sky4it

From a plain reading of many sections of the OT God is telling his people to slaughter, unprovoked, whole cities, whole peoples. The recurrent answer that I see is that it really wasn't immoral because God said it was okay, and since God is God then he can't do anything evil. You know that that's circular reasoning, right?

About all I can say Oak, is that I never at all considered it a topic until atheists brought it up.

My reflection on the Old Testament, was always that it reflected well on the serious nature of God in New Testament dynamics. I also dont really understand, why there isnt a progression of thought on Jesus of the New Testament, from old Testament dynamics, which clearly was the authors intention all along.

the other issue and more lately ( and I think this is good) is that the you know who of the old testament, can never be mistaken for a girl scout, I think this is heathy, from the standpoint that some flavors of view, tend to reflect miserably on the goodness and kindness issues of the gospel. I wont reflect on your other commentary in general, because I believe I have already done this.

Anyways greetings and regards,

sky4it, I have great difficulty following your posts. As I don't understand them, I can't make a meaningful response.

Suda, In my second to last post to Bramble, for some reason my browser would not post with bramble's comments and my responses (but I posted it anyway), so it was somewhat disjointed or disconnected to the thoughts of bramble.

I hope that you did not find anyother thing difficult in my posts. Thank you for the notation.

Greetings and Regards

Um okay, lots of that doesn't make sense to me, but I will clarify my stand:

Perhaps that record is in your Bible as a wisdom lesson, as in: If you as a society accept a level of violence like the slaughter of innocents in my (God's) name, then your society will know violence, division and captivity--the road to Babylon. Which pretty much sounds like the rest of the story of Israel.

Reap what you sow might be another way to say it. Live by the sword, die by the sword is yet another.

Or, karma.

Not to belabor the point but;

If we hadnt done something in 1940, we would have been an extention of the Land of the Rising Sun, talking about our favorite Kaisers, and frequenting our favorite stroodle and sauer kraut restaraunts. The children of Israel would have faired a little worse I think, having to back up recipes for Chemosh and Baal, serving in an occasional sacrifical child.

Never mentioned because war is always a convient excuse for blame, is the fact that the bible had a recipe pitch for "the strangers of the land" unlike Napolean and the Ceasars of the world. What the heck, lets just throw in Bill Clinton for sexual abuse for good measure, as more of the same powerbrokers who abuse there power to govern.

Or as you might call it, a stroke of bad Karma.

Bramble, for some reason my browser would not post to your comments specifically, so I laid them out without your comments, dont know why it wouldnt work, anyway to your commentary I tried the following:

I guess then Bramble that would make you an anti-abortionist. Please tell me the factory where your zest is on dragging, I would like to donate to someone with so much zeal as you. I dont like abortion either. One more thing about taking life as you mentioned. God is the only one who can take life, because he can give life back. Still, we dont see God doing it often, but if he did, be sure to form he had a list of very good reasons. From that perspective, he has a different perspective than man.

BTW< (and I think this is an important point), some of these people were sacrificing children in fire to animals and such, which means there probably was beasteality, pedophiles and such, and doubtless all manner of diseases. When you look at it in that light, it is a better picture.

Well, perhaps a simple agreement that the God who turned a river into blood might have been not a little secret, hey, lets become part of Israel, wasn't to big of a leap even for Wiccans. No? otherwise backoff off a tad, because the people of that era were well warned, in fact the bible says so.

Thank you Bramble, that’s a heck of a compliment. I always wanted to die not being a universalist. You make me love my bible more everyday.

Nope, God wouldn’t tell anyone to do something unless it was good. But just so you and I are clear Bramble, I will "turn the other cheek" according to Jesus suggestion, after that , let me tell you something, there is something that’s sexy about " an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" something that is a bullseye about that kind of talk, I think in this day and age I "wanna be a dentist and optomistrist, there is a point to these old testament sayings. The old testament and new testament meet in a place called Melonie Beatty, who coined the term co-dependent no more. They work together not apart. In fact you cant make them work (at least not real well) apart. The old testament provides God in real life action towards people. Aint that old testament great!

by the way Bramble that was the positively the cutest apology statement for God ever, thanks but a peice of junk like me wants to see the goods. Apologists are people making excuses the God that I know doesn’t need a not even one. K? I wouldn't classify myself as an "inerrant", but almost all scripture doesn't need correcting. There are some fuzzy issues on texts, which ones are better, and such, but not much that differs greatly up and down, and side to side about the bible.

