Is God Good?

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
– Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion”

“There is one fundamental difference between God allowing death when he has the power to restore life and my taking a life when I don’t have the power to restore it. The story of evil is one part of a greater narrative. To ignore the greater narrative is to continue to raise particulars without accepting the general.”
– Ravi Zacharias, “Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend”

There are a number of reasons that men hate God (even those who claim not to believe in God). However, these reasons typically boil down to one of two actual objections, which are essentially moral and emotional objections:

1) They hate God as they see Him portrayed in religious texts and traditions, or

2) They hate the claim He makes on their lives.

I will focus here on the former, while leaving the latter for another time. I am not doing this because I feel the former is the sturdier argument (quite the contrary, actually), but because it is more likely to serve as an obstacle to consideration of the latter. The more simplistic argument is that made by Dawkins above, and yet it is the most often expressed. I also believe it to be a smokescreen against the greater fear of God claiming ownership of our lives, and that is why it must be dispelled first.

A confession is in order first: there are many aspects of God’s nature and historical “behavior” that I find difficult to deal with. There are stories whose greater meaning I cannot comprehend and statements that seem contrary to my expectations and understanding of His character. Unlike many skeptics, however, I do not hold the a priori determination that a lack of understanding or comprehension on my part demands that its inherent truth be discounted. As God spoke through the prophet Isaiah:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.”
– Isaiah 55:9-10

“His ways” are exactly what so infuriate Dawkins and his band of devotees. More often than the faith vs. science, evolution vs. creationism, or even reason vs. religion debates, I find arguments against the goodness of God used as the basis for not believing in Christianity. Of course, our agreement with God’s behavior has little to do with the probability of His existence, but it is a complaint that must regardless be met head-on.

I will certainly explain, but first I have to say that any investigations deep into matters like this may be important, but tend to obscure the true message of the Bible, which is displayed from the expulsion out of the garden, through the almost-sacrifice of Isaac and the escape from Egypt, through the exile to Babylon and ultimately to the cross and resurrection. The message is love, freedom, mercy and grace. These are important questions, but they offer an unfortunate opportunity to miss the forest for the trees, so to speak. God is love, and if you are able at any point to grasp that truth, then your life will be opened to a greater array of joy and strength than previously imaginable. When Obi Wan Kenobi said, “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine,” he very well could have been quoting any of the early Christian martyrs.

The “scarlet thread of redemption” is the story of Christ that is told in each and every verse of the Bible, and revealed on the road to Emmaus.

While there are numerous objections – and I am more than willing to answer any or all of them to the best of my ability (or point to those who have greater ability) at my AJFITS Facebook page – I will here focus on two chosen arbitrarily by their proximity in recent discussions: the history of violence from the Old Testament through the Spanish Inquisition, and the “rape” law in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

As far as the violence aspect, I cannot speak more clearly or eloquently than John Dickson did on a recent Ravi Zacharias podcast (Part I and Part II), also partially transcripted here, but I will make a few comments. First, as Dickson states, while “one death in the name of Christ is a blasphemy… the violence of Christendom is dwarfed by that of non-religious causes.” He also makes what I see as an undeniable point: “While it is obvious that only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity (the Messiah’s way of humility and love), any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism.” Again, this is not a claim that those worldviews create particular actions, but rather encourage or allow them.

I have been accused of claiming that only Christians can be moral, in direct refutation of my claims here. Also, I have discussed the evil that we can find within each of us here. Furthermore, there is no violence propagated by an individual Christian or a supposedly Christian regime that has a basis in Christian doctrine. In the case of poor Christian behavior, it is surely more Christianity that is the solution, rather than less. Secularism has shown no propensity to change a defective character or morality for the better, while there is an immense collection of testimony to support the claim that Christ can and, indeed, does.

