adam and the lonely p**is

Originally posted by googlefudge
Just a note... The Church of England has vicars not priests.

Parish priests are still priests, regardless of their title of office.

The American version, the Episcopalian Church, has no such office of vicar, so pardon my ignorance.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
why did god create eve? im guessing adam wasnt fully functional downstairs. there would be no point in giving him urges if there was nothing to have urges about. which also begs the questions - was adams penis originally just for urinating? and - did adam have testicles? without the need for erectile tissue, was it just a thin tube? anywhooooooo (enough ...[text shortened]... appealing?!?!? what was he thinking. what was the point, what did he think was going to happen?

If he did have a willie I'm betting it was bigger than yours.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i did. for some reason it doesnt tackle adams.....erm.....tackle.

Oh, that's a shame isn't it? 😏

Originally posted by divegeester
If he did have a willie I'm betting it was bigger than yours.

no way dude. my wife gets 9" of hot splalfie love*













*to be given in 3 X 3" installments,
coitus may be too short to receive all installments,
no refunds or apologies,
wife may be compensated with polite chit-chat,
chit-chat may be cancelled due to sleepiness,
all terms and conditions apply.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
One.
Her name wasn't Eve.

Two.
God created the woman (Isha) to complete man, therefore, it stands to reason that she would be everything he would want.
God didn't create the woman based on Adam's request; He created her based on His knowledge.

Three.
The amount of time that man was without the woman is specifically unknown, but from the narrative ...[text shortened]... would happen, everything that will happen.
Nothing surprises Him.
Not even your ignorance.

!

Originally posted by stellspalfie
Genesis 3:20 (post-Fall) is the first time the name Eve is mentioned. All other descriptions prior to this naming by the man have her as "the woman."
This link offers some 17 different translations and the ability to go verse by verse in any direction, so you can test your assertion of her being called Eve in the Garden.

my daughter didnt hav ...[text shortened]... e's thought it why not just skip to the end where everybody is happy?[/b]

my daughter didnt have a name for the first few hours of her life. she was called 'the baby' for a while. later, we gave her a name. when we refer to the period before she had a name, we use her name rather than calling her 'the baby'.
This has nearly zero to do with the topic, short using some of the same words.
You were being called on the carpet for your imprecision in the use of 'Eve' in describing events prior to the name being given.
God didn't create 'Eve,' He created Isha (the woman).
Man renamed Isha as Eve after the Fall.
The reason such details seem meaningless to you is directly related to your ignorance of the values therein.

yes, very trivial.
nothing more bone-headed than stubbornly believing in things despite zero evidence.
Admittedly, such a conversation deserves its own thread to properly explore (and it's been done repeatedly in this forum since it was founded), but I'll humor you for a few seconds on the topic.
I take it on faith that every president from Washington to Kennedy (each of whom died prior to me achieving self-awareness) all, in fact, existed and did roughly what the various reports indicate.
I have nothing but the reports of their contemporaries and a few limited anecdotal reports upon which to base my confidence, as it pertains to these 35 men.
In other words, I can't personally report anything other than my faith in their existence.
There are a few tests I can apply to determine the veracity of any nugget of information passing itself off as a fact, but after repeated success (without a single noted failure), there are some things which are never challenged again: they've been established.
This is akin to what we have with the Bible.
There are various tests which we can apply to any piece of information found within the 66 books/letters in order to affirm or deny veracity.
After repeated success in reporting and recording without failure is determined, an establishment is made:
The Book can be trusted.
Since the Book can be trusted, its weight is substantial given the topics covered and the claims made.
Since the topics are of supreme importance, its words and construction must also be important.
Every word, every letter is meaningful and required for understanding.

so why did god need to make an exception and specifically mention adams need for company. why even mention it if it was always your intention to create a women anyway? there is no logic to it.
Almost makes you think there must be something significant to the whole topic, huh.

zero time. he's god, time is irrelevant.
I know I probably ought to simply preface every comment with "Do you even read," but let's just agree to intone that phrase at the start of every one of my responses for brevity's sake, k?
God didn't name the animals.
The man did.

how is any of this contrary to anything i said. i said they were kicked out for the whole 'tree of knowledge fiasco' and you say i know nothing then describe a 'tree of knowledge fiasco'. looks like youve come to the table with a few 'half-cooked' ideas of your own matey boy.
In your telling, the man and the woman did not know each other (sexually) until after the Fall.
In the biblical account, this is not the case.

so adam failed to get eve up the duff in paradise yet the minute they get out he becomes a prolific women impregnating machine??? does this also imply that eve had a reproductive cycle while in paradise, that functioned?
Sex was obviously created for recreation as well as re-creation; there was no failure on Adam's part--- nor on the woman's--- with respect to the act or its intentions.
That is a good question with respect to the reproductive cycle.
There has been speculation on the biological make-up of both man and woman in their pre-Fall state.
Unfortunately from our perspective, the account yields zero light on the particulars.

what would be the point of god creating a world in which he know that his creations will fail and then have to endure thousands of years of suffering and then be reunited with him. once he's thought it why not just skip to the end where everybody is happy?
Where would the fun be in that?
Why not just say to the Godhead: "I have a thought. Okay, that was it," and call it good?
On second thought, maybe that's exactly what is happening right now...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]my daughter didnt have a name for the first few hours of her life. she was called 'the baby' for a while. later, we gave her a name. when we refer to the period before she had a name, we use her name rather than calling her 'the baby'.
This has nearly zero to do with the topic, short using some of the same words.
You were being called on the carp ...[text shortened]... cond thought, maybe that's exactly what is happening right now...[/b]

"This has nearly zero to do with the topic, short using some of the same words.
You were being called on the carpet for your imprecision in the use of 'Eve' in describing events prior to the name being given."

it has everything to do with the topic. i said 'when god creates eve, why did he make her so god damn appealing' using a name given to her later in time is exactly the same as referring to a baby by the name its give later in time when referring to it before it was given the name.

God didn't create 'Eve,' He created Isha (the woman).
Man renamed Isha as Eve after the Fall.

god still created 'eve' just because she wasnt given the name until later makes no difference. its just a name. the name may signify the before and after of a major event, but she is still the same individual that existed before the fall.
a good example would be mohammed ali, he spent the early part of his life as cassius clay. when we talk about his early life we still call him mohammed ali even though that was not the name he had. its the common convention.


The Book can be trusted.

maybe you should go and read up and the methods used to ascertain if literary sources can be trusted and then go down the check list and see how many ticks the bible gets and how many ticks your presidents get.

God didn't name the animals.
The man did.

christians cannot even agree on this, so im not sure i should trust you as the 100% authority. many believe god only asked adam to name a few animals (probably because he only had a day to do it).

Sex was obviously created for recreation as well as re-creation; there was no failure on Adam's part--- nor on the woman's--- with respect to the act or its intentions.

so you believe it was gods intention for adam and eve to populate paradise? how would paradise cope with the population explosion caused by people who live for ever popping out kids at the rate of 1 every year? but of coarse god knew they would sin didnt he? so in fact he designed everything to fit around that. that would also imply that adams fate was on a set of rails he could never 'not sin'. god didnt even give him a fighting chance, as there was no such thing as chance.

Unfortunately from our perspective, the account yields zero light on the particulars

why not just make it up, the rest was.

quick question for you as you seem so 'well informed'

when the bible says adam was made in the image of god. does this mean physically?


On second thought, maybe that's exactly what is happening right now.

possibly, but so unlikely we can discount it. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
"This has nearly zero to do with the topic, short using some of the same words.
You were being called on the carpet for your imprecision in the use of 'Eve' in describing events prior to the name being given."

it has everything to do with the topic. i said 'when god creates eve, why did he make her so god damn appealing' using a name give now.[/b]

possibly, but so unlikely we can discount it. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay.[/b]

it has everything to do with the topic. i said [b]'when god creates eve, why did he make her so god damn appealing' using a name given to her later in time is exactly the same as referring to a baby by the name its give later in time when referring to it before it was given the name.[/b]
'The baby' refers to the same person as whatever you eventually named her.
There are no changes to her as a person (other than continued growth), she remains fundamentally the same person.
'The woman/Isha' refers to who 'Eve' was before she became Eve, as renamed by Adam.
She was fundamentally changed as a person from who she was to who she became.

a good example would be mohammed ali, he spent the early part of his life as cassius clay. when we talk about his early life we still call him mohammed ali even though that was not the name he had. its the common convention.
As you say, he is fundamentally the same person, although his mind is altered.
From Isha to Eve, however, there comes a fundamental change.
As Isha, she was in the likeness of God, i.e., triune in nature alive in body, soul and spirit.
The Fall killed her spirit.
Her spirit was reborn.
She was renamed Eve, mother of all living.

maybe you should go and read up and the methods used to ascertain if literary sources can be trusted and then go down the check list and see how many ticks the bible gets and how many ticks your presidents get.
This doesn't even register as a 'nice try,' I'm afraid.
I've spent more time testing the Bible than you've spent watching SpongeBob SquarePants.
As much as you know about Squidward, Eugene, Gary and the rest of the crew at Bikini Bottom, this amount doesn't qualify as a ten-second commercial during a week-long telethon of reruns compared to what I've gathered in the forty-plus years of studying the Bible.

christians cannot even agree on this, so im not sure i should trust you as the 100% authority.
Christians can't agree on a lot of things.
Neither can non-Christians.
Point?
Solution?
Consult the "many translations" you have read and see what they offer.

According to 2:19,

"And out of the ground
the LORD God formed
every beast of the field, and
every fowl of the air; and
brought [them] unto Adam
to see what he would call
them: and whatsoever
Adam called every living
creature, that [was] the
name thereof."

Reading it in the Hebrew, one reaches the same conclusion: every animal formed is brought to the human and the human names of the creatures brought before him.
God's involvement in this process: creating the creatures, bringing them to the human.

that would also imply that adams fate was on a set of rails he could never 'not sin'. god didnt even give him a fighting chance, as there was no such thing as chance.
I already knew you would offer this as 'proof' of Adam having no free will, that everything was cast.
And yet, in your mind, this idea is your own.
Curious, that.

when the bible says adam was made in the image of god. does this mean physically?
Quick answer: no.
God is spirit.
Man's construction is that of an image of the template, God being the template.
The Trinity is made of three Persons, one Godhead... each with specific functions emanating from their personalities.
Man was created body, soul and spirit to reflect the triune nature of the Godhead.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]it has everything to do with the topic. i said [b]'when god creates eve, why did he make her so god damn appealing' using a name given to her later in time is exactly the same as referring to a baby by the name its give later in time when referring to it before it was given the name.[/b]
'The baby' refers to the same person as whatever you eventual ...[text shortened]... ed body, soul and spirit to reflect the triune nature of the Godhead.[/b]

"'The woman/Isha' refers to who 'Eve' was before she became Eve, as renamed by Adam.
She was fundamentally changed as a person from who she was to who she "

is she the same person?

did adam change his name? if not, why?

This doesn't even register as a 'nice try,' I'm afraid.
I've spent more time testing the Bible than you've spent watching SpongeBob SquarePants.

i see, proof is measured by the amount of effort put into finding it is it? im sure there are thousands of priests, vicars, scholars, popes and bishops who have put the hours in. it doesnt make it true though does it. how much time do you think the dalai lama has put into buddhism? does it make him correct as well?

Christians can't agree on a lot of things.
Neither are non-Christians.
Point?
Solution?
Consult the "many translations" you have read and see what they offer.

i find the bible to be extremely vague and so open to interpretation it is impossible to ascertain the correct meaning. it causes me many problems on here trying to remember what each christian believes.

beast of the field - this has been argued to only mean domestic animlas as it is not a good description of tree, earth, water dwelling animals. it also doesnt point to all the micro-organisms or insects.

