Who is to blame? Pilate, Us, Jews, God, Liberals, Conservatives.....

[higgybaby]

I originally posted this in response to another thread. I think this question is bigger and deserves a thread of its own.


Nobody is arguing that Pontius Pilate was a hero, nobody is arguing that Pontius Pilate is innocent, he could have outrightly freed Jesus!

I am about to make a statement that I am sure will be met with much fanfare....There is no single, earthly source to blame for killing Jesus. As has been stated by most Christians on this site. The Jewish religious leaders hated Jesus, so they arrested Him and delivered Him to the Roman official, Pontius Pilate, for execution. Pilate could have released Jesus, but he too, shares a responsibility because he succombed to the influence of yet a third party who contributed to the death of Jesus, the crowd in Jerusalem who kept shouting "Crucify Him!"(not to mention the political pressure that was coming down from Caeser himself to squash all of the uprisings that were becoming a nuisance)
Again, as most of the Christians have posted, it was sinners like me and you who killed Jesus. "While we were yet sinners," the Apostle Paul tells us, "Christ died for us"(Romans 5:8) No one can point a finger at any other person or group for the death of Jesus. Our sins were the reason Jesus had to be crucified.


I want to take this a step even further, ultimately, it was God the Father who killed His Son, Jesus. The Bible clearly says that Jesus was "delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God"(Acts 2:23) Jesus did not die by mistake. Although our sins made Jesus' death necessary, God brought it to pass. So in God's sending Jesus to recieve His wrath so others could recieve eternal life, sinners are saved from God, by God.


How arrogant, to believe that a single politician(Pontius Pilate) or a few religious leaders(The Jewish religious leaders) or a mob crowd(the chanting "Crucify Him!") (even as powerful as these three groups are) could possibly be responsible for the execution of a master plan to kill the Son of God, No. Only God, through the allowance of an unlikely chain of events. Through His Will alone could manipulate these things to happen, while at the same time allowing man to have his own free will.

Repeat: my take on the matter:

I want to take this a step even further, ultimately, it was God the Father who killed His Son, Jesus.

[jporterweb]

If you wanna get down to it. Every human is responsible because it's our sins that required him to give his life.

[BigCountry]

Gee I knew we had some power in the film industry but that's taking it a little too far :D

[Yudolindo]

In historical opinion: Pilate killed Jesus, period.
In religious opinion: all of mankind killed Jesus.
If you are Mel Gibson or an eastern European bigot: the Jews killed Jesus.
So it all depends on your perspective.

[higgybaby]

Mel Gibson does not place the blame on the jews shoulders in the movie, He does a good job of showing pilate's guilt the guilt of the Jewish religious leaddership as well as the crowds .

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by Yudolindo
If you are Mel Gibson or an eastern European bigot: the Jews killed Jesus.

I think someone watches to much of the news.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by Yudolindo
In historical opinion: Pilate killed Jesus, period.

Could you do me a favor? Show me where history says that Pilate told his guards to go arrest Jesus and kill him because he wanted to and not because the people he was over rioted for it.

[Yudolindo]

I am getting sick of how “political air it out,” has become “religious air it out.” Religion and politics mix poorly.

[MrWiggles]

Originally posted by jporterweb
Show me where history says that Pilate told his guards to go arrest Jesus and kill him because he wanted to and not because the people he was over rioted for it.

This questions is asking why Pilate ordered his guards to arrest and kill Jesus. Was it because of his own selfish interest (he wanted to) or because the people he ruled over rioted for it? I can honestly say I have no idea. I'm not privy to Pilate's thought process so I can't say. However, this question does seem to indicate that whatever the reason, Pilate ordered his guards to arrest and kill Jesus.

[MrWiggles]

This post is off the thread topic, so let me know if I should move it or delete it all together (if I can even do that).

higgybaby's post raised two questions in my mind. For those of you that are religious, particularly those of you that are Christian, I would appreciate you informing me of your views. This is not an attempt to attack your beliefs. I simply am unclear on a couple of points and could use some education.
Originally posted by higgybaby

Again, as most of the Christians have posted, it was sinners like me and you who killed Jesus. "While we were yet sinners," the Apostle Paul tells us, "Christ died for us"(Romans 5:8) No one can point a finger at any other person or group for the death of Jesus. Our sins were the reason Jesus had to be crucified.