It is important for anyone reading the Bible to understand two ideas. No story in the Bible can be understood without placing it within its proper context within the entire Scriptures, and what is recorded is not necessarily condoned (and often is explicitly not). Abraham and Isaac must be seen in the narrative of God providing an escape from the responsibility of self-salvation and atonement for sins committed. (In the historical context, the first-born was accepted as the “property” of God, and therefore His claim to the life of Isaac would have been viewed as acceptable.) God’s actions in spite of Jonah’s overt racism against the Ninevites must be interpreted as indicative of His love and forgiveness towards all people. Dickson, in the podcast, also points us to Deuteronomy 9:4-6, where the conquest Israel recounted in the Book of Joshua and so vociferously attacked by Dawkins is seen not to be resultant from the righteousness or value of Israel, but rather the evil of the Canaanites. And while this is the only time that Israel even tried to conquer any land (in contrast to each and every other group in that age), the same – and worse – was done to them repeatedly by other nations, allowed by God in response to the obvious wickedness into which the nation repeatedly fell.

It would be unfortunate – not to mention unwise – to define the morality of the William Wallace character in Braveheart only from the fight scenes, completely ignoring the justification. And while Wicked is by all accounts a marvelous and entertaining play, it is a complete extrapolation from characters in The Wizard of Oz, based purely on the conjecture and fantasy of the author; nobody would try to argue that the evidence for the supposed prequel can be found in the original. Yet there is little hesitance to take stories from the Bible out of their historical and scriptural context in order to make an unsupported objection. Wallace’s character – flawed though it may be – must be viewed in light of both the cultural and personal foundation upon which it was built. The story of Elphaba is pure fiction, even when viewed from within the “reality” of the book that inspired it. We understand these ideas in literature and entertainment, but skeptics tend to conveniently forget them when it comes to actuality.

An example of historical context is Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which states:

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.”

An understanding of ancient civilizations is important here, an so I must provide some detail about the cultural milieu into which the law was inserted. First of all, there was no such thing as a “single adult.” A family was the most important thing to all people at this time, and the only source of honor and production in society. An unmarried woman was, by definition, a harlot, since all women were not only married, but were betrothed early on in life, regardless of family station or situation. A young woman – girl, in fact – was expected to be a virgin upon marriage (as was a man, by obvious extrapolation), and if she was not, then she was not welcomed into marriage by any man; her only possible recourse was to become a harlot. (There was no concept of an independent or self-sufficient woman in the world at this time.) This is also evidenced in Joseph wanting to “put Mary away quietly” upon realizing that she was pregnant with Jesus almost two thousand years after Moses. A girl who was raped was still no longer a virgin, and was unlikely to find a husband, which left her outside society, with her needs left unmet except by charitable alms.

The man who “humbled her” was forced by law to tend to and care for her the rest of her days, as well as provide the standard dowry to her family for his “indiscretion.” Even were he to be stoned – a common punishment in that day – she would still be left to beg for the rest of her days, and would never gain the coveted family that was so important for survival. Although not perfect by God’s standards, this was the best way to ensure that the woman still had full availability of comfort and protection for the rest of her life. You have to remember that love was not the reason for marriage at this time (and possibly shouldn’t be today, either, but that is another topic), and so the marriage to an obviously horrid man wasn’t the death knell to happiness that we would imagine it to be today. This was an imperfect solution for an obviously wicked and imperfect culture.

The love poured out from the cross shines deeply on the individual lost in a sea of wickedness and despair.

Men hate God, in much the same way that xenophobes hate foreigners: they have not taken the time to learn about Him or expose themselves to the reality of who He is. It is ignorance, not wisdom and reason, that underlies their assumptions and conclusions. Unfortunately, so much time is spent defending God against unjust accusations that many times His grace and mercy are never discussed. The trees become such distractions that the beauty of the forest remains untouched. We want a loving God, and we have one. He does not love us because of who we are, but because of who He is. This is a relief, because we have demonstrated that if it was our goodness that was required then we could not possibly be loved. There is also consolation in the fact the He is truly and intrinsically Good, and also the basis for all of the good that is within us. We can rest comfortably in His love once we are willing to understand that His ways are not our ways. And thank God for that.

This entry was posted in Atheism, Behavior/Human Nature, Personal and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Is God Good?

  1. Most atheists never understand the context of the texts they so often criticize. Nicely written. :) well done.

    • ajfits7 says:

      Unfortunately, many Christians do not understand the context, either. I would put myself in that camp until recently. I have a ways to go, but it is truly amazing to see the meaning of well-known stories unfold and expand when placed in proper context.

      Thanks for the kind words!

  2. Oh, i agree completely. In fact a lot of poor context that atheists show is because they have never seen that context being taught in the Christian community.

  3. Michael Snow says:

    The faculty blog at Eternity Bible College just had a series on some of these ‘charges’ against God.

  4. “…the violence of Christendom is dwarfed by that of non-religious causes.”

    Like what? What violence was perpetrated in the name of irreligion or atheism? This argument is too common and it grossly misrepresents the nature of atheism while simultaneously shifting focus from the matter at hand. It is competing ideologies and or lust for power that results in the majority of historical bloodshed. It just so happens that religious institutions have offered major competing ideologies and this has caused blood to flow from the church for a thousand years. To be fair, that isn’t to say atheism is immune to propagating this behavior. If it were to grow into an institutionalized ideology (as opposed to a lack of an ideology or lack of belief), it could do the same. I doubt it will happen, but I would intellectually inconsistent if I outright claimed it were impossible.

    Regarding your explanation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, you said, “An understanding of ancient civilizations is important here, an so I must provide some detail about the cultural milieu into which the law was inserted.”

    Exactly! Why then, is there such dogged assistance of the applicability of ancient ideas, customs, practices, etc. in a modern society? We have evolved culturally to recognize the blatant misogyny present in this passage’s marriage arrangement is bigoted and unacceptable. The Bible certainly can’t be cited for this paradigm shift. Jesus did not condemn the law. While his statements were, I think, somewhat contradictory regarding the law, he certainly didn’t mince words in Matthew 5:18. So where does that leave believers in regards to the relevancy of the Old Testament. By your own admission, the passages reference a bygone culture, even by Jesus’ time. Why then, the dogged adherence to Bronze Age values in 2012?

    Next, we have to deal with the rapist himself. You said this: “The man who “humbled her” was forced by law to tend to and care for her the rest of her days, as well as provide the standard dowry to her family for his “indiscretion.”

    So, are we to draw the conclusion that rape was preferable in such a culture because the law, ostensibly dictated in some fashion by God, provided an opportunity to for the raped woman to not need to beg the rest of her life?

    Let’s take a small step back, lest we get too myopic, and look at the big picture again. God, in all of his omnipotence can design man in such a fashion that, culturally speaking, rape doesn’t result in a lifetime of hardship for the woman raped, at least outside of the mental anguish of rape itself. But he doesn’t do that. Instead, God designs the law so that when the inevitable rapists among his people do their thing, their victims get a consolation prize to the tune of marrying their assailant.

    Perhaps that was all fine and dandy 2,000 years BCE, but again I ask, what possible relevance could this have to a modern believer?

    “This was an imperfect solution for an obviously wicked and imperfect culture.”

    I could not say it better myself. But, isn’t that God’s solution? Was the OT not inspired by God, as well as the New?

    As far as the Canaanite Conquest goes…see above. I literally cannot conceive of a time when wholesale murder would be considered appropriate, even for a group of people as evidently vile as the Canaanites. Was God ordering the just execution of an entire land? What about women and children? This brings me to Ravi Zacharias’ statement on the differentiation between a man taking a man’s life and God taking a man’s life, who may restore it.

    At best, RZ’s analogy is a stretch. It doesn’t take a studied philosopher to see that. For one thing, there is zero Biblical indication that this was God’s intent. For another, the analogy opens a black hole I don’t think is healthy. Perhaps it was God’s intent to wipe out Canaan due to their extraordinary treachery, so why not do it himself and keep the blood off the Israelites hands? By this line of logic, we leave the door open to such commands of violence in the future. After all, who is to say God couldn’t decide to intervene again?

    The interesting note on Dawkins’ quote from “The God Delusion” is that for each of the awful descriptors he puts on God, one may cite an example in the OT. It is not as if atheists are on the outside making outlandish claims on the nature of God. We’re pulling example from his own inspired Word! Further, acknowledging context often leads to greater instances of treachery and savagery by “God’s People,” often ordered or overseen by God himself. Sorry if I have difficulty marrying the ideas of a perfect, loving, gracious God (the “forest,” no?) with the character I read about in the OT. The NT isn’t profoundly better but I’ll have to address that another time.

    Honestly, I am largely disinterested in rationalizing murder, or wholesale killing, or whatever we’re calling it these days. I don’t see the merit or sense in such a practice. In fact I think the idea is very dangerous. I am typically more interested in discussing the merits of God’s very existence, however rare that evidence is. That’s a simpler, and shorter, discussion which would preclude the need to ever justify His killing.

    • ajfits7 says:

      There is no mention of violence “perpetrated in the name of irreligion or atheism.” The use of “non-religious” was very intentional, to describe the cause of the violence as outside religious inspiration. Because John Dickson handled the question better than I would have, I linked to the partial transcript of his talk. Even much of the violence supposedly done in the name of a particular faith is done for power, greed or hate. You cannot look at the Crusades or the African slave trade and find justification in the Bible. The problem is not God, or the Bible. The problem is me. The problem is you. The problem is each of us. God gives us free will, and He understands that the gift entails the possibility that we will misuse it. A man that desires love does not truly desire a Stepford Wife, and God does not desire automatons that cannot freely choose to love Him; evil is the necessary risk of free will.

      As for marriage, is the current system really working? The feeling of “being in love” is temporary no matter how it is viewed, and cannot be the most appropriate contributing factor for marriage. Marriage has been proven to be the largest contributor to a healthy family. This is not to say that all families with two parents are better than those with one, but that marriage has intrinsic benefits that are unassailable. Arranged marriages are not evil, or really even undesirable when we realize that the partnership between two people has less to do with “being in love” than commitment. I am happy that I had the choice of who I would marry, and I cannot imagine my life if I had to take my parents’ choice of a wife, versus my own. However, the pursuit of our selfish desires and wants has gotten us into the mess the world is in today, where hedonism is viewed as preferable to discipline and chastity. And yet, we know that pursuit of these desires does not quench our appetites; we always want more.

      The relevance to today is in the message and theme of the Bible as a whole, not in the individual stories. Joshua and Canaan, Jonah and Nineveh, David and Bathsheba – these are more indicative of what we are facing in a fallen world than they are morality plays about how we should react to war, evil and lust. We know that we do not live up to the standards of morality that clearly lie within each of us, and that we cannot live up to them. We know that our deepest desires are for things that cannot be had in this world – the right job, the highest pinnacles of success, the perfect family. This cannot merely be attributed to instinct and evolution, because the data does not fit the hypothesis. We are constantly looking for joy and peace, not happiness and contentment. Those who have truly given their lives to God have joy and peace. And when they fail, screw up or get lost, it is always within their reach. I have experienced this in my own life, and I can point to hundreds I know personally that can claim the same. It is not delusion, blind hope, or a placebic antidote to the world. There is evidence in the world around us and in our very lives, hearts and minds that points to the existence of God; I am more than happy to discuss it. However, it must be plainly stated that the greatest evidence for me is my very life. I am different, I am changed, I have peace and joy that cannot be explained any other way, and the existence of which cannot be disputed.

      As for the rest, that we can discuss and debate!

      • I must confess I am surprised by your answer on marriage. I would think an unequivocal denunciation of ancient biblical marriage practice (as related to modern culture) would be appropriate. However, on the same token, I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised. Theists have a truly impressive ability to rationalize all sorts of ideas otherwise contemporaneously deemed abhorrent.

        “There is evidence in the world around us and in our very lives, hearts and minds that points to the existence of God; I am more than happy to discuss it. However, it must be plainly stated that the greatest evidence for me is my very life. I am different, I am changed, I have peace and joy that cannot be explained any other way, and the existence
        of which cannot be disputed.”

        I’m happy for you, man…but we clearly have different definitions of what constitutes evidence. Your definition would never stand up to basic examination by a court or lab, though, so why call it evidence at all?

        I am happy without God. In fact, letting go was the fist time in my life I actually knew what spiritual freedom really was. I have all the peace I could hope for!

      • ajfits7 says:

        I do not claim that my personal experience is evidence that would stand up in court; I simply feel that I must, at the outset, make it clear that it is the primary evidence for my own personal acceptance of Christ. In addition, people who have known me for a long time can be witnesses to the change that has occurred in me. As for marriage, I am not sure which ancient practices you are talking about. (I feel that sounds dismissive in type, since you cannot hear my tone, but I am really just trying to ensure that we are talking about the same things – if you lived in Tennessee, you could join in our Monday night chats and we could probably be more clear!) The polygamy, treatment of women, harlotry, etc. recorded in the Bible are all deplorable practices. I am speaking specifically about the ancient idea of arranged marriage versus the contemporary idea of love preceding marriage. As I stated, I myself am turned off by the idea of not choosing my own wife, but I am able to graciously accept that my idea of what works best may be – and often is – wrong.

