Did Adam and Eve and animals have genitals before the fall?

[Mark La Buda]

Is this really-really something you
wonder about??

I do not wonder about this at all. My post was in response to an other post.

 

[Mark La Buda]

Humans have been humans and reproduced naturally for 300,000 years or more as well as our primate ancestors and all evolving life, animals, plants and microbes reproducing very well for at least 3.7 billion years of evolved live.


Warnings such as this are of no consequence. In this mythical version God Created Adam and Eve as fallible humans destined to fail.

It is like putting cany bars on the coffee table in front of the TV, and warning the children of severe consequences of eating them,


It has been objectively determined that humans are directly influenced by instincts. Yes, humans may have a degree of Free Will, but you like many others that advocate Libertarian Free Will neglect the many obvious limitations on humans ability to make choices.Ibstinct are one of these natural limitations.

1. "...humans and reproduced naturally for 300,000 years...our primate ancestors...." I do not understand how this statement applied to the original post. Regardless, I do nor believe that humans have been on earth the lenght of time you posted; and, furthermore, your reference to "evolution" is a theory that cannot withstand scrutiny.

2. ...mythical version God Created...." This means that you do not accepted the "creation account," Is there other scriptures that you are challenging?

3. ...putting cany [sic] bars on the coffee table...." I agree when sinful humans are tested. Considering that "Adam" is mythical-as you stated; nevertheless, Adam was not sinful at the time of this warning.

4. "...humans are directly influenced by instincts. Does this mean that you equate humans with the lower species of animals?

5. "...you like many others that advocate Libertarian Free Will neglect...." I surrender on this point. I have not conception of what yoou are talking about. If it is political, how do you justify politics with a theocratic discussion? Yes a "Theocracy" is a form of government.

 

[Kenny]

Before Sin, there was no death. If Adam and Eve and the animals had genitals, it would only a matter of time before reproduction would cause Earth to became over populated had nobody sinned. Am I missing something here?

Probably would have populated 4 to 5 other planets of the innumerable planets out there.

 

[Audie]

1. "...humans and reproduced naturally for 300,000 years...our primate ancestors...." I do not understand how this statement applied to the original post. Regardless, I do nor believe that humans have been on earth the lenght of time you posted; and, furthermore, your reference to "evolution" is a theory that cannot withstand scrutiny.

2. ...mythical version God Created...." This means that you do not accepted the "creation account," Is there other scriptures that you are challenging?

3. ...putting cany [sic] bars on the coffee table...." I agree when sinful humans are tested. Considering that "Adam" is mythical-as you stated; nevertheless, Adam was not sinful at the time of this warning.

4. "...humans are directly influenced by instincts. Does this mean that you equate humans with the lower species of animals?

5. "...you like many others that advocate Libertarian Free Will neglect...." I surrender on this point. I have not conception of what yoou are talking about. If it is political, how do you justify politics with a theocratic discussion? Yes a "Theocracy" is a form of government.

Theory of evolution has withstood scrutiny from all
quarters for many decades.
What does not withstand scrutiny is the credibility of
someone who thinks they can casually dismiss it as nonsense.
And in the process you discredit all your beliefs that
depend in ToE being false.

 

[shunyadragon]

1. "...humans and reproduced naturally for 300,000 years...our primate ancestors...." I do not understand how this statement applied to the original post. Regardless, I do nor believe that humans have been on earth the lenght of time you posted; and, furthermore, your reference to "evolution" is a theory that cannot withstand scrutiny.

It has been well documented that humans (homo sapiens) have been around qt least 300,000 years in several locations from Morroco to Palestine,
You apparently reject the vast evidence of the sciences of evolution, which would entail the matter of fact your rejection of ALLL the sciences of Biology, Geology, Genetics, Physics, Chemistry that overwhelmingly support the sciences of evolution as well as every major academic institution of the world, and 95%+ of all the scientists in those fields regardless of religious beliefs.

2. ...mythical version God Created...." This means that you do not accepted the "creation account," Is there other scriptures that you are challenging?

Well , . . ah yes. The Pentateuch has been documented to be compiled after 600 BCE, and is not an accurate historical or scientific factual texts, There is absolutely no evidence that Creation took place as described, the world flood of Noah, and Exodus as described. The Bible as a whole is without provenance of authorship, first witness accounts, nor historical accuracy. The myths of the Penteteuch are evolved myths dating back to at least Sumerian texts.

3. ...putting cany [sic] bars on the coffee table...." I agree when sinful humans are tested.

