Because God cannot contradict who he is. And God is love, as such, we have been endowed with a free will so we can freely choose to love the God who is love. Is this making any sense? You do realize we cannot love anyone if we are not given the choice too, right? God endowed his creation with free will, and cannot change this as this would contradict the nature of love, therefore evil is permitted (through choosing not to love).no no, MUCH worse. You may actually do as your lord does, and smite, murder, burn, flood, plague, rape and torture everyone/thing who doesn’t do what you say.
Can I just ask, why did God create Satan? If he is meant to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc ect blah blah then he would *know *that satan would betray him, so why create him in the first place?
Also, on the same subject, what’s the point in praying when our future is already set? You say we have “free will” but we don’t really, because God can see into our futures, and if he can’t, then he isn’t omniscient, and therefore imperfect.
That’s something I’ve always wondered. If you have an answer, that would be awesome.
O, im sory, i did t meen 2. Give me a break! Is this why we are here? To point out other peoples grammar? I’m sorry I didn’t realize I offended you by accidentally putting the wrong word.
I’ll begin by distinguishing two kinds of agnosticism. TAP, or Temporary Agnosticism in Practice, is the legitimate fence-sitting where there really is a definite answer, one way or the other, but we so far lack the evidence to reach it (or don’t understand the evidence, or haven’t time to read the evidence, etc.). TAP would bea reasonable stance towards the Permian extinction. There is a truth out there and one day we hope to know it, though for the moment we don’t.
I’m not sure I can defend an argument (or anyone else for that matter) that juxtaposes costume with slavery while requiring consideration of Hindu beliefs in order to defend practices in the light of historical Hebrew beliefs and records.
I’ll admit that the word race was an unfortunate choice on my part. I think the word ‘tribe’ would have been a better label (I do realize that there is only one race - the human race). Having said that, and taking these examples in their historical context, I don’t find it unreasonable for one tribe to eliminate another tribe (under certain circumstances) especially when they were under the very real belief that their lives and/or the preservation of their society (which can be likened to a communal belief system) was in danger of being compromised or ultimately destroyed. How many wars do you know of that didn’t contain at least one of these criteria? The issue of innocents being killed is difficult indeed. However, it was based upon the understanding that if even one of the opposing tribal members were left alive, it could cause an insurrection later on that would inevitably produce the same warfare the prevailing tribe had just suffered through. In essence, even the smallest of threats could blossom into even greater threats if not sternly dealt with. It is the same philosophy used by doctors who treat cancer (remove it all and leave nothing behind). It is also demonstrated in the example of a corrupt CEO being responsible for the demise of an entire company. The potential for destruction can lay within someone or something that initially appears inconsequential when compared with the greater scope of things.
Well, that wasn’t the only issue in context but it seems to be the one you’re most interested in. Is there a specific example you’re referring to, or are you concerned with the overall issue of slavery in the OT?
I agree with you. I do not believe in the doctrine of total depravity as was stated by some of the reformers (it is a very harsh view of humanity). The Catholic Church states we were wounded by original sin. However, Jesus’s death and resurrection heals this wound through the graces derived from faith. We are not justed imputed (covered) with Christ’s righteousness (as the reformers thought), but imparted (from the inside) with his righteousness. We become vessels of holiness with grace abounding.
Maybe there isn’t enough people praying.
, or maybe, there isn’t enough people or governments who care 
, or maybe, we are too greedy with our own money to give to others in need. In the end, starvation is not God’s fault, he made it clear that we needed to help the poor.You missed my response to one of your posts, so I copied it again, here it is:
Jesus Christ seems like a great guy, but personally I do not believe he exists/existed.
im quite suprised at your lack of knowledge.
Well,
1+1 can = 3… so. Geesh woman! 
Either choose to be an atheist OR an agnostic. One who professes to not know is not claiming to not believe in god/a god. There is a difference. If you don’t believe in a higher power whatsoever, then just say you are an athiest. IN my opinion (just mine… not something to necessarily be regarded on this board), atheism is proving to be just as toxic as Christianity. I used to be a self proclaimed atheist (though with a better understanding now, I should have known as well to say I was rather agnostic)… now I seek to convert to Judaism based on my own subjective experience. Still, either you DON’T KNOW or you don’t believe in any god. There is the either/or. The former is to be agnostic and the latter is to be as dogmatic as… well… me (considering that I KNOW that God is a reality)!! Just trying to help you define yourself properly. *In reality science is ever changing. many thing that science told us were true just 30 years ago are now not so true. and many things we hole as true today will not be in the future.
Do you realize that 11 of the 12 Of Jesus Apostles were Killed for there belief in Him. You really believe these men let themselves be killed for someone that did not even exist?
True, but personally I would rather be updated on the current “truth” than an ancient one which most likely weren’t true then, and at least not now I would reckon.
So you are agreeing that we are the ones who need to help rather than just hope? Or did I catch that wrong?Maybe there isn’t enough people praying.
P.S. There have been 67 peer reviewed miracles at Lourdes by doctors and scientists (of catholic, non-catholic, and atheist leanings). I will provide you these miracles at a later date.
CHRISTians are in a new covenant (so please stop quoting Old Testament scripture) with God, therefore, where in the New Testament do you see Jesus (God, the Son) exhorting us to commit violence?
But before getting to the heart of it, I’d like to dispel a popular notion, popularized especially by certain protestant groups, that there are two different Gods, or myths, or types of God or whatever, between the Old and New Testament; they will often say that the OT God was this mean, nasty guy, and the NT God is all full of love and mercy.
First of all the Old Testament is full of passages of tender love, mercy and forgiveness. Hos 11:1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” Or Psalms such as 130:2-3 “Praise the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits- who forgives all your sins, etc.” and 31:7, “I will be glad and rejoice in your love, for you saw my affliction and knew the anguish of my soul.” Episodes such as the mercy David showed Saul, or the pity God had on Israel after its contemptible conduct in the desert by showing them still to the Holy Land, are a few examples, too few, to show how pleased God is to have good triumph over evil. When the Jesus Lord taught us to love, he wasn't saying anything new, for the OT has passages such as Dt 6:5 “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength,” or again, Lev 19:34, “The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt,” and “love your neighbor as yourself” in Lev 19:18.
Then there is the revelation of marriage. As a sign, it is perfectly achieved by the saints in their perfect union with God. But on earth, it is the greatest form of human love, yet always less than divine charity. (That said, when it is joined to divine charity by a marriage which is lived out with holiness, that is a great thing, yet a hard achievement.) Rachel and Leah; Hosea who wished to take his beloved to the solitude of the desert and there speak to his heart, the union of Adam and Eve. The entire Canticle of Canticles is a love poem… now, dear Hilary, as it has some erotic content, please submit to my judgment on this, and do not read it unless your confessor or parents know you are reading it; the impressions it can make upon an adolescent, especially one who has not had a formal education in reading that book in particular, could do you more harm than good.
The problem was, the Israelites of those days were so dense and hard-hearted (as the scripture itself testifies) before God’s teaching about love, that they neither understood it nor practiced it in Israel, except for a few devout souls such as Mary, Joseph, Elizabeth, Simeon and surely others like them. Christ in Mt. 19:8 even said that divorce was a tolerated evil, a concession to Moses, “because of the hardness of your hearts.”
Just as tender love is found in the OT, the NT isn’t all affection and teddy bears. The Lord Jesus Christ speaks about hell more than any one in the entire bible. He describes it as fire, as the place where the “worm dieth not” (ick, by the way! Mk 9:48), a place of torment, etc. He talks about demons. He rebukes the Pharisees ferociously all over the four Gospels, but especially in Mt 23. Then in other places in the NT, St. John has a vision of hell as a lake of fire, the four horsemen of the Apocalypse devastate the world, St. Paul energetically rebukes the early communities for their infighting, for their return to Judaism, for incest (!); and then here comes St. Peter in Acts (I think around chapt. 5) where he slays Ananias and Saphira witht the word of his mouth. (Gulp.)
