Slashdot Mirror

Hi Rok, This is never any easy question to answer because I'd like to be making $200,000 a year, but of course thats probably a little unreasonable. At this point, I'm just looking for full time work, so I'm fairly felxible in my salary expections. To put a number to it, I'd say maybe around $35,000. Matthew No, he's not "wishing" and he's not simply sitting back. In his mercy he's decided not to destory us all and he's made a way If you read the Bible, you can see he does indeed have a plan.

I'm neither a philosopher nor an atheist, but the most primitive justification of what is right and what is wrong for an atheist would be: "don't do to others what you would not like being done to you". [with author's correction]

This statement is only the negative way of restating the famous Golden Rule, spoken by that great atheist, Jesus.

Err... hmmm.

Genesis 3 (NIV):
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

I Kings 4 (NIV):
29 And God gave Solomon exceptionally much wisdom and understanding, and breadth of mind like the sand of the seashore.
30 Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the people of the East and all the wisdom of Egypt.
31 For he was wiser than all other men--than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol. His fame was in all the nations round about.
32 He also originated 3,000 proverbs, and his songs were 1,005.
33 He spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of the wall; he spoke also of beasts, of birds, of creeping things, and of fish.

You can check out the specs here. It includes the older specs.. and it's searchable too!

*shrug* Its just what I see, not my opinion.

The AC, is in fact, quite mistaken. What he quoted here is not the core tenet of Christianity; this is just a nice way to live with God thrown in for good measure.

Actually, what he quoted here is Jesus, or almost - Matthew 22:37-40. If you follow those two commandments, you're fine, you don't need Jesus. The point, of course, is that you can't. People are sinful by nature, and that's where Jesus' sacrifice and the grace of God comes in.

Palestine was not a country/state/kingdom or any sovereign entity. When was it founded? Who was one of its Kings/Dictators/PMs/Presidents? (There are Jewish kings buried all over "Palestine.") Where are its ancient ruins? (There are Jewish ruins all over "Palestine.") Where are its ancient artifacts from the land? What was its currency? Tell me anything about it. It is fantasy. You have no credibility to discuss Israel until you admit that.

" The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity... In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. It has also been a 'conceptual' war for the ownership of the term 'Palestinian' which has been transferred over to the Arabs, whereas before 1967, 'Palestine' has always been synonymous with the land of Israel."

- Zahir Muhsein, PLO Executive Committee member, to Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977

Jews used to be the ones called Palestinians. Tourism posters in the early 20th century said: "Come to Palestine." Palestine was known to the Christian West as the Holy Land because it was the land of the Jews and the birthplace of Y'shua, our Messiah/Christ, Who incidentally was born in Bethlehem of Y'huda, not "Bethlehem of Palestine/West Bank."

The Jewish people have not encroached upon an existing Palestinian Arab state. Most of what you are claiming was Palestine was part of Transjordan. Don't you see? There was no Palestine. It's a modern invention to push the Jewish people out of their homeland in the Middle East.

I'm not a religious person, and I normally don't resort to Biblical citations, but I think this one applies:

"The love of money is the root of all evil." (also one of the most misquoted passages in the Bible just for the record).

• KJV For the love of money is the root of all evil...
• NASB For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil...

I'm not a religious person, and I normally don't resort to Biblical citations, but I think this one applies:

"The love of money is the root of all evil." (also one of the most misquoted passages in the Bible just for the record).

• KJV For the love of money is the root of all evil...
• NASB For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil...

No, according to the Bible, works ("living a good life" in your words) don't count, no matter how great and wonderful you think you're being. Faith, and only faith gets the job done.

You're confusing Sola Fide, the Protestant doctine of "Faith Alone" with the teaching of the Bible -- Catholics have quite a different interpretation. For example, the only place in the bible where the words "faith alone" are used together is James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

Yes, I've planned to spend the "hereafter" in my Father's house.

Besides, need we get into the debate about exactly how big that arc would have to have been in order to contain two of every species on earth? Or that for a gentically viable population, you need around 10-20 breeding pairs (according to a genetics scientist friend of mine).

Not that this invalidates your argument, but more than two were taken:

Genesis 7:2-3

Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

Which version of the Biblical flood myth are you referring? There are two in the Bible.

uhh... One account of the flood is in Genesis 6 & 7. Where exactly is the other account located?

You can check it out here.

Christ was and is God.

he was enlightened.

He wasn't enlightened; He was the Light!

Christ did not think it was a myth.

No, I think he understood perfectly. Where did you learn that Christians deserve to go to heaven? That we are entitled to be with God? We're not worthy of receiving any good thing from God, much less moving in with Him.

All people since Adam are born into sin. Justice demands punishment for sin. Our "just due" is to be tormented in hell. But God shows us grace--unmerited favor--to save us from the judgment. This is the heart and soul of the Gospel and a central theme of the Bible. If you missed that point in your studies, you might as well have missed it all, cowboy.

Christians are not waiting to get what they deserve; they are waiting for what they DO NOT deserve! Glory to God! (Wow, it's amazing how that puts a smile across my face! :-D ) The Messiah became our sin on the cross, and His righteousness has been imputed to those who trust in Him. (2 Cor. 5:21) Christ got our just due, and we get His just due, which is to be with the Father in heaven. (Of course, Jesus Christ defeated death and is now with the Father, also.)

P.S. In an earlier comment, you seemed to equate Armageddon with the meek inheriting the earth. The book _God Will Bless You_ by the 19th century English theologian Charles Spurgeon is a wonderful commentary on the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount. I found the third chapter online, which answers for you the questions "Who are the meek?" and "How do the meek inherit the earth?" Hint: It has nothing to do with Armageddon or the Rapture.

I gave evidence of the Bible's accuracy, but I think you have pre-determined the kind of evidence that is acceptable to you. If I had to guess, I'd say that you simply don't WANT to believe and would reject pretty much any evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible.

> Saying God created the heavens in the earth does not ACCURATELY suggest there was a big bang.

There are several verses that indicate that the universe has been expanding. Here's a quick search to get a subset of them.

Like I said, the Bible isn't meant to have many scientific details, but those that are there are accurate. I can't imagine how Moses would have known on his own that the universe had a beginning, the early earth was void, then eventually watery, the Spirit did something in the waters, then after that light reached the earth. Genesis 1 continues to talk about the formation of the water cycle (day 2) and plate tectonics to form stable continents (day 3). That all matches the understanding of modern science surprisingly well.

Interesting theory. Nice way for atheists to try to avoid the theistic implications of the BB. But like the bottom of the page says, this isn't proven. It maybe avoids a singularity (and thus could pose a problem for Genesis 1:1), but does it really get rid of all theistic implications? How likely is it that the said collision could have happened? And the expansion of the universe would still need to be incredibly fine tuned for any life to exist.

Anyway, I'm not concerned about that idea unless it were proven. It is only attempting to get God's direct hand out of the BB. Since I believe in God, I have no reason to replace the BB, as long as evidence supports it; and it does, overwhelingly.

Also, if the Bible seems to say that the earth is the center of the universe (which I'm not sure that it does, although I know people have implied that from it), keep in mind frame of reference. ANYTHING can be the center of the universe. Same with it saying the sun rises and sets. Our frame of reference is on the earth.

As a devout Christian, and avid church-goer, the first thing that came to mind when I read this post is how exactly it fits in with what the Bible itself says in Hebrews 10:25:

"Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching."

Although I certainly think this is a great idea for those who are physically unable to make it to church on a given day, there's not really any good biblical reason to skip going to church. (As a side note to several other posters, this verse doesn't appear to allow for sleeping in)

I know I'm preaching to the choir as far as you're concerned, but I just want to comment on a common statement you made that we often hear in discussions on Christ. The following is something I've been thinking about lately, and this is as good an opportunity as any to put it into words and share it with a brother in Christ.

Here we have a guy who (in life and in the movie) claimed to be God incarnate.

I think that would be better stated:

Here we have a God who claimed to be man in the flesh.

God sends a messenger (as prophesied in Malachi 3:1), John the Baptizer, to announce that He will be coming soon as a man.

God enters Mary's womb as a human and sends an angel to announce that He is here! (Matthew 1:20)
Immanu El (God is with us).

