Dear Kathy,
Since you graciously agreed (in our recent conversation) to let me present you with some examples of the Bible’s problems, I decided to do it in this way so it would have its own comment thread. As I’ve said, when I was a Christian, one strike against the Bible was not enough to shake my faith — maybe it only seemed problematic, maybe there was an explanation we hadn’t uncovered yet, maybe the historical accounts were wrong, etc. But as the problems began to mount up, I reached a point where I could no longer deny the fact that the Bible had actual errors.
A couple of suggestions before we begin. Try to be as open-minded about this as possible. As you go through these examples, ask yourself if God would allow such problems to exist in a message that he wanted all people to accept and believe? According to the Bible, whenever God sent someone a message, whether it was Pharaoh or Gideon or Nebuchadnezzar or Paul, they had no question whom it was from. They didn’t always follow it, as we see with people like Pharaoh and Solomon, but they didn’t question the source of the message or what it stated. So why would God operate differently today? Why would he want us to be so confused about his message that we’re able to question whether or not it’s really from him?
Another thing to keep in mind is that even if you come to the conclusion that the Bible has actual problems, that doesn’t mean you have to stop believing in God. There are a number of Christians who don’t believe in inerrancy. And even if you lose faith in the Christian god, that still doesn’t mean you have to stop believing in God. A number of people, including several of our founding fathers, were deists. I have a lot of sympathy for that view and plan to do a post on it soon.
Some of the items listed here will have links that provide additional information, especially when the issue is too detailed to list here. I hope that you’ll check out those links, since some of them are quite significant points. And regardless of how this article strikes you, I hope it will help serve as a great springboard to launch you into your own research.
Some of the Problems
Creation
The creation accounts in Genesis do not match what we’ve learned through science. This isn’t shocking news, but it bears looking into. Evolution and the Big Bang Theory had nothing to do with my deconversion, but I’ve learned more about both since leaving Christianity. It’s shocking how much misinformation I had been operating under. Not to say that all Christians are that way — that was simply my experience. But the evidence for both evolution and the Big Bang are far more substantial than I had ever realized. Two good resources for learning more about these issues are the following (though I’d also recommend checking out the recent Cosmos series, as well as some of the PBS NOVA specials):
Another problem with the creation accounts is that Genesis 1 says that plants and trees were made on the 3rd day, while man was made on the 6th. But Genesis 2:5-9 says that man was created before there were any plants or trees in the land. Also, the 1st chapter says that man was created after all the animals, but the 2nd chapter implies that it was the other way around. It seems strange that such discrepancies would exist only a chapter apart, but there are a number of textual clues that suggest the first 5 books of the Bible were assembled over a long period of time from various writings written by a number of different people. Many scholars believe that Genesis 1 and 2 represent two separate versions of the creation story that were both included because the compilers didn’t know which was more accurate. Whatever the reason, there’s no question that the differences exist and are hard to explain.
10 Plagues
During the 10 plagues, God afflicts all of Egypt’s livestock with a disease (Ex 9:1-7), and it specifies that it would affect the “horses, the donkeys, the camels, the herds, and the flocks.” We’re told that all of Egypt’s livestock died. But the later plague of boils was said to affect both man and beast (verse 10 of chapter 9). Maybe it meant non-livestock animals. But Ex 11:5 says that the death of the firstborn would also affect Egypt’s cattle, and in Exodus 14, Pharaoh pursues the Israelites with horses.
Hares Chew the Cud
Leviticus 11:6 tells us that hares chew the cud. They do not. Animals that chew the cud are called ruminants. When they eat plant matter, it goes to their first stomach to soften, and then it’s regurgitated to their mouth. They spend time re-chewing it, and then it is swallowed and fully digested. Ruminants (cows, sheep, goats, etc.) are recognizable because their chewing of the cud is very obvious. Hares (rabbits) don’t chew the cud; however, their mouths do move frequently, so it’s possible to see why some people may have assumed that they do chew the cud. Of course, God would know they didn’t, and this is why the passage is problematic. You can read more about this here.
Arphaxad
In the genealogy given in Genesis 11:10-12, we see that Noah fathered Shem and Shem fathered Arphaxad. At the age of 35, Arphaxad fathered Shelah. This information is confirmed in 1 Chron 1:18. But Luke 3:35-36 tells us that Arphaxad’s son was Cainan, and he was the father of Shelah.
