Questions for Christians

158 posts / 0 new
Last post
David Hoe's picture
Questions for Christians

I found some intresting questions for Christians because i was curioused;

1)If you could go back in time to when Jesus was being crucified,would you try to save him,or would you stand back and do nothing,since your entire faith depends on him being crucified?

2)Which denomination is right in christianity?

3)Do you think it's just a coincidence that different religions are popular in different parts of the world?

4)What about any non-Christian good person?Should they be burning in Hell?

5)And if it's ultimately God's will what happens,why even bother praying?

6)What about Islam?Do you think Islam is an acceptable religion like Christianity?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Jacob's picture
Very well ill answer as best

Very well I'll answer as best I can.
1) Probably not since then we won't be saved now would we.
2) All of them although I believe many of them got important stuff wrong.
3) No it isn't the other religions and certain christian denominations are the work of the devil.
4) No I believe that good non Christians go to purgatory.
5) Because sometimes you can change god's will.
6) They are wrong so no.

mykcob4's picture
@JacobCorneluis PROVE IT!


MCDennis's picture
What makes you think the

What makes you think the jesus character existed?

Usagi's picture
lol just watch the guy get

lol just watch the guy get killed, now that's morality at it's best.

Pitar's picture
mykcob4's picture
Pitar, why do you always

Pitar, why do you always decry any thread? It makes no sense at all.
Usually, you drone on with some amateurish cowboy poetry monolog. They are always boring and senseless. I guess I should address all of your post in the manner you address every thread with negative inane banter.

RedleT's picture
Concerning question 1, it

Concerning question 1, it would depend on who I was. If I was just some random guy with no authority, I would let Jesus die because I would just cause more blood shed. If I was Pilot, I would declare him innocent.

Just to clarify, at least from a Catholic perspective, all Jesus needed to do was to make one small sacrifice or shed one drop of blood to make satisfaction for all the sins of the world. A sin is an offenec against God who is infinitely good, so an infinitely good act is necessary to make up for that sin in justice. Jesus was God and man so he could do that.

RedleT's picture


Really only Catholism and maybe Orthodoxy have any pedigree. I am Catholic btw

RedleT's picture


Possibility of invincible ignorance or a maraculous conversion at death.

RedleT's picture


God made us with free will and expects us to use it. Some things God will only grant if we work with Him.

mykcob4's picture
At Dumb Ox

At Dumb Ox
You talk as if free will isn't a contradiction of predetermination. The bible dictates predetermination and in no way allows for free will. You can't have it both ways. You don't even know your own faith.
Now the facts.
1) jesus has never proven to exist.
2) god has never been proven to exist.
You have to PROVE both things before you can even begin to prove anything else.
More facts.
Not one miracle has been proven to be true.....NOT ONE!
There is NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING in the bible about "working" WITH god. The bible states emphatically that we are all subjects of this god, in essence, slaves to his will.
You are purposely revising what your own bible dictates. Incorrectly I might add.
Most people on this forum and most atheists, in general, have an extensive religious education and background. You can't just make statements that don't even jive with your bible. Even though the bible is a book of myths and allegory, a collection of folklore from MANY ancient cultures, you are not even quoting or even representing the bible correctly, and I am assuming that you are referring to the King James version or the Modern Holy Bible.

RedleT's picture
Predeterminstion is not in

Predeterminstion is not in the Bible. Predestination is. Big difference. Furthermore, I am not trying to prove that Jesus is God or something like that. I am answering these questions and saying Catholism is consistent with itself.

Working with God:

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing."

mykcob4's picture
@Dumb Ox

@Dumb Ox
Oh, fucking bullshit. This is just you and all the other christians moving the goal post.
1) There is NO consistency in catholicism or any other religion. There are over 100 different sects in catholicism alone.
2) If your god is all knowing then he would have never needed to actually create humans.
3) Quotes in the bible just contradict themselves. You cherry pick to fit your narrative.

So don't hand me this medieval hogwash. It makes me sick. Some stone aged goofballs individually and separately decide that they want to put together folklore from ancient and a multitude of cultures, picking the best ones and throw together a book and edit it to fit their new cult. Years later the leaders of that cult combine the various books and highly and politically edit them to fit their objectives. Some 10,000 versions later a person like you comes along (brainwashed from birth) to cherry pick ONE of those versions and call it fact when there isn't anything to substantiate or verify it. Then you and your fellow brainwashed undereducated groups fucking impose YOUR hypocritical morality on the rest of us, forcing hate and prejudice down our throats, decrying science AND history in the process.

