OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)

[Tifone]

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Secularists sue to prevent schoolkids from praying. Teachers confiscate Bibles.

My friend, the public school of a lay state is a place to /Learn/. I don't say it, it's in the laws of the state you accepted to live in. School is a place to learn maths, english, geography and science. Not Creationism, which is one religious, non-scientific thing. Not praying, because there are places, not of the state, for doing this as a freedom the state consider innate into you and nobody can remove. And not having Bible, because in a school a Bible is just out of place, as it would be everything else not related to teaching to children (from a Superman comic book to Playboy sorry, joking)

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Basically, Christ's message here is not that we have to literally hate our families. Rather, His message is that we must love Him so much that we are willing to sacrifice anything (or anyone) for Him.

Auch, excuse me but I think no one, NO ONE, could ask to an healthy, sane, person, to sacrifice (I know of course in a non literal way) the people he loves the most in his life, daughters, wives, parents, to a person claiming (you said it) to be God, a person never appeared to me, lived (if lived) 2000 years ago. Not even if they believe in something else than him.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Jesus was telling a parable in Luke 19, the Parable of the Ten Minas. Those words you quoted are spoken by Jesus, but they're actually the words of the king in the parable.

True, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear it was a Parable. But you should go further talking. The parable is something Jesus uses in that occasion to talk about the Reign of God, as it is said in that paragraph. The king is God, clearly, without any need of interpretation. You have read the chapter. "Kill whoever doesn't accept me", in the mouth of Jesus - who IS God himself - doesn't sound any better thinking at it as a parable and "not literal".

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

As with the quote from Luke 14, Jesus is trying to warn His followers about the high cost of following Him. The Gospel divides people based on belief. Those who believe Jesus are fundamentally different from those who do not believe.

Well, maybe that is my main problem with the whole thing. Religion (not only yours) divides people (families! The Bible itself says so) of today's complex and ever-changing world, on world views that are at the best, what? 2000 years old.
You may say they are still valid. I read the Old Testament, or the Quran and I say no, the world is changed, the world MUST CONTINUE CHANGING to go far from these world views of DIVISION and HATRED, not to talk about lapidation and mass murder. Those words cannot have been inspired by a perfect and loving god for me. There must be a mistake, those are the words of a tyrant of cavemen. I just can't accept it.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

That said, it is also important to understand that Christians interpret the Old Testament in the light of Jesus. [...] So we don't ignore the Hebrew Scriptures, but we do understand them in a very different way from most Jews.

Please, tell me how the light of Jesus can make you understand in a (as rational as possible) way, this (almost random quote):

"Now KILL ALL THE BOYS AMONG THE LITTLE ONES. And KILL EVERY WOMAN WHO AS SLEPT WITH A MAN, but SAVE FOR YOURSELF every GIRL OF YOUNG AGE who has never slept with a man." [Numbers 31:17-18]

It is Moses (one of the greater prophets of your religion) which says in the God-inspired Bible what to do to the prisoners of a war against a city, a war which is THE VENGEANCE OF GOD, Numbers 31:3
You talk about the lens of Jesus, my friend, but I fear no lens can let me accept those fearful, full of hate words, in the mouth of a God someone believes in. (Note, the WORDS, not the BELIEVER himself)

Still, of course, nothing against you. A hug and my best wishes.

[SlipperyJim]

So. Many. Responses! I'm going to skip over the political stuff, because politics is being talked to death these days....

Originally Posted by Tifone

Auch, excuse me but I think no one, NO ONE, could ask to an healthy, sane, person, to sacrifice (I know of course in a non literal way) the people he loves the most in his life, daughters, wives, parents, to a person claiming (you said it) to be God, a person never appeared to me, lived (if lived) 2000 years ago. Not even if they believe in something else than him.

If that person was able to prove that He was God, then you'd better believe I'd listen to Him. I'd be nuts to ignore Him!

Here's the main point: God must be first for those who claim to believe in Him. He gave us His life. We must give Him our lives.

Here's the other point: If my parents do not believe in Jesus as Lord, they will not experience eternal life. There will be no happy ending for them. When they die, they will suffer for eternity. That's bad. Under the circumstances, I would be a poor son indeed if I stood to the side and allowed my parents to go to Hell without making every effort to prevent it. I must be a witness to them. However, my witnessing will cause division between us, at least in the short term.

So what should I do? Should I stop witnessing to preserve short-term peace, while knowing that the long-term effects will be horrible beyond belief? Or should I risk some short-term conflict in order to influence my parents toward salvation?

Real-world analogy: If your parents were smoking six packs of cigarettes every day, would you try to get them to quit? What if your parents were already showing signs of poor health -- lung cancer, emphysema, asthma -- would that encourage you toward greater efforts on their behalf? But trying to get them to quit smoking will be tense! They might resent you for interfering in their lives. What now?

The dilemma is that I cannot witness to them if I allow our relationship to become completely estranged. Furthermore, the Bible tells me very clearly that I must honor my parents. So I must walk a middle ground. I try to maintain a cordial relationship with my parents (including frequent contact with my kids, their grandkids), but I also maintain my witness. It's not easy, but few worthwhile things are easy.

Originally Posted by Tifone

True, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear it was a Parable. But you should go further talking. The parable is something Jesus uses in that occasion to talk about the Reign of God, as it is said in that paragraph. The king is God, clearly, without any need of interpretation. You have read the chapter. "Kill whoever doesn't accept me", in the mouth of Jesus - who IS God himself - doesn't sound any better thinking at it as a parable and "not literal".

When you carry the parable into the Kingdom of God -- which is the valid interpretation -- you also pick up some other context. The new factor to consider is grace. God doesn't want you to perish. He wants to save you. In fact, He wants to save you so badly that He sent His Son to die for you.

He has also taken every step to make sure that you know the stakes. He has given us His Word. He has ordered His followers to tell you about Him. You cannot claim ignorance. In fact, since you seem to know more about Scripture than many believers, you especially cannot claim ignorance.

Given all of that, what then should God do with an unbeliever at the final judgment? Salvation can only be found in God. In other words, the only way to save you is to join you to Himself. Do you want Him to do that against your will? What kind of loving God would bind people to Himself for all eternity without their consent? That's not love, it's slavery. So He lets you go to destruction. He doesn't enjoy it -- and neither should His followers -- but there's no other way. You've chosen to separate yourself from God, so He honors your choice.

Sadly, separation from God is not the neverending party that unbelievers want to believe.

Originally Posted by Tifone

Well, maybe that is my main problem with the whole thing. Religion (not only yours) divides people (families! The Bible itself says so) of today's complex and ever-changing world, on world views that are at the best, what? 2000 years old.
You may say they are still valid. I read the Old Testament, or the Quran and I say no, the world is changed, the world MUST CONTINUE CHANGING to go far from these world views of DIVISION and HATRED, not to talk about lapidation and mass murder. Those words cannot have been inspired by a perfect and loving god for me. There must be a mistake, those are the words of a tyrant of cavemen. I just can't accept it.

A divided world was never part of God's plan. He created humanity to live in unity with Him and each other. But we screwed it up. When the Bible speaks about division and hatred, those aren't good things. Division and hatred are the consequences of human sin. The Bible is just being honest about them.

Even when the Bible commands division or hatred (for example, the conquest of the Promised Land), it's a reaction to sin. God commanded the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites because of the Caananites' appalling sins. He also wanted to protect the Israelites -- His chosen people -- from being led astray. Unfortunately, His people didn't obey Him as well as they should have, so they were led astray, and the consequences were disastrous.

