Richard Dawkins is not pleased with God:

edited December 1969 in Faith Issues
I like to begin my topic with this rather interesting introduction to an Essay on this subject, by Alvin Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame:

"    Richard Dawkins is not pleased with God:

    The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of 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….

Well, no need to finish the quotation; you get the idea. Dawkins seems to have chosen God as his sworn enemy. (Let's hope for Dawkins' sake God doesn't return the compliment.)"

I want to know what everyone thinks about the book, the arguments made in the book etc.

BTW. I found these rather insightful responses to this book:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
http://www.azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?id=378

God bless.

Comments

  • i think whoever wrote that book is ignorant of the FACTS evident in the bible and has no idea wat he's talking about. he's making assumptions without no clear evidence or research.
  • Dawkins is probably one of the most well known evangelisers of aethiesm in the world. He evangelises aethiesm in such a way that he seems to be interested in saving us from God by his own belief that God doesn't exist.

    I can understand a muslim reading his works and concluding that God doesnt exist, but  NOT a christian. We believe in the Holy Trinity. This means that God who so loved the world gave His only Begotten Son. The one who wrote the law, subjected Himself to the same law and was crucified for us.

    In the Old Testament, we see the people of Israel being educated with respect to what's right and what's wrong. In here, God presents to His people the COmmandments. Which of these 10 commandments does Dawkins feel is "petty" ?  Is it the commandment to commit adultary? perhaps dawkins doesnt like this?? What about "murder" ?

    Those that believed in Him, He protected. Those that hurt his people, they were conquered. Is it God who is bloodthirsty? When Moses went to ask Pharoah to free / liberate the jews from Egypt, did Pharoah not say "no". Wasnt pharoah's heart hardened??? Did not the Lord Himself be patient with Pharoah to free the jews?? Pharoah did not budge after TEN (10!!) plagues came upon him. Pharoah, and his men then chased to the jewish people and sought to kill them. God saved his people from being killed .They were slaves in Egypt, and were mistreated by the Egyptians. How does this make God "blood thirsty" and unforgiving??

    The 2nd commandment was not to worship idols. The israelites worshiped idols and so did some of the kings of Israel.... did the Lord throw down plagues upon them and kill them???

    How can God be unforgiving, when He forgave the theif on the cross??? How??
    How can He be "petty", when the author of the world was born in a manger, and lived in humility only to be crucified in shame and abuse ?? How can this be "petty"?

    When the Lord sent Jonah to the Ninevah, it was to save them. They fasted and prayed and were saved. The Lord forgave them. These were a bunch of people that could not discern between their left and right hands!!! Yet, God had mercy on them and forgave them, and accepted their repentance. Is this a God of mercy?? Did he punish them? or did He have mercy on them???

    Not only did He have mercy on them, but His servant Jonah did not wish to even go to Ninevah to warn them that the Lord is not happy with their state, that God did not leave these people of Ninevah to perish because of the selfishness of Jonah, and brought jonah to the city of Ninevah to make SURE that these people repent.

    Furthermore, God, in the time of Jonah is clear: He was interested in their repentence not their punishment!!! Did he punish them afterwards after they had repented? no... it means that He is forgiving , merciful AND loving!! How can this be "petty".

    Dawkins evangelises aethiesm. We've seen his philosophy in practice in Russia, where 10000's of people were persecuted for their faith. This is aethiesm. Why is he evangelising that God doesnt exist? Its very strange behaviour from him. He doesnt have to accept Christ as his Saviour, but why is he making such great and enormous effort to prevent others accepting the Word of God???

    If we reject God, we reject His Holy Commandments. Which implies that we reject the love we have for one another. We reject the need for peace, honesty, tolerance, respect, - in fact we reject everything that is Godly for the ungodly. How can we keep God's commandments and reject God's existence?? If we are to be aethiest, it means that we should deny living according to God's commandments:

    * Do not murder: if we reject this, we will not live in peace
    * Do not steal : If we reject this, we reject living in honesty
    * Do not commit adultary: If we reject this, we despise ourselves and hurt one another
    * Honour thy father and mother: If we reject this, we live in disrespect with one another.
    ... i could go on, but its obvious. These are the Lord's Commandments, and they were so important, they were engraved in stone! If we reject God, reject also His commandments and see the fruit of aethiesm! Live it!?

    THrough living God's commandments, we see God. We live in His viscinity. We know God through keeping His commandments. He was the author of peace, honesty, respect, love, and dignity. These are the foundations which each person wishes to live by. Take them away, and you have the foundations for aethiesm. I challenge therefore Dawkin to reject also God's commandments completely and that he have no part/or share with them, and evangelise for us an ideology based on his own religion: which is no religion and NO commandments.

    He is ignorant that Christ did not change any of the commandments, but came to give us a new commandment: Love each other as you love yourselves. That means that He did not abolish the old commandments. Telling us that God of the Old testament is such and such, is IGNORANT because the God of the old Testament is the SAME as the New Testament!!!!

    Which commandment in the Old Testament did Our Lord Jesus Christ abolish?? Was Christ Himself not circumsized? Did He not subject Himself to the Mosaic laws also?????

    This is ignorance at its finest, and in the hands of the plenty who are also ignorant wishing and seeking to be enlightened.



    [quote author=Son of Thunder link=topic=5345.msg71171#msg71171 date=1179667556]
    I like to begin my topic with this rather interesting introduction to an Essay on this subject, by Alvin Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame:

    "    Richard Dawkins is not pleased with God:

        The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of 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….

    Well, no need to finish the quotation; you get the idea. Dawkins seems to have chosen God as his sworn enemy. (Let's hope for Dawkins' sake God doesn't return the compliment.)"

    I want to know what everyone thinks about the book, the arguments made in the book etc.

    BTW. I found these rather insightful responses to this book:
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
    http://www.azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?id=378

    God bless.
  • well he obviously doesnt like the commandments cause he has been married 3 times!!!!!!
  • Vas is absolutely right and I agree with everything that he has said.. so don't misunderstand me when I say that I can see where Dawkins is comming from.. There are some things in the old testament that do not agree with the teachings of the new testament [they were corrected by Jesus] such as the stoning of sinners and 'an eye for an eye...', theres plenty more..

    So i DO NOT agree with what this man has said about our Lord, but I can see where he'd get such words... What does the church say about these things ??
  • [quote author=Hizz_chiilld link=topic=5345.msg71200#msg71200 date=1179711982]
    Vas is absolutely right and I agree with everything that he has said.. so don't misunderstand me when I say that I can see where Dawkins is comming from.. There are some things in the old testament that do not agree with the teachings of the new testament [they were corrected by Jesus] such as the stoning of sinners and 'an eye for an eye...', theres plenty more..

    So i DO NOT agree with what this man has said about our Lord, but I can see where he'd get such words... What does the church say about these things ??


    Actually no, Christ didn't stop stoning. He came Himself to be stoned instead of us. Those that wanted to stone the adulteress were stoning her JUST to test Him. The simple proof is this: To stone a woman who has committed adultary there had to be witnesses. There were many many witnesses there screaming that she was committing adultary and had to be stoned. So, let's get this straight... all those people who wanted to stone were there, present, while she was in the act? Did she invite them over for the viewing OR WERE THEY THERE THEMSELVES PRESENT AS THOSE COMMITTING ADULTARY WITH HER?? So, Christ could see this.

    He made a point of telling her that she should not sin again, but that He does not condemn her; which means she is not condemned to die for her sin. How?? Simply because He is the lamb that carries the sins of the world that will die INSTEAD of her. He could see through their hypocrisy, and so challenged them.

    If I understood correctly from Iqbal, then God created the world through His Son with the life giving Holy Spirit. God the Father saved the world through His Son, and gave them the Paraclete. So? God the Father, gave the commandments to the people of Israel through the Son. So, Christ was the One telling the people that death is required for certain sins. Then He is born, and then changes His mind?? NOT AT ALL!!! He came to pay the price for these sins!!! But what should be echoing in this story in your mind is "sin no more".

