Is God good?

I understand what you are talking about.Christ is available for experiencing and enjoying.
That's basic to the New Testament.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Could you give us an example of this from the Bible ?I expect an example of "great affection" suddenly followed by great injury. What's your example ?

Hopefully, errors we have about our own character and about God's character are corrected as we grow in spiritual life.Just as in the natural realm, a growing child comes into deeper realization of their own character and of that of their parents, so in spiritual life. Misunderstandings about the self and about God become adjusted with more maturity.The Apostle Paul expected to know Christ to a fuller degree in the future of his Christian experience. Two places at least demonstrate this. " ... I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as refuse that I may gain Christ ... to know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings ..." (See Phil. 3:8,10) Other things which Paul highly esteemed as being valuable he begins to count as refuse (dog food) or garbage in comparison with knowing Christ. This is a Christ that he knows yet seeks more and more to "gain" - " ... that I may gain Christ".The gaining of Christ by Paul is the encrease of the depth of his experience of Christ. If he has misconceptions about Christ, his gaining of Christ will remedy these misconceptions. His experience of Christ will expand causing him to GAIN an expanding and deepening apprehension of God and Christ.So Paul looks away from the past and stretches forward to pursue more of Christ - "Not that I have already obtained or am already perfected, but I pursue, if even I may lay hold of that for which I also have been laid hold of by Christ Jesus.

​

Brothers, I do not account of myself to have laid hold; but one thing I do: Forgetting the things which are behind and stretching forward to the things which are before.

​

I pursue toward the goal for the prize .. Let us therefore, as many as are fullgrown, have this mnd ..." (See vs. 10-15) I don't think this means Paul despises his previous experience of Christ. I think it means he does not linger in his past successes. He does not rest on any laurels in a sentimantal way. He does not settle on his past good experiences. He forgets them in order to press onward to enjoy more of God, that is a deeper experience of Christ.This is the "mind" which he encourages Christians to have. In fact he counts it as a hallmark of maturity - to ever be pursuing after more Christ, to ever be stretching forward to gain Christ - "Let us therefore, as many as are fullgrown, have this mind ..."Then again Paul says he presently sees things as through a glass mirror obscurely, darkly. But eventually he will know God even as God has always known him - "For now we see in a mirror obscurely, but at that time face to face; now I know in part, but at that time I will fully know even as also I was fully known." (1 Cor. 13:12) Knowing God is not a static matter but a matter of spiritual growth, encrease, deepening, expanding, and maturing. It culminates in our knowing God even as He has always known us - with perfect clarity.This proverb of the Old Testament also brings out the encreasing nature of spiritual life - "But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until the full day." (Proverbs 4:18) Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I assume Larni, that this is your best example of great love followed by great injury so as to depict God as a perverted spouse. That is you say this verse shows God suddenly cutting off His great love from people and turning to injurious hatred at a whim. My Recovery Version translates this passage as: 1.) If this verse read "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved [and he who does not believe shall ALSO be saved]" then that would not show a love of God that is pure or righteous.To be saved is to be conformed to the image of Christ so that in eternity God secures myriads of forgiven human beings who have gone through a life process in which they fully reflect the character of Jesus. "Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers." (Rom. 8:29) . In a world in which Jesus Christ, the First Eldest Brother and billions of the saved are the many brothers conformed to be like Him, it would be no love to eternally mix into their number myriads who have refused to be saved.It would be no love for the sons of God, the brothers of Christ the Firstborn brother to forever have to put up with God haters, God rejectors, revolting rebels whose disadain for the Ultimate moral Governor of all creation and who are unredeemably contrarian. Those unbelievers are loved by God but have self chosen to carry their enmity against the willing Savior perpetually.So "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved ..."[but he who does NOT believe shall ALSO be saved] does not reveal a righteous love. The sons of God would be ever among those fermenting rebellion against God.2.) If it read "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, [but he who does not believe will be left alone or made to exist no more] " some may think would show love and eliminate injury.But the Gospel reveals that God Himself became a man. And in His triune nature and as a man received the judgement upon sins for the whole world, into Himself. What is beyond God? What transcends God? What higher referee or court of appeal could there be above and beyond God?God is the ultimate authority. In being incarnated as a man and undergoing not just the death of Roman crucifixion but the unknown horror of carrying up the world's sins under the divine judgment of God, He has gone SO FAR, to the uttermost, that the sinners may be saved.God only commands that we believe into this resurrected and available Person, accepting full identification with Him. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved ...".We are not qualified to prescribe what the penalty should be for the enormity of the offense of a rejecting unbelief. This is the Savior God commanding that we believe Christ is Lord.If we convened a conference of all the rapists in the world and asked them to decide what the penalty should be for rape, perhaps they would vote that there should be no penalty. Or perhaps they would vote that there should be a light penalty. They have a vested interest in being lenient upon themselves for they feel to rape is not a bad thing.Neither the believers or the unbelievers are ultimately qualified to assign what is the righteous penalty that rejecting the Godman Savior should be.If it is to become non-existence then the rejector of God has won. For he has escaped forever punishment. What does not exist cannot be punished.But it is God's responsibility as the ultimate Governor beyond which, above which, trancendent to, aside from, and other than there is NO final setting of things right, to warn that we cannot rebel against Him and win forever.If there was a super God beyond the God of Mark's gospel, to whom we could appeal, why could we not also reject the remedies of that one as well? The cosmic buck has to stop somewhere. And man's capacity in his freedom to reject ulitimate authority and ultimate love for that matter, knows no end.One might argue that a God of love would cause the unreconciled unbeliever to exist no more so that he could not be injured in punishment. But God's governemnt is that the rejector must lose. And it is love for the ultimate Governor to inform His creation that the sinner cannot forever be in revolt against God and win. The perpetual rebel must lose wellbeing forever. The Source of universal wellbeing is eternal. The rejection of the Source leads to an everlasting lost of the issue of wellbeing.3.) The objector to Mark 16:16 may envision of love without righteousness. He may think that God should give up His eternal rigthteous character and just be the ultimate permissivist allowing anything to be done.But the Bible in its plenary message show how God coordinates His great love along with His great righteousness. He does not give up one for the other. He does not decide He will condemn everyone with no love, with no loving offer to be reconciled. Nor does He give up His great righteousness and FORCE a relationship forever on those who want no relationship with Him.The eternal punishment was created for the Devil and his angels (Matt.25:41). And the unreconciled rebel goes with his leader the Devil to share with the Devil his miserable destiny - "Go away from Me, you who are cursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." The believer comes in to share Christ's glorious destiny - "Father, concerning that which You have given Me, I desire that they also may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory, which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world." (John 17:24) We go with whoever we have chosen to be our leader. God may love the rejecting rebel mightly. But if he has chosen that his leader is the one who embodies ultimate rejection of God, the devil and his opposition party, then he will share that one's destiny.If we believe that Christ is here for our gracious salvation we will not only share His glorious destiny as the reigning Godman in God's kingdom over the universe, but we shall be co-sons of God conformed to His image - blameless and without moral spot of imperfection (no foriegn element of sin) before the ultimate holiness of a righteous Father God.I don't think Mark 16:16 shows God as the fickle unastable spouse of your caricature.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

