True Christians love abortion

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I cannot comprehend the almost unilateral Christian voice against abortion. Since when has God taken an issue with innocent children?

1Sa 15:3
Now go and attack Amalek. Claim everything they have for God by destroying it. Don't spare them, but kill men and women, infants and children, cows and sheep, camels and donkeys."

Eze 5:17 (God Speaking)
I will send famines and wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children. I will send plagues, violence, and wars to kill you. I, the LORD, have spoken."

Eze 9:6 (God speaking)
Kill old men, young men, old women, young women, and children. But don't come near anyone who has a mark on him. Start with my holy place." So they started with the old men in front of the temple.

Hos 9:16
"The people of Ephraim are like sick plants. Their roots are dried up. They have no fruit. Even if they were to have children, I would kill their dear children."

Exo 4:23
This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son. I told you to let my son go so that he may worship me. But you refused to let him go. So now I'm going to kill your firstborn son.'"

Exo 12:12
"On that same night I will go throughout Egypt and kill every firstborn male, both human and animal. I will severely punish all the gods of Egypt, because I am the LORD.



It's too bad God couldn't have the same decency as his followers when dealing with Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Every young child of these nations was murdered due to the sins of the parents. Relating this to the current situation, the woman requesting an abortion probably engaged in lascivious sexual intercourse, a grave sin. By God's standards, her unborn child needs to be slaughtered.


If this is not the official Biblical doctrine on abortion, pray tell me, just what is?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I meant to throw in the comment that a fetus fits the basic biologial definition of life.

Not quite.

They only possess three out of the four essential traits. A fetus exibits metabolism, growth, and a response to stimuli, but is physically incapable of reproduction.

[Jester]

I meant to throw in the comment that a fetus fits the basic biologial definition of life.

Not quite.

They only possess three out of the four essential traits. A fetus exibits metabolism, growth, and a response to stimuli, but is physically incapable of reproduction.

Reproduction is only a requirement for life after maturity and certain conditions of health are met. Else, an eight year old child is not a biological life, either (or, frankly, nor is a sterille adult).

[redstang281]

If I give answers to those questions then it's only speculation because I am not God. I don't assume I am qualified to

understand God. Nor do I assume I understand every detail involved in the situations he acts in.

What you are doing is assuming you have complete understanding of not only God but also the scenario God is working in when

you decide to pass judgement on him.

Let's say you decide to write a book detailing the numerous people you have unjustly murdered and tortured.

Am I to give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you had a noble intent? No. From what information I have, I

must conclude that you are an evil psycopath.

Likewise, from what little information the Bible gives me, I must conclude that God was completely unjustified in carrying

out his numerous genocides.

No he wasn't. The other nations were filled with sin and were a danger to the only nation that trusted in God.

Even so, who's fault is it you can not explain nuclear physics to an ant?

If God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient as the Bible presumes, then he should be able to explain anything from

quantum mechanics downward to even the simplest of organisms.

Then an ant, would no longer be an ant, would it?

Presently in this world God's primary concern is not that we understand his character depth, it is that we trust in him for

salvation. Which, he has given us abundant reasons to do so not only from the Bible but also from the people we meet in our

lives who have been changed for the better by him.

When I read the Bible, I find no answers, merely more questions. If God is truely all powerful and genuinely wants to

convey his message to the masses, then his message should be clear enough for all creeds to comprehend.

The Gospel itself is simple.

That's evident as people from all difference age ranges and intellect levels have come to accept it.

Even the most learned Greek/Hebrew scholars are at odds with one another as to what messages that specific passages

are intended to convey (case in point, the Exodus 22:21 verse that we have put under close scrutiny).

You're right. But they don't always disagree because of scripture. Sometimes they are just trying to force the scripture to

support a certain view. Their own biases come into play in other words.

God didn't create the evils in the world. Man did.

But who created man?
Who "formed us inside the womb", and "knows us before we are even concepted"?

It is not the chair's fault that it just so happens to fall apart under intended use. The carpender who made it defective is

to blame.

Isn't it possible this day and age for a computer programmer to create a program that has the possibility to output different

results or possibly even randomly generate results? That is how I view God's creation.

