Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Teaching religon: Heritage of hostility?
Thread: Teaching religon: Heritage of hostility? This thread is 10 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · NEXT»
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 05, 2009 09:47 PM bonus applied by Mytical on 06 Jul 2009.
Edited by angelito at 19:46, 06 Jul 2009.

Teaching religon: Heritage of hostility?

Ok. A couple of things for starters.

Elodin said in the feedback thread, he is willing to discuss things. I don't think so, not in the sense discussion is defined usually, but it makes no sense to declare a thread useless from the start, so
against better knowledge I'm preparing this thread for discussion.

However, to make sure that this WILL be a discussion at least formally and the thread won't be closed before reaching page 2, I want some rules to be followed. Needless to say that the following is valid for me as well.

1) NO QUOTES. Every participant here should try to be constructive and bring up POINTS, not show that he can quote a word and debate about that. A post should be clear about the actual points made, so it should be clear what a post wants to say, and what we can't use is hair-splitting and ill will. I've structured my post to make it clearer and easier to read The basic content should be clear. Something like "you say that this should be done" is ok, but this is supposed to be a constrcutive discussion and no quote battle, and everyone is supposed to make points.
We should further do NOT put words in our mouths. Read careful.

2) I don't want any classifications: you say this, so you are that. That doesn't help. Whether something a person says makes that person anti or pro-something, atheist, racist, fanatic, fundamentalist or anything else is irrelevant for the POINT.

Okay, here we go.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

A) People all over the world  insist on their right to "teach" their children with all the authority of the beloved and respected parents not only their very personal religious belief, usually the official version of some sect, church or temple, but also and especially that the so taught very personal and subjective religious belief is as factual and objective a truth as is their own existance.

B) With all other things this is somewhat countered in school where standards are more objective. This has an effect, for example in sociology: parents may have, for example racist or sexist views, but on one hand they make no special effort to teach these views deliberately to their children, on the other hand school is teaching the politically correct version for a given soeciety.

C) However, with religion pupils are taught more of what their parents already picked for them: they go into their reigion class. Religion is neither compared nor set in relation to the other religions.
Additionally, and very importantly children are made members of their church at an age when they have NO chance to contradict this, not even had a chance to have the idea that they have a choice here. Add Sunday School, add all those religious youth organisations, and what you see is a religious network weaving a kokon of religious indoctrination around babies, children and youths to win them for their religious cause, whatever that may be.

D) This is not without consequences. Since the fundamentalists, the hardcore religious believers, are sure that they are RIGHT, that their belief is TRUE, it follows that all the others who believe something else are WRONG. This is taught to their children as well. However, the other fundamentalists, the guys who believe something else, but are also DEAD sure they are right, they teach their children the same. And more. They teach that the others are enemies. Why? Because the others claim something else, using the same arguments. At stake is eternal life, so it seems.

Consequentually the RELIGIOUS separation is sill rather strong, whereas the racial separation becomes less and less.

CONCLUSION) Unchecked indoctrinating of children with religious "truths" is one of the main reasons why there has been and still is so much violence and war between humans. The examples are legion. That's why something should happen here to make sure that the religious separation isn't transferred from generation to generation.

The logical conclusion is, if you want to have peace in the world make sure that helpless children can't be MADE to believe that a certain part of humanity is right, while the rest is wrong when there is no proof for any religion to be right over the others

EXAMPLE) An easy example for a mechanism that works in a comparable way is rivalry in sports. In Europe, you'll see this in soccer: in Britain it's ManUtd vs. City or Celtic vs. Rangers (with the last one strangely enough being religiously separated as well, if I'm not wrong), in Germany it's Schalke vs. Dortmund, in Spain it's Real vs. Atletico or Barca, and so on. In the US it may be Giants vs. Jets. The mechanism is the same. As part of a neighborhood children breathe the rivalry in.

DISCLAIMER) If you read this post carefully it's clear that this isn't an attack on PARENTS. The transfer of hostility, of religious fanatism is done in "good faith", that makes it so effective on one hand and so dangerous on the other. It's basically the same thing than here in the OSM: people are certain that they are right, which results in unreasonable arguing and fighting (and I include myself here). I'm trying to show a mechanism, how hostility is kept and nurtured over the generations.

