The Bible is true

[irosie91]

I should add-----that rejection of wealth-----was already part of the "Pharisee" thing------

Nope-----I did not say that Jesus "advocated" killing----try reading the book again-------he neither advocated nor specifically preached against it. "love your neighbor as
your self" is a Hillel/Pharisee concept------it does not mean-----"never fight an attacker" ---------"Cooperate with them romans for now" was a very popular idea at that time---as was ---"lets get rid of them" a constant debate of the internecine kind-------Jesus was a very typical Pharisee of his time

Since we've established that Jesus never advocated killing anyone, why don't we move onto the part where you actually disagree with any point I've made. Or even address them. Because so far you've been railing against arguments I've simply never made.

And does the term 'strawman' mean anything to you?

Can you show me where Jesus said "never fight anyone-----let them kill you" ??? or "that Jericho thing was a big sin"? or "my remote relative, David, was a big time bastard for killing some people"??? Jesus was an

Can you show me where I've said 'never fight anyone - let them kill you', or attributed that position to Jesus? I've said that he never advocated killing anyone. That the Gospels advocate non-violence, a vague asceticism, charity and universal love.

And that the fundamental character of Jesus is incompatible with the commanded conquest, slaughter, war and plagues upon children of Yahweh. Anymore than Vishnu and his proclivity toward milk maid fuckery and sermons of the righteousness of the wholesale slaughter of one's own family had nothing to do with Buddha.

So far, you starkly refuse to discuss any of it. Or even disagree with it. Oh, you'll talk about Pharisees, edomites, Baptist Texans and Sri Lanka. But not the points I've raised or much of anything you're responding to. Would you care to start? Or do I even need to be here for those random monologues of yours?

You are demanding that I PROVE A NEGATIVE-----and asserting that you have done so. I do not recall discussion
in the New Testament -----specifically attributed to jesus by
ANYONE about wars or what people should do if their village is attacked. You seem to believe that Jesus WOULD HAVE SAID------"be a draft dodger" I do not recall Jesus claiming that JOSHUA was a bad guy in Jericho. I do know that Christian kids are taught in sunday school that adulteresses were regularly stoned to death in ancient Israel---but Jesus SAVED ONE-------by simply being an intinerant
preacher that interrupted a rural execution ---a convict about to be stoned to death by saying "let those without sin cast the first stone"----the fact is that in ancient Israel---local courts
could not execute people-----only the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem could do it. There were local courts----but they did not order
executions How could a traveling preacher man OVER RULE A COURT?-----the court system in those days was
firmly established-------It's a cautionary tale-----and that's about it
somehow it made it into the New Testament along with
the strange idea that Samaritans were an OPPRESSED
MINORITY

---"love your neighbor" in that society did not mean----
"don't fight the assyrians" and "turn your cheek" did not
mean "let attackers kill you"-------in fact ----what do you
imagine "cast not pearls before swine" actually meant?---
it was a commonly quoted adage

 

[Skylar]

You are demanding that I PROVE A NEGATIVE-----and asserting that you have done so. I do not recall discussion

Obvious nonsense. I'm making an argument that the Bible is a strange book because the fundamental character of Jesus and Yahweh are incompatible. And I've given you half a dozen explicit examples of such. And even offered you examples of similar dissonance in fundamental character in completely different religious traditions.

That's not 'proving a negative'. Or anything plausibly close to it. So again, your reply has almost nothing to do with what you're replying to.

in the New Testament -----specifically attributed to jesus by
ANYONE about wars or what people should do if their village is attacked. You seem to believe that Jesus WOULD HAVE SAID------"be a draft dodger" I do not recall Jesus claiming that JOSHUA was a bad guy in Jericho.

I've said exactly what I'm saying. That Jesus never advocated killing anyone. I've also said that Jesus' teachings were of non-violence, a vague asceticism, charity and universal love. And that is fundamentally incompatible with the character of Yahweh, who called plagues on children, who commanded executions for adultery, who commanded entirely lands be conquered, who killed thousands, who commanded the slaughter infants in their cribs.

None of which you have yet to disagree with.

