Funny that, I would think most of the population would not hesitate in saying no, i will not kill for anyone, as an act of obedience.It is relevant when you consider your god tested his prophet beyond understanding and asked him to kill his child.Your reluctance to answer gives a clue to your mind set,the mind set we fail to understand.

You stated Secondly, you ask the question as though God delights in the death of the wicked, and as though His first will is not the repentance and faith of all men in the God-Man Jesus Christ

You wrote:

Quote:

Jerome you did not address my post about Numbers Chapter 31.Rationalise that Chapter in the light of a God of mercy and love?

Your post is-to be brutally frank-not worthy of response; and much less does it require "rationalization" of any form, shape, or kind; as it is nothing more than a veiled effort to accuse Scripture of contradiction through the use of semantic antitheses.

By this I mean, that you have purposely found one Scripture that states, "You shall not kill", and another that states, "Make war and kill", and claimed contradiction without even one reference, mention, or signification of the proper context of the verses; nor have you taken the time to cite even one comparing verse and/or chapter of the proposed discrepancies you (or another) recount.

Therefore, while I will respond this once to your foolish accusations, it is not by virtue of their deservingness, but solely by virtue of how easily and effortlessly your army of straw men can be set to flames and left to ruin.

Let us begin, then, shall we?

You write:

Quote:

Numbers Chapture 31? I have great difficulty in rationalizing this chapter with a concept of a good loving God as depictured by the lord Jesus Christ.
Someone help me please! The bible states that God is the same, yesterday, tomorrow and forever.

Before a proper response can be made, it is necessary that I first address your frequent, and seemingly innumerable, false presuppositions regarding the matters of God and Scripture.

Firstly, as concerns the proper hermeneutic of Scripture, "rationalization" is not allowed. Rather, we are to take each verse as it is written, in its own definite sense, and believe it to be true. Or, as you have chosen, reject it as offensive and nonsensical folly and madness.

Secondly, why do you claim a divergence from the person of God the Son to the person of God the Father? What makes Christ "a good loving God" and the Father a tyrant, as you so fallaciously assert? Do they not both offer salvation to those who believe in Christ [the Gospel]:

Quote:

"Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?"
[Ezekiel 33:11]

And again:

Quote:

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him may have eternal life." [John 3:14-15]

Do they not both threaten sinners who continually resist God and bring upon themselves judgment and eventual damnation [the Law]:

Quote:

"Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice,
none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die." [Ezekiel 33:13]

And again:

Quote:

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already,
because he has not believe in the name of the only Son of God." [John 3:18]

It is a thing most predictable throughout history: the old heresy of the Church becomes the new orthodoxy of the philosophers.

And thirdly, while the Lord is most certainly immutable in nature, yet this does not translate into meaning that God is confined to man's naked-and fallen-reason. He is a God of a majesty and brilliance so lofty and unsearchable that even the angels cannot begin to fathom His being, will, or judgments. [I Peter 1:12]

You also write:

Quote:

This does not seem to be the case if one analyses and compares the awful chapter 31 of the book on Numbers, in relation to the loving, forgiving, Father God, that the Lord Jesus presented in the four gospels. Answer this and I will be able to press on.
Note I do not have much time left. I am so tired and weary now!

Why do you call Christ the "Lord Jesus"? Do you believe in His name? Or is this merely a "gracious" and "exalting" title that you would give also to any "great moral teacher" of history? Considering your own denouncements and callous remarks concerning the Gospel and the historic Christian faith, I can only presume that the former is not, in fact, the case. Therefore, if indeed the latter is true, please spare me the "admirable titles" you attach to Christ, as they do nothing to convince that you believe or trust in Him any more than you do Buddha, Hindu, or that peculiar god you have manufactured to suit your own dreams.

You demand:

Quote:

Numbers Chapter 31 Please explain!!!
Verse: 2 the Lord said to Moses take vengeance on the Indianite's. In direct contrast, Jesus said, forgive those who hate you and despitefully use you. It is easy to love those that love you, but I say love those that hate you.
Vengeance is mine said the lord I will recompense. However, here God appears to go against his own word and commands Moses to
take vengeance.

