At Pentagon Christmas Service, Franklin Graham Praises ‘God of War’ “We know that God loves. But did you know that God also hates?"

[BPPLEE]

It depends on how you look at it. God tested him by ordering him to make a blood sacrifice of his own son. Abraham showed himself willing to do it and God never spoke to him again.

The last time they spoke they were on very good terms,
Having trouble posting the scripture

 

[BCP1928]

Another way of looking at it is that Abraham was testing God, pretending to go along with the sacrifice to see how far God would take it.

 

[Robban]

The last time they spoke they were on very good terms,
Having trouble posting the scripture

Genesis 22:11-12

Not sure if it will come out exact as my translation, we will see.

 

[BCP1928]

Genesis 22:11-12

Not sure if it will come out exact as my translation, we will see.

Whichever supports your doctrine best is the way to go.

 

[Robban]

Whichever supports your doctrine best is the way to go.

Not the way I see it, what I posted is from the Word, you however are comitting heresy.

 

[BPPLEE]

Whichever supports your doctrine best is the way to go.

God blessed Abraham and his descendants. CF is still having issues and I'm unable to post the scripture

 

[durangodawood]

Another way of looking at it is that Abraham was testing God, pretending to go along with the sacrifice to see how far God would take it.

Not supported by the text, which says God knew Abr was going to go through with the killing.

 

[BPPLEE]

Another way of looking at it is that Abraham was testing God, pretending to go along with the sacrifice to see how far God would take it.

Abraham had a promise from God for Isaac and his descendants so he believed that God would raise him from the dead if he sacrificed him
Genesis 17:19
God can't lie

 

[rjs330]

Another way of looking at it is that Abraham was testing God, pretending to go along with the sacrifice to see how far God would take it.

Thats certainly not supported by scripture.

 

[BCP1928]

Thats certainly not supported by scripture.

No, it's from Midrash.

 

[rjs330]

No, it's from Midrash.

Right, not scripturally supported.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Another Pentagon Christmas service

US says it struck Islamic State militants in northwest Nigeria​

"Tonight, at my direction as Commander in Chief, the United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries!," Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/us-launches-strikes-against-islamic-state-militants-northwest-nigeria-trump-says-2025-12-25/

 

[timewerx]

As Graham notes, some Christians find the story of the genocide of the Amalekites a little difficult to wrestle with; but it seems the new breed of masculine Christianity that has arisen has elevated the story, proclaiming it openly as an example for the troops.

After I did an exhaustive study of the Bible as a Christian, it only raised even more questions and doubts rather than answers.

I don't even think the Old Testament is part of the Christian literature nor even necessary. Only one thing is certain, the Old Testament is part of the Judaist literature. Fits with Judaism perfectly. Yet, Judaism is not Christianity and will never be.

People who loves genocide, money, exploitation will tend to quote more from the Old Testament and that is a huge problem.

 

[MarkSB]

Scripture is both. It is a spiritual guidebook and it is history.

You should do more asking then. I've know literalists for years and fear has nothing to do with their positions.

What you are talking about is clarity, not interpretation. As i learned in my training and understanding of the languages, it is not about interpretation but about clarity. You could read all of scripture without any of those books and understand it well enough. All those books and commentaries and study guides and whatever else do is offer an individuals thoughts on tge scriptures. Often offering a deeper insight and clarity of tge original languages. But they are not offering different interpretations. You make it sound like the scriptures can have completely different meanings. As if there is no meaning but different people assign to it. In essence it has no real meaning because we all interpret it differently. Thats nonsense. There might be things that are hard to understand sometimes. Peter says that about Paul's writings. But that doesnt mean we can all interpret it however we want. In fact he says that is very bad.

So… I said a couple posts back that I was going to step away for time’s sake – but I keep coming back for more, lol. I do appreciate the tone of your posts, since the discussion hasn’t descended into nastiness and insults, as these debates often do. And I think both of us have made generalizations about the other side, without either one of us becoming defensive or extremely offended. So while I wholeheartedly disagree with you, thank you for keeping it civil.

Just a couple of points to make (and perhaps a few more in a follow-up post) before I step away:

1. You keep saying that people need to believe in God, but when you say that what you are really saying is that people need to believe that when the bible says God told the Israelites to kill children, that it happened. You’re not telling people to believe in God, you’re telling them to believe every last thing that the bible says about God.

I just don’t see why viewing the bible in that manner is essential to the core tenets of Christianity, and why it seems to rank so highly for fundamentalists (and for so many evangelicals). One of the common pushbacks against fundamentalism (and which has already been mentioned in this thread) is that fundamentalists make the bible an idol. When I see people shutting out all other sources of information and sacrificing their integrity to defend every last bit of scripture as being factually true, it certainly seems that they are putting the book in a position which it was never meant to hold – and violating some of the core principles of Christianity in the process.

I don’t believe that God wants us to shut off our faculties and turn the other way when we find evidence that disagrees with biblical narratives, or when an examination of the biblical text itself reveals that it probably shouldn’t be interpreted in the manner which literalists would have us interpret it.

