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

rjs330 said:

No its not. There are no contradictions.

Click to expand...

So... there are 3 examples (above) of contradictions within scripture. Knowing how fundamentalists try to spin these things, the response will likely be something along the lines of: "These are not contradictions, one verse just offers more clarification to a law which was previously given." But if you read them, you can see that is not the case.

The laws for female Israelites sold as slaves to other Israelites aren't a case of one verse offering clarification to the other. They are just different. One says to offer them freedom after 6 years - without contingencies. The other does not, and has a complicated list of requirements that must be met, with the woman’s choice not being the deciding factor.

The same for the verses on having sex with a woman that is having her period. You can try to talk around it by saying that being "cut off" from your people means the same thing as being unclean for 7 days, but (assuming that the translation is accurate) that is not how the biblical text uses the phrase "cut off". People who had sex with their sister were "cut off" from their people, so it is a much more serious consequence than being unclean for 7 days.

And not only are these contradictions from one book of the bible to another, but the contradictions about having sex with a woman during her period are in the same book.

rjs330 said:

Why would it be murder if God commanded it? Not all killing is murder.

Click to expand...

I clearly said that it isn't murder if God or the government does it or orders it be done. I've already told you that this has been explained to me.

rjs330 said:

When you say stuff like the Bible doesn't support self defense or defense of your family, you are saying the innocent don't matter by the evil doer does. What else does it mean if that's not it?

Click to expand...

The New Testament doesn't support self-defense or defense of the family. I certainly am not saying that the innocent don't matter or that the evil doer does. What I've always taken it to mean is that this earthly life doesn't matter but the next life does. If one dies in grace, then one gets rewarded by residing with God forever, while the evil doer - among others - will either be forever dead or forever punished in a burning lake of fire. Here, too, mere innocence is not necessarily a free pass - if the innocent don't know God or accept Jesus as their Savior, they get no reward other than the end of suffering in this life.

rjs330 said:

He commanded you to love others. Protecting the innocent is part of that. Do you think the good Samaritan is only about helping people after they have been robbed and left for dead? And yes it is up to you. Are you saying you shouldn't help or wouldn't help?

Click to expand...

If I were saying that, then I would say that. Since I don't, I'm not.

When He commanded that we love others, he did mention that everyone loves their own, so there is no particular credit in that, but to love your enemies is special.

rjs330 said:

I use a horrific scenario fir a reason.

Click to expand...

Huh, not just any ole' horrific scenario nor even the most horrific, but the go-to scenario somehow seems to be for you guys the rape of a woman. As though that is more horrific than the rape of a man or of a child or of an infant. It's almost as if you want the threat to be against me personally as a woman, as though that were the worse, when it obviously is not.

rjs330 said:

You didn't answer the question. Why? You come across a woman being raped and murdered what do you do to save her? Calling the police wont help, she'll be dead before they get there. Can you wrestle him? Yes, then you and her are dead. You did nothing. Your only realistic option is to kill him. What do you do? Its most certainly okay if you are a pacifist. There are those out there. And im not saying you should not be one. Its okay if you are.

Click to expand...

Because it is a stupid, loaded hypothetical: What is a woman - much like yourself - were being attacked and the only way you could possibly save here would be to kill the bad man. No disabling him! No knocking him out!! Either kill him or she gets raped and murdered!! And maybe you get murdered too if you don't kill him!!! You didn't even magically give me a weapon to off him, as if a gun or a garrote were just handily laying nearby.

rjs330 said:

This really isnt about you. Its about your statements. Statements that seem to say that all killing is murder. If that us not what you are saying then say so.

Click to expand...

Except I very clearly said, "Sure, it's not murder when God/the military/the government does it. Killing people in general is murder except when God, the government/military or someone I like does it. Yeah, it's been explained and excused."

rjs330 said:

Give us an example when killing is not murder.

Click to expand...

Separating conjoined twins when only one can live without the other?

rjs330 said:

You recall the story of Lot incorrectly. The Bible dies not say it was a virtuous thing he did. No where does it say he was righteous for doing it. There was no one there found righteous. God was simply merciful to Lot for the sake of Abraham. So don't twist scripture.

Click to expand...

No, that's my interpretation of the Angels telling Lot to take his family and flee, because Lot showed hospitality even offering to give up his daughters to the evil men of the town and because God showed mercy. It truly seems to me that had Lot not shown the strangers hospitality and protection that he would not have been spared for Abraham's sake.

