Rescuing The Bible From Fundmentalism

[Dan56]

Dan I do not doubt God's ability to preserve His Word. He need not write it down as it is written in the heart and mind of every sentient being.

What I do doubt is your abilty to objectively decide which one of the tens of thousands of alleged written words of God and their variants that exist on our planet are closest to the one written in the mind of Christ Consciousness. Lets face it the odds are at least 1 in 100,000 that you have selected correctly and the odd thing is everyone is making the same bet with their life. Why is your wager a better bet?

For me, the word of God isn't alleged, nor are there variants of his word, because its contained in the bible. So I didn't need to rummage around and cherry-pick what I think is true, God conveniently condensed it all into one book.

Did God really mean there are storehouses in the sky for the wind. Is the firmamnet a hardened shell with windows for the rain to come through, Did God really mean that it is ok to kill adulterers, disobedient children, people who work the Sabbath. Is it ok to sell your daughter off or to beat a slave to death as long as he lives for two days because he is your property. Is it ok to kill 30 cities full of people because you and your family need a place to stay.

Was the earth created in 6 days. Are bats birds and man only exist here for 6 thousand years. Are women turned to salt and men live inside fish under the sea for 3 days. Didn't rainbows exist before there was an alleged Great Global flood.

Sounds like a lot of superstitious nonsense to a lot of people and yet you and a lot of other people are betting all your chips on it.

In Psalms 135:7, the KJV uses "treasuries" instead of "storehouses". Its expected that God would speak in the language which people commonly used when speaking of his works, and would not go into a philosophical or scientific explanation of the phenomena of nature. He brings the wind out of his treasuries - Where he has, as it were, treasured it up, to be used when there should be occasion for it.

Genesis 2:5&6 state that it had not rained on earth, so you could surmise that rainbows could not have occurred until after the flood. But even if the rainbow existed before the flood, it became emblematic of the covenant (God's promise). This would be like bread and wine existing before the Passover, but after the Passover these preexisting emblems took on a new meaning.

Yes, God did institute the death penalty for breaking some of his laws. And yes, I think God was justified in destroying 30 cities, they were warned and ignored God, which is never a wise thing to do. If a person believes God created everything on earth in 6 days, then its obviously not difficult to believe he's capable of turning a woman into a pillar of salt.

Just compare the suffering human like Jesus in the Gospel of Mark who is capable of being tempted, prays for the cup to pass him by and cries out in agony and abandonment in his final moments, with the super human and Divine Jesus who is beyond being tempted always in control, and scoffs at asking the cup to pass him by.

These are referencing 2 different cups imo. One is mentioned when Jesus is answering a disciple and the other in prayer to the Father. Jesus willfully accepted the cup before him (crucifixion), but he obviously regretted the other cup, being the cup of wrath poured out after the days of tribulation.

[Dan56]

why not use the definition I clearly intended to use?

"The knowledge of these sectarian groups is contested by orthodox Christian theology as speculative knowledge derived from religio-philosophical (metaphysical) systems rather than knowledge derived from revelation coming from faith.[11] Gnosis itself is and was obtained through understanding at which one can arrive via inner experience or contemplation such as an internal epiphany for example. For the various sectarian gnostics, gnosis was obtained as speculative gnosis, instigated by the contemplation of their religio-philosophical (Cosmological, Metaphysical, salvational and rational) systems. These systems were pagan (folk) in origin and syncretic in nature. The gnostic sectarians vilified the concepts of a subjective creator God (Plato's demiurge) and objective creator God (one that creates ex-nihilo) as in the Judeo-Christian God (creator) and sought to reconcile the individual to their own personal deification (henosis), making each individual God.[9] As such the gnostic sects made a duality out of the difference between the activities of the spirit (nous), called noesis (insight), and those of faith.[12] During the early formation of Christianity, church authorities (Fathers of the Church) exerted considerable amounts of energy attempting to weed out what were considered to be false doctrines (e.g. Irenaeus' On the Detection and Overthrow of False Gnosis). The gnostics (as one sectarian group) held views which were incompatible with the emerging Ante-Nicene community. Among Christian heresiologists, the concept of false gnosis was used to denote different Pagan, Jewish or Christian belief systems (e.g. the Eleusinian Mysteries or Glycon) and their various teachings of what was deemed[9] religio-philosophical systems of knowledge,[13] as opposed to authentic gnosis (see below, Gnosis among the Greek Fathers). The sectarians used gnosis or secret, hidden knowledge to reject the traditions of the established community or church. The authorities throughout the community criticized this antinomianism as inconsistent with the communities teachings. Hence sectarians and followers of gnosticism were first rejected by the Jewish communities of the Mediterranean (see the Notzrim 139–67 BCE), then by the Christian communities and finally by the late Hellenistic philosophical communities (see Neoplatonism and Gnosticism)."

