Can a xtian god be free?

[Zenith]

Sorry, but the ten commandments do not suggest that all these three religions are one and the same.

And how do you come to that conclusion???

Well, it's the same as saying that all plants are the same because all seeds are alike (little, grow when put in land, need water and minerals, etc.)
If the question is, if these three religions are similar, then yes, they are, and there are obvious reasons why they should be similar. But to say that Islam = Judaism = Christianity, that's quite ignoring a lot of stuff - starting with the perception of God in each religion, the countless traditional understandings of the religion's holy books (which became the standard of thinking), etc.

1. In Islam there is no section "the 10 commandments" or something. These commandments are barely found throughout the Qur'an, at random places;

Funny how the torah does the same thing

Oh my, do you realize the fact that the Christian Bible contains the Torah??
But even the fact that the Christian Bible contains the whole Jewish Bible does not make Christianity be the same as Judaism. And it's because of different culture, different development, different sages (as catholics have early church fathers and stuff, from whom they take their understanding as the absolute truth, the same way the Jews take their own sages with the sage's interpretations and understanding as the absolute truth - and the views and misinterpretations of the early church fathers are totally different than the views and misinterpretations of the jewish sages)

3. The Qur'an does not say "thou shalt not take God's name in vain", but only not to make a false oath with the name of Allah.

Which IS saying the same thing

Not at all.

...or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.

(this is an instance)
how can you say that taking the name of God in vain is the same as an oath?

4. The 9th commandment is not quite "do not bear false witness" in the Qur'an, but "to tell everything".

Very good dear again it is saying the same thing

Not quite, the Qur'an implies what is in the 10 commandments, but the 9th commandment of the christian bible does not imply what the qur'an says.

5. The 10th commandment is not a personal thing (thou shalt not covet what X has) but a country thing (ye shall not covet what other peoples have).

Same thing again......yawn*

Again, it's not the same thing.
In the 10th commandment of the 10 it is prohibited to wish something that other has, because if you do, you are quite likely to do all it takes to have it (i.e. to steal the X thing because your neighbor doesn't want to give/sell it to you, to commit adultery because you desire his wife, etc.). The commandment in the qur'an simply means to be satisfied with your low situation, and not desire the well-being others have (as I understand from the qur'an, at least)

Ergo should the Qur'an promote the "beating of wives" this has been plagiarised from the other two, right down to the central Ten Commandments of all three religions.

Seriously? Please tell me, what commandment of the ten does suggest beating of wives?

Very nice to ignore everything I have been trying to tell you...check Deuteronomy, Exodus, Leviticus. Like the Qu'ran the Torah and Bible a littered with these self same gems of how to treat ones wife/ wives, slaves, children, cattle/ livestock. All three promote the masculine dream of ownership.

The problem was that you said it wrong. It can't be from the 10 commandments, because the 10 commandments do not say anything about it. On the other side, in Deuteronomy, Exodus, Leviticus, etc. you find much more than 10 (or, the 10) commandments.

Some differences regarding slavery: In the Jewish Bible (which also means, in the Christian Bible), a Jewish man can sell himself as a slave, but that means a servant for 7 years (Deuteronomy 15.12-14). In the Qur'an it seems that this law does not apply. In the Jewish Bible, women slaves are not taken as whores, but as wives (you cannot force them to prostitution, you cannot marry them if they are already married, etc.), while in the Qur'an you can force your woman slave to prostitution and ignore the fact that she is already married. (i.e. In the Christian Bible, adultery is considered adultery, whether it's about free men or slaves).

In the Christian Bible (which also means, in the Jewish Bible) there is no commandment to beat your wife (while in the Qur'an there is), in the Islamic Hadiths you find sex with child of 9 years old, in the Christian Bible you don't. As about cattle, I'm not a vegetarian so I'm not against killing animals (e.g. for food).

Now should you investigate further you will find similar edicts from Babylonian and Sumerian sacred texts.

I understand that you've studied about them. Perhaps you can ease my work and give me a link or something (so I would not search a lot).

