Can a xtian god be free?

[Zenith]

I am unaware of which language you speak Zenith so please accept my apologies for asuming you speak and read english.

Don't worry, I can understand ordinary discussions (there are rare cases on the forum when I need to search a word in dictionary). But KJV is (or at least, was at the time I attempted to read it) a bit hard - it's about what words I've encountered so far (words that must be checked what they mean and that to be kept in mind). The fact that I meant is that I can't read KJV without using a dictionary very often (while NKJV seemed to be more readable). Anyway, don't worry, I can use translators and dictionaries.

The linky below is for the Ten Commandments (wiki has a translator) and compares them between the three major abrahamic religions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

I don't understand the purpose of that. Islam was developed from Christianity + Judaism of the era, plus some cultural elements and influences. Christianity was born as a heresy from Judaism. The Jews have also been changing their views upon their holy texts in time (I sincerely don't believe that the Jews today believe and understand the things exactly the same way the Jews of 2500 years ago did). So we all have the 10 commandments from the Jews, and many different interpretations of it (catholic, talmudic, islamic, etc.). What's about it?

As for the other referrences ...they are scattered throughout the whole of the bibile/ torah/qu'ran and these will take much more of my time to track down...time I really don't have. Perhaps you may find the link below helpful as it goes into great depth regarding the abrahamic religions
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/time.html

Sorry for not discussing now every topic there. I'll just have to be picky, you add another topic to the discussion if you want.

OK, the first: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/egypt.htm
the thing that I've read was the problem with Sarah's age.
I'll tell you why I don't believe that that is an absurdity: The life expectancy of nowadays is about 80 years old (at least where I live in, very few people live after 80). If you read from Genesis, the life expectancy was much longer: Abraham lived 175 years, his father lived 205 years, etc. And if we think about Adam, it is written that he lived 930 years. So do you imagine that Adam was "young" only until about 40, then at the age of 50-60 to become "old", while since the age of 80 onwards was very old (to barely be able to walk, to look very ugly, etc.)?? It would be absurd to understand it as such. In other words, Adam must have looked at the age of 930 as a man nowadays looks at the age of 80-90, while at the age of 465 he should have looked as a man nowadays of 40-50 years. Likewise, if the life expectancy in the time of Abraham was 175 years, then at the age of 90, Sarah should have looked as a woman nowadays of 41 years old - and a woman can still be beautiful at this age.

So the issue is not Sarah being beautiful or not at that age, but the life expectancy.

I don't have the patience to read the others from this page, sorry - especially because the subjects here do not seem to be violence, or misogyny, child raping, etc.

This one in particular
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/execution-1.html

ok, let's see a few issues:
"What's Love Got to do With IT?" - the topic of how many times "love" or "happiness" or "joy" is written is simply irrelevant (unless you understand God as someone that can't even imagine what evil is, and that makes everything fluffy so everyone would be happy). I sincerely don't judge a religious holy book (like the Bible, Qur'an, etc.) by the number of words.

"Jehovah: Not so keen on the physically impaired" - besides the fact I'm 100% sure that YHWH was never spelled "Jehovah" (for some reasons), I don't see how God is evil by this. People with physical problems (even temporary) were only not allowed to enter the sacred place to perform rituals. The same as God did not accept a handicapped animal if it was brought as offering. It didn't mean that God hated that which is handicapped. (Now sorry for comparing men with animals here). Also, for some reasons God did not allow naked priests to bring offerings on the altar (they had to be dressed). But that doesn't mean that God hates His own creation (i.e. man's body was fashioned by Him).

striking or cursing your parents
"And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death ... And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." – Exodus 21.15,17

About smiting/striking:
It is not punching. An instance of this "striking" is when you grab a sword and strike him with it. It seems that it is usually used with the meaning of "killing"/"slaying" (i.e. in many verses is translated as such). It's about meaningful strikes, not accidents (e.g. an accident: you practice with your bow and suddenly your father appears near the target and gets struck by your arrow). Now, I don't see how the punishment for striking your father is worse than the act of striking, sorry (not everyone has the heart to grab the axe to strike his father with it).

As about cursing... this is what I've found (I don't know how trustworthy this source is, but it seems to give a good explanation):

A curse is a prayer or invocation expressing a wish that harm, misfortune, injury, great evil, etc., be brought upon another person, place, thing, clan, nation, etc.

Curses seem to have been a regular part of ancient cultures and may have been a way to frighten enemies and explain the apparent injustices of the world. There is no evidence that anyone has successfully invoked occult powers to do harm to others, but there is evidence that those who believe they have been cursed can be made miserable by exploiting that belief. Fear and the human tendency to confirmation bias and selective thinking can sometimes lead the believer to fulfill the curse.

Again, I don't think that anyone had the heart to curse his own father (e.g. to curse him to get ill by plague, to die slain, etc.).

"being a gluttonous or drunken son" - it talks about these verses:

18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them,
19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city.
20 And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’
21 Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.

