skyone:

@POSTER

I've been studying your posts on this forum and now i can easily conclude that you're partially drifting off from your NORMAL mental status. People of such character as yours are mostly referred to mental home when it gets to grade 3 to 4. So watch out and check on your mental capability.

Hey, why don't you forget about my mental state and just respond to the questions I raised. That you choose to attack me suggests that you are unwilling or incapable of addressing the questions. Now, who do you think has got a deluded mental state?

Bastage:

Read my comment again.

It does not take a religion to make good people do evil.

Just think about it.  What would motivate someone who is ordinarily good to commit an evil act?  I know we have not yet defined what we mean by good, but let us just go with the common-sense notion of the word.

In fact, let me attempt a defintion of a good person - A good person has a reasonable combination of the following:

1)  Some one who show great concern and respect for his fellow human

2)  Some one who exercises control, moderation, due humility in the pursuance of their life

3) They appreciate and dedicate some investments towards the betterment of others and the environment

How is that?   Why would anyone who adheres to standards such as the above be motivated to commit evil?

Bastage:

There have been plenty of good people who have been athiests who have bleeped up and committed evil acts.

You say there are plenty.  Can you supply some examples?


On the contrary, there are many example of pseudo-good people  whose morals have been totally corrupted by their religions and the belief in God.

1)  Take for instance the hundreds of families who have deprived their children of medical care for religious reasons.  These were ordinarily good families by all known definition of the word but because of their corrupted metaphysical view, they would do things as evil as that.

2)  Take the case of John Calvin and his burn of Servetas for herecy

Need I go on?

Bastage:

There have been plenty of believers who have bleeped up where there religion has had no impact on thier actions.

Religion has been used as a justification to commit evil but to say that the only good people who mess up do so because of religion is complete and utter bullshit.

Yes, the comment did not say that religions is the cause of all fucking-up.  It just said that where good people do evil, religions is that cause.


I await you plenty of counter-examples.

noetic:

I dont agree.
except for Jesus, the rest on ur list were simply favoured men, not good, as far as I am concerned. They simply found favour with God.
Each of them at one time or the other committed sins, present day christians are also battling with.

The only difference between king saul and david was that david was more favoured. The same with moses, Aaron, Joshua and Abraham. They were justified by grace and not by works. As such I have no idea what u mean by a "good" person.

if u can define a good person, then it would be easier to analyse ur statements.
How does religion make a good man do evil? who is a good person?

I have not got good working definition of what I mean by "good person" now, but I think we both could arrive at it.  so just bear with me.

Is goodness equals sinlessness?  Is is possible for one to be sinful and yet good?


Can one be evil and also sinless?

noetic:

who are good people? what qualifies a person to be good?

Let me give you some examples from the bible since that is the only thing you seem to understand.

Some Good People from the Bible:

1)  Moses

2)  Abraham

3)  Aaron

4)  Joshua

5)  King David

6)  Judah

7)  Apostle Paul

8.)  Jesus

As a bible believer, you know these people and you have good knowledge of their character. These people were also favoured by God so they MUST be good.  Don't you agree? 

Now for each of these people, can you indicate whether you think these are good people?

Bastage:

This statement is just utter bullshit. Anyone can do evil. It does not take a belief in religion to do so.

Did you really read the comment? It clealy does imply that ANYONE can do evil, but it takes religions for good people to do evil. If you disagree, can you provide some counter-examples?

Bastage:

A bad example to use, Huxley.

The verse is referring to paying blood-money. The family of all murder victims were entitled to choose wether they wanted the culprit to be punished or to pay a personal fine - it is still practiced in Islam today.

By making bloody-money payable for the death of a foetus, the verse is saying that the life of an unborn child is as important as that of an adult.

Like I say: bad example. This is not a subject that I really feel strongly about (I believe in the woman's right to choose) but it wouldn't suprise me if the fundamentalists don't actually use that passage to back their stance on anti-abortion.

I just don't know how you draw this conclusion about paying blood-money. Please, Please, Please can you explain?

