I understand that and completely agree with your second part of your thought here.  I also think that's part of the deception.  That's what's going to make this NWO so appealing when it does happen.  World peace is going to be the catalyst.

Consider this:

In 1989 President Bush spoke of a NWO in one of his speeches.  It produced such a flurry of criticism that he stopped using this term in public.  Many have known for a long time that this phrase, NWO is essentially a code for global socialism.  The last couple of years Gordon Brown PM for England can hardly give a speech without making a reference to this NWO.  During a speech he recently gave in conjunction with the G-2- summit in London Brown said the following about the NWO:

"This is Collective action, people working together at their best.....I think the NWO is emerging and with it the foundations of a new and progressive era of international cooperation......From today we will together manage the process of globalization......To secure responsibility from all and fairness to all." 

In January of this year Henry Kissinger made a remark about this NWO during an interview on CNBC.  When he was asked what international conflict would define the Obama administration's foreign policy, Kissinger said:

"The president-elect is coming into office at the moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously.  You have India, Pakistan; you have the jihadist movement.  So he can't realy say there is one problem, that it's the most important one.  But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world.  His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created.  It's a great opportunity, it isn't just a crisis." 

And no one is doubting that Obama is currently taking advantage of the crisis felt around the world. 

Also did you know that the Chinese and Russians have called for a new global currency that would replace the dollar and would not represent any specific country.  They want the new global currency to be issued by the World Bank, which is something that seemed impossible this time last year but now could be a very real possiblility in the not so distant future.

Never before have we seen the world move so fast towards a NWO.  The new buzz word(s) these days is global or globalization.  It's everywhere.   This  trend towards globablism has long been predicted by prophecy and will be headed by one person who has yet to be determined.  From a Christian POV we call him the upcoming AC. 

Dick Morris said this in his emphasization that the U.S. s now locked into the matrix of a global economic system but also one that will be primarily under the control of the EU:

"You know, I've had a long experience in dealing with the EU, and this is how they operate.  And in the meantime, they slip this in under the radar, which is absolutely creating an international economic union.  This truly creates a global economic system.  From now on don't look to Washington for the rule making, look to Brussels." 

He also said: 

"The Europeans have been trying to get their hands on our financial system for decades.  It is essential to them that they rein in American free enterprise so that their socialist heaven will not be polluted by vices such as the profit motive.  Now with President Obama's approval, they have done it." 

Haven't we already heard all of this before, except last time it was Communism under Soviet rule? And then the UN?

Our mixed-market of Socialism and Capitalism here in Canada is doing pretty well for itself; and while I can't speak for everyone in the nation, when I had to have a surgical procedure... well. Let me lay out the situation. At the time I was 23; was still paying off student loans from a year ago; lived entirely on my own doing freelance work. I also lived in a major city, which meant high expenses just to get by (about half my monthly income was stuck going to rent and utility bills). Without going into detail, I ended up coming down with a condition that would require a surgical procedure. This was not something I could actively have prevented; rather it was the inevitable result of a certain part of my genetic heritage. In the USA, I quite honestly wouldn't have been able to undergo such a treatment without incurring bills that would have utterly demolished what little I did have. Under our system, however, I was very promptly taken care of, got a surgical date for just a few weeks later, and soon enough I was all patched up and ready to go. There was no massive wait list (despite being in Toronto, and thus living in a high population area); staff were very courteous and kind, and I was given a prescription to handle the post-surgical pain for once I got home. Had I not been able to get the procedure done, I would have spent anywhere from hours to days at a time in paralyzing pain, well beyond what over the counter pain relief could deal with. (N.B. The few-week wait was a necessity due to doctors orders regarding preliminary preperation)

This is what our tax dollars go to, and I don't mind, because when I finally did need the help, it was there for me.

The system has worked for me. I'm sure there are incidents that don't shine too brightly on it, but then I'd be amazed if there was a perfect system anywhere.

anyway, enough anecdotal evidence (which is ultimately what that is). Globalization has been the big fear for a long time anyway. Marks of the Beast throughout history have been taken as - tattoos, bar codes, RFID microchips, debit cards (no I'm not kidding), social security numbers, and more. It's easy to see the inevitable apocalypse if you keep changing what it is we're supposed to be looking for, and as for unifying peace in the name of saving what's left of the earth, I still doubt it would work due to the number of differing philosophies. After all, if you dislike democrats/socialists right now, you gotta see what's up in Europe because man oh man, even here in Canada your democratic party looks middle of the road at best, and close to half your nation hates it.

Well I think we're pretty close.  It's hard to go into the all of it here, but let's just say all the ducks for the first time in history are lined up.  The countries, the economics, the politics, the spiritual coldness etc.   Before there were some signs that seemed as though things were coming to a head but there were so many things that were ignored that had to be duped out first.  Nothing could even remotely start to happen until 1948 when Israel became a nation.  That was foremost. 

I keep saying and have said for years....watch what goes on with Israel.  That's the key.  There's a reason why this little sliver of a country is always in so much hot water.  Every nation in the world wants in and it will happen. 

Israel's struggle for survival will continue and accelerate until the end but God is expecting this and the rage that is beginning to once again bubble up will be stopped. 

"I will gather all the nations to batttle against Jerusalem. 

Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations as He fights in the day of battle."  Zech 14:2-3. 

This has not happened yet.  But the stage is being set even now. 

We've kind of gotten off the "contradiction" subject.  Do you have anymore that you would like to discuss? 

Again, apologies for the delay in my response.

Well, why does god go from sending bears to, if not kill, then beat the bejesus out of children who made fun of his prophet being bald, to "turn the other cheek"? Exodus 15:3 and Psalms 18:34 and 144:1 proclaim god to be a lord of war (and there are many instances in the OT of him ordering Israel to war), while Romans 15:33, 1 Corinthians 14:33, 2 Thesselians 3:16 and Hebrews 13:20 say he is a god of peace. He can't very well be both, and based on his actions in the old testament, I can't say he would deserve to be called a god of peace.