Because mine basically says the same thing in a single sentence.. Concise and efficient

("Gnosis is an Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, and not a spiritual revelation directly from God.")

If Paul was indeed a believer in the Doctrine of the Trinity - Why do his letters speak against such a misunderstanding? and speak so clearly...?

I see nothing in the quotes from Paul that would deny the trinity? Christ becoming our high priest after the order of Melchizedek does not negate the triune. Melchizedek means "king of righteousness". Melchizedek was the image of God's Spirit, and became our intercessor.

But no where does it say in the message that it would be EASY to enter the Kingdom... that should be your first warning that something is fishey......

Jesus said "My yoke is easy and my burden is light" and also "For this is love of God: that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grevious" (1 John 5:3).

[Brother Michael Sky]

Because mine basically says the same thing in a single sentence.. Concise and efficient

("Gnosis is an Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, and not a spiritual revelation directly from God.")

I do not believe that Jesus was the only one who had the Spirit of the Lord as an indwelling host. That is a Gnostic belief as well. So even inspiration which comes from with, comes from God. THAT is the point you seem to be missing.

I see nothing in the quotes from Paul that would deny the trinity? Christ becoming our high priest after the order of Melchizedek does not negate the triune. Melchizedek means "king of righteousness". Melchizedek was the image of God's Spirit, and became our intercessor.

you are mixing up the concepts of triune and trinity... and the explanation of how it DOES indeed deny the trinity, is within the quote you refer to.

Jesus said "My yoke is easy and my burden is light" and also "For this is love of God: that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grevious" (1 John 5:3).

when we have such debates as these, and we are instructed to "prove all things" (1 Thes 5:21 KJV), as Paul said - than yes, there is a certain difficulty...

If we look at Matt 13:25 NAS and consider the Roman Church -"But while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away" then we must "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn" as we are told to do in Matt 13:30 NAS. This is a task which requires hard work and constant attention - so in my mind no... the easiness is true once the wheat is gathered into the barn.. the tares must be collected first.. and the more time passes - the harder for us to recognize the wheat from the tare....

[Coolhand]

Does anybody know anything about Allan Cronshaw?

[Brother Michael Sky]

Does anybody know anything about Allan Cronshaw?

I'd say I know a little about him, Cool........

anything particular you'd like to discuss?

The Long Island Mystic

Edited November 3, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

[Dan56]

when we have such debates as these, and we are instructed to "prove all things" (1 Thes 5:21 KJV), as Paul said - than yes, there is a certain difficulty...

If we look at Matt 13:25 NAS and consider the Roman Church -"But while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away" then we must "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn" as we are told to do in Matt 13:30 NAS. This is a task which requires hard work and constant attention - so in my mind no... the easiness is true once the wheat is gathered into the barn.. the tares must be collected first.. and the more time passes - the harder for us to recognize the wheat from the tare....

Prove all things against what? The word of God, which you don't believe is accurate? 1 John 4:1-3 relates.

Imo, the parable in Matthew 13 has nothing to do with the Roman Church, unless the RCC is the enemy? We don't do the work, God will take care of the tares, his angels are the reapers who will gather and burn the tares (children of Satan). Jesus explains the meaning in verse 39, I believe it also relates to Rev 14:15.

[Pete]

I'll have to try a Quaker service, it sounds interesting.

I think a big problem for this concept of Trinity and the Divinity of Yeshua is that the four Gospel writers and Paul aren't delivering to us the same personality.  Just compare the suffering human like Jesus in the Gospel of Mark who is capable of being tempted, prays for the cup to pass him by and cries out in agony and abandonment in his final moments,  with the super human and Divine Jesus who is beyond being tempted always in control, and scoffs at asking the cup to pass him by. he even is in control up to the final moments on the cross when instead of crying out in agony and abandonment he simply states "it is finished"

The Four Gospels do not paint for us one homogenous Jesus. There is the more human Jesus in Mark, the teaching Rabbi like preacher in Matthew, the mediator in Luke and the super hero ultra Divine man in John.

