Split Thread Signs of the End Times

[halleyscomet]

Well the black people of Africa were pagans and the majority of them still hold to pagan traditions, so the injunctions of the Torah are of relevance.

If pagan traditions were the deciding factor than any Christian who celebrated Christmas in December or Easter according to a solar calendar is equally guilty.

It's their RELIGION we care about, and according to actual DATA Christians make up the vast majority of people in South Africa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_South_Africa

Religion in South Africa (2001 census)
Zion Christian (11.1%)
Pentecostal/Charismatic (8.2%)
Roman Catholic (7.1%)
Methodist (6.8%)
Dutch Reformed (6.7%)
Anglican (3.8%)
Other Christian (36%)
Islam (1.5%)
Hinduism (1.2%)
Native beliefs (0.3%)
Judaism (0.2%)
Other religion (0.6%)
Irreligious (15.1%)
Unspecified (1.4%

It is not a matter of lying as you say, it is a matter of relevance. The Torah is not outdated but still forms the basis of faith.

Every argument I've made has been from a Biblical standpoint. You are bearing false witness against me by lying and accusing me of arguing the torah isn't relevant. I've been discussing religion with you under the unstated major premise that the Bible IS relevant.

Pretending my more educated and informed interpretations are a form of claiming the Torah is outdated is another way you lie.

By the way, what specifically do you mean when you use the word "Torah?" It generally means only the first five books of the Old Testament, but it can have a larger application. It never, however, includes the New Testament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

The Torah (/ˈtɔːrəˌˈtoʊrə/; Hebrew: תּוֹרָה, "Instruction, Teaching"), or the Pentateuch (/ˈpɛntəˌtuːk, -ˌtjuːk/), is the central reference of the religious Judaic tradition. It has a range of meanings. It can most specifically mean the first five books of the twenty-four books of the Tanakh, and it usually includes the perushim (rabbinic commentaries). The term "Torah" means instruction and offers a way of life for those who follow it; it can mean the continued narrative from Book of Genesis to the end of the Tanakh, and it can even mean the totality of Jewish teaching, culture and practice.[1] Common to all these meanings, Torah consists of the foundational narrative of Jewish peoplehood: their call into being by God, their trials and tribulations, and their covenant with their God, which involves following a way of life embodied in a set of moral and religious obligations and civil laws (halakha).

Why would I want you to do such a silly thing—we are covering the same ground and I am still of the same convictions, that the intermarrying with the native people of the land is contrary to the faith.

Again, you are wrong, and you have no actual Biblical basis for such a lie. You can argue that the handful of Muslims or 0.3% still practicing the "native beliefs" you ascribe to the majority are off limits to Christians, but you have no basis for arguing that a mixed-race, same religion couple is forbidden by the Bible.

 

[Border Reiver]

God appointed men to lead, so if there is any failure it should be against the men that he appointed as with the forces, you can appoint people who do not adhere to the policy of the military.

Failure to ensure that your subordinates are properly trained, briefed, or staying on mission is the failure not only of the subordinate, but also of the overall commander.

See "Seeks and ACCEPTS responsibility."

Blaming your subordinates for your failures is classic poor leadership.

Strange as it sounds, Yahweh can only carry out his mission using men, this is much the same as a commander in chief that relies on his officers.
God does demand absolute obedience to his commands as does a General. It is complete trust that one gets the result---that is why Joshua was a successful leader.

Actually, generals DON'T demand absolute obedience to orders. What they do is develop a mission with a desired end state, and allow their subordinates to fit their actions to achieve the end state. It is the end state of the mission that is the absolute, not the means to achieve the mission.

Joshua, as described, is a fictional description of a successful leader who applied the principles of leadership.

A good leader like Joshua resulted in Israel being succesfull--- Jos 24:31 Israel served the LORD throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him and who had experienced everything the LORD had done for Israel.

But

Jdg 2:11 Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD and served the Baals.
Jdg 2:12 They forsook the LORD, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of Egypt. They followed and worshiped various gods of the peoples around them. They provoked the LORD to anger.

So there was no one to take over from Joshua, so Israel resorted to following other gods.

Given that Israel of Joshua never existed (the archeological evidence for the period when Joshua is supposed to conquered Canaan does not support the Biblical narrative) we can use the story of Joshua as a good example of how such a leader might be successful, his example is no more valid as an example of successful leadership than King Arthur.

It was the same with the Church—during the time of the Apostles there was faith, but gradually at the death of the stalwarts apostasy crept in.
It seems a sad state of affairs, but the LORD is not able to proceed with his purpose without reliable men who are ardent adherents to his commands.

In fact the first split in the church was Paul breaking from James the Just, a very short time after the church formed.

So maybe you can be a bit more understanding with regards to the dilemma that God faces with trying to find someone to carry out his precepts without fear.

