Why is There Death and Suffering if God is all Loving

[total relism]

Slavery in the Bible?

Hebrew servitude in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. 1/2 to 2/3 of white immigrants to America in colonial times served as indentured servants or biblical slavery. The slavery in the Bible was not based on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters. In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa and the slave trade. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers 1 Timothy 1:8-10. Biblical servitude was also a form of welfare.

“If the Those people who were very financially irresponsible, and had accumulated so much debt that they could not possibly pay it off, could request to become the slave of a wealthy individual (Leviticus 25:39; Genesis 47:19).if the wealthy individual agreed, he would pay off all the person’s debts and provide for him, and then the servant would work for the individual for some period of time apparently proportional to the amount of debt (Leviticus 25:50) but not to exceed seven years (Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:12). When the period of time had expired, the servant was set free, and the wealthy person was required to give him enough start up supplies so that he could begin his own business (Deuteronomy 15:13-14). The Israelite slave was to be treated respectfully (Leviticus 25:43) and was immediately granted freedom if mistreated (Exodus 21:26–27).It’s really a very generous system. Help a financially irresponsible person to become responsible by (1) paying off his debts and providing for him, (2) training him by having him work for a period of time, (3) giving him sufficient startup capital to start his own business. It’s not quite what most people think, is it? I would suggest that the biblical system is far superior to our modern welfare system.
-Jason Lisle are Gods laws to Harsh?

The Bible teaches all are created equal slave and free [Galatians 3.28 Ephesians 6.8 6.9 Colossians 3.11] Job 31 13-15 shows servants and masters are no different from each other. Courts were to rule fairly with Jew or gentile slave Deuteronomy 1 16-17. The servitude period was no longer than 6 years [ex 21.2 Deuteronomy 15.12] and a slave could buy his freedom at any point that he had enough money. when a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts to enable him to survive economically Deuteronomy 15.14. Slaves were to be treated as being hired from year to year, and were not to be ruled over ruthlessly Lev 25 53-54. In Deuteronomy 15 13-14 it says when a slave is released, the more money and wealth the former owner gives to the slave, the more god will bless them Deuteronomy 15.18. No physical harm was to be done to a slave or they would be let go ex 21 26-27. If a master kills a slave he is to be put to death ex 21.20.The bible tells owners to take care of “slaves” so they will be as sons. Sounds more like adoption.

21 He who pampers his servant from childhood
Will have him as a son in the end.
Proverbs 29.21

In Exodus 21. 5-6 says “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. This is not at all what we think of in America as slavery. Jesus is refereed to as a slave as is the apostle Paul. If anyone has a job they work under someone else and for them and can be considered a slave. A great book in the bible of what OT slavery/servant hood was like is the book of Ruth. Boaz marries his slave/ Ruth. 1 chronicles 2 34-35 sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his Egyptian servant jarha.

Was Servitude ideal?

There were many biblical laws existed to prevent this form of servitude in the first place. Many laws that help the poor. In Deuteronomy 15 1-18 it shows slavery and poverty were to be battled against and not preferred institutions. Israel was commanded to offer safe havens for foreigners run away slaves Deuteronomy 23 15-16. Many of the laws are case laws, such as if a man sells his daughter in slavery if two man quarrel etc these are working with inferred conditions in ancient near east. The OT laws are not Gods perfect plan,but for a specific time and people coming from a ancient near eastern culture Matt 19.8. we cannot apply today's western standards to OT near eastern Jews. OT law is not the way god wants, its a way for ancient Israel to live by in a fallen world.

Slave Girls in Exodus 21

These girls were given in marriage to marry sons when they became of age, not against their choice. Her, and her father would both agreed upon it. They were not to be had sex with until there marriage witch they chose to enter into, as well as there fathers, often because they could not afford to take care of them. In v 9 it reads she is to be treated as a daughter .

9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter
-Exodus 21.9

and if he does not she is to be let free v 11

11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
-Exodus 21 .11

[total relism]

How Could God Send Those he Loves to Hell?

God sends no one to hell, people chose by free will separation from him 2 Thessalonians 1.9. Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels not for humans Matthew 25.4. Haven was prepared for man Matthew 25.34. There are also various degrees of punishment in hell Matt 11 22-24 Romans 2.6.

“Okay, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that it is really mean of God to punish people for rebellion and unbelief. For the sake of argument, let’s say that everyone does go to Heaven, regardless of their status in the Book of Life. Wouldn’t it be horribly unfair for God to condemn people who hate Him to an eternity in His presence, whether they like it or not? Heaven wouldn’t be pleasant for those who hate God, because Heaven is the place where we will fully experience God’s presence. Those who love God look forward to Heaven with longing, but Heaven would be nearly as bad as Hell for the unbeliever, because the unregenerate heart hates God.
-Lita Cosner Do creationist really hate science?

So in a sense, Hell is God finally giving the unbeliever what he wanted all along. But the absence of God means the absence of everything good, since everything good comes from Him. As C.S. Lewis has written: "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell choose it."

"When unbelieving critics talk about Hell, they sometimes speak like it will be full of innocent people (like themselves!). However, the Bible doesn’t indicate that innocent people will spend a single moment in Hell. Rather, Hell is God’s answer to the fundamental injustice of this life. There are many murderers, rapists, and other people who wreak havoc in the lives of others, who never experience judgment in this life. Everyone knows that it is wrong that these people never be brought to account for what they’ve done; something in the human heart demands justice. And Hell is God’s answer."
-Lita Cosner Why would a Loving god Send people to Hell Creation.com

Randy Alcorn writes:

“Without Hell, justice would never overtake the unrepentant tyrants responsible for murdering millions. Perpetrators of evil throughout the ages would get away with murder—and rape, and torture, and every evil. Even if we may acknowledge Hell as a necessary and just punishment for evildoers, however, we rarely see ourselves as worthy of Hell.”

“There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one”
- Romans 3:10–12

It’s hard to accept that we deserve punishment. But most people have grievances against others—if someone stole from you, or hurt your children, or if you were a victim of something fundamentally unjust, you would want justice; your sense of what is right would demand that the person at fault pay a penalty for wronging you. Every time we break God’s law, that’s an affront to God, and He demands justice, just as we do imperfectly on a smaller scale. If you’ve ever said in your heart, “That person should pay for what he did!” then you fundamentally agree with the idea of Hell, because the doctrine of Hell says somebody is going to pay for every sin, eventually. But the person who goes to Hell must reject Christ, who died so that anyone who repents can be saved. So God is not to be blamed when an unrepentant, rebellious creature chooses a destructive path that leads to Hell.

It is not gods fault that many will reject him, his offer is still fair and loving as hell was never meant for man.Man chooses to go there and that choice has nothing to do with gods love or fairness, but mans free will. What of the people who do accept him? Should he not have made them because of those that chose life without god?

“The demand that God should forgive such a man while he remains what he is, is based on a confusion between condoning and forgiving. To condone an evil is simply to ignore it, to treat it as if it were good. But forgiveness needs to be accepted as well as offered if it is to be complete: a man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness.”
-C.S Lewis, The Problem of Pain

Must There be a Hell?

God has to judge sin to be just. If he allowed us to do whatever sin we wanted there would never be a heaven or paradise, it would really be no different than it is now. To live eternally in today's fallen world would in some ways be a form of eternal hell. What of people who are tortured? Would they prefer an eternal life here on earth? What of those with diseases? What if Hitler and the Nazis could live eternally? If there were no heaven or hell, than there would be no eternal consequences for any individual and mankind could act in any way they wanted. It would turn into a hell on earth. Mankind would live eternally separated from god on earth. That is in part why when believers die it is precious in the lords sight [psalm 116.15] because they enter into a true relationship with him with no sin or separation. Also when believers die they are taken from an evil [fallen] world.

The righteous perishes, And no man takes it to heart; Merciful men are taken away, While no one considers That the righteous is taken away from evil.
-Isaiah. 57:1

Is hell literal fire?

Hell was prepared for devil and his angels Matthew 25.41, they are spiritual beings unaffected by physical fire. Hell is described as dark with flames Matthew 8.12, fire if literal would cancel each other out. Fire is a picture of judgment, in Deuteronomy 9 and other places, it says God goes before Israel as a consuming fire, it means judgment. He judges Canaan, yet never burns them or cause fire. The fire of his judgment was not literal fire, but his judgment.

Eternity?

We live in time, time itself is a created thing, so in eternity its not like time passes by forever. we will be outside of time in eternity, something very hard to understand and grasp.


Why did God not create a world were all would be saved?

I think a part of a William lane Craig's debate might help.

“Suppose that God could create a world in which everyone is freely saved, but there is only one problem: all such worlds have only one person in them! Does God's being all-loving compel Him to prefer one of these underpopulated worlds over a world in which multitudes are saved, even though some people freely go to hell? I don't think so. God's being all-loving implies that in any world He creates He desires and strives for the salvation of every person in that world. But people who would freely reject God's every effort to save them shouldn't be allowed to have some sort of veto power over what worlds God is free to create. Why should the joy and the blessedness of those who would freely accept God's salvation be precluded because of those who would stubbornly and freely reject it? It seems to me that God's being all-loving would at the very most require Him to create a world having an optimal balance between saved and lost, a world where as many as possible freely accept salvation and as few as possible freely reject it.”

But to add onto that, god allows things to happen even though he knows the future. So for example, god punishes certain people for there crimes, yet he waits until the crime is committed. He could punish right off [a murderer] and not allow it to happen. Yet he first allows it and than gives consequence. Same with salvation, he tries to draw near to people who he knows will reject him, Jesus dies for all sinners not just those that would receive him etc

What was the purpose of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

"Some say that a lot of trouble could have been avoided if God had just left the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil out of the Garden. But this misunderstands the vital function of the Tree. The other commands God gave Adam and Eve were fairly self-explanatory and had pleasant outcomes for them, but what was the purpose of the command not to eat from the Tree? It may seem surprising, but God had a loving purpose in putting the Tree in the Garden.God created human beings to be in a relationship with Him. But a true loving relationship has to be freely given or chosen—one could program a robot to think it loves its programmer, but that would be meaningless because the robot didn’t have a choice. God wanted human beings to love Him freely, for who He is, not just for what He had given and provided for them. But that required the chance to not love Him, to rebel. The function of the Tree was to give Adam a chance to obey or rebel, and Adam chose to eat the fruit and to rebel against God.There were two pivotal times in history when God freely gave and made a way that mankind could choose to have a relationship with Him, the Creation and the Incarnation. This also highlights why the battle of Creation is so important. The Fall from grace in the original Creation should help us understand our plight in this sin cursed world, and make it that much easier to recognize what God has done through Jesus.
-Litna Cosner Would Loving God Send people to Hell?

Degrees of Punishment in Hell

Acts 17.31 Mark 6.11

[total relism]

Why is There Death and Suffering if God is all Loving

The bible says God originally created a perfect world with no death, sin, disease or suffering. People did not kill each other and animals did not kill each other- man and animals were vegetarian. However god created a world with free will. He wanted mankind to chose to love and obey him rather than be obedient robots. With free will comes the chance for sin, the first man Adam sinned against god and this sin caused separation from a holy perfect God who cannot dwell near sin. As a result of this separation from god, all the once very good creation know is falling apart. Death and disease are know part of creation and everything is wearing old. God is perfect and cannot be around sin or even look upon sin.

For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness,
Nor shall evil dwell with You.
-Pslam 5,4

Your eyes are too pure to look on evil;
you cannot tolerate wrongdoing.
Why then do you tolerate the treacherous?
Why are you silent while the wicked
swallow up those more righteous than themselves?
-Habakkuk 1:13

He has to judge sin because it is imperfect. All suffering and death is a consequence of being separated from god. He judged sin with the curse, not just mankind but creation itself is cursed. The original perfect creation was destroyed by mans sin, Everything bad that happens according to the bible ultimately is caused from separation form god. That is why when Jesus was around he spent time fighting disease and death, the bible says death is the last enemy that will be defeated [Corinthians 15.26]. However as God gave Adam and Eve a free will to chose. God gave us free will to accept or deny him and we chose to deny.

but your iniquities have made a separation
between you and your God,
and your sins have hidden his face from you
so that he does not hear.
-Isiah 59.2

God could have made us all perfect and pray all day always do the right thing, but that's not love. God wants us to chose to follow him out of love, which only comes with free will. Only when god is in full control, when his will is done, there will be no more wars or disease and only peace. We also have free will to make choices that have consequences that can add to the evils and misery of the world. If I get drunk and crash my car and it kills another driver, that evil and suffering was a result of my own choice, not of gods doing. We all have free will, that's why we pray “your [Gods] will be done on earth as it is in heaven” [Matt 6 .10]. What this world is like and what God intends are two very different things. Gods will is not done here [often] ours is. God gave us stewardship of the earth.

In a fallen world bad things happen for no other reason than that we live in a fallen imperfect world. When people asked Jesus if the 13 builders in Jerusalem that died was because they sinned. Jesus said no, sometimes bad things happen to good people, the whole creation is under this. So the bible teaches a original perfect creation free of death and suffering as god created it. until sin and separation from him resulted from man's sin.

It is no Longer Gods Creation

“Enemy-occupied territory---that is what this world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us to take part in a great campaign of sabotage.”

— C.S. Lewis

God originally dwelt and walked with man in the Garden of Eden in a perfect sinless world before the fall. God also gave the earth to Adam to be a steward of earth [psalm 8.6 Gen 1 26-28]. Adam sinned and caused the fall and separation from God, he handed creation over to sin. This current world we live in is no longer gods creation. Jesus calls the devil the prince and ruler of this world, in John 18.36 Jesus says I am not of this world.

Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”
-Matthew chapter 4 8-9

9 In this manner, therefore, pray:
Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
10 Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
-Matthew 6 9-10

16 The highest heavens belong to the LORD,
but the earth he has given to man.
-Proverbs 18 -17

“whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.”
- 2 Corinthians 4.4


Gods Judgment of Sin/ Is Death a Just Punishment for sin?

God has to judge sin to be just. If he allowed us to do whatever sin we wanted there would never be a heaven or paradise, it would really be no different than it is now. To live eternally in today's fallen world would in some ways be a form of eternal hell. What of people who are tortured? Would they prefer an eternal life here on earth? What of those with diseases? What if Hitler and the Nazis could live eternally? If there were no heaven or hell, than there would be no eternal consequences for any individual and mankind could act in any way they wanted. It would turn into a hell on earth. Mankind would live eternally separated from god on earth. That is in part why when believers die it is precious in the lords sight [psalm 116.15] because they enter into a true relationship with him with no sin or separation. Also when believers die they are taken from an evil [fallen] world.

The righteous perishes, And no man takes it to heart; Merciful men are taken away, While no one considers That the righteous is taken away from evil.
-Isaiah. 57:1

There would be no punishment and separation from god, if we did not sin.