Originally Posted by Tifone

Please, tell me how the light of Jesus can make you understand in a (as rational as possible) way, this (almost random quote):

"Now KILL ALL THE BOYS AMONG THE LITTLE ONES. And KILL EVERY WOMAN WHO AS SLEPT WITH A MAN, but SAVE FOR YOURSELF every GIRL OF YOUNG AGE who has never slept with a man." [Numbers 31:17-18]

It is Moses (one of the greater prophets of your religion) which says in the God-inspired Bible what to do to the prisoners of a war against a city, a war which is THE VENGEANCE OF GOD, Numbers 31:3
You talk about the lens of Jesus, my friend, but I fear no lens can let me accept those fearful, full of hate words, in the mouth of a God someone believes in. (Note, the WORDS, not the BELIEVER himself)

The pagan natives of the Promised Land were a very wicked people. The conquest of Israel was so thorough that we don't know too much about them, but we do know that they practiced human sacrifice. And that children were among the sacrifices. The full extent of their iniquities have been lost to history, but whatever they had done, it was so bad that God decided they couldn't be redeemed. They were too wicked to save. Just as a surgeon cuts out a tumor to heal a person, sometimes God destroys sin rather than allow it to spread.

Again, human sin was not part of God's original plan for us. And when He returns, we won't have to worry about it anymore. The lion will lie down with the lamb, and all suffering will be no more than a bad memory.

Originally Posted by Tifone

Still, of course, nothing against you. A hug and my best wishes.

Same here.

[thejeff]

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Here's the other point: If my parents do not believe in Jesus as Lord, they will not experience eternal life. There will be no happy ending for them. When they die, they will suffer for eternity. That's bad. Under the circumstances, I would be a poor son indeed if I stood to the side and allowed my parents to go to Hell without making every effort to prevent it. I must be a witness to them. However, my witnessing will cause division between us, at least in the short term.

(Much snipped to address one point.)
Witnessing to your parents is, as you suggest, a matter between you and them. But this very argument, that those who do not believe in Jesus as Lord will suffer for eternity has been used to justify so much horror throughout history, that I simply cannot accept it even in a mild form. The Inquisition, forcible conversion of other cultures, etc, etc. All for their own good, since nothing we do to them can compare with Hell. Even if these savages won't convert we can take their children and teach them God's Word.

I assume you wouldn't approve of this, but really why not? Once you assume an eternity of suffering, how is it not good to try to spare people that by any means necessary.



And to comment briefly on a few other points:
If God is all-powerful, how can an entire culture be beyond redemption? (And that's assuming the historical accuracy of a document written well after the fact by the victors, who might have some small motivation for making their enemies look worse.)

And why was the sacrifice of Jesus necessary at all? It seems a particularly messy way to bring about salvation. It makes perfect sense viewed through the culture of the time and place. The redemption through sacrifice concept makes sense in old Middle Eastern culture/theology, but not in the context of an all-powerful, all-loving god.

[SlipperyJim]

Originally Posted by thejeff

(Much snipped to address one point.)
Witnessing to your parents is, as you suggest, a matter between you and them. But this very argument, that those who do not believe in Jesus as Lord will suffer for eternity has been used to justify so much horror throughout history, that I simply cannot accept it even in a mild form. The Inquisition, forcible conversion of other cultures, etc, etc. All for their own good, since nothing we do to them can compare with Hell. Even if these savages won't convert we can take their children and teach them God's Word.

I assume you wouldn't approve of this, but really why not? Once you assume an eternity of suffering, how is it not good to try to spare people that by any means necessary.

Conversion by force doesn't work. Jesus wants you to follow Him freely. He wants your heart, not merely your surface obedience. For example, see Amos 5.

If God was only interested in forced obedience, He would take it. Yet He has given us free will. If God Himself won't take away your free will, what right would I have to do the same thing?

The Inqusition and other examples of forced conversion are among the shames of the Church. We elevated ourselves above our stature and claimed a privilege that not even God Himself has claimed. God's Word tells us to be faithful witnesses. That's our mandate, and no more than that.

Originally Posted by thejeff

And to comment briefly on a few other points:
If God is all-powerful, how can an entire culture be beyond redemption? (And that's assuming the historical accuracy of a document written well after the fact by the victors, who might have some small motivation for making their enemies look worse.)

I don't know why the original inhabitants of the Promised Land were beyond redemption. I can hazard a guess that God calculated their likelihood of redemption was far less than the certainty that they would tempt the Israelites into destruction, so He had to destroy them as a threat to His chosen people. Again, we have to remember free will. God wouldn't force them to repent of their wickedness, because that would take away their free will. He had to convince them. Presumably, He gave them sufficient opportunity to prove to His own infallible judgment that they would never turn away from their wickedness....

