Hi. As I understand, you have many questions. I will try and deal with your first...

your question is as follows....
1. I was taught that God was all loving, all knowing supreme being. That's all fine and good, but it seems to me, from the Bible... Be good and do exactly what he says and don't sin...don't even think of sinning or this all loving God is going to throw me into the pit of hell. God is supposed to be like our father, if this is true, it is my OPINION that he is saying, "I love you unconditionally, now behave or I'm throwing you into the furnace... So much for love....

Now, I hope this helps your understanding....

God does love you. He loves me too. That is not the real issue. The real issue is DO WE LOVE HIM?
If you have a child, and you love him, then you will teach him not to do wrong. Why? Because you love him and want to protect the child from harm. This is what comes from caring. Likewise God who made us seeks to protect us from doing ourselves harm. When we chose to do our own will and walk away from His will for our lives we are walking away from Him and toward our own pain. God does not desire this, but does allow it.
This happened in the garden of Eden. We call it sin. And when it entered the human race we were seperated from Him.

God further demonstrated His love for us by dying on the cross for those very sins. If you accept and believe that He died for your sins 'in your place' then we are forgiven. Our relationship is then restored with God. Remember, sin seperates us from God. Asking for forgiveness is simply the only way back to Him. We are restored in a relationship with Him through Jesus if we beleive. This is the only way back.

He doesnt send you to hell because He hates you or contradicts His love. If anyone goes to hell, it is because they chose it for themselves. He gave you the choice here and now and honors that choice. You cant remain stubborn and obstinantly refusing to make that choice for Him, and then blame Him for that very choice 'you yourself made', can you? Think about it. If there is a hell, it is a place separated from the love of God. Heaven therefore is a place we are united with God and His love. If you do not want Him here and now in your life, do you think you would want Him for all of eternity. Would this even be fair; to drag a soul, kicking and screaming into a relationship with Him that its whole life was one of demonstrating no such desire. A soul that seeks darkness gets darkness, not light. He gives us what we desire. We cannot then blame Him for that.

So the question is....what do you desire?

Let me be even more specific...Do you love God? Do you love His Son Jesus? If you do then believe.....John 3 vs 16.

which god would somone love? The old testament god [father,son,spirit] or the new T. god -[father,son,spirit]?

If one or the other or both, then whats the point? how can you love someone you have not seen and been near or close to? what type of love should one feel towards this multi-god of the book? how can anyone truly love someone they cannot be with? and why would anyone be drawn to a god that kills you if you don't live up to his expectations of being a son/daughter? misbehave and your consumed by fire or water or whatever - and you want someone to love this thing? tell me of your concept of love?

Hi Amanda. Me again.

What is sin like? and why is there only one way back?

Sin leads us away from God. For instance. God says do not lie. If and when we lie it is like saying we know better than God. It is saying we will do things our way. It is saying we do not believe God when He says do not lie. It is turning our backs on God.

Pretend I live in Hawaii. I always wanted to live there.
And for some unknown reason I get on a ship and head east. I find myself leaving paradise, homesickness sets in; and when I come to my senses many days and miles later I realize my foolish error. I want to go back to Hawaii. Will I get there if I keep on sailing east? How about if I turn to the south? North? No, I must turn 180 degrees and go west. I must retrace my error in the other direction. But I first have to admit my error. Then I must turn around and sail back to the point of my original foolishness, where I first made my error.

So it is like that when I lie,....I disobey God. I not only turn my back on him, I walk ANOTHER way. "AWAY". I am guilty and I feel shame. My relationship with God is broken. I cannot face Him as though nothing has happened. My sin is a wall between us. What can I do? I must first admit I lied and disobeyed God. I must then admit that I have turned my back and begun walking away from Him. If I want back and I am walking away, then I must turn and walk toward Him, face Him and confess my lie, the very point of my error.


And this goes for all sin. If all sin is 'not believing Gods words', then the cure for sin is a complete turn around and go the other way and begin 'believing Gods words'. Since sin is not believing God....the only way back is simply 'we must now believe Him'.

We broke fellowship with God through unbelief, now we must restore fellowship through belief.

What must we believe?

Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead.
Do you believe this?

God bless

Not to be argumentative, but doesn't this strike you as rather odd?

You forgivess to restore your grace with God should depend upon a belief in a totally arbitrary story?

And it is totally arbitrary. There is absolutely no good reason why anyone should believe in the biblical stories.

That means that you chance of being forgiven by your creator are based entirely on the pot luck of just happening to believe in some arbitrary story.

In fact, you'd have to believe in this story in the first place to even believe that you were out of grace with your creator to begin with.

What if a person doesn't feel like they are out of grace with their creator in the first place? What's their incentive to believe in a story that claims that they are?

What you seem to be suggesting is that all the decent loving wonderful good people who are striving to do the right things, but who do not believe in the biblical picture of God, have no chance of being 'forgiven' and they aren't even aware that God was ever angry with them in the first placed.

As far as I'm concerned there is a very serious problem with a creator who's grace depends on believing a totally arbitary and unbelievable story.

Also, from my own personal point of view, it is indeed a completely unbelievable story for the following reasons:

The story claims that God is all-powerful, yet it also claims that he's at odds with a fallen angel who is wrecking havoc with his creation. That seems to me to be a blatant contradiction of God being all-powerful. Some people argue that God has to let the devil have his 'free will'. But that doesn't cut it for me. Allowing someone to have 'free will' and allowing them access to screw up your new creation is two entirely different matters. Also, the wages of 'sin' (disobedence to God) is supposed to be death. Well, if the fallen angel disobeyed God then why didn't God put that angel to death like the rules call for?

The story also contracticts itself in many other ways as well.

God is supposed to be an all-wise Fatherly Figure. Yet the biblical stories of God don't show either of these supposed characteristics.

It says in the Old Testament that God cannot forgive sins unless there is a blood sacrifice given as an appeasement for them.

What kind of a Father would tell his children that it's ok to disobey him as long as they are willing to kill an animal to pay for their disobedience? That's basically what a blood sacrifice is doing. It's an atonment for the disobedience. Because, after all, sin is nothing more than disobedience of God.

Also, the whole way through the Bible the biblical God solves problems using violent methods. Do all-wise people solve problems using violent methods? I personally don't feel that violence is a wise solution, especially for a supposedly all-powerful God who should have other options of widsom available.

The biblical God is supposed to be unchanging. Yet the first time around he drowns out all of humanity save for a few individuals as his way of dealing with sin (disobedience)

Then later, he supposedly sends his only begotten Son to pay for the sins of mankind. That sure sounds like a change of tactics, if not an outright change of heart. But God is supposed to be unchanging in his character.

Now, we come to the sacrifice of his Son to 'pay' for the sins of man. But again, I run into serious problems with this.

He we have a supposedly all-wise, all-powerful, all-loving Fatherly Figure God sending his Son for man to nail him to a pole so that God can forgive us of our sins.

What sense does this make?

First off, God is sending us the message, "Look, if you'll be kind enough to nail my son to a pole I'll forgive you of your sins."

Why should nailing God's son to a pole be necessary to gain God's forgiveness? Since when does more wrongs make a right?

The very act of nailing God's Son to a pole would have to be one of the biggest sins ever. It's certainly shouldn't make things better, if anything it should make them worse.

Moreoever, who was 'paid' by that act? Who was it originally who couldn't not forgive sins unless he sees an animal sacrificed? It was God himself. So here we have God appeasing himself for the sins of man. Again, this makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. On the contrary I personally have to say that this is the most absurd thing I ever heard in my entire life.

If God is all-powerful, all-wise, and all-loving, he should be able to forgive people for their misbehavior without having any need to nail anyone to any poles.

The whole blood sacrifice thing just doesn't fit in with the idea of an all-wise, all-loving Fatherly Figure Godhead.

In short, the story is truly unbelievable. I coudln't believe if I had to. At the very best I could lie and pretend I believe it. But would God want me to lie?

Doesn't truth mean anything to God?

Would God reject me for being truthful?

What kind of a God would reject people for being truthful?

The story is utterly absurd, and nonsensical, and there's no way that I can possible believe that an all-wise, all-intelligent, all-loving God would be that demented.

It flies in the face of any sense of reason. Thus in order for me to believe it I must also believe that God is unreasonable. And he can't even keep a fallen angel under control.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm giving you my honest views (just like I would have to give them to God). If I can't be honest with God then what's the point in having a God? If I'd have to lie to God to get on his good side what good would that be?

It just can't be that way. I shouldn't have to lie to God to make God happy.

I could go on and on an on, with so many inconsistencies and contradictions in this story. They truly are endless.

Just as another quick example, In the Old Testament God told teh people to stone sinners to death (including their unruly children).

I have a very sincere and extreme problem with this.