1) How could my sins be part of the reason that Jesus died? I wasn't born yet, therefore I had committed no sin at the time Jesus died. How could events that were yet to happen be part of the reason for his death?

Originally posted by higgybaby
Through His Will alone could manipulate these things to happen, while at the same time allowing man to have his own free will.

2) How can god both manipulate events to happen AND allow man to have free will? If the lord is orchestrating some master plan doesn't that negate the notion of man having free will? On the other hand, if man does truly have free will doesn't that necessitate that no one, including god, manipulates our actions?

Thanks, and sorry if this is a distraction.

[Yudolindo]

Originally posted by MrWiggles


Thanks, and sorry if this is a distraction.

No, you are not the problem. The problem is that this is a political forum that has turned ecumenical, and I for one am getting sick of it. Not only is it not the purpose of the forum, but also it is intensely frustrating to argue with literalists. People can inject reason in politics, but apparently are not willing to have rational, two-way discussions about religion, which is fine but there needs to be a separate forum for such discussions.

[MrWiggles]

Originally posted by Yudolindo
No, you are not the problem. The problem is that this is a political forum that has turned ecumenical, and I for one am getting sick of it. Not only is it not the purpose of the forum, but also it is intensely frustrating to argue with literalists. People can inject reason in politics, but apparently are not willing to have rational, two-way discussions about religion, which is fine but there needs to be a separate forum for such discussions.

I think a separate forum for religious topics would be fun and informative (and occasionally frustrating). We could call it the Hail Mary. However, I don't think that would end the blending of religious topics on the political board. There are plenty of people in the country that feel that policy decisions should reflect their faith. As frustrating as I personally find that, I think it is a bad idea to separate them from the political discussion just because my definition of 'political' doesn't agree with their definition.

[Yudolindo]

Threads titled, for example: “Who is to blame? Pilate, Us, Jews, God, Liberals, Conservatives.....” are not political and I doubt they could ever be construed as such; they are theological or perhaps historic. I am not saying that we should bar any religiously informed opinion, far from it; I just think there should be a separate place for people who wish to discuss overtly religious topics.

[jporterweb]

You know, you don't have to read a topic you don't want to Yudolindo? This is the Political forum yes, but it is also a forum for things that are as very off topic as religion. It's not something that would be standardly discussed in the Off Topic forum. I was once told that I don't have to read any topic I don't agree with. I suggest you use the same restraint.

[SkinsKY]

Originally posted by Yudolindo
I am getting sick of how “political air it out,” has become “religious air it out.” Religion and politics mix poorly.

They do mix poorly, but both sides regularly mix them together anyway in some form or another. It doesn't hurt that a controversial film with both religious and political implications is near the forefront of recent events.

[Yudolindo]

Originally posted by jporterweb
You know, you don't have to read a topic you don't want to Yudolindo? This is the Political forum yes, but it is also a forum for things that are as very off topic as religion. It's not something that would be standardly discussed in the Off Topic forum. I was once told that I don't have to read any topic I don't agree with. I suggest you use the same restraint.

Actually, “Apache Off Topic Tribe” is for things very off topic things, hence the name, “Off Topic.” In fact, there is a thread running in said forum about the “The Passion,” where a few threads here were moved too. The problem lies in that if you disagree with someone politically it lends itself to being civil, while religious disagreements tend to be rutting, unpleasant and sometimes even silly. Yes, I can avoid religious topics, but it by that logic we may as well be having these discussions in the main forum. Further, it is well within my rights to voice my displeasure at the obvious misplacement of topics as it yours to disagree. We discuss politics less now than religion, which is not really the intent of this forum and instead of breeding discussion it’s as if people now are intimidated by the idea of offending someone’s religious beliefs. Its not a clear cut issue of restraint: I can hear a pin drop in this forum.

[jporterweb]

I'm not going to fight with you. I'm just telling you what I've been told about the forums.

[jporterweb]

But to be clear. This is the description of this board.

"This forum is for discussion about Politics and Current Events. Please post political discussion and threads here, and not the Off Topic Forum."

The Passion is a current event. A highly controversial one at that. So it does belong here.

[Yudolindo]

Originally posted by jporterweb
But to be clear. This is the description of this board.

"This forum is for discussion about Politics and Current Events. Please post political discussion and threads here, and not the Off Topic Forum."

The Passion is a current event. A highly controversial one at that. So it does belong here.

You see, the problem is that questions like "who killed Jesus?" are about 2000 years old. Real current. Questions like that are historical and religious, not political. "The Passion" is a movie, not a "current event." There is a thread about it in "Off Topic," so what am I missing? How about I start a thread about the "Lord of the Rings" and its treatment of subjects in air it out?

[jporterweb]

The controversy on The Passion is the current event. If it wasn't why is it being covered all over the news? Lord of the rings was not controversial. Helluva movie, but not controversial. That's the difference.

[akhhorus]

The irony of this is two things:
1- Jesus wanted it, he knew what would happen
2- He came back(if you believe), then technically, no one killed him

but: in this plane of existance, Pilate ordered his execution and Roman soldiers did it.

[akhhorus]

and my favorite "Passion" movie is still "Life of Brian"

[RichardBradley]

No one killed Jesus he gave his life for our sins.!

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by RichardBradley
No one killed Jesus he gave his life for our sins.!

Very good point my friend

[DC_Cowboys]

Well, if you were Bush. You blame every body but yourself !

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by DC_Cowboys
Well, if you were Bush. You blame every body but yourself !

What the hell does that have to do with anything? If you aren't going to have intelligent remarks, please don't post anything.

[DC_Cowboys]

What the hell does that have to do with anything? If you aren't going to have intelligent remarks, please don't post anything.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not happening. Just because you don't think it's not intelligent, doesn't mean ...

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by DC_Cowboys
What the hell does that have to do with anything? If you aren't going to have intelligent remarks, please don't post anything.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not happening. Just because you don't think it's not intelligent, doesn't mean ...

The point is your comment makes no sense. We weren't talking about George W Bush. He has nothing to do with this conversation. If you have a problem with Bush you can post it elsewhere. But don't interrupt a thread with your Bush Hate.

[DC_Cowboys]

jporterweb,

Serenity now !

[jporterweb]

Dude, you really need to think before you type. What does being calm have to do with anything? Wow, I really don't get you.

[PennSkinsFan]

God is responsible. Why? Just like Jesus predicted his own fate and predicted the cruxifiction, it is all part of the Master plan of oru God,. We are not perfect, we are sinful, and that is why God offered us slavation through Christ. So to say anyone is responsible is absurd. It is all the master plan spelled out in the Bible and through prophecy, it is God's master plan.

[jsarno]

I haven't read through all the posts here, just going to answer the question about "who is to blame"?
Honestly, NO ONE. 1- because Jesus forgave all of them. 2- because it was God's plan to have Jesus die to save our sins, therefore if it wasn't the Jews persecuting him and ultimately the romans that executed the plans, it would have been someone else. Why must we put a damper on something that has saved all of us? Who cares who did it? They have all been forgiven and we all have the chance to be saved.

[jporterweb]

Because they are trying to find holes in the story as portrayed by Mel Gibson so they can dissprove everything about Jesus.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by jporterweb
Because they are trying to find holes in the story as portrayed by Mel Gibson so they can dissprove everything about Jesus.

ooooh.

I had a conversation with a Catholic about people that try to disprove the existance of Jesus and he was dead on. He asked why anyone would bother even trying, what would be the benefit of doing so? I was stumped as to why anyone would try to, he went on to say that of course it was satan working in their lives, but even if Jesus wasn't true, does he promote bad actions or thoughts? Does he condone evil behavior? No. So even if Jesus believers are wrong, what's the point in trying to disprove Him? Trying to make the world a more evil place? It has nothing but negative consequences, and I couldn't agree more. Just a thought.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
I haven't read through all the posts here, just going to answer the question about "who is to blame"?
Honestly, NO ONE. 1- because Jesus forgave all of them. 2- because it was God's plan to have Jesus die to save our sins, therefore if it wasn't the Jews persecuting him and ultimately the romans that executed the plans, it would have been someone else. Why must we put a damper on something that has saved all of us? Who cares who did it? They have all been forgiven and we all have the chance to be saved.

See, I just refuse to believe that there is a God who would purposely offer up an innocent human to that kind of torture to absolve other "sinners". I mean, what kind of God is that besides cruel?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
See, I just refuse to believe that there is a God who would purposely offer up an innocent human to that kind of torture to absolve other "sinners". I mean, what kind of God is that besides cruel?

#1- it was his son.
#2- you wouldn't offer up one human to save billions of lives?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
#1- it was his son.
#2- you wouldn't offer up one human to save billions of lives?