I personally have no interest in following a god that calls for the death of innocent children. You can dance around it all you want, I've heard plenty of explanations, from they were possessed babies so had to die, to they weren't human babies, to well, it didn't really happen...

So people were warned and didn't move out of their homes, their farms? Thye didn't want to drag their families as refugees, poverty stricken and starving? Gosh, that certainly deserves a death sentence, don't you think? They didn't obey so the men of God had to kill them, even the small children and babies. Slaughter for God.

It is just not athiests who don't swallow that reasoning, there are Christians also. You stand ,sky4it, is not the universal Christian stand on this Bible account.

Just one of those bug a boos that bite when it has to be an inerrant Bible. Couldn't possibly be war like men making themselves look good for history--"God told us too, so it was good."

Perhaps that record is in the Bible for another reason--to show that greedy armies, drunk on power and violence, can do horrible deeds in the name of their God.

Bramble I was tyring to respond to your comments but something went wrong with my browser, talk to you when thngs work better ...........cheers :unsure:

Playing off of your Herod example of the deaths of 30,000 people, ...

Tell me something JohnJ, when (according to the biblical account) God told Samuel to have King Saul preemptively invade the Amalakites, (supposedly due to an attack by the Amalakites upon the Isrealites at least 300 years previously), kill all the thousands of people that he saw, including all "infants and sucklings" (think My Lai on steroids), ... what strict moral standard was that based on, hmmm?

And please don't tell me that it was because the Amalakites were planning an attack upon Isreal, as there was no notation in the scriptures indicating that; none whatsoever. Also, if you read the account earlier in the Bible, it gives the account of the Amalakites attacking the Isrealites while they were in transit to the Promised Land. What is missing in Samuel's reaccount of it, was that Isreal fought back and whupped the Amalakites big time. Ie., the price has already been paid. Retaliation already inflicted. ... So WTF was Samuel doing having Saul inflicting revenge upon a people who has already paid the price, and that around 300 years previously? It would be like the present day U.S. Army attacking descendants of an eastern seaboard tribes of Indians for a raid they committed back in 1707 upon some colonists.

So how does that biblical account of God initiating said attack upon the Amalakites jibe with your supposed 'strict sense of morals', hmmm? And that is but one of the many examples of this kind.

You know Garth, you just really error in your understanding of scriptures. I will take yet another stab at this.

Genesis 2:4 "these are the generations of the heavens and the earth in the day they were created. One of whom was drummroolll Amalek. (Notice it says not just the generations of those that are on earth only but those in the heavens also) You say so what? The angels rebeled in heaven and some of the worst sort (aka Satan's little cupcakes) were the duh duh duh duh the Amalakites. You say you dont know that for sure your guessing. Nope dont think so. Exodus 17:14 "for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amelek from under heaven. They were barred from heaven. Where is such a place? It is called HELL. Not only that, but from generation to generation the Lord swore war against them. War against Satan's little cupcakes. These are the ones who God kicked out of heaven PERMANENTLY, get it?

You know Garth, I think your a nice guy, I really do. Your probably one of the most considerate and descent atheists I have met. But following these screwballs around is so unlike your own charachter.

Consider the following and chiefly the comments I made to Pmosh about the way "your group" attibutes things to the God of the Old Testament. It's hillarious, from the standpoint that the same standards dont apply from the cult that applied to the you know who of the old testament. Not one time in the old testament did God ever sanction a war for conquest of other peoples lands. Yet not a peep from the cult against the people of Napoleon, or the people of English Monarchists, or the people of Alexander the Great or Roman conquering plunderers. Why? Because with you guys the whole show is about disproving God's creation. There is no other motive. You would think that the most scarey frightening thing in all the world for athiests would be all there neighbors in there town, whose forfathers partook in horrible deeds if one applied the same standard of atheists uniformly.

Consider one other thing before you condescend. Is it possible that God warned some of these people to leave before they were attacked and didnt tell us about it in the Bible? "You would say, well thats unfair if he wants to explain himself." In fact they were forewarned, all of them, they heard what God had done to the Eygptians because the bible says there "sounds went through out all the earth." Not just person to person gossip in my view either, the bible says the sound of it was sent to them, they saw it coming. So dont stand around and tell me, these countries didnt want war with a strip of land 75 by 200 approximate miles. In fact they did, in fact many of them brought the war to Israel.

What is it with your peoples need to stand around and try and butcher the Almighty? He is good and righteous all the time; and calling him opposite, when you dont even understand the bible, it just isnt very bright.

OK

That relationship was often slavery. The most obvious example I can think of is how Exodus 21 basically lays out the rules for slavery according to the bible.

The text calls it master-servant relationship, and there are also Levitical rules and other regs that govern it. Obviously, you did not respond to the employer-emloyee relationship, because the word slavery more fits the neccesary diatribe. That's real convient for you isnt it, to add words of slavery which denote the abuses that took place around a 150 years ago in our country, and slap this word on you know who. Then, in the end you call me a deciever and a liar. How bout fessing up and admiting that you slandered the Bible by using an inapprobriate term?

Are you on drugs? Seriously, I never said anything that you're talking about, and you are contradicting yourself multiple times. First you say atheists are always against war and consider it murder, then you expect atheists to call people to war, then you talk about sharks. The only thing the sharks are doing is being jumped over by you..

Nope not on drugs, which is a tad over the edge I might add. The "contradiction" is not mine. It is a contraction when atheists make you know who a look like a war monger, but never say a disarming word about scores of nations that have had conquest laden wars, unlike the God of the Old Test.

So you are saying that Numbers 31:17 is false? It's a verse that states, "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him." Somehow I don't think that they "killed" them by evangelism. ..

the quote of evangelism was about David not Moses so quit confusing the issue. Also , I looked up the passage, which was said by Moses not God. Futhermore, you fail to understand the scriptures at all. The Israelis were woefully unable to follow the commandments of God, so God gave them a divorce concept for the hardness of there hearts. With respect to the woman in conquered lands, real reasonable to infer the same thing. (Which you would never do however because you have a point to make) Furthermore, what should Israel have done with these virgins, packaged them off to Eygpt in some make shift deal? Perhaps you have a better alternative?

Again with your apparent halucinatory rants that don't make sense or fit in with what I wrote. I really don't know how to respond because what you're saying is just gibberish..

These are the predictable things that you people always say. When confronted with logic and reasoning and you feel cornered, just degrade the author by calling them "on drugs" halucinatory and gibberish. Its so childish, to degrade someone through PeeWee Herman level dialogue. Congratulations.

If your belief is that you have to be afraid of going to hell in order to be responsible, then you have some problems...

Who ever said anything about hell I didnt. You know you accuse me of ranting off topic, then proceed to discuss hell something I never mentioned. Since you asked, I am not doing anything to make reservations in hell so I dont concern myself with it.

Then if you're such a biblical scholar, why don't you "educate" me. I don't remember anything about that, and if it's as accurate as the rest of your biblical knowledge then I won't count on it.

Bible 101 I Corinthians 7:15, a seperation clause for difficult situations.

As far as empathy and ignorance, you and johnj are still wrapped up in your TWI brainwashing and are unable to see reality and understand other people. That's why both of you go off on delusional rants and talk at people rather than with them. Both of you have a "holier than thou" attitude and offer nothing but insults, lies, and strawman arguments that make no sense. You both think you're better than everyone else and that you know more than everyone else and that egotism is something I despise in people...

First of all you are in error, I never was a member of TWI. I do not think anything I said differed at all in tone than your statement to JohnJ, and the rants and insults and strawman arguements are coming at this moment from your pen, not mine. I mean I am better than someone else? Really? Well ok then I will take that as a compliment, you said it must be true.

You are free to believe what you wish, but you will always be wrong and I hope someone will always be there to contradict you, lest you be able to trick innocent people into hatred with your lies.

1) Thank you for agreeing with the constitution of the United States, that I am free to believe as I wish.

2) I certainly would think that that I will not always be wrong. That seems a tad excessive, even for anyone to say about anyone.

3) I did not know until today, that agreeing with sound Biblical principals made anyone think this way towards mwaaaa. I am now a 'trickster" trying to deceive innocent people. Whew, somebody really blew there top. Aparently according to you I now possess 'hatred" and am filled with "Lies" um errr, slow down there fella, I wasn't at all degrading your personal character like you just did to me.

Evolution and atheism have nothing to do with each other. You might as well be comparing the horses and the 839th digit of Pi. .

Please share with us all the different views on origins and creation that atheists want to pledge allegiance to, other than evolution. I am really interested in "the Giant Racoon Flatulence Theory" and other assorted myths to add to my collection of humor. You said they have absolutely no relation, PROOVE IT.

Sky:

You cut my quote short...indistinguishible other than the worshipping God stuff was my point - but you knew that, right?

Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist? I didn't know that. Can you provide me a link to where you got your info?

you snipped my quote, I snipped yours, figured you wouldnt mind.

Yeah, Dahlmer was an atheist, it is in his only interview he gave on MSNBC, if you look for it you might find it aired sometime.

With respect to your last paragraph, I shall try to keep my commentary limited to the "alleged" immoral conduct recitations. Thank you and

Regards

Not any moreso than we have to worry about Catholic priests raping little boys.

yeah, ok Belle, perhaps you can refresh my mind (since we are talking about what the bible says) where the bible sanctions this activity? HINT: You will not find it in the talk about Sodom and Gommorah, a city God destroyed for homosexual rape.

Or folks like vee pee, craig, jal and benny hinn taking advantage of "the flock"[/color]

Well when i first heard that all one had to do was "renew their tired mind" in order to sanction adultry, I kind of ran for cover from the Pee Wee Vee Pee's and Craig's of the world. Not that this was the only trouble, the MOGFAT was a little to dingy for my taste. Dont know who JAL is, dont care either. Are you picking on good old Benny? Well ok, he does have a tendency to "lay hands suddenly on everyone" but at times seems like a pretty good feller. I would have been more impressed if you had said Jim Baker, a guy I looked at before he fell over backwards, and said what gives with this guy?

I think you'll find that most atheists do, in fact, follow "moraility principles" that are indistinguishable from those in the bible,

Oakspear, no I dont think so, because that would mean they are believers

The difference is that they act ethically and morally because that's what they want to do, not because they believe God wants them to.

I am glad to hear that also Oakspear, now I really know that we dont have to worry about any more Jeffery Dahlmer feeding frenzines.

You mentioned slavery, which is sanctioned by Christianity depending on what part of the bible you read.

In this you are in error. The stongs concordance mentions the word slavery twice (I believe, I am not going to go re-check) The relationship you are referring to is the Master-Servant relationship. perhaps you could recite some instances of an employer-employee relationship that existed at that time, replete with timecards and employer law, to prove your theory that this relationship was anything but that.

In the old testament, Jehovah supposedly told the Israelites to go murder innocent men, women, and children. Today it would be considered immoral to kill people that pose no threat to you, but back then there were supposedly commandments from god to kill every living thing in a city that the Israelites would go to war with. Doesn't this violate pretty much any interpretation of "thou shalt not kill?"

Of course war is always murder in atheists mind, but only when it comes to war in context with the you know who of the Old Testament. What about the Redcoats of England in the revolutionary war, or those from Mexico that attacked the Alamo. Or those Canadians who provided safe harbor for the redcoats. Certainly the atheistic movement must have some document calling for all out war on Mexico, Canada and England for the atheistic peace movement would certainly not let these scoundrels and their countrymen live in peace for what they did. (These wars happened in the last approx 200 some years and directly effected us. Where is the outrage and power outage of atheists over this stuff/) While your at it, where is the cat call for war against the sharks of the ocean for being monarchists and not good Democrats? I mean why didnt they nip at the Redcoats when they were sailing over?

Never of course do they mention the following:

1) That God did not attack the Amorites because their inquity was not yet full.

2) That Israel tried to make peace with Og and other Kings who were not in there land and where attacked.

3) That God used bees to chase some people out of the land.

4) that King Davids soldiers were as much Hittite and from other countries of the land as they were Judean.

5) That David's war's were rather evangelical in that he circumcised or converted his enemies to Israeli faith,

Where is the atheistic cat calls against the countries of Napolean, Alexander the Great, Nebuchadnezzar Cyrus and English monarchists who were expanding their Empires? Oh thats right Richard Dawkins is English whatever will they do? Of course never mentioned by atheists is that God never sanctioned any as in not one, expansion of the country of Israel beyone a strip of land 75 by 200 miles, unlike the ones listed above who had real estate and where plundering other countries You would think atheists everywhere would be so angry at every person who engaged in war, yet never one cat call against all ethnicities everywhere for doing what God never did. What gives? Murder only applies for atheists in war in buggery towards religion, otherwise its just another rainy day. Seriously, if athiests applied the same amount of reasoning power they do to the God of the Old Testament, they would proclaim Patton's order's and attack everyone everywhere and in all directions.