I think the Jesus in the Gospel of Mark would barely recognize the Man in the Gospel of John.

I am told that the Quakers in the US fall into differing kinds. Some with ministers and some without, some biblical bashing and some not. In the UK they are mostly universal in outlook and have no ministers as they believe we are all capable of ministry. 

Spong argues that each of the Gospels were written for a particular purpose and reflect the politics of the faith as it progressed. Mark as a Choreographed account to fit in with the Jewish Calender; Matthew to try to cement relationships with the Jews; Luke to try and cement relationships with the Gentiles (Rome in particular); and John as a final rebuff to the Jews by stating that Jesus was God and therefore is the true heritage of Abraham.  

[Fawzo]

For me, the word of God isn't alleged, nor are there variants of his word, because its contained in the bible. So I didn't need to rummage around and cherry-pick what I think is true, God conveniently condensed it all into one book.

So Dan how did you decide or was told which version of that book was the corrrect one. There are a multitude of versions, it seems God was not able to keep it from wandering off course. How are you sure that the one you resonate with isn't one of the ones that have drifted off course?

In Psalms 135:7, the KJV uses "treasuries" instead of "storehouses". Its expected that God would speak in the language which people commonly used when speaking of his works, and would not go into a philosophical or scientific explanation of the phenomena of nature. He brings the wind out of his treasuries - Where he has, as it were, treasured it up, to be used when there should be occasion for it.

Where does the wind come from? In general terms, wind is created by the solar cycle through the uneven warming and cooling of the earth's surface. As the sun warms the land, air above the land is also warmed. This air rises and cooler air rushes in to replace it, producing a gentle breeze - or a howling tempest.

Large-scale winds are caused by the fact that the earth's surface is heated to a greater degree at the equator than at the poles. The rotation of the earth also affects these planetary winds. On a smaller scale, winds flow through mountain valleys and spill over high peaks across unobstructed prairies.http://www.prpa.org/...wwindismade.htm

Dan as you can see there are no treasuries or storhouses needed for wind. It is a quite natural event of which early bronze age man might have been quite ignorant when the Bible was written. So doesn't that prove God had nothing to do with that cosmological description of the origins of wind.

Genesis 2:5&6 state that it had not rained on earth, so you could surmise that rainbows could not have occurred until after the flood. But even if the rainbow existed before the flood, it became emblematic of the covenant (God's promise). This would be like bread and wine existing before the Passover, but after the Passover these preexisting emblems took on a new meaning.

You could surmise that if you are ignorant of the science behind how rainbows are formed as were the folks who wrote those portions of the Bible. I doubt if God was so ignorant and therefor played no part in authroship.

Rainbows are formed when the perceiver is standing between a source of water droplets and sunlight. The light refracts off the water droplets to the perceivers eyes at varoius angles from 42 to 45 degrees creating the different hues. Rain is not needed. Rainbows are created by waterfalls, the moon and would have been most assuredly created by that imaginary mist the Fundalmentalists claims covered the earth before it was suppose to have rained.

Once again it seems quite evident it is a stroy of sheer ignorarnce of science and the natural world and myth of bronze age man. No hand of God here unless God is as ignorant.

Yes, God did institute the death penalty for breaking some of his laws. And yes, I think God was justified in destroying 30 cities, they were warned and ignored God, which is never a wise thing to do. If a person believes God created everything on earth in 6 days, then its obviously not difficult to believe he's capable of turning a woman into a pillar of salt.

Dan I surely hope and pray that some portion of you cringed or doubted in your heart those words you typed that I bolded from your response. That portion that would be cringing or hesitating is the real written Word of God which is written within yours and everyones heart. If no portion of you cringed or gave pause when you wrote that, then I feel you have been endoctrinated to the point of a jihadist who is capable of starpping a bomb to them self and killing others with no remorse.

What do you think is more plausible Dan? That some Bronze Age desert dwellers saw a pillar of salt in a region where they were common that looked like a sexy female and told a story to their kids about how it was made as is human nature or that God actually turned a woman into a pillar of salt against her will.

