Hello Vic, the Public Intellectual:
Greetings again.
Certainly, you did not see hope; hope did not tell you anything, but somehow, you hoped to get up in the morning to read and write. SMILE. That is faith you manifested because your sight never led you to see but you experience the substance of it. Did any rationalization guarantee you anything? But you believed, had confidence in the assurance you did not see - hoping, embracing, and seizing the reality. It is in Hebrews 11:1. Dear friend, why, then, do you want proofs just because something is unseen?
For the interest of fair play, I have copied your corrections to those who received my mail. I admit a mistake about when you read the Bible. But you never admitted you lied to denigrate Jesus with a headline.
Besmirch you? Haba, you assassinated Jesus' character, accusing HIM of wanting to kill children and getting your facts dead wrong. When I proved that you lied, it never occurred in your mind to apologize to reasonable people who read your lies about Jesus. What kind of situational morals underscore your rationality? Is that what higly educated people, such as yourself, do. They have the right to cherry pick morals? Wonders shall never end!
With that log in your eye, you want to remove the speck in mine because of when, along your chronological age, you read the Bible?
Okay, sorry dearest, the New Testament compels me to forgive your lying and inability to admit your error. Unlike you, I have no problem admitting an error in judgment or action. I cannot mean to besmirch you.Why would I want to do that to a fine dude and rob the world of one of its geniuses? LOL. You have been writing on this topic from the time you landed in space (metaphor.) Others have, but I never responded to you. This 12 year old stuff was one of them. Perhaps I missed your response to Dr. Esale who questioned you. Cheer up.
Yes, a reasonable person can make a mistake and self-correct when clarity is made. So I stand corrected. You did not read the whole Bible, you were just committed to do so by age 12. Your current adult status, based on your reading, is a skeptic or agnostic. No worries.
You asked me: What do you make of these two verses from the same books of the bible:
Exodus 20: 13
Thou shalt not kill.
Exodus 21: 17
And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Professor, please don't make me to spill my coffee, laughing, on this bright Monday if you think you landed a
"gotcha. " Where you live, human's inherent liberty is enshrined in the constitution; it is the law of the land as it is in the US. But when you are in violation of a law, it can be punishable with the withdrawal of that liberty. Would you proceed to suspend your belief in liberty because you disagree with its qualification?
In light of the above, the two verses in Exodus are not mutually contradictory. Mutual contradiction, also known as doublethink, occurs when someone simultaneously holds two beliefs, knowing them to be contradictory but believing in both. Therefore, logic would be used against logic with two opinions that cancel out. But it is not the case here. The reasonable can understand the two verses without suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Exodus 20:13 is taken directly from God's 10 Commandments through Moses. Hammurabi, considered the father of law, lived around 1850 to 1750 BC. Hammurabi was the sixth King of Babylon and died about 250 years before Moses was born. Moses lived around 1500 to 1400. The famous Hammurabi "Code" contains about 282 laws or rules on acceptable common behavior, which continue to influence jurisprudence all over the world.
The Code of Moses, Messianic Laws, reflect God's unchanging nature, HIS underlying principles, even if the consequences for violation vary - as reasonably expected based on the era. If you actually read the Bible with on open mind, you will admit that consequences and manner of applications changed in the New Testament. Professor, should I now be shocked that you do not know Exodus 21: 17 is not a law but a consequence?
Since you are an astute scholar, you can refer to the law in Hammurabi's code, which pointedly reads "If a man has come forward in a case to bear witness to a felony and then has not proved the statement he has made, if that case is a capital one, that man shall be put to death." In the Code of laws, there are scaled punishments. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is the equivalent of equitable justice today? Nobody uses an instrument to pluck out eyes. Does the Bible not convey the same principle? What is your rational incomprehension about what the Bible says?
In case nobody plucked out your eyes, God forbids, you did not see Exodus 23:1-3,? It it says: do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness. Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit."
My question to you: Is it not rational for humans to argue about the consequences of violations? It means people hold different opinions about justice. Conceivably, the Israelites may have argued about penalties with the guilty offering mitigating circumstances. Likewise, Sir, you just have an opinion about the severity or even necessity of punishment in a certain era. You have by no means pointed out contradictions since the two verses are not the same thing: one is an unchanged law, one is a changeable penalty. An eye for an eye or the "law" of retaliation, is the principle with the Latin term lex talionis. As I wrote in my mail, you need to analyze Biblical context; not just run off with literal words.
