Prophecy vs Free will

Please define what constitutes a prophesy?IMHO, this is the proven outcome of a forecast; the forecast must be proven to made before the event occured - not retrospectively. E.g. the dead sea scrolls, dated at least 200 BCE, does mention a prophesy which became vindicated 2000 years later, despite all attempts to overturn it, occuring when it was least probable.Please identify such a prophesy elsewhere?

quote:

---

Lest we forget he had a relationship with God, probably like that of no other creature. this relationship of love and friendship probably lasted eons, in our time

---

This refers to the factor of temptation, alluded to in the metaphorical story of the snake in the Adam and Eve story. There is no actual satan - this contradicts a host of other advocations and laws and showcases only paganism against true monotheism. There are no head bashing deities battling for supremecy nor angels with harps. Laws and commands are balanced against the factor of temptation - else they have no merit. Adam and Eve were magnified by temptation to a threshold greater than their previous stations; so was Abraham.

quote:

---

I know its tempting for you to move to the accuracy of this or that, but this is a discussion on the correlation of what the Bible (old and New) and maybe other sources, have to say on freewill and prophecy

​

If the stories are to be understood as true, how does one affect the other, do they cancel each other out, etc.

---

Prophesy, if of a credible true source, never negates free will - both are from the one source. Thus I asked what defines prophesy and how this is tested; if the prophesy is not a vindicated true prophesy, why bother?

quote:

---

it is interesting how you would know accurately what excally is happening in heavenly places. can I go on the next trip?

---

This must be directed on those claiming there is a devil/satan. Since this was never proven it is legitimate to dispute it.

quote:

---

Adam and Eve were magnified by temptation to a threshold greater than their previous stations; so was Abraham.

​

Maybe you could simplfy what you are saying in this quote How exacally did this happen

---

Ok. I referred to how one comes out of a test, and that even one who fails the test is still greater than one never tested. It appears to be the only means of elevation.

quote:

---

Again IMJ, its a philosophical inquiry, assuming initially and for all intents and purposes the prophecy is TRUE. Its not a question of whether a specific prophecy is true, but what would be the consequences on freewill

---

There is no freewill. We have limited control of anything: 99.9% of all actions are involuntary [breething; etc]; the 1% applying to moral/ethical decisions only [to steal or not to steal]. Freedom is lawlessness; Liberty is law based. If the prophesy of a Jew in Judea boasting his people and nation will be destroyed, and his followers have a passion of it - it is quite dispicable and perverse. However I don't believe this happened - its a bogus Roman made story which Europe should have questioned, then dumped in a green bag. 'ALL' - bar none, of the ancestors of today's Christians were enforced into their beliefs, and questioning it became a bad career move in medevial Europe.

quote:

---

So since angels demons and the such like do not exist in your view can we assume you claim the same for prophesy. Not real, not to be worried about?

---

These are spiritual forces only and not physical entities of any consequence accept for delivering a message. Today, the spiritual mode has been taken away and science given in its stead; we do not need both. We have no proof of anything spiritual the past 2000 years; the only prophesy occuring relates to the Hebrew bible.

quote:

---

Incidentially you directly indicated that you knew there were no such things as demons, angels and conflicts in heavenly places. From a Biblical perspective however this clearly not true

---

Depends what you term as biblical. Revelation denotes something new. We cannot prove the FX miracles in the Hebrew bible, however we have hard copy magestic laws from that source as apposed to replacement theologies wholly rested on belief - and no laws for humanity. A critical difference.

quote:

---

That being the case how can absolute control and authority not constitue a violation or interference of freewill?

---

If the law [authority] is applicable equally to all, and also clearly just - it neutralizes the issue of interfearence. Here, the authorities themselves are also under the same law. We cannot say, NOT TO STEAL is an intrusion; we can say a self preserving law enforced on others is an intrusion: e.g. born of the devil thus you are bad. Was not Rome the devil which had blood dripping from its sword - what devil nonesense is that applied to those who challenged Rome alone - and won?

quote:

---

Ok. I referred to how one comes out of a test, and that even one who fails the test is still greater than one never tested. It appears to be the only means of elevation.

​

Elevation of what and elevation by who? How does this apply to whether it contradics or circumvents freewill?

---

What will one do with freewill where there is no means to test their validity? The entire universe is made of a positive/negative duality, which pervades everything, both inanimate and life constructs. There is no elevation where there is no opposing force; there is no ONE in the universe. The one tested is greater than one never tested:THE MOST RIGHTIOUS CANNOT STAND WHERE A REPENTANT SINNER STANDS. Thus an elevation can only apply here.

quote:

---

Where and when would there ever be an example of someone never being tested.

