Thanks for that bit of info. Do you have questions about the bible, and Christianity yourself? Have you ever found yourself doubting God, and the whole notion of Christianity?

@ chinedumo

Love is the nature of God. Agape love to be precise. But God himself does not condone evil but punishes evildoers. He according to his son Jesus has prepared a place where there will be groaning and gnashing of teeth eternally.

God doesn't have to eternally punish evildoers to prove justice. That thought is diabolic by nature. Satan is at the heart of such a thought, and not the bible. The problem with some Christians is their gross ignorance of biblical themes. They run away with a verse or two, and make a religion on such.

The absolute reality is that Jesus didn't die on Calvary to punish sinners eternally. He died to save sinners from sin. That was not a threat. To argue that Jesus' death if refused by evildoers will land them in a place to be punished eternally, makes God out to be threat. Evil doers will be punished alright, but not eternally.

Besides, if we are expected to live on the earth when it has been made new, then where will this place of eternal punishment be? Secondly such an argument brings into question whether or not really dealt with the sin problem after all. As long as evil doers are being punished sin will be present, and it also means that Satan will be present. As long as these beings remain alive, then they would have been given eternal life.

John 3:16 made it abundantly clear that only those who believe on Christ will have eternal life. As long as evil doers are being punished, it means they would still be alive, and if they are alive for eternity, it means they have eternal life.

You can't have the redeemed enjoying the new earth, and its glory, and the evildoers somewhere else being punished eternally in the same new earth. Not only is it a stupid thought, but ridiculous if you ask me.

The weight of biblical evidence is against such false teachings.

@

To answer the title question, "Ofcourse it is!"

The manifestation of wrath itself is a SIN.So the "all loving God" broke his own rules there.An all-loving being, whatever that being might be, cannot be wrathful.All-loving and wrathfulness is an oxymoron.So therefore, the bible god's desired reputation as an all-loving deity is in variance to his wrathful nature.That is why the bible god failed the test for the position of the supreme being in the most woeful fashion.

Don't confuse God's justice with the way we see and understand wrath. God alone is just and hence He being wrathful is justified. In fact when He is, its because He is forced to be such. When any set of humans reach that stage where their purposeless existence becomes a serious threat to others, then God who is Creator, and who has the absolute right to take back life, can demonstrate anger, which in no way can be seen as being contrary to His attribute of love.

God is absolute and we dare not use human values and standards to judge Him. He alone prescribes and describes the concept of good and evil.

I hope estrella sees it for what it is.

Might as well the whole Roman Catholic church resigns en block, lol, They have made a mockery of God and His word from the dawn of time. I have no sympathy for those who make fools of themselves and continue to deny the authority of God and His word.

"By their fruits ye shall know them"

"whatsoever a man sows that will he also reap, "

Their true colors are showing. The world is now seeing their evilous pretense, and not that it wasn't before, but once again its revealing itself.

See John 3:3,5,

I recently realized that most Christians don't think about WHY they are Christians.Have you ever challenged the tenants of Christianity? Have you ever asked yourself who God really is and if he exists? I've had questions that have been on my mind since i became a born again christian and I need answers because no one has provided any satisfactory answers as far as i know.

Have you consulted God personally?

I don't want religious answers, I don't want holistic views, I want to know the truth and I don't want biblical evidence because the bible in itself has a lot of contradictory information.If Christians have a personal relationship with God as so many of them claim then this shouldn't be too hard for them.God still speaks to his people right? right,

This is a religious thread and yet you don't want religious answers, hhmm! What appears as a contradiction to you is not so to others who read the same bible. How does a person get to know about chemistry unless they study? Same applies to the bible. You need to diligently study its words. Do you think that studying the bible is like a walk in the park my friend? No way! Paul says "study to show thyself approved unto God"

Is the God of the old testament the same God of the new testament?
If he is,why is there such a huge difference between them? why did the God of the old testament order women and children of rival nations killed? why not just the men?