First off, "gluttonous" does not mean "with great appetite". I've found that the hebrew word can also be translated as vile, frivolous.

Anyway, this is how I understand this:
We'll imagine the Jewish life when they were serving God (i.e. I'm 100% convinced that when they were serving other gods they did not care about punishing idolatry, sleeping with animals, or other stuff), when all people are concerned with serving God and keeping His commandments - a society in which people don't steal, don't kill others for money, don't cheat their wives, neither do the women cheat their husbands, there are no drunkards, etc. - people are conforming with the laws. And we have a devout family, that lives in this society, that is trying to do "good" and raise their children in these teachings (not to lie people, not to steal, not to be a drunkard, etc.). And after some time it happens in this family that one of the sons (while he is still young, living at his parents) rebels against his parents and ceases to care about their teachings (i.e. starts to give a damn about anything they say). On the other hand, he starts to do the things that are prohibited by the laws of God. The parents, seeing this, are trying to talk to him, are trying to convince him to change his ways (i.e. to admonish him), but he remains stubborn. Time passes in this way. It happens that the parents have tried for a long time to correct their son from his wicked way (i.e. against the law of God), but all they did was without any success. As there were no prisons on that time (as far as I know) and it seems that the son could not have been corrected no matter how much it was attempted, they were required to bring the son to the elders, where he was going to be convicted (the elders were the people that were judging the situations in the city - they were not a mindless mob that executed things without thinking anything). It was most surely not the greatest pleasure for the parents to have their son executed. While this son must have been an exception to the other youth, to receive death, rather than to keep the laws. That's a quite different situation than the one exposed on that web page.

being a false prophet

Oh my! The punishment for this (which is, death) is really unfit!
First off, we need to understand what a "prophet" is: a prophet is a man that speaks what God told him to. A false prophet is a man that only claims that God is speaking through him (they usually take the words in their minds as God's words). In this case, the first one that would be convicted is the Catholic Pope! Next, most (if not all) cardinals, archbishops, bishops, etc. and very many other religious leaders (pastors, priests, etc.)! If false prophets had not been venerated by the people throughout the ages, there would have been no crusades and other religious wars of christians (because the people were being sent to war by God's 'representative' - i.e. the Catholic Pope).

But yeah, it would be a shame to get rid of the religious leaders that claim that what they speak is from God, which they do in order to frighten, enslave, and make sure that their followers would blindly believe and follow them, wouldn't it? That would only allow people to think free!

and following another religion

Now these guys seem to misunderstand the verses in Deuteronomy (beside of the fact that in that time, there were not 'other religions' - there were only, 'other gods').
Anyway, to clarify the verses a bit:

6. “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers,
7. of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth,
8. you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him;
9. but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.
10. And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

The great problem was not following other gods (not religions, but gods - the term 'religion' didn't exist back then). If anyone desired to worship the other gods, they could have gone out of Israel (fortunately, in that time you needn't a passport, or any other documents to last months until you are allowed to get out, and the neighboring countries were speaking a similar language, and were receiving new citizens). The problem was enticing the rest of Israel to forsake God and follow other gods - and things like this happened, the "holy people" of God, whom God has chosen, had been changed into a polytheist people that were doing just like their pagan neighbors were doing: serving their gods, sacrificing their children to them, practicing adultery, sex with animals, incest, etc. Now it would be an interesting thing for God to be happy with his chosen people to forsake Him and start doing all what He prohibited, wouldn't it?

kindling a fire (or any other work) on the sabbath
"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death." – Exodus 35.2,31.14

First off: kindling a fire in that time was not as easy as it is now (i.e. only push a button). Kindling a fire meant going to gather woods, spending a lot of time to put them 'correctly' in one place to be able to start and continue the fire, lighting the fire by the rawest methods, struggle with it until it finally burns and you're ceased being worried that it would quench just after it seemed to start, and after it has lit successfully, come from time to time to add a wood or two on the fire to keep it burning - in other words, that was work.

Second off, it's a bit difficult to understand all what "work" means, and you can get quite a debate from this. But, in my terms, "work" is the opposite of "rest" (i.e. I don't consider turning on/off the light a "work", or pressing the button of a lighter a work, etc.).

Third, this commandment was applied to everyone, so a man was not allowed to put his own slaves or servants/employee to work on the day of rest. Which seems to me quite nice, because people would normally force (or, would have normally forced) others to work non-stop. Everyone knew that the punishment for breaking the sabbath was death, so this could have been done only as a rebellion/defiance to the laws.

sex with a beast
"Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death." – Exodus 22.19

I don't know why I got the impression that the 21th people are more civilized and therefore disagree with sex with animals. But who knows, after a few decades perhaps people will go to a park, will see in the middle of it a naked young lady in the doggy style, with a big dog on top of her, fucking her, and will call it a "normal" thing. I, for one, can't imagine how God could have accepted from his "holy people" to do that.

ok, I've written a lot, and I've had enough and I'm quite tired.
If there's a certain subject you wish to discuss, or you disagree with me, I will wait your reply.