Let us use this example. Shakespeare, in Romeo and Juliet, wrote:
" Give me my Romeo. And when I shall die,
Take him and cut him out in little stars,
And he will make the face of heaven so fine
That all the world will be in love with night
And pay no worship to the garish sun. "
Would you read that and tell your sweetheart to cut you into pieces when you die so that you will become little stars, and people on these nets will love only night and disregard the sun? You will be sent to a mental hospital. So why do you read the Bible and not the context?
Please study the values of the Mosaic law, which is still God's inspired stimulus for daily life. Nothing has changed but the consequences or how they are applied have. For example, if you start insulting your mami and papa, they may regret ever giving birth to you, consider the resources spent to educate you to be like sowing seeds in the bush, an they may lament over a lost chap. The law will not intervene if you do not physically harm them. However, you will be spiritually dead if you have a conscience.
Once more, please do not ask me how I know it is God's law. If you do, your question would be an embodiment of insanity because you have not questioned why secular jurisprudence will acknowledge Hammurabi, the Mesopotamian King, who said he was inspired his Babylonian deities. Since you are not visiting law schools to challenge the professors who specifically teach Hammurabi's Code with students given evidence of its extensive influence beyond place and time, you cannot ask me to prove that God gave Moses the 10 Commandments.
About one-third of the Hammurabi Code survives today, built like a giant index finger. He erected the carving, in black basalt pillar, seven feet high and two feet in diameter, at a site near the modern city of Baghdad in Iraq.
As an intellectual with high standards, as you rave, maybe you can embark on studying and comparing the Hammurabi Code and the ancient legal systems found in Leviticus in the Bible. Far from it, the Bible is not an irrational compilation that wants you or anybody to suspense their thinking skills. Rather, it also reflects realities.
If Hammurabi is taught; you have the cognitive ability to respect the right of others who are instructed by Biblical tenets.
You are a skeptic of the Bible; I am a believer of the Bible.
Take care dear.
MsJoe
-----Original Message-----
From: Vic Katte <vickatte@yahoo.co.uk>
To: camnetwork <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>; mfyembe <mfyembe@gmail.com>; cameroon_politics <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>; cameroonforum <cameroonforum@yahoogroups.com>; campros <campros@yahoogroups.com>; ACCDF <ACCDF@yahoogroups.com>; amacam <amacam@yahoogroups.com>; USAAfricaDialogue <USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, May 5, 2014 2:18 am
Subject: Re: [camnetwork] Response to the Vic Katte and the anti-Bible gang on "the Evil Deeds of Jesus" by MsJoe
From: Vic Katte <vickatte@yahoo.co.uk>
To: camnetwork <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>; mfyembe <mfyembe@gmail.com>; cameroon_politics <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>; cameroonforum <cameroonforum@yahoogroups.com>; campros <campros@yahoogroups.com>; ACCDF <ACCDF@yahoogroups.com>; amacam <amacam@yahoogroups.com>; USAAfricaDialogue <USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, May 5, 2014 2:18 am
Subject: Re: [camnetwork] Response to the Vic Katte and the anti-Bible gang on "the Evil Deeds of Jesus" by MsJoe
Hello Evelyn,
Thanks for your contribution. Three very important corrections, lest I keep getting misunderstood.
1) I did NOT or have never said that I had read the entire bible by age 12. I simply said that at age 12 I had made a commitment to read it from end-2-end. Which simply means that at about this age, I had decided that I was going to read the entire thing. How could any reasonable person take this to mean that I had read the entire thing, unless the were straining to besmirch me?
2) At age 12, nor at any time have I concluded that god does not exist. I said that I suspended belief in his existence when I found those disturbing passages in the bible. When my questions could not be answered, I suspended belief with the view of continuing the investigation at a more propitious time and place. Having carried out further investigation, today I call myself a SKEPTIC.
3) I have never said or implied that I am or was a prodigy. But supposing I was, is this something I should be criticised for? Seems like you guys have respect for prodigies. Are you criticising me for putting my mind into action for investigating the truth about the nature of reality rather than just sitting back and passively adsorbing doctrine without thinking like most of you guys do?
