₦airaland Forum

Take a look at this

Bastage:
You have to take this one in context, Huxley. The punishing of the children down to the third and fourth generation is only applicable to the Jews.
Back then (in the time long before Christianity), the Jews believed in a sort of reincarnation - the dead lived on in the form of their children for a couple of generations (they had no "Heaven". Hence if you killed the subsequent generations, you killed the reincarnation of the original sinner.

I wonder! Which other parts of the ten commandments are only applicable to the Jews. If I remember correctly, there are many instances in the OT where God (aka Jesus) ordered the killing of non-Jewish children who could hardly have being culpable for the sins of their parents.

You do not have to be affected individually by an act to see the injustices in said act. Case in point - slavery. Most of the leading abolitionist were not slaves and had never experienced being slaves individually. Yet they could see that slavery was a moral institution. A morally corrupt society tanish all that exist within it.

Allow me to give examples of how the Christian worldview corrupts the general societal moral. Take the case of birth control. In many parts of the Christian world, contraception is strictly discouraged. I mean, all forms of contraceptions, form coitus intteruptus, to condoms, to pills, etc, etc. This is Christian ,albeit Catholic, doctrine. Now can you imagine the consequences to such policies in the society? Rampant STD, many unwanted pregnancies, illegal and unorthodox forms of abortions, etc, etc. Any decent human who is not touched by such perversion of societal moral has clearly lost their mind (usually to religion).

Take the case of abortion. There are time when abortion is called for medically to save the life of the mother. Christian dogma outlaw such medical intervention.

Anti-cervical cancer vaccination. Recently, in the UK, a Catholic school barred young girls being innoculated against this ravaging form of cancer on its premises. What do you think was behind their thinking?

I could go on. Like I said, the moral and justice of a society is not measured by how "privilege" gets treated. At times, it is these "privilege" who are best equiped to discern the injustices imposed on the majority by the tyrannical stranglehold of tradition.

The God of the Bible (aka Jesus) routinely punishes the innocent for the sins to the guilty. He even goes as far as to punish those who could not in any wise be held responsible for crimes - animals. You can get a taste of God's (aka Jesus) system of justice in the commandments narrative in Exodus 20:

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Under this system of justice, God (aka Jesus) has killed many thousands (if not millions) of children for the sins of their parents. How could this be squared with the claim that Jesus loved the little ones when he has been responsible for liquidated so many of them?

davidylan:
don't these secularists like AC Grayling make you want to laugh them to derision?

when it comes to christianity . . . they are at war with religion.
When its islam they kow tow to the violent mullahs and tell us to "respect" their religion.

bunch of hypocrites.

I beg to differ. AC Grayling has been one of the most tranchant critics of ALL religions in contemporary times. I have read most of his works on religions and other subjects and I see he makes no exception to any form of irrationalism.

If you know any example of where he kow tows to the mullahs, I would be much oblige to check it out. Otherwise, you are the dishonest one.

By the way, could you make a trip to a dictionary and check out the meaning of the word "hypocrite"? You are in the habit of abusing this word.

ttalks:
Words imply different things in different contexts.Check out the context of verse 23 & 24 of the chapter in question. u'll notice that the judgment on the woman depended on her screaming out for help or not.The fact that she didn't scream for help implied she was happy with the situation;that was why she was guilty.If she had screamed,it would have indicated that she was being raped and would have saved her from judgment.

This clearly demonstrate how religious-motivated thinking can lead to bad laws and how it necessarily shrivels the minds of thise so infected by religions.

Your argument relies on the fact that consent is established by how loudly the victim of the rape act screams while the act is taking place. Supposing she could not scream for one reason or another. Supposing she was gagged by her attacker? Supposing she screamed as loudly as she could but she was never heard?

ttalks:
Check out the following verse;25-27:

Deutronomy 22:25-27
(25) But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
(26) But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
(27) For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

These verses show the differences between the two sex situations;the former-consent sex,the latter-rape.

But all in all,we can see that all that isn't the issue,but the fact that those laws play no part in the lives of Christians.