My Bible does not have Leviticus as its last word. In the progressive revelation of God and His salvation, Leviticus is a book on the road, on the way to fully reveal God's eternal purpose and salvation.You may have noticed in the New Testament book of Matthew, you have this scheme repeated a number of times by Jesus in the "sermon on the mount" - "You have heard that it was said to the ancients ... But I say to you ..." I did not stop my reading with the book of Joshua or Leviticus. I went on to read of Jesus Christ enacting the new covenant in His blood for the forgiveness of sins and for the indwelling of His life and nature into those born anew. As I read Leviticus I also see other remedies prescribed by God to Moses. There was the sin offering. There was the trespass offering. There was the consecration offering. While the penalty for blasphemy or homosexual acts was harsh I have to consider the accompanying other atoning offerings which chould be presented to the priests.These Levitical penalty laws were for the theocracy of nation Israel specifically. I see no passage excluding the man aware of his tendency to seriously sin against God from offering one of the atoning sacrifices - "Then Moses said to Aaron, Come near to the altar and offer your sin offering and your burnt offering, and make expiation for yourself and for the people; and make offering of the people and make expiation for them; just as Jehovah commanded you." (Lev. 8:7) While some penalties are harsh, in the whole scheme the system of atoning offerings, it is not as if God leaves no way out for the sinner who humbles himself to repent.God portrays His attitude towards certain serious trangressions while also providing a way of atonement for the repentant.And this is even before we get to the great and final antitype and fulfillment of ALL the offerings - the Son of God within whom all manner of sins are paid for upon His cross on the sinner's behalf.Balance your reading of Leviticus with some reading of the Gospel of Luke or John in the New Testament. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I have time this morning for about one more post. Firstly, the quip "your god" is perculiar to me like "your gravity" or "your sun." If there is a God then God is simply yours as well as mine like the law of gravity is simply everyone's reality to deal with.But on to the real matter. I do not say that in the 66 books of the Bible there are absolutely no puzzles or difficult instances to analyse. There are some difficult portions.But by in large we have a pretty extensive history of this God's interacting with humans. From Genesis to Revelation, while some thornier appear, quite a great deal more reveals to me the purity, goodness, light, equity, justness, and righteousness of God.I got convinced. Especially, examining the life of the central One of the Book - Jesus Christ I got completely convinced that God is utimate Goodness.And as I grow spiritually, many previously bewildering actions of God make more sense. I think I am beginning to think like Jesus the more I live the Christian life.I do not hunt through the Bible for things to hurt my faith.
Some difficult passages I place on the backburner for latter analysis.
I also benefit from the experience of others more mature in this life.I do not expect that the Bible will only contain things which I like.
I find the Bible unique in that it seems to contain some stepping on our toes SOMEWHERE. Maybe no one has ever lived which liked absolutely everything he read in the Bible with no exception.Whoever you are, I bet I can find something in the Bible which steps on your toes about something. Jesus Christ is the centrality. And His goodness I believe is the highest that has ever walked this earth.I don't know what your interests are. But I suspect that in reading about them you did not allow easy discouragement to turn you away. If you really love a matter you will not easily discard it at the first obstacle.I do not say NO actions of God in the Bible are difficult for me. I say that the vast majority of righteous acts encouragement that what I need is further spiritual growth to understand them all. This accusation suggests that God should recuse Himself from being the ultimate Judge of all existence. In other words, because God is emotionally involved He is not qualified to also be the final decider of the consequences of moral failure.I did not see a command to LOVE God actually. I saw a command to BELIEVE in Christ. Many of us didn't love much when we came to salvation. But we believed a believable Jesus. We decided "This Man is believable."There is no harm in coming to Christ and confessing our doubts too. Did you read about the father who cried out "Lord I believe, help my unbelief"?We may come confessing that we have no love. For His Gospel is not to demand of love but the command to BELIEVE in Christ.Now ONCE I experienced the PEACE and JOY of having my sins rolled away a great love began to well up in my heart. Love certainly followed the peace of being reconciled to God.Love may even preceed. It is no harm that one read through the New Testament and find his heart simply begins to love this figure Jesus. But the Gospel, strictly speaking, is to BELIEVE. So we can come with a cold heart believing that Christ is indeed the Son of God.Now in the worldly realm it would be foolish to accuse the judge of not loving me if I am penalized for a crime. "Your honor you are handing me a sentence of punishment for my crime. You don't love me. So you are bad and wrong."How would that sound? God does not give up His righteousness for anything. He can love to the uttermost yet still refuse to give up His eternal rightness. Your accusation insists that He discard justice and truth.I see God as qualified to decide on the ultimate matters of good and evil and also maintain His great love. I see the cross of Jesus as the place where God's righteousness works and God's great love also works. I see God not denying one attribute in order to maintain the other. I see God holding to BOTH His love and His righteousness.In His love He has prepared me to be with Him for eternity. I simply cannot fathom WHY God loves me to this extent.In His righteousness I also see that He has not simply overlooked my sins. He has JUDGED them in a substitute, in His Son. I do not count that God has sentimentally just said "I know you didn't mean it. Let's just forget about those sins."No, I see that He has forgiven them by demonstrating His justice upon them too. I see that I was judged in Christ on His cross. I see that justice was imputed on my behalf in Another who was absolutely without guilt. He carried the penalty which was too heavy for me. My obligation is to only believe in the Son of God.If I were to ask God about my sins now He would say that they have been paid in full. He has not sloppily overlooked them. He has judged them. Justice has been imputed on my behalf on Calvary. My debt as to eternity is paid in full.Now this is good news. This is good news. God looks upon the believer as if he had never sinned at all. His history is Jesus Christ.So love works at the same time as righteousness also works. While the word "apartied" has an emotional negative connotation to it, it is not effective here. " ... at the consummation of the age: the angels will go forth and separate the evil from the midst of the righteous." (Matt. 13:49) Sorry. The evil will not ALWAYS be co-associated together with the righteous. God will make a seperation someday. "The Son of Man will send His angels, and they will collect out of His kingdom all the stumbling blocks and those who practice lawlessness." (Matt. 13:41) God will not always allow in His kingdom the stumbling blocks who stumble others who desire to persue righteousness. He will collect them OUT of His kingdom. He will put them into their own place.You do not allow any hoodlum off the street to come into your house forever and take up residence. If you eventually expelled a criminal from living in your establishment it would be foolish to accuse you of apartied in the same racist sense as you imply.Having said that, I would hasten to add that the Gospel message does not demand that you not be a universalist. It does not command you to believe that maybe everyone can be saved. It commands you to believe in the Son of God.You may come saying "God I think you will eventually save everyone. But believe that Jesus the Son of God."The command is about believing in Jesus the Son of God. It is not even a requirement that one understand that much. You simply believe Jesus is Lord, the risen Son of God - "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9) But that God will separate those in His kingdom and those who reject Him, would only be a lack of love if there was no wonderfully gracious plan of salvation.Your attempts to portray God as having no love won't move me.
Rather they may suggest a kind of drunken stupor of an permissivist philosophy that defines love as allowing any and all things to be done with no consequences for wrong doing. This is a hyper liberalism, the Barnyization of God.What is revealed in Scripture is not a Barny the Dinosour like God. No doubt His love is to the uttermost, very strong and extending forever. But He is also righteous and will not give that up for anyone or anything. He will forgive in a manner which maintains His righteous standard and vindicates His truth.You foolishly imagine a Barny like God who will discard TRUTH for a hyper liberal sentimental permissivism. It is better to accept the offer that in Christ's redemptive death justice upon wrong doing was imputed on your behalf. And this was done because He loves you.He loves you but will not discard truth and justice because of that love. He will maintain both simulatneously. What He commands of you is to only believe in the Son of God, Jesus. I mentioned nothing about Heaven. I mentioned former sinners being conformed to the image of Christ to be His many brothers.I don't like the thought of eternal punishment. But it makes sense only if we are talking about ultimates.If God is ultimate then there must be an ultimate offense. Modern relvativism does not believe that the cosmic buck stops anywhere. But there must be an ultimate Governor. If so then an ultimate offense with ultimate punishement makes sense, though the thought is dreadful.What I do is spend at least an equal time to contemplate what God has done to SAVE us from that fate. I am moved by the incarnation of God as man, the life, death and resurrection of this One on our behalf that we might be saved from sin against PERFECTION.I believe that behind the universe is the PERFECT. It makes no sense to me that the Originator, the Creator of all being has creations which exceed Himself in goodness. The creature correcting the Creator makes no sense to me. How could they have what God did not have in Himself to bestow? How could the effect be greater than the Cause?All your complaints so far sound to me like a need for the effect to correct the Cause - for us to fix God. I think it is better to believe the believable Savior Jesus. And believing into Him as a realm being justified according to God's encredibly gracious offer.In a sense, what more can God do? He is willing to make my history all that Jesus Christ is - total identification with Christ. This is something I could never achieve in my sinful self. So I believe into Him and accept that God now views me in Christ, sharing His glorious destiny.What does your philosophy offer me that is better than Christ?[qw]
Love? Or spite for rejecting him? Why not just let the visciously evil people who reject your god be permenently dead? But no. You god must have his misery. [/qs]Annhilationist would believe so. Universalists might believe something similar.I believe how the Bible relates these matters to me. I may like some things. I may not like other things. But I take it as the Bible teaches.I see in your posts a bitter attempt to lash out in accusation against God. But your concern for the lost cannot match the concern of the Savior. And you will not be able to paint Jesus as the enemy to me. You will not be able to portray your goodness as exceeding that of God's. I assume that you have given your strongest example of ground for accusation against God. I assume that your other examples are probably not as strong. I could be wrong.But the example you gave doesn't prove to me a fickle unstable husband suddenly turning love into hatred.I would not say that Mark 16:16 reveals no hatred. But it is a hatred for the foreign element which the sinner will not part from. He insists to carry it with him.God sends warning and a gracious offer how the sinner may be separated from the cursed foreign element of sin. He should believe into Christ. So the sinner should not refuse but accept the invitation to believe in the Son of God. He should come just as he is, even with a cold heart or problems with doubt. He should nevertheless come and believe into Christ and show the world by allowing himself to be baptized in the name of Jesus.That PERFECTION lies behind the universe is only a horror if God left us no way for the sinner to be reconciled. We can be justified as if we had never sinned at all, by believing into the resurrected and availavble Savior Jesus.This way shows both righteousness and love.Now that is all the time I have this morning.