Let me tell you how I understood the verses and please correct me if you think I am wrong. First off, it says that if someone were to beat a pregnant woman so badly that they lose the foetus, then the culprit MUST be punished. Notice that it does not specify the nature of punishment, which is subject to the whimps of the womans husband (presumably because the woman is the property of the man).

If nothing else happens, ie, if the only consequence of the beating was the lose of the foetus, then the punishment as defined by the husband is enough. However, if the aggressor were to cause further damage like taking a tooth, or an eye, or a hand of the woman, then these parts MUST also be taken from the aggressor.

Now, tell me, how is this related to blood-money?

Christian tend to claim that human life begins at the moment of conception and that from that moment the embryo or foetus qualifies for full status as a human and deserves to be treated as a full and complete human. Is this a biblical concept? I contend that the opposite is true. The bible, contrarily, treats human foetuses as though they were mere "human waste". Please turn to Exodus 21:

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. 26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

According to the above verses, which is the more egregious crime? Someone causing the lose of a tooth or someone causing the lose of a foetus?

OLAADEGBU:

The Bible is so true that it is fresher than tomorrow's newspaper!!!  You cannot compare the inspired word of God to the distorted word of man.

The book of Exodus means exit or departure which Moses wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is the second book of the Pentateuch, a continuation of the story in the book of Genesis.  Where 70 descendants of Jacob journeyed to Egypt, but after increasing abundantly in number they became oppressed as slaves to "Egyptian leaders" who did not remember Joseph (Jacob's son).  The Scripture tells us that a pharaoh came to power who did not know Joseph.  This pharaoh was not even an Egyptian.  In Acts 7:18 when Stephen was giving his presentation before the Sanhendrin, he spoke of "another king who knew not Joseph."  The word "another" in Greek is heteros (not allos), meaning "of a different kind."  Isaiah 52:4 tells us that the pharaoh of the oppression was an Assyrian.  He became insecure and threatened as this race of Hebrews multiplied and became powerful, so he enslaved them.

The oppression of the nation of Israel brings us to the advent of Moses, probably the most remarkable man who has ever lived, next to Jesus Christ.  He stands out in the pre Christian world.  He was born during, but delivered from the government-ordained genocide.  Moses would take a race of slaves (about 3 million people) and mold them into a powerful nation that altered the course of all history.   

Archaeology supports the Bible as you will find out in the link below as you cannot compare the word of the dead with that of the living God.  If you need information and understanding about the historical facts and truth then read the Bible with an open mind willing to know and obey the truth coming from the way, the truth and the life.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-archaeology-support-the-bible

How could Moses have achieved that when the Jews were such lawless and barbaric people who would kill anyone at the drop of a fart?

Activist atheists or better still naturalists are interested in religion and supernaturalism in the same way that a surgeon is interested in a cancerous growth.

Am watching it right now from the UK

God has a way of treating his very own. I bet he was calling out Jesus, Jesus, Jesus at the point of orgasm.

Bastage:

An example of how the Egyptians erased their history.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/quest/lost-queen/program/program.html

But the Hyksos kings are documented. They weren't wiped from history and we know a bit about them.
Exodus wasn't entirely wiped from Egyptian records either. It is told in a different way by the Egyptians.
To the Jews, Exodus has them fleeing slavery. To the Egyptians, it is the eviction and victory over a race of tyrannical invaders.

Interesting. Also interesting by its absence is the fact that the Jews did not seem to record the fact that they had held such exalted positions in Egypt (besides Joseph's). No mention of the names of their kings of Egypt when such mention would have served their purposes very well. If it was not for the Egyptian who themselves recorded this, it might never have been known that the Hyksos were once kings in Egypt.

Bastage:

Yes, they ruled. And if you look at characters like Joseph you can see them up there in the ruling class.
Joseph worked as Grand Vizier, interpreting the Pharoah's dreams (a very, very important job) but then you'll notice that the new Pharoah comes along who "knows him not". This was probably one of the Pharoah's after the Hyksos had been deposed. He wouldn't have "known" Joseph because he was the opposition. Moses, on the other hand, seemed to have a hand in both the Hyksos and Egyptian camps although he eventually turned to the Hyksos.