No. Yahweh is presented as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent deity. If he cannot lead without fear then he is no leader.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Way to dodge the implications of your sex=marriage thought. you've claimed that rape victims are in fact married to their rapists and must therefore remain celibate until the end of their days, or until the rapist is killed or pays Daddy their brideprice or be branded an adulterer in the eyes of Yahweh. Why then are you running away from carrying your belief through to its logical conclusion?

Furthermore, you are mixing up your laws. You're claiming that the rapist and his victim are married (in the eyes of the Torah, a disputable claim, but we'll accept it for the purposes of this argument), but then jump to the "laws of the land" to assert that the marriage is not recognized. If the laws of Yahweh are paramount, then why does it matter if the laws of the land don't recognize the marriage? Surely it should only matter that in the eyes of Yahweh the two are married?

I'd like to discuss the highlighted portion with you. Why is the victim of a rape "disgraced"? We do not claim that the victim of a theft is disgraced, what is it about this offence that makes even the victim subject to sanctions? It seems grossly unjust to further penalize the victim of a crime by disgracing them as well.

A rape victim invariably faces disgrace this is a reality.—compare this---2Sam_13:13 What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you.
"This is an account of a half-brother who raped his half-sister.

But yet it is stated in the Torah not to approach a close relative.---- Lev 18:9 "'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

Leviticus gives a list of forbidden sexual relations. There is no mention of a father having sexual relations with his daughter—there is the injunction against a son having sexual relations with his mother. (Lev 18:7 "'Do not dishonour your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her. )

These laws were given for the purpose of keeping Israel from committing the sins of the people of the land they entered into---(Lev 18:3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.

The other incident is that of Lot and his daughters—but it was stated that Lot had no idea of what his daughters were doing, but never the less it was incest.

OK so I have gone the long way around to try and give a reasonable answer. So according to my statements, sex with a virgin constitutes marriage. So if a father has sex with his daughter then they are married, that would be the conclusion—but because the injunction in the Torah forbids sexual relationship with a close relative, the situation changes, it becomes sin.

So yes technically the act is that of marriage—but the act is in violation of the Torah and as such, it is seen as rape, for which the death of the rapist is demanded.

So now if the Law of the land rejects the death penalty for rape, it is the law of the land that is in violation of the injunction of the Torah where the death of the rapist is demanded.

It is recorded that Israel went to war against the tribe of Benjamin because they would not deliver the rapists up for execution.—( Jdg 20:13 Now surrender those wicked men of Gibeah so that we may put them to death and purge the evil from Israel." But the Benjamites would not listen to their fellow Israelites.

You can follow the event further, there was no respite, until the crime was punished and those who would not comply suffered a terrible loss, and those who administered justice suffered a terrible loss.
But it illustrates how eager the Israelite's were to administer justice, even at such great cost.

I trust that I have not been long winded in my explanation, but you are demanding a reason for my conclusions on the matter—be so good as to read diligently what I have posted as I do not want any misunderstanding on such a sensitive issue!!

 

[Paul Bethke]

Failure to ensure that your subordinates are properly trained, briefed, or staying on mission is the failure not only of the subordinate, but also of the overall commander.

See "Seeks and ACCEPTS responsibility."

Blaming your subordinates for your failures is classic poor leadership.



Actually, generals DON'T demand absolute obedience to orders. What they do is develop a mission with a desired end state, and allow their subordinates to fit their actions to achieve the end state. It is the end state of the mission that is the absolute, not the means to achieve the mission.

Joshua, as described, is a fictional description of a successful leader who applied the principles of leadership.



Given that Israel of Joshua never existed (the archeological evidence for the period when Joshua is supposed to conquered Canaan does not support the Biblical narrative) we can use the story of Joshua as a good example of how such a leader might be successful, his example is no more valid as an example of successful leadership than King Arthur.



In fact the first split in the church was Paul breaking from James the Just, a very short time after the church formed.



No. Yahweh is presented as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent deity. If he cannot lead without fear then he is no leader.

Well I will leave it there I have no more comment that I can offer—you seem to have all the answers, never the less I thank you.

 

[Border Reiver]

A rape victim invariably faces disgrace this is a reality.—compare this---2Sam_13:13 What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you.
"This is an account of a half-brother who raped his half-sister.

Again, why is the victim of the crime disgraced? Simply saying that the victim is disgraced does not answer the question WHY. In no other offence do we attach disgrace to the victim, so why should a victim of rape be disgraced simply by being the victim? Your quote from Second Samuel does not address that question.

<snipped side step of the actual question>

OK so I have gone the long way around to try and give a reasonable answer. So according to my statements, sex with a virgin constitutes marriage. So if a father has sex with his daughter then they are married, that would be the conclusion—but because the injunction in the Torah forbids sexual relationship with a close relative, the situation changes, it becomes sin.

So yes technically the act is that of marriage—but the act is in violation of the Torah and as such, it is seen as rape, for which the death of the rapist is demanded.

So now if the Law of the land rejects the death penalty for rape, it is the law of the land that is in violation of the injunction of the Torah where the death of the rapist is demanded.

<snipped irrelevant side bar>

I trust that I have not been long winded in my explanation, but you are demanding a reason for my conclusions on the matter—be so good as to read diligently what I have posted as I do not want any misunderstanding on such a sensitive issue!!

You've answered that a father that rapes his daughter, while technically married to her should not be considered married to her, because doing is wrong. And, I do not disagree with you here - where I disagree is that the act of having sex with a virgin means that the two persons are now married - and that a rape victim is somehow disgraced by virtue of simply being the victim of a crime.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It mentions the customs and practices of these people as being contrary to the injunctions of the Torah.

It does not, however, mention "race" in any way; nor does it, despite your dishonest representation, proscribe "interracial" marriage.

So the blacks in Africa and South Africa

I wonder if you have any idea how gnorantly racist and bigoted this demonstrates you to be...

are still steeped in these practices. So therefore on the same grounds as Israel “we the whites” are justified in not marrying with them.

Is it your contention, then, that people with dark skin are trying to make xians "worship other gods"? What has that to do with "race"? If anything, all you have provided is justification for the "Pauline exception" (which, BTW, makes it clear that divorce is not always a problem...).

Further, I do hope you are not lumping me, personally, in with "we the whites[sic]". That would be a ridiculous (and personally offensive) error.

Which (surprise!) also does not, in any way, mention "interracial" marriage...
1. What do you mean, "we"?
2. The "injunctions" to which you pretend are not "of the Torah".{/quote]

It is hard to tell what you think you mean here...did you have a formatting lapse?

They most certainly are as I mentioned above—we recognise this by studying Torah.
(Deu 18:9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there.
Deu 18:10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,
Deu 18:11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.
Deu 18:12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.
Deu 18:13 You must be blameless before the LORD your God.

Is it your contention, then, that people with dark skin in your neighborhood practice child sacrifice? That they practice "witchcraft", or consult the dead?

How does your own interpretation of signs and portents differ from "interpreting omens"?

And what has ANY of that to do with "race"?

The complete program would mean the Kingdom of God as supreme---as Jesus said---Mat_6:33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
First establish the Kingdom of God with all the justice that God requires---THEN.

I wonder how you reconcile "justice" with your unreasoning and dishonestly-supported fear and hared of, and bigotry against, people with dark skin...

 

[Paul Bethke]

If pagan traditions were the deciding factor than any Christian who celebrated Christmas in December or Easter according to a solar calendar is equally guilty.

It's their RELIGION we care about, and according to actual DATA Christians make up the vast majority of people in South Africa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_South_Africa

Well people call themselves Christians –but a deeper look reveals that they in no way follow the teachings of Christ.

The celebration of the advent of Christ into the world is a fact, so if it is celebrated on the wrong day, because no one is sure when this advent took place that is not paganism.
Easter coincides with the Pass Over, which the Jews celebrate.

The blacks hold to the traditions of the elders who believe they can contact their dead ancestors, so you cannot equate that as the teachings of Christ, as it is in violation of the Torah.

Every argument I've made has been from a Biblical standpoint. You are bearing false witness against me by lying and accusing me of arguing the torah isn't relevant. I've been discussing religion with you under the unstated major premise that the Bible IS relevant. Pretending my more educated and informed interpretations are a form of claiming the Torah is outdated is another way you lie.
By the way, what specifically do you mean when you use the word "Torah?" It generally means only the first five books of the Old Testament, but it can have a larger application. It never, however, includes the New Testament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

The Torah has specific reference to the first five Books that is claimed that Moses wrote or authorised.
The whole Old Covenant as you know is the Tanahk, now the Torah can mean the whole of Scripture as the Torah means to teach or instruct, but the Jews as you know reject the New Covenant.

All Scripture is based on the Torah, this is the deciding factor when the Bible was compiled.

Some of the above things you state does not make any sense.

Again, you are wrong, and you have no actual Biblical basis for such a lie. You can argue that the handful of Muslims or 0.3% still practicing the "native beliefs" you ascribe to the majority are off limits to Christians, but you have no basis for arguing that a mixed-race, same religion couple is forbidden by the Bible.

The traditions and cultures of the majority of the blacks today are in violation of the Torah—

In Africa, ancestor worship is very popular and it is not only Zulus who consult their ancestors. At least 80 percent of South Africans visit a sangoma about three times a year, and you can too by visiting a Zulu cultural village.

http://www.southafrica.net/za/en/ar...outhafrica.net-african-ancestors-and-amadlozi

So who are these 80% today?

Again you are ill informed about the blacks in Africa—they are still deeply rooted in the traditions of the elders who try and consult the dead which is in violation of what is taught in the Torah, and as such justifies our faith in not marring into them.

So we whites have chosen not to marry them as it is in violation of what God has decereed.----( Deu 18:11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Deu 18:12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.