---

You affirm the point. We are all tested by forces, hopefully for some underlying reason. There has not been a Messiah because we do not know the purpose of creation - this is the primal reason for a Messiah. We are in freefall,not knowing our purpose here and why. This says the physical realm is superior to any spiritual one - because spiritual beings are not tested.

quote:

---

These are spiritual forces only and not physical entities of any consequence accept for delivering a message. Today, the spiritual mode has been taken away and science given in its stead; we do not need both. We have no proof of anything spiritual the past 2000 years; the only prophesy occuring relates to the Hebrew bible.

​

Point for another thread

---

Either all the claims of spiritual stuff was false or that it has been replaced by science today and irrelevent; I select the latter because humanity could not survive without both. Would anyone today accept someone saying they know someone who overheard someone rose from the dead - why not - or why did some do then - how did a Norwegian come to accept a fiery preacher telling of what happened long ago in another place - w/o a shred of proof till today?

quote:

---

This seems to be contradictory. If there is only duality and no opposing force, how can the one tested be greater than anything, especially one never tested?

---

An opposing interaction can only occur in a duality. It takes two to tango applies.

quote:

---

I think in this instance Frako was implying the law or prophecy of God, as beign undestood as absolute. He did not directly state this in his OP, and if I am wrong he can correct me

---

If no absolute, no belief; it contradicts any claim to a Creator. THOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS is an absolute [accepted by humanity]; TURN THE OTHER CHEECK is not. The dif is the Hebrew evdences itself in reality as opposed solely on belief - its for this here physical realm! However, the factor of forgiveness, mercy, longsuffering, loving kindness [none of which are Gospel but Hebrew] does neutralize any semblance of negating free will. When delved further, we find the negative absolutes are in the Gospel and Quran, obviously born in suspicious undertakings, thinking Israel is dead and free for the taking: we do not see Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc saying some are born of the devil and/or ape; we do see that those who made those absolutes have perpetrated the most devilish and apish deeds.

quote:

---

Is your intimation that if god exists and he is the standard of absolute morailty, his law would be an intrusion? If I am missing what you are saying, let me know

---

What I have percieved is that there is a critical difference when the Hebrew bible describes events in ancient humanity's history - and what 'laws' must apply. Many confuse these factors. God is not agreeing or accepting bad stuff that happened but accurately describing them as at 4000 years ago; evidential by examining a timeline what other nations did at that time. The Hebrew laws are magestic - none have been able to better them to date or negate anything therein, despite this being an obsessive quest.

quote:

---

You seem to talk out both sides of your mouth. One moment there is the cold physical universe, with nutrality, then you imply there may be "some underlying reason"

---

In a sense the uni is perfect. It has laws whch may not always appear acceptable, such as innocent people being killed by tsunamies and plane crashes [not fair!], but it is precisely those random factors which give any meaning to a potential reason applying, to the extent we would see the universe as artificial, contrived and in contradiction of reality with no cost factor applying. This is the highest arena possible; if there are angels with harps somewhere, they would be aghast at our situation, bowing down to us in awe how we survive in such a zone of inevitable death at any time with no warning. In turn we should laugh at those spiritual entities, challenging them to put down their harps and prevail here! In a sense, humanity and other life forms are the real gladiators in the ultimate arena. I cannot imagine another reason applying - everything else seems utterly full of merciless indifference with no reason applying: a contradiction of a universe obviously displaying wisdom in its contruction every place we look. Random cannot happen randomly: try to sing out of tune deliberately!? Random has to be intentionally constructed to factor in. Think about it - one can make a car - but how many can make one which includes unfathomable random factors?

quote:

---

being tested by natural forces is really no test at all is it, atleast from a moral perspective

---

The natural forces become another test. It is not just your fellow man who tests you - its also the wind, the temperatures and one's own mind. Its sensaround. Random was always present, while the complex universe also prevails - a contradiction!

quote:

---

There are no morals to constitue it as a test to begin with, correct?

---

Once there were no laws in the universe. Moral laws require people and immoral forces. Once the uni was formless and void and nothing but am unformed void prevailed - everything was one big mush; read, no science, no laws of gravity, thus no stars and life was seen [this is V2 of Genesis]. The advent of science and laws emerged in V3, namely the formless was turned to form [read, laws emerged]. One can see the greatest depth in Genesis now, tapping state of art science today in what appears a very deceptively simple text explaining the hediest premises: where/when/how did laws come from? It begs the question did they always exist - how so if the uni is finite? I find such depictions in Genesis of the most ultimate issues facing humanity being subjected to opposing forces like other belief systems and atheism - all are created, factored in forces which act as a balancing act for elevation. Yes Genesis is humanity's most mysterious doument: check every forum debate you like - they are discussing nothing else than what Genesis is saying, affirming and negating it and making normal folk into fanatics.

quote:

---

Maybe part of the problem is that you bounce back and forth and use morality as it suits you current argument

​

Here is what I mean. You said

​

There has not been a Messiah because we do not know the purpose of creation - this is the primal reason for a Messiah

​

Then you stated:

​

We cannot prove the FX miracles in the Hebrew bible, however we have hard copy magestic laws from that source as apposed to replacement theologies wholly rested on belief - and no laws for humanity. A critical difference.

​

If we do not know the purpose of creation, and the purpose of a messiah is to direct us to morality, why would you think the laws of the Old Testament, would serve us any better in that connection

---

The Hebrew bible [The NT is old - superceded with the super new Quran, right!?]. OT is a false, condescending and negating premise based on covert heritage genocide and robbery, which has failed to fulfill away the Hebrew bible - the truth behind antisemitism. Bite that hard, disdained silver bullet. If the NT folk observed the Hebrew moral laws, its followers would not have attained the honor of being humanity's greatest murderers of innocent people throughout history [a fact, not an opinion]. Walk humbly with your God applies.The NT is a lawless document - it never gave humanity a single law. Love, which the NT antithetized [as does the Quran antithetize 'peace'], is conditional and subject to two transcending factors seen in the 10 Commandments: respect [4th C], which commands respect instead of love as the merit applying and the far more difficult to attain; and the factor of honesty [3rd C]. What good is love without respect and honesty? Is it still love if someone says they love you and do the oppositte when you turn your face? The NT has no legitimate claim to the factor of love, which it shouts about all over the place in generic, abstract mode - with horrific conditions in the fine print. The Hebrew says love is conditional and must be proven and merited. Else beware - it is not what is advertised in the headings! Atheism is cowardly - attacking the Hebrew bible when it is least attackable, remaining silent of the most attackable - because the latter is a bad career move, while the former gets you 5 minutes of stardom and a tap on the shoulder.

quote:

---

Why are they somehow majestic? Its almost as if you wish them to be spiritual without stating it. Why are these laws not self-preserving? because you like them?

---

I check mated someone in another such thread. The inculcation of negating the Hebrew laws as bad is based on horrific politics, not represented by reality and the reverse is the case. The world turns on the Herew laws exclusively, and no I am not a fanatic: I long to find other good laws and premises - try me! No Hebrew laws - no morality, ethicality, judiciary, etc, etc. There is no such thing as Christian or Islamic law; a law is not what one religion's followers follow - that is a ritual; a law is that which crashes all borders and is accepted even in an enemies' institutions [think, Hebrew laws], to the extent those who do not follow those laws are regarded outside the law. 'NAMES' are not laws. Christianity and Islam have been given all the lands, resources and substance - but no 'LAWS' - yet they throw away all their gifts and focus only on a tiny, miniscule people and land. Why so -will the king kongs beat their chests boasting how they prevailed a mosquito - and what happens when they must now face each other? It begs the Q who are the real vctims here.

quote:

---

You seem to hold them in high regard, but then with the same breath claim all is relative, because we really know nothing

​

Seems a bit contradictory or fallacious

---

No sir. The manifest situation is that we know nothing about origins of anything whatsoever [read, Genesis is right!]. The first alphabet is barred; Genesis begins with the second alphabet - it is shaped like a square with only the GO FORTH [look not behind] forward facet open. All else is open to us and emerging only in its exacting due time. This is vindicated today: we know everything about pineapples - except the origins of a pineapple. It should suffice us, but given the chance we will drop all the gifts and reach only for the unknown: this is what the Adam and Eve story metaphorically symbolizes: damn all the rest - go for the forbidden. It appears a great masterminded strategy to keep us all sucked in and searching for we don't know what. Brilliant, no?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Christianity says the Messiah came, went away and will come again. Judaism says 'nix' - no Messiah came but will one day.The above scenario says if a Messiah does come forth, he can greet us in one of two ways:"HELLO! HOW NICE TO MEET YOU AGAIN!" - This would mean all Jews must apologise to Christians. Agreed.Or!"HELLO! HOW NICE TO MEET YOU!" - This would mean all Christians must apologise to the Jews.Obviously, none today are disbelievers - all would kill and give their lives for their doctrines. But why not leave it at that - unresolved and wait and see? Why kill each other off now? - how will that make us see the light?IMHO, the Hebrew wins - a mysterious force has made Christianity afflicted with Islam as the response, resulting in two plaintiffs in mutually exclusive mode of their attacks on the Hebrew bible. One says the red car which belonged to another is now theirs; the other says the green truck which was corrupted by others is now theirs. I say, come, let us reason together - there is no red car or green truck anywhere to be found! A Messiah may not necessarily say what you like to hear - he/she may even ask some un-anticipated questions not attended in the Gospels or Quran. He may well say BORN OF SIN applies if your parents remained silent of the Balfour's crruption, for example. Or that a non-virtual Judas is one who threw the Jews under the bus for 30 barrels of oil. He may even ask - EGAD! - which is the homeland of the Jews? We all have to practice our answers to bad questions by a Messiah. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

THOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.You should start a thread listing laws in the Gospels and/or Quran the world's institutions have accepted, rather than questioning me - I did this because you made posts ridiculing the Hebrew laws. Yes, check mate did apply seeing how there was no retraction and only continueing impudence. I listed about 50 magestic laws the world has accepted covering all faculties and over 20 animal rights laws exclusive to the Hebrew bible - all with reference numbers attached anyone can check up on.Its your turn now - start with one? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

I am an athiest. I do not recognise your commandments. Even when you shout them.

---

Your mistaken. Atheists are also bound by the law. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

Commandments are different to laws.

---

No sir. Rituals are different to laws. A law happens with the world's substantial institutions accept and enshrine a Commandment as LAW.

quote:

---

I can work as much as I like on the Sabbath,

---

No sir. One day per seven rest with pay is obligatory as a law. An employer as well as an employee has this right and it can be legally enforced. If you can't do it in six you won't do it better in 7; you shall not live by bread alone.

quote:

---

I can covet my neighbors wife, she is about 80 so I dont, but I could if i were so inclined,

---

Agreed you can. The point is you can also be convicted with a criminal record and end up behind bars. Its the law.

quote:

---

I make wrongful use of the lords name on a regular basis and I reject God.

---

Agreed you can. But if done loudly it can land you in prison for incitement and hateful speech.

quote:

---

Also, as an athiest, I have no fear of your god punishing me for breaking his rules. That is another reason I do not recognise your commandments.

---

Ignorance of the law or your non-recognition of the law or being an atheist are not means of escape from the law. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

False witness means something like perjury

​

Maybe in a court of law.

---

Depending on the traditions of a country, a law can be adjusted with qualifications, becoming 'derivitives' of the law. Traditions may transcend in certain instances, a premise sanctioned by the law. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

False witness means something like perjury and perjury generally is illegal in countries with anything like a judicial system.

---

This extends to refusing to be a witness; a crime:Not to stand by idly when a human life is in danger (Lev. 19:16) (CCN82).Not to wrong any one in speech (Lev. 25:17) (CCN48).That one who possesses evidence shall testify in Court (Lev. 5:1) (affirmative).Not to testify falsely (Ex. 20:13) (CCN39).That a witness, who has testified in a capital case, shall not lay down the law in that particular case (Num. 35:30) (negative).That a transgressor shall not testify (Ex. 23:1) (CCN75).That the court shall not accept the testimony of a close relative of the defendant in matters of capital punishment (Deut. 24:16) (CCN74).Not to hear one of the parties to a suit in the absence of the other party (Ex. 23:1) (CCN65).To examine witnesses thoroughly (Deut. 13:15) (affirmative).Not to decide a case on the evidence of a single witness (Deut. 19:15) (CCN73). Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

This is the only semblence in your post that actually relates to the topic of the thread, so I will address it.

---

I see 'LAWS' as the primal factor concerning the issue of free will.

quote:

---

Because of you hatred for the NT, it is easy to see you do not even understand they are in perfect agreement in teaching.

---

I love christians. Hate is not addressing hateful inculcations passed on as belief: calling others as born of the devil and/or ape is a testing of all Christians and Muslims credibility, its rejection is being respresented to all humanity to consider as an evil premise - aside from its contradiction of the book of laws. Honesty is the first of all moral/ethical laws; obedience to evil is an evil inclination.AN HONEST DISAGREEMENT BEATS A DISHONEST AGREEMENT.

quote:

---

"Turn the other cheek", is exact in character to "A soft answer turneth away wrath", which is I believe from the old law or prophets teaching, correct?

