God is sadistic

[SweetLee8 3PlayaWha?]

I was never really anti religion until I started to analyze the god of most of the world's inhabitants.

This guy is seriously sadistic. Why would an all powerful God create two people and then set them up to doom mankind? Free will schmee will. He is ultimately responsible.

What kind of God would test a followers devotion by asking him to kill his child? My God would probably have judged Abraham's response as failure.

What does it even mean that Jesus was sacrficed for our sins. That's just plain sick.

I'm no longer on the fence regarding organized religion.

I truly believe the God of the Old Testament is twisted.

I'm looking elsewhere.

[RabidBillsFan]

God is like global warming- if you don't believe in either one, you are taking a gigantic risk with your life eventually. That is why I find it unfathomable as to why people actually reject either one- I mean, what is the actual HARM in believing? It leaves me dumbfounded.

[Scary Good]

Make's a lot more sense than the big bang, but hey, that's just me.

[K-Gun]

Make's a lot more sense than the big bang, but hey, that's just me.

Why is that? I think I understand the major reasons why people think that. Just curious what your take is.

[K-Gun]

Here's some good watching. There's a ton more if you're interested.

Part 1
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H1qrR0im3RI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H1qrR0im3RI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Part 2
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EDyJu9nkPlY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EDyJu9nkPlY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Part 3
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H_5VEj0eW80"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H_5VEj0eW80" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[anEinherjer]

There's no harm in believing in God???? Are you serious, Rabid?

Assume there are no gods at all: Consider the harm done to all mankind: money wasted building huge organizations and infrastructure that's ultimately worthless. Wars, inquisitions, witch hunts that have wasted millions of lives over the centuries.

Harm? Hell yes, there's a harm in belief in the stupidnatural.

[K-Gun]

There's no harm in believing in God???? Are you serious, Rabid?

Assume there are no gods at all: Consider the harm done to all mankind: money wasted building huge organizations and infrastructure that's ultimately worthless. Wars, inquisitions, witch hunts that have wasted millions of lives over the centuries.

Harm? Hell yes, there's a harm in belief in the stupidnatural.

You should really watch those clips, and search youtube for "atheism"

There's like a 15 part series from the BBC that outlines the history of atheism. IT rocks. And you'll definitly learn something.

[RabidBillsFan]

There's no harm in believing in God???? Are you serious, Rabid?

Assume there are no gods at all: Consider the harm done to all mankind: money wasted building huge organizations and infrastructure that's ultimately worthless. Wars, inquisitions, witch hunts that have wasted millions of lives over the centuries.

Harm? Hell yes, there's a harm in belief in the stupidnatural.

Are you telling me that those who DON'T believe are not as harmful to society (Hitler, Stalin, etc???) Come now, let us be fair here. Were the Wars of Religion over God, or over the INTERPRETATION of the word?

The BELIEF ITSELF is not harmful- it is evil men that are responsible for the suffering.

[anEinherjer]

I disagree wholeheartedly, Rabid. If I don't believe, and I don't waste my energy on anything relating to belief, noone will suffer for it.

The fact that two of the 20th centuries big villains happened to hate some form or other of organized religion enough to take up arms against them does not excuse the harm that belief has caused, and continues to cause.

No, history demonstrates amply that belief is FAR more harmful than non-belief.

[anEinherjer]

You should really watch those clips, and search youtube for "atheism"

There's like a 15 part series from the BBC that outlines the history of atheism. IT rocks. And you'll definitly learn something.

Thanks, I will - gotta get some work done and writing a few msgs I can get away with. ;)

[RabidBillsFan]

I disagree wholeheartedly, Rabid. If I don't believe, and I don't waste my energy on anything relating to belief, noone will suffer for it.

The fact that two of the 20th centuries big villains happened to hate some form or other of organized religion enough to take up arms against them does not excuse the harm that belief has caused, and continues to cause.

No, history demonstrates amply that belief is FAR more harmful than non-belief.