Yes, He still is. "I am the Lord I change not, " (Malachi 3:6)

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." (James 1:17)


God ordered them killed because they had reached the point of no return. Even their children were totally destroyed. God and God alone sees the beginning from the end. In fact when God destroys a nation He does it for their own good. He is sparing them the agony of purposeless lives, that would only lead to more misery, suffering, and pain.

Doesn't the bible say that God doesn't change? if they are both one and the same God,then didn't he change?
are there come people created specifically for hell fire? does God create some of us knowing where we will end up and what kind of life we will live? the bible says that Judas Iscariot was destined to betray Jesus.Are there people born for a particular evil purpose? why does God create them?

See the above texts. Although God knows the future He doesn't decide who goes to hell, and who doesn't. We are the ones with a choice. We either choose to serve and obey God, or we don't. However, God knows about our choices long before we made them, but that doesn't influence our choices in any way.

As for Judas, God knew he'd have chosen to betray His Son. Knowing something is not the same as influencing it.

If God is all knowing and all seeing,didn't he know that the Lucifer would turn out to be his greatest adversary?why did he still go ahead to create him? Why didn't he destroy him when he turned against him?

Very good question. God knows everything indeed. he knew that Lucifer would rebel. He also knew that Lucifer would have taken the controversy to our planet. So why did He go ahead with creating Lucifer, and allowing sin to manifest itself in time?

You see a lot of Christians don't associate the word risk with God. They feel that God will not allow things to happen especially if the outcome would be bad. But listen, if God were to act solely on the basis of good outcomes, then we would not have been here. It would also make God appear biased. Look at it this way. God made His creatures out of love. We owe our existence to Him. We cannot have love without the price of freedom. That was the risk He had to take.

It so happened God had a plan. Despite what He knew He created intelligent beings anyway and gave them a free will with the expectancy that their free will would be put to the test, including Lucifer's. So said so done. Lucifer out of the blue, but stealthily at first, taught that God was a Tyrant whose laws could not be trusted, and that holy beings like himself didn't need rules since they were already made holy. In fact His motives became very clear as brought out in Isaiah 14:12-14, and Ezekiel 28:12-17.

Lucifer's desire was to be worshiped as God. His exalted position made him think very highly of himself to the point of questioning God's authority and rule. He brought God's character into question and challenged God. If God had killed him suddenly, then the likely question would be, "was Lucifer correct?" It would have looked like a cover up. So God gave Lucifer time to prove his case. God's plan though was already in place. In time His Son would die for the fallen race. God and His Son already knew the plan in advance, and were prepared for the sacrifice.

Why would God create humans and place them where the devil could get to them?
Why does the devil put up such a fight to win souls and God seems to do nothing? its the devil's voice we hear louder than God's voice; I'm not saying that God should fight dirty,but he is God,why can't he fight fair? many people are perishing because he doesn't have to prove himself to anyone right?

Lucifer deceived 1/3 of the heavenly hosts. They were cast out of heaven after the war. When God created humans Lucifer came afterward to try and turn them from God. Lucifer devised a plan to deceive. From what I understand the humans were made just before Lucifer and his army fell from heaven. It is believed by some, to which I agree, that Lucifer went to other worlds to try and create havoc, but he was rejected. He then turned to our world in which Eve through his deception facilitated him. Little did she know what she did, and the outcome, but God knew.

Sin was now manifested, and the consequences we are now experiencing.

you all say faith please God but the same bible says that faith is a gift given to us by God, so how can we blame those that don't have faith? if its a gift,do we have to ask for it?

Faith comes in stages, and there are different types of faith. The bible says every man has a measure of faith. I mean persons step into an elevator quite freely without fear. People go home and turn on a light switch without expecting it to not work, right? We place ourselves at risk when we hire a taxi operator to take us somewhere.

But the kind of faith that the bible speaks of comes from God, because in our sinful state, with all its selfishness, and pride, we cannot produce it. Our nature is way too selfish. Only God can change us and give us the gift of faith. Redemption is only done by God. He alone does everything to redeem us.

why is it that when i make negative confessions,i see the result faster than when i make positive confessions? does God enjoy making things hard for his people? does he enjoy seeing the struggle?

