QUESTION 1 (edited)
By today's standards, would Jesus be considered (A) right-wing or (B) left-wing?
My guess... B. (Left wing)
He taught that man should not rely on himself and should put all his trust in someone else that would provide for all his needs.
Today, that would be a socialist government... (But we all know how those work out.)
Well, Jesus advocated for the poor, the disabled, the very young and very old, the least fortunate among us. He chastised the greedy money-changers in the temple. The Bible attributes these quotes to him --
“He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.”
“Love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you!"
“Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
“If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me."
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Based on this, Jesus was obviously a right-wing, Fox-loving, gun-toting, pro-corporation Trump supporter.
Was this: (a) literal, or (b) extreme, hyperbolic sardonicism? You decide!
JESUS QUIZ, part II -
Question 2: WARWJO? (i.e, what assault rifle would Jesus own?)
Early Christians were communists:
Acts 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
DL answered: B. (Left wing)
That's my interpretation, too.
...except I'm pretty sure He'd be against abortion.
Dcoder replied: Jesus was obviously a right-wing, Harm to Ongoing Matter-loving, gun-toting, pro-corporation Personal Privacy supporter.
I think you're thinking about someone other than Jesus . . .
Was this: (a) literal, or (b) extreme, hyperbolic sardonicism?
Oh. Number B, man! It was number B!
WARWJO (i.e, what assault rifle would Jesus own?)?
Trick question! None of the above!
Pixie said: Early Christians were communists
It incites violence when I point that out in my neck of the woods. (Stating that Social Security is a socialist program has the same effect, though. So, go figure.)
Question 2 (or 3, if we count Dcoder's question)
Would Jesus approve of demonizing Muslims (or immigrants, or anyone at all)?
Muslims follow a different god... so... He would condemn (not like) them...
Immigrants, or anyone (else)… I would not think so... ("All are welcomed")
except I'm pretty sure He'd be against abortion
Not sure if that is true. Life was thought to start when the baby takes a breath (God gave life to Adam by breathing into him, etc.), so abortion weould not have been a big deal.
My Question 2 could be construed as a test of one's ability to question authority and stomach absurdity! So yes, the correct answer was "none of the above". Obviously Jesus would be against all guns, all weapons even, and certainly weapons of war. Although He may have fantasized about shooting up aliens as Rambo Jesus.
As for KV's Question 3, Jesus most definitely would not advocate demonizing ANYONE. Remember this, from above?
“Love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you!"
He loved Jews and Gentiles alike, so differing religions would not matter. As an aside, modern-day Christianity didn't really exist in Jesus' time -- He hadn't even risen from the dead yet! And Islam wasn't founded until the 7th century AD. But the point is that He didn't even speak ill of the people that crucified Him. Pacifism to the nth degree.
Pixie said: Life was thought to start when the baby takes a breath (God gave life to Adam by breathing into him, etc.), so abortion [would] not have been a big deal.
Hrmm...
I don't know . . .
All I've ever been able to find concerning this is in Exodus:
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Of course, one could easily argue that this is concerning men who hurt another man's pregnant wife and cause her to miscarry or give premature birth. It does not seem to cover women (or husbands) who purposefully induce miscarriages. In fact, it seems to imply that a fetus is the property of the husband (similarly to the way slaves were viewed as property in that very same text).
Speaking of property which belongs to the husband, men in my part of the world frequently quote this from First Corinthians:
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband
Rarely do I see anyone quote the entire line:
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
Anyway...
Speaking of slaves, if you read the bits just before and just after that bit from Exodus, you see how modern man might want to avoid quoting from this text, since it touches upon slavery.
Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
Digressions aside, I simply can't imagine Jesus condoning anyone purposefully inducing miscarriages.
People purposefully preempting probable life just seems like something He would have frowned upon -- had it been a common (and commonly accepted) practice (which it may have been, for all I truly know).
Dcoder said: As for KV's Question 3, Jesus most definitely would not advocate demonizing ANYONE.
This is my way of thinking, too.
BONUS QUESTION
What would be the difference(s) between going back in time and killing baby Hitler as opposed to going back in time a little further and kicking Hitler's mother in the belly while pregnant with him and causing her to miscarry?
PS
Life [begins] when the baby takes a breath
I am not arguing this at all. From a legal or religious perspective, I believe most of us agree on this.
However, I believe that abortion is very much like murder. It is the act of taking a probable life -- post-conception. (I know that is far from a legal argument, but that's the way I see it.)
All in all, I believe it is something Jesus would forgive, but not support.
PPS
Just for the record, I am pro-choice. (I know it seems like I'm arguing against abortion, but that's just because I'm trying to approach things from a Christian standpoint in this thread. I'm also for euthenasia.)
your bonus question violates the temporal Prime Directive
Nuh uh! The current administration rolled back the Space Force regulations.
I really wasn't trying to break the thread with abortion. Here, how about this:
BONUS QUESTION 2.0
What would be the difference(s) between going back in time and killing baby Hitler as opposed to going back in time a little further and somehow preventing Hitler's conception?
Question 4
Isn't there some number Christians are supposed to be on the lookout for?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kushner-redevelopment-plan-for-666-5th-ave-deemed-not-feasible-by-partner/2017/10/31/1214de9a-be54-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html
Re: BQ 2.0 -
As I am getting more pragmatic as I get older (though still idealistic), I have no problem with how you kill Hitler, be it through abortion, after birth, preventing his birth to begin with, etc. However, my guess is that some other cultish figure would have taken Hitler's place and WW2 would have still happened (but may have been delayed). These large scale events go beyond individuals and take on a life of their own; i.e., WW2 may have been "predestined" to occur given the terrible shape Weimar Germany was in, the despair of the German people, the shortsightedness of the European powers, etc., etc.
Re: Q4 -
The link doesn't work for some reason. Anyway, it's amazing how superstitious people can be, and about anything. Then again, religion and superstition (to me) are often similar in their arbitrary and unreasoned nature. People have a need to control, and when they can't, they prefer the illusion of control rather than face the fact that it is in their best interest to adapt to reality, as imperfect as those adaptations may be. And I say that as a guilty party.
666 = Sign of the Beast = very bad!
7 = 6 days of creation + 1 day of rest = one week;
7 = 7 seals, 7 trumpets, and 7 bowls in Revelation
"7" was known as a "number of power" WAY before the creation of Christianity...
https://www.ou.org/torah/parsha/parsha-from-ou/seven-the-power-of-numbers/
(A pagan source, but that did not bother the Christian "fathers" at the time... just like all the other
pagan holidays they stole, as well as 90% of the stories...)
and: http://psychiclibrary.com/beyondBooks/lucky-number-7/
As for "666"...That was a "word puzzle" used in Greek times.
Each number in Greek was also a letter in the alphabet...
So, the puzzle would go kinda like this:
"There is a bad guy, and his number is 666"
The answer would be a person's full name, as numbers, that would total the number in the puzzle.
The only person that fit that number was the Roman Caesar, Nero Caesar (in Hebrew as 616) or, Neron Caesar (in Hebrew as 666).
Look here: http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Gemetria%20and%20the%20Number%20of%20the%20Beast%20666.htm
and,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast
Which, taken in total, means that Revelation, which is always placed as being in the future, (our future), actually took place in the writer's future, which is our past.
Which, taken in total, means that Revelation, which is always placed as being in the future, (our future), actually took place in the writer's future, which is our past.
Most prophets prediction the apocalypse will be soon. Jesus expected it within the lifetime of his disciples, Paul expected it within his life time. The predictions in Daniel were made around the time of the Maccabees (though it was written to make it seem older), and predicted an apocalypse just a few years later. Virtually all the modern predictions of a Biblical apocalypse predict the end of the world with just a few years.
Worth looking at this Wiki page for how often the end of the world has been preicted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events
So yes, the author of Revelation expected the end of the world within a few years. Nero was persecuting Christians, in Jerusalem, the population was in the run up to the Jewish Revolt, so he probably had good reason to think so from his perspective.
Getting good responses now!
Whoo-hoo!
Question 5
Can a rich person get into Heaven?
As far as the apocalypse is concerned, this century is a time when it may actually unfold, given the earth is currently undergoing its sixth mass extinction due to man-made climate change, destruction of habitats, widespread pollution, etc. This is the first time in human (and earth) history that we have had 8 billion people on the planet with all of our disruptive technology, mass consumption, depletion of resources, and ability to alter the planet on a global scale. So this time it may be real! Stay tuned!
Can a rich person get into Heaven?
No, unless they are super-rich and can genetically produce an extremely miniscule camel.
Question 5: Can a rich person get into Heaven?
The Bible says no...
I guess that all the big televangelists just won't make it.
Question 6: Is being dishonest (for any reason) acceptable?
Humans make allowances for "little white lies"...
But I don't think God would...
Question 7
Do most Conservative Republican Christians attend a church to which they make donations which are used to help those in need?
If yes, does the church make those in need participate in religious activities to be eligible for assistance?
If yes, is that what Jesus would do?
What Jesus would do, and indeed he and his disciples did do, is sell all that they owned besides the clothes their wore, and give the money to the poor.
This is what monks and nuns do when they make a vow of poverty. It is certainly not what Conservative Republican Christians do!
Conservative Republican Christians build megachurches and, if lucky, engage in televangelism to solicit money from their sheeple to maintain extravagant lifestyles and pay off mistresses. If they are Catholic, they might spend the money on child abuse lawsuit payouts. If they are Mormon, they move to Utah and marry as many under-age girls as they can, preferably sisters. Or they use the church as a tax-deductible vehicle to funnel contributions to right-wing political candidates.
#Which501c4WouldJesusUse?
Someone answer this on behalf of Jesus...
If Jesus incarnate sashays into a Christian Church, would he be appalled, content, pleased... or ask dad to push the giant red button?
Trick question.
I believe Jesus would probably steer clear of crosses (and buildings with crosses as decorations).
A seemingly unrelated question:
As “we” understand it, what is the be-all-end all determining factor of something that is trying to travel at or beyond the speed of light? In other words, fill in the blank: if something is traveling, or is to travel, at or beyond the speed of light, that thing must be ___.
And I use “something” and “thing” quite loosely here because... well... because I have to.
If something is traveling, or is to travel, at or beyond the speed of light, that thing must be bad news.
“Nothing travels faster than the speed of light, with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.”
- Douglas Adams (from Mostly Harmless)
Carl Sagan.. "The Starship of the Imagination"
if something is traveling, or is to travel, at or beyond the speed of light, that thing must be a tachyon.
Altho, tachyons "can't" slow down to the speed of light.
@RH - correct. Only if we could power ships with THAT technology.
@DL - also correct. Tachyons are like the Ricky Bobby version of the physics world, but they, as far as I understand it, are hypothetical.
I, maybe errantly, was trying to get massless or not made of matter out of you. It is true. For a thing to travel at the speed of light it must not be made of matter (or have an infinite amount of it, which... I think, isn’t possible?). Either way...
Question 2:
Let’s assume you could travel at the speed of light. How would you perceive time? Here’s a hint: if you are staring at your dog, the light, traveling at the speed of light, bounces off your dogs face and your brain interprets that as the ‘now’ of the dog (sort of - whole other can of worms...). But, if you traveled away from the dog at exactly the speed of light and starting at a time once the moment the brain interprets the dog as ‘now’, what would you see? What would the dog see?
I promise this is going somewhere related to the OP. Hang in there.
If you were travelling at the speed of light then relative to you, you dog is travelling at the speed of light in the opposite direction. But that is impossible unless your dog has no mass!
Light from the dog to you is travelling at the speed of light, but it is also travelling at the speed of light relative to you.
@Pixie,
Not sure I follow. Relative to you, yes, but only because you are traveling at the same rate at which light does. He is not moving at all (at least negligibly in comparison). Forgive me, I’m trying to figure something out here.
Dog is at point A. You, 10 meters away, are at point B. At point C, RH is 20 meters away in the same direction as you from the dog. Light strikes A, passes B (at which point you see the dog), continues to point C (at which point RH sees the dog) and continues to travel to point D which is 1,000,000,000 meters away.
You leave point B at two different speeds (in two separate scenarios of course):
The point about relativity is... it is all relative. If you are in a rocket travelling away from earth at c/2 (c is the speed of light), then from the perspective of the rocket, the earth is travelling away from you at c/2, so from your perspective all the weird time dilation effects happen to earth, not to you.
So I leave B at the speed of light, relative to the dog and RH, but the light is still travelling at the speed of light relative to me, as well as relative to the dog and RH.
If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating. There seems to be no such thing, however, neither on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell's equations. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how should the first observer know or be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion?
-- A Einstein
https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Chasing_the_light/
Carl Sagan - Cosmos - Traveling - Speed of Light
There's also a bit in Cosmos - A Spacetime Odyssey with another example, but it's not on YouTube . . .
Anyway, if I were moving at the speed of light, I thought time was supposed to stop.
“...so from your perspective all the weird time dilation effects happen to earth, not to you.”
-100% agreed. I just was looking for clarification on the previous post. 👍🏼
“I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating.”
“Anyway, if I were moving at the speed of light, I thought time was supposed to stop.”
-And that’s kind of saying the same thing, right?
Question 2b: if you were moving at the speed of light, could you perceive things that are moving at “Earth speed”?
Question 3: IF (and I know it’s a BIG if for some) the soul/spirit/conscious/essence exists, does it have mass?
2b: Probably not, because I assume Earth would be out of sight fairly quickly.
3: Yes, because the soul is 21 grams of water. Just kidding. No. No weight - no mass.
You guys are over thinking this...
You are moving away from your dog at c... the dog would look frozen in place (and time)…
If you could go 2c, the dog would move backwards and grow younger as you watched.
(But at what would look like the normal speed. Kinda like watching a movie backwards.)
(Actually, to see this, you would need a camera facing the dog, that sends the signal to your monitor.)
As for what the dog would see, or anyone watching a camera facing you, would see you move faster and faster until
you were nothing that a blur.
But, the receiving monitors would need to adjust for red shifts for each cameras.
@ RH: "Anyway, if I were moving at the speed of light, I thought time was supposed to stop."
Only for looking back. (That light would no longer be catching up with you.)
What you would see forward is everything speeded up because you are "running into" that light.
So, at c.5, everything behind you would be moving at 1/2 normal speed.
And everything ahead of you would be moving at 2x speed.
Things to the side, moving at your speed, would look somewhat "normal", everything would look blue to the front, and red to the back, and stretched a bit...
(It's really trippy to see...)
So, Superman could really have turned back time by flying around the world backwards, and the world would only appear to revolve backwards because of our perspective?
You guys are over thinking this...
You are moving away from your dog at c... the dog would look frozen in place (and time)…
If you could go 2c, the dog would move backwards and grow younger as you watched.
That is the classic view, but the real world does not work like that - because of relativity. The speed of light is constant - from every point of view. That means photons are travelling at the speed of light from the perspective of the dog and from your perspective, even though you are also travelling a the speed of light.
So, Superman could really have turned back time by flying around the world backwards, and the world would only appear to revolve backwards because of our perspective?
When things are accelerating (and traveling in a circle at constant angular speed implies acceleration towards the centre) it get complicated...
But it is a superhero movie, and reality just does not matter. I watched Captain America: Winter Hero last night, which featured satellites that can read people's DNA from space and giant helicarriers built under the Patomac River in the centre of Washington without even Captain America noticing. These things are not supposed to make sense. Apparently.
Bonus:
What if you ran around your dog in circles at light speed? Or better yet, vibrated back and forth at light speed?
Would the dog be able to see you and you the dog?
I promise this is going somewhere related to the OP. Hang in there.
Spoiler alert:
My thought on religion (and relating this back to the OP)...
Is this heaven/nirvana/samsara?
What is a ghost?
Can energy be “judged” (I.e. is there good energy and bad energy and do they exist in different places? Dark matter anyone? 🤔)
Does this really relate to the OP or did I inadvertently and unconsciously hijack RHs post. Sorry, dude!
Thoughts? Or ignore? Either way, all cool. Thanks for giving me a place to babble!
*i realize that our memories, thoughts, etc, are directly tied to ELECTRICAL ENERGY, which does have mass, but the brain is VERY POORLY understood. I choose to think that there is an undefined conscious that would support my beliefs if I could understand the brain...
My apologies for derailing!
Yeah, the way I look at it is: deep down, we're all just energy, and energy is eternal.
...and now, back to Jesus (because we currently under theocratic rule)...
Question 8
Would Jesus vote? (In other words, would He be approve of our government and political system?)
Jesus would undoubtedly vote but I have a feeling he would have a write-in every time and he would be the biggest advocate for a change in procedure.
Wouldn’t it be nice to only have people running for office that could tell truths and only promote what they can and want to do as opposed to say what we want to hear or to mud-sling?
@RH:
"So, Superman could really have turned back time by flying around the world backwards, and the world would only appear to revolve backwards because of our perspective?"
Actually... in this case, HE did not "rewind" the Earth, like they showed in the movie, but instead, HE, after traveling faster the light, would have traveled backwards in time...
So, for a moment, there would have been 2 of him...
And each "one" of him would have done what he did the first time through.
Question 9
What would Jesus say about sexually active non-heterosexuals? (Sorry. I can't spell LGBTQ because they keep adding letters. I think now it's LGBTQIA or something.)
@ The Pixie:
If you are traveling a 99.9999% c and turn on a flashlight...
How fast would the light from the flashlight when aimed forward, or backwards?
HE, after traveling faster the light, would have traveled backwards in time...
So, for a moment, there would have been 2 of him...
And each "one" of him would have done what he did the first time through.
But...
Then the future Superman would have saved Lois (and the world) the first time around, thus canceling out the reason he went back in time in the first place, thus canceling out the trip to the past, thus causing the events to begin (and end) over and over again . . .
Or, I think it would have to work that way, anyway -- unless alternate dimensions/timelines are created when traveling through time.
Yea, I thought paradox, at first myself... but...
Superman(#1), stopped the missile, then went back it time...
Superman (#1) always stops the missile...
When Superman(#2) the one that went back is time to save Lois, Superman (#1) still stops the missile. Then goes back in time to save Lois...
So, for a short while, there were 2 Superman's... Then one fly's off to go back in time...
It "looks" like a paradox loop, but it's not.
It's like you stop at a restaurant and have lunch, then leave, only to go back and have dessert...
With a time loop installed, you could have seen yourself come in and have a slice of pie, but you forgot to order yours when you finished eating. You would come back for the dessert, where your earlier self would have seen you.
This would be an effect-causality loop.
Let's continue the Superman discussion here:
http://textadventures.co.uk/forum/general/topic/17k41lumku_s6oiodf2c0q/the-end-of-superman
@ The Pixie:
If you are traveling a 99.9999% c and turn on a flashlight...
How fast would the light from the flashlight when aimed forward, or backwards?
It would travel at the speed of light, because the speed of light is constant. That is relative to both you AND the world.
The trouble with superman going back in time to stop the missile reminds me of the grandfather syndrome. If he went back in time to stop the missile then the whole scenario would not have happened and Lois would not be killed. So if it didn't happened then superman would not have gone back in time at all which means that the missile would have occurred. Paradoxical loop indeed. Guzmere.
Actually, the speed of light is not constant...
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all
When light passes through different material...
IE: air->glass->water...
Sorry, that's bending... Altho, when you bend something, the outside of the bend gets longer than the inside of the bend,
So. light on the outside of the bend would need to move faster to keep up... (or would it?)
Actually, the speed of light is not constant...
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant.
When it passes into another medium, it slows down, which does cause it to bend at the interface (this is refraction). If you want light to curve, you need a really big gravitational field, like a black hole.
If someone in the future learns how to travel to the past, we'd already know (unless alternate timelines are a thing).
The government sucks at keeping secrets.
Plus, people would be selling time machines (or perhaps time-travel supplements). No regulation should be able to control it, because, if you could travel backward into the past, I would assume you would be above, beyond, and always one step ahead of the law.
...but back to Jesus...
Did He ever mention gay people? (If He did, I can't find it.)
I do not think so. I think the only NT mention is by Paul, who may have been talking about temple prostitutes.
If someone in the future learns how to travel to the past, we'd already know (unless alternate timelines are a thing).
In one of the old Dr Who stories, there was mention of an effect which thwarted early attempts to travel in time using transmat interference. If, or arriving in the past, you would cause a paradox then it creates some kind of temporal interference which feeds back and messes up your time travel.
