In the arameic language which was the language my Lord talked the word "ABBA" means "daddy" or "dear daddy." This is the word my Lord used to refer to God.
That is the way I feel about my Heavenly Father. He just loves me too much, that I have to call Him daddy.
That is the message of the Gospel. That is what my Lord came to this world to do. The hebrew tradition presented a God who needed sacrifices, a God of war, a God who said take revenge.
My Lord says otherwise. My Lord says God is my daddy and your daddy. He is amazingly loving and cares for each one of you.
I just don't get why some people find so many wrong things, in a book that only thing that does is spread love.

TLW

Well, maybe it's things like this....

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_children/dt21_18a.html

Yeah really. I don't understand why Christians are so in denial about what's actually in the Bible?

All these are true! I just double-checked and sure enough the biblical verses they quote are in the Bible for sure.

Here's one on the biblical view of religious tolerance. It basically says to kill anyone who dares to preach anything outside of the Biblical teachings, not just to kill them but to murder the entire village they came from including their animals and livestock, and then to burn all the remains and never to rebuild on that site again. Pretty venomous stuff.

This came from the Bible!!! There's no denying this!!!

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html#religious_tolerance

Why are Christians in such denial about what the Bible teaches???

The Bible teaches to murder heathens! And unruly children among other things.

And I was called a liar just the other day for saying that the Bible say this, but there it is in the book of Deuteronomy.

I knew it was in there.

If people are going to worship this book why do they keep pretending that it doesn't say these things?

That's what I don't understand.

If you're going to support a religion, then support it.

Pretending that it doesn't say the things it says is just living a lie.

You either agree with this crap, or you don’t. I don’t see how you can have it both ways. It's written right there in the doctrine.

Read the bible again, Abra... and ask God to open your eyes of understanding this time.
I say this lovingly...trust me on this.

But before you read the Bible again....first.... ask God to help you get rid of that anger towards God.

Cause I preceive something inside of you needs healing...and that is the real reason for this gross misconception of the Word of God on your part.... whch is actually nothing more than a front to cover a much deeper issue here ...your anger towards God.

Spoken lovingly and with care, Abra....cause I would love to see you healed.

You are too brilliant a man to mis -interpret God's word like that.
You have too much intelligence.

So I have to believe the real issue here is not with God..but with you.



Cause .Abra.. the bible is not that hard to figure out...as far as the reasons for the battles were concerned.

I mean.....God helped his people to win aganst the enemy, cause the enemy was coming against them anyway... so God showed his people how to have Victory over the enemy at times in the bible.

I mean..what would you rather they have done...allowed themselves to be slaughterd by the enemy, rather than accepting God's help?

Abra.....if you and your people were beng ambushed by the enemy,,wouldn't you want God to help save you, too?

Is this really that difficult for you to understand, Abra?

No.. I don't think it is...

Actually, like I said.... I perceive anger towards God....
a spirit of rebellon in you against God...cause you are angry with God about something in your own personal life..from childhood perhaps.......that has nothing to do with this so called "misinterpretation " of God's Word at all....cause the real issue here is....and I strongly sense this.....
you are very Angry with God.

That's the REAL crux of the matter here......

A rebellious child should be executed by his parents?

So what would a good Jew think his father in heaven should do, when he knows in his heart that he is rebellious against God?

The purpose of the law is to bring understanding that we need salvation.

If a flawed and sinful father can be justified in killing his son for being rebellious, then how much more justified would a perfect and sinless God be in killing his children?

The law has many lessons to teach and your spiritual blindness prevents you from seeing anything but the actual words.

Well, that's just your opinion. And one used since humanity began to justify all sorts of heinous acts committed under the supposed aegis of relgious authority. Words, maybe-- but deeds?

-Kerry O.

You guys are really becoming silly with the way you try to go about making yourself feel better by believing that we that do not believe are hurt somehow. I just read something that said that the promise of an "afterlife" is starting to die out because people here in the US do not have it so bad anymore. There is no reason to wait for a big reward because life is already rewarding enough.

I hate to speak for Abra again but we both have similar stories in that we grew up in religious families. Where teachers with in our church and studied the Bible closely. I have heard him say that he felt a kinship to Noah in the story not the people in the flood. I would have to say it is the same for me.

I will say on my behalf alone. The bible did teach me one thing. Not to lie to myself. There is NEVER a reason to lie to yourself. So if I look at the book and it says that we are ALL Gods Children then it says he favors some of his children in a war over his other children. That does not make sense. That is one little chip in the armor of the book. As you read and see that God kills all the first born, innocent and guilty alike (all Gods children) just to send a message to one Pharo. That is another chinc in the armor. It goes on and on like this and pretty soon the book offers nothing. It is a man made device.

The reason I do not need your God is because I live in heaven already. I do not need your streets of gold for my heart is never cold.

If the law is viewed as spiritual teaching, rather than as mere words, then the result can only be more compassion and mercy.

Don't you think that during the inquisition they viewed the law as a "spiritual teaching"?

string 'em up.
it'll teach 'em a lesson...

well i don't deny what appears in the bible and i don't deny that it was divinely inspired...but it must be read and interpreted with caution lest some of the finer points get lost on the ahem less well informed!

Clearly they did not. Clearly, the Inquisition was performed by people who were ignoring the teachings of the law, even the letter of the law. They were ignoring the teachings of Jesus. They were going against everything they claimed to believe. That should be obvious. By the letter of the law, the Bible teaches that non-Believers should not be forcefully converted, they must be allowed to live in peace. Jesus and the apostles taught that Christians should live peacefully among non-Christians and allow their behavior to show the beauty of Chistianity. In what way to you believe that the spiritual nature of the law influenced the Inquisition? The spiritual nature of the law was summed up by Jesus into two commandments: 1) Love God and 2) Love your neighbor. Torture and forced conversions don't show either.

I think the most important word in your original statement was "viewed" I think you would have a hard time trying to convince people that the leaders of the inquisition viewed themselves as going against Gods law.


And that is where the danger comes in when mixing laws and religion, who's "view" do you use?

Your name is appropriate, because this is definitely a rabbit trail. This has NOTHING to do with what we were discussing, but I will answer your question.

I am talking about God's law, given in part to all of mankind and in part to Israel. If that law is read for the letter of the law, the spiritual nature of the law is missed. When I said "viewed", I meant "perceived", I was not talking about how people view their personal actions. How the Inquisitors viewed their actions is irrelavant. What is important is how they viewed the law. As I already pointed out, the law was plain: No forced conversions / believers and non-believers should live side by side. There is no question of that. You cannot find a single law in the Bible that contradicts that, because such a law does not exist.

The spiritual nature of the Law is quite evident and requires just a slight view beneath the surface in most cases. For instance: The law requires that the corners of the fields are not gathered with the harvest. That part of the field would be harvested by the poor who needed that food to survive. The spiritual nature of that law is charity, giving of your hard work to those who are in need. The majority of the Mosaic laws also teach such spiritual messages.

As to my personal view on the mixing of religion and state...I have been clear on that subject many times. All men should be free to vote their conscience. The constitution is a framework of what the Government cannot do, the individual laws fill in that framework and change as circumstances dictate. Personally, I would oppose any law mandating religion, religous observation or any other mixing of religion with politics. But I would also oppose any mixing of politics with religion: such as forcing Gay marriage. I see issues with secular gay marriage, but it could be made to work legally. Chuck and Larry showed exactly why secular unions are an issue legally. I don't believe the government has any place forcing homosexuality upon a religion which rejects the practice. And although I think that homosexuality is a sin, I wouldn't oppose gay unions of some sort. So while many people focus on keeping religion out of politics, I believe that politics should also be kept out of religion. At the same time, those with religious beliefs have every right to have their voices heard and their votes counted.

To say that the men of the inquisition weren’t obeying God’s law is quite a subjective statement.

There are several things in play here.

Jesus sent mixed messages.

At one point here states that he has not come to change the law, but then he goes on to do precisely that.

So which do we believe? That he did not come to change the law, or he did come to change the law.

There is a paradox here in many ways and very profound ways as well.

First, God is supposed to be unchanging this is extremely important on a very deep philosophical level as well as on a level of logos for any religion. If the God changes then the God cannot be depended upon to be consistent. A God who changes over time is undependable. We have no clue if he will want the same things tomorrow that he wants today. The idea that God is unchanging it paramount to the whole concept of a God.

Jesus himself said that he did not come to change the laws. So if we are to take him at his WORD then this means that everything in the Old Testament is still valid.

The men of the inquisition could have view it precisely this way. They could have viewed the teachings of Jesus to only apply within their own people. In other words, the Old Testament says to destroy villages where the people do not believe in the Biblical God. Kill all the inhabitants, their children, livestock and pets, and burn the village to ruins. This is what God commanded the people to do in the Old Testament.

If Jesus did not come to change the laws, then these old laws of the Old Testament are still valid even today!

On the other hand, if Jesus did change the laws then he lied about not coming to change the laws.

This is quite the pickle.

We can’t have Jesus lying! So to resolve the issue it can simply be viewed that everything that Jesus taught only applied to people of ‘faith’. Otherwise he would be in conflict with the Old Testament.

So the men of the inquistion would have a very strong case against your accusation that they weren’t being obedient to the Biblical God. They could easily argue that they were being extremely obedient to God and that you are the one who is troubled by an incorrect understanding of the scriptures.

In fact, Spider, it is this conflict between the teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament that finally caused me to toss the entire biblical picture in the trash can.

I would have been a Christian preacher if I could have taught the teachings of Jesus without having to drag that godforsaken Old Testament into picture. It’s the Old Testament that I vehemently disagree with and don’t believe is of any supreme all-wise intelligent God.

But Jesus cannot be separated from the Old Testament. By his own WORD he did not come to change the law. That forces that the Old Testament be dragged around everywhere you preach the teachings of Jesus. Jesus endorsed the Old Testament when he said that he did not come to change the law.

Also, even if you were willing to rip the Bible in half and toss out the Old Testament, it still can’t be made to work because too many book in the New Testament keep referencing the Old and using Jesus to support those ideas.

In short, you can’ t be a ‘Christian’ (a follower of Christ), and not also worship the Old Testament as the law of God. But that’s extremely problematic and paradoxical. Jesus taught love, turning the other cheek, and to love your neighbor as yourself.

The Old Testament taught to kill your unruly children, to stone sinners to death, and to ruthlessly murder heathens and burn their villages to the ground.

Jesus is the antithesis of the Old Testament.

They simply can’t coexist in peace. You need to choose just one.

People Christians don’t do that. They claim to worship Jesus but they still use the Old Testament to incite bigotry against things like same-sex relationship. But Jesus never spoke of any such things.

There’s no way that I was going to become a preacher and use Jesus to incite and support the bigotry of the Old Testament. Since these two opposing Gods cannot be reconciled, nor separated, I had no choice but to denounce them both. The complete biblical picture is self-inconsistent and cannot stand united as a single unit. Jesus could not have been the God of Abraham incarnated. His views are too opposite.

You can’t teach brotherly love in one breath, and then turn around and denounce non-believers as being heathens and in need of help in the next breath. Most of the demagoguery that was written into the New Testament was actually inspired by what people already knew about the Old Testament.

Like I say, if Jesus could stand alone I’d be a Christian myself. But Jesus has no authority or power at all on his own. All of his authority and power comes from the fact that he’s standing on the shoulders of the God of the Old Testament. Without that foundation Jesus would be nothing but a mortal sage teaching peaces, love and harmony.

Not to say that there is anything wrong with that. That’s precisely what Buddha was and look at the impact he had on humanity! Buddha stood on his own. Jesus stands on the shoulders of the God of Abraham, and thus must be affiliated with everything that was taught in the Old Testament. But therein lies the conflict with the things that he personally preached. What he taught is in complete opposition with what the Old Testament had to say!

If Jesus could stand on his own two feet without the God of Abraham or the Old Testament I’d be a Jesus freak myself. But unfortunately Jesus can’t stand on his own. He’s riding on the authority of a previous doctrine, and he promises not to change its laws (even though he does)

If the creator of this universe inspired the Bible, he’s got to know by now that it’s a terrible write. He certainly can’t blame any intelligent person for denouncing such things as murdering heathens and burning their villages to the ground. That is an extremely hateful act for a God to not only condone, but to actually ask people to DO!

I think it’s quite safe to say that the biblical God is a hateful God. If only based on his hatred toward those who don’t recognize him as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. That’s a pretty petty reason to harbor such intense hatred toward his own children. Especially when he’s so prone to playing hide and seek and guessing games.

This God just sounds like a game-playing God who gets pissed when people aren’t willing to play his stupid games. The ultimate example of a spoiled-brat egocentric deity. Certainly not a compassionate loving God.

Think about this just for ONE SECOND,…. Does it make sense for a loving compassionate God to command people to mass murder non-believers????

And now THIS,… Does it makes sense for men who are trying to proselytize a manmade religion to write stories that claim that their God wants their followers to mass murder non-believers?

Ah,… I think we’re on to something!!!

Abra,



Not true in the least! Even if they were going by the OT law, they couldn't excuse their torture or force conversions, which were not allowed under Jewish law. Both the OT and the new prohibited forced conversions and mistreating foriegners and non-believers.

Your post is built upon a non-existing issue, so I won't read the whole thing. I will correct you and wait for you to write a new post based on the actual facts of what Jesus taught.

Jesus didn't do away with the law, the law is still in effect. Some Christians say that it is not, but they are simply misinformed. But it's important to remember that the spirit of the law is not the same as the literal words of the law. A great deal of the law teaches forgiveness and mercy, sometimes by proscribing extreme punishments. If one were to take the commandment about not harvesting the corners of their field literally, then only farmers would give to charity. If one were to take the commandment against cutting your beard literally, then everyone with a beard would look like a member of ZZ Top. Instead, the lesson is to not mimic the style of members of other religions. If all members of Piscopoism wear their beard in a certain way, a Jew (or Christian) shouldn't cut their beard that way, even if it is all the rage.

Jesus didn't lie, the Law is still in effect. What Jesus did was reveal the spiritual nature of the Law.

In that case then Christians should be murdering everyone who preaches of non-biblical Gods. They should be murdering everyone in the towns that those preachers came from and killing all their livestock and pets and burning the towns to the ground never to rebuild on those sites again. For this is the law of the Old Testament.



I think I'll pass on becoming a Christian. This God expects too much violence from me. I can't handle it.

Can you show me the law that commands that? I know of a law that commands Jews to allow non-Jews to live and worship within Israel unmolested, but I can't think of one that calls for their deaths.

Somehow, I think you would have a bit more trouble with the repentance part.

I thought you were a Christian? I shouldn't have to point out where it says this in your own doctrine. It’s in Deuteronomy. I already posted a link to site that calls out the precise verses.

The bible is no different from Greek Mythology in this regard. Whether you believe that Gods like Apollo, Aphroditus, Zeus were real or not doesn't matter. The stories still describe what they are like.

Same holds true for the Bible. Whatever the Bible says God is like must be true about the biblical God whether you believe the God is real or not. The bible is basically carved in stone for all intents and purposes. The biblical God is forever committed to being what the stories say he is.

I’m sure you’ll make excuses for this God trying to claim that these verses only apply to a certain people at a certain time in a certain situation and that it’s not God’s ‘law’. But that kind of theoretic is your own personal opinion. If we’re going to get into the game of claiming that the stories in the Bible only apply to the people at the time then we may as well toss the whole book in the trash can and wait for God to write a book that applies to our time.

Abra, then shouldn't I be preaching in Nineveh? Or leading the Jews out of slavery?

You took a ONE TIME commandment DO THIS NOW and claim that it's a commandment to all of God's followers? Surely you can see the logical probelms with that.