I already knew you would offer this as 'proof' of Adam having no free will, that everything was cast.
And yet, in your mind, this idea is your own.
Curious, that.

its a common argument and been had on this site many times, so no special medals for 'already knowing'. im not sure what you mean about my own idea??


The Trinity is made of three Persons, one Godhead... each with specific functions emanating from their personalities.
Man was created body, soul and spirit to reflect the triune nature of the Godhead.


the trinty!! so you say, do all your fellow christians think the same. so please forgive me if im finding it hard tailor my responses to your specific view of a made up story.

built in the image of god, yet from somewhere adams nature turns to crap and he becomes a sinner. does this mean god has the ability to sin also?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
"'The woman/Isha' refers to who 'Eve' was before she became Eve, as renamed by Adam.
She was fundamentally changed as a person from who she was to who she "

is she the same person?

did adam change his name? if not, why?

This doesn't even register as a 'nice try,' I'm afraid.
I've spent more time testing the Bible than you've spent watc ...[text shortened]... crap and he becomes a sinner. does this mean god has the ability to sin also?

is she the same person?

did adam change his name? if not, why?
She had been fundamentally changed, and as acknowledgement of her new position--- without reference to her fallen state--- she was given a new name by Adam (literally, either 'the man' or 'human,' as it is rendered).

The new name had everything to do with The Promise, i.e., 'the living' (those who would regain what God had given in the first placeReveal Hidden Content) would all come through her--- not him.

i see, proof is measured by the amount of effort put into finding it is it? im sure there are thousands of priests, vicars, scholars, popes and bishops who have put the hours in. it doesnt make it true though does it. how much time do you think the dalai lama has put into buddhism? does it make him correct as well?
No, that isn't the inference.
I was simply pointing out that your casual dalliance into the field of theology doesn't qualify you to have an opinion.
In turn, I pejoratively compared a field with which you were likely familiar Reveal Hidden Content against a field with which I have been engaged for over four decades, to draw the point that your rants are informed with the equivalent of dust mites.

i find the bible to be extremely vague and so open to interpretation it is impossible to ascertain the correct meaning. it causes me many problems on here trying to remember what each christian believes.
I hear ya, brother.
The translations are (as stated) deplorable.
They frustrate the hell out of me, too.
Before I went to the original languages, there were entire patches of the faith that (to me) were preposterous.
Once I finally allowed the Bible to say what it had to say, I realized what a jackass I was, how genius God was.
It was a revelation.

beast of the field - this has been argued to only mean domestic animlas as it is not a good description of tree, earth, water dwelling animals. it also doesnt point to all the micro-organisms or insects.
I don't have a problem with the gist of that sentiment.

its a common argument and been had on this site many times, so no special medals for 'already knowing'. im not sure what you mean about my own idea??
The idea that someone who knows what actions will occur somehow takes away from the will of the persons taking their actions on their own free will.

the trinty!! so you say, do all your fellow christians think the same. so please forgive me if im finding it hard tailor my responses to your specific view of a made up story.
As you wish.

built in the image of god, yet from somewhere adams nature turns to crap and he becomes a sinner. does this mean god has the ability to sin also?
In the image of God, in the sense that he possessed everything necessary to continue in life.
In the image of God, in the sense that only he could take himself out of life.
Without a choice, man is not like God; he is simply a creature without will, pushed and pulled around by instinct and/or need.
'Sin' means to miss the mark.
God (the author of existence) is unable to sin.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]"'The woman/Isha' refers to who 'Eve' was before she became Eve, as renamed by Adam.
She was fundamentally changed as a person from who she was to who she "

is she the same person?

did adam change his name? if not, why?

This doesn't even register as a 'nice try,' I'm afraid.
I've spent more time testing the Bible than you've spent w crap and he becomes a sinner. does this mean god has the ability to sin also?

