Regardless of how many kings or other entities in the past have decided to try to implement this, the prophecies concerning the restoration of the nation of Israel had not yet come to pass, so the actual anti-Christ that the Bible warns us about could not have come. Now that the prophecies concerning the state of Israel have come about, there is more reason to be concerned... and to be ready for Christ's return.
Just common sense. And clearly, the number of cannon in use was not high in proportion to the number of muskets, so even then it wasn't like they expected everyone to have a cannon too - just that I suspect that they wouldn't have been in as big a panic about it if the people who knew how to use them had one, unlike today. Cost alone would have made them prohibitive to the majority, just like modern big weapons today. Course there was a lot more common sense around then. Not so much today on so many varied levels - and that comment wasn't directed anywhere near you so please don't take offense.
I don't underestimate them at all, and the hunters among us tend to be decent shots which is a boon in sniper actions that you have mentioned.
Still, as the war in the Middle East (as opposed to Afghanistan) proved, air and sea superiority can't be matched. There was a great lot of resistance, but a large number of enemy troops and equipment like tanks were simply wiped out in initial bombing attacks. If our government hadn't been worried about limiting civilian losses, we could have gone after cities as well and probably eliminated a certain amount of the building to building street fighting that killed many of our troops. Guerrilla warfare in the streets or in the mountains of Afghanistan is hard to stamp out. Still, to look back in history, the Russians weren't doing a bad job in Afghanistan till we started providing surface to air missiles to the guerrilla forces to combat their helicopters. Eventually, with the shift in balance of power, they decided it wasn't worth it anymore and pulled out. Imagine what the Middle East wars would have been like if our troops were fighting intact armies with a C and C structure that hadn't been destroyed by cruise missiles.
The usefulness of sea and air power could be said to have been decisive in WWII as well. The Navy protected the convoys of materiel that went from America to the rest of the world. The European war was largely won in the air by bombing German supply lines and factories to pieces. In the Pacific theater, using the Navy and Army Air Corp to leapfrog around enemy strong holds was likewise decisive - to say nothing of the strikes on Japan once in range. Stupidity in the Axis power structure from the top down that kept running high priority trains full of people bound for concentration camps didn't help them either, of course, to say nothing of killing many people who were running companies or designing and building things solely because of race or religion or sexual preference. Fighting on multiple fronts when not necessary before finishing the first front and unwarranted optimism also played a part in Axis failures. Political mistakes like letting Japan start fighting the US without also attacking Russia didn't help either. But the actual equipment of the German forces was largely superior to what we were throwing at them. They just couldn't build them fast enough or keep them supplied with parts, ammunition, or petrol. We covered them up with equipment produced in factories that were safe from attack.
Before I get flamed, I know that in all cases, the boots on the ground had to do the final fighting and mopping up and without them, the Air Corp and Navy couldn't have done the job alone. But if it wasn't for those two, the work of the soldiers fighting through Africa, Europe and Asia (or the Middle East and Afghanistan today) would have been much more difficult. I know that's a gross simplification, but it does take more than just small arms - even really good hunting rifles - to repel a modern army that is attacking you. You may slow them down. You may prevent them from completely dominating you. But you aren't likely to drive them out solely with small arms.
All I'm saying is the people who worded the 2nd amendment had a different point of view than most do today. Saying they just wanted to be allowed to hunt or defend their own homes against home invaders is incorrect, even if you don't like the 21st century equivalent to their situation. The cost of the vast majority of the weapons in use today to say nothing of ammunition for them means you don't have to worry about your derogatory list of people anyway because most couldn't justify the cost of a simple gun with today's tight home budgets. But the founding fathers were talking about "arms" as in "go to war" arms that a militia would use and not a cheap bought on the street gun.
The founding fathers would have allowed the citizens to have Abrams tanks, F22 Raptors, or other modern weapons of war fully fueled and armed, parked at their farm or street if such technology had been available. They would have been fine with high yield explosives and any other weapons of war that were likely to be used against them by an enemy. Few could afford them today, but being permitted to have them was their clear intent. That's why they added the second amendment. Since a "militia" might be needed at any time to oppose foreign enemies or their own government (that inconvenient revolutionary war against their British government thing everyone forgets about in this day and age), the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
They'd just fought that wonderful war that led to the creation of our country. Think they would have been successful if they were armed with bow and arrows and shotguns and the British had modern weapons as the hunting weapons only crowd would mandate today? Of course not. They wanted their citizens to be fully armed with modern weapons to keep the government in place and to be able to repel any invasion that might come up.
Our creation of standing military forces wasn't in the plan, but even so, only might protect us against outside forces and not against the government itself. That is if they aren't all off on some foreign military base or doing some peace forcing action in a foreign country when the home turf gets attacked.
This is simply one area where we disagree on interpretation. From my understanding, the first two verses of Mt. 24 deal strictly with the apostle's present day. They are speaking of the temple buildings and Jesus tells them the temple will be destroyed. The Romans did this, so that part of the prophecy has been fulfilled.
The remainder of chapter 24 deals with the nation of Israel post rapture in my view. Verses 14 and 15, in particular, will not occur in the time of the church. The word has been spread far and wide today, that is true, but the final spread of the word is done by an angel at God's direction as prophesied in Rev. At that time, everyone left will hear in their native language both the gospel and the warnings of the Antichrist.
There was debate on this in another thread, long ago, and I'll agree that the Jews suffered much under the Romans - and other peoples after that - but as I see it this passage is primarily future prophecy.
As far as Gen. 1:27 is concerned, it simply means we have the same basic form and likeness. Image says nothing to imply evil tendencies on God's part.
For the bigger question of evil, you'll have to ask God Himself about that. I reject the premise that Christians do no better than non-Christians in the areas you mentioned in general. You can always pick edge cases on either side who are better or worse than the general case, but I don't think it is fair to say all people are better than Christians due to a few good people among them nor to say all Christians are bad because of a few bad people among them. What I can say for sure is that God desires that there be a clear difference, and it is our own selves that get in the way more often than not. We could all do better and fall far short of His expectations for us. The thing is - you don't hear about most of the good things that Christians do - they don't make the news - either locally or worldwide. Whenever someone fails to live up to Christ's standards, you'll hear about it.
All of the major Christian denominations run relief agencies that are among the first to provide help in disasters. Many support orphanages. Most do building programs - whether schools or water infrastructure or other in poor countries. This has gone on throughout time. None of these things make the news. This isn't to say that other non-Christian religious organizations don't exist. Certainly the Red Crescent is also active in disaster relief, just to give one example.
It's easy to dwell on the evil, but it is better to dwell on the good.
Various translations word this in various ways. In the one you are citing, it is translated as the particular fault of the tree. In other versions, it is more general. I'm not a scholar who can read the original text, so I have to depend on translations. Perhaps you are.
Any of the possibilities I noted - none of which may be anywhere near correct - could have been the reason. That the reason may seem unimportant to us 2,000 years later, is not a reason to fault Christ after the fact. Perhaps He simply did this to indicate that His time of fruit on earth was about to end. Perhaps He did it to give Judas something to think about - that Judas was about to be cut off before he could bear any fruit or that Judas was fruitless when he should have been bearing fruit. The tree curse may have had far more significance to the disciples or a disciple than it does to us today - especially occurring right before Christ's death, and the actual reasons may have not been recorded, just so we could speculate about it 2,000 years later.
I would welcome it as well. I do know that there are several things that the historians doubted were true in the Bible that have been proven true as archaeology advanced. The existence of some of the named kings of Israel would be one example. Perhaps, in time, this will be as well.
As you've stated in the typical response you get from Christians - there is one historical record - that of the Bible. There just isn't the second confirming witness that you seem to need. For me, as I see the parts of the Bible that are actually relevant to my life proven still true, I tend to accept the rest until proven by archaeology and don't mind waiting.
I do suspect that your comment regarding the culture of the Jews and of the Egyptians of the time, has a lot to do with the lack of evidence you mention. Also, how distinctive would the trash of the Jews been compared to that of the Egyptians living in close proximity to one another? They were slaves, after all. They wouldn't have much. Perhaps it just hasn't been found yet, even if it is particularly distinctive. Perhaps it is buried under some other more recent site that nobody has gotten done excavating or doesn't want to disturb.
As far as culture goes - how much do we really know about Egyptian life of that time either, for that matter, save what you read about of their leaders? I took some courses on Ancient History in college which went over this time period, but other than the leaders and their temples and monuments, I'd be hard pressed to say the text delved into the life of the common man at all. I'd not think their religion would allow much (if any) of the Jewish faith to intermix at all. So I'm not surprised that there is a lack of evidence.
I don't view the purpose of the Bible as a book to record history, although there is much of that. I regard it as a book helping us to learn about God and how we should act toward Him and each other to please Him.
The reference is short, and any explanation is speculation. Perhaps the fig tree belonged to some of the people doing corrupt business in the temple that he dealt with in the next verses. There are evidently two varieties of fig tree that vary with the time they bear fruit. Maybe this particular one was an early variety mixed in with others that bore later and the disciples that were with Him didn't notice?
Or, perhaps, knowing what was going to happen to Him in a bit over a week's time, He wanted to give the disciples something concrete to look at and see a demonstration of His power. He certainly turned the event into a teaching moment later in the chapter. The fig tree that was dried up would have certainly been still standing for a long time after His crucifixion. A reminder that He was the Christ, perhaps, for a bunch of disciples who were going to be scared? Or a reminder that the church needed to get busy bearing figs?
Please provide the scripture you are referring to if I guessed the wrong one about the end time reference. We are, in fact, in the church age, which is the end times - pre tribulation - pre millennium, but the end times.
You are correct that the word rapture does not appear in the Bible. It is what the Christians have decided to call the process described by Paul where those who are alive and remain will go to meet Christ in the air at his first coming which ushers in the seven years of tribulation. That process is certainly described in the Bible, but the word rapture is not used. Nonetheless, the word has come to be well known as a descriptive word for the process the Bible does describe in 1 Th. 4.
As far as the sin question is concerned, you don't. God paid the price for you sin when Christ died on the cross. All you have to do is accept that sacrifice.
Why does He allow evil? Ultimately, He does not. In the mean time, He has given Christians the power to fight and win over evil. The same power that Christ had when He was on the earth is available to every Christian. Christ won every battle He chose to fight against evil. That isn't to say that there was no evil in the world at that time - certainly there was. But Christ fought against it and was victorious over it in all instances - whether it was in the world or in the church - he fought against it in both places. Even at the end, He could have elected to forgo the cross. He chose obedience instead.
The fact that evil seems so prevalent today can be laid at the feet of us for not standing up to it and fighting it. There is no reason from God's point of view that it should be flourishing. But there are more people who want evil in the world than people that want good. Oh - maybe not really, really bad evil - just their own particular flavor of evil - and footholds are all Satan needs. The slashdot community would be up in arms if Christians tried to combat evil if this thread is any indication - or the pro-porn posts in so many other threads. I don't happen to be against the censorship of ideas anywhere, but a lot of that industry is really, really bad in the way they run their business. So - should we fight evil, or try to spread good. I personally vote for trying to spread good, because light banishes darkness. But many try to fight evil instead and are flamed for their efforts.
But, as I said, eventually evil will not be allowed. Sadly, even with a millennium of God between the post tribulation period and that final elimination of evil where good reigns, people will still long for evil and rise up again against God. It's a sad commentary on mankind.
I tried to be clear that I respect and am glad for the advances of modern medicine and approve of it and make use of it myself. All of my kids are fully vaccinated against everything we can as am I. I'm not sure why so many seem against this, but since my dad had polio as a kid, I am a full supporter of trying to prevent anything that is preventable.
It was never God's plan for us to have to deal with any of those things, but man fell from His grace. That free will thing. Our failures don't change what God is, was or will be in the future. I don't have any desire to live in the "dark ages" as you put it. Who knows what the world would have been like if our ancestors had not taken the path they did. I would suspect the world would be a much better place, but since that was not the road traveled, we'll never know.
I believe that God will do what He has promised to do. The only thing is, all but one of His promises come with conditions. If we don't do our part He is under no obligation to do His part. That isn't a cop out. Its the way contracts work.
He does have a plan in place to work through Christians to do His work, which does still include healing and miracles. We just aren't very good at listening and doing what He wants us to do to fulfill our side of the contract - either as the person doing the praying or the person being prayed for - or for giving Him the glory when He does act. Perhaps I'm only speaking for me - but I suspect there are more like me today than like the Apostles in the early church. Due to our failures, I suspect that God changes His ideal plan a great deal.
I'll keep praying first. If that fails, we'll keep taking the family member to the doctor. But I'll pray first and give Him a chance to work. You don't have to wait for a long time to see if He does either. I'm a firm believer that if He is going to intervene, He will do so at the first prayer, so you don't have to waste time waiting to see what will happen. Every time He does intervene, there is a better and more certain outcome than the doctors can give us. If something doesn't happen immediately, I don't blame God - I just go on with life and go to the doctor. I'll be glad to receive that more perfect body one day so I won't have to deal with the few things I do deal with.
I do know this. We have a large family, but we're all reasonably healthy and have very low doctor bills, so my approach is working for us. We pray when we need and go to the doctor when we must. You're free to always go to the doctor and ignore God. Just remember that even the best doctor just has a license to practice.
I suspect that trying to get people to believe that God cared about the "big game" would be pointless, but I appreciate your point.
On the other hand, the Bible records the failures, along with the successes of many of its main characters. It can hardly be said that the Bible was edited for content to make its various kings, leaders, or people be portrayed in their best light as is frequently true elsewhere.
The Bible does not address the history between Gen. 1:1 when the "Big Bang" happened and God started everything in motion, and the time when the earth was restored to a second habitable state as recorded in much of the rest of Gen. 1. That history is occasionally alluded to though. Isaiah records that Satan once ruled the earth and led a rebellion against God. The world he ruled is described as civilized and not stone age. He was already in a rebellious state in the first chapters of Genesis, so this would push this back into this large unrecorded time frame.
