₦airaland Forum

Actually, you were the ass with your peurile statement about going to Hell. Just trying to get things into perspective by taking a little jab at Christianity, huh?

Go and whine about how badly mistreated you are somewhere else. Unless you bring something to the table, calling you a retard is entirely justified.

Anointing is an ancient tradition, predating Judaism. In the Bible, different oils are used for different purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anointing

@ mazaje. The passage probably refers to anointing with Olive Oil. It contains an anti-inflammatory, kills bacteria and was widely used medicinally back then.
In fact, it's still used today as a house-hold remedy and can be used for treating burns, cuts and stings amongst other things.
Don't forget - back then, there were no hospitals. Home remedies were all they had.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/29941.php

There are rules even in war and this guy broke them. In doing so, not only did he take innocent lives, but he bought shame on his army regiment and on his country. Not only did his action have direct consequences on the innocents he violated but atrocities like these also cause repercussions around the world.

He deserves to be executed. If he isn't, the US needs to take a long, hard look at itself and work out why the rest of the world hates it so much.

[quote author=big_bumper link=topic=267947.msg3831401#msg3831401 date=1241630854]Trust the British Government and the Labour Government to always find something to cover their shame If they gave a rat-arse about her, why was this story not the news of the century when she was arrested far back in August 2008 [/quote]The UK govt didn't know anything about this until a couple of months ago.

This smells very fishy. An innocent UK citizen can be expected to scream to high heaven for diplomatic help if they get into trouble in a foriegn country, embassy or not.

Someone kept very quiet about this for months before the UK was informed.

It is a viral hoax email.

babs787:
I dont have problem with the bible but your post showed that some of the authors were not inspired when they wrote the bible.

No. It's absolutely nothing to do with writing the Bible. It's to do with translating the Bible.
It doesn't fill me with much belief when it comes to your next quote:

Bastage, dont befool yourself. I am not a novice when it comes to bible reading. Denying the above would show that your authors were not under any inspiration but wrote what they felt they should.

Well, actually, if you can't tell the difference between translating and authoring, I'd say that you are a novice. Either that or just plain ignorant.

As for the Hebrew?

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0121.htm

I'm sure a "great Bible scholar" such as yourself will be able to translate the Hebrew and tell me if I'm right or wrong.

As opposed to the School for Retards, where you are going.

huxley:
As far as I know, Christianity has no concept of the hierarchy of sins.  At least, that concept cannot be justified biblically.

Actually it does.

Matthew 12:31-32 "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, netiher in this world, neither in the world to come."

John gives this quote. It's pretty ambiguous but the one thing it does make clear is that there are two types of sin - those that lead to death and those that don't:

John 5:16 If you see a Christian brother or sister sinning in a way that does not lead to death, you should pray, and God will give that person life. But there is a sin that leads to death, and I am not saying you should pray for those who commit it.

According to popular teaching though, Pride is the worst as it is the foundation for all other sins - including the one above.


You will also find in the Bible, many instances where different sins have different consequences.
As you know, I'm no fan of the OT, but if you take a look you will see many times where the god gets riled up and metes out different punishments for different sins. Logically, that points to an order of severity. The fact that the Bible states that there is judgement also points to a differing scale.

One way to look at sinning is this:

There are 3 people with 3 panes of glass.
The first drops it on the floor and smashes it completely.
The second bangs his against a wall and breaks off half.
The third scrapes against a table and breaks off a small piece of the corner.

The fact is that all 3 panes of glass are broken. But there are degrees to which it is broken.

Don't talk crap.

Murder is not the same as a lie in any book.

I've also pointed out that it refers to habitual lying.

Which part of that do you not understand?

Sometimes you seem purposefully pedantic, Huxley.

Use your common sense.

If you're in a conversation with Charles, David walks by and Charles turns to you and says "That guy's a liar", he's referring to his character.
People don't generally call other people "liars" unless they are personally involved in the lie or if the guy they're accusing is a habitual liar.

I doubt there is a single person on this planet who has never told a lie. Is every single person a liar in the sense of the word as it is usually used? Of course not.
Take the word in the context it is meant and stop acting like an idiot.