This thread has great potential, and I believe it is a very good initiative.  I may not agree with the title, or the poster, but I can not help but respect the effort. - Mytical

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted July 05, 2009 10:20 PM

JJ,

parents pass a ton of potentially dangerous customs to their children. Why to focus on religion (or rather, not religion, but fanatical/fundamental approach aka MINE IS BEST YOURS SUCK), is it any different from the possibility of passing homophobia, antisemitism or xenophobia? I'd say the spectrum of bad customs is pretty big. Since we can't really CONTROL how people rise children, why bother with one tiny part, while there are still like many others, equally bad.

School.. school has virtually no moral effect on kids. Recalling the years of elementary school... nobody gave a damn about teachers of any kind, their opinions and ideas.

Two things raise children:

First, parents -> Already covered that, how can we possibly interfere? We can't and we shouldn't.

Second, environment. In Poland, many kids - along with me - were raised "by the street", as we spent countless hours there, admiring the older boys and trying to be like them. Those guys were our authorities - among parents (at least for me. For some kids, usually from pathological families, the only authorities were older pals).

Again, nobody gave a damn about teachers.

So, whether religion IS taught at school or not... well, judging by my experiences and observations.. doesn't change anything.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 05, 2009 10:24 PM

School certainly has a moral effect on the students. It's where many of them meet their peers. And sometimes a speck of education reaches the students too. It's more than you'd expect.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
xerdux
xerdux


Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
posted July 05, 2009 10:28 PM

It should be forbidden for parents to influence their children with religion.

Religion doesnt have any place in a modern society.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted July 05, 2009 10:56 PM

I want to make a reply to xerox who says that there is no place for religion in modern-day society. Oh, and I consider him to be a very ill-informed and prejudiced person... No offense...

I believe it does, because at the very least you have to argue that, as with our most treasured freedom of speech, people should be able to belief whatever they want. I think that different thoughts, philosophies, religions have a plce in modern-day society, because we need...

Okay, we don't need variety in society, but I think that a multicultural society enhances the richness of it in terms of culture (culture to me means religion, philosophy (which has some similarities with religion, but whatever) and customs) (I know that technology is a form of culture, but I don't want to argue about technological stagnation through a theocracy). Yes, many of the good things in christian philosophy are also present in other things and I know that christianity doesn't have the monopoly on brotherly love, but that's still no reason to discard it.

As I said, religion has many things equal with philosophy and that's why I disagree with xerox... It'd be less boring as well.

Regarding Joker's point that unchecked indoctrination would lead to violence:

I don't think that it's religion in itself that leads to this. I think this is something that follows out of disrespect unto others. This comes from closed societies with different ideologies altogether. Granted, it's much easier to make a comparison with religion, but I remember in the past, before my time that there was someplace that taught their children that some people were inferior to others.

I found the example! Nationalism has the exact same effects you described, but I will draw it to the point where it almost scratches the surface of being abstract: It happens whenever someone creates an US-group and a THEY-group. It creates hostility. Some people are in some way (imagined or not) faulted by someone else and those people will gather (in small communities perhaps?) and teach their children how wrong the other group is. Again, it's easier to draw links with relgion, but I think that teaching your children religion is not the only thing that could spark this. I do not think it's the sole evil.

I hope my arguments are structured enough...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 05, 2009 10:58 PM

@ Doomforge
Can you be more precise with your points? What I read is:
A) School has no effect on children; they can teach what they want, no result.
B) Parents should be allowed to teach what they want.

If that is right, you can't have anything against changing school - it has no effect, you say, even though this would need verification, so why not change things there?

Second, do you agree with the basic description of the problem or not? Is religion teaching hostility?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 05, 2009 11:01 PM

The interesting thing about Abrahamic religions is, if one were to follow their exact word, one would be quite violent. But many people claim to be devout Jews/Christians/Muslims - and yet aren't violent at all. So it's difficult to say what causes violence. Some people are violent for non-religious reasons, and use religion to justify it. Some are genuine fundamentalists.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted July 05, 2009 11:08 PM

Quote:
Second, do you agree with the basic description of the problem or not? Is religion teaching hostility?
If you're talking about school, I think it should be optional, like a lot of other subjects. People use to say to put Creationism out of science class -- and make it optional. And that is fine, as long as you make science class optional too. You see, this isn't even about evolution anymore, it's science class vs non-science class (even history!), a clear bias.

So no, BIAS is the hostility here.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 05, 2009 11:09 PM

@ DG

Yes, I find it well structured.

So your points are

A) That everyone should have freedom to believe what they want, so religion shouldn't be forbidden.

B) That religion is not the only US-group that would teach hostility because of the rivalry between us and them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with both A and B.  However:

A) is true only with a FREE DECISION - which isn't there if you are forced into a certain stance as a child.

B) may be true, but that doesn't mean that it would be wrong to start somewhere. It doesn't mean either, that all US-groups are equally powerful. Nationalism has sports as a valve. Religion doesn't. God Games might be an idea: Olympic games with athlets of different religions competing.

Unless you add something, though, I don't think we disagree.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 05, 2009 11:18 PM

Death, sorry, I don't see your point. Can you try to make it more clear? I mean, BIAS teaches hostility doesn't say anything: people aren't born, biassed.

MVass:
You say that many devout followers of monotheistic religions are not violent, and I agree: not many drop bombs and so on. Not many are activists.
But isn't it enough to erect boundaries? Isn't it nough to put boundaries between marriage of people belonging to different religions? Nothing wrong with partners going to their respective church. But then they are arguing about the children: which religion will they follow?
See the problem?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 05, 2009 11:24 PM

Wait, are you suggesting that people of different religions not be allowed to get married?
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted July 06, 2009 12:02 AM
Edited by TheDeath at 00:03, 06 Jul 2009.

Quote:
Death, sorry, I don't see your point. Can you try to make it more clear? I mean, BIAS teaches hostility doesn't say anything: people aren't born, biassed.
Everything mandatory usually has a bias. Obviously, some are different than others (on a different scale altogether) but since I was talking about schools (not sure if off topic but I've seen people post about it), then we were talking about school material bias. aka what should kids be taught (including religion) mandatory. (and why it should be optional)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted July 06, 2009 01:46 AM
Edited by Elodin at 01:55, 06 Jul 2009.

First, I take issue with the title of the "discussion" and catagorically deny the premise of your arguement. Teaching of religion has no history of hostility. I would however, point out that officially atheist nations such as the USSR and China teach atheism as a state religion and are hostile to other religions. Religions in general are not hostile to other religions. There are exceptions for some groups.

Second, you say that you doubt my statement that I am always willing to discuss. I have always presented my points in the past and will continue to do so. I doubt your willingness to listen.
----------------------------
Your "discussion Conditions."

1) I see no reason to avoid quotes. That somewhat maks things more confusing when making long posts because it can be difficualt to see exactly what one is responding to.

2) So if someone is displaying an "anti-religious" attitude we can't so say. You are only allowing labels to be applied to "religious" people?

But you had no problem using phrases like "fundamentalists, the hardcore religious believers."

-------------------------------

A) Yes, I insist on my right to teach my children my belief. I am a Christian. I will treach my children Christianity. You claim in the "Where do we draw the Line" thread that all religions are equally true and that the State should mandate that parents teach that all religions are equally true. I reject that. You teach your children your religious beleif (that all religions are equal) and I'll teach my children my religious beliefs.

Yes, a Christian will say Christianity is true. So? You claim that your belief that "all religions are equally true" is true.


B) Schools are not necessarily objective. I can recall many times both in elementary/high school and in college where the teacher presented their own personal thoughts as facts. As for racists not making a deliberate effort to teach a child, perhaps and perhaps not. Some will forbid their child from playing with children of other races. Most racists will probably use slurs in private around their children and teach them "We are better than that are, Johnny. *@*@*@ are what's wrong with the wolrd," and such comments.

Yes, shcols generally teach politically correct thinking. PC thinking is not necessarily right.

C)
Of course religious people teach their beliefs to their children. I am a Christian. I believe Jesus is Lord. So of course I taught my children that. You believe all religions are equally true so I'm guessing you said something of the sort to your children.

My church does not make children members who don't understand the gospel. Before anyone can be baptised they have a talk with the a church elder or pastor to make sure they understand the gospel and that they want to obey the gospel. They come to a minister to express their desire, a minister does not come to them and say, "Hey, don't you think its about time you repented and obeyed the gospel?"

The state should have no right to forbid a child who wants to obey the gospel from being baptised or taking communion.

Furthur, no man can pour out the Spirit on a person. Only God can give the Spirit.

It is God who makes a person a member of a church. When God draws the child and the child expesses a desire to obey the gospel no one has a right to tell him that he can't.

There is no religious network weaving a cacoon of religious indoctrination around babies, children and youths. At least not in my church.

Christianity is a personal choice. A person has to choose to become a Christian. As Jesus said, we must be born of water and of the Spirit.

D) Yes, of course many devout religious people are sure they are right. Just like you have made it abundantly clear that you are sure that you are right about all religions being equally true. Why do you complain about others saying they are right when you say that you are right?

If you are right that all religions are equally true then I am wrong and Jesus is not Lord. If I am right then you are wrong and Jesus is Lord. I am right, by the way. Neither one of us is a wrong for expressing our religious view and taching them to our children.

Sure, some Muslims teach their kids that Christians and Jews are enemies. But then again, some atheists teach their kids that all religious people are enemies.

I don't see the big separation that you cliam exists among most people with regard to religion, unless you just mean that religions have different doctrines. Most people do not hate people of different religions. Most Muslims don't hate Christians and Jews. A radical minority does. Most atheists are not hateful towards other religions. A radical minority is.

Comment on your CONCLUSION:

I don't consider teaching a child a religion to be "indoctrinating" a child. And yes, I consider my religious beliefs to the truths, just as you consider your belief that all religions are equally true to be true.

If it is indoctrination to teach a child that Christianity is true then it is also indoctrination to teach a child that all religions are equally true.

I also catagoricly reject the notion that the State should determine the religious teachings of a child. I have no desire for the State to mandate that your children be taught Christianity. I also will not allow the State to teach my children your religious beliefs as true (that all religions are equally true.)

You claim you don't want chldren to be taught that one group os right and all others wrong. But that is exactly what you want. You want it to be mandatory to teach children that all religions are equally true. That is YOUR religion, not mine.

You claim that there is no proof of one religion being right. There is no proof TO YOU that one religion is true. I know Jesus is Lord. I am filled with the Spirit of God. I have all the proof I need.

On the other hand, you have absolutely no proof that there is no "right" religion.

You teach your children your religious beliefs and I'll teach my child my religious beliefs.

YOUR EXAMPLE: Religions are not differnent soccer teams competing on a fiel in a game. Christianity preaches the Word and lets whosoever will respond.

If you insist it is, the same analogy would fit atheism VS other religions. Many atheists these days are quite evangelical in their preaching to others. Puttting up holiday signs condemning religion and religious people, putting signs on buses, using billboards, arguing for atheism many hours on boards like this, ect.

Comment on your DISCLIMER:

I just don't see a "transfer of hostility, of religious fanatism." And it is ludicrous to say allowing parents to teach children their religion is dangerous. What is dangerous is wanting to give the State the authority to determine the religious teaching of a child.

A person being certain that he is right in no way is an indication of hostility.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 06, 2009 01:53 AM

Elodin, I think in many of your examples you are confusing atheism and anti-theism. They're different things, even if anti-theists are often atheists.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted July 06, 2009 02:16 AM
Edited by Elodin at 02:16, 06 Jul 2009.

@Xerdux

I reject that notion that a parent should have no influence on chldren with regard to religion. Religion is a VERY important thing that has consequences in this life and in the life to come.