So we do not want to indulge with those whose practices are detestable to the LORD—firmly supported by the Torah of Jesus.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Again, why is the victim of the crime disgraced? Simply saying that the victim is disgraced does not answer the question WHY. In no other offence do we attach disgrace to the victim, so why should a victim of rape be disgraced simply by being the victim? Your quote from Second Samuel does not address that question.

The victim suffers the disgrace of what has happen, I am not saying she is responsible for the ordeal—many woman suffer from trauma of rape, I have read many events of woman who have had to contend with the ordeal of rape, and how they suffered under the scrutiny of interrogation.

Dealing with the after effects of rape is a nightmare. The physical hurts can often soon be mended, but it's the inner pain that people can't see that takes longest. It's also the hardest to deal with because it's not like healing after surgery, there is no set time limit. The emotional scars can stay with us a lifetime.

http://www.aaets.org/article178.htm

You've answered that a father that rapes his daughter, while technically married to her should not be considered married to her, because doing is wrong. And, I do not disagree with you here - where I disagree is that the act of having sex with a virgin means that the two persons are now married - and that a rape victim is somehow disgraced by virtue of simply being the victim of a crime.

Perhaps the quote I posted can clear this up---the victim has not done a disgraceful thing—a disgraceful thing has been done to her.( Gen_34:7 Now Jacob's sons had come in from the fields as soon as they heard what had happened. They were filled with grief and fury, because Shechem had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter —a thing that should not be done.)

Going through the ordeal of interrogation is traumatic and in many times the victim is subject to painful interrogation. There is also the stigma attached to rape victims.

There is also the fact that a man may not want a woman who has been raped.
A victim in many cases is subject to public scrutiny.

So let me say the woman is not disgraced, but a disgraceful thing has been done to her—so her exoneration should lie in the fact that the rapist must die for his disgraceful act.

In South Africa—they want a rape victim and her rapist to sit in each other’s company and find reconciliation—now that to me is diabolical.

 

[halleyscomet]

Well people call themselves Christians –but a deeper look reveals that they in no way follow the teachings of Christ.

Got any examples, or are you just blowing smoke?

The celebration of the advent of Christ into the world is a fact, so if it is celebrated on the wrong day, because no one is sure when this advent took place that is not paganism.

Oh, child, there's far more to it than the date. All the trappings of Christmas celebration are lifted from Pagan yule festivals. Even Santa was a Pagan shaman who was hastily grafted onto Saint Nicholas by the Catholic church to excuse his presence. The Yule tree, the gift exchange, the feast in the middle of Winter, the lights, they're all pagan traditions. Christmas trees are even forbidden in the Bible:

Jeremiah 10:1-5New International Version (NIV)
God and Idols

10 Hear what the Lord says to you, people of Israel. 2 This is what the Lord says:

“Do not learn the ways of the nations
or be terrified by signs in the heavens,
though the nations are terrified by them.
3
For the practices of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of the forest,
and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.
4
They adorn it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so it will not totter.
5
Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field,
their idols cannot speak;
they must be carried
because they cannot walk.
Do not fear them;
they can do no harm
nor can they do any good.”

Biblical text places the birth of Christ in the spring or early fall, no later than November. The celebration was scheduled to allow the assorted pagan Yule festivals to be absorbed into the Church. The very CELEBRATION of his birth was only instituted 400 years after his death as a means of incorporating more pagan traditions into Christianity to better absorb pagan converts. Celebrating the birth of a deity was a Roman Pagan tradition explicitly eschewed by the early Church in Rome.

Easter coincides with the Pass Over, which the Jews celebrate.

Not the way it's scheduled and observed today.

Passover is scheduled according to a Lunar calendar. Easter however is scheduled using a solar calendar to better coincide with the Summer Solstice and fertility festivals celebrated by the pagans they sought to convert. I don't recall Jesus screaming from the cross, "HIDE THE EGGS!" before he died, do you? That's because Easter Eggs, the Easter rabbit and the orgy of sweets are all PAGAN traditions absorbed from fertility festivals.

There's very little of "Jesus" in either Christmas or Easter celebrations. They're both clumsily re-branded pagan festivals.

Yeshua ben Yosef would be probably HORRIFIED at the pagan traditions absorbed by mainstream Christianity.

The blacks hold to the traditions of the elders who believe they can contact their dead ancestors

Citation needed. Your word is not good enough, seeing as how, being a false prophet (Remember your failed World Cup prophesy?) your words are, according to the Bible, of no value.

The Torah has specific reference to the first five Books that is claimed that Moses wrote or authorised.
The whole Old Covenant as you know is the Tanahk, now the Torah can mean the whole of Scripture as the Torah means to teach or instruct, but the Jews as you know reject the New Covenant.

Oh good, you skimmed the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article I linked to.

Some of the above things you state does not make any sense.

Be more specific and I'll happily clarify.

The traditions and cultures of the majority of the blacks today are in violation of the Torah— http://www.southafrica.net/za/en/ar...outhafrica.net-african-ancestors-and-amadlozi

As noted in the statistics I cited, about 0.3% of South Africans adhere to traditional beliefs. Finding an example of some of them serving as a tourist attraction does jack squat to support your claims about the popularity of those traditions.