First off, it requires that the people judge their neighbors to be sinners! How else could they know when to stone them to death?

So here God is asking people to judge each other. But then in the New Testament he does an about-face and asks that we not judge anyone. But again, this flies in the face of God supposedly being unchanging. Why did he change his mind?

Also, why does an all-wise Father Figure tell people to stone their unruly children to death? If he's so wise why doen't he teach them how to remedy the situation instead of teaching them to give up and just stoning them to death?

I just don't see this as coming from a supreme all-wise being who is so quick to use brutal methods to solve problems. Sounds more like the ramblings of men to me.

Here's one more, just to drive home the point:

God tells us to be fruitful and multiply. That requires having sex. Then later, in the Bible (particularly in Leviticus) the Bible teaches that women who have given birth must go through a cleansing period and make atonment for their sin of giving birth. It makes it clear that this is a spirtual cleansing and it uses the word "sin" several times in reference to this. We just had a whole thread on that.

So why is this supreme Father Figure God who told us to be fruitful and multiply now acting like the act of procreation is somehow tainted by sin?

Again, coming from a supereme all-wise being his makes absolutely not sense to me whatsoever. But viewing it as the superstitious writings of men, it makes perfect sense.

In fact, IMHO the Bible is so extremely male-chauvinistic in places that it just reeks of the egos of men. There's no way that I can believe that God would be so male-chauvinistic.

So that brings us full circle. Why should my grace with my creator depend on me believing in what I see to be an utterly absurd, and a quite frankly an utterly stupid picture of God. (Again, this is my opinion, but it's my honest opinion)

Surely I should be able to attain grace with my creator without a need to believe in such an utterly absurd picture of God.

Surely I should be able to attain grace with my creator by being truthful.

I shouldn't be required to pretend to believe in picture of a God that quite literally makes me want to puke.

If God is real, it can't depend on believing in some arbitrary male-chauvanistic stories that are full of violent and utterly stupid solutions to problems.

There's just no way it can be like that.

To not believe in those totally unreasonable stories is not to reject God. If God is truly all-wise and all-intelligent he would know that. He would also know that the behavior described in the biblical stories was neither Fatherly-Like not wise.

He most certainly couldn't blame any intelligent person for not believing them.

Like I say, this has just been my own personal opinion, but there's no way that I could possible believe that the Bible is from God.

Therefore according to the stories I can never attain grace with God. But then again, if the stories are true, I'm not convinced I'd even want to. I'd rather just die than to discover that God is really like the Bible claims.

And that's that truth.

I already posted a lenghty response. But let me just say here,.. (I took the liberty to number your quotes above)

I don't even believe #1, so how could I ever believe #2?

Our grace with our creator cannot possible be based on what we might or might not believe. That is totally unreasonsble. I personally don't believe that our creator is unreasonable.

So based on your belief, then it is impossible for me to find grace with my creator simply becasue I believe my creator is reasonable.

I lose. I thought my creator was resonable. I go to hell.

It's a crap shoot. I lose just because I guessed wrong. I thought God was more reasonable than he really was. I go to hell.

Does that make any sense to you?

Thank you reverend jessee11.

I'm sure you believe all of that too. I don't know why you would, but you obviously do. That is religion at it's finest, and a very nice little sermon.

It makes no sense though.

Of course I am one who does not believe. I believe the New Testament is a plagiarized forgery and that all the characters are fictional including Jesus.

But that's just me.

Have a wonderful evening.

Jeanniebean

Abracadabra.

I can help somewhat with a story that explains Gods justice and His love.....its just a silly story.

A captain of a ship has rules the crew must live by. They are strictly enforced to keep harmony on board. One rule is no stealing. Everyone agrees with the rule. However, it is soon discovered someone has been stealing from the stores of food and there is a severe shortage as a result. No one trusts anyone, suspicion and hate brews. It is soon discovered that it is the cabin boy, the 10 yr old son of the captain. The penalty is 40 lashes at the main mast. The boy cannot survive the punishment....what will the captain do? He loves the boy. He also loves the crew and must maintain order. They will mutiny if justice is sacrificed. He must be fair and not show favoritism.....He passes judgement....40 lashes.

The boy is tied to the mast....the whip is readied......would you still think it unfair? Suppose the captain said wait.
Suppose the captain walked over to the boy, took off his own shirt and wrapped his arms around the guilty and gave the order "begin whipping".....would this satisfy his love for the condemned?
Would this satisfy his justice for the crew?
Would anyone refuse this kind of LOVE?

The boy is you.....
the captain is Christ.

Jeanniebean

We have two opposing beliefs. This leads me to the following conclusion. We can't both be right at the same time. One of us is simply dead wrong. Good luck with your position though. I hope it was a wise one.

Can’t you lead a good life without believing in Christianity?” This is the question on which I have been asked to write, and straight away, before I begin trying to answer it, I have a comment to make. The question sounds as if it were asked by a person who said to himself, “I don’t care whether Christianity is in fact true or not. I’m not interested in finding out whether the real universe is more what like the Christians say than what the Materialists say. All I’m interested in is leading a good life. I’m going to choose beliefs not because I think them true but because I find them helpful.” Now frankly, I find it hard to sympathise with this state of mind. One of the things that distinguishes man from the other animals is that he wants to know things, wants to find out what reality is like, simply for the sake of knowing. When that desire is completely quenched in anyone, I think he has become something less than human. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe any of you have really lost that desire. More probably, foolish preachers, by always telling you how much Christianity will help you and how good it is for society, have actually led you to forget that Christianity is not a patent medicine. Christianity claims to give an account of facts—to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all.

As soon as we have realised this, we realise something else. If Christianity should happen to be true, then it is quite impossible that those who know this truth and those who don’t should be equally well equipped for leading a good life. Knowledge of the facts must make a difference to one’s actions. Suppose you found a man on the point of starvation and wanted to do the right thing. If you had no knowledge of medical science, you would probably give him a large solid meal; and as a result your man would die. That is what comes of working in the dark. In the same way a Christian and a non-Christian may both wish to do good to their fellow men. The one believes that men are going to live forever, that they were created by God and so built that they can find their true and lasting happiness only by being united to God, that they have gone badly off the rails, and that obedient faith in Christ is the only way back. The other believes that men are an accidental result of the blind workings of matter, that they started as mere animals and have more or less steadily improved, that they are going to live for about seventy years, that their happiness is fully attainable by good social services and political organisations, and that everything else (e.g., vivisection, birth-control, the judicial system, education) is to be judged to be “good” or “bad” simply in so far as it helps or hinders that kind of “happiness”.

Now there are quite a lot of things which these two men could agree in doing for their fellow citizens. Both would approve of efficient sewers and hospitals and a healthy diet. But sooner or later the difference of their beliefs would produce differences in their practical proposals. Both, for example, might be very keen about education: but the kinds of education they wanted people to have would obviously be very different. Again, where the Materialist would simply ask about a proposed action “Will it increase the happiness of the majority?”, the Christian might have to say, “Even if it does increase the happiness of the majority, we can’t do it. It is unjust.” And all the time, one great difference would run through their whole policy. To the Materialist things like nations, classes, civilizations must be more important than individuals, because the individuals live only seventy odd years each and the group may last for centuries. But to the Christian, individuals are more important, for they live eternally; and races, civilizations and the like, are in comparison the creatures of a day.

The Christian and the Materialist hold different beliefs about the universe. They can’t both be right. The one who is wrong will act in a way which simply doesn’t fit the real universe. Consequently, with the best will in the world, he will be helping his fellow creatures to their destruction.

With the best will in the world ... then it won’t be his fault. Surely God (if there is a God) will not punish a man for honest mistakes? But was that all you were thinking about? Are we ready to run the risk of working in the dark all our lives and doing infinite harm, provided only someone will assure us that our own skins will be safe, that no one will punish us or blame us? I will not believe that the reader is quite on that level. But even if he were, there is something to be said to him.

The question before each of us is not “Can someone lead a good life without Christianity?” The question is, “Can I?” We all know there have been good men who were not Christians; men like Socrates and Confucius who had never heard of it, or men like J. S. Mill who quite honestly couldn’t believe it. Supposing Christianity to be true, these men were in a state of honest ignorance or honest error. If there intentions were as good as I suppose them to have been (for of course I can’t read their secret hearts) I hope and believe that the skill and mercy of God will remedy the evils which their ignorance, left to itself, would naturally produce both for them and for those whom they influenced. But the man who asks me, “Can’t I lead a good life without believing in Christianity?” is clearly not in the same position. If he hadn’t heard of Christianity he would not be asking this question. If, having heard of it, and having seriously considered it, he had decided that it was untrue, then once more he would not be asking the question. The man who asks this question has heard of Christianity and is by no means certain that it may not be true. He is really asking, “Need I bother about it?” Mayn’t I just evade the issue, just let sleeping dogs lie, and get on with being "good”? Aren’t good intentions enough to keep me safe and blameless without knocking at that dreadful door and making sure whether there is, or isn’t someone inside?”

To such a man it might be enough to reply that he is really asking to be allowed to get on with being “good” before he has done his best to discover what good means. But that is not the whole story. We need not inquire whether God will punish him for his cowardice and laziness; they will punish themselves. The man is shirking. He is deliberately trying not to know whether Christianity is true or false, because he foresees endless trouble if it should turn out to be true. He is like the man who deliberately “forgets” to look at the notice board because, if he did, he might find his name down for some unpleasant duty. He is like the man who won’t look at his bank account because he’s afraid of what he might find there. He is like the man who won’t go to the doctor when he first feels a mysterious pain, because he is afraid of what the doctor might tell him.

The man who remains an unbeliever for such reasons is not in a state of honest error. He is in a state of dishonest error, and that dishonesty will spread through all his thoughts and actions: a certain shiftiness, a vague worry in the background, a blunting of his whole mental edge, will result. He has lost his intellectual virginity. Honest rejection of Christ, however mistaken, will be forgiven and healed—“Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him.” 1 But to evade the Son of Man, to look the other way, to pretend you haven’t noticed, to become suddenly absorbed in something on the other side of the street, to leave the receiver off the telephone because it might be He who was ringing up, to leave unopened certain letters in a strange handwriting because they might be from Him—this is a different matter. You may not be certain yet whether you ought to be a Christian; but you do know you ought to be a Man, not an ostrich, hiding its head in the sand.

But still—for intellectual honour has sunk very low in our age—I hear someone whimpering on with his question, “Will it help me? Will it make me happy? Do you really think I’d be better if I became a Christian?” Well, if you must have it, my answer is “Yes.” But I don’t like giving an answer at all at this stage. Here is door, behind which, according to some people, the secret of the universe is waiting for you. Either that’s true or it isn’t. And if it isn’t, then what the door really conceals is simply the greatest fraud, the most colossal “sell” on record. Isn’t it obviously the job of every man (that is a man and not a rabbit) to try to find out which, and then to devote his full energies either to serving this tremendous secret or to exposing and destroying this gigantic humbug? Faced with such an issue, can you really remain wholly absorbed in your own blessed “moral development”?

All right, Christianity will do you good—a great deal more good than you ever wanted or expected. And the first bit of good it will do you is to hammer into your head (you won’t enjoy that!) the fact that what you have hitherto called “good”—all that about “leading a decent life” and “being kind”—isn’t quite the magnificent and all-important affair you supposed. It will teach you that in fact you can’t be “good” (not for twenty-four hours) on your own moral efforts. And then it will teach you that even if you were, you still wouldn’t have achieved the purpose for which you were created. Mere morality is not the end of life. You were made for something quite different from that. J. S. Mill and Confucius (Socrates was much nearer the reality) simply didn’t know what life is about. The people who keep on asking if they can’t lead a decent life without Christ, don’t know what life is about; if they did they would know that “a decent life” is mere machinery compared with the thing we men are really made for. Morality is indispensable: but the Divine Life, which gives itself to us and which calls us to be gods, intends for us something in which morality will be swallowed up. We are to be re-made. All the rabbit in us is to disappear—the worried, conscientious, ethical rabbit as well as the cowardly and sensual rabbit. We shall bleed and squeal as the handfuls of fur come out; and then, surprisingly, we shall find underneath it all a thing we have never yet imagined: a real Man, an ageless god, a son of God, strong, radiant, wise, beautiful, and drenched in joy.

“When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” 2 The idea of reaching “a good life” without Christ is based on a double error. Firstly, we cannot do it; and secondly, in setting up “a good life” as our final goal, we have missed the very point of our existence. Morality is a mountain which we cannot climb by our own efforts; and if we could we should only perish in the ice and unbreathable air of the summit, lacking those wings with which the rest of the journey has to be accomplished. For it is from there that the real ascent begins. The ropes and axes are “done away” and the rest is a matter of flying.

Jeanniebean

I came across the previous in a CS Lewis article....thought it might help.

Your story is totally meaningless to me. It comes entirely from mankind's mentality.

What good will whipping the boy do?

Will it bring back the lost food?

The whole premise is totally irrelvant when speaking in terms of an all-wise a Heavenly Father.

Does God need to keep people in-line by threatening them with punishments?

Is that how heaven is run? Will everyone in heaven obey God because they afraid of being tied to the mast and given 40 lashes is they don't obey?

Moreover, it doesn't address any of my concerns really.

How can God punish anyone for simply not believing in ancient stories that clearly are not wise?

They contain the very types of solutions that humans come up with. Not the kinds of solutions that an all-wise supreme being would come up with.

According to the scenario that you're trying to sell, a perfectly wonderful person who never does anything wrong in their entire life, would be rejected by God simply because they didn't believe in the biblical picture.

And it most certainly would be God rejecting them, and not the other way around.

It's utterly absurd to claim that someone who doesn't believe that the bible can be the word of an all-wise supreme being that they are rejecting God.

That's utterly untrue. I know because I don't believe in the Bible and there is no way that I'm rejecting my creator.

I simply don't believe that the creator of this universe could be as ignorant and crude as the Bible claims.

Your story with the ship just drives home my point. Beating anyone after the food is gone is futile. What does it serve? It won't bring the food back.

I don't believe in punishment as a means of 'correction' or teaching someone a lesson. I don't believe that's even wise.

So why would I believe in a God who thinks that way? That's the kind of mentality I would expect from unwise men. Not from an all-wise God.

So I'm afraid that even your little parable does nothing for me at all but drive home the points I've already made.

You placed me in the position of having been the little boy who stole the food. Well, I would't have stolen the food so I can't identify with being in that position.

Moreover, let me tell you what I would do if I was one of the crew. I would just look at the boy and shake my head, and maybe softly say, "You a$$hole". And that would be the extent of my anger.

I would absolutely not be part of the mob demanding that the boy be beaten. Nor would I be part of the mob demanding that any crew memeber be beaten for the offense no matter how old the offender might be.

I would simply bite the bullet and pray that we make it through. My very first thoughts would be to start fishing for food and hope for the best.

I will say that I would never invite the offender on another sailing trip.

I don't believe in "punishing" any offenders. I do believe in incarceration of criminals. But not for the purpose of punishing them, but simply for the purpose of protecting the public at large from their criminal behavior.

I also don't even agree with our incarceration systems. I think they treat people like 'criminals'. If you want to rehabilitate people the first thing you need to do is stop treating them like 'criminals'.

So I'm afraid we're from differnt worlds. The biblical picture you paint of God is too much like a picture of Captain Hook.

I don't think that God would solve problems the way that humans do. Yet the Bible is full of human-type solutions to problems, and many of them aren't even close to being wise.

Again, that's my honest opinion. If God truly is like the Bible claims, then I'll be glad to just die when life is over.

I would not want to spend eternity with the moron deity that is described in the Bible.

I welcome death with open arms if that's our true predicament.

well i found that to be a most eloquent defense as to how it was written, i should have know the author of mere christianity would be the reason why, i thought it was your personal reponse at first jessee, but then you posted agian and i found i was right, thnx for reminding me of his eloquent apologeitcs again it has been some time. never the less none of his writings made me any closer to god nor did it keep me in the "faith" but his writing always was excellent even in the screwtape letters.

I'll weigh in on this. the latter part of it anyway. As a believer I have to agree with you - that listening to the Hagens, Hinn's and Olsteens of the "world of christian televangelists" should not be done so with blind admiration. One should never draw conclusions about biblical interpretations from anyone without examining the scriptures for themselves. That's where exegesis comes in - and context examined against pretext.
That being said - the same should be done with the writtings of secular humanists who deem their interpretations above that of biblical scholars.
Take for example the "Jesus Seminar". How many people watch the expose's on A&E and think their getting "facts" - and don't bother to go to the scriptures for themselves to see if what they're being told is true? They site thse people as "experts" and blindly accept their "false context" cleverly disquising their agenda filled pretexts. The rally and cry here is that the bible is there for anyone to interpret it as they wish. Non-sense. The bible has obvious themes that cannot be explained away by citing a mere scripture or two out of context. That is not rightly dividing the text, any more than reading only the first chapter of Algebra-1 qualifies someone as an expert in Calculous, or taking a pre-med course qualifies one to argue intelligently with a physician. It puzzles me that you claim to have not been able to get beyond the first few chapters of Genesis - yet adamently refuse to consider the explinations of those who have read it - numerous times, and know how it fits into the text as a whole. And whether or not one knows greek or aramaic does not preclude one from understanding what the major themes of scripture are. Heck - even Abra has a grasp of those - as much as he may disagree with them. Here - lets take this issue of A&E and extrapolate this against this discussion of Incest.

First of all - The bible does not describe an account of man being created on two different occasions. Man was created once - it was Adam, and Eve from Adam's rib. That is the correct exegesis of the creation account. Any supposition of a creation before A&E has no textual proof using the scriptures to support it.

Given that pretext - it is known - scripturally, that aside from Cain, Abel, and Seth - sons of A&E by name - that A&E had other children. We know that Seth was born to Adam when Adam was 130 years old. For all we know, they could have had an addition 150 children previous to this. Cain could have married a sister when he was 50 and she was 20 - who is to say. WHO CARES! Over a period of the time that Cain and Abel were born - until Seth - there could have been up to a thousand people in the extended family of Adam and Eve. Adam lived to be 930 years old - he could have fathered a small COUNTRY before he passed away. It is one thing to have questions about what is written in scripture - but to try and assess what ISN'T there... to what purpose does that serve?

As to this idea that incest is wrong - where does this come from? Leviticus of course. We're already WAY-Y-Y past the flood, and up until this time, there is no mention of incest having any consequence. Why? Well - Spider reasons out that it is the purity of the gene pool up until them.
Well - he may be right. It is a well thought out and resoned proposition. Is he right? Who knows.
Who cares? What he IS right about - is that from the time of the giving of the Law - there will be consequences to it. That's it. Any presuppostition about what happens today in society - extrapolated back to the ancients shows a serious lack of understanding of biblical exegesis, as well as scientific study. This could very easily be explained by simply using Evolution theory if one had to. Why is evolution theory of "adapting to environental changes" thrown out the window when a biblical concept is extrapolated back a few thousand years, but a matter of fact when you go back a few billion years in evolution? Please - attempt to make THAT sound logical! The fact of the matter is that from Genesis to Leviticus - incest is just not an issue. And it is very specific about what is at issue in Leviticus - AND this was mandated to ONLY the Jewish population. There's no account ANYWHERE where incest was an issue anywhere outside of the Jewish population, and the ONLY reason why it is a part of our Law today, is because of the biblical account in the first place!

So - when it comes to sources - be they pro, or anti-christian, not examining the scriptures for oneselves to see who's misleading whom - is "just taking someone's elses opinion and making it your own" - no matter where your belief stands on the issue.

Most beautifully said....thank you.

Yes - there certainly are those who abuse Christianity for their own means, but hey, why stop there.

The Evolutionist have Hitler to represent them. He got an ENTIRE country to back himup, and then got Mussolini on board, and his country as well!

And the UFO'ers have Heavens Gate holding up thei end of the bargain - let's not leave out Jeannie in our discussion.

Who could forget the Islamists and the Talaban! There's a big step for the woman's movement. Strap on a bomb and get your 70 virgins - step right up. Pass out a few "smilies" for those who don't like their birkas's

Then the Atheists have Stalin to thank for not being left out of "the group". What's a few hundred thousand countryman?

Abra - you need to expand your thinking - keep up with the times.

Pick a God - any God. We're all going to die. Which God is the one not killing anyone?

Where did I ever remotely imply that Christianity was the only religion that could be abused?



Evolutionists? Who are they? I never heard of any such cult. Evolution isn't a religion. Actually Hitler did indeed use Christianity to support his demented phiolosphies.

These are direct quotes from public speeches that Hitler gave.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

Many people claim that Hitler denounced Christianity, and that may even be true behind the scenes. After all, few people would argue against the idea that the man was mentally ill. However, that doesn't change the fact that he did indeed use Christianity to gain support for his maddness.

I'm not blaming this on the religion, but just pointing out how easily it can be abused. And Hitler did indeed use Christianity to support his genocides.

So claiming that he did it in the name of "evolution" is a farce.



I don't know what UFO groups might be up to, but most of them don't claim to speak for God insofar as I know. Although I'm sure you can always find nut cases that abuse anything.

This still doesn't compare to what I'm talking about. Someone comes onto the Internet and starts preaching "Christianity" and all the Christians are quick to flock together to support their religion without really caring a whole heck of a lot about what the idiot is saying that is claiming to preach it.

Why don't people ask for credentials and if the person isn't an ordained minister, why don't they just tell him (or her) that they don't speak for the religion then?

I've said it many times that I would not have supported some of the people on these forum even back when I was a Christian. I'm also perfectly certain that my mother would not support their claims either, and she was a Christian right up to the day she died. My uncles who were preachers would not condone the kind of garbage I see spewed on these forums too, and they actually were ordained ministers.



Judaism, Christianity, Islam? It's all the same religion to me Eljay. It all came from the very same Mediterranean folklore. The Muslims worship the same God you worship Eljay. It's just one huge confused ambiguous religion. It all came from the some origin.



This doesn't even make sense Eljay. I'm certain that Stalin didn't use Atheism to rally his followers like blind sheep. I think he was just a politician who happened to be an Atheist.

That totally misses the point of how easy it is for someone to use Christianity to instantly gain a following by using Christ as a patsy.

That doesn't mean that other people can't gain followers using other methods of power and control.

Abracadabra.

I noticed that in the black of night the effect of turning on a flashlight has two kinds of results on insects. Like a beacon they either come to the light or like cockroaches they flee from it.


Have you seen the movie I am Legend? Like in a sentence I thought the title meant the persons name was legend. I now, after contemplating the title, somewhat think that the name of the person is I AM and the word legend means story. In other words the title I am Legend means The story of God. In the bible Gods name is I AM.
In the movie the human race is infected with a disease that consumes them. They become enraged with evil. They refuse to come into the light and so live in the black of darkness. The only cure for their problem is IN THE BLOOD OF THEIR SAVIOR...played by Will Smith. The problem is they want to kill Will Smith, they are so evil. They refuse the remedy to their own end and are ultimately consumed by fire.

In one fatal scene, Will Smith is behind a glass shield. He is pleading with these people. I can SAVE you. I have the cure in my blood. LISTEN to me.
But they only become more and more enraged. They begin throwing themselves again and again against the shield causing themselves further harm. They have become quite insensible. They are unreachable. They are consumed with hatred for both the message and the messenger...
Those who reject christ remind me of this scene.

"First of all - The bible does not describe an account of man being created on two different occasions. Man was created once -it was Adam, and Eve from Adam's rib. That is the correct exegesis of the creation account. Any supposition of a creation before A&E has no textual proof using the scriptures to support it." Eljay

This is clearly wrong. There are in fact two accounts of Genesis. There are actually two separate and different stories of creation contained in Genesis. The first is given in Genesis 1: 1-2:4 while the second is given in Genesis 2: 4-24. That these two stories are actually different (mutually exclusive accounts) can be easily demonstrated.

Genesis 2:4-9, 18-19

In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground, then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food...

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

The two stories contradict each other in many areas:

The order of creation: You will notice that the order of creation is completely different from the first story in Genesis. Man, according to Genesis chapter two, was made before any plants and animals were created. There is no ambiguity with the wording. It is clearly stated that there were no plants of any kind when man was first created. It was also clearly stated that animals were created after man was created as helpers for the human! According to Genesis chapter one, plants created in day three and animals in day five and six with man being the last item of creation on the sixth day.

The creation of man and woman. According to Genesis 1:27 man and woman were created simultaneously.
Genesis 1:27

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

Yet the story in Genesis 2 was that woman was created as an afterthought; only after God was unable to find a suitable helper for Adam among the animals. Nice!

Genesis 2:20-22

The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman

Other contradictions. There are other contradictions between the two stories:

In the first account, water first covered the earth and dry land was not made until the third day (Genesis 1:9-13). In the second account, the earth was dry land before a mist came up from the earth and watered the whole earth (Genesis 2:5-6)

The first story tells of the creation of the universe in seven days. Yet the second story implies that all was created in a single day[2] (Genesis 2:4 In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…)

In the first story, the man and woman was allowed to eat any fruit (Genesis 1:29 and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food), yet in the second story he is prohibited from eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17 & 3:3).

The reference to God in the first account was simply Elohim (normally translated as God) while in the second account the creator is always referred to as Yahweh Elohim (usually translated as Lord God).

It is quite obvious that we are looking at two contrary accounts of the creation of the universe. And if they are contrary, at least one must be false. Just by looking within the Bible itself we have shown that at least one story is a myth. My money is on many more being fictitious as well.

So in other words, one of us must be infallibly correct in our views and there is no room for growth or understanding whatsoever? Would even the Christian god want this outlook enforced throughout mankind? That kind of sentiment would make me want to stay as clear as I possibly could from your belief system. I will be honest with you sir. Its quite troubling.