No I didn't. I refered to more of what is written there. Can you quote the sentences which I alledgedly ADDED ?
Can you indicatee what I suggested should not be considered written in it ?If you cannot then you should admit a false accusation of my adding or subtracting from the Bible's text. Where did I say a word of the Lord was not pure?I only quoted that Jesus said in essence "Thus in such was spoken to the ancients, but I say unto you thus and such."A fuller picture of truth does not count the former words impure.The mother tells her child at age two "Eat the food. Pick it up with your fingers." Latter as the child advances to age five she may say "Use your FORK."The latter fuller word does not render the former word impure.
The level of the disclosure of God's purpose and nature renders somewhat different speakings as the word of God progresses. These are great passages. None of them establish your false accusation of me adding or diminishing the Bible.You are showing us that you can hunt through the Scriptures for passages. See, you too could find Jesus Christ there is you really had an open heart to the Lord and Savior Jesus. Where did I say the counsel of the Lord does not stand forever ?
Would you quote me?I think your complaint is over interpretive matters. If you think I am interpreting wrongly, then tell me why you think that.Along with the death penalty in Leviticus was the trespass offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings. These were all types and symbols of the Son of God to come as the all-inclusive final offering for the sin of the world.I would suggest that you go about your objection by pointing out WHERE the homosexual or blasphemer was specifically forbidden to avail himself of one of the other offerings should he repent of his ways - ie. the sin offering, the trespass offering, the peace offering, even the consecration offering.I am out here on a limb now. Maybe I need correction. You do the work. WHERE does the Old Testament say the "gay" man could not repent and perhaps offer a sin offering to the priest for his atonemen ?Work on it a little. Maybe I'll stand corrected. But empty accusation of dimishing the Scripture or adding to the Scripture I will just ignore, unless you provide clear quotations of that. Amen. Did I write otherwise ? What if you reject His merciful kindness ?What if instead of praising the Lord you choose to arm yourself with accusations and blasphemies against the Lord ?A corresponding passage spoken by Jesus was this - "So that you may become sons of your Father who is in the heavens, because He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and the unjust." (Matt. 5:45) Yes God is merciful and kind to send His rain and let His sun shine upon all men - evil and good, just and unjust.That God is merciful to do so does not mean He does not discern or discriminate morally between people. You are badly twisting things. According to your twistings the fact that is kind to send rain and to cause sunshine means all are good and none are evil - or all are just and none are unjust.Are you drunk with excessive Humanism? Many many acts of God reveal His kindness and mercifulness to created man. These do not mean that He will forever tolerate the sins of man.By the time you get to your Psalm 117 you should have already noticed that in Genesis with the story of Noah. "And Jehovah said, My Spirit will not strive with man forever ..." (Genesis 6:3) The Spirit of God will convict sinners to repent and believe in His salvation. As He does He continues His kindness and mercy. But He will not strive with the unrepentant human conscience FOREVER.If you didn't notice, this too is part of the pure word of God which lasts forever. Thanks. That explains why the death of Christ has forever settled the judgment of God upon my sins.And it also explains why the last judgment at the great white throne is forever - "And I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose face earth and heaven fled away, and no pleace was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened, and another scroll was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were JUDGED by the things which were written in the scrolls, according to their works. (Rev. 20:12) This is the final judgment at the end of the ages before the eternal age, when His judgment will last forever.And here: "And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." (v.15) So in facing this final judggmental decision we should spread the word that men may have their names written in the book of life of the Lamb. Amen. Great passage also. Have some more ? Amen. His word will outlast the reliability of the physical universe.This implies that the universe has its purpose in the purpose of God. It is not an accident. "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, for You have created all things, and because of Your will they were, and were created." (Rev. 4:11) All creation then exists because of the will of God, the plan of God, the purpose of God. It is no wonder that His WORD concerning His will is more stable than the universe itself. It will outlast heaven and earth.In the same book the Word of God is absolutely PERSONIFIED to mean Jesus Christ - " ... and His name is called the Word of God." (Rev. 19:13) Christ is the meaning of the universe. It exists by and for Christ. So we should believe into Christ and quite making clever twisted excuses from the handy dandy "Do-it-yourself" skeptical pocket Christian refuter. The same book has Jesus saying - "This cup is the new covenant established in My blood, which is poured out for you." (Luke 22:20) In Christ's redemption God established a new covenant without a title of the law failing. Did you give at least equal time to examining that teaching in the Bible?You are attempting I suppose to use the Old Testament to nullify the New Testament. But the Old Testament itself also contains the divine promise that God would make a new covenant and new testament with the house of Israel -

