God, the killer

[Rizzo]

God the killer.
That sounds terrible doesn't it.
Is it blasphemy to say such a thing...that is true?

I am reading the Bible again and I am now in Numbers.

At this point there are several instances where God kills people.
The story of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, A man is picking up sticks on the Sabbath and God tells Moses that he should be stoned to death, the parting of the Red Sea and then the waters close back up and kills the Egyptians, when Moses and the Jews are in the desert God opens up the earth to a large pit where all of the people and their belongings fall into it and then God closes up the pit.
There are other stories about others being killed.

I can't help but think that there were some good people that got caught up in those mass killings by God.
It's pretty depressing.
So much for "Free Will".

There is quite a contrast to the God in the New Testament vs the Old Testament but "scholars" tell us that "No, God is the same. He is unchanged".
Hmmm,...perhaps, but we do not see that wrathful, jealous God acting out that way in the New Testament and in these modern days.

Obviously God can do whatever He wants to, but what are we supposed to think when we read these things?
He seems to be using fear (in the Old Testament) as a motivator for us to worship Him.

Yet, God is Love and understanding God is beyond our comprehension.

So, for me, I am looking forward to finishing the Old Testament and getting into the New Testament.
Jesus is a more compassionate person and doesn't seem the type that would have someone stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.

I'd say there are a few Bible readers here.
Do you get the same impression about God in the Old Testament?
Do you see a contrast in God in Old vs New?
How could you not see that?

[dverna]

I have come to the conclusion that God is not perfect. The common rationalization is that we cannot ever understand Him, but that does not cover all of His mistakes.

In the 400 years between the OT and NT, I agree with you that God changed. He realized what He was doing was not working.

BTW, I also see verses that indicate God cannot predict with 100% certainty what will happen in the future. This goes against the common conception of God being all knowing. He knows all that has happened, and all that is happening, but not all of what will happen. The very concept of free will becomes questionable if He already knows what every person will do.

[Ickisrulz]

God is the same in the OT and NT.

Because God is loving, it is his intention to remove evil. He did this directly at certain times in the OT so mankind could continue to exist (i.e., flood). The Law was enacted for Israel so she could be as free from evil as possible. For those that exercised evil in Israel, they were removed so their influence would no longer exist. Israel was used to eliminate the Canaanites who practiced evil, but only when they were too far gone. Sodom and Gomorrah were also too far gone and had become the polar opposite of what God wanted man to be (little to do with homosexuality).

In the early Church, evil influences were removed directly by God (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira). We don't see this now as we are far removed from the physical evidence the First Century Christians saw. But it is God's promise that evil will be removed from earth. This will involve violence.

[dverna]

God is the same in the OT and NT.

Because God is loving, it is his intention to remove evil. He did this directly at certain times in the OT so mankind could continue to exist (i.e., flood). The Law was enacted for Israel so she could be as free from evil as possible. For those that exercised evil in Israel, they were removed so their influence would no longer exist. Israel was used to eliminate the Canaanites who practiced evil, but only when they were too far gone. Sodom and Gomorrah were also too far gone and had become the polar opposite of what God wanted man to be (little to do with homosexuality).

In the early Church, evil influences were removed directly by God (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira). We don't see this now as we are far removed from the physical evidence the First Century Christians saw. But it is God's promise that evil will be removed from earth. This will involve violence.

I will submit that God created evil. It did not start with Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. One third of the Angels rebelled before man's first sin. There could not have been evil if God had not created it...He is the creator of everything. Evil had to exist for it to be part of the Tree of Knowledge.

IMO a "loving God", would not place the Tree of Knowledge in the garden of Eden. Especially if He knows Adam and Eve would eat from it. If He knows the future, He knew they would disobey. He did not protect them from evil. He further shows his lack of love by condemning all future generations of women to suffer pain in childbirth and for man to work the soil to get his food. Seems like a lot of punishment for something He knew was going to happen and enabled it to happen. And this "loving God" inflicted that punishment not to just Adam and Eve, but on all men and women of future generations.

BTW, the rise of Satan, and the fall of 1/3 of His angels are the start of His mistakes. He either did not know what was going to happen (not all knowing?), or allowed it to happen.

We can agree to disagree. I see a difference in the God of the OT and NT.

[1hole]

It's always interesting to read the vacuous "beliefs" of self-important people who disbelieve God when they start pontificating on the limits, errors, goals and methods of the God they don't believe.

[Char-Gar]

I will regret answering this, but who knows, it might do some good. The OP is based on a very shallow understanding of the culture and context of he ancient Hebrew writer. Start by understanding that this was written thousands of years ago by an ancient Jew in what is now the Middle East.

Greco-Roman thinking comes at things in series. First there is A, then there is B, then there is C and so on. Cause and effect is determined by looking at the sequence of events. Ancient Jews didn't think like that, they thought in terms of First Cause. Let me illustrate: I have a bad life crisis, become despondent, go to the top of a tall building on jump off, killing myself when it hit the ground. To understand this, we (Greco-Roman Logic again), look at my mental state, as the prime mover of my death.

The Ancient Jew doesn't follow that logic, but goes straight to the first cause, God killed me. God created the earth which includes gravity, it was gravity that killed me and hence God killed me. The OT is pure ancient Jew thinking. The NT (with perhaps the exception of the book of Hebrews) was written in Greek using Greco-Roman thinking. Hence the asperate disconnect.

Without context, we don't ever understand the Evening News, yet folks totally discount culture and context when trying to understand the Bible. Now, I am not going to argue with any of you and try to prove I am right. I know what I am talking about and that is enough for me. Carry on with this silliness of making God a killer.

[kootne]

From Ezekiel 33:11 (OT) "I take no pleasure in the death of a wicked man but desire that all come to repentance".
For me, as a pot and not the potter, that helps see the bigger picture.

[Rizzo]

It's always interesting to read the vacuous "beliefs" of self-important people who disbelieve God when they start pontificating on the limits, errors, goals and methods of the God they don't believe.
Wow, interesting word.
Definition of vacuous:

1 : emptied of or lacking content
2 : marked by lack of ideas or intelligence : stupid, inane a vacuous mind a vacuous movie
3 : devoid of serious occupation : idle

What's the matter, can't handle the topic or questions put forth?
Can't handle the Truth?
Do you deny these things that were posted?

Instead you post insults to the OP and once again you "...bear false witness".

[Rizzo]

I will regret answering this, but who knows, it might do some good.
Char-Gar,
Despite what you say, I appreciate your input.
It is not just me reading your replies but others as well.
So, yes, "it might do some good".


The OP is based on a very shallow understanding of the culture and context of he ancient Hebrew writer. Start by understanding that this was written thousands of years ago by an ancient Jew in what is now the Middle East.
Well, what was written in the Bible was inspired, or came from God.
The one writing it (Moses?, Joshua?), or when it was written should not matter since it is God's Word.
The Bible's messages and accounts are for all generations.

So, according to you, there is a prerequisite before one reads the Bible.
Are we to first read historical accounts of the culture of the ancient Hebrews in order to understand what the Word of God (Bible) means?

Perhaps that would help understand how things were back then but would it change the meaning of what was written?


Without context, we don't ever understand the Evening News, yet folks totally discount culture and context when trying to understand the Bible.
The context is in the Bible. It tells some history and gives a sense about how things were back then.
From that context, we have things written that by today's "standards" seem (to me) grossly overkill.
Such as the man dragged out of town and stoned to death by the community, for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.


Carry on with this silliness of making God a killer.
Silliness?
Did He or did He not do those things?

[Fastleo]

I see the ot wrapped around the introduction and conclusion of the law. A set of rules no man besides Jesus could follow, A set of laws that made us all unworthy. That set a stage for Jesus life, death and most importantly his resurrection that redeemed us once and for all. Yes people and nations thought it a good idea to choose to be enemies with God but the presence of directional choices is what ensures that what we do is because of our free will.

[Char-Gar]

[QUOTE Silliness?
Did He or did He not do those things?[/QUOTE]

No he did not! People did it and blamed it on God. Folks still do that wholesale today. I hold the "plenary inspiration" of scripture and not the "verbal dictation" theory that is so prevalent on this forum. That is it. I just wanted to give a straight answer to a straight question. No more debate is needed.

[Ickisrulz]

I will submit that God created evil. It did not start with Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. One third of the Angels rebelled before man's first sin. There could not have been evil if God had not created it...He is the creator of everything. Evil had to exist for it to be part of the Tree of Knowledge.

IMO a "loving God", would not place the Tree of Knowledge in the garden of Eden. Especially if He knows Adam and Eve would eat from it. If He knows the future, He knew they would disobey. He did not protect them from evil. He further shows his lack of love by condemning all future generations of women to suffer pain in childbirth and for man to work the soil to get his food. Seems like a lot of punishment for something He knew was going to happen and enabled it to happen. And this "loving God" inflicted that punishment not to just Adam and Eve, but on all men and women of future generations.

BTW, the rise of Satan, and the fall of 1/3 of His angels are the start of His mistakes. He either did not know what was going to happen (not all knowing?), or allowed it to happen.

We can agree to disagree. I see a difference in the God of the OT and NT.

I don't agree that creating a choice is the same as creating evil.

[1hole]

Wow, interesting word.
Definition of vacuous:

1 : emptied of or lacking content
2 : marked by lack of ideas or intelligence : stupid, inane a vacuous mind a vacuous movie
3 : devoid of serious occupation : idle
..... Do you deny these things that were posted?



No, I don't deny those things were posted and your question suggesting I did is silly! But, posting spiritual things from a foundation of spiritual ignorance is, by definition, vacuous!


Instead you post insults to the OP and once again you "...bear false witness".

Your non-believer's 'I miss the point' outrage based on tortured human logic applied to judge God is exactly what I did mean and there is nothing "false" about it.

Spiritual things are spiritually seen. No non-believer is ever going to see his spiritual error based on human logic; that level of argument isn't our job assignment. God himself isn't going to make you, or anyone else, a puppet and force you to believe what you now refuse to believe about Him based on the evidence already placed before you ... not yet anyway. (Nor can a non-believer ever make a believer un-see or un-know what he has both seen and known.)

It's not rational to blame God for evil. Evil is not a created thing, it's the state of rebellious minds. Since the fall of Adam, Satan's evil influence remains deep in the warped hearts of self-centered people who reject the undeserved gift of love from Lord Jesus.

[.429&H110]

New Testament vs Old
The man stoned for breaking the Sabbath is in Numbers 15. Numbers 16 is the rebellion of Korah, where God drops Korah and all his family and tent into a pit, then closes the pit. And then 250 princes are zapped by fire from Heaven. That's an extreme penalty for mutiny.
The only way the group is going to get out of the desert, is to follow Moses following the Pillar of Fire.
Do you see where Moses gave them overnight and the next morning to repent?

Is Romans 6:23 any more gentle?
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ".

The Old is the Prophesy of the New Testament. The whole Bible is about Jesus.

[tankgunner59]

I would reply to you too, but it is obvious to all who read the OP that you want to argue for the sake of argument. I refuse to allow you to draw me into an argument for argument's sake. If you have a question simply state it without covertly insulting believers. You can reply to my post if you wish, but as I said I won't be drawn into an argument with you, so I won't be watching this post.

[Lloyd Smale]

i have faith in God. Not faith in any book. The bible was written by man. Both the old and new testements. Man cant begin to understand God and how he thinks. No doubt they tried to explain him in words over mans ability to comprehend over 2000 years ago. Much older if were talking the old testament. Was it inspired by God? i dont know but ill say this. We know the world wasnt created in 7 days and we know people didnt live to be over 500 years old ever!

We also know that Jesus being the son of God and part of the holy trinity knew his father and knew what would happen in the future. Odd thing is he made absolutely no mention of some catholic munks 100s of years later writing the new testament. ld think knowlege that important would have been at least hinted at. Why didnt he say he would inspire someone to write a book as important as that and that we should believe it as written without question. Im a catholic and get flack all the time from protestants because they say we worship idols which is total bs. I question them worshiping a book. Spending hours at bible study trying to out bible the guy sitting next to them trying to pretend they and only they know what the scriptures mean. Its ridiculous if you ask me. What the bible is to me is a guide. An instruction manual on how to live your life. Its a history book that is the closest thing we have to knowing what Jesus said and did. It is not in my opinion something touched by the hand of God and sacred. Now that even flys in the face of what my church teaches. I personally shake my head when the priest comes up the isle at the begging of mass holding a book about his head. If theres any idol worship its right there. I would also think that if God did have a hand in writing it it would be wrote so that man wouldnt have to question it or find hidden meanings in it. To say that he did was about like saying God didnt know what he was doing. I believe in God and i believe in Jesus Christ. I dont need a book or hidden meanings in it to justify my faith.

