Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 2MAR$ who wrote (19661)	1/17/2012 3:39:42 AM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Paradise Found .... Paradise Lost... This sounds quite good and simple Alan Millard has hypothesized that the Garden of Eden does not represent a 'geographical' place, but rather represents 'cultural memory' of "simpler times", when man lived off God's bounty (as "primitive" hunters and gatherers still do) as opposed to toiling at agriculture (being "civilized"). [34] Of course there is much dispute between Judeo-Christian and secular scholars as to the plausibility of this idea - the refuting claim being that cultivation and agricultural work were present both before and after the "Garden Life". The myth of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden has been interpreted psychoanalytically as an archaic form of the Oedipus myth. The Garden of Eden symbolizes the closed parental system which is safe but oppressive and the Tree of Knowledge represents individuation and freedom but also risk, and even death. [35] This interpretation of the Garden of Eden recalls the semantic use of 'to know' as a metaphor for sexual relations elsewhere in the bible. The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius (1st century AD) suggests that the four rivers are the Tigris, Euphrates, Nile, and a river of the Indian subcontinent, either the Indus or the Ganges. Since these four are not even close to flowing together, the topography of the world would have had to have been much different in Josephus' mind - there is no way to specify a location for Eden using these four rivers unless the world looked quite different than it does today. According to Jewish eschatology, [38] [39] the "higher Gan Eden" is called the "Garden of Righteousness". It has been created since the beginning of the world, and will appear gloriously at the end of time. The righteous dwelling there will enjoy the sight of the heavenly Chayot carrying the throne of God. Each of the righteous will walk with God, who will lead them in a dance. Its Jewish and non-Jewish inhabitants are "clothed with garments of light and eternal life, and eat of the tree of life" (Enoch 58,3) near to God and His anointed ones. [37] This Jewish rabbinical concept of a "higher Gan Eden" is opposed by the Hebrew terms Gehinnom [40] and Sheol, figurative names for the place of spiritual purification for the wicked dead in Judaism, a place envisioned as being at the greatest possible distance from "heaven". [41] For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the Mormons or Latter Day Saints), the Garden of Eden is believed to have been located in present-day Jackson County, Missouri. [26] According to Mormon theology, Independence, Missouri, was revealed to be the "center place" of Zion and the original dwelling place of Adam and Eve in the Garden which God planted "eastward in Eden". [27] [28] Mormons believe that Adam and Eve traveled 85 miles north to the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman after they had transgressed and were driven from the Garden. [29] (Adam-ondi-Ahman is sometimes mistakenly associated with the location of the garden itself). As for its location in the western hemisphere, some Latter-day Saints have presumed the continents were not yet separate before the Great Flood [30] and that this approach would be consistent with the configuration of the super-continent Pangaea. [31] en.wikipedia.org

To: 2MAR$ who wrote (19661)	1/17/2012 9:45:04 AM
From: Greg or e	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 69300

Nothing in your post responds to my point that the multiple universe theory doesn't have a shred of empirical evidence. On top of that it's philosophically naive. All it does is move that question of origins back. The bible makes it plain that you and I are "without excuse" when it comes to knowing that God created the universe (A big bang needs a big banger if you will) And that you and I are morally responsible to Him. All your moralizing and appeals to cause and effect do is prove that there is a Creator and a moral Lawgiver.