8 Then the word of the LORD came to Zechariah, saying, 9 “Thus says the LORD of hosts:
Execute true justice,
Show mercy and compassion
Everyone to his brother.
10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless,
The alien or the poor.
Let none of you plan evil in his heart
Against his brother.’
-Zechariah 7 8-10

8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly[a] with your God.
-Micah 6.8

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law
-Galatians 5 22-23

What it Will be Like When God is in Full Control- Restoring the Garden of Eden

1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”
-Revelations 21 1-5

The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD
-Isiah 11 6-9

he will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears
from all faces;
he will remove his people’s disgrace
from all the earth.
The Lord has spoken.
-Isiah 25.8

1 The vision that Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem:
2 In the last days
he mountain of the LORD's house will be established
at the top of the mountains
and will be raised above the hills.
All nations will stream to it,
3 and many peoples will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us about His ways
so that we may walk in His paths."
For instruction will go out of Zion
and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
4 He will settle disputes among the nations
and provide arbitration for many peoples.
They will turn their swords into plows
and their spears into pruning knives.
Nations will not take up the sword against [other] nations,
and they will never again train for war.
-Isaiah 2 1-4

The Solution/ The Gospel

“I could never myself believe in God, if it were not for the cross. The only God I believe in is the One Nietzsche ridiculed as “God on the cross.” In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it? I have entered many Buddhist temples in different Asian countries and stood respectfully before the statue of the Buddha, his legs crossed, arms folded, eyes closed, the ghost of a smile playing round his mouth, a remote look on his face, detached from the agonies of the world. But each time after a while I have had to turn away. And in imagination I have turned instead to that lonely, twisted, tortured figure on the cross, nails through hands and feet, back lacerated, limbs wrenched, brow bleeding from thorn-pricks, mouth dry and intolerably thirsty, plunged in Godforsaken darkness. That is the God for me! He laid aside his immunity to pain. He entered our world of flesh and blood, tears and death. He suffered for us. Our sufferings become more manageable in the light of his. There is still a question mark against human suffering, but over it we boldly stamp another mark, the cross that symbolizes divine suffering. ”The cross of Christ . . . is God’s only self-justification in such a world” as ours. . . . “The other gods were strong; but thou wast weak; they rode, but thou didst stumble to a throne; But to our wounds only God’s wounds can speak, And not a god has wounds, but thou alone.”
-John Stott, The Cross of Christ

The solution to death and suffering is why Jesus was sent as a perfect sinless sacrifice to cover the sins of man, by putting there faith in him. It is the only way for a perfect, sinless, all loving God, to save a sinful people and remain just. Picture God as a judge [he is] and he is a all loving and forgiving judge, but also a perfect holy judge [Ex 34 6-7]. If God is just, loving and forgiving, and truly hates sin [as a all loving just god would] than he cannot allow any sin to go unpunished he must judge all sin or he is not all just or a fair judge. Since all mankind is sinful.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
-Romans 3.23

How can we make up for our own sin? how could we not face punishment? and separation from god. That is when an all loving God came into history, and his creation, and died as a willing sacrifice to take the just punishment we deserved on himself. So he can spend an eternity with his creation whom he loves and still be all just.

5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
-Isiah 53 5-6

24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.
-1 peter 2. 24

So we are justified freely and eternal life is a gift from God given to all mankind [Romans 3 9-11 6.23]. So all we need to do is accept the perfect sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and we are cleansed of our sin and forgiven by god. God does not one person to be sent to hell.

The Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance
-2Pet. 3.9

He desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth"
-1Tim. 2.4

Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?,' says the Lord God, 'And not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,' says the Lord God. 'So turn and live! Say to them, "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways. For why will you die?
-Ez. 18.23,32; 33.11


of course there will be many who are turning away from God that will see this as foolishness

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
-1 Corinthians 1.18

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him
-1 Corinthians 2 .14

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
-psalm 14.1

Does God sit Around and Allow Evil to Happen?

If god was on earth in control he would judge us and punish us. Over and over read [exodus Leviticus] God says do not come near me for I am holy and separate from sin lest you die. He does not want to judge us but forgive us, but he is a fully just god who if is all loving perfect and hates sin than he must judge.

proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished
-exodus 34 6-7

“If humans have free will, that has to include the real potential of evil. If God simply 'poofed' away any evil decisions or their consequences, that would effectively mean that humans don't have meaningful choice.Second, it is incredibly presumptuous to expect God to intervene every time *humans* screw up. Why don't the atheists spend half as much time criticizing the humans who create these atrocities as shaking their fist at a God who they don't even believe in? Third, God has done something about evil; He sent Jesus. There is a solution to the problem of evil, just not an *immediate* one (an *immediate* solution would have killed Adam and Eve instantly, thus ending the human race, and all speculation about the problem of evil)....So, how could a loving God just sit back and allow all the death and suffering in this world? This question assumes that God hasn’t done anything. In fact, God has done a lot already to solve the problem of evil, and He has promised to do more in the future. If God had immediately judged all of humanity and gotten rid of the evil rebellion that causes death and suffering today, Adam and Eve would have died instantly, and none of us would be around to complain about God delaying judgment and allowing bad things to happen. Second, the death and suffering that goes on in this life is a powerful reminder that something is wrong with creation, and more than that, something is wrong with the human heart and our relationship to God. Suffering often points people to Christ, who is God’s ultimate answer to the problem of evil.”
-Shane Cessna Is it Gods Fault

“If God followed this type of “logic,” then we would live in a bizarre world. Should He temporarily suspend gravity when a person attempts to commit suicide by leaping from a high place, or must He prevent car crashes through any means necessary? Let’s take this a step further. Maybe He should prevent any harm to any person. Perhaps He should suspend gravity whenever a little girl is about to fall down so that she doesn’t scrape up her knee. Should He prevent us from eating food that may not be entirely healthy? This type of thinking quickly removes any semblance of freedom we may have.If people followed this type of “logic,” then we would outlaw all sports, driving, or any other activity that involves the risk of dying or getting hurt. People would never have children knowing their kids would grow up and eventually die. No one would get a pet because the pet might scratch a family member—or worse, that pet will eventually die, and some pets would give birth to other animals, which would also eventually die. I’m thankful that God doesn’t play by these rules. While there are times that I tend to wish He would have prevented me from doing certain things (namely, the times I’ve sinned against Him or the times I’ve hurt others), I realize that He is able to use those things or their consequences for good (Romans 8:28).
-Tim Chaffey Answers in Genesis

[Gilrandir]

The bible says God originally created a perfect world with no death, sin, disease or suffering. People did not kill each other and animals did not kill each other- man and animals were vegetarian.


So animals sinned and stopped being vegetarian as well?




In a fallen world bad things happen for no other reason than that we live in a fallen imperfect world. When people asked Jesus if the 13 builders in Jerusalem that died was because they sinned. Jesus said no, sometimes bad things happen to good people, the whole creation is under this. So the bible teaches a original perfect creation free of death and suffering as god created it. until sin and separation from him resulted from man's sin.


So however good and righteous you might be you may still suffer because "sometimes bad things happen to good people"? What's the use of being good and righteous then?




If god was on earth in control he would judge us and punish us. Over and over read [exodus Leviticus] God says do not come near me for I am holy and separate from sin lest you die. He does not want to judge us but forgive us, but he is a fully just god who if is all loving perfect and hates sin than he must judge.


:dizzy2: So God doesn't want to judge, he wants to forgive, yet he judges?




proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,
-exodus 34 7


I have a different information:

Exodus 20:5
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

Deuteronomy 4:23-24
"For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God

Deuteronomy 32:16
"They made Him jealous with strange gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger

Joshua 24:19
Then Joshua said to the people, "You will not be able to serve the LORD, for He is a holy God He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression or your sins.


Generally speaking, proving anything citing Bible is a bad idea for in it one can find such proof to a completely opposite idea.




There is a solution to the problem of evil, just not an *immediate* one (an *immediate* solution would have killed Adam and Eve instantly, thus ending the human race, and all speculation about the problem of evil)
-Shane Cessna Is it Gods Fault


I like it. A person sinned. What should be the solution? A modern Christian would say: make him repent, or show him he was wrong, or scare him with a terrible prospect and thus make him stop sinning. What does "the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness" suggest (according to a Shane Cessna)? Kill him! I like it. What about forgiveness?



So, how could a loving God just sit back and allow all the death and suffering in this world? This question assumes that God hasn’t done anything.


A wrong assumption. It rather assumes he has absolved himself of all responsibility and watches from on high with insouciant nonchalance. And sometimes lets "bad things happen to good people".



In fact, God has done a lot already to solve the problem of evil, and He has promised to do more in the future.


:laugh4: Sounds too much like an election agenda.



Second, the death and suffering that goes on in this life is a powerful reminder that something is wrong with creation, and more than that, something is wrong with the human heart and our relationship to God.


To kill a human to REMIND all others of something? That sure could have been done only by
"the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love".



[I]“If God followed this type of “logic,” then we would live in a bizarre world. Should He temporarily suspend gravity when a person attempts to commit suicide by leaping from a high place, or must He prevent car crashes through any means necessary? Let’s take this a step further. Maybe He should prevent any harm to any person. Perhaps He should suspend gravity whenever a little girl is about to fall down so that she doesn’t scrape up her knee. Should He prevent us from eating food that may not be entirely healthy?


So the world in which someone walks on water or turns water into win or resurrects a corpse is not bizarre? Isn't walking on water somehow inrefering with gravity?


I’m thankful that God doesn’t play by these rules.

I would say he doesn't play by these rules. If he needs a miracle he will work it, logic or no logic, rules or no rules.

[Gilrandir]

Hell is described as dark with flames Matthew 8.12, fire if literal would cancel each other out.


What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.
It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it. Then with a rush it leaped across the fissure. The flames roared up to greet it, and wreathed about it; and a black smoke swirled in the air. Its streaming mane kindled, and blazed behind it. In its right hand was a blade like a stabbing tongue of fire; in its left it held a whip of many thongs.
'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Balrog! A Balrog is come! '
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Durin's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face.
'A Balrog,' muttered Gandalf. 'Now I understand.' He faltered and leaned heavily on his staff. 'What an evil fortune! And I am already weary.'

The dark figure streaming with fire raced towards them. The orcs yelled and poured over the stone gangways. Then Boromir raised his horn and blew. Loud the challenge rang and bellowed, like the shout of many throats under the cavernous roof. For a moment the orcs quailed and the fiery shadow halted. Then the echoes died as suddenly as a flame blown out by a dark wind, and the enemy advanced again.
'Over the bridge!' cried Gandalf, recalling his strength. 'Fly! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way. Fly!' Aragorn and Boromir did not heed the command, but still held their ground, side by side, behind Gandalf at the far end of the bridge. The others halted just within the doorway at the hall's end, and turned, unable to leave their leader to face the enemy alone.
The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils.



Fire is a picture of judgment, in Deuteronomy 9 and other places, it says God goes before Israel as a consuming fire, it means judgment. He judges Canaan, yet never burns them or cause fire. The fire of his judgment was not literal fire, but his judgment.


An arbitrary assumption. I might as well claim the opposite.




But to add onto that, god allows things to happen even though he knows the future.


So he knew what would happen to Adam and Eve? He knew that his creation would go wrong? If those things were meant to be, it means that it was God's will. So it wasn't Adam's rebellion or sin, it was fulfilment of God's will and designs.

[rory_20_uk]

The entirety of the Old Testament there was no Hell. And when the New Testament starts where things are on one level much more level all about love and forgiveness Hell appears. Right about the same time the texts stop being written by Jews and are written by Greeks and Romans. What a coincidence.

I know of no one who has died and returned to tell us what happened and has documented this. Until then who knows?

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

Who said God is all loving? The terrified people who were desperately hoping that if they were flattering he might randomly kill someone else? Hardly a good source. He spent most of the time either showing off whilst committing genocide to those he'd forced to be obstinate. Then apparently one chap said he'd changed his mind and as long as one is sufficiently blinkered this would be true.

~:smoking:

[Strike For The South]

Love and comfort are not synonyms. Nor does a loving God absolve people of acting morally or ethically.

[total relism]

What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.
It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it. Then with a rush it leaped across the fissure. The flames roared up to greet it, and wreathed about it; and a black smoke swirled in the air. Its streaming mane kindled, and blazed behind it. In its right hand was a blade like a stabbing tongue of fire; in its left it held a whip of many thongs.
'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Balrog! A Balrog is come! '
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Durin's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face.
'A Balrog,' muttered Gandalf. 'Now I understand.' He faltered and leaned heavily on his staff. 'What an evil fortune! And I am already weary.'

The dark figure streaming with fire raced towards them. The orcs yelled and poured over the stone gangways. Then Boromir raised his horn and blew. Loud the challenge rang and bellowed, like the shout of many throats under the cavernous roof. For a moment the orcs quailed and the fiery shadow halted. Then the echoes died as suddenly as a flame blown out by a dark wind, and the enemy advanced again.
'Over the bridge!' cried Gandalf, recalling his strength. 'Fly! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way. Fly!' Aragorn and Boromir did not heed the command, but still held their ground, side by side, behind Gandalf at the far end of the bridge. The others halted just within the doorway at the hall's end, and turned, unable to leave their leader to face the enemy alone.
The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils.


Great stuff, I love Tolkien. I thought you were a fan as well given your name. Here is a short bio i wrote of him

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?518671-J-R-R-Tolkien-Libertarian-Creator-Of-Middle-Earth


Are you on any Tolkien forums? what have you read of tolkien?





An arbitrary assumption. I might as well claim the opposite.


But how could you support a literal fire in this case?





So he knew what would happen to Adam and Eve? He knew that his creation would go wrong? If those things were meant to be, it means that it was God's will. So it wasn't Adam's rebellion or sin, it was fulfilment of God's will and designs.

Yes he knew what would happen. No it was not his intention or will. He willed a creation with free will to chose to follow him and not to sin.

[total relism]

The entirety of the Old Testament there was no Hell. And when the New Testament starts where things are on one level much more level all about love and forgiveness Hell appears. Right about the same time the texts stop being written by Jews and are written by Greeks and Romans. What a coincidence.

I know of no one who has died and returned to tell us what happened and has documented this. Until then who knows?

~:smoking:


The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.
-Proverbs 15.24

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise[a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.
-Daniel 12-2,3

Her house is the way to Sheol,
going down to the chambers of death
Proverbs 7.27

“And they shall go forth and look
Upon the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.
Isiah 66.24

But your dead will live, Lord;
their bodies will rise—
let those who dwell in the dust
wake up and shout for joy—
your dew is like the dew of the morning;
the earth will give birth to her dead.
Go, my people, enter your rooms
and shut the doors behind you;
hide yourselves for a little while
until his wrath has passed by.
See, the Lord is coming out of his dwelling
to punish the people of the earth for their sins.
The earth will disclose the blood shed on it;
the earth will conceal its slain no longer.
Isiah 26 19-21


“I will deliver this people from the power of the grave;
I will redeem them from death.
Where, O death, are your plagues?
Where, O grave, is your destruction?
Hosea 13.14

Your dead shall live, their corpses[a] shall rise.
O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!
For your dew is a radiant dew,
and the earth will give birth to those long dead.
Isiah 26.19

also see 1 Samuel 28 12-14 psalm 17.15 Isiah 25 8-9 Ezekiel 37 11-13 job 19.26 to name some of them a few more beneath.



You claimed above that the NT was written by greeks and romans. I will ask you support such a claim when my thread on the translation of the bible is done.



Jesus indeed died and returned.


I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.
Rev 1.18

or this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
-Romans 14.9

[total relism]

Who said God is all loving? The terrified people who were desperately hoping that if they were flattering he might randomly kill someone else? Hardly a good source. He spent most of the time either showing off whilst committing genocide to those he'd forced to be obstinate. Then apparently one chap said he'd changed his mind and as long as one is sufficiently blinkered this would be true.

~:smoking:

Well he did through the bible. I agree nothing says god must be loving, however god as reveled in the bible declares a loving god. So that must bring up the question of why is their death and suffering in a loving gods creation, how did it get here?

As for the claims of a genocidal god or unloving god, i suggest this thread here


Did God Command Genocide During the Conquest of Canaan?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?153315-Did-God-Command-genocide-During-the-Conquest-of-Canaan

[total relism]

So animals sinned and stopped being vegetarian as well?


Yes. But not before the fall.





So however good and righteous you might be you may still suffer because "sometimes bad things happen to good people"? What's the use of being good and righteous then?


Yup, no matter how good you think you are, you still live in this fallen world. The only sinless man Jesus [according to the bible] was brutally murdered because of others sin. However none is guiltless or sinless before god. To even look at another woman lustfully is adultery in his view.

The reason to be good is it is what god asks of us, out of love we try and obey him.

And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.
2 john 1.6

We love him, because he first loved us
1 john 4.19





:dizzy2: So God doesn't want to judge, he wants to forgive, yet he judges?


Right. he does not want us to sin and does not wish to punish us. But his perfect justice cannot allow sin or evil to go unpunished. Thus he offered to take the penalty on himself and pay the debt if we are willing. Think of a judge whos son is facing the death penalty, he wishes he did not murder, he loves him so much he would take his place, but the son refuses and as a judge, he must give the sentence or he would be a bad unjust judge.

"'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?,' says the Lord God, 'And not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,' says the Lord God. 'So turn and live! Say to them, "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways. For why will you die?"'"
-Ez. 18.23,32; 33.11



I have a different information:

Exodus 20:5
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

Deuteronomy 4:23-24
"For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God

Deuteronomy 32:16
"They made Him jealous with strange gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger

Joshua 24:19
Then Joshua said to the people, "You will not be able to serve the LORD, for He is a holy God He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression or your sins.


Generally speaking, proving anything citing Bible is a bad idea for in it one can find such proof to a completely opposite idea.


Generally speaking the context will clarify any text used to try and force any contradiction. Your first is to take out of its context and claim god unjustly punishes children for the sins of the fathers.

Sins of the fathers punish the children?

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Deut. 24:16

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Ezekiel 18:20

It is if they continue in fathers sins, they will be punished.

they continue in fathers sins will cause judgment, otherwise god would relent example 1 sam 15 3 and 5 god says he will punish amalakites for what happened in Egypt long before [fathers]. Yet they continued in fathers sin judges 3.12 6 3-5,33 7.12 10.12 etc 1 sam 30 1 sam 15.18 show they are presently wicked. A key to understanding this business is a concept called vicarious punishment that is found in the law codes of the ANE. Greenberg [Chr.SPPS, 295] offers these examples:

A creditor who has maltreated the distrained sin of his debtor that he dies, must lose his own son. If a man struck the pregnant daughter of another so that she miscarried and died, his own daughter must be put to death. A seducer must deliver his wife to the seduced girl's father for prostitution. In another class are penalties which involve the substitution of a dependent for the offerer -- the Hittite laws compelling a slayer to deliver so many persons to the kinsmen of the slain, or prescribing that a man who has pushed another into a fire must give over his son...Now it is precisely this kind of punishment, which was prescribed in every law code in the Near East, that Deut. 24:16 is intended to forbid. The verse is not a universal motto, but a time-specific law intended as a direct counter to the practices listed above. "The proper understanding of this requires...that it be recognized as a judicial provision, not a theological dictum." [Chr.SPPS, 296, 298]
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/paydaddy.html


many today support abortion because of rape, that is punishing the child for the sins of the father.




Deuteronomy 4 and 32


Yes God gets angry and jealous. I said he was loving. His love causes anger and jealousy. Think of your wife [assuming you are married or girlfriend or what ever] and she leaves you, breaks her covenant with you where she swore to be faithful, and cheated on you with other men. Wouldn't your love cause you to be Jealous and angry? Gods jealousy is not the same as human jealousy and a great book would be

https://www.amazon.com/God-Moral-Monster-Making-Testament/dp/0801072751

for this and i think it betters fits a future thread of mine coming soon. Gods anger is perhaps no better displayed than during the conquest, see here

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?153315-Did-God-Command-genocide-During-the-Conquest-of-Canaan


I think you will see that his anger is not a human kind of anger but

“Judgment is not opposed to Gods love and compassion, but rather springs from the character of a loving, caring god”
-Matthew Flannagan and paul Copan Did God really Command genocide

“I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn't God love? Shouldn't divine love be beyond wrath? ?God is love,and God loves every person and every creature. That's exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God's wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, a region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed, and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalize beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandfatherly fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming the perpetrators' basic goodness? Wasn't God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God's wrath, I cam to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn't wrathful at the sight of the world' evil. God isn't wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love”
-Miroslav Volf Harvard Theologian quoted in Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan, 192



As for joshua 24 and that god will not forgive, that is if they refuse to follow him and continue in sin after his warnings, they chose to sin and separate from him in disobedience. Thus his justice must come that he wishes not to do .

“ If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.”
-Jeremiah 18 7-10

“When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.”
-Jonah 3.10




I like it. A person sinned. What should be the solution? A modern Christian would say: make him repent, or show him he was wrong, or scare him with a terrible prospect and thus make him stop sinning. What does "the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness" suggest (according to a Shane Cessna)? Kill him! I like it. What about forgiveness?


I think you misread. He said the only other option for god at this point would have been to kill adam and eve, showing god chose the more forgiving path.




A wrong assumption. It rather assumes he has absolved himself of all responsibility and watches from on high with insouciant nonchalance. And sometimes lets "bad things happen to good people".


a wrong assumption, it assumes he has not done anything about it, a very false assumption as my op showed.




:laugh4: Sounds too much like an election agenda.


lol, nice.





To kill a human to REMIND all others of something? That sure could have been done only by
"the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love".


It was referring to death as a whole, as part of the fallen world. God does not kill to remind people of death, it is now natural. When animals and loved ones die, their is a sense in most people this is wrong and not meant to be, this would make no sense in an athsitic worldview, but it is so.




So the world in which someone walks on water or turns water into win or resurrects a corpse is not bizarre? Isn't walking on water somehow inrefering with gravity?


great point. However those miracles of jesus were to show him the son of god, not normative way of life. If it were normal noone would know what a miracle was. You need a standard way of laws to operate so the creator can show he is who he claims to be.

[rory_20_uk]

Well he did through the bible. I agree nothing says god must be loving, however god as reveled in the bible declares a loving god. So that must bring up the question of why is their death and suffering in a loving gods creation, how did it get here?

As for the claims of a genocidal god or unloving god, i suggest this thread here


Did God Command Genocide During the Conquest of Canaan?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?153315-Did-God-Command-genocide-During-the-Conquest-of-Canaan

Most of the bible displays the absolute opposite - especially the old testament which is the majority of it. There are a few letters towards the end from people in the Roman Empire, but these often disagree with each other on important details so again "revealed" is a rather strong term to use. The source document is so rife with concerns it is at best the view of a group of people.

I think that genocide has a role to play in the concept of "love".

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.
-Proverbs 15.24

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise[a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.
-Daniel 12-2,3

Her house is the way to Sheol,
going down to the chambers of death
Proverbs 7.27

“And they shall go forth and look
Upon the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.
Isiah 66.24

But your dead will live, Lord;
their bodies will rise—
let those who dwell in the dust
wake up and shout for joy—
your dew is like the dew of the morning;
the earth will give birth to her dead.
Go, my people, enter your rooms
and shut the doors behind you;
hide yourselves for a little while
until his wrath has passed by.
See, the Lord is coming out of his dwelling
to punish the people of the earth for their sins.
The earth will disclose the blood shed on it;
the earth will conceal its slain no longer.
Isiah 26 19-21


“I will deliver this people from the power of the grave;
I will redeem them from death.
Where, O death, are your plagues?
Where, O grave, is your destruction?
Hosea 13.14

Your dead shall live, their corpses[a] shall rise.
O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!
For your dew is a radiant dew,
and the earth will give birth to those long dead.
Isiah 26.19

also see 1 Samuel 28 12-14 psalm 17.15 Isiah 25 8-9 Ezekiel 37 11-13 job 19.26 to name some of them a few more beneath.



You claimed above that the NT was written by greeks and romans. I will ask you support such a claim when my thread on the translation of the bible is done.

Jesus indeed died and returned.


I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.
Rev 1.18

or this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
-Romans 14.9

Proverbs I grant you. None of the others refer to hell. They all refer to rising - none leaving the earth.

You ask me to demonstrate that letters sent from Rome and the surrounding areas and with entire Gospels written in Greek that these were written by Greeks or Romans and yet are quite happy to provide a quote as "proof". Just because I say I'm dead and have arisen doesn't make it true.

Believe what you want - that's fine. But when you try to make beliefs somehow evidenced-based it all rather falls down.

~:smoking:

[total relism]

Most of the bible displays the absolute opposite - especially the old testament which is the majority of it. There are a few letters towards the end from people in the Roman Empire, but these often disagree with each other on important details so again "revealed" is a rather strong term to use. The source document is so rife with concerns it is at best the view of a group of people.

I think that genocide has a role to play in the concept of "love".

~:smoking:

Very unspecific so i cannot respond not sure what you are saying here. I would suggest you have made clear that you have never actually read the bible. As for the claims of genocide in the OT I would love for you to comment on its relevant thread.

Did God Command genocide During the Conquest of Canaan?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?153315-Did-God-Command-genocide-During-the-Conquest-of-Canaan


But as for this thread, do you have any comments on why is There Death and Suffering if God is all Loving? if so i would also love to discus that.

[total relism]

Proverbs I grant you. None of the others refer to hell. They all refer to rising - none leaving the earth.

You ask me to demonstrate that letters sent from Rome and the surrounding areas and with entire Gospels written in Greek that these were written by Greeks or Romans and yet are quite happy to provide a quote as "proof". Just because I say I'm dead and have arisen doesn't make it true.

Believe what you want - that's fine. But when you try to make beliefs somehow evidenced-based it all rather falls down.

~:smoking:

sheol is the place of the dead, hell is an eternal place where nobody in the OT times is or was, not until the final judgment. Daniel clearly makes a distinction of two separate eternal places, one to "everlasting contempt" [hell] one to everlasting life [haven]. Isiah describes a place of

"For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

does this not seem hell? those other passages that speak of rising, no more death and a world with god, means those who do not go to this place [haven] go to everlasting contempt etc hell. Let me add another verse. Also see below

“Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.”
Isiah 14.15



So back to your question, why is Hell mentioned so much more in the N.T. than the O.T.? Well, first of all it should be noted that in older versions (KJV, Geneva, and Douay-Rheims) the word "hell" appears 31 times in the O.T. and only 23 times in the N.T. In all 31 O.T. instances, the Hebrew word is "Sheol" and this word has a couple of different meanings. It can mean simply "the grave" or "the tomb in the earth where a body is laid after death". It can also refer to the two separate places where the righteous and the wicked went after death. There are also other times in Hebrew where the term Sheol is not used, but the concept of a destination place for the dead souls of mankind is clearly implied or directly stated. In the newer English translation, the majority of times Sheol is just transliterated into English as Sheol, although "hell" is kept in many places (19 of the 31 times in the NKJV) but zero times in almost all other English translations (ESV, NIV, NAS)

Psalm 63:9 and Ezekiel 32:24 both seem to imply that Hell (Sheol in Hebrew) is in the lower parts of the earth. Sheol in O.T. theology had two components; the grave for the righteous (called Abraham's bosom in Luke 16) and a place of conscious torment for the wicked, the Pit (usually shachath or bowr in Hebrew) which seems to be where the rich man in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was. The N.T. contains one reference to the lower parts of the earth in Eph. 4:9, which is often viewed as relating to Sheol, specifically Abraham's bosom. Other references to the Abyss or the Bottomless Pit also seem to indicate a physical opening at the earth's surface to a physical location in the interior of the earth. It must be pointed out however, that in each of these cases where the lower parts of the earth, the Abyss or the Bottomless Pit are mentioned, the genre is either parable, poetic or prophetic, not historical narrative, and the verses do have symbols and/or symbolic language (with the exception of Eph. 4:9 but this passage has been hotly debated among theologians in any event).

However, in Luke 16, Abraham says to the rich man that there is a great gulf (Mega-chasm would be the transliteration) between Abraham's bosom and Sheol/Hades. The rich man looked up and saw Abraham, which seems to make an earthly hades unlikely. (Would there really be an upper Hades for the good and lower Hades for the wicked, and if so, how could the rich man see Abraham through miles of rock)? We must also remember that in this parable, Christ had not yet died and resurrected, and therefore the physical bodies of Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man were still in the ground. We look forward to a physical and spiritual resurrection when we die, because of what Christ accomplished (1 Cor. 15:20-23), even the limited understanding of resurrection by O.T. saints and first century Jews reveals that they understood the body would not be raised until the time of the end (Dan. 12:2 and John 11:24).

But to the crux of your question, even though Sheol is mention more than hell (O.T. vs. N.T.) the concept of an eternal place of torment for the wicked is mentioned more in the N.T. Why is this? One could claim that it is just a matter of progressive revelation. {For example the concept of the Church is termed a mystery in the N.T. meaning it was not revealed until then. It was unknown even in principle in the O.T. If a person wanted to "know the Lord" in O.T. times he had to proselytize to Judaism, and place himself under the Law. Of course we know that the just shall live by their faith (Hab. 2:4) and that O.T. saints were not justified by the Law, but the Law did point out their sinfulness and their need for a Savior. But even Christ said in His Day that at that time in history "salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22).} In some degree this is correct. Since the O.T. saints had to look forward to Christ with only 39 books of Scripture, and we as Christians have the privilege of looking back at Christ and having 66 books of Scripture, one could say we have a greater degree of Truth given to us. This ties in with heaven, hell, resurrection, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, immortal bodies, etc. So of course we have had more revealed to us, and it makes sense that if Christ and His Apostles tell us much about heaven, how our new bodies will be, how God will finally judge the world at the end of the age, he would have to also give us more detail on the "flip side of the coin".

We are told much more in the N.T. about demons, demonic activity, Satan's purposes with human government (in Matthew especially), and of course where all these wicked beings and the wicked humans will go after the consummation occurs (especially in 1 and 2 Thess., 2 Pet. Jude and Revelation). Of course we are given hints of these things in Daniel, (and we actually have greater detail about "end times" human battles and governments in the O.T. prophets) and a few of the minor prophets, but since the concept of hell is tied into resurrection of the dead, and this concept is much more fully examined in light of Christ's Resurrection and subsequent judgment of the world at the consummation, of necessity the concept of hell is going to get more treatment in the N.T.

But on top of just the fact of progressive revelation, one other reason that hell is mentioned in the N.T. more than the O.T. is that the events are closer to consummation, and many theologians think that our concept of Hell (especially as outlined by Jesus in the Gospels) is really a description of the Lake of Fire (see for example, Matt. 18:8 and Mark 9:43-48). Since the Lake of Fire is currently not in use (and will not be so until the events of Rev. 19:20 and 20:10-15) and won't be fully utilized until the Great White Throne judgment, and since the Lake of Fire is not mentioned until Rev. 19:20, there was no need to get into the concept of the differentiation of the two in O.T. times, or even in early Apostolic times. Remember also that until the time of Christ's resurrection (contrast the parable in Luke 16 to 2 Cor. 5:8) the condition of an Abraham's Bosom Sheol for the righteous and a Sheol (in Luke 16:23 linked with Hades in the N.T.) for the wicked was in place, but now when a Christian dies, he is present with the Lord in heaven. Therefore something had to have changed between O.T. times and the resurrection of Christ, in regards to where righteous souls went after death. When you read through the O.T., there is a concept of being with God after death (Job 19:25-26, Psalm 16:9-11), but as stated earlier, it appears that this concept was thought to occur at the time of the end or the end of the age. Before then, it seems to appear that O.T. saints thought that they would just sleep until the final resurrection of the just in death (2 Sam. 7:12, 2 Kings 20:21, Job 14:10-12, Ps 6:5 30:9 88:10,11 and Isa. 38:17-19), or if they thought of an afterlife, it was one of being with family and (maybe?) God (Gen. 15:15, 49:29, Psa. 16:11 if viewed in this light, Psa. 17:15). Therefore since we are not looking forward to a promise, but backwards to a Savior, and since we know that Savior will also judge the world and that those not written in His book of Life will be cast into the Lake of Fire (along with Hades and death), whereas the O.T. saints did not know this, or knew only dimly and in part, we can expect there to be a fuller revelation of what these things are, both heaven and hell in the N.T..





I am surprised you have claimed to base your beliefs on evidence, when you cannot provide evidence to suport your claim the NT was written by greeks and romans [of course some were roman citizens like paul] . I do not believe jesus died and came back simply because the bible says so. However that is for a future thread. I will ask if you have anything to say about the op's topic of How Could God Send Those he Loves to Hell?, I would love to discus them.

[Husar]

Yup, no matter how good you think you are, you still live in this fallen world.

Why does he not make the fallen world unfallen? Isn't he all-powerful?

[Fragony]

There is no evidence that parts of the NT were Roman propaganda, some historians suspect it.

[rory_20_uk]

Very unspecific so i cannot respond not sure what you are saying here. I would suggest you have made clear that you have never actually read the bible. As for the claims of genocide in the OT I would love for you to comment on its relevant thread.

Did God Command genocide During the Conquest of Canaan?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?153315-Did-God-Command-genocide-During-the-Conquest-of-Canaan
But as for this thread, do you have any comments on why is There Death and Suffering if God is all Loving? if so i would also love to discus that.

