Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity

What I think is this getting my recommendation for POTM, that's what I think.

Have you even read the bible?

quote:

---

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. -- Exodus 12:29-30

---

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

And yet you're still left with the same problem. You can't follow this moral codeBut the problem remains as you're still left being imperfect with or without Jesus. What is worse is now you have a perennial escape clause to be as immoral as you want because you're washed in the blood of Jesus and can massacre 50 people and still be forgiven.The whole point of the messiah is to rescue people from that absolute moral code that no one can follow. If we can't keep the Law, then saved people don't live under the Law any longer. And if they don't live under the Law anymore why are you advocating it?And clearly "saved" people commit some of the most atrocious sins, so you're left right back at square one which highlights the crux of the matter.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

So does the biblical God's morals. One day it is eye for an eye, the next it isn't. One day it's okay to stone people to death, the next it's horrible. It was acceptable to kill your child if they mouthed off to their parents, now it's First Degree homicide. Religion is as fluid and maleable as any other trend. God's law is not as absolute as you portray it to be. To deny it would be a lesson in futility. Then no fear of God is necessary. According to you, you follow God's laws because you fear God. That you have an unbreakable covenant with God, you can do whatever you want and simply repent because "there is no sin that a Christian commits that makes him/her worthy of losing their salvation." If that is true then there is no recourse against you for sinning against other people, let alone God.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

First thing is first, welcome to EvC. Second thing is, if you want to see how we quote you, click on the "peek" button to see how it is done. Ah, but don't forget that by eating the fruit they would know what is right and what is wrong. Remember it was the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, meaning they didn't know what good and evil was because of their innocence.If they ate the fruit BEFORE they knew it was wrong to break a rule, then it's useless to tell them isn't it? And whose fault is it that they resorted to their human nature anyhow? Did Adam and Eve create themselves? Who allowed Satan unmitigated access to the two most naive human beings in history?It all comes back to God no matter how many different ways you look at it. Of course, because it was a set up. God set up the Fall of Man. Not much of a choice when you don't know right from wrong, not much of a choice when you have no concept of repurcussions like death (remember: death entered the world as a RESULT of the Fall of Man), and not much of a choice when it was God who gave them their instincts (natural curiosity). Come on, Columbo. You can piece this together given all the clues. He put it there so humans would fail. He accentuated the tree by appealing to the curiosity he imparted in them and used reverse psychology knowing they'd take the bait. God put it there so they would fail. He wants them to fail so that people will need him. Your God sounds so holy and righteous. That's what Jesus said, but if you'll indulge me in looking in the Old Testament he had babies smashed on rocks just to spite their parents. I don't see turning the other cheek anywhere in that. "I the LORD am a jealous God." Does that ring a bell? It doesn't matter if you can't conceive of it, he flat out admitted to it. Doesn't exactly sound like the picture of perfection, now does it? Why would a perfect being need anything, especially a petty emotion for recognition?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Death entered the world through the Fall of Man, which means death did not exist at the time the caveat was issued. So if you have no concept of what death is then how can that be a deterrent? Secondly, they didn't know it was wrong to do it until the moment they ate of the fruit. That being the case, what sense does it make to say it's wrong to eat of the fruit if they have no concept of right and wrong? Evolutionists and Christians are not antonyms nor are they mutually exclusive. There are plenty of theistic evolutionists. I'm not here to dissuade you from being whatever you want to be. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies and contradictions within the topic of discussion. Obviously not since not even Judaism was around during this time, and when Christianity did come about it was met with hostile force and persecution. If your reason for saying we should care is in the bible then you are giving authority to the bible as the means of knowing God. But if the bible has proven inconsistencies then you have no reason to either trust God, trust that the bible is from God and not fallible man, or not to trust that such a being exists at all.It is entirely possible that God does in fact exist but that mankind has been bastardizing him with books like the bible or the Qu'ran.I would think God is more than a book, because as I see it, many Christians treat the bible itself as an idol. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

To quote people, click on the "peek" button next to the reply button (lower right hand corner) and see how I quoted you. Morals are opinions on ethical behavior. You'll come to find that God is no different, as you can see the massive paradigm shift in morality from OT to NT. The point is that the tree provided the knowledge of good and evil. So if they committed an "immoral" act BEFORE they knew the difference between right and wrong, did they actually do anything immoral? Not if we take a literal interpretation of the bible. The bible says that death entered the world during the Fall of Man. There was no death, so inferentially they could have no concept of what death is. They also did not know it was wrong to eat of the fruit since eating the fruit was the only way to know right from wrong! See the theological problem? Imagine executing babies because their fathers were thieves. If that sounds just to you then maybe you're endemic of the problem.Also the bible contradicts itself on the point you just made.

quote:

---

I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me -- Exodus 20:5

---

Contrasted with

quote:

---

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. -- Deuteronomy 24:16

---

The bible in no way indicates that. Please provide scripture if you feel otherwise. But you keep stressing CHOICE. If these heathens have never heard the gospel and die, where is the choice in that?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Why is that offensive? That probably describes most people, not just the religious.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Artie,Food for thought:If you want to share the love of God, you might want to stop being condescending. Tends to invalidate your testimony and push people further away.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Perhaps in his case, judging by what I perceived to be a sarcastic attitude. But overall, are you offended by people who say they will pray for you?Some people are genuine, and it is meant as an endearing gesture, regardless if you think they're wasting their time.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Was that really necessary? If they're being condescending like Artemis, yes. But what about overall? Some people mean no ill will towards you for praying for you. That's a gesture of endearment, like saying, "I'm sorry you're going through such a tough time. I will keep you in my thoughts."

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Fair enough. To be honest with you, I first read your words. I thought it was strange to be offended by someone praying for you. Then I read Artemis' words and figured you responded that way because he seems to be very sarcastic about it.I was just clarifying.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Praying for somebody and calling them an idiot are two entirely different things, no? Or is it somehow worse if somebody covertly insults versus overtly? I'm asking you to juxtapose Artemis' snarky remarks with someone being genuine. Are you offended by the act of someone praying for you or that they would have the audacity to intentionally insult you in the name of God?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal