Mr.Campbell, I would never blame god for causing Aids because he /she/it has nothing to do with aids which is caused by very scientifically explainable ways. There is no mystery here. 2000 years ago, there would be no answers so if I was born 2000 years ago it would be reasonable to blame god whatever. Today however, there is no excuse to adopt the same line of thinking that was prevelant 2000 years ao.
Also, I must challenge your quoting from the bible to validate god. I again insist that you show some more proof for your claims than to quote from a book that was written by several very falliable men, further ammended by people with tained interests, right down to the time of King James, which is the version you are probably addicted to. its called the King James version of the Bible. King James was not god and neither were the people he chartered to do the translation. Would you agree they could have slipped in changes intentionally and inadvertently? Is it possible that over the course of years and several hand written versions and translations later, the bible could be different from that as envisaged by the earlier writers who too by the way were writing decades after Jesus died and who were then selected by Constantine to be the official version based on his political needs that had nothing to do with Jesus?
So, please stop quoting a document that has suffered all of the above.
The muslims are smarter that way and insist that the Koran is the word of god as given to mohammed. No changes thereafter. To further tighten the argument they also maintain tha Mohammed was illeterate thereby being unable to change the word of god. While I am as much in disbelief of their contentions as I am of yours, one must admire then for being more astute than you guys.
You Mr.Campbell need to expand your horizons and read something other than the good book.
Well the King James version is the one I read the most, yet most versions of the Bible are in agreement. Also unlike the Koran, the Bible predicts the future before it happens, and I have given examples of this time and time again with chapter and verse given. If the Bible was just written by simple men without much knowledge, then there is really no good reason the Bible should be able to fortell the future. Muslims can insist all they want that their book is the word of God, yet only the Bible fortells the future. And we know, that only God knows the future. Also, I have pointed out to you, that I myself have heard from the Lord. That was not some make believe story. My horizons have been expanded beyond you wildest imagination. Some years ago God gave me a small glimpse of heaven, and I know that what awaits the Christian, will all be worth it.
Mr.Campbell, you are obviously very serious about you belief and I am going to take you seriously. Lets go through each of your statements carefully and I will beg your indulgence if in responding you may have to repeat stuff you have stated earlier especially about prophecies which is what I want to really zero in on. So lets begin.
1) You claim all the versions of the Bible are in agreement. Which versions specifically do you allude to that are in agreement?
- Is John's version of the resurrection in agreement with that of Mark, Luke or Mathew? Please confirm.
- How different were the various versions of Bibles that were doing the rounds before Constantine forced a decision to only make the Gospels of Mark, Luke, Mathew and John the offical versions and declared the rest heretical? Did his declaring them heritical actually make them so? Under what law? Roman? gods? Jesus'?
- Are Saul/Paul's version of the life of Christ in line with that of the 4 gospels? Please confirm.
- Where is the proof that no errors or deliberate changes were made while comiling the King James translated version? Please provide.
- What proof is there that no errors or deliberate changes were made while translating the bibles from the original languages, to greek, to latin, to english?
2) You say you have mentioned the biblical prophecies many times. I agree. Lets revisit the matter and please give me one example again so that we may study it.
3) About god taking to you and showing you heaven. There is obviously no proof you can show for that and we'll have to take you word for it. For that reason, lets keep the matter out of this discussion because then I will also have to agree with some other Muslim and Hindu friends of mine, all of whom have spoken to god/had dreams about god/visions/seen their version of heaven. Too confusing. So lets drop this one.
Respectfully awaiting your response.
People make choices everyday, and according to the Bible, most people would make the choice to hate God. Now there are good reasons for things happing the way they did in the Bible, yet most people are so into their political correctness, that it blinds them to Gods truth and His ways. In the end, God will have no place in their life. People today are actually choosing the ways of this world over their place in Gods Kingdom.
God did not offer Lots daughters to the men of Sodom, that was Lots poor choice. Don't blame God for that. And the Flood occured because the people of the earth were nolonger fully human. Yet you would have to read the first Book of the Bible to understand that. And the woman that was turned to salt did not follow Gods command. The problem with this world is, people think God is a joke. You think you can play with Him and get away with it. This world is going to be in for a real surprise. Even now the prophecies of the Bible are telling you what is going to happen, and this world ignores them. The Bible tells us that when God appears, the population of are planet will mourn, because it will be to late for so many. This world has worked so long to oppose God, that they will not be ready to receieve Him when He appears.
No god did not offer Lot's daughters to the men, this does not however exempt the BIg Guy in the Sky from blame. In the city of soddom, God saw Lot and his family as a shining light of morality and godliness and spared them the inferno which engulfed Soddom. Why then, if Lots act to offer his daughters for rape was so heanus a crime was Lot not punished in the same way. Obviously God did not think it a crime? Was it because he was saving a couple of God's buddy angels from a 'right good seeing to' one would not think God so selfish, would we?