quote:

---

"Indeed, days are coming, declares Jehovah, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covnenat which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by their hand to bring them our from the land of Egypt, My covenant which THEY BROKE, although I was their Husband, declares Jehovah.

​

But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares Jehovah: I will put My law within them and write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they will be My people. And they will no longer teach, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah, for all of them will know Me, from the little one among them even to the grreat one among them, declares Jehovah, for I will forgive their iniqity, and their sin Iwill remember no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

---

This is the new covenant which Jesus spoke of in Luke 22:20.Your quotes are nice. But the way in which you intend to use them is no more clever than Satan's quoting of Scripture to tempt Jesus to jump of the pinnacle of the temple to show off in Matthew 4:6"Then the devil took Him into the holy city and set Him on the wing of the temple, and said to Him, If You are the Son of God, cast Yourself down; for it is written, TO To His angels He shall give charge concerning You, and on their hands they shall bear You up, lest You strike Your foot against a stone."

​

Jesus said to him, Again, it is written, "You shall not test the Lord your God." " You may think you are being clever. "Look I too can thump on the bible and make it look like the teaching of Jesus is against the word of God."You're not being clever. If you selectively quote as the devil quoted, I will also say to you "Again, it is written ..." .So we learn not just some of what the bible says. We learn all that it says. And we reason with Christ rather than without Christ. "All scripture" is the operative phrase there.Selective usage to try to nullify the New Testament salvation is not clever. Could you please QUOTE my "re-writings" of the Bible ? Maybe you have some supposed success in this cleverness on someone. Doesn't work here on me. You're just making a fool of yourself. If not though -QUOTE what I added as text to the Bible.QUOTE what I took away so as to diminish the text of the Bible.QUOTE where I changed the text of the Bible.

