Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Spirituality

Spirituality

  1. 16 May '08 07:21
    I got an idea when discussing snakes in the Vatican aliens thread.
    According to genesis, the reason why snakes don't have legs is because the first snake caused all our problems with sin etc.
    So, that means that all snakes are descended from that first snake.
    Considering the vast variety of snakes in the world today including not just many different species but significantly different body patterns and DNA, doesn't that contradict some of the creationists claims about the range of change that is possible via evolution? For example Kelly has claimed that no new organ can evolve, yet different snakes have different organs.
  2. 16 May '08 11:13
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I got an idea when discussing snakes in the Vatican aliens thread.
    According to genesis, the reason why snakes don't have legs is because the first snake caused all our problems with sin etc.
    So, that means that all snakes are descended from that first snake.
    Considering the vast variety of snakes in the world today including not just many different sp ...[text shortened]... le Kelly has claimed that no new organ can evolve, yet different snakes have different organs.
    That's a proof of itself...
    Don't read the bible and believe in it in the same time.
    It's only beduine stories, told at the camp fire.
  3. 16 May '08 13:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I got an idea when discussing snakes in the Vatican aliens thread.
    According to genesis, the reason why snakes don't have legs is because the first snake caused all our problems with sin etc.
    So, that means that all snakes are descended from that first snake.
    Considering the vast variety of snakes in the world today including not just many different sp le Kelly has claimed that no new organ can evolve, yet different snakes have different organs.
    What verse in Genesis refers to the legs of a snake one way or another?

    Do you mean something said about going about on the belly (Gen. 3:14)? Crocodiles also go about on the belly. They have legs.

    You might try just reading what's written there.
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Gonzalo de Córdoba
    16 May '08 14:31
    Originally posted by jaywill
    What verse in Genesis refers to the legs of a snake one way or another?

    Do you mean something said about going about on the belly [b](Gen. 3:14)?
    Crocodiles also go about on the belly. They have legs.

    You might try just reading what's written there.[/b]
    Yes. Snakes are also dust-feeders. Right?
  5. Standard member zozozozo
    Thread Killing Chimp
    16 May '08 14:37
    Originally posted by jaywill
    You might try just reading what's [b]written there.[/b]
    no need to, just a bunch of lame storys, i read better books!
    :p
  6. 16 May '08 15:07
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I got an idea when discussing snakes in the Vatican aliens thread.
    According to genesis, the reason why snakes don't have legs is because the first snake caused all our problems with sin etc.
    So, that means that all snakes are descended from that first snake.
    Considering the vast variety of snakes in the world today including not just many different sp ...[text shortened]... le Kelly has claimed that no new organ can evolve, yet different snakes have different organs.
    You're point is logical and faith is the belief of something without being able to prove it logically. But, I'll give this a try. Your third sentence is not claimed by any Bible verse. The snake in Eden was really Satan, so tyhe actual animal and what its descendants looked like are debatable. Also, since God is omnipotent and can make a amn out of dust and sons of Abraham out of stones, it'd be a piece of cake for him to evolve some snakes with venom, others to be constrictors, etc.
  7. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    17 May '08 01:12
    Originally posted by jaywill
    What verse in Genesis refers to the legs of a snake one way or another?

    Do you mean something said about going about on the belly [b](Gen. 3:14)?
    Crocodiles also go about on the belly. They have legs.

    You might try just reading what's written there.[/b]
    The passage says that for his transgressions the serpent was cursed and would therefore go about upon his belly. The obvious implication is that the serpent formerly did NOT go about upon his belly and therefore most likely had legs. Either that or he had wings (or some other means of locomotion which did not involve bellies) which he subsequently was deprived of. A crocodile (having legs) clearly does not go about upon his belly.
  8. 17 May '08 01:32
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I got an idea when discussing snakes in the Vatican aliens thread.
    According to genesis, the reason why snakes don't have legs is because the first snake caused all our problems with sin etc.
    So, that means that all snakes are descended from that first snake.
    Considering the vast variety of snakes in the world today including not just many different sp ...[text shortened]... le Kelly has claimed that no new organ can evolve, yet different snakes have different organs.
    Where in Genesis does it say snakes ever had legs?

    Ge 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

    I've heard it said that the snake was able to move through the air before God cursed it to crawl on its belly.
  9. 17 May '08 01:36
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I got an idea when discussing snakes in the Vatican aliens thread.
    According to genesis, the reason why snakes don't have legs is because the first snake caused all our problems with sin etc.
    So, that means that all snakes are descended from that first snake.
    Considering the vast variety of snakes in the world today including not just many different sp ...[text shortened]... le Kelly has claimed that no new organ can evolve, yet different snakes have different organs.
    I expect most Christians accept the validity of evolution and interpret Genesis as an allegory.
  10. Standard member scottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    17 May '08 01:45
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    ... faith is the belief of something without being able to prove it logically.
    So is paranoia.
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Gonzalo de Córdoba
    17 May '08 01:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    I expect most Christians accept the validity of evolution and interpret Genesis as an allegory.
    I expect Christians to do a wide variety of idiotic things. Deny evolution. Pick and choose from the Bible. Not bother to read the Bible and so not be aware of inconsistencies. Crusade against the Muslims. Hang out in all-Christian gatherings discussing tea and praising the Lord every few minutes while avoiding any sort of dissent. Accept all religions as different paths to the same end, thus avoiding being responsible to any one religion's drawbacks or restrictions. Etc.

    Then there are the Christians who lose their faith and find reality.
  12. 17 May '08 02:21
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I expect Christians to do a wide variety of idiotic things. Deny evolution. Pick and choose from the Bible. Not bother to read the Bible and so not be aware of inconsistencies. Crusade against the Muslims. Hang out in all-Christian gatherings discussing tea and praising the Lord every few minutes while avoiding any sort of dissent. Accept all re ...[text shortened]... or restrictions. Etc.

    Then there are the Christians who lose their faith and find reality.
    Very good. You have recognised that Christians vary in their beliefs.

    But it is still the case that mainstream Christian churches regard Genesis as allegorical.
  13. Standard member scottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    17 May '08 02:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    Very good. You have recognised that Christians vary in their beliefs.

    But it is still the case that mainstream Christian churches regard Genesis as allegorical.
    Do any of them yet accept that Jesus rising from the dead is allegorical too? Or the walking on water, wine into water or feeding the 5000?
  14. 17 May '08 03:23
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Do any of them yet accept that Jesus rising from the dead is allegorical too? Or the walking on water, wine into water or feeding the 5000?
    I assume that a minority does. So what?
  15. Standard member scottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    17 May '08 03:38
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    I assume that a minority does. So what?
    Well, if parts of the bible can be allegorical, it can ALL be allegorical. Then nothing differentiates it from a simple lie.