WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Post Reply New Topic

hahahaha. I might have tats, piercings, dance, bowl, smoke.. you didn't mention drinking..... but I'VE NEVER SKIPPED SCHOOL! lol

If you'll recall God had an angel step in to protect the child.

Vex, sorry for being so rough. I shouldn't have used that term.

I do recall that part.. and if you want.. I'll pull out one of my Bibles and read up..... Ge 22:2 "And he went on to say: "Take, please, your son, your only son whom you so love, Isaac, and make a trip to the land of Moriah and there offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall designate to you..." Therefore, God might want you to sacrifice your son.... And, the fact of the matter is, the child would have never have needed protection if "God" hadn't told Abraham to kill him in the first place.

Isn't there some place that also says that if your brother dies, you should take his wife as your own? The OT seems to encourage multiple wives, yet that's frowned upon today... You're not supposed to eat animals with cloven hooves... There are many, many things the OT says you should or shouldn't do... that are not observed today... Funny that we hang onto the hateful ones.

In the NT (Luke 10:27), Jesus defined the Law as this "You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole strength and with your whole mind, and your neighbor as yourself" .... he doesn't exclude homosexuals in that...

Perhaps what was truly meant was that physically it makes more sense for a man to approach another man from behind, versus face to face. I don't presume that I know exactly what the author was thinking... I just like to be objective!

Why would he need to "protect the child" from something he had allegedly ordered done? And of course, yes, I know the trickster thinking that he was just playing a little joke on Abraham to "test" him in some way ...

... but then what about the thought of Abraham having been planning to do some kind of other-gods child sacrifice and then the god who said to not put one's child through the fire -- no human sacrifice -- simply intervened in order to "protect the child" and to correct Abraham's near-fatal error?

Lesson learned: No, God did/does not ever want children sacrificed.

You assume there are others, and that you, them, and I see. That we, anyone exist. That you exist. That we all share the same understanding of the characters in the particular configuration used has "meaning". There are thousands of assumptions made to simply continue living that it's hard to recognize them anymore. I know that. (Or do I?)
You rely on many, many various assumptions and presuppositions. For example, you are looking at the screen, as you read this, remind yourself that what you see is only within the confines of your mind. Then, after pondering the ramification of all external stimuli are in fact not external, and not direct, and they go through many numerous intermediary states. Of which cannot be definitively proven to, at all moments, even function reliably. That being only within the confines of your own mind, can you prove anything exists beyond it?
We make, simply because of necessity the assumption that all these things are real. We trust them. We have "faith" in that what we see is in fact what is. What we feel is there. What we taste, hear, smell...etc. But all of these things are external, and not within. The mind within the self, soul, consciousness, the you to which I'm referring, not the physical sack of flesh, can never truly "know" anything beyond itself. Or ever truly know itself, for that matter. For if it exists in isolation from all things, can it even be at all?
So, yea...I doubt everything. I doubt you, me, my phone bill, my phone. I doubt the sun and the moon and the skies, the trees the birds, the flowers in may. I doubt all things without prejudice. Nothing is knowable. There are simply degrees of likelihood, degrees of certainty. With nothing 100%. Or for that matter, nothing 0% either.

When proving something, you must have something by which to compare, or measure. If our test equipment is flawed (Um, hello, human equipment...flawed) we cannot verify accuracy of data gained.

That is where belief comes into play. Most people have countless beliefs. Beliefs help people to make these leaps beyond pure logic.

Understood ... I think I think I believe I believe (because I/we/you can?) ...

Whew.

But yes ... and yet some kind of cranial device and its mechanisms must exist (logic says) or else we could not even ponder at all?

Nevertheless, yes ... impure speculation, all.

Yes, it was just a cruel experiment.


I think the dead see scrolls contain the complete version: "You shalt not lie with a man the same way you lie with a woman ...If you know what I mean."

Anyway, the verse does such a good job being unspecific that for example, lesbianism should be all right.

I think this take on the story is interesting

I would imagine that truth-finding methods should be considered responsible. After all, if the decision is outright arbitrary, then that is a problem


Christian churches only canonized texts already in the background, but a conscious effort to create scriptures by the institution didn't really exist. As it stands, the traditional Catholic view is that the Bible is a very difficult book to interpret, which is why they used to not let laymen read the book as a naive reading would push one towards heresies.

Under such a system, the church is a means of knowledge, not just a set of doctrines, as such, one's right/ability to disagree is undermined by the theological base. You might as well use the "disagree with the church" element against the Bible itself, and well.... we can say that sufficient divergence is a problem for any Christian view, but the possibility isn't a problem as the issue is what one currently believes.


It ends where it makes sense. I mean, "decide for myself" doesn't mean "pick and choose arbitrarily". One can instead have a many-pillared system of knowledge, where the Bible plays a role, but where Biblical claims if they disagree with other justified claims, are rejected. For instance, one might say that the flood is rejected on grounds of geological evidence, etc. In such cases, it isn't so much that you just "make a choice" but rather you accept the choice that another foundation for truth grants you.


It's a historical document that was compiled together from multiple sources. There was no "writing council" at all. Even further, the mere fact that a source is wrong on some things doesn't entail that it is wrong on everything. The Bible's specialness can be that it is spiritual, not that it is an inerrant work, but rather because it is the source one uses on certain issues, or on more issues.


You're almost certainly from a Protestant background though, possibly a more conservative Protestant background. The reason I say that is because Protestants make the Bible extremely important to their theology, so if it fails, there is nothing left. But.... not all Christianities are the same. Even Protestantisms can avoid being so black and white.

Well, that would also be the case about truth. We cherrypick scientific claims, although we admit science is true. The real issue is that ideally one is using a method.



Ok, but still, "lying to yourself" seems to require an inconsistency claim.

Yes, and I thank you for bringing in that kind of source!

Can you remember every thought you've ever had? Some are forgotten, or at least explained has having been forgotten. Can you be certain you even had any of them in particular to begin with? I cannot make that kind of claim. Do you know what you will think in the future? Or that you will even be there to think? If you remove all things that carry even the smallest degree of doubt, you are left with nothing. Not even a self.
The method most people choose, or by necessity fall into is through beliefs. They believe that they exist, that all they perceive to be true. And some take this belief to things beyond their own senses.
Personally, I eschew belief in anything. I run on various degrees of likely hood and it suits me and my life/way of thinking. I'm not sure I've ever believed anything, not sure if I'm even capable of it.
I've adapted to my environment, however, in that language is limited in the concrete. Statements with certainty are a staple of communicating. So I've incorporated them, obviously.
I'm not sure how any of what I wrote was impure, although all things are speculation. Also not sure why you would assert a cranial device is required for thought, or that that statement is logical.

Agreed, Moog that actually brings another perspective that deflates the argument of cruelty. God sending an angel to make it absolutely clear that human sacrifice is forbidden (particularly using children as sacrifices).

I definitely hear you there, and my response is in your own words below ...

... assuming, of course, and as it might logically seem that I actually even can believe and think.

Oh no, and I would not want to know even if I could!


Logic says I will be there then if I am here now.


Again: "I run on various degrees of likely hood ..." ... and then whatever "it" is -- and then, of course, what does "is" mean, eh?! -- that can actually do that (if it actually can) is then likely-logically the essence of my "self", I think I think I believe I believe I speculate.


Yes, yes, yes, yes and apparently, I speculate.


Nothing to me suggests any impurity there, but some folks would likely consider us heretics of some kind.


... and thus do we return to the very beginning of all this, whatever it is, and if there even is an it that even is.