Let us begin to dismantle this army of straw by first distinguishing between the antecedent (first) and consequent (second) will of God. The antecedent will of God is one of love, desiring that all come to Him by means of repentance and faith. [I Timothy 2:4] The consequent will of God desires the punishment, judgment, and condemnation of those who refuse, reject, and despise His Word and promise of salvation in Christ [John 3:18].

Now, in regards to Matthew 5:43-48, Christ clearly speaks of God's antecedent will, being one of mercy and grace, giving to all creatures sun and rain, moon and sun, to both the just and the unjust; even though both were born deserving of nothing but damnation and destruction. That is to say, we are born enemies of God [Romans 5:12], being utterly hostile and resistant to His Word, works, and will. [Romans 8:7-8; I Corinthians 2:14] Yet still, in His infinite mercy, God has made all creatures, giving them their body and soul, eyes, ears, and all their limbs, their reason, and all their senses, and still preserves them [Small Catechism, II, Article I].

And thus there exists no "discrepancy", not due to my having "rationalized it away", but due solely to the plain and certain Word of God.

You fall into error again:

Quote:

2) Verses: 3- 6 Make war and kill said the lord. This is a direct contradiction to Gods own commandment.
Thou shalt not kill. Jesus said if a man strikes you on the one cheek turn and offer him the other and not to violence. Love your enemies etc etc

Do you actually believe what it is you argue? Are you not opposed to the use of any means that justify the ends of "victory"? It seems that, here especially, your zealous infatuation with inconsistencies in Scripture have left you holding on to no more than that very thing, namely, inconsistent-and risible-rants and ravings fit only for those who seek "victory" by deceit (or doltishness).

For how is it, Mr. McDougall, that God is now made to be confined by His own Law? How is it that God, who by very description is beyond all accountability to the Law-being a Law unto Himself-is now made under the Law which He Himself created and made for man? Furthermore, what ability has man to assess whether or not the judgments and rulings of the Almighty are truly "proper" and "just"? As St. Paul writes:

Quote:

"Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and
how inscrutable are His ways!" [Romans 11:33]

And Elihu in the book of Job:

Quote:

"Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding: far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from
the Almighty that he should do wrong." [Job 34:10]

Hence, your efforts are, once again, in vain. The Lord is a law unto Himself, and is never to be made accountable to the sense of justice that belongs to fallen men-both you and I.

Further still, the commandment is properly rendered: You shall not murder. That is to say, you shall not take life unlawfully. And what defines the Law but God? What determines what is a lawful taking of life or an unlawful taking than the Judge of heaven and earth? Therefore, if God, in His hidden majesty and judgment, determines that a people (such as the sinful and rebellious Midianites) are to be punished by death and killing, then, by virtue of His command and decree, it is right. For, as the theologians of old spoke: "God is outside of the Law."

You make the argument later:

Quote:

"You know if one takes out the title God and Moses and replaces them with Hitler and Rudolf Hess, no one would question that it was the work of the evil Hitler regime. Would they?"

This is a gross and pernicious claim, as, once again, you seek God upon the basis of His relation to man and the things of man, rather than upon His own Word, which is the only means by which He promises to reveal Himself to us. Thus you are left probing into the majesty of the hidden God, and you have become lost in His glory. For evil is entirely foreign to and absent from God, as He is wholly good, the Judge and Ruler of all creation.

And once again, so that you do not accuse me of "rationalization", this my answer is drawn from no other source than the clear and plain words of Scripture itself.

You insist:

Quote:

3) Verses: 6-13 here the armies of Israel go out and destroy, spoil, burn and steal and plunder on Gods command.
In addition, they slaughter all the adult males however; this is not sufficient blood-letting- slaughter to please Moses or God
as we read from verse 14.
In contrast, Jesus said he that lives by the sword would die by the sword. The soldiers apparently somewhat kinder and merciful than Moses spared the woman and children much to Mosses disappointment and anger

Are you so perversely opposed to defeat that you will even ignore all contexts, and in the same breath play as though you sought an honest intellectual debate? Spare me your rhetoric, and give me the context:

Matthew 26:47-56:

Quote:

"While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and
the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, 'The one I will kiss is the man; seize him.' And he came up to Jesus at once and said, 'Greetings, Rabbi!' And he kissed him. Jesus said to him, 'Friend, do what you came to do.' Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut of his ear. Then Jesus said to him, 'Put you sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?' At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, 'Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But all this has taken place
that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples left him and fled."

What, then, does Christ speak against, and for what reason? He speaks against the use of the sword by Peter, not because the use of sword is condemned in all cases, as you dream, but because Peter continually resisted the purposed work and person of Christ, namely, His brutal crucifixion, death, and resurrection. That is to say, Christ detested Peter's unwillingness that "Scripture be fulfilled."

This same principle occurs earlier in the Gospel:

Quote:

"From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, 'Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.' But He turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.'"
[Matthew 16:21-23]

What then will you bring against this passage, Mr. McDougall? Will you say that Christ's words here contradict His "loving nature", as He condemns St. Peter, who exhibits only concern for Him, as speaking the words of the devil himself? May your absurdities end here (though I suspect they will remain ceaseless).

Christ here forbids Peter, not of the concern for Christ's body and life, but of the refusal of Christ's will, work, and purpose, namely, that He die at the hands of sinners and be raised in glory on the third day to the right hand of God, to live and reign to eternity, and give everlasting life to all those who believe in His name. That is to say, Christ forbid Peter from desiring anything, no matter how apparently noble and good it was to his natural reason and judgment, other than that which fulfilled and completed the Word and will of God.

Now do you see how quickly straw men falter under the fire and hammer of God?

You write again:

Quote:

4) Verse: 14 Moses was wroth (angry) with the officers. Why? Because they had not slaughtered THE WHOLE LOT, WOMAN, CHILDREN,
like they had done to the adult males. So what is sweet kind merciful Moses proposal? Verse: 15, He says now murder all the "little boys".
In ABSOLUTE contrast Jesus said blessed are the little children for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Contrast exists when two things are, in some manner or degree, associated, Mr. McDougall. In no way is your assertion that verses 14 and 15 of Numbers 31 (by the way, it is verse 17 where Moses commands that every male be killed among the little ones) are in "absolute contrast" with Luke 18:15-17 credible, as the context of both passages prove, decisively, their incommensurable nature.

St. Luke writes:

Quote:

"Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, 'Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." [15-17]

That is to say, Christ speaks of faith here as it pertains to the Word and promise of God, namely, a childlike trust, assurance, and certainty. It does not state, in any way, that all children will go to heaven, regardless of their faith; rather, as already stated, it states that all who receive, by faith, the kingdom of heaven with the faith of a child are adopted as the sons and daughters of God; He being their true Father, and we His true children. Therefore, the passage does not speak of children as its subject, but of the nature and character of saving faith.

You cry:

Quote:

For goodness sake is this the same merciful loving God depicted by Jesus. No this horrific story does not end yet. Moses goes on saying."
Kill all the woman" except those that have not had "sex with a man". How on earth in those remote primitive days were the soldiers to know
which woman was a virgin and which were not?.
There was definitely no gynaecologist way back in 300O B.C. WERE THERE? So to me they must on Moses command raped all the woman
first and then murdered those who were not virgins. Why was it necessary to rape them all? Because a woman's age does not necessarily
indicate whether a woman is a virgin or not.

"So to me...?" What have your speculations and accusations contributed to the text, or debate at hand thus far, Mr. McDougall, but falsehood and duplicity?

Virginity could be assessed without the need of doctors, Mr. McDougall. For instance, clothing and jewelry was worn, in that time and place, that specifically pertained to a woman's virginal, or marital status. Therefore we have no need to indulge in diverse fantasies-as you have, and no doubt enjoyed-as to how these women were assessed to be virgins outside of a purely visual, and non-intrusive method.

As to the matter of whether these women were raped, the burden of proof does not weigh on my position, but your own, seeing that you have introduced foreign words to the text. It is probable that these women were taken as wives, in direct contradiction to the command of God [Deuteronomy 7:3-4]. However, even if your claim were so, it too would directly conflict with this command and will of God.

You conclude:

Quote:

5) Now please learned rational bible scholar tell me that this is the same father God that is the same yesterday tomorrow and forever,
I am all eyes and ears waiting for a logical explanation.

I find it peculiar, Mr. McDougall, that you have attributed to me a sort of Biblical "rationalism", claiming that the answers I have given you, and by them refuted your madness, are no more than logically contrived constructs built from my own mind and reason. And you declare this, even in the face of my direct citations of clear Scripture: book, chapter, and verse!

And in your usual shamelessly contradictory fashion you then demand: "Make this logical to me, and then I will believe." What is this I hear? First you denounce my responses as "rationalism", asserting that they are only attempts to make the illogical logical, and, immediately thereafter, you charge me with the work of producing a logical construction fit for your own delusions!

But what else should one expect but wildly desperate, and discrepant ventures at victory from a wounded and reeling opponent?

Have we not already established, on numerous occasions over the course of this thread, that Christ Himself testified to the authenticity of the Old Testament Scripture? As is written in the Gospel of St. John:

Quote:

"For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me" [John 5:46].

Therefore, the five books of Moses, including in them the book of Numbers, was explicitly identified by Christ, the Son of the Father, as authentically inspired, inerrant, and infallible Scripture.

And again:

Quote:

"Scripture cannot be broken" [John 10:35].

That is to say, the Old Testament Scripture, as it speaks of the eternal Godhead, is the same today, now, and forever [Hebrews 13:8].

And again:

Quote:

"I and my Father are one" [John 10:30].

This meaning: I and my Father, the Creator of the world, the Father eternal, of whom Moses wrote and spoke; with Him I am of one essence. It is this verse, therefore, that leaves all your efforts of treachery and/or ignorance broken and strewn on the jagged rocks of heresy. For how will you contend with such plain and simple language with what is decidedly contrary to it, namely, your own position?

And again:

Quote:

"They [the Jews] said to him therefore, 'Where is your Father?' Jesus answered, 'You know neither me nor my Father.
If you knew me, you would know my Father also.'" [John 8:19]

And again:

Quote:

"So Jesus said to them, 'When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me.
He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.' As he was saying these things, many believed in him." [John 8:28-30]

Now, surely, I hope, you see how lost you are in your false contentions. For Christ here speaks of the Father, of whom Christ has already identified as the same Father of which Moses wrote, as being known necessarily by the knowing of Christ [John 8:19].

Further still, Christ states: I do nothing upon my own authority; all that I do is pleasing, and has been taught to me by the Father. It is this same Father of the Old Testament of whom Christ says He was sent by and who has not left Him, but abides with Him.

Therefore, rather than fight and battle against the clear Word of God with deficient weapons and intellect, I suggest you take note of verse 30, and consider its significance: "As he was saying these things, many believed in him."

In conclusion, then, your arguments and attempts at semantic antitheses have fallen far short of your imagined "victory." Recognize, I implore you, that this Word at which you so hastily and emphatically war and protest destroys the wisdom of the wise, and thwarts the discernment of the discerning [I Corinthians 1:19].

For as it is written:

Quote:

"Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age?
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" [I Corinthians 1:20]

JEROME

Well Alan i have searched his rantings over and over again and i cant see an answer.I think we must assume he is unwilling or unable.Abusive language usually gives you a clue that we have a fundamentalist with little love of humanity or his neighbour.

Well Alan i have searched his rantings over and over again and i cant see an answer.I think we must assume he is unwilling or unable.Abusive language usually gives you a clue that we have a fundamentalist with little love of humanity or his neighbour.

So the little children and old woman that Moses and his army slaughtered like cattle where wicked and deserved to be murdered. This is exactly the kind of thing the Nazi SS did so often in Poland during the war so the Cannon was not closed for those poor innocent people.

Jerome you fail to answer pertinent questions by making the claim god can do as he wishes and we are not even allowed to question those actions.You then refuse to enter into any serious debate about the validity of the bible in any form other than to quote some scripture, i dont recognise.You cant see the actions of christ and his teachings bare no resemblance to the the evil self centred god of the old testament.You cling to small sections that assist your views but ignore those that oppose you blinkered beliefs.I will ask you a question, why has god not appeared in any visible form for over 2000 years but found it necessary when his tribe had any trouble with the neighbours.The constant historic regard for the Israelites has not exactly been noticeable lately, has it?
Its a book of myths and legends and not one bit of it can be validated by any reasonable historic facts.There is more historic fact in the adventures of Robin Hood than there is the bible.You have been brain washed friend.

Tell me where christ teaches an eye for an eye and recommends you kill your enemy?If i have to acknowledge a god it will be for better reasons than an ancient book written by who knows.The god jehova had no other concern other than his tribe, now if he is constant, how come he changed his idea on who he should consider as worthy.How come christ changed his teachings in so many respects? This god jehova did assist his tribe by direct means on numerous occassions, why should he not now?Why if the bible is so precise in its teachings, do so many of it followers spend most of their life arguing about it content?dont you think he should reappear to clarify a few things.
There is no historical facts in the bible that can be confirmed contemporary or collaboratively..NONE...Now does that not that make you just bit suspicious?

Tell me where christ teaches an eye for an eye and recommends you kill your enemy?If i have to acknowledge a god it will be for better reasons than an ancient book written by who knows.The god jehova had no other concern other than his tribe, now if he is constant, how come he changed his idea on who he should consider as worthy.How come christ changed his teachings in so many respects? This god jehova did assist his tribe by direct means on numerous occassions, why should he not now?Why if the bible is so precise in its teachings, do so many of it followers spend most of their life arguing about it content?dont you think he should reappear to clarify a few things.
There is no historical facts in the bible that can be confirmed contemporary or collaboratively..NONE...Now does that not that make you just bit suspicious?

JEROME AND OUR NEW FUNDAMENTALIST.

1) Who according to you are going to end up in everlasting torment in hell ?........................................?

2) Who is going to join you two in the glory of heaven?........................?

3) So according to you, you miserable sinners are going to heaven on a free ticket?.............................?

4) And xris and I who have no free ticket are going to hell ever though we are no worse sinners than you are?..........................?

5) Is the above then loving justice??

6) And I can and do ask God questions all the time, heck if I could question my earthly father why cant I question my heavenly father?.................?

7) Do you love God with all your mind all your soul and all your strength?................?

Biblical Fables

The stories in the Old Testament are totally unbelievable, I am amazed that I was taught for so many years by people who should have known better that these were actual historical events. It is so obvious now that these are myths and fables, with no more historical accuracy than the stories about Atlantis & Lemuria. I can't believe grown up people still believe in these myths, and worse still teach them to impressionable young minds. Let's take a look at a few of the more ludicrous stories.

Creation and the Fall

Ok, so nobody apart from a few fanatics seriously believes the world was created in 6 days as described in Genesis. But even if you maintain that the 6 days represent 6 ages, there are still ridiculous paradoxes that stand out. For example:

• Genesis Plants are made on the third day, without the sun to drive the process of photosynthesis.
  
• All creatures are apparently created as herbivores (Genesis ch1 v30). So what happened to the dinosaurs?
  

There are countless others - the Genesis account doesn't even remotely match what science tells us about the origins of the earth, however much you try to twist it to fit the facts.

Noah's Ark

This is basically a reworking of the much older "Epic of Gilgamesh". The idea that there was a worldwide flood is completely unsupported by any kind of evidence. After building the ark, God gave Noah 7 days warning of the flood. There are somewhere between 8 million and 10 million species inhabiting the earth (not including the 30 million different types of insect).

Since there was a male and a female of each species on the ark, Noah had just one week to collect polar bears from the North Pole, lions from Africa, spiders from South America and tigers from India and the Far East. Even assuming he could travel around the world at the speed of light, there would have to be an average of 30 animals per second going through the ark's single door. How did the cone beetle survive the year at sea, bearing in mind it can only survive on a particular type of tree only found in California? Marsupials from Australia, ad infinitum!!

Another ridiculous idea is that God created the rainbow as a sign that he would never again wipe out humanity in a global catastrophe. Are we expected to believe that light behaved differently a few thousand years ago when passing through raindrops? Only the incredibly naive can surely believe this!?

The "worldwide flood" somehow seems to have missed out the Chinese and other civilisations that were around at the same time, since they have no record of it.

Finally, the whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work?

"I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. 22While the earth remains, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."

Tower of Babel

The Tower of Babel myth is ludicrous - the idea that the entire world spoke a single language until God became angry at their attempt to build a skyscraper and cursed them all with different languages. Where is the evidence for a worldwide language? All ancient cultures evolved their own languages separately, there was most likely some kind of cross-pollenation as people moved around, but there is more evidence for the existence of Bigfoot than a single common language.

Joshua and the Sun

Joshua 10:12-14: It was on the day when the Lord gave up the Amorites into the hands of the children of Israel that Joshua said to the Lord, before the eyes of Israel, Sun, be at rest over Gibeon; and you, O moon, in the valley of Aijalon. And the sun was at rest and the moon kept its place till the nation had given punishment to their attackers. (Is it not recorded in the book of Jashar?) So the sun kept its place in the middle of the heavens, and was waiting, and did not go down, for the space of a day. And there was no day like that, before it or after it, when the Lord gave ear to the voice of a man; for the Lord was fighting for Israel.

Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous? Not only does this imply that the Sun orbits the Earth, but even if it happened as described and the earth stopped moving to give the appearance of the Sun standing still, the gravitational effects would be devastating. Funny that there is no record of such an incredible celestial event in the records of all the other civilisations that were present at the same time. And what on earth is the "Book of Jashar"? Finally, I was once taught in Sunday School that a NASA supercomputer had found Joshua's "missing day" whilst compiling a history of time - this is an urban myth and has been thoroughly debunked, nobody has ever owned up to running such a program.

Yahweh defeated by "chariots of iron"

Judges 1:19 Yahweh was with Judah; and drove out the inhabitants of the hill country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

So Almighty God, who creates universes at the blink of an eye, was defeated by a tribe because they had chariots of iron? Isn't it insulting to ascribe this claptrap to the Source of everything?

BUt the covenant was with the Jews he never proclaimed a new one nor did his prophets prophesies one.It was only Paul who allowed gentiles.Your flogging a dead horse.Answer my other questions if you dare.
Your fundamentalist veil is drooping,your making concessions on the interpretation of the bible.

Literal Fundamentalst


I have had a near death event and a very profound one at that. I did not enter any hell but was welcomed into the afterlife by a being of unimaginable love and peace

The God of Numbers asked Moses to commit genocide on the Midianites. In fact Moses was very angry when his army (the army of god?) did not slaughter all the Midianites but spared the children and woman. So he commanded them to clean up there act go back and murder the little boys and old woman and keep the young virgins for themselves so that the soldiers could use them for their base lustful desires, most likely rape them

Moses was supposedly commanded by God to commit a heinous act of depravity and genocide very similar to what Hitler and his army of Nazi,s did during World War 2

The god you are talking about is a god made into a human image of him? You can dance around the obvious, but when you finally get to heaven you will be shocked out of your boots to see xris and I there with you. Unlike you I make no statement about your personal destiny but you have the gaul to inform me where I am going to go to when I die

There are at least 5.5 billion people on earth that don't believe in the gospel. by that logic they are going to burn in hell forever and ever? Thus making Gods earthly creation of mankind the most colossal failure in all of creation. But you stated god is perfect, how could a perfect infinite being be the author of such an unimaginable failure?

If General motors only made 10% of their cars viable then they would go out of business in a few days, you are making God to be just such a failure!

I love God from the very depths of my being, and you who only love him partially are going to heaven and I will end up in hell!!

According to your infinitely narrow understanding of God nearly every member of this great forum are going to burn in hell

Alan

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Christ never mentioned gentiles,initially christianity was the preserve of Jews ,thats why Peter and Paul argued over circumcision.
Are you also saying the god of jehova was not for all humanity?What god served the rest of mankind?
Come on answer my other questions..

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Except that it's not. The Midianites were a wicked race, and God poured His just wrath upon them. The Israelites were His weapon. The Nazis were murderers

It's not failure. The goal is not the salvation of every human being, but the glorification of God Himself. I am personally a Calvinist, so I believe that God predestined some to believe and be saved, and some to be reprobates and not believe. This way, He is glorified as a Holy Judge as well as a merciful forgiving Father. Noncalvinist Christians have alternative answers to your question

Because their goal is to make as much money as they can.

I don't know how much you love God, or if at all, but I won't make that kind of judgment. I will just say what the bible affirms: All men are born as haters of God, and without being born again, they can not love Him. And even those that are born again can not love Him with all their heart and soul, because if they did, they would not sin.

So the little Midianites children were wicked even though Jesus "said blessed are the little children for of such are the kingdom of heaven"
Why would an Infinitely powerful being like Almighty God need puny little infinitesimal humans to glorify him Does his ego need stroking??

And so it is with the churches their goal is to make as much money as possible

That is an offensive statement I HAVE NEVER HATED GOD BUT BY YOUR COMMENTS I AM SURE YOU DID!!

Please answer the other question you avoided in my previous post indicating nonsensical scripture???