The actual date that the Hyksos were deposed predates Exodus calculations by a hundred years or so. So there was plenty of time for them to get deposed and turned into slaves - although I reckon they were discriminated against and treated as the lowest caste rather than properly enslaved. The actual flight of Exodus could have taken place when a mini rebellion broke out against the Egyptian pharoahs due to this treatment, was put down and they were either forced to flee or thrown out for good. The Egyptians destroyed many records and tried to wipe the Hyksos from the history book but we do know that it took them many attempts to subjugate them on the Egypt/Israeli border before they chased them into Sinai.

Keep reading. Like I said - it's a really interesting subject. So much tallies with what's in the Bible. Not only with what we could consider to be pretty good evidence but we can also see where things have been twisted and manipulated - for example, Moses and his followers took the mantle of victimhood, but the fact is that they were probably the instigators. So in answer to your question "Why do the authors of the Bible not mentiion the Hyksos as rulers", I would reply "Would you?"
It simply wouldn't fit into the politics of the book - the Bible story has the Hebrews starting from nothing and becoming powerful due to their god. It wouldn't be half as powerful if it turned out that they were tyrants who got defeated and deposed because of their god!!!

The idea of being deposed and becoming the slaves or lower caste of society sounds very plausible and that would explain their lowly status and their eagerness to leave Egypt. But the sources I have check does say the the entire 15th Dynasty was made of Hyksos rulers. It cannot be the case that all these rulers have been wipe out from history. Further, the positions of Joseph and Moses seem to be relatively minor ones compared to that of kings/rulers.

Image123:

@huxley
please pardon me for I've not been available.Firstly,calling any biblical injunction immoral is an act which itself is immoral.You don't dictate right or wrong or accepted standard.only the judge can.God is judge of all,He's just got to be right.That's fact although you may feel uneasy with it. It is in this spirit that Luke12 begins. Jesus begins in verse 1 with warning against hypocrisy. He declares the whole truth,not just lying in the name of being politically/socially correct.He's talking about judgement,consequences. Thats life.There are consequences and there are rewards.Its only sincere to talk about the two.Many prefer the sweet talk about the rewards.yes there's time 4those talk about love and joy,happiness,provision and peace.Jesus dealt with that when due,but there're consequences,judgement,punishment for wrong doing.Jesus was sincere to declare that without hypocrisy.Criminals,defaulters and offenders shouldn't be praised or promoted in a normal setting.they should be punished and that what Jesus says.Look at Luke12v1-3.it says reckoning/judgement day is coming.v5 says God will do the judgement and should be feared.v9 tells us about consequences for denying Jesus.v20 continues with certainty that there are consequences and rewards for the way we live on earth.There's the challenge/exhortation to put more priority investment on Heaven and invest less on earthly pursuits.v42-44 assures that there'll be reward for doing good.v45-48 assures us that there're consequences for evil works/offences.The servant that beat the menservants and maidens will also be beaten with stripes.thats what v45-48 says ko?You reap what you sow. Its that simple.Its not just a beating for nothing,its with purpose. Moaning about it would not change it mr. Criminals complain all the time like they shouldn't be punished.Don't fight for them.You do your part so as not to be punished or found an offender.Unsuccessful people complain about everything else but themselves.Look inside of you.See and acknowledge your faults and make your ways right. God loves you Huxley.

Image123, pardon me, but I find it rather difficult to read your post, mainly because is so badly punctuated and formatted. Can I suggest the following:

1) Break your main point up into separate paragraphs to encompass each salient point.

2) Punctuate each sentence better. Allow a space between a full-stop and the start of the new sentence. Also allow a space between a comma and the next word.

3) Enumerate where appropriate (just like I have done here).

4) Some highlighting or emboldening would also be useful.


All or some of these would make for relatively easy reading of your post. Hope you don't take offense.