Well I'm not going any further on that because I detest this 'Great Commission' gibberish that certain Protestant sects advocate... just happy to put in my .02 sans pressure :)

[K-Gun]

Are you telling me that those who DON'T believe are not as harmful to society (Hitler, Stalin, etc???) Come now, let us be fair here. Were the Wars of Religion over God, or over the INTERPRETATION of the word?

The BELIEF ITSELF is not harmful- it is evil men that are responsible for the suffering.

come on, everyone knows Hitler waw a believer. His hatred of the jews had nothing to do with god or religion. And Stalin's athiesm had nothing to with his psychosis. get real.

[RabidBillsFan]

come on, everyone knows Hitler waw a believer. His hatred of the jews had nothing to do with god or religion. And Stalin's athiesm had nothing to with his psychosis. get real.

Hitler was an OCCULTIST and persecuted religious groups. That is fact.

Stalin was an athiest... non-believer... and he killed millions via his policies. That's a fact too.

[K-Gun]

Hitler was an OCCULTIST and persecuted religious groups. That is fact.

Stalin was an athiest... non-believer... and he killed millions via his policies. That's a fact too.

If A then B.

A, therefore C.

[anEinherjer]

Occultist means non-religious? I'd consider it just a different kind of belief.

[JoeMama]

Are you telling me that those who DON'T believe are not as harmful to society (Hitler, Stalin, etc???) Come now, let us be fair here. Were the Wars of Religion over God, or over the INTERPRETATION of the word?

Completely wrong.

Adolf Hitler was a Catholic. So let's not associate his actions w/ athiesm.

Joseph Stalin was an atheist -- however -- he did not kill under the pretense of atheism.

Which is a very important distinction.

Many wars throughout history are carried out under the pretense that God supports the cause; backed by religious rhetoric to drum up political support for the war effort. Sometimes it's blatant like the Crusades or the Inquisition.

Sometimes it's merely implied. World leaders often invoke rhetoric that suggests God is on one side or another during a time of war. This is a notion that I find crass & insulting.

Either way, there's no doubt that organized religion is in fact harmful.

The BELIEF ITSELF is not harmful- it is evil men that are responsible for the suffering.

I love when people try to misdirect criticism away from the religion itself.

"Oh, religion isn't to blame! It's just the religious fundamentalists!"

Well, religious fundamentalists get their information from holy books.

And holy books like the Koran, the Bible, & the Torah all endorse terrorism, genocide, & death at various points.

Religion itself deserves a great deal of criticism b/c religious texts are generally hateful, violent, & dogmatic.

[JLB]

Hitler was a murdering ****ing bastard lets not get confused on what religion he may or may not have been.

[JoeMama]

Hitler was a murdering ****ing bastard lets not get confused on what religion he may or may not have been.

The Bible endorses genocide on many, many occassions.

And according to the Bible, Adolf Hitler has a better chance at getting into heaven than the Jews he murdered.

Here's a few excerpts where God commands genocide &/or commands one group of people to commit genocide against another group of people.

Enjoy!

"Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)" -- Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14

"You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new." -- Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." -- 1 Samuel 15:2-3

"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." -- Genesis 6:5-9

"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon." -- Joshua 10:40-41

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." -- Joshua 6:21

"... the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them." -- Deuteronomy 7:1-2

[JLB]

Hitler will be judged the same as you or me.
I think he fights an uphill battle but its not for you or me to decide.

[JoeMama]

Hitler will be judged the same as you or me.
I think he fights an uphill battle but its not for you or me to decide.

That's not the point.

The Bible is explicitly clear that accepting Jesus Christ is necessary for entry into Heaven.

So presumably, Adolf Hitler accepted Christ at some point since he was a self-avowed Catholic.

Where as the Jews he murdered did not.

Which means Hitler already has one leg up on his own victims.

Thus, according to Christian doctrine, Hitler will be considered for entry into Heaven where as the Jews he murdered will not.

Which is completely absurd.

[JLB]

That's not the point.

The Bible is explicitly clear that accepting Jesus Christ is necessary for entry into Heaven.

So presumably, Adolf Hitler did accept Christ at some point since he considered himself a life-long Catholic.