This again is ignoring the more rational answer, in that god makes a fantastic rhetorical device and communicating "his will" is a fantastic motivator for war - even George W. Bush used the same strategy in his presidency - and once said wars were part of history, it was easy for the victors to say it was the will of the lord and that god was with them. I ignore it on the grounds that a) we're discussing the character of god as well and b) the bible really is the only source you can use to discuss his behaviour since it supposedly is the sole source of truth in the matter. The problem lies in people who cherry pick sections that present a moral quandary because of an action that doesn't mesh with their view of god, and then argue that it is metaphorical, so whatever atrocity occured there was not a direct representation of god.

Whoa....there's a lot of stuff here that are unrelated.  I can easily look at each passage and show you why each statement was stated with a reasonable explanation that jells with the rest of scripture.  For instance in the first passage in Exodus you bring up just one verse but it's part of a song written by Moses that starts at verse one and goes to verse 21.  You, in fact, did the cherry picking here, something you accuse Christians of doing (although they do too).   Moses wrote this song after their deliverance from Egypt giving God the credit for their salvation.  God fought the war for them. 

Are you familiar with the Exodus? 

Basically you're asking is God a God of War or a God of Peace?  A fair question.  Doesn't the bible say both?  Then it's both.  I'm getting the feeling you believe this is a contradiction?  But it's not.  God is both a God of War and a God of Peace.  He fights with a double edged sword.  One side cuts to bleed, the other cuts to bless. 

For example when you read Revelation 6 you'd see John was weeping because no man was found worthy to open up the seals of judgment against the earth.  But one of the elders told John not to weep because the Lion of Judah was eligible to open this sealed book of judgments.  When John turned around to see this Lion he saw instead a "lamb as it had been slain" in the middle of the throne. 

See, Jesus was both the lamb and the lion.  The lamb speaks of his gentle meek manner and the lion of his ferocious, roaring manner when it comes to this day of judgment.  To John, he was the Lamb.  To the unbelievers he will be as the roaring Lion who has come to judge the earth.  He is the King of the earth and his judgments will be swift and sure. 

When people read the OT they get the impression that God is an awful wrathful God but in the NT they find a God of love.  Is this true?  No.  There is no diff between the images of God in the Old and New Testaments.  Jesus is no more loving than his Father and the Father is no more judging than Jesus. 

There is love in the OT.  There is judgment in the NT.  The diff between the two is the diff between judgment within history and judgment at the end of history. 

In the OT we can see clearly that God is a God of compassion, grace, love, faithfulness and forgiveness.   But he does  make it clear that these things are not to be taken advantage of.  Those who do not respond to his love will not escape.  He is not an indulgent parent and he will bring justice. 

I could say alot about this subject because there is so much I could show you but I'll stop here. 

Well that's not me because

A.  I don't cherry pick as I use the whole counsel of the Word of God

B.  I believe in the literal interpretation of the bible; that's not to say the bible isn't made up of both symbolic and literal literature.  If it makes sense, take it literal.  If it doesn't it has symbolic implications but the symbols have to stand for something literal. 

I do believe that many people don't have a direct representation of God because they've bought into much of what society has to say instead of what the bible really says.   It's like Satan saying "did God really say?"  putting seeds of doubt into the minds and hearts of people. 

now this is a diff matter.  Let's look at this passage. 

This is found in 2 Kings. 

Many that wish to believe in the big bad wrathful and hateful God always point to this passage as proof text. 

At first reading it's horrific isn't it?  These little children just playing when they see this strange looking man they began to chant "go on up, you baldhead!"  Then he curses them and a bear devours them. 

Do you want the rest of the story?   

The first thing worth mentioning is the Hebrew words for "little children."  This is an unfortunate translation as these were not "little children" as we might think of them. 

In the Hebrew it's "young lads" or "young men."  From numerous examples where ages are specified in the OT we know that these were young men from 12-30.  Isaac is described this way when he was easily in his early 20's.  Genesis 22:12.

Joseph also was described this way and he was 17 years old.  Gen 37:2.  In fact the same word described army men in 1 Kings 20:14-15.

So "young" would be more correct to say  than "little" would be. 

Now back to Elisha.  Was he an old man short on patience and hair?  No.  Elisha can hardly have been more than 25 himself when this incident happened.  So he would have been close in age to thise young men. 

So what was so wrong in calling him a "baldhead?"  The word baldhead was a term of scorn in the OT Isa 3:17,24.  So scarce was baldness in that time that it carried with it a suspicion of leprosy. 

This term was used in utter contempt as a word of insult marking Elisha, a Prophet of God, as despicable.  This insult was aimed not so much at the prophet as the God who sent him.  The point is clear from the phrase "go on up"

These youths were alluding to Elijah's translation to heaven.  They did not believe or acknowledge it as God's work in their midst.  Basically they were saying, after Elijah's rapture to heaven that Elisha too should blast off with him.  They were telling him to "get out of here."  The connection cannot be missed. 

This attack was on God, not really the prophet.  Elisha merely cited the law of God which the inhabitants of Bethel knew well.  Moses had taught: 

"If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me....I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children"  (Lev 26:21-22)

Elisha was only content to leave the work of judging to God so He pronounced a judgment on them and asked God to carry out the action which he had promised when his name, his cause and his word came under attack. 

This was brutal but it was mild compared to the cruelty of the Assyrians who would appear to complete God's judment in 722 B.C.  The disastrous fall of Samaria would have been avoided had the people repented after the bear attack and the increasingly severe divine judgments that followed it.  But instead of turning back to God, Israel, mocked God's messengers, depised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of God was aroused against his people.

Instead of demonstrating unleashed cruelty, this bear attack shows God trying repeatedly to bring his people back to himself thru smaller judgments until the people's sin is so great and judgment must finally come full force.

God is always slow to judge being very slow in his wrath.  He always gives many many warnings before he runs out of patience.  Justice will always prevail but not at the expense of his mercy and grace which trumps judgment when forgiveness is applied. 

So why should god be bothered at all by any of this? So what if people insult him? He's an omnipotent deity; are his feelings that easily hurt? As far as the Assyrians atrocities go, so what? The Israelites commit a boatload of atrocities themselves in the Old Testament. Furthermore, if you bring translation issues into this, just how much of this does boil down to translation issues? If you want to split hairs due to translation issues, then hell is also an odd concept brought in later, as is the devil as he is commonly perceived today. Another example would be witchcraft: a more appropriate word would be black magic. If we want to delve further into translation issues, shouldn't we be reviewing, retranslating and republishing things much more frequently than we are, complete with bringing things into modern languages? Languages evolve, and that alone creates issues.

