Go to Main
Page
Go back to Page 1 (questions 1-30)
| 31. We know for a fact that Lot was a righteous man, because the Bible
says so (II Peter 2:7). We also know for a fact that Lot got drunk, screwed
his own daughters (Genesis 19:31ff), and got them both pregnant. If I did
this to my daughters, would you tell people that I was a righteous man?
Depends. Did you take advantage of your daughters, or did they take advantage of you? In Lot's case, it was the latter. What if I ate rabbit meat (Deuteronomy 14:7)? We know damn well that's a sin !!! You're mixing up present tense and past tense again. |
| 32. Have you ever prayed to your God and not gotten what you asked
for? Have you ever prayed to your God and asked for something worthwhile
(such as healing for a sick relative), but still didn't get what you asked
for?
Yes and yes. Are you aware that the Bible says this is evidence of your lack of faith (Matthew 7:7-8, 21:22)? Neither passage says that. Why haven't you ever asked your all-powerful God to eradicate cancer or AIDS? Do you think he'd do it? God gave us the cure. We rejected it. If we want to stop cancer, then we need to quit poisoning our world and ourselves. If we want to get rid of AIDS, then we all need to be abstinent until marriage and then monogamous afterwards. The fact that we're unable or unwilling to take such steps means we don't deserve to have the cure handed to us. If mankind can find the cures ourselves, then great. But we have no business expecting God to step in and save us from ourselves. Why haven't you asked him to stop the genocide in Darfur? Because the only way to stop it would be to over-ride the free will of those doing the genocide, and God isn't into over-riding our free will. Now that we have Jesus, all choices are ours to make. Or to strike George Bush dead? We collectively elected him (though, in my defense, I voted against him both times). That's our society's fault. |
| 33. II Thessalonians 2:11-12 says that God sends a powerful delusion
to certain people, causing them to believe a lie, so that they will be condemned
(i.e., spend eternity suffering in hell).
No, look at the passage in context:
[8] And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with
the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his
coming: God is sending a strong delusion to those who reject "the love of the truth" and are already perishing. He is not, as you're suggesting, causing non-condemned people to become condemned. Instead, He's giving people exactly what they're asking for. Isn't this, frankly, immoral? Isn't this what Christians accuse Satan (the father of lies - John 8:44) of doing? No. Satan tries to cause the saved, or those on the fence, to become condemned. If you were God, would you cause people to believe a lie? Why? Hard to say, since I don't have God's understanding of human nature. |
| 34. Do you believe that prayer should be allowed in public schools?
Allowed? Yes. Required? No. Are you aware that Jesus specifically commanded people not to pray in public (Matthew 6:5-6)? No, He said not to "be as the hypocrites are" when praying, praying insincerely only to display to others what a great follower you are. Since it is possible to pray privately and/or sincerely in schools, there's no reason one can't pray in a public school. Or if you're going to take it ultra-literally instead of getting to the point of what Jesus was saying, it specifically said not to pray in synogogues and on street corners, but to pray in closets, instead. Schools don't have synogogues or street corners in them, but they do have closets! |
| 35. Are you aware that the Bible unequivocally states — twice
— that women are not allowed to speak in church (I Corinthians 14:34,
I Timothy 2:12)?
Yes. When being taught, you're supposed to listen, not talk over the teacher. Women are specifically mentioned here because they were the ones at the time who weren't obeying this. Has your pastor ever preached a sermon on this obviously important Scriptural principle? Does the pastor of your church enforce this commandment? I'm sure that if women were rudely talking during the pastor's sermon, he'd ask them to be quiet. Are there any other areas of your life in which you are rebelling against the Lord? If you are a female, are you ready to repent of your sin of speaking in church, and turn back to the Lord? I'm not female, but if I was being rude to the pastor, I'd apologize. If you were the pastor of a church, and it was Sunday morning, and you caught a woman in your church violating this commandment, how would you handle it? What would you say to her? "Quiet, please, I'm speaking." By the way, Christians are famous for engaging in the most amazing, dishonest acrobatics/contortions of logic in trying to avoid the clear, plain, obvious meaning of the "women-have-to-shut-up-in-church" verses (and other verses that show that Biblegod is really some male chauvinist non-deity like Moses in disguise). The "standard" apologetics are: (a) not meant for modern times; (b) there are other verses that indicate that women taught and/or were actually apostles in the early church; (c) you're taking it out of context. I'll go with (c) Some of the greatest entertainment in the world is watching Christians do furious backflips trying to explain these embarrassing "non-PC" Bible passages. And some is watching critics twist passages to try to make them say what they don't say. |
| 36. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 states that anyone who preaches a God other
than your God should be put to death.
Read it again. It doesn't say "anyone" who preaches another God, but only Israelites who preach another God (see verse 1). PLEASE tell me that you disagree with your God on this point. No, I think that Israelites needed to stay focused on the one true God which was protecting them. It's harsh, to be sure, but considering how easily the Israelites were led astray (worshipping a golden cow just after God got them out of Egypt, for example), they needed the harshness. They were the ones from whom the coming messiah was suppose to arise, thus they were threatening the salvation of billions by worshipping gods other than the one who'd just saved their butts by getting them out of Egypt. Besides that, knowing the penalty for the offense probably meant that few Israelites preached other gods, meaning few, if any, people ever had to be put to death. And if you agree with our Heavenly Father about Deuteronomy 13:1-5 (and I already know that you do, since you're a Bible-believing Christian), please send me an email so that I can give you the names and addresses of some people that your God wants you to kill. Wow! You know some ancient Israelites who believe in other gods? Definitely send me their names and addresses, since I've never seen anyone who was thousands of years old. Though I have to admit - the fact that they've lasted thousands of years must mean God doesn't want them dead. And let me know if you need to borrow a gun (and specify the caliber, please. Currently available are a .357 revolver and a nice bolt-action 8mm Mauser with a scope). Do give me a nice camera, though, I want to get a clear shot of how many wrinkles they must have. And Deuteronomy 13:6-10 orders an ancient Israelite to rat out his brother — his daughter — his wife — his friend — if one of them advocates worshipping another god. If you were an ancient Israelite, and your eight-year-old son casually suggested following a different religion (don't tell me this thought hasn't occurred to YOU once or twice), would you turn him in to the authorities, knowing that he would be sentenced to death? I'm glad you're finally acknowledging that these rules apply to ancient Israelites only, and not to modern followers. Good job! But if I was an ancient Israelite and my son did this, I would certainly be tempted to disobey God (as Israelites frequently were), but it would be wrong to put the welfare of the Israelites as a whole, and the future salvation of billions, above the welfare of my one son. Is God starting to remind you of Adolf Hitler? Are you starting to notice that your Holy Bible contains a large number of "death orders?" Hardly, since Adolf Hitler was putting people to death who BELIEVED in the Israelite god. And on top of that, Hitler had no dominion over man, no right to sentence ANYONE to death. But since God created and has dominion over the human race, He has such a right. |
| 37. The Bible tells us that the Israelites wandered in the Sinai desert
for 40 years, and that most of them died there (Numbers 14:20-24). Using
the census numbers from Exodus and Numbers, that means that approximately
two million people died in 40 years in a relatively small area (and we know
where it is). Are you aware that there is absolutely no archaeological evidence
of those people having been in this part of the world? How do you explain
this?
By saying that nomadic people occupying an area for only a few decades are unlikely to leave much, if any, archeological evidence of their having been in an area, especially not the kind that would last for thousands of years. We rarely find any kind of evidences for ancient nomadic tribes, even in areas they occupied for much longer periods. For example, try to much find evidence of the Scythians, a nomadic tribe much larger than the Israelites, who we know were in Asia for around 1500 years (1000 BC to 500 AD). There is a little evidence for them, but not much. No reasonable scholar is surprised by this, any more than they are surprised by the lack of archeological evidence for the Israelites, a much smaller tribe that was around for only a few decades. |
| 38. The Bible promises that God will meet ALL your needs (Philippians
4:19). Do you carry insurance?
Yes. Why do you think you need it? So that I'll have more than just what I "need" if something bad should happen. Don't you believe what the Bible says? Yes, I do. |
| 39. Do you believe in evolution?
For the most part, yes. Keep in mind evolution doesn't explain where the universe and life within it came from, just what happened to it after it arrived. Are you aware that the DNA of a bonobo (a primate) is 98.4% identical to yours (hell, in some states, that's high enough to establish paternity)? If God created everything, why do you think he created you almost exactly like a hairy jungle primate? Having the same building blocks isn't being "almost exactly like" something. Are you aware that your skeletal system is pretty much identical to that of a bird, or a dog, or a cat, or a rat — an arm that has a radius and an ulna; carpal and metacarpal bones; a scapula; ribs; a sternum; a pelvis; tibia and fibula bones in the legs; the whole framework covered by a system of muscles and skin tissues; bilateral symmetry; a blood/circulatory system that's powered by a heart? Is your God simply lacking in imagination, that he created most of the warm-blooded animals using exactly the same basic design? Or is there perhaps the tiniest possibility that we all evolved from a lower life form? As a matter of fact, evolution is completely a non-issue for me. I have over 600 pages on my Christian site, and this very page is about as far as I've gone in discussing evolution. I don't argue it with people, since I don't find it worth arguing about. It doesn't change my belief that God exists or that Jesus was resurrected. It doesn't even touch on either issue. |
| 40. John 7:38 quotes Jesus as saying, "Whoever believes in me, as
the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."
In 31 AD, the Scripture (being the OT only ... the NT hadn't been written,
of course) said no such thing. What exactly was Jesus talking about?
Sirach 24:30-32. "The Scripture" does not refer to Biblical writings only, but to anything written down and generally considered to be wisdom. And did you know that Jesus contradicted himself ... in two statements that are recorded in the same book of the Bible? (1) "Jesus answered and said unto them, though I bear record [marturia] of myself, yet my record [marturia] is true." (John 8:14) Marturia means "bear witness" (NAS) or "testify" (NIV, NRSV), and it's the same word used in John 5:31, where Jesus says, (2) "If I bear witness [marturia] of myself, my witness [marturia] is not true." So tell me, based on the statements of Jesus himself ... if he bears witness of himself, is it true, or not true? Are you really saying that you think Jesus was calling Himself a liar? In the Hebrew judicial system, there is a law that someone's testimony about himself cannot be taken as evidence unless someone else backs it up. In John 5:31, Jesus is telling them what the law says, not saying "I'm lying!" In John 8:14, Jesus is saying that DESPITE what that law says, everything He says is the truth. Essentially, He's contrasting God's law and man's law. |
| 41. Genesis 5:27 says that Methuselah lived 969 years. Honestly now
... do you believe this?
No. What do you think his family gave him for his 762nd birthday? Surely he had enough neckties and cologne. Rumor has it he died while trying to blow out 969 candles simultaneously. |
| 42. In Numbers 31:1-18, God commanded the Israelites to kill the
Midianites — all except the female virgins, whom the Israelites were
to "save for themselves." If your son were in the Army, and he murdered
defenseless civilians, but spared the women so that he could screw them,
what would you think of him?
Who is saying anything about having sex with them? Would it make you proud of him? Would you brag about him to your friends? "Yep, Jeff is a good boy ... killed lots of Iraqis, and then raped some Iraqi girls ... wanna see the pictures he sent us?" Since the "female virgins" were all pre-pubescent children, even infants (in Midianite culture, all girls were married at puberty), why do you assume they were being kept for sexual purposes? What's your source for this? There is no evidence that the Israelites practiced pedophelia. Interestingly enough, the Israelites weren't even at war with the Midianites at the time (and hadn't been in the past) - they were just living in Midian as guests. Please. The Midianites were out to destroy the Israelites and had already aligned themselves with the Amalekites. |
| 43. II Samuel 12:15-20 tells the story of God killing an infant because
it was the product of its parents' adultery. If you were God, would you do
such a thing? Please (a) explain to me the justification for this infanticide
and (b) tell me what this incident reveals about the true character of
Biblegod.
That He's concerned with what's best for people as a whole in the long run. David (the father here) was king and thus was supposed to set an example for his people. This judgment, as harsh as it was, taught the people a powerful lesson and thus was best for the people as a whole in the long run. And please give me a list of all sins which justify the killing of a newborn baby (not including someone else's sin of adultery, which we already know about). Depends who's doing the killing. Again, God has dominion over life. That baby would not have even existed in the first place if it wasn't for God. |
| 44. II Samuel 24:1 says that the Lord incited David to take a census
of Israel; I Chronicles 21:1 says that Satan incited David to take a census
of Israel. Which do you believe?
Both. Satan incited the census, and God gave the nod of approval (you could say He incited satan to incite David), knowing the results of the crime and its aftermath would drive David towards God. And if your explanation is that it was a scrivener's error, explain to me why the Almighty Omnipotent Creator of the Universe is powerless to prevent copiers' errors. Also, explain to me how any scrivener could be so inept that he accidentally wrote "Satan" instead of "God" (or vice versa). A "slip of the pen?" That's not my explanation, so I won't respond. |
| 45. In Genesis 1:26, when God said, "Let us make man in our image,"
whom was he talking to? The animals? The plants? It couldn't have been a
human, because humans didn't exist yet. There's only one God, so he couldn't
have been talking to some other god.
Some say He was talking to the other parts of the trinity, but I'd say He was talking to Himself. So why the plural? In ancient languages, a singularity that was great or eminent was frequently expressed as a plural. For example, Artaxerxes the King refers to himself as "us" in Ezra 4:18 (he refers to "the letter sent to us", yet it is clear that the letter was for him alone). |
| 46. Genesis 10:5 says that at that time, different peoples had different
languages; Genesis 11:1, just a few verses down, says that there was only
one language in the world. Which do you believe?
If you read all of Genesis 10 (a genealogy of the descendents of Noah), the answer to this apparent dilemma is right there. Let me give you an example: "And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazar-maveth, and Jerah," (Genesis 10:25-26) There are people included in these genealogies who lived after the Earth was divided by the Tower of Babel. This is why these passages make mention of certain people having different languages, even though these passages are included before the mention of the Tower of Babel. |
| 47. According to your God, if a girl gets married and it turns out
she wasn't a virgin, she deserves the death penalty (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
... but the same rule doesn't apply to males. Why does God discriminate against
females?
There are other laws that apply to men but not women, such as one of the ten commandments (the one against coveting), and laws against rape, and only female children were spared among the Midianites. So why aren't you asking why God discriminates against males? Perhaps you're reading the Bible with blinders on? Let's imagine that a man (not God) wrote the Bible — no divine inspiration or "supreme wisdom" whatsoever. Let's say it was a man (or several men) who lived in a primitive pre-technological patriarchal society a few thousand years ago. What kind of book would we expect? Let's see ... it would reflect the attitudes of that period in that women would be property, just like cattle ... It doesn't. rape would be okay, at least in the context of "the spoils of war" ... It doesn't. violence would be a casual thing, and the beating of children would be permissible ... Nope and nope. God would, of course, be a male ... Which would also be true if God wanted us to consider Him as a male-type deity. the adultery laws/virginity requirements would apply only to women ... Of the two, only the virginity requirement does. there wouldn't be any scientific revelation in it at all, since it would merely be a product of its (primitive) time ... Genesis 1:1's statement of time and the universe having a beginning only started to gain acceptance in the scientific community within the last 125 years. old age would be revered, and there would be tall tales about people living to be hundreds of years old (all of them men, of course) ... Yeah, since only people, and not God, would revere the elderly... children would have no rights whatsoever... What kind of rights do you mean? there would be no tolerance of other cultures, The only thing they don't tolerate from other cultures is attempts to enslave or kill the Israelites. and when another nation was conquered, its inhabitants would be slaughtered like animals (an exception, I suppose, to the "Thou shalt not kill" rule), or their people could be forced into slavery. Yeah, it would be a whole lot better if the Israelites just let the other nations commit genocide upon them. Is this beginning to sound familiar? Very. |
| 48. All throughout the Bible, it seems that God's solution to every
problem involves death and blood.
Only if you're reading it with blinders on. He can't even forgive sin unless there's blood dripping somewhere (Hebrews 9:22). Wouldn't you expect the creator of the universe (the guy who invented positrons, quarks, and neutrinos, and put nipples on men) to have a little more imagination than this? Actually, I expect people reading the Bible to look at the whole thing, and not just those passages they don't like. By the way, are YOU able to forgive sin without somebody (or some animal) bleeding? Doesn't this make you morally superior to Biblegod? Since I'm unable to forgive sins on the scale that God does, He's definitely superior to me. |
| 49. God couldn't forgive your sin without an innocent person (Jesus)
suffering. What does it say about the character of your God that he insists
on torturing his own son to appease himself? What horrible thing would I
have to do to you that you would demand the hideous torture-death of your
own son ... that is, nothing else would satisfy you ... you'd insist on your
own child being hung on a wooden cross by nails driven into his little hands
and feet? And what would this say about you as a person? And how would it
constitute evidence that you were "too holy to allow sin into your
presence?"
You do realize that Jesus willingly went to the cross, right? And that one act led to thousands of years over which billions of sins were forgiven. In fact, since Satan caused all the sin (by tempting us and lying to us), why didn't Biblegod crucify him? Satan did not cause all the sin. Most sin is done without satan's prodding. While Jesus was suffering and bleeding, God allowed Satan to stand there on the sidelines, snickering and enjoying the spectacle. Not realizing what Jesus' sacrifice meant for him... |
| 50. And tell me, what is noble and majestic about demanding the death
of your own son for any reason? Would this be characteristic of a god, or
of a twisted, sadistic fiend?
Again, Jesus, who was the spirit of God manifested into a fleshly body, went willingly. And don't tell me that "God demands a perfect sacrifice, because he is holy and perfect." BS! He's God, the all-powerful all-knowing all-everything Supreme Being. He makes ALL the rules. That "perfect sacrifice" argument makes as much sense as saying, "God is perfect, so he demands 25 cents per sin." God could have made a divine law that we have to eat a pretzel for every sin we commit, or that we have to paint our toenails green and do cartwheels to atone for our sins. Yeah, and we wouldn't be able to realize the gravity of our sins if the atonement was so light. |
| 51. Do you use the King James Version of the Bible?
Usually. Are you aware that the 1611 edition (the original) contained more than 66 books (it had Tobit and Judith right in there with I John and II Corinthians)? Yes. Have you ever read any of the "missing" books? No, but my sister-in-law, who converted to Catholicism a few years back, read them and didn't see why they were significant. Do you know why they aren't in your KJV? Since I attend a Lutheran church, I sure do. Do you, in fact, know anything about the "extra books?" Yes. |
| 52. Nehemiah 7:66 says, "[T]he whole congregation together was forty
and two thousand three hundred and three-score (42,360)." But if you add
the figures between Nehemiah 7:8 and Nehemiah 7:62, the total for all the
tribes is 31,089, not 42,360 (an error of 11,271). And Ezra and Nehemiah
can't agree on what the total should be; the former supports 29,818 while
the latter asserts 31,089. How do you explain this?
By actually reading Nehemiah 7. If you go back to verse 5b, it says, "And I found a register of the genealogy of them which came up at the first, and found written therein," which means that Nehemiah is reporting the contents of a register he found. No one is saying that the register's numbers add up properly. This would only be an error on the part of Nehemiah if he incorrectly reported what the register said, and there's no reason to suppose that he did. If the register was wrong, blame the register. Are God's ways so far beyond our own poor powers of understanding (Isaiah 55:9) that even his math is different? Can Biblegod make two plus two equal five? Nope, but if God said "Bill said that two plus two equals five", I would say that Bill was wrong, not God. |
| 53. I just got through reading Matthew 25:41ff. Do you think it's
appropriate for a person to be punished with eternal torture because he fails
to give food to a hungry person?
Nope, and I don't believe that the afterlife involves eternal torture. If your answer is "yes," then what punishment would be appropriate for Hitler, who murdered six million Jews? My answer wasn't yes, so I won't respond except to say that Hitler's punishment should correspond to his sins. |
| 54. The National Review Board gave a report of sex abuse committed
by Catholic priests in the United States between 1950 and 2002. Four percent,
or one out of every 25 priests, had been formally accused of sexually abusing
minors. Which do you think is safer for your child: to be alone with a Christian
priest, or to walk through a city park at 11:00 pm?
You do know that not all Christian priests are Catholic priests, right? And you know that an accusation is not proof of guilt, right? I'm only asking because your question seems to confuse both points. I wonder why. Tell me how many were convicted, please. By the way, I have no problem leaving my kids alone with the priest of our church, who is Christian but not Catholic. Think for a minute ... when was the last time you read a newspaper article (or saw a news item on TV) about a member of the Wiccan clergy sexually abusing a child? Or the Islamic clergy? ?Or a Buddhist priest? Yeah, if it's not reported in a newspaper or on TV, then it never happens... |
| 55. Are you aware that your God has threatened (four different times,
in four different books of the Bible!) to make people cannibalize their own
children as a form of punishment?
Yes. See: (1) Leviticus 26:29; (2) Deuteronomy 28:53; (3) Jeremiah 19:9; (4) Ezekiel 5:10. Saw 'em. II Kings 6:28-29 even tells a story in which someone actually did it (ate her own child)! Would you teach these verses to your children during a home Bible study? Depends on the age of my kids. I think they'd be too strong for younger kids, but okay for teenagers who would have a better understanding of the context. Are there other disgusting passages in the Bible (II Kings 9:10, II Kings 18:27) that you believe children should be protected from? Depends on their age. Some passages certainly aren't appropriate for younger kids. What would you think of me if I read these disgusting passages to your child? The same way I'd feel if you showed them a particularly violent film. Shouldn't the Bible be removed from the libraries of elementary schools? Of course not. I just think the teachers should focus on other passages until the kids get older. If the kids happen to come across them and are troubled, then the school should try to explain to them what was going on. What sins or crimes do you believe would justify a sentence of "you must eat your own children?" "You must?" None. And none of the passages say "you must". And by the way ... doesn't this punish the (innocent) children also? Where is the justice in making them die (and be eaten!) because somebody else has sinned? If I (as the people these verses are talking about) make a series of stupid and ungodly decisions making my place in life so poor that I end up having to eat my own children to survive, then I am the one at fault. In fact, the story of Job illustrates very clearly God's attitude toward children. Job has children; God allows Satan to kill them (as a way of testing Job's faith). At the end of the story (Job 42:13), God "restores" Job's children ... by letting him father some new ones. Got that? God allows Satan to take Job's property ... his sheep, camels, oxen, donkeys, and his children. Then God restores Job's property ... sheep, camels, oxen, donkeys, and his children. This is great for Job, but what about the human children that God originally allowed to be killed along with the livestock? They weren't children. They were adults. I am the child of my mother and father, yet I am an adult. Pardon me for not wanting to spend eternity with this twisted son of a bitch (or should I say ... Son of a Bitch?). Actually, I understand. If you don't credit God with creating and thus having dominion over life, then you must think He has no right to take life away. It's a very consistent view for a non-believer, and I don't fault you for it. But, when criticizing the Bible, it's more consistent if you assume, just for the sake of the story, that God does have dominion over life. I'm not telling you to believe in God or to believe that God has dominion over life, just to consider God 's actions within the context of the story. |
| 56. Do you believe the creation account in Genesis? Which one? Genesis
1:1ff or Genesis 2:4ff? Sometime, just for fun, try to reconcile these two
different accounts of the same incident.
I take the early Genesis accounts as parable, not literal fact, though I do think that Genesis 1 has enough of the order correct, and enough other details, to suppose that God very much inspired it. But I don't see how the two chapters aren't reconcilable for anyone who takes both literally, since one is talking about the universe as a whole and one is talking about what's happening specifically in the garden of Eden. |
| 57. In Exodus 7:13, we read that God wanted Pharaoh to do something,
but that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he wouldn't listen to God.
What does this tell you about the character of your God?
That He gives people what they ask for. Are you telling me the Pharaoh didn't harden his own heart first, on several occasions? Is it any wonder that the colloquial term "playing God" refers to something one shouldn't do? So does "impersonating a police officer", but it doesn't mean that police officers are evil, just that they have the right to do things that non-police officers don't. |
| 58. Jesus said that "Whoever is not with me is against me" (Luke 11.23);
he also said "Whoever is not against us is for us" (Matthew 9:40). Which
statement do you believe?
Both. How are these contradictory? |
| 59. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Billy Graham's daughter all
believe (and have stated publicly) that the attack on the Twin Towers (September
11, 2001) happened because (1) America had become sinful, and was permitting
abortion, witchcraft, and lesbianism; (2) God got mad at America; and (3)
God "removed his protection" from us. Do you believe this?
No. Do you believe that God killed thousands of New Yorkers that I had never met in my life, just because I and my friends cast a few spells down here in Texas? No. And none of the above said that God killed them, only that He didn't protect them. Is this God worthy of your worship, or your contempt? My worship. |
| 60. Do you believe that Jack T. Chick is a Christian?
Honestly, I'm not sure. His tracts come across as parody to me sometimes, like he's someone trying to make fun of Christian fundamentalism. But other times he seems sorta sincere, so I'm guessing he's a Christian, though not a very good example of one. HE thinks he's a Christian (and probably thinks you're NOT). Probably. I listen to rock music and play Dungeons and Dragons, both of which he believes are satanic. He even thinks Christian rock is satanic. Would you like to spend eternity with him in heaven? If he's truly a Christian, just a seriously misguided one, I'm hoping he'd be straightened out by God. If not, I'm going to hope Heaven is a big place so I don't have to spend too much time in his presence. I wonder what he's going to think when he sees all those Catholics walking around? |
Go on to Page 3 (questions 61-90)