Atheism provides GREATER accountability than Christianity does.

Utter non-sense. Jesus said there is nothing done in secret that shall not be shouted abroad and there would be judgement in the hereafter. This is without question greater accountability than atheism provides.

Many divorces of non-religious people happen because a woman is abused or treated badly. In a strict Christian household, the woman would continue putting up with the abuse because she is supposedly a subject to her husband and inferior somehow.

Again nonsense, and you do not know scripture. The Apostle Paul provides provision for seperation of husband and wife in such cases to have 'peace" with no guilt associated, it simply does not sanction divorce.

It's very offensive that you conflate atheism and amorality. It is a sign of your ignorance and lack of empathy for your fellow human beings.

It is not difficult to do in some cases. Please note I used the word some. For example, when Greta the angry atheist goes into a diatribe against God, I must take note that she is a Lesbian and that perhaps her demeanor is more effected because of the Biblical view on homosexuality, then say her embracing of atheism. Same screw holds true for Richard Dawkins, who somewhat sanctions homosexual behavior in his comments. Thus, we Christians at times wonder if the cart isnt pulling the horse, rather than the way atheists explain themselves as the horse of evolution pulling the cart. I think for this reason it is unfair of you to say to him that he is ignorant and lacks empathy for this reason.

Here is Greta the Angry athiests link: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_ch...sts-and-an.html

And right from Greta's mouth why I think she is really angry: The following is a direct quote from Greta:

"I'm angry that Ingrid and I can't get legally married in this country -- or get legally married in another country and have it recognized by this one -- largely because religious leaders oppose it. And I'm angry that both religious and political leaders have discovered that they can score big points exploiting people's fears about sexuality in a changing world, fanning the flames of those fears... and giving people a religious excuse for why their fears are justified. "

I think your analysis is nonsense,.

I feel the same about your analysis too.

So in your mind, we atheists have to ignore the fact that "sinners" don't live up to what you believe the standards are, despite the fact that according to the bible we are all guilty of "sin." So a translation of what you are saying is that we should ignore all the evil that the followers of Christianity have done because it supposedly doesn't reflect on Christianity itself, right? You don't want us to judge Christianity based on it's "fruit", yet you judge everything else based on even stricter criteria.

What is it about the science of evolution which is the dogmatic formula for atheism, that is sooooo must concern itself with Biblical values. Depending on the author it seems that 40 to 90 percent of the science concerns itself with brow beating people of faith. It would be akin to the science of going to the moon and rocket technology, insisting that automobiles everywhere get rid of piston technology and replace auto's with rockets to help space technology. If atheism has a "science" why the need to rip tear and gouge upon those of faith?

A big problem with your views is that you seem to believe atheism is a belief system. It is not. It is not amoral, it is not a lack of values. It is simply and only the fact that we don't believe in gods.

It is in fact a belief system. Athiests tenants are: Any type of thiesm is bad and the morality prinicipals established in the Bible in atheists view are not good and atheists will never follow them. The sceince of it, is nostagically poor. It's like watching a group of people who like to pout and spout off at God, and dang it all, you have the pseudo-science of evolution to prove it. Evolution, however is not without its virtues, after reading Richard Weikerts book (a historical masterpiece) I think it (evolution) has done a real nice job of getting God, Jesus and people off faith off the hook for the Holocaust.

As you know, we tried living from the books.

It don't work very well.

I think if everyone approached life from there heart towards God as your post suggested, conflict would disolve.

I remember an old preacher who I talked to when I was 20 years old. He said if you have a good heart you cant miss, but heart isnt right, your licked from the start. I always remembered that. It kind the same as what you said.

One time when I was particular upset over some circumstances, I recalled that one in Hebrews that says, God is not unrighteous to forget your labor of love. It didnt make sense to me then, but later it did. Sometimes God, knows we are ready for something different, and pulling us out of something seems difficult, but it is for the best.

Anyway, cheers and regards cman

pretty cool stuff there Cman,

Thank you.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Cyclops? You believe athiesim and evolution cause destruction--is that your meaning? I would not agree on that, if it is your meaning.