Sodom and Gomorrah may have very well been destroyed by some cataclysmic event such as the same thing which happened in Tunguska which science still isn't 100% sure about its origins. If a similar event happened back during the Bronze Age what kind of myths would have been created to explain the source. Wouldn't the gods have been credited with its origin, so once this seems like the ignorance of man to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event

I know you like to claim that God protected the version of the written word that you cherish, but you must also realize that this written word were stories handed down by campfires for ages before they were even written down. Did God protect the embellishment of campfire stories as well?

These are referencing 2 different cups imo. One is mentioned when Jesus is answering a disciple and the other in prayer to the Father. Jesus willfully accepted the cup before him (crucifixion), but he obviously regretted the other cup, being the cup of wrath poured out after the days of tribulation.

Dan you as a modern Christian hold a complete Bible in your hand so that you can cross reference information to make apologetics for clear discrepancies.

The person who wrote the Gospel of John did not hold or have knowledge of the Book of Revelations and the person for whom the message was originally intended did not have knowledge or access either, as it was written later.

A lot of these crazy bizarre apolegetics that Christians make up need to take this into consideration.

If I am writing this post for your benefit, I hopefully am entering all the information you need and that I wish to convey to you. I'm not trying to write stuff with hidden meanings for future generations that my brothers Michael, Pete and Hex can finish up on later and complete.

[Pete]

Does anybody know anything about Allan Cronshaw?

I recognise this as a red herring but as for God's vengeance upon New York you do not have to be a prophet. I think he has just been watching the discovery channel. It seems that New York sites is at the other end of a potential Mega Tsunami. If the worst happens and there is a large drop of land into the ocean from La Palma in the Canary Islands (Just off Africa) then it has the potential of creating a wave 300miles thick, a mile high, and travelling at 700miles an hour and could wash away New York and  the eastern seaboard of the USA.  I just think Allan Cronshaw is just jumping on the band wagon and trying to make a name for himself. 

It is thought by many scientists that the land will drop into the sea in fragments rather than all at once and is therefore it is thought unlikely to carry the full force described but who knows. Its a bit like Los Angeles and it being built on a earthquake fault or the yellowstone park  potential for a mega volcano, they have strong possibilities that they will happen one day and if it does it is more to do with nature and the places mankind chooses to live rather than the rantings of a self made prophet (IMO).  

[Brother Michael Sky]

I recognise this as a red herring but as for God's vengeance upon New York you do not have to be a prophet. I think he has just been watching the discovery channel. It seems that New York sites is at the other end of a potential Mega Tsunami. If the worst happens and there is a large drop of land into the ocean from La Palma in the Canary Islands (Just off Africa) then it has the potential of creating a wave 300miles thick, a mile high, and travelling at 700miles an hour and could wash away New York and the eastern seaboard of the USA. I just think Allan Cronshaw is just jumping on the band wagon and trying to make a name for himself.

It is thought by many scientists that the land will drop into the sea in fragments rather than all at once and is therefore it is thought unlikely to carry the full force described but who knows. Its a bit like Los Angeles and it being built on a earthquake fault or the yellowstone park potential for a mega volcano, they have strong possibilities that they will happen one day and if it does it is more to do with nature and the places mankind chooses to live rather than the rantings of a self made prophet (IMO).

When I read such words as these I am reminded of Edgar Cayce.... Cayce knew many, many things which were seemingly inexplicable. Things which were verified later as becoming true, and some things which were seemingly in error. His accuracy rating gives the serious scholar pause. Was it simply good guesswork, or was there SOMETHING there which the man had access to that the average person does not? IMO, it is not possible to decide, so one must judge a man by his record....

As far as Allan Cronshaw goes, I choose to simply withhold any sort of judgement on the matter, and move on to the other 40 pages or so of the man's writings... I choose to take what I know to be true and look for indications that the man COULD POSSIBLY be on to something in these other writings... I find within his writings things which resonate with my own personal beliefs, which I have acquired over many, many years of study. That does not mean that my mind does not question some of the things he says... and I believe that is the way it is supposed to be. We must question the veracity of such important subjects... and decide for ourselves after the necessary study.

