₦airaland Forum

CatfishBilly:
Would I be disappointed? Absolutely. Who doesn't want their gene to be passed down from generation to generation?
But it's their choice. Whatever they choose, man. I can't force my choice down their throats.

Yes I can child! I can teach/indoctrinate you with values I want you to have. I'd even use the fear of hell, deprivation of food, my love for you or whip you if I were those ways inclined. Of course once you are grown enough to go your own way my control stops. I'll have to chose if I love you just the way you are in the end.

DangotePikin:
Christianity predates Islam isn't that enough evidence of which is more genuine? I'm sure if you should ask an independent historian to examine the evidence of both Christians and Muslims, he would say Christianity is more factual. Jesus was born years before Muhammad.

On that basis, Zeus and Osiris, to chose a couple, would be more valid gods as they both predate YHWH.

As to the ops question, I indoctrinate my child. I tell it 2 naira plus 2 naira is equal to 4 naira without saying why. I wouldn't want it to think otherwise!

Manifesto. Positio Fraternitatis Rosae Crucis

It is words that one quibbles over in the main, to wit that of this thread is to do with 'cults'. There are they who sit at the bottom of a mountain and make claim to pronounce what could be seen from the top, yet, having never delved to climb to the summit of the mountain, they have either been told what is to be seen from the top - in which case they should wonder at the accuracy and the motive of they who tell them what lay above; or they themselves, having other reasons and motives, either intentionally or otherwise and to harm or not, make it up in their own heads and claim knowledge of the sight to be seen from above. Indeed, it can be hidden and made into a cult into which only the most worthy, or the more damned alone shall be shown and made welcome to that which may be hidden. Indeed bounds of santity could be set about the mountain baring all except Moses to rise up to the summit. Yet, some have defied this order and risen to the very top of the mountain and grasped of the pearls that lay strewn at the summit; while some, being blind, even if they were led up to the summit, would hardly see pearls but call out "worthless stones!", even if their wealth were placed in thy hands.

It is therefore for the enoblement of those with eyes that work, whether so they can adopt or outright condemn that which is within - the choice being thine own - is the The Real History of the Rosicrucians by [url=http://www.controverscial.com/Arthur%20Edward%20Waite.htm]Arthur Edward Waite[/url] as written in 1887 laid out before you at no cost. So that the veil that clouds the sight can be checked, tested and removed if need be, having climbed up the summit thyself, so that you too can make statements about, for or against, the scene from atop the mountain.

As to whether it is a cult or not, I lay before you the Solemn Promise that is broken to bring forth this light (or darkness, if that be thy bend):

I, B. A., in the presence of the Great Architect of the Universe, and of this worthy worshipful, and warranted Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, regularly assembled and properly dedicated, of my own free will and accord, do hereby and hereon sincerely and solemnly promise and swear, I will always hele, conceal, and never reveal any part or parts, point or points, of the secrets or mysteries of or belonging to Free and Accepted Masons in Masonry, which may heretofore have been known by me or shall now or at any future period be communicated to me, unless it be to a trusted and lawful Brother, or Brothers, and not even to him or them until after due trial, strict examination, or sure information from a well-known Brother that he or they are worthy of that confidence, or in the body of a just, perfect, and regular Lodge of ancient Freemasons. I further solemnly promise that I will not write those secrets, indite, carve, mark, engrave, or otherwise them delineate, or cause or suffer it to be done by others, if in my power to prevent it, on anything movable or immovable under the canopy of Heaven, whereby or whereon any letter, character, or figure, or the least trace of a letter, character, or figure, may become legible, or intelligible to myself or any one in the world, so that our secret arts and hidden mysteries may improperly become known through my unworthiness. These several points I solemnly swear to observe, without evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation of any kind, under no less a penalty, on the violation of any of them, than that of having my throat cut across, my tongue torn from its root and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea whence the tide doth wash twice in the course of a natural day or the more effective punishment of being branded as a willfully perjured individual, void of all moral worth, and totally unfit to be received into this worshipful Lodge, or any other warranted Lodge, or society of men who prize honour and virtue above the external advantages of rank and fortune. So help me God, and keep me steadfast in this my Great and Solemn Obligation of an Entered Apprentice Freemason.

Except that the obligation is waived for those on the summit of the Prince Rose Croix

They were busy making money off the trade!

Christianity's Justification of the Slave Trade

WHY DID CHRISTIANS JUSTIFY AFRICAN SLAVERY?

The Bible and slavery

The Muslims too were making money, note

Islam slave history in Africa. Muslim Black slavery

By Bayo Olupohunda

Sometime in mid January 2010, a group of Nigerian international travelers emerged from the tunnel of the KLM flight that had just landed at the Amsterdam Schipol from Lagos. After what seemed to be a long delay, the Nigerian passengers disembarked and walked apprehensively towards the first immigration point for the first in a series of screening they would later be subjected to at the Amsterdam Airport.

The passengers heading towards US were immediately removed from the throng and herded into a large room where they were made to go through intense screening, pat downs and total body scan that was introduced in the aftermath of the December Day attempted bombing of a US North West Flight 253 Airliner in Detroit by a Nigerian national, Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab.

This singular act of the young Nigerian has prompted a backlash against Nigeria and her nationals by immigration across Europe where Airports have introduced stringent measures to check travelers from Nigeria, especially those heading to the US who are now made to go through degrading pat downs, bizarre questionings and total body scan specially introduced for Nigerians and the nationals in the US terror watch list.

NIA

Sorry G1, I have voted that you be banned. Not only have you contravened the rule of obscene and offensive language, but also have two avatars. Surely there's a rule against that!?!

Congrats Davidylan.

wirinet:
Infact they kept civilization in ignorance for a better part of 17 millinia. They are opposed to learning, to them everything a man needs to learn is already contained in their book handed down by their god, and others not within can only be learned from revelation directly from their god. Searching for any other knowledge like the origin of the universe or man is sheer rebellion leading to hell.

What would they want to learn for, wiri! Does their book not say that "On the day that they learn they shall die"? [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%202:17&version=NIV]Genesis 2:17[/url] And if their book says so is that not "God said so". Funny thing is how what really happens when they learn is the opening of their eyes! But that has been placed in the devil column [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:5&version=NIV]Genesis 3:5[/url]

The take that Jesus Christ dude with his "It is written"! [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:1-11&version=NIV]Matthew 4:1-11[/url]. A learner, right! An eater of the Fruit of Good and Evil, who knows the twixt of the twain! No wonder he died, after the angels had ministered to him! And if only people could understand.

Bloody atheists! It was not about justice, but about what they deemed right at the time. In those days people were promiscuously fornicating. Sexually transmitted diseases were rife amongst the people and children were being born without fathers. This law is simply the equivalent of well, to be banal, a condom. Though it was really to enforce abstention.

The second was, marriage arrangement. You take a woman, you take her virginity and she was yours. Sounds equivalent to what barbarians did, except that you paid for the taking.

Still, to those who claim God gave the law, well this is two of them. What say?

noetic4:
I would love to know your idea of God

Your assertion that 'God' had no beginning is not what I have found to be true. I myself am not a believing person. The reason I do not believe in Gods is that I have read of so many of them that it makes no sense to me to accept any one of the one's that I know of as being the definitive One God. A look at the Judaic Scripture, and the Bible which evolved from it, clearly shows that even the Jews believed in a myriad of Gods before they settled on Yahweh, Jehova. It is why they resorted to not naming it in the beginning, to avoid conflict amongst the people. If they do not give their God a name, they reasoned, no one could claim they worshipped some other God.

A later resolution to this problem of many Gods is what Moses attempted on Mount Sinai. "I am the Lord thy God", begins the Ten Commandments, "thou shalt not have any other Gods but me". If there were no other Gods to have, I have always asked, why would the one single God that exists pass such a law? And when I check the written evidence, I have found that there were, and still are many Gods, so why believe a thing that is not true? Saying that, I do not suggest that others reason as I do! There may be many Gods for buda, but that is no reason for others to follow in my thinking if he evidence does not suggest as it does to me.