The word in Latin is "mendacibus".

This refers to a habitual liar.

Not what you would be in the example given.

The Greek word is "yeustai". This translates as "false swearers".

Read the passage again. I'd say it's very ambiguous.

It doesn't say that lying is a sin. It may classify liars in with the bad but it doesn't really specify what a liar is. It could be referring to people who continually tell lies for evil means rather than someone who tells one lie for good.

but we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully

Would someone telling a mob where to find victims be using it lawfully?

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient

Wouldn't it be a righteous man who refused to tell the mob?

and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine

Again, wouldn't it be against sound doctrine to aid others in murder?

That said, I'm going to go and have a look at the Latin and Greek. Sometimes words like "liars" have a deeper meaning or a different context.

Actually, let me requalify that last sentence.

You could probably find something in the Judaic tribal book (the OT) if you look hard enough. I've got to admit, I'm unaware of it though if it exists.

But the NT does not mention it as far as I know and judging from the actions of Christ, breaking a law for a good deed isn't frowned upon - ie: he worked on the Sabbath.

Quite simply no.

Read the link, Huxley.

You're an atheist and that is an atheist website.


In this case, even if a general untruth were a sin, a Christian would be making a sacrifice and would probably get away with it. He would be making a sacrifice - committing a sin to save dozens of others from committing sins. That's if you believe that telling lies in this sort of scenario is banned in the Bible in the first place (which it isn't).

No. The 9th Commandment is not about lying as many misinterpret it to be.
Do Not Bear False Witness refers to ancient Hebrew law cases. It does not relate to the general telling of untruths.

Even atheists agree on this point:

http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/commandment09.htm

Then there is the question of just what “bearing false witness” is supposed to entail. It seems as though it might have been originally intended to prohibit lying in a court of law. For the ancient Hebrews, anyone caught lying during their testimony could be forced to submit to whatever punishment would have been imposed upon the accused — even including death. It must be remembered that the legal system of the time didn’t include a position of official state prosecutor. In effect, anyone coming forward to accuse someone of a crime and “bear witness” against them served as prosecutor for the people.

But anyway, in this case the pros would far outweigh the cons and there is no problem with keeping the truth from a bloodthirsty mob.

It's a stupid question. I wouldn't even call it a double edged sword.

The answer is 1.

2 ends up in murder. It doesn't matter wether they are Muslims or not - murder is forbidden.
The 1st option does not see you as a fake Christian - it shows you as a real Christian.

mazaje:
i agree with you that no body has the monopoly over morality but it is very unfortunate that some people mostly the religious people believe that they do. . .

I believe you've fallen into a psychological trap.
I mix freely with religious people and atheists and neither group seems to think that they have the moral upperhand.
Talk to any regular Christian and he will tell you that he is immoral. As seen in this thread, the Bible teaches them so (however it is interpreted). It is only the charlatans that believe that they are superior.

Two reasons (in my opinion) why atheists seem to hold this view that Christians think they are morally superior:
One - the fact the Christianity revolves around morality. It is very difficult to extricate the people from the system and view them as separate entities.
Two - fundamentalist preachers who roam around telling everyone else that they're going to Hell. It's these vermin who get the media attention and get stuck in the psyche of the non-Christian.


Regarding moral values. How would you answer the question about chopping down the tree?

No2Atheism:
The all seeing eye : is the representation of the egyptian god "osiris" the same god being worshipped by illuminati and freemasons (hence part of the reason to know that illuminatis and freemasons control the united states of america and hence the world at large), hence anyone who ignorantly uses such a tatoo is ignorantly connecting himself to the worship of osiris end of story.

First thing: the above is just conspiracy bullshit. The Illuminati does not exist and the Freemasons do not worship the All Seeing Eye.
The image itself may have originated with the Egyptians but it has also been used many times in Christianity - particularly during the Renaissance. It was used to depict the Trinity. So actually, the All Seeing Eye is a symbol that was adopted by Christianity. Hence anyone who burbles on about worshipping Osiris and Freemasons and Illuminati running the world is just talking crap. End of story.