Bastage,

I must thank you for bring the Hyksos to my attention for their involvement in Egypt sounds fascinating. I have got the book, The Bible Unearth, by Israel Finkelstein, in which they are mentioned, but I just had not read that far. In fact I have bearly read the book. Incidentally, I found the following on the web:

The Hyksos

The Hyksos were a group of mixed Semitic-Asiatics who settled in northern Egypt during the 18th century BC. In about 1630 they seized power, and Hyksos kings ruled Egypt as the 15th dynasty (c. 1630-1521 BC).

The name Hyksos was used by the Egyptian historian Manetho (fl. 300 BC), who, according to the Jewish historian Josephus (fl. 1st century AD), translated the word as "king-shepherds" or "captive shepherds." Josephus wished to demonstrate the great antiquity of the Jews and thus identified the Hyksos with the Hebrews of the Old Testament. Most scholars do not now support this view, though it is possible that Hebrews came into Egypt during the Hyksos period or that some Hyksos were the ancestors of some Hebrews. "Hyksos" was probably an Egyptian term for "rulers of foreign lands" (heqa-khase), and it almost certainly designated the foreign dynasts rather than a whole nation. Although traditionally they also formed the 16th dynasty, those rulers were probably only vassals of the 15th-dynasty kings. They seem to have been connected with the general migratory movements elsewhere in the Middle East at the time. Although most of the Hyksos names seem to have been Semitic, there may also have been a Hurrian element among them.

The Hyksos introduced the horse and chariot, the compound bow, improved battle axes, and advanced fortification techniques into Egypt. At Avaris (modern Tall ad-Dab'a) in the northeastern delta, they built their capital with a fortified camp over the remains of a Middle Kingdom town that they had seized. Excavations since the 1960s have revealed a Canaanite-style temple, Palestinian-type burials, including horse burials, Palestinian types of pottery, and quantities of their superior weapons.

Their chief deity was the Egyptian storm and desert god, Seth, whom they identified with an Asiatic storm god. From Avaris they ruled most of Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt up to Hermopolis directly. South to Cusae, and briefly even beyond, they ruled through Egyptian vassals. When under Seqenenre and Kamose the Thebans began to rebel, the Hyksos pharaoh Auserre Apopi I tried unsuccessfully to make an alliance with the rulers of Cush who had overrun Egyptian Nubia in the later years of the 13th dynasty (c. 1650 BC).

The Theban revolt spread northward under Kamose, and in about 1521 Avaris fell to his successor, Ahmose, founder of the 18th dynasty, thereby ending 108 years of Hyksos rule over Egypt. Although vilified by the Egyptians starting with Hatshepsut, the Hyksos had ruled as pharaohs and were listed as legitimate kings in the Turin Papyrus. At least superficially they were Egyptianized, and they did not interfere with Egyptian culture beyond the political sphere.

Source: http://history-world.org/hyksos.htm

From the above, it appeared that the Hyksos actually ruled Egypt, in fact for about 108 years, until their rule was overthrown (Just like the Nubian foreigners who also rules Egypt). This is a stack contrast to the bible narrative which does not make any claims that the Israelites ruled Egypt. Instead, the bible portray them as slaves in Egypt. How does your view that the Hyksos were Isarelites tally with this discrepancy?

No long ago we saw the case of the abuse and exploitation of gullible people in Nigeria by the Christians. This time Ghana is in the new. Watch this . The blood of Jesus is causing enslaveemnt and havoc to these credulous and gullible people.

I notice there are some people here who like to discuss the Israel/Palestine issue. Interested Lecture by Norman Finkelstein here .

Bastage:

@ Pastor AIO.