Why don't these laws play a part in the lives of Christians today? Where these laws not established by Jesus (God)? And what does Jesus say in Matt 5: 17 - "Think NOT that I have come to abolish the law . . . "?

Secularists' vital war on religion
by AC Grayling

Reposted from here

As long as religion is a danger to the lives and liberties of others, secular liberals will never relent in their protests

It is surely a failing not to have heard of Gerald Warner before, but courtesy of the recent fire at the Wasilla Bible Church attended by Sarah Palin in far-off Alaska (Palin was not in the church at the time), this Daily Telegraph writer has leapt on to our radar in full cry, as follows:

If – and it is still a big if – arson was committed by militant homosexuals or liberals simply driven by hatred of Palin, then that is a phenomenon that should greatly concern the American public. Anti-Christian jihadism fuelled by secularism is as unacceptable as that driven by militant Islam. If Wasilla Church was burned by arsonists making an ideological point, that is terrorism.

If what is suspected turns out to be true, the burning of Wasilla Bible Church is a metaphor for the onslaught against Christianity that aggressive secularism has mounted in Europe and which, under the influence of the morally degenerate Democrat party, is now invading the United States. This may be a significant warning to complacent Christians.

Great stuff. Gerald Warner, as a Catholic (and apparently something of a "jihadist" himself), is a member of an institution whose history is littered with crusades, burnings at the stake, persecution of gays, and the perpetuation of the biggest pack of lies that the world has seen - so would seem to be in a poor position to try working the moral equivalence angle. Gays and liberal secularists as jihadists!

This is the funny bit. In the last few years secular liberals have been uncompromising in what they say about religion, and the targets of their criticism have squealed and complained as loudly as if they felt real flames licking round their feet. The churches answered criticism in the past with murder; if they still had the upper hand would they now restrict themselves to their critics' choice of weapon – words? The foam-flecked variety issuing from Warner suggests not.

Let us look at some comparisons. In Afghanistan the Taliban stop girls going to school, beat up women who show a millimeter of skin, ban music, kill gays, and in general force their choice of life and belief on everyone, thus illustrating the less charming aspects of enforced observance of religious orthodoxy under which most of humanity has suffered for most of history. By comparison, secular liberals of Europe and North America say that they think religion is a load of nonsense and that religious folk should keep their fantasies to themselves. Some comparison, eh? Some jihad! Its effectiveness, though, is a sign of insecurity among the faithful. Mark Twain defined faith as "believing what you know ain't so", and the level of insecurity among the faithful when criticised suggests that almost all of them really agree.

Gerald Warner and his kind strain hard to whip up a belief in a moral equivalence between the inhumanity, intolerance, coercion and violence of their own religions' histories and the criticism and disdain with which secularists view them now. I suspect that Warner really hopes that balaclava-wearing, Kalashnikov-toting secular liberals flew some paraffin-laden model aeroplanes into the Wasilla Bible Church. If so it would make the excesses of religion's crushing imposition on the human spirit all ok, because it would show that liberal secularism has become the very thging it criticises.

I wonder whether, in the dialogue of the deaf that this quarrel has become, a few reminders might be in order. Secularism is the view that religious outlooks, though perfectly entitled to exist and have their say, are not entitled to a bigger slice of the public pie than any other self-constituted, self-appointed, self-selected and self-serving civil society organisation. Yet the religious persistently ask for special treatment: public money for their "faith-based" schools, seats in the House of Lords, exemption from laws inconvenient to their prejudices, and so endlessly on. They even have the cheek to ask for "respect" for their silly and antiquated beliefs; and in Geneva at the Human Rights Council the Islamic countries are trying to subvert the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because it is inconvenient to their medieval, sexist, intolerant outlook.

Secularists in the west say to the apologists of the religions: your beliefs are your choice, so take your place in the queue. They also say: you've had it your own way for a very long time - and committed a lot of crimes in the process - and you still fancy yourself entitled, but you aren't. You don't smell too good at times, so don't try to tell me what I can read, see on TV, do in my private time, think or say. In fact, keep your sticky fingers off my life. Believe what you like but don't expect me to admire or excuse you because of it: rather the contrary, given the fairy-stories in question. And when you are a danger to the lives and liberties of others, which alas is too frequently the wont of your ilk, we will speak out against you as loudly, persistently, and uncompromisingly as we can.

