# Reading through the Bible



## pbradley (Aug 1, 2011)

I've finished the NT and started on the Old. I've skipped Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy for the time being D), planning to go back and read those at the end.

Have you read it all the way through, and how did you do it? Genesis to Revelation, one Testament before the other, or some other structured method?


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 1, 2011)

Can't say I've done it in a structured manner....and I'm not proud of that fact.  I'm sure I've read it all at least once or three times.

Funny you mention this.  I was listening to a pastor a couple of weeks ago.  He was talking about a lady he knew who came to Christ in some foreign country via mission work.

She read the Bible cover to cover TWENTY TWO times BEFORE she felt confident and convinced that it contained truth and that she could trust it as the Word of God.  She did that BEFORE salvation.  That was in one 12 month period.

The following year, she got slack and repented....she only read through the entire Bible 19 times that year.

God give us all a hunger for the Word that is unceasing.  Funny, when you are comfortable, you don't seem to hunger like those in third world areas.

Perhaps David Platt is right.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 1, 2011)

Yes, I  read through it several times a year. One in as little as 2 months, but mostly about twice a year. I read from the beginning to the end in both the old and new testaments concurrently, 6 chapters a day in the old, 2 to 3 in the new.

I also read along with my Family as I lead family worship after supper each night.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 1, 2011)

Swamp Runner said:


> Yes, I  read through it several times a year. One in as little as 2 months, but mostly about twice a year. I read from the beginning to the end in both the old and new testaments concurrently, 6 chapters a day in the old, 2 to 3 in the new.
> 
> I also read along with my Family as I lead family worship after supper each night.



When I read through it in a year, it was similar to that.  Some in the old and some in the new.

We have our family scripture reading before the kids go to bed.  It is from a Bible Story book that is more on the level of our kids (4 & 6 yo).


----------



## The Foreigner (Aug 1, 2011)

Swamp Runner said:


> Yes, I  read through it several times a year. One in as little as 2 months, but mostly about twice a year. I read from the beginning to the end in both the old and new testaments concurrently, 6 chapters a day in the old, 2 to 3 in the new.
> 
> I also read along with my Family as I lead family worship after supper each night.



Family worship - praise the Lord for that brother.

I don't read it systematically, cover to cover. I've found the various reading schemes that have you in two or three different books every day doesn't work for my limited mind.


----------



## Nicodemus (Aug 1, 2011)

I`ve read it from front to back, a couple of times.


----------



## formula1 (Aug 1, 2011)

*Re:*

Been reading the new testament on schedule this summer.  I should be finished in a few more days.  I skipped 1 and 2 Corinthians and have to go back as soon as I finish Revelation. I'm a slow reader and I prefer to get what the Holy Spirit is saying at the time to  me rather than just read for the sake of reading. 

Also, my 10 year old is reading every night to me.  We have read together so far Proverbs, John, Luke, Romans, and Acts since he got saved and are working on 1 Corinthians next. Im thinking were going to get through the New Testament and maybe Psalms before he gets 11.  I hope so.

I do read the old testament, but I haven't read it straight through in awhile.  I just read Joshua(finished about a week ago). I do spend alot of study in Isaiah, Psalms and Proverbs, too.

I read Christian books, too.  Finished 'Heaven is for Real' and 'The Case for Faith' recently, but there still is no substitute for scripture.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 1, 2011)

Previously, I have read the Bible straight through.  However, I recently stumbled onto Grant Horner's method of reading ten chapters a day.  It really helps to keep you fresh.  I've only been doing it for about a month or so, but I like it so far.  Ten chapters sounds like a lot, but I find I can read it pretty quickly.  Here's more info if you'd like to check it out:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12349985/Professor-Grant-Horners-Bible-Reading-System


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 1, 2011)

::





centerpin fan said:


> Previously, I have read the Bible straight through.  However, I recently stumbled onto Grant Horner's method of reading ten chapters a day.  It really helps to keep you fresh.  I've only been doing it for about a month or so, but I like it so far.  Ten chapters sounds like a lot, but I find I can read it pretty quickly.  Here's more info if you'd like to check it out:
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/12349985/Professor-Grant-Horners-Bible-Reading-System



I used this system for about the first four months this year, I created and excel spreadsheet to keep in my Bible to help me keep track of it. But after awhile it just got to be touch and I felt like I wasn't getting enough out of it. I do have to admit, it is great for covering large sections and getting a good basic overview of the Bible on the macro level.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 1, 2011)

pbradley said:


> I've finished the NT and started on the Old. I've skipped Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy for the time being D), planning to go back and read those at the end.
> 
> Have you read it all the way through, and how did you do it? Genesis to Revelation, one Testament before the other, or some other structured method?