Thank you for offering your suggestions. As with so much, you are incorrect and based your assumptions on limited data. I have read from several versions of the bible (no, not cover to cover) ranging from the Coptic to the St James, as well as more new and literal versions. I've also noted that there are some which miss large sections out and am very aware that they are all significantly different to each other. I note that you are more interested in evading answering questions on theology and would rather focus on the philosophy based on the extremely shaky grounds that everything based on an as-yet unnamed version of the Bible is to be taken as completely factually accurate and we are to have some fun and games pulling out quotes.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

Total realism, I never claimed to base my beliefs on evidence. To do so and to think others do is, well, moronic. A belief is something that is not bound by evidence. You appear to neither have the manners to ask nor the wit to infer that I am Agnostic

I am happy to critique the body of "evidence" - perhaps have a discussion on the canonical process, the politics that went on and so forth and the reasons that these decisions were made to fit the needs of the geopolitical reality and hence the hangover of these vestiges to today.


There is no evidence that parts of the NT were Roman propaganda, some historians suspect it.

There is precious evidence for most of it. Interpreting any text that has gone so many edits to the point where large parts of the original texts are only known from senior church officials at the time declaring them heretical is nonsensical. Of course, discussing the reasons for the creation of the versions that were created it itself has value.



~:smoking:

[Fragony]

The definitive gutenberg-bible was probably made for a reason, could also justt be handy because of the invention of printing books. That a lot of it has been lost or altered makes perfect sense to me though, theory is that christian forves had to be pacified. It doesn;t seem all that outlandish to me

[Gilrandir]

Are you on any Tolkien forums?


No.



what have you read of tolkien?


Almost all there is to read. My PhD thesis was based on analysis of his Legendarium.




But how could you support a literal fire in this case?


I can't. But I equally can't see any proofs it is otherwise. So since one can't prove the use of metaphor, one must abide by the literal meaning of the word used.





Yes he knew what would happen. No it was not his intention or will. He willed a creation with free will to chose to follow him and not to sin.

Yet he knew Adam would sin. He was meant to sin. It was his "function" in the paradise. If he was meant to, he wasn't to blame. Just like Judas - his "function" was to betray Jesus. Without Judas there would have been no resurrection. Thus both can't be blamed for what they have done. Hence turning Adam out was senseless and heartless.

[total relism]

Why does he not make the fallen world unfallen? Isn't he all-powerful?

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”
-Revelations 21 1-5


The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD
-Isiah 11 6-9

he will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears
from all faces;
he will remove his people’s disgrace
from all the earth.
The Lord has spoken.
-Isiah 25.8

[Gilrandir]

Yes. But not before the fall.


I don't believe the notion of sin is applicable to anyone but humans. Other wise one will claim that trees, robots and oceans can sin.



The reason to be good is it is what god asks of us, out of love we try and obey him.



And yet he gives no surety we will not suffer even if we love and obey him.




Generally speaking the context will clarify any text used to try and force any contradiction. Your first is to take out of its context and claim god unjustly punishes children for the sins of the fathers.


I don't need a context to understand a phrase "jealous God". It is quite telling in itself.


Sins of the fathers punish the children?

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Deut. 24:16


As I have remarked, Bible is full of contradictory statements, so trying to score a point by quoting it will be countered by another quote with a completely opposite sense.



Yes God gets angry and jealous. I said he was loving. His love causes anger and jealousy. Think of your wife [assuming you are married or girlfriend or what ever] and she leaves you, breaks her covenant with you where she swore to be faithful, and cheated on you with other men. Wouldn't your love cause you to be Jealous and angry?


See above.



Gods jealousy is not the same as human jealousy

I think you will see that his anger is not a human kind of anger


Is is what humans assume.



a wrong assumption, it assumes he has not done anything about it, a very false assumption as my op showed.


He interferes now and then, but most of the time he just watches unfolding of history to the bitter end.



great point. However those miracles of jesus were to show him the son of god, not normative way of life. If it were normal noone would know what a miracle was. You need a standard way of laws to operate so the creator can show he is who he claims to be.

If those miracles happened on a regular basis THIS would become a standard way of laws to operate. So people would be aware of omnipresent God ready to always lend a helping hand and stop mischief.

[total relism]

Total realism, I never claimed to base my beliefs on evidence. To do so and to think others do is, well, moronic. A belief is something that is not bound by evidence. You appear to neither have the manners to ask nor the wit to infer that I am Agnostic

I am happy to critique the body of "evidence" - perhaps have a discussion on the canonical process, the politics that went on and so forth and the reasons that these decisions were made to fit the needs of the geopolitical reality and hence the hangover of these vestiges to today.



There is precious evidence for most of it. Interpreting any text that has gone so many edits to the point where large parts of the original texts are only known from senior church officials at the time declaring them heretical is nonsensical. Of course, discussing the reasons for the creation of the versions that were created it itself has value.



~:smoking:


This kind of posts just reassure me that large portions of the population accept things they are told and cannot support them other than repete the same stuff they were told to believe. It seems I think some think the da vinci code was actually history. This thread more than any needs a translation of the bible thread to be done. Please allow me the time to address each issue one at a time.

[total relism]

No.



Almost all there is to read. My PhD thesis was based on analysis of his Legendarium.




I can't. But I equally can't see any proofs it is otherwise. So since one can't prove the use of metaphor, one must abide by the literal meaning of the word used.





Yet he knew Adam would sin. He was meant to sin. It was his "function" in the paradise. If he was meant to, he wasn't to blame. Just like Judas - his "function" was to betray Jesus. Without Judas there would have been no resurrection. Thus both can't be blamed for what they have done. Hence turning Adam out was senseless and heartless.



That is to bad. Their are some good ones if your interested.

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/index.php
http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/index.php?



Holy crap that is great. I have read more of him as a person as i wanted to get to know the mind that created middle earth. But I am now getting into the lore aspects of it. I will be starting the histories of ME next. I would love to talk with you on some of this stuff. In fact I am going to make a thread on a subject on this forum and would love your expert evaluation of it. I will post it.

Does the Silmarillion Contradict Third age History?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?153340-Does-the-Silmarillion-Contradict-Third-age-History&p=2053775601#post2053775601
In Search of Lore Accurate Size of a Mumakil
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?153341-In-Search-of-Lore-Accurate-Size-of-a-Mumakil



I just think the passage is clear they were not literally burnt. Seems to indicate non literal fire. Or at least one that does not consume physical bodies.


Both judas and adam were guilty and rebelled against god. Adam was never meant to sin, he was meant to live eternally in relationship with god. His proper function was to follow god and be a steward of earth, eat good food and have sex. His own free will caused the fall. God chose a world with free will and thus accepted the future fall of man. Judas worked on his own choice as well. God uses the bad choices of mankind to do his work yes, but they disobey on their own. A great example is jospeh in egypt. His brothers did evil and sold him into slavery, but god used that for good. But god does not approve of what they did.

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people[a] should be kept alive, as they are today.
-Gen 50.20

[Husar]

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”
-Revelations 21 1-5


The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD
-Isiah 11 6-9

he will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears
from all faces;
he will remove his people’s disgrace
from all the earth.
The Lord has spoken.
-Isiah 25.8

Yes, but why wait >2000 years?

[total relism]

Yes, but why wait >2000 years?

I ask the same thing. But the bible says god wants all to be saved and all to hear the gospel.

8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,[b] not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
2 peter 3 8-9

He desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth"
-1Tim. 2.4

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16.15

[Husar]

I ask the same thing. But the bible says god wants all to be saved and all to hear the gospel.

8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,[b] not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
2 peter 3 8-9

He desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth"
-1Tim. 2.4

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16.15

But who are "all"? Is there some stash of unborn souls somehwere that he needs to deplete before he can bring about the end? What if we were to nuke the entire planet before that happens? Would he prevent that from happening? If so, would that be a way to irrefutably prove his existence, by trying to nuke all of humanity? Didn't Paul expect judgment day to come during his lifetime anyway?

[total relism]

First i want to thank you for your honest look at my threads and sharing your thoughtful disagreements with them.




I don't believe the notion of sin is applicable to anyone but humans. Other wise one will claim that trees, robots and oceans can sin.


I do believe animals sin as they have spirts or souls i forget witch. People have body/spirit/soul, animals have body/spirit or soul [forget] oceans/trees [i love trees] have physical bodies. Tress are amazing i must say, and tolkien was more correct on ents than most think. well worth the read amazing.

Talking Trees—Secrets of Plant Communication
https://answersingenesis.org/biology/plants/talking-trees/






And yet he gives no surety we will not suffer even if we love and obey him.


In fact the opposite, he assures us we will suffer.

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves.
You will be hated by everyone because of me
matt 10 16,22

“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake.
Matthew 24.9

"Drinking beer is easy. Trashing your hotel room is easy. But being a Christian, that's a tough call. That's rebellion."
-Alice Cooper


18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
john 15 18-19


Just as it is written, "FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG; WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED."
Romans 8.36

Are they servants of Christ?--I speak as if insane--I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death.
2 Corinthians 11.23

"You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.
matt 11.22

"He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.
matt 11.39

many more but you get the point.




I don't need a context to understand a phrase "jealous God". It is quite telling in itself.


Agreed god is a jealous god as the bible clearly says. And in what way is god jealous? what kind of jealousy is it? is it in a manner inconstant with a loving god? or is it because of his love? the context can help us understand that. Otherwise some might use it and create a false context and try and make his jealousy the way that some humans become jealous over things they should not.




As I have remarked, Bible is full of contradictory statements, so trying to score a point by quoting it will be countered by another quote with a completely opposite sense.



Once more I would suggest it is because you have ignored the context and your claim of children being punished for the fathers sin is a great example of this. In fact I will make a thread on supposed biblical contradictions where you can post your best examples as can any other poster. I will than help clarify the supposed contradictions. I have done so with many hundreds of them and they all result from usually lack of theological understanding, slight translations issues [usually always from the king james written in English 400 years ago] and lack of context. But that is for another thread.




Is is what humans assume.


?




He interferes now and then, but most of the time he just watches unfolding of history to the bitter end.


Agreed. Their is now a great separation between us and him.





If those miracles happened on a regular basis THIS would become a standard way of laws to operate. So people would be aware of omnipresent God ready to always lend a helping hand and stop mischief.

So you are saying you wish jesus was always around to heal the sick etc. He always told people this was not his mission as they just wanted to get well, he wanted their eternity with him, far more important.

[total relism]

But who are "all"? Is there some stash of unborn souls somehwere that he needs to deplete before he can bring about the end? What if we were to nuke the entire planet before that happens? Would he prevent that from happening? If so, would that be a way to irrefutably prove his existence, by trying to nuke all of humanity? Didn't Paul expect judgment day to come during his lifetime anyway?

Great questions. I think the "all" is all those who will eventually come to Christ. So i hope, my yet to be born grandchildren and great grandchildren. If you look at the world i dont think it will be very many generations before Christianity becomes a small sect and a little minority. At least true Christianity. If someone nuked the whole world and killed everyone, yes that would disprove the bible as it says it ends in a very different way in the battle of Armageddon. It is divided on the issue if some of the apoltes thought jesus would return in their lifetime [they were not perfect and got allot wrong] i asked this same question here is a response i was given if your interested.



thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. There is a division among theologians on whether this is the case or not. Some theologians believe that most of the Apostles expected Jesus to return in their lifetime, but many theologians believe that the Apostles believed in an imminent return of the Lord, but not necessarily an immediate return. The words of the Apostle Paul seem to verify this in 2 Thess. 2 (text below).

2 Thess. 2:1-5 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?

Peter seems to teach the same thing; imminence yet also the longsuffering of God, which may result in a delay for His return so that more will come to repentance.

2 Pet. 3:9-15 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you.

However, even if all the Apostles thought Jesus was going to return in their lifetime, that doesn't mean that they weren't mistaken in their humanity, yet Scripture is still vindicated. The Disciples often failed to grasp the importance of what Jesus said, or misconstrued it. But concerning when Jesus would return (and establish the kingdom), He Himself told them in Acts 1:7 And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.

Additionally Jesus specifically said that His return would be delayed in parable form; that is the whole emphasis in Matthew 25, that the bridegroom and master will delay His return, but when He does come, He will come unexpectedly and suddenly. So either way, the Apostles were teaching imminence and hoping for a soon return, but not necessarily an immediate one; or some of them were mistaken and didn't catch the thrust of Jesus' parables in Matt. 25. However the text of passages such as outlined above, plus 2 Tim. 3:1, 1 Pet. 1:5, 2 Pet. 3:3 and Jude 18 seems to indicate that even if the Disciples thought this way initially (Acts 1:7) they had through further revelation come to understand that Christ would delay his return until all his sheep were gathered (John 10:16) and the times of the Gentiles would be fulfilled (Luke 21:24).

[Gilrandir]

I do believe animals sin as they have spirts or souls i forget witch. P


We here are not concerned with what one BELIEVES. We are talking quotations. Please, cite anything in Bible which says that animals have souls similar to humans and that they can sin.

Here is definition of sin (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sin)
1 a : an offense against religious or moral law
b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible it's a sin to waste food
c : an often serious shortcoming : fault
2 a : transgression of the law of God
b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

Do tell me which explanations of sin are applicable to animals.



In fact the opposite, he assures us we will suffer.


So we will suffer, he will not interfere in it, and we must love him for that?



"Drinking beer is easy. Trashing your hotel room is easy. But being a Christian, that's a tough call. That's rebellion."
-Alice Cooper


:laugh4:

Alice Cooper
"Steal That Car"

It just ain't fair I was put in that position
Somebody left their keys in the ignition
I saw the unlocked door and made my decision
I just can't help myself

Everybody knows
I'm gonna steal that car
My reputation shows
I'm gonna steal that car
I did some time in '99
I'll do some time again
Everybody knows
I'm gonna steal that car

You somehow should sort out those whose opinions you rely on. Some of them aren't any authority outside their narrow circle, others have a dubious reputation (like Alice Cooper - I love him, by the way. One of my favorite singers. Grew up on his "Trash" and "Hey stoopid" albums).



Agreed god is a jealous god as the bible clearly says.


One more proof that Bible is full of contradictions. Or perhaps God is so versatile.



And in what way is god jealous? what kind of jealousy is it? is it in a manner inconstant with a loving god? or is it because of his love? the context can help us understand that. Otherwise some might use it and create a false context and try and make his jealousy the way that some humans become jealous over things they should not.


From what I quoted, his jealousy was aroused when someone prayed to other gods.





Once more I would suggest it is because you have ignored the context and your claim of children being punished for the fathers sin is a great example of this.


It is a great example that God can be needlessly cruel.



?


Humans try to explain what God says or means using their human logics (in their defense - they don't have any other). So we interpret his messages as we understand them. Which doesn't mean it is the correct interpretation of the divine will. Perhaps this is one of the reasons Bible is so contradictory.



So you are saying you wish jesus was always around to heal the sick etc. He always told people this was not his mission as they just wanted to get well, he wanted their eternity with him, far more important.

At least it would make more sense if one claims to be a merciful God. Otherwise it again looks like a politician's promise - you adhere to me and some time in future I'll try to do something about your current problems.

[Gilrandir]

That is to bad. Their are some good ones if your interested.

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/index.php
http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/index.php?



:bow:



Both judas and adam were guilty and rebelled against god. Adam was never meant to sin, he was meant to live eternally in relationship with god. His proper function was to follow god and be a steward of earth, eat good food and have sex. His own free will caused the fall. God chose a world with free will and thus accepted the future fall of man. Judas worked on his own choice as well. God uses the bad choices of mankind to do his work yes, but they disobey on their own. A great example is jospeh in egypt. His brothers did evil and sold him into slavery, but god used that for good. But god does not approve of what they did.

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people[a] should be kept alive, as they are today.
-Gen 50.20

You may be right about Adam. But not about Judas. If it hadn't been for him there would never have been God's son sacrificing himself, nor resurrection, nor Easter and other things which are the foundations of Christianity.

[rory_20_uk]

This kind of posts just reassure me that large portions of the population accept things they are told and cannot support them other than repete the same stuff they were told to believe. It seems I think some think the da vinci code was actually history. This thread more than any needs a translation of the bible thread to be done. Please allow me the time to address each issue one at a time.

Yes... they are broadly called those who follow religions.

You appear to be missing the point - translating an unreliable source doesn't make it more reliable.

~:smoking:

[total relism]

:bow:



You may be right about Adam. But not about Judas. If it hadn't been for him there would never have been God's son sacrificing himself, nor resurrection, nor Easter and other things which are the foundations of Christianity.

I think god would have accomplished his plan using whoever he could. I dont think judas is central. their was enough people that wanted jesus dead, judas just gets to much credit imo.

[total relism]

We here are not concerned with what one BELIEVES. We are talking quotations. Please, cite anything in Bible which says that animals have souls similar to humans and that they can sin.

Here is definition of sin (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sin)
1 a : an offense against religious or moral law
b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible it's a sin to waste food
c : an often serious shortcoming : fault
2 a : transgression of the law of God
b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

Do tell me which explanations of sin are applicable to animals.


You are testing my expertise that is for sure. I am open to animals not being able to sin though i thought they were and if i come by why, i will post. But i will at least say they are effected by adams sin, they now do things against gods desire for them even if it is not counted as "sin" by god because of their perhaps lack of awareness.

For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity. All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust. Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth?
Ecclesiastes 3:19–21

The Hebrew word nephesh is translated soul dozens of times in the Old Testament, but it is also used to describe animals.

The Bible makes a clear distinction between the status of plants and animals. People and animals are described in Genesis as having, or being, nephesh (Hebrew)—see Genesis 1:20, 21, 24, where nephesh chayyah is translated ‘living creatures’, and Genesis 2:7, where
Adam became a ‘living soul’ (nephesh chayyah). Nephesh conveys the basic idea of a ‘breathing creature’. It is also used widely in the
Old Testament, in combination with other words, to convey ideas of emotions, feelings, etc. Perhaps nephesh refers to life with a certain
level of consciousness.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter6.pdf






So we will suffer, he will not interfere in it, and we must love him for that?


No you dont have to like it, the christian life is not fun and enjoyment. its because we love him we endure it. Just like because he loved us he endured the cross.




:laugh4:

Alice Cooper
"Steal That Car"

It just ain't fair I was put in that position
Somebody left their keys in the ignition
I saw the unlocked door and made my decision
I just can't help myself

Everybody knows
I'm gonna steal that car
My reputation shows
I'm gonna steal that car
I did some time in '99
I'll do some time again
Everybody knows
I'm gonna steal that car

You somehow should sort out those whose opinions you rely on. Some of them aren't any authority outside their narrow circle, others have a dubious reputation (like Alice Cooper - I love him, by the way. One of my favorite singers. Grew up on his "Trash" and "Hey stoopid" albums).



Yes all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god, still its a great quote. he is a christian now, not when he wrote those lyrics. Look at Paul in the NT, he use to hunt down and kill Christians. Moses, david, many of the most well known names in the bible were murders. My past is full of stealing, drugs, selfishness, adultery, lying and just about anything else you could add to it. That is before i became a crazy ass christian

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
-Ezekiel 36 26






One more proof that Bible is full of contradictions. Or perhaps God is so versatile.


when does it say he is not jealous? what contradiction do you see? as sated, his jealousy is driven by love. It is not a desire for what others [people? other gods?] have, but a desire to be in a loving relationship with his people in this case isreal. His bride who cheated on him by following other gods. if you see a contradiction please let me know.




From what I quoted, his jealousy was aroused when someone prayed to other gods.


more than prayed but agreed, see above.




It is a great example that God can be needlessly cruel.


if what you are saying devoid of context is true, than i agree, and so does the bible.

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Deut. 24:16

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Ezekiel 18:20





Humans try to explain what God says or means using their human logics (in their defense - they don't have any other). So we interpret his messages as we understand them. Which doesn't mean it is the correct interpretation of the divine will. Perhaps this is one of the reasons Bible is so contradictory.


or, perhaps its the reason you see contradictions where non exists. I can show you suing human logic and resolve any supposed contradiction you think exists. I have done so hundreds of times on many forums. I will do a thread on it and i will pm you if your interested.




At least it would make more sense if one claims to be a merciful God. Otherwise it again looks like a politician's promise - you adhere to me and some time in future I'll try to do something about your current problems.

He never said he would do anything of our current problems. He said they will become worse in fact. Jesus had a different opinion. First he had to die and rise to pay the penalty for sin, than he if he had stayed in human form, could only help people within isreal so that would not help, instead he helps all believers and attempts all people, through the holy spirit.

But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
john 16.7


6 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[a] in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”...26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. 30 I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, 31 but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
John 14

[Gilrandir]

when does it say he is not jealous? what contradiction do you see? as sated, his jealousy is driven by love. It is not a desire for what others [people? other gods?] have, but a desire to be in a loving relationship with his people in this case isreal. His bride who cheated on him by following other gods. if you see a contradiction please let me know.


Under contradictions I mean statements that have completely opposite meaning, but are both one person (if God is a person). In linguistics they are called antinomies. Like God is forgiving and God is jealous. Or another example is


Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Deut. 24:16

vs what was said about children being punished to the seventh degree.





He never said he would do anything of our current problems.


You quoted another source (not Bible) which had this idea. If you remember I likened it to a political slogan.

[Gilrandir]

I think god would have accomplished his plan using whoever he could. I dont think judas is central. their was enough people that wanted jesus dead, judas just gets to much credit imo.

Yet it was Judas who was chosen. So there is np use denouncing him for what he was appointed.

[total relism]

Under contradictions I mean statements that have completely opposite meaning, but are both one person (if God is a person). In linguistics they are called antinomies. Like God is forgiving and God is jealous. Or another example is


But than how is god being forgiving and jealous a contradiction?




vs what was said about children being punished to the seventh degree.


when they continue in their fathers sins and refuse to repent.




You quoted another source (not Bible) which had this idea. If you remember I likened it to a political slogan.
[/QUOTE]

hmmm, not sure which you are referring to. If so i apologize.

[Gilrandir]

But than how is god being forgiving and jealous a contradiction?


If you forgive everyone for everything you can't feel jealous.



hmmm, not sure which you are referring to.


Taken from your post:


In fact, God has done a lot already to solve the problem of evil, and He has promised to do more in the future.


And my remark:

Sounds too much like an election agenda.

[total relism]

If you forgive everyone for everything you can't feel jealous.



Taken from your post:


And my remark:

Sounds too much like an election agenda.

God does not just forgive everything. He offers forgiveness to those who accept jesus sacrifice on the cross and repent. God is even jealous of people who are his own such as the case with ancient isreal who than went astray because his love for them did not stop. Just as a husband would be jealous of an adulterous wife, even if he was willing to forgive if she stopped, his love still drives the jealousy. There is difference between condoning an act and forgiving a moral violation out of love and gods nature.


Perhaps it is. God did so much for us vote for him, accept his son and have the gift of eternal life. He alone is the rightful king.

Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?153309-Rebellion-to-Tyrants-is-Obedience-to-God

We love him, because he first loved us.
-1 John 4.19

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
-Romans 5.8



But I was speaking more to what he did do in the past, such as die on the cross.

[Fragony]

You should stop using the bible as a source, the people you adress (including me) do not see it as a source. The question is interesting enough without it, what do you think yourself

[total relism]

You should stop using the bible as a source, the people you adress (including me) do not see it as a source. The question is interesting enough without it, what do you think yourself

I think you have misunderstood the nature of my op. It has nothing to do with showing the bible true. It responds to a common objection people have [such as i had when i was agnostic/atheist] that how come their is death and suffering if god is all loving. This seemed an inconstancy with a god of love. How could i worship a god who created an imperfect world? isent this an imperfect god than? wouldent this disprove the bible? to this thread is on an internal inconstancy with the bible not a proof of the bible as gods word. Now if someone such as yourself thought for yourself and read the op, I would assume they would have figured that out. As someone who if a former atheist but than learned to think for myself, i have concluded


“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge


if you want to start a thread on why some vague unknowable deist god of the universe allows for evil, than go ahead and start one. Asking why is their death and suffering and avoiding what the creators word [the bible] says on the subject is irrational and so i could not start such a thread, my apologies.

[total relism]

Old Testament Death Penalty Laws

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.
-Genesis 9.6

“Early I will destroy all the wicked of the land,
That I may cut off all the evildoers from the city of the Lord.”
-Psalm 101.8

“proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished”
-Exodus 34 6-7

The death penalty had been an accepted practice almost universally through history and cultures. It has been society's most effective preventive to crime. Benjamin Franklin said a public execution once and awhile is good for a society as it would show the community the punishments for the sins they might commit. The death penalty prevents killers from committing the same crimes saving future innocents and family members from the horrors of murder. When criminals go unpunished and the innocent suffer, people complain about god saying "were is the god of justice?" Malachi 2.17. It gives justice to family members of the victims. And ultimately upholds the biblical view of man being created in the image of God.

“some men ,probable obtain from murder because they fear that they committed murder they would be hanged. Hundreds or thousands abstain from it because they regard it with horror”
-James Stevens A General View of the criminal law in England 1863

In today's society we see crime running wild, in part because we have softened on our punishments and we have hidden our capital punishments from the public, instead of the old American, and biblical way, of public displays. When they are done in private, they lose their purpose to prevent further criminals from acting in ways that would receive the punishment. God does not see the death penalty as a good thing, but as a necessary evil to prevent further evil done to the innocent witch comes from the very nature of a holy and just God.

“Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?,' says the Lord God, 'And not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,' says the Lord God. 'So turn and live! Say to them, "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways. For why will you die?"'
-Ezekiel 18.23,32; 33.11

It is not vengeance but seeking justice. People should be angry with horrific acts and want to restore justice as does God.

“We execute murders in order to make a communal proclamation that murder is intolerable”
-David Gelernter What do Murders Deserve

“we cannot help but regard it as fitting when things go well for good people and badly for bad people, and as unfair when the revers occurs”
-Edward Fesser and Joseph Bessette By Man Shall his Blood be Shed a catholic defense of capital punishment Ignatius press San Francisco 2017

“It is indeed praiseworthy for victims of crime to forgive their debtors, but such personal pardon does not absolve offenders from their obligations to justice...“The relationship of the state to the criminal is not the same as that of a victim to an assailant. Governors and judges are responsible for maintain a just public order.””
-Cardinal Avery Bulls

The OT laws are not Gods perfect plan, but for a specific time and people coming from a ancient near eastern culture [Matt 19.8] we cannot apply today's western standards to OT near eastern Jews. Israel joined a covenant and they were free to leave at any time. God never made anyone follow him, they could always leave the camp if they did not want to follow the rules. Courts were to rule rightly with Jew or gentile [Deuteronomy 1 16-17] and the law is full of chances for mercy forgiveness. The bible says that God would prefer the guilty to make restitution outside of court with the victim, and that the victim has the choice of forgiveness or justice. Luke 12 58-59 says it is better to settle out of court than to face penalty in court. In 2 kings 4 1-7 God does a miracle to prevent a person from reviving the death penalty under the law. David, Moses, Cain are examples were the death penalty was not given by God to premeditated murders. When a woman who was caught in adultery was brought to Jesus he said the first with no sin through the first stone, he then forgave her and told her to sin no more. In Nehemiah 13 15-22 the leaders of Jerusalem are in violation of the law with capital punishment as a crime, yet Nehemiah simply threatened to arrest them. In the NT when the disciples are said to be guilty of working on the Sabbath, and the Jews wished to stone them to death, Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. But in the case of unrepentant law breakers punishment would come. If people were to follow the rules of love your god with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself there would be no punishments.

8 Then the word of the LORD came to Zechariah, saying, 9 “Thus says the LORD of hosts: Execute true justice,
Show mercy and compassion Everyone to his brother. 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, The alien or the poor. Let none of you plan evil in his heart Against his brother.’
-Zechariah 7 8-10

“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly[a] with your God.”
-Micah 6.8

To be found guilty in court of a crime that carries capital punishment, there had to be two or more witnesses to the act. So it had to be more of a public display witch would spread sin to the community and if left unpunished, would encourage other to do the same. Before any punishments the guilty had to be brought to court and convicted by judges and forewarned of the punishment for the crime.

“In rabbinic law, capital punishment may only be inflicted by the verdict of a regularly constituted court of three-and-twenty qualified members. There must be the most trustworthy and convincing testimony of at least two qualified eye-witnesses to the crime, who must also depose that the culprit had been forewarned of the criminality and the consequences of his project”
-Jewish Encyclopedia/ Capital punishment
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4005-capital-punishment

“The Talmud limits the use of the death penalty to Jewish criminals who:
(A) while about to do the crime were warned not to commit the crime while in the presence of two witnesses (and only individuals who meet a strict list of standards are considered acceptable witnesses); and
(B) having been warned, committed the crime in front of the same two witnesses
http://judaism.about.com/od/orthodoxfaqenkin/f/adultery_punish.htm

There are 16 crimes that call for death penalty in OT, only in the case of premeditated murder does it say officials in Israel were forbidden to take "ransom" or "substitute" for punishment [numbers 35 30-31 genesis 9.6] The death penalty did not have to be carried out in all cases.

“we should also keep in mind that a common feature of ANE law codes was to describe the maximum possible punishment while allowing for less severe sentences. Notice, for example, that when Joseph discovered that Mary, his betrothed, was pregnant, he was called "just" for planning to "divorce her quietly" rather than "put her to shame" (Matthew 1:9)
-Keaton Halley ‘Awful’ rules in the Bible Is the Good Book really good?


At any time a witness or one of the Sanhedrin could call of the exacusion, even after the trial found them guilty. As a pointer to Jesus covering our death penalty for sin, the sinner could be forgiven by a blood sacrifice by the priests.

“(H)e must bring as his offering for the sin he committed a female goat without defect. He is to lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering. Then the priest is to take some of the blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. In this way the priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.”
-Leviticus 4:28-31

“For the life of a creature is in the blood , and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.”
-Leviticus 17:11

The death penalty was also to show the seriousness of crime. I talked with Tovia Singer of outreach Judaism who told me the death penalty was used very rare in ancient Israel. If there were more than 1 in 70 years they were called “a killer court.”

“A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says that this extends to a Sanhedrin that puts a man to death even once in seventy years.”
-makkot 1:10

Tovia also told me the purpose of death penalty was to atone for the sin of the person and show the gravity of the sin. Many of the capital punishment laws were to stamp out certain sins and to stop them from spreading. The punishments do not effect the individuals salvation. The punishments are to cause the sinner to repent.

“Depend on it sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully”
-Samuel Johnson

Repentance is common in modern death row cases. For example in 2010 Before receiving the death penalty

“this is the only way God could save me, Mom.”
-Kevin Varga 2010

Also it was used to stop sins from happening with other people. God loves his people to much to allow sin to destroy them, so he attempts to prevent sin from destroying us. The laws were there to stop sin in the first place [Numbers 35 33-34].

My son, do not despise the LORD’s discipline,
and do not resent his rebuke,
12 because the LORD disciplines those he loves,
as a father the son he delights in.
-proverbs 3. 11-12

While the death of anyone is not a good thing and is certainly not nice. But“ nice” is not always good, being nice with no judgment can have very bad results. For example

“crime was decreasing in the decades to the 1960s, when we punished criminals more. E.g. in America, the absolute number of murders committed in the U.S. in 1960 was less than in 1930, 1940 or 1950, even though the population was larger (murder is a particularly clear indicator of lower crime, since no one can simply dismiss this with “there was just less reported crime back then”). But then evolution-based ideas infected the justice system: this ‘root causes’ nonsense, proclaiming that the criminals were ‘victims of society’ such as poverty and racism. Yet these factors were much higher in the 1950s when there was lower crime. But the results were predictable: lower the ‘cost’ of crime, and there will be more of it. This has been thoroughly documented in Dr Thomas Sowell’s fine book”

Also we need to consider that crimes of that time such as adultery had much bigger impacts and were considered greater crimes than today. Even 50 years ago divorce was very rare and seen as a very bad thing that would have negative effects on the family and culture. So some things such as adultery would be like what we consider maybe child molesters or similar. We as people over time get more sinful and accept certain crimes we originally would not have, or see them as not so bad because we have normalized them and made them common. For example, when I was young I said I would never smoke a cigarette, than I started smoking. I than said well I would never smoke pot, than I started. ill never smoke as much as them, than I did. well ill never do drugs then I did etc. So you can see we all do this in many ways towards things we do wrong. But God does not sin, he does not grow in sinfulness as we do. He is a just judge not a sinful human. if law is rejected than

“lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.”
-Matthew 24:12

Abolishing capital punishment would lead to vigilantly justice. In secular thought death is the ultimate evil rather than a step on the road to eternal life. It would not be moral progress but a evaporation of a sense of sin, guilt and justice.

Stoning children?

