juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
My contention is that self-professed "wise men" today can't tell the difference between a slave and a bondservant in the Bible.
And that doesn't surprise me one bit.
In order for scientists to make their accusations about the Bible stick, they have to change Its wording.That is a good term.
Again, knowledge and wisdom are not the same things. Most of us are attempting to express some knowledge.They claim they are Homo sapiens, and that means "wise men."
Paul warns against doing that, as it can (and does) lead to atheism.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
In cases where it doesn't lead to atheism, it can lead to witchcraft.
wizard (n.)
early 15c., "philosopher, sage," from Middle English wys "wise" (see wise (adj.)) + -ard. Compare Lithuanian zynyste "magic," zynys "sorcerer," zyne "witch," all from zinoti "to know." The ground sense is perhaps "to know the future." The meaning "one with magical power, one proficient in the occult sciences" did not emerge distinctly until c. 1550, the distinction between philosophy and magic being blurred in the Middle Ages.
Note the similarities with science here?
If you're here any length of time, you will see these exact words used.
Note especially the preference for the term "magic" over "miracles" in these posts.
"Witch" comes from the word "to know" ... as does "science."
Many profess to know the future of the universe, and it is nowhere close to how God says it is going to end.
That is correct, but an issue with the scientist and not science. It would not be particularly scientific to alter/change something in order to fit a desired outcome would it?In order for scientists to make their accusations about the Bible stick, they have to change Its wording.
Does God regularly change his mind then? I thought he knew everything that is going to happen or is that just a myth?
The O/T seems to be a catalogue of Gods disasters, one mistake and mess after another, reason? the Christian God is a mishmash of all the Gods that were around long before he was even thought of.
Then why didn't they label us Homo rationalis?No expert on Latin myself but consider sapien can also be understood as having or being rational as opposed to grouping us as a species with creatures that lack such rationality.
I would agree, if it wasn't for one point "wise acr"... er ... "wise men" overlook:That is correct, but an issue with the scientist and not science.
Perhaps because wise implies more than just being rational - my feeble attempt to redirect the focus away from what appeared to me to be an expression that smart=having knowledge=wise. I don't think the term sapien was selected because the person doing so thought humans as a collective group of creatures can be said to be wise as that implies a general trait of having experience, using rationality properly and having good judgement. I fail to see how an observant person would see those traits as being particularly applicable to every human so the selection of the term cannot have been or I should say it is not reasonable to suggest it was based on an observation about human in general being wise. I can see however how the term could be meant to distinguish the species in regards to our natural ability to reason (we are rational) compared to other similar species around us.Then why didn't they label us Homo rationalis?
Do you think it's coincidental they use the term Homo sapiens?
Am not sure why people who believe employment can represent a form of indentured servitude should restrict that thought to only US employment. But everyone has an opinion.That's because of the medical insurance system used in the US, no job = no medical cover and no medical cover could equal death, even with medical cover in the US it could mean death if the cover is refused, what a crazy backward system.
Fair enough.Pardon me if that was not what was intended but the way some posts were perceived by me. What I can say is that it is not particularly wise to go round and round with someone that not only does not wish to understand what the other is expressing but cannot fathom that their own expression is so narrow or so broad that it might be misunderstood.
Looks like "slavery" has found a new cruciverbalist.if that's not a form of slavery I don't know what is,
Every seventh year, any slave can go free. Every fiftieth year, all debts (include slaves) go free.
You decide.
No the Scripture does not imply that.
I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. When we say that if you spray paint your cat blue then you cannot be punished because that cat is your property, then that means you can spray paint your cat blue. When the bible says that if you beat your slave with a rod and they don't die right away then you cannot be punished because that slave is your property, then that means you can beat your slave.
You are trying to mislead.
You can eat any food. But not all foods are good to you.
God does understand human nature. There are many similar teachings in the Bible.
Who should I give my children to then (if I had any)?To me it is clear that owning another human being as property is not moral.
Who should I give my children to then (if I had any)?
Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
. . . . Would also like to point out that a "belief" that something is true as it would apply to a theory, is not the same as knowing something to be true. We could talk about a theory being well supported by the evidence (or not), we could talk about gaps in the evidence for a theory(or it having none), and we could talk about a theory being more (or less) likely to accurately explain reality as we currently understand it. But we can never say we know or in this same sense believe a theory is true, because in science at least, at least real science and not someone pretending to have a position that stands against Christianity, saying or believing a theory to be true means it is no longer a theory. . . .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?