But really, I don't know. I'm not God.

Originally Posted by thejeff

And why was the sacrifice of Jesus necessary at all? It seems a particularly messy way to bring about salvation. It makes perfect sense viewed through the culture of the time and place. The redemption through sacrifice concept makes sense in old Middle Eastern culture/theology, but not in the context of an all-powerful, all-loving god.

Christ's sacrifice was necessary to satisfy the demands of God's justice. We had sinned. Over and over. And we are going to continue sinning. Someone had to pay a price for all of that sin. As an act of supreme love, God paid that price Himself by sending His Son to die for us.

Remember: Jesus is also God. He is the second Person of the Holy Trinity. God didn't pick some random Jewish carpenter and use him as a scapegoat for the world. Instead, He satisfied His own justice by paying the price Himself.

How would you have done it?

[Tifone]

Hello, me again here. Nice to see how this discussion is becoming interesting. I think all of us will learn something here, even from positions not shared, if we just keep open minded. Wow, lots of responses here around the time I was to university ^_^

I want to thank expecially SlipperyJim who is continuing to keep his position, and even giving attention to my rants, in a totally polite way. I don't share virtually any of his world views, but he is an excellent and interesting debater.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

If that person was able to prove that He was God, then you'd better believe I'd listen to Him. I'd be nuts to ignore Him!

Ok, I would like to go to the lenghts here, but I'm really weak and tired after 8 hours of university. For that, really, I need to ask you to pardon the somewhat "rude" way I say = Prove it to me.

Please, of course, not quoting the Bible. I could just prove almost everything true with circular logic - God isn't real just because the Bible says so, as the Bible was written to prove this God to be real - just like the ancient Greek legends of Zeus' "miracles" were made to prove him real and still I don't believe them too.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

For example, the parting of the Red Sea is frequently dismissed as a fable, even by modern Christians. But God's power over the elements is an integral part of His divinity. He made the waters, so He can certainly order them to part. Power over the elements was part of how Christ proved His own divinity, when He calmed the storm on the Sea of Galilee.

[...]

There's another point to consider. The crowning miracle of Christianity is the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, the entire faith falls apart. It seems to me that raising a dead man back to life is at least as big a "trick" as parting the sea. So why would I believe in the Resurrection, yet reject the rest of the miracles?

It always confuses me how your God had no problem to do LOTS of HUGE miracles in the past, becoming so evident -resurrecting people, parting seas, casting flame storms on cities- not really leaving place to the free will to believe or not believe of the observers, and now that it would be easy for Him to prove wrong all today's sceptics doing ONE real miracle on CNN, He seems to have become shy (sorry, again, didn't want to sound rude, the words just came out in a somewhat ironic way )

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Here's the other point: If my parents do not believe in Jesus as Lord, they will not experience eternal life. There will be no happy ending for them. When they die, they will suffer for eternity. That's bad.

If even you would prove that your God is real, and not one clearly created by man like Thor, Apollo, Zeus, Moloch, Chtulu, the FSM, which may or may not be have been worshipped now or in the past... and he is the only God, and not the Hindu ones i.e... Heck, even if He would appear in front of my face and being this way... Well sorry I wouldn't actually WORSHIP him. Not a God which consider the natural DOUBT (which he left leaving actually not even a REAL PROOF of him) so wicked that he sends billions of even GOOD people to BURN FOREVER just for this.

Also, excuse me, but I have to think if there is really a/some God/Goddess/Gods who have created all the billions of billions of stars and gigantic galaxies and the life forms from the lower bacteria to the most complex ones, I can't really see him/she/them in a so "little" and "wretched" activity like looking is every of his little creations' hearts, divide the ones who believe from the one who don't, and expect them do die to send the first ones in an all shiny and happy place and the other ones to SUFFER FOREVER. Period.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Sadly, separation from God is not the neverending party that unbelievers want to believe.

