Jesus Immoral ?

I read your statement and was amazed. I never heard of Jesus preaching hatred ever. First, I would like to say that I hate religion including christianity (I was born catholic which means that you hate me, right?). Both the old and new testaments were written by humans with selfish reasons. The old testament describes an evil god who hates and mindgames humanity similarly to greek mythology. the gods did not respect mortals, just like “our” god laughs and mocks humanity. in the old testament, god was a murderer and mindgamed everyone. he was a scum. and, now, you read some obscure passage and pawn it off as christians are stupid because jesus said this or that? Your god from the old testament was the biggest bastard so dont go pawning off our ignorance of other religions. Your god is worse than all the other gods described in scripture. have a nice time admiring a god who kills people to prove to the devil that he can. nice god there, sweetie.

No, the Lord lifted up his protection from Job’s household…And Satan took advantage of this by killing everyone except Job, but Job did not sin. God restored everything he had lost by twofold and then some.

Satan sinned against God and is condemned at the end of the world to hell for all eternity. Hence Satan continues to deceive people even today and tries to make people sin so that they are also condemned to hell. because of sin, people suffer.

God loves each and every one of us. But He expects us to do something about the problems in the world, by being a blessing to others.

In fact, in the actual Jewish interpretation of the Bible, even sickness is translated as ‘evil’ because all sickness is caused by the evil one.

Why is the Bible the only book where the only choices that you have is to accept all of it, or none of it?

because shakespeare didnt influence laws, people didnt die because of what he said, wars werent started based on his words, and people didnt claim to have moral superiority based on his words… you cant claim something is a sin based on a book, and then interpret other things to your liking…

show me where God kills to prove anything to the devil

the book of job

Etyhvh – There is lots more of these Biblical contradictions to be seen. God is the author of evil

     Lam 3:38/ Jer 18:11/ Is 45:7/ Amos 3:6/ Ezek 20:25
     God is not the author of evil
     1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13

Robbery commanded

      Ex 3:21,22/ Ex 12:35,36
     Robbery forbidden
      Lev 19:13/ Ex 20:15

Killing commanded

      Ex 32:27
     Killing forbidden
      Ex 20:13

Lying approved and sanctioned

      Josh 2:4-6/ James 2:25/ Ex 1:18-20/ 1 Kings 22:21,22
     Lying forbidden
      Ex 20:16/ Prov 12:22/ Rev 21:8

Judging of others forbidden

      Matt 7:1,2
     Judging of others approved
      1 Cor 6:2-4/ 1 Cor 5:12

The Sabbath instituted because God rested on the seventh day

      Ex 20:11
     The Sabbath instituted because God brought the Israelites     
     out of Egypt
      Deut 5:15 ... lots more in Evilbible.com

You know my feeling about religion, but to answer your question: I would suggest you test the question on your personal life and to the morals which is acceptable by you I.e.

• If one of your kids are about to get married, how would you feel if your soon to be Son in Law, demand your daughter to hate her entire family before he is prepared to marry her, how fair would that be? Or maybe if your husband demanded that from you before you got married?
• Or would you demand your children (if you love them, which I think you do) to turn against their own Father, sisters or brothers? Or maybe if your parents demanded this from you, against your husband and children?
  If you are honest with yourself you would acknowledge that a loving, caring parent/person would not do this!

My conclusion would be that these people who “wrote A god’s word” didn’t think Whilst trying to do so and made stuff up along the way, being creative ;-) !

War or Peace? EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

You don’t have to accept everything in Shakespeare, or any other author, to benefit from some of what they have written. Why is the Bible the only book where the only choices that you have is to accept all of it, or none of it? Just because people are forced by the overwhelming evidence to accept the fact that the Bible is fallible doesn’t mean that they can’t be inspired by what is inspiring in it. It would be so nice and comfortable to have the wheat separated from the chaff, maybe with red text vs. black, but life just isn’t that easy. If Christianity were a matter of black and white (or red), there wouldn’t be thousands of versions of Christianity, now would there?

    Maybe Matthew 13:27-30 gives us a good way of looking at this situation;
    'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field?  Where, then, did these weeds come from?'  He answered, 'An enemy has done this.'  The servants said to him,  'Then do you want us to go and gather them?'  But he replied, 'No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them.  Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

This is the foundation for ^my logic^ and how I see things. Man in all his imperfections penned the scriptures and bears full responsibility for deciphering the true meanings.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is often quoted as proof that the Bible is inerrant :”All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (NIV)

    The expression "god-breathed" is occasionally translated "inspired by God".   Contemporary english version gives it as "Everything in the Scriptures is God's Word",  The Wycliff New testament says "  For all scripture inspired of God is profitable. . ."
    But how can anyone claim that these words apply to a book that would not even exist for another 300 years?!?  What we call "the Bible" is nothing but a collection of writings approved by a solemn convention of clerics in 325 AD, called the Council of Nicea (in what is now Turkey).
    Since Paul didn't specify any such "canon" of holy writings, his words "All scripture" would apply, not only to the many Christian writings of the time that were eventually excluded from the canon of Nicea, but to all of the writings that existed when Paul made that statement, including the egyptian, mesopotamian, hindu, buddhist and gnostic scriptures, and even the writings of the Greek philosophers.  But they might not include any of the "Gospels", as all four of the New Testament "gospels" were written AFTER Paul wrote his epistles!
    Notice, too, that Paul didn't say that these scriptures were inerrant, but rather that they were "good for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness".  When all is said and done, all that Paul may have been saying is that there was much that was worthwhile (and that ultimately had God as its author) in the various scriptures of his day.

You don’t have to accept everything in Shakespeare, or any other author, to benefit from some of what they have written.

If you benefit from it and can over look these flaws, good for you. Not everyone feels that way! ;-)

Luke 14:26 falls into a category of “extreme language,” the language of absoluteness used to express a preference, and may refer to disattachment, indifference, or nonattachment without any feelings of revulsion involved. To seal this matter completely, let’s look at some parallel materials which prove our point. The closest example comes from Genesis 29:30-1:

And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

Here, “hated” is clearly used synonymously with one who is loved less. Let it be added that if Jacob hated Leah in a literal way, it is hardly believable that he would consent to take her as his wife at all. (See also Judges 14:16 and Deut. 21:15-17.)

read more here in this site http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesussayshate.html

Lol Etyhvh naaah don’t think of it as a test just think logically ;-)

The text from Luke, I believe, is hyperbole. However, that isn’t the case with the text from Matthew. The text was quite literally true during the Bar Kochba rebellion (130-135CE), and I believe that’s when the Gospels as we know them were actually penned.

Sheeesh … I’m being tested, just know it … lol lol :)

oh my god. these are perfect contradictions in the bible. according to christians no one is supposed to hate anyone. of course they say that god’s love is supposed to come first in their hearts but they say that jesus was the savior… and that just makes him look like a destroyer.

this is why I left the religion. too much contradiction. I got so lost. :p