Why do God's commandments for us have to be the same rules that he follows?

So it is okay for God to murder?

Who would God answer to?

Besides, it's not murder if it's justified.

What about people who don't want to understand? He should force them to?

What about the people who want to understand (i.e. myself)? Shouldn't he choose authors for his holy book who are capable of

stringing together a halfway coherent sentence?

Neglecting every detail is not the same as incoherentness.

God gives you those holes to hide in if your heart is against him.

Have you studied the Bible? How do you know he hasn't made his intents known?

I have read most parts of the Bible well over 10 times through.

You would think I might start "getting it" sometime soon.

Ok, then if you have such command over the scripture you should be able to answer this question without issue.

Why was the Ten Commandments given?

Considering God is outside of time, he doesn't base his decisions of "ifs" but instead of what is and what will

(or would) be.

Okay. So what exactly "is or will be"?

In other words, he knows the future and knows what will happen based on what action he takes. He is never surprised.

God never says. His genocides were never put into any context besides blatant murder.

Murder implies unjustified killing. God is just in condeming sin. Therefore, God is never a murderer.

Thanks to this, groups like the LRA (Lord's Resistance Army) can carry out mass killings/rape/slavery upon whoever

they consider to be heathens, and never think twice about it.

They decide to be hateful people first and then try to back it up with the Bible second. Not the other way around.

If that were not true then how would you explain that the majority of Christians now and throughout history do not come to

the same conclusions?

New borns and children are not innocent or sinless in God's eyes.

God needs glasses.

Infants are mentally incapable of comprehending the nature of their actions. By most definitions, they can not even be

considered sentinent.

Such beings are incapable of rejecting any doctrine. It's like accusing a bullfrog of sinning.

But that's not relevant.

What is relevant is that they are part of a cursed race who are genetically predisposed to sin. Their very nature and destiny

is to sin.

It's not as if one baby could have the potential to lead a sinless life. God knows this.

Either God created everything, or he created nothing. There is no in between. If God created the world

(including the tree outside my window), then he created sin as well. It is a very simple concept.

Not really. If you think about it, I could build a bicycle and then someone could come along later and hook the peddles up to

the handle bar and the handles up to the chain, then put one of the wheels on where the seats goes and technically you could

say that nothing new was made. I didn't make the bike that way, and I may not even wanted it to change that way. The only

thing that I did was neglected to make any safety device that would prevent it from being reassembled.

Problem is, since God created everything, he also created the very person who tampered with the bike. He created the

handlebars, and the tools used to attach them. He created humans with the intellectual means needed to reassemble a bike, or

even build it in the first place.

If God is indeed the sole factor by which the universe and humanity came into existence, then he must be responsible for

every single aspect thereof. He created us with the CAPABILITY to sin. He created the temptations which inspire sin to

manifest.

He still created free will with the choice against those temptations, and considering he created those temptations knowing

that it could possibly put him on the cross I don't think there's any fault to be found in God. Basically he was going to

accomplish his goal the easy way or the hard way.

God's creation is a cruel joke. He tells us not to sin, but creates us so that we are inable to resist it!

Yes now, but not originally.

Then what do you believe and what evidence do you have to support it?

As pertaining to the origin of matter and the universe?

Agnosticism

There is no (conclusive) evidence relating to this particular subject. Therefore I believe nothing.

So what is your best guess then?

Why believe other historic sources and not the Bible?

Most accepted historic sources have archeological and/or ulterior evidence to account towards the events which they describe.

The Bible has none.

Nonsense.