    Christ then is born of the Holy Virgin, will He go and change the commandments He put into place? No. He Himself came to die for us for our sins.

    Many Christians read into this thinking that Christ came to change the old testament. On the contrary, He fullfilled it. He prefered to die for us rather than let us die - whether physically here, or eternally in Heaven. Christians take this example of the adulteress thinking now that adultary is "ok" or "not so bad" so long as "you love God".

    I cannot keep on committing a sin and at the same time take the Holy Communion for the remission of sins, and carelessly do the same sins again and again. I put myself in condemnation of this Holy Sacrement. Rather than the Holy Communion sanctifying me, partaking of it carelessly then condemns me. You partake of it carelessly when you do not make the effort at ALL to stop sinning. Taking it as a medication to help you overcome your sins is OK.

    I think perhaps Anglican, or Minagir perhaps may have more or better ways of explaining this.

  • Dear Vassilios,


    Professor Dawkins would be well advised to hope that God is not displeased with him!

    Fortunately for the Professor, our God is not the God he encountered as a Protestant, but is rather a God of love and mercy, who gave His only-begotten Son to die upon the Cross and to be raised so that we sinners - including the Professor - might live.

    The Professor is a not uncommon English type. Having encountered heavy evangelical Protestantism with its emphasis on hell-fire and damnation, and on the punishment of sinners and the unworthiness of us all for salvation, he reacted against it, and being a scientist, decided that it disproved God's existence. He now feels obliged to warn us all so that we may be saved from Christian and Muslim fundamentalists. It is, I suspect, not God, but man with whom Professor Dawkins is not pleased. As you point out, we can see from the last century what militant secular atheism produces; the Professor would not like more Soviet Unions or Nazi Germanys, one presumes.

    Of course, if he investigated a little more, he would find that there is a Christian Church which preaches the God of love and mercy, and which offers its members a spiritual hospital and not a court of justice; that is our Church, the Orthodox Church. Christ came not to replace the law, but to fulfil it. As He says in Matthew 5:17-18:

    5:17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
    5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

    But, as He says in Luke 16:16:

    16 The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.

    In Matthew 22:37-40 the Incarnate Word sums everything up for us:

    22:37 Jesus said to him,  `You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
    22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
    22:39 And the second is like it: `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
    22:40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

    If we do these things, we do what is needful.

    I am sad for Professor Dawkins, who lives in a dark cave where he sees shadows on the wall from the flames which seem to frighten him; I pray that he may yet find the light - and with it the Truth and the Way. That is what we are all here to seek - with the help of our mother the Church.

    In Christ,

    Anglian
  • hmmm okay let's see:
    I think Deuteronomy 22:28 is quite hard to swallow:

    "If am man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman's father and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives."

    I feel sorry for the rape victim, who has to live with her rapist until he dies. I know it doesn't say rape, but this is the NRSV Bible, and I know in other Bible's this means rape, which is kind of obvious.

    And to the above about Pharoah- wasn't it the Lord who hardened his heart?

    How about when in Deuteronomy 7, God tells the Israelites to "totally destroy" the Canaanities and six other nations!- oh and 'show them no mercy'.

    "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put them to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

    If they deserve it, I still don't think the Israelites forced to do God's will deserved to have the trauma that becomes of killing even the children! Why did he have to use them as an instrument of judgment?!

    How about petty...Remember the story of Elisha, who walking the road toward Bethel confronts some children. They tease him of his boldness. So Elisha cursed them in the name of God, and two bears then suddenly emerged from the woods and mauled a bit more than forty of them. (c.f. 2 Kings 2:23-25)
  • Dear Doubting Thomas.

    Our Lord came to proclaim the New Covenant and the good news that all who believe in Him shall have eternal life.

    I wonder why people who wish to question the faith seldom use the words of Our Lord or the New Testament. If what you are saying is that modern western man finds Deuteronomy not applicable, you are pushing at an open door. You'll be telling us next that you can't build an ark of the dimensions given in the OT. These are very old arguments which have been around for about 1200 years.

