WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Post Reply New Topic

Nutcrackers?

That's suite.

Who you callin cracker?

j/k

My Grandson had simply asked why fire is hot ...

The scientist could explain thermodynamics -- someone here on WP suggested I convey that back to my grandson, and I have -- and my grandson would then have the kind of answer he was seeking. At that point, the theologian might jump in with an unsolicited response and say fire is hot because "God made it that way" ... and my grandson would then likely (and quite innocently, as a young child) quickly laugh a bit over the silliness of someone older than him saying something he already knows everybodty else should already know anyway!

"Where" did fire come from? Does it have a supernatural cause?

I say (opine) there would be nothing at all if there were no Creator at all ... and my grandson easily agrees!

Ah, maybe we have all of that sorted out now if any nutty crackers might happen to be nutty enough to actually believe they can somehow easily crack any one or more of us/our nuts.

............................ I don't disagree..... but I think "Cuz God made it that way" is no answer. I view that as a cop out for people who don't know the real answer or who wouldn't take the time to educate a child....

In fact, I WISH my son would ask me questions like that.... but I think he's learned not to. I'm like "Weeeee a chance to teach!!" but 30 seconds into an explanation on condensation and his eyes glaze over and he's like, "Yeah mom, ok.... whatever... nevermind.." and I feel deflated.. "But you asked.............."

Agreed, completely ... and as far as I know, my grandson has not ever been told anything that.

This might not be the case in your own situation there, but it can help to first be sure the actual question has actually been understood. Maybe you have heard about the little boy who had asked his parents where he had come from. Following the next several minutes of hearing all of their "stork stuff" or whatever, the boy said, "Oh ... but do I really have to go back and say all of that in front of everybody at school?" Puzzled, the parents asked what the problem might be, and the boy said, "Well, a new boy in our class said he was born in Cincinnati ... and I was just wondering about me."

LOL....cute, and good point... but I'm not sure what else he could mean when asking how the water got on the outside of the glass or what makes a rainbow... He's asking, what I view to be, fairly specific questions. Or at least he used to.... Maybe he just got tired of me using his PlayDough to make molecules...

Tell him it melted out of the air, and then wait for the next question.


That one is a toughie, but I would look for some way to begin by tying that back to water that had yet to melt.


Let one or two of those "molecules" harden -- keep 'em fairly small -- and then go have some fun with a big hammer splitting and counting atoms .. or something like that.

That kind of thing is far from easy for many of us, but maybe you can come up with some ideas by doing a search for "Mr. Science".

I don't think "Mr. Science" wants to be "Mr. Science" as much as his questions would imply.... He seems to get pretty bored with Mama Science.

If you say so. If Abraham knows it, and God knows it, but the ramifications are far greater than something only meant for God and Abraham, i.e. a private or personal matter, then there has to be some kind of sign that this is God's will for humanity. "God told me so" just doesn't cut it. God tells me lots of things that are meant for me and no one else, or if they are meant for someone else and the message comes from God, there's no reason for someone to believe me IF I CAN'T BACK IT UP. Abraham COULD back it up, as repeated tests of faith demonstrate.

I can compose music. So what? Anybody can do what I do. I could CLAIM that I'm formally trained in music composition, but so what? I have a degree to back it up, approval from an institution that says I'm legit. It could be faked, of course, but it can also be verified by contacting the granting institution. Abraham learned to walk totally in faith with God, and this display or test shows that he'd completely mastered it.


Are we working from different definitions of faith?

faith |fāθ|
noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something

Granted, that's a non-religious definition, but it's a good one. HOW one gains faith in something or someone varies, but I wonder if maybe you're taking it for granted that for one to develop faith in something, it is required that it is believed blindly and untested. Abraham's faith wasn't blind faith. Even science is faith-based. When I turn my computer, that is an act of faith. Why is it an act of faith? Well, I can't immediately prove something scientific, such as the sun rising every clear morning. I can't prove that my computer will always function properly. HOWEVER, I've always observed the rising and setting of the sun as well as periods of light and darkness corresponding to the times the sun rises and sets. My senses seem to be reliable, and the data I've collected and stored in memory about the rising and setting of the sun is reliable. So I do not need to test any theory that the sun will rise at roughly a certain time tomorrow or set at a certain time tonight. I trust that it will. I am confident that it will. I've observed my computer to be reliable to a certain degree in the past. I do not HAVE to switch it on THIS time to make sure. I'm sure my computer is just fine. I have faith in it. Scientists don't have to check the fundamentals of the scientific method every time before putting them to use. They reasonably assume that those procedures will yield reliable results. They have faith in the method. Part of that, of course, being that the instruments used in observation are reliable, which sometimes may not be the case, but nevertheless the act of checking instruments and procedures for accuracy and repeating experiments has never really changed all that much in principle. It has proven itself reliable time and time again, therefore it is worthy of faith.

Same thing with Abraham. Abraham had to actually grow and mature in his faith, though his focus never left God. God proved reliable every time. So what would make the Isaac incident any different? I imagine Abraham would have been initially disturbed, recognized it was really no different than any time before, and then wondered what it was God was up to. Even if no real danger is perceived or even present, it is no less a test of faith.



test 1 |test|
noun
1 a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something

Looks like a test to me. God needed to "establish the quality, performance, or reliability" of Abraham. I don't imagine Abraham really found it that easy. He was a human being, after all. But even if it really was an easy test, an easy test is still an easy test.


I'll only address one issue at a time when it comes to Biblical contradictions, which is why I snipped your other question.

There is no contradiction between Ex 20:13 and anything in Ex 21. You have to understand Biblical definitions of "murder" and "blood guilt." "Murder" is the willful taking of a life for no justifiable reason. There are other forms of homicide of which there are varying degrees of guilt on the perpetrator, things we'd call today "voluntary/involuntary manslaughter," "accidental death," "negligent homicide," and "justifiable homicide." Certain of these carry the death penalty. Remember, OT law is lex talionis. The ONLY Biblical measure that can be repaid for the taking of a life is the death of the murderer. To lawfully put someone to death for the crime of murder, SOMEONE had to bear the guilt of taking the murderer's life. In such a case, it was the murderer himself who bore the guilt of his own death, and those who put the murderer to death had nothing to fear from their own blood guilt--they were "not guilty" of blood since that guilt was already placed on the "head" of the murderer.

That's pretty much it. Other capital offenses generally had to do with offenses against God Himself, such as idol worship with associated acts, mistreating one's own parents, rape (threatens the integrity of a man's bloodline), adultery (see rape), consensual sex with a man while engaged to another man/sexual impurity prior to marriage (see adultery), and so on. There were exceptions, of course, and those exceptions are perfectly reasonable (consensual sex with someone who is NOT your husband while you are NOT engaged to someone else) along with their penalties/remedies (paying a fine, getting married, forfeiture of divorce rights).

So while "murder" is prohibited, not ALL killing is defined by the Bible to be murder. War, for instance, in which death is an unfortunate consequence, does not constitute murder. I've already mentioned specific crimes that incurred the death penalty. In processing criminal cases, bear in mind that one principle of the OT is that "vengeance belongs to the Lord." Therefore, no one is allowed to take the law into their own hands, even if killing someone is justified by the actions of the one killed (such as avenging the blood of a relative). The accuser was required to take the case up with the city elders (judges) as well as bring forth evidence (witnesses) of the crime.

None of this, for example, contradicts Matthew 5:29. Your Exodus citations refer to legal procedures and seeking justice, outlining the rights the Israelites had, how to relate to God and each other. Israel wouldn't hold together very well if there wasn't SOME means of keeping law and order, administering justice when necessary.

"Turn the other cheek" isn't talking about law. It's talking about the proper relationship between believers and unbelievers. If someone hits you, for example, you have EVERY RIGHT to sue that person and return the favor (or get money from them). But just because that's the right the law says you have does not mean you have to take it out on the person who has done you wrong. If you are a believer, then you desire to be a reflection of God. God's nature is in part that of mercy and forgiveness. You are showing someone who has wronged you that you are above their influence and that of the world you live in. You show God's forgiving example and plant a seed that may just win that person to Christ. The apostle Paul repeatedly lived this principal out.

You also take into account WHY someone has done you wrong. My wife might yell at me from time to time when I really haven't done anything to deserve it. If I step back, assess the situation, and ask her what's really going on, I'll get an answer that has nothing to do with me. She's upset and it doesn't take much to set her off. I just happened to be standing in the way at that point in time. So rather than yell back or "kick her to the curb," I take time to understand what's bothering her and act as a comforting agent rather than a contender. "Love your enemies..."--same thing. Say what you will about the US vs. Everyone Else, but our military strategies since 'Nam have been predominantly to reduce casualties on both sides and "win the hearts and minds" of the people. We kill to protect ourselves in combat, but our goals are not to go in and kill indiscriminately. That there even such things as "war crimes" speaks to the principle of "love your enemies."

Your other example, 1 Peter vs Acts, really has nothing to do with this, but I'll briefly explain these. 1 Peter refers to keeping the peace. Christians in the early church were assumed by the Romans to be troublemakers. This was not our intention, however, but it was difficult changing their minds. For example, Christians taught the value of all human beings and human freedom, while the Romans maintained class identity and bought/sold human slaves. For Christians to attempt to overthrow the institution of slavery wholesale would only have confirmed in the minds of the Romans what they already believed. Obeying the law in order to keep that peace is what we are commanded to do. Further, God allows people to occupy positions of power--whether they are Jews/Christians or not. That authority is in place precisely to maintain law and order, hence why Christians are also commanded to respect the laws that govern them.

HOWEVER...

In Acts we see apostles given an instruction from God through an angel (that broke them out of prison, no less) that they were to preach the gospel publicly. Technically, there was nothing wrong with that other than that the Jewish religious leaders didn't like it. If you read the rest of Acts 5, you'll notice this isn't the first time something like this had happened in their recent memory. According to Gamaliel: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all come to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared int he days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

So clearly what we're looking at here is a distinction between legal matters and theological matters. Gamaliel recognized them as harmless. Zechariah wrote "...strike the shepherd, and the sheep will scatter." However, I think Gamaliel and his followers recognize the wisdom of this verse and its reversal: That the scattered sheep become shepherds in their own right and accumulate their own flocks. In reality, their Jewish oppressors were already defeated, and Gamaliel represents the voice of reason. They are not violating law, even if they are committing civil disobedience. Don't persecute them and make matters worse.


Who knows, though? We can't really assume anything. We know it would be a challenge to God's justice to allow them a temptation they couldn't possibly resist. You mentioned that it might be your own fault for putting cookies in front of a toddler and telling him not to eat them, punishing him if he did because you know full well he couldn't handle that kind of temptation. So if God is good and perfect, He wouldn't have set Adam and Eve up for failure. The logical conclusion here is that Adam and Eve understood what they were getting into.


Yes they did. They knew ONE possible sin. That's all they needed to know.


Irrelevant, though. They knew what God commanded. It's plain, black and white, yes or no. DON'T DO IT. No exceptions. That Eve took the bait was a fault she created within herself, thinking she could somehow know better than God. They didn't NEED to understand temptation/trickery to stand behind "God said..." They could have asked for help. They didn't.


Sure, you do. We all do on one level or another. You've been saying the whole time... Well, see next quote:


And there you go. You admit you believe the fault lies with God for creating us to be sinful creatures. Now, I don't believe God made us sinful, but that has nothing to do with it. God created us, therefore it is God's fault we made the wrong choices.


I don't know if THAT is arrogant... God and man exist simultaneously and within the present. That makes us contemporaries...


True


As any loving parent would feel.


Why not? These are attributes of God.


Can you possibly do that?


And HERE we run into trouble. You're trying to place YOUR expectations on God. As a created being, you do not have that right, nor do you have the perceptive scope to understand the superiority of God's will. You might catch glimpses of it, but you cannot understand it in it's fullness. That's why you--heck, WE--question God's will so much. We can't possibly understand how it is the world has to be THIS way and be what God wants. We can't understand how God would allow or inflict so much suffering. Sure, we can venture some good guesses. But THIS is the way it has to be according to God's plan? Come ON, God!! !

But...

It is what it is. I think when it's all over and done with it will make sense. I can "logic it out" or rationalize it any number of ways, but who's to say that what I think is really they way it is? I think God is bigger than any "reasonable" explanation I or anyone else can come up with.


I never said they HAD to choose one over the other, merely that they had the capacity to. We CAN choose good over evil. But we also CAN choose evil if we want. The results speak for themselves.


People misquote that in order to prohibit public prayer. All it means is that prayer should be properly motivated. The religious leaders at the time made a big show and a big ceremony of everything they did. The prayers weren't given in the spirit of actually appealing to God for something, but rather to display to the public how "holy" they thought they were. Jesus said, "they have their reward," meaning the attention of men. They've already received their reward, so there is nothing left for them in the kingdom of Heaven. God will personally reward what is requested in secret in the spirit of humility. But it is not a prohibition of public prayer in general.


Meh. Whatever.


Do you see many children walking around with burned hands? Be careful, social workers are watching...


OK... For instance... My kids do not have to test out the little packets of rat poison throughout our house. I don't understand how, but they get that if they eat mouse bait, something very, VERY bad will happen, and it has nothing to do with the relationship of the palm of daddy's right hand with the back of their legs. The ONLY time I've EVER seen Hannah mess with poison was the one time I had to bring her to work with me due to an emergency that kept her mother away after hours (I work late). I know my kids, as young as they are, and they take very good care of themselves and each other. So I looked in on them in the middle of a lesson just be sure they were OK since they weren't at home, and I found Hannah playing with a packet of poison. She hadn't eaten any since it was unopened, but nevertheless curiosity led her to at least pick it up and examine it. It wasn't her FAULT per se, but I did explain to her that was dangerous, and I put it somewhere less tempting. JK (my son) learned early how to climb UP stairs, but I had to teach him to safely come back down because of how different the mechanism is. He never fell unless he was in unfamiliar surroundings, but even then falling one or two steps on carpet is hardly enough to cause harm, other than just scaring him a little. He knows (somehow) that falling could be very, VERY bad in such a way that transcends mere pain or terror. Their mother exposed BOTH of them to the stove in such a way they could tell it was hot but without getting hurt. They know something really, REALLY bad will happen if they burn themselves on the stove, and we don't have to physically punish them to get the message across. Maybe not all kids/parents are really that lucky. But on some level most kids are aware that there is a "place" where they really don't want to go, even if it is difficult to communicate what that "place" is (death or severe physical injury). Oddly enough, JK has gotten stuck in mousetraps before, even when I explained to him what they are, what they do, how they work, and so on. He was more frustrated that he couldn't get his finger out than he was concerned about the pain. I worry about that kid sometimes...

Anyway, back to the point...

It makes perfect sense that if Adam and Eve were very child-like, they at least had SOME understanding of "don't go there" that my kids do of poison and hot stoves, even though they've never been directly affected by them. I think perhaps their understanding of death dealt with spiritual as well as physical consequences of sin. They just didn't have an understanding of HOW or the greater significance of spiritual death over physical death. When the serpent told Eve "you won't die," the image of physical death is tied to spiritual death, as though they are one and the same. As far as Genesis tells us, God obviously never said or felt this was the case. So when Eve didn't instantly fall down dead, she probably though she was in the clear. Adam's obviously not doing anything to stop her, so, typical man, he throws her under the bus. She's apparently OK, so maybe the serpent was right. That, sadly, was the only way they could figure out that God meant was something bigger than the physical world and greater than time.


OK.


I wasn't there, so I wouldn't know. Location, maybe? The Tree of Knowledge apparently was distinct from any other tree, not only "pleasing to the eye" but ALSO desirable for gaining wisdom. That summons to my mind fruit that looks like a book, like a set of encyclopedias or something. Maybe the leaves were pages from the Talmud. I don't know. It seems to me that it would have been apparent to Adam and Eve that there were two very special trees in the garden--one giving life, and the other leading to death.


You are.


See?


Bible doesn't say that, either.


I never said that. The Bible doesn't say that. You're misrepresenting my position and creating a straw man.


OK, but misrepresenting my position so you can justify your own doesn't work, either. Your logic is flawed.


No you don't! lol


Not true. I'm pointing out the reality that people make choices. If people ONLY made right choices, that is, the right choices were the only ones to make, they wouldn't be free at all, would they? A just God wouldn't set up His special creation for failure. But neither can a just God give that creation a choice without there being some alternative to choose.

I don't personally buy into "predestination" on the order of "absolutely no free will." That's just a matter of semantics and perspective. In other words, you could say we aren't really free, anyway. We are all slaves. It just comes down to a matter of which master we choose to serve--even if we are slaves to ourselves and our sinful nature. By contrast, being a slave to God is the ultimate freedom.