“The stoning of rebellious sons is one such Scripture that makes some Christians uncomfortable. Many people imagine this to be too harsh because they have ignored the qualifications that the Bible itself gives. They imagine a little child mouthing off to his parents, and then being killed for it. But this isn’t at all what the Bible teaches. First of all, the law applied to sons, not children. It appears to refer to young adults who were still living with their parents. From context (Deuteronomy 21:18) we can see that this penalty of stoning was not for a single action, but was for someone who had been punished many times (“when they chastise him”) and yet still continued in disobedience (“he will not even listen to them”). It was for someone who was constantly drunk and disobedient (Deuteronomy 21:20), someone who was continually cursing (Exodus 21:17) and even physically attacking (Exodus 21:15) his own parents. For such an evil individual, God instructed him to be delivered to the city authorities for public execution.Such an action is very serious, and it was meant to be. The public execution of such an individual was supposed to act as a deterrent to others (Deuteronomy 21:21—“and all Israel will hear of it and fear.”) How many such executions would people have to see before they got the point? Interestingly, I cannot find any Scriptural references to this punishment ever having been actually implemented. Perhaps it was, but my point is that it seems to have been uncommon. Just the threat of this penalty apparently acted as an effective deterrent. It was an extreme penalty for the most extreme, continuous rebellion of the most evil and violent young men. And it was only to be used as a last resort to protect society from unrestrained violence. Proverbs 19:18 states “Discipline your son while there is hope, And do not desire his death.”
-Jason Lisle Gods was to Harsh? And Answers in Genesis Killing rebellious son

It also needs to be said that Gods law were meant for prevention, to prevent an evil in the first place and in this case it seemed to have worked for ancient Israel. For example v 21 says

21 Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.

There is no record in the bible or Israelite history where a child was stoned to death for rebellious behavior. Thus gods sever punishment worked as a prevention. Also if we look at the opposite today's society where youth are allowed and encouraged to rebel towards parents with little punishment. Thousands die from drunk driving, drug use, violence etc because of this.


What was Stoning?

The goal was for a quick painless death, they did not have lethal injection in that day.

“the Talmudic method of how stoning is to be carried out differs from mob stoning. According to the Jewish Oral Law, after the Jewish criminal has been determined as guilty before the Great Sanhedrin, the two valid witnesses and the sentenced criminal go to the edge of a two story building. From there the two witnesses are to push the criminal off the roof of a two story building. The two-story height is chosen as this height is estimated by the Talmud to effect a quick and painless demise but is not so high that the body will become dismembered. After the criminal has fallen, the two witnesses are to drop a large boulder onto the criminal – requiring both of the witnesses to lift the boulder together..“Any Biblical death penalty procedure had to be accomplished in one instantaneous stroke,” he explained. “For while the death penalty may have been administered, it was not done in a way to prolong agony or suffering, nor in a manner of public humiliation that degraded the human being created in the image of God.”
-Fact Check: Does the Bible Really Condone Stoning? Rabbi Aryeh Spero, author of “Push Back: Reclaiming Our American Judeo-Christian Spirit,”

Are Gods laws to harsh?

“Yes I understand that law. But it still seems wrong to me. Some Old Testament laws are just too harsh.” For this person, I have only one question: “too harsh by what standard?” The person who finds God’s law to be off the mark (too harsh or too lenient) must have some way of knowing what the mark is. As one example, what is the right penalty for a given crime? And how do you know? Many people appeal to their own subjective feelings of what they think to be right. But that is completely arbitrary; it’s a mere opinion without any rational foundation. What if two people disagree on what is morally right? How would they decide who is correct? Clearly, they must appeal to some greater standard that ultimately determines what is morally right. What is that standard?.... We need an objective standard if we are to have objective morality and not just conflicting subjective opinions. Some people believe that morality is determined by majority vote. But that criterion leads to absurd results. After all, if the majority of people could be convinced that it’s okay to murder people, would that really make it morally acceptable? History is full of examples of the majority of people doing what is morally wrong. But that couldn’t be if the majority determined what is right. Appealing to the majority simply shifts an arbitrary opinion from one person to a group of people. It does not make the opinion any less arbitrary. After all, why should I do what the majority says?.....None of the above opinions can make the leap from what is to what should be. Only God’s law can do this. God is our Creator and will hold us accountable for our behavior. Therefore, we all have a very good objective reason to behave as God has commanded in His law. Any standard for morality apart from God’s Word is arbitrary, and therefore irrational. “Good” is that which corresponds to the will of God (Romans 12:2, Hebrews 13:16, 3 John 1:11). God’s law is good because it corresponds perfectly to His will. When a person thinks that a law of God is not good (e.g. too harsh), this does not indicate a problem with the law of God. Rather, it indicates a problem with the person. It shows that the individual does not truly understand what morality is. Such a person is trying to appeal to his own subjective feelings of right and wrong rather than the supreme and unchanging Word of God....God’s law reveals what is right; it shows us God’s standards. When a person disagrees with God’s standards, He is trying to judge the law by some greater standard. But there is no greater standard.
-Jason Lisle Gods laws to harsh? By what standard


Sins of the fathers punish the children?

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Deut. 24:16

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Ezekiel 18:20

if they continue in fathers sins, they will be punished. When they continue in fathers sins will cause judgment, otherwise god would relent, example 1 sam 15 3 and 5 god says he will punish amalakites for what happened in Egypt long before [fathers]. Yet they continued in fathers sin judges 3.12 6 3-5,33 7.12 10.12 etc 1 sam 30 1 sam 15.18 show they are presently wicked. A key to understanding this business is a concept called vicarious punishment that is found in the law codes of the ANE. Greenberg [Chr.SPPS, 295] offers these examples:

A creditor who has maltreated the distrained sin of his debtor that he dies, must lose his own son. If a man struck the pregnant daughter of another so that she miscarried and died, his own daughter must be put to death. A seducer must deliver his wife to the seduced girl's father for prostitution. In another class are penalties which involve the substitution of a dependent for the offerer -- the Hittite laws compelling a slayer to deliver so many persons to the kinsmen of the slain, or prescribing that a man who has pushed another into a fire must give over his son...Now it is precisely this kind of punishment, which was prescribed in every law code in the Near East, that Deut. 24:16 is intended to forbid. The verse is not a universal motto, but a time-specific law intended as a direct counter to the practices listed above. "The proper understanding of this requires...that it be recognized as a judicial provision, not a theological dictum." [Chr.SPPS, 296, 298]
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/paydaddy.html

many today support abortion because of rape, that is punishing the child for the sins of the father.


Did god create evil? Isiah 45

"Thou art not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; no evil dwells with Thee (Psalm 5:4)

"The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and kind in all His deeds." (Psalm 145:17)


"calamity." Contextually, this verse is dealing with natural disasters and human comfort issues. It is not speaking of moral evil; rather, it is dealing with calamity, distress, etc. Also, take note that Isaiah is presenting contrasts. He speaks of "light" and "darkness," "well being" and "calamity." The word "well-being" in the Hebrew is the word for 'peace,' "Shalome." So, in the context, we are seeing two sets of opposites: Light and dark, peace and non-peace, or well being and calamity. The "evil" that is spoken of is not ontological evil, but the evil experienced by people in the form of calamity."
http://carm.org/does-god-create-evil

The context ofIsaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,”Isaiah 45:7is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Isaiah-45-7.html

calamity, mistranslation,with flow of chapter,calamity 7 ways to translate original word.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+45&version=NIV

The word ra' is used throughout the Old Testament with several meanings. It is used many times to mean something morally evil or hurtful (Job 35:12, 1 Sam 30:22, etc.) but it is also used to mean an unpleasant experience (Gen 47:9 and Prov. 15:10). It is used to describe fierce beasts (Lev. 26:6), and even spoiled or inferior fruit (Jer 24:3). Certainly, the figs that Jeremiah was looking at were not evil in the sense of morally reprobate!
In Isaiah 45, the word evil is used in a contrast to the peace and well-being discussed before it. I quote John Haley:
http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi025.asp


Woman in Bible

The first person to see the resurrected Christ was a woman (John 20:15-18). The first European convert was a woman (Acts 16:14). The only followers of Jesus to stand with Him in his crucifixion were women. There were woman in the upper room and anointed with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14, 2:1-4). Jesus was born to an earthly mother, but not an earthly father(Matt. 1:18,etc.). Only a woman understood Christ's upcoming death (Mark 14:8). These actions show that women played a part as crucial to Christ's ministry as the men In Galatians 3:28 the scriptures explicitly state that women hold a position of equal value and importance to men: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." The Bible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ. Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26). It does not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The four daughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1 Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesy and other gifts can be used between women and men. It does not say that women cannot evangelize. Lydia, after being converted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelized others(Acts 16:14,40). This does not make the man superior, only placed in a different role than the woman. The best example of this I can think of is the tribes of ancient Israel. The Levites were chosen out of the twelve tribes to be the priests and to run the house of God, but this didn't mean they were superior to any of the other tribes. That is just the position in which God placed them. In the same way, men are to be the authority in the church. Women are allowed to teach other women, and instruct men. Even Timothy, the recipient of this epistle, was tutored by his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). God also commanded Abraham to listen to the council of his wife in Genesis 21:12. However, since the authority falls to the man, it is he who will be held accountable for improper decisions, such as also happened to Abraham when he followed bad advice from Sarah in Genesis 16. So, God is not against women at all. Because each sex has a different role to play, doesn't make one role more important than the other. And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.gen 1.27


Eve

Was created in the image and likeness of god gen 1 26-28 child birth was not a punishment but a gift. Pain in childbirth was punishment just as adam was punished. That eve was created second means nothing to importance, what is more important NT or OT?. When eve is called a helper, that word is only ever used of god in the OT, this in no way means inferior to man, but godlike. God is not inferior to man neither is woman. Sutible helper means "like opposite him" a mirror image.

christian woman pastors from early second century, woman in church had bigger and more roles in church in first century than second, than died off as a response to Gnostic.
-Justo L. González in The Story of Christianity: Volume 1


ccc 370 In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.


men the head of woman/above in charge
mark 10 42-44

read here for pauls letters
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm

1 Corinthians 7
38 So then he who gives her[c] in marriage does well, but he who does not give her in marriage does better.

39 A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Numbers 35.31 woman married who they wanted.

[total relism]

How Could a Loving God Send Plagues Against People?- The 10 Plagues of Egypt

A movie i think that would accurately depict gods motives and use of the 10 plagues in bible would be The Reaping.
https://www.amazon.com/Reaping-Hilary-Swank/dp/B000U7169M

How is it, if God is loving, he could send plagues against people that resulted in their deaths? The most well known example in the bible comes from the Israelite exodus from Egypt. This also provides another difficulty for the christian among various plagues God has sent because children were among those who lost their lives.

“The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.” -President Ronald Reagan - June 6, 1984 POINTE DU HOC

Gods use of the 10 plagues was an act of Judgment Exodus 6 6-7 not an arbitrary event. Pharaoh was holding the Israelites in a brutal form of slavery and he was afraid of a large scale slave uprising, so he had all Hebrew boys born to be drowned in the Nile.

“So Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, “Every son who is born you shall cast into the river.”
-Exodus 1.22

“They worked the Israelites ruthlessly 14 and made their lives bitter with difficult labor in brick and mortar and in all kinds of fieldwork. They ruthlessly imposed all this work on them.”
-Exodus 1 13-14

“When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live
-Exodus 1.16

Israel was in slavery for hundreds of years in Egypt. How may prayers of Gods people went unanswered while under slavery in Egypt? Gods people lived under the tyrant pharaoh and many Israelites were killed by Egyptians included by starvation. Egypt was guilty of a terrible form of slavery and mass murder of innocent children.

“proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished.”
-Exodus 34 6-7

The ten plagues were also used to show the Egyptians, and the world, [many foreigners in Egypt the most advanced nation of its time] that there is only one god and they were worshiping false gods Exodus 7.5 9.14 9.29 10 16-19. Every plague was aimed at showing the Egyptian gods are false. The plagues showed that pharaoh was not a god, and following him would lead to death.

“Context is everything in biblical interpretation. The ancient Egyptians served many false gods. The Plagues that were set upon the people of Egypt were relative to the gods of the land demonstrating that God was the true God and that their gods were weak, ineffective, and false. Plague of Turning the Nile to blood, Exodus 7:14-25. Isis was the Egyptian god of the Nile. Khnum was the guardian of the Nile. Plague of Frogs, Exodus 8:1-5. Heget was the goddess of birth and had the head of a frog. Plague of Gnats, Exodus 8:16-19. Set was the god of the desert. Flies, Exodus 8:20-32. Re was the sun god. Uatchit was a god possibly represented by the fly. Death of Livestock, Exodus 9:1-7. Hathor, goddess with a cow's head. Apis was the bull god. Boils, Exodus 9:8-12. Sekmet goddess that had power over disease. Sunu, the god of pestilence. Hail, Exodus 9:13-35. Nut, the goddess of the sky. Set god of storms. Locusts, Exodus 10:1-20. Osiris, god of crops. Darkness, Exodus 10:21-29. Re, the sun god. Horus, a sun god. Hathor, sky goddess. Death of firstborn, Exodus 11:1 - 12:30. Min, god of reproduction. Isis, goddess who protected children. Pharaoh, considered a god.1
-“The Plagues and the Gods and Goddesses of Egypt,” as found in Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985. Matthew Slick (carm.org)

“Moreover, the battle that waged throughout the days of Moses’ audiences with pharaoh was not between Yahweh and pharaoh, but between Yahweh and the gods of Egypt, who—during God’s invoking of the ten plagues—were proven to be powerless. The God of Israel himself said, “And against all the gods of Egypt, I will execute judgments—I am Yahweh” (Exod 12:12b). This conclusion is supported by the statement of Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, who had just heard a first-hand account of all the events: “Now I know that the Lord is greater than all the gods; because in the very thing in which they were proud, he proved to beabove them” (Exod 18:11). Jethro understood the point: Yahweh resoundingly won “the Battle of the Gods,” proving both to Israel, to Egypt, and to the rest of the Ancient Near East (hereinafter, “ANE”) that he alone is divine.
- Doug Petrovich ThM MA Amenhotep II and the Historicity of the Exodus Pharaoh Associates for Biblical Research

Yahweh Alone is God

It worked!!! Egyptians started believing in God after the 6th plague Ex 9.20 and were spared from the rest of the plagues. Belief in God, not nationality was the deciding factor of who suffered the last four plagues. Some Egyptians even started asking pharaoh to let Israel go Ex 10.7. Many Egyptians would join Israel and went out of Egypt with the Israelites.

The Last Plague- Death of The Firstborn

“However the plagues were not sent because of babies. God did not kill them but pharaohs sin against god and the Egyptians. Had the babies kids of Egypt grown up in Egypt worshiping pharaoh they may have missed out on eternity,look at numbers 14 28-33 for this with isreal,kids indirectly suffer for the sins of the parents.When an abusive father kills his child in a fit of rage, the child dies BECAUSE of the SINS of the FATHER, but the child is not being PUNISHED by being killed. When a child dies of an illness caused by neglect of a parent, they die BECAUSE (somewhat, at least) of the SINS of the parent, but their death would not be considered as a PUNISHMENT on the child for the neglect of the parent. It would be a CONSEQUENCE of the sin, but not a ‘punishment’ per se.The Exodus story involves a corporate or national punishment”
- Was God being evil when He killed all the firstborn in Egypt? Christian Think Tank

Any Egyptian who put the blood of the lamb [picture of Jesus] on the doorpost was passed-over and was spared. The blood of the lamb is what distinguished believers from non believers. They had no reason to reject god after the first 9 plagues so they willingly disobeyed him on the tenth and received judgment, showing there was nothing special about pharaoh or any firstborn individual. Pharaoh allowed this to happen, he could have let Israel go the 9 times before. God was willing and wanting to relent from sending the plagues at any time Ex 10 13-14,19 10 16-19. When pharaoh asked, God stopped the plagues 8.15 8.29-32.