RedleT's picture
1 and 3 are assertions I

1 and 3 are assertions I disagree with. I agree with 2.

mykcob4's picture
@ Dumb Ox

@ Dumb Ox
As to #1:
And that is just the start. There are literally hundreds of different catholic sects orders churches. They don't follow the same guidelines and are completely inconsistent with the others. Some are just monastic differences but by and large they are not the same and remain inconsistent.
As to #3:
Again just one of the millions of sources including the bible itself that proves that the bible is full of contradictions.

UnKnown's picture
"Again just one of the

"Again just one of the millions of sources including the bible itself that proves that the bible is full of contradictions." - I'm just going to go through this and rebuttal them.

1. Murder:
i. "Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill." - The passage refers to murdering instead of killing
ii. "Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."" -Although this says kill, it actually refers to murdering, just like the above.

2. Lying:
i. "I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."" - God sending a deceiving spirit does not mean that he is a deceiver. He was merely sending a demonic force, allowing it to perform what was natural to it, to do something that was part of the greater plan of God. If I send my mum to the store to get something, I am not the one doing it -- she is
ii. "II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."" - In his exhaustive discussion of biblical idioms, James Macknight has observed: “Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do” (Apostolical Epistles, Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1954, p. 29).

3. Stealing:
i. "Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians."" -Spoil, or plunder, is referred to as asking for gold and valuables. Sure plunder implies stealing, but this passage means it as asking for gold and valuables.
ii. "Exodus 12:35-36 "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians."" - Look up.
iii. "Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."
I was taught as a child that when you take something without asking for it, that is stealing." - If someone walks up to your brand new bright red Corvette, takes the keys, gets in, and starts revving up, you will certainly ask (in a less than rational tone, naturally) "Why are you taking my car?" And I very much doubt that you would be satisfied with the answer, "God needs it." If you hadn't already punched the guy's lights out, your next step would be to call the men in the white coats and the police. Obviously, that didn't happen here -- the owners made no effort to stop what was going on, and the disciples were allowed to leave with the colt unhindered. So there is obviously more to this story. “Say that the Lord needs them” means that the persons to whom these disciples were sent were probably knew the miracles of Jesus Christ and he had a lot of sympathy and support in that region, particularly by raising Lazarus from the dead, and most of the people regarded him as the Messiah. We may add, finally, that since God owns everything, how can the Son of God taking anything be stealing?

4. Sabbath:
i. "John 5:16 "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day."" - Jesus points out that you know Moses, in the law allowed you if your ox falls into a ditch on the Sabbath day, you have a right to pull it out on the Sabbath day. You have a right to do good. There is such a thing as an emergency; there is such a thing as some common sense. During Jesus' time, he followed the Sabbath.
ii. "Colossians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."" - Jesus’ atonement, and justification by faith (Rom. 5:1), we no longer are required to keep the Law and hence the Sabbath which was only a shadow of things to come (Col. 2:16-17). We are not under Law but grace (Rom. 6:14-15). The Sabbath is fulfilled in Jesus because in Him we have rest (Matt. 11:28). We are not under obligation to keep the Law, and this goes for the Sabbath as well.

5. Graven Images: The context of the "Thou shall not make a graven image" passages is dealing with worship of false things. Exodus 20:4 states that no one is to make an image of what is in heaven, so that you may not worship them or bow down to them (20:5). This is reiterated in Leviticus 26:1. The Deuteronomy passages, contextually, are dealing with the same thing: an admonition against worshipping a false image. God does not want people bowing down before idols and worshiping false gods. The instruction by God to make cherubim, which are angels in heaven, is not for the purpose of worship at all. Instead, it is a representation of the heavenly realm where God dwells, and the angels are about the throne (1 Samuel 4:4; Hebrews 9:5). The Cherubim were placed on the Ark of the Covenant--in the Holy of Holies in the temple (2 Chron. 3:10). There, they would never become objects of worship because they were not public artifacts to which the general populace would become familiar and thereby risk falling into idol worship.

6. Saved through works:
i. James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."" - It is erroneous to take a verse, read it without its context, and then attempt to develop a doctrine from that verse alone. Therefore, let's take a look at the context of James 2:24 which says that a man is justified by works. James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us not to show favoritism. Verses 8-13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works. Notice that James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith--verse 14. He then immediately gives an example of what true and false faiths are. He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17). Then he gives an example of the type of faith that isn't much different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith by showing Abraham and Rahab as the type of people who demonstrated their faith by their deeds. James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead." (James 2:20). Basically we are not saved by works, but if we don't have works, we aren't saved. True faith results in works. Works is a sign of the faith.
ii. Matthew 19:16-21 "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he [Jesus] said unto him . . . keep the commandments. . . . The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." - Yes, keeping the commandments, which is works(-ish), but the point is that we can't. Love God, which is basically knowing him and following what he decrees, but we can't. That is where faith comes in.