I WILL say, in the man's defense, that he either has some sort of valid inspiration, or he has done MUCH study in Biblical matters. Either way, as I check his references, and the conclusions he comes to, I find I am learning many, many things which I was previously unaware... for the man gives ACCURATE conclusions based on the material which is available - and I am not convinced easily - I need to see and follow, in a logical manner, the line of thought which has brought him to his conclusion. He is VERY good about listing the references which he has for the conclusions he makes... and when he is giving information which he acquires from metaphysical sources ( which I understand cannot be verified as his biblical information ) I simply skip on by and with hold judgement... but the clarity of his thought, and the clear, LOGICAL method by which he goes about his writings has me wondering out loud at times about those things I cannot verify....

I put my trust in the things I can verify, and let the other things dangle - as it were - with holding judgement.... which is the very same thing I find I must do with the Bible.... after all, we read in the bible of, like they are discussing above, women turned to salt... storehouses in the sky, woman being formed of a rib bone, etc, etc, etc..... which is also what we must do with the writings we find from everywhere. I have found simple textbooks which were wrong, I have found statements made by world famous scholars which turned out to be wrong, I have been wrong myself, and I choose to do the research when confronted by a questionable statement - if I cannot verify the TRUTH - then I must simply, as I said, with hold judgement and keep my mind open to possibilities...

my mother used to use a saying " Don't throw the Baby out with the Bath water ", I try to keep these words in my mind, as I have found some value in them...

Edited November 3, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

[Coolhand]

I'd say I know a little about him, Cool........

anything particular you'd like to discuss?

The Long Island Mystic

It appears he is a self-ordained minister and a self-proclaimed prophet; Is that the case?

Is his work mentioned in any peer reviewed scholarly works, journals, or articles?

Does he write for any peer reviewed scholarly publications or journals?

I noticed that he quotes the Encyclopedia Britannica three time in the article posted here. Does he use any primary sources or does he rely on translations and secondary sources?

Edited November 3, 2010 by Coolhand

[Pete]

When I read such words as these I am reminded of Edgar Cayce.... Cayce knew many, many things which were seemingly inexplicable. Things which were verified later as becoming true, and some things which were seemingly in error. His accuracy rating gives the serious scholar pause. Was it simply good guesswork, or was there SOMETHING there which the man had access to that the average person does not? IMO, it is not possible to decide, so one must judge a man by his record....

As far as Allan Cronshaw goes, I choose to simply withhold any sort of judgement on the matter, and move on to the other 40 pages or so of the man's writings... I choose to take what I know to be true and look for indications that the man COULD POSSIBLY be on to something in these other writings... I find within his writings things which resonate with my own personal beliefs, which I have acquired over many, many years of study. That does not mean that my mind does not question some of the things he says... and I believe that is the way it is supposed to be. We must question the veracity of such important subjects... and decide for ourselves after the necessary study.

I WILL say, in the man's defense, that he either has some sort of valid inspiration, or he has done MUCH study in Biblical matters. Either way, as I check his references, and the conclusions he comes to, I find I am learning many, many things which I was previously unaware... for the man gives ACCURATE conclusions based on the material which is available - and I am not convinced easily - I need to see and follow, in a logical manner, the line of thought which has brought him to his conclusion. He is VERY good about listing the references which he has for the conclusions he makes... and when he is giving information which he acquires from metaphysical sources ( which I understand cannot be verified as his biblical information ) I simply skip on by and with hold judgement... but the clarity of his thought, and the clear, LOGICAL method by which he goes about his writings has me wondering out loud at times about those things I cannot verify....

I put my trust in the things I can verify, and let the other things dangle - as it were - with holding judgement.... which is the very same thing I find I must do with the Bible.... after all, we read in the bible of, like they are discussing above, women turned to salt... storehouses in the sky, woman being formed of a rib bone, etc, etc, etc..... which is also what we must do with the writings we find from everywhere. I have found simple textbooks which were wrong, I have found statements made by world famous scholars which turned out to be wrong, I have been wrong myself, and I choose to do the research when confronted by a questionable statement - if I cannot verify the TRUTH - then I must simply, as I said, with hold judgement and keep my mind open to possibilities...

my mother used to use a saying " Don't throw the Baby out with the Bath water ", I try to keep these words in my mind, as I have found some value in them...

I guess it was quick of me to pass judgment. I have read about a number of prophets and others who proclaim this or that. I remember Brother Stair on the radio insisting the world was to end in the year 2000. We are still here.

However, I wonder what would happen if the likes of John the Baptist was around to day.

Do you have any qualifications? No!

Do you have any formal training? No!