Where does Luke get this information? It disagrees with the Old Testament, so who should we believe? Some have suggested that Genesis and 1 Chronicles simply left out Cainan for some reason. But why would they do that? To further complicate it, how could Cainan have fit in there? Genesis tells us that Arphaxad was 35 when he fathered Shelah. Does it really seem likely that Arphaxad became a grandfather by 35, especially when you consider the extreme old ages that people lived to at that time?
Another explanation is that some copyist messed up when copying Luke and Cainan is just a mistake. But this is not much better. First of all, the error would have needed to occur early for it to be in all our copies of Luke. Secondly, are we really comfortable saying that we have the inspired word of our creator, but it got messed up by some guy who wasn’t paying close attention? To me, that doesn’t lend a lot of credence to the idea of inspiration or inerrancy.
Instead, the most likely explanation is that Luke made a mistake. This, of course, would indicate that he was not inspired.
Problems in the Book of Daniel
In Daniel 5, the writer refers to Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar 7 different times. Yet we know from multiple contemporary sources that Belshazzar’s father was Nabonidus, who was not related to Nebuchadnezzar. The same chapter says that Darius the Mede took over Babylon, but this person does not seem to have ever existed. Daniel says that he was the son of Ahaseurus, and in mentioning this, the author of Daniel indicates that he was thinking of a later ruler — the persian emperor Darius the Great, whose son was Ahaseurus. This post in particular goes into the problems surrounding the 5th chapter, but if you’d like to learn about the problems in the rest of the book, you can access each article in the series here.
Jairus’s Daughter
In Mark 5:23, Jairus finds Jesus and says that his daughter is at the point of death. While they’re on their way to the house, some of his servants find them on the way and say that she has died and there’s no point in troubling Jesus further.
However, in Matthew 9:18, Jairus already knows that his daughter has died, but tells Jesus that if he’ll lay his hands on her, she’ll live. This may seem like a minor difference, but honestly, there’s only one scenario that could be true. Either the girl was already dead, or she wasn’t. And if Jairus already knew she was dead, then there was no point in his servants coming to tell him that (so of course, they don’t appear in Matthew’s account).
The Centurion
This is similar to the previous issue. Matthew and Luke both record a centurion who asks Jesus to heal his sick servant. Matthew 8:5-13 says that the centurion himself comes before Jesus to ask for help. Luke 7:1-10 says that the Jewish elders went on his behalf, and then he sent servants to follow up. In Luke, Jesus never speaks to, or even sees, the centurion at all.
Hight Priest
In Mark 2:23-28, Jesus talks about the occasion from the Old Testament when David ate the showbread, which Jesus said was in the days of Abiathar the high priest. However, in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, it appears that Ahimelech was the high priest. Some have tried to answer this problem by saying that Abiathar was alive during that particular episode, so Jesus’ statement is still true. But that’s obviously not the intent of the passage. After all, we would correct anyone who said that the tragedy of 9/11 occurred during the days of President Barack Obama. He may have been alive at the time, but that event did not happen while he was President.
430 Years
Galatians 3:16-17 says this:
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
Here, Paul says that the law came 430 years after the promises were made to Abraham. But in Exodus 12:40-41, we see:
Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the LORD’s divisions left Egypt.
If the Israelites were in Egypt 430 years, then there could not have been 430 years between Abraham’s promises and the law. God made the promises to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3, and as we read on through Genesis, we see that Abraham had no children at this time. Later, he had a son named Isaac. When Isaac was 60 years old, he had Jacob (Gen 25:24-26), and Jacob had 12 sons that produced the 12 tribes of Israel. Already, we can see that some time has passed since Abraham received the promise. Once Jacob’s sons were all grown with families of their own, they finally settled in Egypt. Jacob was 130 years old at this time (Gen 47:9), and this marks the beginning of that 430 year period that the Israelites spent in Egypt.
That means that the time between the promise to Abraham and the giving of the law was actually over 600 years. So why did Paul say 430 years? I think it’s obvious that this was a simple mistake. He remembered the 430 year figure because that’s how much time the Israelites spent in Egypt, and so he simply misspoke. It’s not a big deal… except that he’s supposed to be inspired by God.