After reading Richard Weikerts book, and considering that the "movement" has an agenda, I am uncomfortable with it and the possible outcomes.

Self serving, self righteous--I guess you had a much more comfortable time in TWI than I did, not to figure out the type of Christians I was refering to-- the destructive kind, the kind who feel it is their godly business run others lives etc. Trust me, those types put on a good show of righteousness while serving themselves. When I hear self righteous or self serving, my mind goes straight to those types.

I guess you would never consider me "IN" TWI. I took PFAL, but not as a part of TWI. I was actually attending in High School a "fellowship" of people who were ex-TWI people, who knew Peter Wade real well. I think I only ever attended one twig meeting, so no, I did not have membership. Still, I was deeply impacted by what VPW said, and it took me a while to sort it out.

cyclops?

cyclops: A genus of minute crustaceans with terrestrial life cycles, some species of which act as hosts of Diphyllobothrium and Dracunculus spp. Called also water flea. It is also a one eyed monster.

I thought it provided a useful analogy of the evolutionary life tricycle contraption.

Shifra:

(see above also)

I thought I would kind of run down my thoughts for you on this stuff, because there is considerable disagreement amongst scholars on some of these topics. For example, John Hagee teaches that the white horse of the 4 horse apocolypse is the Anti-Christ, yet other scholars say the white horse and rider is Jesus Christ. Quite a difference no? In Revelation it talks about seals and the only one able to open the seals is "the Lion of the tribe of Judah" The skinny is if he is the only one who can do it why speculate about it because it isnt opened yet.

I think you would also find it interesting that for years (and you have probably heard this) Jack Van Impe and others have speculated that the Little Horn aka(Anti Christ) comes from a European 10 nation conglomerate. (I happen to disagree with this view in part, and I think Jack might also too because the European Common Union is greater than 10 nations) You might also find it interesting that the term Anti-Christ is a bit of a misnomer when applied to ONLY one person, because I John says there are many anti-Christs that are gone out into the world. Still the term Anti-Christ fits the Little Horn and his followers.

Here is my speculation on it. I think that we are getting close. It appears from scripture that the Little Horn will arise out of some sort of economic cataclymic event, perhaps some great attack and have great answers for the world climate of economics. He wont have been given right away "great power" but will come with 1,2 or 3 nations having solutions and speaking great things. What nations are these? I would suggest in my best guess the following: Greece, the Netherlands and perhaps a Baltic or small eastern european or asian country. Why countries like this? Because he appears to come with small or economically small beginnings, not from a large economic powerhouse. From this he consolidates power to 10 nations. Interestingly, that the Little Horn will prevail against the saints for a time.

Lastly, most people speculate and there are pre-tribulation rapture people and post tribulation rapture people. Yet when you study the bible, there seems to be a great deal of saints and people who resist the Little Horn. It is possible and likely that those "raptured" may be few in number. I base that upon Matthew where Jesus said when he returns will the Son of Man find faith here on earth. Some other useful things. Some people feel the "bear" is Russia, the "dragon" China and the woman with the moon under her feet the United States; the leopard other 3rd world countries. (Lepoards are nomadic) Kind of makes sense from the standpoint each symbol is some what symbolic of each countries emblems.

Anyway, I , like you am fasinated by the topic and thought to give you my take on it.

I've been reading this discussion but am probably done. From reading some of the latest posts here it looks like the country is full of Bible creation believing Christians(who are moral) and Dawkins following athiests(who aren't moral). Plus, the numbers of amoral athiests are growing and we're all doomed.??? How does this even approach real life? What about all the evolution accepting Christians/agnostic/others? What about all the self righteous, self serving Christians, like some of us have had personal experiences with?

I think you are underestimating the power of the cyclops. The cyclops is capable of destruction not a little. Does one have to be self-serving to be self righteous? Great, than at least I shouldn't be put in that category no?

Sky, does Van Impe have a specific book that you would recommend or maybe a website?

I have never read any of his books Shifra. I just occasionally listen to him on TV and he always talks on Biblical prophecy. His wife Roxella provides a pretty good change up. Jack and Roxella are two of the few people that are genuinely interesting to listen too. Jack has an astonishing ability to recite scripture and Roxella provides sort of the play by play. Of the all the televangelists (Jack really isnt one) I have always thought they are two of the few people that are really suberb.

In my area they are on TV at 11:30 central time on Sunday nite.

Shifira:

Great questions and comments.

One guy who is always interesting to listen too and who I like is Jack VanImpe.

Jack has an incredible mind, has most sciptures memorized, and is a rather interesting guy to listen too.

I made the arguement that most of Daniel is unfullfilled prophecy once and got bashed. Most scholars agree that the Little Horn of the Daniel, is the man they call the AntiChrist. Some of the visions of Daniel talk about a fight between the Persian and Greek empires , thus some scholars believe this was the matter of Alexander the Great and his wars. While I tend to agree with this somewhat,( I think that it may have some dual application also) I think that vision is starting point of the rest of the book being prophetic about future events and no doubt must have overlap with the book of Revelation. From Chapter 7 on, it looks as if it is unfullfilled prophecy, tho even guys like EW Bullinger have attempted to fill in some of the blanks already. This is not however all inclusive. There appears to be parts of the first vision of Daniel that he gave to King Nebanezz. which also have futuristic thoughts.

It is very fascinating, especially the part about the goat and ram colliding, and the little horn rising out of this situation.

I think you might like VanImpe, he tries to sort out things and does a good job, still I think Jack would even say about some of it he is simply speculating.

I saw video on eugenics (Homo Sapiens 1900) in which I learned that Sweden was big into genetically purifying its people (in the past). I don't know that Swedes are immoral or not. Apparently they're good at rehabilitating criminals back into society. I got nothing against Swedes. (I married a part-Swede). I know there are believers in Europe, but the trend in Europe seems to be (roughly) away from religion toward atheism. I thought if Europe is headed toward primarily non-religion, the U.S. will be next.

Sweden is a very socialistic country, taxes through the roof. When my grandfather immigrated here in 1917, he left 10 brothers and sisters, many of whom died of diseases and malnutrition.

I think your are correct about the trends tho. I also think that the trend toward athesim is somewhat alarming because it is unlike what was in the past. Some of these atheists seem to be real zealots for propagation of an agenda. (perhaps this might be a excessive reaction to what they call the fundamentalist political movement- but I dont think so) I base this upon what atheists were like say 20 years ago. I knew several who were sort of in the undecided column, who seemed to like to read Darwin and the Bible because they were unconvinced of the Garden of Eden account. Still, it was not uncommon to see some of these people in a church here and there, looking for further answers. (Most people at that time, did not see a need to bash biblical values as a prerequisite for futhering there beliefs) They were always very passive and polite about there thoughts. Of course, some of this I am basing on people like Dawkins and what seems to be a general acceptance by atheists of his ranting diatribe.

Hey sky,

did you read the book? Does Dawkins discuss his view on love?

Bolshevik:

I have read "most" of Dawkins book the "The Dawkins Delusion". I have read the entire Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker" most of it twice, some of it 3,4,5 times. I have read portions of The Selfish Gene and some other Dawkins rubbish. I have listened to hours of Dawkins speeches on you tube. I have a fairly good handle on Dawkins. Interesting that when Dawkins gets into some stuff, he rants into bio-speak, unlike Behe who communicates to his largely non-biological audience.

I have a 9 page article on his book The Blind Watchmaker, but am working through some statisical calculations before I post it, it may take me a while..............

you said: I hear Sweden is mostly atheistic/agnostic/generally non-believers. Europe apparently is far more secular than the U.S.

I actually am part Swedish. Have relatives there. Sweden, has in part embraced an immoral culture before the US sexual revolution. Does this mean there is a connection between immorality and unbelief? Gee thats a tough one. Of course I think I need to preface the Swede are unbelievers thoughts, NOT all Swedes are unbelievers, you might find some of the stongest believers of Christian faith, in Sweden also.

Of course, religious or not, what Jeffrey Dahmer had in common with us was the fact that he was a human being. He showed the great evil that any person is capable of in the absence of mental stability. This problem is not limited to people with or without religion, so I agree that it doesn't make any difference. Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, etc. are all capable of murder and I don't see religion stopping evil people from doing evil things.

