Announcement

Collapse

Anthropology 201 Guidelines

Anthropology is the study of groups of people, their beliefs, practices, values, ideas, technologies, languages, economies and more.

All are welcome to post in this section, even Geico Cavemen.

A couple of caveats-- (1) racism has no place in this forum, and (2) please show a little discretion. In other words, if an attachment violates policy on the rest of TWEB, it violates policy in this forum as well, even if it depicts a highly interesting and unique aspect of some obscure culture. Keep it reasonably clean, folks.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ancient Humans Bred with Completely Unknown Species

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    The sons of god manipulated female organs to be compatible with what exactly? Spiritual sperm?
    I know you'll probably try and lead me down a redundant rabbit trail with questions I obviously can't answer because of your obsession with this subject, but I probably won't respond after this. You're confusing what "spirit" means. "Spirit" doesn't mean non-material. It's merely used to separate the physical realms. It's related to the controversy in 1 Cor 15. Paul's use of "spiritual" didn't mean non-physical or non-material. He was using the word to distinguish natural from supernatural. It's very evident from scripture that the resurrected body of Christ was physical as are the angels, immortal but physical, and can interact with the natural world like humans can, though what exactly constitutes the exact substance they're made of is a supernatural mystery. Because they're physical, we can assume they may even have DNA in their physical makeup.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by seanD View Post
      I know you'll probably try and lead me down a redundant rabbit trail with questions I obviously can't answer because of your obsession with this subject, but I probably won't respond after this.
      I'm not obsessed with this subject, but I do find your belief that demons cavorted with human beings interesting.

      Originally posted by seanD View Post
      You're confusing what "spirit" means. "Spirit" doesn't mean non-material. It's merely used to separate the physical realms. It's related to the controversy in 1 Cor 15. Paul's use of "spiritual" didn't mean non-physical or non-material. He was using the word to distinguish natural from supernatural.
      Okay.

      Originally posted by seanD View Post
      It's very evident from scripture that the resurrected body of Christ was physical as are the angels, immortal but physical, and can interact with the natural world like humans can, though what exactly constitutes the exact substance they're made of is a supernatural mystery. Because they're physical, we can assume they may even have DNA in their physical makeup.
      I'm not arguing that demons can't be flesh. I'm just puzzled by your belief God created horny angels. Think about that. The transformation of an angel with no sexual organs into a mammal with evolved reproductive apparatus is huge.

      I understand Jesus morphing into a primate. There's deep and painful justification for that transformation, the Bible says. What I don't understand is why that was relatively common. Conveniently, all those shenanigans stopped relatively recently in the history of the planet, which is why we don't see such activity today.

      If you're gonna believe something that bizarre, you may as well accept the true news that God made you a primate. There's actually evidence for that, which is exciting.

      Comment


      • #33
        I'm not arguing that demons can't be flesh. I'm just puzzled by your belief God created horny angels. Think about that. The transformation of an angel with no sexual organs into a mammal with evolved reproductive apparatus is huge.
        I am not sure why you think they have to have been made horny by God. Are we made horny or do we become horny? But regardless, no one said anything about the angels being horny except you. This very well could have been genetic warfare on their part to disrupt Gods plan for humanity.

        A dimensional being mimicking the biology of a human would not be that difficult to do. No more than a seahorse changing it's sex.
        Last edited by Jesse; 08-15-2014, 11:19 PM.
        "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

        Comment


        • #34
          I love this forum. We're now talking about angel libidos.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Manwë Súlimo View Post
            I love this forum. We're now talking about angel libidos.
            Isn't it awesome? Angels acting like furry-chested guidos.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Jesse View Post
              I am not sure why you think they have to have been made horny by God. Are we made horny or do we become horny?
              Ask that about any biological drive. Are we made hungry or do we become hungry?


              Originally posted by Jesse View Post
              But regardless, no one said anything about the angels being horny except you. This very well could have been genetic warfare on their part to disrupt Gods plan for humanity.
              That's absurd. They were in the ineffable presence of God, so they couldn't have thought that would work. You're arguing that God created very stupid beings with extraordinary power.

              Originally posted by Jesse View Post
              A dimensional being mimicking the biology of a human would not be that difficult to do. No more than a seahorse changing it's sex.
              If incarnation is such a doddle, then why aren't they doing that now?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by whag View Post
                Ask that about any biological drive. Are we made hungry or do we become hungry?




                That's absurd. They were in the ineffable presence of God, so they couldn't have thought that would work. You're arguing that God created very stupid beings with extraordinary power.



                If incarnation is such a doddle, then why aren't they doing that now?
                So why isn't your question "why would God make horny creatures at all"?

                Well the angels did rebel against a God they had known since before time. Would you not consider that stupid? It's called freewill.

                How would I know why it isn't being done now? Or even if it isn't? I am not sure why you think a humans biological/sexual structure is so complicated that it can't be reproduced. WE are close to being able to do now that. How much harder would it be for a much more intelligent dimensional being?
                Last edited by Jesse; 08-16-2014, 08:49 PM.
                "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                  So why isn't your question "why would God make horny creatures at all"?
                  Because a libinous shrew isn't anything approaching an angel with god-like powers, for one.

                  Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                  the angels did rebel against a God they had known since before time. Would you not consider that stupid? It's called freewill.
                  It's deeper than stupid. It would be profoundly delusional to mount a usurpation of authority with that knowledge. That's actually one reason I reject Islamic and Judaic explanations for the origin of moral and natural evil.