Ok, I really hope this was a mistake from you, because this is not be respectful at all. "Neverending party"? What are you talking about? People live their lives. They work, they suffer, they rejoice, they gain and lose precious people for them. All with the morals from their religion, Christian or not, or from their coscience. No "neverending party" for nobody (ok, only for those ducks of My Super Sweet Sixteen on MTV, may they really burn forever, no, joking again ^_^ ). Also, agnostic and atheists and buddhists don't see neverending parties anywhere, and surely not in any "afterlife".

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

A divided world was never part of God's plan.

[...]

Again, human sin was not part of God's original plan for us. And when He returns, we won't have to worry about it anymore. The lion will lie down with the lamb, and all suffering will be no more than a bad memory.

Man, you are negating that your God is omniscient, or what? He couldn't have made a PLAN without involving EVERYTHING in it if he actually KNOWED everything that was gonna happen.

Originally Posted by Agema

It is logically consistent to say that although God is perfect, any communication he could render to humans must be interpreted by imperfect human understanding.

You are saying God is ALL-POWERFUL but he |||CAN'T||| make a person understand him and write his words correctly, just because he is ancient and ineducated?? He wants to save humanity with his message and gives it in the hands of an almost-caveman WITHOUT TAKING THE LITTLE TIME AND ENERGY (for Him) to make him UNDERSTAND his words and WRITE THEM CORRECTLY, and thus CONDEMNING all the naturally doubtful to NEVERENDING PAIN?? Seems like blasphemy ^_^ Sorry, joke

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Even when the Bible commands division or hatred (for example, the conquest of the Promised Land), it's a reaction to sin.

?

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things." [Isaiah 45:7]

"Shall there be EVIL in a city, and the LORD hath not DONE it?" [Amos 3:6]

Best wishes to everybody

[SlipperyJim]

Firstly, thanks to all of the people who have thanked me. It is challenging to be the only (as far as I can tell) fundamentalist Christian in a virtual sea of agnostics, atheists, and other believers. If I don't answer a particular post, please don't be offended. There's only so much typing that my ten fingers can do....

Thanks also to the assorted agnostics, atheists, and other believers who are participating. We have (mostly) managed to keep an even keel and a respectful tone, and those qualities are truly rare in online debates. Especially online debates about religion.

On to the responses:

Originally Posted by Tifone

Ok, I would like to go to the lenghts here, but I'm really weak and tired after 8 hours of university. For that, really, I need to ask you to pardon the somewhat "rude" way I say = Prove it to me.

Please, of course, not quoting the Bible.

Firstly, I object to the notion that you can reject the Bible as evidence. Even if you disregard the divine inspiration of the Bible, it's still an astounding collection of primary source material. We know more about Jesus than we know about Socrates (for example), and historical documents are our primary sources of knowledge.

By the way, the Jewish historian Josephus mentioned Jesus in his writings. Josephus never mentioned Christ's divinity, but his writing should be enough to prove (at the very least) that there was a guy named Jesus in first-century Judea who seems to correlate with the Jesus of the Gospels.

Nevertheless, I can meet your challenge in the same way that the earliest apostles did. I have met Jesus. Not physically, of course, but in ways that were utterly real nonetheless. I have seen His power at work in my life and in the lives of others around me. I cannot doubt the power of God through Christ any more than I could doubt the existence of the sun, the wind, or the force of gravity.

Logic also insists that there's something real to the Gospel. Christianity exploded across the Roman Empire in spite of several emperors who tried to stop it. (Nero is the obvious example, but Diocletian wasn't any better.) Now look at the original apostles. A bunch of fishermen, a tax collector, and a former persecutor of the faith. They weren't the most-likely candidates to lead a spiritual revival, but they did it anyway. That's either a lot of coincidence, or the power of God.

The fate of the original apostles also reinforces their claims. Every one of the eleven (not counting Judas Iscariot) suffered for the faith. Ten of them died for it, and John was exiled to the island of Patmos. These guys all knew Jesus personally. If He had been a fake, wouldn't they have known about it? If so, why would they have been willing to die for a lie?

