You asked the question, why would the Egyptians order the murder of male babies, rather than female babies? The man is the nation, women go either way, they go with whomever is in power at the time. Destroy the males of the race and you destroy the race.
The same apply to Black's in America. All of these light, bright, near white, so-called black folk running around are not the result of African brothers. White men love Black women, but the hate Black men, why? The male in the race. Black women never faced the horrors of racial hatred as black men, why? The male is the race.
Hello whoever you are (please tell me your name!),
I think there is probably an element of truth in what you say: some of the ignorant "common people" in ancient times probably believed that the male carried the race, and the females had nothing to do with it.
However, according to the Bible, this edict to kill the male babies came from the Pharaoh himself. It's hard to believe that he (or his many wise councilors) wouldn't have known better -- or if he didn't know better at first that he would very soon learn that his methodology was not producing the desired result (namely: to drastically reduce the number of Israelites in Egypt.)
You said that women go with whomever is in power at the time: but of course the Egyptians had female rulers too (remember Queen Cleopatra), so I think they gave more thought and respect to women than we might assume.
Of course, in strictly practical terms, destroying all the males would not destroy the race as long as there was at least one pregnant woman and she gave birth to a male. But the converse is not true: killing all the females DOES put a complete end to the race.
But, according to the Bible, the Pharaoh was not trying to kill off the race: he was trying to reverse the situation in which the Israelites were more numerous than the Egyptians. Since it was useful to have slaves, he wouldn't want to get rid of them entirely: just control their population. If infanticide is resorted to in order to accomplish this, than it is quickly seen that female infanticide is much more efficient (albeit all forms are morally reprehensible.)
History tells us that the ancient Egyptians did not practice infanticide, but even if they had taken up the practice as the Bible claims they did in regards to the Israelites, I doubt that such an intelligent civilization would've made such a gross blunder as to practice it against the wrong gender.
I wonder how many Black women would agree with you that they never faced the horrors of racial hatred. Have you ever read "Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl" by Harriet A. Jacobs?
Genetics would disagree that "the male is the race." The female contributes half of the DNA to human offspring.
Then again, if you want to get right down to it: "race" is not even an objectively real construct. We are all intermingled.
You probably did not mean this as a blanket statement, but as a "white" male I can honestly tell you that I do not hate Black men (or women).
-- Steve
Please allow me to clarify my position. There is more than one way to kill a race/people. The taking of a physical life is one way and the taking of their idenity is another.
Moses was born under the threat of death. Although he was physically alive, he was dead when it came to the struggle of his people, in my mind Moses was dead for 40-years. For 40-years Moses identified himself as an Egyptian (he was dead).
Pharoah knew his edict was impossible to carryout, what he was attempting to do was drive male Hebrew births underground, he set up a situation for God to prove He was supreme. All this was God's Divine providence. God demonstrated, regardless of what the person in power edicts, He is still in control. The very man (Pharoah) who ordered Moses' (male Hebrew infants) death was instrumental in his education, support and rearing. Nobody God could do that. God took a Hebrew male that was suppose to die and used him to lead his people out of slavery.
The history of the world, denotes the male as being the race. Modern genocidal regimes i.e. Rowanda, Sudan etc., kill the men and boys, the women are allowed to live because they will adapt/adjust. American slavery, the black slave woman could get anything she wanted from the master, she was down with the master. All the black male slave got was, beat, lynched, castrated etc. Black slave men dare not even look his master in the eye, eye-to-eye contact by a male slave and his master meant certain death. Even in 2004, many whites I know are intimidated when a black man make eye-to-eye contact with them. What goes through your mind when a black man makes eye-to-eye contact with you, please be honest.
All of the armies when the roll into town, whom do they gather and kill first? The men and boys. When a male lion takes over the pride, the first thing he does is kill the male offspring of his predecessor, he allows the females to live.
The male is the race, destroy the male you destroy the race. The threat of the male is what weak leaders want to suppress. I am not a student of the holicaust, I would like to know the number of male Jews killed versus females. After I send you this email, I will do a little research and see if I can get some numbers.
Everything Pharaoh did was divinely orchastrated by God. If the hardships of Egypt had not been so great, the Hebrews would have never left Egypt. God is amazing, he uses people to get other people to get them to do what He wants done. If Rosa Parks and many others had not gotten tired of mistreatment, you never know, there may not have been a civil rights movement.
Are you sure the female contributes half of the offspring DNA. If that is the case, a mother with HIV, would deliver a chirld with HIV. The male is the race.
Hi D.,
Thanks for clarifying your position. Please allow me to do the same...
You said:
"Pharoah... set up a situation for God to prove He was supreme. All this was God's Divine providence. God demonstrated, regardless of what the person in power edicts, He is still in control. The very man (Pharoah) who ordered Moses' (male Hebrew infants) death was instrumental in his education, support and rearing. Nobody God could do that. God took a Hebrew male that was suppose to die and used him to lead his people out of slavery."
I can't accept that. A god who arranges to have babies murdered in order to show off how "supreme" it is -- that is not a god I care to worship, respect, or even believe in.
The examples you gave of killing males are different than the situation depicted in the Bible. In that story, the victims were slaves. Male slaves were useful commodities to their owners, especially when they were building pyramids and other monolithic structures which required muscle. It doesn't say that the Egyptians were trying to rid themselves of such an asset. It doesn't say that they were attempting genocide or a stealing of their racial identity. It simply says that they didn't want the Israelites to be more numerous than the Egyptians. When population control is involved, and infanticide is the chosen method, then intelligent (albeit immoral) people have always chosen female infanticide.
So, the point in my book was just to pose the question: why would the intelligent Egyptians choose the wrong gender to accomplish their purpose? We don't know for sure what they did (probably nothing) but it seems doubtful to me that they would've done what the Bible relates.
It seems more likely to me that when presented with the fact that the legendary hero Moses had an Egyptian name (originally Mises, from the Egyptian god of the same name) the fanciful writers of Exodus latched onto the common legend of "the hero in danger as a baby" and wove their explanation accordingly.
The Bible itself casts doubt on the Pharaoh's alleged statement that "the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we." (Ex. 1:9) In Deut. 7:7 it says: "The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because you were more in number than any people; for you were the fewest of all people."
It states that the members of Jacob's family which went to Egypt were 70 in all (Gen. 46:27). Moses was only the fourth generation from one of these people (Levi who begat Kohath who begat Amram who begat Moses - Ex. 1:1-2, Gen. 34:25, Gen. 46:11, Ex. 6:16, 1 Chron. 6:1, Ex. 6:18, Num. 26:58, 1 Chron. 6:2, Num. 26:59, 1 Chron. 6:3, 23:13).