There is no justification for a worship service of any kind at a government office building.

essentialsaltes said:

Typical Christmas sermon, I suppose.

Speaking at a “Christmas Worship Service” at the Pentagon on Wednesday (Dec. 17), evangelist Franklin Graham celebrated that God is not just a God of love but also of hate and war.

“We know that God loves. But did you know that God also hates? Do you know that God also is a God of war? Many people don’t want to think about that, or forget that,” he declared as he stood on stage near two Christmas trees with a nativity scene and a Hanukkah Menorah in front of them.

Graham briefly recounted a story in Exodus 17, where Joshua led the ancient Israelites in battle against the Amalekites as Moses stood on a mountain holding up his arms. Graham said that not only did they win the battle, but God remembered how the Amalekites had attacked the Israelites. So Graham then turned to 1 Samuel 15, where the prophet Samuel told King Saul to kill all the Amalekites.

"Don’t spare them, but kill them, both man and woman, infant, nursing child, ox, sheep, camel, and donkey.’ So Samuel gave the instructions for the mission. Now, people will say, ‘But, Franklin, that is so hard; that’s not the God I believe in.’ Well, you had better believe in him.”

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.

Click to expand...

I like this new political Christianity.

MarkSB said:

. 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.

Click to expand...

Of course. Because we learn who God is through the Bible. Since God inspired people to write the Bible, why on earth would he ask people to write something about Him that wasn't true? He's leading us to falsehood.

God doesn't shy away from his judgement and wrath. Why do you?

Here are just a couple of things God commanded or did.

1. He killed all the first born in Egypt. Children.
2. He commanded that if someone curses their parents they must be put to death.
3. God says he kills and raises up.
4. He said he blinds.
5. He wiped out cities with children in them.

Both Leviticus and Deuteronomy are filled with God telling Moses what to say to the people. Things about himself. The scriptures are filled with things about God that are pleasant to behold and things that are not so pleasant to behold. God is NOT afraid of telling us things things. Why are some so afraid of hearing them?

Yes listen to the words of God contained within the scriptures. You won't know God until you know what he says about himself. And the question becomes:

If you only belive the things you want to believe about what the Bible says about God. How do you know you are believing the correct things? If you do not accept what the Bible says about God, when the Bible says God is just, maybe he's not really just. If you do not believe what the Bible says, and the Bible says he is loving and merciful, maybe he is NOT loving and merciful because it may not be true.

MarkSB said:

One of the common pushbacks against fundamentalism (and which has already been mentioned in this thread) is that fundamentalists make the bible an idol.

Click to expand...

Thats a foolish pushback. The Bible is not an idol. It is God's word to us. We know about God through the Bible. We know about Christ through the Bible. If it were not for the Bible we would not know what Christ taught. If it were not for the Bible, we would not know about rhe Holy Spirit. God inspired rhe writers to write to tell us about Himself.

Jesus himself said. "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

He also said, "If you had believed Moses you would have believed me for he wrote of me. But if you believe not his writings how will you believe my words.

"And Moses wrote all the the words of the Lord"

God revealed himself and his works to us through his prophets and through his scriptures both the old and the new. Why wouldn't we revere his revelations. You would know little to nothing of God if it were not for his word.

You might as well not ever read or study scripture if you cannot say which parts are from God and which are not.

The Lord said Turn you from your evil ways and keep my Commandments and my statutes according to the Law which I commanded your fathers and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets.

We would know none of that if it were not for the scriptures.

No they aee not an idol, but they ARE the revelation of God and of Christ.

MarkSB said:

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.

Click to expand...

Only scripture is inspired. All other sources of information is not. And if another source contradicts God's inspiration then the source is incorrect. God inspired the prophets and apostles of the Bible. God has NEVER said he inspired anyone that came after. Not once did he claim to inspire a particular scientist or modern historian.

There are no core principles of Christianity that are violated by trusting God's revelations through his word. It's how we know Christ crucified and of his resurrection and the glories of the gospel. Its how we know of his sinlessness and his work upon the cross his resurrection that provides us
With new life.

It appears that those who believe as you are actually afraid to trust. You would rather put your faith in what man says about this or that rather than out your faith in what God said about himself and his works. What is the fear? That people may mock you for trusting in God's proclamations regarding himself and his works?

MarkSB said:

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.

Click to expand...

Might I remind you who is finding this evidence. No God does not want us to turn off our faculties. But he also does not want us to blindly trust the fleeting proclivities and discoveries of man. After all who has proven themselves to be unreliable over and over again. Is it man or is it God?