Comical thing too is with the old testament. It is part of the bible. It flys in the face of much of the old testement. Does it mean that God was wrong?? That Jesus set us straight because his father didnt know what he was doing or is it like i believe. A book wrote by imperfect men that couldnt begin to understand GOD! Funny thing too is the ones that claim the most rock solid belief its the word of God are the ones that ignore what is wrote in plain and simple terms in it. Like the body and blood of Christ. He is quoted in it saying THIS IS MY BODY THIS IS MY BLOOD. Why do some protestants so badly want to twist those words. To impart a human opinion into the words of Jesus Christ. Words he said in the last minute of his life. Probably the most important thing he taught us. SO IMPORTANT that he gave that gift to his appostles as about the last thing he did on earth. A gift that not ONE of his appostles questioned. Was Jesus making jokes or pulling a prank just hours before he was nailed to the cross.

Another thing i question is where the bible says when Jesus was nailed to the cross one of his last words were "father, why have you forsaken me" Sounds awful lot like Jesus was questioning his father. MANS WORDS. He knew what he was doing and did it without a fight. He knew why he had to do it so why question his father? Nope in my opinion your not only basing your believe on a book wrote by catholic munks but many even worship it as an idol.

[dverna]

Lloyd,

The "problem" is that the Christian religions I know of view the Bible as inspired by God and infallible. I am not in that camp...but most Christians will view anyone who does not "toe the line" as a heretic or blasphemer.


We are encouraged to read the Word of God...the Bible, and learn from it. Nothing wrong with that. But like the OP, we form opinions based on what we read. For example, when God ordered the Israelites to destroy other nations.....it was to be TOTAL destruction...every man, woman and child.

“Of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you”

It is argued that God used the Israelites as His tool to punish a people that had turned to evil. IMO that is far fetched at best....after all He had the power to destroy the evil in Sodom and Gomorrah without human assistance. I believe that what happened to the Canaanites was genocide...committed, and justified, by the Jews as working at Gods direction. BTW, the whole affair stinks...What kind of God would order a man to kill woman and children?....What were the psychological affects of such slaughter?....Would Jesus have done it?

We keep being told we cannot possibly fathom how God thinks or His plan...so we cannot question things. I do not agree with that thinking. He created us to think and question.

I agree with you that the Bible is the work of man...and man can screw up anything. So, while most of what is in the Bible is of great value, it is not the perfect Word of God. Yet, it is as close we we can get...so we study it and learn.

[1hole]

.....the ones that claim the most rock solid belief its the word of God are the ones that ignore what is wrote in plain and simple terms in it. Like the body and blood of Christ. He is quoted in it saying THIS IS MY BODY THIS IS MY BLOOD. Why do some protestants so badly want to twist those words. To impart a human opinion into the words of Jesus Christ.

Lloyd,

First, not all non-Catholics are Protestants.

Second, many things in scripture are symbolic and it behoves us to know the difference between symbolism and reality. Jesus is called the Lamb of God and the Good Shepherd, the Rock of Ages and the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, etc.; surely you understand that He is not a lamb or a shepherd, nor a rock or a lion. Likewise, no matter what your favorite priest or Pope says, you should also understand that chunks of bread and sips of wine taken in the holy communion are symbolic of Jesus' eternally sustaining body and life; they quite obviously are NOT Jesus' litteral body and life giving blood.

[Char-Gar]

deverna.......

I hold there is but one "Christian Religion", but within that camp are many, many shades, variations and iterations. They agree on a few basic points, but disagree on many points of dogma. In this disagreement, they hiss, fight, judge and diss each other. This open hostility toward other Christians over dogma is the biggest drag on the Christian faith. Most folks want to hear about Jesus, but when it comes to church and church dogma they walk away and frankly I don't blame them.

There are multiple understandings of what "inspiration" is when it comes to Scripture. I won't go into them, but trust me they exist. When it comes to forums like this, the hyper fundamental people show up to "contend" for the faith, or at least their dogma about the Christian faith. Others, just walk away, not wanting to subject themselves to such arguments they will never win or even influence. At times, I try and inject some reason, perspective and balanced scholarship into the topics. I have no expectation that what I submit will be accepted or even influence the "warriors" that abide here, but others do drift through from time to time.

[Rizzo]

Char-Gar;5197202]

No he did not! People did it and blamed it on God. Folks still do that wholesale today. I hold the "plenary inspiration" of scripture and not the "verbal dictation" theory that is so prevalent on this forum. That is it. I just wanted to give a straight answer to a straight question. No more debate is needed.
Plenary Inspiration:
The Bible is God’s Word to humanity. It was written by human authors, but God prompted and guided them to write what they did. Every word, word form, and word placement found in the Bible’s original manuscripts was divinely and intentionally written. This is the orthodox view of the church and is known as verbal plenary inspiration.

The Great Flood
Genesis 7
4 For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”

Sodom and Gomorrah
Genesis 19:23-29
Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

Plague on the first born
Exodus 11
1 Now the LORD had said to Moses, “I will bring one more plague on Pharaoh and on Egypt.

etc., etc.

Given the Plenary Inspiration definition and the Bible passages posted above, I am confused as to why you would state that man did those things and not God.
Please explain.

[Rizzo]

I would reply to you too, but it is obvious to all who read the OP that you want to argue for the sake of argument.

Yet, you did reply didn't you.


I refuse to allow you to draw me into an argument for argument's sake.
It is a discussion, not an argument, of what I've been reading in the Bible and I solicited members here for their view.
It sounds like you are the one who wants to argue.


If you have a question simply state it without covertly insulting believers.
I did simply state my questions in the 1st post.
Apparently you did not read the whole post.

So you are insulted with my post.
No insults were intended.
I apologize if I have insulted you.
......How are you insulted?



[You can reply to my post if you wish, but as I said I won't be drawn into an argument with you, so I won't be watching this post.
Hit and run, eh?
...and with no constructive input on the topic.

[Char-Gar]

That is not a valid understanding of plenary inspiration. Plenary means "full', so the total and full man is taken into consideration. That includes his history, culture, and context of the writing. The verbal dictation theory is the minority position when taking in the entire world Christian spectrum.

[Rizzo]

That is not a valid understanding of plenary inspiration. Plenary means "full', so the total and full man is taken into consideration. That includes his history, culture, and context of the writing. The verbal dictation theory is the minority position when taking in the entire world Christian spectrum.

:veryconfu
Sorry, but I am confused with what you wrote.

Bible passages state that God did those things, yet you say man did those things.
You haven't explained how you came to that conclusion when the Bible states otherwise.
In simple terms please.

[Lloyd Smale]

Lloyd,

First, not all non-Catholics are Protestants.

Second, many things in scripture are symbolic and it behoves us to know the difference between symbolism and reality. Jesus is called the Lamb of God and the Good Shepherd, the Rock of Ages and the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, etc.; surely you understand that He is not a lamb or a shepherd, nor a rock or a lion. Likewise, no matter what your favorite priest or Pope says, you should also understand that chunks of bread and sips of wine taken in the holy communion are symbolic of Jesus' eternally sustaining body and life; they quite obviously are NOT Jesus' litteral body and life giving blood.

odd thing is theres not way to determine what is fact and what is parables. Every denomination seems to differ in opinions. Like i said if it was truely wrote or the man was inspired by God youd think it would have been much clearer. Why did he leave room for MANS interpetation. If i were god and wanted a book on how i wanted you to act if you wanted to get into heaven it would be clear and to the point. Then all the importance some put on it today thinking if you dont have scripture memorized your a failed christian. Keep in mind that the average man back then didnt read a lick. Never held a bible. Only the rich and powerful could read and afford a bible. Then my own church for decades read it in latin so that we couldnt understand what they were saying. Pretty scetchy in my opionion to call it holy or sacred. Its a book written by man. Greatest history book ever wrote though.

yes i realize that not all Christians that arent catholic are protestant. Many even called protestant that shouldnt be. Some border line cults. By the way didnt God inspire the old testament?? Did he miss the part where he was going to send his son to change our minds. Seems to me he said the JEWS were his people. Never heard him or moses or any of the old testament profits mention Jesus. Seems odd an all knowing gods best hint was some profit saying a savior would be sent. Doubt he meant that that savior was going to kick the Jews out of heaven.

Dont get me wrong. I go to mass every sunday. Ive read the bible cover to cover a number of times. But ive found more questions then answer in both the bible and church. It doesnt change the fact i believe in God and have faith in him. But i dont need a priest or a book to tell me how that faith should be expressed.

[1hole]

.... odd thing is theres not way to determine what is fact and what is parables.

I would challenge you that there's no way to determine which parts of scripture is fact and which is parable (and if it matters) but that's not the question before us now.

It is a fact that Bible allegory and metaphor are not parables; as Hebrew figures of speech surely that's not hard to grasp.

It is a fact that the human Jesus is not and never has been a lamb or a lion, nor is he a rock. And, contrary to Roman Catholic teaching, the holy communion elements are quite obviously not Jesus' literal human body and blood.

Parables are human stories Jesus told to clearly illustrate ideas in ways others could easily relate to. Thus, fact is, the ceremonial Lord's Table elements of the body and blood of Jesus are not a parable. Instead, it's metaphor, meaning they are strong representations of something they most certainly are not.

[Bigslug]

Rather than the perfect engineer, OT God would seem to be more like Thomas Edison randomly trying different filament materials in order to find something that makes a successful light bulb, or maybe a potter who can't get his blob of clay properly centered on the potter's wheel, Before the great Biblical calamities, there were the great mass extinction events. This is a lot of pressing of the "reset" button for a being that is supposed to be able to generate his desired reality via finger snaps. Then there's this premise that a third of God's angels - who presumably got answers straight from the source and had the scope to understand them - agreed that there was good enough reason to resign from the cabinet. That's enough of a break-off to form a legitimate political party with a real shot at winning elections

But as an outside observer to Western monotheism, I don't know that there's really much difference between OT "be good or I'll cover you in locusts" and NT "embrace Jesus or go to Hell". Both seem suspiciously like constructs by men intended to keep other men in line. Occam's Razor - who is more likely to lay down rules like that; the Uber-Being that can create entire galaxies with a thought, or the local strong man wanting an extra tool that keeps peasants obedient, farming, and paying the taxes that keep him fat, drunk, and well-wenched? Also, the OT is based on the premise that the Hebrews were God's chosen. Didn't he also make Egyptians? Nubians? Syrians? Persians? If so, The Book seems a mite clannish and human-generated as an excuse for reinforcing a claim. (interesting that with the entire planet and universe, we have to fight to this day over a speck called Jerusalem)

Either from inside or outside of the mythology, I can't see how one comes to the conclusion that the Great Entity is one of perfection, benevolence, or even competence.

[fixit]

I need to comment, but first apologize if this has already been said.... I did not read all of the posts. The nature of evil is much understand. Many think of evil as the opposite of good, but that would be wrong.... evil is the absence of good, just as darkness is the absence of light. Some may call this semantics, but I would argue otherwise.

[Dieselhorses]

Here we go again. All I know is that my mama always said "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!" Same with God. He made us and He can break us. Trying to understand the Bible with the mortal mind doesn't work.

[Lloyd Smale]

Here we go again. All I know is that my mama always said "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!" Same with God. He made us and He can break us. Trying to understand the Bible with the mortal mind doesn't work.

that is the real truth. But many sure seem to claim to be experts on it.

[Teddy (punchie)]

Boy o boy ....

Now open your closed hearts.

You are not looking at the bible as followers, as sheep that follow their masters call.

Your trying to make an understanding where there is confusion. Harden hearts look this up.

God has made the Bible for you to understand; Repent, confess that you know Jesus and your a sinner. Get baptized, born again, follow, love God, Jesus.

Look up:

Children, child, kid

Goats behavior

Sheep behavior

Meek

Sinner

Repent

Look at these for there basic meaning not all twisted up look to be a hard headed goat ready to fight your master. This my help you understand.

Before it gets all twisted I live by the sword I will die by the sword.