Turn to your bible to Genesis 30:

37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban's animals. 41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob. 43 In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and maidservants and menservants, and camels and donkeys.

In the above narrative animals are "engineered" into having different characteristics just by watched striped branches as they mated.  Is this "technology" still available for farmers today?  Can it be applied to humans as well?  If not, why not?

davidylan:
this is what makes me wonder . . . why is the fact that others willingly believe in Jesus Christ making your "heaven" unpleasant?  
Is it because you love us so and wish us to join your heaven or you're just a wee bit not sure of your own soul's destination despite all your crowing?

My dears . . . if God does not exist why do you fear hell so?

Who said I fear hell?  I DON'T fear hell.  Hell on earth is the religionists, who I dont fear but pity.

There's no god, no devils, no ghost, no jesus, no hell, no heaven.  But I have got mu own little heaven here on earth.  Let me tell you what it is:  having a good dance, good food, reading great authors, having great sex, having great conversation and above all listening to Thelonious Monk.  What more can one ask for?  Ah, just remembered.  My heaven is made slightly unpleasant by the thought of a great many people labouring under the delusions of gods and holy books.

olabowale:
You this disbelieving guy. Do you even wash up? Can you tell us your hygienic routine? I know africans know how to clean up. But your Oyinbo (lol) lifestyle may have taken all you were taught as african away from you. lol. I love playing with your atheist mind. I just throw monkey wrenches in it.

My main man Huxley. The Oyinbo african man.

lol

Monicaa:
Well this is a case of marrying a rapist but because the lady might fall or fallen in love with him but he happened to be a rapist.

N as 4d Bible, that was in the old testament, please look for more verses in the old testamnet like when there was nothing n God came to create the world, r u ignoring those? They r in the old testamnet too.

You seem to be missing the point. The Christian claim that their god is an omnibenevolent, loving and compassionate being. If so why are his laws so barbaric and inhumane?

If you had a daughter who was raped. Would you receive money from the rapist and "allow" her to marry her rapist? If not, why not?

naijacutee:
Reading the whole of Exodus 4 makes this section very random. I cannot pretend to understand why this bit exists in this chapter, or why God would want to kill someone whom he had just sent to do something. Bearing in mind that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew/Greek/Armaeic, this could mean anything - Or just what it says. "The Lord", could be Zipporahs understanding of the thing that almost killed Moses, just as "God" is usually what people blame for all the misfortunes in their lives. Again, I do not understand these two verses in the middle of this story, and I wouldn't like to jump into conclusions. It seems to me that The Lord really didn't intend to kill Moses as we understand , simply because everything else flows quite nicely before and after these two verses - with no further mention of the reason/effect of this "killing" on anyone/Moses. God had just sent Moses to on a mission before this little section, and after this little section, continued with the mission plans/aims.  This section hence, does not interfere with the net meaning behind the passage.

Make of it what you will. It is in your bible and only typifies the barbarism of the god of the bible. If you want more example of the arbitary and vindinctive nature of your god, I am only too happy to provide them.

Please turn you bible to Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.


And to Deuteronomy 22:23-24

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.


If the Ten Commandments are still binding today,  is there any reason why these two injunction on rape are not? I bet most Christian would find this suggestion so horrific, they would just ignore this thread, as is their wont when their reprehensible belief system is put under the microscope.

naijacutee:
Pray, tell me how the "Romans took away God's power"? Do you mean that after Jesus came, there was generally more tolerance shown from God towards people? All the passages you have cited are true. However, do remember to read those passages in context, considering that there was no "Jesus" in the old testament to atone for peoples sins. Sin was a cause, and death was an effect and there was no in-between. If there was an in-between at the time, then you would argue that God does not keep true to His word.


Where did God "try" to kill his friend Moses? Please cite it, and let us read the whole context of the passage. If God really wanted to kill Moses, he would have. What I remember was that God wanted to kill the Israelites be[b]cause[/b] of their disobedience, and Moses willingly offered himself and asked God to kill him intead of them. And God listened to Moses plea, and spared them. That doesn't sound vicious or babaric to me. 



[color=#000099]@ duduspace. Which of the points? Even with our limited human minds, when examined in context, none of the actions of God (as God, not as man) seem irrational, when considered without bias. And to answer your question, no I don't. I sense you are trying to pry out my views on the topic.

Exodus 4: 24 - 26.

24 At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met {Moses} and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched {Moses'} feet with it.  "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me," she said. 26 So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said "bridegroom of blood," referring to circumcision.)

Have you still got your foreskin. Watch outm god might try to kill ya.

busybein:

Who is afraid of your god? Can you pray to him to finish with us then. We shall look forward to your prayers.

bindex:
Huxley whats the problem with the 10 commandments? Thou shall not kill but the biblical God wanted to kill moses his best friend.

Did you read my main post? if not, go back and read it. I submit that the 10 commandments that should be binding does not contain the injunction not to kill. here is a summary of the commandments in Ex34:

1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).

2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.

4. All the first-born are mine.

5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.

6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.

8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.

9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.



Had god lost his mind between giving these replacements and the first set of commandments in Ex20?

Analytical:
Huxley, I just went through that thread now and I can't see what I have not addressed as stated above in my posts. It will interest you to know that there are a lot of commandments, statutes, ordinances etc God gave (read Deuteronomy, Leviticus), but the 10 commandments are specific and unambiguous. The Israelites preserved it in the Ark of the Covenant as written on the tablets of stone.

Please don't get confused. Those chapters are very complimentary and not contradictory. Approach the scriptures with a mind to learn, not to find fault and you will be surprised how easy understanding will come. Huxley, I wish you are a Christian!

God bless.

Would you approach other holy books in the same way you approach the bible? Would you approach the Koran in the same way as you approach the bible?

SirJohn:
@ ttalks,
thanks very much for the two links you provided on the Word of Faith Movement:

www.biblebb.com/files/WRDFAITH.HTM
http://www.gospeloutreach.net/whatwordfaith.html

Anyone seeking to know the basics of WOF should have no problem achieving that from these links. There are several other links which provide a more comprehensive study of this movement. I will provide one or two others but before I do that, let me give a very brief background of myself so you can understand how and why I endorse these write ups.
I have been a Christian almost all my life; I got born again at age 8 in my primary school days. I beacme enthusiastic and hungry for spiritual things, I craved for a deeper experience in God. At age 12, I began to talk in other tongues and had a deeper commitment with my faith. I wanted more than I had experienced, I yearned for greater spiritual experiences. At that age, I had read so many publications by Kenneth Hagin, he was my first spiritual 'mentor'
At age 13 (in secondary or high school), I had gradually moved into a mix of charismatic & WOF. I met a brother in school who was greatly influenced by Benny Hinn, he introduced me and a couple of others to some charismatic experiences and manifestations. Like Benny Hinn, we would lay hands and blow on people and watch them get 'slain under the power'; we also practiced exorcism (casting out devils), boy! that was a different experience etirely. In short, we practiced any kind of 'charismatic gymnastics' you can think of. I continued in these things until I joined Christ Embassy, this was were I fully embrassed, practiced and taught the doctrine of WOF. I even published tracts and several write ups of WOF beliefs. Even as a WOF practitioner, I had lots of questions and reservation about some of the beliefs. Each time I was comfronted with these questions within me, I would look at some of the miracles (by Pst Chris) and say to myself "well, since God is using the man, theres probably a lot he knows which I don't know so maybe be I should just relax and find out what I don't know yet" These all went on until my observaton at the healing school; then it struck me, I had found part of the missing link. I went into indepth study of WOF and that was when the whole piece came together.
No wonder the miracles are staged; the doctrine behind the man is false, how can it ever produce any genuine miracle.