Did not hear this speach from Franklin Graham and do not care really to hear anything from him. But maybe someone can pass along to Mr Graham. That God is the God of life (eternal life) and that a person can receive this free gift of life by believing in Jesus for God's Life (eternal life).

MarkSB said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thats not precisely what I said. What I said was neither you nor I are the arbiters of truth. If you choose to believe that parts of the Bible are not true, then you have become the arbiter of truth. And then you have to decide which parts are true and which are not.

I have had this discussion before with others. And eveytime I bring up that point and ask them to tell me what parts are true and which are not, and how they know, they cannot answer.

Disbelief and immorality has nothing to do with which part of the Bible is true and which part isn't. Disbelief is a choice as is immorality.

Questioning is fine. But the real question of faith is, not whether or not you question, but what do you do when you don't have the answer. Not everything is knowable. But faith says it may not be knowable, but I trust anyway.

MarkSB said:

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.

Click to expand...

Is it though? We have little to nothing in regard to this ancient history that is in scripture. How often has it been said that scripture is historically inaccurate, only to be discovered at a later date, there is evidence found that it was not. As has always been true with rhe ways of man. What man believed on day was discovered to be untrue the next. Only God is true and everyman is a liar.

MarkSB said:

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?

Click to expand...

I certainly think an honest conversation with unbelievers is very useful. Certainly there are things that people say that contradict scripture. It does not mean that what they say is true. There is always an answer or at least an explanation. But the answer is NEVER the Bible is wrong. If you say, yup the Bible is wrong about that, then the next question is, what else is the Bible wrong about. Is it wrong about Christ? Did he actually live? If he did, then is the Bible wrong about his resurrection? Did Christ actually say that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son...

After all science tells us that resurrection is impossible. If you do not believe, why should they?

Unbelievers have been trying to disprove the Bible forever. How many unbelievers do you know who have been won to Christ by agreeing with them that parts of the Bible are not true and you agree with them that they are not?

We can certainly say or admit that we do not know how it all works. God doesn't explain every little detail of his work to us. I'm okay with that and I happy to offer possible explanations, but I certainly can also say I don't have all rhe answers either. I think thats actually more honest that saying the Bible is flat wrong.

MarkSB said:

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.

Click to expand...

Absolutely honesty and integrity should be Christian Character traits. As is Faith. Defending a literreralist view does not violate that in the least.

MarkSB said:

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).

Click to expand...

Its interesting that you only mention the conflict with science or historical evidence and Christians being defensive. Are you are that non-believers can be just as defensive or dismissive. Those that believe in a science are believing in something that is ALWAYS changing. What we believed 300 years ago is nothing like what we believe today and often contradicts. What we will know in 300 more years will most likely contradict things we know today. History is the same. All this is done by a FINITE mind. None of us were there. For any of it.

However God was. In fact he orchestrated it all. And if there is any error it is ours. And we should have a much better reason for disbelief than simply a trust in discoveries or simple statements of a finite human being.

It is much more honest to simply say, I don't know nor do I have all the answers to every question of the doubter.

MarkSB said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thats not necessary at all.

The question of the flood and the ark are all based on a limited human understanding of what happened. We have just a few verses in the Bible to indicate what happened. We know little to nothing about the world at the time and even less about the conditions of the world and the enormous effects of the flood described in a few verses. Including the divine nature of it all.

This also includes what occurred with the ark. It is hardly a stretch to trust that an omnipotent God could make it work anymore than to trust that an omnipotent God could create all that there is out of nothing. In fact it would be a small matter for God to work the ark out in comparison.

Do I have all the answers. No. But I dont need to. I have faith and trust.

And to say there is no evidence of the flood is just not correct. There is. And since man is finite and flawed and imperfect in mind and understanding we cannot state that what is known is all that can be known or understood. Yet we treat it as definitive.

Like I said, I don't really know how it all went down and how God made it happen. I don't need to know. And if someone does need to know before they believe, they will never find God. For God is unknowable in this world as are his ways.

Thats it for tonight.

Aryeh Jay said:

View attachment 374684

I like this new political Christianity.

Click to expand...

Blessed are the merciless, for they shall be free of immigrants. Blessed are the rich, for they shall feast on the poor. Blessed are the usurpers, for they shall inherit tyranny.

MarkSB said:

So... there's a lot to unpack here. I don't have the time to address all of it - and I don't know that it would be useful to do so anyway, since I doubt that anyone is going to change your mind. All I will say is that I think the modern fundamentalist / bible literalist movement is born more out of fear than its proponents want to admit.

