Leviticus 12

1. 0

   Rad Manposted 10 years ago

   I understand that Leviticus 12 is God's direction through Moses to the Israelites and doesn't pertain to the rest of us. However I think this text illustrates perfectly how hypocritical some REAL Christians can be.
   
   Women gives birth to a boy = unclean for 7 days + wait 33 days to be purified.
   
   Women gives birth to a girl = unclean for 14 days + wait 66 days to be purified.
   
   Then she must bring a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. The priest shall offer them before the Lord to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.
   
   Why is she twice as unclean if she gives birth to a girl?
   
   What sin has she committed that animals have to die to atone for the sin?
   
   Does anyone really think any God was involved here?
   
   If any of you don't follow these laws why would you condemn homosexuals because of laws given to Moses regarding homosexuality among the Israelites. Leviticus 20 13 is directed towards the Israelites. Do any of you who preach that homosexuals should be put to death also follow Leviticus 12 after child birth?

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Sure, God was involved.  He was the one that designed and built the woman's body to BE unclean in the first place.  He not only built women that way, He also ORDERED them to commit the evil that makes them unclean (Genesis 1:28).
      
      They only follow laws against homosexuals because they don't like the practice themselves.  Being unclean and innately evil or sinful is NOT something they wish, so ignore the scripture for that part.

      replyreport
   2. 88

      MizBejabbersposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Pardon me if I get radical. I don't think a real god had anything to do with the Israelites in the Old Testament. I think humanity may have been the first test-tube babies created on earth by an advanced civilization, maybe even space aliens, who purported themselves to be gods to their new subjects. (Reference Sitchen, Von Daniken, et al) The gods could then claim anyone unclean whom they wished. Since this was a patriarchal society, it was put upon the female gender.  These gods had their own tribes following them, and the god the Isralites called JHVH or Jehovah was their "true god" as opposed to his nemesis, Baal. A real creator God would not have made such a distinction or put such trials and tribulations upon the people.
      It is ridiculous and stupid for so-called "intelligent" people of today to still be influenced by these laws of 4,000 years ago. Perhaps there really is a "God gene" after all.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Perhaps the "God gene" is the same gene that makes some more gullible than others?

         replyreport
      2. 60

         janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Is it more intelligent to think ALIENS did it than God? Make more logical sense that it was just natural evolution. (Which doesn't mean I don't believe in God, because I do.)

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I don't know about being more intelligent, but Occams Razor says it is likely the right answer.  With zero data, it's as good an answer as any other.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Really? Not seeing how aliens creating life here on Earth is more likely than natural evolution.
               
               I could be misunderstanding your post though.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  The origin of life has little or nothing to do with evolution.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Well I know THAT:)
                     
                     But what do you think is the origin of life, if not evolution? I thought you were an atheist I might be missing your point somewhere along the line, or making assumptions.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        I have no idea how life started, perhaps the hole soup thing makes sense as tests have been done that confirms the possibility. Perhaps a meteor can smashing down with the building blocks. I don't see the logic in Aliens dropping the building off purposefully, but perhaps accidentally.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           I think it's a possibility, by logic, that life could have been seeded here. But then, who seeded that life? And who seeded that alien planet? Seems more likely it just started here (as easily as it could have started anywhere else). I think life is much easier to create(or just happen accidentally) than billions of years.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              As it turns out earth is not the ideal place for live in the universe at all. As a matter of fact the earth is a relatively poor place.

                              replyreport
                        2. 96

                           wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           We were seeded as a food source for another species.  One day, when the soup bowl is full enough, they will be back to harvest.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              Us talking monkeys have been in the oven for 4 billion years. They should have came back when the dinos were around. A lot more meat.

                              replyreport
                              1. 96

                                 wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 No - I understand they have a penchant for brain tissue.  Dinosaurs had almost none at all.  They biggest concern is that they will catch US, eating monkey brains ala "Indiana Jones" and quickly come knocking.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                    Well, if it's large brains they like then we have nothing to fear. I'm glad I'm not a whale or elephant. Those guys are doomed.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 96

                                       wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                       It's quite possible that was the original intent.  Then the monkeys that walk upright virtually wiped out those species, leaving only themselves.
                                       
                                       It's been nice knowing you.

                                       report
                        3. 88

                           MizBejabbersposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           None of us know for sure. I believe in the existence of a higher power that seeds planets and I believe in alien intervention. The research in old Mesopotamian records done by such as Von Daniken  and Sitchen say that the Anunnaki and the Nephilim (mentioned in the Old Testament) mixed their DNA with that of the Neanderthals to create homo sapiens, and that is why there is no missing link. Sitchin even goes on to say that these Anunnaki and Nephilim believed in a God whom they called "I Am that I Am". There are two names for god mentioned in the old testament (other than Baal and the false gods), I Am that I Am and JVHV (Jehovah). I see no reason that we have to choose between god seeding and alien creation because the Anunnaki may have improved upon what was already here. If that sounds far-fetched, just think about the fact that our scientists are doing just that in their medical research and experiments with DNA.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              That doesn't line up with what he know about Neanderthals. All out of Africans share some Neanderthal DNA. Neanderthals and us have a shared ancestor. They move out of Africa first and we followed took some of their DNA and they died off. No Aliens involved. You can use Occam's razor and eliminate aliens.