I think that in the 66 books of the Bible there is a wide scope of actions taken by God. The scale ranges from extremely severe to extremely kind with gradiations of degree inbetween. "Behold the severity and kindness of God" says Paul. Skeptics like to huddle on the extreme end of God's most severe actions to prove that they have a higher ethics than the Creator of man.Some of rather expect that a wide scope of actions would be taken by an all-inclusive and all-incompasing God. Every kind of obstacle to His will is raised against Him in the biblical history. He did not meet every instance as children would expect Barny the Dinosaur to react.In most cases I have seen false charges based on biased and incomplete reading of Scripture is at work with many skeptics. Let me guess that you are vehemently PRO LIFE in your ethics ?
Yes / No ?If not then you must believe that some instances of taking a child's life might justified by you. Are you decidedly anti-abortion in your social ethics?I guess I would have to examine case by case your samples of God taking childens' lives which you are repulsed by. I probably would take a more balanced analysis by considering important contributing factors.One of those is the God is the Giver of all life. God then has the authority to take a life away.Another factor is that the temporal cessation of life of a human being is not necessarily the end that person's story in the eternal scheme of things.It is interesting that Jesus warned that some of the men of some Old Testament judged societies would rise in the judgement and somehow condemn those who incurred greater guiltiness for rejecting the Son of God. "Then He began to reproach the cities in which most of His works of power took place, because they did not repent.

​

Woe to you Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the works of power which took place in you had taken place in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

​

But I say to you, It will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. ... if the works of power which took place in you had taken place in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

​

But I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgement than for you." (See Matt. 11:20-24) This is very interesting. Though the people of Sodom had fire rain down upon them and they perished, this apparently will not be the eternal end for some of them. In the last judgment it may be more tolerable for some of the Sodomites than for more modern day skeptics who amassed intellectual arguments against the Son of God all their lives.In a sense some of the Sodomites may look with puzzlement at some 21rst century skeptics who had access to the Gospel of Jesus and say "What was it with you guys anyway?"I would advize some of the fault finders against God's judging actions to reserve some sympathy for themselves. It is a problem for many skeptics that they have to sit on God's lap in order to slap God on the face. They cannot reach God to criticize Him without first standing for a great part upon Judeo / Christian morality which has so heavily enfluenced world civilization.Of course if our moral sense is just the result of chemicals in motion in the grey matter of our "evolved" brains, then there is really no grounds to believe a ultimate standard of morality really exists.Goodness then is only either molecules bumping into each other.
It merely a matter of your personal taste - like one prefers chocolate icecream to vanilla.If you're an atheist, even a good acting atheist, your "goodness" is probably only an illusion. How much does a good molecule weigh?You have to borrow the Christian world view in order have something to stand upon to launch criticisms against the Bible's God. As I said before, God is the Author of every human life as the Creator. He has the authority to take life away.There are some difficult places in the Bible involving God's "strange work" of judging. Strange because God Himself says that it is strange that He should have to judge man at all - "For Jehovah will rise as in the valley of Gibeon, To do His deed, His STRANGE deed, And to do His work, His most different work." (Isaiah 28:21) In the fall of man and the rebellion of Satan, it has become strange that God should have to do the work of judgment. But He does have to.He reserved one entire book called Jonah in the Old Testament completely dedicated to the teaching that God is reluctant to have to judge a society.I consider some of these things along with the usual cases submitted attempting to prove the accusing one is more good than God.It is interesting that of all the men who have lived on earth, the one most qualified to launch a criticism against the God of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ. I never see Him do so.Rather He refers to His Father as "Righteous Father" - "Righteous Father, though the world has not known You, yet I have known You, and these have known that You have sent Me." (John 17:25) The One most qualified to expose the evils of God never complained thus. Knowing full well the Hebrew Scriptures He refered to God as His "Righteous Father." I believe Him. Of course He provided nine gradually worsening judgments as warnings. And since the Egyptians had murdered the Hebrew boy children many years earlier in order to control them in slavery, this action was a just recompense.Just the same, the instructions on how to experience a PASSOVER of this judgment went out to the whole society. And since they people went out of Egypt "a mixed multitude" we can assume SOME Egyptians heeded the divine warnings and deemed it best to leave that society WITH the Jews.And again, the temporal judment of Egyptian boys does not insist as to their destiny in the eternal scheme of things. I expect that many of these temporally slain boys will be in the New Jerusalem.God can demonstrate His judgment in time and still enact eternal salvation upon those who unfortunately served to testify to His judging in this life. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If the God of the Old Testament was so evil to perform certain judgmental acts, why didn't Jesus Christ teach so in the New Testament ?Where is His discourse condemning the flood of Noah?Where does Jesus condemn the defeat of the Amalakites or the Midianites ?Where does Jesus condemn the judging of Sodom ?Jesus does not seem like the man to be foolishly partial. He seems like the kind of teacher to be completely frank, candid about the real situation. He is most qualified to decide on the actions of God in these stories.I want to know WHY Jesus of Nazareth, who so extensively commented on the Hebrew Bible, did not include condemnation of the alledged evil acts of God in Genesis through Malachi.Jesus constantly claimed this God was His Father, even His "Righteous Father" (John 17:25) Maybe some of your moral discernment is not sufficiently wise.Who was more equiped to pass judgment on these biblical events than Jesus ? He did not. Rather He warned us all that we too would be judged unless we repented to believe in Himself.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Theodoric, FIRST you have to jump through hoops and all kind of gymnastics to associate Jesus of Nazareth with Mithra, Isis, and Dionysus.I think that that fancy footwork has been debunked already. You are going to have to buy into a lot of foolish lies in order to use guilt by association to lump Christ and Isis or Christ and Mithra together.You need someone very very gullible.