Tatooing does not glorify the creator, hence why should it be done by a bible believer in the first place.
Tatooing is all about glorifying self,
Tatooing has the inherent danger of falling into the practice of occults even without knowing it.

There is plenty that Christians do that doesn't glorify the creator. Every single day there are a multiple of instances. Unless you're a monk, it's probably safer that you stay in bed and don't get up at all.
As for falling into the practice of an occult without even knowing it? That's pretty damn laughable. If you worship the Christian god, you worship the Christian god. If you worship the Islamic god, you worship the Islamic god. If you worship the Hindu, etc. You can't worship the Christian god and be a Hindu.
Your statement is illogical and laughable.

Tatooing is one of those things which , when done by a so called mature bible believer can cause an immatured bible believer to fall into the trap of occultic practices and hence into sin.

Instances? How many people do you know who have tattoos? How many of them are practicing Satanists?



I personally don't like tattoos. I don't have one and have no intention of getting one. And I would be pretty annoyed if my kids got one. I believe that too often the tattoo is of poor quality and also with time, fades to look bad on the skin. But to use a forgotten, irrelevant law and a load of mumbo jumbo that has no basis in Christianity to condemn it is ignorant.

mazaje:
sure and i acknowledge it in my previous post. . . the realization that an action is unsustainable and the fact that it is to the detriment of the family lead the cave men to regard it as an immoral act. . .

So he could be regarded as your atheistic Adam, right?
The point I'm trying to make is that there is very little difference between the Christian stance and the Atheist stance.

I certainly do not believe that either group has a monopoly over morality but do tend to disagree with your description of Christian morality - not because it is incorrect per se but because it ignores the fact that all groups of people tend to act in the same way, religious or not. If they've got a common bond, there's probably an instance of common morality that they will try to justify in some way.


@Huxley

I contend that if you were born on the island and have no knowledge of a world outside of the island, and you are the only human inhabitant of the island, then there is nothing you could do on the island that you could considered immoral, at least initially.

Imagine there is a tree on your island. Now imagine as you look out to sea that the tree compliments the scenery and makes the view beautiful (we're assuming that you would naturally understand the concept of beauty. After all, we all know what is pleasing to our own eyes).
Now imagine that you stub your toe on that tree. In a fit of rage, you chop the tree down, tossing it into the sea and destroying the beautiful view.
Have you committed an immoral act?

I would suggest that tattooing something like the All Seeing Eye is not a problem.
Tattooing an image of an idol that you worship would be the problem. That is what the Leviticus passage refers to.
It's like these girls who get little tattoos of devils and imps - they're not Satanists. The tattoo is merely art.
This is not banned in Leviticus.

The law was bought in to keep the Hebrews following their god. It was created to stop them from reverting back to pagan worship. Tattooing images on one's body today does not mean that one is going to go off and worship a pagan idol.

Laws have to be looked at in their context. The Leviticus tattoo law is no exception.

@Huxley

Yes. As I'm aware of what constitutes an immoral act, it wouldn't be imperative for another human being to be present.

But let me expand on that question. Say you were born on that island and that you never had any contact with another human being at all (your mother disappeared and you miraculously survived). Would you naturally create your own system of morality? Would you still be capable of committing an act of immorality?

@mazaje.

The actual system of morality may have involved trial and error as it evolved, but there must have been a time when one of those cavemen realised that "This specific act is immoral", right?

You seem to think that morality evolved exclusive to survival. Where therefore does the concept of altruism come in?: ie Sacrifice and Charity.

I've pointed this out elsewhere but the tattoo laws in Leviticus don't really apply to the sort of tattoos we're talking about here.

In the time of the ancient Hebrews it was common practice for pagans to tattoo the bodies of their dead with the symbols of their gods. Since the Hebrews were only supposed to worship one god it was just common sense for this to be included in their law.

It has nothing to do with modern day art of tattooing - that is unless you're thinking of tattooing an image of a pagan god upon your body!!!

You guys are getting mixed up between "spirit" and "soul".

But we can take it even further!!!


I'm no believer in a literal Adam and Eve but I do see the story of the Garden of Eden as an extremely good metaphor for how immorality began and how it has affected the human condition.