Originally Posted by Tifone

It always confuses me how your God had no problem to do LOTS of HUGE miracles in the past, becoming so evident -resurrecting people, parting seas, casting flame storms on cities- not really leaving place to the free will to believe or not believe of the observers, and now that it would be easy for Him to prove wrong all today's sceptics doing ONE real miracle on CNN, He seems to have become shy (sorry, again, didn't want to sound rude, the words just came out in a somewhat ironic way )

That's a fair question, but you have to really think about it. What do you suppose would happen if God performed a big, showy miracle today? Before you answer, remember that there are people who still believe that 9/11 was faked and that the Twin Towers were destroyed by a controlled demolition....

It wouldn't work. Skeptics would raise questions. So-called experts would prove how the miracle could have been done through science, special effects, or mass hypnosis. You can't force people to believe, even if you raise someone from the dead.

That's the very point that Jesus addressed in the parable about Lazarus the beggar & the rich man (as recorded in Luke 16):

There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'

Shortly thereafter, Jesus rose from the dead ... and people still didn't believe Him.

Originally Posted by Tifone

Well sorry I wouldn't actually WORSHIP him. Not a God which consider the natural DOUBT (which he left leaving actually not even a REAL PROOF of him) so wicked that he sends billions of even GOOD people to BURN FOREVER just for this.

Doubt is not your problem. Many believers have doubted. Mother Theresa doubted. The apostle Thomas doubted.

Excuse me for saying so, but your problem is a failure to grasp your condition. You seem to believe that you deserve Heaven on your own merits. You don't. None of us deserve Heaven on our own merits. Heaven is perfect, and we aren't.

By the way, how "good" do you have to be in order to be GOOD? Where's the line between good and not-good?

Let's take the average guy. He doesn't hurt anyone, not usually. Maybe he drives a little too fast, but he hasn't actually killed anyone yet. He gets a little short-tempered, and he occasionally has a harsh word for his wife or his kids. But we all do that, right? In spite of that, he deeply loves his family. He would give his life for them, but he hasn't been required to do that yet. He's a good worker, even though he spends a little too much time on the Web when he should be working. He's nice to people most of the time. Some people would miss him if he died.

Is this guy good enough for Heaven? Is he worthy of perfection? What if he worked a little bit harder?

Alone among all of the religions, Christianity recognizes the true problem. None of us is truly righteous [Romans 3:10]. Even when we think we're being good, most of us are usually seeking some sort of reward or praise. Genuine self-sacrificing love (with nothing to be gained by it) is darned rare in our broken world, whereas evil seems commonplace. How would humans rise above these problems to become worthy of God?

We can't do it. So God came to us. He gives us the worthiness and righteousness that we cannot attain on our own. And He gives it to us for free, because He already paid the price.

One of my favorite quotes on this subject goes something like:
"Christianity is not a religion. Religion is all about people working toward God. God is smart enough to know that we can't possibly reach Him, so He came to us. Christianity is simply living with Christ in your life."

Originally Posted by Tifone

Ok, I really hope this was a mistake from you, because this is not be respectful at all. "Neverending party"? What are you talking about?

I was referring to a popular misconception that life would be great if only God would leave us alone to enjoy it. Perhaps my language was too strong, and I apologize for any offense.

I am well aware that life is not a neverending party.

Originally Posted by Tifone

Man, you are negating that your God is omniscient, or what? He couldn't have made a PLAN without involving EVERYTHING in it if he actually KNOWED everything that was gonna happen.

You're confusing God's omniscience with His perfect will. Yes, God knew we were going to fall from grace. He knew we were going to sin. That's why He planned for our redemption from the very beginning of time.

But knowing something bad is going to happen does not mean the same thing as actually planning for it to happen. For example, I know that my kids are probably making trouble for my wife during homeschooling today. (Yup, we homeschool.) Do I want that to happen? No. Would I be delighted if it didn't happen? Sure! But I know it's probably going to happen anyway, so I make my plans for how to respond to it.