And yes, it's still contradictory to say you're a god of peace and war. You can't rightly call yourself a god of peace when you order your people to invade a land and kill everyone except young, virgin women for "later use". Which brings me back to my main point: why is this god good when his earthly agents do things just as awful as the people he says he is against, under his orders?

In today's culture we have forgotten how Holy God really is.  God is a holy God and because of that holiness justice has to be meted out.  His holiness demands it.  He's also a God of patience.  He allows alot to happen before he takes action, but when he does it does come swiftly as it will in the end times with the bowl and trumpet judgments.  Right now I think he's letting the cup of iniquity fill to the brim.  From what I do understand about scripture I believe he's letting this happen right now so we won't be able to come up with any excuses for our behavior.  It's becoming increasingly clear just how debauched we are becoming.  We will be without excuse.  So the next question would be.....will you see Christ as a lion or as a lamb? 

No, not at all like I tried to show you above.  Besides all that, in order to achieve peace quite often war has to happen.  For instance WWII.  We needed to wage all out war, by dropping those bombs, on Japan to achieve peace.  Usually after every war, comes peace.  You see this over and over again.  In God's case, he's depicted as both a lion and a lamb.  That's not a contradiction.  To his enemies he's a lion, to his own people they see a lamb.  

When a shepherd protects his flock he may have to war with a predator, an enemy to his flock.  Sometimes this could be a wolf or a lion.  Shepherds have been known to strangle with their bare hands these intruders in order to protect their flock.  It may seem brutal but it's the only way to achieve peaceful conditions for the flock.  The enemy has to be killed for peace. 

Motivation.   God does what he does for the benefit of his people.  Those earthly agents you speak of do it for their own greed, pride and hostility.  When God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden he did so for their own good.  I'm sure they didn't like it much. He could have killed them right there for their act of rebellion but instead he showed them mercy and forgiveness.   Hopefully they were very grateful for this mercy extended.  I'm guessing they were. 

When God says He's a jealous God it's not the same jealousy as we're familiar with.  We're  jealous because we wish to have something someone else has. We can do some pretty awful things to get what we want when that green eyed monster grabs us.  God is jealous FOR us not OF us and there is a diff.  He wants the best for us and everything he does is for the best even though it does seem strange and odd to us at times. Even if it involves war and killing. 

I suppose my kids felt like that when I spanked their butts for their rebellious ways.  To them I didn't seem very loving at the time...but the outcome is that they are well adjusted young men who are going places.  Everywhere they go and every job they have people make comments about their attitudes and work ethics.  It just didn't happen.  If I allowed them to stay the way they were most likely they wouldn't have been able to hold down a job or get along with others like they do today. 

Also since God is the giver of life, he alone, has the right to take it. 

Yeah but spanking your kids didn't equate to an eternity of punishment. As far as jealousy goes I can honestly say there's been only a few circumstances where I have been so jealous as to be wrathful.

-A companion student complaining about their life "sucking a big one" because they didn't get the car they wanted for their birthday when they were already 100% supported by their parents and didn't have to work anyway.
-When my then-fiance cheated on me.
-A time when someone took credit for something I did, with said action having positive repurcussions on a provincial scale.

The 1st and 3rd, I got over pretty easily. The second, I'm still no fan of her and want nothing to do with her, but I still would not want her suffering eternally. That's grossly inhumane.

As far as World War 2 goes, well, is it just to have killed so many civilians? I think, if anything, it was a necessary mistake: it did ultimately end the war, but it also alerted us to just how horrific a weapon we'd created. To how horrific we could yet be. These were not simply army bases, these were not simply targets, where statistics are quickly read and discarded. These were cities full of children, children who did not even comprehend what Pearl Harbor was, who had no idea what went on in Nanking. Families, just like any other family. No, the Japanese were not innocent, and yes, an invasion would most likely have been costly. But then these are also human issues, created and resolved by humans of limited powers.

Surely your god in his glory can think of better ways to drive his point home than the murder of civilians, which he does call for repeatedly in the Old Testament. I don't care if it offends him that not everybody goes his way.

As far as your mercy goes, you point to Eden. Ok, so they Adam and Eve got conned by a serpent and cursed for it. Wait. God, omnipotent, put the tree there, knowing that a serpent could and would easily con his creations, then punished his creations for being conned. And if you follow with the logic, every living thing on Earth as well, since apparently standard predator/prey relations also didn't follow in Eden.

Because we became smart? And he couldn't have ripped the new "flaw" from later creations? And in terms of sin we could actually account for, the sorts of things we have "these days" are nothing special at all. Every sort of vice, high and low, has long since been explored. Some may say, what of violence? Who among us in the first world fears bandits as we travel the roads? Some may say, what of drug use? Salvia Divinorum is not illegal, and in some areas is sold even at convenience stores. We still live in a society where open drug use is a black mark for any employer, and rampant drug use is hardly new - it was around long before even the Romans, in one form or another (nor is drug use inherently wrong, apparently, given alcohols legality). Some will say, what of sexuality? Even the most lewd of our actions has been around for centuries, millenia even.

The only thing different is that communication methods have grown to such a level that we can see what's going on around the world. It was always happening. And that is both illuminating, and for some, frightening. If god would punish the homosexual, pot-smoking "viking" in the maritimes who gave my friends food and shelter on their travels to Newfoundland the same as he would punish, say, a cokehead who shivs a guy in a back alley for his boots, well. That's more than a little warped.

And finally, motivation. No, his earthly agents didn't do it for greed - in the OT they did it because he commanded it.

I must ask - do you think the Crusades were a holy thing, a good thing? Or were they mistakes?

Why does God favour a specific piece of land on Earth (Israel)? In all of creation, there is no other place he likes quite as much? The millions of planets there must be are worthless?

I cannot fathom the morality of an entity who could watch gold be created in a supernova aware of what a rarity it is, or watch the birth of every entity that exists (after he fashions it, no less, in your theology), or know the joys, fears, hopes and pains of all of his children on an intimate level, and then declare that some must be slaughtered and sent to burn forever because they didn't do the thing he wanted them to do, with their limited, mortal minds. As I've said before: if it were some sort of purgation of sin, it would be, philosophically speaking, tolerable (realistically, not so much, given the sanctified murders he calls for), but you insist it truly is forever.