That is that with the points of corrections. Now back on the analysis of the content of the bible. What do you make of these two verses from the same books of the bible:
Exodus 20: 13
Thou shalt not kill.
Exodus 21: 17
And he t hat curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Thanks for your contribution. Three very important corrections, lest I keep getting misunderstood.
1) I did NOT or have never said that I had read the entire bible by age 12. I simply said that at age 12 I had made a commitment to read it from end-2-end. Which simply means that at about this age, I had decided that I was going to read the entire thing. How could any reasonable person take this to mean that I had read the entire thing, unless the were straining to besmirch me?
2) At age 12, nor at any time have I concluded that god does not exist. I said that I suspended belief in his existence when I found those disturbing passages in the bible. When my questions could not be answered, I suspended belief with the view of continuing the investigation at a more propitious time and place. Having carried out further investigation, today I call myself a SKEPTIC.
3) I have never said or implied that I am or was a prodigy. But supposing I was, is this something I should be criticised for? Seems like you guys have respect for prodigies. Are you criticising me for putting my mind into action for investigating the truth about the nature of reality rather than just sitting back and passively adsorbing doctrine without thinking like most of you guys do?
That is that with the points of corrections. Now back on the analysis of the content of the bible. What do you make of these two verses from the same books of the bible:
Exodus 20: 13
Thou shalt not kill.
Exodus 21: 17
And he t hat curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Vic Katte"Easy is the road that leads to benightedness, superstitions and irrationalism". Victor Katte
Hello Mr. Vic Katte, the Professor and Public Intellectual:
Greetings:
You indicated that by age 12, you had read the whole Bible and concluded that God does not exist. In your adulthood, since you are still seeking to reconfirm what you claim you knew as an un-emancipated, dependent child, you are engaging in what is called: self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, you are not open to learning. Is that a hallmark of your intellectual rigor when you are predisposed to be close-minded?
-------- Original message --------
From: Martin Yembe
Date:05/04/2014 1:58 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Cameroon Politics
Subject: Re: [cameroon_politics] The Evil Deeds of Jesus
![]()
You indicated that by age 12, you had read the whole Bible and concluded that God does not exist. In your adulthood, since you are still seeking to reconfirm what you claim you knew as an un-emancipated, dependent child, you are engaging in what is called: self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, you are not open to learning. Is that a hallmark of your intellectual rigor when you are predisposed to be close-minded?
You cited: "How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock," (Psalm 137:9) to accuse Jesus of evil deeds. The anti-Bible squad often cites this verse to prove the invalidity of the Bible. Certainly, as a child, somewhere in your village, city or town, you did not master hermeneutics (interpretation of biblical/ theological text in its context). It does not appear you cared about allegorical writing. What manner of a child prodigy were you in your Biblical dismissal? Your parents did not caution you of the error of your preadolescent bravado? Lord Have Mercy!lol
Since you hold yourself as a critical thinker, Mr. Professor, in the first place, you either lied or fell short of your intellectual rigor (which you often boast of) in your accusation of Jesus.
I am inviting you, let us us reason: In the Old Testament, Psalms is a collection of lyrical poems, written by multiple authors. King David, a master musician and poet, wrote most of the composite work with 73 of Psalms; Moses wrote Psalm 90; Asaph wrote twelve; the descendants of Korah wrote ten; King Solomon wrote about one or two, and Ethan and Heman were credited with a piece each. Where in your childhood or adulthood did you read that Jesus wrote what you are citing? Jesus was born at least 28 generations after King David. He could not have written what you accuse him of.
Professor, I know you cannot be smoking something that is bad for the faculties. LOL.
Context is essential. Of course, the Bible does not teach that killing children is okay. Intellectual honesty values inquiry: What was the Psalmist saying, what influenced it, and why? Psalm 137 is versed in the Babylonian captivity. The author is referring to the captors tormenting his fellow Israelites (verses 1-3); a pledge not to forget Jerusalem (verses 6 to 9) and a curse against the Babylonian captors (verses 7 to 9).