Would you offer your son?

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by jsarno
#1- it was his son.
#2- you wouldn't offer up one human to save billions of lives?

Don't forget #3.

Jesus had the power to not do it. He was the one that wanted to do it.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Would you offer your son?

Why does it matter what Jsarno would do. Jsarno is obviously not God.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jporterweb
Why does it matter what Jsarno would do. Jsarno is obviously not God.

You are right there, but he did ask me if I would offer up one to "save" billions. I have just always had a hard time with all the pain and suffering depicted in the Bible in the name of or to prove faith in God. I personally think the Bible is fiction, and while I may be wrong aobut that, it just does not make sense to me that a loving, caring, all-powerful God, would inflict such suffering. It seems like vanity, and if there is a God, I hope he is not cruel or vain.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by dukeuch
You are right there, but he did ask me if I would offer up one to "save" billions. I have just always had a hard time with all the pain and suffering depicted in the Bible in the name of or to prove faith in God. I personally think the Bible is fiction, and while I may be wrong aobut that, it just does not make sense to me that a loving, caring, all-powerful God, would inflict such suffering. It seems like vanity, and if there is a God, I hope he is not cruel or vain.

Since when has God infilcted suffering? I would love to see where the Bible says that God inflicted suffering.

As for #2 above, would you give up your Son if you knew he would rise 3 days later?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jporterweb
Since when has God infilcted suffering? I would love to see where the Bible says that God inflicted suffering.

As for #2 above, would you give up your Son if you knew he would rise 3 days later?

I knew I should not have gone down this path again, becuase it always comes out looking like I am trying to step on someone's beliefs, and "Bible Scholars" invariably criticize my very literal reading of certain biblical verses.

First, I am NOT trying to trash anyone's religion, but

1) God invited Satan to reign misery on Job to prove what a man of faith he was, who would not renounce His name no matter how horrendous the ills inflicted upon him. Job endured the death of his friends, family, loss of property, and terrible illness.

2) God supposedly flooded the earth, killing everyone, right?

I'd say those folks in 1 & 2 suffered pretty mightily.

[thickskin]

I'm finding this exchange of bullet- point-style posts very entertaining and want to gie it a shot myself.

1) If these matters could be resolved rationally they wouldn't be religious they'd be scientific.

2) BUT if a rational answer did exist and just hasn't occured to anyone in 40,000 to 60,000 years (I arrive at this figure bc this type of argument certainly predates christian thinking and 40-60 mil is the estimate cognitive archaeologists give for the emergence of religious thought in proto-humans) then I'm sure this holy grail of all answers will appear to mankind on hailredskins.com.

3) since none of us were around to witness biblical events firsthand, we clearly gain knowledge of those events, as well as their meanings and significances, through our personal cultural experiences. or by reading some compelling text such as one or more versions of one or more translations of the bible. if some answer to the paradoxes of religious thinking were to appear in this forum, if it were compelling and powerful enough to convince/change your mind, is it not fair to say that in some way you are worshipping this new text, and thus diefying or at least beatifying its author?

[jporterweb]

Actually there is scientific and physical proof for a lot of things that happened in the bible.

[jporterweb]

Oh and to end the debate on who is responsible, I went in saw the Passion yesterday. Jesus said and I paraphrase "No one will murder me, I will lay my life down.

[thickskin]

there's alot of physical proof to the fishing stories my grandfather tells too; the river is really there, he has friends who say he went fishing alot on that very river, somewhere there's proably even evidence that he actually caught fish. but the point is: as he's told those stories thousands of times over decades, they've evolved and changed as he's focused more on certain aspects and forgotten other aspects. this occured in the span of only 30 or 40 years to an eyewitness account. biblical events, even the most recent of them, have passed through over a thousand years of telling, retelling, translating etc. It seems silly to me to argue about what did/didn't actually happen, who was truly to blame etc. What you're really arguing about is the idea that god ordains and endorses and preserves the meaning of the bible throuout time so that any version still preserves the true word. And that's an easier thing to talk about bc all you have to do is say, yeah, I believe that, or no I don't. and then you can move on to other matters.

[akhhorus]

also the New Testement was written 150 years after the life of Jesus, so that would be like someone today writing a book on the Crimean war, without sources and just going on what they were told.

