Here's my take on the Bible God telling the israelites to slaughter the people of Canaan. I remember back during the 2000's when George W Bush wanted to invade Iraq and topple Saddam. He actually believed that God was behind him in his decision. At least that was how I understand it. Can you imagine if the Bible were still being penned during this time? What would it read?
I agree.
Well, no. Jesus specifically said he came to fulfill the law. In Matthew 15, Jesus specifically said that those that ignore the law for their own convenience worship him in vain, using the specific example of one cursing his father or mother being put to death. Jesus taught that the law should be followed, including all the killing.
Um, no he did not. But if you can show me one place where he set someone to be killed for breaking the law, then you might be onto something. Instead we have a place where the law is broken by an adulteress, and Christ said that he who is without sin could cast the first stone. The law called for her stoning. But he did not follow that law. He showed mercy and forgiveness instead.
So, if God (or Jesus) told you to kill me, you would not. You have a higher moral code than God and Jesus. Interesting.
It might be interesting if it were true. But it is not. I follow Him and the e x ample He left. (or I try, but I think about myself and put myself first far more than he ever did... if he ever even did that, and I think he did not ever do it) He never stoned a single person, and in the one place where stoning was called for... he forgave and showed mercy instead.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
And the most important command in the law: love God and love neighbor. Mercy was a more important matter in the law as well. Also, key words are 'till all be fulfilled.' What all? That he did what he came here to do? That is what I think.
Well I think it is perfectly valid to look at Jesus, and to see that he is in complete agreement with his father,
He is in complete agreement with his father. But again, not all that is written about his father is true, or after thousands of years, understood as it should be. Otherwise... again... why 'woe to the scribes?' Why send Christ to teach the truth? Why not say that the OT is the image of God, rather than saying that Christ is the image of God?
Who as soft and lovable as you'd like to make him look, spoke a great deal about judgement and punishment.
I do not mistake love... as being soft and lovable and hippie-like, as some like to say. People will be judged, and for the most part, they will be judged on the merits of how they judged others. Their own actions will judge them. The truth of who we are will be made known to us, as it is already known to him, and that sort of speaks for itself.
I always thought Christ was very firm. Merciful and loving, yes. But also a teacher and a leader. Not someone we can bs.
But okay, I guess his followers are more moral than he is since they are willing to dismiss what Jesus valued.
He valued faith, love, mercy, and forgiveness. His followers value the same... and embraced what He valued.
Peace,
Tammy