Want to change the discussion to something about historical evidence for Jesus' existence ?I am going to try to stay with the topic here for awhile. Seems some posters open up an avenue of criticism only to want to jump over to another debate. (maybe not you)Here is have admitted that SOME instances in the Bible of God's actions are not easy for me to explain. However, some in the past seemed wrong, but with more experience and understanding I thought differently.Based on this I, like Abraham, have a hope "Shall the Judge of all the earth not do justly? " (Genesis 18:25) In the wide scope of varying actions recorded the spectrum goes from the end of very very kind all the way to the other side of very very harsh. I expect that a revelation of God would include many varied examples of His workings.Though it is tempting to argue that we have more good evidence for believing the historicity of Jesus than for that of Alexander the Great or Socrates, I think I stick with the questioned goodness of God for now.Maybe some specific examples should be discussed in detail.
I don't see genocide in the Canaanite conquest.I do see that He gave those sinful societies 400 years plus another 40 years to disperse their centers of evil. I see that God told Abraham that He would not bring the Hebrews into Canaan yet for another 400 years, essentially because the Amorites had not gotten bad enough yet.God was waiting until they merited such a harsh conquest. Then He gave them an additional 40 years. I think that only the hardest of the hard were left. And evidence that the comments about killing everything the breaths was the typical military talk of the day in the ancient near east.Upon careful reading it is clear that not EVERY single member of those societies was exterminated. We still see Amalakites in the land after the conquest. So Joshua had obviously not literally exterminated them.Other evidences is that combatants were the on the brunt of the warfare in some cases. That would be fighting soldiers resisting.God's instructions also were to tear down their altars and destroy their idols more so than to commit extermnation. He wanted the societies scattered, dispersed. I think only the most resistant combatants may be the brunt of descriptions of every breathing one was killed.I have never seen God's command that anyone be raped.
What the Bible records as having happened is not always what the Bible teaches as what should be done.Skeptics that lay hold of divinely ordained raping in the Bible seem to totally disregard unquestionably clear Levitical laws concerning the subject.The laws concerning the captive women of defeated enemies seemed tailored to protect the women from rape. She is given time also to mourn her parents before she is to be MARRIED if the capture so desires to MARRY her.Of course an unmarried captive woman was in bad shape and probably would either starve or resort to prostitution. So all things considered, I think some skeptics do not play the "bad God" card too well.At any rate my Bible doesn't end with the book of Joshua. Shouldn't we view Jesus as having the last word on God's will ?And the New Testament redemption would not make sense unless God spent some time to demonstrate His hatred of sin. The backround of the divine displeasure of God against man's sin is the reason why the Son of God giving up Himself on the cross for man's sin is all the more impressive.How much sense would the Gospel of Luke make immediately following Genesis? A firm backround in God's righteous and sometimes harsh judgment of man's sins makes the redemptive death of Jesus for all the more meaningful.Paul called the Old Testament law "the ministry of condemnation". Why not keep reading past the flood of Noah and the burning of Sodom to view how God's Son bore in Himself the penalty of divine eternal judgment in Himself on Calvary's cross? Who said I had no questions?I can enjoy the availabilty and reality of the Jesus I met and still have some questions. I have good questions.But I also think I am on the right track to believe in Jesus.
That's another discussion. Jesus is the only Teacher I can think of who said that we could enter INTO Him as a realm, abide in Him, remain in Him as a living sphere. He does not come to leave us a way. He comes to BE the way Himself. He comes to join His victorious life with ours in an "organic" union: "He who is JOINED to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17) He gives HIMSELF to man. He lives in man via a new birth. He gives man Himself in resurrection as their life to be blended into our life.No other teacher said so. Quote if I am in error. Give me the equivalance in Confucius or Buddha or Mohammed of them saying something like: "Abide in Me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me."Give me a example of another moral teacher saying something like this: "In that day [the day of His resurrection] you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me and I in you." (John 14:20) Who else spoke this way Theodoric? I am out here on a limb now. Show me your example. And it should not be someone since Jesus, imitating Jesus.Who else said that He and His Father, God, would come to make an abode in the ones who love Him? "Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23) Who is the other teacher who said he or she would come to make an abode with the one who loves Him ?Jesus didn't offer really a new or better moral code other than HIMSELF living in us. "The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" ( Cor 15:45) His teaching is the He will rise from the dead and be AVAILABLE to be known and had communion with and fellowship with. 'Behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age." (Matt. 28:30) "Abide in Me and I in you" (John 15:4) means that He is alive and knowable, enterable. This is the essence of the Gospel message. He is alive and available to us to enjoy. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think your accusation was that God is not good because there is a record of Him having some children killed in the Bible. So I was not asking about squirrels and insects. It is perculiar to me that you would "care less" about the initial stage of human life than you would about insects. A human being in the fetal stage ranks less to you then an insect?So you would feel less remorse from swating a mosquito then you would in destroying a human in the fetal stage ? I think you should reconsider this devaluation of a human fetus. I am not a political activist. But from what I have heard from a man, his conscience definitely convicted him when he provided for a woman's abortion in the early stages. He suffered repeated nightmares about the event.I think we are given a conscience from God. And some things it knows that it knows. You simply cannot argue with what your conscience knows intuitively is wrong or knows intuitively is right.I do believe that people can suppress the inner conviction from their God given human conscience. We can hold it down and seek to shut it up. We can even posture ourselves before the world as though we have sifficient rationals to explain our wrong actions.If there were no forgiveness possible to obtain from God, I think it would be very bad. We would go to our grave never at peace with ourselves about some wrongdoings. Our conscience simply would never let us go.But there IS forgiveness for any sinner who comes to Christ. And the conscience can be fully set at rest. We can have peace with God and within ourselves when we come to Jesus Christ.I am PRO Redemption through Jesus. As a social policy we should work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies since ideologically the two heated sides are not going ever to agree on the abortion matter. I don't know that, #1.
That may be an opinion today which will be revized with further study.And #2 that could be a slippery slope indeed. A one year old is not as self aware as a five year old. And a ten your old is not as self aware as a fifteen year old. It is hard to draw a clear line on where self awareness starts.Some people with mental illness are not self aware. Your rational might reason that such are less valuable than insects.I am not saying that a perfect utopian policy I can come up with. I am showing that we should heed the Bible that all have sinned and all are in need of salvation through Christ.Perfect Goodness has provided a way that we stumbling fallen worldlings can be reconciled to the Righteous God who knows everything. I hear your posturing. Sorry though. I think this is your facade before the world. If you destroyed a human being in the fetal stage for mere convenience, I believe your God created conscience would say you have committed a wrong act.I do not believe you that to you a human fetus means less than a cockroach. I don't believe deep within you really feel that way. But of course you're not trying to "catch" a Christian like me by protesting that the God of the Bible is morally deficient.I admit that these can be tough issues. But you should expect to taste a little of your own medicine. You set yourself up in a position to negatively judge God. In accusing God expect that your own morality will be examined. Do you think jumping into Science Fiction simplifies things? I think you have a somewhat more effective argument by discussing the record of the Bible.My eyes glaze over trying to recall Star Wars entertainment stuff.
I think I'll deal with your really tougher points which are based on something written in the Bible. Excuse me. I'll give my attention to your biblical discussion here. Yes.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