2 Pet 3 identifies a time when the earth was wiped out by water - the greek "kosmos" or social system. This doesn't refer to Noah's flood as the social system then in place survived. So it must refer to this earlier destruction due to Lucifer's rebellion.
Finally, in Jer. 4, he has a vision of the earth in this destroyed state. It is described using the same phrase "tohu va bohu" as used in Gen. 1. It likewise doesn't match up with Noah's flood.
The conclusions I draw from these is that there is a time gap that is simply unrecorded between the original creation of earth and the time man is re-established on it. The Bible is largely silent about this interval other than acknowledging in the few verses above and some in Psalms if you dig, that it did exist. All dinosaurs existed during this time period - and the early part of this time period as well.
Your pastor was mistaken. That it led you away from God is unfortunate. I hope you will get a good study Bible and do some research on these scriptures I've mentioned. There isn't any conflict between the Bible and science. The only apparent conflicts we have are where we don't understand or don't study what the Bible really says. Unfortunately, there will be many who stand before God at the white throne judgment claiming that the Bible said this or the Bible said that and since it didn't line up with science, I rejected it. Many pastors will be uncomfortable on that day - or at least I hope they will be - for defending their misunderstood faith and causing many to go to hell because of it. God didn't create a tricky geologic past as a test or a trap. He just didn't bother having the scribes write down several billion years of history to no purpose. The Bible is designed to describe God to man and to provide a map for how to reconcile yourself to God. It does have a lot of history in it, but the main purpose is to show God and His requirements for man.
Don't get bogged down by one subject and miss out on the important precepts it has.
Even from a Christian perspective, the answer is not clear cut.
If the jailhouse conversion is genuine, then the murderer will be in heaven. The Bible is clear that you are reconciled to God if you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior and repent of your sins. If you're reconciled to God, you end up in heaven. Believing in Christ is not enough. The Bible states in James "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." You may have few rewards there based on how you have lived your life, but at least you don't end up in hell cut off from God if you accept Christ's sacrifice for your sin.
Romans 3:19-31 does provide some interesting scripture to meditate on with regard to those who have never heard of Christ. It seems to imply that those who have never heard of how to be saved will be judged based on what the Holy Spirit witnessed to them was right and wrong as they went about their life - the law written in their hearts and how they acted on His prompting. While it is clear that the law was given to make clear that all were guilty before God, there might be some wiggle room for those righteous men and women who had never heard the gospel message.
On the other hand, the Bible is equally clear that those who hear the road of salvation presented in the Bible are required to act on that knowledge they receive. They can choose to laugh it off or ignore it as many here on Slashdot do or they can accept the path of salvation as outlined in the Bible. If they ignore the means God provides for salvation once they've heard of it, then they stand guilty before God. If they accept it, they don't. Not choosing for Him is choosing against Him.
In today's world, the number who have not heard the message of the Gospel is dwindling, although it is interesting that the great missionary country of the United States is now having missionaries sent to it because other countries feel we need to be witnessed to. Those who have heard must choose. The question would be - has the Buddhist down the street heard and rejected the gospel message?
Actually, I think that we see far fewer miracles or healing today than seem to have been prevalent in Christ and the Apostles time because God doesn't want to share any glory with the medical community. We don't stand on faith to be healed anymore. We pray, and if that doesn't work trot off to the doctors. We may continue to be prayed for, but why should God act when we're not trusting in him but trusting in the doctors? God does what He chooses to do to advance His causes. Once and a while they line up with what we want. Usually we want Him to act in ways that benefit us and don't do His cause any good at all - or at least that's been my experience with people.
This isn't a smash against the medical profession either. My wife is in the medical field. Doctors have a lot of knowledge about the body and I'm not against making use of their services to fix problems at all. That isn't the intent of the post. It is simply an acknowledgement that we try to cover all bases today rather than waiting for God to heal and give Him all the glory for what He has done for us. Why should we expect Him to act under those circumstances? In the case I have observed, although medical doctors had been consulted and the individual was referred to a specialist, no actual treatment had yet been done. The healing was done before going to the specialist.
My observations in no way are meant to convince anybody else, and my recounting them again wouldn't do any good either to answer another previous post. I'm simply stating that they are sufficient for me. If there was just one data point, your claim would be more valid. But I have many in my life. It is sufficient for me. The test procedure was written up in the Bible a couple thousand years ago, and it still is observable today. I choose to accept that.
If it is not sufficient for you, my earlier comment does still apply though. Go spend time with Pentecostal Christians that are living up to the NT churches principles for evidence for yourself. If you don't want to be around any place where you might see some direct evidence yourself, then you can't criticize me or other Christians for believing what we do actually observe. You are a like a scientist who doesn't like a particular theory but who won't do the experiment himself because he doesn't want to have his world view messed up, in much the same way that Christians are accused of rejecting science because it might change their spiritual view.
Christ did die in the apostles life time. He won the victory over Satan and ushered in the kingdom of God. If you are referring to the Olivet prophecy, don't get confused about Bible expressions of the end times. Luke 21 refers in bulk to the time after the rapture of the church when tribulation is occurring on the earth. He is speaking of what will be happening in those days to the Jewish people before he returns to set up his millennial reign on Earth. That prophecy is yet to be fulfilled.
Paul gave advice as to how Christians, and in particular Christian women, should act in the cultures that he was addressing to keep the peace in the church and allow the Gospel message to be spread. His advice, were he to be writing a "Letter to the Church of America" today, would likely be somewhat different, but wouldn't change the basic black and white issues that God will judge on. The issues that the church in America has today would likely require more than just one or two epistles for him to correct. Our bad - not his.
"evidence of things not seen" would be the correct quotation, along with "substance of things hoped for".
They are exclusive, but they can also reinforce each other. You can have faith in something while trying to prove it is true. Once proven, you don't need the faith, but that doesn't mean faith can't keep you going until the proof is established. Likewise, being able to prove a part doesn't necessarily lead to not needing faith in the whole - which may be improvable in the scientific method but still real.
I have seen in my own life among people that I personally know that the God of the Bible is still working in exactly the same way that He was working when the NT accounts were recorded. I also have many second hand accounts that this is true today as it was then, but first hand accounts are always better. I know that my relating the details of the healing that has happened to members of my immediate family won't mean anything more to you than the accounts in the gospels do - so I won't waste the bits. But they were true diagnosed serious medical problems that went away immediately with prayer and haven't returned after many years.
The evidence I have was either directly observed by me or related to me by the people who it happened to. When I see God acting today as the Bible describes, it makes me inclined to believe the rest of the Bible as well - both historical past - and prophetical future. In many instances the details are not crystal clear and some of our beliefs are assumptions or hopes may not be proper interpretations. I don't find any conflicts between how I understand what the Bible says and science or the rest of recorded history, for that matter. There is much taught that doesn't fit either, unfortunately, and that is why you should always study it yourself.
I don't have any evidence of Zeus doing things today that I can observe. I don't have any evidence from anybody else of his actions today either, for that matter, so his existence isn't something that I have to even think about. The same is true of the other religions in the world today.
Perhaps you have no direct evidence for Jehovah either, so you choose not to think about Him and to dismiss Him as well. The thing is, you can get direct evidence of Him today. You can't for the others. You might have to go outside your comfort zone to get it and attend some Pentecostal services, and you might have to attend quite a few because the people are just as broken today (and not in the good way) as they have been for thousands of years. But if you attend long enough, and just as importantly, get to know the people involved so if something does happen you will know that it isn't just some parlor trick, you will eventually see God work and have your own evidence.
I don't need the evidence of the supernatural to believe, but it is nice to see anyway.
He had chosen to prophesy in Gen. at the time of the whole Adam and Eve debacle that Adam's seed would bruise Satan's heel. Yes, he could have chosen to do anything he wanted to do. But instead, He laid down the constraints for how it was going to be and He always lives up to what He says He will do. So since He chose to make that prophecy, it was up to Him to carry it out.
You can blame anyone you please, and I can't change that.
I choose to put the blame for the death of the firstborn on the parents themselves. If you look at the other plagues, there was nothing the people could do to change the outcome. God spared the land where the Israelis were living himself in most cases, but the Israelis didn't have to do anything for that. It was God's choice. Here, in the last plague, the Israelis had to do something to keep from being affected by the plague. That same thing could have been done by any Egyptian. For all we know there were Israeli families who chose to be stubborn or lazy and not follow the directions. They would have suffered the same fate as any Egyptian who didn't follow the instructions they could have learned about. For all we know, there were many Egyptians who had friends among their slaves or who were observant of what was happening around them and who did, in fact, ask what was going on and do the right thing to protect their family - just in case! The historical narrative doesn't provide information about either of these possible outcomes.
God's problem was with Pharaoh, but the Egyptian people, after having experienced Joseph's rule and seen what the Israeli's God was doing for that people, chose to still follow their own Gods, so they are without excuse. We may not be comfortable with that concept today in our "enlightened" age, but God sees black and white. He doesn't see all the grey that we like to pretend is there. You are either for and with Him, or not. The Egyptians were not.
The whole Passover lamb, with the blood on the door frame, is also a perfect type of what was to come with Christ's death on the cross. The angel who did the killing of the first born who were not protected by the blood of the lamb is a similar type of what occurs all around us as people die. Their eventual outcome is based on whether they are covered by the blood of the Lamb of God. The rapture to come is not unlike that unexpected night outcome all those years ago.
Everyone in the affected area was aware of what was going on between Pharaoh and God. If you think the rumor mill was any less effective then than today, you are mistaken. They had all seen the plagues first hand and been affected by them. They had warning that a powerful God was winning the battle. The fact that it wasn't their God, but the God of their slaves, should have made them think twice about the side they were on.
If I was in their position and saw what was happening around me, I'd be making friends with the side that seemed to be winning to find out the truth about what was going to happen next. if the parents chose not to, you can't blame God for that. They might not have known the specifics about what was going to happen next, but I think every Israeli family either purchasing and sacrificing a lamb or sharing a sacrifice if poor would have made any sane parent ask "What's this all about then?". Then, like today, people shut their eyes and ears because they prefer to hope for the best without getting actively involved in picking the winning side.
Letting a captive slave nation of several million people go free is hardly what I'd consider "something pointless and trivial". If you do, then I feel sorry for you.
Put the blame where it lies - with Pharaoh. Of course the first born weren't "asking for it" any more than those left behind at the rapture will be "asking for it", but remember that they had had many evidences of God's power before the first born were killed. They could see that the Israelis were sacrificing lambs and putting on the blood on their doorposts. They could have gone to stay with them or done the same thing for themselves, and been just as safe as the Israelis - the angel just looked for the blood on the door and didn't care what nationality was inside, but they or more rightly their parents chose to ignore the signs of the times and not do any critical thinking for themselves. They did pay a terrible price for that, much the same as will be in the future. But don't judge God for their or their parents failure to think critically.
There is a strong probability that the event you refer to was the filling of the Black Sea basin from the Mediterranean. I think many scientists agree that that would have produced much rain in the area, not unlike the filling of the Mediterranean from the Atlantic earlier in history. If Noah had lived in that area, his perception would be that the world was destroyed and everything and everyone he knew about were killed except what he saved himself with God's help. Thus the account is correct from his perspective. It also eliminates the silliness propagated by some that he had to save every single animal on the world.
The fact that God knew it was about to occur and made a way for Noah and his family to escape while eliminating the offspring of the angels loyal to Satan (the sons of God) who were trying to corrupt the bloodline of humanity from Adam to Christ (the giants in the earth) doesn't change the account or make it any less instructive. Noah and his family were saved not because they were better people than anyone else, although I'm sure that played a part as the Bible describes him as just. They were saved because they were perfect in their generations.
By thwarting Satan's plan God enabled a pure bloodline from Adam to Christ to remain, providing free salvation for everyone who accepts Christ's sacrifice for their sin. That is loving. He waited to wipe this particular group out until the very last minute, waiting to see how many would be left. I'm very certain that he would have saved many more if they had not made choices that made that impossible. I'm sure they knew that what they were doing was wrong and did it anyway - just like today. If they didn't, their parents should have instructed them better. It is just as easy to read the narrative as that of a loving God who gave his people every chance and still ended up having to fix a problem they caused as to read it as a capricious God who is bent on vengeance. It just depends on how well you know Him in the first place.
There is nothing wrong with critical thinking. You just need to study to see what something really says before jumping to conclusions.
If they had built the infrastructure at their cost (via bond issues, floating stock, or the like) your electric rates would simply be higher than they are now, fully approved by your state's board of public utilities or whatever its regulating body is to recover PG&E's cost of providing you electrical service. It wouldn't have much effect on the price you're paid when they buy your electricity. I think a certain part of your cost is paying off debt from the bankruptcy as well, but I may be misinformed. On the other hand, I think California is helping with the installation of the solar as well, so the people taking that route got government help too.
I presume they're still on the hook for repairing lines due to storms, wind, earthquake, or other natural disaster. When you all rev up your AC's in the summer, they're still on the hook for buying extra power from other real suppliers to provide people power for their needs.
Don't get me wrong... I think it would be great if everyone was providing some or all of their own power via solar (or in our area wind) so there wasn't as much load on the system. That's the biggest drawback right now that electric cars have (in any meaningful number) apart from their inherent long term battery production, replacement, and disposal issues which nobody wants to talk about and being too small for a large family and all their stuff. But right now, purchasing a few customers extra electricity during daylight hours is just not relevant in the overall amount of energy consumed. Solar accounts for somewhere around.5% of the renewable mix (2010 figures) at PG&E and the renewable just met 15.9% of their total supply so it is a very tiny portion that may be nice to have in peak times but really doesn't do much in the overall scheme of things.