Where as the Jews he murdered did not accept Christ.

Which means Hitler already has one leg up on his own victims. He'll be considered for entry into Heaven where as the Jews he murdered will not according to Christian doctrine.

Which is completely absurd.

But hey, it's not MY beliefs. Which is nice.

I see what your saying but we don't have to attempt sorting it all out.
I think the dudes in trouble but what do I know lol.

[Mouldsie]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R3k-pr_ng_E"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R3k-pr_ng_E" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
(short one you must watch^)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cn-Z4akDaU&NR
long one that continues the fight between the atheist leagues



and finally
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vysHYPWUAPs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vysHYPWUAPs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[SweetLee8 3PlayaWha?]

This thread didn't exactly go in the direction I was shooting for, but it's interesting nonetheless.

I'm not personally an atheist. I accept the possibility that there may be a supernatural force beyond our comprehension.

What I don't believe is that I'll ever understand what that may be.

Furthermore, the God of most humans is definitely not a God I would worship based on things said in this thread and others.

People aren't just misguided in worshiping this dude, they're doing harm to their own morality.

[anEinherjer]

A classic South Park episode. Logic H Reason....

[Mouldsie]

Science damn you!

[deconstruction]

God is like global warming- if you don't believe in either one, you are taking a gigantic risk with your life eventually. That is why I find it unfathomable as to why people actually reject either one- I mean, what is the actual HARM in believing? It leaves me dumbfounded.


I disagree strongly. Believing in a god that doesn't exist creats all sorts of harmful conditions, namely following the "rules" the religion that professes to be of that god. Like, all infidels must die, etc.

[Green Lantern]

I was never really anti religion until I started to analyze the god of most of the world's inhabitants.

This guy is seriously sadistic. Why would an all powerful God create two people and then set them up to doom mankind? Free will schmee will. He is ultimately responsible.

What kind of God would test a followers devotion by asking him to kill his child? My God would probably have judged Abraham's response as failure.

What does it even mean that Jesus was sacrficed for our sins. That's just plain sick.

I'm no longer on the fence regarding organized religion.

I truly believe the God of the Old Testament is twisted.

I'm looking elsewhere.


The God of the Old Testament only requires obedience, not your understanding. He is "twisted" when the Jews become "stiff-necked" and fail to bow before him. That is when he punishes them for their lack of obedience.

Confusing that God with the God of the New Testament is a perilous path...even worse when you mix in Islam and call all three deities the same God.

No wonder you are scratching your head.

[K-Gun]

The God of the Old Testament only requires obedience, not your understanding. He is "twisted" when the Jews become "stiff-necked" and fail to bow before him. That is when he punishes them for their lack of obedience.

Confusing that God with the God of the New Testament is a perilous path...even worse when you mix in Islam and call all three deities the same God.

No wonder you are scratching your head.

So since the New Testament was written by the same peoples as the Old Testament, you're saying that something doesn't add up?

Everybody knows that the Old Testament was written by the devil. Well, ok, you'd know that if the Gnostic Gospels hadn't been burnt around 140 AD.

It's also funny that the typical Christian conception of the devil comes from the Koran.

[Green Lantern]

So since the New Testament was written by the same peoples as the Old Testament, you're saying that something doesn't add up?

Everybody knows that the Old Testament was written by the devil. Well, ok, you'd know that if the Gnostic Gospels hadn't been burnt around 140 AD.

It's also funny that the typical Christian conception of the devil comes from the Koran.

I've never heard the claim that the New and Old Testaments where written by the same people. Enlighten me.

My conception of the devil comes from Dante and Milton.

[K-Gun]

I've never heard the claim that the New and Old Testaments where written by the same people. Enlighten me.

My conception of the devil comes from Dante and Milton.

The same peoples, not people. Meaning they were both written by Jews with the same cultural herritage, well except for Paul, and maybe Luke.

Dante and Milton's conception of the devil comes from the Islamic texts. That's where the story of the fallen angel (the Mourning Star) is banished from the prearly gates for making war with God comes from.