What do you mean by negative and positive confessions? Please explain.

Yes and no.

Baptism is a requirement according to Jesus. Even Jesus was baptized. In fact Jesus said it was the righteous thing to do when John had a problem baptizing Him. If persons have the opportunity to get baptized and refuse, then on that basis, they are not worthy to follow Jesus, or call Him Lord.

If a person is sick, or is in a position that doesn't enable, or facilitate baptism, then such persons can be entered into fellowship on the expression of their faith, These are exceptions to the rule. The thief on the cross is an example. Given the opportunity he'd have been baptized.

@ Enigma

If you believe that circumcision and the dietary laws "are very much in place", then you do not really understand the New Testament.

I was joking about circumcision.  It no longer has any spiritual significance. The dietary laws still do, and for all practical purposes make sense. My take on the dietary restrictions is that there had to be a health-related principle behind such. Certainly God is omniscient and must have had a reason for such laws, which was to protect His people.

Today sin has advanced to a much greater extent and the flesh of animals today pose a serious threat to health, much less the ones that were pronounced unclean from day one. So even if we were to follow the dietary principle alone, the benefits would still outweigh the decision not to obey.

So to argue that grace is disrespected because we have continued in the principle of tithing and the dietary laws is not really a strong argument especially as both sets of principles have favoured the SDA church in wonderful ways. The SDA church has been the study among health professionals which have concluded that our lifestyle is a reflection of our teachings, which in turn have borne fruits. We statistically live longer than the average population by an additional 12 years on the average. In most studies they conclude that our biological age is far younger than our chronological age, and all that is due to the reality of our dietary practices.

@ enigma

Fact is you don't even know what you are saying; you don't understand the meaning of "I change not" that you are bandying about! Otherwise, explain why there is no longer a requirement for circumcision; explain why we can now eat "unclean food".

So what about "I change not" that you don't understand?

So why did Paul circumcise Timothy? Paul says there nothing wrong with circumcision.

As far as I am aware the dietary laws are very much in place, but you have succumbed to the false teachings of your organization. There is nothing in the NT that has proven that such laws were annulled. Not one. I challenge you to find one, and if you find something that sounds like it, read it until you get the right understanding. The scriptures that you read were entrusted to the Hebrew people who didn't eat unclean foods, and up until the ascension of Christ, not one of the disciples were told to introduce dietary changes.

Explain why Christ said to the effect: because of your hardness of heart Moses said , but I tell you.

Simple. The people were not spiritually mature enough to have accepted the original plan of God for them. It wasn't God who changed but the people. When Christ came He brought the very same message, but under different circumstances. The law then with its very high standards could not accommadate their spiritual immaturity, and hence their promise to be faithful to God failed.

When Jesus came under the renewed covenant, the agreement was made under different circumstances that included what God and His Son would accomplish if we learn to trust and depend on Him, and to accept His Son as the supreme sacrifice for our sin. Hence the difference in approach between Moses and Christ. And bear in mind also that evreything that Moses taught was sanctioned by God.

Look, it is sheer ignorance, adherence to superstition and suffering from brainwashing (and similar misguidedness) that makes a person keep arguing that "tithing" is a requirement for a Christian. It may be a requirement for prosperity "gospel" followers (since that is another religion/"gospel" altogether) but it is not a requirement for a Christian.

It is a recommendation in my organization and not a requirement. Secondly, it is not to be seen as a requirement for prosperity gospel, because in my denomination no one pastor benefits from all that is collected. As I have said before all our ministers receive the same wage. None of our pastors own a church building as part of his personal property. The wage that each pastor receives is pulled from the treasury that is built up from the tithes of the faithful church members. Its called systematic giving and its collected only once during the divine service. So if a brother makes an increase of $1,000 he or she returns $100 in support of the gospel ministry.

