WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Post Reply New Topic

I am aware of that, and I am asking whether the Hebrews had any original stuff actually of their own.

Sorry, I misunderstood your question.

I've never gone through the Bible with a highlighter and marked all the borrowed stuff. (believe it or not, I'm not THAT critical).. Just as I was studying ancient cultures, I found similar stories and drew the parallels. I'm sure that every culture has their own mythologies and I would never in million years say that everything in the OT is fiction. To be honest, I'm not certain when each of the books in the OT were written, (I'm aware that I could go look it up but it's not important to my point), but there had to have been an extensive period of oral tradition before it was transcribed. You've played "telephone" or been the target of exaggerated gossip, it's human nature to err and to embellish. More likely I would guess that many of the stories are inspired by actual events or people, but throughout the oral tradition (and eventual transcription) pieces were probably embellished or altered to make events or actions more holy, more awe-inspiring, or to influence the people in godly values.

I know saying that will offend some people and invoke explanations of Divine Dictation.... but I don't mean it to be insulting, or to even devalue it's worth. There have been many wise men though out history who have had valuable lessons to teach humanity, and the fact that they weren't divinely inspired to dictate the Word, doesn't lessen the importance of their message..

This is a perfect example of why I am not a Christian. Claiming evidence exists without providing any, insisting those who do not believe are stupid/not worth knowing... I take offense to that and find it to be very un-Christian-like.

And the OP asked if this was Christian-friendly?? Apparently the answer is no, some of the Christians are not friendly.

lol! Very good!

Alan Watts spoke in at least one of his seminars about what he called divine inspiration, and insisted by that he did not mean dictation.

As for oral traditions, frequently in some traditions (such as ancient stories from India) the name of the king or other historical details of a story will change from generation to generation to keep the story relevant to the time and place it is being told. The lesson that the story is supposed to communicate doesn't usually change, at least not as often. I see it as the story itself being like an envelope, and the lesson we are supposed to learn being the message inside the envelope. It is my opinion (not just mine) that sometimes some people get stuck on the details of the story used to communicate a teaching, and miss the whole point of the spiritual teaching.

Errors may creep into oral traditions, but some research has shown that in certain cultures oral transmission can be incredibly reliable over centuries or even longer. Some groups such as the Navajo were careful that when one of them memorized a story telling of their origins or history, that every word was just so, nothing added, nothing left out, even for relatively long stories or ceremonies. Oral tradition had been disrespected by some historians because of the "telephone" game errors and so on, but it is my understanding that for some cultures there is more appreciation of how accurate oral traditions can be. Some of these traditions have died out in historical times. I don't know how many are still operating in this modern age.

As for leejosepho's question as to what is truly original with the Hebrews, I don't know. It seems that many of their traditions and stories were borrowed from other cultures, then adapted by the Hebrews who made them their own. Obviously Judaism was a major development in the spiritual development of the Western World. Did the God of the Bible communicate directly with these people,? Are they truly the Chosen People? I don't know.

I want to use myth in an older, stricter sense than the colloquial. Some people think a myth is a lie, something not true. But actually a myth can communicate great truths. A myth ties one's inner world of experience to the outer world. A myth tries to express, using metaphor and other imagery, descriptions of reality and existence that are difficult if not impossible to accurately communicate using language alone. When a mythology is created, the people incorporate (there's that word again!) the cosmology and worldview of their culture into that mythology. The ancient Hebrews were a patriarchal society that looked to monarchy as the highest form of government. That is why they created a political model of the universe, with God as King. The God of the Bible is modeled after the ruler kings of the ancient Near East. Even the title King of Kings and Lord of Lords comes from a title of the rulers of ancient Persia.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 27 Apr 2011, 11:34 am, edited 4 times in total.

This is a funny thread, this site could leave anyone feeling a little put upon, the left the right, the believers, the non believers...
to my mind the neo-con right north american christians seem to dominate but they all swear atheistic leftists have over run the place...

peace j

I just want to say... when I posted the above, I had not seen this article.... It was not intended to be in such poor taste.

In this case I would blame the one that tempted Adam and Eve into taking the fruit in the first place. Remember, they were talked into it according to the Bible.

The point is that in order to get a legit license, you have to be tested to SHOW that you are qualified to have one. To have any legitimacy as a patriarch, a leader through whom God's will for humanity will ultimately find fruition, there must be some kind of test in order to show that the person in question is a legitimate holy person from whom an entire nation can be born to carry out that plan.


