It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: SachaX
Just a simple question I've had for a long time. Jacob had to wear fur in order to fool Isaac because Esau was extremely hairy.
So how hairy was Esau -- say hairy enough to be perhaps he might have been the missing link between primate and man?
I'm not saying he was or wasn't the missing link, I just thought that if was THAT hairy there is something strange going on. And that maybe this would be a fun topic for evolutionists to think about.
Thoughts.
originally posted by: SachaX
Just a simple question I've had for a long time. Jacob had to wear fur in order to fool Isaac because Esau was extremely hairy.
So how hairy was Esau -- say hairy enough to be perhaps he might have been the missing link between primate and man?
I'm not saying he was or wasn't the missing link, I just thought that if was THAT hairy there is something strange going on. And that maybe this would be a fun topic for evolutionists to think about.
Thoughts.
originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: SachaX
This is yet another biblical story that simply smacks of deceitful behaviour that is made pious. For a mother to substitute someone else who is not due to inherit is actually vile and sly, hardly god-fearing traits, just manipulative ones.
It astounds me, having actually read the bible from cover to cover how people can consider this book holy - most people have never read it, just accepted it as told to by some superior.
A read through would shock decent minded folk were they not so lazy about their reading material and religious beliefs.
Also a read though literature excluded from the bible, from that time + the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls (what the catholic church didn't destroy) plus the Babylonian mythology should astound most who consider the biblical word of God the ultimate.
People blindly place their 'faith' in something most have never researched - a strange thing to do because there is so much more information available out there today. Importantly, some of it is uncensored by vested interested parties whose motive has always been their own survival and obtaining money from people they are exploiting, especially the poor.
originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: SachaX
This is yet another biblical story that simply smacks of deceitful behaviour that is made pious. For a mother to substitute someone else who is not due to inherit is actually vile and sly, hardly god-fearing traits, just manipulative ones.
It astounds me, having actually read the bible from cover to cover how people can consider this book holy - most people have never read it, just accepted it as told to by some superior.
A read through would shock decent minded folk were they not so lazy about their reading material and religious beliefs.
Also a read though literature excluded from the bible, from that time + the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls (what the catholic church didn't destroy) plus the Babylonian mythology should astound most who consider the biblical word of God the ultimate.
People blindly place their 'faith' in something most have never researched - a strange thing to do because there is so much more information available out there today. Importantly, some of it is uncensored by vested interested parties whose motive has always been their own survival and obtaining money from people they are exploiting, especially the poor.
originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: SachaX
This is yet another biblical story that simply smacks of deceitful behaviour that is made pious. For a mother to substitute someone else who is not due to inherit is actually vile and sly, hardly god-fearing traits, just manipulative ones.
It astounds me, having actually read the bible from cover to cover how people can consider this book holy - most people have never read it, just accepted it as told to by some superior.
A read through would shock decent minded folk were they not so lazy about their reading material and religious beliefs.
Also a read though literature excluded from the bible, from that time + the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls (what the catholic church didn't destroy) plus the Babylonian mythology should astound most who consider the biblical word of God the ultimate.
People blindly place their 'faith' in something most have never researched - a strange thing to do because there is so much more information available out there today. Importantly, some of it is uncensored by vested interested parties whose motive has always been their own survival and obtaining money from people they are exploiting, especially the poor.
originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: chr0naut
So are you saying we are all supposed to worship a religion where one group of people can do whatever they like against their own God's 10 commandments and they get forgiven even for murder etc, but the rest of us all have to abide by biblical law and - take it seriously?
Religion is supposedly the guardian of human morals - or so its sold on that assumption. But clearly not for all.
Its a dangerous idea to think that anything you care to do can be forgiven, it also robs you of your humanity towards others - something else that we are supposed to have learn't from the bible.
Reading through it, especially the parts which one never hears referred to in church etc or elsewhere, I gained a very different perspective on its content which actually shocked me and made me rethink exactly what the moral of God's forgiveness means. Rehabilitation perhaps you could explain that?