Anguished in exile and possibly a witness to the atrocities committed against his people, including babies, avenging emotions, retributive justice were common at the time as the instincts continue today. The author, crying out loud, did not say he got approval from God, neither is there any indication that his wish was fulfilled. Even if you foreclosed on your mind at age 12 and apparently refused to understand anything beyond the Old Testament, I guess you missed Mathew 18:5 when Jesus specifically said " Whoever receives a child, receives me." He did not discriminate by tribe or nation.
Looking at the Old Testament, many atrocious were recorded. Since you and other non-believers would be sharp to embrace free will, humans have the choice to be virtuous or vicious. God introduced what is called the Apoditic Law (Exodus 21:24): an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This was justified to avert the escalation of blood revenge. Therefore, the Psalmist in 139:9, expressing his wrath, is entirely human and it is understandable in the context and era of Babylonian captivity. Some had lost hope and the song: " How can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land? " captures the dread.
Sir, you and other non-believers are challenged to provide an acceptable, objective moral standard by which you can criticize biblical morality. You are writing based on your subjectivity - yet you have the dishonesty to claim a high standard.
Before you shoot off asking me (as you always do in your writings) to prove the existence of God, please check your level of conscientiousness by reading the question and answering it: When you say God does not exist, you are making an absolute statement. To do so, you must possess all knowledge, which is an impossibility for any human being. Let us assume, by a stretch, that you have 2% of all knowledge. In the 98% of knowledge or experience that you do not have, is it possible that God exists? An honest person will concede that there is a possibility. Not knowing about something does not disprove it.
In that case, honest people will indicate the limitation of their knowledge/experience. They would not make an absolute statement that God does not exist. What does that make you? An agnostic. It is derived from the Greek root word of "agnosia," meaning "ignorance." It is your right to be skeptical but do not elevate what you do not know to scholarship. Keep learning. We all do.
I am not imposing my faith on you. God exists, I believe in Jesus Christ, I believe because of my personal experience. Unless you are abnormal, you cannot ask me to prove what is intangible.
Have a blessed week.
MsJoe (Evelyn)
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Martin Yembe
Date:05/04/2014 1:58 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Cameroon Politics
Subject: Re: [cameroon_politics] The Evil Deeds of Jesus
Vic Katte again and again!!! No one in their right mind will dive into any war of words with your type. You sound so knowledgeable ( of course, of things that are negative to your mind) as the cup is almost always half empty to you! Has it occurred to you that before the NEW TESTAMENT, which was Jesus Christ' ( God's reversal of the old dispensation), given the context ( issues, activities, the times and peoples), all was about survival, confrontation between your master ( Lucifer) and God's people, His Chosen ones? Be it as it may be as you so badly wish, you have been reading those books that hail Satan and promote his kingdom of darkness. Now, you are so furious, even with yourself, that you forget to see that all of the New Testament was a "subtle" reversal of the Old Testament. You forget that David was/is the psalmist who was at war with King Saul, and was all though his life fighting against his personal and kingdom's enemies. What else would you want a parent of the kidnapped girls in Nigeria to say of the Boko Haram ? Oh, how we are blinded by prejudice and bias!!!
Martin in NgarumOn Sun, May 4, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Vic Katte <vickatte@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Usumanu,
Now, you are denying what is in your bible. Do you think that will make it go away? Do you know what the call this? DENIAL. You think burying your head in the sand would make it go away? Are you ashamed that your god is so barbaric?
Here is Psalms 137: 9 from several translations:
King James - Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Contemporary English Version - May the Lord bless everyone who beats your children against the rocks!
New International Version (UK) - Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.Vic Katte"Easy is the road that leads to benightedness, superstitions and irrationalism". Victor Katte
=============================================================="The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." Mencken
Emancipate yourself from mental slavery - none but yourself can free your mind.
"Most people would rather die than think. And most people do" Bertrand Russell.
Victor: Liar! Where in Psalm 137:9 does order that babies be dashed against a rock. You claim to know the Bible and cannot understand the meaning and context of Psalm 137:9? You have to lie to prove your point? Albert Usumanu
__._,_.___
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (3) |
Did you check out automatic photo albums in Yahoo Groups?
When you send mail to your Yahoo Group with photos attached, a photo album with attached photos is automatically created. When your group members reply to the email with photo attachments, those photos are added to the 'photomatic' albums automatically!
Camnetwork is the premier Cameroon/Cameroun forum since 1997.
.
__,_._,___
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment