Historical Feedback

Email Feedback I’ve received on my web site.

About Kevin

Just an old guy with opinions that I like to bounce off other people.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Historical Feedback

  1. R. F. says:

    After reading your bio I believe you would make Satan a great PR man. With so many thinking errors and blame shifting I’m surprised your not a politician. Or are you……

    [when asked about blame shifting, R. F. replied}

    “Knowing that the Bible could be tampered with made it much simpler to deal with the issues of Evolution vs. Creation, the Great Flood, and Jonah being swallowed by the whale. I couldn’t tell anybody what I thought, but it helped me.” [excerpt from my web page]

    Kevin your whole bio is an exercise in escapism and error concerning issues of God and his church. The bible says: Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. (KJV)

    From reading your bio I don’t believe you even bothered to get out of your easy chair (See picture at top of your webpage) to get a drink of water, let alone search with all your heart: Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. (KJV)

    And so It seems you’ve found a home among those of like mind. The ELCA is a good choice for you. After reviewing their site I can say Its a good example of a progressive, modern church. But here, read about 1st century version of the ECLA :Matt 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. (KJV)

  2. M. H says:

    Just wanted to mention that I dropped by and read your article, “God will preserve his word: The KJV controversy.” I hope that many people who are involved in this controversy will stop by to read this article. I had read most of the contents in other studies, but I appreciate the way you put it together. I loved the discussion on Erasmus and this comment: “While the work of Erasmus was very significant in his own time, I would no more rely on his Greek New Testament than I would rely on a 16th century dentist to have my teeth drilled.” It is good to laugh “when we can” about this issue, because it is certainly tearing apart the body of Christ on a most basic level.

    I would love to meet you sometime on the internet to discuss this issue further. Respond to this email if you can and we can set up a time. I am currently using ICQ if you are familiar with it. Do a search on my email address and we can chat via ICQ or IRC sometime.

    God bless and thanks for the breath of fresh air!

  3. R. R. says:

    Just visited your home page for the first time. Excellent. I read several of your Articles and Essays on Religion and although I’m more conservative in my theology, I found them delightful, well thought through, and apparently well researched (I’ll be checking)!

    Thanks for a very useful site. I’ll be returning in the future to see what you’re up to.

  4. E. B. says:

    Very nice web page and good arguments!

    Blesings,

  5. R. B. says:

    You know that back in the ’60s the pyschiatric community was starting to proclaim there was no difference between men and women. Confusion. God is not the author of confusion. Think about it, if you dare. The Bible says a great many things. It takes God’s wisdom to truly understand the Bible. Everything isn’t revealed or explained in the Bible.

    There are many today that believe homosexuality is good or at least there is nothing wrong with it, notwithstanding the terrible price the average homosexual has to pay in terms of a much shortened life span, a very great chance of getting aids or other venereal diseases, loss of one’s soul. What the hell. Then you come along in your infinite wisdom and come up with this modern psycho bable.

    Thank you for interpreting the Bible for us and calling our forefathers, in so many words, a bunch of idiots. People don’t change, if you hadn’t noticed. We all face the same challenges that people have always faced. Technology doesn’t change that. Nothing is new today. It’s the same today as in Noah’s day and as Christ has told us, it will be the same as in Noah’s day when he returns again.

    What ignorant pride you have in your lofty ideals. How confused. Why not just toss out the Bible and the wisdom of God and his message. We can put you on the throne Oh Holy One. You will guide us with your infinite wisdom.

    Yeah, that will be the day!

  6. R. B. says:

    How many chapters of Job were devoted to the ravings of a handfull of fools. I suppose so much space was devoted to this wordly wisdom so that God could tell Job that he and his buddies were full of shit and didn’t have a clue about what they were talking about.

    You’re wasting your time with this intellectual clap trap about facts and authorities and this other non-sense. You either believe or you don’t. If you put your faith in man or in any one church system, you’re in trouble. That’s the long and short of it.

    If a person truly is a christian they know Who the authority is and they know the Bible is the Word of God, as much as He desired to tell us in His infinite wisdom. That’s it.

