Why is There Death and Suffering if God is all Loving

[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.

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?

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]

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?



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.