Even if you DID establish that these traditions are still popular, by your deification there are so few Christians who ARE following god's law that it hardly matters. God made no laws against different pagan groups marrying EACH OTHER, so what business is if of yours if an Anglican marries a native healer? From your point of view they're BOTH divorced from God's one true church.

Given how ignorant YOU are of the pagan origins of many of the traditions you follow I'd say from a divine point of view God probably doesn't even care much who YOU marry. He doesn't have a horse in that race (pun intended). Keeping nominally Kosher doesn't erase the fact you celebrate a Pagan Yule festival and a Pagan fertility festival with a thin veneer of "Jesus!" slapped clumsily on top.

So who are these 80% today?

Again you are ill informed about the blacks in Africa—they are still deeply rooted in the traditions of the elders who try and consult the dead which is in violation of what is taught in the Torah, and as such justifies our faith in not marring into them.

You are making claims that are at odds with the statistics I found. Unless you can provide evidence to support your claims about the popularity of native traditions among modern South Africans I will have no choice but to conclude it's yet another one of your lies.

So we whites have chosen not to marry them

That's not nearly as true as it once was.

How South Africa is learning to live with mixed-race couples

New Interracial Marriage Stats And What They Mean For SA

The study showed that in 1996 the ratio of someone marrying outside their race was 303:1. In 2011, this statistic increased to 95:1. While marrying within one’s race is still the norm in SA, the results show that this is slowly starting to change. And groups who have previously been found least likely to marry outside their race – Asians, Indians and whites – are increasingly choosing partners of another race.

Mixed relationships are easier for SA's millennials

Mandela's visible legacy: South Africa's interracial couples no longer need to hide

It's very similar to what's happening in the United states. In large portions of the country interracial couple simply aren't that big a deal. Your precious apartheid is dead and it's not coming back.

 

[GuitKitty]

<snip>

So let me say the woman is not disgraced, but a disgraceful thing has been done to her—so her exoneration should lie in the fact that the rapist must die for his disgraceful act.

In South Africa—they want a rape victim and her rapist to sit in each other’s company and find reconciliation—now that to me is diabolical.

Since we're back on the topic, Paul, could you answer my previous question, please? What happens if a man is raped?

 

[Paul Bethke]

Got any examples, or are you just blowing smoke?

No smoke just simple observation, based on documentaries, and association with blacks.
They are deeply rooted in their culture, which includes mediums and Sangomas, trying to contact the dead ancestors is one of their main beliefs, it also involves some gruesome practice like having body parts as a catalyst.

Throwing the bones to access the advice of ancestors is an alternative practice to the exhausting ritual of possession by the ancestor. In a typical session, a patient will visit the sangoma and the sangoma must determine what the affliction is or the reason the patient has come to them for help. The patient or diviner throws bones on the floor, which may include animal vertebrae, dominoes, dice, coins, shells and stones, each with a specific significance to human life. For example, a hyena bone signifies a thief and will provide information about stolen objects. The sangoma or the patient throws the bones but the ancestors control how they lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_healers_of_South_Africa----

Oh, child, there's far more to it than the date. All the trappings of Christmas celebration are lifted from Pagan yule festivals. Even Santa was a Pagan shaman who was hastily grafted onto Saint Nicholas by the Catholic church to excuse his presence. The Yule tree, the gift exchange, the feast in the middle of Winter, the lights, they're all pagan traditions. Christmas trees are even forbidden in the Bible:

They are no longer associated with paganism.
I do not celebrate these event other than to accept the fact that Jesus advent is of importance—today these events are only days for raucous events, but there are many who hallow these days and go to Church.
Easter—the Pass Over we acknowledge as the death of Jesus as the propitiation for sin.

Biblical text places the birth of Christ in the spring or early fall, no later than November. The celebration was scheduled to allow the assorted pagan Yule festivals to be absorbed into the Church. The very CELEBRATION of his birth was only instituted 400 years after his death as a means of incorporating more pagan traditions into Christianity to better absorb pagan converts. Celebrating the birth of a deity was a Roman Pagan tradition explicitly eschewed by the early Church in Rome.

As I said today these events are not paganism re-enacted. Christmas still carries the notion of the birth of Jesus, but it is a commercial opportunity.

Not the way it's scheduled and observed today.
Passover is scheduled according to a Lunar calendar. Easter however is scheduled using a solar calendar to better coincide with the Summer Solstice and fertility festivals celebrated by the pagans they sought to convert. I don't recall Jesus screaming from the cross, "HIDE THE EGGS!" before he died, do you? That's because Easter Eggs, the Easter rabbit and the orgy of sweets are all PAGAN traditions absorbed from fertility festivals.

There's very little of "Jesus" in either Christmas or Easter celebrations. They're both clumsily re-branded pagan festivals.