Jesus’ Birth
There are a number of issues surrounding Jesus’ birth. First, Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts contradict one another on virtually all the details, which you can read about here. Secondly, Matthew seems to invent an episode where Herod kills all the children in Bethlehem who are 2 and under, causing Mary, Joseph, and Jesus to flee to Egypt (instead of just returning home to Nazareth, because only Luke says that they started in Nazareth). Matthew does this in order to “fulfill” some Old Testament passages that actually have nothing to do with Jesus or killing babies. You can read about Matthew’s misuse of the Old Testament here — it’s quite blatant.
The Virgin Birth is one of the most famous aspects of Jesus’ story, and it was supposedly done in fulfillment of a prophecy from Isaiah. But it turns out that Isaiah was prophesying no such thing — he was talking about an event that was happening in his own time, and Matthew (once again) just appropriated the “prophecy” for his own devices. You can read all the details here.
Another problem concerning Jesus’ birth narratives is that Matthew and Luke both offer genealogies for Jesus, but they are completely different from one another. Worse, they don’t match the genealogies listed in the Old Testament, either. And Matthew claims that there was a pattern in the number of generations between Abraham and David, between David and the Babylonian captivity, and between the Babylonian captivity and Christ. But to get this neat division, he is forced to leave out some names. In other words, that pattern didn’t happen. You can read more about that here.
The Triumphal Entry
While not as blatant as most of these other issues, when Matthew recounts Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, he once again borrows from the Old Testament, but seems to make a mistake in his implementation. See here for more info.
Judas’ Death
Judas is well known for being the disciple that betrayed Jesus, but what’s not as well known is there are two different accounts of his death, and it’s very hard to reconcile them. According to Matthew, Judas threw his money down at the chief priests’ feet and went out and hanged himself. We’re not told where he did this. The priests then take the money, and instead of putting it back in the treasury (since it’s blood money), they buy a field to use for burying strangers. Because they bought the field with this money, it’s called the “Field of Blood.”
According to Acts, Judas bought a field with his money (we’re not told that he was remorseful), and he somehow fell down, bursting open in the middle and bleeding to death. The field was called “Field of Blood” after that because of the manner in which Judas died.
To make things more complicated, Matthew (of course) says that this happened in accordance with Jeremiah’s prophecy, but there’s nothing in Jeremiah that matches up. The closest reference comes from Zechariah, not Jeremiah.
These issues really complicate the notion of divine inspiration, and you can read more about them here.
The Crucifixion
There are several big problems with the way the gospels record the events of Jesus’ death, including the fact that different times of day are given for it, and even different days altogether. You can read more about this here.
The Resurrection
There are also a number of problems concerning the resurrection, some minor, some major. They’re too involved to get into here, but you can read all about them here and here.
The Problem of Hell
The notion of Hell is fraught with problems. It might even surprise you to learn that the Bible’s teachings on the afterlife change dramatically between the Old and New Testaments. I go into detail about Hell’s problems here, here, and here.
The Problem of Evil
Another huge problem for Christianity is the problem of evil, which I talk about here. This post also addresses the “problem of Heaven.”
The Bible’s Morality
While a number of people believe that the Christian god is the source of all morality, the Bible is actually filled with some monstrous acts that are either commanded by God, done with his consent, or carried out by him directly. I talk about some specific examples here, and I address some of the common responses to them here.
Conclusion
Kathy, there are a number of other examples that could be given, including the prophecy of Tyre that we’ve been discussing. But to me, these are some of the most significant and clear-cut problems. We could try to manufacture explanations for every one of these — some might be more believable than others. But why should we have to? If a perfect God inspired this book, why should it contain so many discrepancies? And honestly, some of these issues can’t be explained. They’re just wrong. The problems go well beyond internal contradictions and unfulfilled prophecies. There are problems of authorship, problems with the doctrines, and problems with the way the texts were written, transcribed, and compiled.
I’m sure you’ve spent your time as a Christian trying to reach those who are lost. You’ve always believed that Christianity is truth, and it’s the one thing that everyone needs. But could it be that Christianity is just as false as every other religion in the world? And if that’s the case, wouldn’t you want to leave it behind? When one is dedicated to finding truth, they have to be prepared to follow it wherever it leads. It’s not always easy or popular. It’s not even a guarantee that you’re right. All it means is that you follow the evidence where it leads to the best of your ability. If you find out that you’re wrong about something, you adjust course when the evidence dictates. If God exists, and if he’s righteous, what more could he ask for than that? I’ll close with my favorite quote:
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
— Marcus Aurelius
Finding Truth 
“It is imaginary. A figment. How does anyone hate something that is not real? Are you nuts?”