                              replyreport
               2. 96

                  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  On requires that life (known to exist in this universe) grew elsewhere, and that it was intelligent (something we know happens).  It requires nothing new, nothing particularly comples.
                  
                  The other requires another complete universe, something never seen before.  It requires a totally different type of life, with only one intelligence in the entire universe.  It requires that that creature found a way to create universes and did so.  And it requires that the creature from another universe did it in order to have pets.  MUCH more complex, MUCH further outside anything we know.  And Occams razor says the simplest answer is likely the right one - the simplest answer is not another whole universe.  It is intelligent life, developing in THIS universe just as we did.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Why would evolution require an entirely new universe?
                     
                     Life had to start somewhere. I don't see why it couldn't have just started here.
                     
                     I must be missing your point entirely.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        Comparing life coming from aliens and life coming from a God.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Ok, sorry. I was missing your point.
                           
                           I thought we were comparing natural evolution to life being seeded through aliens.

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              No, Rad has it - comparing aliens to a god.
                              
                              Aliens vs abiogenesis (not evolution) - unknown.  Could be either, but somewhere along the long line of life, there must have been either a god or abiogenesis.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 Ok, I now I feel like a dope.
                                 
                                 But, I agree that abiogenisis is more logical than God.
                                 
                                 Abiogenisis seems more logical than aliens.
                                 
                                 (Despite logic, I still vote for God:)

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 96

                                    wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                    If you're a dope, we can be friends.  You'll fit right into my crowd!
                                    
                                    Many do vote for a god, even recognizing abiogenesis is more likely.  Why remains a mystery, but it is certainly not uncommon to see.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                       
                                       
                                       I know my personal reasons for choosing God over logic. It's not faith though. (Personal experience, which you sane folk call "craziness")
                                       
                                       It's a mystery to me how someone can believe in God from faith alone.

                                       report
                                       1. 96

                                          wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                          Mankind has the most amazing capability to rationalize - to make up "truth" that is anything but.  All it takes is a strong desire and a willing suspension of questioning but it sounds much better if it's called "faith".

                                          report
                                          1. 60

                                             janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                             Probably true.

                                             report
                                             1. 96

                                                wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                                *sharply*  Of course it's true!  Why else would we ever think a squalling mass of red flesh is cute?  And feed it, raising it with love and caring?  Because we rationalize that we love such a thing (and yes, I've raised two and love my grandchildren beyond words).
                                                
                                                Why else would we think that someone actually loves us (speaking for myself, not for you)?  Why would we love a parent, who just yesterday spanked us?  And why in the world would we ever love a sibling instead of just quickly killing it?  (I have 4, so really don't understand this one!).

                                                report
                                                1. 60

                                                   janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                                   We will just have to agree to disagree on that:)
                                                   
                                                   I will just get preachy if I were to say what I think, and that would bore you to tears.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 96

                                                      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Just caught a blurb on TV, running in the background: if (IF) Stonehenge is an observatory like they think, it makes the builders our first space scientists, the first to follow the stars with precision like that.  Wish I had been watching the program, but it sounded as if the builders of Stonehenge beat out the Egyptians.

                                                      report
                                                   2. 96

                                                      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Aw, a little tongue in cheek there.  Or a lot - My family is the most precious thing in the world to me, and that includes nephews, nieces, and siblings as well as spouse, children and grandchildren.
                                                      
                                                      Although newborns, until they begin to recognize and respond to people, are generally pretty ugly.  Except my own and my grandchildren of course.

                                                      report
   3. 88

      MizBejabbersposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Wilderness, I can't reply directly to your last couple of posts referring to the program on Stonehenge, but I saw it -- twice in fact. They basically said that the builders beat out the Egyptians. That there was a race now lost to the world that built Stonehenge. They hinted that it may have been aliens or the builders may have been aided by aliens because primitive natives would not have had the ability to quarry and lift these enormous stones. Watch for it if you want to see it because it will recycle again soon. Or if you have On Demand, look for History Channel programs with the word "Stonehenge" in the title.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks - we have On Demand and I will do that.  I seldom use it and forget I can do that.
         
         While not real interested in the possibilities of aliens (I find it highly unlikely), I am quite interested in the latest thinking about the reasons for Stonehenge.  Observatory, burial site, "church", why was such immense labor put into the project?
         
         If you can't reply, are you in the "threaded" view (top right of screen)?  "Chronological" will always let you reply if you can find the post that way.  Pay attention to the time it was posted and switch over.

         replyreport
         1. 88

            MizBejabbersposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks, I'll check it out. I'm not too swift about HP settings. They are trying to conclude that Stonehenge was built as an astronomical observatory.

            replyreport
2. 71

   Marie Flintposted 10 years ago

   That was under the Aries dispensation. Jesus brought in the Piscean dispensation, and we are now in the Aquarian dispensation under Saint Germain. We have to live in the present.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      MizBejabbersposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Now you're talking real spirituality, Marie. and there are those who still want to cling to the concept of duality of Aries and Pisces. I don't think the average person has figured out how to get his feet firmly on the ground yet. But humanity still has a couple of hundred to 300 more years to find its grounding in the age of Aquarius.

      replyreport