Do your own searching my friend

Why so uninterested to give me a hand? Look, this time I'll reply a lot (which should prove that I'm not that lazy), so I guess that it's not much to ask you this.

It escaped my observation. Christianity considered all other gods as false, so there was usually no need to show them as evil. As about polytheistic countries, the religions usually merged: the god of war from people X already existed in people Y but with different name, so it was the same god! attributes and stories got combined, etc. Also, when the war was regarded as "our gods vs. your gods", the conquerors viewed their gods as the strong conquering gods, while the defeated gods as the weak gods that should not be worshiped any longer, because they could not protect their people (and we have stronger gods here!).

That is because you do not observe well and have the handicap of english not being your first language. Christianity plagiarised the 'pagan' religions of western Europe and took ALL of the feast days as it's own.

Thankyou ...you have proved my point.

I can manage even if my native language is not english. Please don't draw very quick conclusions.
As about my observance: I am aware that enemies are being demonised (i.e. make one appear as the devil or such diabolical creature) - I know that this was done regarding kings, but I didn't quite observe such a thing in what gods are concerned. As about Christianity (but not Judaism, as far as I know), the "devils" in 1 Corinthians 10.12 actually means "evil spirits", which also makes people not associate the goddess Persephone, for instance with "Satan" or "The Devil" or something you should run away when you hear. And I'm quite sure nobody looked to an image of a greek god and said to himself "run, it's the devil!" or something.

As about "Christianity plagiarised the 'pagan' religions of western Europe and took ALL of the feast days as it's own", I don't know why you've said it: I knew it, but it's not in the topic of demonising the opponent, and might be less than you imagine.

I read alot and so should you. From the 10 Commandments to every thing in the Traditional texts of the Abrahamic religions ....there are many authors imposing their will on their god. Using their god as the scape goat for their crimes and cruelty...it is a human thing.

I know that happens and I know that people impose their will calling it "God said so". But for the "God is not free" issue - which was the issue here - what you said does not prove either that the Christian God is not free (and here we've got too far from the main subject), or the impossibility for the Christian God to exist.

And about "people imposing their will on their god"... perhaps you know or can find a place in the bible to show me where a prophet (i.e. to be specified or suggested that he was as such) was seeking his own advantage and saying "God said that you should do it!" (e.g. to say that God commanded for woman X to marry him, because he wants her; to gain or ask money for himself from the people because God said so, etc.). As far as I know, Allah commanded anything that Muhammud desired, but I don't recall anything like that in the christian bible.

Another part will follow. (don't reply yet)

---

I've initially looked on the subject "Why the Christian God is Impossible", wrote a lot in a document, and then realized that it was quite off topic and that you are most surely not interested in the subject. So I wrote that small reply which you have replied already.

Today I've looked on some other topics (that are more on-topic) to talk about them. Anyway, it's a bit frustrating that I write a lot (which is, doing a lot of work and spending much time) when you work very little and spend very little time writing a quick short reply. That's why I would have enjoyed more if you had been more specific (i.e. tell me some verses yourself rather than give me a link to a site - for which a man would normally spend all his life to reply to everything).

ok, the first topic is "ritual sacrifice":
(http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm)

I'll try to make a short discussion on issues and I'm just gonna take the topics and explain them, not necessarily read all what it's about it (bec. I don't want to waste a lot of time) so if I skipped something important and you want me to talk about it, you'll have to mention it.

SACRIFICE: "Jephthah Burns His Daughter"
(Judges 11:29-40)

1. It wasn't God who asked that. Actually, it seems that God already decided to help them (Judges 10.16)
2. It was all man's stupidity: to make an oath. This experience he has passed through must have taught him to be careful what he swares to do.
3. I believe it was against the law to do what he did (i.e. killing an innocent man - from the 10 commandments and not only), but it seems that the things were not very organized then (read also Judges 17.6, and all Judges 17), so the law wasn't imposed as it should have been.

SACRIFICE: "God Commands Burning Humans"
(Joshua 7.15)

1. That's not a sacrifice. That's a death sentance.
2. Making an oath to God was not a superficial act (read Joshua 1.16-18).
3. The crime done is presented in Joshua 7.11.
4. It's interesting to see that God is really present among you, to make an oath that you would serve Him, and to defy Him by doing against what He commanded, isn't it?

