Tom Warren Photography Tom w Photos

Obstacles to embracing Judeo-Christian religion

-for me. Read any section by clicking on it. Have an explanation why its not an issue? Leave a comment at the bottom referencing the section title. Thanks!

Top 3 Obstacles:

1. If God is unchanging and same God as described in Old Testament, he appears to be very angry, vengeful, legalistic and spiteful, the opposite of Jesus. I can't love or serve that kind of God. The Old Testament reflects 4000 years of God interacting with man. This gives a much more accurate picture of God than the 3 years of Jesus' ministry in the New Testament.

2. The Bible revolves around the idea of punishing an innocent for the acts of sinful men. From all humanity punished for Adam's sin, to generations of people punished for the sins of an ancestor to Jesus. If God is just, why is this acceptable?

3. The biblical God acts like a dictator. He uses his people to commit genocides and says he wants his people to view his acts and fear him and obey. He wants this more than he wants their love. He expects them to praise him constantly for qualities that he lacks, just like a dictator. i.e. his people sing how loving, patient and merciful he is while he kills his own people because they are related to someone who annoyed him.

FAITH

Christian: Regarding faith, how you would classify yourself based on the groups given:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief.
Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.
Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Me: correct me if i am wrong, but aren't all of those, with the exception of Involuntary, instances where a person willfully chooses to ignore truth? Do people really ignore truth or disagree that it is the truth?

Note: I have a problem with the wording of them anyway.
i.e. Saying that someone "refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief" presumes that they are one and the same. Doesn't the Church propose things for belief based on a presupposition that God revealed it? What if someone refuses to hold as true what the church proposes for belief BECAUSE they don't believe it was revealed by God and is instead guided by men's interpretation?

Christian: This comes down to whether or not you believe the Catholic Church was founded by God (Jesus)... We make mistakes and we misinterpret but, "in the long run" we get it right.

Me: so if i understand you, some of what the church proposes for belief has often been wrong through history and was eventually corrected.

So, prior to the correction, following the church was not the same as following God/the truth. Can you see why I object to holding as true what the Church proposes for belief as if it's the same as what God has revealed?

BIBLE

Christian: God brought all the animals to Adam and he named them.

Response: There are countless species of creatures on earth. We know of over 1 million insect species alone. Scientists expect there are 100 million we don't know about. That's just insects. If Adam named 60 creatures an hour for 16 hrs a day for over 280 years, they would still not have named them all.

Christian: Adam messed up God's perfect plan by eating the apple.

Response: No, that was the plan. God actually intended for man to eat the fruit (and then have a forever guilt). All of creation as it works relies on men dying. If people didn't die, what would happen in 10,000 years? We would have 10^100 people if no one died. That's 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. To put it into perspective, this number is significantly larger than the estimated number of atoms in the observable universe, which is estimated to be around 10^80. It's impossible for the earth to contain or for life to continue. Let alone for man to stay in the Garden of Eden.

Christian statement: Suffering is a consequence of our sin and God's judgment. Before Adam's sin, there was no suffering.

Analysis: Childbirth was already associated with pain before Eve sinned. "I will greatly MULTIPLY your pain in childbearing." = make it worse, its already painful.

Christian statement: Original sin brought evil into the world.

Analysis: The serpent represented evil and existed already and tempted Eve. Nothing changed after. Temptations continued. If original sin causes us to be tempted to choose evil, why did Eve choose it before original sin if she didn't have that proclivity? Augustine said that Eve had the ability to choose good or evil but original sin removes that option and makes us choose evil more(concupiscence). Aquinas disagreed, saying that we are inclined equally to both good and evil. Either way, before original sin, Eve couldn't know her choice was evil as she lacked the knowledge of what was good vs evil. Only after did she understand. If a child who doesn't understand good vs evil chooses evil, are they culpable?

Christian statement: The snake lied to Eve to tempt her.

Analysis: According to God's statement, God lied and the snake spoke the truth. God had said that if they ate the fruit they would die that very day. They didn't and Adam lived 930 years. The snake said the truth. That they wouldn't die but instead know good vs evil and become like God. God confirms this: “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Wait, so God planted a tree of immortality that he didn't warn them about? Why is that never discussed? Apparently, the snake spoke truth. God suggests that if Adam knew good vs evil and could live forever he would be like God and God couldn't handle that. Thus the expulsion.

Christian statement: God allowed original sin to happen so that man could be later saved by God through his son.

Analysis: If a mother exposes her child to infection and disease so that it becomes gravely ill - and then nurses the child back to health - all so that the child can realize how much it needs her, is that Loving or GOOD? I just read a book about a mother who would mix mild poisons into her children's foods so that they would get very sick. Then she would be able to swoop in and be a doting mom and they were grateful for all her care for them. She did this all their lives till she was finally caught. Is this the example of a loving God?

Bible: Innocents should be punished for guilty:

It is just that all mankind should be punished for the sin of one man (Adam) who didn't know right from wrong.
God told us to sacrifice innocent creatures every day for all time to appease him for our sins.
God founded his religion on the man who agreed to kill his innocent son - Abraham.
Christianity was started when God offered his innocent son - to himself.

Also the Bible: The son shall not suffer for the sins of the father. -Ezekiel 18

Jesus' false statement: “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Matthew 16:28

Glorification of murder of innocents
- Psalm 137 -”Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”

Christians/Jews say this sentiment is valid based on the horrific treatment of Jews in Babylon. But, after reading about the Babylonian captivity, I learned that the Babylonians relocated the Jews to boost their economy and allowed them to live freely there as merchants. While many Judeans returned to Jerusalem when the Babylonians allowed it after 539 BC, many others stayed and built up a vibrant Jewish community that lasted two millennia. The descendants of those Jews only returned to Israel in the 1950s." This was proof that their life in Babylon was preferable to Jerusalem to many Jews.

Even black slaves in America would not talk about killing innocent babies as revenge. Its one thing to want revenge against those that oppress us. its another thing to kill innocents just because they are related. yet that seems to be a validated theme in the old testament. its guilt by association. the sins of the father…

- 1 samuel 15:3 (put to death men and women, children and infants)

Christian apologist: The Jews offered peace but the Amalekites were out to get them, so they all deserved to be killed. Also, the command to kill them may not have been literal, just symbolic of removing evil from your life.

My response: Are you serious?! That last part trying to rationalize genocide by suggesting it may have been symbolic is like saying that the Germans never killed the Jews, they just wanted a unified Germany without dissent. Seriously?

Jews were supposed to offer peace terms before going to war. Those peace terms were that those surrendering had to follow their religious rules AND become their slaves (something left out of the commenter's reply). Because God didn't want the idolators around as a bad influence, he wanted to kill them all. So, when the peace terms were given, God "stiffened their hearts" so that they did not submit to the Jews. These people didn't have a chance.

God wanted them dead - all of them. Why? He was jealous of their gods and was convinced that his people would follow the other gods if exposed to them.

Exodus 34 "Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. 14 Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."

It sounds so much like an insecure girl who tries to destroy all the pretty girls so that her boyfriend doesn't leave her for them. Why is God so convinced that his people will find the other Gods more attractive than him? so much so that he insists that his people destroy every living creature associated with these gods. If God is the only god, why is he so scared of unreal gods?

I found writing by Maimonides (the respected Jewish philosopher from 1100AD) saying that those under attack had two choices: become slaves to the Jews for life and change religions - or die. This was their idea of peace.
Apologists claim that the Jewish soldiers "always leave a clear path for inhabitants to flee". Clearly not in the cases where God commanded that ALL the enemies be destroyed.
Same thing happens here in Joshua 11:6-23 "They destroyed them without mercy, to put them to death, as the Lord had commanded Moses.

Here's the problem I see with Dei Verbum and the Catechism talking about the bible. they make statements without proof and then use them as the basis for future declarations of fact. It's classic circular logic.

Related example below.

The bible was written under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and revealed by God; therefore all parts of the bible are from God and sacred. Therefore the bible is without error regarding faith and salvation. Therefore all Scripture is divinely inspired.

Let me break it down as it reads in the catechism (one sequential paragraph). First i will summarize their factual statement (in parenthesis is the actual statement):

statement of fact A: the bible was written under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and revealed by God. ("Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

statement of fact B: Because statement A is true, therefore all parts of the bible are from God and sacred. ("For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical(approved) because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.

statement of fact C: Because statement B is true (b/c of A), therefore the bible is without error regarding faith and salvation. ("Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.

statement of fact D: Because statement C is true (b/c of A and B), therefore all Scripture is divinely inspired - and is a foundation for just living. ("Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Notice how fact D is concluded only after presuming its truth in fact A? Circular reasoning...when you don't have proof of something, just act like you do.

1. the authors of the new testament meant well so we should trust their words

2. the authors believed jesus was still alive and asked him for help writing their gospels

3. it may be circular logic, but that's ok - you need to have faith to believe the divine inspiration of the writing - without any proof

My response - Re: point 1

Maybe the authors of the New Testament meant well. That does not make them reliable for factual statements. They were writing stories that had passed through almost 100 years of the game of telephone - people sharing stories in their own words with people who did the same. The odds of quotations being accurate is unlikely, let alone the main message being conveyed without personal influence added.

Here is an example of good intentioned people sharing their first hand experience of something that happened just a minute earlier - and describing it very inaccurately. How much worse after 100 years?

https://youtu.be/GrAME1p2Ijs?t=42

You mentioned a book written about the pope by someone who knew him. Does that make the writer objective? No. Either he was biased against or for the pope. If biased for, he would only write flattering things and leave out the rest, resulting in an inaccurate description. Imagine the scandal if he wrote anything negative about the pope? so he couldn't.

Case in point: we were all taught about Christopher Columbus, the noble catholic explorer who brought civilization and religion to the New World. Because he has been tied to our identity as a nation, history books have praised him but omitted essential information. If you haven't learned about it later in life, here's a taste of the type of person he was.

The point is, biased people can not be relied on for objective truthful statements on a topic they believe in / have an opinion about.

Re: point 2 - the authors believed jesus was still alive and asked him for help writing their gospels

Do we have any evidence that Jesus communicated with the writers to confirm that what they wrote was what he wanted? No. we can speculate that the writers asked God for guidance while writing but that doesn't mean that their human bias didn't influence their writing. Just like the Pope author is unlikely to include stories that are unflattering, so too the bible authors wrote only positive things. Unfortunately, as seen with Columbus, the result is a very inaccurate picture of the person described.

So, I tracked the estimated path of the exodus from Egypt using historical maps and locations mentioned in Exodus (see map). Actual distance from start (Egypt) to finish (Jerusalem) is 180 miles. Walking that distance would take about 1 week at normal speed (if they walked 10 hours per day). It would take 2 weeks if they were really slow.
But we know that they got lost a lot. So, the total distance is 825 miles based on locations mentioned in bible.
This illustrated reference map shows their path ending at the dead sea. (some say they stopped at Canaan = promised land). This would add 50 miles to the trip.

Click on images to view larger

Its been said that they set up camp for weeks or months at a time. fine.
In a crowd of people, the average walking speed is 1 mph (vs 3.5mph for a solo person). If they walked for 10 hrs a day on the days they traveled, they walked 10 miles per day.
At that rate, they traveled 825 miles by walking for a total of 82 days.

Since 40 years is 14,600 days, they walked for less than 3 months total during 40 years.
put another way, they walked for 20 miles (2 days) once every year. then stopped and camped all year.

More likely is that they would walk for at least a week before setting up a permanent camp. During that week, they would have traveled at least 70 miles.
we'll call that a "weeklong trek".

they would need to travel on a "weeklong trek" 12 times in 40 years to reach their destination following the path taken. That's once every 3.5 years!

Does any of that sound plausible to you? More likely is that the number 40 was purely figurative as it turns out that the numerous uses of 40 in the bible only meant “a long time of testing or judgment”.
So, a 2 week journey could have been a few months. But there is reference to the existing adults dying before they arrived to the promised land. Thus, it is suggested that the journey lasted at least 10-20 years since Moses died at 120 years old and it would take at least that long for the adults to die off.

CONTRADICTIONS

God only said he loved a few men. What kind of men were they?

Abraham and his son Isaac were leaders of Judaism but were cowards who both offered their wives to other men to sleep with to avoid conflict. God chose them as the leaders of his religion.

Samson was a precursor of Jesus, a child sent by God to save his people from the oppressors, born to a barren woman, with an angel telling the woman he would be born to save the Jews. But Samson was spoiled by his parents and became a bully and mass murderer, killing random people because he was tricked by others. We are told that his violence was intended by God. “Then the Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon him. He went down to Ashkelon, struck down thirty of their men, stripped them of everything and gave their clothes to those who had explained the riddle. Burning with anger, he returned to his father’s home. And Samson’s wife was given to one of his companions who had attended him at the feast.” So, it was God’s plan for him to marry a Philistine woman (did she have any say in this?) who received death threats from her people regarding Samson’s private riddle, gave in to save the life of her family, and was immediately rejected by her new husband, who killed 30 men to take their clothes.

David broke the covet commandment and had a woman's husband killed so he could be with her. he was also a mass murderer but because god ordered it, it was fine.

re David, God said: I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. 2 Samuel 7:14

Instead, God punished others when David sinned, killing 1000s in his place.

God also said about David: my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 2 Samuel 7:15

God loved Saul but then unloved him just because he didn't kill some cattle immediately but instead sacrificed them to God? So a lifetime of service is worthless if you disobey even the slightest.

Loving/Merciful

John 13:34 : Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

Joshua 1:9 Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.

Psalm 23:4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me;

Matt 7:7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

Prov 30:5 Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

1 John 4:7 let us love one another, for love comes from God.

1 John 4:8 God is love.

I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. Phillipians 4:13

"Now, O Lord GOD, You are God, and Your words are truth, 2 Samuel 7:28

Nahum 1:7 The LORD is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in him

Unmerciful

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Lev 24:16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him.

I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, <<<< so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

Joshua 10:39-40 And Joshua took all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining.

O LORD, You have deceived me and I was deceived Jeremiah 20:7

Deuteronomy 28:53 Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the LORD your God has given you

When I sharpen my flashing sword and my hand grasps it in judgment, I will take vengeance on my adversaries and repay those who hate me.42 I will make my arrows drunk with blood, while my sword devours flesh: the blood of the slain and the captives, the heads of the enemy leaders. Deut 32:41-42

Yahweh sends fire from heaven to burn 102 men to death? 2 Kings 1:10-12

God's command to kill non-believing family members

God helps David kill a Philistine whose head he then cuts off and walks around with. 1 Sam 17:57

The bit where god’s holy angel kills 185,000 people in one night? Isaiah 37:36

Children being killed by bears sent by Yahweh?

God giving out rewards for stabbing a foreign woman through the guts with a javelin? Numbers 25:6-9

Its unjust to punish son for father's offenses

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Ezek.18

Its JUST to punish son for father's offenses

[God] does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth [generation]. Exodus 34:7b

“Its UNJUST but it’s reality” - a righteous man

Job complains that its unjust that the children are punished and not the wicked.

“You say, ‘God stores away a man’s iniquity for his sons.’
Let God repay him so that he may know it. “For what does he care for his household after him,
When the number of his months is cut off? “One dies in his full strength, Being wholly at ease and satisfied; While another dies with a bitter soul, Never even tasting anything good. Job 21:19

Typical Christian argument: God doesn't punish the children. God does hold children who don’t learn from their parents’ mistakes accountable. It is the responsibility of every generation to not repeat the mistakes of those that came before them.
Also, according to a Hebrew idiom, third and fourth means ‘for whatever number it takes.” So, God punishes those who don't learn from their ancestors.

Aquinas' argument: The sins of the fathers are said to be punished in their children, because the latter are the more prone to sin through being brought up amid their parents' crimes, both by becoming accustomed to them, and by imitating their parents' example, conforming to their authority as it were. Moreover they deserve heavier punishment if, seeing the punishment of their parents, they fail to mend their ways.

My response: To the Christian - you are blatantly ignoring a clear statement and saying it doesn't mean what it says. There is a specific reason for the mention of 3-4 generations. The Hebrew idiom mentioned didn’t yet exist when Ex. 34:7, Num. 14:18 and Deut. 5:9 were first written so that's irrelevant.

Aquinas says that sin leads to punishment in this life and a child who witnesses his sinful father being punished, is even more sinful than the father if he repeats his sins. He suggests that a sinful father is punished by watching his son, grandson and great grandson follow him in sin. This is a bit of a stretch. Mafia families took pride in a son following in his father's footsteps. There was no suffering for the father.
Aquinas says that the 3-4 generations specifies the amount of time needed for a father to live and die while witnessing what his sins had caused in his family. He seems to acknowledge that future generations are punished in order to punish the father. This punishment of future generations stops when the man does, making clear it is referring to a punishment for the man and not a cycle of sons imitating fathers. Like a man being made to watch while his child and grandchildren are killed in front of him.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church talks about generational sin passed down in families, a curse of a predisposition to certain vices based on the actions of former generations. This predisposition, like original sin, is imposed on an innocent child.

Does God stay angry forever? No: You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. Micah 7:18 Yes: ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever. jer 17:4

Does God tempt us? No: Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. james 1:13 Yes: Some time later God tested Abraham. gen 22:1

Can man be justified by works? No: a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. gal 2:16, rom 3:28 Yes: A person is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:24, Matt 19:17, Luke 10:26

What happens to someone who sees God? Killed: you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live. ex 33:20, john 1:18, 1 timothy 6:16 Not killed: Gen 32:30, gen 12:7, exodus 24:9, 33:11

Is God the author of evil? Yes: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Isaiah 45:7 No: Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. John 4:8

Did Paul's companions hear Jesus during his vision? No: And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. Acts 22:9 Yes: for they heard a heavenly voice but could see no one. Acts 9:7

Will the earth last forever? Yes: the earth abideth for ever. Ecclesiastes 1:4 No: the eearth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 peter 3:10

Is Jesus the only man to ascend to heaven? Yes: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. john 3:13 No: and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. 2 Kings 2:11

Does God tire? Yes: he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken Genesis 2:2 No: He will not grow tired or weary. Isaiah 40:28

Is being rich a blessing? Yes: Blessed are those who fear the LORD, who find great delight in his commands. 2 Their children will be mighty in the land; the generation of the upright will be blessed. 3 Wealth and riches are in their houses Psalms 112:1 No: But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Luke 6:24

Will those who worship God suffer? NO: psalms 91:5-10, proverbs 12:21 YES: MATTHEW 5:11,12, john 15:20, 1 PETER 4:12,13

Does God delight in burnt offerings? No: For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. Jeremiah 7:22 Yes: Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle. Exodus 20:24

God commanded that no work should be done on the Sabbath, yet he told the Israelites to carry the ark around Jericho seven times on the Sabbath.

No graven image was to be made, yet Moses was directed to fashion a bronze serpent.

Christians say that New Testament can contradict the Old because Jesus came to make a new law, but... Jesus: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." "You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take away anything from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God with which I am charging you. Deuteronomy 4:2

God made an “everlasting covenant” with Abraham, but then he tore that one up and made another one with Moses.

1 samuel 15:29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind. --> ”...And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.

https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/first/contra2_list.html

Christian response: http://www.christcreated.com/con/bible/contradictions/

Loving God

re: Leviticus horrific threats made by god if rules aren't followed
So i agree that this passage is a statement of what will happen to those who don't listen to God. But no offense, it still reads like an insecure girlfriend. "If you don't do everything i tell you to do, I will key your car. if you still ignore me, I will burn your clothes, if you still dont listen, I will kill your family, etc. But if you beg me for forgiveness I will remember that I chose you as my boyfriend and forgive you."
doesn't that sound like a psycho that we would run from? but in our God its amazing?

Missionary: it seems like you are still looking at it that "God is going to do this to someone" when I see it as "God is just trying to tell someone what he will do to himself", or in a broader sense what members of a society will do to one another.

Me: With respect, I get that what you wrote is one way of interpreting in a less harsh way. but...God is using action sentences involving him acting, not being passive. He says "I/me" 42 times in that section alone! He uses the words "I will do this to you". He lists over 30 horrible punishments that HE WILL DO. it can't be clearer - " then I will do this to you: I will..." " I myself will be hostile toward you and will afflict you..."

if i tell my girlfriend, "if you dont come back and stay with me, I will kill you and all your family", and then repeat various other threats- she can press charges. I can say to the cops, "what i meant was that i want whats best for her and if she doesn't stay with me, she won't have her best life". They will laugh as they haul me to jail. my threat was direct and clear: if you do this, I will do that.
If I threaten someone, because they want to be with someone else, that's considered psychotic in humanity but is "wishing us the best" with God?

Detailed threats/curses

Both in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the message is: follow every one of hundreds of laws I give you or i will do horrific things to you and your children. Leviticus quotes God's actual words ("I will walk in fury against you, and I, even I, will punish you sevenfold for your sins.") while Deut. is spoken by Moses relaying God's words (the Lord will do this to you).

See Leviticus 26:14-39 summarized here: If Jews don't follow every rule God gave, God will terrify his people, blind them and starve them. God will send plagues against them and wild animals to eat their children and animals. Then God will send armies to kill them and cut off their food supply so that they are forced to eat their children for food. If anyone survives, God will fill them with terror so that they are scared of innocent things.

In Deuteronomy 5, God gives the 10 commandments followed by 613 additional laws in the next 22 chapters. Here are examples of commands that must be strictly followed:

a child born out of wedlock is forever unclean and cannot join the congregation - and its children also for 10 generations! Deuteronomy 23:2
same for a man who has a injury to his genitals
“Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled”
When Fighting Another Man, you must chop off his wife's hand if she grabs your genitals to restrain you
Don't Sit Where A Menstruating Woman Has Sat and everything she touches is unclean for weeks.
an alleged adulteress has to drink a mix of holy water and tabernacle floor dust, "then the priest...shall say to her... May this water bring a curse to your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries"
if a man accuses his new wife of not being a virgin, her parents have to prove her virginity (how?) or the men of her city must stone her to death

So, those are some of the many laws that must be strictly followed.

Note: God demonstrates and Leviticus teaches that God will punish a righteous man who unintentionally (accidental, ignorant) breaks a rule. This is legalism, not love.

for fear of God's curses listed in Deuteronomy 28:15-68 and summarized below:

cursed food
cursed human and animal babies (sick or mutated?)
confusion and failure in your endeavors until you are destroyed
plagues until you die
fever and inflammation
scorching heat and drought
blight and mildew
the earth will become hard and nothing will grow
enemies will overthrow you
every nation will look at you in horror
you will die and be eaten by birds and wild animals
you will have boils, tumors and incurable itches
you will go mad, blind and have dementia
you will be oppressed and plundered
your fiance will be raped
your house, donkey, flocks and vineyard will be taken from you
your children will be stolen
you will be crushed and oppressed till you die
you will be driven mad with horrors you see
you will have painful incurable boils all over
You will become an object of horror, scorn, and ridicule among all the nations to which the LORD will drive you.
swarms of locusts will eat your harvests, worms will eat your grapes
foreigners will besiege and invade your lands, then steal and eat all of your food till you die
during the siege, you will be starving and you will eat your children and grandchildren
no one will share the children they are eating with their families
women will eat their afterbirth while hiding it from family
you will become poor and a foreigner rich and distinguished
He will bring upon you and your descendants extraordinary disasters, severe and lasting plagues, and terrible and chronic sicknesses
He will afflict you again with all the diseases you dreaded in Egypt, and they will cling to you
He will bring upon you every sickness and plague not recorded in this Book of the Law, until you are destroyed
He will place an iron yoke on your neck until He has destroyed you.
the LORD will scatter you among all the nations where you will find no repose, not even a resting place for the sole of your foot
There the LORD will give you a trembling heart, failing eyes, and a despairing soul.
you will be afraid night and day, never certain of survival because of the dread in your hearts of the terrifying sights you will see
The LORD will return you to Egypt in ships by a route that I said you should never see again. There you will sell yourselves to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you.”

These curses will be a sign and a wonder upon you and your descendants forever. "It will please Him to annihilate you and destroy you."

Can you see how this can be considered over the top response to someone not following one of 613 commands you give them?

Dominant traits of God

same God in OT/NT?

Misc. religion

Christian- "what are the chances that Americans will convert to Islam? Can't say, but I believe many people make determinations on Christianity and Islam based on how their followers live, breathe and have their being."

Me- You replied that people convert based on the actions of those in the religion. if someone watches the typical Catholic or Baptist in everyday life, odds are that they will not see anything they want to imitate. Instead they will see a very sinful proud person with little evidence of any real relationship with God - besides talk by the Baptist.

let me make the question more direct. you have been raised Catholic, I believe. What is the likelihood that you will convert to the Sikh religion which is a very noble and selfless religion? You said "But if they see someone genuinely living out their faith and seeking the truth and living in peace and harmony with others, I would imagine it would be attractive." Or even converting to Judaism which you know a bit more about?

The odds are still very low primarily because you are used to what you are used to and happy with it. This is the human condition. Many people have spent their life believing something and the idea of turning away from the security of salvation promised there is scary. I don't see justice in you being damned to hell because you followed the religion you believed in, but Judaism was the only true religion after all.

As you have seen, people are more likely to convert if the new religion offers them something they don't have but they want. I saw a video recently about a teenage modern Jewish girl whose parents divorced when she was young. As a teen she went to visit Israel to learn more about traditional orthodoxy. She fell in love with it despite the strict rules she would have to follow. Her main reason: their families stick together and don't divorce and they grow big families. This was key to her. Its similar to what you said about witnessing the life of those in another faith. In her case, it wasn't the spiritual example as much as the social one.

Christian- "But they were informed of its existence so they are held liable for failing to convert? I leave these kinds of questions for God to decide...as Paul did in Acts 18:6 where he shook his garment and stated, "Your blood be upon your heads!"

Me- your answer seems open, but God's past history of decisions and Paul's statement make their thoughts very clear. They believe that those who don't convert should die. Based on my points about you not converting to another religion above, that seems unjust.

Let me clarify my position on the one god vs many. I am monotheistic. I have been given more information to come to that conclusion than "pagans" in the old testament. They knew only what their parents and culture taught them and as long as they attempted to connect with the gods, they were doing what they should, even if they didn’t know they were false gods.

This made me think about the discovery of The New World (lets just say its what we know as N. America) in the 1400s (i'm being loose with the details as its not relevant). Discoverers had heard about a distant place that was filled with amazing things (God). They sought out this place. When they landed on an island, they claimed they had found it (God). They were wrong. They were at a different place (false god). Other explorers landed in South America and claimed they had found the New World. Wrong again (false god).

Finally, Columbus landed in America after mistakenly thinking the Bahamas were the West Indies. Like blindfolded men reaching out, whenever they encountered something, they presumed it was what they sought. But there was only one place that was N. America (one god). The other places were not interchangeable. They should be commended for seeking N. America even if they mistakenly thought other places were it (false gods).

Or consider the example of a girl writing letters to a man she believes is her father (God). If she wanted to contact and know him - but was given the wrong mailing address (false information about him from others) - she still was trying to contact Him. God would know this, in spite of a failed attempt to connect with him (she appeared to be contacting a false god).

Or if a native man lives in a tribe in the woods and thinks he hears a voice crying outside, he goes out to investigate. He calls out, who is there? He has some ideas based on stories he heard from his father and grandfather about the ghost of a young man who wanders the woods at night. He thinks he was called Zeus, so he calls out, "Zeus, are you there?"

this man's "tribe" have passed down stories of a being that they sense is there but cannot see. He calls out to the entity that he thinks is there. IF THE ONLY ENTITY THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS IN THE WOODS IS A SPIRIT NAMED Jesus, the man WOULD STILL WANT TO MAKE CONTACT. The name is irrelevant. But he has not been told about jesus. All he has are stories about Zeus. Should he be punished for not knowing Jesus? When the man hears the call, he responds with the little knowledge he has. That is the most one can expect. I can see faulting someone for hearing the call - and not responding. but he responded as best he could.

1920 AD

(100 years ago)

1.9 billion people in world = 800 million Christians + 1.1 billion in other religions

800 million christians = 300 million Catholics + 500 million Protestants

Likely went to Heaven (must be super devout & Catholic) = 10% of catholics (30 million people)

Likely went to Hell = 90% of catholics + all others (1.87 billion people = 98.4% of world population)

1800 AD

(200 years ago) - (growth of American settlers- mostly Protestant)

.9 billion people in world = 225 million Christians + 675 million in other religions

225 million christians = 125 million Catholics + 100 million Protestants

Likely went to Heaven (must be super devout & Catholic) = 10% of catholics (12 million people)

Likely went to Hell = 90% of catholics + all others (880 million people = 97.8% of world population)

1500 AD

(700 years ago) - before Reformation, exploration of New World

461 million people in world = 65 million Christians + 396 million in other religions

65 million christians = 65 million Catholics

Likely went to Heaven (must be super devout & Christian) = 10% of Christians (6 million people)

Likely went to Hell = 90% of catholics + all others (455 million people = 98.7% of world population)

1000 AD

(1000 years ago)

295 million people in world = 34 million Christians + 261 million in other religions

34 million christians = 34 million “Catholics”

Likely went to Heaven (must be super devout & Catholic) = 30% of catholics (10 million people)

Likely went to Hell = 70% of catholics + all others (285 million people = 96.5% of world population)

___________________________________________________

It is estimated that 117 billion people have lived and died in man’s existence. Of them, approximately 98% missed the mark and did not qualify for heaven: not a pious saintly member of the Chosen People in Old Testament or Christianity after. So, God has plausibly created and sent to suffer in Hell 116,700,000,000 people while welcoming into heaven just .2% of his creation ( 234 million people).

"1 samuel 15:3 Put to death men and women, children and infants.

My response to a explanation of this passage being ok:
Summary of explanation part 1: The Jews offered peace but the Amalekites were out to get them, so they all deserved to be killed. Also, the command to kill them may not have been literal, just symbolic of removing evil from your life.
Holy freakin crap! That last part trying to rationalize genocide by suggesting it may have been symbolic is like saying that the Germans never killed the Jews, they just wanted a unified Germany without dissent. Seriously?

Jews were supposed to offer peace terms before going to war. Those peace terms were that those surrendering had to follow their religious rules AND become their slaves (something left out of the commenter's reply). Because God didn't want the idolators around as a bad influence, he wanted to kill them all. So, when the peace terms were given, God ""stiffened their hearts"" so that they did not submit to the Jews. These people didn't have a chance.

God wanted them dead - all of them. Why? He was jealous of their gods and was convinced that his people would follow the other gods if exposed to them.
Exodus 34 ""Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. 14 Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.""

It sounds so much like an insecure girl who tries to destroy all the pretty girls so that her boyfriend doesn't leave her for them. Why is God so convinced that his people will find the other Gods more attractive than him? so much so that he insists that his people destroy every living creature associated with these gods. If God is the only god, why is he so scared of unreal gods?

I found a book on this topic that references Maimonides (the respected Jewish philosopher from 1100AD) and his torah commentary. Skim it below if you are interested. I've summed up what i understood from it.

Your source says that the Jewish soldiers ""always leave a clear path for inhabitants to flee"". Clearly not in the cases where God commanded that ALL the enemies be destroyed.

Same thing happens here in Joshua 11: ""6 The Lord said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid of them, for about this time tomorrow I will make them dead before Israel. Hamstring their horses and burn their chariots with fire. 7 So Joshua and all his fighting forces came upon them by surprise at the waters of Merom and fell upon them. 8 The Lord gave them into the hand of Israel. They struck them down and pursued them all the way to Greater Sidon, Misrephoth Maim, and Mizpah Valley to the east. They struck them down until no survivor remained. 9 Joshua did to them as the Lord had said. He hamstrung their horses and burned their chariots with fire.
10 At that time Joshua turned, captured Hazor, and struck down its king with the sword. Hazor was formerly the head of all these kingdoms. 11 They struck all who lived in them with the edge of the sword, destroying them. No one who breathed was left, and he burned Hazor with fire.
12 Joshua captured all these kings and their towns. He struck with the edge of the sword, destroying them, as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded. 13 However, Israel did not burn any of the cities that stood on mounds except Hazor. Joshua burned it. 14 The children of Israel plundered all the goods and the livestock of these cities, but they struck all the people with the edge of the sword until they destroyed them. They did not spare anyone who breathed. 15 As the Lord commanded Moses His servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua did it. He did not ignore a word of all that the Lord commanded Moses.
16 So Joshua took all that land: the hill country, the Negev, all the land of Goshen, the lowland, the Arabah, the hill country of Israel and its lowland. 17 From Mount Halak to Seir, and as far as Baal Gad in the Lebanon Valley under Mount Hermon: All their kings he captured, struck down, and killed. 18 Joshua engaged all those kings in battle for a long time. 19 There was no city that made peace with the children of Israel except the Hivites living in Gibeon. They conquered all of them 20 because the Lord hardened their hearts to engage Israel in battle. They destroyed them without mercy, to put them to death, as the Lord had commanded Moses.
21 At that time Joshua came and wiped out the Anakites from the hill country: from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua utterly destroyed them and their cities. 22 No Anakites were left in the land of the children of Israel, but they did remain in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. 23 So Joshua took the whole land according to all that the Lord had said to Moses. Joshua gave it to Israel as an inheritance according to their allotted portions by their tribes. Then the land rested from war."

https://historica.fandom.com/wiki/Christianity_in_the_Roman_Empire

Once Christians took political and military power, they persecuted non Christians. They used OT as validation:

Deut. 13:6 If your very own brother...secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (...gods of the peoples around you...), ...You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God...

By the 4th century, Christians in charge of the empire began a hateful intolerance of the Jews.

Paul- "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

John (8:42) says that Jesus called the Jewish leaders the offspring of Satan, murderers, and liars

St Barnabas - Jews never had a covenant with God and only Christians did.

under Constantine, any Jew who attacked one of their own for converting to Christianity was to be burned to death. Constantius decreed that any Christian who converted to Judaism was to have his property entirely confiscated, and Theodosius I declared that any Christian who married a Jew would be guilty of the crime of adultery. In the early 5th century, Jews were deprived of their right to serve in the imperial service, and it would later become illegal for the Jews to build or even repair a synagogue.

Monks attacked peasants destroying anything that might be pagan; they saw themselves as inflicting God's anger on His enemies. The Egyptian monk Shenoute, after ransacking a prominent Pagan's house in search of idols, was charged with crimes. His reply was "there is no crime for those who have Christ."

In fact, many zealots saw the continued presence of idolatry and heresy as a form of persecution, and believed that the Empire was "persecuting" Christians for its continued tolerance of Paganism.

St. Chrysostom once preached that his congregants were to admonish blasphemers, and if that didn't work, to hit them. "Sanctify thy hand by the blow." A local synod accused Chrysostom of hitting a man and forcing him to take communion while his mouth was bleeding. Ambrose, who is perhaps best remembered for rebuking Theodosius after massacring civilians in a battle, also urged him not to prosecute monks who had ransacked several Pagan temples.

Augustine convinced the emperor to force traditional Christian Donatists to convert to his minority group, the Caecilian Lists. “He justified this form of seeming persecution against the Donatists by claiming that it was intended to assist the sinner’s personal progress. Although the state enacted and enforced the legal sanctions, the punitive measures were intended to return the sinner to the church, which was now healed from the century long schism. He compared himself to a doctor trying to heal a very sick patient. He might have preferred a less invasive approach but the patient’s health required painful surgery. He is very clear that he will stop at nothing to save his patient – even if it means amputating a few limbs or removing chunks of flesh.”

Year 300 - Pope Boniface VIII proclaiming, "I am Caesar; I am the emperor." Declared himself the most powerful man on earth - Unam Sanctam

Sons of god- Julius Caesar was considered a god. He adopted Augustus and called him the son of god (on all roman coins). Augustus ruled at same time of jesus.

Catholic-I personally believe (Luther) had good intentions but as the old saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Me - you still seem to believe that he should have acted differently. He devoted and risked his life to assure the salvation of his congregants and address something that was responsible for the damnation of countless Catholics at that time. He followed protocol and was attacked by Rome as a result. When he refused to change his belief to protect himself, he was excommunicated by a corrupt Pope.

It reminds me of "patriotism". If an American points out something their country is doing wrong, a "patriot" (and even the President) does not acknowledge the wrongdoing but instead attacks the person, telling them to leave if they don't like it. In Luther's case, he was actually kicked out for pointing out problems! He still stood by his principles. His actions would have been described as saintly (like St Thomas More) if it was a king instead of a pope that he was confronting. And yet you seem dismissive of him as someone who intended good but screwed up. What should he have done instead? Bow to the corruption and condone the damnation of those around him to save himself?

Ignatius of Loyola and Charles Borromeo came in to clean things up after Luther had been kicked out and others followed him in his defense. Their actions were in response to the Reformation, they did not reform. They did not stand out as a lone voice saying "this is wrong!" like Luther. Instead, they set about trying to win back those people who followed Luther after the Reformation began. While they get props for living a pious life, I suggest that Luther did what was right, like Thomas More, and risked his soul in the process! Luther, like Judas, were a necessary part of history, yet they are reviled for their part in it.

Did you know that its theorized that the reason Judas "betrayed" Jesus was because he 100% believed that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah? He, like the Zealots of his time, believed that the Messiah would lead an uprising to overthrow the Romans. He grew impatient after Jesus spent 3 years just talking to people so he believed he had to force Jesus to reveal his power by having him arrested. He was convinced that if soldiers arrested Jesus, Jesus would use his powers to kill them and the revolution would begin. When Jesus was arrested and seemed helpless, like a frail man, Judas despaired and hung himself for turning in a good man - who clearly wasn't the Messiah.

There seems to be a lot of confusion in Christians about what Luther actually did. He did not leave and form his own church. He was forced out of the Church by Rome and threatened with being burned as a heretic.

He did attempt to "help reform the church". He did not teach heresy but instead clarified that repentance was essential for salvation. And he followed the proper channels but was attacked as a result and eventually excommunicated. Hopefully there is something below that you didn't know about him.

Source Link Luther became especially concerned in 1517 when his parishioners, returning from purchasing Tetzel's indulgences, claimed that they no longer needed to repent and change their lives in order to be forgiven of sin. After hearing what Tetzel had said about indulgences in his sermons, Luther began to study the issue more carefully, and contacted experts on the subject. He preached about indulgences several times in 1517, explaining that true repentance was better than purchasing an indulgence.[16] He taught that receiving an indulgence presupposed that the penitent had confessed and repented, otherwise it was worthless. A truly repentant sinner would also not seek an indulgence, because they loved God's righteousness and desired the inward punishment of their sin.[17]

These sermons seem to have ceased from April to October 1517, presumably while Luther was writing the Ninety-five Theses.[18] He composed a Treatise on Indulgences, apparently in early autumn 1517. It is a cautious and searching examination of the subject.[19] He contacted church leaders on the subject by letter, including his superior Hieronymus Schulz [de], Bishop of Brandenburg, sometime on or before 31 October, when he sent the Theses to Archbishop Albert of Brandenburg.[20]

The Theses are written as propositions to be argued in a formal academic disputation,[32] though there is no evidence that such an event ever took place.[33] In the heading of the Theses, Luther invited interested scholars from other cities to participate. Holding such a debate was a privilege Luther held as a doctor, and it was not an unusual form of academic inquiry.[32]

Luther prepared twenty sets of theses for disputation at Wittenberg between 1516 and 1521.[34] Andreas Karlstadt had written a set of such theses in April 1517, and these were more radical in theological terms than Luther's. He posted them on the door of All Saints' Church, as Luther was alleged to have done with the Ninety-five Theses. Karlstadt posted his theses at a time when the relics of the church were placed on display, and this may have been considered a provocative gesture. Similarly, Luther posted the Ninety-five Theses on the eve of All Saints' Day, the most important day of the year for the display of relics at All Saints' Church.[35]

Luther's theses were intended to begin a debate among academics, not a popular revolution...[34] Luther always claimed that he brought his objections through proper channels rather than inciting a public controversy.[43]

Archbishop Albert seems to have received Luther's letter with the Theses around the end of November. He requested the opinion of theologians at the University of Mainz and conferred with his advisers. His advisers recommended he have Luther prohibited from preaching against indulgences in accordance with the indulgence bull. Albert requested such action from the Roman Curia.[47] In Rome, Luther was immediately perceived as a threat.[48] In February 1518, Pope Leo asked the head of the Augustinian Hermits, Luther's religious order, to convince him to stop spreading his ideas about indulgences.[47]

Johann Tetzel responded to the Theses by calling for Luther to be burnt for heresy and having theologian Konrad Wimpina write 106 theses against Luther's work...Luther became increasingly fearful that the situation was out of hand and that he would be in danger. To placate his opponents, he published a Sermon on Indulgences and Grace, which did not challenge the pope's authority.[55] ...He later said he might not have begun the controversy had he known where it would lead.[51]

Luther was summoned by authority of the pope to defend himself against charges of heresy before Thomas Cajetan at Augsburg in October 1518...Luther refused to recant and requested that the case be reviewed by university theologians. This request was denied, so Luther appealed to the pope before leaving Augsburg.[64] Luther was finally excommunicated in 1521 after he burned the papal bull threatening him to recant or face excommunication.[65]

Perhaps this gives you a clearer picture of a man who followed his conscience but was rejected by his own Church as a result. He saw countless people being damned because they were convinced by the clergy that their indulgence protected them and he knew he had to say something. Contrary to popular opinion, he did not dramatically post his Theses but instead reached out to his superiors and scholars. When they refused to support him he published his thoughts which (contrary to popular opinion) were not inconsistent with Church teachings.

Christianity is rooted in the Old Testament, but Christians would like to distance themselves from it and focus only on the New.
The Old Testament tells about a perfect God who kills and threatens his people.
We've learned from archeology and science that several of the Old Testament stories couldn't have happened as described. Christians then say the stories are "metaphorical."
The idea that if you do something wrong, I'll punish someone else for it is unjust.
The idea that punishing someone forever for finite deeds isn't just.
Promotion of faith as a higher virtue than morality. The branch of religions is named after someone who heard a voice telling him to kill his son, so he trundled off to do it. When he goes to kill the boy, he's rewarded as if he had done something great.
The slaughter of Canaanites by Jews is justified: they sacrificed children to their gods, how twisted is that! Yet Abraham demonstrated the pinnacle of devotion when he attempted to sacrifice his son. And God demonstrates how perfect this is by sacrificing his son. So, killing your innocent kid isn’t wrong. Apparently its only wrong if you sacrifice to a different God.
The fact that the Bible is supposed to be communication from a perfect God, but it's incoherent enough that people can't agree on what huge swaths of it mean, don't know which parts are supposed to be true and which parts aren't, and come away with completely different ideas of what God wants from us. A sophomore communications major would be ashamed not to do better.
The history of the Bible being one of picking and choosing from books that were written by random authors, keeping some and discarding others.
Despite many prayer claims in the Bible, when we examine the claims we find them not to work.
It comes down to a set of stories with no evidence, just like other religions. There's nothing to recommend it over Greek mythology except that a lot of people still believe in it.
Like other religions, people tend to believe whichever one they were raised in. If you were born in the Middle East, you'd likely be a Muslim. This isn't generally how truth works.
From "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine - no just god would: 1. Pass the guilt of a parent onto an innocent child (original sin), 2. Blame a creation for the flaws he himself is responsible for 3. Accept the blood of an innocent man in payment for the sins of the guilty

Praying to God

Christian: How to pray: 1.Ask 2.Have faith 3. Be open to whatever way that He wants to heal us... 4. Thank Him for what He has done for us. he tends to heal what we are ready for/what we need healing the most.

Me: So you talk about healing of what we need most (i would imagine it being our relationship with God as physical maladies are irrelevant to salvation) but gave bible examples of people asking for and receiving physical healing. So are they getting what they need most?

What am i asking for if i need to be open to the way that he decides to heal me? I can't ask for physical healing if he prefers to give emotional healing. What is the point of asking for one and getting the other? If he's giving something i didnt ask for, why pray for the former?

My sister got fibromyalgia at the age of 20. It filled her life with pain and no energy. For the past 28 years, she and the family have prayed for healing with no answer or remedy. I never understood that. If God does what he wills and not what we ask, why not just ask to understand his will so we can better accept it when he leaves us in pain? If you believe that God will heal someone in his own time ( i.e. pray for 30 years and then he'll do it) as long as they keep asking, I respectfully call BS. Either God plans to do it or not. Our prayers seem irrelevant.

I know that some say that you not only have to ask once with faith, but countless times till you get your wish, but thats illogical. Either he will do it or not. The amount of requests shouldn't matter. If our prayers can change an outcome, then one faith filled prayer should do it. Can you really pray for the 1000th time for something - while having total faith that he will do it? of course not. experience has taught you that its unlikely. So only the first prayer can be said with naive "total faith".

Christian: I still think there is power in the asking. When we put words to our thoughts and our needs it is important, not only for our communication with God but for ourselves. Regarding your sister's fibromyalgia, that is part of who she is. I don't fully understand it but we are closest to God when we are suffering. Again, I don't understand this but I know it to be true.

Me: Regarding prayer, your response seems to be that prayer is less about cause and effect - I pray and God answers- and more about experience -I pray and I feel closer to God. People who are really struggling "experience" some connection with God when they are praying and there is some solace in vocalizing their concerns.

I understand your perspective which I described as the atheist in foxhole mentality - things are sucky and I pray and I "feel closer" to God because I "need" to feel that god is there for me right then. Can you understand how that would still work if God doesn't exist or wasn’t listening?

Regarding people getting better after you all pray for them: it sounds very much like a placebo effect. People know that you are praying for them and they "feel the graces". it would be more credible if they had no clue that someone was praying for them and they shared, "at 11pm last night I felt healing graces" and that was when you were secretly praying for them. Do you get the distinction? In science, only the latter would have any credibility.

But since the placebo effect reinforces the beliefs people hold and those beliefs give them comfort, why would they question them? This is why witch doctors have had a place of honor in tribal groups.

Knowing that if you ask God for something with 100% faith it doesn't guarantee that it's going to happen means that faith alone is not sufficient. It also has to align with God's will. And will things happen if you don't pray for them but God wills it? Experience has taught us that yes they will.

So if prayers don't guarantee an answer and are not required for things to happen then it sounds like their sole purpose is to make us feel like we're doing something like pressing the close door button on an elevator. Praying just so you can feel like you potentially have some impact on things because you're talking to the one who can choose to make them happen, is more about self-help delusion. it sounds like a mixed message since we are taught from childhood that if we pray with faith, God will respond."

Christian: “For most people, prayer is something that they enjoy."

Me: That's fine but doesn't answer my question. But it reinforces your previous statements on the reason for prayer. It seems that you are focused more on how a person feels when they pray,rather than on whether their activity has any effect,aside from personal enjoyment. Each time I Ask about prayer, I am trying to get to the heart of its purpose and does God need to exist for it to have the same effect. If the activity itself gives people happiness or peace, can it be compared to yoga or any other quiet time?

Prayer is defined as a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God.For the sake of simplicity, I am focusing just on requests for help. I also presume that someone asking for healing is not content to "enjoy" their prayer time if the prayer is not answered. I imagine the point of such prayer is to get the desired result.

Are prayers answered based on your faith or only if it aligns with God's will? If it's the latter, then it makes the prayer pointless. If something is going to happen regardless of whether or not you pray for it, like if it's going to rain tomorrow, then what's the point? You either pray because it works or you don't.

Knowing that if you ask God for something with 100% faith it doesn't guarantee that it's going to happen means that faith alone is not sufficient. It also has to align with God's will. And will things happen if you don't pray for them but God wills it? Experience has taught us that yes they will.

So if prayers don't guarantee an answer and are not required for things to happen then it sounds like their sole purpose is to make us feel like we're doing something like pressing a button on an elevator.

Praying just so you can feel like you potentially have some impact on things because you're talking to the one who can choose to make them happen, sounds like a mixed message since we are taught from childhood that if we pray with faith God will answer us. Also I asked about whether we should pray for physical or emotional changes. Presuming for a moment that God actually answers prayers, does he answer prayers for physical healing if we pray with faith? Or does he mostly deal with spiritual growth? And if just that, what impact do my prayers have if I've prayed for spiritual growth since my teens with no noticeable improvement or relationship?

Commentary on a priest’s video titled: What is a sign from God (and what isn't)?

Here is the link: https://youtu.be/mEcRhhps6Jw

Here's my takeaway from the video:

DOING GOD'S WILL IS EVERYTHING.
GOD ALWAYS SPEAKS IN CLARITY.
OUR FEELINGS DON'T REVEAL THE TRUTH ABOUT REALITY, THEY ONLY REVEAL THE CONDITION OF OUR HEARTS.
WHEN IT COMES TO DECISION MAKING, WE HAVE TO GATHER THE DATA, SEEK COUNSEL, WEIGH ALL OPTIONS, RISKS/CONSEQUENCES - AND THEN DECIDE.
EVERY DECISION RISKS SOMETHING, EVERY DECISION COSTS SOMETHING, BUT NOT DECIDING ALSO COSTS SOMETHING.

for #1, fine but how do i know it? If #2 is true, I shouldn't have acted on the little signs I received last summer as they were not very clear and had to be interpreted - but led me to reopen my mind to religion after 15 years. in my case, i feel like i am missing the first part of: GATHER THE DATA, SEEK COUNSEL, WEIGH ALL OPTIONS AND RISKS/CONSEQUENCES - AND THEN DECIDE

He seems to be referring to decisions like buying a car, not choosing a religion. I can agree that his video helps with the former, but not the latter.

GODS WILL

you said: "for #1, I think you have felt that feeling..." when helping collect food.

since #1 is DOING GOD'S WILL IS EVERYTHING, i don't see the connection. I didn't at any point in volunteering recognize it as God's will, just a way to help out someone doing more good than me. It was purely a human response. I didn't gather data, seek counsel, or weigh the options and risks/consequences before deciding. in the same way that you offer a seat to a pregnant woman on the bus. no thought required.

I can dedicate my life to helping cats. just bc it's a decent thing, does that make it god's will? no. just an activity i chose. I can volunteer at food pantries twice a week but God's will may be for me to be in Africa as a missionary. and my choice is a weak substitute for God's will.

CLARITY OF MESSAGE this ties in with #2 where the video says that you'll know it's god's will bc it's very clear. I commented that I have no experience in God talking to me, let alone clearly. I've acted based on guesswork alone. I'm in the same boat after listening to God's voice/will during my 50 days of holy hours. no takeaway, no clarity.

DOES GOD ONLY COMMUNICATE THROUGH THE BIBLE? The consensus from christians i've encountered in the past 9 months is that God will talk through the bible. but I keep coming back to that being a biased approach. If I was raised hindu and questioned my faith, and I was told that God would reveal himself in the writings about Hinduism, I could study them and potentially feel a connection to God after reading them for months. That doesn't mean it validates that religion, just that I focused on hearing God with the biased belief that he would be found in those writings. it's a biased approach with only one possible god belief allowed - the one taught in their book.

It's the same for reading the bible. It's great for those already convinced it's the truth, but it shouldn't be the tool used to convince a person it's from God. That's like saying "read this NY times article that says the Ny times is not liberal but purely neutral" or "watch Fox news because they say they are fair and balanced".

INDECISION

i get the idea behind NOT DECIDING ALSO COSTS SOMETHING but deciding must be done rationally or not at all on life decisions such as religion. I am missing the evidence I need to believe christianity is God's plan for mankind.

Knowing God

Christian- So, if after I asked all of your family about you and then met you "face to face" and you don't match up with what they all told me, what should I believe? For me, it is clear, it is the "you" that I met "face to face".

Me: You don't seem to disagree with my point that OT God and Jesus come across as two very different people. Which is good because they are. Judas expected Jesus to be just like the OT God he was taught about and was very disappointed with the lovey dovey pushover he encountered. Yes, one person can be perceived differently by different people (your point) but that is based on limited interactions. If you had years of close interactions noted by men (OT & NT biblical writers), they should have lots of overlap if they describe the same entity.

Case in point, my family would all give a pretty similar description of me. I learned this from my girlfriend when she told me they had each talked with her about me. And yes, their descriptions influenced her perceptions of our interactions, not always accurately. So, if I had a conversation with her like I am with you, it reinforced for her the statement made by my family that Tom is argumentative.

I imagine your point was the opposite. that real life experience should be trusted over what was said by others. this is key for me. you want me to believe something and have a relationship with something that I have no real life experience with. And I am supposed to rely on the words of you and people from the past and then have full belief in this entity as described by others, not by me!

regarding our firsthand experience of someone vs other's descriptions.

I mentioned having to only rely on conflicting descriptions of God. You say that that is comparable to learning about Martin Luther through conflicting descriptions. That's a problem.

With Luther, there is only one truth, so any statement that contradicts the truth is a lie. For the sake of argument, let's say we don't know which is the truth. we can conclude with certainty that at least one source of info is false.

Now let's apply that to God. we have two (at least) conflicting sources of info describing God (OT/NT). based on the same logic as above, one source must be a lie. I presume your response will be that they are both true and will rationalize how that is possible. I won't dig deeper into that at the moment but I hope you see the problem your comparison creates.

Q- Jesus gives the clearest picture of what God is like, as He is like Him because He is Him.

A- I understand that as a concept and it sounds good but in reality, its not very clear. Let's say I summarize the words and traits of God in the OT as personality traits and assign them to a character named Bob, and then do the same with Jesus and assign them to Joe. If someone were to look at the two lists, do you think they would presume they were the same person. Heck no!

you say, it is for each person to make this decision for themselves, who is God for them?

That seems so backwards. That's like saying to a child, look at that bright light in the sky. i won't tell you what it is exactly (the sun, a star), tell me what do you say it is? it is whatever you want it to be. its that mentality that is more a cause of the 40,000 denominations than Luther himself.

when jesus says "Who do you say I am?", he is relying on the limited knowledge that those people had of biblical prophecy. He allowed them to believe what they wanted to believe. they wanted a messiah who would overthrow the Romans as had been foretold and he was happy for them to believe that about him. He knew that's what they believed but he never corrected them. It's not like they were given a multiple choice test where the right answer was there alongside the wrong ones.

As for embracing the good in the world instead of rejecting God, I am on board with that. I don't reject God, just conflicting descriptions of him, since they imply that either God changes over time or that many descriptions are inaccurate. You say that the story of man's salvation in the OT is messy, which is abstract instead of describing it more accurately as a description of the history of man and god's relationship which reveals God's nature to us over 1000s of years.

Contrast this with the NT which only describes a snippet of time (3 years with Jesus) and letters written after that by apostles. It's like reading a 4000 page (years) book about wolves starting in prehistoric times and describing them primarily as vicious predators. Then a 10 page book is written much later about a specific wolf named Jesus. He was a kind wolf and was killed. OK.... Based on the 4000 page/year history of wolves and the 10 page/year history of wolf Jesus, should my initial view of wolves be adjusted because we know of a peaceful wolf? No. Experience teaches us to trust that which has been repeated many times vs an exception to that rule.

I agree with you that we shouldn't judge somebody based on the descriptions of others. Especially if it will bias us negatively against them. But the presupposition is that we have an ability to experience them firsthand and make our own judgment.

My point was that if somebody cannot experience someone firsthand, all they have to rely on is the third parties descriptions and if those descriptions are conflicting between a ruthless and destructive and vindictive God and also a merciful loving God, what are they to conclude?

If the negative descriptions were made by many different people who experienced God over a thousand years and the positive descriptions were made by a few people who experienced Jesus over 3 years, can we really conclude that they are describing the same entity and dismiss the overwhelming majority of experience as irrelevant because it comes across as negative and must therefore be rationalized away? it's more likely that Jesus and God are two different entities.

You said that God wants me to love him, and i am not resistant to that but I don't know how and i feel like elements are missing from the equation. Its like the girl i am seeing now; I am not attracted to her and cannot imagine falling in love with her. And I know her better than I know God. I actually have experience of her interacting in my way in a concrete non-abstract way.

To know is to believe something as a certainty based on experience. I have only circumstantial experience of God - something made me and we call that something God.

To me, God is an idea that people describe from their own experience or their beliefs instilled by others. I spoke with the elderly priest near here and he acknowledged that he never experienced God talking to him, but he embraces the faith he was taught about. And he is content with that. When I challenged some of his statements about God in the bible he seemed annoyed and said that faith is not logical and that he cannot discuss things logically or philosophically. He sees things as requiring imagination and artistic license.

I've used the analogy about a father who a child never meets. others tell the child that the father is involved in his life, yet the child never has any interaction with such a person. All he has to go on is other people's claims - and his desire for a father. If he lacked the latter, he would be more like me: if hes so involved in my life, then why doesn't he talk to me or respond when i called on him for years? some people say that i shouldnt expect god to talk to me. if not, what else do i have to go on to believe in him? let alone love him. which is another can of worms.

presuming i believe that god is the god of the bible and that the bible stories are all true, i am told that i am really messed up (original sin) and deserve hell and because God saved me from his own punishment, i should love him. thats a weird way to make someone love you.

imagine if a mother did drugs intentionally while pregnant, making a baby that is sickly as a result. why would she want to do this? so it could be dependent on her and grateful for anything she does for it. God created us and made us flawed, then said that as a result of the flaw, we should be destroyed, but he wont destroy all of us because he loves us. now if we thank him for not destroying us, and worships and loves him, then we are following his plan...sounds kinda twisted to me. And i should fall in love with this creator?

_____________________

She also said that if i have a problem with loving God, that i should read the bible and fall in love with Jesus. I understand that that is the basic premise of conversion but theres a disconnect again for me. To read words written by men about a person who we are told is God is hearsay. We have no proof that what they wrote actually happened the way they wrote it. Ignoring that for a minute, lets just say the Bible is true, how do i fall in love with Jesus as a result.

I compare it to a black person now being told they should be fully in love with MLK because he died for them to free them from bondage. While a person now can appreciate that, they can't fall in love with MLK without meeting him and interacting with him enough to fall in love. (Also, christians talk about how I as a man should be falling in love with Jesus, another man, yet have a problem with a man falling in love with another man...) What am I missing?

GregoryKal says:

2 hours ago

Patient drug information. Generic names listed.
[url=https://baclofen365n.top/#]lioresal online[/url]
Get medication facts. Get pill facts.
- Reply
DavidWab says:

3 hours ago

Medicine facts here. Medicine essentials explained.
[url=https://biaxin365n.top/#]clomiphene[/url]
Medication impacts described. Medicine facts available.
- Reply
LeroyBoind says:

5 hours ago

Get pill facts. Brand names listed.
[url=https://baclofen365n.top/#]buy lioresal[/url]
Short-term impacts described. Medication leaflet provided.
- Reply
BernardEsock says:

9 hours ago

Medicine impacts explained. Medication pamphlet available.
[url=https://valtrexvl.top/#]purchase valacyclovir online no prescription[/url]
Contraindications explained here. Get drug facts.
- Reply
LeroyBoind says:

10 hours ago

Comprehensive drug facts. Detailed drug knowledge.
[url=https://finasteridexl.top/#]where buy finasteride[/url]
Medicine details here. Access drug details.
- Reply
BernardEsock says:

12 hours ago

Access pill facts. Pill impacts explained.
[url=https://valtrexvl.top/#]purchase valacyclovir online no prescription[/url]
Pill essentials explained. Pill information provided.
- Reply
LeroyBoind says:

12 hours ago

Find medication info. Access pill information.
[url=https://finasteridexl.top/#]where buy finasteride[/url]
Find pill facts. Pill facts provided.
- Reply
LeroyBoind says:

17 hours ago

Latest medication developments. Access medicine details.
[url=https://finasteridexl.top/#]buy finasteride pills online[/url]
Drug specifics here. Drug essentials explained.
- Reply
BernardEsock says:

19 hours ago

Pill leaflet available. Pill leaflet provided.
[url=https://valtrexvl.top/#]where buy valacyclovir[/url]
Complete pill overview. Patient drug resource.
- Reply
LeroyBoind says:

20 hours ago

Latest pill trends. Medication guide here.
[url=https://finasteridexl.top/#]clomiphene[/url]
Administration guidelines here. Medicine guide here.
- Reply
BernardEsock says:

22 hours ago

Get drug facts. Recent drug developments.
[url=https://valtrexvl.top/#]buy valacyclovir no prescription[/url]
Medication trends described. Pill guide here.
- Reply
LeroyBoind says:

22 hours ago

Get drug facts. Get pill details.
[url=https://finasteridexl.top/#]buy finasteride[/url]
Latest pill trends. Medicine effects explained.
- Reply
BernardEsock says:

1 day ago

Complete pill overview. Prescribing details available.
[url=https://valtrexvl.top/#]clomiphene[/url]
Comprehensive medication guide. Patient medicine guide.
- Reply
LeroyBoind says:

1 day ago

Drug facts provided. Patient drug leaflet.
[url=https://finasteridexl.top/#]purchase finasteride online no prescription[/url]
Medication impacts explained. Patient medication facts.
- Reply
BernardEsock says:

1 day ago

Comprehensive pill resource. Access drug facts.
[url=https://valtrexvl.top/#]buy valacyclovir pills[/url]
Access drug details. Pill effects listed.
- Reply
LeroyBoind says:

1 day ago

Patient medicine guide. Medicine guide available.
[url=https://finasteridexl.top/#]clomiphene[/url]
Drug brochure available. Pill leaflet here.
- Reply
Karen says:

11 months ago

Faith vs. Indecision:
You said, “Once I am convinced that the Bible is from God, I can take a leap of faith in following it.” It seems to me that there are two different issues that you’ve raised that sometimes get muddled together. The first is whether or not the Bible is credible. The second is whether God the Father (as depicted in the OT) is in fact the same as Jesus (as depicted in the NT). It seems like it’s important to start with the idea of whether or not the Bible is credible. Without that piece of critical information, all other debates are of questionable value because they’re based on uncertainty. What do you think about suspending discussion on the other questions and just focusing on the question of whether or not the Bible is a credible source? Maybe you could make another webpage whereby we can dialogue about the various issues related to the Bible’s credibility/origin or whatever?
- Reply

tomwrn says:

11 months ago

I think that credibility of a book is less important than the content. That’s why it didn’t make my top 3 issues. We can say that a Steven King novel is credible because the places it mentions are real places and the people described are plausible as real people.
If a book gives stories of a character being violent and mean repeatedly, and then people who love the book say that the character is kind and loving, I don’t question the credibility of the book. I question the honesty of the people ignoring or rationalizing the violent acts of the character.
- Reply

Karen says:

10 months ago

Faith vs. Indecision:
While I understand the point that you’re trying to make, I believe the Bible to be more complex than a Stephen King novel, so the comparison doesn’t work for me. The Bible is a complicated, intertwined collection of narratives that are meant to tell a bigger story. To understand the story, I believe someone needs to read the entire collection of narratives. When small chunks are taken out of context they can be misleading. Also, it’s really important to understand the various styles of writing that are used in the Bible so as not to misinterpret the language that is used. In your original statement, you indicated that you would be willing to take a leap of faith if you knew the Bible was from God. I was simply suggesting that this is a logical place to start. In previous conversation strands, you’ve questioned the authorship of the Bible. I guess my point is that if someone believes the Bible to be nothing more than a poorly written history book that’s full of errors and contradictions, there is no basis for using that book as a point of reference for any discussions. If, however, someone accepts that the Bible was divinely inspired and is willing to walk through it slowly with the desire to understand the bigger story, I think a lot of great discussions could flow from that. Does that make sense?
- Reply

Karen says:

11 months ago

Discernment vs. Strong Faith:
I believe it’s important to question things, however, there is also a practical need for trusting others. As such, my opinion is that the comment you made is a bit extreme: “Too many people accept what they are taught and settle in for life putting their faith in something they haven’t proven for themselves.” It is not practical/realistic to believe that one must prove everything for him/herself before being willing to accept it as truth. For example, if I live on one side of a river and work on the other I must cross that river to get to work. There is a bridge that was designed/constructed by qualified engineers…do I not take the bridge until I personally prove that the bridge’s construction is sound? Of course not! The example is a bit ridiculous, but so is the claim that we have to “prove everything for ourselves” before we can believe them. It is important that someone believes that the source is credible before they’re willing to subscribe to that which the source is claiming, but there are simply not enough hours in the day (or days in one’s life) to prove everything that others (who are presumably experts in their respective fields of study) have spent their lives proving. Socrates is known for instigating debates whereby people were encouraged to question the status quo, which is awesome, but I don’t think he would have refused to acknowledge/accept the claims of experts who had spent their entire lives studying, analyzing, and proving what they claim. As a philosopher, Socrates valued the very process of thinking through things, but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t value the expertise of other learned men. If I had to guess, I’d say that he had a great deal of respect for those who spent their lives studying and learning. He objected to the bumbling fool who never questioned anything…there’s a big, big difference between those two.
- Reply

tomwrn says:

11 months ago

I didn’t say that we have to prove “everything” for ourselves. You took that out of context. The previous 2 sentences talk about picking a religion which is the context. “So, strong faith is dangerous if not directed at the truth. Suicide bombers demonstrate this. They have very strong faith but we believe it to be misdirected. So, before one commits to put their faith fully in something, they must know its the truth and not another illusion of truth.”
I was not referring to questioning real world things like bridges. But if you wanted to compare to something more similar to choosing a religion, think of jumping out of a plane hoping that the pack on your back is a parachute. Would you jump without being sure if you were told that a majority of people make the wrong choice and choose the pack that doesn’t have a parachute? (i.e. choose the wrong religion)
- Reply

Karen says:

10 months ago

Discernment vs. Strong Faith:
I honor you for devoting so much time to the task of finding the truth. I will continue to pray that God guides you in the way that you need.
- Reply

Karen says:

11 months ago

Kill Outsiders in the OT:
I will revisit the idea of killing outsiders, but I just want to comment on your description of the Canaanites as “fellow Jews who disagreed on doctrine details”. The Canaanites were known to worship demonic idols, engage in “taboo sexual acts”, and even sacrifice children to the Canaanite gods, so let’s make sure we’re being accurate when we describe them.
- Reply

tomwrn says:

11 months ago

There are 2 answers to your statement about being more accurate:
1. If the main crime of Canaanites was child sacrifice, why was the foundation of Israel based on a parent’s (Abraham) willingness to sacrifice their child? And God demonstrates his agreement by sacrificing his own son. Jepthah sacrificed his daughter and was blessed by God, David had 7 children sacrificed to appease the Gibeonites so that God would be appeased and remove the famine.
2. If the concern was the worship of other gods (demonic idols?), the Israelites were just as guilty.

Much effort has been made to demonize the Canaanites so that their slaughter by the Jews around 1200BC is condoned. But the Israelites worshipped many of the same gods for hundreds of years before and after this slaughter. The early Israelites were polytheistic and worshipped Yahweh alongside many Canaanite gods and goddesses. These included:
El, the ruler of the gods (the golden calf/bull in Exodus)
Asherah, his consort
Moloch the god who demanded sacrifice of the firstborn
Ba’al: The god of rain and thunder
Anat: The goddess of war
Astarte: The goddess of love and fertility
Arsay: The goddess of the underworld
Yahweh is described as one of the sons of El in Deuteronomy 32:8–9, but this was removed by a later emendation to the text.

Israelite kings Solomon (1010 BC), Ahaz (720 BC) and Manasseh (650 BC) all came after the Canaanites and were known to worship many gods including Moloch.

In the 9th century BCE, there are indications of rejection of Baal worship associated with the prophets Elijah and Elisha. The Yahweh-religion thus began to separate itself from its Canaanite heritage; this process continued over the period from 800 to 500 BCE with legal and prophetic condemnations of the asherim, sun worship and worship on the high places, along with practices pertaining to the dead and other aspects of the old religion.[55] Features of Baal, El, and Asherah were absorbed into Yahweh, El (or ‘el) (Hebrew: אל) became a generic term meaning “god” as opposed to the name of a specific god, and epithets such as El Shaddai came to be applied to Yahweh alone.[56]

More info on Hebrews worshipping El as a bull. https://www.atkinslightquest.com/Documents/Religion/Hebrew-Myths/Worship-of-Yahweh-as-a-Bull.htm
- Reply

Karen says:

10 months ago

Kill Outsiders in the OT:

My response to your 1st point:
Just as a point of clarification, God did not kill His Son, He allowed others to kill His Son. There’s a big difference.

Also, the story of Abraham and Isaac is something really, really profound and has a long back story. To suggest that it’s just another example of human sacrifice is hard for me to receive. To be able to do what God was calling him to do, Abraham needed to trust God 100% – holding nothing back. My interpretation is that God knew that this is what Abraham needed to become the person that he would need to be to fulfill his role in our salvation history. God did not intend for Abraham to kill his son, rather, it is my belief that Abraham had to know that he was willing to give everything – and for him, at this point in the story, Isaac was everything.

Yes, David allowed Saul’s sons to be killed. That was a sinful choice. Please help me understand why you think God was pleased with David’s decision.

You made reference to Jephthah sacrificing his daughter and said that what he did was blessed by God. Can you please tell me why you think that God was happy with Jephthah for doing this? My understanding is different. Jephthah was wrong for making such a vow to God. I found this which includes some passages whereby God specifically says that they are not to perform human sacrifices:
“God had specifically forbidden offering human sacrifices, so it was absolutely not God’s desire for Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter (Leviticus 20:1-5). Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; and 32:35 clearly indicate that the idea of human sacrifice has “never even entered God’s mind.” The account of Jephthah and his daughter serves as an example for us to not make foolish vows or oaths. It should also serve as a warning to make sure any vow we make is something that is not in violation of God’s Word.”

The story of Abraham and Isaac is something really, really profound and has a long back story. To suggest that it’s just another example of human sacrifice is hard for me to receive. To be able to do what God was calling him to do, Abraham needed to trust God 100% – holding nothing back. My interpretation is that God knew that this is what Abraham needed to become the person that he would need to be to fulfill his role in our salvation history. God did not intend for Abraham to kill his son, rather, it is my belief that Abraham had to know that he himself was willing to give everything – and for him, at this point in the story, Isaac was everything for him.

My response to your 2nd point:
You referenced several deities that the non-Isrealite groups worshipped and pointed out that the Isrealites also worshipped them. That is exactly what the problem was. God instructed the Israelites to not mix with the other tribes. I assume, based on how easily the Israelites fell into the temptation of worshipping other deities, that God knew they weren’t strong enough to be with them and stay faithful to their covenant with Him – to still do all that He had commanded them to do. So, yes, the Israelites fell in this way, which greatly saddened the Lord.
- Reply
Karen says:

10 months ago

Killing Outsiders in the OT:
Oops – I forgot to paste in the link. Sorry about that. Here it is:
https://bibleproject.com/articles/why-did-god-command-the-invasion-of-canaan-in-the-book-of-joshua/
- Reply
Karen says:

10 months ago

Killing Outsides in the OT:
Here’s the link to the information that I found to be really helpful when considering what happened between the Isrealites and the Caananites. It gives a lot of background information and context as well as insight into the figurative language that is used. Let me know what you think.
- Reply

Karen says:

11 months ago

Sorry, here’s the link for the reference/explanation for the Church’s teaching on who goes to Heaven:
https://www.thecatholictelegraph.com/can-non-christians-be-saved/52886#:~:text=While%20none%20of%20us%20can,that%20all%20will%20be%20saved
- Reply

tomwrn says:

11 months ago

we are in agreement on this topic: CAN NON-CHRISTIANS BE SAVED? as I am familiar with Catholic teaching on it.
The distinction is not who can go to heaven, but who actually goes?
Being Catholic doesn’t get you into heaven even though it qualifies you.
Can you respond to the point I made?
“If you look at a typical European or American church full of people, what percent are likely to have a strong relationship with God and have given up their life to serve God’s will? I think saying 10% is generous.”
PS Try to reply to a specific comment so it doesn’t appear as a new topic.
- Reply

Karen says:

11 months ago

I’m positive that the Church does not claim to know who goes to heaven, apart from those canonized as saints. In fact, there are countless instances in which the Church states very clearly that we are not to judge others, and that only God can/should judge. It is not the Catholic belief that someone has to have a strong relationship with God and give up their life to serve Him to “qualify” for heaven. It is our faith that saves us, not our works. Our works should simply be an expression of the love that we have for the Lord. We do “good things” out of love for the Lord – as a response to the love that He has for us, not as a way to try to earn anything, especially not His love. My understanding is that if someone authentically accepts Jesus as his/her Savior (not just in word, but in truth) then God will happily welcome that person into Heaven. Now, with that said, we have Purgatory which is a state of purification. We need to be purified before we’re welcomed into Heaven because we’re taught that everything in Heaven is perfect…so a person can’t enter Heaven until he/she has been made perfect through the purification that happens in Purgatory. The Church teaches that everyone in Purgatory will eventually go to Heaven and that nobody in Purgatory goes to Hell. So, the lukewarm Christian who half-asses his way through life, spiritually speaking, is not damned to Hell, but will likely spend a very, very long time in Purgatory being purified. So, suggesting that the vast majority of people sitting in church are likely to go to Hell is not a logical conclusion. I know, from my experience with other Christian sects, that some believe that only really devout believers go to Heaven and that the rest (including us Catholics who they say worship idols and adore Mary) are destined for Hell – but that is not the Catholic standpoint.
- Reply

tomwrn says:

11 months ago

I am very familiar with the Church’s teachings on Purgatory. The description of those who go there as “all who die in God’s grace and friendship but are still imperfectly purified” is unnecessarily abstract. How do we know if we are in God’s grace and friendship? What does that mean?
The church teaches that those who die without confession of mortal sins do not qualify for purgatory. I suggest that there are a majority of Christians that have done one of these: used contraception, been unfaithful, went to a psychic, used God’s name in vain, masturbated, stolen, missed Sunday mass, etc. who do not confess and die in mortal sin. I think its naive to think this isn’t common.
Since you disagree, what percent of Christian people do you think actually die in God’s grace and friendship?
- Reply

Karen says:

10 months ago

Who Goes to Heaven?
You referenced the Church’s teaching on mortal sin and how it disqualifies someone from going to heaven, but there is a critical piece of information missing in your statement. The CCC 1033 says, “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him forever by our own free choice” However, it’s important to understand what constitutes a mortal sin. “In order for a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be met: (1) The sin must have grave matter, (2) one must have adequate knowledge that it is a grave offense, and (3) one must commit the offense with deliberate consent (CCC 1857–1859). If one of these conditions is not met, the sin will be venial, not mortal.” I believe that most Catholics are not well-formed, which means that most Catholics don’t understand why it’s such a big deal to go to a tarot card reader, miss Mass, masturbate, or use contraception. Without full knowledge of why these things are so bad someone is doing something that they probably know they shouldn’t do but, in reality, have no idea just how terrible they are. With that said, they are venial sins (in God’s eyes) and not mortal sins. For the people who were well-formed, who know why all these things destroy our relationship with God and choose to do them anyway – well, they are choosing to turn away from God which leads one to believe that they’re really not interested in spending all of eternity with Him anyway.

You’ve asked me to estimate what percentage of people go to heaven and I have absolutely no idea how to answer that.

Karen says:

11 months ago

Who Goes to Heaven?
I found what I consider to be a great response to this issue. It helped me understand the Church’s teaching and I hope it helps you too. Here it is:
Q: Is there any hope of salvation for those who are not Catholic or Christian? What is to become of those who do not accept Jesus as their savior (such as those who follow the Jewish or Muslim faiths)?

A; Each year on Good Friday, Catholics pray an extended set of petitions, including prayers for the church, fellow Christians, non-Christians, and even atheists. In praying for non-Christians, the church prays: “Let us pray also for those who do not believe in Christ, that, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they, too, may enter on the way of salvation.”

While none of us can be sure of our own or anyone’s salvation – whether Christian or not – the church has hope for the salvation of others, including non-Christians. The church does not teach that any individual has been or will be deprived of heaven nor does it teach that all will be saved. But as we do on Good Friday and at other times, we pray for the salvation of our brothers and sisters, Christian and non-Christian.

While acknowledging that good can be found in other religions and that salvation is possible for non-Christians (even the unbaptized), this does not mean that belief in Christ and membership in the church is unimportant. We believe that the church is necessary for salvation, that Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation, and that He Himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism.

We affirm a proper understanding of the saying, outside the church there is no salvation (“extra ecclesiam nulla salus”), which dates to the preaching of St. Cyprian in the early church. This statement, without excluding the possibility of salvation for non-Christians, reminds us that all salvation comes from Christ through the church, which is His Body. Christ is the source of salvation for all who are saved – even non-Christians – since Christ died for all and His sacrifice on the Cross makes salvation possible.

George Weigel, in his book, “The Truth of Catholicism” (2001), offers the church’s teaching succinctly through a series of yes-or-no questions:

• Does the Catholic Church teach that God wishes the salvation of all? Yes.

• Does the church teach that salvation was made possible for the world through the cross of Jesus Christ? Yes.

• Does the church believe there is salvation for those who do not believe in Christ? Yes.

• Does the church believe that the salvation of those who do not know Christ is somehow made possible by Christ? Yes.

• Does the church believe that this puts all of those saved in some relationship with the Catholic Church? Yes.

The Catechism describes the teaching in this way, rooting all salvation in Christ and His death: “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery. Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of His church but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity” (Catechism, 1260).

At times, the church is ridiculed for its narrowness, but its understanding of salvation is broad, allowing for the hope that non-Christians are saved without denying the reason for Jesus coming among us: to set us free from our sins and invite us into eternal life.
- Reply
Karen says:

11 months ago

Who Goes to Heaven?
Just out of curiosity, where does it say that someone has to be super devout and Catholic to go to Heaven?
- Reply

tomwrn says:

11 months ago

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.“ There are many Christians who say they believe, but have no relationship with God and live their life without seeking to do God’s will. Do these Christians merit Heaven? What about people who say they believe but ignore opportunities to serve God? If you look at a typical European or American church full of people, what percent are likely to have a strong relationship with God and have given up their life to serve God’s will? I think saying 10% is generous.
- Reply

Karen says:

11 months ago

Who Goes to Heaven?
You started your comment by quoting Matthew chapter 7 where Jesus says that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord…” I believe that Jesus is addressing the fact that the Jews believed very strongly in the power of verbal expression. If they said certain words/prayers at certain times they gained favor with God. If they recited various litanies before certain sacrifices they believed that it would enhance the power of their offering. When the Jews were exiled to Babylon many of them accused those who didn’t publicly recite their prayers as often/well as they “should have” saying that the exile was their fault because they hadn’t prayed “well enough”, which made God mad. When they returned from Babylon the Jews were required to recite their prayers in public places so that others knew that they were “doing their part” to keep God happy so that they didn’t get exiled again. So, when Jesus teaches that it’s not those who say “Lord, Lord…” that go to Heaven, He is speaking to the Jews who were taught to believe that verbal expressions of prayer held spiritual “power” as it were. Jesus wants them to understand that it’s what’s in someone’s heart that matters. Before Jesus teaches them the Our Father, He begins by telling them to go into their “inner room” where nobody could see them and pray from their heart. In the Sermon on Mount Jesus teaches the Jews about what really matters, but these teachings would have been very, very foreign to the people of that time. Does that make sense?
- Reply

tomwrn says:

11 months ago

Yes that makes sense. but what does that have to do with my comment? You gave background on the meaning of the passage quoted but didn’t agree or disagree with my comment. The original idea was about who deserves to go to heaven. I and others would suggest that the passage quoted may have had a specific meaning at that time but the Church now uses it for its broader meaning: not all Biblethumpers go to heaven.
- Reply

Karen says:

11 months ago

God Creates Evil?
I’m curious what translation of the Bible this is taken from. I use the Revised New American Bible, which says, “I form the light, and create the darkness, I make weal and create woe.” The phrase “weal and woe” means “both in times of happiness and success, and in times of sadness and difficulty. Another way of describing the phrase “weal and woe” is “joy and sorrow”, so it seems odd to me that the translation you’re using replaces sorrow with the word “evil” because they are obviously not synonyms.
- Reply

tomwrn says:

11 months ago

That was the King James (a pretty reliable source):
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2045%3A7&version=KJV

For accuracy, look at the original Hebrew which uses the word ‘rā’ –
‘Ōśeh šālōwm ūḇōwrê rā‘ <-- This word is used often in the bible - mostly referring to evil acts https://biblehub.com/hebrew/ra_7451.htm
- Reply

Karen says:

11 months ago

God Creates Evil? (King James Bible)
I’m not willing to base scriptural discussions on the King James translation because it’s known that the writers/editors of the King James bible were instructed by King James himself to make sure that their translation matched the theology of the Church of England, which was started by King Henry the 8th who was pissed that the Catholic Church wouldn’t allow him to divorce his wife (who was sterile) and marry someone else that could presumably give him an heir. Sorry. I’m open to other translations, but not the King James.

You said that the Hebrew word used “mostly” refers to evil acts, and that word “mostly” is dangerous because it tricks us into thinking that it’s okay to apply it to all situations which isn’t true.
- Reply

tomwrn says:

11 months ago

I feel like you are using semantics to avoid a basic meaning in a passage because it contradicts your understanding of God.
If you look at the use of the Hebrew word in question in about 150 passages, the consistent meaning is ‘evil’.
But just to go along with your word, “Weal and woe” is an English idiom used in place of peace and evil, “woe” is defined as “A condition of deep suffering from misfortune, affliction, or grief”.
If we agree that God is claiming credit for creating it, is there really a need to argue that God created something bad?
- Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply