Is nature the only true, holy, and worthy God?

[none]

Yeah really, what resources does Jerusalem have?
Some people thought the great salt lake was great I guess, all kind of weird behavioral anomalies with religion.
This isn't rocket science.

 

[ideologyhunter]

If you're in a place with tons of sand, rocks, salty water and spiny plants, you might as well hallucinate.

 

[excreationist]

I believe that I'm probably in a simulation and that it would have been created by an intelligent force. I think the outermost world is completely naturalistic though if we're in a simulation we probably wouldn't have knowledge of the naturalistic outer world's details.

Who is the I you are referring to ?

The being the observer is currently inhabiting - or something like that.

 

[none]

I believe that I'm probably in a simulation and that it would have been created by an intelligent force. I think the outermost world is completely naturalistic though if we're in a simulation we probably wouldn't have knowledge of the naturalistic outer world's details.

Who is the I you are referring to ?

The being the observer is currently inhabiting.

The beyonder being?

 

[excreationist]

The being the observer is currently inhabiting.

The beyonder being?

Well I think it is possible that I am actually a being that has an existence outside of the simulation...
e.g.
Existence of God(s) \ Where Did 'God' Come From? Post #19
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-God-Come-From&p=942187&viewfull=1#post942187

 

[none]

The being the observer is currently inhabiting.

The beyonder being?

Well I think it is possible that I am actually a being that has an existence outside of the simulation...
e.g.
Existence of God(s) \ Where Did 'God' Come From? Post #19
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-God-Come-From&p=942187&viewfull=1#post942187

Ah transcendence, that is what you are lacking.

 

[steve_bank]

Ommmmmmmm....Ommmmmmm

 

[Learner]

The universe is what it is. The term faulty implies that something, in this case the universe, is unable to perform some function for which it was designed. Since there is no evidence that the universe (a) was designed, and (b) that it serves some purpose, it would be inappropriate to describe the universe as faulty.

I will be curious to know if you have been unaware (it seems) of the often 'said' notion by atheists that "if the universe was a design, then it's a "poor design" etc. & etc., i.e. faulty. My response to the intial post of stevebank was in context; to his thought from an engineer/ human perspective when he syays: "All that does speak to me, it says the universe is a violent chaotic existence. From an engineering view anything that designed it or caused it to be has its head up its ass."

Whether the universe design was intentional or not, I merely posted a different opinion.. not a claim.

However, if someone were to assert that the universe was designed to support life, as creationists do, then it would be reasonable to point out that an overwhelmingly vast majority of the the universe is hostile to the existence of life. Which appears to rebut the creationist claim that the universe was designed to support life.

Context is important.

If creationist claim this then you'll have to tell me which ones. Christian creationists do not make claims for other similarly evolved, organic life being out there. That goes against being centre of God's creation.

In fact having evidence for more life out there would be in favour and in line with the concept hypothesis, "there must be many Earth like planets, or other forms of life to be out there," because logically - the universe being so great in size, and solar-sytems so great in number to exist (and thats just from our own galaxy alone) - should therefore I would think, sensibly posit the idea that there'd be ALL types of combinations and various stages for life! What more, if adding and increasing the probabilites many fold from the other galaxies that are similar too? Ufo-ers would be your best allies on this. But... unfortunately, there is no evidence for life out there! We seem to be alone.

In regards to the "rebuttal." If the universe is a design. The universe DOES support life. You are it!

Insignificant to whom? Who came up with this grand scheme that you are talking about?

Since there is no evidence that the universe is sentient, the existence of humans would not appear to be of any significance to the universe. The question is meaningless - it is similar to asking, "what does that rock think about the existence of humans?". The rock cannot think.

If you are asking whether human existence is significant to humans, then the answer would be "DUH!!".

The insignificance was taking from the atheist viewpoint - in the context that the viewpoint is that we are not the centre of the uiverse. In the grand scheme of things - significantly small.

Your second point is that nature appears to be a machine, and I think it is wrong to characterize it that way. The reality we observe is driven by the interaction of matter and energy following apparently simple patterns which we call the laws of nature. Our universe is very young, a mere 13.8 billion years old, and it started from a state of low entropy and very small inhomogeneities that resulted in the existence of matter/energy gradients across spacetime. It is the existence of these gradients that make the universe behave the way it does today, but these gradients will be equalized over time, and in about 10^150 years or so these gradients will cease to exist. And time will cease to exist along with it.

I describe it that way (as have non-religious have too) - because with all those processes throughout space and time or whatever, as you posted above - the universe produces and functions like a 'factory plant and recycling plant.' Currently so far... and from the understanding concluded from scientific observations. The universe keeps doing what it does automatically, producing planets and stars etc...

Just because the universe does something does not mean or even imply that it was designed to do that thing. Here in South Carolina, it rains from time to time. That doesn't mean the weather was designed to produce rain on South Carolina.

Like the above response, there are no claims regarding what the universe does, implies the evidence for intentional design. I gave a different viewpoint in context that the universe behaves systematically and mechanically.

There's no issue again in my view, when it comes to Entropy, as this also agrees with my theistic pov, that the old things (world or universe), will fade away!

Really, the Bible talks about entropy, heat death and degradation of energy/matter gradients over a period of 10^150 years? I must have missed it. Which verse is that again?

Verses plural, because context matters as you say. Death (and degradation) came into the world (multiple verses) from sin - all things living, plants and animals and mankind, eventually dies. Old things, old world will fade away in Revelation. I said it agrees (going in the same direction with entropy) with your post above.

 

[steve_bank]

Not a claim???

Correct me if I am wrong. Christians believe god created everything. An omniscient all knowing all powerful god not restricted by what we call laws of science.

Is god not all powerful? That is a yes no question.

How can the universe as it is not be in accordance with its creator? A traditional Christian response is god has a plan but we can not understand it.

Adjustment of theology to deal with inconvenient questions is called apologetics.

 

[Learner]

Not a claim???

Correct me if I am wrong. Christians believe god created everything. An omniscient all knowing all powerful god not restricted by what we call laws of science.

Is god not all powerful? That is a yes no question.

Ok, I think we have to be a little more defining here in context, when talking about claims. One can easily fall into some language trap or misunderstanding. So IOW - I do not make the claim that astro-physics, astronomical science PROVES creation!!

How can the universe as it is not be in accordance with its creator? A traditional Christian response is god has a plan but we can not understand it.
Adjustment of theology to deal with inconvenient questions is called apologetics.

I gave an answer; doesn't mean its correct of course, but you don't like it. Tough cheese.

 

[steve_bank]

The typical Christian two-step dance around a question.

1. Do you as a Christian believe in a god that created everything?
2. If the answer is yes, then does it not follow that thinks are as god wats?

On this the general response from Christians I have known is yes and yes, without any equivocation or hesitation. Usually I never had to ask, they go out of their way to tell me.

 

[Learner]

The typical Christian two-step dance around a question.

Wrong...

1. Do you as a Christian believe in a god that created everything?
2. If the answer is yes, then does it not follow that thinks are as god wats?

The belief... now thats different. Yes I do believe God created everything. It is an 'automatic' stance when believing in the written Gospels etc...

It is as God wants (I think you asked).

On this the general response from Christians I have known is yes and yes, without any equivocation or hesitation. Usually I never had to ask, they go out of their way to tell me.

No issues for me.

 

[Politesse]

The typical Christian two-step dance around a question.

1. Do you as a Christian believe in a god that created everything?
2. If the answer is yes, then does it not follow that thinks are as god wats?

On this the general response from Christians I have known is yes and yes, without any equivocation or hesitation. Usually I never had to ask, they go out of their way to tell me.

Well, yes. 1 seems as reasonable as anything, presuming the world can be said to be created at all. And 2 seems like very sound reasoning if you accept 1. 'twas the basis of Natural Theology, after all.

 

[steve_bank]

Wrong...



The belief... now thats different. Yes I do believe God created everything. It is an 'automatic' stance when believing in the written Gospels etc...

It is as God wants (I think you asked).

On this the general response from Christians I have known is yes and yes, without any equivocation or hesitation. Usually I never had to ask, they go out of their way to tell me.

No issues for me.

Ok, you are a generic Christian.

So then it follows that the chaos of the universe and physicals events like earthquakes are all part of god's creation? If yiu get hit by lightning it is part of the plan for you?

 

[excreationist]

....So then it follows that the chaos of the universe and physicals events like earthquakes are all part of god's creation? If you get hit by lightning it is part of the plan for you?

Young earth creationists believe that the world was "very good" until the fall/curse - and all animals were herbivores and there were no natural disasters. They see a problem with the belief that there were millions of years of death and suffering and carnivores and natural disasters before the fall....
https://answersingenesis.org/suffering/natural-disasters/

 

[DrZoidberg]

That was the standpoint of the Stoics of old. A frequently disrepected and abandoned religious tradition, in the modern world. But perhaps that is why we're burning our planet to death.

What do you mean disrespected? Stoicism is the trendiest philosophical/religious trend right now. You are writing this at peak stoicism trendiness. What exactly is disrespected about it?

 

[Politesse]

That was the standpoint of the Stoics of old. A frequently disrepected and abandoned religious tradition, in the modern world. But perhaps that is why we're burning our planet to death.

What do you mean disrespected? Stoicism is the trendiest philosophical/religious trend right now. You are writing this at peak stoicism trendiness. What exactly is disrespected about it?

Among... whom?

 

[DrZoidberg]

That was the standpoint of the Stoics of old. A frequently disrepected and abandoned religious tradition, in the modern world. But perhaps that is why we're burning our planet to death.

What do you mean disrespected? Stoicism is the trendiest philosophical/religious trend right now. You are writing this at peak stoicism trendiness. What exactly is disrespected about it?

Among... whom?

Are you living under a rock?

https://medium.com/@writing.ejp/why-stoicism-is-so-darn-popular-right-now-728b6868dd3f

It's so trendy that dumb people quote him out of context in casual conversations to sound smart.

There's a preposterous number of new stoic podcasts being launched all the time. People who have no interest in Stoicism but just want to get some attention for their stupid product are getting in on the action, simply to get some pull from the word Stoicism. That's how we can tell it's a trend.

 

[Politesse]

Among... whom?

Are you living under a rock?

https://medium.com/@writing.ejp/why-stoicism-is-so-darn-popular-right-now-728b6868dd3f

It's so trendy that dumb people quote him out of context in casual conversations to sound smart.

There's a preposterous number of new stoic podcasts being launched all the time. People who have no interest in Stoicism but just want to get some attention for their stupid product are getting in on the action, simply to get some pull from the word Stoicism. That's how we can tell it's a trend.

Yes, I am aware that my man Marcus has been unusually popular of late. But, like, popular among the very tiny sliver of the population that likes to read think pieces over a latte.

And reading think pieces over a latte does not, to me, equate to seriously engaging with a religious tradition.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Among... whom?

Are you living under a rock?

https://medium.com/@writing.ejp/why-stoicism-is-so-darn-popular-right-now-728b6868dd3f

It's so trendy that dumb people quote him out of context in casual conversations to sound smart.

There's a preposterous number of new stoic podcasts being launched all the time. People who have no interest in Stoicism but just want to get some attention for their stupid product are getting in on the action, simply to get some pull from the word Stoicism. That's how we can tell it's a trend.

Yes, I am aware that my man Marcus has been unusually popular of late. But, like, popular among the very tiny sliver of the population that likes to read think pieces over a latte.

And reading think pieces over a latte does not, to me, equate to seriously engaging with a religious tradition.

Deep pondering on theology and philosophy is what the middle class do. Or the intellectually curious among the working class. That will always only be a tiny sliver of society. The unwashed masses just jump on bandwagons, and drop quotes that signal that they're not retarded. That's been true since the dawn of man. So hardly an argument against it being trendy. It's extremely trendy. I don't think it could possibly be more trendy than now.

Ehe... "seriously engaging". Stoicism isn't exactly heavy lifting. It's a philosophical/religious tradition specifically designed for the ignorant masses (ie "popular among the very tiny sliver of the population that likes to read think pieces over a latte"). Any moron can follow the Stoic rituals to great effect. And a lot of people do. Or try to.

I'm not saying it's easy to make a habit of. But understanding the Stoic mindset and following the Stoic path, is easy to understand for anyone.

 

[Politesse]

Yes, I am aware that my man Marcus has been unusually popular of late. But, like, popular among the very tiny sliver of the population that likes to read think pieces over a latte.

And reading think pieces over a latte does not, to me, equate to seriously engaging with a religious tradition.

Deep pondering on theology and philosophy is what the middle class do. Or the intellectually curious among the working class. That will always only be a tiny sliver of society. The unwashed masses just jump on bandwagons, and drop quotes that signal that they're not retarded. That's been true since the dawn of man. So hardly an argument against it being trendy. It's extremely trendy. I don't think it could possibly be more trendy than now.