Using my driver's license analogy, do I HAVE to have a license to drive? No. I can drive just as easily without one. Actually, once just a few months ago I got pulled over for driving too fast--or at least that's what the sheriff's deputy in the unmarked car SAID, but I suspect there was another reason since I was not exceeding the speed limit. It just so happened at that time I'd left my license elsewhere. Even worse, it had expired just a month prior and I hadn't yet taken the time to renew it. However, when he called in my ssn, he found no problems other than expired license, so he let me go without writing me up.

Abraham knew he had nothing to fear; he trusted God to bring about what God promised. And yes, it was a test of faith. You're assuming a "true" test to be something that it isn't necessarily. You're assuming, I think, that one MUST endure some form of duress. I don't think Abraham was exactly happy about it, but if you look at Abraham's history in experiencing God, you'll find he was tested on other occasions and knew firsthand that God always came through for him. So this wasn't really any different. It was a test just like any old test, not the first, and possibly not even the most difficult. Even if the believer is confident in his faith in God and shows no worry in enduring a trial, it is no less a test.

I told the story of the barrier exam I failed and passed on my second attempt. Sure, I was nervous before my retake. But once I GOT the test, I almost had to keep myself from laughing because suddenly the answers were obvious where they weren't before. In fact, when I got to the "form and analysis" portion in which we had to listen to the mystery piece, I could have even told you which professor wrote the exam because of how disturbingly deceptive the questions were. Example: "If this piece is a sonata, explain how (a) functions in measure (x)." The answer is, "Ok, IF this is a sonata, then..." But it wasn't a sonata, and it was very obvious that it wasn't a sonata. The questions were misleading, and someone with a keen ear for the keyboard sonata form would have INSTANTLY recognized that the questions were misleading.

I didn't NEED the barrier exam to prove I knew what I was doing. The school administrators and other professors didn't NEED me to pass it. In order for me to assert that my degree was legitimate, I had to demonstrate to administrators, faculty, and (really) my peers that I possessed the skills and knowledge expected of a musician at my academic level.

So if Abraham didn't NEED the test, and if God didn't NEED the test, what was the point? To show that Abraham was qualified to be the spiritual leader of a nation dedicated to the worship of God. God effectively asked Abraham to give Isaac (and his children) to God. Abraham's servants would have witnessed this at least from a distance, or if not Isaac himself would have explained it to his own children the origins of their religion, and Jacob would have passed it to HIS children who became the leaders of their own tribes. WHY do we do what we do? Because we belong to God. And why are we in a covenant relationship with God? Because of the example of father Abraham. Why is Abraham qualified as our proper exemplar? Because he went the distance with God by giving God Isaac. It was for the benefit of the Hebrews, Abraham's descendants, and the onlookers outside the nation of Israel in order to understand that the God Abraham worshiped is legit and that the nation of Israel are God's chosen representatives on the earth.


Pick ONE contradiction and I'll be happy to explain how it isn't one. To my knowledge, there is only ONE very minor detail in the OT that does not have an easy explanation, and for the life of my I can't remember where it is--I "THINK" it's somewhere in 2 Chronicles, but I wouldn't swear to it. I think it has to do with the reign of a king and certain dates not lining up exactly right.


How about this: Is it right for a parent to be punished for the actions of an independent child? When I say, "child," I'm referring to children capable of being responsible for their own actions without regard to age. Generally speaking, we hold children most responsible for their actions (treating them like adults) when they reach the age of majority (18 years). Parent's still refer to their progeny as "children" even when they are adults.

So...

If an adult child, we'll say, robs a liquor store, do the police arrest the parents? No. In fact, Torah even prohibits punishing parent's for the actions of their children (and punishing the children for their parents' actions, for that matter).

Further...

Certainly, God COULD effect certain outcomes because of His all-knowing attribute. However, we are created to have free will--to make creative (or destructive) choices as we wish. God doesn't make mistakes, so taking away that ability to choose would be like trying to fix something that isn't broke, only succeeding in, well, making a mistake (breaking what isn't broken). God knows all POSSIBLE outcomes, too, but allows us to choose the outcomes WE want. He is good to allow those outcomes or consequences, even if we disagree with those outcomes.

It is wrong to assume that what followed "original sin" was a mistake on God's part. If God knows all possible outcomes, there is no reason to doubt that the current situation isn't the best possible world GIVEN what transpired in the garden of Eden (I think we'd all agree that this is not the best possible world; I'm just saying that is the best, all things considered). The Bible informs us that even though the deeds of man are evil, God even works THROUGH the evil deeds of man to bring about His will. And finally, if God can look ahead to see a possible world in which man will choose evil over good, He can also provide for the salvation of that world by sending Himself. If we are inclined to "blame God," which we've done ever since the Eden experience, then in the person of Jesus God accepts that blame, even though He doesn't deserve it nor is He required to do it. Thus God can pay the penalty for OUR sins and forgive us, and we have nothing to do for it other than to believe in its sufficiency and in God's power to remove our sins.


The angels and the resurrection have nothing to do with each other. But what you are basically saying is that a parent is guilty for giving birth to a child who COULD turn out to be a murder and then actually chooses to commit murder. This is fundamentally wrong, even if one assumes omniscience. We all know that we take a risk that our children could end up by their own volition utterly horrible monsters. You would put us at fault merely for being parents because we KNOW that we have set into motion a set of events that might result in someone's murder. If this doesn't make sense, then neither does the logic of blaming God merely because God remained true to His good nature by not removing our freedom to make choices. This also assumes that there is a better possible way than what we know. Sure, it could have been better. Man could have chosen not to sin at all. But we cannot know whether it really could be better or different. For all we know, this is the best that it COULD be given the circumstances, the consequences of many generations of decisions that have been made. The best we can do is maintain our integrity individually and encourage others to do the same. But unless you have an entire planet in which all individuals have freely chosen God above all and lived their lives accordingly, you will not get different results than the ones you see.

It also assumes that you know better than God. My apologies if this offends you, but that is arrogance.


If God made the masterpiece right the first time, crowning that masterpiece with the ability to choose good over evil, and that masterpiece chooses something other than God's will, why blame God for something God did not do? God did not make the choice FOR us. He gave that to us as a gift. We wouldn't be human without it. But we also have the ability to choose God above ourselves, to overcome our fallen nature. That is quite an achievement for our Creator.

Outdated? Well, if you go by that standard, all books become outdated at some point. So knowing in the future books that govern us will become outdated, should we just abandon all law and order now? Now, sure, God is loving... But God is not ALL-loving, or omni-beneficent. God hates all evil and imperfection and loves all that is good. God loves us, but He doesn't love our deeds when they are improperly motivated. But He loves us enough to make the ultimate sacrifice for us, blotting out all our misdeeds and making us fit to stand in His presence.

I don't know about a man's relationship with God being private... Jesus said that whoever is ashamed to profess Him in front of other people, Jesus would be ashamed to acknowledge him before the Father. Granted all one has to do is "come out" in the company of fellow believers in order to show that he is not ashamed of Jesus, but I don't see why anyone would have to feel differently in the company of hostile witnesses--you know, like on WP. Judging? We judge all the time. It has to be done in order to discern right from wrong, to administer justice, to properly separate what is consistent with Biblical teaching from what isn't, and so on. Controversial topics always come up at this point because we live in an instant gratification, do-what-you-want-nobody-has-the-right-to-tell-you-otherwise kind of society. It's "not nice" to point fingers and call someone out for doing something that is inconsistent with Biblical teaching. "Judge not" hearkens back to the OT call for lex talionis justice, which is the same standard we attempt to keep in western society. It means that you should not withhold justice, holding a standard for someone you aren't prepared to keep for yourself. You should be impartial. You should be helpful in making sure you CAN tell someone they are wrong and that you yourself aren't correcting another individual in the spirit of malice or that you are guilty of unclean hands (you yourself are guilty of the same sin, or that you commit sin in the manner in which you uncover someone else's guilt). It's a picture of keeping honest weights and measures. If you shortchange someone in dealing with them, whether in trade or in justice, God will shortchange you by your own standard. If you penalize someone unfairly, God will punish you by adding the same excess penalty. Measure-for-measure.

Judge all you like, but beware your motivations or reasons for judging, that you are qualified to judge and judge fairly.


Are you sure they were naive to temptation? They could very well have been. I think they probably were naive. BUT they were warned by God that the penalty for sin is death. They knew all they needed to know, and they knew at least enough to challenge the serpent. They did NOT challenge the serpent, at least not so far as the Bible records. Maybe they had an extensive debate and what actually made it to Genesis were the high points of the arguments. We don't know. Maybe it went down EXACTLY as written in Genesis.

Also, it is written that God does not allow temptation or testing that human beings cannot handle. Adam and Eve could have sought God's help and asked God to banish the serpent from the garden. They chose not to because they allowed themselves to think they could become true equals with God. That, again, is arrogance. Their responses to God's questions show that arrogance, even if they later regretted their arrogant thoughts and deeds. Their one redeeming quality is that they felt guilt and regret at all, a quality that distinguishes their rebellion from that of certain angels. They desire redemption, thus they CAN be redeemed. That is another choice to be made. A person cannot be saved if that person does not wish to be.

Something that might pose difficulty for your toddler analogy is that human beings NOW have a wider range of choices than Adam and Eve did. The pre-fall existence did not know evil, only good, and thus Adam and Eve, like God were only capable of doing good. The exception, of course, was the Tree, and choosing to make the distinction between good and evil. They became aware of so much more--nakedness, for example.

What always bothered me about the whole nakedness thing is I never understood WHY it was such a bad thing. Even worse, if nakedness is a sin and God cannot tolerate sin, why was it acceptable in the garden? My take on that is that nakedness is only a sin if there is something to cover up. Adam and Eve took on a sin nature and became something they knew would be unpleasant in God's sight. Therefore because they had become spiritually impure, they felt the need to cover themselves in order to hide the guilt. This, of course, only makes matters worse.

But nevertheless, Adam and Eve only had ONE choice they needed to make. Your toddler does not live in the kind of world that afford such a level of safety, nor does a toddler understand WHY it is necessary to stay out of the cookies. I have two toddlers (well, my 3 yo isn't a toddler anymore!! ! *sniff*), and they get certain actions have extreme consequences, such as touching a hot stove. Neither have them have EVER been burned by a heating element. Our oldest learned before 18 months how to master stairs and has NEVER hurt himself. He chooses to conduct himself a certain way or to avoid dangerous situations or even handle potentially dangerous situations in such a way that he doesn't get hurt. He makes (mostly) good decisions, in other words. They both know to stay away from mouse traps and poison bait. So even they, at ages 3 and 2, know certain things MUST NOT BE DONE. You can tell a toddler to stay out of the cookies. BUT... Has the toddler ever had cookies before and it was ok? Why is one situation different from another? If the cookies pose no threat, the toddler cannot readily comprehend why he should stay out of the cookies. God gave Adam and Eve an entire garden of trees to eat from. So why would they even go near the one forbidden tree? They let themselves think they could be equal with or even better than God, or at least better than God had already created them. And since God does not test us more than we can endure, why didn't Adam ask God to remove the temptation? If the serpent was causing a problem, why didn't Eve complain? God could have banished the serpent, but no one asked Him to. Adam could have said, "I just want to belong to you and obey you. I don't want the Tree of Knowledge, please take it away." But that's not what happened, was it? Adam and Eve might have been very childlike, but that does not excuse them from the terrible decisions they made.


The "intended course of action" was allowing the world we chose to create out of the world God created. To alter that plan would be to deny human beings the ability to make those choices, to choose God over their own desires. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, loving/merciful, and also just. God will not do anything contrary to His nature. The world as we've made it stands as the best there could be given both God's plan AND our own actions. It is not necessary to assume the world is as it exists through God's intention as opposed to our own. You are blaming God for actions that are not His fault.

I can't speak for hale_bopp, but what I get from her statement is the very real possibility that there is much more to reality than what can currently be observed and measured by science, and if one insists on limiting oneself to only accepting as real what science can currently measure, then one is being just as silly as hardcore religious fanatics who deny reality for their faith (my favorite example of this are those who deny the evident fact that humans are biological cousins to chimpanzees).

I don't see hale_bopp claiming evidence exists for Christianity. That isn't the point. As I see it, she is saying it is silly to think that reality is limited to what science can yet describe. You know there were natural sources of radio waves and x-rays zinging about for millennia and people didn't know it, but that doesn't mean those waves didn't affect those people in spite of their being ignorant of them.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 26 Apr 2011, 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Another thought to consider, if God had not given us free will, all we'd be are slaves.

Why didn't God give free will to actual slaves then? There is actually still slavery going on. And old bible contains rules about what to do with slaves, and I guess those slaves were not given free will either.

Not if this God's behaviors are inextricably connected with the outcomes.

Except, I don't think we avoid this slavery though. God knows all the buttons to press to make us "dance", and because his actions are so deeply connected with the workings of reality, no matter what he chooses, he'll be choosing a lot of our later decisions, and because of that, we have to ask ourselves what's really the difference between causing something through deterministic physics, or causing something through the logical necessity of foreknowledge?

Ah, but they are mere goy and not the children/chosen of god...

peace j

See above in bold. Clearly, yes she is claiming that evidence exists for Christianity, and that the reaction to it is to "laugh it off" or "call it undocumented". I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth here. You can interpret her post any way you wish, but what she wrote is what she wrote.