In the same way, although God knew we were going to fall from grace, He didn't want it to happen. He even made plans to redeem us after our Fall. But He couldn't have prevented our Fall without taking away our free will, so He allowed it to happen.

Originally Posted by Tifone

You are saying God is ALL-POWERFUL but he |||CAN'T||| make a person understand him and write his words correctly, just because he is ancient and ineducated?? He wants to save humanity with his message and gives it in the hands of an almost-caveman WITHOUT TAKING THE LITTLE TIME AND ENERGY (for Him) to make him UNDERSTAND his words and WRITE THEM CORRECTLY, and thus CONDEMNING all the naturally doubtful to NEVERENDING PAIN?? Seems like blasphemy ^_^ Sorry, joke

Actually, you're quite correct. If the Bible isn't reliable, then God is not God. Fortunately, the Bible is reliable and clear.

Actually, the clarity of the Bible is another point toward why it should be trusted. Think about it. The books of the Bible were written over thousands of years by many different human beings. Their cultural backgrounds, languages, and environments all changed many times, but the message stayed the same. God loves His people and wants to save them. Sadly, we keep screwing up the plan because we want to be in control. Only by accepting the grace of God and asking Him into our lives can we ever find happiness and holiness.

Originally Posted by Tifone

?

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things." [Isaiah 45:7]

"Shall there be EVIL in a city, and the LORD hath not DONE it?" [Amos 3:6]

Best wishes to everybody

What translation are you using? The NIV renders Isaiah 45:7 a bit differently:

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

The NASB has:

The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.

The point in this verse is God's sovereignty. In context, the verse is part of God's explicit endorsement of Cyrus (a pagan king!) as the agent of God's will and deliverer of God's people. God is not the author of Evil. However, He is lord of all, and He can use destruction to fulfill His purposes.

Your citation of Amos 3:6 suffers from a similar problem. NIV:

When a trumpet sounds in a city,
do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city,
has not the LORD caused it?

NASB:

If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble?
If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?

God is not claiming authorship of Evil. Rather, He is forcefully stating His sovereignty, even going so far as to declare that He can use disaster & destruction as part of His plans.

Hmmm ... so I did a little comparison, and it appears that you're using the good ol' King James Version for your quotations. I love the KJV because of its poetic language and beautiful cadences. In fact, I still recite the Lord's Prayer in KJV English.

The problem is that the KJV English is distinctive because it is old. The English language has changed a bit since King James's day, and those changes can make the KJV a little tricky to understand. If you like the KJV, may I recommend the New King James Version (NKJV) for you? It uses much of the same poetic, beautiful language, but it also uses modern words to avoid confusing modern readers.

[Imp]

Slippery Jim
Here's the main point: God must be first for those who claim to believe in Him. He gave us His life. We must give Him our lives.

Here's the other point: If my parents do not believe in Jesus as Lord, they will not experience eternal life. There will be no happy ending for them. When they die, they will suffer for eternity

Sorry probably getting annoying now but can someone explain how this works.
If I understand correctly in a time when people did not travel much & word passed slowly due to the lack of things like transport & radio what happened.
All the people who had not heard so did not even get a chance to form an opinion just failed straight off, that does not seem like a fair & just God to me.
Have you not just denied anybody who lived before & those half way round the globe the chance because you forgot to tell them?

I also have a question for the people who believe in souls going on eternily, reincarnation if you will or something along those lines.
Either a lot did not get to play at the start or another world somewhere has died. My reasoning behind this is there are more humans alive right now than have died in the history of the entire human race. Better health & the bunny syndrome, 2 produce etc etc so where did these extra souls come from? Modern farming means despite loss of habitats "lower level" animals have not declined significantly until very recently.
Does not compute unless there is (was) extra terrestial life.

[capnq]

Originally Posted by Imp

Sorry probably getting annoying now but can someone explain how this works.
If I understand correctly in a time when people did not travel much & word passed slowly due to the lack of things like transport & radio what happened.
All the people who had not heard so did not even get a chance to form an opinion just failed straight off, that does not seem like a fair & just God to me.
Have you not just denied anybody who lived before & those half way round the globe the chance because you forgot to tell them?