He is born, He grows, He lives, He teaches. It is God Himself living as a man, not a man making claims to be God.

The great action was that supernatural God put Himself squarely in the material world that He had created and fully immersed Himself in the human experience (unlike the "angel of the LORD"). To cast the experience of Christ as that of a man (implied: having not existed before his physical birth, inheriting a sinful state, existing as spiritually separate from the Father, born of the flesh requiring remission of sin) and yet claiming to be God is to mischaracterize what happened. Even as one who already believes that Jesus of Nazareth is God incarnate, I wince when I hear "Jesus was a man who claimed to be God." It's a half-truth at best, because it implicitly precludes Jesus' supernatural existence of eternity past. Before He was Jesus of Nazareth, He was Jesus of Heaven.

Jesus of Heaven became Jesus of Nazareth. God became a man. Then as a man, He asserted the authority of God. His actions spoke louder than His words. His miracles and fulfillments of the ancient messianic prophecies were His major "claims" to be God.

To say that Jesus was a "man who claimed" to be God implies that He simply spouted off, "I am God!" as any arrogant or delusional fool could do. No, He lived God's Word in a way that manifested the reality that He was God incarnate more than any direct, verbal claim could ever do.

There have been thousands of people throughout the ages who claimed to be God. Why do they have no followers and Jesus has billions? If Jesus were just a man--any old Tom, Dick, or Harry in the desert--who ballyhooed himself to be God in the flesh, the examples of history indicate that He would not be able to get more than a handful of people to revere Him for very long.

However, if it were God making claims about a man, and in this case, about Himself being a Man... you would expect that Man to attract huge masses of worshippers... which is exactly what we've seen for 2000 years.

I know you believe this, IndigoDarkwolf. I just want you to see that the statement you wrote uses language that is actually kind of hostile to what you and I believe. Moreover, I find that saying "Jesus was God who claimed to be man" is profoundly inspirational to me. It's more theologically correct and helps to guide my thinking when I think about Jesus.

You're exactly correct, religion is not philosophy. Nor did I claim it was. What I did say was that religion answers the "philosophical why" and not the "physical how". There's also a physical why (i.e. cause and effect, the cause being why) and I wanted to be clear that I was talking about meaning and motivation and not simply a chain of events. Hopefully, now I'm being clearer.

That being said, you have a pretty limited and poorly informed view of faith. What you're talking about is ignorance, not faith. In reality "the word of god" stresses probing, questioning and learning at least as much as being able to trust God when you don't understand. One is not a substitute for the other.

Let me challenge you to do some probing of your own. Learn about religion by actually reading a religious text and not just assuming you know what it says. I'd particularly encourage you to read something from the bible. (I'm confident what you'll read from that source, at least, will be honest and correct because I've critically examined quite a bit of it.) What you'll most likely find is a predominantly historical text, one that doesn't just say don't murder, God said so but also illustrates and argues why murder is wrong through the lives of the men and women you'll read about. Read about David (mostly 2 Samuel), there is a man who spent at least as much time probing and questioning God, as he did "accepting" things because "god said so". Or, since you seem enamored with philosophy, try one of the books of Solomon or the book of Job. All four of those books are thinking books, even philosophical.

You're exactly correct, religion is not philosophy. Nor did I claim it was. What I did say was that religion answers the "philosophical why" and not the "physical how". There's also a physical why (i.e. cause and effect, the cause being why) and I wanted to be clear that I was talking about meaning and motivation and not simply a chain of events. Hopefully, now I'm being clearer.

That being said, you have a pretty limited and poorly informed view of faith. What you're talking about is ignorance, not faith. In reality "the word of god" stresses probing, questioning and learning at least as much as being able to trust God when you don't understand. One is not a substitute for the other.

Let me challenge you to do some probing of your own. Learn about religion by actually reading a religious text and not just assuming you know what it says. I'd particularly encourage you to read something from the bible. (I'm confident what you'll read from that source, at least, will be honest and correct because I've critically examined quite a bit of it.) What you'll most likely find is a predominantly historical text, one that doesn't just say don't murder, God said so but also illustrates and argues why murder is wrong through the lives of the men and women you'll read about. Read about David (mostly 2 Samuel), there is a man who spent at least as much time probing and questioning God, as he did "accepting" things because "god said so". Or, since you seem enamored with philosophy, try one of the books of Solomon or the book of Job. All four of those books are thinking books, even philosophical.

You're exactly correct, religion is not philosophy. Nor did I claim it was. What I did say was that religion answers the "philosophical why" and not the "physical how". There's also a physical why (i.e. cause and effect, the cause being why) and I wanted to be clear that I was talking about meaning and motivation and not simply a chain of events. Hopefully, now I'm being clearer.

That being said, you have a pretty limited and poorly informed view of faith. What you're talking about is ignorance, not faith. In reality "the word of god" stresses probing, questioning and learning at least as much as being able to trust God when you don't understand. One is not a substitute for the other.

Let me challenge you to do some probing of your own. Learn about religion by actually reading a religious text and not just assuming you know what it says. I'd particularly encourage you to read something from the bible. (I'm confident what you'll read from that source, at least, will be honest and correct because I've critically examined quite a bit of it.) What you'll most likely find is a predominantly historical text, one that doesn't just say don't murder, God said so but also illustrates and argues why murder is wrong through the lives of the men and women you'll read about. Read about David (mostly 2 Samuel), there is a man who spent at least as much time probing and questioning God, as he did "accepting" things because "god said so". Or, since you seem enamored with philosophy, try one of the books of Solomon or the book of Job. All four of those books are thinking books, even philosophical.

You're exactly correct, religion is not philosophy. Nor did I claim it was. What I did say was that religion answers the "philosophical why" and not the "physical how". There's also a physical why (i.e. cause and effect, the cause being why) and I wanted to be clear that I was talking about meaning and motivation and not simply a chain of events. Hopefully, now I'm being clearer.

That being said, you have a pretty limited and poorly informed view of faith. What you're talking about is ignorance, not faith. In reality "the word of god" stresses probing, questioning and learning at least as much as being able to trust God when you don't understand. One is not a substitute for the other.

Let me challenge you to do some probing of your own. Learn about religion by actually reading a religious text and not just assuming you know what it says. I'd particularly encourage you to read something from the bible. (I'm confident what you'll read from that source, at least, will be honest and correct because I've critically examined quite a bit of it.) What you'll most likely find is a predominantly historical text, one that doesn't just say don't murder, God said so but also illustrates and argues why murder is wrong through the lives of the men and women you'll read about. Read about David (mostly 2 Samuel), there is a man who spent at least as much time probing and questioning God, as he did "accepting" things because "god said so". Or, since you seem enamored with philosophy, try one of the books of Solomon or the book of Job. All four of those books are thinking books, even philosophical.

You're exactly correct, religion is not philosophy. Nor did I claim it was. What I did say was that religion answers the "philosophical why" and not the "physical how". There's also a physical why (i.e. cause and effect, the cause being why) and I wanted to be clear that I was talking about meaning and motivation and not simply a chain of events. Hopefully, now I'm being clearer.

That being said, you have a pretty limited and poorly informed view of faith. What you're talking about is ignorance, not faith. In reality "the word of god" stresses probing, questioning and learning at least as much as being able to trust God when you don't understand. One is not a substitute for the other.

Let me challenge you to do some probing of your own. Learn about religion by actually reading a religious text and not just assuming you know what it says. I'd particularly encourage you to read something from the bible. (I'm confident what you'll read from that source, at least, will be honest and correct because I've critically examined quite a bit of it.) What you'll most likely find is a predominantly historical text, one that doesn't just say don't murder, God said so but also illustrates and argues why murder is wrong through the lives of the men and women you'll read about. Read about David (mostly 2 Samuel), there is a man who spent at least as much time probing and questioning God, as he did "accepting" things because "god said so". Or, since you seem enamored with philosophy, try one of the books of Solomon or the book of Job. All four of those books are thinking books, even philosophical.

Why do we give the jews $10 billion in aid when they killed Jesus?

Dimona melts and finishes the job Hitler started. That'll teach those heebs to mess with Jesus.

Don't bother. He's misunderstanding anyway. That verse reads equivalently as Leviticus 19:12, Deuteronomy 6:13, and Deuteronomy 10:20 all of which are referring to taking oaths on the name of the Lord. In otherwords, God is telling the Israelites if you claim to be doing something in the name of the Lord, God will hold you to it and punish you for failure. Verse Links

It's a sobering promise, and it's why we used to swear on the Bible in courts, even if it's a practise being done away with now.

I've seen several English newspapers also try to show that Israel may have had advance knowledge of 9/11. There even was an FBI investigation.

Eh, I'm sick of hearing how one side teaches hatred of the other side in schools. I want to see proof. I hear Hindus teach hatred of Muslims, and Muslims teach hatred of Hindus. Nobody can claim the higher moral ground here.

You're incorrect, Islam doesn't say that there will be a wholesale slaughter of Jews, and nothing like that before the return of Jesus(pbuh). They don't call it "resurrection" either. Islam says that when the antichrist (Dajjal) comes, many Jews, Christians, and even some Muslims will follow him. They're not singling out the Jews.

You're distorting what Islam says, and that verse is not talking about the coming of Jesus. You're unevenly comparing Christianity and Islam. Remember, the bible claims Jesus said "I came not to bring peace, but a sword. "

The faiths are NOT diametrically opposed. Come by to my town and say that to the interfaith services here. Yes, Christianity came before Islam as we know it, but Judaism came before Christianity. Your point? One faith is the expected next iteration of the last.

Will,

Thanks for your comment.

For more on the textual problem in the Greek NT, check out James White's The King James Only Controversy. White takes on Chick, and minons like him. ISBN.nu is your friend.

What Chick and his minons don't tell you is that there are four Textus Receptuses floating around. One is the Scrivener Textus Receptus, which is dated 1894. Scrivener tried to bring the Textus Receptus back to the Textus Receptus the KJV translators used. The other is the Stephanus Textus Receptus, dated 1550, which (I think) was a spin off of Erasmus' Textus Receptus. The third is the Beza Textus Receptus which is dated 1565-1604, which (I think) was used by the KJV translators. The fourth is the Eramus Textus Receptus, which is dated 1519 and is the first Textus Receptus.

This evidence shows the problem with Chick's viewpoint. If you believe the Textus Receptus is the one and only, then which Textus Receptus? David Cloud (i'm not kidding, that's his real name!), holds some of Chick's views. He wrote an article on this topic called "WHICH EDITION OF THE RECEIVED TEXT IS THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD?" He didn't opine on which Textus Receptus was The One And Only(TM). Instead he took the cop-out of telling to trust the KJV in textual matters! The site is currently offline. I will be more than happy to send you the piece. My address is in my /. profile.

If you want to see both Textus Receptuses, check out the Bible Gateway. Both Textus Receptuses are there plus the Westcott-Hort Text (which has the Nestle-Aland 27/UBS 4 varants embedded). There's also software that you can download to compare the Textus Receptuses at Crosswire. It's FOSS, and is available for GNU/Linux, Win32, and Mac OS X.

I wish you well.

Apparently you need to read Genesis again cause you're way out to lunch on that reverse thing.

start here: Genesis 1

I reiterate: God is axiomatic.

adj 1: evident without proof or argument; "an axiomatic truth"; "we hold these truths to be self-evident" [syn: self-evident, taken for granted]

Yes, I assume conclusions that are self-evident without need for intellectual persuasion or empirical proof. And if you're honest with yourself, you'll find that you do too.

We couldn't function in life if we had to prove every belief that governs our decision-making and influences our ranking of priorities and values. Maybe you're not dogmatic about many beliefs (*cough*; BTW, your title is misspelled), but it is impossible not have them in some kind of order of acceptance in your mind. This matrix of beliefs dictates your every decision. You can change your matrix, but you can't opt out. Being atheist or agnostic doesn't mean that you're an independent bystander on the sidelines watching all of religion go by. You have chosen some beliefs either actively or passively, and thus, you have chosen a path for your life and for the direction of your eternal destiny.

Choose wisely, because when your earth suit expires, your being within is going either to a place of everlasting bliss or to a place of everlasting torture, and the window of opportunity to decide will be shut forever. Matt, you are not guaranteed your next breath! The Holy Father above loves you. He is waiting for you with open arms to send His Spirit into your heart, who will give you a joy that no can conceive of while still in rebellious rejection of Him.

You'll never know what's inside a room unless you open the door. I promise you, Matt, you won't regret opening this door. Investigation leads to knowledge, but spiritual things must be sought by spiritual means. Pray -- even if you don't understand who you're praying to. That's understandable; your relationship with God has been dormant since you were born. Immerse yourself in the Bible. Accept and believe the Gospel. Repent of sin. Then, your slate of transgressions and guilt will be wiped clean. Accept the Messiah's ransom for you, and His righteousness will be credited to you on account of your faith! The superabundant love of the Lord God will overwhelm your heart like a cool, invigorating ocean wave, and you will know the goodness and glory of our gracious Prince of Peace! Join the rest of us saved sinners, and we will weep with joy together over your salvation. 8-D

Check out John 8:57-59.

To claim that you existed before Abraham (2000 years prior) and to use the words "I AM" in the present tense is about as clear a way to say that one is God without actually saying it. Remember, when Moses asked God what his name was, he replied "I AM". The audience obviously got the point, since they immediately formed a mob and tried to stone him.

Regardless of whether you believe that Jesus was God, you can't really say that he didn't make the claim... Even secular historians generally agree that as a whole the biblical accounts of what Christ taught are probably accurate.

Check Matthew 23:37. It's one of the synoptic (i.e. narrative) gospels, and Jesus is addressing Jerusalem the way the LORD addresses his people Israel through the prophets.

It's quite striking - Jesus claims to be the mother hen, gathering his people under his wing. No prophet, king, or rabbi ever claimed to have that role because there is only one person who could rightly claim that role over Israel - God Himself. If Jesus didn't intend this to be a claim to divinity, he would have been an idiot for blaspheming.

Yes, this is offtopic.

In fact, the whole Song of Solomon is about lovers, and includes descriptions of breasts.

Proverbs also has a few good things to say about sex.

Did you know that Solomon's most famous act of wisdom was resolving a conflict between two women about which of the two prostitutes was the real mother of the baby? Now imagine the same case if brought to court today (let alone to the president)?

> If I remember correctly doesn't it also mean that anyone who does take the mark is damned?

There is evidence for that, yes.

BibleGateway search showing what will happen to those who accept the Mark and worship the image.

NIV says "on":

16 He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
18 This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

Reviewing more version on Bible Gateway reveals that only the King James Version, the 21st century King James Version, and the Wycliffe New Testament use the word "in." All others available there use "on." (including NKJV.)

Just kind of interesting, but also makes it hard to draw conclusions based on it.

16 And it maketh all, the small, and the great, and the rich, and the poor, and the freemen, and the servants, that it may give to them a mark upon their right hand or upon their foreheads,
17 and that no one may be able to buy, or to sell, except he who is having the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is the wisdom! He who is having the understanding, let him count the number of the beast, for the number of a man it is, and its number [is] 666.
Revelations 13:16-18

( Koran search for Judah, Judea, or Gaza. Your boolean query produced no results. Hmmm)

( Koran search for Judah, Judea, or Gaza. Your boolean query produced no results. Hmmm)

I just can't get where Christians got their "loving God" stuff from, but it's certainly not from the Old Testament. The Bible is a long compendium of slaughters, most of them being comitted ad majorem Dei gloriam. Ever read the Books of Kings?

I'm not trying to be a troll, but the loving aspect of God is stated quite clearly in Moses' Writings. Jesus himself quoted the Old Testament when he said what the two greatest commandments are. Many people also forget that besides being loving, God is also just, so if you go against him or his ways, you will be crushed - no exceptions.

There definitely have been a lot of slaughters in the Bible, but that is true of every civilization or belief. No matter how great the foundational beliefs are, someone always manages to turn it into their own excuse. If you really want examples of dumb acts in the name of Christianity, take a look at the Children's Crusade or the Spanish Inquisition - not bright points of our history at all.

You can believe what you want - that's perfectly fine. Just don't miss out on the whole picture because you're concentrating on one point.

Either way God has a lot of responsibility to not act like a spoiled 2 year old.

And I sure am glad God is God, and not Q from Star Trek. Otherwise we would all be held responsible for the actions of other members of our species in that wierd sort of medevil courtroom.

But yes. You hit on one of the circular logic problems of Christianity. How can the freedom of choice not collide with an all knowing God? He gives us choice, but knows what we will choose.

Consider relativity; The ship going near the speed of light views the rest of the universe with a different time frame than an observer on a planet views the space ship's time. To the stationary observer, time is slower on the space ship. To the space ship, time is faster on the stationary planet. The point of view of the observer changes the observation.

I feel that the same can be applied to the views of free will vs. predestination. From our point of view, we can say "screw you God, I'm going to do my own thing" but from God's point of view, He saw it comming.

A friend of mine explained it that God allows freedom of choice and then works with it to His ends. God can redeem any situation so that something good comes of it. If someone observes it and learns from it, the people involved learn from it, etc. We can't possibly know how a situation, no matter how bad, can have any good in it, but it does according to Paul.

This is small comfort to people in the middle of horrible situations or troubles. Just see what some people deal with in different parts of the world just for being Christian, and for no other reason.

I am glad I live here and not many other places.

jason

Pharaoh will think, 'The Israelites are wandering around the land in confusion, hemmed in by the desert.' 4 And [God] I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD ." So the Israelites did this.

I believe the "testing God" references deal more with the reason for the test. As with many of hte teachings of Jesus, it is the reason for the action as opposed to just the action that matters to God.

Lets look at a famous example of someone testing God in a good way by Gideon in Judges 6. Gideon tested God to see if what he was instructed to do came from God. Here is the short of it.

Gideon is told by an Angel to save the Israelites from the invading peoples surrounding them. To make sure that he isn't imagining the will of God Gideon asks God to wet a fleece over night but keep the ground dry. Then the next night keep the fleece dry and the rest of the ground wet. God does this to show that He is with Gideon.

Now. That sounds like a test of God, but the motivation is different than other mentions of testing God. Does that make any more / less sense?

jason

Why does God have a problem with tests? As if tests are a bad thing? Passing tests shows evidence for one's credability, while failing them does not.

Their explanation was that she didn't believe enough.

That is an idiotic belief. That is called Prosperity Religion. Illness is not a result of sin (as the Jews of Jesus time believed). Neither is a lack of healing a sign of a lack of faith.

Rich people are no closer to God than are poor (and if you read the Bible, probably the other way around).

jason

we can study the data and determine whether it really helps.

A great example of your point of view can be taken from the Bible. If we are talking about the God of the Bible, then to argue about that God, you must use the reference volume written to describe Him.

Jesus said in his temptation in the desert by Satan: Do not put the Lord your God to the test.

What does that mean? Well . . . don't test God. Why? Look at the context of the passage.

When asked to proove He was the Son of God, Jesus says that if His actions are not proof enough then too bad, that is what you get.

jason

we can study the data and determine whether it really helps.

A great example of your point of view can be taken from the Bible. If we are talking about the God of the Bible, then to argue about that God, you must use the reference volume written to describe Him.

Jesus said in his temptation in the desert by Satan: Do not put the Lord your God to the test.

What does that mean? Well . . . don't test God. Why? Look at the context of the passage.

When asked to proove He was the Son of God, Jesus says that if His actions are not proof enough then too bad, that is what you get.

jason

Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."
39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

From Mat 12:38-40

Most people have believed throughout history that the True God, if he exists, should be eternally relevant and his works observable over time. (The difficulty for us is that he can work on vast time-scales compared to the typical human lifespan (or attention-span!))

I said the Jewish God was an *obvious* starting place for these basic reasons:

Over 3 billion nominal (mono-)theists (Jews, Christians, Muslims) trace their religious heritage to covenants made with Abraham of Genesis.