That said, human conscience is indeed necessary for laws to exist. One must be a reasoning person to institute laws in the first place, and these would be based on some rational. A person may know, for instance that theft is not a good thing as it deprives a person of the things that rightly are his or hers. If someone else just takes them when they wish, then how is one to live? Might not one resort to stealing the life of the stealer of one's goods? It is for the protection of personal property therefore that a law would be passed that one shall not covet one's neighbours’ goods. All societies have eventually come to this concussion whether they know Yahweh or not, as the evidence clearly shows. So when you claim that conscience existed long before the laws, yes, you would have to be correct, for without consciousness, there would be no awareness of a better way to institute society.

Consciousness is what makes a person have a conscience. To be conscious, one has to have knowledge of humans and their environment. In fact, the way that this is described in the Bible is that Adam and Eve acquired consciousness when it is said that they ate the fruit of Good and Evil. They gained knowledge, became aware, and acquired consciousness, and thereby a conscience, which is the reason they are said to have hidden their unclothedness. Before that fruit eating, they knew nothing, and there were no laws, except "Do not eat of the fruit of Good and Evil", with the punishment clearly stated.

Now, as you say, a "group of people received LAWS from God not recorded in the bible". Abimelech in Genesis 20 was the King of Gerar. When Abraham arrived there he found that they too had laws indeed, and the Bible has it recorded that God spoke to him, but where does such a statement come from? Is it not the writers of the Bible who make such an assertion? How do they know that it was God who said these things to Abimelech? How do they know it was Abraham's God? Could it not also be that Abimelech was a good King who ruled a country which had laws? Do note that Abraham lied about his wife because he thought they had no laws! But that is to question the Bible, and you have shown too much regard for my opinion for me to rightly propose such things, knowing your position.

On a pertinent note, if the majority of people do not believe that laws come from their God they will not obey them. If people do not believe that there is a punishment for transgression, they will transgress. In essence, this discussion is more philosophical on my part, and not intended to make one depart from their held beliefs. Historically speaking however, there is a truth as to the origin of laws.

I didn't intend to post this so many times. It didn't show up and I thought it hadn't posted.

noetic2:
This is incredible. . . .so who or what else preceded God?

Now you are entering the realm of belief my dear noetic, and I fear that we might begin to move so far apart that conversation becomes impossible. Do note that as a believer, you can not see things as I do. You perhaps might understand that I may have the same problem too.

The issue at hand is the Biblical Ten Commandments, which we are told were not in existence before they were given to Moses when he went up the mountain to get them. A believer’s argument could be that God breathed them into First Human in the beginning; it after all would have been part of the essence of God’s breathe. But we are not told anything of the sort. But I do not expect you to accept that! It will be as if I were asking you to doubt what you have already accepted to be true. And I doubt you could do that. After all, "y shld I doubt?", right?

One thing I would like you to consider however is that there were other people in existence before God is claimed to have created the world and human beings. Those who know how the Bible itself came about would tell you that even the Biblical creation myth was borrowed from elsewhere to give the people who eventually called themselves Jews an identity. Others too have their creation myths which no one could argue with them to be untrue. It’s the nature of beliefs to accept a thing as so without considering the evidence. But I always ask, “why believe when one can know?” Or is that not what Jesus Christ is said to have died for? It is why knowledgeable Christians would say, “Jesus is Lord”, and is why I will agree with them. Or have you never wondered why he took the disciples away from the mob and told them things he never told the masses?

Please get a book on how laws came about. For now, these might be of help History of law. Read what it says about Law development Egypt, and Greek history of law. Pay particular attention to the History of British Law. Part of it reads as follows:

But the Anglo-Saxons, with all their savagery, had great possibilities in them. "Non Angli, sed Angeli, si modo Christiani" - "not Angles, but Angels would they be, if they were only Christians" - said Pope Gregory I, of some of them who had been brought to Rome; and forthwith he sent Saint Augustine and some zealous companions in A.D. 596, to convert the people to Christianity, which after many difficulties they succeeded in accomplishing.

