If God is God, Why. . . ?

In addition to God being God and taking care of business for all men as a matter of his grace through our faith. It was noted by members that God is Love. As if that were the only attribute or characteristic God should have and no other.

That is a man's desire not who God really is. So a list was compile d from biblical references to which anyone with a Bible program can search and see the list is AKJV Biblically correct.

God is Gracious is one that I did not insert into the list because this term of God shows, not that he has gracious moves as a beautiful woman might, but that he has a characteristic of giving to man, any man, that is living something he does not deserve, that is hell, by substituting our blood as payment to be shed for our sins but the precious blood of his own son.

Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 ¶ And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 ¶ It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

You see we are saved through God's grace but no sin is forgiven without the shedding of blood. It is the very blood of Jesus that saves us through faith, that he died the death and rose again, to give to those through their faith on him eternal life.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

OOo lucky me. I do not care if you reply or not. I don't live for you to deign to talk

Sorry neighbour but Allah is indeed the same Semitic Deity. If you had read the Quaran you would understand this. When one ABrahamic faith tries to distance itself from the others. It raises all sorts of alarms to me.

But no my Gods are not your regional deity, and that is all that your deity is. They are the Gods of my ancestors.

Oh and since I can't reply to he admin post. Just a small point. While this indeed the Religion Faith and Theology forum. It should be acknowledged that this is not a single faiths forum. Thus "charity towards others" which is a Christian ideal (seldom expressed one should note) is not all faiths. Not mine certainly.

My faith has the values of (and these Irish words, which I am providing the English equivalent)
Dilseacht (loyalty)
Tauruse *rekuavukut(
Flaithiulacht (Generosity, and not that is not Chaarity)
Aiocht (Hospitality)
Ionrachas (Integrity)
Cneastacht (thinking appropriately)
Macanta (willingness to learn from anyone)
Calmact (hardness in that you can endure)
Corgacht (ferocity in battle)
Fios (knowledge)
Dualgas (duty)

Beyond this and tying into Aiocht, the idea of *ghosti, the reconstructed (as evidenced by the *) proto Indo-European word from whence Hospitality and guest come in English, also stranger (which was what ghost used to mean, before it became a spirit).

So no charity. But yes we should be good guests, but also hosts from ATS (stopping poor behavior with no favoritism shown).

So we should all recognize there is more than just Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths.

/rant

God is God and only he can save, he indwells and does not take away our free will but just abides in us and we in him Part from confession of Christ no man can be saved or indwelled by God. The indwelling is known as the earnest in Eph 1:13-14

Eph 1:13-4 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
1John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: . . .
1John 4:10-16 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
1John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Salvation is not a work of man, nor can he receive the indwelling of God, the fullness of the One who is the Father , the Word and the Holy Ghost

1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

No other god can save not even Allah or his apostle, prophet Mohammad, despite making himself equal to Allah in Sura 40:8. For salvation does not come by physical birth, nor by our blood line, nor by the will of man but of God

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

All of those words, in the many different versions of the bible, are written by men. You yourself have shown that, in your bible, all men lie.

Serious question. Do all men lie, or does the bible lie?

I'm no athiest, but...

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. 
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. 
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? 
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Epicurus

I'm pretty sure it been said before.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: ChesterJohn

All of those words, in the many different versions of the bible, are written by men. You yourself have shown that, in your bible, all men lie.

Serious question. Do all men lie, or does the bible lie?

Why not the later? Supposedly Plato would openly admit that mythology, or the gods were perfect an good, even though they would commit atrocious acts against mortals in their tales.

And yet they were still above, sin I guess for some odd reason, even though he accepts that the deed was done, but we're never in the wrong at the same time too? Especially with Greek mythology being a very gritty soap opera, with very surreal elements of their historical environment for whatever reason behind their truths or falsehoods.

No different then using a quote from the Bible or the Koran with a moral statement like love all men, mean while someone could bring up a quote from the same source that would be contradictory in theory, like excuting the sodemites or more who lie like a women.

Where if it's wrong, it still very much right?

a reply to: Specimen

That’s the thing though. There are just so many contradictions in the many different versions of the bible.

Also, people have put a book on a pedestal so high, that it is above their god/s and they can’t have a bad thing said about bits of paper.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

No my gnoses (and you can't disprove it ) says there are many Gods, and none are supreme. Thus, YOU can quote your heavily edited, poorly translated book all you like. HOWEVER, it does not porve a damned thing.

My path emphasizes, owning your actions, no matter the consequences, and not getting a pass by embracing a deity. If we as a species can't begin to own our actions, we will go extinct. QED

a reply to: TerryDon79

As opposed to when no one except an authority could only read it, where there kingdoms were, or above heaven.

Yea, they only pick the bad parts, never the good ones.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

our free will was taken away when we were granted self awareness under a theocracy many of us didnt ask for and are actively trying to revaluate. imagine a roll of toilet paper coming to life and comprehending its given station. we dont want to be helpless toilet paper. in a dictatorship, we are all toilet paper.

sov·er·eign·ty
ˈsäv(ə)rən(t)ē/Submit
noun
supreme power or authority.

sovereign power corrupts sovereignly. that is to say supremely. by definition free will belongs exclusively to that authority. "land of the free" does not abide by such policies. in theory anyway.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
I've been dipping in and out of this thread and I'm surprised its still going. By your constant banging the drum about the bible you obviously strongly believe it as true!

So does the following sound familiar?

God decided to flood the world and destroy all the people, but god said to build a boat big enough for his family and the animals. The boat was to be covered with pitch and bitumen. his family, the craftsmen who built the boat, and many animals entered the boat. The rains lasted six (or possibly seven) days, killing all the other people. The boat landed on a mountain, and a dove was released then a swallow, and a raven before opening the door and letting everyone out.

Or what about

He was born of a virgin and "immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason."
He was baptized in a river.
In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom.
He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil.
He began his ministry at age 30.
He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man.
He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse.
He had a sacred cup or grail.
He was slain.
His religion had a eucharist.
He was the "Word made flesh."
His followers expect a "second coming" ushering in a golden age.

The flood story above is from the epic of Gilgamesh tablet 8 of the Enumah Elish the Sumerian creation story and was written 2000 bc compared to Noah's story which was written 600bc.

As for the story of the man from the virgin birth above that's from the Zoroastrian religion.

Zoroastrianism is one of the world's oldest monotheistic religions. It was founded by the Prophet Zoroaster in ancient Iran approximately 3500 years ago.

Now then please explain how your bible seems to have these same stories? Because as a religious person which you obviously are, this evidence of an earlier creation story must give you grave cause for concern. If it doesn't then you are obviously brain washed.

a reply to: redchad

I have read the Epic of Gilgamesh, and many other tails written or passed down until written about the first couple, the flood, and the longest afternoon of the Hawaiiana and Samoan legends, longest night of the Inca, Aztec, Iroquois and Lakota legends , longest midday of the Saxon Teutonic tribal legends, and Israel's account of that longest midday found in Joshua, and of the longest early evening Chinese, Mongolian, Punjabi tribe of Indian, Sudanese tribe of Indonesia legends.

All of these legends were from people groups of the sons of Noah, the Jephites, the Shemites and the Hamites that were past down over the last 3-4 thousand years.

There was King by the name of Hammurabi, a Hamite, who was also known as Amraphel king of Shinar. History does not have anything about the last days of Hammurabi, he just abruptly disappears. What happened was he and four other kings went and made war against Bera King of Sodom and three other kings,the king of Sodom and the other three lost the war, but hid in the slime pits. In that defeat Lot was taken captive. When Abram hear about it, he took 300 skilled men of war and pursued after them and killed the five kings before they could return home, and took back all that they had taken and returned to the land of Canaan.

I expect there to be lots of stories handed down through all the tribes. It is all about putting them in order but just because they are from a different land does not mean they are accurate and completely true. But God's Preserve inspired word in English, as found in the AKJV, can be trusted to be historically accurate as many archeology excavations have and are proving true.

I believe the Bible to be the more accurate accounts but when the other legends share the same details then they prove the Bible to be accurate.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Well, we can very easily see your freewill was not taken away by your response.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Oh you've "read" a lot of *tales have you? You went into them, looking for correlation no doubt, and not from a point of trying to understand the content

You are probably a British Israelite too Given you think that the English language, which is one of the biggest Mutts on any language tree, is the be all and end all of languages.

Don't get into comparative mythology with out actually knowing some etymology How is your Dumezil?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

But God's Preserve inspired word in English, as found in the AKJV, can be trusted to be historically accurate

Your book, written by men who lie, that’s been translated countless times, that says unicorns are real, rape is ok, slavery is a good thing and how an impossible flood happened, isn’t a history book. It’s a book made up of myths that are verifiably wrong.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: redchad

I have read the Epic of Gilgamesh, and many other tails written or passed down until written about the first couple, the flood, and the longest afternoon of the Hawaiiana and Samoan legends, longest night of the Inca, Aztec, Iroquois and Lakota legends , longest midday of the Saxon Teutonic tribal legends, and Israel's account of that longest midday found in Joshua, and of the longest early evening Chinese, Mongolian, Punjabi tribe of Indian, Sudanese tribe of Indonesia legends.

All of these legends were from people groups of the sons of Noah, the Jephites, the Shemites and the Hamites that were past down over the last 3-4 thousand years.

There was King by the name of Hammurabi, a Hamite, who was also known as Amraphel king of Shinar. History does not have anything about the last days of Hammurabi, he just abruptly disappears. What happened was he and four other kings went and made war against Bera King of Sodom and three other kings,the king of Sodom and the other three lost the war, but hid in the slime pits. In that defeat Lot was taken captive. When Abram hear about it, he took 300 skilled men of war and pursued after them and killed the five kings before they could return home, and took back all that they had taken and returned to the land of Canaan.

I expect there to be lots of stories handed down through all the tribes. It is all about putting them in order but just because they are from a different land does not mean they are accurate and completely true. But God's Preserve inspired word in English, as found in the AKJV, can be trusted to be historically accurate as many archeology excavations have and are proving true.

I believe the Bible to be the more accurate accounts but when the other legends share the same details then they prove the Bible to be accurate.

Lot of noise but no content! You've not explained anything, you try and tell us that the Gilgamesh flood story written pre Judaism is a myth yet the bible flood story which is exactly the same as the Gilgamesh story (in fact a straight copy) is true!

You never mentioned Zoroastrianism?

The LORD God is the God of all the earth.

This is very important understanding for the UN.

a reply to: redchad

Wow, for an intelligent person you did see what I said very clearly about all the legends

I said they were one and the same flood and longest day, And that the AKJV Bible was more reliable.

And I spoke about Hammurabi and his demise that most historians will not speak out-loud lest the disappoint their peers by connecting the truth to the Word of God and inspired into the AKJV Bible.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: redchad



You do know the epic of Gilgamesh hence the flood story was written 1200 before Judaism? Doooh! So how can the bible be more reliable? it's a not even a very good copy of the original.

And Zoroastrianism is 1500 years before JC yet here we have again the bible using/copying earlier stories.

Your faith is built on stolen stories