Might I also point you in the direction of Chapter 19 of the book of Judges.
An unnamed Levite (priest) was taveling with his concubine in Gibeah. they spent the night in the house of a hospitable old man. While they were eating, men of the city came and beat on the door, demanding that the old man hand over his male guest 'so that we may know him'. In almost exactlythe same words as Lot, the old man said: Nay'my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly;seeing as the man is come into mine house do not this folly. Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you;but unto this man do not so vile a thing. (Judges 19: 24-4)
I am sure you have read it and if you follow on you will find the poor concubine raped and then kills herself, a sin I might add, but raping a women isn't. How nice that god sees the most vilest of crimes as part of life. If you subscribe the literal meaning then you too accept this as part of how women should be treated. Or do you not?. Or was it ok back then because the 'bible said it so' but not now?
No god did not offer Lot's daughters to the men, this does not however exempt the BIg Guy in the Sky from blame. In the city of soddom, God saw Lot and his family as a shining light of morality and godliness and spared them the inferno which engulfed Soddom. Why then, if Lots act to offer his daughters for rape was so heanus a crime was Lot not punished in the same way. Obviously God did not think it a crime? Was it because he was saving a couple of God's buddy angels from a 'right good seeing to' one would not think God so selfish, would we?
Might I also point you in the direction of Chapter 19 of the book of Judges.
An unnamed Levite (priest) was taveling with his concubine in Gibeah. they spent the night in the house of a hospitable old man. While they were eating, men of the city came and beat on the door, demanding that the old man hand over his male guest 'so that we may know him'. In almost exactlythe same words as Lot, the old man said: Nay'my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly;seeing as the man is come into mine house do not this folly. Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you;but unto this man do not so vile a thing. (Judges 19: 24-4)
I am sure you have read it and if you follow on you will find the poor concubine raped and then kills herself, a sin I might add, but raping a women isn't. How nice that god sees the most vilest of crimes as part of life. If you subscribe the literal meaning then you too accept this as part of how women should be treated. Or do you not?. Or was it ok back then because the 'bible said it so' but not now?
Lots choice was a poor one, and often humans make choices that God must shake His head at. Yet Lot was doing what he could to preserve life the best he knew. Unlike the men who were demanding that Lot hand over his guest so they could have sex with them. Lot was trying to do what he thought was right. Lot was not in open rebellion against God, the men on the other side of the door were. And that is the reason they died, and Lot and most of his family was spared.
And I have read the story of Judges 19. And the concubine was raped, but she did not kill herself. She was murdered. Also not only were the men that killed her guilty, but her father, and her husband were just as guilty. How you have drawn the conclusion that God some how saw this as just another part of life, as if to say God supported this is beyond me. Centuries later, Israel still remembered this crime at Gibeah, and used it as an example of wickedness. Again, the Bible relates to stories of what happened in the past, yet to draw the conclusion that this teaches us how woman should be treated is pretty much off the wall. It would be like saying that when Christ was crucified this is an example of how men should be treated.
The Bible does not say this was ok, and only you are trying to make that arguement in order to put the Bible down. As I said, the Bible tells us this was an example that Israel used centuries later as an example of wickedness.
Mr. Campbell Have you read Gen. 19:32 though 38 where it tells about lots daughters getting him drunk and raping him while he was asleep?
I stand corrected, she was indeed murdered and did not take her life.
However the defence of Lot in which you try to brush over his inadequacies as a human are quite thin really. God spared Lot because he was trying to do his best. Is not the road to hell paved with good intentions? Lot would have allowed his Daughter's to be raped. Are you honestly expecting me to buy your supposition that because he was not in open rebellion to god he is spared? What about open rebellion to human decency? I would sooner die at the hands of a baying mob than hand over my daughter to be raped, I know, I have a daughter. He didn't exactly put up much of and argument or fight did he? How fortunate the Angels were able to blind the marauders before the 'sacrafice' was made.
Though I do feel a certain sympathy with God, if this dysfunctional family were the best Soddom had to offer. I mean once the poor mum had bean turned to salt the two daughters had their 'wicked way' with Lot when he was drunk and he impregnated both his daughters. (Genisis19:31-6).
Though I would question God why this family too were not left in Soddom to burn. If god is Omnipotent/ Omnicient then surely he new of the daughters incestuous intentions, though seeing as Adam and Eve incestously populated the world I guess this is no 'bigey'.
There are too many holes in the moral fibre of the bible. Certainly I used to believe the Bible was a good book which helped us lead our lives in a morally sound way. How wrong I was when I actually started reading it.
It is such stories as these that make the Bible so believable. If men had taken
it apon themselves to write a Book that humans could believe in, they never would of put in such stories of human weakness. Yet the Bible pulls no punches, it tells you what really did happen reguardless of how bad the stories sound. The Old Testament was given to show that man could never reach perfection by the works of the law. And stories such as these only support that belief. Read the story of David, a man God tells us was after His own heart, yet David's personal life was a mess. If I had been able to write the Bible I could of made the stories read so much better, but then in order to do that, I would of almost had to fabricate the truth. The Bible does not do that. It tells you as it was, now how we would like it to be. The reason there are so many holes in the moral fiber of the Bible, is because the human race is fill with those holes. That is the picture of the human race, a creation that is far from God, and a creation that requires something more to get to heaven that the works of the law.
Come on man, you're able to put a better argument than that together.
If the Bible is the word of God. Why then is it so falable? You basically just addmitted this yourself.
If you take the Bible literally, which you do, do you not? Then you have just said that the word of God (The Bible) has so many holes in the moral fiber of it, is because the human race is filled with those holes. Is God not perfect, completely infalable, uncorruptable? Why then would he 'touch' the Bible with Truth, Justice and Honesty, yet be left wide open with holes questioning his moral fibre.
I am somewhat confused.
So did Man make God in his own image or Vice Versa? Quite a pertinent question I think, given your previous response.
Apologies for the double post.
I just thought of something.
The story of Lot is being taught in Sunday School to 6 year olds. All the details are divulged. How he offered his daughter to be raped, how he is then inturn plied with drink by his daughters, who inturn then rape him. Bearing in mind that the children are also taught that Lot and his family are spared the inferno that was soddom, which God sent, yes God sent, in the form of a message from two angels. Essentially condoning the actions carried out by this family. How are these children to interperet the story. What message does this send to them. How do they understand what is right from wrong when God himself spared this family. Who clearly by todays standards are completely amoral yet have attonment from God.
You know I was quite happy for my child to be taught and understand the bible (and other religous books). Now I am not so sure.
Does this make anyone else feel uneasy?
It is not the Bible that has the moral holes, it is the human race which the Bible describes. And those Bible stories demonstrate how messed up God's creation really is. Many of the greatest men of the Bible had their problems. Moses struck an Egyption that was beating a slave and killed him. I don't think he wanted to do that, but that happened and Moses had to flee Egypt. David had Basheba's husband positioned so the enemy would kill him so he could have his wife. The Bible is just filled with human failings. Aron was Moses side kick, but as soon as Moses did not come back from Mt. Sinia, Aron was working on the golden calf. And this is why the Bible tells us, that no flesh shall be justified by the works of the law. Humans no matter how good they try to be, will never be good enought to enter God's Kingdom. That's why the Bible tells us that God would send a man to earth, and who ever gave their life to Him would have eternal life. This man would be known by fulfilling the 300 prophecies that speak of Him in the Old Testament. There is only one man in history who ever did this.
Well seeing as THe father (GOD) The Son (Jesus) the Holy Spirit (Dead Jesus/ GOD?) are all the same being. isn't kind of easy for god to say that someone will come and carry out 300 prophecies when it is actually him that will be carrying them out.
Goes something like this.
And there shall be a man who will come to earth and cure the blind. In steps himself as the self prophecised 'man' and cures the blind. How easy is that to predict 300 prophecies.
The only man to have done that was god himself, Correct?
But you still don't say why god condones the actions of Lot, I have read of no repentance from Lot, but I am sure he is sat in Heaven with God.
Happy Halloween everybody. A new poll just out stated that about 35% of people living in the United States believe in ghosts. This reflects a great failure in our educational system and the media. While living in a rooming house years ago, I picked up a copy of a supermarket publication who's leading story was "Ten Year Old Girl Hits Home Run And Then Has Baby". Major book publishers are not very far above this. Consider some of the best sellers in recent years, which include the wizardry of Harry Potter, the highly speculative Da Vinci Code [Believed to have earned Dan Brown 250 million dollars] and the fictionalization of the book of Revelation. All of the above books, for practical purposes are worthless books. They do little, or nothing, to inform, educate, or enlighten. Learning,Speech,&Attention Defects | Man with learning disabilities, communication disorders, ADHD, becomes author.
God did not condone the actions of Lot, Just like God does not condone the actions of so many others. Yet if God took the time to point out every infraction that was occuring in the Bible we would of needed a second Book.
This for me is the whole ethos upon which God stands or falls. He Knew what this family were like, were going to be like, yet they were spared. WHY? there is no disernable reason. By todays standards what Lot did is shocking, so if you agree to that, then you disagree with God. If you think God was correct to spare such a family then truely in todays society you could be considered dangerous. I am of course not saying you are.
If you had a daughter (you may well) would you personally offer them to be raped to stop two anels being raped or would you defend them with you life? Whether the angels intervine is irrelevant, the intention is there.
