Is God good?

No, I just like people and therefore wish that no harm should come to them. I don't need to feel an obligation to an abstract "something" which tells me to love my neighbor, I can take a short-cut and feel an obligation to my neighbor to love my neighbor. This seems to me to work out better than imagining what might please the sadistic lunatic portrayed in the Bible. You asked what I couldn't account for. I can readily account for my preference for good over evil.

Check that passage in other translations. Some of them have "calamity" there. That's what the word means in that context.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you, Larni, although Drosophilia has no cause to attribute murder to anyone who believes as I do. They can't be believers who do that.

Thank you, Crash.

What was that you were saying before about the King James Version being the best (which is what I quoted from)?But oh, if it shows you being wrong, well then, piss on it this time!You're hilarious.

If you practice what you preach here you are just a practicing whatreligious teahers have been trying to get others to do.Apparently, most all people, but you, need those lessons.
So why knock the efforts oif people who just want more people to abide your philosophy????Romans 13:10
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.Galatians 5:14
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyselfJames 2:8
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

Yeah I can explain that too.The KJV IS the best translation but it DOES need to be updated and it hasn't been updated in a long time because of the wily actions of the revising committee of 1881 which substituted some corrupt Greek texts and did 36000 unnecessary changes in the English. They were supposed to do a minimal updating. Since they didn't we have dozens of new corrupted "translations" that spun off that corrupted revision that are not trustworthy overall although here and there they use more modern words that the KJV would benefit from. The KJV still needs some small corrections. We no longer use the word "evil" the way the KJV did in that passage. It had the right meaning when it was originally used.OK?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well the KJV (actually the King James Authorized Version) was meant to be a politically correct Bible designed to not irritate Roman Catholics or Protestants yet maintain and reinforce the Divine Right of Kings more than being theologically correct or accurate.

Oh the contortions one must do to keep my faith and beliefs true.

It irritated the Roman Catholics no end. They've been trying to get rid of it ever since. There is reason to believe they were behind the corrupted Greek texts of the revision of 1881, which were most likely forgeries although that hasn't yet been proved for sure. They were at least corrupted by heretics in the early years according to Dean Burgon who did an extensive critique of the Revision. And there is also reason to believe that the RC are behind the multiplication of translations which are a blight on the church.

You betcha. There are always evil people trying to undermine the true faith and often getting away with it.

If you want to come off as someone who has no honesty with themselves or other people and will say anything they have to in order to maintain the beliefs they've already decided they must adhere to... yeah, if that's okay then its OK.

sighI grew up through 12 years of Catholic education and we used the King James Version of the Bible that whole time.Seems to be an odd way of trying to get rid of it. But, you know, facts don't really matter when you've already made your mind up.

YOu can go read my blog on on the 1881 Bible Revision if you like, I've quoted a lot of people on this subject. It's an important controversy in the church.The Great Bible Hoax of 1881

Things are a lot more convoluted than you have any idea. You will also now find the RC claiming that they had a hand in the King James translation. Ha ha ha. They'll take any position necessary if it will confuse things.