 

[irosie91]

you have provided nothing other than a fantasy that was foisted into your head in sunday school

 

[ogibillm]

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I said Ezekiel, and that was me. Also whoever wrote Rev was senile or on mushrooms as well. What was Moses's last name again??

Revelations is just written in an apocalyptic style, rife with symbolism. It is not intended to be read literally.

 

[Inevitable]

I've tried that already with Guno. Asked him to pick one or two arguments against the truth of the bible so we could discuss. He chose to ignore that.

A common mistake is thinking what is obvious to us is equally as obvious to someone else. Why should we have to explain something as clear as the nose on a face? That we even have to ask may be taken by another as a sure sign we are complete idiots.

Like you, I would be interested if people could say something to the effect of, I see Book:Chapter:Verse as false because ______________. For example, "I see Numbers 22:21-39 as a falsehood because donkeys cannot speak."

thank you. you are a breath of fresh air in this discussion.

I am a christianbut lately I have found my Christian brothers to be hateful spiteful bigoted little people. but I also understand that some are not and you are an example of that thank you for posting this.

and why are you a Christian? How are you a Christian? You say you are a Christian but do not believe the Bible? Please..............

I've tried that already with Guno. Asked him to pick one or two arguments against the truth of the bible so we could discuss. He chose to ignore that.

A common mistake is thinking what is obvious to us is equally as obvious to someone else. Why should we have to explain something as clear as the nose on a face? That we even have to ask may be taken by another as a sure sign we are complete idiots.

Like you, I would be interested if people could say something to the effect of, I see Book:Chapter:Verse as false because ______________. For example, "I see Numbers 22:21-39 as a falsehood because donkeys cannot speak."

thank you. you are a breath of fresh air in this discussion.

I am a christianbut lately I have found my Christian brothers to be hateful spiteful bigoted little people. but I also understand that some are not and you are an example of that thank you for posting this.

and why are you a Christian? How are you a Christian? You say you are a Christian but do not believe the Bible? Please..............

I am Christian because I want to be. I am also Christian because I worship Christ. The bible is a book, it simply is believing it or not doesn't change that it is. I don't think that it's the word of God, that isn't what is required to be Christian.

That is great that you claim to be a Christian, but it appears that you know little about Christianity. The Bible is the only way that you will get to know Christ better to help you live like a Christian, because the Bible is the only book that tells you what Jesus was like and what He expects of his followers. And, the fact that you have such a negative view of the Bible is sad because Jesus is "The Word".

John: 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Thanks for your advice, I know better but keep on truckin'

 

[Inevitable]

The bible can't possibly be true it contradicts itself thousands of times. That doesn't mean there is no truth in it.

but it doesn't- not even once.Prove even one contradiction.

I already did.

You didn't. You didn't understand the statement and insist it is a contradiction, but it isn't. That's your problem, not the Bible's.

You failed to explain how it isn't a contradiction. You are blaming me because you have difficulty communicating. That is your problem,not mine.

I did explain how it isn't a contradiction, but you don't want to accept my explanation because you're mind is made up. You can't change people's mind whose mind is already made up. You want to believe that the Bible is not what it is and nothing is going to change your mind.....that's your problem. And, you claim to worship Christ, but what Christ is that? There is only one Christ and that is the Christ that is told about in the Bible.

You explained your interpretation and that is nice and dandy but it's only of value to you.

 

[Inevitable]

You failed to explain how it isn't a contradiction.

Perhaps the next step is to consider the qualities of compassion or mercy (depending on the translation).

The people Jeremiah was addressing were behaving badly. Is it considered merciful and compassionate to support bad behavior in the name of mercy? Or, is the more merciful and compassionate response to have consequences in place when people do begin to behave badly? No consequences encourages people in their evil, and not only do their deeds become more evil, their natures become more corrupt as well.

Therefore, can we consider no consequences, and even rewards, to be a merciful/compassionate response to evil? Wouldn't that be better defined as indifference, not compassion? (Do what you like, become as evil as you can...doesn't matter.)

Another example: Are we to consider dealers of meth and heroine compassionate and merciful, because they are the only ones who will provide the addicted with drug they crave?

If we accept that mercy and compassion must have parameters in order not to flow into indifference, then can we agree that God is merciful to all? Scripture tells us that God forgives all those who repent and turn back to Him. He wipes away wrong-doing as if it never was; He remembers it no more.

This still doesn't explain how all doesn't mean all.

 

[Meriweather]

This still doesn't explain how all doesn't mean all.

Grin. Is that all you have to say?

'All' has many nuances. Ever say to anyone, "You do that ll the time..." when it is impossible for someone to ever do any one thing 'all the time.' When we humans say or write something, we have a reasonable expectation that those who read or hear will filter it through the original context and stay within the intended parameters.

Sometimes we humans are apt to take a button and sew a vest of our own design on it.

 

[Skylar]

you have provided nothing other than a fantasy that was foisted into your head in sunday school

Nothing....save every single example of the fundamental incompatibility of the character of Yahweh and Jesus.

And please note, you still haven't disagreed with me on anything. Every point you've refuted is one I've never made. Every point I've made, you've never even addressed.

 

[Inevitable]

This still doesn't explain how all doesn't mean all.

Grin. Is that all you have to say?

'All' has many nuances. Ever say to anyone, "You do that ll the time..." when it is impossible for someone to ever do any one thing 'all the time.' When we humans say or write something, we have a reasonable expectation that those who read or hear will filter it through the original context and stay within the intended parameters.

Sometimes we humans are apt to take a button and sew a vest of our own design on it.

So the bible was exaggerating?

 

[Meriweather]

So the bible was exaggerating?

Or...we are.

For example, when we were little and caught running through the house, Mom would say, "Go outside!" As children, we knew the intended parameters for "outside" was the property on which the house stood. If we had taken off for the other side of town, pointing out we were only doing as we were told, no one would have thought we were cute or clever. Nor, if we were asked to go to the store and we stayed there, arguing no one told us to come home, all that would have done was convince people we were complete idiots.

Every word we speak has parameters for its intended meaning. For example, the parameters for "omnipotent" or "all powerful" are, "all the power it is possible to have." Because people have shown their tendency to want to play games or "cleverly" misunderstand, some translations are "most" powerful instead of "all" powerful.

Serious Bible study entails understanding the author, the audience, and the parameters of the message.

 

[MaxGrit]

none of the "points" you brought up come close to proving
that there was a single john who was a companion of
Jesus and that the same guy wrote the book of revulsions---
nor do they refute the theory that "john" was used as a convenient name for attribution for people who compiled
the New Testament. People in those days were usually
more identified than "a guy named john" I do not make this stuff up. Luke never met Jesus either and did not even speak aramaic

Nothing I give you is ever going to come close to proving to you that there was a person who wrote the book of John. Books don't get written by other than persons. And, you will never accept the word of experts in theology and other historians who have given their opinion that it was indeed John, the disciple of Jesus, who was the author of the book.

That is why I'm not interested in debating or discussing this further with you.....you are the skeptic who will always say "yes, but". I believe theologians are way more credible than you, since they have studied and researched the events mentioned in the Bible, but all you can do is make nonsensical statements.

People in Bible times did not have "last names" like we do. Anyone with any bit of sense would be able to recognize that or at least have done some research before making such an inane comment such "people in those days were usually more identified than 'a guy named john'". And such consideration has been given by theologians in coming to the conclusion that the book of John was written by non other than the disciple John.

Wiki:
While given names have been used from the most distant times to identify individuals, the advent of surnames is a relatively recent phenomenon. In Britain, hereditary surnames were adopted in the 13th and 14th centuries, initially by the aristocracy but eventually by everyone.By 1400, most English and some Scottish people used surnames, but many Scottish and Welsh people did not adopt surnames until the 17th century, or even later.Henry VIII (1491–1547) ordered that marital births be recorded under the surname of the father.

Many cultures have used and continue to use additional descriptive terms in identifying individuals. These terms may indicate personal attributes, location of origin, occupation, parentage, patronage, adoption, or clan affiliation. These descriptors often developed into fixed clan identifications which in turn became family names as we know them today.


People were often given names like John the blacksmith or Saul the tailor. In fact, that is where many modern last names like Smith and Tailor come from. On other occasions, the Bible might mention who a person’s dad was. For instance, Numbers 11:28 talks about “Joshua the son of Nun.” By telling the father’s name, it sets Joshua apart from others who might be named Joshua.
Apologetics Press - Why Don t the People in the Bible have Last Names

You are only interested in demeaning Christianity and calling people who believe "stupid". If you don't want to believe, that is your choice, but basing it on such shallow assumptions do not give you the right to call those who differ stupid, especially since most of us have provided links and sources to back up what we say and you have offered up nothing except your word.

I'm not trying to convince you, just pointing out references. There will always be people who believe that our world and universe came from nothing, and those who choose to believe that there is a Devine Designer...that the "orderly" form of our world did not come about from the disorder that is chance. Even scientist cannot come up with an answer of "something" being created out of "nothing"......so there you are.


Similarly, if all the physical laws had been explained and proved (known as the Grand Theory of Everything) – which is a million miles from the case – our understanding of the actions of God would not be one whit greater: his existence and his actions are of a different order.

Most particularly it would not touch the question of how something existing comes out from nothing. That is a question which science cannot answer, and will never answer, because nothingness is not within its domain. Hawking apparently does not address this question – which is the true and ultimate Theory of Everything. But what philosophy can teach us is that neither he, nor you, nor I will ever explain creation, except through faith.


CatholicHerald.co.uk Stephen Hawking still can 8217 t explain how something came from nothing

oh the colors

 

[MaxGrit]

So the bible was exaggerating?

Or...we are.

For example, when we were little and caught running through the house, Mom would say, "Go outside!" As children, we knew the intended parameters for "outside" was the property on which the house stood. If we had taken off for the other side of town, pointing out we were only doing as we were told, no one would have thought we were cute or clever. Nor, if we were asked to go to the store and we stayed there, arguing no one told us to come home, all that would have done was convince people we were complete idiots.

Every word we speak has parameters for its intended meaning. For example, the parameters for "omnipotent" or "all powerful" are, "all the power it is possible to have." Because people have shown their tendency to want to play games or "cleverly" misunderstand, some translations are "most" powerful instead of "all" powerful.

Serious Bible study entails understanding the author, the audience, and the parameters of the message.

All that you are looking for.

 

[Mertex]

... or have no knowledge of the Bible

.
or care not to read further when fallacy is perceived, considering its history of brutality ?

.

Your opinion that it is fallacy does not make it fallacy, just makes it your opinion.

.

Mx: Your opinion that it is fallacy does not make it fallacy, just makes it your opinion.

... considering its history of brutality


that is not a perception it is fact, and those who follow that book seem to have the same appeal for its resultant consequences (slavery) throughout history with despair for change to alter future consequences for the better.

it is a political document using its central figure for ulterior motives.

.

I don't know that everyone that follows the Bible has the same appeal for its resultant consequences (slavery) throughout history with despair for change to alter future consequences for the better. That some have misinterpreted or have just mistakenly applied it is true, but not everyone falls into that category. Members of one party try to take some of what the Bible says and weave it into what they want to believe and practice.....there are always extremists, but not every Bible believer should be cast into the same group.

 

[irosie91]

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I said Ezekiel, and that was me. Also whoever wrote Rev was senile or on mushrooms as well. What was Moses's last name again??

Revelations is just written in an apocalyptic style, rife with symbolism. It is not intended to be read literally.

Give up ----long ago I learned that there is no way to
convince a psychotic---thru "LOGIC" that his delusions
and/or Hallucinations are not real and there is no way
to convince a demented person to BE INTELLIGENT

 

[irosie91]

You are demanding that I PROVE A NEGATIVE-----and asserting that you have done so. I do not recall discussion

Obvious nonsense. I'm making an argument that the Bible is a strange book because the fundamental character of Jesus and Yahweh are incompatible. And I've given you half a dozen explicit examples of such. And even offered you examples of similar dissonance in fundamental character in completely different religious traditions.

That's not 'proving a negative'. Or anything plausibly close to it. So again, your reply has almost nothing to do with what you're replying to.

in the New Testament -----specifically attributed to jesus by
ANYONE about wars or what people should do if their village is attacked. You seem to believe that Jesus WOULD HAVE SAID------"be a draft dodger" I do not recall Jesus claiming that JOSHUA was a bad guy in Jericho.

I've said exactly what I'm saying. That Jesus never advocated killing anyone. I've also said that Jesus' teachings were of non-violence, a vague asceticism, charity and universal love. And that is fundamentally incompatible with the character of Yahweh, who called plagues on children, who commanded executions for adultery, who commanded entirely lands be conquered, who killed thousands, who commanded the slaughter infants in their cribs.

None of which you have yet to disagree with.

you have created an argument which disputes the concept of
"the trinity"-----ie the divinity of Jesus--------and that's about it.------your argument is ---IMHO---- Jesus was far too nice a guy to have a part in creating the miserable world in which we
live. OK I can agree with that idea.

 

[Inevitable]

So the bible was exaggerating?

Or...we are.

For example, when we were little and caught running through the house, Mom would say, "Go outside!" As children, we knew the intended parameters for "outside" was the property on which the house stood. If we had taken off for the other side of town, pointing out we were only doing as we were told, no one would have thought we were cute or clever. Nor, if we were asked to go to the store and we stayed there, arguing no one told us to come home, all that would have done was convince people we were complete idiots.

Every word we speak has parameters for its intended meaning. For example, the parameters for "omnipotent" or "all powerful" are, "all the power it is possible to have." Because people have shown their tendency to want to play games or "cleverly" misunderstand, some translations are "most" powerful instead of "all" powerful.

Serious Bible study entails understanding the author, the audience, and the parameters of the message.

I don't agree with your interpretation

 

[irosie91]

you are demonstrating your ignorance of the TIMES----
Jesus lived during the heyday of the PHARISEES----
the Pharisees were the guys who decided that execution
as a penalty for crime must be avoided virtually completely.

More accurately, I think you just demonstrated your ignorance of what you're replying to.

And how does that in any way contradict or have the slightest relevance to my point that Jesus never advocated the killing of anyone? That he advocated a non-violent philosophy? That his teachings included a general rejection of wealth and physical possessions?

You are a victim of a silly lie------you have been told that
the SANHEDRIN wanted to execute Jesus but did NOT
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO BECAUSE ROME
did not allow it-------<<<<BS-----the Senhedrin had given up
capital punishment long before-------no one ever got
executed for "wrong belief". They were just considered a bit nuts. Adultery was not a capital crime either-----not executing an adulteress was VERY Pharisee at that time.

Where then did Christ advocate the killing of anyone? If its a 'simple lie' that I've swallowed, then it should be remarkably simple for you to do so. If your post is a big bucket of 'SQUIRREL!' then you may have a slightly harder time.

jews and Samaritans did not actually get violent---sorry to bust your bubble. Samaritans survived----but Sadducees did not (for the record----Herod was not a Pharisee----he was an edomite----he was according to Pharisees not eligible to
be King-----not being of the DAVIDIC LINE----only Judeans
could be King------King david was born in Bethlehem----the city of David.

You have just obliterated points I've never raised. I never claimed that jews and Samaratians got 'violent'. I'm saying that Jesus never advocated killing anyone. Not even enemies of Israel like the Romans or Samaritans.

So beyond the strawmen that just riddle your post, are you actually going to address the points I've raised? Specifically that Christ never advocated any killing, offered a starkly non-violent / aesthetic philosophy that is fundamentally incompatible with the rampant slaughter and killing commanded by the Torah's Yahweh?

OK ----you are stating-----interestingly enough---that
Jesus did not agree with the entity you believe to be
the "father' who engendered him. In fact----if one day
you decide to read the book----you will note that Jesus
did not address the issues you describe. ------you got some
"gospel" in which Jesus says-----"it is a really bad idea
to fight with the romans---and the Assyrians"? By the time
Jesus was living-----the holiday CHANUKAH already existed
and was celebrated. I do not recall Jesus saying---"lets not celebrate Chanukah because it recalls a military
victory" ------do you? In fact the only comment he is alleged to have made regarding rejection of "torah rules" was-------"I don't want to wash my hands before lunch"
--------you got something more?

I have an interesting tidbit story. My hubby is from a
"mizrachi" background------ie he was born in an arab country and had no actual exposure to Christianity as a child----I have
to explain it to him. In the NT----there is a little thing about
Jesus having lunch with his Pharisee friends-----and he does
not wash his hands. ------the NT describes "the people
were amazed" (or something like that) I cannot describe how INGRAINED it is in kids----who have my hubby's background how ABNORMAL it would be to
not wash one's hands. --------something like spitting into the salad bowl. I described the incident to him-------and his response was A CLEAR LOOK OF AMAZEMENT----his
eyes widened as if he had heard an absurdity.

Bottom line-----Jesus does not discuss EVERYTHING-----
he did not discuss what people should do in times of war---
the ethics of the battle field. You are
ASSUMING. My personal opinion on the hand washing
thing is that it was, if it actually occurred-----a demonstration
of disapproval of some "evil tongue" discourse that was
going on at that particular luncheon------not a rejection of the
entire etiquette of the times or a permission to eat bacon.
Read the book----it is very interesting

 

[BreezeWood]

... or have no knowledge of the Bible

.
or care not to read further when fallacy is perceived, considering its history of brutality ?

.

Your opinion that it is fallacy does not make it fallacy, just makes it your opinion.

.

Mx: Your opinion that it is fallacy does not make it fallacy, just makes it your opinion.

... considering its history of brutality


that is not a perception it is fact, and those who follow that book seem to have the same appeal for its resultant consequences (slavery) throughout history with despair for change to alter future consequences for the better.

it is a political document using its central figure for ulterior motives.

.

I don't know that everyone that follows the Bible has the same appeal for its resultant consequences (slavery) throughout history with despair for change to alter future consequences for the better. That some have misinterpreted or have just mistakenly applied it is true, but not everyone falls into that category. Members of one party try to take some of what the Bible says and weave it into what they want to believe and practice.....there are always extremists, but not every Bible believer should be cast into the same group.

.

Mx: That some have misinterpreted or have just mistakenly applied it is true, but not everyone falls into that category.

... but not everyone falls into that category.


but they are all proxies to the bibles history of Brutality, who despair at altering what is not Truth and repeat the same errors.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?'

the above is truly spoken by Jesus "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" an admission of error, the latter "No one comes to the Father except through me" is a fallacy - and is used by christians as it implies for unrestricted impunity for whatever cause they exact on society without accountability.


without revision the bible will never represent Truth or the true path to the Everlasting.

.

 

[koshergrl]

... or have no knowledge of the Bible

.
or care not to read further when fallacy is perceived, considering its history of brutality ?

.

Your opinion that it is fallacy does not make it fallacy, just makes it your opinion.

.

Mx: Your opinion that it is fallacy does not make it fallacy, just makes it your opinion.

... considering its history of brutality


that is not a perception it is fact, and those who follow that book seem to have the same appeal for its resultant consequences (slavery) throughout history with despair for change to alter future consequences for the better.

it is a political document using its central figure for ulterior motives.

.

I don't know that everyone that follows the Bible has the same appeal for its resultant consequences (slavery) throughout history with despair for change to alter future consequences for the better. That some have misinterpreted or have just mistakenly applied it is true, but not everyone falls into that category. Members of one party try to take some of what the Bible says and weave it into what they want to believe and practice.....there are always extremists, but not every Bible believer should be cast into the same group.

.

Mx: That some have misinterpreted or have just mistakenly applied it is true, but not everyone falls into that category.

... but not everyone falls into that category.


but they are all proxies to the bibles history of Brutality, who despair at altering what is not Truth and repeat the same errors.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?'

the above is truly spoken by Jesus "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" an admission of error, the latter "No one comes to the Father except through me" is a fallacy - and is used by christians as it implies for unrestricted impunity for whatever cause they exact on society without accountability.


without revision the bible will never represent Truth or the true path to the Everlasting.

.

Saying "there are examples of the bible's history of brutality" is like saying "there are examples of the brutality of justice applied".

In other words, so what? People suffer and die, and sometimes they are punished, and punishment always sucks. Here's a tip..live as righteously as possible, accept Christ, and make the most of your limited time on earth trying to live the way God made you to live. It's the only guaranteed way to find joy in life.