Most of the bible is a history facts of the happening that needed to be told for a basic understanding. You'll see my keep saying basic. I not going to be able answer all the question but hope I can help you understand God and Jesus.

[Teddy (punchie)]

Look at the flood.

Let try to understand this. Was there rain before the flood?

Did the people make fun of Noah?

Was Noah a out case of the normal thinking?

How many years did he try to teach, explain to the masses that a flood was coming?

Would they have been saved if they would have helped build and get in before the rain started?

"Basically don't wait to long to listen to God Word for if you wait until the door is shut and rain is falling it's too late. He's (God) not going to list to your calls for help. You are not one of his flock "

[Teddy (punchie)]

Sodom and Gomorrah

Explain the basic story here. In your own words.

Were they given a chance. Did this happen? What is the meaning of the names?

[Rizzo]

Rather than the perfect engineer, OT God would seem to be more like Thomas Edison randomly trying different filament materials in order to find something that makes a successful light bulb, or maybe a potter who can't get his blob of clay properly centered on the potter's wheel, Before the great Biblical calamities, there were the great mass extinction events. This is a lot of pressing of the "reset" button for a being that is supposed to be able to generate his desired reality via finger snaps. Then there's this premise that a third of God's angels - who presumably got answers straight from the source and had the scope to understand them - agreed that there was good enough reason to resign from the cabinet. That's enough of a break-off to form a legitimate political party with a real shot at winning elections

But as an outside observer to Western monotheism, I don't know that there's really much difference between OT "be good or I'll cover you in locusts" and NT "embrace Jesus or go to Hell". Both seem suspiciously like constructs by men intended to keep other men in line. Occam's Razor - who is more likely to lay down rules like that; the Uber-Being that can create entire galaxies with a thought, or the local strong man wanting an extra tool that keeps peasants obedient, farming, and paying the taxes that keep him fat, drunk, and well-wenched? Also, the OT is based on the premise that the Hebrews were God's chosen. Didn't he also make Egyptians? Nubians? Syrians? Persians? If so, The Book seems a mite clannish and human-generated as an excuse for reinforcing a claim. (interesting that with the entire planet and universe, we have to fight to this day over a speck called Jerusalem)

Either from inside or outside of the mythology, I can't see how one comes to the conclusion that the Great Entity is one of perfection, benevolence, or even competence.

You have a way of expressing your views by way of your analogies (i.e. Edison, the potter) that make your point.
Much like Jesus did with his parables.

I think that discussions like this (your analogies and perhaps my thread title God, the Killer) make some people here nervous, angry and apparently insulted.
That is not the intent.

I've read the Bible before, but this time I am seeing stuff that really stands out to me.
That is, (at this point in the OT) all the killing going on by God.

I imagine that to question or criticize God would have gotten the person stoned in those days.
There is some verbal "stoning" that does go on here once in awhile though.

But, when I read that stuff it tends to go against what I have been told, or read, since my youth. That is the notion that God is all loving, perfect, etc., etc.
So,....thoughts and questions about what I have just read start swirling around in my head and bring me to a point that makes me wonder what others think about them.
Hence, I bring them to this forum for discussion.

Thanks for your input.

[Rizzo]

I need to comment, but first apologize if this has already been said.... I did not read all of the posts. The nature of evil is much understand. Many think of evil as the opposite of good, but that would be wrong.... evil is the absence of good, just as darkness is the absence of light. Some may call this semantics, but I would argue otherwise.

You seem to be focused on evil.
Per the 1st post, this thread is about Bible passages that show God as a mass killer.
Are you suggesting that God is evil?
I am not suggesting that.

[Ickisrulz]

Sodom and Gomorrah

Explain the basic story here. In your own words.

Were they given a chance. Did this happen? What is the meaning of the names?

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is juxtaposed with the story of Abraham feeding and caring for the strangers. It is a comparison between a loving neighbor and a wicked city. Abraham cares for the strangers while the citizens of S&G attempt to attack them in order to fulfill their own desires. The actions are polar opposites. S&G are the opposite of everything God wanted man to be. Abraham meets God's requirement to "love your neighbor."

S&G were destroyed because they were totally wicked without even one person, save Lot, who was even remotely righteous. Notice how in the NT that Lot is called "righteous." He was the only one in S&G to attempt to protect his visitors (despite his weird methods).

[Bigslug]

You have a way of expressing your views by way of your analogies (i.e. Edison, the potter) that make your point.
Much like Jesus did with his parables.

I think that discussions like this (your analogies and perhaps my thread title God, the Killer) make some people here nervous, angry and apparently insulted.
That is not the intent.

I've read the Bible before, but this time I am seeing stuff that really stands out to me.
That is, (at this point in the OT) all the killing going on by God. . .


"All the killing going on by God. . ."

Call this another one of my analogies. You ever watch the nature documentary series Blue Planet, about ocean life? In it, there are numerous instances of huge schools of millions of sardines, anchovies, mackerel or other small fish that get herded into "bait balls" and devoured practically "to the last man" by dolphin, whales, tuna, and other predators.

Kinda makes me wonder if sardines raise their children with moralistic warnings that the consequences of of a life of sin is to die in a "Bluefin Apocalypse".

My point (maybe) is that we probably aren't dying more horribly or in greater numbers than any other critter on this ball of water and dirt - the difference may be that we just have the ability to dwell on it.

That intelligence may well be the big Darwinian experiment, and we could certainly have a discussion on whether that whole "Tree of Knowledge" thing was a worthwhile attempt or not, and whether or not God/Nature/Whatever is working to purge it from us.

[Lloyd Smale]

Boy o boy ....

Now open your closed hearts.

You are not looking at the bible as followers, as sheep that follow their masters call.

Your trying to make an understanding where there is confusion. Harden hearts look this up.

God has made the Bible for you to understand; Repent, confess that you know Jesus and your a sinner. Get baptized, born again, follow, love God, Jesus.

Look up:

Children, child, kid

Goats behavior

Sheep behavior

Meek

Sinner

Repent

Look at these for there basic meaning not all twisted up look to be a hard headed goat ready to fight your master. This my help you understand.

Before it gets all twisted I live by the sword I will die by the sword.

Most of the bible is a history facts of the happening that needed to be told for a basic understanding. You'll see my keep saying basic. I not going to be able answer all the question but hope I can help you understand God and Jesus.

Teddy your flowery words are about as confusing as the bible were talking about. Bunch of flowery words that say nothing. Hope you impressed someone. Try again and this time dont speek in circles.

[1hole]

... we probably aren't dying more horribly or in greater numbers than any other critter on this ball of water and dirt - the difference may be that we just have the ability to dwell on it.

Big, you're lightly touching on a great truth those who condemn God for "killing" so many people in the Old Testament don't get. There is scripture saying there is a time to live and a time to die (Ecc 3:1-8) and no one in this present world is going to get out of here alive; so far the birth to death rate for all ages has basically been 1:1. Thus, in the large view, we self-made human interlecsuls sitting around and contemplating our own belly buttons while getting our panties in a wad towards God because bunches of people die seems quite petty.

Paul said it best, "I know whom I have believed and I am persuaded that he is able to keep what I've committed to him in the end." Later there will be time to study things such as individual life spans that I don't understand right now. For now, I just accept that God REALLY doesn't need my help figgering out how human history (collective or personal) should rightly be unrolled.

Bottom line, advising and correcting God is way above my pay grade; he knows more and is smarter than me anyway. I have my hands full just dealing with the things I do know about and leave the rest up to Him.

[JimB..]

This thread about to shift to a discussion of spiritual death vs physical death or will it take another page?

[1hole]

This thread about to shift to a discussion of spiritual death vs physical death or will it take another page?

I believe that much difference in topic warrants a new page.

[Rizzo]

This thread about to shift to a discussion of spiritual death vs physical death or will it take another page?


I believe that much difference in topic warrants a new page.

I think that a discussion on spiritual death vs physical death would be good.
Not here, obviously, since this is the God the Killer thread.

Why don't one of your start a new thread with that as the topic?
In my opinion, we need more threads here to keep this forum alive instead of it becoming stagnant at times.

1Hole, I don't recall you starting a thread in this forum,...now is your opportunity!

[1hole]

I think that a discussion on spiritual death vs physical death would be good.
Not here, obviously, since this is the God the Killer thread.

Why don't one of your start a new thread with that as the topic?
In my opinion, we need more threads here to keep this forum alive instead of it becoming stagnant at times.

1Hole, I don't recall you starting a thread in this forum,...now is your opportunity!

I've started several threads here but I don't do it often. Guess every day is an opportunity for all of us to do so but this one is JimB's idea, let's let him open it.

I know from reading here that the truths of temporal human life vs. spiritual life now and physically living eternally in heaven vs. physically living eternally in hell can be fuzzy so it gets badly twisted around in many good people's minds, both Christian believers as well as non-believers, so it should be interesting to discuss.

[444ttd]

some excerpts from the banned gospels from the council of Nicea(AD 325). Emperor Constantine was the "editor" for the Old and New Testament of the Christian Holy Bible. i was a roman catholic, after years of reading, i am a animistic shinto-like christian.


What many people don't know is that there is so much more to the Four Gospels than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There was also The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary Magdalene and other gospels that were banned from the Bible.

In 325AD the Council of Nicea under Emperor Constantine had to decide on the layout of the Holy Christian Bible for the burgeoning new religion. What follows here is a list of the books left out of the Bible.

The Gospel of the Birth of Mary
The Protevangelion
The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ
Thomas's Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ
The Epistles of Jesus Christ and Abgarus King of Edessa
The Gospel of Nicodemus, Formerly Called the Acts of Pontius Pilate
The Apostles’ Creed
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Laodiceans
The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to Seneca, with Seneca's to Paul
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
The General Epistle of Barnabas
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnæans
The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Second Book of Hermas, Called His Commands
The Third Book of Hermas, Which Is Called His Similitudes
Letters of Herod and Pilate
The Lost Gospel According to Peter

The Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene were banned by a man by the name of Saint Ireneaus. St Ireneaus chose four Gospels because he reasoned we only have four compass points and four winds of the earth, so we only need four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). The Gospels of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Madgalene didn't fit in with St. Ireaneus beliefs so he condemed them as heresay and declared no one was going to have them.

The Banned Gospels of the Bible documentary is a 9 part documentary available to view here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L7cQ3BrD5U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8DK6Fe0lf4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ON87vtS8jg&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opMhJBFjJMw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYkb8esadfM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_UAx9GUpMw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvXz3N6o9ns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhU991nD3Ig&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhxU6Bz3nEo&feature=relmfu

[fixit]

You seem to be focused on evil.
Per the 1st post, this thread is about Bible passages that show God as a mass killer.
Are you suggesting that God is evil?
I am not suggesting that.

Be careful how you approach an explanation. In no way did I say God is evil, I merely made the distinction between what is good, and what is evil. The direction of this thread had devolved to the point that it appeared to accuse God of evil, as many have attempted in times past. My posting was less a response to your initial posting, and more an address to the developing trend that seemed to suggest God to have promoted sin, which isn't going to happen!

[.429&H110]

I know when I am being ignored. So was Jeremiah.
First I evangelize, then I apologize.
Before you read what is not in the Gospel, please read the Gospel?
To answer #32 Sodom= go beneath... Gomorrah= "omah"-corn
God is neither good nor bad, God is the Great "I AM"
We will all meet Him, one day. Then you can ask Him why.
Thus Book of James:

13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

"Wages of sin is death" writes Paul

Jesus says over and over "Let those with ears to hear, hear"
How is it that your hearts are so hardened?
Was it a religion that did that?
We need no empty words when America hangs by a thread
we need to renew the covenant and stop the idolatry.
George Washington swore an oath in his first inaugural and
prayed in the church in the shadow of the World Trade Center.
Isaiah 9:11 came true.
God does not ever forget a covenant. Have we forgotten?
You ask me if God kills.
Yes, He does, in His own time. Not mine.
He didn't kill me when He could have.
Why? I'm gonna ask Him, one day.
I had better have a good reason why He let me live.
nunc demittis

[JimB..]

I've started several threads here but I don't do it often. Guess every day is an opportunity for all of us to do so but this one is JimB's idea, let's let him open it.

I know from reading here that the truths of temporal human life vs. spiritual life now and physically living eternally in heaven vs. physically living eternally in hell can be fuzzy so it gets badly twisted around in many good people's minds, both Christian believers as well as non-believers, so it should be interesting to discuss.