    No one has ever been able to disprove the Word of God. The few that have seriously and objectively tried end up believing because that is the only true answer.

    To hell with all this theological crap and PHD’s and people that graduated from here or there. There job, if they are Christians, is to spread the Gospel and lead people to it. Not develop there own wordly theories.

    The wisest human I’ve ever heard speak is Billy Graham. When asked difficult theological questions he gives the most truthful answer (he must have understood what God said to Job) – “I don’t know.”

    Maybe that’s what you should say when you don’t know the answer. Point them to the One who does have the answer and if He wants them to know, then He will let them know. Seek and you will find, right? But if you seek in the wrong places, put your trust in men, knock on the wrong doors, all you get is a little bit of truth mixed with a lot of confusion.

  7. J. A. says:

    I’ve appreciated some of your articles so much, I’ve made copies for future reference. I’ve even sent some to my father who is basically an atheist-agnostic, depending on the day!:-) A year ago my husband and I had a very painful confrontation with our pastor over the treatment of people in the church. Since we were the main greeters and dearly loved the people coming in, we were also aware of the unnecessary mishandling of situations that require good communication skills. The attempt to help this young man to see the problem failed on three different occasions. In fact we ended up being the “worst trouble makers in the church”, others were told this too. We were told we had hurt people, although we could get no names from him to rectify these situations and make any apologies, if needed. This last year has been a time of reevaluating what I believe! I thank God that I was now able to question things I had always been expected to accept. Your article’s have helped me realize I can still believe in God and live by the moral principle I believe in and still question what appears contradictory in the Scriptures, such as the inerrancy of the Bible. I see many pastors using and even twisting Scripture to support their need of money as well as power, what an injustice. Have you looked at tithing? An old testament requirement, in fact if we were to keep this, we need to set aside 23%. I finally found material just out on the internet by two brothers who wrote “Beyond Tithes and Offerings” by Michael L. Webb and Michell T. Webb. ( On Time Publishing, http://www.OnTimePub.com) Giving under grace is one thing, under compulsion and guilt another. Food for thought here! Anyway thanks for bringing some sanity and thinking back into Christian faith, at least mine. I’m not sure when I’ll be able to step foot back into a church or trust another pastor, but I still believe, now knowing more of the facts. I can say my faith is more real. Very liberating!!!

  8. P and J says:

    I’m sure that you thought you were being funny or cute but the times that we are in are very serious and it does’nt need your type of humor if you had a serious bone in your body why not do it constructively…. you must be a screaming liberal that thinks everyone else that believes in conservatism is a radical…well if I’m a radical about Jesus and satanic problems then what does that make you????? I believe that this country has a serious morality problem and Clinton is a prime example of that very fact and anyone who defends his actions has problems also….and of course this is just my opinion but I DO KNOW MANY OTHERS THAT FEEL THE SAME….ENOUGH COMMENTS FROM ME MAY GOD BLESS YOU ANYWAYS…

  9. C. A. says:

    How wonderful to find another person who also finds truth by seeking and asking!

    Although I find the Bible a good “guide” I do not find it to be a correct “map”!
    I am bothered by inconsistencies, lapse of time relating to changes in interpretation, and I feel that too many ppl want to keep God imprisoned in that little black book! They refuse to see Him as capable of speaking today. They only want to relate to a God of the past. Sad for me. I like to find God in many things. I find that He is still here and still teaching…if we are open & seek…and listen!

  10. V. B. says:

    Just thought you might want to know that an Excite search for “TULIP ‘John Calvin'” brings your “I prefer roses” page up as number one. As a Lutheran with just enough Calvinist exposure to be puzzled, I was looking for a brief definition of the acronym and got a well written yet succinct discussion from your page. Thanks for making your views and life experience available to all. While I land more on the conservative / confessional side of Lutheranism I admire your openness. I think many will benefit from your life story.

    God’s blessing be on you in your Christian walk.

  11. KW says:

    Your study was excellent and cleared up the misconceptions that some Protestants encounter. I have great respect for Luther’s work and can now study them in this light you’ve brought forward.

  12. Prof. B says:

    I teach Bible at [deleted] College. Last month I assigned my class (mostly freshmen) to do an exegetical study of any passage of their own choosing from the Gospels.

    Naturally, when the papers came in I read them and check their references. One of the papers used your web page as a reference. I gave him a good lecture about evaluating sources for an academic paper – in which case your web-pages do not qualify. But I also had to e-mail you to say that you have one of the most delightful pages I’ve run across. I love your collection of Jokes (meaning: “Your sense of humor is compatible with my own.”), and I appreciate your articles and essays on religion. …

  13. D A says:

    I am enjoying your web pages. I especially liked the Bible timeline. I learn better with visual aids. Your bumper sticker religion page was funny.

  14. A B says:

    Hi there

    Just thought I’d let you know … you’ve just been bookmarked.

    For years, I’ve been looking on the Internet for material of interest to someone like me … I can’t call myself a Christian, but have a strange fascination for Christianity … just can’t seem to get myself there though.

    I have a background in Philosophy and English literature, who has spent a lot of time trying to understand both without a sufficient grasp on scripture. I’ve been wanting to study the Bible for the longest time with guidance from a resource without an agenda (or, at least, with a more liberal agenda than anything I’ve come across). I’m sure you know what happens when you submit “Jesus” or “Bible” to a search engine. I think your site looks like the springboard I’ve been looking for. Your articles look interesting as do your links — though I think I can … ummmm … do without the Amiga links 🙂

    A breath of fresh air … I’ll be back!

  15. C B says:

    I visited your home home page. I loved the treatment of 666!

  16. R D says:

    … I find that your mindset in your your work at [http://www.kwdavids.net/historical.html] however is dedicated to a predetermined a priori agenda opposing the accuracy and therefore truthfulness and trustworthiness (despite false counter-claims) of Scripture as merely a personal agenda which utterly lacks even the beginning of an educated, much less a scholarly approach, a bigoted, ignorant and uneducated lack of integrity sadly all too common at todays so-called schools of “higher learning”.

    By God’s help I assiduously seek to avoid using stereotypes of left and right wing since there are too many genuine exceptions in the spectrum of ideas to permit such foolish intolerance, but I find it not a little amusing how often those imagining themselves to be “liberal” are rather most woefully ignorant and intolerant of anything labeled “conservatvies”, insuring an “elite” culture of bigoted and small minds.

    …An educated approach would not exclusively say such things as “it has been claimed” for the opposing view and “First we know” for the author’s view, especially baselessly on both counts, knowing such a ploy to show argument so weak as to be unable to stand on its own without needing conditioning of the thinking of the audience.

    It has been tragic in our day for me to see the once bright minds of academia replaced with the darkened mobs so deceived as to embrace lying as a lifestyle instead of the truth which sets us free, truth only possible because of The Truth personified in Jesus our Lord (John 8:32), something He even graciously makes available to those who reject Him, though especially in our day it’s become something all too often rejected from the Supreme Court on down. Thank God for the notable exceptions. Romans 8:23-25 “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and . . . things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”

    1. You fail to make any presentation whatsoever of the high reliability of the gospel accounts, merely ignorant caricature which you then pretend to dismantle. What are you so afraid of that you can’t face the truth of the arguments in the open instead of hiding out with second-hand insinuations? Most of the things you claim are easily swept aside by the elementary works of Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell and New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? by F.F. Bruce, but as P.T. Barnum said, there’s a sucker born every minute, and since there’s no indisputable evidence for either evolution or liberal theology, a prior assumption and assertion is all that remains to the proponents, however as usual one can safely rely on the gross ignorance of most people to protect the absurd sham of the a priori assertions from being exposed. It wasn’t for nothing Jesus compared us to dumb sheep! He almost daily shows me how I’m the same way, ever needing to lean on Him for wisdom instead of the foolishness of my own. What separates true intellectual giants from the frauds is the humble recognition of the former of this truth, quite unlike the foolish arrogance so common among the latter.

    2. You dishonestly say that “First, we know that Christian scribes frequently amended the texts of the canonical gospels.” without bothering to mention that ALL scribes amended ALL texts of ALL writings, just as you or your editor did yours, unless you want to claim only the aforementioned “Christian scribes” made mistakes! Fantastically then you further on seem to claim that the corrections of these errors were used to change Scripture to their point of view, yet another baseless claim.

    3. Those who intelligently pursue the matter know that the vast majority of variants among the New Testament manuscripts are merely those of orthography, another truth you disguise, but because you first must reject the accuracy of Scripture instead of pursuing the truth of the matter, you inconsistently and dishonestly employ the false double standard of accepting any work of ancient literature *except* Scripture on the basis of far skimpier, certainly inferior and more corrupt manuscript evidence. The simple embarrassing reason is that there is no ancient work with even a fraction of the supporting manuscript evidence as Scripture, more evidence you fail to mention.

    4. You amazingly try to make any serious comparison of the blatantly inferior spurious pseudo-Gospels with the true ones, though of course no one will read them to find out how silly this notion is to the few literate there are these days.

    5. You’ve not conclusively shown anything, and though you may or may not have shown that Christians made up stories about Jesus, I wasn’t aware God had given omniscience to another to know who is and who isn’t a Christian, for those who’ve studied the literature know very well that some authors were *not* Christian. You’ve certainly not even tried to show that “Christian scribes felt free to adjust the canonical Gospels according to their own views,” a far cry from what you *did* attempt, “that Christian scribes frequently amended the texts of the canonical gospels,” more self-serving assertion and faulty, if not dishonest reasoning to equate the two.

    6. You amazingly claim to be a Christian and ask “Would Matthew, Mark, Luke and John make stuff up?” concerning apostles who lived and died because Jesus was The Way, The Truth, and The Life, through Whom alone any have come to the Father (Jn 14:6), and that He’s Truth personified Who sets us free (Jn 8:32), contrary to today’s popular fables of arrogant autonomy which so clearly fulfill Paul’s true prophetic word of II Tim 4:3-4. No other explanation can intelligently explain the apostles’ martyrdom, though many have tried. Read Frank Morrison’s “Who Moved The Stone” if you dare. It would also be most interesting also to see some dealing with archaeology in light of its consistent validation of Scripture’s accuracy and explosion of the “liberal” conceits pretending to discredit it. One would be surprised that “liberals” don’t get tired of being constantly disproven if the central self-seeking motive weren’t so obvious, though sadly often not obvious to the individual. Of course the common method employed is still just to ignore the truth and repeat the age-old lies, long since exploded by the facts, such as those published by such luminaries as William F. Albright, knowing people are generally too ignorant to contest them.

    7. I won’t bother correcting the same old assertions as to the incompatability of the Gospel accounts, something my simple A .T. Robertson Gospel harmony can do. Do you really imagine the Church Fathers hadn’t solved these matters in the previous millenium, and that you’ve just now discoverd them? I solved those problems after I’d only been a Christian for a few years, but of course people today are so ignorant they’ll believe anything.

    8. Jesus must be pretty stupid if He can’t do the same as us, either communicate in short stories or long discourses. Or there’s an easy alternative not considered, that the Synoptic writers couldn’t abbreviate a discourse, an alternative not allowed by one so committed a priori to Scriptural error.

    9. Your other “either/or” nitpicking has all been exploded centuries ago (I’d go get my reference material to illustrate this if I thought it would do any good), and it will of course make one look good to the ignorant, but to those who know the truth about Biblical history and textual criticism, it’s unimpressive. It would help tremendously if people would pursue education enough to learn Greek, or even simple Latin (they have helped me tremendously), but these days they can rarely even manage English. …

    10. And finally, with slight alteration, what you said returns on your own head:: “If someone wants to say that the stories must nevertheless be historically untrue on the basis of faith, let them say so — but that person has no credibility to make “historical” judgments on the works of others.” Yes, you certainly have shown no credibility on which to base your judgment of Scripture. But the bottom line is rarely the surface matter of the accuracy or authority of Scripture. The real root of the matter is most often idolatry, for haven’t we again embraced the same old lies Adam and Eve swallowed in the Garden: “Has God said?” and “You shall be as gods!” and the outcome of that cost Jesus a terrible price, a price His perfect love for us willingly paid.

  17. G C says:

    Sir,not everything that you may read as a printed information has any credible value. It is possible that you are not interested in searching the truth but other agenda has invaded your illogical mind and I’m affraid only God can offer you some guidance.

  18. W R says:

    Is Historical Jesus and the Christ of Faith the same Jesus? Is he alive or is he a memory? Does He reach out to the lost, does He call us to repentance? Does He call us to love? I read your article and I was left wanting. Please help me understand you view better. Concerned,

  19. D says:

    Today I decided to research via the web the life of the Apostle Paul – historical info, bio, etc. After searching several sites, I came across your web page. It was extremely informative. Thanks for taking the time!!

  20. J F says:

    I just happened upon your web site response to critiques of the Jesus Seminar. My thanks for giving me a ray of light in the midst of struggle. I have been a fundamentalist and evangelical Christian for many years. However, I am finally opening up to the truth about the ‘literal’ interpretation. For many years, I would just write off discrepancies to God and state that we just didn’t have understanding or that God ways are higher than ours. My beliefs are turning to a more universal knowing of God. As such, I am becoming to understand that we, as Christians, do not have ‘special knowledge’ not accessible by others. Instead, Christ is available to all and embraces all but those who are ‘religious’. I am reading books (such as “The Power of Now”) which I would have written off as hedonistic 5 years ago.

    I will be reading a number of your articles on the web. Thank you for being an inspiration.

  21. M&G S says:

    Just checked back on your site – (it’s been a while) and it really looks good. Great information. I am sending this link out to our congregation to bookmark.

  22. D K says:

    Let me ask you a question. You claim that God is “calling” women to the priesthood. If this is truly the case, I must assume that God has been calling them from the very beginning, and that this type of “calling” did not just come about in recent times. So if God has always willed for women to be ordained as priests, how come in the 2000 year history of the Church women have not been ordained? If this truly was God’s will, and God is leading and guiding the Church of Christ, do you not think that women’s ordination would have happened by now? I have a difficult time believing that man could suppress the will of God for some 2000 years. The human element of the Church trusts God, and tries its best to follow His will. I refuse to believe that the Church, if it truly felt that women priests were what God wanted for the Church, wouldn’t have made a move to see that it happened. Is it not possible that the issue of women’s ordination is more a commentary about “rights” or “entitlements” secular society feels all people should have access to. The holy priesthood is a sacred office that is above any mere mortal, man or woman, and it is only through the grace of God that those men chosen for this sacred responsibility are able to fulfill their priestly duties. Therefore, the priesthood is not a “right” for anyone, man or woman. Not one has a claim to it. Not everybody can pursue the priesthood because it is not something any human being can choose for themselves, God must choose it for them. God has a plan for all people, and just because some are called to be priests and others are not, doesn’t mean that those who are not called to priesthood are somehow “left out”. We cannot allow our thinking to become such that the holy priesthood becomes something “anyone” (man or woman) can pursue if they choose it for themselves, because they have a “right” to be a priest if they want to. It doesn’t work that way. This is a special calling reserved for a select group of people for reasons that only God knows. We must continue to leave this special office in the hands of God, and rely on Him to determine who the priests of the future should be. The Church of the 21st century is a wonderful institution that has been led and directed by Christ from the very beginning. I see no need to allow outside cultural influences determine the direction the Church should go with respect to present day issues like women’s ordination. The priesthood is about men becoming Christ to the world. This has been the case throughout the history of the Church and look where we are today. The priesthood has not for one second been disaffected by the fact that only men are a part of it. It has been enhanced, because God has willed it this way. God has reasons for doing things that are hard for us to understand at times, but ultimately we must trust in God’s authority to lead us and the Church in whatever direction He chooses. We cannot begin to take ownership and control of the priestly office, shaping it to “fit” into the sensibilities of present day society. There is a selfishness that prevails in much of society today that has infected the human element of the Church to a certain extent. A lot of the arguments and rationales for such issues as women’s ordination are born out of this sensibility all humans possess. We must take a step back and clear out this type of selfishness from our thinking. We need to think in terms of “what God wants for the Church” instead of “what I feel is best or might want for the Church”. We are all part of the Church and must work together to live out the Gospel message on a daily basis. Christ has called all the baptized to live the Gospel. But the priesthood is not an office which humans choose for themselves, no matter what the reason may be. God must choose those He feels are most suited to be a part of this special vocation and we must respect that. God knows the hearts of men better than anyone, and He knows who can best serve as Christ to the world. If God has chosen only men for this vocation, who are we to question that? Rather, we should feel blessed that he has provided this vocation to the world. Not just to men. All people, men or women benefit from the holy priesthood and all should revere what this special office truly is for us. Not due of the merits of man, but because of the Grace and Love of God, which works through the holy priesthood to reach all people. I believe that if God wanted women to be priests, they would be. This is the Church of Christ and Christ leads the Church in all ways. If women priests were essential to the life of the Church, they would have been ordained by now.

  23. S says:

    I read your “Was Hitler a Christian?” thesis with sadness and I think you should be made aware of your unscholarly defense (although no doubt you think it scholarly).

    >When one looks at the atrocities committed under the Nazi regime of

    Adolf Hitler and compares them to the teacher of universal love, Jesus of Nazareth, one might come to the immediate conclusion that the notion that Hitler was a Christian is absurd.

    Why would one come to a conclusion of absurdity when Jesus claimed to have come not to send peace but a sword, and spoke of everlasting punishment for offenders, not to mention his Father who killed men, women, and infants?

    The purpose of this essay is to examine the question of whether one might call Hitler a Christian, and to present evidence from authoritative sources in support of its conclusions.

    The problem here is that you never presented any “authoritative” sources to support your biased conclusion. You’re relying mostly on Hitler’s Table Talk which has never been shown to be an authoritative voice of Hilter. The Table Talk was primarily edited by Bormann who had an agenda against the Catholic Church. None of the transcripts were checked or revised by Hitler.

    Then you go and discount Hitler’s speeches and personal writings, including Mein Kampf! My goodness, imagine if we threw out autobiographies, and public statements of historical people– we could not have history! Such is the debasement of your argument.

    This unavoidable introductory question is probably the thorniest part of our study, since there is little consensus about what constitutes being a Christian.

    Get this straight: your thesis is in no way a “study”. Yet YOU’RE the one who gets to determine who’s a Christian? I see nothing authoritative or convincing about your definition yet even your own construction fails:

    My own definition of Christian: “one who claims to be a follower of Jesus and whose actions are not inconsistent with the love of God and neighbor” rather begs the question in the case of Hitler.

    So by your definition then, Hitler must be a Christian. Hitler followed Chirst, as he saw him, loved God and his fellow Germans and Austrians. So the begging goes to your thesis.

    By “follower of Jesus” I mean someone who considers Jesus a model for his own life…

    And that is exactly what Hitler thought of himself. His own words reveal that. He saw Jesus as an Aryan and against Jews. Even you admit to this.

    In your “Hitler’s actions” you mention the murder of Erich Klausener yet you give no source for Hitler’s involvement. Nor do you cite why Klausener was killed. You’ll find that Christianity had no play as to why he was killed.

    Then you say that Hitler killed himself as a “mortal sin”. This is so laughable an anachronistic error that it reveals the lack of depth of your argument. Even if suicide was a mortal sin, it would make no difference. All of Hitler’s atrocities occurred BEFORE he died, while he was a Christian! And at best you could only make this an argument against Catholicism, for this is the denomination that makes the claim. Many Christians, including ex-Catholics have dropped their political ties with organized religion; this does not make them any less a Christian. And you seem to forget that Jesus had himself killed!

    Hitler was married to Eva Braun by a secular city official [Last Days of Hitler, p. 234]. He took no counsel from a clergyman before his death.

    This is such a weak point that it hardly deserves comment. My goodness man, don’t you realize that WWII was going on, the building around him was being bombarded by enemy fire? Do you really think there would have been time for a formal clergyman wedding? And why would a true Christian need a clergyman for counsel? And what in the world does it have to do with anything? And what does that say to millions of Christians who married by secular means?

