My difficulties with the Catholic Faith

[seremina]

God was never evil and never will be. If you want to look at evil, look no further than Satan, the King of Evil. Another source is fallen angels/demons and unrepentant humans.

Religion is not designed to make anybody good nor evil. Its designed to help them live more morally and its also designed with imperfect humans in mind. After all, only Jesus and Mary were perfect. Everybody else has the adventure of exploring themselves and finding out what religion or moral code fits them, or if they want to create their own.

Whichever you choose, its important to follow it completely. A religion loses its identity in a person that doesn’t follow it completely on purpose and only chooses to cherrypick what they want to obey in that religion. I have to admit, though, the only religion that has flexibility for choosing what to obey and what not to, is Buddhism. People that can’t find a flavour of Buddhism they like, usually create a new flavour.

 

[Benedictus]

God was never evil and never will be.

I’m guessing this was in response to my post where I mentioned that one of the difficulties I now have is the evil that God commanded and/or approved in the Old Testament.

There are multiple instances where God commands and/or approves of killing children (cf. Ezekiel 9:5f, Jeremiah 51:22, Isaiah 13:15f, 1 Samuel 15:2, Joshua 6:20, and many more). There are cases where God approves of rape (Exodus 21:7f, Judges 5:30, Zachariah 14:2, etc.).

I’m not arguing that God–if there is a God–is evil. Only that the God described in the Old Testament approved of some things that are very hard to accept. The Church says that using simple blastocysts consiting of a small number of cells for scientific research is wrong, but the Old Testament approves of slaughtering whole nations. There seems to be a big disconnect there.

 

[guanophore]

I’m guessing this was in response to my post where I mentioned that one of the difficulties I now have is the evil that God commanded and/or approved in the Old Testament.

There are multiple instances where God commands and/or approves of killing children (cf. Ezekiel 9:5f, Jeremiah 51:22, Isaiah 13:15f, 1 Samuel 15:2, Joshua 6:20, and many more). There are cases where God approves of rape (Exodus 21:7f, Judges 5:30, Zachariah 14:2, etc.).

I’m not arguing that God–if there is a God–is evil. Only that the God described in the Old Testament approved of some things that are very hard to accept. The Church says that using simple blastocysts consiting of a small number of cells for scientific research is wrong, but the Old Testament approves of slaughtering whole nations. There seems to be a big disconnect there.

Not to discount that there are a number of hard sayings there, a couple other elements need to be kept in mind. One is that the revelation of God’s character has been progressive, and primiitve people only understood God in a primitive manner. This has more to do with our lack of progress than God’s nature. Another is that there are a lot of things in the OT that are written so that we can learn from them, and it does not necessarily mean that God approved of what happened.

As to the matter of a blastocyst, we have afundamental difference of opinion. Catholics believe that life (humanity) begins at the moment of conception. Since that collection of blastocystic cells is considered a human person, it would not be any more appropriate to experiement with it than it would with an infant that had already been born.

 

[blessedtoo]

There are multiple instances where God commands and/or approves of killing children (cf. Ezekiel 9:5f, Jeremiah 51:22, Isaiah 13:15f, 1 Samuel 15:2, Joshua 6:20, and many more). There are cases where God approves of rape (Exodus 21:7f, Judges 5:30, Zachariah 14:2, etc.).

I’m not arguing that God–if there is a God–is evil. Only that the God described in the Old Testament approved of some things that are very hard to accept. The Church says that using simple blastocysts consiting of a small number of cells for scientific research is wrong, but the Old Testament approves of slaughtering whole nations. There seems to be a big disconnect there.

Hi friend! I understand your dilema here. I doubt there is a Christian alive who hasn’t wrestled with this same issue. For the best discussion I have ever read regarding the God of the OT, please, please read:
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html

 

[seremina]

There are multiple instances where God commands and/or approves of killing children (cf. Ezekiel 9:5f, Jeremiah 51:22, Isaiah 13:15f, 1 Samuel 15:2, Joshua 6:20, and many more). There are cases where God approves of rape (Exodus 21:7f, Judges 5:30, Zachariah 14:2, etc.).

I’ll look up the passages you’re describing, and explain each one for you. You also have to keep in mind that God is perfect and all-good. Whatever He commanded is not evil, even if we see it differently. But if humans do something evil, He doesn’t accept it without His command. You’re forgetting that God is divine, thus He possesses more wisdom and knowledge and a higher morality than we do.