If you go back in time and hide your presence well enough (or make only changes that would lead to an internally-stable new timeline), it works. If you attempt to reveal time travel to people who didn't know it exists, then you'll materialise in the past hundreds of miles away from where you expected, or even in deep space. So practical time travel is limited to inventors who know the bizarre and convoluted set of rules about when changing the future is or is not possible, and who are capable of avoiding revealing themselves in the past.
Must be the first Dr. while they (the writers) were setting up HOW a person could travel in time and not destroy the universe.
I've only seen a very few of Dr. #1, I picked it up with #5.
Too bad someone didn't save all the episodes, the first ones in B&W is where they introduced most of the villains...
I grew up with the novelisations, didn't actually see that many of them.
I think some human was trying to go back in time to save a doomed space station or something?
Possibly a handwave to how so many humans (and other races) manage to accidentally go back in time for one episode using an experimental technology, but at different dates on the timeline it's never a part of their culture. Crazy scientists keep on inventing a time machine, but they can never get it to work reliably.
I should have posted this with Question 5:
Full Interview: Preacher Kenneth Copeland Defends Lavish Lifestyle
Question 10 (LAST QUESTION)
Is anyone who took part in this thread actually a Christian?
(Me? I am not religious at all. I just try to be considerate to everyone.)
Christian here. I guess... but my basic philosophies and beliefs are really an amalgamation of core Christian beliefs (as I was raised) and my understanding of the sciences (as I’ve been self-taught).
So. Yes?
Anyone else have the ‘God Here’s and Answers Prayers’ advertisement now? Lol
Raised Christian... But turned more agnostic...
To me, all religions are like the tail of the 5 blind men and the elephant...
Each "saw" a different part, but none were right.
Here's a few thoughts for you...
Evolution of man describes each new "upgrade" migrating out of Africa... Why?
Man kind ONLY originated from a single creature, at a single location... Why?
And last... Eden was a zoo...
Adam was made, not to live in "paradise", but to maintain it... But for who?
Evolution of man describes each new "upgrade" migrating out of Africa...
Not sure about this. I guess it depends on how you define “upgrade”
Man kind ONLY originated from a single creature
True. Some sponge-like thing resembling DL
...at a single location...
But only true if we consider the first, smallest step in evolution. That would be a Anthozoa-like thing resembling RH.
And last... Eden was a zoo...
Adam was made, not to live in "paradise", but to maintain it...
Interesting. I can roll this around in my mind for a bit.
...maintain it... But for who?
Me. Of course.
XM: Evolution of man describes each new "upgrade" migrating out of Africa...
Not sure about this. I guess it depends on how you define “upgrade”
When I was in school, human evolution was a single branch from early human to modern human...
Lucy came into existence in Africa and started what we became...
so... there became the "out of Africa" theory... something like this...
"First man" started in Africa and spread so far, then dies out...
" Second man" restarted in Africa and spread farther than first man, but died out as well...
"Third man", again in Africa, spread out, got farther than anyone else, but failed again...
And so on until modern man finally succeeded where earlier versions failed...
My question always was:
What, or who, was creating the different versions in Africa???
Kinda like an alien lab was evolving man, and releasing "test subjects" when the previous version failed.
As for Adam and Eden... I believe the Catholic Bible describes:
"... God created 'the adam' to maintain the garden..."
"The adam", NOT "Adam"...
Adam was the name of the first man...
The adam is described as "first man"... (Not a name)
Out of Africa...
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/human-migration.htm
Not sure how I like how that’s worded. But I get it. Not a real accurate portrait of evolution. For the sake of space and words, it was more trial and error as space became more limited. If you want a wordy/obnoxious explanation, I’ll provide.
In short, the trial and error is all about melanin, vitamin D, cancers, and diets. 😬
Wordy… yea...
Just trying to get the thought out...
That was then... Now, it's more like a tree with several branches that die off early, and some that go longer.
"Would Jesus approve of demonizing Muslims (or immigrants, or anyone at all)?"
Which Jesus? The false prophet to the Jews? God's son to the Christians. Or the prophet Jesus of the Muslims?
Follow us on Facebook
Follow @TextAdv on Twitter