The second link looks a bit unreliable to me when making concrete claims that there was a Hebrew military invasion.
What little evidence there is suggests the Hebrews leaving Egypt and slowly taking over the land by means of integration rather than by warfare. That's not to say that there weren't the occasional tribal battles, but in general, the "Promised Land" was settled in a far more orderly fashion than stated in the OT. If this was the case, they were probably so successful because they were able to introduce elements of Egyptian technology and also it's social system.
I have to admit that my jury is out - I don't know wether the evidence can be totally trusted - the Hyksos were certainly easily capable of taking the "Promised Land" by force and it was in their character to do so. But it's a moot point - the overwhelming evidence does show that the early Hebrews were Hyksos.

If we look at the Hyksos, they were driven out of power in a nationalistic revolt but may not all have left Egypt straight away. In fact, evidence shows that a lot of them just moved or stayed to the North-East of the country where their main power base had been when they ruled (which just happens to border Israel). These could have been the Hebrews that Exodus talks about - the inidigenous Pharoahs didn't trust them, saw them as a threat to stability and decided to kick them out when they finally had the strength to. Some scholars are quick to dismiss the Hyksos theory on the basis that the civil war that kicked them out was not in the Exodus time-frame. They completely fail to take into account that the Hyksos did not leave Egypt immediately - although the native Egyptians regained the throne, it took years for them to control the whole country and there is no reason why the Hyksos should have left immediately once the Pharoahs recaptured the land. In fact, probability is that the Hyskos, now being a defeated people, were now treated like second class citizens - exactly as Exodus tells us they were!! This discrimination (although probably justified) may have been the trigger for the Exodus.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/hyksos.htm

Even Jewish scholarly bodies do not dispute the argument that the early Hebrews were Hyksos:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0009_0_09361.html



@ Huxley.

Exactly. The silence is very loud because we know that once the Hyksos were deposed, the Egyptians systematically went around removing all evidence of them. Coincidence?

As already stated, the border region was the Hyksos stronghold. Their capital was at Avaris.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avaris
Incidentally, Avaris was also known as Goshen - the land that the Bible states Joseph and his family moved to. It was also known as Rameses - the starting point for the Exodus in the Bible:
Exodus 12:37 (King James Version)
37And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.

There were probably Hyksos already settled in the area. These would have been the people who had left during and after the Egyptian war of independence. It's doubtful the area was as hostile as we are led to believe.

I don't quite get it. I need to do some research into this area. But first, are you saying that the Hyksosians are the Israelites? Are they the very same people or are the Hyksosians immigrants from Cannaan who were later forced back into Cannaan by the Egyptians?

The Exodus narrative lack all sense of verisimilitude. Check out the following:

1) There is no record of this event in any of the Egyptian records (I know this is argument from silence, but in this case, this silence is very loud)

2) The entire region from Egypt right up to the Promised Land was under Egyptian rule at the time. The Egyptian army had tens (maybe hundreds) of garrisons stationed in the desert and along the well know routes from Egypt right up to present day Turkey (then the kingdom of the Hittites). The Jews could not have been escaping Egypt by going into the desert and Canaan, for these territories were criss-crossed by Egyptian soldiers who could easily have tracked them down. It is a bit like trying to escape US influence by going from Washington to Texas. Does not make any sense at all.

3) Logistics. How could 1.2+ million people and their livestock survive is such a desolate and destitute region for 40 years? Highly unlikely.


Incidentally, modern archeology cast plenty of doubts on the biblical narrative. Check out the book by Israel Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed .

Listen to the story of the de-conversion of a Catholic Priest to atheism here

I don't believe in any of the above God. I believe in the one and only almighty called Sussicorn. The existence of Sussicorn implies the non-existence of all the other above gods. That is the proof that the other gods do not exist.

Image123:

@huxley
when I say take the Bible as a whole,its the exact opposite that you're doing.You're to understand in the light of all that has been said and done,don't just pick one verse and run,compare scripture with other parts of scripture. [b]Like I've said,its a lot easier to do when you're born again.In most of your above questions including the main thread question,you've only picked those verses singularly as a sentence,and not collectively and contextually with the whole counsel of God.Work on that and lets see how it goes,[/b]but it'll be much easier if you gave your life to Christ.

