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?
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.
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.
Perhaps the "God gene" is the same gene that makes some more gullible than others?
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.)
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.
Really? Not seeing how aliens creating life here on Earth is more likely than natural evolution.
I could be misunderstanding your post though.
The origin of life has little or nothing to do with evolution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comparing life coming from aliens and life coming from a God.
Ok, sorry. I was missing your point.
I thought we were comparing natural evolution to life being seeded through aliens.
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.
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:)
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.
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.
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".
*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!).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
by marinealways24 8 years ago
I would like to have a debate on whether or not you believe we are or aren't inelligent design.I didn't post this in religion because I want logical explanations for why you believe what you write. If you write something for or against intelligent design, logically explain your answer and why you...
by ngureco 2 years ago
Why Are Most Atheists More Intelligent Than Religious People?
by Baileybear 7 years ago
Have read that cats, dolphins, ants are. I recall doing a school project on bees and was fasinated with how bees communicate with each other.Are humans really more intelligent etc than other animals, or do they just think they are? Why do humans search for meaning? Do any other...
by veritorogue 6 years ago
Does what you believe indicate how intelligent you are?Are atheists logical and reasoned and religious people imbeciles? Are conservatives insipid dolts and liberals enlightened pragmatists? Is the barista with a masters degree in medieval literature more intelligent that the ASE certified auto...
by rutley 2 years ago
Are you intimidated by someone with a higher education than you?Do you feel dumber, that you can't compete or just insecure that they know more than you?
by Alexander A. Villarasa 22 months ago
The classical definition of causality states that a cause and its effect(s) can be different types of entity. In equational terms a cause is considered necessary:->> if x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the presence of x. The presence of x...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|