I must also ask, then, what your view on the Jewish take on hell is. To them, hell is temporary, and much more like therapy. A washing machine, rather than a furnace, if you will, going by the words of Rabbi Yisroel Cotlar of Houston, Texas. So then - is this view wrong? Is it correct? Wherein lies the great gulf between Judaism and Christianity, save the obvious answer of believing Christ to be the Messiah?

Why?  Sin against God is sin against God.  It doesn't matter if they're nice to those around them or not.  If eternity was based on works then your homosexual pot-smoking friend would be "in."  But that's not the criteria.  There are plenty of "nice" atheists who shake their fist at God while helping their neighbor.  That's not going to help their case when they stand before God. 

Now having said that I tend to believe that there's diff degrees in Hell based on a couple of scriptures that allude to this.  So maybe your homosexual pot-smoking friend will not be quite as uncomfortable as the guy in the back alley.  But one thing's for sure.....Hell is not a good place regardless of degree.  So I wouldn't take comfort in that. 

It's actually pretty simple.  Even a child can understand.  God is a holy God and we are not.  A Holy God cannot let unholiness stand before him and abide with him for ever.  Because we are tainted with dirty sin we need to be cleansed before we can enter into his eternal abode.  That was the whole point in providing a completely unblemished human being to die in our place to redeem us back to him.  That's why Christ said "I am the door."  We cannot enter heaven without going thru him first.   In order to go to him we go thru the cross.  When we do so, we can't help but get his blood on us which is what cleanses us.  Only then are we found acceptable in God's sight.  We can't work or scub ourselves clean enough no matter how hard we try.  We have to go thru the cross which involves getting blood upon our soul.  That's where "we are saved by the blood of the lamb" comes from. 

I misunderstood you.  I thought you were speaking of people in general going about committing atrocities on their own and comparing it to what God was okaying in the OT. 

Well then what you wrote is untrue.  What God ordered for the Jews to do against their enemies was not as bad as what was happening to them.  Like I said before......do some searching on the Assyrians for one thing sometime just to see  how vile they were. 

But you'd have to give me specific examples to what you're referring to because there are diff reasons for each war Israel was involved in against her enemies.  I'll give you one for an example. 

Numbers 31 the Israelites were to totally destroy the Midianites.  You, as an unbeliever might ask how this can be morally right to do so? 

First of all you have to know that it was the Midianites who corrupted God's people by leading them into idolatry at Baal-Peor so that 24,000 Israelites died in the plage (Num 25;9).  It was necessary to totally eliminate this evil influence from Israel.  God had a plan that a redeemer would come thru the line of Israel and Satan's plan was to stop it.   So God judged his own people and many died as a result. 

The abominable nature of the influence which the Midianites had upon Israel in leading them into idolatry merited the destructive judgment of God.  God dealt severely and decisively with this cancer.  The moral justification for this action is found in the fact that God has the right to give and take life.  Since the wages of sin is death and the Midianites engaged in a terrible sin, they justly reaped the consequences of God's vengeance. 

Then there was the Canaanites and they were far from "innocent."  They were cancerously immoral, "defiled" with every kind of abomination including child sacrifice.  Also many don't know but God had given Israel's enemies over 400 years to repent of their wickedness.  They had every opportunity to turn from their wickedness.  God told Abraham that in 400 years from then the descendants of his would return to inherit this land (the inhabitants would be killed), but that the iniquity of the people was not yet full.  This prophetic statement indicated that God would not destroy the people of the land, including those who dwelt in Jericho until their sins were such that their guilt merited their complete destruction in judgment. 

So what you're seeing when you see the OT violence and wars is really the judgment of God after giving plenty of time for them to repent of their evilness.  They were not innocent as you suppose.  The same will happen again and I believe the time is drawing close that the cup of our iniquity is becoming full. 

To give you another idea how wrong you are in assuming that God is a violent God for violence sake, think about the story of Jonah.  When he first got the message about going to preach to the Assyrians in Ninevah he bolted.  He took off in the opposite direction.  The reason?  One, he was afraid of these very violent people and two, he knew that if they listened to his preaching and they repented that God would give them mercy and forgiveness.  But Jonah's wish was that God would destroy those in Ninevah so he didn't wish to convert them.  But God's desire was they had a chance to turn from their evil ways.  End of story was that Jonah did reluctantly preach, those in Ninevah did repent and God did not destroy them.  Jonah wasn't happy. 

I underlined for emphasis what I'd like to respond to to make you understand what's at stake here.  First of all we are all sinners.  All of us were born in sin.  We were all destined to die and go to hell because of this sin against God.  God in his mercy and great love for mankind (John 3:16) provided an escape route.  If we go to hell,  it's not because he's sending us.  It's because we CHOOSE to go.  Right now, you are alive and have a choice.  Like I said before, when Christ comes back will he be to you a lion or a lamb?  It's your choice.  You can follow or you can go the other way.  There is only one escape route and it's really not that crowded.  God puts people in our pathway to help us find this road.  Maybe that's why I'm here for you?  I can tell you these things and show you the way, but ulitmately it's up to you.  It's your life.  It's your choice as to where you are going to spend eternity.  Don't blame God for your choice. 

That's a good question but I cannot answer it.  I'll put that on my list of questions to ask him.  I do know that he does favor that little piece of real estate above all other and it's been quite the bone of contention ever since hasn't it? 

no.  this is what I thought you were referring to earlier about humans doing bad things.  I think this was men's idea and had nothing to do with God.  It was on account of Greed and power to conquer land and people.  That isn't to say that God didn't allow it to happen for whatever reason.  God can take the bad and make it into something good. 

well there's probably diff views because there's diff strains of Judiasm today. 

I have read that the Jews believe that conversations could be held between dead persons, of which several instances are given in the Talmud.  The torment, especially of thirst, of the wicked, is repeatedly mentioned also in Jewish writings. 

Well here's the tricky part: if the crusades were just men manipulating the word of god, is it not also feasible for the conflicts in the Old Testament to have been much the same, with a simple case of victors rewriting history as needed?

As for choice, it's a pretty awful choice - stick to this route specifically or you suffer forever. That's as much a choice as doing something with a gun pointed to your head. And heaven help you if you disagree or question the morality of certain aspects, because then you're going to suffer forever anyway. Also, there are several hundred, maybe several thousand other points of view saying that if you don't do what they say, you're going to suffer. There is no magical sensation of "knowing" which one specifically is right, nor does any particular text convince everyone who reads it that it's right. They can say their path is right, but there's as much proof for that as there is any other path (I'm aware you'll disagree on that point). What's worse, so many of these paths essentially require that you be inhumane to others until they join you on your path.

Let me repeat. This is like a father who has two children. One child obeys without a spark of questioning. They don't think for themselves whenever an order is given; they just do it. The other child is still a good person, but they have the audacity to question. For this, they suffer forever. Also, the father might send the first kid out to kill the second. Why does god punish us merely for using the natural inquisitiveness he is supposed to have given us?

Why does it matter to god if someone likes the same gender? Why does god care if you listen to rock music, or read comics, or listen to the beatles, or play video games, or play dungeons and dragons, or enjoy any other scapegoat for the ills of society? Indeed, if as you said the authority of god can be twisted into things he doesn't want, like the crusades, why is it wrong to think for yourself, and try to just do right for all, instead of trusting that you picked the one guy who isn't twisting these words around? Would god not look at someone who lived exactly as they said they would live, because that's the only way they could live, and see them as better than those who professed to live one way and lived another?

From whence comes gods ability to forgive everything? If the "sin" is directly against god, and it is both realized and apologized for, certainly he would have the right to forgive (or not to). But what about cases where said sin is against another person - such as cheating, theft or other such earthly crimes? God would not be the actual victim in this case, the other person would be. Yet there are many who would feel that as long as the perpretator apologized to god, and not to the slighted individual, they are forgiven, given a clean slate. Does god do this? What about cases where the perpretator realizes much later that what they did was wrong, but for whatever reason they cannot give an apology to the slighted individual? Do they get a chance to apologize after death? Or are they punished for not being mindful of what little time they may have with others? If they get a chance to apologize after death, why doesn't everyone?

I think many people use god as a coping method or a shield to hide behind instead of what "should" be the purpose of god. It ultimately provides a secure, typically unchanging platform to stand on in a world where many things are not as simple as black and white. Some people can't handle this ambiguity. So again I ask, why are these people better than those who honestly, earnestly, try to simply do right despite their human limitations? Is god so upset by those who do not want to be judgemental, or those who simply want to do right for as many as they can, that he cannot forgive what any reasonable individual would understand?

No, because if you read the OT you'd see clearly it couldn't have been men who wrote it without the inspiration of God.  They would have cleaned it up, taking out all the bad stuff in it that made them look bad and foolish.   Man's nature is to make himself look good and there's some really stupid foolish things that went on in the OT.  Even Moses who wrote the first 5 books couldn't enter the promised land because he disobeyed God and did a foolish thing. 

So what's your answer?  Do whatever you want and still live in harmony with the Creator God forever?  Isn't that what we're doing right now on earth?  Aren't we sticking to our own game plans?  Aren't there many rules out there that we make up on our own?  He's letting us live isn't he?  If you want to live with me, you play by my rules.  My rules are perfect.  Look at us now.  Aren't we a mess doing things our own way?   If you're not living in harmony with God now, why should he allow you into his home then? 

Do you let total strangers come into your home regardless of how they treat you and your family?  If not, why should God? 

When you're in a house and the house is on fire quite often there is only one safe exit right?  Wouldn't it make sense to take that exit afforded to you?  Why would you instead, try to force yourself to go another way to get out of the burning building when the exit was clearly marked and available for you?  What's the point? 

many do....I have been involved in these other paths but when you come to Christ it's diff.  He was our example.  We are to follow him.  His example was love.  Nowhere will you find him being inhumane to others.  In fact, the others were very inhumane to him, including the religionists of his day. 

God doesn't  punishing us for being inquisitive.  God will punish us for acts of rebellion.  It's ok to question God.  He says to test him and we have examples of this in scripture.  Check out Gideon and the fleece for one thing....book of Judges. 

So you're talking about hypocrisy?  God hates hypocrites.  We can't fool God.  He won't be mocked he says.  So if we're living one way but professing another, well.....let's just say, God sees it all. 

These are completely diff things.  We can like the same gender but God has quite alot to say about having sex with the same gender.  To God, that's an abomination.  He says nothing about books, music or comics or video games.  What he does say is that everything we do, eat, drink, sleep should be done for the glory of God.  Some of those things you mentioned might not be giving God glory.  Maybe you did them when you were younger but are now convicted.  God can still use your knowledge of those things to help others who are in bondage to these things.  I read comics all the time when I was a kid.  I listened to rock music.  I have no problem doing these things now as long as they are not deemed offensive to God or if they could cause a stumbling block to others. 

Ok, lots of questions in here.  I'll try to answer them all. 

a.  God can forgive everything but unbelief. 

b.  All sin is against God.  So if we cheat, lie or steal, it's against him as well as to the person we're directing it at.  When King David sinned by committing adultery and murder he acknowledged his sin was against God. (Psalm 51).

c.  We should go to the person and apologize and go to God as well.  We should always try to make a wrong a right if we are able.  Sometimes we can't and much later; sometimes years later we take it to God.  He forgives us.  There is no chance after death that I'm aware of.  God says that when we go to him for forgiveness and are genuine it's like our sins are thrown into the sea and forgotten.  The bible also says first there is death then there is judgment.  There's no chance for changing anything after death.  The determination of where we spend eternity is made here, while we are still alive.  Upon death we either go directly to God or we go to a waiting place called Hades for judgment. 

I agree.  But let me ask you.  What is your purpose for being here and what is the purpose of God to you? 

It sounds like you wish to make up your own rules to God's game of life.  He set up the rules perfectly.  All we have to do is follow them.  When we follow God and his ways we have a better life.  When we don't we get hurt.  He knows this.  He allows us to burn ourselves by not obeying his rules.  But he's always waiting and willing for usto come back to him.  What you're asking is that we should be able to stray out of his game plan, make up our own rules and still get receive the prize? 

Why can god not forgive unbelief? Surely he understands how, from a logical viewpoint, it's quite easy to conclude that there's no evidence for him existing.

Furthermore your fire metaphor might be correct if said sole path out was also one which I frankly find miserable because it condemns others to the flame, as part of your own escape plan.

And if God IS ok with us questioning him, then clearly he should see that that is exactly what I'm doing here. I'm questioning everything, taking nothing for granted, and not assuming that because one source says one thing that that's the way it is. As far as purpose... who says I have to have a purpose? I make my own purpose - in my case, caring for the ill.

I apologize for the brevity of this response but lunch is calling!

Because the whole salvation plan hinges on one thing.  Belief.  That's foundational to salvation.  "For God so loved the world that he gave his only beloved son so that whosoever believes on him shall not perish but have eternal life." 

So every other sin is forgiveable.  The sin of unbelief is not. 

You are concluding that there's no evidence because you are spiritually blinded to him.  You can't see.  Only God gives sight to the blind.  I can lead you to God, but ultimately you have to go to him to ask for sight.  When he opens your eyes, you can't help but conclude that there is a ton of evidence out there.  His fingerprints are all over the place. 

Nobody wishes anyone to go to hell.  Even God says it's not his desire that any should perish.  But that doesn't mean it's not going to happen.  We can't wish this not to happen anymore than we can wish many children not to die a needless death today.  Tragedies happen in this world and the next.   What we can do, is try our best to save those from the fire one at a time by being obedient to God.  That's why I do what I do. 

We don't think about this much, but our influence on others is quite powerful.  I've been thinking about that alot.  I think I may write just on this soon.  If we're obedient to God, this gives God glory and many more can be saved because they will see God in us. 

It's like being in a frightful situation.  One calm person can make a huge difference to those around him and eventually save many lives.  When we panic and flounder thru life, we only bring others down with us like one drowning in the ocean. 

He's ok with that.  You should test everything even your belief.  As a Christian I'm told by the Apostle Paul to test and make sure my faith in God is sure.  There are so many out there that have been deceived.  They think they are trusting God when in all reality they are not.  You can be quite religious but lost. 

ha!  No problem....gives me less to write....forces me to be brief as well.    Remember just like you don't want your physical body to starve, so too should you nourish your spiritual soul. 

I found it very revealing to read through all your posts. I have to admit that I skimmed quite a few though, but I got the general points of view quite clearly.

I have my own example of religion in the family.
My brother Mark was never very religious, but then he read a book about the devil and became really really scared. It is generally believed between my siblings and me that he just wanted to protect himself by any means necessary - and then he found out that sacraments act sort of like shields. Sooo guess what he did. He met a woman - girl really, she was 21 and he was 14 years older at the time - "met" is a strong word. She saw his picture in some girly magazine because he had taken part in something called "the hottest astrosingles" sometime earlier. He is good looking and the photographers just asked him in a cafe he was willing to earn a few bucks and took his picture. So they met via this magazine, and married fairly quickly. Mind you, this marriage was solely for the sacrament - not because he really loved her (or that is my interpretation) It did not last long, and currently my brother is in the process of anulling the whole thing. It takes about 3 years for the whole churchlaw trial to go through and it looks promising.

My brother is fanatically religious to the point that it drives everybody crazy - and drove his wife away. He goes to church every day if he can but is totally unsocial at the same time. His arguments are all really intellectual and he reads a ton of books on theology and whatnot, but it is impossible to really have a good debate about religion with him because he is fanatic and a fundamentalist catholic. And pigheaded lol but I still love him.

I find it in general very problematic to debate religion at all, because what you believe does define who you are. To tell someone that what he bases his whole actions on is wrong does not simply question wether he likes blue or red better, it attacks every moral value and every ethical decision that person makes, made or will make in the future, how he'll raise his children etc. It is no wonder that people sometimes fight to the death for this very reason, it attack integrity and honour. I think everybody should just do whatever he wants, if you believe in god or not should be a private decision and not be allowed to be judged by others at all. Whatever happens after we die nobody knows for sure anyway, so it is a waste of energy to debate wether someone is allowed in heaven or not or if paradise exists or not etc.

And then, your debates about the bible and specific text passages or what kind of god god really is are really not going anywhere at all. The bible in itself is not a book that suddenly appeared. It is a conglomerate of texts that come from different periods of time, and especially the old testament has different version of god. Monotheism did not suddenly spring up, it evolved as well, and there is no contradiction in the old testament when god appears as wrathful in some passages and totally different in others. It is not infact the same god at all but two different gods. Every theology 101 student learns that - and I met some and asked them about it. Furthermore, the bible has been translated, copied wrongly and thus altered so manytimes over time that solely textbased debates are ridiculous anyway. Nothing in the bible can be taken literal but has to be interpreted.
Some historical context is useful while reading the old testament, and that can be used to analyze the moral questions that arise. It is impossible to answer questions regarding morality with one general allcovering revelation. Like I said, those incidents have to be treated seperatedly - and interpreted with historical and cultural context in mind.

I have to point out though, that despite all the horrible things that happened under churche rule during the ages, the church has accomplished many great things as well. Charity - in fact, that was the reason why bishops had power in ancient rome starting in the 4th century, because they had "control" over a large portions of christians that lived in the city. Roman gentry generally lived in the countryside and did not have a powerbasis in the cities. Correlation of power and religion started very early..
Hospitals in the middle ages were mostly run by monasteries or nunneries, schools and university itself developed because the church needed skilled people and pushed those institutions. There were many great saints that did great things and convinced people to follow their example because they lived what they preached themselves.

Personally, I have a problem with institutionalized religion because it is so intricatly connected with political power and ambition, and I think those two should stay absolutely seperate. I can lead a good christian life without believing in some mammoth catholic church that only manifested itself as a institution about 1000 years after Jesus was crucified.

Ha....sounds like another RC I know of.  I've known quite a few in my life although most RC are not like this.   I was once a RC but do not agree with their theology.   But that's another whole story. 

So you don't believe in Jesus?  The reason I ask is because he didn't believe our decision should be private.  In fact he said quite the opposite.  He said to "let your light shine among men."  He also said not to "hide your light under the bed."  He also said to "go out and tell others and make disciples to those who wish to believe."   