Skeptics have been raising this argument ever since believers started preaching the concept. I have my own answer to the problem that (sort of) satisfies me, but I'm not confident enough that I'm correct to try to convince others of it.

I also have a question for the people who believe in souls going on eternily, reincarnation if you will or something along those lines.
Either a lot did not get to play at the start or another world somewhere has died. My reasoning behind this is there are more humans alive right now than have died in the history of the entire human race.

This is a modern myth that has repeatedly been debunked.

where did these extra souls come from? Modern farming means despite loss of habitats "lower level" animals have not declined significantly until very recently.
Does not compute unless there is (was) extra terrestial life.

Why are you assuming that there is some kind of "conservation of souls", that new souls can't be created? Different faiths have different theories about this, but the universe is both big enough and old enough that the answer could very well be extraterrestrials, for all we know.

[lch]

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

If that person was able to prove that He was God, then you'd better believe I'd listen to Him. I'd be nuts to ignore Him!

Here's the main point: God must be first for those who claim to believe in Him. He gave us His life. We must give Him our lives.

Here's the other point: If my parents do not believe in Jesus as Lord, they will not experience eternal life. There will be no happy ending for them. When they die, they will suffer for eternity. That's bad. Under the circumstances, I would be a poor son indeed if I stood to the side and allowed my parents to go to Hell without making every effort to prevent it. I must be a witness to them. However, my witnessing will cause division between us, at least in the short term.

Let me just disagree with you here as a good christian: I believe that Jesus was God's prophet and the messias. I do not believe that Jesus was God, became God at any time or is God. I do not believe in Hell and eternal damnation. Being christian is multi-faceted and I don't think that catholics are better christians just because they have the cooler hats and rituals.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Remember: Jesus is also God. He is the second Person of the Holy Trinity. God didn't pick some random Jewish carpenter and use him as a scapegoat for the world. Instead, He satisfied His own justice by paying the price Himself.

No he isn't. There is no holy trinity in my book.
Yes, he did pick a random Jewish carpenter for it. That was EXACTLY THE POINT.

[SlipperyJim]

Originally Posted by lch

Let me just disagree with you here as a good christian: I believe that Jesus was God's prophet and the messias. I do not believe that Jesus was God, became God at any time or is God. I do not believe in Hell and eternal damnation. Being christian is multi-faceted and I don't think that catholics are better christians just because they have the cooler hats and rituals.

Christians have many doctrinal disputes among us -- baptism, Holy Communion, church authority, etcetera -- but there are also central truths that must be held in common. The divinity of Christ is one such truth. If Jesus is not God, then why be Christian?

Jesus Himself claimed to be God. He claimed His divinity repeatedly and forcefully. In the end, that's why the Sanhedrin had Him killed. If He wasn't God, then Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic. If He was a liar, then He was a particularly vile liar, because those lies have deceived countless people over the centuries. If He was a lunatic, then He was like one of those seriously-deranged people who needs heavy meds to keep out of trouble. Either way, Jesus would not be God's prophet, because God wouldn't speak His words through lies or insane ramblings.

Jesus claimed the prerogatives of God. He claimed to forgive sins, even when He was not the injured party. How can a mere man, even a prophet, claim to forgive sins against others? If I sin against you, you can forgive me. But if I sin against a complete stranger, and you still forgive me, by what right would you offer that forgiveness? (And wouldn't it seem arrogant?) Forgiving sins only makes sense if Jesus Himself was injured by our sins -- all of our sins -- and that only makes sense if He is God.

Let me be quick to clarify: You are free to believe whatever you believe, and you don't owe me any answers. If you would entertain my questions, I would appreciate your attention. I have been a non-Christian. Now I am a Christian. (Not Catholic, by the way, although I have a great respect for the Catholic Church.) In all of that, I simply don't see a way to be a Christian who rejects the divinity of Jesus.

---

PS: Plain honesty requires me to identify CS Lewis as the inspiration for much of my argument in this post. His book Mere Christianity explains much of these points, and I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in an intellectual approach to the Christian faith.