George_Washington
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,962
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
realist said:That is an interesting question, never thought about that. Genesis 4:17 said that Cain lay with his wife? This had to be his sister?, unless someone else can shed some light on this?
George_Washington said:No, it didn't have to have been his sister because it mentions in the chapter right before that I think that he was banished to the Land of Nod, meaning that he could have met other women there.
George_Washington said:HUH? Are you smoking a crack pipe? How would this torture us? The Bible said to be fruitful and muiltiple. If you mean did they have premartial sex, I couldn't care less. What other people choose to do, including Adam and Eves' kids or whoever else, has no bearing on the Bible's message. Besides, it's already commonly asumed that Caine, judging by his character, was probably permiscuous in the Land of Nod or whereever else he went.
George_Washington said:No, it didn't have to have been his sister because it mentions in the chapter right before that I think that he was banished to the Land of Nod, meaning that he could have met other women there.
realist said:O.k. makes sense, the old testament has some great books that even an athiest can enjoy I'm sure.
Kelzie said:What? That makes no sense! Where'd the people in Nod come from? Did God have little side projects? You think he would have mentioned that to his followers.
realist said:I don't know, it implies that there were other people? He could of created these people in the land of Nod too. Created is the important part of this for me because it gives me an explanation why we are here in this universe.
Athiesm doesn't.
realist said:I don't know, it implies that there were other people? He could of created these people in the land of Nod too. Created is the important part of this for me because it gives me an explanation why we are here in this universe.
Athiesm doesn't.
Engimo said:I can give you a multitude of explanations that don't involve the supernatural. Saying that it "provides an explanation" is not a good criteria for judging the validity of the belief, as the explanation in question is entirely baseless.
realist said:Well what is your explanation? We have the big bang theory etc. What is your take on why we as humans can reason, and animals can't? That to me points to creation/planning/design etc. Faith is different all together, and I would ask why so many have chosen this faithwalk. You could say like Kalel that we are unintelligent and gullible us believers that is, but could there be another reason why so many have this faith?
realist said:Well what is your explanation? We have the big bang theory etc.
What is your take on why we as humans can reason, and animals can't? That to me points to creation/planning/design etc.
realist said:Why are we here on this small dot (earth) in this vast universe? I think a belief in God is just natural and not a Christian thing. Why are we here, and different than animals that just go by instinct. The bible seems to make more sense the more you think about it?
George_Washington said:No, it didn't have to have been his sister because it mentions in the chapter right before that I think that he was banished to the Land of Nod, meaning that he could have met other women there.
Kelzie said:Animals can reason. Reason is actual pretty simple. A dog knows that if he sits, he gets a treat. So he sits. Seems very reasonable.
MrFungus420 said:No, that is just anthropocentric thinking. In my opinion, it is human arrogance, thinking that we are so important that there must be a reason for us to be here. We must be special.
realist said:There is a huge difference between humans and animals as far as intelligence, which implies creation/planning/design.
realist said:There is a huge difference between humans and animals as far as intelligence, which implies creation/planning/design.
Engimo said:Yep. Big Bang Cosmology is rather heavily supported by evidence.
This points to an incomplete understanding of Evolution on your part. If you're asking why we are sentient and animals are not, well, that is one of the largest problems facing neuroscience today. The brain is not fully understood, but that does not mean that you can point to our lack of understanding and say "Oh look, God must have done it!"
realist said:O.k. saying the sky man did it is one thing, but we have the bible as a base for that belief, and Jesus. I think creationalism has a lot more going for it, also faith, but I can see why athiests won't support faith, because it can't be under a microscope so to speak.
Kelzie said:Well, you didn't say intelligence. You said reason. I know I might seem omnipotent, but I can't actually read minds.Who cares if we're smarter? Lots of people are smarter than me, that doesn't make them more valuable.
Engimo said:It's good that you acknowledge that religion is based on faith and not empirical evidence - many people do the opposite.
We're both atheists, you know, I just believe in one God less than you. Think of all the Gods that you don't believe in - Rah, Thor, Zeus, et al.
realist said:Well, I know your smart, smart enough to know that there is a huge difference between animals and humans. We can move beyond instinct and why? If I was an athiest I would be very curious why we put clothes on every morning?
Engimo said:It's good that you acknowledge that religion is based on faith and not empirical evidence - many people do the opposite.
We're both atheists, you know, I just believe in one God less than you. Think of all the Gods that you don't believe in - Rah, Thor, Zeus, et al.
realist said:Well, I know your smart, smart enough to know that there is a huge difference between animals and humans. We can move beyond instinct and why? If I was an athiest I would be very curious why we put clothes on every morning?
realist said:I can only say the evidence is by faith, but this world seems too complex to be an accident. I can see your reasoning though too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?