Yes, I suppose when you are born again it mean yiu are completed delusional so such immoral injunction appear OK to you. If you disagree, can you explain to me the context in which this barbaric act can appear acceptable? The table is all yours now. This is your turn to explain the appropriate conext in which this should be viewed.

Over to you and I am truly really eager to learn.

Aloy.Emeka:

I have better things to do than fighting with my woman whether to attend Adeboye or Madubuko's church. It's irrelevant if you ask me and I usually don't start trouble over trivial issues like that. You are elevating this home headship to it's maximum strength and what matter sto me is love in a home because if that love is lacking, no matter how subservient your wife and kids may be, you will still be unhappy.

Good. I hope you realise that I do not subscribe to the "submission" philosophy anyway. I only raise it because for a true Christian it seems hypocritical not to subscribe to it given that is is categorically spelt out in the bible. In fact, Adeboye is a BIG advocate of this doctrine, as I pointed out in another thread . This is whatt Adeboye said;


Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands in all things (Eph 5:22-24). Some wives find it difficult to submit to their husband just because they are taller, richer, more better placed, or more educated. Even if you were the president of a nation, God still expects that wife to submit to her husband in all things. Submission is an act of faith. That means that if you can submit to your husband in spite of contrary opinions and situations, it will be counted to you as righteousness.Similarly, the woman is expected to submit to her husband as if she was submitting to Christ (Eph 5: 22). This means that it is not the man that the wife is submitting to, but the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. It also means that the extent to which a wife can submit to her husband is the extent to which she can submit to Jesus Christ. A woman who cannot submit to her husband will not also submit to Jesus. Show me a woman who is wholly submitted to her husband and I will show you a woman who is wholly following the Lord. Based on this scripture, many wives who claim to love Christ and obey Him have been found to be liars. There is a chain of obedience in every home. Children should submit to their parents, the wife to her husband; the husband to submit to Jesus even as Jesus submits to God the Father. At any point this order is not followed, the obedience chain is broken.

"Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything" (Eph 5:24). The question is, how is the church submissive to Christ? The church is the body while Christ is the head. All decisions are taken by the Lord and communicated to the church through the leaders. The church is dependent on the Lord. To what extent is your submission to your husband? The only extreme is where your husband tells you to do something that will displease God or break your fellowship with Him - that is sin. As long as you are not asked to sin, the wife must totally comply with the decisions of her husband. After making suggestions, you will pray for divine guidance for your husband so thatt he does not make wrong decisions. You cannot be one with the husband you fail to totally submit to.

ACTION POINT - Whenever you submit to your head in the chain of obedience, responsibility and accountability is transferred to the one above you.

Have any wives been being submissive to their husbands today?

mystics:

I dont know why true children of God have decided to join issues with children of the flesh, we are not on the same level
Banom has just shown us he is a God hater and we all know where their end is if the dont come to repentance.

Nigeria is a religious country blessed with Men after the heart of God and God is using them to do mighty works which is a prove of his mandate but my friend, Nigeria is not deviod of people like you, dat may just be the reason why we are so backward.

And a poster said something about the north being difficult to penetrate, Lie, am a notherner and i bet you, WE HAVE GOOD CHRISTIANS HERE.

BANOM REPENT, ALL YOU GOD HATERS, REPENT, ALL YOU SUNDAY SEAT WARMERS WHO GO TO CHURCH BUT HAVE REFUSED TO HAVE A FEEL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD, REPENT, dats the message and it will never change, i will always tell you dat.

Adeboye and his ilk form part of the problem of Nigeria (and Africa and the world) and NOT the solution. This man promotes supernaturalism and superstition and there is NOT a single benefit to supernaturalism whatsoever. Just look at some of the most backward parts of the world, chances are good that they are strongly attached to their local superstitions or some other adopted superstitions. Countries that are abandoning these superstition are those that are making progress.

Aloy.Emeka:

Are you saying the woman should follow the man to any faith he decides upon even when her own faith is totally against that?. Should you expect your wife to follow you to Guru maharaji because you met one of their disciples at ojota and he convinced you about Guru?. Trust me, I wouldn't follow my woman if her newly found faith does not conform with my original christian belief and doctrine. Guy, everything has limits.