---

It's not a law and contradicts the Hebrew bible - don't even try, applies. If one turns the other cheeck to evil deeds it is a crime and in direct contradiction of God's laws. This has been seen throughout European Christianity's history, most recently in W.W.II with the VE VERE NOT AVARE syndrome and the turning of the cheek when the Balfour Declration was corrupted - all Christians remained silent. You cannot guarantee that TURNING THE CHEECK cannot be abused - the reason it is not seen in the Hebrew magestic laws: if a mad dog is chasing you with the limbs of your kin in its jaws - turning the cheeck is a crime!

quote:

---

Both testaments manifest, (evidence) themself in reality, as I just demonstrated.

​

Claiming that the principles of the NT have no application to reality is not the same as demonstrating it

---

Absolutely you have not demonstrated your case. Check your histrical record!

quote:

---

Please demonstrate how mercy, love ect, negate freewill

---

Mercy, love, forgiveness and everlasting kindness is not from the NT but the Hebrew bible. Conditions apply. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

I in no way have ever felt bound by them or any religious laws.

---

Agreed you are not bound by ritual laws [adherence to names, festivals, dietary laws, etc]; but you are bound to moral/ethical/judiciary commandments which have been accepted as LAW. All such Hebrew laws [non-ritual] are accepted as the LAW - comprehensively and exclusively seen in the Hebrew bible.Thus far there has been one Hebrew law being debated and in certain states overturned, namely the laws relating to Gays. However this is not a moral/ethical law as much as it is an existential law: if 20% of the human pop goes gay, humanity will not survive after a few generations. It's other problem is that it impacts the laws relating to incest: one cannot dismiss incest if gay laws are passed: both positing mutual acceptence provisions and not hurting others, etc. It will then be a crime if you do not attend the celebration of a birth of your 50 year old male neighbour and his 25 year old biological daughter. Its a hot potato, the point being a choice between 100% disaster ahead or some compromises applied. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

your still speaking out both sides of your mouth. One moment you insist there is no absolute, nothing provable, then turn right around and use such terms as, honesty, moral and evil.

​

IMJ, if there are no absolutes, then you stand in contradiction of accusing christians of morals you do not agree with, because your other tenets concerning morality are for the most part subjective ramblings Which is it IMJ, are there absolutes or not

---

Of course there are absolutes, its validity not depending on one's subjectives thoughts, but what is manifest over long periods of time. Absolutes:THE SUN SHALL RISE TOMORROW WITHOUT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM YOU.These are not absolutes:NO SALVATION BUT THROUGH ME.NO GOD W/O MOHAMMED AS HIS PROPHET.JEWS ARE BORN OF THE DEVIL AND/OR APES.

quote:

---

Turning the other cheek does not mean ignoring evil behavior it simply means deal with it in love, not anger

---

Yes I realize this as applying to most Christians today [at least after post-W.W.II and applying mainly outside European inculcated theology] - and still disagree it is a bona fide law. You ignore how that premise has been mis-used throughout European Christian history, causing the murder of millions of innocent folk - precisely because of turning the cheek. Newton's Law applies.

quote:

---

Yes from both testaments and the same God

---

As I said, Jews have an obligation to correct Christianity, which accepted and took on board the Hebrew bible as having equal validity of the NT: but all theologies cannot be equally right - they contradict each other. Best I can do is be honest with you:AN HONEST DISAGREEMENT BEATS A DISHONEST AGREEMENT. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

Rituals are different to laws. Potplants are also different to laws. This does not change the fact that Commandments are different to laws.

---

No, your distinction, still bent on ridicule, is itself ridiculous. Rituals are applicable only to specifically directed people for specifically directed reasons and prefixed 'unto you'; mostly these serve as funny uniforms for postmen and reminder ceremonies. Thus it is not a violation if a Christian consumes pork, for example, this ritual was not given them.

quote:

---

Commandments can become laws. You have shown this in your own post. However, there are no laws that are direct copies of commandments. They need to be altered in order for them to be effective in todays society. For example, take though shalt not kill. If the law was a simple as that, every soldier would be in jail. very person who killed someone in self defence would be in jail. Every doctor who attempted a surgery that had a high chance of killing the patient would be in jail. Commandments can be used as a base for some laws. But the commansment is changed to become a law. It is one thing, then it is changed to be another thing. Commandments do not automatically become laws. Take the first commandment, I am the Lord your God, you shal have no other Gods but me. Imagine trying to create a law that states that every citizen must worship a God and that God alone. It would never happen in any western nation. As far as I am aware, it is only law in some Islamic nations.

---

NOT TO MURDER is the correct translation. Obviously, you have not read and considered all the laws: a soldier is condoned by other laws of national defense and not inter-related as in your portrayal.

quote:

---

my somment - I can work as much as I like on the Sabbath,
your reply - No sir. One day per seven rest with pay is obligatory as a law. An employer as well as an employee has this right and it can be legally enforced. If you can't do it in six you won't do it better in 7; you shall not live by bread alone.

​

You need to research your claims before you make them. And think about it a bit before you make it. There are laws in some nations that say that an employer can only have an employee work a certain number of days. However, there is no law to say that a worker cannot have 2 or 3 jobs, working all 7 days of the week. So, the comment stands, I can work as much as I want on the sabbath, thus breaking one of the commandments and also NOT breaking any laws. Also, it is not illegal to work 7 days a week in many industries. Oil platform workers, miners, commercial fishermen and most people who work in seasonal harvesting commonly work for up to 3 months straight. I have done this personally. I have worked on fishing boats for between 28 ans 31 days at a time with a 3 day rollover in port between trips. I have worked fly in, fly out at mine sites, 14 days on 5 days off. I have worked on farming sites where the harvest needs to in as quickly as possible. I have worked a harvest on one farm for about 20 days, then travelled straight to another farm for another week or so, then to another farm and so on. It is called working the harvest trail. It breaks one of the commandments but no laws.

---

You can work yourself ever second of your life. But the law of 1 day of rest with pay stands, whether it is maintained on a sunday or a friday does not matter here. Why are you argueing what is blatant?

quote:

---

Can you provide me with the law that states I cannot desire my neighbors wife? There is no such law. I can think whatever I like. There is no law that I am aware of in any nation that prevents this or even discusses it. I could covet my neighnours wife, work to create situations where I could spend more time with her, seduce her, have an affair with her, get her to divorce her husband and them move in with me. I could do all of this without breaking any laws. It would be morally wrong because I like my neighbor (he gives me fresh rosemary and basil from his garden and always waves), and his wife is 80 and this does not really do it for me. If you can produce an actual law that states that I cannot covet my neighbours wife or even seduce her and take her for my own, I will retract and concede. But I dont think you will be able to do this. Saying 'its the law' does not actually make it the law.

---

You can - which is different from being good to do. A cost factor can apply even in hidden thoughts: if left unchecked, it will graduate to and constitute coveting [stalking] which is a crime; or even worse. Would you be upset if another coveted your loved one, you remained indifferent, then it becomes more serious? This is like the command to wash the hands before meals - it can save lives, and has been accepted as a law in the medical world some 250 years ago. How amazing this was made a mandated law 3,500 years ago!

quote:

---

Some believe that taking the lords name in vain is anything from using 'jesus christ' of 'for Gods sake' as a curse up to breaking an oath sworn in the name of God. I was refering to using the lords name in a blasphemous manner. Something I do regularly. It is not illegal. It is not hate speech. I can do this as load as I want. It is much more acceptable to yell 'jesus christ' if i hit my hand with a hammer than if I yelled 'fucking cunt'. Using the lords name in vain is not hate speech and it is not illegal. If you believe that it is, please produce the law.

---

This 3rd C from Sinai refers to honesty and not to violate one's word or contract, which all laws depend upon. It is correctly placed at the top of all moral, ethical laws.

quote:

---

,y comment - Also, as an athiest, I have no fear of your god punishing me for breaking his rules. That is another reason I do not recognise your commandments.
your reply - Ignorance of the law or your non-recognition of the law or being an atheist are not means of escape from the law.

---

Just as the term species was adapted from the word 'kinds' in Genesis, you should replace the term commandment with law today. Atheists are subject to the law of the land.

quote:

---

Can you produce the laws that you believe I am violating by working on the sabbath, by coveting my neighbors wife or by taking the lords name in vain.

---

4th; 10th; 3rd of the 10Cs; respectively. Is this a test?

quote:

---

I am eager to know what they are because it would mean that I have been breaking the law and avoiding punishment (jail time according to your replies) without even knowing it for decades.

---

Yes you would be breaking the law. Check with your local sherriff if in doubt. Ask him if atheists are immune. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning