Should Restaurants Be Forced To Serve...
Dumber

Grundy, VA

#63 Feb 13, 2013
Dam!!! you are dumber than what I gave you credit for. My 5 year old knows where people come from.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#64 Feb 13, 2013
Oh, I'm quite well aware of where they came from. Unfortunately, the biblical version and the real version (scientific) don't exactly match.
Dumbest

Grundy, VA

#65 Feb 13, 2013
Now I am convinced that you are the dumbest of the dumb.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#66 Feb 13, 2013
Dumbest wrote:
Now I am convinced that you are the dumbest of the dumb.
Ok. since the Bible ONLY mentions A&E, C&A and Seth - WHERE did Seth's wife and all other people come from, genius?

Bibical belief is one thing; scientifc believe is another. 1 can't be proven; 1 can.

Had a History of the Bible course MANY years ago in college. Taught by a lay minister for Emory Univ in Atlanta. He used the American Standard version of the Bible as a HISTORY text. Refused to start with the book of Genesis as it strictly theological and NOT historical, so we started with Exodus (i.e. theology can't be proven - it is strictly faith related; history can proven through scientific and archeological means).

So, where's the other people come from?
well

Pikeville, KY

#67 Feb 13, 2013
If you read Genesis Chapter 5, Verse 4, you will read:
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years, and he begat sons and daughters.

So, in order to populate the earth, it was necessary for brothers to marry sisters, uncles to marry nieces.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#68 Feb 13, 2013
well wrote:
If you read Genesis Chapter 5, Verse 4, you will read:
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years, and he begat sons and daughters.
So, in order to populate the earth, it was necessary for brothers to marry sisters, uncles to marry nieces.
So, the bible condons incest, eh?

Interesting. Maybe that's why the teacher refused to use Genesis as a starting point for my history class. Genesis can never be proven as it is total theology, whereas Exodus can be as it is historical.
well

Pikeville, KY

#69 Feb 13, 2013
BeenThere and Back wrote:
<quoted text>
So, the bible condons incest, eh?
Interesting. Maybe that's why the teacher refused to use Genesis as a starting point for my history class. Genesis can never be proven as it is total theology, whereas Exodus can be as it is historical.
There were no laws pertaining to incest during those days. As gross as it seems to us, incest was the only way to populate the earth. The children of Adam and Eve didn't have other people to marry except their own sisters and brothers.
Lots of things were considered normal in Biblical days which we wouldn't even consider today. Incest is one of them, even though it still happens today; but, today it is against the law of the land.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#70 Feb 13, 2013
well wrote:
<quoted text>
There were no laws pertaining to incest during those days. As gross as it seems to us, incest was the only way to populate the earth. The children of Adam and Eve didn't have other people to marry except their own sisters and brothers.
Lots of things were considered normal in Biblical days which we wouldn't even consider today. Incest is one of them, even though it still happens today; but, today it is against the law of the land.
Very true, which is why a LOT of the cultural mores are NOT valid in todays world.

However, again, it does fall back to the fact that Genesis is only theological and can't be proven, rather than historical that can be from a scientific and archeological standpoint.

Which also means that even within the bibical viewpoint, gays can and did exist since God apparently made man in his/her own image.
enough

New Hope, VA

#71 Feb 13, 2013
Take a dump and fall back in it

“By the grace of god, I roam...”

Since: Feb 08

RVA

#72 Feb 13, 2013
well wrote:
<quoted text>
There were no laws pertaining to incest during those days. As gross as it seems to us, incest was the only way to populate the earth. The children of Adam and Eve didn't have other people to marry except their own sisters and brothers.
Lots of things were considered normal in Biblical days which we wouldn't even consider today. Incest is one of them, even though it still happens today; but, today it is against the law of the land.
That's a nice story. Luckily for us, and our genes, it's baloney.
The King

Haysi, VA

#73 Feb 13, 2013
to the churches wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a nice story. Luckily for us, and our genes, it's baloney.
yeah and so is your face ..
The King

Haysi, VA

#74 Feb 13, 2013
BeenThere and Back wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah....so the bigot and hypocrite arises and shows its' head.
Where's your white sheet and hood?
Maybe you should answer what was asked of you ..where in the bible does it say God is a her ?
for sure

Greer, SC

#75 Feb 13, 2013
Everyone has a little queer in them they are just to
Ashamed to admit it.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#76 Feb 13, 2013
The King wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe you should answer what was asked of you ..where in the bible does it say God is a her ?
If God made male and female in his/her own image, why can't God be female?

“By the grace of god, I roam...”

Since: Feb 08

RVA

#77 Feb 13, 2013
The King wrote:
<quoted text>yeah and so is your face ..
I am hoised.
Heathen

Grundy, VA

#79 Feb 13, 2013
BeenThere and Back wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. since the Bible ONLY mentions A&E, C&A and Seth - WHERE did Seth's wife and all other people come from, genius?
Bibical belief is one thing; scientifc believe is another. 1 can't be proven; 1 can.
Had a History of the Bible course MANY years ago in college. Taught by a lay minister for Emory Univ in Atlanta. He used the American Standard version of the Bible as a HISTORY text. Refused to start with the book of Genesis as it strictly theological and NOT historical, so we started with Exodus (i.e. theology can't be proven - it is strictly faith related; history can proven through scientific and archeological means).
So, where's the other people come from?
I would like to thank you for your logical approach to arguing your points. I understand from reading your posts that you are a believer in a creator god and unfortunately too many believers don't question the logical inconsistencies in their chosen religious texts. It's refreshing to hear a believer that 1) knows their texts and 2) expresses doubt as to their historical accuracy. You remind me of someone else I know [me]. The only difference is that I eventually reached a point where I realized it was okay to dismiss it all!

Having said that, I must call you on one point from your post. You contend that Exodus is "historical". As far as I am aware there have been no corroboration (aside from topography) between the accounts in Exodus and verifiable history. There is no evidence of the enslavement of Israelites, No evidence of a Moses figure at all (let alone a royal son, adopted or otherwise), No evidence of an alleged 600,000 people wandering the wilderness between Egypt and Sinai, and the plagues mentioned are an everyday occurrence to this day.

Furthermore, The legend of the baby Moses's rescue from the reeds parallels the Egyptian legend of Isis who hid her son Horus in a papyrus thicket to protect him. Even the name "Moses" is questionable as it derives from an Egyptian suffix -mose, "born of," as in Tutmoses, "born of Tut."

Apologies in advance for such a lengthy post to basically say Exodus isn't historical but I wanted to distinguish my criticisms from others whose arguments basically consist of "you are dumb".
Connie

Grundy, VA

#80 Feb 13, 2013
I am Lesbian and I live with the woman I love. This is a choice I made on my own. Life turned me this way. I was not born with something that made me Gay. I have been married and have children. I do feel it is a shame and disgrace on how you are always rebuking God and the Holy Scriptures to protest for Gay rights. On my part I am against you doing this. You are making us all look like the scoundrel that you are. I am ok with the rights I have and nobody is bothering me. What you are saying about God and other people is not who Gays are. It is not what Gays stand for or practice in any way. I want to make it clear to you that you are only speaking for your own self.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#81 Feb 14, 2013
Heathen wrote:
<quoted text>
I would like to thank you for your logical approach to arguing your points. I understand from reading your posts that you are a believer in a creator god and unfortunately too many believers don't question the logical inconsistencies in their chosen religious texts. It's refreshing to hear a believer that 1) knows their texts and 2) expresses doubt as to their historical accuracy. You remind me of someone else I know [me]. The only difference is that I eventually reached a point where I realized it was okay to dismiss it all!
Having said that, I must call you on one point from your post. You contend that Exodus is "historical". As far as I am aware there have been no corroboration (aside from topography) between the accounts in Exodus and verifiable history. There is no evidence of the enslavement of Israelites, No evidence of a Moses figure at all (let alone a royal son, adopted or otherwise), No evidence of an alleged 600,000 people wandering the wilderness between Egypt and Sinai, and the plagues mentioned are an everyday occurrence to this day.
Furthermore, The legend of the baby Moses's rescue from the reeds parallels the Egyptian legend of Isis who hid her son Horus in a papyrus thicket to protect him. Even the name "Moses" is questionable as it derives from an Egyptian suffix -mose, "born of," as in Tutmoses, "born of Tut."
Apologies in advance for such a lengthy post to basically say Exodus isn't historical but I wanted to distinguish my criticisms from others whose arguments basically consist of "you are dumb".
And thank you. And you're welcome.

My contention that Exodus is historical was derived from the teacher of that course, who was a lay minister in the Methodist Church and taught at Emory University. The course was MANY MANY moons ago (back in the late 70s). He refused to let us use the KJV bible because of was a lot of problems with the translation, and instead requiring us to use the New American Standard (I believe that's the correct name). As I said, he refused to start with Genesis as it is strictly a theological text. I know we started with Exodus, but to be honest, I can't remember if we started with the 1st part of the chapter or mid-way. It's possible he covered Moses with the caveat that it be read not as completely historical, but in "historical" context of the time = historical fiction.

What I found interesting about the course was the history of the tribes and the tribal warfare waged. Very very violent.

I also took a Religions of the World about the same time, and we covered the top 5 plus a few others. Amazing how ALL believe in a higher creator, but differing in interrupation (sp). Sad tho that the very ones who need a class such as that are too close minded to EVER consider taking it. It would give one a greater understanding of others and their beliefs.
KELLERMAN

Marengo, OH

#82 Feb 14, 2013
well wrote:
If you read Genesis Chapter 5, Verse 4, you will read:
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years, and he begat sons and daughters.
So, in order to populate the earth, it was necessary for brothers to marry sisters, uncles to marry nieces.
And I would assume this is now called incest and would be considered a sin. One can see how scriptures changed to meet the culture of the day. One would be arrested today for this activity and we worry about gays eating in restaurants and having rights and the bible is used to form those opinions
well

Chesterfield, MO

#83 Feb 14, 2013
KELLERMAN wrote:
<quoted text> And I would assume this is now called incest and would be considered a sin. One can see how scriptures changed to meet the culture of the day. One would be arrested today for this activity and we worry about gays eating in restaurants and having rights and the bible is used to form those opinions
Yes, it most certainly is incest. I did not use the Bible to form an opinion about gays. Another poster asked where we came from because Adam and Eve only had Cain, Abel, and Seth. I simply pointed out the the verse in Genesis where it's said that Adam fathered additional sons and daughters. So, if anyone wants to assume that Genesis is an accurate account of events as to how we came to exist, then incest is the only explanation.

As for gays, I don't use the Bible or any other excuse to form a negative opinion about them, because I have no negative opinion about them. My post that you responded to has absolutely nothing to do with gays, only a logical explanation as to how the earth would have became populated. But, I will add that I am as much for gay rights as anybody else.
anybody else.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grundy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who is the Brown Eyed Handsome Man 25 min Caught 2
Love at Dairy Queen 46 min senior 5
Lovebirds 1 hr Jason 4
bammy one of three presidents who didn't raise ... 3 hr Hairspray 4
RUSSIA and TRUMP 9 hr Gravy Train 57
Becky Chapmans Hot man Sonny!! 14 hr Hurley Rutt 2
Prom 18 hr dress 1

Grundy Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grundy Mortgages