You MisterP-Mosh, things dont ever get settled or communicated well when we digress into which bad guy fits into which camp. Noteworthy is the fact that in Jesus day, he healed a lunatic who had a legion of devils in him. Now we do not know why they had this fellow in chains, but I suspect it was because he could inflict some harm not a little. Interesting that both camps (Christians and atheists) cite Hitler; in in effort to put him where they think he belonged. It does not work however, on either side of the equation. Thus, Hitler looks more like a politician in his speeches than anything else with respect to atheism and Christianity. Now, I could make the argument that atheism poisons peoples faith enough to disable it, but that would just meet with a chorus of boos.

Back to the points of this thread and that is Dawkins. Richard Dawkins, as part of this book, launched into a verbal tirade against the God of the Old Testament, that was barbaric and full of ignorance. There was nothing "scientific" about it. Now a guy like Richard Dawkins would never do the same against those of the Muslim faith, primarily because he fears them too much. However against those of Christian and Jewish faith, he seems to have no such barrier in his speech. Why? Because he knows and understands that we of that faith (I am a Christian) are people of love and forgiveness. Thus, he unseats his entire diatribe because he knows we are passive loving people. Futhermore, If you know who was the villian Dawkins described, why then are those who believe in him so non-villianous? Thus, Dawkins entire diatribe falls short because he knows we are loving people because of the instruction of you know who. Now if Dawkins wants to really prove himself? I challange Richard Dawkins to say the same thing to those who are of Muslim persuasion to prove that he really feels that about the God of the Old Testament. He will never do it, and this in itself proves Richard Dawkins to be a liar. Now niether I nor the people I mentioned would ever advocate any violence against someone like Richard Dawkins, yet this is primarily the reason in which he seeks to abuse us. In short, Dawkins takes advantage of the love and forgiveness of the God of the Old Testament to abuse him.

Still, shouldn't we have the same liberty to dispell Dawkins diatribe with the same amount of zest that Dawkins has in his emotional diatribe? I think so. Therefore consider this: Dawkins has some screws loose in his head, right out of his own books this is a man who is emotionally unstable. In his book the Blind Watchmaker ;Dawkins actually suggests putting his computer in his outdoor garden to have insects more fairly select on his computer a "evolutionary gene mutation; with the help of the natural environment. This is pretty wack stuff. In addition in the same Chapter 3, Dawkins goes into a state of "exultation" in which he could not eat or sleep because of bugs appearing out of his computer. Does this sound like the mind of an objective scientist? I think not.

Lastly, I find it rather amusing how many atheists of different stripes are so zealous over dispelling the Bible. It's almost as if the evolution movement has but one agenda and that is to displace the Bible. Science,( if it is science, by defintion is supposed to be factually based if it is good science) , doesn't have a need to get all ripped over things if there stuff is true. I seriously doubt that the round earth movement, went into hysterical frenzies (Like Dawkins did) over flat earth people. Truth is truth, proof is proof, it does not need hysterics and theatrics to dispel false precepts. This is why about 99 percent of people of faith, dont even pay regard to atheistic evolution. The "proof" that they have in there faith providing results, is more than sufficient for them to constitute there belief. Nuff said.

Also, Jeffrey Dahmer was a member of the Church of Christ. He was not an atheist, and it's been theorized that his religious hatred for homosexuals enabled him to murder gay people and hate himself for being homosexual. Of course, I don't believe Jeffrey Dahmer to be a typical Christian, either.

Not that it makes any difference but nope Dahlmer was NOT a ChristianJeffery Dahlmers (family) where church going types. If you dont believe me watch the MSNBC interview with Dahlmer from prison where he states that he "was" an evolutionist and an atheist. (In fact he said so in the interview) But like I said, It really isnt relevant.

Many Christian doctrines seem to have no real choice other than another Chrisitan doctrine. To leave the one true truth/God/church usually involves dire consequences like hell or destruction. Evil lies right outside the door, so to speak. Whether other world religions have that aspect I am not educated enough to say.

Abi and I had a good discussion about that. It seems that God is way more non-judgemental than what one would think. Romans 2 highlights all the rigamorol (thats not a real word) One of my favorite writers of all time was Sundar Sing, a Hindu convert to Christ, who wrote a short book called Non-Christians with Christ and Christians without Christ. I think the title is somewhat descriptive of what you are saying? I also dont think that leaving the church because you need time off, is leaving the truth or God.

No, but I understand the culture, and appreciate the weird humor in it. As well as the music.

I have finally discovered the root of your real problem Garth. Your a politician!!!!!!!