Here's a link to a detailed comprehensive study on the WOF movement and its doctrines (please read through): http://www.intotruth.org/wof/moreno1.html
Here's another link you'll find interesting: http://www.letusreason.org/wf25.htm

I'm also including these youtube videos showing an expose of some of the renowned WOF teachers. These videos show some disturbing manifestations and unimaginable utterances from these men and women.
Please patiently watch these videos as they are bound to make you cry. God help us!!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pndwVxnG9Is&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOzblh600HM&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uMvy0gh_bg&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux39aDCUOkg&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyfLqk6_-X4&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMG55fyj3Ag&feature=related

@Sistasista,
Kindly let me know If you have any questions after reading these articles

Wow, wow, wow!!!! What happened to all the powers that God gave you with which you "slay people in the spirit"? Has he re-possessed the power?

Can it be said that you were delusional big time in the WOF movement? Nice to see that you are on the path to recovery.

Analytical:
Huxley, the very 1st verse of that chapter tells us what transpired at that mountain top. Moses had broken the 1st tablets and God told him to come up again so He can write the exact commandments like the former on the stones. The chapter did not outline what was written on the stones again because it simply refers to the original in Exodus 20. God gave further ordinances and statutes which they are to observe, but no one was in doubt what the 10 COMMANDMENTS were- exactly like the first in Exodus 20.

Please read Deuteronomy chapter 5 very well. Moses repeated the same in his address upon entering Canaan.

By the way, of what significance is it if it wasn't mentioned in Chapter 34 but was clearly stated in Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20 etc as part of the 10 commandments? Do you have a new set of 10 comandments? Please tell us, what are they?

Yes, indeed. Exodus 34 describes the events surrounding the re-issue of the commandments that Moses had smashed, and it goes further and states these new commandments. Why are you reluctant to read the entirety of Ex34. These commandments are stated there, but bizarrely, there are nothing like those in Exodus 20. These are the replacements commandments given in Ex34:

1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).

2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.

4. All the first-born are mine.

5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.

6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.

8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.

9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.


In fact, verse 28 goes so far as to describe these as the "Ten Commandments". This description is not used for those in Exodus 20:

28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.


Does this look anything like the commandments in Exodus 20? Had your God lost his mind so badly that he could not remember what he had written only a few days previously?

Check out the new tenth Commandment - "10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk." How the hell is this useful to anyone?

Which Ten Commandment are binding on Christians? Those in Ex20 or those in Ex34?

Analytical:
Huxley!!!  You never cease to amaze me.  While I respect your rational and thought-provoking posts on nature and other topics, what I find amusing is the way you keep grabbing your Bible on religious posts (very strange for someone who is self-proclaimed atheist) and brandishing your 'discoveries', albeit lopsided, like Archimedes! 

Let me reiterate here loud and clear that the TEN COMMANDMENTS are as stated in Exodus 20.  The 7th bars adultery.  When Moses broke the first tablets of stone, the commandments were repeated in the 2nd tablets of stone exactly as the first:

Exodus 34
1 Now the LORD said to Moses, "Cut out for yourself two stone tablets like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered

God wrote the same 10 commandments on the tablets and still went further to give additional instructions and statutes for them to observe.  When they got to the promised land, Moses gave an address in Deuteronomy 5 and repeated the same 10 commandments as in Exodus 20 (and other statutes) to the whole gathering of Israel:

Deuteronomy 5:
1 Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully.  

Verses 6-21 contain the 10 commandments exactly as in Exodus 20.  See the verse 18 of it:

Deut 5: 18 'You shall not commit adultery'.

The same commandments are quoted variously all over the Bible (Old and New Testaments) by various people at various times spanning thousands of years.  The tablets of stone containing the commandments were kept inside the Ark of the Covenant (with other items) for remembrance of God's covenant with them.

Huxley, please be sure next time before exclaiming 'eureka'!  