SACRIFICE: "Josiah and Human Sacrifice"
(1 Kings 13:1-2)
(2 Kings 23:20-25)
That's not an "offering to God". It's a dismissal of the body, while the pagan altar was fit for something being burnt on it. It seems from 2 kings 23.16-18 that the remains of the 'good' man were the ones fit (or, nice) to be buried, while those of the evil ones were burnt (23.20).
As about killing the jewish pagan priests in the land of Israel that were bring offerings to the gods of Canaan, I've already spoken about it. But briefly, for a people that made a covenant with God (considering that God is and was real), jewish people of the land should have been faithful to the covenant or leave the land, instead of practicing their idol-worshiping there and instigating others to do the same.

SACRIFICE: "Human Sacrifice"
(Wisdom 3:5-7)
I would not normall comment this, as it belongs only in some bibles. But, what he said IS misinterpreted: it really says that God allowed good people to be killed by bad people (i.e. it's about people that have proven their faithfulness even when their life was threathened).

SACRIFICE: "Child Sacrifice"
(Wisdom 14:21-23)
Again, the same book, which does not belong in every bible. But, it's again misinterpreted: it says that people did not keep the law, were not being faithful to God, etc. So why should I understand that they brought children as an offering to God and not to other gods, in that case? The fact is that the text does NOT speak about an offering to God:

For a father afflicted with untimely mourning, when he hath made an image of his child soontaken away, now honoured him as a god, which was then a dead man, and delivered to those that were under him ceremonies and sacrifices. Thus in process of time an ungodly custom grown strong was kept as a law, and graven images were worshipped by the commandments of kings. Whom men could not honour in presence, because they dwelt far off, they took the counterfeit of his visage from far, and made an express image of a king whom they honoured, to the end that by this their forwardness they might flatter him that was absent, as if he were present. Also the singular diligence of the artificer did help to set forward the ignorant to more superstition. For he, peradventure willing to please one in authority, forced all his skill to make the resemblance of the best fashion. And so the multitude, allured by the grace of the work, took him now for a god, which a little before was but honoured. And this was an occasion to deceive the world: for men, serving either calamity or tyranny, did ascribe unto stones and stocks the incommunicable name.

Moreover this was not enough for them, that they erred in the knowledge of God; but whereas they lived in the great war of ignorance, those so great plagues called they peace. For whilst they slew their children in sacrifices, or used secret ceremonies, or made revellings of strange rites; They kept neither lives nor marriages any longer undefiled: but either one slew another traitorously, or grieved him by adultery. So that there reigned in all men without exception blood, manslaughter, theft, and dissimulation, corruption, unfaithfulness, tumults, perjury, Disquieting of good men, forgetfulness of good turns, defiling of souls, changing of kind, disorder in marriages, adultery, and shameless uncleanness.

Howbeit for both causes shall they be justly punished: both because they thought not well of God, giving heed unto idols, and also unjustly swore in deceit, despising holiness. For it is not the power of them by whom they swear: but it is the just vengeance of sinners, that punisheth always the offence of the ungodly.

Does that sound as some "early God-followers starting by sacrificing their own children" now?

SACRIFICE: "Humans are Fuel for Fire"
(Ezekiel 21:33-37)
1. That's not an offering to God or to a god.
2. If you read that carefully, it is written that God says that He decided to allow vile/evil/sadistic people (perhaps Assyrians or Babilonians - I don't know for sure the age to know which of them He referred to) to conquer them and to do what they wish to them. The prophecy is about the people (as a country), not about specific persons. Perhaps after conquering cities, the conquerors were burning the dead rather than being eager to dig a lot to burry every dead that no one cares for, in a nice place.

SACRIFICE: "Burn Nonbelievers"
(Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
I've already spoken about this issues. The last time I have posted about it I spoke about Deuteronomy 13.6. Deuteronomy 13.13-19 is an advanced situation (the people of that city were not willing to deal with that breaking of the law, but instead all followed and forsake the law).