Tested for what?!?!? Humans are naturally fallible humans for 300,000 years,

Considering that "Adam" is mythical-as you stated; nevertheless, Adam was not sinful at the time of this warning.

The Creation story is myth and there is not evidence tht humans ever existed in a mythical paradise. None whatsoever,

4. "...humans are directly influenced by instincts. Does this mean that you equate humans with the lower species of animals?

It depends on what you mean equate. ALL life on earth evolved over a period of more than .7 billion years, and humans share common ancestry with all life on earth.

5. "...you like many others that advocate Libertarian Free Will neglect...." I surrender on this point. I have not conception of what yoou are talking about. If it is political, how do you justify politics with a theocratic discussion? Yes a "Theocracy" is a form of government.

Nothing in the sciences of evolution is remotely political or related to any religious belief. Theocratic (?) Your statements reflect an intentional ignorance of science, and clinging to an ancient tribal text without provenance or science.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Before Sin, there was no death. If Adam and Eve and the animals had genitals, it would only a matter of time before reproduction would cause Earth to became over populated had nobody sinned. Am I missing something here?

Before sin , there was no death. It’s an interesting sentence. If you think about it since Adam and eve were the first creation of god then obviously nobody died yet, so in a sense it’s correct.

To claim that because they sinned and that’s why there is dead is a bit far fetched. I mean before god created everything, surely he had the knowledge of everything. So when he created Adam he intended him to eventually die.

 

[shunyadragon]

Before sin , there was no death. It’s an interesting sentence. If you think about it since Adam and eve were the first creation of god then obviously nobody died yet, so in a sense it’s correct.

The Biblical view is that all of life was free of death and suffering not only humans. They would multiply and populate the earth without sin or suffering in a prefect world. This view the underlying mythology of Genesis and the Pentateuch,

To claim that because they sinned and that’s why there is dead is a bit far fetched. I mean before god created everything, surely he had the knowledge of everything. So when he created Adam he intended him to eventually die.

Ancient mythology is indeed far fetched and as far from reality as you can get,

 

[shunyadragon]

1. "...humans and reproduced naturally for 300,000 years...our primate ancestors...." I do not understand how this statement applied to the original post. Regardless, I do nor believe that humans have been on earth the lenght of time you posted; and, furthermore, your reference to "evolution" is a theory that cannot withstand scrutiny.

The problem of failing to withstand scrutiny are the ancient variable creation accounts in ancient cultures without science. What you and others that base their beliefs on ancient tribal scripture without provenance and science have failed to do is provide any objective verifiable evidence for the mythology of the Creation account, Noah's flood outside your belief in the Pentateuch as literal history.

Where is the evidence?

2. ...mythical version God Created...." This means that you do not accepted the "creation account," Is there other scriptures that you are challenging?

True. I am challenging all ancient Creation stories as Myth without science. The consistent objective evidence of the nature and history of life, earth and the universe is been demonstrated by any reasonable doubt.

3. ...putting cany [sic] bars on the coffee table...." I agree when sinful humans are tested. Considering that "Adam" is mythical-as you stated; nevertheless, Adam was not sinful at the time of this warning.

The whole narrative is mythical beyond rational belief, The evidence is overwhelmingly objective with physical evidence of homo sapiens all across Africa and in the Levant for over 300,000 years. Some of the oldest evidence was discovered in Palestine.

We have direct objective evidence of death, suffering and disease in the fossil evidence throughout the 300,000 years of humn history.

By the way what is your back ground in science to make the outrageous assertion you ar making rejecting science.

I have not seen any objective verifiable evidence on the contrary in anything you have posted.

4. "...humans are directly influenced by instincts. Does this mean that you equate humans with the lower species of animals?

Yes by the objective verifiable evidence

5. "...you like many others that advocate Libertarian Free Will neglect...." I surrender on this point. I have not conception of what yoou are talking about. If it is political, how do you justify politics with a theocratic discussion? Yes a "Theocracy" is a form of government.

Nothing here is remotely political by definition, My posts are based on science with references. You have presented nothining refuting the science.

Do you deny that humns have instinctual behavior that influences their Freedom of Choice?

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

The Biblical view is that all of life was free of death and suffering not only humans. They would multiply and populate the earth without sin or suffering in a prefect world. This view the underlying mythology of Genesis and the Pentate

Okay. You know the sentience before sin there was no death. I heard sometime ago that the word shouldn’t be taking literal. Its more like a spiritual death if you get me. This would make more sense then implying that everyone would supposed to be free of death, physical death.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay. You know the sentience before sin there was no death. I heard sometime ago that the word shouldn’t be taking literal. Its more like a spiritual death if you get me. This would make more sense then implying that everyone would supposed to be free of death, physical death.

