There seems to be an Islamic tradition that says he was, and yes, that’d be crazy. It seems to be a scriptural interpretation and not a core teaching of the religion, but it is absurd. But it’s no crazier than plenty of stuff that Jews and Muslims and Christians agree about.
if you Google it, there’s lots of references to it.
Here’s one:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 543:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Allah created Adam, making him 60 cubits tall (90 feet tall).
Yeah - I did do some googling after posting the question here - the gist I got from a scan of several is that
a) there is a reference that has his height (quoted above)
b) this height may have been in ‘heaven’ as opposed to when he was on earth
c) all man when they enter this area will be restored to that height.
so, I don’t see it as all taht different than teaching that Adam was perfect, sin entered, he was cast out, when we are ‘saved’ we will be restored to Adam’s perfection (when we are in heaven/etc).
Just that they put a value in for height …
Well, I mean, yeah… that a human being was created out of nothing but dirt and magic, and then a second human being was created by taking the first human’s rib and magically duplicating it? And both humans would’ve been immortal unless they ate from a tree that told them about the difference between good and evil. And they were only tricked into eating that fruit by a magic talking snake, who later folks will try to retcon and claim was a totally different character, Ha’Satan, who still wasn’t a snake. That’s okay. That good, old time religion.
But that that first human being was really tall? Blasphemy! Absurd! Nonsense!
I agree, just another fairy-tale property among many.
How tall was Eve? If she was only, like 5’3", I can see them having *problems *in their relationship.
Of course Adam was 90 feet tall. A merciful God wouldn’t create man just to leave him at the mercy of the first T-Rex to come along would he?
Wow, so scientists can make mistakes, and therefore, atheists who practically worship the scientists as gods can actually be wrong?
I’m not even going there. It was a mistake to allow myself to be boxed in a corner where I’m having to criticize other religions. Funny though, where are all the so called Christians in this thread? You know ,these are basic accusations that any Christian could chime in on. Any Christian want to explain why Christianity is more valid than other religions? Hello? crickets… Naw, I still think this is an atheist forum.
Distrubing username post combo, for $200, Alex.
You should have stopped after the period at the end of your third word. Once you create a mythology around the God I described (and you seemed to agree with my post) it’s easy to discount it, as it would be any religion. Which, no doubt, is why you did it. But it negates my post not one iota. Everything that comes after that first sentence of yours falls into the exact same fallacy of attempting to create rational support for Atheism by shooting holes in myth/religion.
What is it with women? You say you want a taller man, then when he’s 90 feet tall, you’re still not happy!
Several other Christians have posted. If memory serves, they said you’re totally wrong in your scientific arguments and they didn’t find your attitude very constructive. Want me to find the posts?
Noah must have had fun with the dinosaurs on his ark.
You think that you being ignorant of how science works supports your case in any way? You might have heard about scientific infallibility in your church, you sure never heard it in a lab. BTW, when I worked at Bell Labs one of the research managers was a nun. Plenty of good scientists are Christian - they just don’t have their fundamentalist blinders on in their field.
Then go ahead and defend yours in this area. Some Christians find it possible to believe the Jesus story without believing the clearly incorrect creation story. Some just believe on faith. I never believed that, but I did believe that Moses existed, the Exodus happened, and that Moses was given the Law with no more justification, so I’m not being critical. But then I put away childish things.
It is very, *very *elucidative that you view it as a mistake that you honestly put forth a prototype set of criteria with which you could analyze claims for their veracity. Naturally, this isn’t an “atheist forum”, but a dedication to critical thinking will tend to draw those who allow themselves to engage in critical thinking and it will also tend to repel those who have a hostile relationship with critical thinking. If they don’t even spend the base amount of time to learn what’s going on, they may even make scientifically laughable claims while complaining about how horribly they’re being persecuted.
Of course individual scientists can be wrong. As it happens, we also know that science isn’t wrong on a few points, such as that gravity exists or evolution is a fact. Further, I am tickled to no end when theists believe that they can dismiss something by suggesting that it’s got elements of worship or religion in it. Yeah, those strawman atheists who worship scientists as gods? That’s bad and the standard of badness! Those actual theists who actually do worship a being that they can neither prove or falsify? That’s good and the standard of goodness!
Of course, I’m also amused that atheists can point out errors in science but still cogently argue for why science is such a useful system of inquiry, and in fact science’s ability to look for refutations is one of its main strenths… and then theists pretend that if they admit the smallest of errors exist in the Bible, the whole house of cards comes crashing down.
I find that Christianity is the most valid religion for me because I was raised in a Christian home, and therefore I am most comfortable with the ceremonies, rituals and rites of a Christian church.
I am quite certain I would be a perfectly happy Muslim, or Shintoist, or Hindu, or Communist if I had been born in different circumstances.
I took your point to be that every human religion being wrong is not a proof that there is no god. That I agree with. I just riffed on one of an infinite number of alternatives.
A lot of people feel more comfortable in a universe with a purpose, and so believe in some god while not believing in any of the standard gods. Belief is not a claim to knowledge, so this isn’t even logically inconsistent. Since I say that lack of belief in any god is not the same as claiming I know or can prove that there is no god, I should give believers the same respect. I’d have a problem if someone who believed in this kind of god all of a sudden thought that the god had all sorts of detailed moral rules, but for the most part people who believe in this way don’t do that - so I have no objection.
Science is a process which attempts to acknowledge mistakes and correct them. You think that’s a bad thing?
Have you ever considered how much science and engineering is involved in the conversation we are having right now? The thing about science is that it demonstrably works.
Wow, what an insult to these men and women who have worked hard to become real doctors. It’s so easy to just dismiss them as quacks without even knowing a durn thing about them, huh?
Make it easy for me, what would convince you that a medical miracle has taken place? Be honest.
One of the stories presented in past conferences was the raising from the dead of
Dr. Sean George. Photos and the story here:
And in much detail here:
http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue13064.html
So here we don’t have just a made up story. You have a story with the actual name of the patient and EKG tests and photos to back it up. Or perhaps you can offer a valid explanation how a man can stay dead for nearly 90 minutes and come back to life, huh?
What sort of fun are you proposing here? :eek:
Appearing now at a drive-in near you - “Attack of the 60 Foot Eve!”
As for the problems if Eve were small - didn’t you sing “Ride a cock horse to Banbury Crpss” when you were young?