ONCE AGAIN SHOW FROM THE NT THAT TITHING IS ANNULLED.

@Bobbyaf

That’s simply not true, I speak in tongues and I have a loving heart.

I hope so for your sake.

How can you prove that what you speak is the biblical tongue as experienced in the NT church? In addition how do you justify Paul's purpose of tongue speaking as a sign to unbelievers, rather than to believers? If you speak in tongues privately how does that help unbelievers?

I feel no anger towards you or anyone else who disagrees with me on this subject or most others (I would say any other subject but I’m only human). The fact of the matter is that I agree with you in part but not all. I attend a church wherein we pray in tongues but not one where people as you say run around the church and yell and all that. I don’t think I would much like a church where people did not show the proper reverence for the Lord’s house, I have seen people fall down and as you said about women showing their underthings the churches I’ve been to always have little blanket things to cover them so that is never an issue.

I understand you brother, but don't think I am hitting you. Why should there be a need for women to be covered while in the process of speaking in tongues? The fact that a covering has to be thought of and brought into play is itself an issue. Doesn't that say something to you about the whole process? Why should speaking be accompanied by such activities?

The position I have chosen to take is one in which the bible is the standard, and not what a denomination has put in place. If we observe what happened at the day of Pentecost when the gift was first given we can clearly see a vast difference.

1. The disciples were gathered in one place sorting out their differences, until they became united. God's Spirit would not have been given if there was disunity.

2. There was evidence of God's presence. There was a sound of a rushing wind that filled the room, and there was a cloven tongue of fire resting on each person's head.

From all indications the central motif from all of this can be tied into the command that Jesus gave them in Acts 1:8, "But ye shall receive power , after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you : and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem , and in all Judaea , and in Samaria , and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

That central motif was to empower His disciples to witness which would have required breaking all language barriers. Hence the gift of languages. The emphasis was placed on witnessing and not the gift. Who would have been witnessed to? The Jewish people, the Samaritans, and ultimately the gentiles.

However, there are two main things I would like to furtherdiscuses.
1. you said “I am yet to come across any biblical account, or for some one who advocates speaking in tongues to show me just one instance where there was a similar behavior in NT worship sessions, where persons walked and run all over the church building uncontrollably; where women's underwear was exposed; etc.” now we were not there to know just how they acted but on the day of Pentecost in Acts. 2:1-18 in 2:13 it says when referring to the way they were acting in king James

“Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.” In a more modern style it says
“But others in the crowd ridiculed them, saying, "They're just drunk, that's all!" which is much the same as people say about it these days is it not? It goes on to say in Act 2:33 "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he (Jesus Christ) hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." Another account is when Jesus received the Holy Spirit in in Matthew 3:16

The above response has nothing to do with what I asked. Those who mocked were not Christians, but were the very ones who rejected Jesus. No where in Acts 2 does it speak to the level of confusion as seen in typical tarry services in these charismatic churches.

“As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.” There are those who say that like a dove and not as a dove may mean in the way that a dove descends and not in the form or a dove and like the way that lightning descends and not the form of lightning. What does this mean? Have you ever seen a dove descend? They are not the most graceful the flutter about and often hit the ground in a clumsy heap, we all know lightning is sudden flashy and brash. Now I present this more as food for thought than facts but to me this sounds similar to those who convulse with the Holy Ghost.
2. is simple I do not know if Paul would or would not agree with people talking in tongues these days I know that in Acts Peter defended it and many were saved on that day.
I do not think that it is the only sign of having the Holy Spirit I believe most Christian do not speak in tongues that does not mean I think they do not have the Holy Spirit. It is simply the most common sign is all

I am not sure you have grasped the nature of my questions brother. I am not against the gift, but the manner in which it is spoken. I am addressing the theatrics of the process. I am simply saying that if Paul were alive today He'd be against what we call speaking in tongues based on how its done, and especially as it is done in contradiction with what He stipulated in 1 Cor. 14.

In summary the real power lies in the witnessing and not the gift. The true test of conversion is not having the gift, but bearing fruit. See what Paul says in 1 Cor. 13? He makes it clear that no gift can supersede the fruit of love.

Does it matter where I am from? What matters is that you get what I am saying.

@ Dodgur

It sounds to me just as you said, she was most likely possession.  It is not uncommon for those with demons to actively disrupt services I have seen similar things myself.

This is typical of most charismatic denominations. The whole church is speaking something whatever it is, all at once. I have been to their services and witnessed it myself where en block almost all the adult members start shouting and producing explosive sounds until they somehow fall into a trance.

Compare that to how the apostles use to worship. I am yet to come across any biblical account, or for some one who advocates speaking in tongues to show me just one instance where there was a similar behaviour in NT worship sessions, where persons walked and run all over the church building uncontrollably; where women's underwear was exposed; etc.

Simply because the enemy can mimic does not void the truth.

But what is the truth? The truth of the matter is that Paul were he alive would condemn modern-day versions of tongue speaking,  because for one it doesn't build up the church in anyway, unlike prophesying, and 2 it distracts more than anything else from the proper development of the teaching of doctrines. Why do I say that? It leads members into the false perception that tongue-speaking is the only evidence of being filled with God's Holy Spirit. That in and of itself is non-biblical. The true sign of anyone being filled with the Holy Spirit does not rest in exhibiting a gift, but more importantly, the fruit of the Spirit as mentioned by Paul in Gal. 5.

Jesus once said, "by their fruits ye shall know them"

The precondition for also receiving God's Holy Spirit is obedience to God's words. (See Acts 5:32) It cannot be that persons are free to claim gifts as they like, just because they are somehow able to utter sounds. That doesn't cut it. Claiming a gift and having to deal with your brother in a manner that isn't Christlike literally neutralizes such claims. Its pointless when there is no love in those who profess to speak in tongues.

Matthew 7:22 makes that very clear.

@ Dodgur

How do you explain post 276? What spirit did she possess, or should I say what spirit possessed her?

It depends on what you mean by under the law. God's moral law of 10 commandments is different than the Mosaic ceremonial laws. One set was written by His own fingers, and one set was written by Moses. The moral law was placed under the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant, while one set was placed in the pockets of the ark which was on the outside.

However, only God's grace and not the law can save the sinner. The moral law serves as a guide against sin. James describes it as a mirror in which one looks to see one's condition. The apostle Paul says it points out sin in Romans 3. In Romans 7 Paul refers to it as holy, just and good. In verse14 he calls it spiritual.

Its easy to see why persons become a bit confused, because they see the law as one code, and especially as Paul didn't always make a distinction when he spoke negatively about the ceremonial aspects of the law, versus the moral aspects of it.

In essence the law as a word encompasses several codes.

1. The moral decalogue of 10 spiritiual and moral guidlines.

2. The ceremonial laws that served as a type of Christ's ministry

3. The civic laws that dealt with civil relationships and their intricacies.

4. The health and dietary laws.

So, when any apostle spoke of the law he often times wouldn't specify which one unless the reader makes the effort to note the context in which Paul spoke. To read a verse from a chapter and make a definitive statement like we are no longer under law, but grace is a dangerous thing. We aught to be mindful that God's words must be approached prayerfully and respectfully. Due diligence must be given.

Now if there were no 10 guidelines or moral law against sin, then what purpose would grace serve in trying to empower us not to sin. In other words if there were nothing to describe sin and how to avoid it, then why would we need to worry about sinning. Paul says if there is no law there can be no sin. Hence no need for God's empowering grace.

It was God who from the very beginning laid the boundaries, and demarcations. From the beginning He established moral guidelines about what was wrong and right to do.

Has He changed? Absolutely not. That is why Jesus said in Matthew 5 that He came not to destroy God's law of commandments. Notice how Jesus qualified that He was addressing the commandments. He came to fulfill, or establish it.

So fellow Christians pray about it. Ask God to guide you in coming to a better understanding of His words.