cont. from above. I took my kids to the doctor. He took a wooden stick and put it in the little girl's mouth and told her to say "Ahhh."Sometime afterwards I noticed my two children playing. The older one had something inside the younger's mouth. Obviously she was playing doctor. I had to strictly warn her NOT to put anything into her little brother's mouth.What was appropriate for the medical doctor in his healing activity was not appropriate in the case of the children's activities.God judged some societies in His omniscience and wisdom. All similar wars of mankind do not make the two actions the same. And this we could read in the bible itself. God rebukes some nations concerning their methods of warfare and murders.This is like the experienced mature medical doctor compared to the playing child.The message of the Gospel is that ALL have sinned, ALL have fallen short of the glory of God. All are in need of salvation in Christ with its justification before a God whom the Son called His "Righteous Father".Now there are some actions in the Bible which cause us to QUESTION whether or not this "Righteous Father" that Jesus refered to is really good. This is the argument as I see it.Let me take the flood of Noah as an example. Does the drowning of a whole world society except eight people constitute God's evilness?Here are some of the factors which I also have to consider in this:1.) The moral downslide from the fall of Adam must have hit total rock bottom at that time. It says that the imagination of men's hearts were only evil continually. The earth was filled with violence.This seems a danger to the human race as a whole. I think the flood was like the amputation of a gangrened limb of the body as a drastic measure to save the human race from total degradation.2.) From the record of Enoch calling his son "When he dies it will come" - the meaning of the name "Methuselah" (Gen. 5:22-25) indicates a WARNING to the society. At the end of this partriarch's life span, "it" (probably refering to the judgment of God) will come.We know Noah was "a preacher of righteousness" (2 Pet. 2:5). We are pretty certain that Enoch was a prophet. Both preached sufficiently that the people would be warned to repent.3.) The fact of Methuselah living longer than any other recorded human being - 969 years (Gen. 5:27) is significant. If the flood was to come when he dies, as his name suggests, the longevity of Methusaleh's life means God held off the judgement for as LONG as He possibly could.In the mean time the earth is " filled with violence" (Gen. 6:11) and "corrupt ... " the judging was a remedy to end the victimization.At least for 969 years the Spirit of God strove with men's consciences. God made an example for all future generations. He would not strive against man's conscience forever - "And Jehovah said, My Spirit will not strive with man forever ..." (Gen. 6:3) It may allude our sensibilities that things could actually get that corrupt in the world. For this reason we may mistakenly charge God with wrong doing. I believe the word which says "Righteous and true are Your ways, O King of the nations! ... For You alone are holy ... for Your righteous judgments have been manifested." (Rev. 15:4,5) The account of the Nephilim also in connection to the Flood may suggest some very serious occultic activity so badly associating humans with the demonic and Satanic powers that the threat to mankind was too great for God not to act.3.) The typology of the Noah Flood is definitely a pointer to Jesus Christ as the greater antitype reality of Noah's ark. So in this unfortunate judgment God leaves an instructive example of His plan to save people and the environment from eternal judgment in Christ. "For just as the days of Noah were, so will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Matt. 24:36)I think as the people of Noah's day had something come upon them which none of them had evey seen before, so in the last days things come upon the world which mankind has not seen before. And this lesson and warning of the Noah flood reveals God's goodness to furnish us with an example of how we may enter into His "ark" of the Son of God to be saved eternally.For space's sake I will conclude here. Your comments below will have to be addressed in another post.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I don't God has commited an evil act ever. I would rather believe in some instances He did something which is difficult for me to understand.The Jewish kings had a reputation of being merciful among even thier enemies: "And his servants [Ben-hadad king of the Syrians] Look now, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings. We beg you, let us put sackcloth on our loins and ropes upon hour hearss, and go out to the king of ISrael. Perhaps he will preserve your life." 1 Kings 20:31) People closer to the events you complain about held Israel in reputation be being merciful.1.) Infants killed by God's command in the OT are disturbing to me. However, I don't think God held them to be wrong. And I know the eternal Judge can compensate such humans in the scheme of the next world. This is not something any human being could promise to do.2.) It is an important lesson that younger innocents MAY indeed be effected by the sins of the parents. This is something we indeed need to see. It is not just YOU or I who suffer consequences of ourrebellion. Innocents in our family may suffer for our pig headedness.3.) In God's ongoing relationship to Israel these were unrepeated commands for a specific purpose. They clearly were not universalized. I see unrepeated special situations which merited the harshest instructions to Israel in their warfare. Each case has to be examined.4.) Life belongs to God. Any harm due to specific purposes in special contexts can be overshadowed by God in the resurrection. Only He has authority to raise the dead as only He has authority to take created life away.When David's child died because of David's sin with Bethsheba, there is reason to believe that it went into God's presence. For David said that the child would not return to him [David] but that he must go to the child: "But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not come back to me." (2 Samuel 12:23) God can bring back the dead. God has eternity to work out His ultimate justice.And God may have places of which we do not know, where that child is more in the presence of God now.God can give back physcial life and grant eternal life. So I do not judge God in the way you do in those instances. As sharp as your criticism is, I think it greatly loses power because of this very opinion. Apparently, to the murder of the child, the murderer is held accountable for an offense not only against the child but against God Himself.God condemns the Ammonites for child killing to enlarge their borders -