Let us examine Exodus 34 and see if it bars adultery.  This is Exodus 34 in its entirety:

1 The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.
2 Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain.
3 No one is to come with you or be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks and herds may graze in front of the mountain."
4 So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the LORD had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands.
5 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD.
6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,
7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."
8 Moses bowed to the ground at once and worshiped.
9 "O Lord, if I have found favor in your eyes," he said, "then let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance."
10 Then the LORD said: "I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you.
11 Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.
12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you.
13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles.
14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
15 "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices.
16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.
17 "Do not make cast idols.
18 "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt.
19 "The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock.
20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.  "No one is to appear before me empty-handed.
21 "Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.
22 "Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year.
23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel.
24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.
25 "Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.
26 "Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God.
"Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."
27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.


29 When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the Testimony in his hands, he was not aware that his face was radiant because he had spoken with the LORD.
30 When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, his face was radiant, and they were afraid to come near him.
31 But Moses called to them; so Aaron and all the leaders of the community came back to him, and he spoke to them.
32 Afterward all the Israelites came near him, and he gave them all the commands the LORD had given him on Mount Sinai.
33 When Moses finished speaking to them, he put a veil over his face.
34 But whenever he entered the LORD's presence to speak with him, he removed the veil until he came out. And when he came out and told the Israelites what he had been commanded,
35 they saw that his face was radiant. Then Moses would put the veil back over his face until he went in to speak with the LORD.



Can you show me where it bars adultery?   I have discussed this in this thread.

Dios:
Yo Huxley, what's manchester like, I'm visiting England next spring/summer.

Manchester is great. I have lived here for about 12 years and in other cities (Cambridge & Southamption) in the UK, but my favorite is Manchester. It has everything you want for a good life. Great social, intellectual, sporting scene.

Whereabouts are you based?

Dios:
The history of Christiandom does not suggest that Jesus's message of forgiveness was taken seriously. For ever since the Christians became a strong political and military force, they have persecuted the Jews for having killed their god. What a bizarre irony!

They should have been thankful to the Jews for having instigated the killing of Jesus, for without this act their salvation would have been impossible.

Lol, I never even thought of it like that.
Did it ever cross jesus' mind to appear to Pilate and the soldiers that killed him, I mean if you're going to go through the trouble of getting your a$$ crucified, you might as well make sure enough people saw your resurrected a$$. Then instead of just ascending, just save your followers all the headaches by going to all the other continents and doing the same stunt over and over again.
Then jesus and his father are some egomaniacs, who wants millions of people singing their praises all the time, NON-STOP!!!!!

Common sense tells us this story is

Good point. There are in fact some Christian documents that depict Jesus appearing to Pilate. Admittedly, these documents were disregarded by the compilers of the NT, but the fact that Christians would go to such length to give the religion credibility reveals the depths of their depravity.

Bastage:
Actually they don't. The gospels absolve the Romans of any responsibility for the death of Christ with the symbolism of Pilate "washing his hands". Although the execution was carried out by the Roman authorities, the Bible makes it clear that they were unwilling participants who were only following the demands of the Jewish Sanhedrin.
The blame was all placed upon the shoulders of the Jews. Hence the reason why they were persecuted for centuries as "Christ-killers".

You should read the "washing of hands" narrative with a great deal of skepticism.  Most scholars of the NT think this is theological and political sleight of hand  (pun unintended).  If we assume that such a trial took place, then some of the details of the story appear implausible:

For a start, the inclusion in the narrative of the character called Barabbas and Pilates attempt to have him executed instead of Jesus.  There are simple no records of such clemency being granted for criminals on the day of passover.

Secondly, this narrative is not in keeping with the known character of Pilate.  Pilate was a particularly brutal governor of Palestine, known for brutally suppressing all forms of insurrections by killing and crucifying hundreds at a time.  To think that a relatively poor, unknown peasant from the hills of Palestine would prick his conscience to the extent described in the gospel is not in keeping with his character.  Note that Pilate was recalled to Rome for having killed thousands in a single act that the Jews complained to Rome.   I doubt he would have given two seconds of thought to Jesus.

Thirdly, the "washing of the hand" is a characteristically Jewish symbollic act.  I doubt a Roman governor would have engage in this.