Yeshua ben Yosef would be probably HORRIFIED at the pagan traditions absorbed by mainstream Christianity.

As I said, Christmas still carries the notion of the birth of Jesus, no matter what other people do.

Citation needed. Your word is not good enough, seeing as how, being a false prophet (Remember your failed World Cup prophesy?) your words are, according to the Bible, of no value.

Not false you are the one who is void of true knowledge, so you direct your inability to reason towards me.

https://www.google.co.za/search?

q=body+parts+for+sangomas&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=653&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjx7TWsYLOAhULBsAKHYVTA04Q_AUIBigB&dpr=1#imgrc=E3wa_8z2r3VrAM%3A
You can select each block for a detailed commentary—enjoy it.

Oh good, you skimmed the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article I linked to.



Be more specific and I'll happily clarify.

As noted in the statistics I cited, about 0.3% of South Africans adhere to traditional beliefs. Finding an example of some of them serving as a tourist attraction does jack squat to support your claims about the popularity of those traditions.

Even if you DID establish that these traditions are still popular, by your deification there are so few Christians who ARE following god's law that it hardly matters. God made no laws against different pagan groups marrying EACH OTHER, so what business is if of yours if an Anglican marries a native healer? From your point of view they're BOTH divorced from God's one true church.

Given how ignorant YOU are of the pagan origins of many of the traditions you follow I'd say from a divine point of view God probably doesn't even care much who YOU marry. He doesn't have a horse in that race (pun intended). Keeping nominally Kosher doesn't erase the fact you celebrate a Pagan Yule festival and a Pagan fertility festival with a thin veneer of "Jesus!" slapped clumsily on top.

Now you are in a state of stupor---They are black we are white so there can be no marriage—we have the Torah to justify this stance. You cannot say that to marry a black is not against the purpose of God, we do not want to have a nation of coloureds—let the blacks marry blacks and the whites marry whites.

You are making claims that are at odds with the statistics I found. Unless you can provide evidence to support your claims about the popularity of native traditions among modern South Africans I will have no choice but to conclude it's yet another one of your lies.

Lies, lies, lies, I gave you the evidence—you are not capable of seeing the truth.

That's not nearly as true as it once was.

How South Africa is learning to live with mixed-race couples

New Interracial Marriage Stats And What They Mean For SA


Mixed relationships are easier for SA's millennials

Mandela's visible legacy: South Africa's interracial couples no longer need to hide

It's very similar to what's happening in the United states. In large portions of the country interracial couple simply aren't that big a deal. Your precious apartheid is dead and it's not coming back.

So you want all the whites to become black—but many blacks want to become white.
Mandela has no legacy—people want to make the terrorist into a hero.He is not a good example of a husband or a father, something that is of great importance in the economy of God.
No matter what you say, you have no idea of how blacks live, in abject fear of the ancestors approval, even though we know that the dead cannot contact the living—there is as is stated still 80% of blacks who still place a lot of hope in their ancestral communication.—-Now be a good boy and read these thigs that you so apply ignore
http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/zuma-calls-on-ancestors-1430377
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Zuma-brought-ancestors-wrath-clan-20121106
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/A...ors-will-turn-against-deserters-Zuma-20110512

 

[Border Reiver]

The victim suffers the disgrace of what has happen, I am not saying she is responsible for the ordeal—many woman suffer from trauma of rape, I have read many events of woman who have had to contend with the ordeal of rape, and how they suffered under the scrutiny of interrogation.

http://www.aaets.org/article178.htm

The victim of the crime should not be suffering any disgrace at all, which is my point. Disgrace is commonly understood to mean:

Dictionary.com
noun

1. the loss of respect, honor, or esteem; ignominy; shame.
2. a person, act, or thing that causes shame, reproach, or dishonor or is dishonorable or shameful.
3. the state of being out of favor; exclusion from favor, confidence, or trust.

verb (used with object), disgraced, disgracing.

4. to bring or reflect shame or reproach upon.
5. to dismiss with discredit; put out of grace or favor; rebuke or humiliate.

Continually using the term "she suffers the disgrace" cannot be understood in such a way that the person "suffering the disgrace" is not in some way responsible for what happened when you use the word in the way you do.

Perhaps the quote I posted can clear this up---the victim has not done a disgraceful thing—a disgraceful thing has been done to her.( Gen_34:7 Now Jacob's sons had come in from the fields as soon as they heard what had happened. They were filled with grief and fury, because Shechem had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter —a thing that should not be done.)

And you finally use the term correctly! The victim has been subjected to a criminal act that has brought disgrace on the perpetrator. The way you are using it comes right out and says that "the loss of respect, honor, or esteem; ignominy; shame" falls on the victim of the offence, in effect making the victim culpable for being victimized!

Going through the ordeal of interrogation is traumatic and in many times the victim is subject to painful interrogation. There is also the stigma attached to rape victims.

There is also the fact that a man may not want a woman who has been raped.
A victim in many cases is subject to public scrutiny.