Do I have to spell it out who I was saying was nuts? 🙂 I love these hate filled invectives in defense of not being hateful.
They are like those Matlock or Perry mason court rooms shows where in the end the guilty party barfs out to the whole court room “he had it coming (With glaring eyes no less). I should have had that car. She should have loved meeeeee ” and reveals himself to the jury.
a little predictable and too easy but apparently it happens in real life as you have revealed. Go figure.
LikeLike
No, Mike. What It means is simply this: real live qualified professional secular scientists have been doing their job for decades, have had their work ripped to pieces, scrutinised, evaluated, turned upside down and inside out by their peers and the overwhelming consensus based on all the evidence is that the biblical claims are simply fallacious.
And based on this, I am prepared to side with these people and give theor verdict the nod.
If Kitchen can top this then I’ll listen.
Until then, you feel free to side with your god inspired book. Good for you.
And the world will wave you bye bye while you screw up your eyes and pray ’til they bleed.
LikeLike
Nate, you said:
“Two good resources for learning more about these issues are the following (though I’d also recommend checking out the recent Cosmos series, as well as some of the PBS NOVA specials)….”
I did watch the Cosmos series.. I enjoyed it a lot except for the attacks on Christians / God.
It was extremely fascinating to see how God made it all.
I tried to get Neil Tyson to respond to me on twitter with a couple of questions.. he didn’t but perfectly understandable, he gets a lot of tweets… he’s like a rock star among the young and naïve .. and all atheists pretty much.. actually it seems like he is their “savior”.. it’s truly sad.
In the series, one thing he stated several times and which atheists just loved.. was the statement “we are made of star stuff”…
well, in the Huffpo article I linked, it stated that only 1 thing in the Genesis account was scientifically wrong.. (not counting the 2 in the incorrect order based on scientific belief today).. and that is..
“One is scientifically wrong: the creation of man.”
Genesis 2: 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground ..”
BUT.. this one is now ALSO correct….according to Neil Tyson who says.. we are made of “star stuff”.. aka star DUST.
Pretty amazing how RIGHT those “goat herders” got it..
LikeLike
“and the overwhelming consensus based on all the evidence is that the biblical claims are simply fallacious.”
There ya go……..almost there ark…Now what was all this primary evidence? and Umm no word yet on whether the finding truth approved wikipedia was right about there being problems with egyptian chronology?. In fact If we used Adobe audition and filtered out the hand waving and foaming at the mouth theres only one other sound on the tape in regard to that
Crickets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_chronology
LikeLike
Mike, it is painfully obvious that your duck and dive tactics are clear to all that you have no intention of offering up even one scrap of supposed evidence of your claims of an alternate Egyptian chronology and one wonders what point you are trying to establish if you are not prepared to even offer up a single professional archaeologist/egyptologist to help make your case.
Also, you don;t seem even in the slightest bit interested in at least making an effort to engage regarding the Exodus and related history other than to espouse biblical influenced polemic and nonsensical diatribe.
Believe it or not, most people on this thread would be genuinely interested in reading up on anything pertaining to the Exodus etc that offered a meaningful and scientific challenge to the established norm.
If Finkelstein et al have been digging in the wrong place based on incorrect dating then surely those archaeologists/egyptologists you believe must have at least some evidence to back what they say?
If we are Not talking about Kitchen etc then I for one am very interested to read up on what other professionals have to say on these matters and would truly welcome a link or reference if you have them?
I still think you are a plonker regarding your religion, but don’t take that personally, it’s just the way you were brought up. Probably not even your fault. So maybe I might reconsider if you’ve got something for me to look at re: The Exodus.
What say you?
LikeLike
Oh, and I read the link the first time you posted it.
It is in dispute. Even Kitchen’s references and the volcano thing is in dispute.
But ALL THIS ASIDE there is still no evidence as per the biblical tale. NONE.
So, no matter what the problems are with the dating – if in fact there are – there would be no evidence to back the biblical tale – and I am assuming Kitchen has looked, yes?
Please tell me he has at least got a team together and he’s gone out to the bloody Sinai and made an effort?
Please tell me he has trawled through Hieroglyphics and other ancient Egyptian sources and has something that has set him off on this alternate chronology quest?
He has right? He’s not just assuming the biblical story is real and gone off half-cocked based on the bloody bible?
LikeLike
Oh, and MIke. Rohl, Courville and Veilkorvsky. Really?
LikeLike
Gosh, Kathy, I am SO sorry that Neil Tyson didn’t come out and play your silly little game with you, but my guess is he’s too busy bringing knowledge into the world to have time for your nonsense. But I’ll try and help you out – had he done so, he likely would only have repeated what he’s already said:
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, that gets smaller and smaller as time goes on.”
— Neil Degrasse Tyson —
You can still climb out of that pocket, Kathy – it’s too late for Mike, but you still have time.
LikeLike
Kathy, I can agree with your definition for objective. But I also feel it includes many of the synonyms I mentioned. When a person feels strongly about an issue, it is very difficult (even impossible for some) not to be “uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.” This is not saying it can’t be done (witness debates between Craig and Ehrman), but it IS difficult — especially when focused on religion and/or politics. Why? Because most people have very strong feelings about these issues and few have the temperament to remain totally unaffected.
Please understand. I am not attacking you. My original comment was merely to point out how difficult it can be to see both sides of an issue when most of the research has been done from primarily one perspective.
Re: “liberals” and “conservatives” — not sure why this hit a chord with you. I’m just saying it’s unfair to say that conservatives (who generally support bible-based ethics) are the only ones who have the right outlook.
Hope that clears up things.
LikeLike
You all are guilty of the unpardonable sin
You all are boring me
with your excuses as to why you can’t put up any evidence besides appeals to authority. because obviously you don’t know what the evidence is and just go by consensus of your skeptic archaeologists
“Oh, and I read the link the first time you posted it.
It is in dispute. Even Kitchen’s references and the volcano thing is in dispute.”
Not quoted for kitchen but for the fact which is not in dispute that there are issues
LikeLike
Here Kathy, maybe this will be of benefit to you, IF you’re willing to pursue it —
LikeLike
Yet MORE information, of which Kathy will not avail herself because it does not confirm her bias.
LikeLike
arch, your 2nd link is broken.
(I just stopped in. Note to self: do not subscribe to this thread…)
LikeLike
Nan, you said:
“Kathy, I can agree with your definition for objective. But I also feel it includes many of the synonyms I mentioned. When a person feels strongly about an issue, it is very difficult (even impossible for some) not to be “uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.” This is not saying it can’t be done (witness debates between Craig and Ehrman), but it IS difficult — especially when focused on religion and/or politics. Why? Because most people have very strong feelings about these issues and few have the temperament to remain totally unaffected.”
I’m not sure why you are explaining this to me.. I agree with you that people have biases and that it is a challenge to overcome them.
I also agree that objectivity includes learning about opposing views.. which I explained that I DO learn about opposing views.
I also never said that liberals don’t adhere to some good views/ beliefs.. like helping the poor.
What I tried to explain is my definition of a liberal, which you had asked me for. I told you it was anyone who adhered to views that were not in line with God’s will :
You asked: What exactly are the “liberal” beliefs that you see contradict the bible’s teachings?
Me: Nan, all liberal beliefs that conservatives don’t agree with are the beliefs I refer to. Abortion, gay marriage are 2 major examples.. another is support of political policies that strip away freedoms.
You: “Liberals” also believe in helping the less fortunate (something the BIBLE teaches). IMO, believers tend to focus primarily on the issues you mentioned and fail to see that many of the core beliefs of liberals are much more bible-focused than conservatives care to admit.
Then I accused you of implying that conservatives don’t believe in helping the less fortunate.
I’m more confused than ever.. possibly I misread your meaning. I apologize if I did. It’s just that you had already made several incorrect assumptions and this one really jumped out at me as yet another.. partly because liberals mostly DO like to claim that conservatives don’t care about the poor. And it’s not only not true, but conservatives help more than liberals overall.
Also, I wanted to address this part of your comment.. ”
IMO, believers tend to focus primarily on the issues you mentioned and fail to see that many of the core beliefs of liberals are much more bible-focused than conservatives care to admit.”
1st, this further bolstered my interpretation of your comment… that conservatives are uncaring.. and again, it’s just not true, if it were, conservatives wouldn’t be helping the needy more than liberals. 2nd, believer’s primary focus is on doing God’s will.. which includes MANY different things/ issues… but it seems to me that liberals get hung up on those 2 things most of all just because we voice our beliefs that they are wrong.