Parents should be free to teach their children everything they deem necessary for them to learn. A parent's job is to prepare a child to be "successful" in life (that has different meanings to differnt people.) And to prepare a child for a relationship with God.

@ mvassilev

The teachings of Christianity are not violent. Jesus taught us to love even our enemies, to pray for them, and to do good to them. The church is not authorized to punish anyone for their sin.

The Old Covenant nation of Israel punished sin because sin was also a violation of the civil law of the nation. HOWEVER, Jews did not travel around the world looking for sinners to punish. They punished sin within their own national borders.

Christians are under the New Covenant and are not a physical nation.

@JJ

While I think it is generally a bad idea for people of different religions to get married I don't think it should be legally forbidden.

The couple should talk beforehand and agree how the children will be raised.

@ mvassilev
Like I said, I know only a handful of atheists are radicals just like only a handful of people in other religions is radical.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted July 06, 2009 02:18 AM

If both are opne-minded, I believe that it would be in the child's benefit to be raised with two world visions...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 06, 2009 02:21 AM

Elodin:
Think about how the Jews acquired Israel, though - they fought the Caananites just because God wanted them to. They could have built a community anywhere - but they had to fight because God told them to.
As for the civil law - even if Christians aren't subject to it, what kind of loving God asks a people to follow that kind of code? (And isn't the Church the successor of the Nation of Israel?)

And I would appreciate if you stopped calling atheism a religion. It isn't one.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted July 06, 2009 02:32 AM

@mvassilev

If you read Genesis you will will that God only allowed the Jews to take possession of Cannan when the wickedness of the inaabitants was more than he was willing to tolerate. Babies were being ripped out of the wombs of mothers as a sacrifice to their pagan gods for instance. So God kicked them out of the land and gave it to Israel.

By the way, when Israel became wicked and refused to repent God used surrounding nations to judge them as well. You will see instances of them being lead into captivity and then being delivered when they came to repentance.

About the Jewish civil law, no one was forced to live in Israel. They could have left if they did not agree with the law. All people in Israel took an oath to obey God an keep the Law. The people repeated the penalties for breaking the Law so they all knew what the law was and what the penalties were. So anyone who slept around with his neighbor's wife knew what was going to happen if he was caught.

In a sense, yes, the church is a successor to Israel. But not in the sense of being a physical nation with civil laws. Israel was to be a kingdom of priests to spread the knowledge of God around the world. That is now the mission of the church.

In your opinion atheism is not a religion. In mine it is. There is a discussion of this in the "What is a religion" thread.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 06, 2009 03:06 AM

So Jews can just invade whomever they want, if someone in their country is being "wicked"?

As for Jewish civil law, you missed my point. Why would a loving God even suggest that someone follow those laws? And if Israel was a nation of priests, why is Judaism a non-proselytising religion?
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted July 06, 2009 03:30 AM
Edited by Elodin at 03:33, 06 Jul 2009.

@mvassilev

The Jews were given the land by God, as I said, they didn't just decide to take it over. God kicked them out and used Israel to judge them. At times in history when Israel became wicked and refused to repent God used the surrounding nations to judge them.

Quote:
Gen 15:16  But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.


Quote:
Lev 18:24  Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
Lev 18:25  And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
Lev 18:26  Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
Lev 18:27  (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled
Lev 18:28  That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
Lev 18:29  For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
Lev 18:30  Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.


No, I didn't miss your point. God said to Isreal if you sleep around you die. Don't like it? Tough. Not one person was required to live in Israel. If they slept around, knowing the penalty for doing so they were stupid.

Israel didn't do their job of being a nation of preists. They [at least the leaders] became haughty and thought of themselves as better than others because they were the "chosen."

Quote:
Exo 19:5  Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Exo 19:6  And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
Exo 19:7  And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
Exo 19:8  And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.


Quote:
Mat 3:7  But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Mat 3:8  Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
Mat 3:9  And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Mat 3:10  And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.


I think this is getting a bit off topic.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 10 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1083 seconds