I am saying no such thing. What I am saying is that if you are a Christian household, you wife should not be making such decision. Wives in Christian households are supposed to be submissive and subservient and such decision are to be taken by the husband. That is how a Christian household is to be run and this is how it is clearly stipulated in the bible.

Now, it looks like you have lost the position of primacy that the Lord gavee you and have abdicated that to your wife. This is contrary to bible teaching. Get a hold, man!

Aloy.Emeka:

Does changing church make you less of a christian?. Is it a sin to change church?. She has no more desire in attending our local Redeem and decided to change churches and had to drag me with her. Even though I was attached to our local church, I had to do it just to make her happy. It's not as if she is asking me for the head of John the baptist.

The issue is NOT whether or not your family changed church. The issue is about who has the authority in the family to bring about such change. The bible clearly says that the wife MUST submit to the husband and must not make such decision without the husband. If you assented to it, then you have just bear it and stop complaining. And of course, go read your bible.

Consider the following biblical injunction about recalcitrant children:

Exodus 21: 17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.


And Jesus gave unremitting support for the above. See the follwing;

Matthew 15:

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


Mark 7:

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:



How many Christian endorse this injunction by their Lord Jesus? If you don't, why don't you?

[size=18pt]Trials for Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine [/size]


Reposted from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/21faith.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all


WESTON, Wis. — Kara Neumann, 11, had grown so weak that she could not walk or speak. Her parents, who believe that God alone has the ability to heal the sick, prayed for her recovery but did not take her to a doctor.

After an aunt from California called the sheriff’s department here, frantically pleading that the sick child be rescued, an ambulance arrived at the Neumann’s rural home on the outskirts of Wausau and rushed Kara to the hospital. She was pronounced dead on arrival.

The county coroner ruled that she had died from diabetic ketoacidosis resulting from undiagnosed and untreated juvenile diabetes. The condition occurs when the body fails to produce insulin, which leads to severe dehydration and impairment of muscle, lung and heart function.

“Basically everything stops,” said Dr. Louis Philipson, who directs the diabetes center at the University of Chicago Medical Center, explaining what occurs in patients who do not know or “are in denial that they have diabetes.”

About a month after Kara’s death last March, the Marathon County state attorney, Jill Falstad, brought charges of reckless endangerment against her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann. Despite the Neumanns’ claim that the charges violated their constitutional right to religious freedom, Judge Vincent Howard of Marathon County Circuit Court ordered Ms. Neumann to stand trial on May 14, and Mr. Neumann on June 23. If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison.

“The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief,” the judge wrote in his ruling, “but not necessarily conduct.”

Wisconsin law, he noted, exempts a parent or guardian who treats a child with only prayer from being criminally charged with neglecting child welfare laws, but only “as long as a condition is not life threatening.” Kara’s parents, Judge Howard wrote, “were very well aware of her deteriorating medical condition.”

About 300 children have died in the United States in the last 25 years after medical care was withheld on religious grounds, said Rita Swan, executive director of Children’s Health Care Is a Legal Duty, a group based in Iowa that advocates punishment for parents who do not seek medical help when their children need it. Criminal codes in 30 states, including Wisconsin, provide some form of protection for practitioners of faith healing in cases of child neglect and other matters, protection that Ms. Swan’s group opposes.

Shawn Peters, the author of three books on religion and the law, including “When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children and the Law” (Oxford, 2007), said the outcome of the Neumann case was likely to set an important precedent.

“The laws around the country are pretty unsettled,” said Mr. Peters, who teaches religion at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh and has been consulted by prosecutors and defense lawyers in the case.

In the last year, two other sets of parents, both in Oregon, were criminally charged because they had not sought medical care for their children on the ground that to do so would have violated their belief in faith healing. One couple were charged with manslaughter in the death of their 15-month-old daughter, who died of pneumonia last March. The other couple were charged with criminally negligent homicide in the death of their 16-year-old son, who died from complications of a urinary tract infection that was severely painful and easily treatable.