                  Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                  How would I know why it isn't being done now? Or even if it isn't? I am not sure why you think a humans biological/sexual structure is so complicated that it can't be reproduced. WE are close to being able to do now that. How much harder would it be for a much more intelligent dimensional being?
                  If they could do that, one wonders why mere possession tickles their fancy.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by whag View Post
                    Because a libinous shrew isn't anything approaching an angel with god-like powers, for one.



                    It's deeper than stupid. It would be profoundly delusional to mount a usurpation of authority with that knowledge. That's actually one reason I reject Islamic and Judaic explanations for the origin of moral and natural evil.



                    If they could do that, one wonders why mere possession tickles their fancy.
                    The Bible tells us that we were made a little lower than the angels. They are hardly God-like.

                    We as humans are just as stupid with our choices. But again, it's freewill. And freewill makes us do some pretty dumb things. Should be no different for angels. I am not sure why we are still having this discussion if you don't believe any of this to begin with. It's like I am ramming my head against a brick wall.

                    You are getting angels mixed up with demons. Demons are disembodied spirits. These angels did not become that. They were punished differently for these acts.
                    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                      The Bible tells us that we were made a little lower than the angels. They are hardly God-like.
                      If angels can take any biological form they want, that is god-like.

                      Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                      We as humans are just as stupid with our choices. But again, it's freewill. And freewill makes us do some pretty dumb things.
                      If freewill "makes" you do dumb things, it isn't free.


                      Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                      Should be no different for angels. I am not sure why we are still having this discussion if you don't believe any of this to begin with. It's like I am ramming my head against a brick wall.
                      The heavenly environment is entirely different than the earthly environment. Angels were in the ineffable presence of God. Hence, they had to know any plan to usurp His power would be like a kitten taking on a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

                      Human beings, however, developed in a more ambiguous way, with God not being nearly as evident. There's a huge dissimilarity.


                      Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                      You are getting angels mixed up with demons. Demons are disembodied spirits. These angels did not become that. They were punished differently for these acts.
                      That's some punishment allowing them to morph into human beings, have sex with fair women, and procreate.

                      RC Sproul has a more naturalistic, sensible interpretation of that passage.

                      http://www.ligonier.org/blog/who-are...men-genesis-6/

                      Your interpretation is fantastic, implying the earth is overrun by children who are the seed of bad angels.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Your interpretation is fantastic, implying the earth is overrun by children who are the seed of bad angels.
                        There is of course no implication of such a thing if you understand genetics. You seem to think there are super human alien hybrids running around. But I won't stop you from believing that.

                        If you had read anything about what ancient Israelites believed and taught about Genesis 6, you would know R.C. Sproul's interpretation is incorrect.
                        Last edited by Jesse; 08-17-2014, 09:16 PM.
                        "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          The sons of Seth theory has been debunked many times over. Not only is it full of holes, but as Jesse pointed out, it was never the original interpretation. The funny thing is that the inerrant Christians who accept the theory of the sons of Seth are in a dilemma with the epistle of Jude.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by seanD View Post
                            The sons of Seth theory has been debunked many times over. Not only is it full of holes, but as Jesse pointed out, it was never the original interpretation. The funny thing is that the inerrant Christians who accept the theory of the sons of Seth are in a dilemma with the epistle of Jude.
                            You must be under the impression that the original interpretations of scripture are always the only interpretations. If the ancient Israelites really knew what was happening here, there wouldn't be so much ambiguity and room for interpretation in the text.

                            The funny part is actually wide disparity in biases believers hold and why they hold them. Why is it particularly important, the powers that angels have? Why does Sproul not want demons (he calls them demons) to be able to have sex with and procreate with women?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                              Source: Ancient Humans Bred with Completely Unknown Species


                              A new study presented to the Royal Society meeting on ancient DNA in London last week has revealed a dramatic finding – the genome of one of our ancient ancestors, the Denisovans, contains a segment of DNA that seems to have come from another species that is currently unknown to science. The discovery suggests that there was rampant interbreeding between ancient human species in Europe and Asia more than 30,000 years ago. But, far more significant was the finding that they also mated with a mystery species from Asia – one that is neither human nor Neanderthal.

                              Scientists launched into a flurry of discussion and debate upon hearing the study results and immediately began speculating about what this unknown species could be. Some have suggested that a group may have branched off to Asia from the Homo heidelbernensis, who resided in Africa about half a million years ago. They are believed to be the ancestors of Europe's Neanderthals.

                              However others, such as Chris Stringer, a paleoanthropologist at the London Natural History Museum, admitted that they “don’t have the faintest idea” what the mystery species could be.

                              Traces of the unknown new genome were detected in two teeth and a finger bone of a Denisovan, which was discovered in a Siberian cave. There is not much data available about the appearance of Denisovans due to lack of their fossils' availability, but the geneticists and researchers succeeded in arranging their entire genome very precisely.

                              "What it begins to suggest is that we're looking at a 'Lord of the Rings'-type world - that there were many hominid populations," Mark Thomas, an evolutionary geneticist at University College London.

                              The question is now: who were these mystery people that the Denisovans were breeding with?

                              Source

                              © Copyright Original Source


                              Sons of God perhaps?
                              TLOTR does make clear that marriages between Men and Elves could and did take place. According to TLOTR, there are no Elves now. Problem solved. Denisovans sound like something from Star Trek.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Based on the present evidence present day humans are the product of hybridization of different related subspecies and possibly closely related species, like Neanderthals. I do not think the Neanderthals have been determined as subspecies or a separate species. This hybridization occurred in different waves of migration out of Africa of closely related humanoids.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X