    None of that says anything about the message of the Incarnate Word.

    In Christ,

    John
  • The message of the Logos, is effected by His actions before the Incarnation as much as after. This is side-stepping.

    In one hand, the morality derived by Scripture that we inherited, seems to deride the very principles in which they were born. That is an impossible position, and many of us face this very marcion challenge.

    I understand that the morality of Richard Dawkins is a fluid one, one based on nothing but his own experiences and perceptions of them. It is completely flawed, and has no right to discuss his principles to those who have different experiences and have different perceptions of them. It is silly that a man who believes we were born to reproduce and populate and survive for this and then die can argue that anything that seeks to stop fertile  reproduction, and survival like the Catholics understanding of the use of contraceptions, and say the Catholics are a morally bankrupt organized religion.

    So at the end of the day, I guess, it its my understanding of God that has to change. But that doesn't heal the apparent conflict of the God presented by each Covenant (what I call the Marcion challenge).

    The covenant of the NT, is the fulfillment of the OT. So it hinges on that of the old. That makes the OT as relevant as the New.

    And just because they are very old arguments, doesn't mean the modern man should accept it on that basis.

    I do not find Deuteronomy not applicable. I find it contradictory to wholesome sense of morality derived by Scripture. And by the way, it already is not applicable. A rapist by law would go to prison. I am pushing at no open the door. We already entered through that door, on a law apparently that was Judeo-Christian. It is interesting how they don't seem to match.
  • I've actually gotten to a point where I've asked this same question. I am looking forward to an answer!
  • I think we may in the presence of a sola scriptura understanding of Our Faith. We believe that our Faith is not defined by the Bible alone, but by the traditions of the Church out of which it arose, and is illumined by the light of its saints.

    So the answer to the question was given by Our Lord Himself thus in Matthew 22: 35-40:

    22:35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying,
    22:36 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?
    22:37 Jesus said to him,  `You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
    22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
    22:39 And the second is like it: `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
    22:40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

    Wisdom, let us attend.

    In Christ,

    Anglian
  • So at the end of the day, I guess, it its my understanding of God that has to change. But that doesn't heal the apparent conflict of the God presented by each Covenant (what I call the Marcion challenge).

    Exactly u have to change ur understanding and approach.

    What I think.

    THE FIRST PART DEALS ON SOMEWHAT OF WHAT I THINK OF AETHIESTS 
    THE SECOND PART DEALS WITH THE ACTUAL ANSWER U CAN SKIP THE FIRST PART

    Firstly let me say a person, an individual, who is Christian has to be very careful at his approach there comes a time when he has to acknowledge that his belief is not sorely based on everything  HE/SHE has chosen from his understanding and knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. Do I believe in this or not…but rather it is the grace of God that I am bestowed to be saved and to be here the grace that lead me to know realise right from wrong. Of course we all increase our knowledge from church traditions and books but above what unites us all and is leading us all is God and his Holy Spirit. What saves us is from our sin is the sacrifice of our Lord on the cross. These are the basics and if ur not strong in ur basic faith u will always be shaken.
    The foundation is closely linked with fact that we are dealing with God and we will never know who he is what he has done why he is a mystery, for it is said he is the infinite and we are finite how we can then comprehend his decisions. This said doesn’t mean we be ignorant surly not but rather be knowledged in whatever God revels to us an being obedient.
    Now has revealed to us many things and many things he said do not waste our time on for it not beneficial for our salvation everyone here I presume is familiar with St Anthony’s contemplation about what Is why in the world and God’s answer to that.
    Now knowing this we also can conclude to understand mysteries that perhaps are not clear we have to reach a level of spirituality that is worthy for it u cannot ask questions that are beyond the ordinary explanations and expect answers to get such answers u have to fast pray seek God in answer just like if cant solve particular problem lets say in differential calculus u cannot just get the answer but first u need to understand what calculus fundamentals are. Similarly this person has filled himself with hollow knowledge of bible the words everything and then drawing conclusion on what he is seeing. On the actual words.
    Example if I give him a differential solution to solving a quadratic function he thinks all function are meant to be solved like that ……….is anyone getting what I am trying to say.
    That’s wrong this person this atheist together with anyone who is with him doubting the words in the bible is a person who is not looking into the fact he trying to understand perhaps something that needs struggle to understand or the fact that it is not useful for him.
    A person should have faith that God will explain to him if he doesn’t get it if he is wrong he needs to be quick in haste to correct himself before his faulty thought…..question is embedded leading him to the untruth away from God.
    I guess what I am trying to say is I dislike people atheist’s who base everything on what the see right in front of their nose and never the patient’s to wait. E.g. the desert fathers!

