Ever take a close look at the 10 Commandments?

[MHz]

how it has any relevance to today's world?

For you it has zero. So what, that has been apparent for some number of posts. lol

 

[Cliffy]

Sayeth??? Did you warp back to the days of 1611 on England? ROFLMAO
Perhaps you know of some other piece of writing that covers God in as much detail?

Ever read the Koran or the Vedas?TheKoran makes the same silly claims the bible does. The Vedas are four thousand years older than the bible. Could they be more authoritative? The bible, like all books were written by men, is fallible just like the men that wrote it. Just because they claim to be inspired by god doesn't mean they are. You wouldn't believe me if I said I was inspired by god but I know I am.

 

[ironsides]

What ever happened to the other 600 or so commandments that God supposedly gave Moses?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

What ever happened to the other 600 or so commandments that God supposedly gave Moses?

Ironsides, I know what happened to them.

Moses came down from the mountain and said to his followers “Well fellows, I have good news and bad news.”

"What is the good news?”

“Good news is that I was able to hold the boss down to Ten.”

And the bad news?”

“Bad news is that the bit about adultery stays in.”

 

[ironsides]

Sayeth??? Did you warp back to the days of 1611 on England? ROFLMAO
Perhaps you know of some other piece of writing that covers God in as much detail?

Ever read the Koran or the Vedas?TheKoran makes the same silly claims the bible does. The Vedas are four thousand years older than the bible. Could they be more authoritative? The bible, like all books were written by men, is fallible just like the men that wrote it. Just because they claim to be inspired by god doesn't mean they are. You wouldn't believe me if I said I was inspired by god but I know I am.

Just came across this: "The Moses tale was originally that of an Egyptian hero, Ra-Harakhti, the reborn sun god of Canopus, whose life story was copied by biblical scholars. The same story was told of the sun hero fathered by Apollo on the virgin Creusa; of Sargon, king of Akkad in 2242 B.C.; and of the mythological twin founders of Rome, among many other baby heroes set adrift in rush baskets. It was a common theme."

 

[ironsides]

Ironsides, I know what happened to them.

Moses came down from the mountain and said to his followers “Well fellows, I have good news and bad news.”

"What is the good news?”

“Good news is that I was able to hold the boss down to Ten.”

And the bad news?”

“Bad news is that the bit about adultery stays in.”

:lol:

 

[MHz]

Just came across this: "The Moses tale was originally that of an Egyptian hero, Ra-Harakhti, the reborn sun god of Canopus, whose life story was copied by biblical scholars. The same story was told of the sun hero fathered by Apollo on the virgin Creusa; of Sargon, king of Akkad in 2242 B.C.; and of the mythological twin founders of Rome, among many other baby heroes set adrift in rush baskets. It was a common theme."

How well were they obeyed? Adultery and murder certainly hasn't taken any 'breaks' in any period of history..

 

[ironsides]

Murder and adultery usually warranted the death penalty back then.

 

[AnnaG]

The authority on God is the Bible. First, since all children are considered to be children of Eve then they are born into sin. That sin has to be forgiven before rewards can be dispersed..

Does that mean automatically everyone is guilty of sinning from conception onwards? I hardly think so. That is not only illogical, it is downright stupid.

Explain to me how God is responsible for the deaths by starvation alone of more than 25,000 'children'. The responsibility was left to the Governments of the World, during His absence. That is the same people responsible (in that they could prevent hunger) is it not. Proof can be found in the comments of the politicians. One politician from (shown in actual article) blames the 'food shortage' as the result of India's people wanted more than one meal a day. (not sit around and do nothing, but hold down a western-style job and still require only one meal/day. The same politicians can be seen at 12 course meals on an almost daily basis. There is even a set of verses that describes the 'reward' for those 'shepherds' who care nothing for the flock compared to supplying their own wants and needs.
Death from starvation is only one of the ways that should not exist today. Death cannot be prevented, delay it a little bit is all we can do.

Everything was planned and executed according to this jerk's will, right? People are this jerk's children, right? At least humans can take some responsibility for their kids even if they hire a babysitter to care for them temporarily. The ultimate responsibiollity for the kids is the parents' concern. Apparently your god is unwilling or unable to take this responsibility. Granting that this horse's behind is all-powerful (you say), then it wouldn't be that it is unable to take responsibility but rather that it is unwilling to do so. It can change things so that those children do not starve, but it doesn't. That means it allows the suffering of children. (That's assuming the thing exists in the first place).

If these things are happening in the (ie 3rd chapter) and God's appearance was with the strength to combat that is not mentioned until (ie 5th chapter) then why should it be God that combats those things. For 2,000 years it has been man's duty to solve things like that. [/quopte]And if I see my babysitter failing at her job, she doesn't have the job any longer.