"'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?,' says the Lord God, 'And not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,' says the Lord God. 'So turn and live! Say to them, "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways. For why will you die?"'"
-Ez. 18.23,32; 33.11

“ If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.”
-Jeremiah 18 7-10

Anyone who tried to stop Israel and Gods plan of salvation through messiah will receive judgment, this is throwout the bible. It is a Jewish principle to pick the better of two evils, death of messianic line and all go to hell, or death of pharaoh and the firstborns to convince pharaoh to let them go while converting large numbers to god. God was relenting from more severe punishments but not until the death of the firstborn, was pharaoh going to let the Israelites go. The firstborn who did not place the blood of the lamb on the doorpost would go straight to haven after death. They would also avoid growing up in a pagan system under pharaoh.

“The righteous perishes, And no man takes it to heart; Merciful men are taken away, While no one considers That the righteous is taken away from evil.”
-Isa. 57:1

Did God Harden Pharaohs Heart?

“But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said.”
-Exodus 8.15

“And the Lord did what Moses asked. The flies left Pharaoh and his officials and his people; not a fly remained. 32 But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go.”
-Exodus 8.31

Pharaoh investigated and found that not even one of the animals of the Israelites had died. Yet his heart was unyielding and he would not let the people go
-Exodus 9.7

“Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did? When Israel’s god dealt harshly with them,did they not send the Israelites out so they could go on their way?”
-1 Samuel 6.6

“And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils, for the boils were on the magicians and on all the Egyptians. But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh; and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had spoken to Moses”
-Ex 9:11-12


וַיְחַזֵּ֤ק, a Piel tense of the verb “to make stronger”. It is key to note that this is the Pi’el form of the verb, which means God strengthen Pharaoh heart. So God only reinforce what was already in Pharaoh’s heart.

God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and we are also told that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (4 times). Both statements are true and do not contradict each other. There was no hope of convincing or converting Pharaoh so his heart would be hardened by God (6 times, 10 times in all). God did not allow him to change his mind and was given no room to do anything else but what his own sinful heart dictated. Notice that in a very real sense, all four of the following statements are true: (1) God hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (2) Moses hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (3) the words that Moses spoke hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (4) Pharaoh hardened his own heart. All four of these observations are accurate, depicting the same truth from different perspectives. In this sense, God is responsible for everything in the Universe, i.e., He has provided the occasion, the circumstances, and the environment in which all things (including people) operate. But He is not guilty of wrong in so doing. From a quick look at a simple Hebrew idiom, it is clear that God did not unjustly or directly harden Pharaoh’s heart. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), He does not act unjustly (Psalms 33:5), and He has always allowed humans to exercise their free moral agency Deuteronomy 30:19. God, however, does use the wrong, stubborn decisions committed by rebellious sinners to further His causes Isaiah 10:5-11. In the case of Pharaoh’s hardened heart, God can be charged with no injustice, and the Bible can be charged with no contradiction. Humans were created with free moral agency and are culpable for their own actions.
-Who Hardened Pharaoh's Heart? Dave Miller PH.D Kyle Butt M.Div apologetic press

Was God Justified in his Judgment?

“Judgment is not opposed to Gods love and compassion, but rather springs from the character of a loving, caring god”
-Matthew Flannagan and paul Copan Did God really Command genocide

Man cannot judge the actions of a perfect holy god, it goes the other way around. According to that holy all knowing god, the answer is yes. For mankind to try and turn the sinners into the victims, and turn the judge of the world into a sinner, is an act of an evil heart.

“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
-Isiah 5.20

Even in the liberal west, Brutal forms of slavery and mass murder of children would not be tolerated in a society. Gods actions during the plagues were a result of love for the victims, and his nature as being a perfect sinless judge. For there to be a truly loving god who hates evil and sin, he must also be a judge of sin.

“I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn't God love? Shouldn't divine love be beyond wrath? ?God is love,and God loves every person and every creature. That's exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God's wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, a region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed, and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalize beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandfatherly fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming the perpetrators' basic goodness? Wasn't God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God's wrath, I cam to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn't wrathful at the sight of the world' evil. God isn't wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love”
-Miroslav Volf Harvard Theologian quoted in Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan, 192

Israel stayed in slavery for over 200 years and Gods love forced him into action. The opposite of love is not anger, but hate. God is angry at things that destroy his creation and his love for us. On sep 11 the president gave orders to shoot down planes to save lives that the terrorist could have used to kill more innocent lives. Sometimes judges give the death penalty to certain murders, but we dont call them murders, we call them good, just, judges.

“God fights in compassion to defend the oppressed, and in anger against the oppressor”
-Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem Heath A Thomas Jermey Evans Paul Copan

So while the death of anyone is bad and death itself is bad. Given the circumstances it was better than the alternative. God punishing does not make the punishment good, but only the outcome. In 1 chronicles 28.3 king David is not allowed to build the temple because he has to much blood on his hands [ he killed to many people] even though they were often God ordered killings. Death is still a bad thing and not normal or natural part of life. If the Bible is true, is God not able to take life he is given? God is the only perfect judge. God judges by what is deserved, God is the judge of man, he does not order killing out of malice or lawlessness [Deuteronomy 32.4]. God does not judge willingly [Lamentations 3 32-33]. God personally suffers with human sin/judgment [Jeremiah 9.9 12.7-9 15 5-9 48 29-53 9.10 17-18 31.20 48 30-36 Ezekiel 27 3-11 26-36 Isiah 15.5 16 9-11] God suffers for humanity The bible teaches peace first, not war.

Think of the Victims

[I]Your eyes are too pure to look on evil;
you cannot tolerate wrongdoing.
Why then do you tolerate the treacherous?
Why are you silent while the wicked
swallow up those more righteous than themselves?
-Habakkuk 1:13

“All who do evil are good in the eyes of the Lord, and he is pleased with them” or “Where is the God of justice?”
-Malachi 2.17

“They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?”
-Revelations 6.10

If we were in the same situation as the victims we might say I dont believe in God or a loving God, otherwise he would not allow these horrible things to happen. A major objection to the bible is were is God when bad things happen? How can a loving God allow such things like babies being drowned in the nile? So why is it when God does act in judgment against sin, than all sudden he is called harsh and evil? The problem is not with Gods perfect judgment of people hearts, but with the unrepentant sinners heart, that will reject God no matter what.
“Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
-Job 40.8

One christian wrote

“I like a point a friend of mine made about this. One Skeptic asked why God simply did not kill Hitler as a baby. Yet if "baby Hitler" had died, the Skeptic would ask why God did not prevent the death of this innocent baby.”
-Sam Shamoun

Or

“As I read and re-read all the non-Christian or anti-Christian accounts of the faith … a slow and awful impression grew gradually but graphically upon my mind—the impression that Christianity must be a most extraordinary thing. For not only (as I understood) had Christianity the most flaming vices, but it had apparently a mystical talent for combining vices which seemed inconsistent with each other. It was attacked on all sides and for all contradictory reasons. No sooner had one rationalist demonstrated that it was too far to the east than another demonstrated with equal clearness that it was much too far to the west.” On the one hand, they ‘proved’ Christianity was “a thing of inhuman gloom”, but then they proved that Christianity “was a great deal too optimistic.” Christianity supposedly caused overpopulation by “Go forth and multiply” (Genesis 1:28), but then it was supposedly anti-sex.“Or, again, certain phrases in the Epistles or the marriage service, were said by the anti-Christians to show contempt for woman’s intellect. But I found that the anti-Christians themselves had a contempt for woman’s intellect; for it was their great sneer at the Church on the Continent that ‘only women’ went to it.”
-G.K. Chesterton



Korah Rebellion Numbers 16 Were Children killed?

.The word Sheol appears 65 times in the O.T. 31 times it means "the grave"; 31 times it means the "abode of the dead, both wicked and righteous) and 3 times it means simply a "dug out pit". There are also four other Hebrew words besides Sheol that are translated as "the pit" and none of those mean "hell". So there are two ways to look at these verses in Numbers 16.

The first is that they are refering to physical death only. This makes sense in light of the even split between Sheol referring to the grave as much as hell in the O.T. It also makes sense in light of the phrase at the end of verse 33 (they perished from the assembly). and from Moses' own statement in verses 28-29 28-29 "And Moses said: "By this you shall know that the LORD has sent me to do all these works, for I have not done them of my own will. "If these men die naturally like all men, or if they are visited by the common fate of all men, then the LORD has not sent me". Both of these statements refer to physical death (muwth and abad in the Hebrew meaning perish, die, be exterminated or executed). Plus, it is said in Scripture that the wicked dead will not have a body until the Great White Throne judgment in Rev. 20:5-14. These families would be exceptions to this statement if they were taken alive into Sheol/Hades the place of judgment. This is by far the stronger view, textually, linguistically and in accordance with other teachings of Scripture.

The second position would be that these families were taken to Sheol/Hades alive. If this were the case, it would have to be an exception to the rule stated in Rev. 20. If this did occur, then your question about children needs to be addressed to some extent, but the answer is plain from Scripture and from Hebrew word study of Scripture. God is holy and just and will always do right (Gen. 18:25, Deut. 32:4,Ps. 99:5-9, Isa. 6:3). Plus as I will make the point below (in the last paragraph) it appears that the children didn't die at all (more on that later).
Therefore whether we understand or not is moot, we can rest assured that God would not eternally destroy the righteous or the innocent with the wicked. We must also study the term used in Num. 16:27 for little children. The Hebrew word is "taph" and does not refer to infants, and doesn't seem to mean toddlers either. Most of the time it means daughters as opposed to sons, or boys younger than 13 but older than just walking age. Young male children (and toddlers in ggeneral) are often mentioned with the Hebrew word "yeled". It seems from usage then that this passage is probably referring to daughters and boys between 6 and 12. They probably had some knowledge of what was going on and so could have easily been "guilty" or at least non-innocent. Finally, even if this view is accepted, and they went alive into Sheol, it is quite possible that any "innocent" children could have gone to the righteous Sheol, while Korah and the other rebellious men and women went to the place of punishment Sheol/Hades (see Psalm 16 and Isa 38 verses and note below). Also keep in mind the following passage in Isaiah. Not all the times that a righteous person dies is it a judgment, more often it is as a mercy, so he doesn't become more wicked, or stays around to be vexed by it.Isa. 57:1 The righteous perishes, And no man takes it to heart; Merciful men are taken away, While no one considers That the righteous is taken away from evil.


Num. 16:33 So they and all those with them went down alive into the pit [Sheol]; the earth closed over them, and they perished from among the assembly.

Example of Sheol as also being for the righteous dead in the O.T.
Ps 16:10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
Isa. 38:9-10 This is the writing of Hezekiah king of Judah, when he had been sick and had recovered from his sickness: I said, "In the prime of my life I shall go to the gates of Sheol; I am deprived of the remainder of my years."

All the passages below are translated "the grave", but the Hebrew word is Sheol, the same as in Num. 16

Gen. 37:35 And all his sons and all his daughters arose to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted, and he said, "For I shall go down into the grave to my son in mourning." Thus his father wept for him.
1 Sam. 2:6 "The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to the grave and brings up.
1 Kings 2:9 "Now therefore, do not hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man and know what you ought to do to him; but bring his gray hair down to the grave with blood."
Job 21:13 They spend their days in wealth, And in a moment go down to the grave.
Ps 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of You; In the grave who will give You thanks?
Ps 30:3 O LORD, You brought my soul up from the grave; You have kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit {Hebrew is bowr-meaning cistern}.
Ps 49:14 Like sheep they are laid in the grave; Death shall feed on them; The upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; And their beauty shall be consumed in the grave, far from their dwelling.
Ps 49:15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave, For He shall receive me. Selah
Ps 88:3 For my soul is full of troubles, And my life draws near to the grave.
Ecc. 9:10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going.
Hos. 13:14 "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! Pity is hidden from My eyes."

But before I close, I want to make one more very important point. The children did not die. If you read the text carefully, you will see that it mentions the men and the households. So it is "assumed" that the children died too. In point of fact, they didn't.
Read Number 26:9-11 The sons of Eliab were Nemuel, Dathan, and Abiram. These are the Dathan and Abiram, representatives of the congregation, who contended against Moses and Aaron in the company of Korah, when they contended against the LORD; and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up together with Korah when that company died, when the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men; and they became a sign. Nevertheless the children of Korah did not die. It appears from Scripture that any children younger than 13 (and possibly even older) did not die. Only the men and their wives did. Apparently sometime between while Moses was talking in Num. 16:29-30 and the ground opened up, other family members had come and pulled the children away from the tents and men involved in the rebellion.

Sons of korah wrote psalm 42-49 still alive.

[Gilrandir]

It worked!!! Egyptians started believing in God after the 6th plague Ex 9.20 and were spared from the rest of the plagues.


This is the surefire recipe to increase the number of the faithful. No need to send preachers everywhere and propagate the Scripture. Just murder half of the population and the other half will agree that Yahweh Alone is God.

[Gilrandir]

The OT laws are not Gods perfect plan, but for a specific time and people coming from a ancient near eastern culture [Matt 19.8]


You are basically saying that:
1. God's plans are sometimes not perfect.
2. God is liable to change his laws depending on the time of application.



we cannot apply today's western standards to OT near eastern Jews.


It is not about US applying standards, it is about GOD using double standards. At certain time killing was OK, at others - not that much.



if they continue in fathers sins, they will be punished. When they continue in fathers sins will cause judgment, otherwise god would relent



Here's what Bible says:

Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

Do show me where "continuing fathers sins" is mentioned. One doesn't have to continue anything. If your great-grandfather hated God, the latter will visit his anger upon you no matter what you think.

Just don't start the context thing.



Eve Was created in the image and likeness of god gen 1 26-28


ccc 370 In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes.



A contradiction. How can a spirit have an image? Image of an object or a person is always something visible. Being in visible form a human must by default have an image of a man or a woman.

[total relism]

This is the surefire recipe to increase the number of the faithful. No need to send preachers everywhere and propagate the Scripture. Just murder half of the population and the other half will agree that Yahweh Alone is God.

lol not a usual tactic is it. No but nobody had died by the sixth plague. And a preacher was sent, his name is Moses. Nobody ever had to die was the point. If they chose to openly defy the one true god than the firstborn would be killed, not half the country.

[total relism]

Thanks for reading my posts and giving feedback.



You are basically saying that:
1. God's plans are sometimes not perfect.
2. God is liable to change his laws depending on the time of application.


No to the first, yes to the second. He works from the situation people are in. So before the fall he made only two laws for man, have sex and eat, one negative, dont eat of a single tree. With noah and the survivors, another, with Moses and Israelite in the land of Canaan surrounded by Canaanites, another etc



It is not about US applying standards, it is about GOD using double standards. At certain time killing was OK, at others - not that much.


All the time murder is wrong, killing is sometimes. If we make that distinction, than the supposed contradiction disapers.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?153353-Old-Testament-Death-Penalty-Laws-to-Harsh-and-Similar-Objections-to-the-Bible




Here's what Bible says:

Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

Do show me where "continuing fathers sins" is mentioned. One doesn't have to continue anything. If your great-grandfather hated God, the latter will visit his anger upon you no matter what you think.

Just don't start the context thing.


Before we get to the passage I think you could not make the case from the bible. Think of Abraham, he was a pagan worshiping Canaanite, jethro his father in law, same thing, accepted that day he converted. The egyptians were pagans who converted and follow god. Rahab and her family at jericho, Ruth and naomi, among others. Over and over from the books of moses we have examples of people who converted to god and he did not punish them for their fathers sins. As the same book [also see Ezekiel 18:20] Deuteronomy says

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Deut. 24:16

I used the example from 1 Samuel 15 with the amalakites. They were punished for the sins of their fathers. yet they were the ones doing and continuing the sins their fathers committed, the very same sins of their fathers.


The mistake is to try and take any one passage from the bible and than create a theology from it instead of the bible as a whole. God never had DT 5.9 [the verse you quote] in his bible. Chapters and verses are man made thousands of years later. That is why the whole bible must be considered. This is why i think Christians have so many denominations. They try and build theology from man made verses or chapters alone. Calvinism is a great example imo.




A contradiction. How can a spirit have an image? Image of an object or a person is always something visible. Being in visible form a human must by default have an image of a man or a woman.

Its a good question I will look it up from a study i did on hebrews and Jesus being the image of god. But from the greek/hebrew the word does not mean physical, or at least does not have to. But relationship. I did a quick google search on your question from christian sources

https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/what-is-image-of-god/
https://creation.com/made-in-the-image-of-god

God does appear in human form many times in the ot and nt of course as well.

