I am referring to what some were saying awhile

back ....about man and ape both sharing a common

ancestor....which btw, goes completely against what the bible teaches .


But yes.... ALL mankind came from adam and eve.

Alll came from only ONE Adam and ONE Eve.....

Ah, okay.

I was gonna say...

Yes but...

There is a common ancestor between man and primate.

Depends upon how you look at the equation.

God created many that ran on four.

But only man had two.

So the Primate are not early man.

they are the parts of the human race that devolved for lack of spritual dna way back in the past. (or perhaps it is but slower to react then is ours)

They came from us.

Not us from them.

But.....

God made everything to reproduce only after its own kind.

Only.

since the rib of Adam was used for the egg that would form Eve...then Adam would have been the Mother of Eve and God would have been Eve's Father and it would constitute as being The first Homosexual act with Eve being the Love child of Adam and God

if the faithful believe that everyone are descendents from a common ancestor and therefore the results of inbreeding then it does bring up a lot of questions...it even points to a belief in God as being a genetic defect passed on through inbreeding

..egg that formed..?

Now whose adding context to the bible?

That is becuase the bible is wrong, and is not scientific.

The fact of our common ancestry is illustrated in our shared genes. The ERV's in common need explaining, and having the technology to understand how ERV's genes get inserted into our own explain this.

If someone is to say this is incorrect they need to pose there own theory of how these shared Viral genes exist in both modern primates and ourselves AT THE EXACT SAME PLACE IN THE GENE SEQUENCE.

The fact that we have empirical evidence to show how viral infections can insert these genes, and how they would indeed be in the exact same spot if we shared a common ancestor with apes concludes that the evolutionary principles of shared ancestry is accurate and FULLY supported by ALL of the available evidence.

TLDR: you dont know what you are talking about.

A good video that details what I am talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

the body part that are used to form a human being would constitute as being the egg and the sperm ...some in this thread even claimed that Adam had a womb which generally has access to eggs...some will claim that Rib in Hebrew mean egg or womb or whatever

so for the sake or argument as to what the hell was pulled out of Adam, if it was used to reproduce or form another human it would still constitute as being the Incredible edible egg

That's three different religions rolled into one.

..either way, homo-sex didn't take place.
It doesn't say he took his rib/egg/or otherwise and f****d it.

Tsela, or Sela, is rib in Hebrew, last I checked.

Man was created 'out of thin air', so to speak.
So why must you associate God with f***ing something to create the woman? How does that even make sense?

It is far more logical, despite the misinterpretations given, that it would have been a rib over anything. Why? Because men don't have wombs. Unless they left that part out in sexual education in school.

Adam's rib, anyway you look at it, wasn't used to 'reproduce'; via, the term used to define 'sexual interactions'; because that's just common sense.

Last tid bit..

..if you consider the women's egg.. edible.. that's disturbing.

that's generally how religions work...Christianity would be an example of that



according to believers God is the creator of everything...therefore he created homosexuality....



check with "AdventureBegins" since he was the one that made the claim



according to the bible man was made from God blowing the dirt



again "AdventureBegins" made that claim so take it up with him



thats how God has sex



right...I'm pretty sure you believe that a shark would just eat the woman and not her eggs

Christianity is an interpretation.



No, that's a by-product of humanity gaining its 'free will'.



Adventure is a believer who doesn't 'read' the Bible.
You are arguing that as your premises, which, in itself, makes it invalid.



..exactly not sex.



..again, his claim is unfounded and is his own personal belief.
Therefore, no sense in 'taking it up with him'.



..says you are your humanizing of God.



..since when are humans sharks? o.o

How ridiculous is this defense?

Christianity is a religion



a rose by any other name ....if God is the creator or everything...then he created homosexuality



no..I'm saying since Adventurebegins made the claim, then take the issue up with AdventureBegins and stop busting my chops about it



didn't President Clinton used that defense



since he is the one that made the claim..then take it up with him and not with me and this is why I generally include in the post...(for the sake of argument)



even the bible claimed that God grieved...isn't that humanizing him?



if you believe that only animals eat people...then you're acting ridiculous

Agreed. It's own religion. It's own interpretation.




No, he created man to 'not' have free will. Temptation, lead to betrayal, lead to free-will.
Free will forged the path for homosexuality.

If God wanted homosexuality, he would have just made Adam an Eve and John.

Man created homo-ness.



..and I'm saying, there's no need to.
However, you used his words against the religion as a whole; thus, you brought his claim into it. You want to back out of it, knock yourself out.



..and he wasn't lying.



..uh-huh.
All I did was eliminate that 'argument' for the 'sake' of it being 'part' of something whence it did not 'belong'.



Not to the level you attempt to do.



..Right, because that's what I said.

You brought in sharks to a discussion about me stating that 'you finding the woman's eggs, edible, is disturbing'.

I assume this means you are not only a virgin, but a cannibal as well?

So very intriguing.

that can't be true due to the fact that there many different denomination of Christianity



nothing can exist without God creating it first...and that include evil and homosexuality ....




in the beginning there were Adam and Steve that made Eve...God would be Steve



to claim that man created something that God didn't, would mean that God is not the creator of everything



AdventureBegin claim that in this thread that Adam had a womb...his post is just as valid as yours...




since it's called oral sex...then he was lying .....




so who set the level?...you? ...grief is grief...if the bible claim that God grieved...then they are humanizing him.....hopefully I won't have to listen to you constantly bringing that term up any longer

Christian is Christian.
Lutheran is Lutheran.
Yada yada.


So God created the skyscraper and the automobile?

Right.
Keep going on that one, bro.




Even so, this didn't involve 'sex' no matter what name you wish to refer to him as.



..and he is not.
God didn't build shelters, houses, etc.
Nature, itself, that he built.



Not saying it isn't; however, when you use another's claim against a different person..



..there you go, using one word to its core while others you ignore.
You're like a professional at it.

It's also called a bj.
Or in some businesses..
A promotion.



To be 'sad' isn't a human-based emotion.
Dogs, cats, any other animal can be 'sad'.
Therefore, who's to claim that 'human's' were the first to show 'grief'?

And you'll keep hearing me use the term, so long as you keep doing it.

You word associate too often and out of context.

Not to mention, according to your thinking.
God created grief too did he not?

Therefore, that wouldn't be humanizing anyway.

..just saying.

I can never follow Funches train of thought, I just gave up trying. Sometimes I will be reading and be like, YEA!!! . . then out of nowhere Im like . . . WOAHHH, I'am lost.

..as I.

I just get frustrated by the ridiculing.
I'd even agree with him more..
..but its hard when he takes no stand of his own.

..so whatever.

Nemesis. >:D