[jporterweb]

Right well some believe that the books of the new testament were written by the people at that time if I'm not mistake. I'm not really up on who wrote them, but I can find what I'm talking about when I have the time.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jporterweb
Actually there is scientific and physical proof for a lot of things that happened in the bible.

There may be, but there is lots that refutes events depicted in the Bible too, probably more. By the way, what do you think of the two examples of suffering "inflicted by God" I offered? You did ask, after all.

[akhhorus]

Originally posted by jporterweb
Right well some believe that the books of the new testament were written by the people at that time if I'm not mistake. I'm not really up on who wrote them, but I can find what I'm talking about when I have the time.


The accepted belief amoung Bible historicans was that Paul wrote most of the New Testement in roughly 200 ad. Revelations and a few other things were written later. Some of the tenses used, especially in Matthew would lead one to believe that it was written later.

[jsarno]

duke, yes, I would offer my son up if I KNEW he was going to be resurrected 3 days later,AND would have permenant residence in heaven. And let's not forget about saving billions of lives. Not saying it would be easy, but you have to look at the big picture. If God came to me personally and asked me just about anything I'ddo it.

You always manage to answer questions with questions and duck the actual point at hand. Yet again you bring out Job and yet again you are unaware of what that story is all about. We explain 500 times, and you still don't listen. Why do you bother "discussing" things when you do these things?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
duke, yes, I would offer my son up if I KNEW he was going to be resurrected 3 days later,AND would have permenant residence in heaven. And let's not forget about saving billions of lives. Not saying it would be easy, but you have to look at the big picture. If God came to me personally and asked me just about anything I'ddo it.

You always manage to answer questions with questions and duck the actual point at hand. Yet again you bring out Job and yet again you are unaware of what that story is all about. We explain 500 times, and you still don't listen. Why do you bother "discussing" things when you do these things?

Look at my last two posts here. the only question I asked is for Jporter to comment on the answer I gave ot his question, specifically "what suffering has God inflicted?" You seem to think I answered Jporter's question with one of my own: show me where.

My two examples are 1) Job. COntrary to what you say, you have never answered my inquiries about these verses. I spent a lot of time reading, re-reading and quoting the actual text and, bottom line, God allowed and invited Satan to torment Job to prove that Job was a man of faith who would never renounce God. There is simply no other way to interepret it unless you ignore the actual writings. If you have another explantion, humor me and explain again, supporting your view with verse.

2) The great flood. If you believe it happened, you would have to believe that many people suffered. If not, explain why.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
I mean, what kind of God is that besides cruel?

#1

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Would you offer your son?

#2

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Look at my last two posts here. the only question I asked is for Jporter to comment on the answer I gave ot his question, specifically "what suffering has God inflicted?" You seem to think I answered Jporter's question with one of my own: show me where.

I'm not talking about what jporter said, but what I said. I only talked to you twice and you made 2 questions. 100% answering questions with questions. You've done this on many different threads.

My two examples are 1) Job. COntrary to what you say, you have never answered my inquiries about these verses. I spent a lot of time reading, re-reading and quoting the actual text and, bottom line, God allowed and invited Satan to torment Job to prove that Job was a man of faith who would never renounce God. There is simply no other way to interepret it unless you ignore the actual writings. If you have another explantion, humor me and explain again, supporting your view with verse.

I'm not going to get into this again, because you don't listen. No one has disagreed with "God allowed and invited Satan to torment Job to prove that Job was a man of faith who would never renounce God" except he wasn't "invited".
Did you ever ask yourself WHY? WHy did God do that? It was not to make someone suffer which is what you are going to believe regardless what anyone says.

2) The great flood. If you believe it happened, you would have to believe that many people suffered. If not, explain why.

Please tell me where EVERYONE suffered. The bible does not speak of suffering when those evil people were wiped off the planet. Are you assuming that suffering is when God provides consequences?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
I'm not talking about what jporter said, but what I said. I only talked to you twice and you made 2 questions. 100% answering questions with questions. You've done this on many different threads.

[b]

I'm not going to get into this again, because you don't listen. No one has disagreed with "God allowed and invited Satan to torment Job to prove that Job was a man of faith who would never renounce God" except he wasn't "invited".
Did you ever ask yourself WHY? WHy did God do that? It was not to make someone suffer which is what you are going to believe regardless what anyone says.

[b]

Please tell me where EVERYONE suffered. The bible does not speak of suffering when those evil people were wiped off the planet. Are you assuming that suffering is when God provides consequences?

Because we are in THIS thread, I addressed your observation of my answering questions w/questions in terms of THIS thread. Believe me, I don't want to open the box of our past sparrings here.

If you do not disagree that God allowed Satan to to torment Job (and if you look at the verses you will see that God directs, invites, whatever you want to call it) then why question my response to Jporter, who asked "when did God inflict suffering". I do not care why God did it, my initial point here was that I just could not beleive that if there is a God, He would inflict such suffering. Point is, (in response to Jporter) Job suffered, and God was directly involved (per the Bible).

Yes, everyone on Earth suffered if there was a great flood. They were killed. I do not believe that every single person on earth at the time was a sinner except to the degree that the Bible defined them as sinners. But to say they did not suffer (which again goes back to my origianl point) is ludicrous. Do you think drowning people suffer?

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by dukeuch
There may be, but there is lots that refutes events depicted in the Bible too, probably more. By the way, what do you think of the two examples of suffering "inflicted by God" I offered? You did ask, after all.

Sorry I haven't replied to this yet, but I will as soon as I can find a few minutes out of my schedule to back up my reply sufficiently.

[Keino]

Originally posted by akhhorus
also the New Testement was written 150 years after the life of Jesus, so that would be like someone today writing a book on the Crimean war, without sources and just going on what they were told.

Although that's a good point (and it's more like 300 years) they relied on Gospels from those who who actually travelled with and were contemporaries of Jesus.

The one point I find intriguing is that there were numereous "Gospels" left out of the Final Bible, some of which highlighted the "human" side of Jesus.

[akhhorus]

Originally posted by Keino
Although that's a good point (and it's more like 300 years) they relied on Gospels from those who who actually travelled with and were contemporaries of Jesus.

The one point I find intriguing is that there were numereous "Gospels" left out of the Final Bible, some of which highlighted the "human" side of Jesus.

yeah but they would be based on purely perspection of events, not seriously hard fact. No one person saw everything that happened. And there, depending on who you ask, about 7-12 books of the Bible missing and the Vatican has them(supposedly)

[higgybaby]

my two favorite posts that most closely lines up with my feelings:


Spence:
God is responsible. Why? Just like Jesus predicted his own fate and predicted the cruxifiction, it is all part of the Master plan of oru God,. We are not perfect, we are sinful, and that is why God offered us slavation through Christ. So to say anyone is responsible is absurd. It is all the master plan spelled out in the Bible and through prophecy, it is God's master plan.

jporterweb:
Oh and to end the debate on who is responsible, I went in saw the Passion yesterday. Jesus said and I paraphrase "No one will murder me, I will lay my life down.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally posted by higgybaby
my two favorite posts that most closely lines up with my feelings:


Spence:
God is responsible. Why? Just like Jesus predicted his own fate and predicted the cruxifiction, it is all part of the Master plan of oru God,. We are not perfect, we are sinful, and that is why God offered us slavation through Christ. So to say anyone is responsible is absurd. It is all the master plan spelled out in the Bible and through prophecy, it is God's master plan.

jporterweb:
Oh and to end the debate on who is responsible, I went in saw the Passion yesterday. Jesus said and I paraphrase "No one will murder me, I will lay my life down.

That's great higgy, can I still blame the jews? :D

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch

If you do not disagree that God allowed Satan to to torment Job (and if you look at the verses you will see that God directs, invites, whatever you want to call it) then why question my response to Jporter, who asked "when did God inflict suffering". I do not care why God did it, my initial point here was that I just could not beleive that if there is a God, He would inflict such suffering. Point is, (in response to Jporter) Job suffered, and God was directly involved (per the Bible).

I'm going to take a page out of your book here and answer a question with a question. You do understand that allowing someone to "inflict suffering" and actually "inflicting suffering" are two different things right?
If you read and re-read those verses like you say then you know why God allowed such a thing and you would also understand the difference between allowing and inflicting.

Yes, everyone on Earth suffered if there was a great flood. They were killed. I do not believe that every single person on earth at the time was a sinner except to the degree that the Bible defined them as sinners. But to say they did not suffer (which again goes back to my origianl point) is ludicrous. Do you think drowning people suffer?

Just an observation, but have you noticed how eerily similar our world is from being full of sin and Godlessness as to back when God flooded the earth?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
That's great higgy, can I still blame the jews? :D

Better be careful or someone might call you antisemitic. :D