From 70 people, how many people could there have been in four generations? The Bible tells us that there were 603,550 Israelite men over 21 years of age who crossed over the Red Sea with Moses as they fled Egypt (Ex. 38:26). For each of these adult males, we could safely assume that there was at least one woman and three children. That would make a total of well over three million people!
In order to achieve this feat, each and every couple would had to have produced 70 children in each of the four generations. And each of those 70 children would had to have survived and lived long enough to bear 70 children of their own! That's quite a feat even for a wealthy couple, but totally out of the question for poverty-stricken slaves! It would require women to give birth well into their eighties (well past menopause -- which is physically impossible.)
Ex. 12:51 tells us that the Israelites left "the land of Egypt" in one day. But three million people on foot could never evacuate a city in one day. Had it been possible to instantly organize them somehow, they would've formed a column fifty persons wide and 28 miles long. According to one estimate, they would all have had to run in unison at sixty miles per hour to accomplish this -- without any food, water, or potty breaks.
Further, we are later told in the Bible that the entire population of Israel was only 7,000 (1 Kings 20:15). What happened to the rest of the three million of "God's chosen people" whom he was allegedly "blessing" during that time?
You asked:
"What goes through your mind when a black man makes eye-to-eye contact with you, please be honest."
Since I am surprised by this question, my life experiences are doubtless very different from yours. I don't wish to sound like I'm trying to invalidate your experiences, but I can honestly say that I don't regard the eye-contact of a "black" man any differently than that of a "white" man. What goes through my mind is: this man is communicating with me and we have each other's full attention.
I know that there are still prejudiced people out there, and you have probably run into more than your share of them. And I'm sure that the Egyptians probably viewed their slaves as inferior beings: so the parallels you are drawing have a certain validity. But even granting that, I can't see white slave owners in America practicing male infanticide; they needed the strong males to plow the fields, mend the fences, bale the hay, and generally do all the heavy lifting chores. If they felt that their slaves were having too many offspring and they resorted to infanticide than I think it's more likely that they would've resorted to female infanticide.
Again, this is just conjecture, and isn't a central point of my book. It is more of an aside. There are more important issues raised in my chapter on Exodus. Especially: why would a "God of love" who supposedly gave humankind free-will, continually "harden Pharaoh's heart" to force him to keep the Israelites enslaved and bring ruin to his country and untold suffering to his people? How could any god deserving of worship murder all of the firstborn just to show off how great it was?
Whoever wrote this story was morally immature. Might does not make right. It demonstrates the dangers of attempting to learn morality from ancient stories written by primitive barbaric people.
Did you know that it is most likely that Moses never lived? He is just a myth. The story of his being in danger from Pharaoh at birth, and being hidden in the Nile, etc? That was a story told many times before about legendary heroes. Hercules, for instance, was also threatened at birth and was hidden away, as was Krishna. These stories predate the one about Moses, and the parallels are too numerous to be coincidental. A similar tale attached itself to Jesus with the "slaughter of the innocents" (which is also an unhistorical myth which is only reported in one "gospel" and in no other work despite many extant histories of the era.)
These are just a few of the many facts which prove that the Bible cannot be what some pretend it to be. These are really just stories for children. They insult our intelligence.
You asked:
"Are you sure the female contributes half of the offspring DNA."
Yes, I'm sure.
As for the women killed in the Holocaust, The Holocaust Chronicle states:
"German authorities considered Jewish women useless to the war effort. They were therefore sentenced to death by starvation, disease, shooting, or gas. Of more troubling concern were Jewish women of child-bearing age. On one hand, their work for the Third Reich could be productive. On the other, their menace was especially acute because they could produce Jewish children. The Final Solution had to prevent that outcome... Holocaust scholar Myrna Goldenberg aptly sums up the situation: The hell may have been the same for men and women during the Holocaust, but the gender-related horrors were different."
D., the male is NOT the race. If, for the sake of argument, we say that there really is such a thing as "race", then we would have to say that the male is half the race.
Recommended reading on women and racism:
Women's experience of racism: How race and gender interact
A pertinent quote from that site:
"Racism and sexism combine to produce more economic inequalities for racialized women than experienced by either white women or racialized men."
-- Steve
Greetings Steve,
I am sorry, I presented such a poor clarification of my position, please allow me to re-clarify myself. You implied, God "arranged to have babies murdered in order to show off how supreme He is." God did not arrange to have babies murdered to prove He is supreme, I am sorry you got the impression I meant that, Pharaoh arranged the murder of babies. Pharoah, came up with the notion to have all male Hebrew infants killed. All God did was demonstrate His power to change the course of events. Man left to his own devices will come with unimanagible horrors in an attempt to remedy the ills of the world i.e. infanticide, ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc. I don't know about you, I am glad God has the last Word?
The God I serve does not have to prove points. God does not cause evil thoughts to be generated in mind of people, but He allow us to think as we will, and He allows evil to exist. God has the last Word.
I beleive the Bible is the Word of God, if it was not it would have been out of print by now.
Exodus 1:8-9
8. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. 9. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we.
You stated:
"It doesn't say that the Egyptians were trying to rid themselves of such an asset. It doesn't say that they were attempting genocide or a stealing of their racial identity. It simply says that they didn't want the Israelites to be more numerous than the Egyptians."
Just because the king said the "children of Israel are more mightier than we" does not make his statement true. Hilter told the German people the Jews were a threat to national secuirty, just because he said it did not make it so. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condelessa Rice, and a parade of others told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, just because they said it did not make it so.
This is my personal take on Pharoah statement in Exodus 1:9. Pharoah's statement in Exodus 1:9 was his attempt to justify his planned enslaving of the Hebrews and his harsh treatment of them. (FREE LABOR) What better way to get people to buy into the mistreatment of others than to portray the people you plan to mistreat as a treat to national security. God blessed the children of Israel, everything they owned was blessed, all they had increased, cattle, land etc. What better way to justify taking from people and no one speak out against the injustice than to demonize the people you are planning to intern, enslave, occupy. Sadaam Hussien, Osama Bin Laden, because of these two evil men, many people in America hate Arabs and anyone that look like them. Patriot Act, yea right.
Moses may have been named after "the Egyptian god of the same name." It may be true, Sargon the Great may have had a simular beginnig to that of Moses, that does not change the fact God used a man to lead Israel from Egyptian slavery.
The population numbers are possible over 430 years. You have to factor the conversion of proselytizing of Egyptians to Judaism.
It is good to know you are accepting of others different than yourself. Prejudice will always exist on earth, race has nothing to do with people being prejudice.
FACT: God is the supreme ruler of the universe. Moses was a real man, he was accurately portrayed in the bible, he was human but God used him to lead Israel out of Egyptian slavery.
You probably have a problem believing God parted the Red Sea. I believe it, who would not serve a God like that.
D.
Hi D.:
You said:
"God did not arrange to have babies murdered to prove He is supreme, I am sorry you got the impression I meant that, Pharaoh arranged the murder of babies. Pharaoh, came up with the notion to have all male Hebrew infants killed.
The God I serve does not have to prove points. God does not cause evil thoughts to be generated in mind of people, but He allow us to think as we will, and He allows evil to exist. God has the last Word."
Well, you may not have meant that, but it seems that the writers of Exodus certainly meant that. They repeatedly made the claim that all of the plagues of Egypt were ultimately caused by the god of the Bible "hardening Pharaoh's heart." If this hardening hadn't occurred, then the murder of the first-born would not have been necessary as the Israelites would already have been released.
According to the Bible, it was NOT the freewill evil thoughts of men which caused the murder of all the firstborn human and non-human animals of Egypt: it was the god of the Bible purposely hardening Pharaoh's heart for the explicit purpose of showing off his power.
Ex:7:3: And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.
Ex:7:4: But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.
Ex:7:5: And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.
Ex:10:27: But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.
Ex:11:1: And the LORD said unto Moses, Yet will I bring one plague more upon Pharaoh, and upon Egypt; afterwards he will let you go hence: when he shall let you go, he shall surely thrust you out hence altogether.
Ex:11:4: And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:
Ex:11:5: And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.
Ex:11:9: And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.
Ex:11:10: And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.
Ex:12:29: And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
Ex:12:30: And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.
A further explicit incidence of biblegod causing murder is seen after the slaughter of the first-born when Pharaoh finally agreed to let the Israelites go. All would've been well, except that the Bible tells us that biblegod "hardened Pharaoh's heart" once again in order to show off his power some more. This time biblegod even hardened the hearts of Pharaoh's soldiers in order to make them pursue the Israelites so that he could part the Red Sea and drown them all spectacularly:
Ex:14:8: And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.
Ex:14:9: But the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, before Baal-zephon.
Ex:14:17: And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen.
Ex:14:18: And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gotten me honour upon Pharaoh, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen.
All of this shows that the deaths of the Egyptians were not due to men's evil thoughts, but was rather due to biblegod wanting to show off. According to these accounts in the Bible, biblegod even INTERFERED with men's freewill in order to do this. Evidently, suffering and death were less important to this god than its own vanity. That's not the type of god I would care to worship.
"I beleive the Bible is the Word of God, if it was not it would have been out of print by now. "
The Vedas are the sacred works of Hinduism. They are far older than the Bible, and are not out of print. Following your logic, they must be the Word of God. I think there's something wrong with your argument.
I agree with you that Pharaoh's alleged statement about the Israelites being greater in number than the Egyptians was a false statement. I also doubt that he ever made that statement.
"The population numbers are possible over 430 years. You have to factor the conversion of proselytizing of Egyptians to Judaism."
Why are you trying to prove the great numbers of Israelites when you already said that you thought Pharaoh's statement was false? I guess your dilemma stems from the fact that the Bible itself states that there were an incredible number of Israelites.
I can't picture many Egyptians adopting the religion of their slaves. Of course if this was the main cause of the swelling population of "Israelites" then the infanticide would've been even less effective. It would've made more sense for Pharaoh to outlaw the practice of the religion if that was his real concern.
When the numbers of Israelites are given, the number from each tribe of Israel is explicitly stated. Egyptian converts to Judaism would not be included in those numbers since they wouldn't be members of a particular tribe (one had to be born into a tribe). So converts wouldn't help explain the incredible population growth of the Israelites.
"FACT: God is the supreme ruler of the universe. Moses was a real man, he was accurately portrayed in the bible, he was human but God used him to lead Israel out of Egyptian slavery."
Please tell me how you define a "fact."
Placing the word "FACT" in front of a set of personal beliefs for which you have no proof, does not make those statements of belief facts.
If all of this is true (as you state), then how is it that there isn't a word about all of this catastrophic destruction and death in all of the annals of Egypt? With all of their crops destroyed, their livestock killed, and their water supplies fouled, how did they even survive? These plagues would've left scars for many decades, and some record would remain. Why didn't the surrounding nations invade Egypt in its greatly weakened state? Where is the tomb of Pharaoh's firstborn with the inscription detailing how a mighty god killed him or her? Why isn't there a day of mourning held to this day in Egypt to commemorate the night when so many Egyptians died?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Where is yours?
All we have to go on are the tall tales in the Bible. And these are self contradictory and often at odds with common sense. Hardly what a reasonable person would dare call "FACTS".
If Moses was a real man who was accurately portrayed in the Bible, then he was a man with the same morals as Hitler. If that surprises you, you've probably never read Numbers chapter 31.
Please read my book, Can the Bible be God's Word
before continuing this conversation (so that I don't have to retype it all over again in emails to you.) You will see that the idea that the Bible is God's Word is untenable.
Don't feel bad: I used to believe just like you... before I read the Bible for myself with an open mind. Then I honestly had to change my beliefs in light of the facts.
Greetings,
FACT: Something that actually occurred or exist (Webster). God actually
exist, on earth Jesus was God in the flesh (incarnate) Jesus is the only way
to obtain salvation. I believe that. Christianity is not a religion it is a
lifestyle (I know what the books say).
Thanks for helping me proving my point, whom other than God can tell you the
end before it begins. In Exodus chapter 7, God told Moses in advance how
Pharaoh would respond, and what God told Moses came to pass, Pharaoh
responded the way God said he would respond.
Again, God does not cause evil, but He allows it. If it were not for the
restraining hand of God, plagues and pestilence would destroy the world.God
is the only One withholding plagues and natural disasters from destroying
the entire earth. When plagues, disasters strike, God did not cause it, He
just did not stop it, big difference. Afterall, He is rightful owner, and
when you are rightful owner, you do as you Will.
I have enjoyed our discussions, one of my professors suggested I have an
open mind and accept the "Worldview" of religion. We had some lively
discussions to say the least. My mind is closed when it comes to what I know
as a FACT, God is alive and He created the world and everything in it. When
I read the Bible, I do not read it with an open mind, I read it and allow
the Holy Spirit to reveal to me what God wants me to know at that particular
time.
When I read the Bible, I see a loving and caring God. One who thought enough
of humanity to create us with freewill, and He allow us to accept or reject
Him.
I cannot help but feel bad because you no longer acknowledge God as creator
and sustainer of the universe. I pray one day, you will accept Jesus Christ
as Lord and Savior, if you have not already.
I find it hard to believe you read the Bible with an open mind and came away
from your reading not believing in God, there has to be more to it than
that.
I will read your book, I may be able to qoute some of your material.
D.
Hi D.,
You said:
"FACT: Something that actually occurred or exist (Webster). God actually
exist, on earth Jesus was God in the flesh (incarnate) Jesus is the only way
to obtain salvation. I believe that."
Here's another definition from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary:
FACT: a thing that is indisputably the case... the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.
The existence of God is definitely in dispute. Whether or not a man named Jesus was "God in the flesh" is definitely in dispute (and has been, even among Christians, from the beginning of Christianity). That Jesus is the "only way to obtain salvation" is certainly disputed by Moslems, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, and atheists (i.e. by the majority of humankind).
Since these beliefs are in dispute, and since it is impossible to prove that God or Jesus ever existed, these things are not facts by definition.
When you say "I believe," you are making a personal statement of faith: you are not stating a fact.
If someone makes extraordinary claims, then it is only fitting and sensible to withhold belief until extraordinary proof is provided to support such claims. I can claim to believe in Widget: an invisible square-circle who answers my prayers and "saves" me, and demands exclusive devotion, and lives on a hilltop in Scotland hovering over the graves of my dead ancestors. If I put the word "FACT" in front of that statement does it really turn it into a fact? If I tell you that I believe it, does that turn it into a fact? No: all I have done is made a statement of belief. No facts have been produced. There is no reason whatsoever for me to expect you to believe in Widget.
You said:
"Thanks for helping me proving my point, whom other than God can tell you the
end before it begins. In Exodus chapter 7, God told Moses in advance how
Pharaoh would respond, and what God told Moses came to pass, Pharaoh
responded the way God said he would respond."
Well, of course he did: according to the Bible God FORCED HIM to respond that way. He had let the Israelites go when "God hardened his heart" and made him pursue the Israelites. Forcing someone to do something is not allowing him or her to exercise freewill.
Would you also be impressed if I told you "my dog is going to sit down now," and then I pushed his rump down to the floor?
You said:
"Again, God does not cause evil, but He allows it."
How can you possibly know this?
Your statement above is wrong according to the Bible you claim is his word:
Amos:3:6: Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
Isa:45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isn't killing babies evil?
You said:
"If it were not for the restraining hand of God, plagues and pestilence would destroy the world. God is the only One withholding plagues and natural disasters from destroying the entire earth."
How do you know this?
Are plagues and pestilence evil? If they would "destroy the world," and God declared the world to be "good," then I guess something that would destroy the world would be evil. Yet, if God created everything then he created plague and pestilence: which means he created evil (as Isa. 45:7 states.)
If God created the world, and declared it "good" (as Genesis says), then how could it naturally tend to destroy itself (as you state) without constant restraint by God? How could God call something "good" if it acted against God's wishes and God had to constantly restrain it?
You said:
"When plagues, disasters strike, God did not cause it, He just did not stop it, big difference. Afterall, He is rightful owner, and when you are rightful owner, you do as you Will."
This is a perfect example of the type of immorality which stems from accepting the Bible as God's Word.
"When you are rightful owner, you do as you will."
WRONG!!! This couldn't be more wrong, but it is something I hear over and over again from theists.
If I owned a slave, would it really be morally okay for me to do whatever I wanted to my slave? So I could beat him, or sexually abuse her?
If I owned a dog, would it really be morally okay for me to kick the dog, or starve it to death, or use it for target practice?
Ownership does NOT give one carte blanche to do as one wills. I wouldn't exist if it weren't for my mother and father, but that doesn't mean they have a right to abuse me, or that I must accept whatever sort of treatment they care to hand out as morally acceptable.
You say God does not cause disasters; he just doesn't do anything to stop them. Yet, you claim that God created these forces. This would be as if I was driving a car and I saw you crossing the street, but I did nothing to stop the car: I didn't apply the brakes -- I just "allowed" the car to hit you. "Big difference?" I don't think so; you're still dead.
What sort of depraved individual would I be to not apply the brakes? Certainly not a paragon of moral virtue.
If someone sees suffering occurring and they do nothing to prevent it (when it is in their power to prevent it) then that is an immoral person. What then can we say of your idea of a god who is all-powerful and all-seeing? If he doesn't apply the brakes on natural disasters, then he is immoral.
You said:
"My mind is closed when it comes to what I know as a FACT, God is alive and He created the world and everything in it. When I read the Bible, I do not read it with an open mind, I read it and allow the Holy Spirit to reveal to me what God wants me to know at that particular time."
D., a closed mind is not something to be proud of (though religion encourages such an attitude). A closed mind is what perpetuates prejudice and misunderstanding, and ultimately wars. If you have a closed mind, there is no point in further discussion.
Though you think a spirit is telling you what to think as you read the Bible, I think it's much more likely that you are thinking what you've been indoctrinated to think. People don't naturally, all by themselves, decide that the Bible is God's Word. Someone tells them that.
When I was growing up, I was taught that the Bible was God's Word. I had that pounded into my head in Catholic school. When I first read the Bible I had all those preconceived notions that I brought into the reading. I thought it was a holy spirit instructing me, but it was really just what I was taught. When I read about the Israelites killing women, children, and animals ("everything that breathed") I thought as I was taught to think: that the Israelites were the "good guys" and the Philistines et al. were the "bad guys" so it was okay.
It is similar to the "cowboy and Indian" TV shows I grew up watching: the cowboys were the good guys, and the Indians were the bad guys. I never stopped to think that the Indians were the natives protecting their families and homeland from the invading hordes of Western Europeans. Just as I never stopped to think that the Canaanites were the natives of the land, trying to defend themselves from the invading hordes of Israelites.
Here's the bottom-line: people wrote the Bible. People voted which writings would constitute the Bible. People told you that the Bible was "God's Word".
People often make mistakes.
You need to examine the Bible for yourself for EVIDENCE that it is God's Word. This involves having an open mind to judiciously weigh the facts pro and con. In fact, the Bible itself encourages you to do this:
1Jn:4:1: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Thes:5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
If you really read the Bible, and see what it says about God, you will find that it describes a wicked, egotistical maniac.
If there is a God, then believing that the Bible accurately depicts him would be about the greatest insult one could defame him with.
You said:
"When I read the Bible, I see a loving and caring God. One who thought enough
of humanity to create us with freewill, and He allow us to accept or reject
Him."
When biblegod commanded that pregnant women should have their "bellies ripped open" and suckling babes should be "run through with the sword," and that the men who did these things should not feel sorry -- are those examples of "a loving and caring God"? If that's how you define "loving and caring" I hope you never love or care for anyone!
It is possible to read the Bible through "rose colored" glasses and tell yourself that it describes a "loving and caring" God. But I don't think that's a very honest or mentally healthy way to approach it. Why don't you read it for what it really says instead of reading your preconceived notions into it?
Remember: "FACT" is "the truth about events as opposed to interpretation." The fact is: the Bible relates events which if you read about in the newspaper you would say "this God fellow is a wicked fiend!" But, since you read about them in the Bible (and you have a preconceived notion that everything the Bible relates about God must be good) you defend them as moral actions. This is not just closed-minded; it is dishonest.
You said:
"I find it hard to believe you read the Bible with an open mind and came away
from your reading not believing in God, there has to be more to it than
that."
Belief in the Bible as the Word of God and belief in God are two separate things. Millions of people believe in God without ever having heard of the Bible (and millions believed in God before the Bible was ever written or made available to the public). Reading the Bible with an open mind had nothing to do with my disbelief in God. The Bible is just a bunch of writings by anonymous ancient (mostly barbaric) men. What they wrote has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.
I'm glad you're going to read my book. I wish you would try to do so with an open mind. But at least really try to listen to the "other side": you owe this to yourself.
-- Steve
Greetings Steve,
I agree with the Concise Oxford English Dictionary's definition of the word FACT. These are the FACTS as I know them to be:
1. God is alive.
2. God (Jehovah) Created everything that exist.
3. While on earth Jesus was God in the flesh (incarnate).
4. Faith in Jesus alone is the only way means by which we can attain salvation.
Yes, you are correct, there is a crowd disputing the existence of the God I serve and Jesus the Christ being the Son of God. The Bible tells us these times would come. 2 Timothy 4:3-4
3. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
I am sorry, I did not make the rules Jesus is the only way to obtain salvation, the Moslems, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, and atheists are hellbound wrong and so is the majority of humankind. There is "GOOD NEWS" it is not to late for them, they have until death and after death, the consequences is hell (eternal separation from God). God said it, I believe it.
You are partially right when you say "I believe," is a personal statement of faith, I believe is a statement of facts as I know them to be, no-one can prove to me otherwise. Until someone PROVE to me there is no God (impossible to do), it is a FACT God exists. Like you, based on your writings, no one can prove to you that the God of the Bible is the all knowing, all loving, and creator of the universe.
Question: If there is a bottomless pit in the path of a blind man, he is told of the pit and is offered assistance to help him avoid the pit, but he does not believe there is a pit, does that mean, because he does not believe there is a pit, will prevent him from falling into the pit? I would rather believe and serve the true and living God and you be right, than not to believe in Him and you be wrong.
I see the existence of God all around me, when I see His creations i.e. people, sky, birds, animals etc. You cannot deny everything that exist on the earth is not the creation of a loving and caring God.
You say at one time you were Catholic, but did you have a intimate relationship with Jesus? I am not religious person, I am a Christian. I do not view Christianity as a religion, for me Christianity is a lifestyle. Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism etc. are religions.
The Bible is the Word of God, Holy inspired, inerrant, infallible. Does that mean folk will not take God's Word out of context and use it to their advantage? No, many people will distort the Word for their own best interest.
God allow things to happen for a reason. The native Americans, slavery etc. happen for a reason, I cannot explain it. But aren't you and I better off, because things happened the way they did. Slavery, the Civil Rights movement, racism, prejudice, etc. happened for a reason, I know God is in control. I my ancestors had remained in Africa, I may be worshipping a tree stump and calling it God, you never know.
Be Blessed, I will be attending Watch Night Service tonight (10:00pm - 12:00PM). I will keep you in my prayers.
D.
Hi D.,
Well, I was just going to write: "I give up :-)"
But, I decided to take one more crack at it. I don't expect to convince you of anything, but I do want to "discharge my duty" to you, because I remember when I was exactly like you. I only wish someone had taken the time to patiently explain reality to me in spite of all of my stubborn closed-minded protestations. I don't know if it would've done me any good at the time, but it at least would have helped me later when I came to realize that I had wasted years of my life chasing a chimera.
Even if I believed in God right now today, I would have to honestly admit that the statement "God exists" is not a fact.
"God exists" is a "claim." Saying that does not deny that it is a true statement, it just defines what sort of a statement it is.
Facts can be evidence that is used to infer a claim.
For instance, let's say that I was arguing with a "flat earth" proponent. He would deny that it is a fact that the earth is a sphere. But just because he believed that the earth is flat, he wouldn't be justified in making the statement: "it's a fact that the earth is flat." That would simply show that he was ignorant of the proper meaning of the word "fact". It certainly would do nothing to bolster his case.
I would say, "The earth is not flat."
He would say, "The earth is flat."
Since the flatness of the earth is what is in dispute, we cannot get anywhere at all in resolving our dispute by putting the word "fact" in front of our statements. They simply are NOT facts in this argument because they are what is in dispute (remember: facts are what are not in dispute.)
If I say that "it's a fact that the earth is not flat", and he says, "it's a fact that the earth is flat" -- it's the end of the discussion (unless we want to behave like children repeating "Is so!" and "Is not!" over and over again.)
Facts are what we will introduce as evidence and attempt to infer our claims from.
Facts are what are not in dispute.
For example:
Flat Earther: "The Bible speaks of the 'four corners of the earth'".
That is a fact; I do not dispute it.
Flat Earther: A sphere does not have corners: therefore the earth is not a sphere.
That is an inference, supporting his claim.
You may care to argue with him in a variety of ways, none of which have anything to do with disputing the fact he started with. Rather, you would dispute the inference he makes from the agreed-upon fact.
In our discussion, "God exists" is a claim you have made. It is not a fact, since I dispute it. If you continue to call it a fact, then you are preventing any sort of meaningful exchange between us. What you must do (if you expect to support your claim to anyone's satisfaction beyond your own) is to cite indisputable facts and then demonstrate how you infer your claim from them.
Do you understand?
You said:
I am sorry, I did not make the rules Jesus is the only way to obtain salvation, the Moslems, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, and atheists are hellbound wrong and so is the majority of humankind. There is "GOOD NEWS" it is not to late for them, they have until death and after death, the consequences is hell (eternal separation from God). God said it, I believe it.
Who did make up these rules? And how do you know they made up these rules? And why do you abide by them?
How do you know that Moslems, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, and atheists are "hellbound wrong?" Don't you realize that Moslems believe that YOU are "hellbound wrong?" If I ask a Moslem why he thinks that, he's going to say, "God said it, I believe it." So how do I choose between you (representing the Christian lifestyle) and him (representing the Moslem lifestyle)? Some discussion is needed. Some evidence must be produced, some inferences must be explained. Otherwise, I'll just continue to worship Widget, since you two are unable or unwilling to give me any reason to accept your claims.
You said:
Until someone PROVE to me there is no God (impossible to do), it is a FACT God exists.
That's just silly. No one can PROVE that the Loch Ness monster or Big Foot or Leprechauns, or Santa Claus do not exist either. Does that make it a FACT that they exist? No, of course not.
You asked:
Question: If there is a bottomless pit in the path of a blind man, he is told of the pit and is offered assistance to help him avoid the pit, but he does not believe there is a pit, does that mean, because he does not believe there is a pit, will prevent him from falling into the pit? I would rather believe and serve the true and living God and you be right, than not to believe in Him and you be wrong.
Your analogy is flawed; in the case of the supernatural, there are no sighted people involved. You are talking about something that cannot be seen (or sensed with any of our other four senses). It is really a case of "the blind leading the blind" -- no one has any more idea of what is "out there" than anyone else. Why should you accept what anyone else tells you instead of discerning the truth for yourself? Don't you know that there are several blind people all around you who claim to have sight and who are all pulling you in different directions? Make your own walking stick and tap it out in front of you as you walk! Find your own way! If you believe in God, why do you think he gave you a brain? Just so you could blindly follow others?
There is a fallacy in reasoning called "assuming the argument." It is also known variously as "circular reasoning" or "begging the question." When you say you'd rather serve the "true and living God" you are assuming your own argument: that is the very thing in dispute: how do you know you are serving the "true and living God"? How do you know it isn't really Allah or Shiva, or none of the above?
With your attitude, if you had been born a Hindu or a Moslem, you would have remained a Hindu or a Moslem: because you refuse to have an open mind and fairly examine your belief. You are content to be led around blindly: accepting whatever you were taught as a child, rather than thinking for yourself.
You said:
I see the existence of God all around me, when I see His creations i.e. people, sky, birds, animals etc. You cannot deny everything that exist on the earth is not the creation of a loving and caring God.
Yes I can, and I do. See my online book on God.
You asked:
You say at one time you were Catholic, but did you have a intimate relationship with Jesus?
No. I have an intimate relationship with my wife. I have never had an intimate relationship with a spirit. I didn't have any imaginary friends as a child either.
You said:
The Bible is the Word of God, Holy inspired, inerrant, infallible. Does that mean folk will not take God's Word out of context and use it to their advantage? No, many people will distort the Word for their own best interest.
That's exactly why it is such a dangerous book. But it doesn't even need to be "taken out of context" in order to be used for harmful purposes. European invaders used it to justify the genocide of the Native Americans by citing the in-context example of the Israelites engaging in the genocide of the Canaanites. Then they used the in-context examples of the Bible's condoning of slavery (and the curse of Noah on the descendents of Ham) to justify their enslavement of Africans. Then they used the in-context law in the Bible to justify the burning of "witches" at the stake. No distortion was required.
It can be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the Bible is not inerrant, or infallible. In fact I can't think of any book as full of errors and mistakes as the Bible. My book does a good job of showing that, so I won't waste words on that subject here, but will refer you once again to my book,
Can the Bible be God's Word
D., do you REALLY consider it "holy" to murder unborn babies, pregnant women, suckling babes, children, women and animals? Do you think it's "holy" to rape virgin girls, or offer up human sacrifices to God? This is what the Bible reports that Moses did in the chapter I cited in a previous email (Numbers 31). If that's what is meant by "holy" I want nothing to do with it, and I will continue to take it as my duty to attempt to dissuade others from thinking this is a "holy" book.
"God said it, I believe it." The Israelites thought that too. It's the only thing that drove them to commit such atrocities without a shred of human mercy (according to the Bible, God specifically commanded that their "heart not feel pity" for their victims.) Guess what? That's the same reasoning used by terrorists who fly airplanes into buildings. And you know what? No God ever said any such things! It was the people who claimed to speak for God who said these things. Please pay very special attention to that point!
Throughout history, whenever those in power wanted the common people to sacrifice themselves (or others) in the interests of those in power, they came up with "God told us to do this!" The Israelites wanted more land. So, what do you suppose they did? They told the people that God told them that the land belonged to them and that God hated the current inhabitants of the land, and that God was ordering them to wipe them out and take their land. How convenient (and transparent)! The exact same thing happened when the Europeans invaded the American continent. "Manifest Destiny" was invoked as the justification for the genocide of the Native Americans, with plenty of Scriptural references at the ready to spur people on in their murderous, thieving deeds.
You said:
God allow things to happen for a reason. The native Americans, slavery etc. happen for a reason, I cannot explain it. But aren't you and I better off, because things happened the way they did. Slavery, the Civil Rights movement, racism, prejudice, etc. happened for a reason, I know God is in control. I my ancestors had remained in Africa, I may be worshipping a tree stump and calling it God, you never know.
Well, maybe the tree stump wouldn't have had a reason to allow the genocide of the Native Americans or the enslavement of the Africans. It surely couldn't have been any worse of a God than Jehovah.
No, I am not "better off" because Native Americans were killed. They treated this land and its animals with at least some measure of respect and a common-sense approach to conserving the environment for the future. What was done to the Native Americans makes me ashamed to be an "American" -- just as I would expect a German to be ashamed of the Holocaust rather than claiming that he was "better off" due to it!
No, I am not "better off" because Africans were enslaved. To this day, as you have pointed out, prejudice continues to rear its ugly head. The Civil War was the worst war (in terms of the number of American lives lost) in this country's history. Families were torn apart, atrocities were committed on both sides, blood was spilled, and rifts were created which have still not entirely healed. Was all of that "worth it" so that we could have a Civil Rights movement? No. There never should've been a need for a Civil Rights movement; people shouldn't have been prejudiced to begin with. Christians shouldn't have found justification for perpetuating slavery in their "sacred" writings: the Bible. Ethical people should never have sanctioned slavery to begin with. The "cure" was not 100%; the disease of prejudice lingers on... so I don't see how we could maintain that the "cure" (the Civil Rights movement) made the disease somehow worthwhile.
If you get cancer, is it worthwhile because you then get to have chemotherapy? Even if you are never 100% cured after that? Wouldn't it have been better to never have had the cancer to begin with?
Even if I were somehow "better off," it wouldn't have been worth one death or one enslavement. No way.
-- Steve
Greetings Steve,
Our encounter, (I know you probably don't want to hear this) was Divinely orchestrated by God. Let me explain, Prior to our discussion regarding the existence of God, I have never responded to anyone online other than technical support people, I do not believe it was coincidence, our discussion is divinely orchestrated, I believe everything is orchestrated by God.
Have you ever believe in something so deeply, until what you believe is unshakable. If I were to focus on it in the natural, I would have a lot to hate God for, but I know, everything that has occurred in my life was His Will for my life.
A fact is a fact until proven otherwise. The earth was flat until someone proved it was not. Just think of the people who went to their graves thinking the earth was flat. Whether the earth was flat or round did not change their eternal destiny. But a relationship with God through Christ has eternal consequences.
I have friends that are Moslem, I have some relatives who say they are Buddhist, I tell them the same thing I am telling you. Unless they accept Jesus Christ a their personal savior they will spend eternity in hell.
Do you attend Church anywhere? Do anyone in your immediate family have a relationship with Jesus.
You were joking when you said, "No one can PROVE that the Loch Ness monster or Big Foot or Leprechauns, or Santa Claus exists.
I truly believe, If I were born Hindu or Moslem, I would be a Christian today, I feel God's divine orchestration would have made it so.
I was not joking when I asked if you had a intimate relationship with Jesus? Try it.
The Bible is not a dangerous book, it only become dangerous when the person is using human intellect and human reasoning to interpret the Word of God. Just like the Moslem do with the Koran Jihad (Holy War). It is not the book, but the mind of the person.
I have downloaded your book, why do you call your book, "A complete, online, Biblical commentary?" I am going to start my reading with the introduction then I am moving to the Gospels. There was one thing I found interesting in the introduction where you said: "I decided to read the Bible on my own and write down my own reactions to it. I intended to find out for myself if it appeared to have divine inspiration or was a mass of contradictory nonsense." When people read the bible "on their own" (Without the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit) they will reach the same conclusion you reached. Have you ever read the Dispensational Principles of the Bible, or Biblical Hermeneutics, or Hermeneutical Principles of the Bible? Do you really believe God does not exist? I feel deep down inside you want to believe. If I were to read the Bible without being guided by the Holy Spirit, I probably would reach the same conclusion you reached.
I maybe wrong, but I sense you are truly a caring and concerned person. You said: I remember when I was exactly like you. When you were "Exactly" like me, were you saved? If you were saved, you are still saved. Have you been "Born Again"? Have you ever confessed Christ as your personal savior. If you have been Born Again, you are exactly like me. I had to look "chimera" up. No fantasy here. Steve, I hate you never had a relationship with Christ, you are a sharp fellow, you would be an asset for the cause of Christ. Would you be willing to give a relationship with Christ another chance?
You are knowledgeable when it comes to the bible, you have done your research. I will be lecturing on the History of the Church in a couple of weeks, what do you have I can use regarding the reformation movement and the catholic church.
The family and I had a spiritually blessed Watch Night Service (New Years Eve Night 10:00PM - 12:01AM), man we had a time. By the way, I am Baptist by denomination. I will be in Church most of the day tomorrow, I will say a prayer for you and your family, prayer changes things.
D.
Hi D.,
You said:
Our encounter, (I know you probably don't want to hear this) was Divinely orchestrated by God. Let me explain, Prior to our discussion regarding the existence of God, I have never responded to anyone online other than technical support people, I do not believe it was coincidence, our discussion is divinely orchestrated, I believe everything is orchestrated by God.
That's nice, but of course the fact that you believe it does not make it true.
Out of curiosity: how did you find me?
You asked:
Have you ever believe in something so deeply, until what you believe is unshakable.
Yes, but it turned out that it was shakable after all. When the truth was pointed out to me I had to decide whether to hypocritically cling to what I now knew was false, or to admit my error and move on.
You said:
If I were to focus on it in the natural, I would have a lot to hate God for, but I know, everything that has occurred in my life was His Will for my life.
How do you know that?
You said:
A fact is a fact until proven otherwise. The earth was flat until someone proved it was not. Just think of the people who went to their graves thinking the earth was flat.
The fact that people thought it didn't make it true. They were mistaken. It was not a fact (though they thought it was.) People did dispute it (and were thereby declared heretics by the Catholic church). It's not true that something is a fact until proven otherwise. There are some things that have never been facts. The "flat earth" was never a "fact;" it was a "mistake".
You said:
Whether the earth was flat or round did not change their eternal destiny. But a relationship with God through Christ has eternal consequences.
How do you know this?
You said:
I have friends that are Moslem, I have some relatives who say they are Buddhist, I tell them the same thing I am telling you. Unless they accept Jesus Christ a their personal savior they will spend eternity in hell.
How do you know this?
You asked:
Do you attend Church anywhere? Do anyone in your immediate family have a relationship with Jesus.
No I don't attend church. Yes, some of my family thinks they have such a relationship.
You said:
You were joking when you said, "No one can PROVE that the Loch Ness monster or Big Foot or Leprechauns, or Santa Claus exists.
Sorry, that was a typo. I was replying to your statement:
Until someone PROVE to me there is no God (impossible to do), it is a FACT God exists.
And what I meant to say was:
That's just silly. No one can PROVE that the Loch Ness monster or Big Foot or Leprechauns, or Santa Claus do not exist. Does that make it a FACT that they exist? No, of course not.
Just because you can't prove that something does not exist, that doesn't prove that it does exist. Try to disprove the existence of Shiva to a Hindu -- you'll never convince him. According to your logic, that would prove that Shiva exists. So, your logic is flawed.
You said:
I truly believe, If I were born Hindu or Moslem, I would be a Christian today, I feel God's divine orchestration would have made it so.
In order to convert to Christianity you would had to have been able to exercise an open mind in order to examine your religious beliefs. If you took the attitude you have today: "I have unshakable faith! I am closed-minded when it comes to reading my sacred book! My belief is a FACT which no one can ever disprove to me!" Then I don't see how you ever would've converted to Christianity.
You said:
I was not joking when I asked if you had a intimate relationship with Jesus? Try it.
How do you have an intimate relationship with a spirit when you don't believe that spirits exist?
You said:
The Bible is not a dangerous book, it only become dangerous when the person is using human intellect and human reasoning to interpret the Word of God. Just like the Moslem do with the Koran Jihad (Holy War). It is not the book, but the mind of the person.
I disagree. The Bible is a dangerous book even when you don't interpret it, but just read it for what it says in black and white. I have already pointed out several examples of this. The Koran is also a dangerous book as written.
You asked:
I have downloaded your book, why do you call your book, "A complete, online, Biblical commentary?"
Because that's what it is.
You said:
I am going to start my reading with the introduction then I am moving to the Gospels. There was one thing I found interesting in the introduction where you said: "I decided to read the Bible on my own and write down my own reactions to it. I intended to find out for myself if it appeared to have divine inspiration or was a mass of contradictory nonsense." When people read the bible "on their own" (Without the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit) they will reach the same conclusion you reached.
If someone is taking the time and trouble to read "God's Word," why doesn't the "Holy Spirit" jump in there and help him understand it? What if someone who never heard of Christianity came across a Bible and read it? He's not going to know anything about a "Holy Spirit" before reading the Bible. So, he's just going to read it. It won't do him any good according to your theory: he won't understand it. So why ship Bibles to foreign countries? It would only do more harm than good.
If there were such a thing as a holy spirit, it would have its chance to act when someone picked up the Bible and started reading (even if that person didn't know enough to pray for the holy spirit's guidance at the outset.) If it doesn't work like this, then how does one ever get started?
Whether I had a spirit guiding me or not, the Bible says exactly the same thing. That is what my book discusses: what the Bible actually says (without any interpretation involved.) If you have some "holy spirit interpretation" which doesn't actually contradict what the Bible says in black and white, then I'd be willing to listen to it. But if all you're going to tell me is: "that doesn't mean what it says," then you can save your breath. I would be following your interpretation rather than what the Bible actually says. I've been there and done that already, thank you.
Have you ever read the Dispensational Principles of the Bible, or Biblical Hermeneutics, or Hermeneutical Principles of the Bible?
Yes.
Do you really believe God does not exist?
Yes.
I feel deep down inside you want to believe. If I were to read the Bible without being guided by the Holy Spirit, I probably would reach the same conclusion you reached.
Oh, yes, it would be nice if there was a benevolent all-powerful "father figure" watching over us and taking care of us and loving us. Who wouldn't want that to be true?
But do I "want" to believe it? Not if it's obviously untrue. I want to purge falsehoods from my life. I want the truth, no matter how stark and plain it might be. I don't need comfortable fairy tales: Just give me the truth: I can handle it.
You said:
I maybe wrong, but I sense you are truly a caring and concerned person.
Thank you. I think we probably both fit that description, or we wouldn't have continued this conversation this long without becoming rude to one another.
That was rather presumptuous of me to say I was "exactly" like you: sorry. No, I never attended a church that emphasized "being saved" or "born again." But the churches I attended did believe in the redemptive power of Jesus' death, and that you had to accept that or else. The Catholics taught me to pray to Jesus and ask him what to do, etc.
What I was thinking of when I said we were exactly alike, is in the "closed minded," stubborn clinging to a belief. When I was a believer I was 100% convinced that my beliefs were unshakable FACTS. Guess what? I was 100% wrong! :-)
In what way will you pray FOR me? How could prayer change things? Doesn't God already know what's best? Are you presuming to tell God what to do, and he'll listen and do it? Doesn't that imply that you know better than God? Doesn't it also contradict what Jesus reputedly said about "when you pray, do not ask for what you need: God already knows what you need?" (Mt. 6:8 paraphrased) (Although he then went on to give a "model prayer" in which he broke his own rule by asking God for several things.)
I haven't written much specifically relating to the Reformation. What I can tell you is: Luther had some pretty major ethical faults that are usually glossed over by Protestants (such as his recommendation to burn "heretics".)
He did address some of the more blatant abuses of the Catholic Church (such as the selling of indulgences -- which, however one could easily find Scriptural support for.)
-- Steve
Greetings Steve,
You asked, "How did I find you?" I was researching for an upcoming seminar on History of the Church and Church Polity, a link sent me to your book, I responded to the question "Is the Bible the Word of God?" The rest is history. It was Divine orchestration. I believe that. How do I know that, I believe NOTHING happens by chance, there are no coincidences.
Now back to our discussion. Faith is something a person cannot adequately explain (at least I cannot). You either have faith or you don't. Hebrews 11:1 Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not SEEN. If I can see it, I don't need faith only sight is required. I have faith my chair will sustain my weight when I set down, I do not inspect my chair before sitting, I have faith in the structure and soundness of the chair. I cannot explain that, I just sit down.
How do I know, everything that has occurred in my life was His Will for my life, or a relationship with God through Christ has eternal consequences, or unless Moslems, Jehovah Witnesses, Buddhist, Hindus etc accept Jesus Christ a their personal savior they will spend eternity in hell. I have the word of god to back me up.
I apologize for asking if you attend Church, attending Church does not mean a person have been born again or have a relationship with Christ Jesus. That's another trick of Satan, He wants people to think Church membership or attendance means a person is saved, far from it.
You asked, "How do you have an intimate relationship with a spirit when you don't believe that spirits exist? We can only have a relationship with God through Jesus spiritually. God How do you have an intimate relationship with a spirit when you don't believe that spirits exist?" John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
You asked, "If someone is taking the time and trouble to read "God's Word," why doesn't the "Holy Spirit" jump in there and help him understand it? What if someone who never heard of Christianity came across a Bible and read it? He's not going to know anything about a "Holy Spirit" before reading the Bible. So, he's just going to read it. It won't do him any good according to your theory: he won't understand it. So why ship Bibles to foreign countries? It would only do more harm than good." The answer is RELATIONSHIP. The Holy Spirit is our companion, until Jesus return. Our relationship with Jesus is directed and validated by the Holy Spirit.
When a person is born again, they are not regenerated physically, they are regenerated spiritually. If you have not experienced regeneration, I cannot sufficently explain it. Jesus had a discussion with Nicodemus about being "Born Again." John 3:3-7
3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
3:4
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Does the above verses mean everyone who say they have a relationship with Jesus have been born again? I wish, this is not a FACT, if everyone who proclaim Christianity were born again, every nightclub in America would close because of a lack of business, we would not need as many police as we currently have. Most Christian denomination don't like to discuss being born again. Most of the so-called "NEW AGE" Christians just focus on the miracle working ministry of Jesus, rather than His life changing teachings.
You said you do not believe God exist, If you do not believe God exists, (I know this is a stupid question) how do you explain humanity, the earth, universe etc. Are you a Casual Theist, Design Theist of Devout Atheist? You said you had family members that have a relationship with Christ, do you ever attend worship and praise with them?
You asked, "In what way will you pray FOR me? How could prayer change things? Doesn't God already know what's best? Are you presuming to tell God what to do, and he'll listen and do it? Doesn't that imply that you know better than God? Doesn't it also contradict what Jesus reputedly said about "when you pray, do not ask for what you need: God already knows what you need?" (Mt. 6:8 paraphrased) (Although he then went on to give a "model prayer" in which he broke his own rule by asking God for several things.)"
Praying is not telling God what to do, praying is merely talking to God, talking to my Father. I think you misquoted Matthew 6:8, Jesus is teaching His disciples, He is telling them not to be show-offs when they pray, and He taught them and us how to pray.
Enjoyed, worship, fellowship and praise service yesterday, man did we have a time. I said a special prayer for you.
D.
Hi D.,
Well, I'm giving up now.
I really don't want to end this on a rude note, as we've both behaved ourselves fairly well up till now (I overlook it when Christians tell me I'm going to hell.) But I feel I owe you an explanation as to why I'm ending this conversation.
The main reason is: I don't think you're listening to me. When I ask how you know something and you tell me you believe it, that doesn't answer my question. It shows me that you either aren't listening as I patiently explain again and again that beliefs are not facts, or (due to your admitted closed-mindedness) you simply aren't capable of comprehending my point.
When you say, "I have the word of god to back me up" you are once again engaging in circular reasoning. We've already gone over that.
If you ever want to try to answer my questions in a sensible manner, I'll be here. But if you just want to keep calling your beliefs "facts," I've already heard that message enough times.
BTW: The answers to the questions you asked me in your last email are all here, on my website.
Take care,
-- Steve
|