Throughout their history, and in accordance with their scripture, the Jews have been scattered, enslaved, conquered, slaughtered, etc. more than any other people on the face of the planet. And still today they retain their identity! Over the great span of recorded human history, Jerusalem (literally "City of Peace") has been the most fought-over city in the world. Armies of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Ptolemies, Seleucids, Romans (Jesus 1, Jesus 2), Byzantines, Persians, Arabs, Crusaders, Turks, British, Palestinians, and many others have waged war over her. The Bible says this will continue until ALL nations rise up with the Anti-Christ against Israel in the battle of Armageddon, after which a lasting peace will finally be established by the true Christ (Messiah). How could such a tiny nation be at the "center of the world" for so long?

It is unprecedented in all of human history for a nation, language and culture to be revived after being scattered to the ends of the earth for 2000 years, in the way that Israel has been. Most conquered peoples assimilate into their conqueror's nations relatively quickly. But this was prophecied ahead of time. Speaking as a gentile Christian who loves the Jewish people, that there are still so many unbelieving Jews around for all the world to see is such a great boost to my faith, because it shows the Bible to be historically and prophetically trustworthy. Of course there is much more to this, but you have to study the Bible.

Despite what President Bush and John Ashcroft may say, the global war on terrorism is not being fought because "they hate our freedoms". At root, it is a religious struggle for control over the Holy Land. The Bible has a lot to say about the future, and to see the globalized political, economic, and religious landscapes all coming together in accordance with biblical prophecy blows me away. (Once when I was a physics student at Caltech, the students invited Richard Feynman to come into our class to talk with us. One thing he stressed, and I never forgot it, was how vital PREDICTION was to our UNDERSTANDING. It is generally very hard to predict what will happen in novel circumstances, even highly controlled ones. Prediction is our tool to winnow out a posteriori truth. I had previously rejected the possibility of God. But once I was challenged to look into biblical prophecy, I found more evidence for the truth of the Bible than I had imagined was possible.)

Most people have believed throughout history that the True God, if he exists, should be eternally relevant and his works observable over time. (The difficulty for us is that he can work on vast time-scales compared to the typical human lifespan (or attention-span!))

I said the Jewish God was an *obvious* starting place for these basic reasons:

Over 3 billion nominal (mono-)theists (Jews, Christians, Muslims) trace their religious heritage to covenants made with Abraham of Genesis.

Throughout their history, and in accordance with their scripture, the Jews have been scattered, enslaved, conquered, slaughtered, etc. more than any other people on the face of the planet. And still today they retain their identity! Over the great span of recorded human history, Jerusalem (literally "City of Peace") has been the most fought-over city in the world. Armies of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Ptolemies, Seleucids, Romans (Jesus 1, Jesus 2), Byzantines, Persians, Arabs, Crusaders, Turks, British, Palestinians, and many others have waged war over her. The Bible says this will continue until ALL nations rise up with the Anti-Christ against Israel in the battle of Armageddon, after which a lasting peace will finally be established by the true Christ (Messiah). How could such a tiny nation be at the "center of the world" for so long?

It is unprecedented in all of human history for a nation, language and culture to be revived after being scattered to the ends of the earth for 2000 years, in the way that Israel has been. Most conquered peoples assimilate into their conqueror's nations relatively quickly. But this was prophecied ahead of time. Speaking as a gentile Christian who loves the Jewish people, that there are still so many unbelieving Jews around for all the world to see is such a great boost to my faith, because it shows the Bible to be historically and prophetically trustworthy. Of course there is much more to this, but you have to study the Bible.

Despite what President Bush and John Ashcroft may say, the global war on terrorism is not being fought because "they hate our freedoms". At root, it is a religious struggle for control over the Holy Land. The Bible has a lot to say about the future, and to see the globalized political, economic, and religious landscapes all coming together in accordance with biblical prophecy blows me away. (Once when I was a physics student at Caltech, the students invited Richard Feynman to come into our class to talk with us. One thing he stressed, and I never forgot it, was how vital PREDICTION was to our UNDERSTANDING. It is generally very hard to predict what will happen in novel circumstances, even highly controlled ones. Prediction is our tool to winnow out a posteriori truth. I had previously rejected the possibility of God. But once I was challenged to look into biblical prophecy, I found more evidence for the truth of the Bible than I had imagined was possible.)