Russ, as always I do state that it is a personal belief, and that is not wrong in itself. However the point of putting the 10% of the earnings to him... think about it for a moment.

2000 years ago as the bible was being written currency was not as important as the barter system, People would trade their abilities for goods more than they would pay for them with money. Perhaps the intent of giving 10% to him was more intended as dedicating 10% of your thoughts to him, or performing your work with thoughts of him, to carry him in your heart as you do your daily tasks.

But that ISN'T God, I've already told you that.

isn't god all powerfull why doesn't he stop it then?

Right, I don't have the reference to hand but I was reading it the other day: it does not refer to 10% of your thoughts or anything like that - back in 'those days' most people who earn any money were people who produced things, such as potters, candlemakers, farmers etc and the Bible states they are to give the first 10% of their harvest.

I explained that too.

But maybe for the 2 year old child sitting in the African sand right now, breathing their last breath because they have no food, it's not a good enough reason.

I mean it's all very well saying we are being punished for sins of people ya da ya da yad I can accept that, what I can't accept is the painfull deaths of children so we can be taught a lesson :)

if that two year old was not dying of starvation, who's to say he/she wouldn't not be dying of something else? As I said, when God decides when your deathday is, you go on that day, irrelevant of how it happens.

And these 'painful deaths' AREN'T to teach us a lesson...:confused:

And this was written in a book by people who were only human and could in themselves have written that in as a way to give themselves an income at the expense of others.

An omnipotent omniscient being would have no use for such goods. However a human would.

As you said Russ, there is no person who is without sin, that is a fact of humanity, and when we are dealing with books which are written by humans there is nothing to say that the intent or meaning in the books have not been corrupted over time, no matter how pure the original intent.

Flippin eck you people don't give up!!! The 10% harvest was seen as a symbolic 'sacrifice'. More often than not the goods given would be distributed amongst the needy. It is often said that if you give to charity you are giving to God.

As the comment about paying was also a symbolic comment on how the organisation of religion could be corrupted by human nature....

[edit] don't get me wrong Russ, I am not attacking religion, merely the organisation of it and the elevation of individuals who can be corrupt into positions where the devout refuse to see them as potentially corrupt :D

please russ don't tell me u belive that more often or not it would have gone to fat bishops, priests etc, maybe to a lesser extent these days

how do you know it gets there you have to belive it does?........

i keep forgeting its a belief system :rolleyes:

what lord nikon is saying could be true but i still dont find the reasons millions of inocent lives as 'believeable'

Yes indeed it could. I could also question the need for 'organised religion'.

Well seeing as we have neither priests or bishops in my denomination then I couldn't answer that.

Because it's written in scriptures.

Sorry if I misunderstood but I thought you said this was as we were given freewill this is how they die and he does not intervine, well god, what with him being the big man and all that, could stop this childs death, or adleast let them die with no pain and hurt, but he doesn't.

Sorry but I don't see how the argument stands up, it calls for a lot of faith, no it calls for bline faith to velieve in the bible and what it entails. But htis is just my view on it.

oh...i see so you have never seen it for yourself or even questioned someone in the church about this ?