.

[Adama]

Check this out guys. Is Adama part of a conspiracy to get people to be against religion by promoting insane beliefs that he wants to tie to Christianity?
.....
There is clearly an anti-religion conspiracy going on here.

Adama is a lonely

What would be wrong with being lonely anyway? Most MGTOW will die alone and lonely. There should never be an MGTOW/ MRA who hates on another man for being alone or lonely. That is feminism and feminist shaming tactics 101. Meanwhile the MGTOW say they love men and are against feminism and the idea that women are better than men. It seems MGTOW are just more feminists with a different label. Both hate men, and it is not okay for a man to be single and alone. I gotcha. The hypocrites. That is why I do not identify as MGTOW. They are feminists.

[Adama]

-He denies that the Creation Story in Genesis is an allegory, thereby throwing out the truths that the story is intended to convey. Making it into a story meant only to be taken literally disregards the deeper truths present in the story. This is his way of trying to water down the Creation Story.

You got me. I took you for a sucker. Yes, I must admit. I was attempting to water down the creation story by saying it is real and happened exactly as it was written. [/sarcasm]

In reality, taking the creation story as a mere allegory is watering down the story. Accepting it as truth and fact is acknowledging the power of God. It happened exactly as written. To say otherwise is to disbelieve the Word of God, by definition.

When God wants to give an illustration, he will not use real names for the people involved. When the story is real He will use real names. The ancestry of Jesus is traced back to Abraham and Adam. To deny Adam is to deny Christ. He was God in the flesh, from the line of David; a physical descendant. He had physical ancestors through Mary and his line is also listed through Joseph, his step-father. These lists of ancestors indicate that all of those individuals actually lived, from Adam on down to Jesus. That is why if you are denying the creation story, you are denying Jesus, because you are saying Adam never was.

[Adama]

-He denies that the Creation Story in Genesis is an allegory, thereby throwing out the truths that the story is intended to convey. Making it into a story meant only to be taken literally disregards the deeper truths present in the story. This is his way of trying to water down the Creation Story.

Also, I want to point out that your whole argument here is a non sequitur. Taking the Bible literally does not disregard the truth. It is the acknowledgement of the truth. Taking it as an allegory, now that would be disregarding truth and deeper meaning.

How is it you can see black as white and white as black? Everything for you is upside down and backwards.

[Adama]

Question: "What is biblical literalism?"

Answer: Biblical literalism is the method of interpreting Scripture that holds that, except in places where the text is obviously allegorical, poetic, or figurative, it should be taken literally. Biblical literalism is the position of most evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists. It is the position of Got Questions Ministries as well. (See “Can/Should we interpret the Bible as literal?”)

Biblical literalism goes hand-in-hand with regarding the Word of God as inerrant and inspired. If we believe in the doctrine of biblical inspiration—that the books of the Bible were written by men under the influence of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16–17; 2 Peter 1:20–21) to the extent that everything they wrote was exactly what God wanted to say—then a belief in biblical literalism is simply an acknowledgement that God wants to communicate to us via human language. The rules of human language then become the rules of interpreting Scripture. Words have objective meaning, and God has spoken through words.

Biblical literalism is an extension of the literalism that we all use in everyday communication. If someone enters a room and says, “The building is on fire,” we don’t start searching for figurative meanings; we start evacuating. No one stops to ponder whether the reference to “fire” is metaphorical or if the “building” is an oblique reference to 21st-century socio-economic theories. Similarly, when we open the Bible and read, “The Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left” (Exodus 14:22), we shouldn’t look for figurative meanings for sea, dry ground, or wall of water; we should believe the miracle.

If we deny biblical literalism and try to interpret Scripture figuratively, how are the figures to be interpreted? And who decides what is and is not a figure? Were Adam and Eve real people? What about Cain and Abel? If they are figurative, where in Genesis can we start saying the people are literal individuals? Any dividing line between figurative and literal in the genealogies is arbitrary. Or take a New Testament example: did Jesus really say to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44)? Did He say it on a mountain? Was Jesus even real? Without a commitment to biblical literalism, we might as well throw out the whole Bible.