@ afiq

Since we are no longer under the Old Testament Law, we are not required to measure out a tenth of everything we earn and pay it to the Church. On the other hand, since everything we have comes from God, and since God has supposedly written His Law on our hearts, we should be quite thoroughly generous.

What is the OT law? You haven't defined it. Tithing started out as a principle of systematic giving, not as a law. Besides, it predated the Mosaic law.

There has never been an obligation for Christian to tithe.

God hasn't changed has He? Still the same. "I am the same I change not, "

The practice is rooted in the Old Testament laws. It's not a bad thing by any means, but neither is it a moral imperative.

Please make up your mind. If it is not bad it is good. There is no in-between. If it were not a moral imperative God would not have accused His people of being thieves for withholding the tithes.

What the Church does mandate (which is one of the five precepts of the Church) is that we "help to provide for the needs of the Church". The Church does not give a percentage and does not state that such provisions must be monetary.

What you fail to understand is that what ancient Israel failed to have accomplished modern Israel is called to do today. Because the priests were not allowed to work for a living outside of temple services, the tithing was the only way they would have been maintained. Any time the wilderness church failed to live up to the principle of systematic giving, the priests were forced to fend for a living which led to the spiritual downfall of the commonwealth of Israel. Hence God's continuous appeal for all the tithes to be brought into His "storehouse"

If modern pastors implement such a system today what a huge difference it would make. The greed that comes with "any old thing" will become a thing of the past. In my denomination all our pastors get the same pay from a treasury that is built up from the collection of tithes. None of our pastors own a building, and they are rotated in order to build a relationship with as many members as possible over the tenure of their service until they are retired from ministry.

Here lies a principle that has helped my denomination to become one of the more successful organizations in terms of money management. If its not a bad thing then why not try it. There is no room for failure if and when you try it.

It is often the case (at least speaking from personal experience) that we can give more than we think we can. But even so, that doesn't mean we all have to give 10%. The Church does need money to operate, but it certainly needs much more than just money.

The tithing is different from the offerings which are called free-willed offerings. These go towards church bills. The tithing is holy unto the Lord. Its use entails the support of the gospel ministry which includes those teachers who embrace Christian education as their calling.


All those Tele-Evangelists will do well to have a system as this. It will help them to avoid money scandals.

Pat Robertson needs to apologize to the Haitian people. He is out of order. He has no right to sit in judgment as if he has no sins that he needs to confess.

I once attended a church service in which there was this visitor from another church. While the pastor spoke she got up to dance and utter some sort of babbling. The pastor implored her to desist from disturbing the service and after she continued she was physically removed by the deacons and elders.

Guess what happened? Mark you she was waving in the "Spirit" before. As far as she was concerned she was led to speak. Listen folks, that same lady who had recently "spoken in tongues" came back to the service with a knife and the words which came from her mouth were as foul as what would come from demonic forces.

My question to all those advocates of confusion is this? How do you explain that drift from "tongue speaking" to demonic influence?

The same thing was said about Jesus when he spoke the truth. Am I surprised that you'd have made such remarks? Naaaah!

God was a black man?

What a joke!

Don't spoil the party now,mazaje.Let us just take the story at face value so that we can really have a go at this "loving" god religious folks want to spend a whole eternity kissing his backside.

And yet you say He isn't loving! My my!

I will not educate you on the history of religion.

Just do it for the fun of it.

Christianity started in africa because your so called middle east was actually part of africa especially egypt and isreal.

So why is it called the Middle east then? And how far is Egypt from Jerusalem? And why is it that no African language is spoken in Jerusalem? Why Hebrew?

The original bible said Jesus had kinky wool hair like blacks.

If you're referring to His hair being like wool, as mentioned in Revelation then isn't it supposed to be white as well?

Slowly the bible has been written to take out the powerfull rituals performed by these prophets to benefit the few. Do you know the picture of White Jesus subconciously programs blacks to accept whites as superior. More to come!

That is why I said He isn't white, but He is certainly not black either.

Christianity started in the Middle East, and not Africa. Second point Jesus wasn't black or white. He bore a hue complexion. More like president Obama, lol

@bobbyaf
If you child says to you one day that she does not share your religious beliefs, do you think it would be justified for her to be tortured in hell?

Its not about having religious disagreements my friend. Hell fire is for those who have rejected God and His cause on earth. God is fair in that He gives everyone a chance to hear the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. For those who haven't heard it He will judge them according to their conscience.

That is why the judgment will precede the punishment. Everyone will be judged fairly. So when Jesus returns the second time He will be coming with a reward to give everyone based on his or her works. In heaven before Jesus' second return God would have decided based on that fair judgment who is fit for heaven, and who is fit for hell.

Revelation 22:11,12 say, "11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. 12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be."

This reward is like a verdict which can only come after the cases have been tried based on evidence. Our lives become the evidence. Our choices become the evidence. Everything we think, say or do is recorded in the books of heaven.

And guess what the very wicked after they see how fair God is, will confess with their mouths that what they are about to experience is just. The wicked will now see that whatever God metes out to them is indeed fair, because they will remember every opportunity that was wasted to do good, and was not utilised.

Do you have any proof? And please, don't go quoting your religious manual/bible to me.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters."
It's an oral history. It was passed down, word-of-mouth, father to son, from Adam to Seth, from Seth to Enos, from Enos to Cainan, for 40 generations, a growing, changing, story, it was handed down, word-of-mouth, father to son. Until Moses finally gets it down on lambskin. But lambskins wear out, and need to be recopied. Copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of an oral history passed down through 40 generations.
From Hebrew it's translated into Arabic, from Arabic to Latin, from Latin to Greek, from Greek to Russian, from Russian to German, from German to an old form of English that you could not read. Through 400 years of evolution of the English language to the book we have today, which is: a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of an oral history passed down through 40 generations.
You can't put a grocery list through that many translations, copies, and re-telling, and not expect to have some big changes in the dinner menu when the kids make it back from Kroger.

Of course you're assuming that major errors were made. As humans we will make error including translational errors, but are the errors enough to totally obliterate the truth that was there from the beginning? Besides, if man is capable of inventing the incredible, then it becomes a simple matter for him to work around those errors, which we have been doing.

Do you think God can be taken by surprise? He anticipated human errors in preserving His original writings, and that is why He sent His greatest revelation since, being in the form of His Son. No one can deny He came and started a movement that has spread to every nation, tribe and tongue. History confirms it, and so we believe it.

@ Mantrea

Would you ever send someone you love deeply like your children or you mother to hell to be tortured, suffer and burn for all eternity?
If you would that is not love.
If hell exists you wouldn't send your children there, so how can god send his children there if he loves them?

It makes no sense at all, which is why i think hell is a fictitional barbaric medievel place created by christians to control using fear and superstition.

I understand how people who are superstitious by nature can be taken in by it all. It takes a long time for a believer to realise they have been duped since childhood.

Hell isn't everlasting but sending the wicked to hell is justified. Originally hell fire was meant for the devil and his angels, but if people choose to follow the devil then they too will feel the heat.

It makes no sense to you because you do not believe God's words, and secondly you choose not to understand spiritual things. You're not fooling anyone but yourself, and you're certainly not fooling God.

The word "hell" is used 54 times in the Bible, and in only 12 cases does it refer to "a place of burning." The word "hell" is translated from several different words with various meanings, as indicated below:

IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
31 times from "Sheol," which means "the grave."

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
10 times from "Hades," which means "the grave."
12 times from "Gehenna," which means "the place of burning."
1 time from "Tartarus," which means "a place of darkness."
54 TIMES TOTAL

The Greek word "Gehenna" mentioned above is a transliteration of the Hebrew "Ge-Hinnom," which means the "Valley of Hinnom." This valley, which lies immediately south and west of Jerusalem, was a place where dead animals, garbage, and other refuse were dumped. Fire burned constantly, as it does at modern sanitation dump sites. The Bible uses "Gehenna" or the "Valley of Hinnom" as a symbol of the fire that will destroy the lost at the end of time. The fire of Gehenna was not unending. Otherwise it would be still burning southwest of Jerusalem today. Neither will the fire of hell be unending. It will end after everything would have been burnt, and there is nothing left to be burnt.

An eternal hell of torment would perpetuate sin and make its eradication impossible. An eternal hell of torment is not part of God's great plan at all. Such a horrible theory is slander against the holy name of a loving God. The devil delights to see our loving Creator pictured as such a monstrous tyrant, and he alone can benefit from such teachings.

Think about it for awhile. As long as that fire continues to burn the New heaven and new earth that God has promised to recreate will not happen. God could not make a new heaven and a new earth while the earth is burning. So from a logical point of view the theory doesn't make sense.

bobby!!bobby!!

open your eyes ,stop wasting your money on criminals who call themselves men of God.

If Paul could succeed on his missionary activities without tithing I wonder who won't.

The fear that christianity will fail without tithing is misplaced,if It survived for more than

500 years without tithing ,it will always survive.


People should be encouraged to donate to the church of their own freewill,it is only

criminals who are in the church for pecuniary reasons will insist on tithing.

If JESUS ,while phyically here on earth did not receive tithes I wonder why he would

ask anyone to receive tithes on his behalf now that he is in heaven

There is no instruction left by Jesus for anyone to receive tithes on his behalf either in

the bible or by way of oral tradition,it is a heresy strauight from the pit of hell

So what you're saying is that Jesus encouraged criminals when He encouraged them to contend with both the weightier as well as the lighter aspect of what is and was required.

Stop using Paul as an example because he is not my example, nor is he my guide. The eccentric Paul was his own individual, and often times expressed idealisms about how stuff should be done.

Its strange how Peter doesn't come into the picture.

The issue of the sabbath is an issue for another day.

Its very much related since both are seen as being under the Mosaic law.

The thing here is those who tithe are of two groups:
- those who tithe according to the law; who expect blessings for it according to the law and believe that others who don't tithe are wrong and are robbing God.

- those who out of love for God and his creation, decide of their own volition to give 10% of their income to meeting needs of the people and that is all the motivation behind their giving of the tithe.

I am not here to judge, but to promote. True tithers have reaped God's blessings, and can testify to that. Besides, Its God who has said that those who don't tithe are robbers, not me.

I believe in the bible not just the NT.  "All scripture is given by inspiration and is, "

Logical fallacy you are comparing oranges to apples i.e parents to god. God created a flawed being intentionally and then punished it for being flawed.

If they were flawed then He could not have blamed them, but they had a choice to obey His commands, just like how children have a choice in either obeying or disobeying.

Did God give us free will ? When ?

Are you saying you do not have free will?

Its the same issue of why some Christians keep Sunday rather than the true Lord's day, isn't it? Is it the same misinterpretation of the Pauline writings that have led to such spiritual confusion?

People use the so-called abolishing of the law as an argument for not keeping the 7th-Day Sabbath, when in truth and in fact Paul kept the sabbath the way it should have been kept without having to emphasize it, and that is because it was already a given. Everybody kept it.

The same applies to the tithes. What the NT doesn't isolate as legalistic, or an act that insults God's grace, let it be. Its not like its posing a problem to any organization that practises it.

Tithers do not have a problem, so do not create one for us.

We already know where evil comes from, its gods will. If it is not his will then why does he allow it to happen ?

If a child chooses to disobey its parent's rules, will it be fair to say its the parent's will? How does God having to know that the first humans would eventually sin, have to do with His character? The fact is His knowing didn't affect their choice.

You cannot expect God on the one hand to give us freedom of will, and choice, and not integrate the risk factor of the consequences of failure to obey.

I mean God could have created robots if He so desired, but how would we show love freely if not by choice? Love for God has to be part of that choice.

Rather than create Automotons, God was prepared to take the risk of allowing evil to manifest itself.