Valorius wrote:I didn’t mean a Messiah to show us the Way back to the Old Testament, but to that ideal that preceded the Old Testament. When God first “breathed life” into the first human(s), what was He thinking!? He must have had some way to give Adam and Eve clues as to what they were supposed to do. They “fell”. That’s obvious. Something wrong has inflicted human society since forever. So Jesus wanted to “go back” and “undo” that original failure. Jesus could be a second Adam if he could fix Adam’s mistake, do what Adam was supposed to do, not repeat the act that infected humanity with ‘sin’ (a predisposition to selfishness at the cost of others’ welfare). Jesus was willing to sacrifice his own welfare for 'otherishness'. In that sense, his mission was a success; he became "Second Adam".
Let’s begin with what JAK did NOT say in another post of Valorious'.
JAK did not say:
<JAK wrote:
>>"And the earth won't be broken up by meteors or anything.
>>And the stars won't literally fall from out of the sky,
>>because there's no place for them to "fall" to!
What JAK said was a response to that, which read:
How do you know that?
The claim/assertion made
was questioned by JAK.
You appear to be indoctrinated by
God claims which you did not originate but accept despite the fact that evidence does not support the assertions.
Valorius stated:
I didn’t mean a Messiah to show us the Way back to the Old Testament, but to that ideal that preceded the Old Testament. When God first “breathed life” into the first human(s), what was He thinking!? He must have had some way to give Adam and Eve clues as to what they were supposed to do. They “fell”. That’s obvious.
In the statement, you
assume God, underlined above. You also reveal your indoctrination into
Christian creationism. No evidence has been presented which establishes
God. The claimed entity came out of superstition turned into myth. We can trace this historically. However, it's not done within the narrow, self-contradictory
God boxes of religious myths.
Just as there never was an instant
English language, there never was a singular “Adam” or a singular “Eve.” (Science) Your comment is Christian mythology and it’s unsupported by present-day knowledge regarding the evolution of living organisms on the earth. While religious myth may have been an attempt
to explain, we know today that those ancient notions were ignorant of facts. In short, they were wrong.
Religion (which assumes
God) presents no evidence for the assumption. In that assumption not only do religions disagree on an invention of
God, a single religion,
Christianity, has well-fractured notions of imagined
entity. There is no difficulty in documenting that or documenting the evolution of religious notions about
gods and the reduction of
gods to a singular
God with its various versions.
Valorious’ assertion regarding “that ideal that
prededed the Old Testament” is speculation absent any presentation of evidence.
The evolution of Human Species followed different stages beginning with the Australopethicus and continuing with homo habilis, homo erectus and homo sapiens. The last stages include those people who lived thousands of years ago in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic Age and are the immediate ancestors of modern man. The discovery of the evolution of man is attributed to two scientists of the 19th century: Sir Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin.
The first and one of the strongest supporters of Darwin's theory was Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895). A British anatomist and physical anthropologist, Huxley became the foremost advocate of the Darwinian theory and he was often called 'Darwin's bulldog'. In his book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature (1863) offered proof for Darwin's thesis of natural selection. He was Professor of the Royal College of Surgeons and President of the Royal Society.
The first humans documented on this website and others
evolved from previous life forms (as modern English evolved from earlier languages).
Valorious’ assertion that the Bible is a valid source for the emergence of the human race has been well documented to be
false.
There was
no “Adam” as Christianity widely claims.
[url]The first human creations[/url] were discovered by accident in 1940 as documented here. And if you advance to the next page in these references, you learn something of the early human civilization.
[url]National Geograph[/url] has discussion and analysis regarding
early humans at the above link. As you can see in this article, while archaeologists have some reservations about the data on early humans, responsible science lends no credibility to biblical mythology.
Biblical mythology was speculation. Those who accept it as fact generally demonstrate their own indoctrination from the narrow perspective of some
Christian denomination, sect, or cult.
In the above Valorius quote, he makes multiple assumptions which modern scientific research would evidence to be wrong.
Valorius stated:
Something wrong has inflicted human society since forever. So Jesus wanted to “go back” and “undo” that original failure.
“Failure” Tracking your acceptance of the myth, the only failure was that made by
God. As you appear to accept the creation myth, “Adam” and “Eve” were no more nor less than what
God had created. The fault, then, could not lie with the creation. So what was that “something” that “inflicted…”? From what source did that “something” (Valorious’ claim) come?
Now, Valorious refers to “…has inflicted human society since forever.” Yet, Valorious’ claim is that there were
only “Adam” and “Eve” at the beginning. There was
no “society” at the “creation” of the first single man and the first single woman. As we read modern archeology and from the links I previously provided, we know the biblical mythology was incorrect.
“So Jesus wanted…” assumes that
God made mistakes. Otherwise, why would
Jesus want to “undo that original failure”?
The absurdity of religious mythology is well demonstrated by Valorious’ comments as he speculates and converts his speculation into assumed fact.
Then Valorius stated:
Jesus was willing to sacrifice his own welfare for 'otherishness'. In that sense, his mission was a success; he became "Second Adam".
That’s hardly in any mainstream of Christianity.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (And of course that in itself is an example of human sacrifice demonstrating the uglyness of the
Christian God.)
While few Christian myths interpret that their
God made a mistake, as they accept the doctrine that everything that was made was made
by God, the rational (reasoned) conclusion is that mistakes were made by
God. That entity is the creator of "all."
Nehemiah 9:6 “You alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you.”
Note the word “all.” The fact that humans discovered germs and disease later does not absolve
God of the responsibility for
creation of all.
I’m not advocating here, but challenging any religious myth or interpretation of religious myth as reliable or reasonable. Yet, Valorious clearly not only accepts religious myth, he also applies his own interpretation and regards
his interpretation as reliable analysis.
It’ is not. Since interpretations vary and since the ancient religious scripts are themselves contradictory, pontificating such as is done here by Valorious makes for unreliable claims.
The principles of sound analysis based on the best science we have is superior to any tweaking of interpretations or words from ancient myths.
JAK