So, to summarize, you asked what liberal beliefs conflicted with Bible teachings.. I responded all liberal beliefs that conservatives don’t agree with like abortion and gay marriage… and then it just got confusing from there. But that’s ok.. I don’t feel like you are attacking me.. I just feel like you are making incorrect assumptions about my objectivity. You (and Nate) REALLY want me to read material you feel strongly supports your beliefs because you are so sure that your beliefs are correct and I’ll see that if I know what you know.. ok.. BUT, I would ALSO ask that you do the very same thing.. and that doesn’t mean reading the Bible, which I’m sure you have.. it would mean reading Billy Graham maybe.. and watching Charles Stanley’s sermons that are available on line.. http://www.intouch.org/ I watch him every sunday and I always think just as you do.. if atheists saw this, they’d be convinced. So, I’m game.. I just ask for equal time.
But please don’t think I’m not objective.. again, I learn about opposing views in nearly every debate I have with atheists.. I have to learn about it in order to debate it.. it’s not that i’m not aware of the arguments.. it’s that I’ve heard them and I’ve rejected them.. just as I’m sure you have with believer’s arguments.. the ONLY way to sort through it is to have debates.. AND to do our best to apply objectivity WHILE we are debating.
Nate: I’ll even consider reading Ehrman if you can convince me that he is different from the hundreds of other authors out there.. I’m looking for objectivity.. otherwise it’s nothing but an indoctrination session.. and I’m just not interested in that. Kind of like Arch’s latest links that supposedly will “enlighten me”.. lol.. hilarious. Just not interested in atheist propaganda, Arch.
LikeLike
Just wondering what atheists here think about Meriam Ibrahim’s story. She was sentenced to death by hanging.. after receiving 100 lashings.. because she refused to deny her Christian faith. She is a physician.. obviously an intelligent educated woman.. what could cause her to refuse to say those few words that would spare her from torture and death??
LikeLike
Mike you wrote:
“You all are guilty of the unpardonable sin
You all are boring me
with your excuses as to why you can’t put up any evidence besides appeals to authority. because obviously you don’t know what the evidence is and just go by consensus of your skeptic archaeologists”
Man how can you use unpardonable sin and boring me in the same sentence?
This is what I don’t get.
People believe that others are going to Hell, that they are to be tormented forever in darkness and worms….or destroyed while others are in Gods kingdom….
Its like the torment of those who your engaging with is just a secondary thing.
Dude, if people are eternally to be tormented in the flames of Hell..this is horrible news…
But you seem to be saying:
“ah well, your all screwed…not me however…and I’m bored….”
This everlasting Hell people you have said people are going to sure doesn’t sit well with me.
LikeLike
“what could cause her to refuse to say those few words that would spare her from torture and death??”
Answers: God, faith
But also: The fear that denying the faith would send her to eternal hell….
LikeLike
Mike, the more I have branched out and shared time with people of different faiths. The harder I find it to see you God would send these people to Hell for their efforts to follow what they see as the truth. These people I know are beautiful, caring and considerate.
They have different needs, hopes and fears.. just like Christians.
I don’t understand why a Creator would cast them away from Him. well I do understand, since all people are guilty according to the Bible.
But I believe God knows each one of our hearts. He has to be just doesn’t He? He created these beautiful people I know….He knows them better than I do. And He must love them more than I do….
LikeLike
And I love them, and I would never want them to be placed in darkness….God is love. So His love must be greater than mine.
LikeLike
@Ratamacue0 – thanks for pointing that out, let’s try it again —
LikeLike
RE: “Just not interested in atheist propaganda, Arch.” – yet another tribute to the openess of your mind.
LikeLike
RE: “what could cause her to refuse to say those few words that would spare her from torture and death??” – fear of being burned in Hell for eternity by a petty, vengeful god.
LikeLike
Oh, BTW Kathy, you DO know she was freed, don’t you –?
LikeLike
@Kathy – speaking of the “freedoms” you claim atheist Liberals are trying to destroy, is this what you mean? From a very interesting article:
“Increasingly, the solution on the Right is to redefine “religious freedom” so that it means its exact opposite. ‘Religious freedom’ has turned into conservative code for imposing the Christian faith on the non-believers.“
LikeLike
Here’s something Kathy, which I’ve little doubt will go right over your head, but hey – I gotta try —
It applies to a woman, too.
LikeLike