[Gilrandir]

No to the first, yes to the second. He works from the situation people are in. So before the fall he made only two laws for man, have sex and eat , one negative, dont eat of a single tree. With noah and the survivors, another, with Moses and Israelite in the land of Canaan surrounded by Canaanites, another etc



The bold is wrong. He told them to produce offspring.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number;

So he never mentioned eating, and having sex WITHOUT conception. Moreover, he never called it a law or commandment or by any other binding word.

And as for liability to change laws, why, a time might come when adultory or theft will stop being a sin (a violation of god's law), like it is the case with homosexuality now. Or is it still a sin?



All the time murder is wrong, killing is sometimes. If we make that distinction, than the supposed contradiction disapers.



You contradict yourself. Murder was never forbidden to Adam and Eve (as you have said, there were only two laws at that time, murder wasn't mentioned in either). So techinically, if Adam had murdered Eve - or vice versa - they wouldn't have done anything against God's will.

Later murder WAS wrong. But, as you have noted, God is liable to overlook his treaties.



As the same book [also see Ezekiel 18:20] Deuteronomy says

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Deut. 24:16


So one and the same book of Bible contains two mutually exclusive quotes. That's what I have been saying on the consistancy of Bible as a source.



Chapters and verses are man made thousands of years later.


Do you realize that this admission turns Bible from the ultimte authority bearing the word of God into a hearsay?




That is why the whole bible must be considered.


Since it contains mutually excluding statements (see above) it is useless.




This is why i think Christians have so many denominations. They try and build theology from man made verses or chapters alone. Calvinism is a great example imo.


The existence of denominations has many reasons (like political, economic, etc.) among which theological ones are among many but in no way dominant.




Its a good question I will look it up from a study i did on hebrews and Jesus being the image of god. But from the greek/hebrew the word does not mean physical, or at least does not have to. But relationship. I did a quick google search on your question from christian sources


So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

This quote shows that god had at least two anthropomorphic images.



God does appear in human form many times in the ot and nt of course as well.

As a male or a female?

[HopAlongBunny]

Just a note.
Since we are talking about strictly OT, we cannot be talking about Christians. You do not have Christians until you have the NT.
To square anything in the OT with the teachings of Christ, it would have to meet (at minimum) the test of the Good Samaritan; perhaps that could be done with a few passages.
IMO keeping the OT around is to provide an excuse for vengeance and desire that Christ leaves little or no recourse to.

[Fragony]

Some people realy deserve it, we do not deserve having to keep them alive, it is not death penalty it is enforced euthanesia. Only when you are really reallly sure

[Gilrandir]

Just a note.
Since we are talking about strictly OT, we cannot be talking about Christians. You do not have Christians until you have the NT.
To square anything in the OT with the teachings of Christ, it would have to meet (at minimum) the test of the Good Samaritan; perhaps that could be done with a few passages.
IMO keeping the OT around is to provide an excuse for vengeance and desire that Christ leaves little or no recourse to.

IMO, since writing of OT and NT is separated by a couple of thousands years, the original language and protagonists those volumes have less right to be considered one book than, say, The Silmarillion, LOTR and The Hobbit.

[Gilrandir]

lol not a usual tactic is it.

No lol. It WAS a usual tactic by those in Middle Ages who ostensibly served God and purported to implement his will.



If they chose to openly defy the one true god than the firstborn would be killed, not half the country.

Only the firstborn? How unusually kind and merciful! Sounds much like Communists. Or Nazis.

[Fragony]

IMO, since writing of OT and NT is separated by a couple of thousands years, the original language and protagonists those volumes have less right to be considered one book than, say, The Silmarillion, LOTR and The Hobbit.

Total Realism is a really religious guy and that is ok with me, a moral discussion should be have about death penalty. It is not anything new, the cruelist death=penalty we used to have here was having your arms and legs broken, the 9th smash on the heart was mercy. Does not have to be like it is torture, but I sure like an open discussion on this, I already know how I look at things, and I absolutily think some people should just be put down. Religion should never be a factor, itś as irrevant as the hair on ass, but not everone deserves to be alive

[total relism]

No lol. It WAS a usual tactic by those in Middle Ages who ostensibly served God and purported to implement his will.



Only the firstborn? How unusually kind and merciful! Sounds much like Communists. Or Nazis.

I would assume you are referring to the crusades. You have to understand you wont get a fair historical perspective from the secular education system that has replaced Christianity nor the liberal media. Here is a thread I did on the historical crusades.

Thank God for the Crusades
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152749-Thank-God-for-the-Crusades


Nah they kill the whole bunch. I would also add the situation is much different.

[total relism]

Just a note.
Since we are talking about strictly OT, we cannot be talking about Christians. You do not have Christians until you have the NT.
To square anything in the OT with the teachings of Christ, it would have to meet (at minimum) the test of the Good Samaritan; perhaps that could be done with a few passages.
IMO keeping the OT around is to provide an excuse for vengeance and desire that Christ leaves little or no recourse to.

I would disagree for many reasons but a separate topic for another thread. But still, this is more on objections towards the OT as it is still viwed as gods word is it not by Christians?

[total relism]

The bold is wrong. He told them to produce offspring.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number;

So he never mentioned eating, and having sex WITHOUT conception. Moreover, he never called it a law or commandment or by any other binding word.

And as for liability to change laws, why, a time might come when adultory or theft will stop being a sin (a violation of god's law), like it is the case with homosexuality now. Or is it still a sin?


last i checked you had to have sex to produce offspring. But yes you are correct, sex and kids and it was not so much a law as go and do. Adultery, stealing etc moral wrongs are based on the nature of god and are always wrong. After the fall with death know in the world and the world changed, man could than start to eat meat is an example of a change in circumstances leading to a change in law.

Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything
Gen 9.3




You contradict yourself. Murder was never forbidden to Adam and Eve (as you have said, there were only two laws at that time, murder wasn't mentioned in either). So techinically, if Adam had murdered Eve - or vice versa - they wouldn't have done anything against God's will.

Later murder WAS wrong. But, as you have noted, God is liable to overlook his treaties.


Think you caught me, i like you. I was referring to today, murder is wrong [and always has been to god and always will be]. In your hypothetical situation it would still have been wrong but Adam simply would not have been guilty for it in front of god.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?153314-What-About-Those-who-Have-Never-Heard-of-Jesus

Adam was only given the command of not eating the tree so that is the only way he could have been guilty before god. Unless of course, gods law was given to adam and has been around since the beginning but just not recorded as some believe such as messianic Christians.




So one and the same book of Bible contains two mutually exclusive quotes. That's what I have been saying on the consistancy of Bible as a source.


and i have been saying dont look at verses but the bible as a whole and than it becomes a constant source. You want to ignore section that would clarify your seemingly wanted contradictions.



Do you realize that this admission turns Bible from the ultimte authority bearing the word of God into a hearsay?


no, it turns gods word into a sectional divided book for quick easy references [not my doing but i do enjoy it]. you by making those numbers elevated to gods word create false theologies and create contradictions [as do Christians].




Since it contains mutually excluding statements (see above) it is useless.


only so long as we elevate a verse number above gods word [the bible] and create a theology from the man made verse number instead of gods word. I am not here to defend mans numbers but gods word.




The existence of denominations has many reasons (like political, economic, etc.) among which theological ones are among many but in no way dominant.


Agreed. Good point. But I think the chapter/numbers contribute. Go attend a church and you will likely see pastors trying to create theology from one verse or chapter.





So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

This quote shows that god had at least two anthropomorphic images.



As a male or a female?


Or both were made in his image and being in his image is not material but spiritual.


male, as far as i am aware. of course not always as male or human form. He takes many forms.

[Gilrandir]

I would assume you are referring to the crusades. You have to understand you wont get a fair historical perspective from the secular education system that has replaced Christianity nor the liberal media.

Not only the crusades. Inquisition, St. Bartholomew's Night, Mallēus Maleficārum and other iniquitous things done in the name of God. I doubt non-secular educational system will find those a righteous thing to have been done.

As for the crusades, one whose favorite book in the History of Crusades by Steve Runciman doesn't need any threads to try to sway him this way or that in that matter. The thing that impressed me most was that Arabs were most liberal to pilgrims (with singular exceptions when a religious fanatic ruled the Fatimids) and Outremer Christians were allowed to pray their Gods. Moreover, most of the latter were Orthodox, and they openly resented taking their temples by Latin church warriors. Eventually, local Christians ended up being much worse off when ruled by Christian monarchs of Outremer than they had been by the infidel. So the initial premise of Crusades as liberation movement was fallacious from the outset - and ended in a failure.

[Crandar]

IMO, since writing of OT and NT is separated by a couple of thousands years, the original language and protagonists those volumes have less right to be considered one book than, say, The Silmarillion, LOTR and The Hobbit.
A couple of thousands of years is a gross exaggeration. At that time, writing wasn't even introduced to the Jewish communities. Even if we take the oldest texts into consideration, it was less than a millennium. In what concerns the newest ones, it was a couple of centuries.

[Fragony]

It is just a diseaae it happens sometimes

[total relism]

Not only the crusades. Inquisition, St. Bartholomew's Night, Mallēus Maleficārum and other iniquitous things done in the name of God. I doubt non-secular educational system will find those a righteous thing to have been done.

As for the crusades, one whose favorite book in the History of Crusades by Steve Runciman doesn't need any threads to try to sway him this way or that in that matter. The thing that impressed me most was that Arabs were most liberal to pilgrims (with singular exceptions when a religious fanatic ruled the Fatimids) and Outremer Christians were allowed to pray their Gods. Moreover, most of the latter were Orthodox, and they openly resented taking their temples by Latin church warriors. Eventually, local Christians ended up being much worse off when ruled by Christian monarchs of Outremer than they had been by the infidel. So the initial premise of Crusades as liberation movement was fallacious from the outset - and ended in a failure.

I will be doing a thread on the inquisitions in time. That evil has been done in the name of god i dont disagree. That evil being done from an evolutionary atheistic worldview is a giant compared to the evils done in the name of god i dont doubt either. But i would rather defend the bible than mans sinful actions or when Christians act unlike what the bible describes such as your mentioned St. Bartholomew's Night. I cannot help but add the atheist has no moral foundation or justification to call any action "evil", that only comes from a biblical worldview. I will be doing a thread on this as well. As for your understanding of the crusades and Muslim tolerance, I suggest we speak of that on the thread dedicated to that.

[Gilrandir]

That evil being done from an evolutionary atheistic worldview is a giant compared to the evils done in the name of god i dont doubt either.

It should be confirmed with figures. Otherwise it is an arbitrary statement. IMO, both sides have a nasty record.



I cannot help but add the atheist has no moral foundation or justification to call any action "evil", that only comes from a biblical worldview.

If an atheist lives a life that God would generally approve of, but doesn't go to church - he is a lower creature than a Christian who steals, cheats, abuses drugs, but once a week goes to church to confess?

[Gilrandir]

I was referring to today, murder is wrong [and always has been to god and always will be]. In your hypothetical situation it would still have been wrong but Adam simply would not have been guilty for it in front of god.


:dizzy2: If Adam (in my hypothetical situation) hadn't been guilty of murder, than murder couldn't have been a sin. Ergo: murder in paradise was legal.



and i have been saying dont look at verses but the bible as a whole and than it becomes a constant source.

A whole consists of parts. If parts do not fit into the whole why are they kept there?



You want to ignore section that would clarify your seemingly wanted contradictions.


seemingly wanted = shrewedly detected.



no, it turns gods word into a sectional divided book for quick easy references [not my doing but i do enjoy it]. you by making those numbers elevated to gods word create false theologies and create contradictions [as do Christians].
I am not here to defend mans numbers but gods word.


Bible wasn't only divided into chapters by men, but also written down by men, edited by men, translated by men. Which makes it a hearsay which in turn presupposes existence of mistakes, exaggerations, slantings in it.



Or both were made in his image

So God looks both like a man and woman at the same time? :dizzy2:


A couple of thousands of years is a gross exaggeration. At that time, writing wasn't even introduced to the Jewish communities. Even if we take the oldest texts into consideration, it was less than a millennium. In what concerns the newest ones, it was a couple of centuries.

You are technically right. I was never interested in the exact date of WRITING DOWN the Old Testament and I believe it isn't one date, its constituents might have been written at different dates. I meant not writing it down, but historical tradition and events described in it, which go back several millenia BC. Yet thank you for the correction.

[total relism]

It should be confirmed with figures. Otherwise it is an arbitrary statement. IMO, both sides have a nasty record.



If an atheist lives a life that God would generally approve of, but doesn't go to church - he is a lower creature than a Christian who steals, cheats, abuses drugs, but once a week goes to church to confess?

Agreed, i save those stats for a thread more relevant.


I will get into this on another thread in the future as it often needs to be exsplained in more time that i would care to give on this thread.

[total relism]

:dizzy2: If Adam (in my hypothetical situation) hadn't been guilty of murder, than murder couldn't have been a sin. Ergo: murder in paradise was legal.


A whole consists of parts. If parts do not fit into the whole why are they kept there?



seemingly wanted = shrewedly detected.



Bible wasn't only divided into chapters by men, but also written down by men, edited by men, translated by men. Which makes it a hearsay which in turn presupposes existence of mistakes, exaggerations, slantings in it.



So God looks both like a man and woman at the same time? :dizzy2:



You are technically right. I was never interested in the exact date of WRITING DOWN the Old Testament and I believe it isn't one date, its constituents might have been written at different dates. I meant not writing it down, but historical tradition and events described in it, which go back several millenia BC. Yet thank you for the correction.



Not at all. It is a sin towards god weather he is guilty of it or not.



because as part of the whole they make sense, like a puzzle. No two pieces look the same "contradiction" some way cry, but as a whole they fit as they are suppose to with no contradiction.


lol, nice.



unless as the bible says those men were led by the holy spirit.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:20–21)

“All Scripture is God-breathed . . . so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17

The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue. (2 Samuel 23:2)
David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared,

“ ‘The Lord said to my Lord,

“Sit at my right hand,

until I put your enemies under your feet.
Mark 12.36

“this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke by the mouth of David” (Acts 1:16



Neither. He takes many forms, like sauron has. But i like to think less evil.

[Crandar]

You are technically right. I was never interested in the exact date of WRITING DOWN the Old Testament and I believe it isn't one date, its constituents might have been written at different dates. I meant not writing it down, but historical tradition and events described in it, which go back several millenia BC. Yet thank you for the correction.
No problem, but I think the traditions, mores and etc. described in these alleged events corresponds much more to the date of the writing than that of the events themselves.

Even when writing a historical romance, the author is likely to insert the ideas of his own era, in a somewhat anachronistic manner. That is true even today, not to mention during the Antiquity, where no concrete memory of old events could survive for long based only on oral tradition.
To give you an example, it has been recognized that almost every Iranian had forgotten about the Achaemenids even since the 2nd century BC.

To sum up, the contents of the Old Testament are relatively much closer ideologically, socially and morally to those of the New book (especially in what concerns the most recent chapters, like the Maccabees), than what the original impression given by the "oldness" of the stories cited suggests.

[Gilrandir]

To sum up, the contents of the Old Testament are relatively much closer ideologically, socially and morally to those of the New book (especially in what concerns the most recent chapters, like the Maccabees), than what the original impression given by the "oldness" of the stories cited suggests.

The bold are moot points. Tit for tat =/= the cheeks story.

[Shaka_Khan]

I went to a Christian school for a year when I was a kid. That school avoided the Old Testament.

[Gilrandir]

I went to a Christian school for a year when I was a kid. That school avoided the Old Testament.

Then you couldn't have seen the whole picture. According to total relism.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Catholics are taught both testaments. We are also taught -- and yes I am simplifying here -- that the new covenant supersedes the old covenants. Thus the Old Testament is the necessary background and precursor for understanding the Gospels.

[Shaka_Khan]

I was considered as a troublesome student there, and the teacher wasn't fond of me. Part of the reason was that I talked about the world being older than some thousands of years, and that humans didn't come to existence until much much later in Earth's years.

I read the Old Testament at home, so I know what the OP is talking about.

[total relism]

I went to a Christian school for a year when I was a kid. That school avoided the Old Testament.

Sad but true. Gods word starts in genesis and the bible cannot be made sense of without it. They avoid it for reasons such as my op and other threads related.