The Bible has plenty. http://www.manavai.com/articles/art1.htm

Campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak (1 Kings 14:25-26), recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt.
Revolt of Moab against Israel (2 Kings 1:1; 3:4-27), recorded on the Mesha Inscription.
Fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:3-6, 24; 18:9-11) to Sargon II, king of Assyria, as recorded on his palace walls.
Defeat of Ashdod by Sargon II (Isaiah 20:1), as recorded on his palace walls.
Campaign of the Assyrian king Sennacherib against Judah (2 Kings 18:13-16), as recorded on the Taylor Prism.
Siege of Lachish by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:14, 17), as recorded on the Lachish reliefs.
Assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Kings 19:37), as recorded in the annals of his son Esarhaddon.
Fall of Nineveh as predicted by the prophets Nahum and Zephaniah (2:13-15), recorded on the Tablet of Nabopolasar.
Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:10-14), as recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles.
Captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in Babylon (2 Kings 24:15-16), as recorded on the Babylonian Ration Records.
Fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:30-31), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.
Freeing of captives in Babylon by Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:3-4), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.
The existence of Jesus Christ as recorded by Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, and Lucian.
Forcing Jews to leave Rome during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54) (Acts 18:2), as recorded by Suetonius.

Now allow me to ask you a question. Why believe in the Christian tenents alone when there are hundreds of other

religions out there with the same exact amount of supporting evidence (none)?

Aside from my answer above, because of the changed I have seen in my life from Jesus Christ and also the changes I have seen

him do in others.

From what I can gather, the Bible is not intended to be proven, but is to be accepted primarily on faith. In this

regard, how does one decide just what god to have 'faith' in? Why not have faith in the Quran? Why not the Torah? Why not the

god's of the Hindu's?

The Bible gives us historical data, scientific data, philosophical data, and others to which we can verify it and see that it

is accurate. Then this shows that we can consider it accurate on the spiritual side to which we can not yet verify it.

When it all boils down, religion is mere guess-work. Personally, I would rather wait until some cursory amount of data

is found before investing any of my emotions into a particular worldview.

In Genesis chapter five you have the geneology of Adam to Noah. Below is the list of the names with their hebrew meaning

alongside.

Adam "Earth" or "Man"
Seth "Placed" or "Appointed"
Enosh "Mortal"
Kenan "sorrow"
Mahalalel "God's praise" in other words "The Blessed God"
Jared "descent" or "to fall" in other words "Shall come down"
Enoch "instruct", "make wise" in other words "teaching"
Methuselah "when he dies, it shall be sent" in other words "His death shall bring"
Lamech "Low; poor"
Noah "Rest,"

The message reads:
Man appointed mortal sorrow the blessed God shall come down teaching his death shall bring the poor rest.

So who hide this message in the Jewish texts? The ancient Jews? I don't think so...

Also take a look at Genesis chapter 22. Abraham is told by God to offers his son Isaac as a sacrifice. But right before he

goes through with it God sends an Angel to stop him. So what was the point? Most Bible commentators missed the reason. It is

not to test Abraham. The real reason is because Abraham is acting out a prophecy about Jesus on a mountain over looking the

future crucifixion spot. Abraham acting out sacrificing Isaac is what God does to his own son two thousand years later. As

you can see from the verse I quoted below.

Tell me, why could the evidence such as what you posted not have been formulated by myth-contriving men?

Because this is in the old testament, the jewish torah. This scripture is sacred to the Jews. They are not going to just let

someone change it, let alone to support theology they don't agree with. They have been carefully guarding it and

meticulously copying it for thousands of years.

I am not going to go into detail regarding my various evidences against the Bible. However, I will share with you a couple

verses I find interesting:

2Ki 24:8
Jehoiakin was 18 years old when he began to rule as king.

2Ch 36:9
Jehoiakin was eight years old when he began to rule as king. He was king for three

Such cannot be the work of an omniscient God. Will you attempt to deny this contradiction? I can cite many more of the same

creed...

The NIV and BBE versions show the 2 Chronicles verse as eighteen.

It appears to be a translational error from what I can tell. The difference between eight and eighteen would be a horizontal

hook above the letter and could possibly have been missed during translation on some versions of the Bible.

Why make people be with him who don't want to be?

I would love to spend blissful eternity with a loving father figure in the sky.

Unfortunately, by all indications, no such deity exists.

Right, and the Bible doesn't teach God resides in the sky either.

We don't put people to death for adultery either.

This isn't a refutation of capital punishment, it's an illustration that through Christ is the pardoning of sin.

I realize that this is another issue entirely, but the Christian support of capital punishment is another issue I simply

cannot comprehend.