Ezekial 9:5f…God is commanding the people to kill idolaters that were formerly believers in Him. You have to remember that obedience to God is a dire sin, as idol worship is a mortal sin. The Jewish had made a convenant with God, agreeing to worship Him and He would be their God and protect them. Its simply a case of Him punishing the idolaters. This is not evil.

Jeremiah 51:22…this is very similar to a battle song in rhythm, but its a prophecy.; the 2nd prophecy against Babylon. It is referring to the God-commanded destruction of Chaldea and Babylon. This city was doing much sin, so again, an example of a city being punished by God.

Isaiah 13:15f…this is a description of Isaiah’s vision of Babylon’s destruction. I’ve already explained about the wicked nature of Babylon and God’s punishment of Babylon.

1 Samuel 15:2…Samuel is telling Saul that Saul is now the king over Israel, and that God commands Amalek to be punished for barring Israel’s way when they were coming up from Egypt. Thus, Amalek was punished. When God protects someone, you don’t want to get into that someone’s way.

Joshua 6:20…this is describing Jericho’s fall. God commanded the Israelites to defeat Jericho. It wouldn’t be an easy fight; God commanded they circle the city with 7 Priests each carrying a ram’s horn, and carrying the Ark of the Covenant. After them, the troops would march behind. They were to march around the city for 6 days. On the 7th day, they were to march around for an additional 7 times, then blow their horns with a long blast when they received Joshua’s signal. The walls of Jerusalem were felled by God. Because a Jericho woman helped them, her and her family were spared from being killed. She and them would get to live in Israel. God said that any man that tried to rebuild Jericho would be cursed. To this day, this curse remains and a few have died from trying; so nobody dares try to rebuild Jericho.

Exodus 21:7f…this isn’t referring to rape. This is referring to God’s rules regarding selling a daughter into slavery. If the master doesn’t like her, he may release her and she’ll be freed. He can’t even sell her to a foreigner, as that’s a breach of the slavery contract. If he marries her to his son, he must treat her like a daughter rather than like a slave. If his son marries another woman, the former slave must still be given her rightful food, clothing, bed relations, and rights to children; but if he denies her any of these things, she’s allowed to go free as he’s dishonoured his marriage to her.

Judges 5:30…Deborah, a female Judge, is leading Israel into a God-commanded conquest. She was to kill Sisera. The mother of Sisera was weeping, worried about him, wondering why he’s not coming. She was expecting him that day. She’s talking to her princesses, then she talks to herself. She’s pondering if Sisera must be busy dividing the spoils he took from his own conquets, such as the women or two for each man, and he must’ve took dyed cloth spoils as his own, and hopes he’s gotten an ornate shawl or two for her. No rape is mentioned here.

Zechariah 14:2…Jerusalem is being attacked. The author is speaking of the various nations that are attacking Jerusalem in order to take the city, plunder houses, rape women, and half the city shall go into exile, but the Lord will come forth and fight in Israel’s defense. And He does. Nowhere in the passage is it mentioning God approving of rape. Its talking about foreigners invading and raping the women.

It occurs to me, with all the references you gave, that you didn’t read them all in context and you might’ve not understood the history of everything that’s going on in them. It seems you are pointing to a verse that seems incriminating and making it into your own hangup. Being negative like that never helps matters, especially when researching religions. You have to read things in context and understand the history. Otherwise, you’ll have misinterpretations based on just one verse that seemed to glare out at you.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Never ever let anyhone fool you with their evolution or by chance doctrine.

The simple fact of the matter is that if we are here purely by chance then there are no “laws” of science, nature etc. Whatever people want to call laws would also only operate by chance and the chances are that at any second of the day something could happen to change that law, the fact that we don’t experience these changes indicates that there is order to the system, whatever the system is.

In fact to continue on down the track without "exploding " requires a move towards orderliness, yet science says that systems break down rather than become more complex.

The very nature of chance and the science that we know of indicates that life and existence as we know it should have dissapeared long ago.

 

[bigsarge05]

Organist,

You my friend are not alone. Believe me, many friends of mine have asked themselves the hard questions such as “Does God exist?” These are good people, good generous Catholic people.

Anyone in this forum, who can honestly say they’ve never asked themselves “Why do I do this?” is fooling themselves.

We all go through darker times of faith. I walked away from the Church for ten years of my adult life. Hardly prayed … I could count the times I went to church each year on one hand. I never stopped believing in God or anything. I just simply ignored my spiritual responsibility. I remember exactly what caused me to rethink my position. My son asked me the hardest question “Who is God?” and for you to have such a spiritual crisis and still attend mass is truly inspiring.

I felt terrible, that I couldn’t answer him automatically. It took me a couple of hours to answer that question. I vowed to never be caught off guard when it came to answering questions like that. This child was ten years old, had never been to a church, heck he hadn’t even been baptized yet. I felt like the worst dad ever.

Anyways,

Since you’ve been educated in theology and philosophy, you know the burden of proof is on the believer. But, it’s only a burden if you let it be one. Faith in God is one of the most precious gifts our Creator has given us. The great part is that it’s your choice. Pray to God bro’. Pray openly and fervently. Obviously this is distressing you. Pray to God and remember to try and reconcile yourself with Him. Pray for the grace of the Holy Spirit who will strengthen your faith. It may not happen overnight, but it I believe it will definitely happen. Maybe this is your cross to bear or you’re looking for the obvious, easy answers. Sometimes God answers are subtle and hard to see. Be strong bro’. Jesus saves, it’s not a cliché.

Also, the Church itself is the holy. Now, you know as well as I there have been some unsightly stains from the human aspect. That is inevitable, you know that. Imperfect people operating a perfect organization … there are going to be problems. All denominations have problems.

Finally, God is everywhere! Watch a child play, watch a sunrise or sunset, a thunderstorm. Help feed or clothe the homeless, teach a CCD class. Meditate at Mass. I can go on and on. Attend a baby or adult baptism, a wedding; even a funeral is good for the soul.

Good luck and may God bless you all!

Jesse

 

[Fidelia]

Religion is not designed to make anybody good nor evil. Its designed to help them live more morally and its also designed with imperfect humans in mind. After all, only Jesus and Mary were perfect. Everybody else has the adventure of exploring themselves and finding out what religion or moral code fits them, or if they want to create their own.

Whichever you choose, its important to follow it completely. A religion loses its identity in a person that doesn’t follow it completely on purpose and only chooses to cherrypick what they want to obey in that religion. I have to admit, though, the only religion that has flexibility for choosing what to obey and what not to, is Buddhism. People that can’t find a flavour of Buddhism they like, usually create a new flavour.

Well put.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Whichever you choose, its important to follow it completely

I’m sorry but that’s like belonging to a cult. You can’t give up your responsibility to make moral decisions just like that. I know people like direction but that sort of philosophy leads to the Poisoned Kool-Aid or stockade siege scenario.

I am finding the more I aks about the Church’s doctrines, the less sense it makes. It doesn’t give me any understanding, as people just fire off paragraphs of the Catechism and official Church teaching.

 

[jonk]

There are the judgmental types who are all too common among devout, religious people. Then there are the ones who want to impose their religious beliefs on everyone through various means (violence, the government, schools, etc.).

Sure there are lots of good people, but I’m not convinced that overall, religion makes better people. Even if devout people are better, nicer, saintlier than the non-religious type, we run the risk of confusing correlation with causation.

You do make a good point about correlation vs causation. Still, religion makes moral demands whereas I’d propose that irreligion’s moral standards are typically lower or non-existent. Personally, I think I’ve always been rebellious and attracted to “bad” things, and I’d say that had Christianity not made certain moral demands on me, I would have had little reason to alter the way I lived, and I would describe the effect as generally positive, though I will not attempt to extrapolate it beyond my personal experience.

Being judgemental is by no means limited to the devout, although I do admit that it is too common. Too common also are the types that won’t call a spade a spade among both the religious and irreligious.

The ones who want to impose their religious beliefs or philosophical through violence, government and schools, I think you would readily admit, are not limited to religious people. In fact, to an extent, secularism was imposed at a time when the majority of people were not secular. And in many places in the world, it is atheism that was/is rigorously imposed onto religious populations in a similar way that Islam is imposed on certain populations. I would not so readily admit, however, that the imposition of any sort of beliefs is always wrong. I mean, that’s what education is about - kids are taught maths, the sciences, language, the humanities, all through various philosophical lens, thereby imposing philosophical beliefs on them. We cannot delude ourselves that a neutral worldview or philosophy exists.

But there are other “reasonable” religions out there whose difficulties aren’t any greater than Catholicism’s.
…
Shouldn’t I study those before I make a decision about which religion to follow?

I didn’t mean to imply that one shouldn’t study other religions. You definitely should, in order to come to a fair decision.

There are specific hang-ups I have with Catholicism and Christianity: Original Sin, the Old Testament God being evil, etc. For the most part, these problems arose well after I started to question whether I really believed, but they do present roadblocks that would need to be dealt with before I could be a whole-hearted Catholic again.

I understand your objections, and they are similar to the ones I had, though I never had a problem with Original Sin. I contend that they can be resolved.

Having said all this though, the primary problem I have is still the existence of a personal God. If I don’t really believe in God, objections to specific doctrines don’t seem to matter that much.

The primary reason I consider myself a ‘borderline’ agnostic and not a true agnostic is that I have trouble explaining why most people believe in a god of some sort. There seems to be something about our nature that seeks something greater than the physical world we see. Perhaps it’s just a curious aspect of the human brain that makes us religious or superstitious. Maybe it’s a by-product of evolution that once served a useful purpose.

Well, physicists seem to do something of the sort too. They too find themselves having to look to something external to the physical universe we live in as an explanation for it, proposing theories ranging from multiple universes, parallel or not, circular time etc. Many or most such theories are not inherently much more or less credible or provable than the proposition of a theist God. The universe that we know has to have originated somehow and come to be in the state that it is. I’d say our human nature is not mistaken to seek something external, even when looking at it atheistically.

One problem is that while reasonable objections, such as ones based on the current understanding of quantum mechanics, to the various cosmological arguments do exist, scientists still find themselves having to look to something external and inventing their own unprovable gods to explain the way things are - the cause. And infinite time poses difficulties when looking at it from even a layman’s perspective - if infinity has already elapsed, why haven’t all the physical laws of the universe or a hypothetical multiverse that has spawned our universe come to a conclusion in the same way that the conclusion of our own universe will, apparently, be near nothingness?

The choice is between a theist or atheist “god” or cause. An impersonal god matches more closely with the atheist gods in that it seems to force the universe - this one or some sort of higher universe - to have existed infinitely. Perhaps one could explore the various atheist theories of how the universe came to be.

 

[Benedictus]

I’ll look up the passages you’re describing, and explain each one for you.

I’ll start out by saying that I was familiar with the context of the passages I cited. I’ve read these books numerous times in the past.

I don’t wish to get into a protracted debate about these passages, and due to time constraints, I’ll just respond to a few, which should be sufficient to show that I still have problems with the God described in the Old Testament.

seremina:

Ezekial 9:5f…God is commanding the people to kill idolaters that were formerly believers in Him. You have to remember that obedience to God is a dire sin, as idol worship is a mortal sin. The Jewish had made a convenant with God, agreeing to worship Him and He would be their God and protect them. Its simply a case of Him punishing the idolaters. This is not evil.

Firstly, he commands killing children in verse 6, which I regard as unjustifiably evil. Secondly, I still have trouble thinking of the slaughter of people for abandoning a religion as anything less than evil.

seremina:

1 Samuel 15:2…Samuel is telling Saul that Saul is now the king over Israel, and that God commands Amalek to be punished for barring Israel’s way when they were coming up from Egypt. Thus, Amalek was punished. When God protects someone, you don’t want to get into that someone’s way.

What did the children do to deserve being killed? I’m sorry, but again, I see the killing of children as evil.

seremina:

Exodus 21:7f…this isn’t referring to rape. This is referring to God’s rules regarding selling a daughter into slavery.

When I posted it, I interpreted it as being a sort of sexual slavery. Maybe I misinterpreted it.

seremina:

Judges 5:30…Deborah, a female Judge, is leading Israel into a God-commanded conquest. She was to kill Sisera. The mother of Sisera was weeping, worried about him, wondering why he’s not coming. She was expecting him that day. She’s talking to her princesses, then she talks to herself. She’s pondering if Sisera must be busy dividing the spoils he took from his own conquets, such as the women or two for each man, and he must’ve took dyed cloth spoils as his own, and hopes he’s gotten an ornate shawl or two for her. No rape is mentioned here.

Judges 5:30:

Perhaps he is now dividing the spoils, and the fairest of the women is chosen out for him: garments of divers colours are given to Sisara for his prey, and furniture of different kinds is heaped together to adorn the necks.

Treating women as spoils of war seems like a type of rape to me.

seremina:

Zechariah 14:2…Jerusalem is being attacked. The author is speaking of the various nations that are attacking Jerusalem in order to take the city, plunder houses, rape women, and half the city shall go into exile, but the Lord will come forth and fight in Israel’s defense. And He does. Nowhere in the passage is it mentioning God approving of rape. Its talking about foreigners invading and raping the women.

I guess when I read about God gathering nations to fight against Jerusalem in order to take the city, plunder houses, and ravish women that God was approving of or assisting the foreigners.

In summary, the difficulties remain.

 

[MTD]

Firstly, he commands killing children in verse 6, which I regard as unjustifiably evil.

First, how can you say that was evil when you don’t believe in the existence of God? You decided that it was evil, but the atheist/agnostic next door can decide that it was good. If there’s no God, there’s no standard by which to judge good and evil; in fact, there’s no such thing as good and evil. So how can you say your moral code is more legitimate or right than the opposite moral code? No God=no standard besides your own desires.

Second, that word unjustifiably. Before whom does one have to justify an act? If there’s no God, there’s no one to be responsible to for our acts and thus there is no need to justify an act. So I don’t see how you can regard an act you don’t like as unjustifiably evil since the only one to whom the act is unjustifiable is yourself, but you aren’t the one to whom we must all justify our acts.

Maria

 

[ricmat]

Firstly, he commands killing children in verse 6, which I regard as unjustifiably evil. Secondly, I still have trouble thinking of the slaughter of people for abandoning a religion as anything less than evil.

What did the children do to deserve being killed? I’m sorry, but again, I see the killing of children as evil.

Treating women as spoils of war seems like a type of rape to me.

There was another thread on these subjects a month or so ago. Don’t know if Benedictus was part of it or not.

Some thoughts:

Evil is not defined by us, it is defined by God. We do not know what reward in the afterlife God had for the children who were killed. Or for the women “spoils of war.”

We do know that this world, this “reality” is only a reality held together by God’s will, and his love. This reality does not exist independently of God. The only real (permanent) thing, in fact, is God. I AM. Existence is the name of God.

That we should decide to define as evil those things which God chooses to do is Pride in its absolute worst form. This is the lesson from Genesis 3. Eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - wanting to define good and evil for ourselves, so that we can be God.

Benedictus seems to be saying, as many do, that “God doesn’t meet my expectations.” I am right, and God is wrong.

There are many things we do not understand. There are many things we will NEVER understand. But it is clear that we must trust and put our faith in God. If we can “explain” God’s actions in a way that satisfies us, so much the better. But if we cannot, then we must trust and put our faith in God.

 

[Gunger]

Organist:

There are obviously a host of potential responses to the issues you’ve outlined…from historical, to philosophical, to theological to practical and even scientific. Books have been written…lifetimes have been spent…addressing those same basic, simple questions. We can hardly hope to adequately address them in an online forum. However, for the sake of jumping in with both feet, I like to respond to these kinds of generalized doubts with my all time favorite generalization: billions of people-- from every age, for at least four millenia-- cannot be wrong.

For the skeptic, there are obviously any number of responses to that statement. Some may start at the obvious (and, frankly, the cop out) and say just because it was good for all of them doesn’t mean it’s enough for me. The problem with this response is that it dismisses without consideration the very answers you seek to your questions…answers found by those billions, including those found by the greatest minds of ALL ages (not just today, or in a single school of thought). Another response might be to say, well what about Islam (or any other religion, for that matter)-- billions of people believe…and the contradictions between Islam and Christianity only serve to highlight the mess that “God” has left behind. The problem with this response is that it assumes too much-- for purposes of getting to the issue of “why have faith at all” (after all, once you get to that question, we’re talking theology… a different discussion entirely), Islam (and for that matter protestantism and Judaism) is actually supportive of my premise: the need for faith appeals accross faiths… and in the end, quite literally, militates towards the same deity (albeit seen in different ways and from different cultures…but again, that is theology).