If biblical literalism is discarded, language becomes meaningless. If “five smooth stones” in 1 Samuel 17:40 doesn’t refer to five aerodynamic rocks, then what in the world did David pick out of the stream? More importantly, if words can mean anything we assign to them, there are no genuine promises in the Bible. The “place” that Jesus said He is preparing for us (John 14:3) needs to be literal, or else He is speaking nonsense. The “cross” that Jesus died on needs to be a literal cross, and His death needs to be a literal death in order for us to have salvation. Hell needs to be a literal place—as does heaven—if we are to have anything to be saved from. Jesus’ literal resurrection from a literal tomb is as equally important (1 Corinthians 15:17).

To be clear, biblical literalism does not ignore the dispensations. Commands given to Israel in the theocracy do not necessarily apply to the New Testament church. Also, biblical literalism does not require that every passage be concrete and not figurative. Idioms, metaphors, and illustrations are all a natural part of language and should be recognized as such. So, when Jesus speaks of His flesh being “food” in John 6: 55, we know He is speaking figuratively—“food” is an obvious metaphor. We follow the rules of language. We are alert to metaphors and the signals of similes, like and as. But unless a text is clearly intended to be figurative, we take it literally. God’s Word was designed to communicate, and communication requires a literal understanding of the words used.

[Adama]

Question: "Is the Adam and Eve story to be understood literally?"

Answer: Let us assume for a moment that the Adam and Eve story is not to be understood literally. What would be the result? Would Christianity remain essentially the same with a non-literal understanding of the story of Adam and Eve? No. In fact, it would have serious implications for virtually every tenet and doctrine of the Christian faith. If Adam was not a real man, then sin did not enter the world through one man as Romans 5:12 states. How, then, did sin enter world? Further, if the New Testament is wrong about how sin entered the world, what else is it wrong about? If Romans 5:12 is wrong, how do we know that the entirety of Romans 5:8—15 is not wrong? If the story of Adam and Eve is not to be taken literally—if they did not really exist—then there was no one to rebel, there was no fall into sin. Satan, the great deceiver, would like nothing better than for people to believe that the Bible should not be taken literally and that the story of the fall of man is a myth. Why? Because once we start denying parts of the Bible, we lose our trust in the Bible. Why should we believe anything God’s Word says if we cannot trust everything that it says?

Jesus taught that God created one man and one woman (Mark 10:6) and mentions Abel, a son of Adam and Eve in Luke 11:51. Was Jesus wrong in His beliefs? Or did Jesus know there were no literal Adam and Eve and He was simply accommodating His teaching to the beliefs of the people (i.e., lying)? If Jesus is wrong in His beliefs, He is not God. If Jesus is intentionally deceiving people, He is sinning and therefore cannot be the Savior (1 Peter 1:19).

That is why this is such a serious issue. To deny the literalness of Adam and Eve is to place oneself in opposition to Jesus and the apostle Paul. If one has the audacity to claim he is right and Jesus and Paul are wrong, then Jesus is a sinner, not God and not the Savior; the apostle Paul is a false prophet; and the Bible is not inspired, inerrant, or trustworthy.

The Bible clearly presents Adam and Eve as literal people who existed in a literal Garden of Eden. They literally rebelled against God, they literally believed Satan’s lie, and they were literally cast out of the Garden (Genesis 3:24). They had literal children, all of whom inherited the sin nature, and that nature was passed down to succeeding generations to this very day. Fortunately, God promised a literal Savior to redeem us from that sin nature (Genesis 3:15). That Savior is Jesus Christ, called the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), who died on a literal cross and literally rose again. Those who believe in Christ will have literal salvation and spend eternity in a literal heaven.

Christians who deny the story of Adam and Eve essentially deny their own faith. Rejecting the literal interpretation of the Bible’s historical narratives is a slippery slope. If Adam and Eve did not exist, then were Cain and Abel not real? Did Seth exist, and did he father a godly line that led all the way to Abraham and eventually to Jesus Himself? Where in Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:23–38) do the names stop referring to literal people and start referring to mythical characters? To dismiss Adam and Eve as non-literal is to deny the accuracy of Luke’s gospel, cast aspersions on Moses’ record, and remove the foundation of the rest of the Bible.

Jesus God’s Word claims to be true (Psalm 119:160). Jesus Christ declared God’s Word to be truth (John 17:17). All of God’s Word is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17). These declarations include the biblical account of Adam and Eve.