I find Jesus (unlike his daddy) to be a wise teacher, and happen to agree with most of his teachings, this one in

particular.

Actually, Jesus claimed to be the voice of the burning bush, in other words the one you find fault in who directed the

Israelites battle plan.

The John verse is particularly ominous concerning our current justice system. Here, a woman is BY LAW required to be

sentenced to death; yet Jesus refuses to stone her.

Now run your position by me again, will you? Exactly how does this not refute the use of the death penalty in modern

society?

Here the pharisees are putting Jesus between a rock and a hard place. If he does not agree to stone this women, then he is

not being a faithful Jew in accordance with their law. If he does agree to stone her then he can be could be in offense to a

Roman governor for taking upon himself to condem a person. So Jesus gets out of their trap by turning the tables on

themselves, who were apparently in the same boat as the woman.

As he said many times, Jesus did not come to destroy the Jewish law. But he also did not come to rule or judge, that will be

his second coming. So because he does not find fault in the women, I do not take that to mean that he approves of her actions

or that he disagrees with the law.

Heb 10:30
I alone have the right to take revenge.

I don't see capital punishment as a form of revenge. I see it as way of safely protecting society.

Rom 12:17
Don't pay people back with evil for the evil they do to you.

The Bible specifically commands us not to pay back evil for evil, which is precisely what capital punishment is.

How can something God ordained be evil? How can God consider us evil for obeying him?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

No he wasn't. The other nations were filled with sin and were a danger to the only nation that trusted in God.

Same old argument.

In addition to what I have said previously, there is one more flaw in such an attitude; Isreal didn't trust in God any more than the Canaanites. Moses was only on the mount for a few days before the Isrealites started worshiping the gold calf. How many times did God condemn Isreal to annhilation? How many times did he hand them over to enemy nations for their continued sinning?

The only thing that saved the Jews was the promise God made to Abraham. Too bad the Canaanites were not so lucky as to have a righteous great ancestor to bat for them.
By God's standards, the Isrealites did not deserve to live.

Then an ant, would no longer be an ant, would it?

What is it that you do not understand about omnipotentency?

God can make the ant do, think, or be whatever He wants.

Presently in this world God's primary concern is not that we understand his character depth, it is that we trust in him for salvation.

God does not want me to trust in him.

If he did, then he would not have provided detailed accounts of the numerous innocent beings he has tortured over the course of mankind, nor riddled his holy book with vast inconsistancies, causing many important doctrines to be completely incomprehendable. He also would have provided material evidence for his existance, and instilled each human with an inherent righteousness (as opposed to insurmountable desires).

It seems that God has done any and everything imaginable that would lead me to doubt the Bible's accuracy. No, he can't possibly want me to be a soldier of Christ.

The Gospel itself is simple.

That's evident as people from all difference age ranges and intellect levels have come to accept it.

Indeed, billions have come to accept it.

Unfortunately, over the course of the past two thousand years, we have yet come to a concensus as to just what "it" is.

Some say baptism is required for salvation.
Some say that all one needs is faith.
Some say good works come into play.
Some say the Bible never advocates the use of church services.
Some say church attendance is all that God requires of us.
Some say the Old Testament is to be included in modern doctrines.
Some say that God is ever-forgiving.
Some say that certain sins are unforgivable.
Some say the Bible establishes different levels of sin.
Some say that all sin is equal.

Some say this, some say that, and still others say something completely different.

The only feature of the Bible which is clear, concise, and consistant are the numbers at the bottom of each page. Beyond that, there is no telling just what this God wants of us.

Isn't it possible this day and age for a computer programmer to create a program that has the possibility to output different results or possibly even randomly generate results? That is how I view God's creation.

Unfortunately, this is not how modern genecists (sp?) veiw it.

Each person has specific genes, which will react in a specific way to specific conditions. The only entity who has control over these specifics is the supreme creator of the universe.

God made us sinful.

So it is okay for God to murder?

Who would God answer to?

Morality, and those who can determine what is ethical without having to refer to God's little handbook.

Besides, it's not murder if it's justified.

I contend that his acts are not justified, and as of yet, you have yet to prove otherwise.