Do you read as if it were an obligation as a responsible Christian or do you have a God given desire and actually find it interesting and enjoyable? Both are good, one describes my wife and one describes me.


----------



## Lukikus2 (Aug 1, 2011)

I've read it back to front a few times. Toughest part is all the begats.


----------



## pbradley (Aug 1, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Do you read as if it were an obligation as a responsible Christian or do you have a God given desire and actually find it interesting and enjoyable? Both are good, one describes my wife and one describes me.



you bring up the oddest issues.  

I do it to learn, and for a closer walk with my Lord.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 1, 2011)

pbradley said:


> you bring up the oddest issues.
> 
> I do it to learn, and for a closer walk with my Lord.


 Just wondering, I see many kinds. My wife does not have the same drive that I have in regards to reading the word yet if you survey us both, she has the caring heart that makes her shine as a Christian.


----------



## pnome (Aug 2, 2011)

pbradley said:


> I've skipped Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy for the time being D), planning to go back and read those at the end.



You've skipped all the good parts!

Seriously though, I am interested in your opinion of the rank genocide laid out in Deuteronomy 3.  Also your opinion of the  phantasmagoria of laws and rules God supposedly gives to Moses in Leviticus.

Reminds me of this...


> "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... *There's no way to rule innocent men.* The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
> much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)



Original sin makes it so no one is innocent.  Think about that some.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 2, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Previously, I have read the Bible straight through.  However, I recently stumbled onto Grant Horner's method of reading ten chapters a day.  It really helps to keep you fresh.  I've only been doing it for about a month or so, but I like it so far.  Ten chapters sounds like a lot, but I find I can read it pretty quickly.  Here's more info if you'd like to check it out:
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/12349985/Professor-Grant-Horners-Bible-Reading-System



Interesting.

I had Prof Horner for an English class in college.  He's really a neat guy and has a strong love for God.


----------



## Turkey Trax (Aug 2, 2011)

Youversion app if you have a smartphone (i know iphones have it) dont know about the others. but it can set you up on a number of different reading plans and it sends reminders to you to keep you on schedule. you can set it up for your whole family to do it or however you want. i think you can get it on your puter too.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 2, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I had Prof Horner for an English class in college.  He's really a neat guy and has a strong love for God.



I had forgotten about his English background.  One article I read mentioned his love for Shakespeare.  He said he preferred the KJV just because he loved the language of that period.

His method seems to be fairly popular.  It even has its own Facebook page.


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Aug 2, 2011)

I have done it front to back and using the bounce around method.

I believe I got more out of it reading from front to back.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 2, 2011)

> I had Prof Horner for an English class in college



Rj, just curious (and it is not a loaded question), where did you go to school?


----------



## pbradley (Aug 2, 2011)

pnome said:


> You've skipped all the good parts!
> 
> Seriously though, I am interested in your opinion of the rank genocide laid out in Deuteronomy 3.  Also your opinion of the  phantasmagoria of laws and rules God supposedly gives to Moses in Leviticus.
> 
> ...



The doctrinal note in my study Bible puts it this way:



> Deut. 2:34 and utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones...
> 
> The Hebrew word is cherem and was a "ban of extermination," used in Deuteronomy in connection with people or objects dedicated to the worship of false gods. For the Hebrews, people and objects associated with pagan cultic rites were to be regarded with abhorrence, as sin should always be - as corrupt and corrupting, and as fit for nothing but complete destruction - lest the "ban" should subsequently fall on those who spared them.



Sin is treason against God. It separates us from God and as treason, is punishable by God, in any manner He chooses, using the instrument He chooses. In the case of the conquest of Canaan, God used the Hebrews as his instrument of punishment.

The Canaanites were a sinful people as a whole and God wanted them cleaned out of the region around His people so that the Hebrews would not become infected by their sinful, lawless, idolatrous ways.


----------



## pnome (Aug 2, 2011)

pbradley said:


> The Canaanites were a sinful people as a whole and God wanted them cleaned out of the region around His people so that the Hebrews would not become infected by their sinful, lawless, idolatrous ways.