You say that morality evolved. In that case there must have been a first conscious immoral act, right?

If that is true, the first culprit who committed that immoral act is the atheistic Adam is he not? And because of that Adam, the rest of humankind through the ages then becomes capable of committing immorality, right?

If that is the case, what is the real difference between atheists and believers over this subject?

There really isn't one is there?

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=268892.msg3834626#msg3834626 date=1241697890]If a man has an inherent capacity to do something immoral, does that make him immoral?
I don't think so. If a man has the capacity to steal,I don't think he's a thief until he actually does steal. I don't think he's 'immoral' until the latency translates into an immoral act. But 'immoral' isn't merely what we do, is it? Doesn't it include what we think and feel as well?[/quote]If immorality is inherent, then the fact that the man is going to commit an immoral act is inevitable isn't it?

See, what I'm trying to get at is that the concept of Original Sin is not a particularly religious one. We all commit immoral acts. There is no escaping from immorality as it is a human condition.
Christians just use the story of Eve and the apple as a means to explain how immorality came about whereas atheists will explain that it's down to things like survival instinct. But both agree that immorality began with sentient man and is human nature.

Yep. I wish to see.

Post it here.

Did I tell you the story about a Gay Yoruba Nigger Jew with a Kalaznikov shooting at people from Darfur for being Sudanese

I probably went to school with that guy.

We said he'd turn out no good,

So eating prawns is bad because God says so in Leviticus?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO It's all one big conspiracy.

Save me from the CIA, the Loch Ness Monster and the Illuminati.
They're pissed at me because I found out that they faked the Moon Landings and shot JFK.
They'll probably come after me with a Death Ray that they built at Area51 and sell my organs to Grey Aliens.

LOL. You know why they call them Conspiracy theories? Because they're a con. The whole meaning of a conspiracy theory is that it can't be proven by factual evidence. Yet you'll see assholes running around, rabidly proclaiming that they are totally correct and you're an idiot for not believing them even though they cannot prove a word that they're saying - words that the majority of time have just been lifted from the net without them even bothering to do any research for themselves as to checking the veracity.

You are dealing with a bunch of northbound asses with their heads facing southward.

Northbound with heads facing Southward is far, far better than Northbound with one's head pointing up one's own asshole.

mazaje:
when the ancient jews saw that there was no need to form any partnership with their neighbours and that taking what belongs to their neighbours will better their suvival their warrior and tribal god yahweh told them to kill them all and take what belongs to them (land, women, animals etc). . .when they later realize that doing business with their neigbhours will help them survive better their god changed. and encoraged them to be all inclusive and preach to the gentiles. . . .so all men shape their morals according to how it will best help them survive. . . if doing wrong will help man survive better he will do wrong to survive and if doing good will help him survive better he will do good to survive. . . .so man is not necessarily immoral it all depends on what makes him survive best

I have a problem with this.
To me, the Old Testament atrocities perpetrated by the Jews in the name of their god were immoral - even though we can claim that they were committed to help them survive better.

If you believe not, what makes an atheist any different from a believer? Believers justify acts through their God (which in this case was helping the Hebrews survive). Atheists justify the same sort of acts by saying that they were necessary for survival.
In this case, all you're doing is just cutting out the middle man.

Is it not possible to commit an endless stream of immoral acts in the quest for survival? IE: Shitting on your brother in a bid to get ahead. And are there not times when morality will end that survival? IE: Taking a bullet for someone.
Or is morality totally relative to each individual?

This leads me onto a question:

If a man has the inherent capacity to sin, does that make him a sinner?

I'd particularly like to hear the atheistic view on this as well, so let me rephrase it in another way.

If man has the inherent capacity to commit immoral acts, does that make him immoral?

I don't get you, dude. That just seems to back up what I've been saying - that it's hereditary.
The other thing that we seem to disagree on is that Catholic doctrine states that we are all responsible for Adam's Original Sin:

402  All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice.

I understand the fact that it's not a "personal" sin that's not handed down. But the implication still remains in Catholic doctrine that every one of us is guilty for Adam's act.
My inference is that we are not guilty. That our sin is just the result of that act carried out by Adam.