    The rest of your out-of-context quotes and comments would take pages to correct.

    And you completely ignore that the Catholic Church did not excommunicate Hitler, nor did any contemporary Protestant Church denounce Hitler from Christianity. On the contrary, both the contemporary Catholic and Protestant Churches took Hitler in their folds.

    According to most Christian sources, ALL Christians sin. There are good Christians and there are bad Christians, but a bad one is a Christian nevertheless. Hitler was a bad Christian and Christianity drove him to many of his actions. That is a fact that you simply can never dismiss.

    I’m sorry but your entire argument is an embarrassment. It is weak and unconvincing and shows an appalling lack of depth with an obvious bias and the avoidance of direct evidence. It needed to be said. Note, this is a response to your article. With the type of reasoning you’ve presented in your article, I do not wish to correspond with you, nor do I have any interest in your thoughts. I hope you take this as a tough example for your learning experience.

  24. JS says:

    Kevin,
    “Convicted Nazi war criminals such as Albert Speer wrote their memoirs, but can we trust those who have a vested interest in the rehabilitation of their own reputations? ”

    Excellent, so why should anyone trust the Bible, etc. etc. or any other artifact, person(s) that supports the same? Many call it faith, but faith in what? Contradictions in spriptures have been or have become rationalised; persons believe in what they have been told by others or they believe in what they want to believe (which may have no basis in reality, what ever that may be). In this regard, as you state people went along with the Nazi party out of fear (which may be true), Hitler becomes no different than God because God also strikes fear in those that believe in him (where’s the good or what is good). Fear is the whole basis for a person to do what God says (or what Man says God said). The faithful fear God, they must. Your question should not be, Was Hitler a Christain, but, Did Hitler use God or more percisely, How did God use (manipulate) Hitler?

  25. M says:

    I must break from reading your articles…simply outstanding, honest, fair, and well written….presently I am checking out the dates of composition.

  26. ML says:

    It is a personal thing, Kevin. You’re free to believe whatever you want about “bibles”. But, our choice is to believe that God has perfected his word, in English, in the AV. That is our “personal thing”. Why does that irritate you so? You know why?

    Because you’re jealous. We have a bible. We have a conviction. We have a perfect, pure, preserved word of God. What do you have, Kevin?

  27. DD says:

    Are you suggesting in your article that the Bibles record of God’s Words is not 100% correct? And that it has been edited by Jewish leaders or whatever? Pls get bk to me on this as soon as you can 😛

    [in response to my reply I received this]

    Well I’m not ‘disgusted with you’ no :p Thanks for your response, it’s clear you took a lot of time about it.

    I agree that God isn’t going to be getting great kicks from animals being burnt. But I also believe that the whole of the Bible is totally accurate and God-breathed, miraculous as that may be. Off the top of my head I suppose theres the Bible code to back that up.

    I read your article and contacted you while attempting to communicate to a former pagan, who is head over heels for animals, how God could condone animal sacrifices. I guess I think a combination of this lot:-

    – Bloods gotta be spilled to atone for sin (although animals are still inoccent)
    – God never wanted them to sin in the first place, so didn’t want them to sacrifice animoos.
    – The animals were like source of income, and a bunch of resources. God liked the tithing of the thing, if it was in the right spirit.He couldn’t thole it as a token way to get on God’s side.
    – It allowed the Jews to understand the Lamb of God atoning for their sins.

  28. MS says:

    Just read your page at:
    http://www.kwdavids.net/law_and_sanctification.html

    It comes close but no cigar… I do not have time to go into detail… Let me preface that I am pro-James and anti-Paul.

    I see Paul as being short sighted. His process or method is correct, however, he failed to see the full implications of his own teachings. He disregarded very important issues that James retains. If Paul had seen the full implications of his own teachings, then he would have not ignored certain teachings of James.

    I apologize for being vague, but to go into greater detail could spark too long of a discussion of which I do not have time for at this point.

Comments are closed.