Even the children?


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 2, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I had forgotten about his English background.  One article I read mentioned his love for Shakespeare.  He said he preferred the KJV just because he loved the language of that period.
> 
> His method seems to be fairly popular.  It even has its own Facebook page.



He's very artsy...that is for sure.  Coming from a Biz major, it was interesting in his class and I didn't necessarily enjoy my gen ed requirement as much as some of my Biz classes 



JB0704 said:


> Rj, just curious (and it is not a loaded question), where did you go to school?



The Master's College.


www.masters.edu

I highly recommend the school as I believe it does a great job of focusing on academics and the heart of students rather than just rules and regs.  Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of rules and regs, but they were not overbearing like some other Christian Colleges.


----------



## pbradley (Aug 2, 2011)

pnome said:


> Even the children?



They'd been witness to and learning about pagan worship rites from day one.

It was God's decision to cleanse thoroughly the land before His people took possession. 

Problem turned out to be, His people didn't always follow His orders. 

Look in Joshua ch. 9 regarding the Gibeonites. They tricked Israel into making a treaty with them, thus keeping the Gibeonites alive instead of exterminating them like the other Canaanites.

_Josh. 9:14 And the men took of their victuals, and asked not the counsel at the mouth of the Lord._

Then, instead of having another city cleansed of its sinful inhabitants and being an example to others in the region, instead the Hebrews had to go to the defense of the Gibeonites in ch. 10 when the 5 Amorite kings attacked, because of the treaty.

When God's people ignore God's Word, it always leads them to trouble. Sometimes immediately, sometimes down the road.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 2, 2011)

> The Master's College.



Cool.  The reason I asked was because I got finished my undergrad at Liberty and it I had heard a few of your other positions while I was there.  I argued with them a lot too


----------



## pnome (Aug 2, 2011)

pbradley said:


> They'd been witness to and learning about pagan worship rites from day one.
> 
> It was God's decision to cleanse thoroughly the land before His people took possession.
> 
> ...



Wow.  Where is that critical thinker so in evidence in the Political Forum?

Children deserve to be slaughtered because they witnessed something????


----------



## pbradley (Aug 2, 2011)

pnome said:


> Wow.  Where is that critical thinker so in evidence in the Political Forum?
> 
> Children deserve to be slaughtered because they witnessed something????



The critical thinker is still right here, my friend. He's simply accepted that God does what God will, and that He has a reason for it, every single time.


----------



## pnome (Aug 2, 2011)

pbradley said:


> The critical thinker is still right here, my friend. He's simply accepted that God does what God will, and that the has a reason for it, every single time.



Except that God didn't kill those children.  Men did.  Men who used God as an excuse to commit genocide.


----------



## pbradley (Aug 2, 2011)

pnome said:


> Except that God didn't kill those children.  Men did.  Men who used God as an excuse to commit genocide.



That's where we differ. I believe they did what God told them to do. I accept the Biblical account.


----------



## pnome (Aug 2, 2011)

pbradley said:


> That's where we differ. I believe they did what God told them to do. I accept the Biblical account.



So that's it?  That's all it takes for you to support the slaughter of children?  Just convince you it's what your God wants.

That's an awfully low threshold.  

This is the problem with blind faith like yours.  You open up a weak point in your morals where anything goes.   All the laws of Israel can be abandoned when dealing with pagans and unbelievers.  You become a tool of your religion.  No different in morals than a suicide bomber.


----------



## pbradley (Aug 2, 2011)

pnome said:


> So that's it?  That's all it takes for you to support the slaughter of children?  Just convince you it's what your God wants.
> 
> That's an awfully low threshold.
> 
> This is the problem with blind faith like yours.  You open up a weak point in your morals where anything goes.   All the laws of Israel can be abandoned when dealing with pagans and unbelievers.  You become a tool of your religion.  No different in morals than a suicide bomber.



Another perspective is, the First Law of Israel is, "do what God tells you to." Can't get much more moral than that.

Since allah doesn't actually exist, islamic suicide bombers are acting on their own impulses, not messages from "god.

God (Yahweh) really does exist, and I'll do my level best to serve in my capacity as a Christian and follow Christ's examples and teachings.

The New Testament rendering of "servant" is "slave."

That's me, my friend. I'm a slave of God. Wholly owned and operated. Every prayer I pray includes this: Lord, everything I am, everything I own, is Yours. Use me as You will.

As far as somebody "convincing me" something is what God wants, well...I'm pretty strong-minded, and, as you pointed out, I'm no dummy, to boot. In the end, I get to decide whether God is speaking to me or not.


----------



## JFS (Aug 2, 2011)

pnome said:


> No different in morals than a suicide bomber.



Indeed.


----------



## Nicodemus (Aug 2, 2011)

pnome said:


> So that's it?  That's all it takes for you to support the slaughter of children?  Just convince you it's what your God wants.
> 
> That's an awfully low threshold.
> 
> This is the problem with blind faith like yours.  You open up a weak point in your morals where anything goes.   All the laws of Israel can be abandoned when dealing with pagans and unbelievers.  You become a tool of your religion.  No different in morals than a suicide bomber.





Were we so different when we dropped those two bombs on Japan? Who were we a tool of there?


----------



## pbradley (Aug 2, 2011)

pnome said:


> So that's it?  That's all it takes for you to support the slaughter of children?  Just convince you it's what your God wants.



I suppose you have the same problem with the Flood?


----------



## pnome (Aug 2, 2011)

pbradley said:


> I suppose you have the same problem with the Flood?



Well, the flood was most likely a natural disaster co-oped by "God's Chosen People" as a sign of His wrath.  Eager to up their deities body count and street cred.  You see this sort of thing all the time.  Ask any true believer of any religion why Japan got hit with a Tsunami and the answer you get is "My God was angry with them"  or "It was my God's will."

Sadly predicable.


----------



## pnome (Aug 2, 2011)

Nicodemus said:


> Were we so different when we dropped those two bombs on Japan? Who were we a tool of there?



Are you proud of that?  Do you think it was "good" that we killed all those people?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 2, 2011)

> Ask any true believer of any religion why Japan got hit with a Tsunami and the answer you get is "My God was angry with them" or "It was my God's will."



Can't a person believe that God exists and also believe that "stuff happens?"  Which is pretty much where I'm at.


----------



## Nicodemus (Aug 2, 2011)

pnome said:


> Are you proud of that?  Do you think it was "good" that we killed all those people?





If we hadn`t, can you imagine the cost to American lives if we had to invade Japan to defeat them? Yes it`s bad what had to be done, but better them than us. 

And mercy to an enemy can come back to kick your teeth out.


----------



## JFS (Aug 2, 2011)

Nicodemus said:


> If we hadn`t, can you imagine the cost to American lives if we had to invade Japan to defeat them? Yes it`s bad what had to be done, but better them than us.
> 
> And mercy to an enemy can come back to kick your teeth out.




Mass causalities were unavoidable using that instrumentality.   But what if we had invaded?  Would you have advocated intentionally killing the all the children?


----------



## pnome (Aug 2, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Can't a person believe that God exists and also believe that "stuff happens?"  Which is pretty much where I'm at.



Sure, provided you don't believe God is omnipotent.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 2, 2011)

pnome said:


> Sure, provided you don't believe God is omnipotent.



Why would he have to believe that?


----------



## pnome (Aug 2, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Why would he have to believe that?



If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
    Then He is not omnipotent.

    If He is able, but not willing
    Then He is malevolent.

    If He is both able and willing
    Then whence cometh evil?

    If He is neither able nor willing
    Then why call Him God?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 2, 2011)

> Sure, provided you don't believe God is omnipotent



I think the implication is that God would have to see the future and choose not to intervene.  I think that is only one way of looking at things.  Another way is to view it as a wheel being put into motion.  

Then, we could argue on whether "omnipotent" necessarily involves things which have not happened (unknowable?).


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 2, 2011)

pnome said:


> If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
> Then He is not omnipotent.
> 
> If He is able, but not willing
> ...



Remember this thread?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? -no
Then he is not omnipotent.- wrong
Is he able, but not willing?-not in his will
Then he is malevolent.-wrong
Is he both able and willing?-yes for the able, not in his will.
Then whence cometh evil?-see below
Is he neither able nor willing?-no
Then why call him God?"-explianation below

God could have made the world without evil.
God could have made the world with only good.
God could have made the world without either.
God made the world with both.
The last one of these is the only one were people have a choice and are shown love. Free will.

There will be two types of people in the end. the ones that say to God "I accept you and your will be done"
and the ones that say "I reject you" and God says to them "YOUR will be done"
ultimate love. 

I don't want to hijack the thread, just throwin' it out there.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 2, 2011)

> If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
> Then He is not omnipotent.



Does a natural disaster meet the definition of evil?



> If He is able, but not willing
> Then He is malevolent.



How so?  Not that I disagree with your premise.  I just don't agree that your a+b=c



> If He is neither able nor willing
> Then why call Him God?



What if the things which will happen are not knowable until they happen?  What if free-will means what it implies?  Could it still be God?  I would argue yes.


----------



## Nicodemus (Aug 2, 2011)

JFS said:


> Mass causalities were unavoidable using that instrumentality.   But what if we had invaded?  Would you have advocated intentionally killing the all the children?





You really don`t want me to answer that question.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 2, 2011)

> You really don`t want me to answer that question.



From God's perspective, does an American child have more value than a Japanese child?


----------



## pnome (Aug 2, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Does a natural disaster meet the definition of evil?



I guess that's up to you.  I would say yes.




> How so?  Not that I disagree with your premise.  I just don't agree that your a+b=c



It's not my premise.  It's Epicurus'


We are getting into an interesting philosophical realm here. AKA "The Problem of Evil"

We've had a lot of threads about this, but if you want to discuss further, let's start a new thread.

My intent in this thread is only to challenge pbradley to think critically about his chosen religion.


----------



## Nicodemus (Aug 2, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> From God's perspective, does an American child have more value than a Japanese child?





I`m not qualified to answer from the Lord`s perspective. I will say this though. In times of war, OUR children have more value than the children of the enemy. OUR warriors have more value than the enemy. And OUR people have more value than the enemy`s people. 

Do you understand what I am sayin`?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 2, 2011)

> I guess that's up to you. I would say yes.



I would say no because of a lack of harmful intent.  It could only be evil if intentional.  Just my felings, though.



> It's not my premise. It's Epicurus'



....which I assume you agree with?  My point was that it would appear as if a failure to intervene would be an evil act.  However, I think other factors could come into play, or, there are sums other than "C."



> We've had a lot of threads about this, but if you want to discuss further, let's start a new thread



I'm up for that.  If you start it I will join in when I can (about to hit the long commute home).  



> My intent in this thread is only to challenge pbradley to think critically about his chosen religion



In the process you challenged my (ever evolving and forming) thoughts on God.  Sorry, I did not mean to "thread jack."


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 2, 2011)

> Do you understand what I am sayin`?



Yes.


----------



## Nicodemus (Aug 2, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.





It`s none of my business, but how do you feel towards the enemies of our country?


Brother Bradley, sorry about the off topic.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 2, 2011)

> It`s none of my business, but how do you feel towards the enemies of our country?



About the same way you do, I suppose.  I just don't include their children in that category.  I have listened to Christians my whole life talk about the need to elliminate entire populations ("nuke 'em all").  While that would eliminate many problems, I think it would place us on the wrong side of the good / evil divide.  I feel the same way about torture.  At what point are we a terrorist ourselves?


----------



## Nicodemus (Aug 2, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> About the same way you do, I suppose.  I just don't include their children in that category.  I have listened to Christians my whole life talk about the need to elliminate entire populations ("nuke 'em all").  While that would eliminate many problems, I think it would place us on the wrong side of the good / evil divide.  I feel the same way about torture.  At what point are we a terrorist ourselves?





I can`t answer the last question in your post. 

The words of General Robert E. Lee come to mind and should never be forgotten. War truly is a terrible thing, but if it brought to us, then we should go all out and destroy the attackers, and scorch their earth. I don`t want our enemy to respect us. I want them to fear us for their very lives.

Are we Americans, or are we mice?


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Aug 2, 2011)

Met many folks with differant plans for reading through the Bible. I'm in the midst of my fourtenth trip throuh God's loveletter to his people. I read several chapters each day, including the Proverb corresponding with the day of the month, and always one Psalm. I use colored highlighters to mark what I read. I go through a new Bible on average every two years. Those I've marked completely are put aside with a personal inscription on the fly page for each of my seven children and soon to be, eight grandchildren. I've asked my youngest brother who is a Pastor at Arbor Heights Baptist Church in Douglasville to preach my funeral, and pass those Bibles to my loved ones in the earnest hope they will learn to love the Word of God as I have been BLESSED to do. Never stop reading HIS WORD. Excepting the few days I was in a coma following cancer surgery, or in the ICU heavily medicated, I do not let a day pass without getting alone with the Lord, and reading his Word. I always learn just a little more, day by day.