OK, so all that to say that when people easily lop the OT into the “mean nasty” and the NT into the “warm fuzzy,” I don’t buy the distinction. So now let’s get more concrete and focus on your questions. We can solve them by applying a few principles.
The first principle is this: there was a pedagogy the people of God experienced, bringing them from the dark, condemned state of Adam to the fullness of grace in Mary, all as a preparation for Jesus the Savior. In the brutality of the revenge of ancient times, God taught them to be just: eye for eye, not two eyes for one eye. Tooth for tooth, not smashed mouth for tooth. And this was an attenuation of the brutality practiced by those who were very far from God. It created a limit and reason to justice. The State, remember, still practices this. When it is the Church’s job to forgive with mercy, it is the State’s job to punish with justice. A priest will absolve a man minutes before he is executed. A priest absolves the murdered, but the state locks him up in jail for the rest of his life. So we still do practice, “eye for eye, etc.,” anywhere we find justice practiced. They did not know the whole picture, and could not, because Jesus had not yet come. But there is a harmony between the law of Moses, which served as a preparation (sometimes material, sometimes spiritual) and the law of the Holy Spirit.
The second principle is this: there are some things which Jesus Christ revealed, and were not revealed before he came.
One example is the unity and indissolubility of marriage. So patriarchs (like David) had harems, and sometimes the meanness of how they dealt with women (I think of how he “stole” Bathsheba) was severely condemned by the prophets. Furthermore, the Lord explains why Moses allowed divorce, “because of the hardness of your hearts” (Mt 19:8).
Another example is the good of virginity (Mt 19:11-12); curiously Philip the Apostle (somewhere in Acts 20 or 21) had four daughters who were virgins; Mary was a virgin; Christ was celibate, as were all the Aposltes after they were raised to Orders; John and Paul had always remained virgins; etc. Elijah was a virgin, and there were others so in the OT, but they are rare and mysterious cases, which find their explanation only in Christ.
A further example is the meaning of suffering. Until Christ suffered and then died upon the cross, suffering made no sense to anyone in the OT.
Next there is eternal beatitude and the beatific vision in heaven, which is something revealed. Nothing any Jew could do would win him eternal life; they were not obliged to spiritual perfection as we are, but to the observance of the law. Maybe some attained spiritual perfection besides, such as Moses and Abraham. But still they did not enter heaven until Christ descended into hell (1 Peter 3:19).
So, “why the double standard”? Because they were still in school, and we’re the graduates who know better.
Did these OT teachings hinder the Israelites from entering eternal life? No, because, if they followed the law of Moses, they were doing God’s law; furthermore, none of them were on the way to Eternal Life to begin with, because the Messiah had not yet come, and they all lay still under the dark curse of Adam. The just who died needed to wait in the limbo of the patriarchs, a prison, until Christ came to set them free (cf. 1 Peter 3:19, 4:6) Perhaps we could consider the following thought as a third principle in our list. And it is this: if ever you read passages from the OT which make you scratch your head, remember that the ENTIRE Old Testament is about Jesus Christ. The description of the construction of the Temple is all an allegory for the mystery of the real temple which is… you. And in another sense, the Church. Try this one: (Ps 137:8-9) I hope that helps. It is far from a complete answer, but I think it opens up some theological possibilities to help you solve the dilemmata which arise from apparent contradictionsFaith and works go hand in hand (it’s not an either/or situation). We must express our faith working in love. So every Christian is expected to do good and be good to reflect the goodness of God to the rest of the world. Have you read any parts of the New Testament in the Bible? God bless.
Yes, you approach a key point. The OT does contain many incidences of rape, genocide, slavery and the such. It’s interesting how people of different backgrounds understand these texts. Those persons of a Christian background emphasize the spiritual sense of the OT passages, and if called to make account of why an all-loving God (or his representative) would order what amounted to genocide, they answer that the circumstances warranted it (e.g. the Midianites and Amalekites were enemies bent on the destruction of the invading Israelites). The atheists I’ve spoken with see these same events as evidence that religion is irrational and entails violence and other atrocious behaviors.