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless of how many kings or other entities in the past have decided to try to implement this, the prophecies concerning the restoration of the nation of Israel had not yet come to pass, so the actual anti-Christ that the Bible warns us about could not have come. Now that the prophecies concerning the state of Israel have come about, there is more reason to be concerned... and to be ready for Christ's return.
Reduce taxes by $67 million != only pay $67 million.
Just common sense. And clearly, the number of cannon in use was not high in proportion to the number of muskets, so even then it wasn't like they expected everyone to have a cannon too - just that I suspect that they wouldn't have been in as big a panic about it if the people who knew how to use them had one, unlike today. Cost alone would have made them prohibitive to the majority, just like modern big weapons today. Course there was a lot more common sense around then. Not so much today on so many varied levels - and that comment wasn't directed anywhere near you so please don't take offense.
I don't underestimate them at all, and the hunters among us tend to be decent shots which is a boon in sniper actions that you have mentioned.
Still, as the war in the Middle East (as opposed to Afghanistan) proved, air and sea superiority can't be matched. There was a great lot of resistance, but a large number of enemy troops and equipment like tanks were simply wiped out in initial bombing attacks. If our government hadn't been worried about limiting civilian losses, we could have gone after cities as well and probably eliminated a certain amount of the building to building street fighting that killed many of our troops. Guerrilla warfare in the streets or in the mountains of Afghanistan is hard to stamp out. Still, to look back in history, the Russians weren't doing a bad job in Afghanistan till we started providing surface to air missiles to the guerrilla forces to combat their helicopters. Eventually, with the shift in balance of power, they decided it wasn't worth it anymore and pulled out. Imagine what the Middle East wars would have been like if our troops were fighting intact armies with a C and C structure that hadn't been destroyed by cruise missiles.
The usefulness of sea and air power could be said to have been decisive in WWII as well. The Navy protected the convoys of materiel that went from America to the rest of the world. The European war was largely won in the air by bombing German supply lines and factories to pieces. In the Pacific theater, using the Navy and Army Air Corp to leapfrog around enemy strong holds was likewise decisive - to say nothing of the strikes on Japan once in range. Stupidity in the Axis power structure from the top down that kept running high priority trains full of people bound for concentration camps didn't help them either, of course, to say nothing of killing many people who were running companies or designing and building things solely because of race or religion or sexual preference. Fighting on multiple fronts when not necessary before finishing the first front and unwarranted optimism also played a part in Axis failures. Political mistakes like letting Japan start fighting the US without also attacking Russia didn't help either. But the actual equipment of the German forces was largely superior to what we were throwing at them. They just couldn't build them fast enough or keep them supplied with parts, ammunition, or petrol. We covered them up with equipment produced in factories that were safe from attack.
Before I get flamed, I know that in all cases, the boots on the ground had to do the final fighting and mopping up and without them, the Air Corp and Navy couldn't have done the job alone. But if it wasn't for those two, the work of the soldiers fighting through Africa, Europe and Asia (or the Middle East and Afghanistan today) would have been much more difficult. I know that's a gross simplification, but it does take more than just small arms - even really good hunting rifles - to repel a modern army that is attacking you. You may slow them down. You may prevent them from completely dominating you. But you aren't likely to drive them out solely with small arms.
All I'm saying is the people who worded the 2nd amendment had a different point of view than most do today. Saying they just wanted to be allowed to hunt or defend their own homes against home invaders is incorrect, even if you don't like the 21st century equivalent to their situation. The cost of the vast majority of the weapons in use today to say nothing of ammunition for them means you don't have to worry about your derogatory list of people anyway because most couldn't justify the cost of a simple gun with today's tight home budgets. But the founding fathers were talking about "arms" as in "go to war" arms that a militia would use and not a cheap bought on the street gun.
The founding fathers would have allowed the citizens to have Abrams tanks, F22 Raptors, or other modern weapons of war fully fueled and armed, parked at their farm or street if such technology had been available. They would have been fine with high yield explosives and any other weapons of war that were likely to be used against them by an enemy. Few could afford them today, but being permitted to have them was their clear intent. That's why they added the second amendment. Since a "militia" might be needed at any time to oppose foreign enemies or their own government (that inconvenient revolutionary war against their British government thing everyone forgets about in this day and age), the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
They'd just fought that wonderful war that led to the creation of our country. Think they would have been successful if they were armed with bow and arrows and shotguns and the British had modern weapons as the hunting weapons only crowd would mandate today? Of course not. They wanted their citizens to be fully armed with modern weapons to keep the government in place and to be able to repel any invasion that might come up.
Our creation of standing military forces wasn't in the plan, but even so, only might protect us against outside forces and not against the government itself. That is if they aren't all off on some foreign military base or doing some peace forcing action in a foreign country when the home turf gets attacked.
This is simply one area where we disagree on interpretation. From my understanding, the first two verses of Mt. 24 deal strictly with the apostle's present day. They are speaking of the temple buildings and Jesus tells them the temple will be destroyed. The Romans did this, so that part of the prophecy has been fulfilled.
The remainder of chapter 24 deals with the nation of Israel post rapture in my view. Verses 14 and 15, in particular, will not occur in the time of the church. The word has been spread far and wide today, that is true, but the final spread of the word is done by an angel at God's direction as prophesied in Rev. At that time, everyone left will hear in their native language both the gospel and the warnings of the Antichrist.
There was debate on this in another thread, long ago, and I'll agree that the Jews suffered much under the Romans - and other peoples after that - but as I see it this passage is primarily future prophecy.
As far as Gen. 1:27 is concerned, it simply means we have the same basic form and likeness. Image says nothing to imply evil tendencies on God's part.
For the bigger question of evil, you'll have to ask God Himself about that. I reject the premise that Christians do no better than non-Christians in the areas you mentioned in general. You can always pick edge cases on either side who are better or worse than the general case, but I don't think it is fair to say all people are better than Christians due to a few good people among them nor to say all Christians are bad because of a few bad people among them. What I can say for sure is that God desires that there be a clear difference, and it is our own selves that get in the way more often than not. We could all do better and fall far short of His expectations for us. The thing is - you don't hear about most of the good things that Christians do - they don't make the news - either locally or worldwide. Whenever someone fails to live up to Christ's standards, you'll hear about it.
All of the major Christian denominations run relief agencies that are among the first to provide help in disasters. Many support orphanages. Most do building programs - whether schools or water infrastructure or other in poor countries. This has gone on throughout time. None of these things make the news. This isn't to say that other non-Christian religious organizations don't exist. Certainly the Red Crescent is also active in disaster relief, just to give one example.
It's easy to dwell on the evil, but it is better to dwell on the good.
Various translations word this in various ways. In the one you are citing, it is translated as the particular fault of the tree. In other versions, it is more general. I'm not a scholar who can read the original text, so I have to depend on translations. Perhaps you are.
Any of the possibilities I noted - none of which may be anywhere near correct - could have been the reason. That the reason may seem unimportant to us 2,000 years later, is not a reason to fault Christ after the fact. Perhaps He simply did this to indicate that His time of fruit on earth was about to end. Perhaps He did it to give Judas something to think about - that Judas was about to be cut off before he could bear any fruit or that Judas was fruitless when he should have been bearing fruit. The tree curse may have had far more significance to the disciples or a disciple than it does to us today - especially occurring right before Christ's death, and the actual reasons may have not been recorded, just so we could speculate about it 2,000 years later.
I would welcome it as well. I do know that there are several things that the historians doubted were true in the Bible that have been proven true as archaeology advanced. The existence of some of the named kings of Israel would be one example. Perhaps, in time, this will be as well.
As you've stated in the typical response you get from Christians - there is one historical record - that of the Bible. There just isn't the second confirming witness that you seem to need. For me, as I see the parts of the Bible that are actually relevant to my life proven still true, I tend to accept the rest until proven by archaeology and don't mind waiting.
I do suspect that your comment regarding the culture of the Jews and of the Egyptians of the time, has a lot to do with the lack of evidence you mention. Also, how distinctive would the trash of the Jews been compared to that of the Egyptians living in close proximity to one another? They were slaves, after all. They wouldn't have much. Perhaps it just hasn't been found yet, even if it is particularly distinctive. Perhaps it is buried under some other more recent site that nobody has gotten done excavating or doesn't want to disturb.
As far as culture goes - how much do we really know about Egyptian life of that time either, for that matter, save what you read about of their leaders? I took some courses on Ancient History in college which went over this time period, but other than the leaders and their temples and monuments, I'd be hard pressed to say the text delved into the life of the common man at all. I'd not think their religion would allow much (if any) of the Jewish faith to intermix at all. So I'm not surprised that there is a lack of evidence.
I don't view the purpose of the Bible as a book to record history, although there is much of that. I regard it as a book helping us to learn about God and how we should act toward Him and each other to please Him.
The reference is short, and any explanation is speculation. Perhaps the fig tree belonged to some of the people doing corrupt business in the temple that he dealt with in the next verses. There are evidently two varieties of fig tree that vary with the time they bear fruit. Maybe this particular one was an early variety mixed in with others that bore later and the disciples that were with Him didn't notice?
Or, perhaps, knowing what was going to happen to Him in a bit over a week's time, He wanted to give the disciples something concrete to look at and see a demonstration of His power. He certainly turned the event into a teaching moment later in the chapter. The fig tree that was dried up would have certainly been still standing for a long time after His crucifixion. A reminder that He was the Christ, perhaps, for a bunch of disciples who were going to be scared? Or a reminder that the church needed to get busy bearing figs?
All speculation...
Please provide the scripture you are referring to if I guessed the wrong one about the end time reference. We are, in fact, in the church age, which is the end times - pre tribulation - pre millennium, but the end times.
You are correct that the word rapture does not appear in the Bible. It is what the Christians have decided to call the process described by Paul where those who are alive and remain will go to meet Christ in the air at his first coming which ushers in the seven years of tribulation. That process is certainly described in the Bible, but the word rapture is not used. Nonetheless, the word has come to be well known as a descriptive word for the process the Bible does describe in 1 Th. 4.
As far as the sin question is concerned, you don't. God paid the price for you sin when Christ died on the cross. All you have to do is accept that sacrifice.
Why does He allow evil? Ultimately, He does not. In the mean time, He has given Christians the power to fight and win over evil. The same power that Christ had when He was on the earth is available to every Christian. Christ won every battle He chose to fight against evil. That isn't to say that there was no evil in the world at that time - certainly there was. But Christ fought against it and was victorious over it in all instances - whether it was in the world or in the church - he fought against it in both places. Even at the end, He could have elected to forgo the cross. He chose obedience instead.
The fact that evil seems so prevalent today can be laid at the feet of us for not standing up to it and fighting it. There is no reason from God's point of view that it should be flourishing. But there are more people who want evil in the world than people that want good. Oh - maybe not really, really bad evil - just their own particular flavor of evil - and footholds are all Satan needs. The slashdot community would be up in arms if Christians tried to combat evil if this thread is any indication - or the pro-porn posts in so many other threads. I don't happen to be against the censorship of ideas anywhere, but a lot of that industry is really, really bad in the way they run their business. So - should we fight evil, or try to spread good. I personally vote for trying to spread good, because light banishes darkness. But many try to fight evil instead and are flamed for their efforts.
But, as I said, eventually evil will not be allowed. Sadly, even with a millennium of God between the post tribulation period and that final elimination of evil where good reigns, people will still long for evil and rise up again against God. It's a sad commentary on mankind.
I tried to be clear that I respect and am glad for the advances of modern medicine and approve of it and make use of it myself. All of my kids are fully vaccinated against everything we can as am I. I'm not sure why so many seem against this, but since my dad had polio as a kid, I am a full supporter of trying to prevent anything that is preventable.
It was never God's plan for us to have to deal with any of those things, but man fell from His grace. That free will thing. Our failures don't change what God is, was or will be in the future. I don't have any desire to live in the "dark ages" as you put it. Who knows what the world would have been like if our ancestors had not taken the path they did. I would suspect the world would be a much better place, but since that was not the road traveled, we'll never know.
I believe that God will do what He has promised to do. The only thing is, all but one of His promises come with conditions. If we don't do our part He is under no obligation to do His part. That isn't a cop out. Its the way contracts work.
He does have a plan in place to work through Christians to do His work, which does still include healing and miracles. We just aren't very good at listening and doing what He wants us to do to fulfill our side of the contract - either as the person doing the praying or the person being prayed for - or for giving Him the glory when He does act. Perhaps I'm only speaking for me - but I suspect there are more like me today than like the Apostles in the early church. Due to our failures, I suspect that God changes His ideal plan a great deal.
I'll keep praying first. If that fails, we'll keep taking the family member to the doctor. But I'll pray first and give Him a chance to work. You don't have to wait for a long time to see if He does either. I'm a firm believer that if He is going to intervene, He will do so at the first prayer, so you don't have to waste time waiting to see what will happen. Every time He does intervene, there is a better and more certain outcome than the doctors can give us. If something doesn't happen immediately, I don't blame God - I just go on with life and go to the doctor. I'll be glad to receive that more perfect body one day so I won't have to deal with the few things I do deal with.
I do know this. We have a large family, but we're all reasonably healthy and have very low doctor bills, so my approach is working for us. We pray when we need and go to the doctor when we must. You're free to always go to the doctor and ignore God. Just remember that even the best doctor just has a license to practice.
I suspect that trying to get people to believe that God cared about the "big game" would be pointless, but I appreciate your point.
On the other hand, the Bible records the failures, along with the successes of many of its main characters. It can hardly be said that the Bible was edited for content to make its various kings, leaders, or people be portrayed in their best light as is frequently true elsewhere.
The Bible does not address the history between Gen. 1:1 when the "Big Bang" happened and God started everything in motion, and the time when the earth was restored to a second habitable state as recorded in much of the rest of Gen. 1. That history is occasionally alluded to though. Isaiah records that Satan once ruled the earth and led a rebellion against God. The world he ruled is described as civilized and not stone age. He was already in a rebellious state in the first chapters of Genesis, so this would push this back into this large unrecorded time frame.