[35Pete]

What really bothers me is why a "God" would create several outlines (The Quran, the Bible, ect...) that are so vague as to be interpreted so differently by so many groups of people.

You'd think that if he wanted to really be known that he would have written one CLEAR AND CONCISE tomb and tossed down through the clouds at us.

I'd like to hear Matthew's take on that one.

[Green Lantern]

What really bothers me is why a "God" would create several outlines (The Quran, the Bible, ect...) that are so vague as to be interpreted so differently by so many groups of people.

You'd think that if he wanted to really be known that he would have written one CLEAR AND CONCISE tomb and tossed down through the clouds at us.

I'd like to hear Matthew's take on that one.

I think you mean "tome", no?

Maybe there is more than one type of person in the world and, so, the need for more than one type of message. Maybe too how things make sense to humans changes and so the message must be re-written to keep up with the changing times...if Neitzsche is right.

[matthew94]

SweetLee83PlayWha said...

I was never really anti religion until I started to analyze the god of most of the world's inhabitants. This guy is seriously sadistic. Why would an all powerful God create two people and then set them up to doom mankind? Free will schmee will. He is ultimately responsible.

In all fairness, your analyzation couldn't have progressed very far into Christian theology if you came to those conclusions. A sadistic being would be one that enjoys causing the pain of others. Scripture is very clear in word & theme that God is not the direct cause of pain, nor does He gain pleasure by observing it. God did not 'set them up' to fail, he 'set them up' with everything necessary to thrive eternally.

In reality, you don't even believe what you wrote in any practical sense. If I murdered your best friend today, you certainly wouldn't seek to have my father thrown in jail. Instead, you would hold me responsible because murdering your friend was a choice that I made. Of course, you might dislike my father because of what I did. You might yell at him if you saw him on the street. You might ignore him if he offered his condolences. Indeed, this is how many treat our heavenly Father after a tragedy. He can handle our emotional anger toward him. He'd rather we be honest about it and question him than simply grow bitter.

Thus, while you say 'Free will schmee will', that doesn't eliminate the answer, since you almost certainly apply that answer freely to human parallel situations. Is God 'ultimately responsible' for pain? Sure, but only in the following sense. He could have created nothing and pain wouldn't exist. Is that what you're arguing He should have done? Or, He could have created robots who don't have the ability to disobey. Is that what you think He should have done?

What kind of God would test a followers devotion by asking him to kill his child? My God would probably have judged Abraham's response as failure.

Isaac's (Abraham's son) life was never in doubt, so I'm not exactly sure why so many skeptics and unbelievers use this example. First of all, God is the giver of life. He has every right to ask for a life back at any time He pleases. Worst case scenario, Isaac is sacrificed and goes to live with God forever. Second of all, the point of this story is that our first allegiance is to our Creator, not to country, family, or even self. You have a problem with the 'Old Testament God', but Jesus said basically the same thing in Luke 14:26, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple". The greek there implies that we must 'love' them 'less' than we love God. The ultimate fulfillment of such a God-directed love is that we WILL love others moreso than we could have before.

What does it even mean that Jesus was sacrficed for our sins. That's just plain sick.

It's not really that complicated. Nearly everyone in the world agrees that if someone breaks the law, they deserve punishment. The message of the cross is simply that God became flesh and took the punishment we deserved (death) so that when we die, we can actually continue living for all eternity. But it is by no means surprising that you find this repulsive if you are not a believer since Scripture itself says, "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

I'm no longer on the fence regarding organized religion.

"Religion" is man's pursuit of God. Organized Religion is an institutional pursuit of God. But institutions don't inherit the kingdom, people do. Christianity is not really a religion since joining the catholic/baptist/methodist/etc church doesn't equal salvation. Christianity is a relationship. If you, personally, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you become part of a community that isn't an organization so much as it is an organism. It isn't an institution so much as an intimate family. Frankly, I'm not too big a fan of organized religion myself. Neither was Jesus.

Joemama said...

The Bible is explicitly clear that accepting Jesus Christ is necessary for entry into Heaven. So presumably, Adolf Hitler accepted Christ at some point since he was a self-avowed Catholic.

Scripture is clear that no one is saved outside of the salvation offered by Jesus. There are tons of biblical examples of people being saved w/o specifically and directly 'accepting' Jesus. Your presumption is quite incorrect in that some of the Jews who were killed by Hitler may have been honest seekers of God who simply hadn't been given the light of Jesus Christ. God will judge them, and Jesus will potentially save them, based on their response to the light. Hitler, on the other hand, is by far a worse candidate for making heaven since he seems to had very much access to the truth and even nominally aligned himself with it, and yet rebelled against its teaching. What Scripture is extremely clear on, Joemama, is that God has little tolerance for those in power who know the truth and abuse their power. Jesus had nothing but judgment for such people. Thus, your emotionally puffed up argument that Hitler is a better candidate for heaven than murdered Jews is deflated.

SweetLee83PlayaWha said...

I'm not personally an atheist. I accept the possibility that there may be a supernatural force beyond our comprehension. What I don't believe is that I'll ever understand what that may be.

I appreciate your honesty and I understand agnosticism somewhat, but not completely. It doesn't make much sense to me that some hypothetical God would create a world teeming with life and then ignore it and refuse to reveal himself to it.

By the very act of creation God has revealed SOME THINGS about Himself. For example: Creation implies that a Creator exists (Psalm 19:1). Creation implies that the Creator is eternal (Psalm 93:1-2). Creation implies that God is wise (Psalm 104:24). Creation implies that God is to be worshipped (Acts 14:15, 17:23). Creation implies that God is a good provider (Acts 14:17). Creation implies that God is transcendent (Acts 17:24), self sufficient (Acts 17:25), sovereign (Acts 17:26), immanent (Acts 17:26-27), righteous (Romans 1:32), and that He judges evil (Romans 2:15-16).

All those things can be 'known' about God without ever having heard of Jesus Christ because they are evident to any thoughtful person simply by observing the world we live in. That is why the majority of human history has believed in a God that fits the above description (although we've also distorted this image with our own 'religions' too).

But besides revealing His characteristics through Creation, it makes all the sense in the world, to me, that God would 'go the extra mile' so to speak and reveal Himself in a more complete manner. Thus, God BECAME flesh and dwelt among us. He showed us His characteristics by becoming man "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form". Jesus is God revealed.

In other words, why would the 'God of the agnostics' stay so silent toward the creation that He obviously cared enough to create? I am certainly not arguing that human religion hasn't distorted our understanding of God almost beyond repair. I'm simply saying if there's a God then I'm sure He's quite capable of revealing Himself to any honest seeker, unraveling the twisted images we've created via man-made religion.

Various posters said...

Religion is NOT harmless! (but in their own words)


I certainly agree. Man-made religion is sometimes an honest endeavor, but probably usually a quest for power. Power currupts people. Any 'rules' that come from a false God, should they be followed, could and have caused great destruction and death.

JKiG said...

The same peoples, not people. Meaning they were both written by Jews with the same cultural herritage, well except for Paul, and maybe Luke.

First, JKiG is correct to point out that the same people's wrote both the Old and New Testament books/letters. That is why it is absurd (once you get past the emotionalized one-liners) to state that they imply 2 completely different types of gods. The problem with such a belief is that Jesus was one of the harshest 'prophets' in history (he spoke more about 'hell' than anyone!). The other problem is that most of our 'God is compassion' lingo comes from the Old Testament. The argument is totally surface level and displays that the person making it hasn't read much.

JKiG, though, is incorrect to imply that Paul doesn't fit into that category of being a very 'jewish' writer. The scholarship that portrayed Paul as basically Roman is dying out in favor of a very Jewish understanding of Pau. He was, after all, a pharisee and the son of a pharisee, trained by one of the great Jewish scholars of his day. Even implying that Luke was outside the stream of Jewish thought is a bit of stretch in that, even though he was a gentile, he had probably converted to Judaism before he became a believer in the fulfillment of Judaism (Christianity).

God doesn't intend for the Bible to be a collection of statements that are either true or not true. The Bible is the story of God's dealings with mankind throughout history. And it is a reliable story in that it was written down by those involved in the given time period. We have no reason to doubt that the story we're given in the Bible isn't the story those people believed.

The reason I believe the true storyline of mankind is the one found in the Bible b/c it fits best with the world that I see. I see a good world gone bad. I see a creation that provokes me to imagine a Creator. I hear about a nation of people that God worked with for thousands of years. I hear about a man who represented that nation, lived the way they were told to live, died the way they deserved to die, and rose again the way God promised they would. I observe a world around that nation that was invited into that nation and made full citizens through that man. And I attend a local church that lives out our part of that storyline even today.

For a Christian, the Bible is our constitution. It's the story of how we came to be. It's not really a story I choose to believe or not believe so much as it is a story I am a part of.

Dante and Milton's conception of the devil comes from the Islamic texts. That's where the story of the fallen angel (the Mourning Star) is banished from the prearly gates for making war with God comes from.

Actually, the Christian belief in that story comes from Isaiah 14:12 and other passages in Scripture, "How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!". But I quite potentially disagree with that interpretation at this point in my life for reasons I need not get into here.

35Pete said...

What really bothers me is why a "God" would create several outlines (The Quran, the Bible, ect...) that are so vague as to be interpreted so differently by so many groups of people.

You'd think that if he wanted to really be known that he would have written one CLEAR AND CONCISE tome and tossed down through the clouds at us.

I'd like to hear Matthew's take on that one.

Well, obviously, as a Christian, I don't believe God is behind the making of the Koran. At least not at all in the same sense as He is behind the making of the Bible. There is some truth in the Koran (monotheism, some of the attributes of God), so God (who is Truth) is partially behind it in a limited sense. Mohammed, after all, was a near convert to a Judeo-Christian faith.

The reason we consider the Bible to be God's Word is because it was written by His people, Israel. No prophecy of the Old Covenant Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21). And the New Covenant is the account of men who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' own life. They did not follow cleverly invented stories when they told us about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but they were eyewitnesses of his majesty (2 Peter 1:16).

Now, your real question, I think was, why wasn't God more precise so that we wouldn't have so many different religions AND even within 1 religions, so many different denominations. Good question.

I'd answer it this way: God was precise about what He wanted to be precise about. Think of this, 99% of professing Christians throughout history have believed in the following essential beliefs:

That God Exists
That God rewards those who seek Him
That Jesus has come in the flesh
That Jesus is who He claimed to be
a. The Messiah (1 John 5:1)
b. The Son of God (John 20:31)
c. The Lord (Romans 10:9)
That God raised Jesus from the dead

Couple points here. First, in my observation those are the ONLY essential Christian beliefs. In other words, you can't reject that information and still consider yourself a Christian. Second, God is VERY precise about those essentials. They can't really be debated as Scriptural, only rejected by the unbelieving.

In other words, every other 'doctrine' is secondary and non-essential. Important? Sure. But I can experience unity and fellowship with another person if we disagree on EVERYTHING except the above.

Why is there so much disagreement among Christian denominations over these non-essential doctrines. Because, you are right, the Bible is somewhat vague about them, I think on purpose (since God is rarely most interested in secondary matters). Even still, I don't think the Bible is quite as 'unclear' on those issues as some would have us to believe. More likely, we disagree for some of the following reasons:

1. Some people just don't remain teachable
2. Denominational loyalty can surpass loyalty to the text
3. Addiction to certainty excludes thoughtful consideration
4. Some only defend beliefs, they never question them
5. Sometimes it really is just semantics
6. Maybe it's not a different belief, it's a different emphasis
7. Beliefs look different at different stages of understanding
8. Some lack hermeneutical skills
9. Some lack historical knowledge
10. Pride interprets passages toward self
11. Loyalty to theological systems and labels
12. Some allow the world to influence their interpretations

Good discussion everyone,
matthew