 

[MarkSB]

Point #2 (it won't let me put them all in one post)...

2. A common fundamentalist argument, and one of the things that you have stated several times in this thread - is that if we question one part of the bible, then all if it can be questioned. The fear here is that if any part of the bible is questioned, it will result in people descending into disbelief and immorality.

First counterpoint to the above: I think if you look at the church community, you will find that this fear does not play out in reality. There are plenty of fundamentalists who stray into rather extreme immorality, and plenty of non-fundamentalists who don’t. Questioning the bible does not necessarily result in disbelief – and, I would argue, can even result in a deepening of faith. There are entire Christian denominations who do not take a literal view of the entire bible, and they keep their faith just fine. I would even say that some of them hold on to virtue more aptly than fundamentalists do.

Second counterpoint: The major red flag in this argument is that instead of focusing on the evidence, you are trying to control the outcome. ‘Don’t question the bible, because it might lead people to disbelief.’ This tendency towards control does not treat others with the respect that they deserve, and (somewhat ironically) is one of the major things that turns people off about religion. Not to mention it just makes religion look phony and hypocritical in general. I imagine that controlling the outcome is not your sole motivation (and maybe not even your strongest motivator), but you have mentioned it several times.

Conversations about these things should be open, and the possibility that a scripture might not be historically true should not be suppressed because religious folk think it could result in less people in the pews. Fearless honesty – even honesty about things which contradict scripture – is something that could not only inspire great conversations with non-believers, but it could tear down some the walls of mistrust between the two sides, don’t you think? Which leads into my third point…

 

[MarkSB]

3. Honesty (including intellectual honesty) and integrity are character traits which Christians should possess. Relentlessly defending a literalist view of scripture will very likely require a Chrisitan to violate those morals and compromise their character.

The cognitive dissonance which comes as a result of these compromised morals can be very easily observed sometimes: When questioned about parts of the bible that conflict with scientific and historical evidence, some Christians can become defensive or dismissive. Sometimes they will sidestep direct questions or avoid certain topics altogether (avoidance behavior).

Again – I’m not saying that compromised integrity is a certainty. I think some fundamentalist Christians start out with a limited perspective because they were raised in a fundamentalist household. But there is so much evidence out there that conflicts with some of the biblical stories, that over time it becomes impossible to ignore – and one is forced to make disingenuous arguments or to suppress information to continue to prop up the literalist beliefs.

This is why I asked about YEC – because it provides many shining examples of ideas that are not supported by any sort of evidence and which many times are just plain pretty far from reality. For example, do you believe the story of Noah to be literally true, and that there was a worldwide/global flood? The flood story is a perfect example of a narrative which fundamentalists want everyone to take literally, but which doesn’t make sense when weighed against the historical evidence and against basic everyday knowledge. (How did all the animals fit into that boat – 14 of each clean species, and 2 of each unclean species?)

 

[MarkSB]

No they don't. Thats a completely false understanding. God did not dictate scripture and the writer was not his secretary.
The writers wrote under the inspiration of God. Which means what they wrote is true. God wanted tgem to write what they wrote.

So I'm still having trouble understanding your position. When I said that literalists believe the Bible to be written as if God were holding the pen himself, you responded with the first 3 sentences (not underlined) above. Then in the next paragraph, you posted the last 3 sentences (underlined) shown above. (Sorry, it won't let me separate the quotes, so I used underlining to distinguish between the two). Can you explain the difference between those two statements? Because one seems to very much contradict the other.

The way that I see this is there are two ways to view scripture:
1. Completely inspired and sanctioned by God (inerrant and infallible). This is, if I'm not mistaken, the fundamentalist viewpoint.
2. Written, edited, and assembled by people and therefore not inerrant.

Is your view not the same as #1, above?

 

[MarkSB]

No its not. There are no contradictions.

Some examples of contradictions in the bible (part 1, because I may need to split this up into multiple posts with they way the forum is behaving). Don't take my word for it, feel free to look at the scriptures yourself.

Different rules for Israelites who become slaves to other Israelites:

Exodus 21:2-11:

• Male slaves can choose freedom after 6 years.
• Female slaves have a very different set of guidelines/contingencies for being set free.

Deuteronomy 15:12-18:

• Both male and female slaves can choose freedom after 6 years. None of the contingencies for women which are stated in Exodus.

 

[MarkSB]

No its not. There are no contradictions.

Some examples of contradictions in the bible (part 2)

Can Israelites eat the carcasses of mauled animals?

Exodus 22:31 and Deuteronomy 14:21:

• No

Leviticus 17:15:

• Yes, but you must bathe and wash your clothes, and will be unclean until evening.

 

[MarkSB]

No its not. There are no contradictions.

Some examples of contradictions in the bible (part 3).


Can an Israelite have sex with a woman who is having her period?

Leviticus 15:24: Yes, but you and every bed you lie on will be unclean for 7 days.

Leviticus 20:18: No. If you do this you will be "cut off" from your people.