WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Post Reply New Topic

I thought the Old Testament also had rules about slavers too, if I remember correctly it had something to do with killing the slavers.

Some evidence such as personal experience cannot be shared or even communicated adequately. There is currently no way to confirm or deny whether or not a particular individual had a genuine revelation of sorts or if it is just a chemical imbalance in their brain. While it is likely to be the latter, it would be presumptuous of anyone to say either possibility "must" be. Come to think of it, it's even possible that a chemical imbalance in the brain is the means used to communicate a genuine revelation. Unlikely, but I won't say absolutely impossible since I make no claims of omniscience.

I do know that concerning the fact of evolution, every time the creationists have gone against the teaching of evolution in a fair fight in a court of law (at least a dozen times the past forty years or so), the creationists have had nothing, nada, zilch, absolutely nothing to offer as scientific evidence supporting their position which is based on the way they choose to interpret an ancient Near Eastern myth written by and for superstitious Iron Age goat herders (gee, when said that way it isn't surprising there's no evidence supporting their view, is it?)

..... My initial statement still stands. All-knowing God should not need to test Abraham unless he is simply indulging in self-gratification. Any other reason for testing is just arbitrary.
I know why you think God would test, I just think your reasoning isn't logical.



Ok, Rho hun, you're killing me... A little less long-windedness, if possible?
I'm not saying that you must endure duress, per se. However, to be rescued from a horrible fate, you have to actually be in danger of succumbing to a horrible fate. If Abraham "knew" that God wouldn't really make him sacrifice his son, then he showed no great faith in taking his son up the mountain... he was just playing along. You have (I believe several times) said, "Abraham knew he had nothing to fear; he trusted God to bring about what God promised." .... Also, this implies that God is dishonest.. trying to trick Abraham into thinking he was going to have to sacrifice his son.


Ok... finally, you can say something I can say is logical. So God wasn't REALLY testing Abraham... God and Abraham contrived a means to display to the people that Abraham was God's chosen leader.


I was talking about contradictions in God's rules....Ex 20:13 "You must not murder" but Ex 21 is full of "..is to be put to death without fail"... which completely contradicts ideas such as "when someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him also the other", "repay no one evil for evil....if your enemy is hungry, feed him", and "love your enemies, do good to them.."
1Peter2:13 vs Acts 5:29 ?
And, I have no idea where in the Bible it indicates that Jesus is God... but how can this be when he talks about his "Father in Heaven" and is said to have "ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father"?


I do not consider Adam and Eve to be adult-like in their thinking. They apparently knew no sin. Therefore how could they even comprehend temptation and trickery?
I don't blame God for my "sins"... I tried to explain where I find paradox in this whole original sin concept. When God was figuring out his human recipe, and deciding which traits to give us... When he got to free-will, or no freewill... he had to have foreseen the outcome.. and if so, he accepted the consequence and planned ahead for it.. ie, the Christ and the Resurrection. If God did NOT foresee this issue, and didn't plan ahead for it, then it stands to reason that at some point he said, "Oh s**t!" and had to come up with a fix, ie. the Christ and the Resurrection.



The fall of the angel has everything to do with the resurrection. The angel influenced the Original Sin which caused all men to fall into the category of "sinner" which called for the resurrection to save mankind... There is a direct correlation.
I do not consider myself as a parent to be a contemporary of God.. THAT would be arrogant! I am not an all-knowing creator being who created more than the child, but every aspect of that existence. Were my child to commit a horrible murder... I might not love his crime, but I would still love him, and consider it my duty as a parent to be there for him and do my best to guide him back into the scope of positive living. As a parent, I consider my duties to be to love, cherish, guide, protect, forgive, and foster my child's progress in this world. I do not consider myself God-like, but if I hold myself to a standard that I believe God would condone, want, and encourage in me... Then reason says that I should expect the same from him.


Hmmmm but apparently he didn't... because they didn't choose good over evil, did they?



Mt 6:6 "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
Oooooh ok.. my other statement on that proved to be a Thomas Jefferson quote... My bad.

We've talked about judging before, different thread... I don't care to rehash it, but think we agreed to disagree.

Out of all the times small children are warned that something is hot, how many have to check it first? (Perhaps not yours, but many do.. and sorry, I'm tired and I forgot or missed that you had done the stove analogy later... ) And what comprehension did they have of death?

I do not consider all humans child-like... Just Adam and Eve in their innocence.