Scripture never says it will prevent the shedding of tears, only that it will make amends for the reason those tears were shed in the first place.
I'm not sure anybody can say with all determination that the sea mentioned here is not made of tears. The 'ruler of that place' could certainly cause more than a few to be shed.

Re:17:15:
And he saith unto me,
The waters which thou sawest,
where the ***** sitteth,
are peoples,
and multitudes,
and nations,
and tongues.

Small comfort for those suffering. "Here, I'll burn you till you are barely alive, but you will have a reward later." That doesn't sound so peachy to me.

Important only until the moment of death, after that..not so important to that particular person. The ones who feel grief are among the living.
That He restores that (all manners of death undone) is an indication of what type of behaviour? (ie you send your children to their rooms for 1 hour..at the end of that one hour you open the doors, as promised) A corrupt rendering would be forgetting to open the door at the appointed time.

"Here, I'll burn you till you are barely alive, but you will have a reward later..... some 80 years down the road." That doesn't sound so peachy to me.

In this example, you know a thief is coming and he is interested in the ones who 'can believe lies'. If they were wandering around the house some would not be their when the thief was expelled from the house. To keep them safe you could send them to their rooms for safe keeping. What type of parenting would that be, could it be called 'loving' even though it involved some being 'sent away (from the 'living room') before the thief showed up.

huh?

God is the author of Scripture, I doubt any of us will be pointing out things to Him that 'are new'.

lol As an atheist, I highly doubt it, too.

At the moment He is only building memories. In the progression of the way He seems to have this 'resolved' is that instead of stopping and holding court each and every time some 'sin' is committed, everything will 'be noted' and brought up at the usual time for dealing with the vents of the 'past day'. All grievences at one single time.

If the jerk was all-powerful it could do all kinds of things all at once. So it's pretty obvious the thing isn't as all-powerful as the brag says. Perhaps 50%? 10% powerful?

One of His very first acts after the return is to made the Dead Sea into a fresh water pond with only the marshes being left salty. Is that bragging or simple putting His act as well past what man can do?

And upset that particular ecologies? That's not very bright, IMO.

Using Scripture is more in line with the 'matter of factness about some upcoming events' rather than with the abstract of God Himself.

Yeah. People read Nostradamus' stuff, too.

Did He know that Satan would cause death through a lie?

It was all in the plan, right?

It could have been considered as one of the possible paths that was from point A to point B.
If Adam and Eve were already alive then was the tree of life the cure for 'death' (known to occur if eating from the other tree).

Following that sort of thinking is just an exercise. Reading Isa:65 with the pre-tought that it is a chapter wher some are simply gathered before the 'other group'. That is more definitive in that it should have but one single meaning. Finding all the other relevent verses to that particular subject is how you add even more detail. In this case Hebrews 12 is when those numbered to the sword are redeemed to life.


That saves us some time lol. Without sin there would be reason for grace or mercy to exist?

No. And that would leave room for people to grow gardens, play cribbage, chat over a coffee or a meal. Can't have everyone doing that, though. We have to make some of them miserable, especially a large percentage of the innocent ones.



We have fed time in our prisons 2ys+day, we also have some laws that demand a sentence of not less than 7 years.

In the sins about God alone the penality is death in the flesh. The breath of life will depart. That event pays the price of those sins, and many others no doubt. Once Adam ate then death was assured for everybody. Genesis says God's spirit will be with man for 120 years, at that time he would be normally judged on if he was a sinner or not. Death if he was, going on in life if he was not, known as an 'old man'. So by God introducing Laws that hastened that day to something less than the full 120 is that a good/bad/doesn't really matter thing?

Everyone sins eventually so, according to your Genesis, everyone is walking dead. Whether 20, 50, or 120 is irrelevant, in that case.

When retrieved from the grave no past sins are still attached, except in very rare conditions. You aren't Angelic so don't speculate.

Why not? It's an exercise.

He will do things that may not appear kind until right near the end of the book. He at least told us that many deaths caused after the Exodus were done simple to impress the men of Israel to follow and obey because in wars this God could not be defeated. Nor were His methods 'normal warfare'.

2Ki:19:35:
And it came to pass that night,
that the angel of the LORD went out,
and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand:
and when they arose early in the morning,
behold,
they were all dead corpses.

As it stand those same ones are still dead, if they are alive to see Re:21 & 22 unfold has God been totally unkind to them? If mercy is to be granted to people alive today should not these ones also be entitled to that same brand of mercy, even more so as God was the actual cause of their deaths.

May not appear kind? Sorry, but they ARE unkind. Something nasty is not something that appears nasty, it is nasty.
If some dough-head told me they would make me miserable for 80+ years but I'd have a reward after, I'd tell him to stuff it and carry on with my normal life.