Quite certain that we’ve had this discussion here not to long ago, and I’ll be offline a lot this week, but maybe in a few weeks.

[Char-Gar]

The list is not of "banned gospels" but a list of pseudographica (false writing). The early Church was plagued by such false writtings. Folks would write whatever kind of nonsense they wanted and falsely state the author was some noted person. It was quite a problem in the early church to maintain a central core of its teachings. This was addressed in two ways.

1. The development of creeds which stated the core truth of the Christian faith.

2. The development of the Canon of Scripture. In developing what scriptures were "Canonical" and which were not. There were standards (canon) which were applied. They were;

A. Was it written by an Apostle or under the authority of an Apostle?
B. Was it accepted as genuine by the 1st. Century church, and circulated in those churches?
C. Was the content consistent with the undisputed four Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John)

Notes on A above: The false Gospels contained many weird and bazaar statements about Jesus. There were a number of "infancy gospels" in these false writings. One, I recall had Jesus as a child, making some doves out of mud. Along came some bully boys and smashed all of his mud doves. In retaliation, Jesus cursed them and they withered up and died. This is wholly inconsistent with what we know about Jesus.

As the Christian faith moved forward and was no longer under the leadership of those who knew Jesus, there was allot of folks trying to reinterpret Jesus and filter him through various Greek religions and philosophies. Gnosticism was one of the better known attempts to reinvent the Christian faith. It was a constant struggle for the early church to call balls and strikes on these perversions.

This struggle is not over as folks on the left and the right try and put their stamp on the historic Christian faith.

To call these false writing "banned gospels" is to display a massive ignorance of church history and the subject at hand. The scoffers love to point to them in their efforts to discount Scripture as the rule and guide for the Christian faith.

[JimB..]

The list is not of "banned gospels" but a list of pseudographica (false writing). The early Church was plagued by such false writtings. Folks would write whatever kind of nonsense they wanted and falsely state the author was some noted person. It was quite a problem in the early church to maintain a central core of its teachings. This was addressed in two ways.

1. The development of creeds which stated the core truth of the Christian faith.

2. The development of the Canon of Scripture. In developing what scriptures were "Canonical" and which were not. There were standards (canon) which were applied. They were;

A. Was it written by an Apostle or under the authority of an Apostle?
B. Was it accepted as genuine by the 1st. Century church, and circulated in those churches?
C. Was the content consistent with the undisputed four Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John)

Notes on A above: The false Gospels contained many weird and bazaar statements about Jesus. There were a number of "infancy gospels" in these false writings. One, I recall had Jesus as a child, making some doves out of mud. Along came some bully boys and smashed all of his mud doves. In retaliation, Jesus cursed them and they withered up and died. This is wholly inconsistent with what we know about Jesus.

As the Christian faith moved forward and was no longer under the leadership of those who knew Jesus, there was allot of folks trying to reinterpret Jesus and filter him through various Greek religions and philosophies. Gnosticism was one of the better known attempts to reinvent the Christian faith. It was a constant struggle for the early church to call balls and strikes on these perversions.

This struggle is not over as folks on the left and the right try and put their stamp on the historic Christian faith.

To call these false writing "banned gospels" is to display a massive ignorance of church history and the subject at hand. The scoffers love to point to them in their efforts to discount Scripture as the rule and guide for the Christian faith.

Thanks, I hoped that you’d address this.

[Char-Gar]

Thanks, I hoped that you’d address this.

I am glad you found it helpful. To help folks understand was the reason I took the time to put up the post. I will now just try and ignore the "slings and arrows" that are certain to come my way from folks with various theological axes to grind. This forum is predictable if it is anything'

"Always remember, my younger brother, that theology is not God. It is just people talking about God".

[1hole]

.... Emperor Constantine was the "editor" for the Old and New Testament of the Christian Holy Bible.

Not quite so but you repeat what many Bible conspiracy quacks proclaim.

Constantine gets a bad rap. He had nothing to do with the Old Testament canon as such ("canon" is the correct table of contents for both parts of the Bible). Jews had established the O.T canon several hundred years before ol' Conny was born. Conny was the emperor of the Roman Empire in the early 300 AD period; he at least leaned towards Christianity. He was well aware that Christianity was a growing force in his empire and many spurious writings claiming to be God's were floating around.

He called a meeting of Roman empire church leaders to Nicia, Turkey, in 325 AD, to establish approved canons of both the Old and New Testaments for use in all Roman churches. (They did but that approved list wasn't finalised until about 380 AD and Constantine was dead.)

The attending church leaders at Nicea submitted books for consideration. They studied, argued and voted over their favorite books until only those we now have were left.

Constantine was no theologian and didn't try to be; he simply approved one of the lists submitted to him by the council to become the approved canon.

Thus, no books were "banned" from use, at least not as such, because the Council didn't have that power; the other books were simply not approved for canon. Individual churches could use any books they wished but they did it without the thumbprint of the Church Council.


What follows here is a list of the books left out of the Bible.

The Gospel of the Birth of Mary
The Protevangelion
The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ
Thomas's Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ
The Epistles of Jesus --- Etc, etc.

Well, I suppose every book ever written but not included in the NT canon was effectively "left out" or "banned." But the rejected writings at the time were deemed forgeries, and some were partly or largely uninspired by God (i.e., wrong), others were redundant to what was written in other already accepted books. Those wise men lived in times still close to the events and I trust their judgements. Meaning I don't believe God has allowed any part of his message to be lost.


The Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene were banned by a man by the name of Saint Ireneaus. St Ireneaus chose four Gospels because he reasoned we only have four compass points and four winds of the earth, so we only need four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). The Gospels of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Madgalene didn't fit in with St. Ireaneus beliefs so he condemed them as heresay and declared no one was going to have them.

What was rejected and what was included in the canon was based on a vote, book by book, by the Nicean council. Contrary to what some have written, no one man (or group) has had the legitimate authority to make such judgements on the canon.


The Banned Gospels of the Bible documentary is a 9 part documentary available to view here:

"Gospel" is a Greek word that simply means "good news". For Christians gospel specifically means the good news of man's salvation by the grace (love) and mercy of God through faith in Lord Jesus, not according to our works.

I haven't viewed or read any of the "gospels" you find on youtube (and won't) but I greatly doubt any of them actually tell us anything different and truthful about the real gospel that's found in the first four books of the N.T.

Bottom line, youtube is a great source of some very good spiritual stuff and I often watch it. But, sadly, it also has some very bad religious poo pushers we should quickly reject. (Including those who proclaim they have found "forbidden/hidden/over-looked" bible books.)

Making money through religious "documentaries" and wonderful new "gospel books", and now TV, is and always has been a great way to pick up a lot of money by soliciting for false preachers and their special books. Do a web search for the likes of Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, Jim Baker, Joel Osteen, Benny Hind, et al.

[Rizzo]

Be careful how you approach an explanation. In no way did I say God is evil, I merely made the distinction between what is good, and what is evil.

Hmmm,....well, you be careful what you post in a thread then.
You posted about your view on good vs evil in a thread with a different topic (God).
It was a natural assumption of mine to assume you were on topic.
Hence the question to you if you were suggesting God was evil.
I did not say that you said God was evil.
Get it?


The direction of this thread had devolved to the point that it appeared to accuse God of evil, as many have attempted in times past. My posting was less a response to your initial posting, and more an address to the developing trend that seemed to suggest God to have promoted sin, which isn't going to happen!

For me, while reading about all the killing going on by God, it really did not occur to me about the "sin" issue.
One of God's Commandments is "Thou shalt not kill."
Yet, there are many passages that show He was involved in those killings, directly or indirectly.
There are several stories where God instructs Moses to send his people to destroy and kill other "communities" (for lack of better words).
So, it would seem from reading the Bible that God did "promote sin".

I must say that this bothers me a bit to read these things about God, yet, there it is in black and white in the Bible.
We can pass this off as not being able to understand God and his motives.
Just shrug our shoulders and move on because we are not capable of understanding.

Because of that, perhaps this Deep Theology Discussion forum is a waste of time since we do not know.
Anyway, this is how I think and wonder what others think, so it is a good place to discuss these things.

[Rizzo]

I know when I am being ignored.
Not sure what you mean by that 429&H110.
I do read your posts and appreciate your input.

Looking back at your other post here you asked:

The only way the group is going to get out of the desert, is to follow Moses following the Pillar of Fire.
Do you see where Moses gave them overnight and the next morning to repent?

No, I do not recall that part but I will reread that section.

Is Romans 6:23 any more gentle?
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ".
Not more gentle, just another possible explanation for why God did what He did.

How is it that your hearts are so hardened?
Was it a religion that did that?
For me, my heart is not hardened.
My love for God has not changed.
As I get older my thought process has changed though.
My previous readings of the Bible did not have such an effect on me as it does now.

Regarding religion, I was raised Catholic but I am not a practicing Catholic.
However, Catholic school did give me a good foundation for how I am today.

[Rizzo]

I am glad you found it helpful. To help folks understand was the reason I took the time to put up the post.
Like I've stated before, I appreciate your input.
However, I am still trying to understand some of what you have posted.
See Post #23 that you have seemed to overlook.


I will now just try and ignore the "slings and arrows" that are certain to come my way from folks with various theological axes to grind. This forum is predictable if it is anything'
A bit paranoid there aren't you?
Slings and arrows at you?
LOL, I get a barage of those at me when I try to discuss issues such as this.

Replying to you and questioning what you have posted is not an attack on you.
It is what DTD is about isn't it?
An exchange of views/beliefs for everyone's benefit.

[JimB..]

One of God's Commandments is "Thou shalt not kill."

Are you certain? I believe that the correct translation is “murder” rather than “kill.”

Lots of killing in the old testament, both by God directly and by his orders.

[Char-Gar]

Like I've stated before, I appreciate your input.
However, I am still trying to understand some of what you have posted.
See Post #23 that you have seemed to overlook.


A bit paranoid there aren't you?
Slings and arrows at you?
LOL, I get a barage of those at me when I try to discuss issues such as this.

Replying to you and questioning what you have posted is not an attack on you.
It is what DTD is about isn't it?
An exchange of views/beliefs for everyone's benefit.

I will not engage with you, because your are not asking honest questions. You wish to argue and dispute and use fake questions as your stalking horse. I will not play your games. You will now be added to my ignore list.

[ShooterAZ]

Please keep it civil here guys...

[1hole]

Are you certain? I believe that the correct translation is “murder” rather than “kill.”

You are correct, the proper wording would have been, should have been, "You shall not murder." That one word 1611 KJV translation error (Exodus 20:13) has caused mankind a lot of unnecessary spiritual turmoil.

[Ickisrulz]

You are correct, the proper wording would have been, should have been, "You shall not murder." That one word 1611 KJV translation error (Exodus 20:13) has caused mankind a lot of unnecessary spiritual turmoil.

The first widely accepted English update to the KJV, the Revised Version of 1885, translated Ex 20:13 to "do no murders." Then the Americans made their input to the Revised Version in 1901 (calling it the ASV) and for some reason went back to "do not kill."

Most modern English versions indicate murder vs. killing.

However, a full grasp of the entire Bible would lead one to arrive at this conclusion without having to rely on the translation of a single word.

Added: Cambridge Bibles makes a really nice KJV/Revised Version interlinear that shows differences between the two translations. Where the text differs, it is indicated in two smaller parallel lines.

[1hole]

Most modern English versions indicate murder vs. killing.

However, a full grasp of the entire Bible would lead one to arrive at this conclusion without having to rely on the translation of a single word.

Quite true. But I know of no one who has a complete understanding of the Bible so we must do the best we can with what we do know. And we do know that "You shall do no murder" is what was meant by God.

[Ickisrulz]

Quite true. But I know of no one who has a complete understanding of the Bible so we must do the best we can with what we do know. And we do know that "You shall do no murder" is what was meant by God.

What I meant by "full grasp of the entire Bible" is an understanding of the Big Picture, not an understanding of every detail. Plenty of people have the former even if they don't know all the details or get some of them wrong. It is not a difficult book to understand when approached properly and honestly (as a Big Picture that is).

The real problem is people who fixate on what they feel are contradictions. When a reader concludes the Bible contradicts itself, they are missing something or looking for excuses.

[.429&H110]

Rizzo, thanks for the kind words
my pastor reads this space and warns me
it is a waste of time.

My time is better spent visiting those who are glad to see me
doing their handy man stuff, driving, and listening.
Time better spent writing devotionals, learning English from my editor.
Better spent springing geezers imprisoned in solitary for life.
If you can walk, walk-out-of-the-hospital!
Have you been to a hospital lately? Not good.

Does God kill people? Why, yes, He does.
Does God save people? Why, yes, He does.

Y'all would do better showing up Wednesday nights;
that's when the heavy lifting is done.
Table washing is a new science.
All prayers!
nunc demittus

[Rizzo]

Are you certain? I believe that the correct translation is “murder” rather than “kill.”

Lots of killing in the old testament, both by God directly and by his orders.

Well, that does change things doesn't it.
I went to Catholic school and was taught Thou shalt not kill.
The Bible (KJV) that I am currently reading says Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not murder sounds more correct to me.
Like I mentioned before, it bothered me to think that God was sinning.
Thank you for making that point.

<sigh> So now we have a Bible that states one thing and man has decided that God meant something else.
The God inspired Bible is wrong?
Aren't translations God guided or inspired as well?
:veryconfu

[Rizzo]

.....my pastor reads this space and warns me it is a waste of time.
<smile> Yet, your pastor reads here. That's kind of funny.

My opinion is that you can decide if it is a waste of time or not.
I have read posts that you have made in the past so that tells me it is not a waste of time.
You contribute your views, as others do, and it makes a good mix for discussions.

Speaking of contributing, it sounds like you are a very busy person helping others. Good for you!

I must say that some of your earlier posts I had some trouble understanding what you were saying.
Now I learn from you that you are learning English.
Ya know, I have often thought of how hard it would be to learn English.
I before E except after C.....most of the time.
To, too, two.
Stuff like that.
You are doing fine....,429.


Y'all would do better showing up Wednesday nights;
that's when the heavy lifting is done.
Table washing is a new science.
All prayers!
nunc demittus

Thank you 429$H110.

[JimB..]

Well, that does change things doesn't it.
I went to Catholic school and was taught Thou shalt not kill.
The Bible (KJV) that I am currently reading says Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not murder sounds more correct to me.
Like I mentioned before, it bothered me to think that God was sinning.
Thank you for making that point.

<sigh> So now we have a Bible that states one thing and man has decided that God meant something else.
The God inspired Bible is wrong?
Aren't translations God guided or inspired as well?
:veryconfu

I was also taught “thou shall not kill” in catholic school, but we also had discussions about moral wars and self defense, so even then we knew that something seemed off about it.

Translation isn’t straightforward. Native alaskan languages have many words for snow, each meaning something slightly different, but in english they are all pretty much snow. Americans can’t agree on what the language of the second amendment to the constitution means even though it was written only 250 years ago and in the language that most of us use every day. “We are killing them” means something entirely different in a letter home from a soldier than it does when said by a coach to his team in the locker room at halftime.

The question “does God protect his word, and if so, how?” Is way outside the scope of this thread, and I’m not the guy to provide the answer.

[Lloyd Smale]

Please keep it civil here guys...

thats another sad thing about the book so many hold as sacred. It causes so much argument and even hatred between people. Like i said i just cant buy into it being written by God is such a way as to cause this. I would think that God if he did write a book would want it to unite christians. Just look at this thread and youll see it does about the opposite.

[JimB..]

thats another sad thing about the book so many hold as sacred. It causes so much argument and even hatred between people. Like i said i just cant buy into it being written by God is such a way as to cause this. I would think that God if he did write a book would want it to unite christians. Just look at this thread and youll see it does about the opposite.

Does the divisiveness comes from the book, or from the readers?

[Lloyd Smale]

Does the divisiveness comes from the book, or from the readers?

mostly the readers Jim. The ones that somehow think memorizing it or think there so smart they have it figured out better then the next guy. Its kind of like a gun. Its not dangerous with no finger on the trigger. You know the type. the ones that use scriptures to win arguments and think there impressing others.

[Rizzo]

I woke up this morning thinking about Thou shalt not kill vs Thou shalt not murder.
I nosed around the web and found this:
(Source: https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-killing-and-vs-murder/)

Kill
Kill is a term that is used to denote death of human beings though it is also used for death of animals, as well.

Murder
Murder is a term that is reserved for intentional killing of a human being. Any instance where the death of a human being is because of malicious intent and action of another person is referred to as a murder.

What is the difference between Killing and Murder?
The most important distinction between a killing and murder is that of motivation and intent. A murder has the intent and is planned, whereas killing does not have intent.

• You can kill animals but in case of human beings, you murder them.

• When the loss of life is accidental, the term used is killing.

• Loss of lives because of natural disaster and epidemic is also killing.

• Soldiers kill, they do not murder in war.
--------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the Bible, it says Thou shalt not kill.
However, how were the people to carry out their burnt offerings without killing an animal?
Despite what it says (Thou shalt not kill) it does make sense that Thou shalt not murder would be more appropiate.

God is killing people and inspiring the killing of people in the Bible.
As troublesome as that is (to me) it seems that it is murder that is going on.

"Any instance where the death of a human being is because of malicious intent and action of another person is referred to as a murder."

Help me with this please.
It still seems that those acts are sinful acts.

[Ickisrulz]

I woke up this morning thinking about Thou shalt not kill vs Thou shalt not murder.
I nosed around the web and found this:
(Source: https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-killing-and-vs-murder/)

Kill
Kill is a term that is used to denote death of human beings though it is also used for death of animals, as well.

Murder
Murder is a term that is reserved for intentional killing of a human being. Any instance where the death of a human being is because of malicious intent and action of another person is referred to as a murder.

What is the difference between Killing and Murder?
The most important distinction between a killing and murder is that of motivation and intent. A murder has the intent and is planned, whereas killing does not have intent.

• You can kill animals but in case of human beings, you murder them.

• When the loss of life is accidental, the term used is killing.

• Loss of lives because of natural disaster and epidemic is also killing.

• Soldiers kill, they do not murder in war.
--------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the Bible, it says Thou shalt not kill.
However, how were the people to carry out their burnt offerings without killing an animal?
Despite what it says (Thou shalt not kill) it does make sense that Thou shalt not murder would be more appropiate.

God is killing people and inspiring the killing of people in the Bible.
As troublesome as that is (to me) it seems that it is murder that is going on.

"Any instance where the death of a human being is because of malicious intent and action of another person is referred to as a murder."

Help me with this please.
It still seems that those acts are sinful acts.


As has been stated many times, "don't kill" should be "don't murder." Even if you disagree with that change to the translation, the biblical record shows this.

The first command after the flood was the death penalty for murderers. The Law lists many offenses that result in the death penalty also. The death penalty is a punishment, not a crime or murder when carried out.

Israel was involved in many wars. Some directed by God and others not directed by God. Killing opponents in war is not murder or a crime. No rebukes were issued for Israel killing her enemies in war.

The Bible records many times when God worked directly to remove evildoers. In these cases it was to remove/punish the wicked and eliminate bad influences. Again, punishment is not murder. I'll also point out that God mandated the death of every human being after the fall. This was to make sure man did not live forever in a fallen state and have to endure the unending misery it would have brought.

[1hole]

The first widely accepted English update to the KJV, the Revised Version of 1885, translated Ex 20:13 to "do no murders." Then the Americans made their input to the Revised Version in 1901 (calling it the ASV) and for some reason went back to "do not kill.

I know why the word change back to the KJV-AV was made. A friend who worked to give us the excellent New KJV says there were outraged howls of blasphemy because the translators had the audacity to "change God's word!" Meaning they had dared to correct many of the KJV-AV's translation errors.

Many good people were - and remain - certain that the KJV-AV itself was the infallible word-for-word Bible (it is not) and, from that, it follows to some folk that God spoke to man in Shakespearean English!

All of that's silly of course but, to a lot of people, the controversy itself made textual corrections of any kind a sin of high magnitude. (However, I've read that many of the KJV translators went home and right back to studying and preaching from their old favorite Bibles!)

The public uproar hurt acceptance and sales of the newer (and more accurate) American Standard Version so "murder" was changed back to the inaccurate "kill". And the same irrational positions about the KJV-AV are still with us today; that should not be.

If many people knew King James was a Scottish Presbyterian/Calvinist who simply authorized the work of his translator's for use in the pulpits of all British churches.

I fear a lot of my family's hide-bound adherents to the imperfect but beloved old KJV-AV would pass out or even have a heart attack if they knew my position about the better translations! I love 'em, they are good people and quite happy where they are so I do NOT try to open their eyes about its limitations. And nothing spiritual would be gained even if I could do it.

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

KNOW THIS: Not all modern "bible" translation versions are good. Especially so for these four and they for my reasons.

1. Avoid the Jehovah Witness' New World Translation. It's not a translation at all, it's a disjointed distortion of the KJV and it is not Christian.

2. Avoid anything provided by Christian Science. It's neither Christian NOR science.

3. Toss everything in the piles of print offered by Mormons, the so called Church of Latterday Saints). Started by Joe Smith, a horney young guy with delusions of grandure, followed by Brigham Young, a horney old guy seeking earthly power, followed in turn by a long string of same case followers. The LDS program is all based on Satan induced weird stories and huge piles of deceptive men's lies.

4. Toss any publications from the Seventh Day Adventists. They have a strange collection of legalist Bible distortions, all in support of a demented old woman's - Ellen White - lifetime pile of disjointed day dreams. Their doctrines are mostly a collection of easily provable foolish errors about the ends of times. (I say "ends" (plural) because they have an unbroken track record of failed projections about the specific day of Jesus' return.)

[.429&H110]

Oh, my. Rizzo!
I grew up speaking Yankee
a weird lingo to foreigners...all pronouns
(went ova ta his house and saw all them there)
and never learned to write
except "invoice-ese" and my job journal.
At church they speak Western Ozark
my deaf wife speaks Middle Connecticut and despairs.
My second draft goes through Grammerly
then past a grammar-nazi editor until
I hardly recognize the resulting prose.
English prose is my retirement hobby/job.
Do you know Devotionals are worth $0.30 a word?

My aim here was to try the Truth:
Repent
Redeem
Renew

and really really stop the idol worship:
but falls on deaf ears here.
Sorry for being annoying.
nunc demittis

[shooterg]

I only understand that there's a lot I don't understand ! I'm probably never going to learn Aramaic or Greek nor have access to original writings to decipher and I'm OK with that . I believe Jesus died on that cross for me and anyone else that truly believes and that'll just have to do me until I have my FTF with Him.

[Ickisrulz]

I fear a lot of my family's hide-bound adherents to the imperfect but beloved old KJV-AV would pass out or even have a heart attack if they knew my position about the better translations! I love 'em, they are good people and quite happy where they are so I do NOT try to open their eyes about its limitations. And nothing spiritual would be gained even if I could do it.

I attended a a private Bible school after high school in the mid-80's. They didn't care what translation you used, but many students stuck with the KJV. When studying some passages, the first thing the instructor would do is fix the KJV translation and explain what the archaic language meant. I always wondered why people were still messing with the KJV and handicapping themselves. There are so many better choices.

[Rizzo]

The Bible records many times when God worked directly to remove evildoers. In these cases it was to remove/punish the wicked and eliminate bad influences. Again, punishment is not murder. I'll also point out that God mandated the death of every human being after the fall. This was to make sure man did not live forever in a fallen state and have to endure the unending misery it would have brought.
Ickisrulz, thank you for your input on this issue.

All this killing going on by God directly or indirectly had clouded my logic.
I completely overlooked those actions as punishment, as you stated.

429&H110 posted earlier in this thread "The wages of sin is death"
That also makes more sense now.

My mind is at ease on the notion that God was sinning by those actions.
In this case, punishment is not murder.

It is interesting though that God directly did those things but also had Israel carry out His "punishments".
With all of that killing going on, I'd imagine if God had done it Himself, Fire and Brimstone the likes of Sodom and Gomorrah would have been a regular occurrence.

So, I picked up the Bible to continue reading this morning (I read 4-6 pages daily) and Lo and Behold, God is telling Moses to go kill all of the male Midianites (Numbers 31).
They do that and bring the captives back and Moses then tells them to kill all the young males and some of the women.
Argh-h-h!!!

This illustrates to me the contrast of God in the OT vs NT.
The NT and these modern days do not see such mass killings by God.
"The wages of sin is death" may still apply but not on the scale we saw before.