2 Pet 3 identifies a time when the earth was wiped out by water - the greek "kosmos" or social system. This doesn't refer to Noah's flood as the social system then in place survived. So it must refer to this earlier destruction due to Lucifer's rebellion.
Finally, in Jer. 4, he has a vision of the earth in this destroyed state. It is described using the same phrase "tohu va bohu" as used in Gen. 1. It likewise doesn't match up with Noah's flood.
The conclusions I draw from these is that there is a time gap that is simply unrecorded between the original creation of earth and the time man is re-established on it. The Bible is largely silent about this interval other than acknowledging in the few verses above and some in Psalms if you dig, that it did exist. All dinosaurs existed during this time period - and the early part of this time period as well.
Your pastor was mistaken. That it led you away from God is unfortunate. I hope you will get a good study Bible and do some research on these scriptures I've mentioned. There isn't any conflict between the Bible and science. The only apparent conflicts we have are where we don't understand or don't study what the Bible really says. Unfortunately, there will be many who stand before God at the white throne judgment claiming that the Bible said this or the Bible said that and since it didn't line up with science, I rejected it. Many pastors will be uncomfortable on that day - or at least I hope they will be - for defending their misunderstood faith and causing many to go to hell because of it. God didn't create a tricky geologic past as a test or a trap. He just didn't bother having the scribes write down several billion years of history to no purpose. The Bible is designed to describe God to man and to provide a map for how to reconcile yourself to God. It does have a lot of history in it, but the main purpose is to show God and His requirements for man.
Don't get bogged down by one subject and miss out on the important precepts it has.
Even from a Christian perspective, the answer is not clear cut.
If the jailhouse conversion is genuine, then the murderer will be in heaven. The Bible is clear that you are reconciled to God if you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior and repent of your sins. If you're reconciled to God, you end up in heaven. Believing in Christ is not enough. The Bible states in James "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." You may have few rewards there based on how you have lived your life, but at least you don't end up in hell cut off from God if you accept Christ's sacrifice for your sin.
Romans 3:19-31 does provide some interesting scripture to meditate on with regard to those who have never heard of Christ. It seems to imply that those who have never heard of how to be saved will be judged based on what the Holy Spirit witnessed to them was right and wrong as they went about their life - the law written in their hearts and how they acted on His prompting. While it is clear that the law was given to make clear that all were guilty before God, there might be some wiggle room for those righteous men and women who had never heard the gospel message.
On the other hand, the Bible is equally clear that those who hear the road of salvation presented in the Bible are required to act on that knowledge they receive. They can choose to laugh it off or ignore it as many here on Slashdot do or they can accept the path of salvation as outlined in the Bible. If they ignore the means God provides for salvation once they've heard of it, then they stand guilty before God. If they accept it, they don't. Not choosing for Him is choosing against Him.
In today's world, the number who have not heard the message of the Gospel is dwindling, although it is interesting that the great missionary country of the United States is now having missionaries sent to it because other countries feel we need to be witnessed to. Those who have heard must choose. The question would be - has the Buddhist down the street heard and rejected the gospel message?
Actually, I think that we see far fewer miracles or healing today than seem to have been prevalent in Christ and the Apostles time because God doesn't want to share any glory with the medical community. We don't stand on faith to be healed anymore. We pray, and if that doesn't work trot off to the doctors. We may continue to be prayed for, but why should God act when we're not trusting in him but trusting in the doctors? God does what He chooses to do to advance His causes. Once and a while they line up with what we want. Usually we want Him to act in ways that benefit us and don't do His cause any good at all - or at least that's been my experience with people.
This isn't a smash against the medical profession either. My wife is in the medical field. Doctors have a lot of knowledge about the body and I'm not against making use of their services to fix problems at all. That isn't the intent of the post. It is simply an acknowledgement that we try to cover all bases today rather than waiting for God to heal and give Him all the glory for what He has done for us. Why should we expect Him to act under those circumstances? In the case I have observed, although medical doctors had been consulted and the individual was referred to a specialist, no actual treatment had yet been done. The healing was done before going to the specialist.
My observations in no way are meant to convince anybody else, and my recounting them again wouldn't do any good either to answer another previous post. I'm simply stating that they are sufficient for me. If there was just one data point, your claim would be more valid. But I have many in my life. It is sufficient for me. The test procedure was written up in the Bible a couple thousand years ago, and it still is observable today. I choose to accept that.
If it is not sufficient for you, my earlier comment does still apply though. Go spend time with Pentecostal Christians that are living up to the NT churches principles for evidence for yourself. If you don't want to be around any place where you might see some direct evidence yourself, then you can't criticize me or other Christians for believing what we do actually observe. You are a like a scientist who doesn't like a particular theory but who won't do the experiment himself because he doesn't want to have his world view messed up, in much the same way that Christians are accused of rejecting science because it might change their spiritual view.
"slap the fig tree"?
Christ did die in the apostles life time. He won the victory over Satan and ushered in the kingdom of God. If you are referring to the Olivet prophecy, don't get confused about Bible expressions of the end times. Luke 21 refers in bulk to the time after the rapture of the church when tribulation is occurring on the earth. He is speaking of what will be happening in those days to the Jewish people before he returns to set up his millennial reign on Earth. That prophecy is yet to be fulfilled.
Paul gave advice as to how Christians, and in particular Christian women, should act in the cultures that he was addressing to keep the peace in the church and allow the Gospel message to be spread. His advice, were he to be writing a "Letter to the Church of America" today, would likely be somewhat different, but wouldn't change the basic black and white issues that God will judge on. The issues that the church in America has today would likely require more than just one or two epistles for him to correct. Our bad - not his.
"evidence of things not seen" would be the correct quotation, along with "substance of things hoped for".
They are exclusive, but they can also reinforce each other. You can have faith in something while trying to prove it is true. Once proven, you don't need the faith, but that doesn't mean faith can't keep you going until the proof is established. Likewise, being able to prove a part doesn't necessarily lead to not needing faith in the whole - which may be improvable in the scientific method but still real.
I have seen in my own life among people that I personally know that the God of the Bible is still working in exactly the same way that He was working when the NT accounts were recorded. I also have many second hand accounts that this is true today as it was then, but first hand accounts are always better. I know that my relating the details of the healing that has happened to members of my immediate family won't mean anything more to you than the accounts in the gospels do - so I won't waste the bits. But they were true diagnosed serious medical problems that went away immediately with prayer and haven't returned after many years.
The evidence I have was either directly observed by me or related to me by the people who it happened to. When I see God acting today as the Bible describes, it makes me inclined to believe the rest of the Bible as well - both historical past - and prophetical future. In many instances the details are not crystal clear and some of our beliefs are assumptions or hopes may not be proper interpretations. I don't find any conflicts between how I understand what the Bible says and science or the rest of recorded history, for that matter. There is much taught that doesn't fit either, unfortunately, and that is why you should always study it yourself.