 

[AnnaG]

The odds are he would have gone down on her without the mouthwash being any factor at all, or didn't that thought occur to you?

I doubt that. Alcohol loosens people's inhibitions and dumps their good sense.

 

[JLM]

The odds are he would have gone down on her without the mouthwash being any factor at all, or didn't that thought occur to you?

To give the guy some credit he probably would have just thought about it, but inhibition would have stopped it there.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Murder and adultery usually warranted the death penalty back then.

Murder still does, in parts of USA. As for adultery, in the old days there was the ‘unspoken rule’ or something like that.

I remember reading somewhere that in the old days, if a man caught his wife in bed with another man and as a result he killed the other man and/or his wife, the jury (all male jury of course, they didn’t let women on juries back then) would not convict him. It was considered his right to protect his honour. That was our version of ‘honour killing’.

So adultery warranted death penalty in some circles, not all that long ago.

 

[AnnaG]

parrot
parrot

 

[MHz]

To give the guy some credit he probably would have just thought about it, but inhibition would have stopped it there.

I haven't posted anything on that thread. Immoral but hardly headline grabbing material. How should the relationship go when temptation is a factor. Should he have told her of his desires as a way of being honest? Risky at best and if she had similar 'feelings' futile in the hopes of avoiding a carnal calamity.
I have several step-daughters, I never offered to have a beer with them when they were in the 16 yr old group. Today, at the age of 36 I would offer them a beer should the occassion arise. I would probably even tell a few stories that would not be told in front of 'minors'.
Spontaneity is tied quite closely to various emotions. Being familiar with the various ones is more than helpful, at pretty much all times. Being able to see the small, telltale signs of the start of anger can be used to an advantage. If the desire is anything positive then that route is not followed. Anger is fences up and swords drawn. At that point the best action plan is to back away slowly. Take up another point that leads to the same conclusion but avoids the intimidation or whatever caused that initial flash of anger.

I doubt that. Alcohol loosens people's inhibitions and dumps their good sense.

lol I was drunk at the time......... Maybe that is a lie, maybe it was the courage to do what was before only a thought. I doubt if drinking was the initiator of the original thought, I wonder what she would .... be like to know...
Our modesty requires we add another word, 'intimately' before 'known real well' would not have any sexual connotations all by itself.

If he got drunk and went down on a 'female stranger', or his wife then nobody would even be commenting.
Scripturally speaking the Bible might be indicating that if you can see your wife is 'at that time of the month' it might not be the best time to 'go there'.
If needed the verse is in those 'other laws' that include adultery. It is specific in saying that the husband sees her blood. That means his face is right there, back then and today. Even today it might be a good time to refrain, come back when the coast is clearer. lol

To tell you the truth I'm not sure how the prayer admitting to that should be worded. I would bet the 'next supper' at the place of the incident was quite memorably for all who were there. Should have recorded it for future family gatherings. Is that what would come under the 'good sense' heading? Lust just doesn't seem to fit that term, reality or not.

 

[MHz]

So adultery warranted death penalty in some circles, not all that long ago.

How many trials are there a year in the 'West' in which one or more persons lose their life to fits of rage which has adultery as it's main ingredient?

 

[ironsides]

Murder still does, in parts of USA. As for adultery, in the old days there was the ‘unspoken rule’ or something like that.

I remember reading somewhere that in the old days, if a man caught his wife in bed with another man and as a result he killed the other man and/or his wife, the jury (all male jury of course, they didn’t let women on juries back then) would not convict him. It was considered his right to protect his honour. That was our version of ‘honour killing’.

So adultery warranted death penalty in some circles, not all that long ago.

No, not that long ago, 1950's in some places here/there.

 

[ironsides]

Just thought you might find this interesting.
"Adultry is Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and punishable in the military. Moreover, the military doesn't recognize separation agreements so a marriage remains till a divorce decree is given. Yet having said that, the military doesn't normally press adultry charges unless it is used to accompiany another more serious charge. Just too common and often more likely to be addressed by the person's supervisor than a military court. Unless of course the adultry is between a supervisor or senior ranking person and a subordinate - - then in that case the military will court marshell the supervisor very quickly."

is adultry illegal in military - DivorceNet Forums

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No, not that long ago, 1950's in some places here/there.

So you also remember the ‘unspoken rule’? I vaguely remembered reading about it. In one of Ellery Queen’s mystery novels he mentions it (the murderer alters the evidence to show that he killed his wife because he caught her in adultery).

 

[ironsides]

Yes, it wasn't that long ago, showing my age.

 

[AndyF]

ie: gods

Since there is only one God, this is either a metaphor for things that someone worships,or,beings that he worships that are not the true God.

Andy