God is a murderer by any range of the definition.

They decide to be hateful people first and then try to back it up with the Bible second. Not the other way around.

If that were not true then how would you explain that the majority of Christians now and throughout history do not come to the same conclusions?

Christians throughout history have failed to come to the same conclusions regarding anything.

Everyone has a different take on what types of violence God deems acceptable. This is the entire point.

Few doctrines are clear and concise. Thus, the Bible leaves the door open for any number of interpretations (including those which deem it necissary to enlist small boys into a violent seperatist army in order to overthrow the government and establish a theocracy, as is the LRA's preferred take on things).

But that's not relevant.

What is relevant is that they are part of a cursed race who are genetically predisposed to sin. Their very nature and destiny

is to sin.

It's not as if one baby could have the potential to lead a sinless life. God knows this.

Then all babies are "sinful" and deserve death?

So how is it that you and I managed to escape God's wrath and grow up to lavish in our sin-ridden existances?

All babies are "sinful", but only the Canaanite ones deserved to be destroyed before even having the chance to hear and reject God's tenants?

God needs to make up his mind. Either all babies deserve to die, or none do. I can't imagine there is much of a difference in ethics between different babies. All are equally innocent.

He still created free will with the choice against those temptations, and considering he created those temptations knowing that it could possibly put him on the cross I don't think there's any fault to be found in God.

Do you not find it possible that some people are more predisposed towards sin than others?

Does a kid growing up on the streets, parentless, poverty-ridden, and with a genetic disposition towards violence and necrophilia have the same opportunity to be saved as a child reared in a loving, structured home?

God's creation is a cruel joke. He tells us not to sin, but creates us so that we are inable to resist it!

Yes now, but not originally.

Then let Adam and Eve bear their own mishaps.
But don't let their bad decisions become consequences by which we misfortunate decendants are forced to harbor.

I did not partake of the forbidden fruit. Why should I be punished for it?

There is no (conclusive) evidence relating to this particular subject. Therefore I believe nothing.

So what is your best guess then?

A herd of magical pink unicorns summoned the cosmos into order.

It's makes just as much sense vesting my faith in the Bible.

Most accepted historic sources have archeological and/or ulterior evidence to account towards the events which they describe.

The Bible has none.

Nonsense.

The Bible has plenty.

Is there archeological evidence accounting towards the parting of the Red Sea, or Jesus' ressurection?

Few historians would argue the fall of Samaria, or the various campaigns of the Assyrians. Unfortunately, such events matter little where the Bible is concerned.

For example, the Old Testament remains the single known account of the Egyptian enslavement of the Jews. Not even the secret Egyptian annals (which recorded unflattering events along with the glorious) make any mention of Isreals plight from Egypt, much less the many sensational miracles that followed.

Why believe in the Christian tenents alone when there are hundreds of other religions out there with the same exact amount of supporting evidence (none)?

Aside from my answer above, because of the changed I have seen in my life from Jesus Christ and also the changes I have seen him do in others.

Had you been born into a staunch Muslim family in the middle east, could you see your self being so inspired by Christianity as to deny the religion you were raised into in favor of a life in Christ?

Answer truthfully.

I believe that religion is more an inherited characteristic than an actual cognitive decision. I doubt very much whether I would have ever been a Christian in the first place had I not been raised in the faith.

The NIV and BBE versions show the 2 Chronicles verse as eighteen.

It appears to be a translational error from what I can tell. The difference between eight and eighteen would be a horizontal

hook above the letter and could possibly have been missed during translation on some versions of the Bible.

And yet, the mistake is highly evident in the original version of the Bible (you know, the one supposedly guided by God's Holy Spirit?).

The NIV and BBE versions show the 2 Chronicles verse as eighteen.

It appears to be a translational error from what I can tell. The difference between eight and eighteen would be a horizontal

http://www3.sympatico.ca/shabir.ally/new_page_17.htm

I don't see capital punishment as a form of revenge. I see it as way of safely protecting society.

You may be interested to know that there is a method of accomplishing this in which there is no possibility of killing an innocent man (with has happened 21 times in the US), does not increase crime rates, does not cost American taxpayers millions of dollars extra, and is not blatantly condemned by Jesus himself.

It's called life in prison.

[redstang281]

No he wasn't. The other nations were filled with sin and were a danger to the only nation that trusted in God.

Same old argument.

In addition to what I have said previously, there is one more flaw in such an attitude; Israel didn't trust in God any more than the Canaanites. Moses was only on the mount for a few days before the Israelites started worshiping the gold calf.

Not all of Israel turned from the Lord. Apparently God's model is to spare the rest because of the faith of some as in Genesis chapter 18. Unlike the other nations that he didn't spare because they had no one of faith.

How many times did God condemn Isreal to annhilation? How many times did he hand them over to enemy nations for their continued sinning?

The difference is Israel would repent, unlike the other nations.

The only thing that saved the Jews was the promise God made to Abraham. Too bad the Canaanites were not so lucky as to have a righteous great ancestor to bat for them.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html

A "God of love" is not a God of sentimentality. One of the leading points used to assert contradiction about the divine nature is the question, "How can a God of love order such things?" It is a point to begin that "love" as the ancients understood it was defined within their understanding as a culture that was group-centered, not individual-oriented. as we noted in our essay on agape, in such contexts what is good for the group is what is paramount. Hence when the NT speaks of agape it refers to the "value of group attachment and group bonding" [Malina and Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, 196]. Agape is not an exchange on a personal level and "will have little to do with feelings of affection, sentiments of fondness, and warm, glowing affinity." It is a gift that puts the group first and is most closely paralleled to another known concept of today -- not love, but tough love. The best example of this known in popular culture is the New Jersey high school principal Joe Clark who cleaned out his high school and made it a safe place for those who wanted to learn. Clark valued what was best for his students as a whole versus what the individual wanted.

Clark of course did not have Refrons or Amalekites or Canaanites to deal with. But the principle we wish to illustrate is that he did not see "love" as requiring him to coddle obstinate persons who would continue to be threats to the greater body of people. Someone could easily (as a non-objective or selfish parent of an expelled student might) say: "Mr. Clark is not exemplifying a loving spirit." He is, under the Biblical definition of love, even if not our modern one. But if inaction, or a different action -- leaving the Canaanites alone; moving the Amalekites to Southeast Asia -- had ended up in the historical view making matters worse, then we would sit here in hindsight accusing God of being immoral for allowing the worse things to happen (see point below) and it would be an example of non-love or even hatred.

Then an ant, would no longer be an ant, would it?

What is it that you do not understand about omnipotentency?

God can make the ant do, think, or be whatever He wants.

Sure he can, but in doing so it changes the definition of the subject.

Presently in this world God's primary concern is not that we understand his character depth, it is that we trust in him for salvation.

God does not want me to trust in him.

If he did, then he would not have provided detailed accounts of the numerous innocent beings he has tortured over the course of mankind, nor riddled his holy book with vast inconsistencies, causing many important doctrines to be completely Incomprehensible. He also would have provided material evidence for his existence, and instilled each human with an inherent righteousness (as opposed to insurmountable desires).

It seems that God has done any and everything imaginable that would lead me to doubt the Bible's accuracy. No, he can't possibly want me to be a soldier of Christ.

There's some truth in what you say. God will led you to believe what you want to believe. Considering very intelligent people are on both sides of the war, I believe the determining factor is your own heart and not the evidence or a person's intellect level.

The Gospel itself is simple.

That's evident as people from all difference age ranges and intellect levels have come to accept it.

Indeed, billions have come to accept it.

Unfortunately, over the course of the past two thousand years, we have yet come to a consensus as to just what "it" is.

Some say baptism is required for salvation.
Some say that all one needs is faith.
Some say good works come into play.
Some say the Bible never advocates the use of church services.
Some say church attendance is all that God requires of us.
Some say the Old Testament is to be included in modern doctrines.
Some say that God is ever-forgiving.
Some say that certain sins are unforgivable.
Some say the Bible establishes different levels of sin.
Some say that all sin is equal.

Some say this, some say that, and still others say something completely different.

The only feature of the Bible which is clear, concise, and consistent are the numbers at the bottom of each page. Beyond that, there is no telling just what this God wants of us.

The below verse is simply the gospel. Christ died for our sins and rose again. There's no reason as far as the Bible is concerned for us not to come to a consensus.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8 - For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures,and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures;and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve. Afterward He was seen by over five hundred brothers at once, of whom the greater part remain until this present day, but also some fell asleep. Afterward He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. And last of all He was seen by me also, as one born out of time.

Isn't it possible this day and age for a computer programmer to create a program that has the possibility to output different results or possibly even randomly generate results? That is how I view God's creation.

Unfortunately, this is not how modern genecists (sp?) veiw it.

Each person has specific genes, which will react in a specific way to specific conditions. The only entity who has control over these specifics is the supreme creator of the universe.

Right, and you are talking about the present world, not the conditions that it was in when God originally created it.

You're also forgetting that being omnipotent gives you the power to create anything, even something called free will. Your point is that free will is affected by outside forces to which God obviously controls. That being said, I can only assume God would present a neutral playing field of forces in order to create a completely equal choice.

God made us sinful.

I still stand behind my contention that Satan changed us into sinful creatures through his own free will. I assume Satan's influences were complete neutral sense I can not fathom God desiring sin to occur.

So it is okay for God to murder?

Who would God answer to?

Morality, and those who can determine what is ethical without having to refer to God's little handbook.

So you being a mortal could find fault in an omnipotent being?

Using your finite knowledge you would tell him he made an unfair judgement when his judgement was based on infinite knowledge?

Besides, it's not murder if it's justified.

I contend that his acts are not justified, and as of yet, you have yet to prove otherwise.

God is a murderer by any range of the definition.

It's impossibly for God to be a murderer sense all of us are guilty under his law.

Hypothetically speaking, even if you were correct that does nothing to disprove the existence of God or even discredit the Bible.

Technically, it is still possibly that God exists even if he is "unfair".

They decide to be hateful people first and then try to back it up with the Bible second. Not the other way around.

If that were not true then how would you explain that the majority of Christians now and throughout history do not come to the same conclusions?

Christians throughout history have failed to come to the same conclusions regarding anything.

Everyone has a different take on what types of violence God deems acceptable. This is the entire point.

I think the problem is you and I have a difference of opinion on what a Christian is. I believe the only kind of person who is a Christian is someone who believes in the Gospel according to the Bible's definition. (see below) If I may, it seems to me that you believe anyone who simply references any faith at all in the Bible is a Christian. So in that case, yes I can see how there could be a lot of disagreements. But as far as people who accept the Bible's gospel, generally they agree on most core doctrines and ethics.

Few doctrines are clear and concise. Thus, the Bible leaves the door open for any number of interpretations (including those which deem it necissary to enlist small boys into a violent seperatist army in order to overthrow the government and establish a theocracy, as is the LRA's preferred take on things).

... only out of context does it leave the door open to what you suggest..

But that's not relevant.

What is relevant is that they are part of a cursed race who are genetically predisposed to sin. Their very nature and destiny
is to sin.

It's not as if one baby could have the potential to lead a sinless life. God knows this.

Then all babies are "sinful" and deserve death?

Yes and all people too.

So how is it that you and I managed to escape God's wrath and grow up to lavish in our sin-ridden existances?

All babies are "sinful", but only the Canaanite ones deserved to be destroyed before even having the chance to hear and reject God's tenants?

God needs to make up his mind. Either all babies deserve to die, or none do. I can't imagine there is much of a difference in ethics between different babies. All are equally innocent.

Because we didn't stand in opposition to God's plan in which he was bringing about a better good.

Unfortunately because this is a fallen world God has to work in accordance with the conditions of it else destroy it all. God must allow some to perish in order to save some. God can not save all. If the Romans who crucified Jesus had been touched by God then they would not have crucified him and consequently no one would have been saved.

He still created free will with the choice against those temptations, and considering he created those temptations knowing that it could possibly put him on the cross I don't think there's any fault to be found in God.

Do you not find it possible that some people are more predisposed towards sin than others?

Does a kid growing up on the streets, parentless, poverty-ridden, and with a genetic disposition towards violence and necrophilia have the same opportunity to be saved as a child reared in a loving, structured home?

I agree with you. EVeryone sins, some more then others. Some are born into situations more likely to incite greater sin then others.

God's creation is a cruel joke. He tells us not to sin, but creates us so that we are inable to resist it!

Yes now, but not originally.

Then let Adam and Eve bear their own mishaps.

But don't let their bad decisions become consequences by which we misfortunate descendants are forced to harbor.

I did not partake of the forbidden fruit. Why should I be punished for it?

Because your born into this polluted creation. Maybe that's not your fault, but that's why Jesus came to the earth to give you the opportunity to get right with God just the same. You can't say God is being unfair because he does provide a way out, and his way can't get any easier then it is.

Most accepted historic sources have archeological and/or ulterior evidence to account towards the events which they describe.

The Bible has none.

Nonsense.

The Bible has plenty.

Is there archeological evidence accounting towards the parting of the Red Sea, or Jesus' resurrection?

There is underwater topography at the strait of tiran between the Sinai Peninsula and Saudi Arabia in the form of an underwater land bridge. This is right at a likely crossing path for the Israelites.

Jesus body rose, so naturally there is no archeological evidence of the resurrection. If his body was found that would actually destroy Christianity.

Few historians would argue the fall of Samaria, or the various campaigns of the Assyrians. Unfortunately, such events matter little where the Bible is concerned.

For example, the Old Testament remains the single known account of the Egyptian enslavement of the Jews. Not even the secret Egyptian annals (which recorded unflattering events along with the glorious) make any mention of Isreals plight from Egypt, much less the many sensational miracles that followed.

Taken from the below site.

http://www.truthnet.org/biblicalarcheol ... eology.htm

In the early 19th Century an ancient papyrus was found in Egypt. It was taken to the Leiden Museum in Holland and interpreted by A.H. Gardiner in 1909. The papyrus describes violent upheavals in Egypt, starvation, drought, escape of slaves (with the wealth of the Egyptians), and death throughout the land. The papyrus was written by an Egyptian named Ipuwer and appears to be an eyewitness account of the effects of the Exodus plagues. The account parallels the Book of Exodus.

Papyrus 2:10 - The river is blood.
Exodus 7:20 - ...all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.

Papyrus 4:14, 6:1 - Trees are destroyed. No fruit nor herbs are found.
Exodus 9:25 - ...and the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field.

Papyrus 2:10 - Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire.
Exodus 9:23-24 - ...the fire ran along the ground.... there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous.

Papyrus 9:11 - The land is not light....
Exodus 10:22 - ...and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt.

Papyrus 4:3, 5:6, 6:12 - Forsooth, the children of princes are dashed against the walls. Forsooth, the children of princes are cast out in the streets.
Exodus 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.

Why believe in the Christian tenents alone when there are hundreds of other religions out there with the same exact amount of supporting evidence (none)?

Aside from my answer above, because of the changed I have seen in my life from Jesus Christ and also the changes I have seen him do in others.

Had you been born into a staunch Muslim family in the middle east, could you see your self being so inspired by Christianity as to deny the religion you were raised into in favor of a life in Christ?

Answer truthfully.

Yes, Jesus offers something that no other "religion" can. No one else simply gives you eternal life.

What hope can someone else offer someone who is a sinner? None.....

I believe that religion is more an inherited characteristic than an actual cognitive decision.

So how do you deal with the reality of converts to Christianity?

The NIV and BBE versions show the 2 Chronicles verse as eighteen.

It appears to be a translational error from what I can tell. The difference between eight and eighteen would be a horizontal

hook above the letter and could possibly have been missed during translation on some versions of the Bible.

And yet, the mistake is highly evident in the original version of the Bible (you know, the one supposedly guided by God's Holy Spirit?).

The original version of the Bible? You mean the copies. I don't know of anyone who claims that the translating or copying of the Bible was also inspired. The Christian contention is the original writings were handed down by God. It's my understanding that there may be a few copy errors in the text but 99% is accurate.