It shows that others had laws long before they were introduced to the Jews by their God.

Some creation myths:
An Egyptian Creation Myth The sake is not incidental!
[url=http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_16.html]Greek Creation Myth[/url]
[url=http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_17.html]Japanese Creation Myth[/url]
[url=http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_14.html]African Bushmen Creation Myth[/url]
Yoruba Creation Myth
Roman Creation Myth

Do note that they are only myths. One believes them out of choice.

Abuzola:
The bible is just as stupid as mule.
How can you love your enemy eh ?

Really now? Is it really mules to love one's enemy? Is it better perhaps that I hate my enemy maybe, and go about retaliating to enemy in a hateful way? And would the consequence of that not be war? And if, just if there really were a God, is war godly? Just take Nairaland here. If people could get past their hatred of difference would it not be a better place? Would we not fight less and perhaps do something good instead?

I guess people do think in different ways. One should understand one's own motive though, or know the fruit of the seed one sows, Abu.

repost!

another repost!

sorry!

noetic2:
so whats your theory? do the laws precede God?

It is not a theory, noetic, it is a fact! And even the Bible confirms this! Or does not the punishment of Cain imply that there must have been a law forbidding the killing of another human being before Moses went up the mountain to bring down the Ten Commandments? Also, I would refer you back to Moses' transgression whilst in Egypt where they did not even worship the Jewish God! Did he not have to run away from the Egyptians for killing someone? What law do you think he would have been punished under?

noetic2:
how do we determine whats "right" if not from convictions? how do convictions exist if not from religion/conscience? whats religion/conscience without God?

I have posted a couple of definitions of the word "Conviction" below. I am of course wondering in which ysense you mean it. Might it be that "one only knows what is right and wrong when one is told"? If so, I would ask why I should obey laws that I do not know about! I would also point out that I can learn what is right and wrong from experience as I think I stated when I began my posting in this thread. I don't need God to tell me not to poke my finger in your eye, is what I am saying.

Anyway, and for clarification:
con·vic·tion (kn-vkshn) n.
1. Law
a. The judgment of a jury or judge that a person is guilty of a crime as charged.
b. The state of being found or proved guilty: evidence that led to the suspect's conviction.
2. a. The act or process of convincing.
b. The state of being convinced.

conviction  kun'vik-shun Noun
1.An unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence - strong belief, article of faith

2.(criminal law) a final judgment of guilty in a criminal case and the punishment that is imposed
"the conviction came as no surprise"; "the judgment of conviction came as no surprise"

noetic2:
God definitely preceded the laws. . . . .do u have any reason to believe otherwise?

You must have missed what I had to say in a previous post on another thread about beliefs, noetic. It is the only reason you would ask me such a question. For your information, I do not do beliefs, at least as far as religious beliefs are concerned. Beliefs are for lazy people who would not bother to do as the scriptures say they should do, "Seek, so that one can find". I either know a thing or do not know a thing, and when I do not know, I seek to find out and not bury my head in one single book as some are wont to do! Or did not Christ say that "One shall live on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God"? You might want to be aware that the worshipping of a book is a contravention of the first commandment! And there is no point arguing who or where it came from if I do not at the least attempt to follow, or obey it. Christ did rant and rave against the type who do as such, after all! And remember, they killed him for it!

The evidence, as I keep informing you, gives dates for laws that existed before the God of the Jews existed. It also lists people who had those same laws but never knew the Jewish God. The facts clearly show that even these Jews learnt them from others, but you refuse to consider them! People have given you this information in this thread as well, but you would not even go to the sources and check for yourself, as if the truth does not set one free from not knowing!

You might wish to see what I think of this type of thought process in the thread How Did Life Really Start?. Post 11, to be exact. Do know that I understand how difficult it is for "believers to see (born again", is how Christ put it). A needle and a camel, might bring it to mind.

noetic2:
u just stated above that the jews lived a barbaric life until the commandments came. . . . . I agree.

I almost missed this! Thanks to you, mazaje

mazaje:
Were the jews killing each other and sleeping with each others wives with impunity before the 10 commandments were written down?

No noetic! I am not claiming that the Jews were living like barbarians before they were given the law, as some suppose. It is the nature of laws that they develop gradually over time. And in the time before the laws were codified in the manner in which we now have them, it is most obvious that the Jews had some form of them which they lived by. Going by the Bible, this would have to be so, in fact. Surely, the Jews were not killing one another when they lived under the Egyptians which they did before Moses and his going up a mountain! And even the Egyptians were not killing one another lawlessly during that time or they would not have been the nation they were.

Another example would be the Yorubas before the arrival of Yahweh, I reckon, though it could be argued that though knowledge of God Itself had not arrived, an inking of its laws could have been breathed unto us in Spirit form. I sure know that we were not barbaric, relatively saying, of course.

The fact of the matter is still that laws were the means of de-barbaricing people. The argument is that they did not begin with Moses going up some mountain, or with Yahweh, for that matter.

noetic2:
I agree to the bold part. This illustrates my point that what we inherently called morality today is a function of convictions. . . . . .these convictions are traceable to religion. . .in this context God. u just stated above that the jews lived a barbaric life until the commandments came. . . . . I agree.

God's laws (convictions) has been a universal barometer for morality.

what are the contents of these early laws u claim precede the OT?

I am afraid I do not agree that "what we inherently called morality today is a function of convictions", noetic. In fact, if as you suggest laws come from God as depicted in the Bible, then it must have been a function of compulsion rather than conviction. Most people do not obey the laws (wherever they may have come from) becasue their heart tells them to. Most people obey laws becasue they fear the consequences of not obeying them. And most laws are passed with that in mind. A point in note is the very first Judaic commandment (at least as laid down in the book). It reads thus: "But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it." And please do note the consequences attached: "For in the day thou eatest, thou shalt die". Genesis 2:17

As to God's laws being a "universal barometer for morality", I suppose you work under the notion that God preceded laws, as is taught in Judaic religions. I am afraid that is not the case. Greeks had their own Gods who were not related to Yahweh in any way and they had their laws, as did the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Aztecans, Buddhists, Hindus, etc etc. And while they were all similar to Judaic laws, Judaic laws were not their origin, nor were the Jews the first to have them.

Please, if you really feel the need to learn, do read more book I would advise with no insult intended, and apologies too.

The first question really ought to be "Who is my enemy?" to wit, allow me.

I would put forward that my enemy is anyone who places obstacles in my path. My enemy is anyone who debars me from achieving that which I wish to achieve. I will make a distinction however and say that my enemy is anyone who stops me from achieving the good things that I wish to achieve, and not the one who encourages me in the right path. My enemy is not that one who stops me from chopping off my arm for instance, but the one who encourages me to cut it off, not only at the elbow, but right where it connects to my torso. For what good can the chopping off of my arm serve me or anyone else but one who has no like for me whatsoever? My enemy is the one who stops me from doing that which I benefit from doing!

I do not think that my enemy really dislikes me. My enemy just does not always know that which is to my benefit, for if it knew it would not spite me, and would not be my enemy but my friend. To be honest, I am fortunate like that. I could after all have chosen an enemy who is outright plain evil.

I do love that enemy, I must confess, and I do forgive that enemy all the time. If I didn't, that enemy would be dead by now, for I myself would have killed the bastard! I would have taken him, and her, or her (for she does have a tendency to switch gender on me) to the bottom of the river and bashed the bastards head in. But like I said, I forgive you, enemy. And I will always love you.

The point is that no one does me more harm than I do to myself. Its why I find myself forgiving me for the harm I do against myself and haven't taken me to the bottom of the river for a proper head bashing. Since no one does me more harm than I do myself, and since I can find it in me to forgive myself for the harm I do against myself, I cannot but help forgiving myself, and ergo those who have done me less harm at most, and love them too. For I find that if I cannot love me who is the most harmful to me of all the people on this earth, then well, no one stands a chance in this world, I say, even me.

In shorts, I love my enemy, because I love myself! But I guess I am simple like that.

I very much want to stick to the question posed in the heading of this thread but first have to divert somewhat and say nasty things to you atheists.

You suck! And you show extreme levels of ignorance. And you have no 'Christ' (read 'love', if you may) for others! How else could it be that you would harangue a person who shows their limitation of knowledge and has only read one single book, especially if such people live in societies where one single book is all they have been encouraged to read? You bloody atheist, so called "Mr and Mrs Read More Than One Single Book"! Have you not read it written that "One must forgive those who know not what it is that they say", or "do"? If it is true that your brain is washed much better than those who have not washed theirs at all, then let it show, please!

Now, back to the question:
[quote author=Tudór link=topic=326456.msg4583025#msg4583025 date=1253516040]If I knew the answer to you question i'd be king of the world. . .[/quote]I agree! And not knowing does not mean that one has to then make it up. Though, societally, one must understand the reason why origin myths are made up. Even science does that. It may know that things change (evolve) over time, but for science to claim to know how it all began is false. It does not. And any scientific theory put forward for how it began is just that - a theory, and no different to that which one reads "In The beginning". That myth and scientific theory have much in common is not what people on either side would agree, after all, my God (or way of seeing things) has to be superior to yours. Did I hear someone call me stupid? I will agree!

What evidence can show (suggest, would be more accurate), is the age of the earth. The oldest minerals found in it are said to be 4.404 billion years old (+/- 1%). Of course, if I were to accept some book as being infallible I would say bollocks; after all, my Book says "let there be" was said on the October 23, 4004 BC, some 6013 years ago. And if this is what I chose to believe, how can anything pre-exist this date? I however ought to note though that no matter how much I insist a thing to be so does not make it so, and if I were to ignore all opposing evidence, well more knowledgeable people should get to say to themselves, "let us forgive buda, for he has not got a clue!" Or if they are atheists like some of you are, I guess it will be, "buda! You are stupid!" But the way I see it is the more ignorant amongst are those who would go further than put their own view across and insist that their myth, or scientific theory, is truer.

I guess it must be understood that in my ignorance, I have much more to lose if my own belief is not accepted by those who would oppose mine than the mere correction of my error. My belief is knowledge ordained unto me by the Almighty, I would have you know, and God's word is infallible. If what my God says is not true, then even my God would have to be untrue! Forget that some people came to my nation to tell me my own ideology is false and theirs is superior just before they enslaved my thinking with their own. Its not as if they said and did all this for their own good. They did it to force my hell bound soul into heaven where they had determined that it belonged. What I haven't yet figured out is how being shipped thousand of miles across the God created seas, chained in the hold of their ships, to work on their land with next to no benefits or remuneration, had my mothers and sisters raped, and all of us sold off to the next slavemaster whenever it suited them fits into the wordings of the so called infallible God written book or into the whole scheme of things. But I guess like my ignorance about the creation of the earth, some things are beyond knowledge, or rather, my knowledge! The evidence is out there though, and as is written, the truth will set one free. So seek it, I say.

As to you atheists!!! One must forgive those who know not what it is that they are saying. Believe me, some people are burning in hell already.

Halacha and the Ten Commandments

Judaism is a religious culture Halacha, or Way, and religious beliefs based primarily on The Torah (The Hebrew Bible), which is comprised of 613 commandments (Mitzvot) that cover all aspects of life from birth to death (G-d's revealed instructions to the Jewish people).

Halacha (Halakha, Halakhah, Halachah), the "way to go", referred to the overall system of of Judaic religious law, to entire collection of rabbinical legal texts, or to a single rule. Passed down from generation to generation over the years, the Halacha has been developing and expanding since before 500 BCE. Source and more

noetic2:
I insist that billions of people in the world today are influenced by God's commandments in the OT. This commandments include Thou shall not kill, lie, fornicate or commit adultery et all. This laws have replaced barbaric cultural norms that have repeatedly influenced man.

You can insist as much as you wish, Noetic, I for one, would rather you go and check the evidence. It would show you that laws, specifically, the commandments  (And do note that the commandments of the Jews are way more than the commonly known ten!) existed long before even the Jews did in societies that had no concept of the Judaic God. As to them being barbaric, sentiment alone would stop one saying that even the Jews were barbaric people before they got their laws. They were after all passed to educate people out of barbarism, which is what laws are intended for. If you passed those laws today, one should ask if you were passing them for barbarians. Below are the accepted beliefs about the origin of the Judaic Ten Commandments.

There are three basic beliefs about the origin of the Decalogue:
They were written and/or dictated by God at Mount Sinai, circa 1450 BCE.
They were written by three Hebrew authors (or groups of authors) between 922 and 622 BCE based upon ancient Hebrew myths and legends.
Their original source was in Pagan documents written by Hittites or Egyptians which were plagiarized and added to by ancient Hebrew writers. Source

Do u know of any group of people that predates the OT who abided by laws similar to the 10 commandments?

No one abided by the laws of the Ten Commandment, Noetic! Not even the Jews whom you believe created them abided by them. One just need read the Bible to know how often they were broken to know that. But if you want to know what other societies had similar laws as the ten, then I assure you that the Egyptians had them encoded in their laws for one. Where else would Moses have learnt them from, or do you really think some sort of spirit carved them in stone for him on some Mount Sinai?

The Babylonians had them too. Perusal of their history will show you that they too had them handed down to them by Gods of some sort.

The Earliest Laws
Every society needs to have laws to protect itself and its members. Even ancient civilisations had laws, which were part of their religious ritual and tribal customs. These were passed on by example and by word of mouth.

The oldest written set of laws known to us is the Code of Hammurabi. He was the king of Babylon between 1792 BC and 1758 BC. Hammurabi is said to have been handed these laws by Shamash, the God of Justice. The laws were carved on huge stone slabs and placed all over the city so that people would know about them. Judges were appointed to see that they were obeyed. [url=http://www.civicsandcitizenship.edu.au/cce/pl_early_laws,9534.html]source[/url]

As to religion being the promoter of laws, that is so. Religion, after all is the only form of educating a people that existed in antiquity. And education in those days was mainly the teaching of the proper conduct of a people. That some higher authority needed to be resorted to to make people obey those laws is evident; even the Egyptian Pharaohs were not authority enough.

C2H5OH:
Being law abiding citizens does not explain half of the story.
The laws you abide by did not come by way of "nothing", right?
How do you differentiate right from wrong?
Basic human instinct is not enough.

I'm just curious

My first knowledge of what is right or wrong did not come form the Bible and still on the whole does not. To illustrate, I do not agree that I should do unto you as I would have you do unto me! I see it is a selfish concept, though I confess my reasoning being how I look at it. I, for instance do not like people poking their nose in my business, and nor do I poke mine in theirs. Some on the other hand like poking their nose into one's business, and like others poking one's nose into theirs. If they poke their nose into mine, and ask that I do unto them as they have done unto me, then I would have to poke my nose into their business, which I would rather not do! Complex, but surely, you can get your head around it with some thought, I hope.

But back to the question at hand, "How do I differentiate right from wrong?"

If a person were to poke his finger in my eye, it will hurt. I will feel discomfort, and might probably be annoyed depending on whether it were done on purpose or not. Regardless, the pain I will feel convinces me that poking one's finger in the eye, hurts. And hence it goes in the bad, or not to do with no good reason, column.

If I were hungry and a person were to come and give me a loaf of bread to eat, I would be grateful, and belliful indeed - all good feelings compared to my bad feeling of hunger I heretofore felt. Ergo, giving bread to a hungry person is a good thing, and that is the column that it goes in.

Now consider killing someone, or stealing from another! If someone steals my life, I will be dead. I know some might beleive that when they die they go somewhere, but still, does anyone have the right to send another there!? Can one say, "I stole the life of another to do them the favour of facilitating their departure to a better place"? Why aren't those stealers of life stealing their own life if it were such a good thing to do to someone? Depriving someone else of what is rightfully theirs is not a good thing, and one knows this is one is deprived of hat was theirs. Do I need a law to tell me I will not like it, and perhaps, neither will you?

But let us suppose I was a little more ignorant than I actually am, and thought it okay to deprive you of what were yours. I am sure you will show your displeasure at your deprivation at my hands. And I am sure I will know about it. I assure you that by the time you shoot me dead for depriving you of what is yours, I would sure know how you feel. And by golly, am I glad that I am not as ignorant as to call your displeasure something that it is not!

Laws are a thing of reason. No society can live without them, not even one made up of apes or tigers. They may not have written laws like we know them. But they sure as hell must live by some sort of conduct or they would have killed one another out of existence by now! Some of you may think that the Laws as given in the Bible was the first time those laws ever existed. I am sorry to say, and evidence, if you bothered to check, does show that those laws existed long before Moses went up the mountain to write them, and even where the God who allegedly wrote them for him was not known. After all, it was not as if the Egyptians went around killing one another, or coveting one another's wife or anything. They even declared that there was only one God before Yahweh is said to have declared it, as did the Sumerians who dwelt in what is today's Iraq where those rivers some claim to be of the Garden of Eden still exist.

Some may only know what is right or wrong becasue the Bible tells them so. But there are many who know what is good or bad becasue of other reasons too.

olabowale:
the former extremist is not letting us know that he is or not a muslim,

He still sound extremists to me all the same! Just that he is now extremely against Muslims!

Go down to Peckham, Recog, and you will see that Nigerians have taken over. Perhaps we should send them all back so that UK does not become a seabed for Nigerians!

huxley:
Whereabouts in the New Testament are the functions of a Pastor (and I mean Pastor, not any other name) delineated?

A little use of the imagination would show the functions of a pastor. Even so, they are clearly stated, if someone would bother to post them for you.

That said though, I do notice your "not any other name". Are you asking that Christians be literal, perhaps?

Ogaga4Luv:
[i]A question that has been pondered for thousands of years is “why are we here?”. No one really knows why life exists, or even why the universe exists for that matter. There have been plenty of explanations for the “how”, but the “why” is just a mystery.

One very popular explanation for why we are here is that there is a god who put us here. This god is so not just any god, but the one and only god. For this reason, we spell his name with a capital “G” (God).

Sorry Ogaga, but you must be one of those who do not know why you are here, for I do not share such ignorance about myself as you seem to! Still, I must refrain from insulting, or denigrating you as May does as I see no wisdom in her rhetoric.

The Son of the King of the Heavens (Omo Oba Shorun, or Bashorun with or without the 'H'), of the Orolu Kingdom, me, that is, is here to bring light from the heavens down to the Orolu Kingdom and all they who are of that Kingdom. It is well known that the Word was in the beginning, and that through that Word are all things made. In fact, it is said that God used it to create the heavens and the earth, and no doubt you, if you happen to be of such a theological leaning. And nothing, they say, is made without it.

I buda atum, am here to bring that light to the people of the Kingdom aforementioned. It is why I collect the Word (Light, books) for the library in the Orolu Kingdom (Orolu Local Government), so that the people of the Kingdom may have it amongst them and know.

If you, Ogaga, are at ends to your own mission, know that you are very welcome to share mine.

Odd! Though, if one reckons as some atheists might, that a "Person of God" is a person who does evil, not so odd I suppose. But despite the view of we atheists, evidence cannot in any way conclude that being a pastor is synonymous with being a person of the devil! If the person of God is a person who does "Good", and by that I mean a person who understands the workings of God, why can that person not only be a president, but even a good president?

I personally do not think that Nigeria would progress until a person who can say, "let there be light" effectively, rules. There is after all no doubt that darkness is upon the land today, or might I be wrong? I do not also think that Nigeria can progress until a selfless person, as opposed to the current leaders that we have who are so much more interested in filling their own bellies, rules, and who can we claim to be the most selfless person we know mythically or otherwise, than he they call the Messiah Jesus Christ?

Of course, it should be noted that the Christ I speak of is not one who would claim that everyone should worship him, for if that is what is meant, then it must be noted that the Christ of the Gospels never said anything of the sort! Such as one would be a member of Boko Haram, for sure.