----------



## JFS (Aug 2, 2011)

Nicodemus said:


> I don`t want our enemy to respect us. I want them to fear us for their very lives.
> 
> Are we Americans, or are we mice?



I'm pretty sure that is what the Taliban are aiming for  when they kill kidnapped children.   I'd hope we are better than that.  THAT'S what make us Americans.


----------



## Nicodemus (Aug 2, 2011)

I`m not a pacifist, and make no apologies for it.


----------



## pbradley (Aug 2, 2011)

Nicodemus said:


> It`s none of my business, but how do you feel towards the enemies of our country?
> 
> 
> Brother Bradley, sorry about the off topic.



Brother Nic, you're welcome to stick your oar (or 'hawk) into any thread I start on this Forum. Open invite, any subject you choose, my friend.


----------



## pbradley (Aug 2, 2011)

pnome said:


> If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
> Then He is not omnipotent.
> 
> If He is able, but not willing
> ...




Define "evil" please.


----------



## pnome (Aug 3, 2011)

pbradley said:


> Define "evil" please.



"The Definition of Evil" would make for an entire 5 page thread of discussion.  But here's my best shot:


Evil - Anything which, given the information you believe to be true, is detrimental to either your survival, or the survival of those with whom you empathize.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 3, 2011)

> Evil - Anything which, given the information you believe to be true, is detrimental to either your survival, or the survival of those with whom you empathize



So, intent plays no role in evil?


----------



## pnome (Aug 3, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> So, intent plays no role in evil?



Not as such.  People have intentions.  Those intentions can be described as "evil" by others if they hold true to the definition.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 3, 2011)

> People have intentions



....but a tsunami has no idea it is a tsunami.


----------



## pnome (Aug 3, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> ....but a tsunami has no idea it is a tsunami.



I don't have any issues with calling Tsunami's evil.  Even though they lack intent.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 3, 2011)

> I don't have any issues with calling Tsunami's evil. Even though they lack intent



So, your definition only considers the perception a person has on what is considered evil, and not the character of the evil thing?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 3, 2011)

There is no difference between a tsunami, a heart attack, a stroke, bipolar desease, diabetes, obesity, double loading a smoke pole and the like. They are not evil, but they all kill.

My definition of evil is when men and women use fear to organize and "control" their lives, either as individuals or as a society or culture. For example, to be constantly in a war mode is evil itself in my view, and that evil does not see itself as evil...but naturally sees enemies to be mistreated everywhere and as soon as it gets rid of one, it finds another. 

For example, we are the inheritors of great wealth which comes from the land and resources of North America because the british empire took for itself ( as empires tend to do, they "take" what they want) the lands and resources of Native North Americans. The british and their heirs, did say as justification for genocides and ethnic cleanings and land grabs, that the Indians were evil or always in a war mode. Being ever in a war mode itself, the british empire sure made it fact politically that indians were at war...even after signing peace treaties!

This war mode was not unique to North America. The british were at war with the Scots, the Irish, the french, the spaniards and ...well you know the rest of the stories.... It has often been pointed out that the Great War and WW11 had their genesis in the militaristic, excess war mode cultures of Northern Europe and Japan.

We inherit the sins of our fathers. We fear that others will take away our way of life, and operate in a war mode, as we through the ways our fathers do. This is an evil circle and makes an earthquake of the strange "notion" to love one's enemy.

My way of reading the bible is to read whatever, when my Lord needs me in the Zone either batting or in the field. Using the analogy of a prize fighter, if I read alot, i tend to get fat before a bout and don't do as well , as fasting on the word itself--but not on the Spirit.


----------



## pnome (Aug 3, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> So, your definition only considers the perception a person has on what is considered evil, and not the character of the evil thing?



As long as we are using the word "evil" as an adjective.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 3, 2011)

> As long as we are using the word "evil" as an adjective



I see how this could turn into a long discussion (I'm up for a new thread if you are).  I view evil as part of the character of the thing, or the intent of the thing.  Guns are a good example.  By your definition, they are all evil. But my definition revolves around the intent of their use. Hunting accidents for example:  I could drop my gun and shoot myself, but that is just an act of clumsiness, not evil.  Or, I could intentionally shoot myself, and that would be evil.


----------

