUAL subject of what the implications of that fact are.

Angry

This is what I dislike about talking to you, Q. You are dishonest. Fundamentally dishonest to your core. This isn't the first lie you've told here. Not even the first one you've been caught in. Not by a country mile.

And listening to and believing known liars? That has a LOUSY track record of leading us to the truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Reltzik's post
02-06-2015, 12:48 AM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(01-06-2015 12:00 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(28-05-2015 08:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  No. There is no Biblical support for that statement.

This is why I dislike arguing the Bible with you, Chas. You neither read it nor remember it. It sounds like you forgot completely that Eve was a part of Adam in a unique way, and that he called her the mother of the living, Eve. Without her, there would be no future progeny.

And this is why it seems you don't like talking with him, nothing you say seems makes any sense in relevance to his comments. Chas clearly bolded the part of you saying Adam was for Eve as well.

Eve being mother of living/giving future progeny isn't anything necessary in that regard. Not like God couldn't of just given a being that without the need of a partner anyway. You've not said a single thing in your response that's relevant to Chas's reply. Why don't you grasp this concept here?

If the fall was about disobedience, there would be no logic to having all the talk about the fruit of Knowledge being called that and the nakedness element of Adam and Eve. It's definitively clearly not about 1 thing alone in disobedience. How can you reconcile being a literalness and just add/ignore things at constant points?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 02:39 AM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
I just Googled this information and there's an abundance.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 07:23 AM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(01-06-2015 12:17 PM)jennybee Wrote:  
(01-06-2015 11:57 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There is no asexual or platonic marriage in either testament. Pleasure, companionship and procreation are some of the benefits. However, God's benediction was not that Adam and Eve become one mind (that is a part of marriage) but one flesh. "For this reason... become one flesh."

I'd also say with respect, that whether they had sex or not is irrelevant, because sex in marriage isn't sin. The Fall was about disobedience, not carnal knowledge. When my wife and I have sex or make love, it's clean, not unclean, from a Bible perspective.

Thanks.

I am going to post this link because it sums up my point quite nicely...

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cd...sinned.htm

But the Chabad commentator was saying that Adam and Eve clothed their members feeling sexual arousal to be shameful after God had said as a couple they were to enjoy pleasures of the flesh. They were clothing themselves and hiding from GOD in the narrative, not each other.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 07:26 AM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(01-06-2015 02:37 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(01-06-2015 12:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I appreciate your passion in these matters, however, you began with a false premise, as if it's a matter of human female childbearing being a "little more painful" that that of other mammals. Give us all a break, please! A dog can have a litter of 11 puppies and then play fetch with you an hour later. And a woman that has multiple births risks what? It isn't that you dislike my god of the gaps, you dislike the biblical explanations of gaps. For millennia, many people have noted the sagacity of biblical instruction re: child bearing.

Actually, the premise I begin with is that we should seek the truth honestly, with the best methods of doing so, and that we can identify these best methods by looking at and comparing their track records for success. That is why I dislike any god of the gaps argument. That type of logic has an abysmal track record, with a proven tendency to lead people into error and away from truth. Biblical instruction does have a few good points and many bad. For example, keeping kosher involves not eating shellfish, which with waste runoff into the inlet seas surrounding the holy land may have been quite toxic. Biblical instruction ALSO involves, among other things, the penalty of death for the imaginary crime of witchcraft, sorcery, or however you wish to translate the word. In the modern day, we are comfortably secure that every person who followed Biblical advice on this matter, EVER, executed an innocent person. So following Biblical advice has a track record that is... mixed, at best. (Witness, also, slavery and killing of homosexuals.)

Approaching the same subjects in a humanist, skeptically empirical will produce unarguably better results. It will discern the dangers of shellfish and also warn against them... and additionally begin to discover ways in which they can be cultivated WITHOUT becoming toxic. It will discern (not hard!) that childbirth is a painful and dangerous process... and develop medical techniques and painkillers to offset some of that pain and danger. It will also discern that witchcraft is a myth and that slavery is wrong, something that Biblical instruction has NEVER done. So comparing the track records of the two, I will take empiricism over the Bible as a source of truth, and humanism over the Bible as a source of morals, any day of the week, and twice over on Sunday. Going with the one that gets it right most of the time instead of the one that gets it right almost never, THAT is my starting premise.

Which is NOT what you said.

(01-06-2015 12:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  you began with a false premise, as if it's a matter of human female childbearing being a "little more painful" that that of other mammals.

I did? Really? I don't recall saying that. What did I say? Hmmm... I'd have to track it down. Okay, it's understandable that you couldn't find it OH WAIT YOU QUOTED IT IN THAT VERY POST!


Did everyone see that? Did everyone see that blindingly and brazenly dishonest straw-manning? Everyone? No? Let me make it clearer.

(01-06-2015 12:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  you began with a false premise, as if it's a matter of human female childbearing being a "little more painful" that that of other mammals.


...

(01-06-2015 12:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  a "little more painful"


....

And, of course, you missed the point that the question was WHETHER the heightened pain of human births vis-a-vis other mammals required a god to explain it or was easily explained by natural distinctions. You seem to be attempting to make what I said about WHETHER human childbirths are more painful... and then outright LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID... than the ACTUAL subject of what the implications of that fact are.

Angry

This is what I dislike about talking to you, Q. You are dishonest. Fundamentally dishonest to your core. This isn't the first lie you've told here. Not even the first one you've been caught in. Not by a country mile.

And listening to and believing known liars? That has a LOUSY track record of leading us to the truth.

Oy, vey. You are confusing hip width and pelvic size, natural causes for pain in childbirth, with God's declarations. Why do we have two arms and two legs?

I'm unsure I follow your shellfish point. Not taking shellfish from the water leaves them there to bottom feed and "clean" the area.

Also, I'm GLAD you follow truth and seem zealous to correct me in what you perceive as lies. Jesus said if you love truth you will grow to love Him. You're on the right path!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 07:31 AM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(02-06-2015 07:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(01-06-2015 12:17 PM)jennybee Wrote:  I am going to post this link because it sums up my point quite nicely...

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cd...sinned.htm

But the Chabad commentator was saying that Adam and Eve clothed their members feeling sexual arousal to be shameful after God had said as a couple they were to enjoy pleasures of the flesh. They were clothing themselves and hiding from GOD in the narrative, not each other.

From the article:

"When they ate of the Tree of Knowledge, the evil inclination became a part of them. No longer did they need an external tempter to incite them to sin—now, that tempter resided within their psyches. And specifically, sexual passion – a passion which is much stronger than the desire to give charity or praise G‑d, a passion which is much more encompassing and has the potential to be seriously misused – became a part of them as well.

Hence the abovementioned verse. "The eyes of both of them were opened" – they became aware of physical lust "and they realized that they were naked" – and only now it was inappropriate for them to be unclothed."

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2015, 11:47 AM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
I read the article. Their eyes were opened to... what? The knowledge of good and evil IMO is the knowledge of disobedience, and then, by extension, religion.

They were naked and unashamed and then ashamed even though they were a joined couple.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2015, 11:52 AM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(03-06-2015 11:47 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I read the article. Their eyes were opened to... what? The knowledge of good and evil IMO is the knowledge of disobedience, and then, by extension, religion.

They were naked and unashamed and then ashamed even though they were a joined couple.

Before eating the fruit--they looked at sexual organs the way you would look at a hand--in a non-lustful, sexual way. Their eyes were "closed" in that sense. Then, after eating the fruit, they became aware of their sexual organs, which brought about sexual feelings--causing their eyes to be "opened."

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: