Here's how I know the 10 Commandments story is BS

[Riddlen 1]

-40- sinners burnin in HELL

[Rybo5 0]

Religion teaches people to think about other peoples needs. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked etc.

 

 

I don't think knowledge of religion or any theorized/speculated deity is necessary to teach these things, but maybe that's just me.

[BudBro 180]

I will gladly accept donations from anyone who believes everything in the bible.

 

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24)

 

i think this verse is referring to an actual doorway that was smaller than most. the camel could have gotten through it, but not easily. the analogy is that people who are only concerned with riches and have made money their ultimate pursuit will have the same trouble experiencing the kingdom of god as the camel would have getting through the doorway. i don't think god doesn't want you to pursue wealth, as long as he knows you are capable of allowing part of it to pass through you. think of a river, not a lake.

[Fumbleweed 547]

How do you know that? If it is God-inspired, how do you, or anyone else for that matter, know what needs to be taken literally? Do you read the mind of God?

 

Well, it is my belief that God is real and that Jesus was his son and that his death and resurrection are real that drive my ultimate belief in the inspiration of the Bible.

 

A God that cares enough about reconciliation that He's willing to die himself to restore it is not going to leave people with nothing to go by in order to find peace and guidance in this world. The Bible has survived the test of time. If I am going to believe in God (I do) and I believe that He cares deeply for his creation (I do), it would also follow that he would not allow His beloved people to be misled by a book that is supposed to tell His story. It would almost be unfathomable. Besides, the canonization of the Bible is an amazing story.

 

If you believe that Jesus was the son of God and died on our behalf, but then turn around and believe the Bible to be uninspired and thus misleading millions upon millions of people, I see no logic in that. It makes no sense. If, however, you don't believe in Jesus being who He said that He was, the Bible is probably not somthing you seek guidance from except as an interesting book with interesting things to say....but not the word of God.

 

Much of the Bible has also been proved archeologicially, but we've done that thread before....a lot.

 

As for the Ten Commandments, they weren't the only laws given. The book of Deuteronomy outlines some of the more specific decrees of God including inappropriate sexual relationships, abuses, etc.,....it's a rather tedious book. Jesus said the greatest command was to "Love God" and "Love others as Yourself"....I think any sort of abuse of another person fits squarely under that directive.

 

As for what's a metaphor and what's not, I take all the actions of Jesus as literal. Maybe they're not in actuality, but as I believe Him to be the creator of all things, all those actions of Jesus are possible. Some of the actual statements he makes are metaphors and certain books (like Song of Solomon and Revelation for example) are written in such a style that their metaphorical basis is easily detectable.

 

The Bible is intended to be read in context. People are going to differ on what's literal and what's not somewhat, but a person who is seeking to know and obey the will of God is not going to seek to blow anything off.....that person would want to take all of it as significant and very relevant to today. To pick and choose (if you believe it is inspired text) what of the Bible you want to follow and what you want to discard is selfish and not seeking out the will of God at all. To pick and choose if you don't believe it's inspired makes perfect sense since that's what you would do with any book you might wish to read.

 

I'm not going to go much further with this. I come here mostly to talk football, college basketball, and general nonsense anymore. We've done these discussions to death....but I will occasionally try to stay involved in a thread to participate. I just feel like we're pretty redundant at this point.

[rallo 136]

I don't think knowledge of religion or any theorized/speculated deity is necessary to teach these things, but maybe that's just me.

 

i know that you do not need to be in a religion to think like this, i'm just saying it's a reoccuring theme. every time you go to church they talk about putting God and other people before yourself... i'm not saying you have to go to church to do charity, i'm just sayin it helps keep things like that on your mind.

[Big_Pete 0]

I prefere, and all the hardcore hardcore religious people I know refer to the Douay Rheims bible for their bible information, why you ask? cause it is unaltered from 1899 with original translations, that way, you don't get the watered-down-feel-good-God-loves-us-no-matter-what-baptist-type-of-theology out of it.

here is Exodus 20:

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/02020.htm

ETA: hmm... apparently the online version has been changed from the bible bible version.... gonna have to reference my bible in my room later. I know that it says "thou shalt not MURDER" in the actual bible... where this online one says "thou shalt not KILL"

[parrot 789]

I don't think knowledge of religion or any theorized/speculated deity is necessary to teach these things, but maybe that's just me.

No kidding. Clothe the naked? Wiff is having an apoplexy on the breastfeeding thread about the occasional bare tittie.

[BudBro 180]

 

Why do you need to interpret? Why couldn't an all-powerful god actually create the world in a few days and simply make it look like it should have taken a LOT longer just to mess with us? Because he doesn't like to mess with us?

 

i agree. why couldn't god have made a tree with a bunch of tree rings already in it so our science would think it was really 500 million years old? or built canyons that have a bunch of lines already marked on the side to make it look like a river eroded it away?

[TyCobb 0]

Just so I'm straight, your proof that the Ten Commandments are a fraud is the fact that they don't mention child abuse?

 

Well?

[birdbrain3X 0]

You mean people like Copernicus and Galileo?

 

 

I'm not quite sure why you quoted me or if you read what I wrote. In my post I included the need for science to help prove the existence of God. Quantum phsyics and quantum mechanics have proven that energy cannot be destroyed and that a multi-layered system in the universe is not only likely but mathematically probable. The "science" of that last 40 years has all but proven that a spiritual existence is the next step in our evoltion.

 

As to why God didn't make it so easy for us to see... Just like any one else who ever lived, I have no idea. Ask him.

[Rybo5 0]

I included the need for science to help prove the existence of God.

 

I don't see how it's possible to definitively prove something like the stereotypical judeo-christian god, and wouldn't that defeat the purpose of requiring faith?

[MLCKAA 573]

Nice 2nd half of your post. All Geebus could come up with was "love thy neighbor as thyself..."

 

The first half of your post? Here's the crux of the issue:

 

The 10C are the only time in biblical history (BC) where God himself has manifested himself to mankind and specifically stated the terms of a sacred covenant between God and Man. THAT's some pretty heady stuff right there.

 

You say there are lots of things that aren't covered in the 10C - and I'd tend to agree. The Bible talks about not eating shellfish and pork and other nonsense, but we're talking abut God coming down from heaven and manifesting himself to reeal those things that are MOST critical to and/or abhorent to Faith. Again, the very terms of God's covenant.

 

If you believe that. (And Theologically, you kind of have to, don't you?), then it's hard to swallow that God cares more about us coveting thy neighbor's ass than beating and or raping children.

 

 

The blood of Jesus is the new covenant. And the new covenant is the one that provides my salvation.

[birdbrain3X 0]

I don't see how it's possible to definitively prove something like the stereotypical judeo-christian god, and wouldn't that defeat the purpose of requiring faith?

 

True. Not possible to prove the existence of God yet. But a spirtual world and life after death is what many have sought to prove and some very interesting results are out there. Gary E. Schwartz, Ph.D. is a professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry and surgery at the U of Arizona and director of it's Human Energy Systems Laboratory which is the 1st such lab of it's kind. He compiled all the data he has studied and his book "The Afterlife Experiments" is the culmulnation of that work. It's an eye-opener and he is not alone in his studies anymore.

 

Even if an "afterlife" is someday clinically proven there still is no proof of an order to this life. That for me is where science stops and faith takes over. Faith seems to be a requirement of God. You are correct, an ultmate proof would make faith irrelevant. I personally believe in God and Jesus as his son and our redeemer but I'm not as blind in my following as others.(although I'm slowly turning toward blind faith each day) After all the studies that are out there and all that our current science shows I find it hard to conceive that people wouldn't at least investigate and search for God themselves.

[texasmouth 1]

He should have also included something about banging your mom. We are all paying for that one.

Now that was funny.

[Blitzen 0]

Gary E. Schwartz, Ph.D. is a professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry and surgery at the U of Arizona and director of it's Human Energy Systems Laboratory which is the 1st such lab of it's kind. He compiled all the data he has studied and his book "The Afterlife Experiments" is the culmulnation of that work. It's an eye-opener and he is not alone in his studies anymore.

 

You're kidding, right? Have you read ANY of the multiple debunkings of that book? There are gaping holes in the research. For instance, when the mediums get no feedback from the sitters, they perform way worse. That in itself should raise alarms but the author doesn't seem fazed by it. Even if you actually believe it to be true, one could just as easily make a case that it proves telepathy from the sitters to the mediums, not afterlife. Just because a guy was educated at Yale, doesn't mean he uses textbook scientific methods.

 

I'm not quite sure why you quoted me or if you read what I wrote. In my post I included the need for science to help prove the existence of God. Quantum phsyics and quantum mechanics have proven that energy cannot be destroyed and that a multi-layered system in the universe is not only likely but mathematically probable. The "science" of that last 40 years has all but proven that a spiritual existence is the next step in our evoltion.

 

As to why God didn't make it so easy for us to see... Just like any one else who ever lived, I have no idea. Ask him.

 

You seemed to be saying that people who don't understand may not be intelligent enough to combine science and faith to see the light. Well the very folks who ostracized Copernicus and Galileo were the ones who should have had that ability years ago, yet they were shown to be wrong and those they ostracized were shown to be right. Faith blurs your view of the world, it doesn't make it more accurate. And if by science, you mean Schwartz' work, I think you need to recheck the definition of science.

 

I don't see how it's possible to definitively prove something like the stereotypical judeo-christian god, and wouldn't that defeat the purpose of requiring faith?

 

It does defeat the purpose of requiring faith but when science gradually explains more and more of the world (and in a very short time, considering that real science has only been around for a couple of hundred years - imagine when it will have been around for, say 2000 years), religion needs to address this threat by coopting it.

 

In most civilized places, you can't burn the heretics anymore so a major motivation to believe is gone. Add that science is explaining a lot and that the churches are emptying (at least up here), and it's clear the church needs to change its marketing ploy. Why not use science? Real faith may not work as well as before.

[RLLD 4,229]

Corrupt church leaders wrote the New Testament, not the Old.

 

HTH

 

 

FIXED!

[Voltaire 5,314]

I read somebody somewhere about six months ago say that religion is an artifact from a previous era of human development. The hope is we'll eventually outgrow it. Really struck me as profound so I remembered it.

[RLLD 4,229]

I read somebody somewhere about six months ago say that religion is an artifact from a previous era of human development. The hope is we'll eventually outgrow it. Really struck me as profound so I remembered it.

 

There is truth to this. Very early religions form the framework from which Islam, Judaism and Christianity were invented. Many of the stories we read in the bible have their roots in ancient Babylonian parables and stories.

 

The bible is a mere reproduction of ancient stories mutated to support the emerging cult that Judaism and Christianity derive from, Islam is the read-headed steptchild of the aforementioned, coming in a bit later and stealing the already pillaged material from them.

[birdbrain3X 0]

You're kidding, right? Have you read ANY of the multiple debunkings of that book? There are gaping holes in the research. For instance, when the mediums get no feedback from the sitters, they perform way worse. And if by science, you mean Schwartz' work, I think you need to recheck the definition of science.

 

Not sure what reviewers you read but when the mediums were not allowed to see or hear the sitters they still scored over 90% which leaves only telephathy as a viable option. It's really hard to screw up a clinical trial by reporting on it, the findings are what they are and are in the book for all to see and intepret. Maybe the reviews were deliberately misleading?

 

I rechecked the definition of science as you suggested, while Schwartz' studies are not exactly quantum physics or mechanics they still apply by defintion. This study may not meet your criteria for science but that is just your opinion it is in fact a scientific experiment.

 

science. 1. Any department of knowledge in which the results of investigation have been logically arranged and systematized. 2. Knowlegde of facts, phenomena, laws, and proximate causes, gained and verified by exact observation, organized experiment, and ordered thinking. 3. An orderly presentation of facts, reasonings, doctrines, and beliefs concerning some subject or group of subjects. 4. Systematic knowledge in general.

[wiffleball 4,790]

The blood of Jesus is the new covenant. And the new covenant is the one that provides my salvation.

 

 

Which really sort of begs the question, doesn't it? I mean, if God is omniscient and can see into forever, why is it he needed to re-write his covenant with man? What's with Geebus saying "That was the OLD covenant, I bring you the NEW covenant!"

 

 

 

I have an uncle who's a monsignor and a cousin who's a pastor. I love focking with them.

[TyCobb 0]

Which really sort of begs the question, doesn't it? I mean, if God is omniscient and can see into forever, why is it he needed to re-write his covenant with man? What's with Geebus saying "That was the OLD covenant, I bring you the NEW covenant!"

I have an uncle who's a monsignor and a cousin who's a pastor. I love focking with them.

 

Let's try again ...

 

Just so I'm straight, your proof that the Ten Commandments are a fraud is the fact that they don't mention child abuse?

[wiffleball 4,790]

Let's try again ...

 

Just so I'm straight, your proof that the Ten Commandments are a fraud is the fact that they don't mention child abuse?

 

Just so we're clear, are you focking retarded?

[TyCobb 0]

Just so we're clear, are you focking retarded?

 

No need to insult. I'm just asking for clarification so I know how to dialogue with you on this topic. I asked for it with the second post in the thread yesterday.

 

Let me know if you are really just doing a drive-by here and I won't bother.

[wiffleball 4,790]

No need to insult. I'm just asking for clarification so I know how to dialogue with you on this topic. I asked for it with the second post in the thread yesterday.

 

Let me know if you are really just doing a drive-by here and I won't bother.

 

I don't want else to do BUT insult if you can't read and comprehend the points I made in my original thread. They were written in plain English. Do you have a point to make here?

[frank 2,297]

Liars wrote the New Testament, and the Old.

 

HTH

 

[supermike80 1,902]

God loves children. Geebus raves about children as role models repeatedly. No other human is as lionized by God and Jesus as are children. Do a scan of the bible and you'll see it yourself.

 

So, with that in mind....

If you have any biblical knowledge and context, you have to know the The 10 Commandments ("10C") story is such a pile of shiot. Moses, (who had a speech impediment, BTW) was losing control of 'his' people. People were fockign each other's wives, ripping off each other's stuff - I mean, imagine months of Woodstock and you'd see the same behavior (Hell, you see the same behavior in one weekend). On top of that Moses' only real hold over these people was his 'special relationship' with God. When people started worshiping other gods, he was basically just a stuttering old man leading a bunch of people on a road to nowhere. By the time of the 10C, he had pretty much lost all credibiilty and authority.

 

Then, in the middle of this, suddenly, GOD provides to him (in secret of course) the 10C.

 

Now, bear in mind that the 10C - minus a few - are basically civil laws. Laws to keep a crowd like Moses' from coming apart at the seams. Oh - and hey - BTW - "I AM THE ONE TRUE GOD, DON'T WORSHIP FALSE IDOLS". Well, that's convenient - that pretty much wipes out anybody worshipping any other God and thereby reasserts Moses' fading role.

 

Yeah, here's where it gets a little shady:

 

God loves children. ADORES children. Extols the very virtues of children as a role models to his people. God can also see as far into tiime as the end of time itself. He knows not only the sins that have been committed, but those that will be. He sees the cruelty, the perversion inflicted upon his blessed adored children.

 

...Yet: Not a SINGLE thing in the 10C related to Child Abuse or Sexual abuse of a child.

 

How does a God that adores children - who as sure as he sees anything, sees the cruelties inflicted upon children, not even MENTION this as a abomination against not only mankind, but God himself? Moreover, how does a God that adores children decide to outlaw 'coveting thy neighbor's livestock" , but doesn't say a THING about abusing children in his list of most crucial sins to be avoided?

 

The obvious answer is this: Moses was losing his people. He was losing them because of two factors 1) Civil disobedience (stealing each other's livestock, focking each other's wives) and 2) People were turning to other, equally ineffective Gods.

 

Why isn't child abuse mentioned? 1) B/C that wasn't losing Moses his leadership role and 2) Because it was socially acceptable at the time. Yet a God who is timeless, A God who sees until the end of time, A God who adores children, would EASILY have included a prohibitiong against sins against children in God's "Timeless Rules".

 

Any amount of context or intellect takes you to this position. Those who still believe the Noah story sure as heck will buy off on this myth too. But anybody who takes their faith seriously knows the difference between reasoned faith and blind acceptance is critical reasoning. - And this story doesn't bear under rational scrutiny NOR FAITH in a loving, omniscient God.

 

(I'd prolly have more fun on FBG with this one)

 

Let me preface my subsequent comment by making it clear as a general rule I think 99% of the Bible is hogwash and gibberish and a very good read in parts, as well as a nice story. I don't believe in the Divine conversatins with Moses all that much.

 

But this is probably the stupidest argument discounting the 10 commandments I have ever read.

[supermike80 1,902]

 

The Bible is intended to be read in context. People are going to differ on what's literal and what's not somewhat, but a person who is seeking to know and obey the will of God is not going to seek to blow anything off.....that person would want to take all of it as significant and very relevant to today. To pick and choose (if you believe it is inspired text) what of the Bible you want to follow and what you want to discard is selfish and not seeking out the will of God at all. To pick and choose if you don't believe it's inspired makes perfect sense since that's what you would do with any book you might wish to read.

 

This focking crap Bible thumpers out there tout gets me madder every time I hear it.

IT WAS NOT FOCKING WRITTEN TO BE TAKEN IN CONTEXT.

Stop focking changing it. It was written to be the word of GOD. The fact that less than 10% of it is relevant today does not mean you can change your interpretation of "how it is intended to be read" in order to make it fit better today.

 

G0ddamn it religious people REALLY piss me off sometimes.

[birdbrain3X 0]

This focking crap Bible thumpers out there tout gets me madder every time I hear it.

IT WAS NOT FOCKING WRITTEN TO BE TAKEN IN CONTEXT.

Stop focking changing it. It was written to be the word of GOD. The fact that less than 10% of it is relevant today does not mean you can change your interpretation of "how it is intended to be read" in order to make it fit better today.

 

G0ddamn it religious people REALLY piss me off sometimes.

 

Actually unless you have learned to intepret and read anchient Hebrew you have not read the Bible as it was written in it's original form. The English versions are translations.

[TyCobb 0]

I don't want else to do BUT insult if you can't read and comprehend the points I made in my original thread. They were written in plain English. Do you have a point to make here?

 

I have several points to make. I just wanted to clarify your position in my mind before proceeding. You appear either unable or willing to dialogue, favoring hit-and-run style insult, so I won't bother.

[supermike80 1,902]

Actually unless you have learned to intepret and read anchient Hebrew you have not read the Bible as it was written in it's original form. The English versions are translations.

 

Yeah Ok. Thanks....

[Voltaire 5,314]

I don't want else to do BUT insult if you can't read and comprehend the points I made in my original thread. They were written in plain English. Do you have a point to make here?

 

I agree with you about religions being stoopid, but I agree with Ty that the absense of child abuse in the Ten Commandments doesn't make a convincing case that the story is BS. I mean see your point, I just don't think it's anywhere near airtight.

[Voltaire 5,314]

Actually unless you have learned to intepret and read anchient Hebrew you have not read the Bible as it was written in it's original form. The English versions are translations.

 

I think very little is lost in translation since every word has been parced and minced by thousands of scholars over the years. People have lost their lives in huge doctrinal arguments over weather something in the Bible is "the" or "a". All discrepencies are noted.

 

I'm thinking you've got some really good Bible versions out there and that the inaccuracies and errors in the Bible ae just as present in ancient Hebrew as they are in English. Please don't dodge supermike's main point about it not being meant to be taken in context like this.

[TyCobb 0]

I think very little is lost in translation since every word has been parced and minced by thousands of scholars over the years. People have lost their lives in huge doctrinal arguments over weather something in the Bible is "the" or "a". All discrepencies are noted.

 

I'm thinking you've got some really good Bible versions out there and that the inaccuracies and errors in the Bible ae just as present in ancient Hebrew as they are in English. Please don't dodge supermike's main point about it not being meant to be taken in context like this.

 

Yes, because we don't have any of the original manuscripts, discrepencies are found in both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. They're called textual variants, alternative renderings based on scribal errors. Virtually all are easily explained... none involve major doctrinal issues. (You and I have already been this road together, I'm just posting it for the others, Voltaire.)

 

As for whether it is to be read in context, like with any piece of literature, of course it is. That is not to imply some sort of religious slight-of-hand to cover embarrassing passages. It merely acknowledges the obvious, that authors write literature to target audiences with purpose and style, and that it is the wise reader who takes note of those parameters before attempting to interpret meaning.

 

For instance, the Old Testament forbids the wearing of mixed fabrics. Does that mean I can't wear any of the wrinkle-free shirts in my closet to work today? No. Does it mean that a Jew many centuries before Christ couldn't mix fabrics? Yes.

 

Or maybe more importantly, in the Old Testament the Jews were told to stone adulterers to death. Does that mean the United States needs to impliment this into our consittution? That's absurd. But does it mean that Old Testament Jews were expected to obey it? Yep.

 

Unfortunately, many of us are more comfortable with a shallow caricature of Christianity than we are in taking an honest look. It permits us to stay safely away from anything that would infringe on our pursuit of happiness. JMHO.

[jets24 6]

I put in a call to Mel Brooks to find out what the other 5 commandments were.

[redtodd 7]

George Carlin on the 10 commandments

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWquwHlGXZE

 

 

 

I was wondering if someone would post this.

 

I have heard that routine a bunch of times, and it is great.

[Electric Mayhem 35]

For instance, the Old Testament forbids the wearing of mixed fabrics. Does that mean I can't wear any of the wrinkle-free shirts in my closet to work today? No. Does it mean that a Jew many centuries before Christ couldn't mix fabrics? Yes.

 

Or maybe more importantly, in the Old Testament the Jews were told to stone adulterers to death. Does that mean the United States needs to impliment this into our consittution? That's absurd. But does it mean that Old Testament Jews were expected to obey it? Yep.

 

Stoning people to death is OK but wearing cotton with polyester is forbidden.

 

I can't believe people change their lives for this mess.

[Fumbleweed 547]

This focking crap Bible thumpers out there tout gets me madder every time I hear it.

IT WAS NOT FOCKING WRITTEN TO BE TAKEN IN CONTEXT.

Stop focking changing it. It was written to be the word of GOD. The fact that less than 10% of it is relevant today does not mean you can change your interpretation of "how it is intended to be read" in order to make it fit better today.

 

G0ddamn it religious people REALLY piss me off sometimes.

 

You lost me here. When I said it must be read in context, it's no different than reading an entire interview with someone in context. You don't pull out a verse here or a verse there to prove a point. You read all of it together and consider what it has to say as a whole.

 

I really don't understand the anger here at all. I thought what I said was just straight up common sense in terms of how a person reads anything......

 

Stoning people to death is OK but wearing cotton with polyester is forbidden.

 

I can't believe people change their lives for this mess.

 

Stoning people to death for no reason at all was not o.k.

 

The Old Testament is meant to tell the story of one of the two distinct sides of God: Ulitimate Justice. He is just.

 

The New Testament is meant to tell the story of the second side: Ultimate Mercy. He is merciful.

 

Sin in the Old Testament was met with harsh consequences at times to demonstrate God's view of it and the need for Christ.

 

Since Jesus came, the consequences of sin from a judgment standpoint were dealt with by God through the death of Jesus. There are still earthly consequences for sin, but no longer are we in direct contact with God's Justice unless we reject Jesus.

 

I know it all still sound wacko to you.....just trying to claify what you may or not understand about the occurrences that were mentioned.

[TyCobb 0]

The Old Testament is meant to tell the story of one of the two distinct sides of God: Ulitimate Justice. He is just.

 

The New Testament is meant to tell the story of the second side: Ultimate Mercy. He is merciful.

 

I respectfully disagree. The God of the Old Testament was no less merciful and gracious; neither is His wrath any less severe in the New Testament, particularly once the end rolls around.

 

Stoning people to death is OK but wearing cotton with polyester is forbidden.

 

I can't believe people change their lives for this mess.

 

My example was meant to highlight an obscurity, not to imply that it was a life-changing thing whether you wore 100% wool or not.

[Fumbleweed 547]

I respectfully disagree. The God of the Old Testament was no less merciful and gracious; neither is His wrath any less severe in the New Testament, particularly once the end rolls around.

 

I think we agree on this. I just meant that Jesus was the personification of mercy and came to show that side of God much more clearly. I didnt' mean to imply that God was a different God in one place than He was in another. He didn't switch from being one to being another. He just demonstrated His mercy in a perfect way via the coming of Jesus.

 

So, basically, I think (respectfully) that indeed you are right about God being never changing, but I do think the Testaments are a contrast to an extent with respect to these two facets. I probably did a poor job of communicating that in the previous post....bottom line is I think I agree with you in reality.

[TyCobb 0]

bottom line is I think I agree with you in reality.

 

It could be argued that Jesus is the personification of God's judgment as well. But it's all good.