Anyway, thanks again for bringing up the "punishment" aspect.
I'll sleep better tonight. <smile>

[Lloyd Smale]

I only understand that there's a lot I don't understand ! I'm probably never going to learn Aramaic or Greek nor have access to original writings to decipher and I'm OK with that . I believe Jesus died on that cross for me and anyone else that truly believes and that'll just have to do me until I have my FTF with Him.

best answer

[popper]

To the orginal post, God kills. Yup and he brings life also. Not perfect? By which one of us's determination? States MANY times, reward for evil is death. He is, was and always will be, and one day this earth & maybe the universe will be destroyed. Don't like it? Tough. My EOL is when HE determines and end of universe is the same. Argue all you want, that's been done since Adam. Didn't make any difference, did it?

[dverna]

I only understand that there's a lot I don't understand ! I'm probably never going to learn Aramaic or Greek nor have access to original writings to decipher and I'm OK with that . I believe Jesus died on that cross for me and anyone else that truly believes and that'll just have to do me until I have my FTF with Him.

Really simple and hits the nail for me too.

I struggle with God, but do not struggle with Jesus. I have had people tell me they are the same, but I cannot get there. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost may exist in one entity, but they are different.

[popper]

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost may exist in one entity, but they are different. They have different purposes to us. Best I understand is God is the Ultimate, Jesus is the bodily/physical interface with us and Spirit is the spiritual/unseen interface with us.
when Moses and the Jews are in the desert God opens up the earth to a large pit where all of the people and their belongings fall into it and then God closes up the pit. The rebellion against Moses provided a demonstration to the people that Moses was chosen to lead, not others. Rebel against God and pay they price. Not so harsh. Jesus said He was the way and those that rebel against Him suffer the 2nd death.

[Ickisrulz]

Really simple and hits the nail for me too.

I struggle with God, but do not struggle with Jesus. I have had people tell me they are the same, but I cannot get there. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost may exist in one entity, but they are different.

God made weighty demands in the OT with stiff penalties for violators. But consider the endless chapters where he begs his people to repent and avoid the consequences of their actions. This was the purpose of the prophets and their messages. A reader can easily see God's love in the prophets' words. God does not want to punish.

A person once said the only possible legitimate criticism of Jesus was that his ethic was too high. He literally asked his followers for perfection in thought, attitude and behavior. Consider that his third most discussed topic was the destruction of the wicked (those that disregarded his words). But like his Father, he implored people to repent and avoid punishment.

Jesus' messages came from what he learned in the OT. The Father and The Son are the same in character, message and love for mankind.

[MT Gianni]

Not quite so but you repeat what many Bible conspiracy quacks proclaim.

Constantine gets a bad rap. He had nothing to do with the Old Testament canon as such ("canon" is the correct table of contents for both parts of the Bible). Jews had established the O.T canon several hundred years before ol' Conny was born. Conny was the emperor of the Roman Empire in the early 300 AD period; he at least leaned towards Christianity. He was well aware that Christianity was a growing force in his empire and many spurious writings claiming to be God's were floating around.

He called a meeting of Roman empire church leaders to Nicia, Turkey, in 325 AD, to establish approved canons of both the Old and New Testaments for use in all Roman churches. (They did but that approved list wasn't finalised until about 380 AD and Constantine was dead.)

The attending church leaders at Nicea submitted books for consideration. They studied, argued and voted over their favorite books until only those we now have were left.

Constantine was no theologian and didn't try to be; he simply approved one of the lists submitted to him by the council to become the approved canon.

Thus, no books were "banned" from use, at least not as such, because the Council didn't have that power; the other books were simply not approved for canon. Individual churches could use any books they wished but they did it without the thumbprint of the Church Council.



Well, I suppose every book ever written but not included in the NT canon was effectively "left out" or "banned." But the rejected writings at the time were deemed forgeries, and some were partly or largely uninspired by God (i.e., wrong), others were redundant to what was written in other already accepted books. Those wise men lived in times still close to the events and I trust their judgements. Meaning I don't believe God has allowed any part of his message to be lost.



What was rejected and what was included in the canon was based on a vote, book by book, by the Nicean council. Contrary to what some have written, no one man (or group) has had the legitimate authority to make such judgements on the canon.



"Gospel" is a Greek word that simply means "good news". For Christians gospel specifically means the good news of man's salvation by the grace (love) and mercy of God through faith in Lord Jesus, not according to our works.

I haven't viewed or read any of the "gospels" you find on youtube (and won't) but I greatly doubt any of them actually tell us anything different and truthful about the real gospel that's found in the first four books of the N.T.

Bottom line, youtube is a great source of some very good spiritual stuff and I often watch it. But, sadly, it also has some very bad religious poo pushers we should quickly reject. (Including those who proclaim they have found "forbidden/hidden/over-looked" bible books.)

Making money through religious "documentaries" and wonderful new "gospel books", and now TV, is and always has been a great way to pick up a lot of money by soliciting for false preachers and their special books. Do a web search for the likes of Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, Jim Baker, Joel Osteen, Benny Hind, et al.

Constantine was a death bed convert to Christianity. Previous to that he was tired of internal warring among the countries in his empire. He called a council to make sure that all the different churches agreed on what was doctrine and what wasn't so there would be no more internal fighting over it. He had nothing invested in what the outcome was just that the only fighting going on would be external rather than internal to the empire.

As I understand it, it was a typical I win some and you win some council. All had some input accepted and all had some rejected so that there was no more internal strife. I would love to see what was lost but knowing what the process was doesn't drive me away from my Savior.

[Stephen Cohen]

I am not what one would call a true believer I would describe myself as an agnostic. I do believe in 9 of the 10 commandments and have great respect for those who do believe and can follow and live up to their religious beliefs. I have asked several ministers the very question the OP has asked and the best answer I have come away with is, we are mere mortals and don't have the right to question God and what he has planned for us. I realise this does not answer the OP's question but I don't think anyone here can with any certainty as we are mere mortals. The word faith is used much in religious circles and I believe that this is the one word that comes close to answering the OPs question, have faith that our God knows what he is doing and has a plan for us all, questioning God will only detract form the true goal he has for all. I certainly would not say God is not perfect as one writer has said. Luke 22-36 has always been one I have thrown up at ministers and I have got many different answers however I prefer to take it as said. Regards Stephen

[1hole]

I am not what one would call a true believer I would describe myself as an agnostic. I do believe in 9 of the 10 commandments and have great respect for those who do believe and can follow and live up to their religious beliefs.

Steve, I think you've missed a couple of important facts.

First, the Bible "believe" (John 3:16) is perhaps better understood as "trust." We all have to believe in a lot of people we don't know and can't understand and we trust them because most of them have been trustworthy; doctors, pilots, druggists, auto mechanics, builders of tall buildings and huge bridges, etc. God has lived up to my expectations for so long I now totally believe he will continue to be trustworthy and will keep His promises for eternity.

Second, the whole point of the gospel (i.e., the spiritual good news of the New Testament) is that we are not expected to deserve or earn our acceptance by God. We all know that no one can live perfectly, before or after becoming a believer, but we should live as best we can and joyfully rest - trust - that our total sin debt has already been paid by Lord Jesus on the cross.

[Stephen Cohen]

1hole, I have to say I would agree with all you say. Interesting you mention Doctors, my Doctor who treated me for my recent cancer is a devoted Christian and we had a discussion about the original OPs question a couple weeks back. I put it to my Doctor that while he feels he could not take a life even in self defense there was a place for those like me who actually could, for without those like me and other like minded people, he and those like him would never have survived dictators like Hitler. I must say he did not share my view and in fact chose to disagree strongly with me. As a good Christian friend of mine once told me, come judgment day, we will be judged by the purity of our belief and the reasons for the actions we took in life, and he believed there would be those who would be judged worthy even though they were not believers in the true sense. He may have been wrong but I choose to think he may just be right. Regards Stephen

[Txcowboy52]

Some people just need killing, maybe harsh to say but true, I have always thought God can do whatever he feels is right, he is all knowing. He knows things we do not and he has a plan for all of us . My humble opinion is we should not judge what God does , because we have no way of knowing everything he knows. Faith and trust .

[Lloyd Smale]

God made weighty demands in the OT with stiff penalties for violators. But consider the endless chapters where he begs his people to repent and avoid the consequences of their actions. This was the purpose of the prophets and their messages. A reader can easily see God's love in the prophets' words. God does not want to punish.

A person once said the only possible legitimate criticism of Jesus was that his ethic was too high. He literally asked his followers for perfection in thought, attitude and behavior. Consider that his third most discussed topic was the destruction of the wicked (those that disregarded his words). But like his Father, he implored people to repent and avoid punishment.

Jesus' messages came from what he learned in the OT. The Father and The Son are the same in character, message and love for mankind.

he may have demanded perfection but it was more to strive for it then actually be it. He knew we are imperfect and all sinners. Its kind of why i find the judgmental such hypocrites. Problem lies in that man doesnt seem to strive for perfection and that includes Christians. Its more a train of thought that "how much can i get away with" What ive found is Christians seem to be some of the most judgmental people on earth and it flys in the face of one of Gods most important lessons. Its HIM that judges not man. Every time you tell someone there a failed Christian or are doing something wrong your sinning plain and simple. Some try to hide it by claiming there evangelizing but they chase more away then they bring to God. NO christian needs you chastising them using scripture to do it. Only one your impressing is your self and thats being prideful which is another sin.


I dont push my religion or beliefs on anyone. I will defend them if called out or if someone asks I will give an opinion but if they dont its probably because they dont want my advice. Nothing would turn me off more then some wanabe bible scholar giving HIS opinion of the scriptures or quoting one verbatim thinking that impresses . Offer to give them a ride to church. Heck give them one of those history books and if they want they can read it and if they have questions then answer them. But even then you need to keep in mind that its only opinion. 10 people at bible study on thursday night from the same church will come up with different meanings of the same scripture. Very few will agree with someone elses opinion. Some even ignore whats right there in black and white and think they can selectively believe what's wrote. Then factor in theres over a 100 Christian churches in the world and all have slightly different base beliefs. Whos wrong and whos right? Well all of us probably fall into both category's and the only way to find out whos really right is to visit the undertaker.

[Ickisrulz]

Every time you tell someone there a failed Christian or are doing something wrong your sinning plain and simple.

Telling someone they are a failed Christian is not a loving, biblical thing to do. But calling out a fellow brother or sister for repeated, willful sin is biblical and instructed by Jesus and Paul. The idea is that sin harms the sinner and those around him and presents a negative example. To help another Christian identify and overcome sin is a loving thing to do. I won't post chapter and verse because that somehow offends you, but trust me it's in there.

[Char-Gar]

I am not what one would call a true believer I would describe myself as an agnostic. I do believe in 9 of the 10 commandments and have great respect for those who do believe and can follow and live up to their religious beliefs. I have asked several ministers the very question the OP has asked and the best answer I have come away with is, we are mere mortals and don't have the right to question God and what he has planned for us. I realise this does not answer the OP's question but I don't think anyone here can with any certainty as we are mere mortals. The word faith is used much in religious circles and I believe that this is the one word that comes close to answering the OPs question, have faith that our God knows what he is doing and has a plan for us all, questioning God will only detract form the true goal he has for all. I certainly would not say God is not perfect as one writer has said. Luke 22-36 has always been one I have thrown up at ministers and I have got many different answers however I prefer to take it as said. Regards Stephen

There is a big difference between "faith" and "blind faith". Faith is the willingness to rely on God for life, death and all matters in-between. Blind faith is the willingness to swallow whatever dogma is pushed your way. It is never wrong to question dogma, not matter how strongly folks push it at you are fact and will heap spiritual judgment on you if you don't accept their dogma passed off as divine fact. God created us with minds to reason and applying that reason to religious dogma is not a lack of faith.

[Char-Gar]

In my decades of preaching, I never preached against any particular sin. I defined sin and told of it's insidious nature and destructive effect on us. I didn't have to tell folks they are/were sinners, because they knew that. I chose rather to lift up a crucified and risen Christ who died to pay the price for our sins and reconcile us to God the Father. I offered them Christ and left the rest up to the Sprit. This had a far more positive effect than any sin killing fire and brimstone preaching. Far more folks are loved into the Kingdom than scared into the Kingdom. Anyway, that is my take on the matter.

[1hole]

....Far more folks are loved into the Kingdom than scared into the Kingdom.