Now, what motivated this sleight of hand by the christian writers?  You have to realise that the christians were keen to develop and maintain good relations with their Roman rulers.  As such, it was important that their doctrine absolves the Romans of the culpability of the death of their god.  So they wrote the story in such a way as to exonerate the Romans and incriminate the Jew instead.

A_K_O:
Yes, I would probably have gone with the crowd.

Big deal?

After all Jesus forgave them, for they knew no what they were doing.

Hows that in the light of Christian teachings and simple humanistic morality?

Now, we can only go with what we are given in the gospels for there are no extra-biblical independent records of this trial.  The gospels present the Roman authorities, in consort with their Jewish subjects as responsible for the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.  Under Jewish law, Jesus would have committed the crime of blasphemy, but because the Romans would have had little interest in prosecuting a Jew for blasphemy, the Jewish authorities present the charge to the Romans as one of seditions and insurrection.  These are political charges and the Romans would have had no compunction putting JEsus on trial under these charges.  Followers of Jesus, however, see him as an innocent man being unfairly prosecuted and executed. Or if you were party to the messianic message, you would have seen Jesus's trial and execution as vital for the salvation of humankind.

Without the benefit of hindsight, this is all the information you would have had as a first century spectator or participant of the events surrounding the trial of Jesus. 

If you would have gone with the Jewish crowd, then you would have been guilty of knowingly bringing an unfair charge against an innocent man, in violation of one of the ten commandments (thou shalt not bear false witness). This also contravenes all forms of humanistic ethics.


You say Jesus forgave them.  Who did Jesus forgive?   All the Romans involved in this arrest, trial and execution?   All the Jews who pressed the charges in the first place?  If you were in the crowd, would you have known that Jesus was going to forgive you?

These forgiven people, are they all likely sitting of the right hand side of Jesus right now, singing his praises?


The history of Christiandom does not suggest that Jesus's message of forgiveness was taken seriously. For ever since the Christians became a strong political and military force, they have persecuted the Jews for having killed their god.  What a bizarre irony! 

They should have been thankful to the Jews for having instigated the killing of Jesus, for without this act their salvation would have been impossible.

Dios:
I would have supported jesus because he was harmless, he said some wild and crazy stuff but he wasn't robbing people or killing them. barabas was just a crazy criminal

If you had supported Jesus, resulting in his exoneration, then you would have deprive him of the opportunity of dying to save mankind.

1. scientific formula are consistent - i am a scientist, that is why i am puzzled by this blanket fraud. If scientific formular where consistent most scientists would be out of jobs today. For instance, laws of gravity do not hold in space . . . therefore acceleration would not be the same on earth as it is in space.
- Partial oxygen pressure is not the same in Lagos as it is in the appalachian mountains . . .

- this are simple things i thought you people knew. Where are your vaunted "brains"?

2. So because global warming has divided people we shld ignore it totally?
- so because the bible has "divided" people through the ages we shld kick it to the curb? Has the bible divided you or you DELIBERATELY chose to be divided even though you know the truth?

What a shame! Gravity most certainly acts in space. It that were not so, it would be impossible to place satellite in space.

You might have meant to say that the earth's gravitational field in space is weaker compared to the field around the earth. Mind you that is the result of the distortion in space-time. Thus there is hardly a region in the space-time that does not have some measure of gravity.

davidylan:
stumped?

You posted a verse and could not answer a basic question of what it meant . . . and you claim i'm the one stumped? O boy na wa for you o. If i was "stumped" i wouldnt have pointed out that most important point for you in the first place.

Still no answer. In fact, why do you think your understanding of the verse is better than mine?

davidylan:
there is nothing stinking here dear dudu . . . its funny how you desperately struggle to find something to claim. You werent even aware the philistines suffered ANY repercussions in the first place.  

Not all the philistines died because not all of them touched the ark, infact only very few did.

What are your 2 questions i dodged? post them CLEARLY so i can see them. You people and your mysterious claims of dodging.  

How does it matter?  One drop of a human's blood is bad enough.  Your god has million of innocent on his hand.  What a barbaric monster. I bet Jesus is swiming in a pool of their blood right now.