What papers have you written? None!

Do you belong to a credible church or religious body? No!

Do you have a regular congregation? No!

Who ordained you? God! and what written proof do you have for this? None!

On what scripture can you base your message on that your teachings apply to the immediate future ? None?

I see you have a wild sort of life style. Do you think that makes you credible to the religious establishment? No!

I see you baptize people in water for the forgiveness of sin. Can sin be washed away by just water? No!

I hear you want people to repent but how can you prove that your way is right? I cannot!

So you just have a belief? Yes!

Mmmm! A strange sort of bloke.

[RabbiO]

Coelacanth.

Sir William Osler.

You figure it out.

Edited November 3, 2010 by RabbiO

[Coolhand]

Coelacanth.

Sir William Osler.

You figure it out.

Relating to change or transition?

[Coolhand]

my mother used to use a saying " Don't throw the Baby out with the Bath water ", I try to keep these words in my mind, as I have found some value in them...

Very wise indeed!

[RabbiO]

Relating to change or transition?

Are sure you don't want to call a friend or use another lifelife? (I haven't watched Who Wants To Be A Millionaire in years, but it's still infecting my system!!)

[Coolhand]

Are sure you don't want to call a friend or use another lifelife? (I haven't watched Who Wants To Be A Millionaire in years, but it's still infecting my system!!)

I'd like to buy a vowel.

[Dan56]

So Dan how did you decide or was told which version of that book was the corrrect one. There are a multitude of versions, it seems God was not able to keep it from wandering off course. How are you sure that the one you resonate with isn't one of the ones that have drifted off course?

I personally chose the KJV because it is complimented with study tools which allow the reader to refer back to the manuscripts for precise Hebrew and Greek translations. The modernized English versions are more difficult to reference.

Dan as you can see there are no treasuries or storhouses needed for wind. It is a quite natural event of which early bronze age man might have been quite ignorant when the Bible was written. So doesn't that prove God had nothing to do with that cosmological description of the origins of wind.

That was my point, it would have been difficult for bronze age men to understand a scientific explanation of what causes wind, rain, or snow. God created all things, including nature. I have a feeling that even if God described it in modern scientific terms, you would still claim that his explanation doesn't prove anything?

Dan I surely hope and pray that some portion of you cringed or doubted in your heart those words you typed that I bolded from your response. That portion that would be cringing or hesitating is the real written Word of God which is written within yours and everyones heart. If no portion of you cringed or gave pause when you wrote that, then I feel you have been endoctrinated to the point of a jihadist who is capable of starpping a bomb to them self and killing others with no remorse.

The people of Canaan were wicked; "You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods" (Deuteronomy 12:31). What ought to make you cringe is witnessing a child being burned alive as a sacrifice to false gods. Jihadist kill innocent people in the name of their god, just like the Canaanites did, so comparing that kind of wickedness to God's judgment is ridiculous. Sometimes a slap on the wrist just doesn't suffice, I trust that God made the correct decision by destroying those cities.

The person who wrote the Gospel of John did not hold or have knowledge of the Book of Revelations and the person for whom the message was originally intended did not have knowledge or access either, as it was written later.

Yes, prophesy is what makes it all so believable to me. The message was intended for everyone with ears to hear and eyes to read

[Pete]

The people of Canaan were wicked; "You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods" (Deuteronomy 12:31). What ought to make you cringe is witnessing a child being burned alive as a sacrifice to false gods. Jihadist kill innocent people in the name of their god, just like the Canaanites did, so comparing that kind of wickedness to God's judgment is ridiculous. Sometimes a slap on the wrist just doesn't suffice, I trust that God made the correct decision by destroying those cities.

Yes they were so much more tolerant than those they killed.

"Kill those who are not Christian or Jewish:

You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

Any city that doesn't receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don't believe in him. Jude 5"

From:- http://www.evilbible...Intolerance.htm

I am sorry Dan but I struggle with your views on justice.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

Yes they were so much more tolerant than those they killed.

"Kill those who are not Christian or Jewish:

You must kill those who worship another god.  Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own.  Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you.  Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own.  Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

Any city that doesn't receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don't believe in him.  Jude 5"

From:- http://www.evilbible...Intolerance.htm

I am sorry Dan but I struggle with your views on justice. 

That's what we were missing.....

Hey Pete, What is your objection to the verses you quoted here?