[fschmidt]

In fact, it would have serious implications for virtually every tenet and doctrine of the Christian faith. If Adam was not a real man, then sin did not enter the world through one man as Romans 5:12 states.

I read that there is a translation issue with Romans 5:12 and that Orthodox Christianity interprets this quite differently.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin
http://www.stgeorgegreenville.org/Ortho ... ap4-4.html

[cdnFA]

Adama is real. Human intelligence is a hoax.

I'll agree with that. I definitely am a real person. You don't see me going around making threads about individuals who disagree with my opinions, attempting to slander them.

I didn't bother to read the rest of the stuff however.

This is where I stop reading. What kind of intelligent person stops reading someone's post, but then goes ahead to answer it, as if he had read it? If you respond to it, you should have read all of it. But you want to answer something when you do not know anything about it because you have not even bothered to read it. Then you form your opinion based upon what? The opinions of others, rather than your own. That's fine if that is how you prefer to live. I am just pointing out it doesnt make sense to answer a man's post when you haven't read his post. It is also disrespectful. I will show you the same amount of respect which you show me. So if you feel free to read one line of my post, ignoring the rest, and then you respond to accuse me of being a troll, well I could certainly do likewise.

I am just amazed at humanity everyday.

Except 1: You did keep reading otherwise you would not have been able to reference the second last line of my post, the part of your response I bolded.

That would make you a filthy dirty liar.

2: I think it is ironic that you actually did read my entire post and still didn't understand. I didn't accuse you of being a troll. I said you were either stupid or a troll. That is two different things. I think it is really Ironic that you claim I needed to read your entire post to understand it when you read my entire post and apparently can't understand what is pretty straight forward.

3: I actually went back and read the rest of your post. None of it added any extra information that I needed to respond to your initial lines and my initial impression. Even reading to the end it seemed as if you don't understand when people are mocking you. Slander. Ha!

4: Do you have any idea how most sane and intelligent people regard the stuff you post. I know there are some other people here who have taken a ride on the same crazy train you have but are you so lacking in your grasp of what normal people think that you don't realize how nutty you sound to other people.
Do you ever leave your house. Do you ever read anything remotely mainstream. Do you have some sort of mental disorder that makes your connection to reality dubious. Have you spent too much time in R'lyeh with Cuthulu. It is bad enough to be a wackadoodle but to be one who seems to think he is not perceived as such... Even dumbass Nazi skinheads know most people think they are assholes.


So yeah, I saw a post by the local nutjob, the post started off with a heaping dish of clueless. I didn't bother to read the rest because I knew I didn't have to and in the end I was right.



Oh and sometimes you don't need to read a post beyond the first few lines to be able to craft a reply. It's called using experience and reason.

If I started a post saying "Justin Beiber joined up with the Amish to control the world banking and economic systems. He..."

Would you really need to read the rest to figure out if my post had merit. Really? If so, that is probably your number one problem.

[cdnFA]

So let us assume for a second it IS the literal truth. Adam and Eve are the only people on earth. They fornicate, they procreate, they have sons and they have daughters. Sons and daughters who will be forced to f**k each other for humanity to survive. Which means all of Adam's grandchildren are either father by his own sons through his own daughters, or by his own union with his daughters. It's one giant incestuous pool of decay.

The grandchildren of Adam and Eve, whose parents are each others aunts and uncles, are then forced to procreate with either their cousins or their siblings. Cousins who are so strongly linked to them genetically they might as well be siblings too. Birth defects and disorders would begin to appear after the first generation, and increase after the second. By the third or fourth generation, assuming we even make it that far, Adam and Eve's progeny would consist primarily of drooling mongoloids.

Are we believe these severely handicapped, drooling, defective descendants of Adam are the ancestors of all humans alive today?

Whenever something in the bible doesn't fit with reality... "A wizard did it" It works well for the TV series Xena.

However if someone of a different faith make similar claims for their imagery friends they they are superstitious fools. That stuff obviously doesn't happen.

[Cornfed]

Question: "Is the Adam and Eve story to be understood literally?"

Answer: Let us assume for a moment that the Adam and Eve story is not to be understood literally. What would be the result?