So let me say the woman is not disgraced, but a disgraceful thing has been done to her—so her exoneration should lie in the fact that the rapist must die for his disgraceful act.

In South Africa—they want a rape victim and her rapist to sit in each other’s company and find reconciliation—now that to me is diabolical.

The stigma attaches as a result of the attitudes that you exhibited in your first use of the term disgrace. It has been said that if the victims of robbery were treated in the same way as the victims of sexual assault, no one would report those offences (and if Biblical law was thrown in it would get even more ridiculous).

Victime (V): "I'd like to report a robbery."

Police (P): "Of course, take a seat. Now when did this happen?"

V:"About 30 minutes ago. A person approached me and asked for money, when I said, 'No' he pulled out a knife and made me give him my wallet."

P: "Were you dressed the way you are now?"

V: "What do you mean?"

P: "Well, you're dressed well and a person looking for money is likely to assume that you have some to give away. Now, have you recently made any charitable donations? And do you commonly frequent those places?"

V: "What does that have to do with my being robbed?

P: "A well dressed person, known to give to charity goes to one of those places, well who's to say that you aren't just having a bit of 'donater's remorse' right now? I mean, did you scream, cry out or otherwise resist the alleged thief?"

V: "He had a knife and I was terrified!"

P: "That's going to be a problem for the prosecutor, see if no one witnessed this 'robbery' then I'm afraid it will be your word against his. If he doesn't confess then I'm afraid that under Biblical law we will have to find you equally culpable and stone you both to death."

V: "That's insane!"

P: "Well, if it had happened outside of city limits the alleged robber does have the option of paying a fine to your bank and then he'd have unlimited access to your bank accounts as your new financial manager. Now, if we can't find this person you won't be allowed to make any financial transactions, as the 'robber' is now your financial manager according to the Law."

V: "How is this fair or just?"

P: "It's to protect the sanctity of the financial system."

 

[Paul Bethke]

Since we're back on the topic, Paul, could you answer my previous question, please? What happens if a man is raped?

Now of course we must put this in END time frame---first of all, it is stated that for a man to have sex with a man is detestable to Yahweh—(Lev_20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.)

So now we can evaluate—if a man rapes a man then it is obvious that that man who raped the other man must be put to death.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Now of course we must put this in END time frame---first of all, it is stated that for a man to have sex with a man is detestable to Yahweh—(Lev_20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.)

So now we can evaluate—if a man rapes a man then it is obvious that that man who raped the other man must be put to death.

Interesting way to avoid answering the actual question. What happens if a man is raped by a woman?

(Not to mention that homosexuals qualify for the "144K" by the only standard listed in the "Revelation"...)

 

[Paul Bethke]

The victim of the crime should not be suffering any disgrace at all, which is my point. Disgrace is commonly understood to mean:



Continually using the term "she suffers the disgrace" cannot be understood in such a way that the person "suffering the disgrace" is not in some way responsible for what happened when you use the word in the way you do.




And you finally use the term correctly! The victim has been subjected to a criminal act that has brought disgrace on the perpetrator. The way you are using it comes right out and says that "the loss of respect, honor, or esteem; ignominy; shame" falls on the victim of the offence, in effect making the victim culpable for being victimized!



The stigma attaches as a result of the attitudes that you exhibited in your first use of the term disgrace. It has been said that if the victims of robbery were treated in the same way as the victims of sexual assault, no one would report those offences (and if Biblical law was thrown in it would get even more ridiculous).

Victime (V): "I'd like to report a robbery."

Police (P): "Of course, take a seat. Now when did this happen?"

V:"About 30 minutes ago. A person approached me and asked for money, when I said, 'No' he pulled out a knife and made me give him my wallet."

P: "Were you dressed the way you are now?"

V: "What do you mean?"

P: "Well, you're dressed well and a person looking for money is likely to assume that you have some to give away. Now, have you recently made any charitable donations? And do you commonly frequent those places?"

V: "What does that have to do with my being robbed?

P: "A well dressed person, known to give to charity goes to one of those places, well who's to say that you aren't just having a bit of 'donater's remorse' right now? I mean, did you scream, cry out or otherwise resist the alleged thief?"

V: "He had a knife and I was terrified!"

P: "That's going to be a problem for the prosecutor, see if no one witnessed this 'robbery' then I'm afraid it will be your word against his. If he doesn't confess then I'm afraid that under Biblical law we will have to find you equally culpable and stone you both to death."

V: "That's insane!"

P: "Well, if it had happened outside of city limits the alleged robber does have the option of paying a fine to your bank and then he'd have unlimited access to your bank accounts as your new financial manager. Now, if we can't find this person you won't be allowed to make any financial transactions, as the 'robber' is now your financial manager according to the Law."

V: "How is this fair or just?"

P: "It's to protect the sanctity of the financial system."

So is the subject dealt with---you have made what I could not do very clear.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Interesting way to avoid answering the actual question. What happens if a man is raped by a woman?

(Not to mention that homosexuals qualify for the "144K" by the only standard listed in the "Revelation"...)

Why can I not address you as SV or it should be Sv?

No homosexuals canot be considered as part of the 144 k as they are defiled.
There have been a few cases I have come upon where a man was raped by women.
I do not know of a sentence being past.

So now what should be done to the woman, or women?
So if the decision were left to you what would you do?


http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Man-tells-of-shock-pain-after-women-raped-him-in-PE-20150512

 

[Slowvehicle]

No homosexuals canot be considered as part of the 144 k as they are defiled.

...but not "defiled by women"...if the "144k" were actually a real thing, homosexuals would qualify by the only standard listed...

There have been a few cases I have come upon where a man was raped by women.
I do not know of a sentence being past.

You continue to avoid the essence of the question. Bold witness, d00d.

So now what should be done to the woman, or women?
So if the decision were left to you what would you do?

First off, NO victim of rape should be beholden to their rapist; under NO circumstances should you claim that the two are "married" because they had sex; or that the victim is "despoiled" and ineligible to marry as they choose.

 

[halleyscomet]

No smoke just simple observation, based on documentaries, and association with blacks.
They are deeply rooted in their culture, which includes mediums and Sangomas, trying to contact the dead ancestors is one of their main beliefs, it also involves some gruesome practice like having body parts as a catalyst.

So what? You're still talking about the fact such beliefs exist without doing anything to establish their prevalence. Your "argument" is about as valid as me posting details about the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster" as "proof" that most white people are members.

Establishing something exists does nothing to establish it's popularity.

They are no longer associated with paganism.

BWHAHAHA!!!!!

Sorry kid, but they're not only still associated with paganism, that association is groing STRONGER as the percentage of Pagans and Neo-Pagans in the population has been growing over the last few decades.

Besides, some of those traditions, like the Christmas tree, are in direct conflict with the Bible. If you're going to defend them with "no longer associated with paganism" then you lose the ability to argue that speaking to your ancestors is un-Christian, so long as the person doing it claims to be Christian.

Now you are in a state of stupor---They are black we are white so there can be no marriage—we have the Torah to justify this stance. You cannot say that to marry a black is not against the purpose of God, we do not want to have a nation of coloureds—let the blacks marry blacks and the whites marry whites.


Lies, lies, lies, I gave you the evidence—you are not capable of seeing the truth.

So you want all the whites to become black—but many blacks want to become white.
Mandela has no legacy—people want to make the terrorist into a hero.He is not a good example of a husband or a father, something that is of great importance in the economy of God.
No matter what you say, you have no idea of how blacks live, in abject fear of the ancestors approval, even though we know that the dead cannot contact the living—there is as is stated still 80% of blacks who still place a lot of hope in their ancestral communication.

That was a choice rant. It conveyed no meaning or argument, it made no points, but it did express your vibrant, undulating, soul consuming racism quite effectively.

—-Now be a good boy and read these thigs that you so apply ignore
http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/zuma-calls-on-ancestors-1430377
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Zuma-brought-ancestors-wrath-clan-20121106
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/A...ors-will-turn-against-deserters-Zuma-20110512

Got any statistics about how prevalent those beliefs actually are?

Never mind. Even if you DID produce such statics, they wouldn't matter. You're arguing that a Christian black woman can't marry a Christian white man because she MIGHT have a cousin who practices a form of a native religion. Should your children be banned from marrying a Christian if you're found to have a cousin who worships Thor? Of course not. That would be stupid. Why then do you want to ban ALL blacks from marrying whites because some small percentage might practice a native religion instead of or in addition to Christianity?

 

[Paul Bethke]

...but not "defiled by women"...if the "144k" were actually a real thing, homosexuals would qualify by the only standard listed...

But it is stated that the sexual conduct is detestable to God--it infers that they are not as it is following the Lamb.

You continue to avoid the essence of the question. Bold witness, d00d.

You are not clear on this statement.

First off, NO victim of rape should be beholden to their rapist; under NO circumstances should you claim that the two are "married" because they had sex; or that the victim is "despoiled" and ineligible to marry as they choose.

What are you on about now? I have clarified that point.
The mods sent me a warning—was that your doing?

 

[halleyscomet]

What are you on about now? I have clarified that point.

From a debate / educational / evangelism point of view, it would be helpful and further advance your argument if you paraphrased that clarification or linked to the post where you originally wrote that clarification.

The mods sent me a warning—was that your doing?

If the TOS have any restrictions on hate speech then any number of people could have reported a variety of your posts about topics such as your, er, regressive attitude on race relations. Trying to figure out who is responsible for a given report is a fool's errand. I've gotten a few warnings in my time and my response has not been to go on a witch hunt for whoever reported me, but to try and moderate my behavior to avoid that issue in the future.



Based upon my experience, the moderators here are quite communicative, patient and fair. If you think the warning was unfair, politely contact the moderators about it.