One of the ways in which this fear is subdued is by holding up scripture as inerrant. It provides something which literalists believe to be solid and indisputable. Despite the complexities of scripture, the literalist/fundamentalist believes there is only one interpretation - and it is the interpretation which they just happen to possess.

Instead of focusing on their faith journey, literalists are forced to constantly defend every part of scripture as being inerrant - which is a very difficult task. Having the "right beliefs" is prioritized over everything else. These actions and relentless defense of the inerrancy of the bible are sold as faith, when in practice they don't appear to be the life-giving faith which we know that God and spirituality can provide.

I'll just leave it at that. There's a lot more that I can say, but I think we've touched upon most of the major points already, and are going to have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Many years ago I remember reading a rabbi talking about a Jewish approach to the Bible (the Jewish Bible of course). The rabbi highlighted that in Hebrew the name Israel means "wrestles with God". That was the name the biblical Patriarch Jacob received after a very bizarre episode where he, apparently, had a tussle with God. In receiving the name Israel the whole people of God--the Jewish people--have a relationship with God of questioning and wondering. The rabbi points out the times where Moses, for example, goes to God and asks questions. We even have moments in the Bible where people talk with God, and God goes from doing X to doing Y instead. The rabbi highlighted these things to point out that the relationship with God, and the relationship with the Bible, involves pausing to ask, to wonder--to wrestle with God, to wrestle with the hard questions. And that can also be seen in Jewish rabbinical literature going back centuries--the Talmud is full of stories of "Rabbi So-and-so said.." but then "Rabbi Such-and-such said" asking questions, searching for answers, wrestling with the hard things, wrestling with God (not in a defiant rebellious way, but as a paternal-familial way is baked into the Jewish tradition.

And I can't help but think that it's okay to, when reading the Bible, be uncomfortable, ask questions, be confused, to wonder, and to wrestle with it.

Wrestling with the Bible should be considered normal. This isn't about defying the Bible--"I don't care what the Bible says, even if God said it, I'm doing things my way" it's about faith involving not having easy answers about hard things. There's no easy way to deal with God's command to slaughter the Amalekites. There can be a temptation to try a Marcion route, "Well, that's not God, that's something else, we worship a better God revealed in Jesus" or something like that; that is, to basically just get rid of the Old Testament (even when it is confusing or uncomfortable). There can also be a temptation to just throw our brain out and say, "Well, it's what's written, and so what that this doesn't look at all like how God reveals Himself in Jesus, who is supposed to be THE way we understand God--it's there in the text and so I'm not going to think about it".

I think it should cost us more than taking the easy way out when it comes to hard questions of faith. Maybe I should be uncomfortable.

Franklin Graham understands the full nature of God.

Others only know the liberal secular watered down version of God.

ViaCrucis said:

Many years ago I remember reading a rabbi talking about a Jewish approach to the Bible (the Jewish Bible of course). The rabbi highlighted that in Hebrew the name Israel means "wrestles with God". That was the name the biblical Patriarch Jacob received after a very bizarre episode where he, apparently, had a tussle with God. In receiving the name Israel the whole people of God--the Jewish people--have a relationship with God of questioning and wondering. The rabbi points out the times where Moses, for example, goes to God and asks questions. We even have moments in the Bible where people talk with God, and God goes from doing X to doing Y instead. The rabbi highlighted these things to point out that the relationship with God, and the relationship with the Bible, involves pausing to ask, to wonder--to wrestle with God, to wrestle with the hard questions. And that can also be seen in Jewish rabbinical literature going back centuries--the Talmud is full of stories of "Rabbi So-and-so said.." but then "Rabbi Such-and-such said" asking questions, searching for answers, wrestling with the hard things, wrestling with God (not in a defiant rebellious way, but as a paternal-familial way is baked into the Jewish tradition.

And I can't help but think that it's okay to, when reading the Bible, be uncomfortable, ask questions, be confused, to wonder, and to wrestle with it.

Wrestling with the Bible should be considered normal. This isn't about defying the Bible--"I don't care what the Bible says, even if God said it, I'm doing things my way" it's about faith involving not having easy answers about hard things. There's no easy way to deal with God's command to slaughter the Amalekites. There can be a temptation to try a Marcion route, "Well, that's not God, that's something else, we worship a better God revealed in Jesus" or something like that; that is, to basically just get rid of the Old Testament (even when it is confusing or uncomfortable). There can also be a temptation to just throw our brain out and say, "Well, it's what's written, and so what that this doesn't look at all like how God reveals Himself in Jesus, who is supposed to be THE way we understand God--it's there in the text and so I'm not going to think about it".

I think it should cost us more than taking the easy way out when it comes to hard questions of faith. Maybe I should be uncomfortable.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid the goal for some people is to use the bible to "wrestle" with other people.

Servus said:

Franklin Graham understands the full nature of God.

Others only know the liberal secular watered down version of God.

Click to expand...

Weird how that "liberal secular watered down version of God" is so often just God as understood in normative Christian theology.

Martin Luther's 1518 Heidelberg Disputation, Theses 19-20

19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened« (Rom. 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25). This is apparent in the example of those who were »theologians« and still were called »fools« by the Apostle in Rom. 1:22. Furthermore, the invisible things of God are virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth. The recognition of all these things does not make one worthy or wise.

20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross. The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 1:25 calls them the weakness and folly of God. Because men misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering, and to condemn »wisdom concerning invisible things« by means of »wisdom concerning visible things«, so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering (absconditum in passionibus). As the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 1:21, »For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.« Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross. Thus God destroys the wisdom of the wise, as Isa. 45:15 says, »Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself.« So, also, in John 14:8, where Philip spoke according to the theology of glory: »Show us the Father.« Christ forthwith set aside his flighty thought about seeing God elsewhere and led him to himself, saying, »Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father« (John 14:9). For this reason true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ, as it is also stated in John 10 (John 14:6) »No one comes to the Father, but by me.« »I am the door« (John 10:9), and so forth.

Click to expand...

I do not recognize any God or Judge except in Him who suffered on Mt. Calvary and who was crowned with a wreathe of thorns.

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by Me"

Servus said:

Franklin Graham understands the full nature of God.

Others only know the liberal secular watered down version of God.

Click to expand...

The God who recommended genocide looks very tribal. A particular peoples god.

God as revealed in the New Testament otoh does not seem "watered down", a diluted version of the same thing. He seems to be showing new qualities and intentions and a universality He had not revealed before.

Thats how it looks to me as a non Christian observer anyway.

durangodawood said:

The God who recommended genocide looks very tribal. A particular peoples god.

God as revealed in the New Testament otoh does not seem "watered down", a diluted version of the same thing. He seems to be showing new qualities and intentions and a universality He had not revealed before.

Thats how it looks to me as a non Christian observer anyway.

Click to expand...

The trouble is, that the God of the New Testament, Jesus Christ, is not a right wing Christian nationalist.

BCP1928 said:

The trouble is, that the God of the New Testament, Jesus Christ, is not a right wing Christian nationalist.

Click to expand...

Indeed He does not seem interested in being a function of the state.... any state.

MarkSB said:

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?

Click to expand...

Inspiration is not dictation.

Inspiration means God breathed. It is a divine partnership between humans and God. God used human writers, their personalities, backgrounds and styles to write the things he wanted us to know. The things he wanted us to know about himself, his work, his commands and his truth. Inspiration doesn't mean that God grabbed the persons hand or took over their body.

The fact that each book and author is unique is evidence of that. What this simply means is that the Word of God is true and authoritative. Nothing they wrote is untrue. It contains God's revealed truth to us all. It is not a collection of human writings and reflections. All scripture is God breathed. Jesus himself and the apostles all verified the veracity and authority of scripture. Yes scripture, is inerrant and infallible since it was God breathed and since God is infallible he would not allow falsity to be part of his revelations.

Keep in mind that this applies to the original writings and not translations. However we have enough ancient manuscripts to be assured that out translations are accurate translations.

durangodawood said:

The God who recommended genocide looks very tribal. A particular peoples god.

God as revealed in the New Testament otoh does not seem "watered down", a diluted version of the same thing. He seems to be showing new qualities and intentions and a universality He had not revealed before.

Thats how it looks to me as a non Christian observer anyway.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about anything in the Bible that gives a diluted version of God. I'm talking about liberal secular versions of God, that eliminate God being a God of wrath and judgement. Especially as seen in the New Testament in Revelation. As for the Old Testament, it's widely accepted the "Angel of the Lord" is pre-incarnate Christ, and he does a lot slaying.

BCP1928 said:

The trouble is, that the God of the New Testament, Jesus Christ, is not a right wing Christian nationalist.

Click to expand...

Rather the problem is Jesus Christ is not who liberal secularism makes him out to be.