So let us assume for a second it IS the literal truth. Adam and Eve are the only people on earth. They fornicate, they procreate, they have sons and they have daughters. Sons and daughters who will be forced to f**k each other for humanity to survive. Which means all of Adam's grandchildren are either father by his own sons through his own daughters, or by his own union with his daughters. It's one giant incestuous pool of decay

How is this different from how species split off under evolutionary theory?

[Yohan]

I think the Bible supports the flat earth but never states it directly because it doesnt truly matter. The flood is explicitly stated in the Bible. The flood can not be denied.

It matters a lot, if the Bible claims the Earth is flat and not round. It means that the Bible gives out wrong information, and likely not only about the form of the Earth.

Something is wrong with the Bible, Muslims were aware already of this more than 1000 years ago - the earth is NOT flat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Biruni
Muslims were even able with simple mathematics out of trigonometry to calculate its data.
There is not much difference to the results today with those of al-Biruni.

http://hubpages.com/education/How-to-De ... Experiment
How to Calculate the Radius of the Earth? Al-Biruni's Classic Experiment

So Exactly how accurate was Biruni ?
With his formula Biruni arrived at the value of the circumference of the earth within 200 miles of the actual value of 24,902 miles, that is less then 1% of error. Biruni's stated radius of 6335.725 km is also very close to the original value.

The Bible makes no such claim. Why don't you go post this in the thread where we are discussing the flat earth? That is not the topic of this thread.

Read back your own writing, you wrote in THIS thread, you think the bible supports the flat earth...

[Blue Murder]

The "retarded babies from incest" thing isn't as hard-coded as they make it seem. Regardless . . .

[E Irizarry R&B Singer]

Adama is a Black American originally from Newark, New Jersey, USA. He picks the most Anglo-American architypes so that nobody would have biased reasoning by their disposition towards him. He's a chump and tried to villify me as a fraud. Right, Ty? Jajajajaja!

[Adama]

I think the Bible supports the flat earth but never states it directly because it doesnt truly matter. The flood is explicitly stated in the Bible. The flood can not be denied.

It matters a lot, if the Bible claims the Earth is flat and not round. It means that the Bible gives out wrong information, and likely not only about the form of the Earth.

Something is wrong with the Bible, Muslims were aware already of this more than 1000 years ago - the earth is NOT flat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Biruni
Muslims were even able with simple mathematics out of trigonometry to calculate its data.
There is not much difference to the results today with those of al-Biruni.

http://hubpages.com/education/How-to-De ... Experiment
How to Calculate the Radius of the Earth? Al-Biruni's Classic Experiment

So Exactly how accurate was Biruni ?
With his formula Biruni arrived at the value of the circumference of the earth within 200 miles of the actual value of 24,902 miles, that is less then 1% of error. Biruni's stated radius of 6335.725 km is also very close to the original value.

The Bible makes no such claim. Why don't you go post this in the thread where we are discussing the flat earth? That is not the topic of this thread.

Read back your own writing, you wrote in THIS thread, you think the bible supports the flat earth...

No, dude. You can not read. I wrote that the Bible doesnt claim it. Read it again, because you lack understanding.

[Ghost]

.

[Adama]

Question: "Is the Adam and Eve story to be understood literally?"

Answer: Let us assume for a moment that the Adam and Eve story is not to be understood literally. What would be the result?

So let us assume for a second it IS the literal truth. Adam and Eve are the only people on earth. They fornicate, they procreate, they have sons and they have daughters. Sons and daughters who will be forced to f**k each other for humanity to survive. Which means all of Adam's grandchildren are either father by his own sons through his own daughters, or by his own union with his daughters. It's one giant incestuous pool of decay.

The grandchildren of Adam and Eve, whose parents are each others aunts and uncles, are then forced to procreate with either their cousins or their siblings. Cousins who are so strongly linked to them genetically they might as well be siblings too. Birth defects and disorders would begin to appear after the first generation, and increase after the second. By the third or fourth generation, assuming we even make it that far, Adam and Eve's progeny would consist primarily of drooling mongoloids.

Are we believe these severely handicapped, drooling, defective descendants of Adam are the ancestors of all humans alive today?

I believe since they were the first, there were less diseases back then, with the corruption and genetic diseases increasing as time goes forward. The closer to the source, the less corrupt a substance would be.