[/b]Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

(Genesis 1:24-25 NKJV)

I believe we can say that "beast" does not refer to animals domesticated by man, since cattle fall into that category. I think the word translated as "cattle" refers to many kinds of animals that we might not think of as cattle today, such as the buffalo, horse, camel, sheep, goat, and pig. I think the word translated "beast" refers to those large animals that can be a danger to man and not easily domesticated, such as the lion, bear, rhinoceros, alligator, and Gorilla. I think that "everything that creeps on the earth" refers to any land creature that you can not place into these other two categories, like the rat, lizard, toad, snake, snail, and roach.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]is she the same person?

did adam change his name? if not, why?
She had been fundamentally changed, and as acknowledgement of her new position--- without reference to her fallen state--- she was given a new name by Adam (literally, either 'the man' or 'human,' as it is rendered).

The new name had everything to do with The Promise, i.e., 'the l ed.
'Sin' means to miss the mark.
God (the author of existence) is unable to sin.[/b]

i get that she changed. one name before and one name for after, but as ive pointed out we tend to refer to people by the name they come to be known by. how much a person has changed is irrelevant.

her new name might have meaningful nods to her new purpose, but that doesnt mean it was necessary to give her a new name, its merely a symbolic gesture. with this in mind why not give adam a new symbolic name to mark his fall and his new purpose? as for all life coming through her, it also came through him, he provided the sperm and 50% of the dna.

how many years must one have to be allowed a theological opinion?
btw, im not a spongebob fan. its dirt girl or thomas the tank engine in our house.

my 'rants' are generally not really concerned with scriptural accuracy (ive learned over time that there is always somebody with 'understanding' of the bible sat ready to point out the errors) there purpose is to look at the absurdity and vagueness of the bible, especially the old testament. my tongue is usually firmly in my cheek.


you can go to the original languages it doesnt seem to carry much weight with the majority of christians on here. ive quoted some of the hebrew translations on here before and still had christians (mainly the j.w's) argue that their translation is the correct one. it was the use and meaning of the word almah and mary's supposed virginity. so excuse me if a play loose and free with the 'facts' but from an atheists point of view that exactly what most christians are doing.


The idea that someone who knows what actions will occur somehow takes away from the will of the persons taking their actions on their own free will.

i completely disagree. it is impossible to have freewill if you are unable to make any other decision than the one predicted by god. you are always going to do what you do, you have no alternative. if you could rewind time over and over you would always make the same decision.


the description of what god means by 'in the image of god' is this literally what the bible says or is it your interpretation of what it says. or is it not mentioned in the bible and a guess at what you think it must mean?


if your god exists then he has sinned. the countless people he has slaughtered are evidence of this.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i get that she changed. one name before and one name for after, but as ive pointed out we tend to refer to people by the name they come to be known by. how much a person has changed is irrelevant.

her new name might have meaningful nods to her new purpose, but that doesnt mean it was necessary to give her a new name, its merely a symbolic gesture. wi ...[text shortened]... ists then he has sinned. the countless people he has slaughtered are evidence of this.

i get that she changed. one name before and one name for after, but as ive pointed out we tend to refer to people by the name they come to be known by. how much a person has changed is irrelevant.
Again, it may seem irrelevant to you, but there are reasons why she is first called the woman and afterwards the mother of all living.
Significant, relevant reasons.

with this in mind why not give adam a new symbolic name to mark his fall and his new purpose?
His purpose remained the same.

as for all life coming through her, it also came through him, he provided the sperm and 50% of the dna.
See? You already muffed it up!
She became the mother of all living.
All life did not come through her.
"Living" here refers to something other.
Moreover, while it takes a spermatozoon in order to impregnate a woman's ovum, the promised Messiah (the solution to man's created problem) would arise without the help of a man in any way, shape or form.
This is what the Bible means when it says "her seed," i.e., not the man's seed.

how many years must one have to be allowed a theological opinion?
How many years before I can be good at the banjo?
In order to ever be good at the banjo, I must first begin playing it.
You have demonstrated a near-complete lack of understanding of even basic lines of Christian thought--- almost as though you'd never even really picked one up and read it yourself.

my 'rants' are generally not really concerned with scriptural accuracy
You don't say.

there purpose is to look at the absurdity and vagueness of the bible, especially the old testament.
Any fool could open up any book at any random point and find its absurdities based upon the reader's ignorance of context.
How could you possible consider such juvenile antics a triumph?

you can go to the original languages it doesnt seem to carry much weight with the majority of christians on here.
I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself.

so excuse me if a play loose and free with the 'facts' but from an atheists point of view that exactly what most christians are doing.
Which is precisely why strict disciplines are so important when considering the Word of God.
Knowing Chaldean, Hebrew or any of the forms of Greek employed are merely the beginning of study.
One must know ancient history and have a full well-rounded understanding of the societies and cultures involved, too.
Any fool could pick out a word and misconstrue its meaning for their own purposes.
In fact, this is precisely what lends itself as justification for all kinds of cults: they rely on simpletons having no knowledge to combat their little knowledge.

it is impossible to have freewill if you are unable to make any other decision than the one predicted by god.
You misunderstand.
God doesn't predict anything.
He knows everything.
You might (very accurately) predict what might happen in any given situation, but your accuracy will always depend upon someone's will following what you think they might do: human behavior--- while many times very predictable--- still remains a wild card in every situation.
God's accuracy doesn't hinge upon anything so tenuous.
He knew the end from the beginning... because He had already seen it.
This is a tough concept for those of us stuck in a linear time universe.
But God has no such limitations, being outside of time as He is.

the description of what god means by 'in the image of god' is this literally what the bible says or is it your interpretation of what it says. or is it not mentioned in the bible and a guess at what you think it must mean?

"And God said, Let us
make man in our image,
after our likeness"
...
"So God created man in
his [own] image, in the
image of God created he
him; male and female
created he them"
-Genesis 1:26,27

if your god exists then he has sinned. the countless people he has slaughtered are evidence of this.
There is no "if" in the equation: He exists.
Your values are so far off, you are willing to call evil good and good evil.
You might want to rethink that stance.

Just saying.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]i get that she changed. one name before and one name for after, but as ive pointed out we tend to refer to people by the name they come to be known by. how much a person has changed is irrelevant.
Again, it may seem irrelevant to you, but there are reasons why she is first called the woman and afterwards the mother of all living.
Significant, rele ...[text shortened]... nd good evil.
You might want to rethink that stance.

Just saying.[/b]

Again, it may seem irrelevant to you, but there are reasons why she is first called the woman and aft

are any of the reasons anything more than symbolic?

His purpose remained the same.

but he went through a fundamental change, that was a good enough reason for eve or hawwah or khavah or isha or whatever im supposed to call her depending on who im talking to.


"Living" here refers to something other.

what does it refer to?

Any fool could open up any book at any random point and find its absurdities based upon the reader's ignorance of context.
How could you possible consider such juvenile antics a triumph?

juvenal is my favorite satirist any comparisons are more than welcome.


human behavior--- while many times very predictable--- still remains a wild card in every situation.

go left or go right. a human can only chose one. if you had the power to rewind time and let the situation play out again. the human would always make the exact same decision. with out a new factor being added to the equation nothing changes so the outcome is always exactly the same.

linear or non linear time doesnt alter the outcome. the only thing that can alter it is pure random events adding a new factor. in your gods world there is no random factor. god has seen or knows or perfectly predicts, which ever way you want to word it. so there can be no new elements.


image of God

the word image relates to visual perception. its on odd word to select if god wasnt talking about his outward appearance.


There i.s no "if" in the equation: He exists

there is not one shred of proof he exists. that makes it a giant 'if'.

ou are willing to call evil good and good evil.

could you explain what is good about a being able to resolve any situation in anyway they want committing genocide?


i can see how you may want to ignore the obvious. its not like you want to think you have wasted the last 30 or 40 years of your life.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I've spent more time testing the Bible than you've spent watching SpongeBob SquarePants

Leaving aside how you know the leisure time of other posters,
I was intrigued by how one goes about testing the bible.

What is the bible-test?
What other works of literature would pass?
Does it involve crash-test dummies or their spiritual equivalent?
How does one become a tester?
What happens to failed bibles? (Are they sold at discount?)

My mind is full of questions.