Have you ever read the OT book of Judges?  The main theme of the book (very interesting read) is that everyone did what was right in their own eyes.  Pretty miserable time period.   I know what's going to happen after I die.  Absolutely.  So that's not true. 

Eternity is a long time to be wrong.  So you'd better be right.  Good luck with that. 

The bible is quite organized.  Have you even really read and studied the OT?  I know it quite well and can assure you that there is only one God visible throughout both Old and New Testaments.  Monotheism started with Genesis 1:1.  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  Of course not too much later we start to see the beginning of false worship of other gods and polytheism began to spring up.  So, basically it started out with monotheism, then evolved (thru man's rebellion against God) to polytheism before God spoke to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the one true God. 

I've been studying the bible for over 40 years and has brought me thru many diff religions over the years.  I can assure you that the bible you hold in your hands today is very accurate and trustworthy.  It has not been copied wrongly as others have told you.  This is a fallocy that has evolved as well.  There are more original copies of the bible (over 5,000) than any other works of antiquity.  Nothing comes remotely close.  So if you take the theology 101 student's take, you might want to listen to someone who has much more knowledge than that.   You're getting some really bad information.  It's sort of like gossip.  Can you really trust it? 

The bible is quite easily taken literally.  You complain on one hand about religious institutions who interpret their own way but then you turn around and agree with them.  The reason we have so much error out there isn't because of the error of the bible, but because of the error of man's many interpretations.  If you take the bible literally, it all falls into place.  The lie that the bible has to be interpreted by man is a lie from the pit of hell.....reminds me of Satan in the garden to Eve...."did God really say?"  That's Demonology 101..........take the word of God and twist it so they can't understand it. 

Actually the RCC got its start before that.  OF course to the Catholics (to be fair) would say it starts with St. Peter.  But there is no evidence but their say so or their tradition.  Many historians would put the beginning of the RCC with Constantine who declared Christianity the state religion of Rome in about 323 A.D.  I believe that's about right. 

You can't lead a Christian life without the Word of God.  Yes, an organization isn't going to get you into heaven, but the Word of God is instrumental in a believer's conversion.  There are three elements in every believer's conversion.....the Holy Spirit, the Word of God and the soul winner. 

Direct your brother to a best seller called "The Case For Christ" and another called "The Case For Faith"  Both written by Lee Strobel.  It's everywhere and has been around for quite a while.  Two very interesting books you both might be interested in reading. 

Yes my brother is roman catholic. The funny thing is that he found his faith or whatever he has when hew as around 30. Before that he never even knew where the nearest church was.

But I disagree with you historically on the account of the OT and the origin of the catholic church.

It is true that Constantine declared that christians should not be punished or presecuted, but it was in fact not he who declared christianity a state religion but another emperor after him. There is alot of debate about Constantine's motivation and it is really complex so I won't get into it in detail. Some say it was a political ploy to secure power and stabilize the roman empire which had huge problems in the 4th century bc, and that Constantine was not a christian himself but worshipped a form of Apollo, the sungod. That is supposedly where sunday as the day of worship originates. Others claim he was a christian and fulfilled an oath he took after he had a vision of a golden cross before a decisive battle against his CoConsul at the time and concerted to christianity afterwards. If you ask me, Constantine was not really a very good man, he killed his own wife and son for treason.

The church as an institution though took a very long time to manifest as the Roman catholic church with its HQ in Rome. There was hardly unity among the early christians, and huge portions of Europe remained pagan and it took a long time until Christianity took firmly root. I grew up where christian irish monks first started to convert germanic tribes north of the alps. There are some really old monasteries there from the 8th century. Charles the great did alot to unify the church, did you know that? He added and influenced the way church services were held, he wanted priests to wear special gowns and to add more pomp to make it more glorious and interesting - or so I have read. He unified the monestaries under his rule and passed a law that each monestary was required to have at least one bible in it - in the 9th century. Before that most monks had never even read the scripture themselves. It took then another 2 centuries until the roman catholic church started to appear as a coherent organization, before that it was basically just wandering priests or monks that preached whatever version they believed. There was no canon or dogma.

Genesis 1 was written during israelite captivity in Babylon. The babylonians believed in gods that viewd mankind as abomination. Genesis 1 was basically a dichotomic world construct to the babylonian one. In their version god created man as his crown achievement. At least that is what my teacher taught us in school. So it may be at the beginning of the bible in the pentateuch but that does not automatically mean that it was written first. I have to admit though that I did not really read all of the old testament. I know most important stories though and I really like the book of Ruth - its my name.

Personally, I am religious if not overly pious. I constantly have my brother in mind who is fundamentally pious but not a very good christian if you ask me. My mother is very religious and her faith has helped her to be strong. She is the strongest person I know. I have never seen her read the bible though. No time - I have 5 siblings. One of my aunts ran away with 16 to join a nunnery in rome and we talked about religious topics often at home, mostly after church on sunday when we were having brunch. I believe that there is alot of wisdom to be found in the bible, no doubt, and it is possible to lead a good and just life by that. I would never discredit this, but not everything in the bible was meant to be taken literally. The story of Job for example, god and satan making a bet? Comeon, that is clearly not meant litererally but allegorically. I stand by what I said about the OT being something that is comprised of texts from different times and contexts. That does not mean that there is no organization.

For the NT, not everybody knew how to write during the middle ages after all, and if a copist was sloppy he wrote down something wrong and the next person who copied from him took over his mistake.. that is just one example. The new testament was translated from greece to latin to german to english to other languages. Translation is tricky and meaning shifts very subtely. I know because english is not my native language - german is.

I am from Germany, and religion here is different from anything in the states anyway. Church communities don't really exist the way they do in the US, which I really like. People help each other out, know everybody and really are a community. If youre new in town the first place to look for is a church - youll find new friends quickly. I have been an exchange student for a year in Iowa in a really small town new Mason City (Sheffield), and it had 5 churches. And everybody went to church to meet friends or to do chat aferwards. I am not sure how many really really went there because they wanted to meet god, but it was a ritual that held the town together.

I find it really interesting to exchange knowledge and to debate about such things as religion but it is a very dicy topic. For example, I don't believe that homosexuals should be condemned by pastors in church. I find that bigoted. But I assume that you have a different oppinion on that and it is probably a good way to start a fierce argument. This argument could then easily branch out into every aspect of personality and character that the respective people have, basically ending in trashin each others. That is what I mean with arguing about religion being so difficult, because it not just something that is detached from who you are and can be anaylized neutrally.

My sister has a babyboy, 9months old now. Her husband is an atheist - much to the chagrin of my mom. The difficult issue is baptizing the baby. My sister wants to, her husband doesn't. My mom thinks that if her husband is an atheist and does not believe and finds evereything religious humbug he should not actually care. For him it would just be a silly ritual pouring water of the babies head etc. and nothing more. Now what do you do in such a case? Her husband grew up in communist east germany and it really shows in such instances.

I see all sorts of problems here......biblically speaking.  First off, a believer is told to marry another believer.  We are to be equally yoked for a reason.  They've already started their marriage on bad footing.  They are two people going in diff directions.  One will drag the other and it's not beneficial for the household.  Sooner or later this can very easily tear them apart. 

Second of all I don't believe in infant baptism.  The bible is clear, repent and be baptized.  There is no instance of infant baptism in the bible.   I think it's a personal decision that no one can make for another.  I believe the whole RCC baptism is nothing but brainwashing and fear right from the get go.  I was baptised as a RC btw.  I was later baptized by immersion  as an adult which is the way Christ taught us. 

Thirdly, the bible also says that a wife should submit to her husband.  I believe that.  But he is to love her so it's a partnership and done right nothing will take them apart from each other.  Her husband is the head of the household.  I agree with your mother's reasoning tho.  He shouldn't really care if it means nothing.  To me infant baptism does nothing but make the mothers happy and secure but it's a false security.  It means nothing.  Hiter was baptized.  So what? 

My advice to your sister, is to try to submit to her husband and watch what happens.  Men and women are different.  Woman more than anything want to be loved and feel secure.  Men most of all want respect from their families especially their wives.  My guess is if she tries this and says to her husband that she really wants to baptize this baby but she will submit to his wishes, I bet you he'll relent.  It may take a while.  It may not.  But it's respect and honor he wishes and once he gets it, I'm thinking he'll okay this move. 

I've been around alot of communists and had many stay in my home including two girls from Bulgaria who had just come out of communism, one from China and another from Serbia.  We had great discussions leading a few of them to Christ.  They were hungry for knowledge of Christ.   

Your bible history is very wrong.  Not sure where you're getting your information but you haven't got things straight.  For instance Genesis was written by Moses and it was way before the Babylonian captivity.  The captivity was in 586 BC and is very well documented.  You don't even have to have biblical scholars to tell you this.  This is all recorded in secular history as well as biblical. 

Ruth is a great book and full of meaning.  Ruth is a beautiful name and she was portrayed as a beauty.  The whole reason for Ruth was to show the geneology at the end of the story and link Christ with Boaz and Ruth thru the line of David.  It's a great story of a kinsman redeemer with Christ as the shadow behind the story.  He, as you know, is our kinsman redeemer who saved us from a terrible fate just like Boaz did his duty and saved Ruth from hers. 

We're hoping to go to Poland in September to help a little Baptist church there.  It's very very Catholic there and this little church gets alot of persecution from the RCC. 

Well not to me it's not.  I'm not afraid to speak out.  I guess that means I'm getting old.  I realize how short the time is and how little time we have.  We are only guaranteed today.  Tomorrow is not ours necessarily.  We may not have another chance to share the gospel with another. 

No worries here.  I won't argue.  I don't mind a friendly debate but it's not worth arguing over.   I do have a diff opinion but if it makes you uncomfortable I won't share it....but I can tell you  my opinion is biblical because the bible is my plumbline.  You can't take a crooked stick and measure it next to another crooked stick and call it good.  To find out if  your stick is straight you need to take the crooked stick and measure it to one that is perfectly straight. 

Why not?  Job is a great book for anyone who is going thru tough times.  It's put there for a reason.  Many have found solace in reading the book of Job.  I take it literally.  I also take as much of the bible literally as I can so long as it's not obviously poetic or symbolic.  In other words, if it makes sense to take literally, do it.  If not, find out the meaning behind it. 

The bible totally is written by about 40 diff men over a period of 1500 years.  These men came from all diff walks of life.  Some were fishermen, some farmers, some were considered royalty like Moses, Solomon and King David or lived in palaces like Daniel and Nehemiah.  Some were shepherds and others worked for the government.  Just about everyone of them came reluctantly.  It was a hard job to be on God's side of things.  All of them had it very rough.  It wasn't an easy job to walk and work for God.  It still isn't.   Being a Christian isn't for wussies. 

Job is a pretty terrible book since it's all about how Job had his life ruined and his children (and I think wife?) were all killed because god made a bet with the devil.

Anyway time is once again a precious commodity for me (chem exam next thursday complete with a massive section on organic chem), but as far as hell and all that goes - if god really doesn't want anybody to suffer there, why couldn't he simply "deactivate" a soul, or turn hell "off"?  As far as the "only god will let you see" part of your argument goes, many religions state similar things - for example, only Allah can show me the path, depending on who you ask. In a world where hundreds of religions, many of them mere branches of other religions, say they are all the right one, how is anyone to simply pick the right one? Let's take, for example, you and Lulapilgrim. Both of you belong to branches of Christianity. Both of you posit that your particular path is the right one. So which one is right? You both have the same amount of claim - your holy book and holy men say this; her holy book and holy men say that. To an outside observer, neither is particularly convincing.

So why is God asking us to deduce a specific denomination of a specific religion on threat of damnation?

Also as for the other person, the dude needs to chill out. Let the kid get baptized; it'll have no bearings on decisions made later in life. Indoctrination later on may, but even that isn't foolproof. Just let the little bugger realize his or her own destiny. Long as they aren't forcing their beliefs on others or acting in life with cruel intent, meh.

Hmm. I am so not like you, KFC. I never said it is not a good book with good advice in it, just that it is not mean literarry that god and satan sat on a cloud and decided to have a friendly game of chance.

You are probably a evangelist? Now im a RC, most of the time not very, but still. The church as a whole does not persecute other churches. Ecumenical relations between protestant and catholic communities are actually quite strong in Germany. You'll love Poland, though.