Disregard it.
I'm saying if you want to build a city and so forth, it can't stop at the first brick. Creation evolves into more creation. The bricks pre-existed so the building was formed into being not created from nothing. Although the term sustainer sounds off putting, I like that word better because it doesn't describe the cause of the universe (since things don't come from nothing) but the momentum and formation of it. So, creation, in this sense isn't the "first mover" but movement itself.
No. I actually don't.
Am I misunderstanding you? I don't think so.
Are you not understanding me? That seems to be the case.
Quoting you...
I don't see a difference in god working 2,000 years ago but stop working today. If god did these historical things, and god is the creator, he would still be "literally" involved in the world and everyone would "know" this whether they want to believe in him or not.
This has less to do with what's written and more to do with how life works. For example, the laws of physics don't change in the past 2,000 years. Our understanding of it, yes but not the laws itself. So, if jesus literally walked on water (for sake of point) that would be false since time period doesn't change how physics work.
Raising from the dead, and other like miracles would work the same-therefore, they're not historical. Mythological I'd say but that doesn't devalue the bible.
Take the Pantheon for instance:
End quote.
Jesus and his works in the past. + God and his works in the past - i.e. creation = Bulldozers, Cement mixers, Laborers, Bricks and cement, etc.
Those works were finished. So just as you would not see a bulldozer running through the finished building, you will not see God creating, nor Jesus walking on water, nor his apostles raising the dead, and opening physically blind eyes.
Like the Bulldozer digging trenches... the cement mixer mixing and pouring concrete... the laborers busy at their work, having accomplished their purpose, Jesus and the apostles performing signs, accomplished their purpose.
The finished building that you see, afterwards = the spiritual building that came out of the works of God, Jesus, and the apostles.
Just as one can see the physical building, and have clear evidence that there were construction workers and equipment used to accomplish it, there is clear evidence that God, and Jesus were involve in the spiritual building seen today. For example, Jesus said his disciples would be identified by the love they have among themselves - the whole association of brothers in the world.
He said the good news of the kingdom will be preached to the ends of the earth.
He also said that his followers will be hated, and many will not believe.
So the evidence is not dependent on everyone saying, "Oh. It's true."
Is that any more understandable for you?
Now I think about it, you didn't answer my questions...
Sorry. What question did you want answered?
To answer your question, no. I feel the bible talks about god not a diction from god. So, the killing of women and children would be something god wanted as it is written. If he actually did, I wouldn't know. I'm not familiar with who/what god is in personal respects.
Many people have the same feelings you do.
The scriptures say otherwise ... whether people accept it or not. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 ;2 Peter 1:20, 21 ; 1 Corinthians 10:6-11
I mention colonization because going from one land to the next and taking lives to do so is basically what the people did for their promise land in scripture. It's not specific to what god said but (If historical-I haven't looked into it), but what's written. So, I would assume that the people went to another land because that's what they "believed" god told them not god as an outside party telling them what they should do.
Are you discussing the Biblical narrative, or what you can verify as history?
With this, for example, the laws of physics are the same regardless the time period. If jesus let go of a rock he held, it would fall just as if I did so or you did so.
That doesn't make me any less clueless as to what you are trying to say.
I was replying to this: I believe it's historical. It is written as such. Why do you dismiss it as anything else but history (44)?
I would say god has no influence in history. I believe the two are separate in regards to events happening in the bible. This had to do with this comment: If that were true, God could make the deserts the Israelites walked, the most luxurious of all the land, and have his people colonize it.
When I'm talk about colonization, I'm speaking of history rather than god.
You just quoted me talking about history. You were the one who brought in God, remember?
When I read these chapters, the colonization (the "4... possess [of] land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey" by nature of history involved killing the people on that land in order for one to claim it. The people on this foreign land where also women and children.
From God's point of view, the people of the land did detestable things - men, women and children, as a part of their worship to idol 'gods'. Sodom and Gomorrah was an example of how children were not innocent and untarnished.
Remember. I see the bible written about god not written by god. So, historically, yes they killed women and children but according to christians god didn't condone it even though it was written that he did (above). I assume they say this because they have a personal relationship with him to know the difference between his edict and history (the context of it from a spiritual light) that I, reading it verbatim, would not have.
Interesting that you say, according to Christians. Since I and my brethren of close to 9,000,000, believe that God condoned it, what does that make me... a cushion?
