I suppose it does boil down to the fact that I believe the Bible is God's Word. Therefore, if this is true then the information given in it is superior to human knowledge because human knowledge alone is inadequate. I believe the Bible to be reliable concerning spiritual truth, the state of humanity, and the character of God, while validating itself through fulfilled prophecy, historical context, and blatant honesty unlike any other sacred book or scriptures.
You therefore concede that your faith is not based on evidence but that you, quite simply, 'believe'. You say 'if' the Bible were true. That is a big 'if'. It isn't. There is nothing in it that is 'superior to human knowledge'. Fulfilled prophecy - there aren't any except those that were fulfilled with the express purpose of fulfilling an earlier prophecy. Blatant honesty? About what?
From my experience of knowing God in a real and personal way I believe Him to be a faithful, patient, loving, merciful. and just God. You are certainly entitled to your views and arguments. I may be wrong about many, many things, but I know without a doubt that the God of the Bible is never wrong, evil or anything less than perfect love and justice.
The appeal to personal experience, whilst no doubt of great importance to you, must be viewed dispassionately by an observer. We must consider whether your experience is any more credible than that of, say, a Muslim. There is nothing to suggest it is. So if one can be rejected so can the other. We must also consider whether the experiences you undergo are a relationship with god or something else, such as a psychological condition or wishful thinking. Perhaps it is your own conscience you hear - not god. It is unverifiable but we do have evidence of mental states. If I said I have a personal relationship with Elvis you would think me crazy. What about if I had a real and personal relationship with Mother Theresa? Or Henry VIII? How about St Peter? Isiah? Too mortal? Then how about Zeus? Mithras? Vishnu? Allah? Gaia? Gabriel? Satan? Crazy on all counts? :areyoucra
I, too, use my judgment to evaluate actions which are claimed to be done in the name of God, and there are plenty which are obviously done by the wickedness of men.
Yes "obviously". Writing them down in the Bible does not change that. It does not magically make the actions moral, or for a greater good. There is little difference between murder committed by Saul and Samuel as that committed by Charles Manson or Bin-Laden.
When you go on to say...
Have you stopped to ask yourself the reason that God commanded the Israelites to destroy the other tribes? Are you aware that they were preforming human sacrifice of their children to false gods? Do you realize that those other tribes had at least 40 years to repent from their sinful practices and submit to the Living God? Do you believe God has no right to judge His creation? Do you think He should He let evil grow and continue endlessly?
I can only ask - was every man, woman and CHILD performing human sacrifice? Was every child and newborn equally guilty? Was murder the only option available to this supremely powerful deity? (What's the deal with human sacrifice anyway? It's not the loss of life - God is quite happy about killing. No it is the worship. According to you they simply 'thought' the wrong thing about who to worship and so had to die. In that despicable argument you fully, whether you realise it or not, justify every murder committed in the name of any god. It is exactly the argument used by the murderers flying the planes on 9/11. How do you tell the difference between Mohammed Atta and Saul?)
He has a plan in place to eliminate all evil from the new heaven and earth.
Well his plan sucks. It seems he can think of nothing more imaginative than total annihilation.
It genuinely scares me that people seek to justify murder based on what people think about something as unprovable as this. Not based on morals, or right and wrong, just whether it is what this particular god
might want.