"Thus says Jehovah, Because of ... transgressions of the children of Ammon ... I will not turn away the punishment; Because they ripped up the pregnant women of Gilead in order to enlarge their border." (Amos 1:13) The killing of the babies in the wombs of the Gileadite mothers was seen as a trespass against God Himself and not just the children. The moral accountability of the murderers here is against the God regardless of the sentient self awareness or lack thereof.As a Bible reader it is more likely to me that God could do somethings which outwardly look the same but are not exactly the same on a higher and more eternal standpoint.Otherwise I would have to assume His creatures have within them a keener moral sense than their Creator was able to give. The effect would be greater than the cause.Once again, Jesus Christ had plenty of ground to fault the Old Testament actions of His Father. He did not at all.I don't think any poster here exceeds Jesus of Nazareth in discerning right verses wrong doing. Its a perculiar stance to me. But I could see how this rationale would have to be developed to at one time accuse God of killing children some non-repeatable special non-universal circumstance in the OT and yet turning the head away as millions of unborn children are slain for convenience of their parents. I think you're not consistent. I think you have to admit that drawing a clear cut line as to when this human qualifies to be called human occurs. I think conception is a good place to bestow "humanity" on that person.Anyway on the last judgment we will surely learn if the "fetus" was or was not a human. As for me, I choose to err on the side of caution. The united sperm and egg in conception is a human being.I'd rather err on that side. That's your style. God saw YOU when you were being wrought in the depths of the earth according to the Psalmist - "Even the darkness is not dark to You ... For it was You who formed my inward parts; You wove me together in my mother's womb ... My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in secret, Skillfully fashioned in the depths of trhe earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; and in You book all of them were written ..." (See Psalm 139:12-16) Jesus said even the hairs on our head were numbered (Matthew 10:30) . So if you pluck out a single hair from your head God would know precisely what numbered hair it was.I am only pointing out that your appreciation of human life may be far short of God's. From the standpoint of the creature your view may be far short of His transcendent view.I am not suggesting that God will hold me responsible for harming someone because I kicked a clod of dirt around. I am saying that you and I are limited in our knowledge whereas God is not.I am saying that I prefer that if I err, it would be on the side of caution.The Ammonites who ripped open the pregnant women were accountable not just to the mother and child. They were accountable for a trespass against God. We may easily excuse ourselves when we one day realize we sinned. This not only applies to wrongs done TO others but also those done TO us as well.Someone may have excused themself for some trespass against you saying "He was not concious. He was not aware. There was no harm." God may say, "But I saw it. And it offended My government, my righteous law." I have to consider not only the human's self awareness but God's awareness. We may justify ourselves before men. But the last judgment is carried out by the Creator.And we could be badly self deceived - "The heart is deceitful above all things, And it is incurabe; Who can know it? I, Jehovah, search the heart and test the inward parts, Even to give to each one according to his ways, According to the fruit of his deeds." (Jeremiah 17:9) Some of His actions are difficult for me to understand. But I have no confidence to call God a "monster" as you have in this post. I would prefer to give thanks for the millions of benefits that I enjoy from His care which I might not stop to consider. Unthankfulness accompanies false accusation towards God.I think it is monsterous to have nothing for which one could thank God for on any given day of life. God has afforded you many days of happiness in spite of the troubles common to the world.You have been provided with many things for which you could conceivably stop for a moment and just say "God, I just want to pause for a moment and thank you for this or that."So I think unthankfulness degenerates further into accusations that our heavenly Father is evil. I question how far "her body" can be taken. After all, the child more often has a different blood type than from the mother.If the child's blood type is different from the mother how can one press too far that the child is only the mother's own body?The DNA is different from the mothers. And as the child matures its existence more and more decides for the mother's body.That is why the desire for its birth becomes more pronounced. That is that the separation of the independent individual would commence. That is what may be said today. The instruments of a coming year may make today's instruments seem crude. This is the usual progression of science.We don't know what Phd. will come fresh out of grad school with the next ground breaking discovery that the brain is more active then previously thought.I am pretty sure that the child's brain is responsible for the heart beat of the child. It is aware to that extent. My discussion here is not really on the abortion issue per se. It is more that God's knowledge is extensive, all-incompassing, and higher than man's.Some actions of God in the Old Testament, therefore, we may not adaquately understand.I think some day God may say to us "In many things you were wrong but I was right. But on some matters I was right. But you were right also. "I do not believe in any matter God was wrong. That makes no sense to me - a faulty God whose creatures exceed Him in ethics. I probably will know and understand better when I have been fully conformed to the image of Christ in every way.About the Star Wars analogy. That is an oft repeated tendency I see with Internet skeptics. Often they are so over entertained with movies, games, entertainment that they are an unsober appreciation for Bible's record. I don't think mankind would invent a character like Jesus Christ even if they were able to do so. Any reason you would submit for anyone concocting a fictional person like Jesus and putting words in His mouth could be shown to be unrealistic. And who Jesus was is totally based on the existence of His Father.The Bible is not a "Once Upon a Time in a Far Off Galaxy" kind of story. Thousands of locations are mentioned and many people whom history knows as having lived. Consider the detective journalism displayed by the writer Luke -

"Now in the the fifteenth year of the government of Tiberius Ceasar, while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrach of Abilene, During the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphass, the word of God came to John the son of Zachariah in the wilderness." (Luke 3:1-2) That is a long way from your "Once upon a time in a far off galaxy" intertainment for kids. Christ is history hard to ignore. And He refered to His Father, the God of the Bible as "Righteous Father".There is no problem with His worthiness. I think we're limited in understanding some of His righteous acts. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If you think the New Testament is roughly the same as a Harry Potter Novel or the Wizard of Oz I count you as not sober minded.And you don't spend one 100th of the time disputing anything in either of those two children stories as effort you amass to stave off the teaching of the Bible.