The other trees were fine? what's one cookie from another?



I'm not BLAMING God... I'm saying your theory, cause and effect, doesn't make sense. For it to make sense, God would have to be the blame. I'm not saying that I think God sat back and said, "Hmmm, I'm a make me some humans.... how can I f**k up their world with real efficiency?" Of course I don't think that, but that's the conclusion I reach from your reasoning. I'm explaining why I don't agree with you. And I hate to say it this way, but every time something doesn't make sense, you throw "free-will" at it and sit back satisfied.. That just doesn't work for me.

Last edited by BurntOutMom on 27 Apr 2011, 3:05 am, edited 2 times in total.

Yeah, something about if you kill your slave outright, you should be punished outright, but if they take a few days to die, then it's ok cuz you got your money's worth. Real nice.
Here it is.. Ex 21 All sorts of slave rules... you can only keep him for 6 years then you must set him free, but you can keep his wife and kids.. If you sell your daughter into slavery and she's not chosen to be a concubine then the master can't sell her to into a foreign land. If someone maims your slave, you can maim the maimer... Really nice stuff.

Well said. When my oldest grandson once asked me why fire is hot, I immediately began turning to science for an answer ...

... but when my grandchildren might ask where fire came from and why, I already know science does not even attempt to answer anything like that other than possibly the how of it.

As I see things:

> Some religious people speculate on matters of science (such as the "how" of something) and wrongly also call their religion "science".
> Other religious people who are confusing matters likewise speculate on matters of "where" or "why" and also wrongly call that "science".

Seems to me like all we all really need here is a clear and concise definition, understanding and use of actual science!

Religion and politics is always an emotive subject and people have vastly different opinons and many people will express their views without thought about how this will affect people's feelings. Personally I don't like it if I ask a question and someone delivers an answer which assumes I belong to their religion, you get a lot of those on Yahoo answers but I've not had that here. I once visited the religion and politics sections on WP, never again, they are full of nut jobs!

Nuts to that!! topic

LOL.... Some very good points. Emotive - Yes. Differing opinions - Yes. Some ppl are sometimes mean - yes!. I, too, get frustrated when someone can't acknowledge that I do not share their belief system, HOWEVER.. what belief system should they represent, if not their own? When my son asks me a "God Question", I can say, "Well some people believe this, and some that, and still others this," and only if he specifically asks me what I believe, do I tell him my opinion... I can do this because I don't believe there is a "right" way to believe. Other's do not agree with me and therefore can only have one answer to the question.

Is PPR full of nut jobs? ......................................... I've seen a couple. I have a WP friend who refuses to come to PPR and thinks I'm crazy for enjoying it so much. So, I'm willing to say that it takes a special kind of person to feel at home here, does that make us all nut jobs? Maybe? But if we're all nut jobs, what does that make of the ones that the nuts find nutty? LOL

Wasn't there also something about not cooperating with people hunting for escaped slaves:

Deuteronomy 23:15 (21st Century King James Version)

15"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant who has escaped from his master unto thee.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... rsion=KJ21

Ok?? So if you sell your daughter into slavery, and she escapes.. I can help her hide. Awesome!

According to the Old Testament the intent was that the guy or the guy's son ends up marrying the daughter. If that doesn't happen then apparently she ends up being able to be redeemed.

I think there are two possible assumptions that can be made from this... Either that one, because the practice seemed to warrant a "rule", we can assume that slavery was a somewhat natural progression to marriage, or that two, in the society referenced here, marriage is comparable to slavery.

Furthermore, I find it appalling to think that in God's eyes, if a father "sells" his daughter into slavery, that she is the one who requires redemption.

It could also be mistranslated because it has been translated from Hebrew to either Greek or Latin, to English.

Do you think the existance of fire has supernatural causes? Else I wouldn't see the problem with only understanding the how of fire. Because it is a natural phenomenom and those have no objective in happening... Mechanicism works, Aristotle's focus on the "what for" only gave us hundreds of dark ages whilst once we switched to the study of causes we finally had actual progress...

I'm confused by this whole fire thing.... Perhaps it lies in the usage of the word "where" (does it come from) because science certainly does know the HOW of it, and I feel safe to assume that you are aware of this as well.... So, for the ignorant boob in me... can you please explain what you mean when you say "Where does fire come from?"

I am perfectly content with that response, a lot of people don't believe that the Bible could have been mistranslated because they believe that the people translating did so with some sort of Divine Guidance..