7. Should good works be seen: As with any piece of literature, to best understand its statements you must read them in context. The Bible is no different. Matthew 5:16 is in the context of the beatitudes (Matt. 5:1 - 7:29) where Jesus is teaching proper, good, and moral behavior. Disciples of Jesus are to be lights; that is, doers of good. 1 Peter 2:12 is where Peter is admonishing the Christians to live godly and holy lives before the unbelievers. We Christians live in the world among unbelievers and they are going to see how we live. Peter is telling us to act properly with unbelievers so that false accusations will not stand against us because we have lived with integrity among them.

8. Should we own slaves: A slave or servant is different in the bible than now. A slave back then only came into being a slave by owing someone a debt. Whether that be money, property, or they need to feed their kids. Then, someone went into slavery by consent. There might have been prisoners of war, but that is off the top of my head and I can't think of any passages which talk about that.
i. Isaiah 58:6 "“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?" - The slavery pictured here is not just (i.e. chains of injustice). If someone went into slavery consenting, or contract (i.e. If you don't pay back 10 silver pieces in 1 year, you will be my slave until it is paid off), that is just. The slave freeing in Isaiah 58:6 are slaves brought into slavery unjustly.
ii. Matthew 23:10 "Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even Christ." - In the NIV translation, it is translated as teachers rather than masters. So master is not a sort-off master of slaves, if you get my meaning.

9. Does God change his mind: There are two important considerations involving the passages that say God changed His mind. First, we can say statements such as “the LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth” (Genesis 6:6) are examples of anthropopathism (or anthropopatheia). Anthropopathism is a figure of speech in which the feelings or thought processes of finite humanity are ascribed to the infinite God. It’s a way to help us understand God’s work from a human perspective. In Genesis 6:6 specifically, we understand God’s sorrow over man’s sin. God obviously did not reverse His decision to create man. The fact that we are alive today is proof that God did not “change His mind” about the creation. Second, we must make a distinction between conditional declarations of God and unconditional determinations of God. In other words, when God said, “I will destroy Nineveh in forty days,” He was speaking conditionally upon the Assyrians’ response. We know this because the Assyrians repented and God did not, in fact, mete out the judgment. God did not change His mind; rather, His message to Nineveh was a warning meant to provoke repentance, and His warning was successful. An example of an unconditional declaration of God is the Lord’s promise to David, “Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever” (2 Samuel 7:16). There is no qualification expressed or implied in this declaration. No matter what David did or did not do, the word of the Lord would come to pass.

10. Are we punished for our parents' sins: Children are not punished for the sins committed by their parents; neither are parents punished for the sins of their children. Each of us is responsible for our own sins. Ezekiel 18:20 tells us, “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.” This verse clearly shows that punishment for one’s sins is borne by that person.

There are verses that lead some to believe in intergenerational punishment for sin, or a generational curse. One of these verses is Exodus 20:5, “You shall not bow down to [idols] or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.”

Keeping Exodus 20:5 in context, we notice right away that God is referring to the sin of idolatry. God considered idolatry to be an extremely treacherous betrayal of a sacred trust. Idolaters were traitors to God’s theocracy. Besides the abhorrent practices which accompanied idol worship in the Old Testament (see Deuteronomy 12:31), idolatry had a way of ingraining itself in a culture. Children raised in such an environment would keep the tradition going and practice similar idolatry, thus falling into the established pattern of disobedience. The effect of one disobedient generation was that wickedness would take root so deeply that it took several generations to reverse. The implication of Exodus 20:5 is that children are akin to their parents. A new generation will tend to repeat the sins of their forebears. Therefore, God “punishing the children” is simply another way of saying that the children are repeating the fathers’ sins. The tendency to repeat the mistakes of history is especially strong in an idolatrous culture. Another consideration is that the warning of Exodus 20:5 was part of the Mosaic Law governing Israel in the Old Testament. The generational curse should be seen as a collective punishment on the nation, not as a personal curse on individual families. So, if a man robs a bank, will God punish that man’s son, even though the son had nothing to do with the robbery? Absolutely not. However, it is quite possible that the father who robbed the bank is making life more difficult for his son, through the natural consequences of his crime. Also, if the man is training his son in the techniques of bank robbing, then there is a good chance the son will follow the same path of dishonesty. In that case, the sin is copied by the son, and the punishment for the sin follows. As Ezekiel 18:20 shows, each of us is responsible for our own sins, and we must bear the punishment for them. We cannot share our guilt with another, nor can another be held responsible for our transgressions. There is, however, one exception to this rule, and it applies to all mankind.

11. Is God evil:
i. Isaiah 45:7 "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things." - There are two key facts that need to be considered. (1) The word translated “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.” Notice how the other major English Bible translations render the word: “disaster” (NIV, HCSB), “calamity” (NKJV, NAS, ESV), and “woe” (NRSV). The Hebrew word can refer to moral evil, and often does have this meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, due to the diversity of possible definitions, it is unwise to assume that “I create evil” in Isaiah 45:7 refers to God bringing moral evil into existence.
ii. Lamentations 3:38 "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" - Evil, like above, refers to calamity and problems, which God does.
iii. Jeremiah 18:11 "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you." - Evil means problems and hardship, like above. NIV, evil translates to disaster.
iv. Ezekiel 20:25,26 "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord." - Basically, God makes trouble, through the fire, for humans since they were born, openeth the room.

12. Does God tempt: No, but he tests. Modern translations translate Genesis 22:1 as God tested Abraham.

13. Is God peaceable: Anyone can take verses out of context and compare them to other verses out of context and get a "contradiction." But, context is sacrificed in this manner and along with it, truth is lost. In Isaiah 2:4, God is giving a prophet announcement of a future time when He will be the one who settles disputes and there will be no more war. In Romans 15:33, it is simply said that God is a God of peace. He is. Yet we have the verses that show God's judgmental side. In Exodus 15:3 we see God as a warrior. But the context is the destruction of the Egyptian Army. As we all know, Egypt had enslaved the Israelite nation and God simply became their warrior and delivered them. In Joel 3:9-10 we see a prophetic statement as the book of Joel clearly is prophetic in nature. In other words, there will come a time when it is required to fight. There is no contradiction for God to be both the Lord who battles unrighteousness and also loves peace. This is just as true with people, who are really peaceful by nature, but will fight when the time requires it.

14. Was Jesus peaceable:
i. Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." - As a result of His visit to the earth, some children would be set against parents and a man’s enemies might be those within his own household. This is because many who choose to follow Christ are hated by their family members. This may be part of the cost of discipleship, for love of family should not be greater than love for the Lord. A true disciple must take up his cross and follow Jesus (Matthew 16:24). He must be willing to face not only family hatred, but also death, like a criminal carrying his cross to his own execution. True followers of Christ must be willing to give up, even to the point of “hating” all that is in our lives, even our own families, if we are to be worthy of Him (Matthew 10:37–39). In so doing, we find our lives in return for having given them up to Jesus Christ.
ii. Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, . . . he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." - Self-defense for the disciples.

15. Was Jesus trustworthy: John 5:31 doesn’t give a sort of absolute meaning: witnessing is lying. No, the connotation is the general rule that one witness is not enough for establishing the truth in public affairs. A second witness is necessary, as in “… God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.” (Hebrews 2:4). John 8:14 gives the explanation that Jesus’ witness was true. He knew through revelation that God was with him and by revelation of the Word he knew from where he came and what his destination was. Moreover God also bore witness by the miracles that happened through Jesus’ words. God as the second witness (8:18!).

16. Shall we call people names: (Matthew 5:22) The Jewish teachers had taught, that nothing except actual murder was forbidden by the sixth commandment. Thus they explained away its spiritual meaning. Christ showed the full meaning of this commandment; according to which we must be judged hereafter, and therefore ought to be ruled now. All rash anger is heart murder. By our brother, here, we are to understand any person, though ever so much below us, for we are all made of one blood. Raca, is a scornful word, and comes from pride: Thou fool, is a spiteful word, and comes from hatred.

17. Has anyone seen God: At first, this is difficult to understand. God Almighty was seen (Exodus 6:2-3) which means it was not the Angel of the Lord, for an angel is not God Almighty; and at least Moses saw God and not in a vision or dream, as the LORD Himself attests in Num. 12:6-8. If these verses mean what they say, then we naturally assume we have a contradiction. Actually, the contradiction exists in our understanding, not in the Bible, which is always the case with alleged biblical contradictions. The solution is simple. All you need to do is accept what the Bible says. If the people of the OT were seeing God, the Almighty God, and Jesus said that no one has ever seen the Father (John 6:46), then they were seeing God Almighty but not the Father. It was someone else in the Godhead. I suggest that they were seeing the Word before He became incarnate. In other words, they were seeing Jesus.

18. How many God's are there:
i. Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image." - Us refers to the trinity, multiple persons.
ii. Genesis 3:22 "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil." - Same as above.

19. Are we all sinners: Any perfection in the bible used to describe someone is used to say that they believed and had faith. By faith we are made righteous, but we are not righteous by ourselves.

20. How old was Ahaziah: 2 Chronicles 42 is a copyists error.

21. Should we swear an oath: The burden of Jesus is that his people be so utterly and deeply and simply committed to tell the truth that they don’t need buttresses to hold up their words, like the fear of desecrating a sacred object or whatever. In fact, Jesus says that if you add to “yes” or “no,” it is likely that this is coming from evil.

22. When was Jesus crucified: Most probably, John was using the Roman measurement of time when dealing with the crucifixion. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for the most part, used the Hebrew system of measuring a day: from sundown to sunup. The Roman system was from midnight to midnight. "John wrote his gospel in Ephesus, the capital of the Roman province of Asia, and therefore in regard to the civil day he would be likely to employ the Roman reckoning^1.
[1] Archer, Gleason, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 364.

23. Shall we obey the law: The simple answer is that Christians are to obey human law except where that human law violates God's Law. Our supreme duty is to obey God. Since God tells us to also obey human laws, we should. But, when they come in conflict, we are to "obey God rather than men."

24. How many animals on the ark: Genesis 6:19-20 simply instructs Noah to preserve two of every kind. Genesis 7:2-3 is additional information where seven of the clean animals were to be taken and two of every other kind. The reason for this is that the extra animals were for sacrifice. "Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar." (Gen. 8:20). Logically, to have seven pairs also means that there are two pairs since the two are included in the seven. If one verse said take only one pair and another verse said seven pairs, that would be a contradiction.

25. Were women and men created equal: Genesis 1 isn't literal.

26. Were trees created before humans: Genesis 1 isn't literal.

27. Did Michal have children: 2 Samuel 6 refers to biological children. 2 Samuel 21 refers to legal children, like adoption.

28. How many stalls did Solomon have: There are two possible explanations for this discrepancy. 1) A copyist error. 2) The difference is due to time; that is, one account is at the beginning of Solomon's reign (1 Kings 4:26), and the other at the end (2 Chron. 9:25). I believe the most probable is a copyist error since we can see that Chronicles does have copyist errors in other areas. Therefore, it is probable that the same thing occurred here. "In general it can be said that the books of Chronicles furnish approximate numerical estimates in the form of round numbers, frequently designed, as has been remarked, to express the magnitude of the occasion....Some estimates in Chronicles which appear to be particularly inflated can be corrected or scaled down by reference to the books of Samuel and Kings...However, it is not always the case that the figures in Chronicles exceed their counterparts in Samuel and Kings."[1]
[1] Harrison, R. K., Introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969, p. 1165.

29. Did Paul's men hear a voice: There are two explanations which can be summarized with the following quotes, "Literally, that clause in 22:9 may be translated, “They did not hear the sound.” The NIV correctly translates the verse, because the verb “to hear” with the genitive case may mean “to hear a sound” and with the accusative case “to hear with understanding.” The genitive case is employed in 9:7, and the accusative is used in 22:9. So the travelers with Saul heard the sound (9:7) but did not understand what Christ said (22:9)."[1] Thus in Acts 9:7, “hearing the voice,” the noun “voice” is in the partitive genitive case [i.e., hearing (something) of], whereas in 22:9, “they heard not the voice,” the construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did not hear). “The former denotes the sensational perception, the latter (the accusative case) the thing perceived."[2]
[1] Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press Publications, 1985.
[2] Vine, W. E., Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1981.

30. Is God omnipotent: In Judges 1:19, the Lord was indeed with Judah, but the fact that Judah could not drive out the inhabitants of the land does not mean that God couldn't do it. God often uses people and takes their failures into account when carrying out His ultimate plan. The passage Judges 1:19 has been taken from the KJV translation as it is the most literal rendering and useful in this discussion. In the King James Version it seems as if God (he) was not able to drive out the inhabitants of the valley because of the iron chariots. However, also the King James translators didn’t use a capital letter for “he”. They clearly pointed to Judah with “he” and not to God. And rightly so as this information is given in a series of military operations of the tribe of Judah.

31. Does God live in light: Firstly, the Bible uses the terms “light” and “darkness” in several ways and in a variety of contexts. God’s dwelling place in the spiritual realm of the heaven of heavens is filled with “unapproachable light” (1 Timothy 6:16), because His unrestrained glory illuminates it (Revelation 21:23). God made light in the physical Universe during the six-day Creation and “called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night” (Genesis 1:5). He made the Sun, Moon, and stars on day four of Creation, thus making Him the “Father of lights” (James 1:17). Jesus was miraculously transfigured before three of His apostles and “His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light” (Matthew 17:2). The psalmist referred to light in the sense of divine instruction: “The entrance of Your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple” (119:130). Conversely, the psalmist referred to those who “do not know, nor...understand,” as those who “walk about in darkness” (82:5). While addressing the subjects of sin and righteousness, the apostle John used the terms light and darkness symbolically: “God is light (i.e., holy) and in Him is no darkness (i.e., sin)” (1 John 1:5). This same apostle referred to Jesus as “the Light” throughout his gospel account (1:4-9; 8:12; 9:5; 12:34-36,46), and Matthew recorded that Jesus spoke of His disciples as “the light of the world” (5:14-16), reflectors of His righteousness. Secondly, Second, the passage in 1 Kings 8:12 that Barker noted (“The Lord said that he would dwell in thick darkness”—KJV) is not discussing God’s dwelling place in the heaven of heavens. First Kings 8:12-13, along with 2 Chronicles 5:13-14, discuss God’s presence in the physical temple of God in Jerusalem. Just as “the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” in the days of Moses (Exodus 40:34), so “the house of the Lord [the temple], was filled with a cloud” (2 Chronicles 5:13). Similarly, the highly poetic wording in Psalm 18 and 1 Samuel 22 (a quotation of Psalm 18) pictures God, not on His majestic, glorious throne in heaven, but as One Who “came down” from heaven (Psalm 18:9), “flew upon the wings of the wind” (18:10), and delivered his servant David from his enemies while making “darkness His secret place” and “His canopy...dark waters” (18:11). As H.C. Leupold commented: "The picture is that of a violent storm—a figure so frequently used in the Scriptures to furnish the accompaniment of God’s approach, He Himself being as it were housed in the storm. From the time of Sinai onward these figures become standard (cf. Exod. 19:16-18; Judg. 5:4,5; Ps. 68:7;77:16-18; Is. 29:6; 30:27ff.; etc.). As the storm sweeps near, He is in it. The thick storm clouds are the material upon which He rides" (1959, pp. 166-167).

32. Does God accept human sacrifices:
i. Genesis 22:2 "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of." - This was a test.
ii. Exodus 22:29 "For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me." - Exodus 22:29 was never intended to mean that the Israelites were supposed to sacrifice their firstborn sons to God. In fact, Exodus 13:13 says, “And all the firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.” What did it mean to redeem the firstborn son? It meant that the Israelites were to give to the Lord five skekels of silver when the firstborn son was one month old (see Numbers 18:16). What was the purpose of redeeming the firstborn son? Moses explained that it was a memorial of the process by which God delivered the Israelites from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 13:14-15). It is inexcusably poor scholarship for any person who has read the book of Exodus to make such an uninformed statement as to demand that Exodus 22:29 speaks of human sacrifice.
iii.Judges 11:30-39 "And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hand, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon . . . and the Lord delivered them into his hands. . . . And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: . . . And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed." - In regard to Jephthah’s vow, there are several insurmountable problems with presenting this as an example of God accepting human sacrifice. First, there is considerable evidence that the girl was not killed, she simply was dedicated to the Lord, remained unmarried, and had no children (for a more thorough discussion of Jephthah’s vow, see Miller, 2003). Second, there is no indication that God approved of Jephthah’s vow. If Jephthah offered his daughter as a literal burnt offering, he disobeyed God’s instructions in the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). The Jephthah incident cannot be used to show that God either asked for human sacrifice, or approved of it.
iv. II Samuel 21:8-14 "But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal . . . and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest . . . And after that God was intreated for the land." - Notice that the text indicates that the ones who were hanged were “men” (2 Samuel 21:6), who would have been old enough to be responsible for their moral decisions. Furthermore, notice that the text indicates that Saul’s “house” or “household” was a bloodthirsty house (2 Samuel 21:1), apparently implying that many of his relatives were involved in his murderous plots. In 2 Samuel 16:5-14, the Bible introduces a wicked man named Shimei who was “from the family of the house of Saul” (2 Samuel 16:5). And Saul’s wickedness is documented throughout the book of 1 Samuel. Could it be that Saul’s descendants who were hanged had followed in the wicked paths of many from the “house of Saul” and deserved the death penalty? Yes. Thus, it is once again impossible to use this passage to “prove” that God accepted human sacrifice.
v. Hebrews 10:10-12 " . . . we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ . . . But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God." & I Corinthians 5:7 " . . . For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." - Did God approve of the sinful actions of those who killed Jesus? Absolutely not. In fact, Peter explained that those who killed Jesus had done so with “lawless hands” (Acts 2:23). He further explained that they had to repent of their sins or they would be lost forever (Acts 2:38). While God used the sinful actions of Jesus’ murderers to bring about His purposes (Acts 3:17-19), He never condoned those actions. Those who murdered Jesus violated God’s law; they did not accomplish their dastardly deeds at God’s request, nor with His approval.

33. Who was Joseph's father: Both Luke and Matthew disagree with who Joseph's father is. So who is right? Remember, Luke is researching the life of Christ so he would have chosen to look at public or family records. During those days in the land of Israel, the women were placed under the protection of their fathers until they married and then upon marriage, they were placed under the protection of their husbands. Today, for instance, in many Middle Eastern countries, women are placed in the passports of the fathers until marriage and then in the passports of their husbands upon marriage. On paper, it looks like the women do not exist and when searching for their documents you have to look under the name of the father or the husband. That is what life was like during Joseph and Mary’s days. Mary would have been placed under the name of her husband so when looking to see who the father of Mary was, you would have to look under Joseph’s name, hence Joseph appears (on paper) to have two fathers. Heli is the father of Mary. So, Luke presents Christ’s heritage through His mother Mary, back to David. Jesus is the rightful ruler of the throne of David, both from His mother’s side and His earthly father’s side.

mykcob4's picture

Oh BULL-FUCKING-SHIT! Just a bunch of christian apologizing crap from you. Even you can't decide if Luke or Matthew is correct on who Joseph's father is or is not. If these writers were guided by a god they would not contradict each other. Luke wouldn't need to look at public records. So don't hand me all this crap about a paper trail. If you applied that type of logic about "god" in the first place, you would see that there never was a god!
The same goes for your whole long-winded post. It is just unrealistic justification like a child lying about something that they have done wrong. You can't explain away the obvious facts.

UnKnown's picture
1. "Even you can't decide if

1. "Even you can't decide if Luke or Matthew is correct on who Joseph's father is or is not." - Luke says Joseph's biological father, Matthew is one of Joseph's legal fathers.
2. "The same goes for your whole long-winded post. It is just unrealistic justification like a child lying about something that they have done wrong. You can't explain away the obvious facts." - So basically you're saying, "I can't be fucked looking at this long post, so I will insult you instead".

xenoview's picture

Does the Torah Differentiate between Murder and Killing?

UnKnown's picture


LogicFTW's picture
It really is pretty simple:

It really is pretty simple:

Either you apply evidence logic and sound reasoning in all aspects of life, or you cherry pick and apply evidence logic and sound reasoning only in areas that are convenient to you.

You must abandon evidence logic and sound reasoning when it comes to believing god if you examine the religion at all. As the religious leaders all say: you must take it on "faith."

Just know, for millennium, these religious leaders gained a lot of power and wealth, convincing people to take it on faith. And many many atrocities has been done in "gods" name.

David Hoe's picture
''Just know, for millennium,

''Just know, for millennium, these religious leaders gained a lot of power and wealth, convincing people to take it on faith. And many many atrocities has been done in "gods" name.'' It is impossible not agree with you.Although history tells us the realities of religions,many dumbs still can not comprehend the real logic of ''Religions''.!!!

Seaofmadness's picture
I'll add one more:

I'll add one more:

Christians, are you supposed to love Jesus more than you love you own children/family/loved ones? Do you love Jesus more than your own children?

RedleT's picture
You should love Him more than

You should love Him more than yourself.

UnKnown's picture
1. No, he allowed him to be

1. No, he allowed him to be killed, he consented.
2. There actually isn't that much significant difference between the denominations. For example, the difference between Baptists and Anglicans is that Anglicans baptise when the child is barely a toddler, whilst Baptists baptise when the person is older, like a teenager. The differences that are significant are those that differ in spiritual belief. I'm protestant, so I believe that if you believe that you are a sinner and deserve, but that you have been saved by Jesus (Grace alone, bible alone etc), then you are a Christian. It's that belief set.
3. A little bit. It just so happens that the British, French, Portuguese, and Spanish Empire where Christian, and they spread that belief set around the world. That's my basic understanding. This is off the top of my head BTW.
4.There is no good person according to the bible.
5. We pray to be connected to God. Now, prayer doesn't require kneeling, closing eyes, or holding hands. All it is, is talking to God. It's like talking to anyone else. We want to be in line with God’s will, and prayer is not so much about changing God’s mind as it is to bring ourselves into alignment with God’s heart.
6. Any religion, other than Christianity, is not right.

Sky Pilot's picture


Aren't Abram, Job and Noah described as being perfect?

Genesis 6:9 (NKJV) =
"This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God."

Genesis 17:1 (KJV) = "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect."

Job 1:1 (KJV) = "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Job 1:8 (KJV) = "And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"

Job 2:3 (KJV) = "And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause."

UnKnown's picture
They were just men, because

They were just men, because he was justified through faith. When someone is forgiven, they are justified. They are perfect. However when the bible, and other Christians say that no one is perfect, that is also true, because it refers to the fact that no one is made perfect, i.e. no one is perfect by themselves. It is confusing. However, when someone is justified, they are perfect because there is no crime that they have done that they still owe punishment, but no one is perfect by themselves.

mykcob4's picture
Bullshit unknown!

Bullshit unknown!
There is a world of difference between anglican and baptist. I grew up anglican and now am surrounded by baptist. The whole structure is completely different.
1) In the anglican church, only a priest can interpret "the word of god."
2) Lay people in the baptist church are allowed to interpret "the word of god."
3) You have to be confirmed in the anglican church, which means catachism.
4) In the baptist church, you are just "saved" which means "born again" and is nothing more than being declared saved publicly.
5) An anglican church answers to a hierarchy.
6) A baptist church attends a seminar.
And that is just the surface. There is a world of difference.
You said, "Any religion, other than Christianity, is not right." That is just arrogant bullshit. Prove it! Prove that christianity is the only right religion. To do so you have to prove a god and you haven't done that yet. No one has and no one will because there is no god, never was a god, and never will be a god. Therefore all religions are incorrect!
You even have "prayer" wrong. It isn't a conversation with a god. It is a request for forgiveness. If you are a christian, there is only one prayer, the "lord's prayer." The rest is just noise according to christianity.
And HOLY-FUCKING-SHIT you left out the Dutch and the Italians. Fucking balls! The fucking Dutch forced almost as many indigenous peoples into christianity as the fucking Spanish!
You REALLY lack a basic education. Goddamn!

UnKnown's picture
1. Yeah there are some other

1. Yeah there are some other differences. I'm not an expert on the denomination difference between most, but there what make a denomination right or wrong is what is believed. What is believed, in order to be a Christian, is to acknowledge that us as humans are sinful and that Jesus died and rose again for our sins.
2. "only a priest can interpret "the word of god." - You sure? I have attended Anglican churches for a lot of my life, and this isn't the case. Sure the priest/reverent interprets the bible preaches what he had interpreted to the church assembly, but other can interpret and confirm that interpretation with others. It isn't just the priest who can interpret.
3. "That is just arrogant bullshit. Prove it! Prove that (C)hristianity is the only right religion. To do so you have to prove a god and you haven't done that yet. " - You also said, "there is no god, never was a god, and never will be a god. Therefore all religions are incorrect!" I could say that that is also "arrogant bullshit. Prove it!", but I acknowledge that this can also take a long time and a while. Where would you like to start?
4. "It isn't a conversation with a god. It is a request for forgiveness" - I never said it was a conversation. It is a request for forgiveness, which is also talking to God, which is what I said.
5. "And HOLY-FUCKING-SHIT you left out the Dutch and the Italians. Fucking balls! The fucking Dutch forced almost as many indigenous peoples into (C)hristianity as the fucking Spanish!" - How is this related to what we were talking about? Have I missed something out?

mykcob4's picture

As to #3, until a god is proven there is no god. So it isn't arrogant on my behalf.
As fo #2, only priest can interpret the bible is a tenet of the anglican church.
As for #1, you have it wrong. To be christian you have to believe one thing, again that has NEVER been proven, that being the resurrection.
As for #4, you said it was talking to god implying all sorts of things, but prayer is specific by accepted christianity.
As for #5, I was pointing out a mistake that you made.

You said that christianity is the ONLY correct belief. Well, you'd have to first prove your god. So as for now, it isn't even close to correct.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.