        As for freedom – I think the idea of freedom is largely misunderstood. Within a naturalistic framework/worldview, freedom is particularly unavailable. When all of our actions and desires are the result of a “random collocation of molecules” and evolutionary instinct, what constitutes freedom? Freedom from guilt and rules is often cited as the freedom that people find outside of religion, but that is often because it was religion that was oppressing them, rather than truth. When tragedy strikes, only nature or probability can be blamed, and there is no true source of solace. When our desires and hopes are realized, and then do not live up to our expectations, we can only shrug our shoulders and say “c’est la vie.” When we are betrayed or swindled, we can have no foundation for crying foul. I, too, sometimes feel that I have found greater peace when I have ignored God for a time. Then I encounter pain, suffering or evil, and am reminded that this world is broken – as am I – and is in need of being fixed. This, too is not evidence, but it is the start of a philosophical line of questioning that must be answered by something.

        The metanarrative explained in the Bible accounts for our experience much more closely than any combination of scientific theories. Additionally, there is nothing we accept as scientific fact that cannot fit into the biblical narrative. It is not the availability of evidence that is the issue, it is the acceptance of that evidence. Too often, people disavow God because of the gaps in our understanding, but willingly accept their own worldviews in complete disregard of that view’s inherent gaps.

      • ajfits7 says:

        I do not want to neglect to mention that I do appreciate your willingness to converse here. Obviously it is not always fun to wade in amongst those whose beliefs are antithetical to your own, and take the “abuse” that will necessarily follow. Trolling is one thing, but respectfully and intelligently responding is becoming a lost art. So thanks!

        Also, judging by your Twitter pic, you’re an Indians fan, and so if you have peace, then there may be something to your side!

    • I would like to point out that the argument about who killed the most and whose body count is higher, is irrelevant and would also cut both ways. People have killed in the name of everything they could, just to justify their actions. Therefore as no Christian can’t say that atheism promotes violence, the atheist also can not say that religion promotes violence. The truth is, power when fallen into the wrong hands, always corrupt and breeds violence.

      As Goya wrote, “the sleep of reason breeds monsters”.

      • I agree with this completely. It cannot be stressed enough, however, that the Church itself (and not just within Christianity) has been one of the most powerful organizations in the history of the world. Predictably, it has led to corruption on a complementary scale. This is, of course, a result of that power-lust and greed-lust you mentioned, John. If Christians actually acted like Christ, the world would be a nicer place!

        However, I would be remiss to ignore th idea that I consider theism to be inherently irrational due, simply, to a sore lack of evidence. I know God doesn’t fit in a lab so I am even willing to concede falsifiable evidence. However, if God dos exist, he is the ultimate hide-and-go-seek champion, I will give him that ;)

      • To be honest I have thought quite a lot about it, the best I can conclude is that doubt for God’s existence, must remain a mystery as it is. I know it sounds circular, but really, that is not what I am saying. Suppose, there is a God, and he shows himself or makes the evidence of his existence available in a lab. Don’t you think it would instantly change everything. People would HAVE to obey God. They would have to follow him, simply because he is the highest authority and now we have no doubt left to question it.

        Not only will this end in a dictatorship, it will also negate free will. Because disobedience will be simply against all rationality. It would be equal in terms, if I compare the federal law and the law breaker. No matter how innocent you sound, you can’t evade your dues, your taxes. It is not a matter of choice or obligation. It is a must, it is the law.

        1. Theocracy instead of democracy
        2, No human free will, as in truly free
        3. Love for God, becomes a duty, not a deed achieved from the passion of the heart. There may be people who would follow their duty fervently but they are the rule to the exception. May be you are an honest seeker who would not mind recognizing this, but what about the atheist who has serious intellectual or emotional problems with God, he has to join you, even if he hates it or he is in violation of the law.

        I thank God that He remains a mystery.

  5. “Don’t you think it would instantly change everything. People would HAVE to obey God.”

    No, why would that be the case? The Bible is rife with examples of people blatantly disobeying God when he’s made his presence plainly obvious. Take the Jews on the Exodus for example. They were getting themselves into crap all the time! I would certainly behave if I watched a sea open before my eyes. And what about Lucifer? Ostensibly, this is an ANGEL, who has direct contact with god, who disobeys him.

    In other words, there’s certainly nothing to suggest that a more obvious god would cause humans to turn into automatons.

    “May be you are an honest seeker who would not mind recognizing this, but what about the atheist who has serious intellectual or emotional problems with God, he has to join you, even if he hates it or he is in violation of the law.”

    I can’t believe in the Christian god, man…even if I wanted to. “Not enough evidence…” as Russell said.

  6. Actually, that would be the exact case, if things go as I said, for insatnce you are right that Israel screwed most often, but then they were directly punished too, sometimes very severely. Now the thing yo missed is that in the case of Israel, God was not involved with them on a personal level, except prophets. In Christianity that view, decidedly goes to the very heart of an individual. God becomes personal, so you are not involved as a group but as an individual and the penalty would therefore follow in the same respect.

    About Lucifer, he is only free in the sense that there is free will. Just like humans are given free will. That is exactly what would happen if God loves mankind but makes them free as well. I am not suggesting we turn to automatons. I am saying that we would be required to do as needed since now we have no doubt and no question on God’s authority and since we are humans we will fail but the point is we can not be truly free, we can not say that we do not want to obey God on intellectual level because there is nothing now to question about his omnipotence. In this case even if we don’t like to, we are bound to it. The point that we fail to uphold that standard doesn’t have any bearing on how we feel toward the system in the first place. May be I want to follow God perfectly but can’t. You don’t like God but you have to do your best now to uphold and you fail as well. But the God, I know would not want anyone to follow him out of burden or duty. That is not something he wants, so therefore the point of showing himself and leaving no reason behind would go against even his own wishes. Unless you want to, you don’t have to follow God and he doesn’t want someone to praise him just because you have to. It doesn’t matter how you perform, what matters is that you heart is not in it. The case of Israel is the perfect example. They worshipped him with lips but did not have their hearts set on him and they paid the price.

  7. “I can’t believe in the Christian god, man…even if I wanted to. “Not enough evidence…” as Russell said.”

    I don’t find this impressing because its circular at the end. If you are going to be consistent with this, you will never find God, even if he does exist, not even then. What kind of evidence would you be looking for? If God comes to you tonight and you saw someone who says he’s God, what would you do? How do you decide its genuine? can you do that 100% without any doubts at all? I doubt that, though you are free to elaborate on this if you like to.

    Scepticism when it chains your imagination, becomes dangerous.

    You don’t have to suppose an atheist or agnostic stance just to be sceptic. I am sceptic towards my faith, in fact I sometimes criticize it harder than non-Christians. Evidence is not the problem, scepticism is.

  8. denny says:

    Love has been here a long time, the Greek word is used Agape which means love. The NIV translates this best:

    1 Corinthians 13:12-13 (NIV)
    12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
    13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

    God has given us marriage to show us what a relationship should be with Him. Paul would not used this analogy if we are to believe rape is the form of marriage, but love between two people who become one shows us the same love we can have with are Father through His Son Jesus Christ. This relationship begins with faith and through faith are love grows, not diminish. Love gets stronger in a relationship and as your faith grows love grows.

    For us to dwell on laws from long ago we must think, we as humans have evolved much further in these 9000 years. We must remember God has given the Human race so many chances on there own. Now those chances are coming to a end. The mysteries have been reveled what are Lord expects from us. With these knew mysteries being reveled through Paul we must learn from Paul what is required of us today so we must progress to the further for the return of are Lord Jesus.

    Paul has brought us something so new and exciting, and that is the Gospel of Grace which shows us that Jesus dose care for us so much.

    For marriage Paul describes what is expected of us in 1 Corinthians 7 its laid out simple and straight forward.

    Mr. John David, God has already been here but know one believed it was Him. You will know when Jesus returns He will make certain of that. The whole bible is centered around this insight.

    God will not hesitate and say “I told you so”.

  9. Pingback: The Tragedy of One | Another Jesus Fish in the Sea…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s