But "free will," if it exists, is not a magic bullet to end discussion. True freedom or no, we still make the choices we make. We "could have" chosen otherwise, but present reality is a reflection of the cumulative choices we've made in the past in conjunction with those we are making right now. You are, for example, making the choice whether to respond right this very minute. You could just as easily not respond as you could.

I'm not, most translations today are the result of Biblical scholarship trying to piece together the earliest recorded writings. This means "Latin to English" won't work at all. But, going further, the idea of this is kind of ad hoc. If we permit this, then couldn't we just appeal to ignorance on *anything*? I mean... ok, I admit that a person can use skepticism to promote another framework, but one can't just arbitrarily use it.

AngelRho-

Correct... At that particular moment, I was trying to figure out if I should respond.... I'm getting very frustrated, I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding my points or not, but I feel that for all of these endless words going back and forth, we aren't actually doing much communicating.

Test & Faith... in my interpretation.. if Abraham had faith in God, he would assume that God DID want him to sacrifice Isaac because God said that's what he wanted. As best as I know, God had never proved himself dishonest to Abraham, so why would Abraham be confident that God was anything but serious. The test would have been passed because God saw that Abraham was willing to do his will, no matter how distasteful Abraham might have found it. Abraham would have had to have faith in God's intent.
You have to remember that I, personally, do not believe the Bible to necessarily be a factual account of things... Therefore, I, personally don't think that God really tested Abraham at all. I believe it is a story meant to show man that this is how faithful you should be.

Thank you, you make valid points that I will go back and study later... however, unless it came before where I started reading or after I quit.. I did not see anything about going to court.. I read something like "put them to death immediately.."

But God clearly allows for slaves, so why would Christian's try to change this? I've been wondering this for awhile.. to me this is another one of those contradicting ideologies.


Apparently, we have vastly different logics. I reason that Adam and Eve would have had no experience to base an understanding on. So, as I agree that God, being good and perfect, wouldn't have set them up to fail.... I have to find fault with the story. I have been offering the "this would indicate this" and "that would indicate that" simply to show that, by my reasoning, none of it makes sense. I'm not blaming God, I'm trying to show that this line of reasoning doesn't make sense to me because it would indicate (to me) that God screwed up or that God isn't as good and as perfect as he seems.. Since I believe that this isn't an appropriate answer, the only other logical conclusion I find is that the "apparent facts" must be flawed.

.......... They knew OF one possible sin.... You mention your kids feeling the hot to know it's bad. I know that I don't want to smoke crack because I can SEE the effect it has on people and can see the extent of it's badness... We have the benefit of having a big evil world full of people who make mistakes to weigh for ourselves cause and effect and right and wrong. And many people still have to learn for themselves.. Adam and Eve were alone in a Paradise.... The world was sunshine, lollipops and rainbows before the "snake" showed up.

Yes.... let's see....

Everything that I've highlighted in my statement SHOULD indicate that I'm expressing conclusions or theories. I never once said "I believe our sins are God's fault". I am evaluating your theory, and weighing what I would conclude the natural procession of events to be, based on that theory. I don't have to agree with you to try to comprehend it.. and I can say, "If I believed that to be the case.............. this is what that would mean..." You are putting words in my mouth when I have (I thought) quite clearly indicated that I think this whole line of thought to be a load of CRAP! In case you didn't understand that time, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE TO BE TRUE. IF I EVALUATE A SCENARIO FROM IT'S PERSPECTIVE, THIS DOES NOT INDICATE THAT I BELIEVE IT.

As it is apparent that while reading my words, you can't seem to comprehend what I am actually saying, I think we should be done with this.

And... if you are in fact "god-like", perhaps I should more seriously consider atheism.

I specifically use the Bible that I do because they have supposedly gone back to earliest writings... to be honest... I have no idea what part he was claiming might be a mistranslation. And I don't really care. I was just glad that someone somewhere was willing to admit that something in the Bible doesn't make sense.. Blame it on the writers, blame it on the translations, I don't care... I consider the book to be flawed in it's reasoning, and would prefer to believe that the fault doesn't lie with God... However, at this point.. I'll go with anything..