“Many types of abuses of children are motivated by rigid belief systems,” including severe corporal punishment, said Ms. Swan, a former Christian Scientist whose 16-month-old son, Matthew, died after she postponed taking him to a hospital for treatment of what proved to be meningitis. “We learned the hard way.”

All states give social service authorities the right to go into homes and petition for the removal of children, Ms. Swan said, but cases involving medical care often go unnoticed until too late. Parents who believe in faith healing, she said, may feel threatened by religious authorities who oppose medical treatment. Recalling her own experience, she said, “we knew that once we went to the doctor, we’d be cut off from God.”

The crux of the Neumanns’ case, Mr. Peters said, will be whether the parents could have known the seriousness of their daughter’s condition.

Investigators said the Neumanns last took Kara to a doctor when she was 3. According to a police report, the girl had lost the strength to speak the day before she died. “Kara laid down and was unable to move her mouth,” the report said, “and merely made moaning noises and moved her eyes back and forth.”

The courts have ordered regular medical checks for the couple’s other three children, ages 13 to 16, and Judge Howard ordered all the parties in the case not to speak to members of the news media. Neither Ms. Falstad nor the defense lawyers, Gene Linehan and Jay Kronenwetter, would agree to be interviewed.

The Neumanns, who had operated a coffee shop, Monkey Mo’s, in this middle-class suburb in the North Woods, are known locally as followers of an online faith outreach group called Unleavened Bread Ministries, run by a preacher, David Eells. The site shares stories of faith healing and talks about the end of the world.

An essay on the site signed Pastor Bob states that the Bible calls for healing by faith alone. “Jesus never sent anyone to a doctor or a hospital,” the essay says. “Jesus offered healing by one means only! Healing was by faith.”

A link from the site, helptheneumanns.com, asserts that the couple is being persecuted and “charged with the crime of praying.” The site also allows people to contribute to a legal fund for the Neumanns.

In the small town of Weston, many people shake their heads with dismay when Kara Neumann is mentioned. Tammy Klemp, 41, who works behind the counter at a convenience store here, said she disagreed with the Neumanns’ passive response to their daughter’s illness but said she was not sure they should go to prison.

“I’ve got mixed feelings,” Ms. Klemp said. “It’s just such a terribly sad case.”

Chris Goebel, 30, a shipping department worker for a window maker, said many people in the area felt strongly that the parents should be punished.

“That little girl wasn’t old enough to make the decision about going to a doctor,” Mr. Goebel said. “And now, because some religious extremists went too far, she’s gone.”

Image123:

You'll either have to believe the Bible as a whole or you don't. If you just take one part,you're likely to be confused later,be you born again or against.just a little tip sha.
When you read your Bible,you'll understand that Jesus doesn't need to be politically correct.He's not a politician,neither does he represent the UN. He's Lord of all,owner of heaven and earth. Also,that place is not only a parable but a prophecy. Its telling us what will happen at the end. Judgement is coming.God loves you too

OK,  can you show me how taking the bible as a whole eliminates or removes this confusion?  Can you show me how the above quoted verse fit into some sort of "whole", which you suggest I am ignoring?


I suppose as a Christian, you take and believe the bible as a whole.   If you do, which of the following biblical injunctions to you observe?

1)  DO you keep the Sabbath which is a Saturday?

2)  Do you observer the dietary laws about clean and unclean foods

3)  Do you avoid planning for the future?

4)  Do submit to aggression and turn the other cheek to aggressors?

5)  Do you self-mutilate to avoid committing sin?


Consider the following biblical injunction about recalcitrant children:

Exodus 21: 17  And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.


And Jesus gave unremitting support for the above.  See the follwing;

Matthew 15:

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


Mark 7:

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:



As someone who takes the bible as a whole, do you advocate the killing of children as commanded by Moses in Exodus and re-inforced by Jesus in Matthew?  If not, why not?