The point is, at the most basic level you are searching (I know, I just made an assumption for you, but I think a fair one based on your post). In my opinion, that is the Holy Spirit working in you. The same Holy Spirit that brought Paul, Augustine, Moore, Newman and literally billions of others to continue to search for answers. While billions may not convince you, they should at least raise the comforting assurance that…for all that emense human experience…**the search **, in and of itself, should never be abandoned, and is worth every moment, every thought, every keystroke.

Take heart in the fight for that knowledge. Feed your desire to learn, to seek and even to disagree. You will be led home. After all, someone wise once said:

Seek…and ye SHALL find…

G.

 

[jonk]

Benedictus,

You should start a new thread for the OT passages. See what people have to say.

 

[Nicholas_II]

Hi Organist

I havent read the whole of this thread but did read you introductory post. I think anyone on here will sympathise with you to an extent. Maybe your early passion for the faith makes you feel more guilty than the rest of us. But I think I can relate.

I converted to the faith (Catholic) from a presbyterian almost I would say anti-catholic environment. I felt pressure. I became obsessed with the theology. Theology is good. Knowing the arguments is good. It doesnt get you to heaven though.

Try spirituality. Catholic spirituality. Forget the rest. Forget the arguements for and against our faith. Try www.pray-as-you-go.com, or www.sacredspace.ie

Start simply. Dont harass God. Let him enter your life. I used to pray the Divine Office (still do from time to time) faithfully morning and evening. It was like a chain around my neck. I had to. If i missed an office I was letting God down. I suppose its true to an extent but I dont get hung up on it any more.

Id sooner stare at a crucifix for 5 - 10 mins and talk to Jesus in an ad hoc way now. I dont do the Divine Office ritually when Im still thinking about my work, family, debts, etc and hardly take in a word. I do it when Im ready. When God has made me ready. When he has already filled me with his Spirit as a gift.

Catholic theology is only the pathway. We have to walk along that pathway…with our eyes closed.

God Bless
Nicholas

 

[ElizabethAnne]

Organist,

You say that God has not given you undeniable factual proof to believe in Him and to believe in His Church. I understand why you want the hard, personal proof, but not everyone will have that. Faith is a gift, and it is one the must be nutured through prayer and participation in the sacraments.

I am reminded of the OT reading about the rich man who dies and spends eternity separated from God while the poor man, Lazarus, spends eternity with God. The rich man asks Abraham to go to his brothers, who are still living, and warn them of their fate if they do not act better. Abraham tells the man that his brothers have the prophets and that even if a man should rise from the dead, they would not believe. Abraham is trying to tell us that we have the tools that we need to spend eternity with God. And he said this before Christ rose from the dead!

I am often struck when reading the Bible at how little the world has changed. We are still human – we doubt, we sin and we do not treat people with the respect they deserve. These things never end as they are part of our fallen human nature. Just knowing that so much of Christ’s advice to His apostles is so very often still applicable for me today, says so much to me about the Truth that can be found there.

God bless you.

 

[Janet_S]

For Benedictus:

You said one of the hang-ups you have with Catholicism and Christianity is original sin.

I was interested in your comment because the idea of original sin is one of the things that draws me to Catholicism.

Even before I believed in God, I always wondered why it was that when I knew what I should do, I usually didn’t do it, or I did something I shouldn’t instead. Original sin explains the tendency for us to “miss the mark.”

I like what GK Chesterton says about original sin in his book, St Francis of Assisi:

“When Man goes straight he goes crooked. When he follows his nose he manages somehow to put his nose out of joint, or even to cut off his nose to spite his face; and that in accordance with something much deeper in human nature than nature-worshippers could ever understand. It was the discovery of that deeper thing, humanly speaking, that constituted the conversion to Christianity. There is a bias in man like the bias in the bowl; and Christianity was the discovery of how to correct the bias and therefore hit the mark. There are many who will smile at the saying; but it is profoundly true to say that the glad good news brought by the Gospel was the news of original sin.”

 

[Janet_S]

Gunger says: “billions of people-- from every age, for at least four millenia-- cannot be wrong.”

I’m not sure I agree with this, that billions of people cannot be wrong.

But I do think the fact that the Church has been around for 2,000 years is a good reason for everyone to look seriously at the Church, to consider her claims, and to study what she teaches.

 

[blessedtoo]

Hi friend! I understand your dilema here. I doubt there is a Christian alive who hasn’t wrestled with this same issue. For the best discussion I have ever read regarding the God of the OT, please, please read:
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html

Benedictus, did you look at this link? I really think it may help!