    quote
    I do not find Deuteronomy not applicable. I find it contradictory to wholesome sense of morality derived by Scripture. And by the way, it already is not applicable. A rapist by law would go to prison. I am pushing at no open the door. We already entered through that door, on a law apparently that was Judeo-Christian. It is interesting how they don't seem to match.

    The book of Deuteronomy and Leviticus and all the other books that draw our God to be not merciful or mean or what ever u want to say should  not be judged in that manner because remember the new testament is a fulfilment of the old true we cannot separate them.
    There are things that are very hard and things that show the accommodation and mercy of God.
    Example quote
    I think Deuteronomy 22:28 is quite hard to swallow:
    "If am man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman's father and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives."


    This shows God’s mercy to a man who has not been able to contain himself from passion yes he sinned but instead of putting him to death he giving him the alternate payment can u imagine how much fifty shekels of silver would be worth. A lot this man would have to work hard to get this and then support his new wife if he did not do this I guess he is a dead man.
    This is a classical example as similar to that asked by the Pharisee in the New Testament and the Lord replied that law was there for the weakness in the hearts of man.
    U say why is the woman suffering as such to be with this man well I am not answering that question u are very well aware of the position of woman in that era. it looks like it was difficult and they had no power if she was raped her best bet is to be with that man or perhaps live with that man forever and Gods law completes that. Now if we look at many other parts of the bible we see how this same sin was approached ad we can realise that the man who commits such an act is not always in such a favourable position

    quote
    And to the above about Pharoah- wasn't it the Lord who hardened his heart?


    Yes to show a point that man cannot defeat a race who is lead by the most high. It is an example to the world that those who are lead by Christ are victorious it also tells us that those who rely on their wisdom and knowledge on their ego they fail. When it say that the lord hardened his heart it means that the grace of the spirit of wisdom and of self control left them and thus the spirit of revenge and of anger and of self strength entered them and thus they pursued the people of God to their own death. Thus they blinded themselves from seeing that they cannot defeat the creator of heaven and earth. The spirit that pharaoh pursued mosses and the people of God In was that of being superior as saying I am equal to God and I am one who create Gods ie idols in his fall only did he completely realised how much more real and king of the world was this God of his slaves in his death did he only see the truth completely. It doesn’t mean I believe so that God brought him to his end no it just means that the good ability to realise the fact that I am dealing something greater here than myself was not there who is this given from but God alone if it is not then what takes its place of course the devil God gives his spirit freely but only to those who are seek to so.
    Of course there is also another reason behind this drama the Pharaoh here can be seen as the devil the people of Israel as a person who is Christian then Moses the high priest as our confession father the separation of the water is shows us the way similarly interpreted as a light a path when the enemy has cast in darkness and trials mosses leading us with people of Israel behind is the obedience of the person of his confession father the fall of Pharaoh is victory for the people of Israel just like our saints had.

    How about when in Deuteronomy 7, God tells the Israelites to "totally destroy" the Canaanities and six other nations!- oh and 'show them no mercy'.
    "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put them to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
    If they deserve it, I still don't think the Israelites forced to do God's will deserved to have the trauma that becomes of killing even the children! Why did he have to use them as an instrument of judgment?!


    I look at the above verse ‘contradiction’ as followers.
    The people of Israel when they enter the land of  Canaan they destroy and kill they take by force and do so much killing and pain and what’s worse the lord directs them to do so right this cant be right !!!!!!
    Wrong let us look at what the lord is really trying to say.
    The land of Canaan was beautiful rich and ripe it was fertile therefore it could bear fruit it had lots of potential. In the land of Canna lived who? Of course the cannites the amalkites and thereafter. Who are these people what is their manner of life do u think they lived their life on and after the spirit of God I will let others answer that question.
    Therefore Israelis entered the land of Canaan and destroyed and took it by force destroy everything.
    I believe this means…..
    We must first see the surrounding as a person the lands surrounding representing an individual. Canaan is the heart the central position. There in who live are all the unclean spirits everything that is against the lord. Now Canaan is suppose to be where our Lord resides so do u think God will live wit these unclean spirit s and thought and desires no. there fore all this must go in order for God to come and dwell in here thus everything must go. Thus the entering of Israelis into the land of Canaan the killing of the people signifies the fact the war with evil spirit and everything that Is not suppose to be there has to go no mercy at all for the two do not match. Thus it is a symbol of cleansing also a symbol of the war that is necessary to make a place for the lord. It has to be done by force because the spirit and habits and thoughts and desires will not leave in any other way. The continuation of war represent the individual being on his guard for the enemy wants the priced land just like the cannites the amalkites etc
    The entire process is a representation of the something greater. And it goes into much more detail but I don’t have the energy to keep typing 

    How about petty...Remember the story of Elisha, who walking the road toward Bethel confronts some children. They tease him of his boldness. So Elisha cursed them in the name of God, and two bears then suddenly emerged from the woods and mauled a bit more than forty of them. (c.f. 2 Kings 2:23-25)

    What do these kids represent whom are they mocking? They are mocking him who speaks with God. What is the spirit in which these children come to him in. aren’t they of the enemy? And remember mercy is not for those that slowly destroy u. our lord said those who are fruitful and with little I will give him more and those who have none I will take away from him. If forty people are walking behind u
    Then what will u do will call on the lord. Forty children not men these children who should be sitting at his listening to him teach them are mocking him.

    quote from bible
    23He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" 24And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. 25From there he went on to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.

    If just ten kids in my Sunday school start all yelling and mocking me at my status of being a Sunday school teacher in a spirit which is wrong then how bad will I feel how serious would that be? These were kids mocking a prophet in an unclean spirit and I am sure there were more than 40 perhaps 60 of them but only 40 were killed.

    Thus I have nothing further to say then to sum up in the following
    First let us not try adequately to interpret the bible  parts as if we will ever understand completely everything before we die we have no such right and above all never forget to realise that u can never put against the bible a chapter… may be two three or even ten that u don’t understand  call it in adequate just because some idiot has questioned u and u forget to weigh up the fact that there are  men and women who have proven that they have reached levels of being close to God and never had such problems I wonder if the saints after reading Deuteronomy said I don’t understand this so I will stop believing in this I don’t think so….!!!!!!!!
    I doint think abba Kara’s spent 50 yrs ! in desert in vain I don’t think the martyrs shed in n their blood being fools not understanding such things I don’t believe that St Papa Kirollis spent 6 yrs in the desert in vain! NO
    These are people before even they would have understood the meaning of Deuteronomy had faith that the Lord is good above all things and everything good comes from him. Having such we shouldn’t blunder just because something doesn’t make sense. It makes sense if we seek an answer form the lord.

    If I sound too harsh or wrong please forgive me and correct me.
  • I have judged my Lord. Who cares whether you were harsh!

    I have sinned. Forgive me all.
  • interesting topic... God bless you all for every info. you have provided in this thread. i'm learning something new everyday.

    Fibo
  • Dear Fibo,

    Thank you for starting it off.

    Dear Thomas,

    As I said on the other thread - welcome to the sinners' club; what matters is that we repent, ask for absolution, amend our lives and try to live in Him through the Church.

    In Christ,

    John
Sign In or Register to comment.