Ehe... "seriously engaging". Stoicism isn't exactly heavy lifting. It's a philosophical/religious tradition specifically designed for the ignorant masses (ie "popular among the very tiny sliver of the population that likes to read think pieces over a latte"). Any moron can follow the Stoic rituals to great effect. And a lot of people do. Or try to.

I'm not saying it's easy to make a habit of. But understanding the Stoic mindset and following the Stoic path, is easy to understand for anyone.

I didn't say it wasn't trendy. I don't think a philosopher being trendy for a few months is going to do much to change people's general attitudes about or actions toward the balance of Nature, however.

I think your attitude is pretty typical of the usual attitude toward Stoicism from the self-appointed intellectual class, a practiced disdainful sniff at a philosophy they don't really get. And they'll all be back to it by this time next year, if they aren't already. It's definitely true that the persistence of the Meditations is due to their approachability and popularity with average, everyday folk, not so much Very Important Professional Philosophers.

 

[atrib]

I will be curious to know if you have been unaware (it seems) of the often 'said' notion by atheists that "if the universe was a design, then it's a "poor design" etc. & etc., i.e. faulty. My response to the intial post of stevebank was in context; to his thought from an engineer/ human perspective when he syays: "All that does speak to me, it says the universe is a violent chaotic existence. From an engineering view anything that designed it or caused it to be has its head up its ass."

Whether the universe design was intentional or not, I merely posted a different opinion.. not a claim.

What is your opinion? That is not clear. The universe is a violent and chaotic place, and a vast majority of the universe, including a majority of our planet is inhospitable to life. Do you disagree with this statement?

If creationist claim this then you'll have to tell me which ones. Christian creationists do not make claims for other similarly evolved, organic life being out there. That goes against being centre of God's creation.

In fact having evidence for more life out there would be in favour and in line with the concept hypothesis, "there must be many Earth like planets, or other forms of life to be out there," because logically - the universe being so great in size, and solar-sytems so great in number to exist (and thats just from our own galaxy alone) - should therefore I would think, sensibly posit the idea that there'd be ALL types of combinations and various stages for life! What more, if adding and increasing the probabilites many fold from the other galaxies that are similar too? Ufo-ers would be your best allies on this. But... unfortunately, there is no evidence for life out there! We seem to be alone.

In regards to the "rebuttal." If the universe is a design. The universe DOES support life. You are it!

Again, I fail to understand the point you are trying to make. You stated that machines made by humans run down, while the universe does not (?). I rebutted this claim and explained that the universe also runs down.

It is possible or even likely that the universe contains life on other planets. Life exists on Earth for a brief period of time because the conditions on Earth allow life to exist. You have no dispute from me on this point. However, if someone claims that the universe was designed to support life, it would make no sense to design a visible universe that is 93 billion light years across (the part we can see, it is actually larger) and that would live for 10^150 years or more just to allow life to exist on a tiny, tiny, tiny part of it for a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of that time. This would make no sense. So again, what is the pint you are trying to make?

Insignificant to whom? Who came up with this grand scheme that you are talking about?

Since there is no evidence that the universe is sentient, the existence of humans would not appear to be of any significance to the universe. The question is meaningless - it is similar to asking, "what does that rock think about the existence of humans?". The rock cannot think.

If you are asking whether human existence is significant to humans, then the answer would be "DUH!!".

The insignificance was taking from the atheist viewpoint - in the context that the viewpoint is that we are not the centre of the uiverse. In the grand scheme of things - significantly small.

Humans are insignificant on a cosmic scale. The universe is not sentient and cannot think. Do you disagree? So what is your point in talking about the significance of humans?

Your second point is that nature appears to be a machine, and I think it is wrong to characterize it that way. The reality we observe is driven by the interaction of matter and energy following apparently simple patterns which we call the laws of nature. Our universe is very young, a mere 13.8 billion years old, and it started from a state of low entropy and very small inhomogeneities that resulted in the existence of matter/energy gradients across spacetime. It is the existence of these gradients that make the universe behave the way it does today, but these gradients will be equalized over time, and in about 10^150 years or so these gradients will cease to exist. And time will cease to exist along with it.

I describe it that way (as have non-religious have too) - because with all those processes throughout space and time or whatever, as you posted above - the universe produces and functions like a 'factory plant and recycling plant.' Currently so far... and from the understanding concluded from scientific observations. The universe keeps doing what it does automatically, producing planets and stars etc...

Just because the universe does something does not mean or even imply that it was designed to do that thing. Here in South Carolina, it rains from time to time. That doesn't mean the weather was designed to produce rain on South Carolina.

Like the above response, there are no claims regarding what the universe does, implies the evidence for intentional design. I gave a different viewpoint in context that the universe behaves systematically and mechanically.

And? What are we supposed to infer from this observation?

There's no issue again in my view, when it comes to Entropy, as this also agrees with my theistic pov, that the old things (world or universe), will fade away!

Really, the Bible talks about entropy, heat death and degradation of energy/matter gradients over a period of 10^150 years? I must have missed it. Which verse is that again?

Verses plural, because context matters as you say. Death (and degradation) came into the world (multiple verses) from sin - all things living, plants and animals and mankind, eventually dies. Old things, old world will fade away in Revelation. I said it agrees (going in the same direction with entropy) with your post above.

So you are unable to cite the Bible verses that define entropy and the arrow of time. It is a trivial observation that things run down. It doesn't take a great deal of intellect or intuition, or supernatural revelation to figure this out. To quantify it in the form of the Boltzmann's equation is a different matter.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, I am aware that my man Marcus has been unusually popular of late. But, like, popular among the very tiny sliver of the population that likes to read think pieces over a latte.

And reading think pieces over a latte does not, to me, equate to seriously engaging with a religious tradition.

Deep pondering on theology and philosophy is what the middle class do. Or the intellectually curious among the working class. That will always only be a tiny sliver of society. The unwashed masses just jump on bandwagons, and drop quotes that signal that they're not retarded. That's been true since the dawn of man. So hardly an argument against it being trendy. It's extremely trendy. I don't think it could possibly be more trendy than now.

Ehe... "seriously engaging". Stoicism isn't exactly heavy lifting. It's a philosophical/religious tradition specifically designed for the ignorant masses (ie "popular among the very tiny sliver of the population that likes to read think pieces over a latte"). Any moron can follow the Stoic rituals to great effect. And a lot of people do. Or try to.

I'm not saying it's easy to make a habit of. But understanding the Stoic mindset and following the Stoic path, is easy to understand for anyone.

I didn't say it wasn't trendy. I don't think a philosopher being trendy for a few months is going to do much to change people's general attitudes about or actions toward the balance of Nature, however.

I think your attitude is pretty typical of the usual attitude toward Stoicism from the self-appointed intellectual class, a practiced disdainful sniff at a philosophy they don't really get. And they'll all be back to it by this time next year, if they aren't already. It's definitely true that the persistence of the Meditations is due to their approachability and popularity with average, everyday folk, not so much Very Important Professional Philosophers.

I'm not disdainful of Stoicism. I think it's great. I was part of a stoic study group for years.

The key to success in life is healthy habits.

The simplicity of the system and these ease to apply it, and how anyone can get into it step by step is genius.

Saying that any moron can get into it isn't a point against stoicism. It's a point in its favour. It's clever. And you get out what you put in.

That's how it worked for me anyway.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Women come from a rib in your book of ideas

The bible book shows two creation scenarios.

To highlight the rib woman idiocy, one must see Yahweh the way the Jews did. As androgenous.

Christians tend not to like that too Jewish god.

They like the stupid Trinity concept.

Androgyny in a god is ok for our mental/spiritual side, but it is stupid for our reality and physical side.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I believe that I'm probably in a simulation and that it would have been created by an intelligent force. I think the outermost world is completely naturalistic though if we're in a simulation we probably wouldn't have knowledge of the naturalistic outer world's details.

The only problem with a simulation reality, is that the proof of concept for it would be identical to a many simulation over simulation.

The ancients showed that concept with their ---- reality is turtles over turtles or god's over gods, if one accept the matrix ideas.

The ancients rejected these ideas because of fractals that would have our reality just keep repeating itself further down the Mandenbrock set.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Christians apologetics-Gnostic apologetics....six of one half a dozen the other. Jesus freaks always mold the scant lines in the gospels to fit their own views.

If your slate be clean cast the first stone.

The meek shall inherit the Earth.

One of the few clear alleged statements by Jesus is on fornication. He lumped it with murder. Divorce and remarry and you are a fornicator.


How do Gnostic Christians stand on fornication and divorce?


Funny, I don't see 'fuck' said anywhere in the gospels. Where's the universal love dude? Love your neighbor s yourself?

Love must be earned and shared to be true love.

Gnostic Christianity has tied God's righteousness to equality.

The only view I have found on how to treat women, and men follows, but I doubt that either of us would agree with the language for today, even as we are 50% there, given that men are sharing unwed mothers who now man, pardon the pun, 50% of all U.S. households.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/ephip.htm

Do try to be open minded on it.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Not a claim???

Correct me if I am wrong. Christians believe god created everything. An omniscient all knowing all powerful god not restricted by what we call laws of science.

Is god not all powerful? .

Yahweh cannot even father a real child.

He had to settle for a half breed chimera.

Man in reproducing true, is superior to any god who cannot.

Regards
DL

 

[none]

Women come from a rib in your book of ideas

The bible book shows two creation scenarios.

To highlight the rib woman idiocy, one must see Yahweh the way the Jews did. As androgenous.

Christians tend not to like that too Jewish god.

They like the stupid Trinity concept.

Androgyny in a god is ok for our mental/spiritual side, but it is stupid for our reality and physical side.

Regards
DL

Well to see Yahoo's genitals isn't quite the same as a headshot..

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Women come from a rib in your book of ideas

The bible book shows two creation scenarios.

To highlight the rib woman idiocy, one must see Yahweh the way the Jews did. As androgenous.

Christians tend not to like that too Jewish god.

They like the stupid Trinity concept.

Androgyny in a god is ok for our mental/spiritual side, but it is stupid for our reality and physical side.

Regards
DL

Well to see Yahoo's genitals isn't quite the same as a headshot..

My English is not that bad, but this Frenchman has no idea what you said.

Just do not dare name Yahoo above Yahweh for anything. That would be breaking the first of the vile commandment.

Regards
DL

 

[steve_bank]

Wow. A whole new topic for theology, does god have a penis and how big is it?

 

[excreationist]

I believe that I'm probably in a simulation and that it would have been created by an intelligent force. I think the outermost world is completely naturalistic though if we're in a simulation we probably wouldn't have knowledge of the naturalistic outer world's details.

The only problem with a simulation reality, is that the proof of concept for it would be identical to a many simulation over simulation.

The ancients showed that concept with their ---- reality is turtles over turtles or god's over gods, if one accept the matrix ideas.

The ancients rejected these ideas because of fractals that would have our reality just keep repeating itself further down the Mandenbrock set.

Regards
DL

From Where Did 'God' Come From? (post #20)

I think each simulation would have less information than its outside world.... and each outer world would have more information than the simulation... so I don't believe that there could be an infinite number of levels....
​

So I think at most it would involve a limited number of turtles/fractal-like repetition

 

[DrZoidberg]

Women come from a rib in your book of ideas

The bible book shows two creation scenarios.

To highlight the rib woman idiocy, one must see Yahweh the way the Jews did. As androgenous.

Christians tend not to like that too Jewish god.

They like the stupid Trinity concept.

Androgyny in a god is ok for our mental/spiritual side, but it is stupid for our reality and physical side.

Regards
DL

If I remember my Galen correctly back then they believed in only one human gender. A high quality human = man and a low quality human = woman. Female characteristics would appear if the foetus lacked "vital energy" and other esoteric terms. They believed some really whacky things. They believed humans were androgynous. So it follows that they believed God was androgynous as well. Since we were created in God's image.

https://journals.openedition.org/cliowgh/339

That's why we say things like "the age of man". It's an ancient heritag

Ie. "Man" was back then the term for all of humanity. Women were also men. Just a lesser version. The writers of the Bible would have assumed this to be true, and thus is the theory of gender we will find in the Bible. Christianity was progressive in the sense that a woman could be "upgraded" in status if she remained a virgin her entire life. Isn't that nice? (yes, this is sarcasm)

 

[steve_bank]

God creates Adam with a penis.
God gives Adam a woman because he is lonely.
Eve seduces Adam to defy god.
God punishes Adam and Eve and all human descendants.


Conclusion, god is an insane screwball. A Trump like persona given to rants and punishing others for his failures.