Of course it applies to spiritual death, since sin leads to spiritual death.
Human bodies are mortal so all people die physically whether they sin or not.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Of course it applies to spiritual death, since sin leads to spiritual death.
Human bodies are mortal so all people die physically whether they sin or not.

Alright and can you describe this spiritual death? I assume you are a Christian?

 

[Trailblazer]

Alright and can you describe this spiritual death? I assume you are a Christian?

No, I am not a Christian, I am a Baha'i, but I believe in Jesus.

To be spiritually dead is to be distant from God. I don't physical distance, I mean cut off from God because one does not know or love God.

When Jesus referred to eternal life, He was not referring to physical life of the body. He was referring a quality of life, loving God and being close to God.

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

The soul (spirit) of man is immortal, so no soul ever actually perishes. As such, ‘perish’ in the verse above is symbolic for being far from God.

“The immortality of the spirit is mentioned in the Holy Books; it is the fundamental basis of the divine religions. Now punishments and rewards are said to be of two kinds: first, the rewards and punishments of this life; second, those of the other world. But the paradise and hell of existence are found in all the worlds of God, whether in this world or in the spiritual heavenly worlds. Gaining these rewards is the gaining of eternal life. That is why Christ said, “Act in such a way that you may find eternal life, and that you may be born of water and the spirit, so that you may enter into the Kingdom.” 2”
Some Answered Questions, p. 223

“Likewise, the rewards of the other world are the eternal life which is clearly mentioned in all the Holy Books, the divine perfections, the eternal bounties and everlasting felicity….The rewards of the other world are peace, the spiritual graces, the various spiritual gifts in the Kingdom of God, the gaining of the desires of the heart and the soul, and the meeting of God in the world of eternity.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 224-225

Those souls who are not close to God are spiritually dead and they do not have eternal life.. They do not have eternal life because they are veiled from God. Nevertheless their soul continues to exist in the spiritual world after their physical body dies. since all souls are immortal.

“In the same way, the souls who are veiled from God, although they exist in this world and in the world after death, are, in comparison with the holy existence of the children of the Kingdom of God, nonexisting and separated from God.” Some Answered Questions, p. 243

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

No, I am not a Christian, I am a Baha'i, but I believe in Jesus.

To be spiritually dead is to be distant from God. I don't physical distance, I mean cut off from God because one does not know or love God.

Okay interesting. So when you sin then you don’t know god or love him?

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay interesting. So when you sin then you don’t know god or love him?

No, that is not necessarily true since we are all sinners yet we are not all separated from God.
In other words, people who know and love God still sin.
Sin is a matter of degree. I would say that the more we sin the further away we are from God since sin separates us from God.

The Baháʼí Faith teaches that sin is disobedience to God and that sinning separates a person from God, so when people break the laws of God that is considered a sin.

“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

No, that is not necessarily true since we are all sinners yet we are not all separated from God.
In other words, people who know and love God still sin.
Sin is a matter of degree. I would say that the more we sin the further away we are from God since sin separates us from God.

Okay thanks for clarifying your position. Just read that you guys also believe in the Quran and some other things that I didn’t know. But yes we also have this concept that the more often you sin and don’t repent would lead away from Allah. In a sense you could say a type of death since a person will eventually reject god.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay thanks for clarifying your position. Just read that you guys also believe in the Quran and some other things that I didn’t know.

No only do Baha'is believe in the Qur'an, we believe it is more authentic than the Bible.

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh
. (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

 

[Balthazzar]

Wasn't that the point of creating life? I mean it began, according to the bible with an empty planet with water, which began the cycles. First life was formed in the water then on to the earth and other mammals, and then man. The evolution of life on earth. Why would it end with mankind? My guess is Eve got pregnant, momma told her it would very likely hurt to birth the child, and that it was time to leave home and get on with raising a family. Up til then, I'd suggest they were living fairly sheltered and easy lives.

Story of my life.............

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings

And which Quran you use?

 

[Balthazzar]

No only do Baha'is believe in the Qur'an, we believe it is more authentic than the Bible.

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh
. (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

The correspondence connection - Validation ... Yeah, I get it. Surety might be misleading, but the commons can't hurt.

 

[Trailblazer]

And which Quran you use?

Do you mean which translation?