I don't have any evidence of Zeus doing things today that I can observe. I don't have any evidence from anybody else of his actions today either, for that matter, so his existence isn't something that I have to even think about. The same is true of the other religions in the world today.
Perhaps you have no direct evidence for Jehovah either, so you choose not to think about Him and to dismiss Him as well. The thing is, you can get direct evidence of Him today. You can't for the others. You might have to go outside your comfort zone to get it and attend some Pentecostal services, and you might have to attend quite a few because the people are just as broken today (and not in the good way) as they have been for thousands of years. But if you attend long enough, and just as importantly, get to know the people involved so if something does happen you will know that it isn't just some parlor trick, you will eventually see God work and have your own evidence.
I don't need the evidence of the supernatural to believe, but it is nice to see anyway.
He had chosen to prophesy in Gen. at the time of the whole Adam and Eve debacle that Adam's seed would bruise Satan's heel. Yes, he could have chosen to do anything he wanted to do. But instead, He laid down the constraints for how it was going to be and He always lives up to what He says He will do. So since He chose to make that prophecy, it was up to Him to carry it out.
You can blame anyone you please, and I can't change that.
I choose to put the blame for the death of the firstborn on the parents themselves. If you look at the other plagues, there was nothing the people could do to change the outcome. God spared the land where the Israelis were living himself in most cases, but the Israelis didn't have to do anything for that. It was God's choice. Here, in the last plague, the Israelis had to do something to keep from being affected by the plague. That same thing could have been done by any Egyptian. For all we know there were Israeli families who chose to be stubborn or lazy and not follow the directions. They would have suffered the same fate as any Egyptian who didn't follow the instructions they could have learned about. For all we know, there were many Egyptians who had friends among their slaves or who were observant of what was happening around them and who did, in fact, ask what was going on and do the right thing to protect their family - just in case! The historical narrative doesn't provide information about either of these possible outcomes.
God's problem was with Pharaoh, but the Egyptian people, after having experienced Joseph's rule and seen what the Israeli's God was doing for that people, chose to still follow their own Gods, so they are without excuse. We may not be comfortable with that concept today in our "enlightened" age, but God sees black and white. He doesn't see all the grey that we like to pretend is there. You are either for and with Him, or not. The Egyptians were not.
The whole Passover lamb, with the blood on the door frame, is also a perfect type of what was to come with Christ's death on the cross. The angel who did the killing of the first born who were not protected by the blood of the lamb is a similar type of what occurs all around us as people die. Their eventual outcome is based on whether they are covered by the blood of the Lamb of God. The rapture to come is not unlike that unexpected night outcome all those years ago.
Everyone in the affected area was aware of what was going on between Pharaoh and God. If you think the rumor mill was any less effective then than today, you are mistaken. They had all seen the plagues first hand and been affected by them. They had warning that a powerful God was winning the battle. The fact that it wasn't their God, but the God of their slaves, should have made them think twice about the side they were on.
If I was in their position and saw what was happening around me, I'd be making friends with the side that seemed to be winning to find out the truth about what was going to happen next. if the parents chose not to, you can't blame God for that. They might not have known the specifics about what was going to happen next, but I think every Israeli family either purchasing and sacrificing a lamb or sharing a sacrifice if poor would have made any sane parent ask "What's this all about then?". Then, like today, people shut their eyes and ears because they prefer to hope for the best without getting actively involved in picking the winning side.
Letting a captive slave nation of several million people go free is hardly what I'd consider "something pointless and trivial". If you do, then I feel sorry for you.
Put the blame where it lies - with Pharaoh. Of course the first born weren't "asking for it" any more than those left behind at the rapture will be "asking for it", but remember that they had had many evidences of God's power before the first born were killed. They could see that the Israelis were sacrificing lambs and putting on the blood on their doorposts. They could have gone to stay with them or done the same thing for themselves, and been just as safe as the Israelis - the angel just looked for the blood on the door and didn't care what nationality was inside, but they or more rightly their parents chose to ignore the signs of the times and not do any critical thinking for themselves. They did pay a terrible price for that, much the same as will be in the future. But don't judge God for their or their parents failure to think critically.
There is a strong probability that the event you refer to was the filling of the Black Sea basin from the Mediterranean. I think many scientists agree that that would have produced much rain in the area, not unlike the filling of the Mediterranean from the Atlantic earlier in history. If Noah had lived in that area, his perception would be that the world was destroyed and everything and everyone he knew about were killed except what he saved himself with God's help. Thus the account is correct from his perspective. It also eliminates the silliness propagated by some that he had to save every single animal on the world.
The fact that God knew it was about to occur and made a way for Noah and his family to escape while eliminating the offspring of the angels loyal to Satan (the sons of God) who were trying to corrupt the bloodline of humanity from Adam to Christ (the giants in the earth) doesn't change the account or make it any less instructive. Noah and his family were saved not because they were better people than anyone else, although I'm sure that played a part as the Bible describes him as just. They were saved because they were perfect in their generations.
By thwarting Satan's plan God enabled a pure bloodline from Adam to Christ to remain, providing free salvation for everyone who accepts Christ's sacrifice for their sin. That is loving. He waited to wipe this particular group out until the very last minute, waiting to see how many would be left. I'm very certain that he would have saved many more if they had not made choices that made that impossible. I'm sure they knew that what they were doing was wrong and did it anyway - just like today. If they didn't, their parents should have instructed them better. It is just as easy to read the narrative as that of a loving God who gave his people every chance and still ended up having to fix a problem they caused as to read it as a capricious God who is bent on vengeance. It just depends on how well you know Him in the first place.
There is nothing wrong with critical thinking. You just need to study to see what something really says before jumping to conclusions.
If they had built the infrastructure at their cost (via bond issues, floating stock, or the like) your electric rates would simply be higher than they are now, fully approved by your state's board of public utilities or whatever its regulating body is to recover PG&E's cost of providing you electrical service. It wouldn't have much effect on the price you're paid when they buy your electricity. I think a certain part of your cost is paying off debt from the bankruptcy as well, but I may be misinformed. On the other hand, I think California is helping with the installation of the solar as well, so the people taking that route got government help too.
I presume they're still on the hook for repairing lines due to storms, wind, earthquake, or other natural disaster. When you all rev up your AC's in the summer, they're still on the hook for buying extra power from other real suppliers to provide people power for their needs.
Don't get me wrong... I think it would be great if everyone was providing some or all of their own power via solar (or in our area wind) so there wasn't as much load on the system. That's the biggest drawback right now that electric cars have (in any meaningful number) apart from their inherent long term battery production, replacement, and disposal issues which nobody wants to talk about and being too small for a large family and all their stuff. But right now, purchasing a few customers extra electricity during daylight hours is just not relevant in the overall amount of energy consumed. Solar accounts for somewhere around .5% of the renewable mix (2010 figures) at PG&E and the renewable just met 15.9% of their total supply so it is a very tiny portion that may be nice to have in peak times but really doesn't do much in the overall scheme of things.