That's true.

Only believers (meaning the true followers of Christ) truly fear hell. Why some (thankfully, very few) well meaning but mislead Christians strive to get people who don't yet believe in God to fear God's hell escapes me.

Scripture tells us not to judge others. That's clear, but it's NOT a blanket instruction; we are also told that we can (and should) judge a tree by the quality of the fruit it bears. In application, that means we have no way of judging anyone else's salvation, as such, but we can and indeed should lovingly judge the known poor spiritual quality of our church member's lives. (see 1 Cor, chap 5)

Those who lead openly immoral lives cannot rightly be allowed to hold official positions within the church organization. Thus, within proper public behavior and dress limits, all drug dealers, prostitutions, lesbiterans, homosexables, etc., should be welcome to sit in a pew and hear the word but they may not rightly be appointed or ordained into any church office nor should they be allowed to stand behind any holy pulpit. Rightly doing that requires serious Christians to make wise spiritual judgements of other people's lives.

One of the major causes of the church's degeneration over the past hundred years has risen from NOT being properly judgemental within our own ranks. Kind people who lovingly accept everything oppose nothing and no lasting spiritual good has yet come from their indiscriminate "love."

IMHO. :groner:

[Lloyd Smale]

In my decades of preaching, I never preached against any particular sin. I defined sin and told of it's insidious nature and destructive effect on us. I didn't have to tell folks they are/were sinners, because they knew that. I chose rather to lift up a crucified and risen Christ who died to pay the price for our sins and reconcile us to God the Father. I offered them Christ and left the rest up to the Sprit. This had a far more positive effect than any sin killing fire and brimstone preaching. Far more folks are loved into the Kingdom than scared into the Kingdom. Anyway, that is my take on the matter.

well said

[Lloyd Smale]

Telling someone they are a failed Christian is not a loving, biblical thing to do. But calling out a fellow brother or sister for repeated, willful sin is biblical and instructed by Jesus and Paul. The idea is that sin harms the sinner and those around him and presents a negative example. To help another Christian identify and overcome sin is a loving thing to do. I won't post chapter and verse because that somehow offends you, but trust me it's in there.

big difference between teaching and lecturing. Bottom line is i see very little love involved in people being lectured on the internet about how they are not following scripture. Its MOSTLY arrogance of people wanting the rest of us to think they have the bible memorized. Ive been in these arguments (or if you want to call them discussions) on many different forums and 90 percent of it is a few guys throwing scripture back and forth at each other trying to impress the rest of us. Scripture or the bible knowlege isnt being tested at the pearly gates. Memorizing scipture and searching for hidden meanings in it just shows me one thing. That you wasted MANY hours that you could have spent helping others and following the example Jesus set for us. Tell me what Jesus would prefer. You spending two hours a week at bible study or memorizing scripture or spending that same two hours help less fortunate people.

[Ickisrulz]

big difference between teaching and lecturing. Bottom line is i see very little love involved in people being lectured on the internet about how they are not following scripture. Its MOSTLY arrogance of people wanting the rest of us to think they have the bible memorized. Ive been in these arguments (or if you want to call them discussions) on many different forums and 90 percent of it is a few guys throwing scripture back and forth at each other trying to impress the rest of us. Scripture or the bible knowlege isnt being tested at the pearly gates. Memorizing scipture and searching for hidden meanings in it just shows me one thing. That you wasted MANY hours that you could have spent helping others and following the example Jesus set for us. Tell me what Jesus would prefer. You spending two hours a week at bible study or memorizing scripture or spending that same two hours help less fortunate people.

You seem to have a general disdain for the Bible itself, its study and knowledge of its contents. I am not sure why this is (or how it can be) as you claim to be a Christian. Where do your ideas about Christianity come from?

Did you not consider that before Jesus started his ministry, he first received an education in (what we call) the Old Testament? This took up several years of his life. Apparently he and his parents thought this was time well spent.

Very little (if anything) of what Jesus taught cannot be found in the Scripture he studied as a youth. In almost every argument he had with his enemies he referred to the Scriptures that both he and they regarded as authoritative.

Jesus' ministry involved doing good for people by meeting their physical needs for sure (i.e., healing and feeding). But the main thing Jesus did was teach.

I do agree that there are many people today that are quick to quote the Bible and probably shouldn't. I have found that there are lots of Christians out there that think they are experts when, in fact, they have very little understanding. This isn't much different than many other topics that people discuss on a daily basis. It is just the way human beings behave.

[Char-Gar]

There are two aspects of Jesus, that occur simultaneously. First is the man Jesus, placed in the context of tension between the Roman state and a corrupt and resistant Jewish theocratic state. You must understand this to understand the second. Second, which is Jesus as Messiah. The Jews were taught to believe the the Messiah was to come as a warrior to remove the oppressors and reestablish the Jewish kingdom as it was under David. Jesus had hard time overcoming the cultural notion of Messiah and replacing it with a spiritual Messiah who had come to overcome sin. He challenge the Jewish establishment as a corrupted and perverted version of what God intended and they set out to silence him, which they eventually did, using the Romans as their executioners. His ministry changed, when his "disciples" finally broke the code and figured out who Jesus was and what he was all about.

Bill O'Reilly's book "Killing Jesus" does a good job of laying out, in a popular reading format, the First one above, but does little or nothing to address the spiritual Jesus in the second above. The New Testament is where we learn about Jesus as Messiah and Savior. We really need an understanding of both aspect of Jesus, to understand the whole concept. Jesus appeared at a certain point of time, which the NT refers to as "the fullness of time". Why then and why not earlier or later? There is an answer to that and is to be found in understanding both aspects of Jesus.

[1hole]

Ive been in these arguments (or if you want to call them discussions) on many different forums and 90 percent of it is a few guys throwing scripture back and forth at each other trying to impress the rest of us. Scripture or the bible knowlege isnt being tested at the pearly gates.

Personal ignorance of scripture is not a spiritual strength and, yes, we do "argue" over things we closely examine. But an argument is not a heated quarrel, an argument is simply a reasoned point and counterpoint discussion; we've been over that before.

Good (intelligent) lawyers rationally and reasonably argue their cases before a court, point by point, and they know not to get angry and quarrel or they will lose. Heated "discussions" - quarrels - tempers usually rise when an ignorant loser is cornered and has few facts. In court, at home, on a street corner or on the web, hot temper quarrels are always stupid, they are never intelligently reasoned arguments.

Now, a scriptural fact; nothing will be "tested at the pearly gates". We each choose our own eternal destination before we die (John 3:16-18) so no subsequent salvation judgement by God is required.

AND no matter what the Pope says, there is no second chance purgatory where we can pay off any part of our sin debt. In this flesh, each of us must choose who will pay the totality of our sin debt. Either Jesus has paid for ALL of our sins on his (now) empty cross OR Jesus paid nothing meaningful and therefore we must pay it all for ourselves ... we can't do it, and that's some BAD juju! We learn things like that by actually studying God's scripture and understanding what his not so secret messages to mankind really are.

We can't possibly learn much of what our Father has written to us if we limit ourselves to an occasional few minutes of casual reading a couple of times a year - also known as being too lazy and disinterested to study the wisdom of God.


Tell me what Jesus would prefer. You spending two hours a week at bible study or memorizing scripture or spending that same two hours help less fortunate people.

For goodness sake Lloyd, you want to tell us what Jesus would prefer and then present a false argument to justify your woeful lack of Bible study. Your chosen options are only two hours for or with God each week and then call it quits? And how many "two hours" do YOU commit to the cause of Christ each week?

I often read your posts and wonder how many hours and hundreds of dollars you spend each week blowing time and money out of a gun barrel that could be much better spent helping poor people. Or, by your own posted standards, is that not a fair question?

My point is, your imaginary weekly two hour setups are meaningless. A week has a lot of minutes (10,080). Do you really think it would be too much for God to ask serious Christians to do 120 minutes of study each week, less than 15 minutes a day, in addition to all the other good things we should be doing?
Actually, very few of us have our private prayer and study time in the middle of a day so whatever time we study or memorise scripture instead of just scratching our butts and watching TV doesn't distract from our week at all.

I've long read your many posts Lloyd. If you're honest, and I think you are, I know something about how many guns you have and something of how many components and reloading toys are stored in your man cave and how often you spend your days at a gun range. You've repeatedly told the world about how many hours (and therefore dollars) you spend blowing powder out of a muzzle each week. Ask yourself, at what point do you think Jesus would say, "That's enough!"

Now, prompted by your post, I have to wonder how much of your own weekly time and money might be better spent on Bible study AND actually helping the less fortunate, instead of posting an occasional web rant trying to put down others who can chew gum and walk at the same time?

Answer those questions and maybe THEN you can rightfully tell us what's proper for time and money pressed Christians to do for those wonderful two hours each week. Otherwise ... ???

[Lloyd Smale]

You seem to have a general disdain for the Bible itself, its study and knowledge of its contents. I am not sure why this is (or how it can be) as you claim to be a Christian. Where do your ideas about Christianity come from?

Did you not consider that before Jesus started his ministry, he first received an education in (what we call) the Old Testament? This took up several years of his life. Apparently he and his parents thought this was time well spent.

Very little (if anything) of what Jesus taught cannot be found in the Scripture he studied as a youth. In almost every argument he had with his enemies he referred to the Scriptures that both he and they regarded as authoritative.

Jesus' ministry involved doing good for people by meeting their physical needs for sure (i.e., healing and feeding). But the main thing Jesus did was teach.

I do agree that there are many people today that are quick to quote the Bible and probably shouldn't. I have found that there are lots of Christians out there that think they are experts when, in fact, they have very little understanding. This isn't much different than many other topics that people discuss on a daily basis. It is just the way human beings behave.

I have NO DISDAIN FOR THE BIBLE. I do have disdain for the people that use it as a weapon or use it to boost there egos by claiming they understand it more then me. Jesus did teach. His #1 lesson is that faith is what will get you to heaven not memorizing a book. Ill ask again explain why if it is so important to you Jesus who was the son of God and was God on earth, part of the holy trinity didnt let his appostles know that there would be a book that would change the world and would be written by the hand of his father. His father came down and gave moses the ten commandments. Why did he leave it up to some catholic munks to write what some think is the centerpiece to christianity. In many ways more important then the ten commandments. If it was truly him that inspired it why have it wrote in a way that can be questioned and misinterpreted even by educated man today let alone back when it was wrote when probably less then 5 percent of the people could even read it.

To me the bible is like the old saying of whispering something in a kids ear and having it passed along in the classroom and asking the last kid what was said. Its been translated into so many languages and in so many versions how do we even know what is right and what is wrong even if we could understand it thoroughly. I have no disrespect for it. matter of fact i think its the greatest history book ever wrote and is our only clues to Jesus time on earth. But ive read it cover to cover and probably some of it two and three times and find more questions then answers. Like is said its a book. A good guide to being as good of a christian as a man can be but to be lectured on it by another sinner who thinks hes somehow better then me because he memorized some words and doesnt know anymore then i do how God thinks i can do without. Like is said you can spend hours studying it and memorizing it and it isnt getting you to heaven. Being a christain and having faith in God is what is getting you there. We had a good priest here for years. He was not only my priest but a friend. His favorite saying was he was a sinner just like you and no better and no smarter and no more guaranteed a place in heaven then you. I guess too (and this might rock the boat) that one of the main reasons i prefer being a catholic is we dont bother with trying to find hidden meanings in it. Our church teaches the same thing whether your in a church in canada, italy or in michigan. We all believe the same thing. We trust that 2000 years of people believing the same thing trumps some old lady at bible studys opinion. Believe what you want. Your not hurting me. Thats the last ill say on this. Anymore and im as bad as the pretenders quoting scripture.

[1hole]

Our church teaches the same thing whether your in a church in canada, italy or in michigan. We all believe the same thing. We trust that 2000 years of people believing the same thing trumps some old lady at bible studys opinion.

No, your church has NOT believed the same thing for 2,000 years. The single biggest church split that has ever happened was when the Eastern and Western parts separated into Roman and Orthodox and no mean ol' Protestants were in sight.

A web search for Catholic splinter groups will show your error about everyone "believing" anything a pope or "munk" might spoon feed you.

None of that includes the known historical and near constant internal power struggles within your priesthood for political dominance and control over the Church.

So, nope, your claim of every Catholic being in agreement just isn't true!

Why in the world do you claim that "(Roman?) Catholic munks" wrote the Bible? I mean, there was NO church hierarchy, and there was NO established Bible canon, before about 375 AD and we have solid reason to believe Revelation was written and the canon closed about three hundred years earlier! (The canon did not and still should not include the Roman Catholics' later added and spurious Apocrypha books.)

Knowing a lot of your church's doctrines and policies leaves me thinking I'd prefer the Christian church be led by an old ladies' Bible study and prayer group rather than your historical leaders. I believe the ladies are much more likely to follow God rather than a bunch of self-seeking dirty old men.

[Ickisrulz]

I have NO DISDAIN FOR THE BIBLE. I do have disdain for the people that use it as a weapon or use it to boost there egos by claiming they understand it more then me. Jesus did teach. His #1 lesson is that faith is what will get you to heaven not memorizing a book. Ill ask again explain why if it is so important to you Jesus who was the son of God and was God on earth, part of the holy trinity didnt let his appostles know that there would be a book that would change the world and would be written by the hand of his father. His father came down and gave moses the ten commandments. Why did he leave it up to some catholic munks to write what some think is the centerpiece to christianity. In many ways more important then the ten commandments. If it was truly him that inspired it why have it wrote in a way that can be questioned and misinterpreted even by educated man today let alone back when it was wrote when probably less then 5 percent of the people could even read it.

To me the bible is like the old saying of whispering something in a kids ear and having it passed along in the classroom and asking the last kid what was said. Its been translated into so many languages and in so many versions how do we even know what is right and what is wrong even if we could understand it thoroughly. I have no disrespect for it. matter of fact i think its the greatest history book ever wrote and is our only clues to Jesus time on earth. But ive read it cover to cover and probably some of it two and three times and find more questions then answers. Like is said its a book. A good guide to being as good of a christian as a man can be but to be lectured on it by another sinner who thinks hes somehow better then me because he memorized some words and doesnt know anymore then i do how God thinks i can do without. Like is said you can spend hours studying it and memorizing it and it isnt getting you to heaven. Being a christain and having faith in God is what is getting you there. We had a good priest here for years. He was not only my priest but a friend. His favorite saying was he was a sinner just like you and no better and no smarter and no more guaranteed a place in heaven then you. I guess too (and this might rock the boat) that one of the main reasons i prefer being a catholic is we dont bother with trying to find hidden meanings in it. Our church teaches the same thing whether your in a church in canada, italy or in michigan. We all believe the same thing. We trust that 2000 years of people believing the same thing trumps some old lady at bible studys opinion. Believe what you want. Your not hurting me. Thats the last ill say on this. Anymore and im as bad as the pretenders quoting scripture.

Yeah, all that sure makes it sound like you respect the Bible.

It doesn't sound like you have a good handle on Church history or the development of the NT either.

It might be hard for you to believe, but there are plenty of people in the world (and on this site) that understand the Bible better than you.

[Lloyd Smale]

Yeah, all that sure makes it sound like you respect the Bible.

It doesn't sound like you have a good handle on Church history or the development of the NT either.

It might be hard for you to believe, but there are plenty of people in the world (and on this site) that understand the Bible better than you.

well give yourself a pat on the back if your one of them. Sure isnt getting you through the pearly gates though. FAITH in God not a book is what opens that gate. You keep memorizing and trying to find hidden meanings and ill go out and be a chirstian and we will see who has better luck at that gate.

Never once said i understand it better then you or anyone else. Never said my church was perfect. Matter of fact is said (if you read my posts) that i didnt agree with everything my church does and that none of it matters to God. God demands we believe and have faith. He doesnt demand we read the bible or go to a certain church. At least i never saw that he did in the bible. Might be some opinions of MAN in there that claim you need to. But nothing from God. Who by the way you claim wrote the book. Twist what i say if you must. But in the big picture your as much of a sinner as i am.

[Ickisrulz]

well give yourself a pat on the back if your one of them. Sure isnt getting you through the pearly gates though. FAITH in God not a book is what opens that gate. You keep memorizing and trying to find hidden meanings and ill go out and be a chirstian and we will see who has better luck at that gate.

Never once said i understand it better then you or anyone else. Never said my church was perfect. Matter of fact is said (if you read my posts) that i didnt agree with everything my church does and that none of it matters to God. God demands we believe and have faith. He doesnt demand we read the bible or go to a certain church. At least i never saw that he did in the bible. Might be some opinions of MAN in there that claim you need to. But nothing from God. Who by the way you claim wrote the book. Twist what i say if you must. But in the big picture your as much of a sinner as i am.

Your reasoning is all over the place on this. You say that God never told man to read the Bible, but then say if it is in there, it is the opinion of man. You say that God demands that we believe and have faith. Where do you get that idea from? It comes from the Bible!

From your posts, you say the only authoritative word from God we have are the 10 Commandments, since The Father came down from heaven and gave them to us. The problem with that is that the only way we know God gave the 10 Commandments to Israel and their content is through the biblical record, which you have said is only a product of man.

You say we should exercise our faith in doing good works. This is also a biblical principle if you are not aware.

The ironic part of all your posts in this thread is you are doing the very thing you accuse others of doing. That is finding fault in fellow Christians for not living up to a set of ideals. The difference in your case is that you are not quoting Scripture, but you are putting forth your own opinions (based on who knows what).

Am I as big a sinner as you? Maybe even bigger. I don't think I ever suggest to anyone ever (let alone on this board) I was a fully sanctified person. Biblical knowledge does not make one righteous or saved. But when that knowledge is applied it will do wonders. Of course, if you don't have the knowledge you cannot apply it.

I don't know why you insist that I or others on this board spend our time memorizing and looking for hidden meanings in the Bible. I don't believe I have ever spent my time trying to memorize Scripture. But I am familiar enough with it that I can tell you what is and isn't in there. As far a "hidden meanings," I don't believe that any meaning is hidden in the Bible. The original authors wrote to original audiences in manners that were easy to understand in their day and age (this includes the Apocalypse). Serious readers attempt to understand biblical content keeping this in mind. There is more agreement than disagreement on interpretation when using this approach.

[Lloyd Smale]

you guys can sure twist the words to fit your agenda. :coffee: If preaching doesnt work out for you you should look at a career as a democratic politician.

[Ickisrulz]

you guys can sure twist the words to fit your agenda. :coffee: If preaching doesnt work out for you you should look at a career as a democratic politician.

I would like to know what words you think I am twisting. BTW, I am not a preacher, just an educated layman.

[Lloyd Smale]

what formal education in the bible do you have or is that just a self appointed title. tell me what makes your opinion more valid then mine.

[Ickisrulz]

what formal education in the bible do you have or is that just a self appointed title. tell me what makes your opinion more valid then mine.

I see we're onto another point of contention now.

My formal education in the Bible:

Four year degree (BA) in Church Ministries/Biblical Studies from Southwestern Assemblies of God University (Waxahachie, TX). I concentrated on OT studies. Before that, I spent late 1985 to early 1987 (no degree) studying at Grace Bible Institute in Rome, NY (school is now defunct after combining with another). Then there is the time and effort I have expended over the years in continued personal study.

Does this make my opinion more valid that yours? I'll let you decide that.

I am not sure that "educated layman" is a title.

[Lloyd Smale]

well considering my priest didnt have the sin of pride and told me that my opinion is just as valid as his id say no. Youll see that even if you do pastor a church theres opinions other then your own and if it was cut and dried and 4 years of school taught you the one and only truth there wouldnt be over a 100 different christain churches and new ones popping up every day because someone thinks THERE opinion is more valid then someone elses. Seems theres MANY EDUCATED and i mean unlike me FORMALY educated people that would stand in line to argue the meaning of scripture with you. Difference seems to be that i respect your right to your opinion and you that was just schooled by someone with there opinion to believe like they do thinks its your way or the highway.

This is a very good example of what i said. The bible is used for good but it is also weaponized to win arguements and bolster egos. Personaly i could give a rip that you feel you found some hidden meaning that i missed. To me its a book. A book that should be used ONLY for good and as a guide to living like Jesus said we must. Its not some sacred idol that needs to be poured over or worshiped. IT shouldnt be the centerpiece to your teaching. It should be a guide to your teaching. But what it wasnt intended to do is to be used to make someone feel there inadequate in the eyes of God because they didnt memorize it or spend thousands of hours trying to do the impossible. That is knowing how God thinks.

Like ive said MANY times. There is no bible scripture test at the pearly gates. IF you studied it to become a pastor and do some good then im the first to pat you on the back no matter what church your in but thats usually not the case. What i see it used for more then anything is a tool to put other people down, to prove other churhes with GOOD christians are wrong, to prove other people are sinners by someone who is every bit as much of a sinner as me. In my opinion just the fact its used on a cast bullet forum where you KNOW your not going to change anyones mind. On a site that i doubt a single person came to be save just reinforces my opinion that your purpose isnt saving souls its making you feel superior. Thats it im out of here. You can have the last word. Maybe end with a scripture quote telling me why you will be in line at the pearly gates way ahead of me. A lowly catholic that only graduated high school and did my soul searching with an m16 in my hand not at a university. Did my bible reading for the most part in a hosptial not at a seminary. You can twist it if you want. You can say my ideas are even blasphemy. But you dont know me or how i lead my life so your opinion doesnt mean squat to me.

[Ickisrulz]

well considering my priest didnt have the sin of pride and told me that my opinion is just as valid as his id say no. Youll see that even if you do pastor a church theres opinions other then your own and if it was cut and dried and 4 years of school taught you the one and only truth there wouldnt be over a 100 different christain churches and new ones popping up every day because someone thinks THERE opinion is more valid then someone elses. Seems theres MANY EDUCATED and i mean unlike me FORMALY educated people that would stand in line to argue the meaning of scripture with you. Difference seems to be that i respect your right to your opinion and you that was just schooled by someone with there opinion to believe like they do thinks its your way or the highway.

This is a very good example of what i said. The bible is used for good but it is also weaponized to win arguements and bolster egos. Personaly i could give a rip that you feel you found some hidden meaning that i missed. To me its a book. A book that should be used ONLY for good and as a guide to living like Jesus said we must. Its not some sacred idol that needs to be poured over or worshiped. IT shouldnt be the centerpiece to your teaching. It should be a guide to your teaching. But what it wasnt intended to do is to be used to make someone feel there inadequate in the eyes of God because they didnt memorize it or spend thousands of hours trying to do the impossible. That is knowing how God thinks.

Like ive said MANY times. There is no bible scripture test at the pearly gates. IF you studied it to become a pastor and do some good then im the first to pat you on the back no matter what church your in but thats usually not the case. What i see it used for more then anything is a tool to put other people down, to prove other churhes with GOOD christians are wrong, to prove other people are sinners by someone who is every bit as much of a sinner as me. In my opinion just the fact its used on a cast bullet forum where you KNOW your not going to change anyones mind. On a site that i doubt a single person came to be save just reinforces my opinion that your purpose isnt saving souls its making you feel superior. Thats it im out of here. You can have the last word. Maybe end with a scripture quote telling me why you will be in line at the pearly gates way ahead of me. A lowly catholic that only graduated high school and did my soul searching with an m16 in my hand not at a university. Did my bible reading for the most part in a hosptial not at a seminary. You can twist it if you want. You can say my ideas are even blasphemy. But you dont know me or how i lead my life so your opinion doesnt mean squat to me.

Well I answered your question. I guess the answer was not what you expected or wanted. Now your argument is that formal education doesn't give anyone an edge in understanding over those without it.

Where did I ever say it was my way of the highway? There are people (e.g., Char-gar, 1hole and Wayne Smith) on here who have some good thoughts, but I am not always going to agree with them. Can I learn anything about the Bible from you? No, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

I have to ask, why do you even make comments here? You obviously have an ax to grind when it comes to the Bible and Christians. If you know you're not going to change anyone's mind, why waste your effort?

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Gentlemen: I have reviewed this thread in detail, and have decided to close it. The First Amendment of the Constitution we all cherish permits the exercise of both Free Speech and Freedom of Religion. That has certain been exercised in this thread, but it has gone from a theological discussion to casting aspersions on the religious beliefs of other members and their qualifications to hold them. Continued discussion seems to hold no promise of enlightenment. If you disagree with the closure you may state your case to the Forum Owner, No_1, who may see fit to reverse this decision, or begin again with another thread and fresh attitudes.

DG