CHRISTIAN FIGHT!!!

[General Mung Beans]

This is the sort of thing that leads to holy wars and crusades and jihads.

Yes I'm sure that's why the rise of Unitarianism in early 19th Century New England or the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the early 20th Century led to mass outbreaks of violence.

[Elheru Aran]

This is the sort of thing that leads to holy wars and crusades and jihads.

Yes I'm sure that's why the rise of Unitarianism in early 19th Century New England or the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the early 20th Century led to mass outbreaks of violence.

Violence? Yeah... no. To give the Christians credit, in the *West* at least-- not so much in the rest of the world unfortunately-- internal differences tend to be resolved in a social manner rather than by violence. If someone in your church starts saying they believe something different from what your church does, the church tends to go "fix this or go peddle that somewhere else". It's a long tradition dating all the way back to Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams in the late 1600's, at least in the US; nonconformity has met more difficulty elsewhere.

This present incident in Arizona is just a bunch of conservatives getting their panties in a wad and deciding that the best thing to do about it is make a huge scene. I guarantee that the 'progressive' churches are going to get a lot of people visiting them in the next few weeks wondering what all the fuss is about, which they're gonna love...

[General Zod]

This is the sort of thing that leads to holy wars and crusades and jihads.

Yes I'm sure that's why the rise of Unitarianism in early 19th Century New England or the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the early 20th Century led to mass outbreaks of violence.

It's almost like the sarcastic subtext went over your head.

[cmdrjones]

Straight to a bad analogy? These guys aren't trying to rip off the logo of another team, they're trying to be a different league with different rules playing the same sport.

The team name is "Christians"
The sport is "Christianity" (basketball) but if you are playing it with your feet and a team of 35 and the hoop is vertical, is it (Basketball) anymore?

The difference is not as marked as you're trying to portray it.

The fundamental rules are largely in the Bible, and everybody accepts that to a greater or lesser degree. Salvation by Christ is *always* a core value. Proselyting, community worship, and social relationships between believers are always part of their belief structure. Even in the black-suit KJV bible-beater churches, they'll usually still welcome guests that aren't fitting the mold, because how do you think they get new members?

The only real difference (what distinguishes progressive/liberal from conservative) is which part of the Bible they stick by and how much interpretation is involved to fit the message they want to send.

Conservative Christians tend to promote following the *whole* Bible-- Old through New Testament, Gospels and Epistles, Revelation-- with minimal interpretation (follow it as written, except that part about pork, cause ain't nobody takin' away our good BBQ'ing).

Progressive/liberal Christians will typically focus on the Gospels and Epistles to the point where some churches label themselves as "New Testament believers". They also engage in a fair degree of interpretation; for example, "the bit where Paul says where he doesn't permit women to speak in worship, well, that's just Paul being sexist, it's totally okay by *us*". Or "We're OK with gay people coming to church, hell the more the merrier"-- though most churches are still pretty bent against gay marriage or allowing gay people to actually lead various positions in the church administration, cause there's a fine line still, in their beliefs.

Essentially: They're not so ridiculously different. They have the same general goals and same fundamental beliefs. The primary differences are a matter of application.

Uh huh.... so If I want to play basketball with a football instead, because the round ball offends someone (because reasons) then if my group DECLARES it to be basketball, it's basketball? Even if played with a football?

Basically, if some church rejects one of the core tenets of Christianity because someone gets butthurt, (In this case women), then it is AT BEST Heretical. Now, I'm not going to go so far as to declare who is and isn't a scotsman, people who self Identify as Christian ARE christians, they just shouldn't be allowed in the NBA and should be identified as "those fools with the football trying to dribble and failing miserably"

[Ziggy Stardust]

Uh huh.... so If I want to play basketball with a football instead, because the round ball offends someone (because reasons) then if my group DECLARES it to be basketball, it's basketball? Even if played with a football?

True to form, you completely missed the point that Elheru was making in order to repeat another moronic analogy. If you really want to stick with the sports analogy, it isn't playing basketball with a football instead, it's playing basketball with a 28.5" ball instead of a 29.5" ball. The differences are MINOR, not MAJOR as you are desperately trying to imply.

Basically, if some church rejects one of the core tenets of Christianity because someone gets butthurt, (In this case women), then it is AT BEST Heretical.

Um, okay, Torquemada. Luckily, this isn't the case in this thread, because the church in question hasn't rejected any core tenets of Christianity. Unless I missed the Commandment that said, "lol no gayz". Frankly, the differences between some existing denominations of Christianity are FAR more pronounced dogmatically speaking than the differences being advocated by the progressive churches in the OP.

[Gandalf]

Aside from salvation by Jesus, what are the "core tenets" of Christianity, as opposed to specific denominational ones?

[Elheru Aran]

Aside from salvation by Jesus, what are the "core tenets" of Christianity, as opposed to specific denominational ones?

Mostly the Ten Commandments and 'love thy neighbour', if you want to distill it down to the very basics. Pretty much everybody in any denomination will agree on those. After that is where it starts getting sticky with things like Communion with wine or juice or wafers versus bread versus consecrated Host, robes on the pastor, robes on the choir or not, choirs versus praise bands, etc...

[General Zod]

Aside from salvation by Jesus, what are the "core tenets" of Christianity, as opposed to specific denominational ones?

Mostly the Ten Commandments and 'love thy neighbour', if you want to distill it down to the very basics. Pretty much everybody in any denomination will agree on those. After that is where it starts getting sticky with things like Communion with wine or juice or wafers versus bread versus consecrated Host, robes on the pastor, robes on the choir or not, choirs versus praise bands, etc...

The ten commandments are optional depending on which particular aspect of the Bible a Christian is defending.

[Elheru Aran]

Aside from salvation by Jesus, what are the "core tenets" of Christianity, as opposed to specific denominational ones?

Mostly the Ten Commandments and 'love thy neighbour', if you want to distill it down to the very basics. Pretty much everybody in any denomination will agree on those. After that is where it starts getting sticky with things like Communion with wine or juice or wafers versus bread versus consecrated Host, robes on the pastor, robes on the choir or not, choirs versus praise bands, etc...

The ten commandments are optional depending on which particular aspect of the Bible a Christian is defending.

Not really, because if you think about it, they pretty much sum the rules up (other than salvation), or at least they elaborate the whole 'love your neighbour' thing a little further in a fairly concise manner. They may not say outright that the 10C are part of their tenets, but they pretty much are. It's very few denominations that will outright discard the Old Testament; most will hold on to it and use it to a greater or lesser degree.

[General Zod]

Not really, because if you think about it, they pretty much sum the rules up (other than salvation), or at least they elaborate the whole 'love your neighbour' thing a little further in a fairly concise manner. They may not say outright that the 10C are part of their tenets, but they pretty much are. It's very few denominations that will outright discard the Old Testament; most will hold on to it and use it to a greater or lesser degree.

Usually Christians argue that they're not necessary when they run into a stumbling block about Jesus saying he's there to enforce all the laws of the old testament. Including the really unpleasant ones they don't like.

[Elheru Aran]

Not really, because if you think about it, they pretty much sum the rules up (other than salvation), or at least they elaborate the whole 'love your neighbour' thing a little further in a fairly concise manner. They may not say outright that the 10C are part of their tenets, but they pretty much are. It's very few denominations that will outright discard the Old Testament; most will hold on to it and use it to a greater or lesser degree.

Usually Christians argue that they're not necessary when they run into a stumbling block about Jesus saying he's there to enforce all the laws of the old testament. Including the really unpleasant ones they don't like.

*shrugs* Yeah. Jesus said a lot of things. Like I said before, one of the big differences between conservative and liberal churches is the amount of interpretation.

The Ten Commandments don't take much interpreting, though. "Don't commit adultery". "Don't steal." "Don't murder." And so forth. Nice and simple.

[Borgholio]

It's very few denominations that will outright discard the Old Testament; most will hold on to it and use it to a greater or lesser degree.

From my own experience back when I was Presbyterian, the New Testament was where most of the lessons came from. Turning the other cheek, being kind even to your enemies, etc... The Old Testament gave us things like the 10 Commandments but mostly it was treated as a history, rather than a moral code to live your life. It was recognized that the Old Testament was quite violent and cruel...so much of it was not included in the morality lessons.

[Elheru Aran]

It's very few denominations that will outright discard the Old Testament; most will hold on to it and use it to a greater or lesser degree.

From my own experience back when I was Presbyterian, the New Testament was where most of the lessons came from. Turning the other cheek, being kind even to your enemies, etc... The Old Testament gave us things like the 10 Commandments but mostly it was treated as a history, rather than a moral code to live your life. It was recognized that the Old Testament was quite violent and cruel...so much of it was not included in the morality lessons.

It depends on the individual churches to a large degree, really, and what curriculum they're using (if they don't just let the teaching staff do their own thing). The general trend in a lot of progressive churches is to try and find elements in the OT relating to messages taught in the NT. For example, the last time I went to church, the sermon was about the book of Hosea in the OT, but the general message was that Hosea is actually teaching about God wanting to save his people... so there's that.

[cmdrjones]

Uh huh.... so If I want to play basketball with a football instead, because the round ball offends someone (because reasons) then if my group DECLARES it to be basketball, it's basketball? Even if played with a football?

True to form, you completely missed the point that Elheru was making in order to repeat another moronic analogy. If you really want to stick with the sports analogy, it isn't playing basketball with a football instead, it's playing basketball with a 28.5" ball instead of a 29.5" ball. The differences are MINOR, not MAJOR as you are desperately trying to imply.

Basically, if some church rejects one of the core tenets of Christianity because someone gets butthurt, (In this case women), then it is AT BEST Heretical.

Um, okay, Torquemada. Luckily, this isn't the case in this thread, because the church in question hasn't rejected any core tenets of Christianity. Unless I missed the Commandment that said, "lol no gayz". Frankly, the differences between some existing denominations of Christianity are FAR more pronounced dogmatically speaking than the differences being advocated by the progressive churches in the OP.

Uh huh It's minor to institute that which Jesus specifically forbade? (The whole "woman know your place" thing) Let me ask you a question and you tell me whether its a major or minor difference: Should Jesus have gone along with Judas' suggestion to sell the fragrant oil that the woman used to anoint his feet and give the money to the poor? Why did he reject that suggestion? Is this theological point major or minor?

BTW the church in question IS violating a core tenet IF they are saying "NO GAYZ" they should be saying "no sodomy" instead. Love the sinner and all that. I find =your lack of understanding on THAT point totally unsurprising.

Any church that describes itself as 'progressive' is a major red flag in any case.

[cmdrjones]

It's very few denominations that will outright discard the Old Testament; most will hold on to it and use it to a greater or lesser degree.

From my own experience back when I was Presbyterian, the New Testament was where most of the lessons came from. Turning the other cheek, being kind even to your enemies, etc... The Old Testament gave us things like the 10 Commandments but mostly it was treated as a history, rather than a moral code to live your life. It was recognized that the Old Testament was quite violent and cruel...so much of it was not included in the morality lessons.

Violent and cruel by whose standards?

[Batman]

Anybody sane? The OT condones and sometimes advocates genocide, rape, pedophilia, slavery, people being punished for something their ancestors did, children being murdered for something God made their Pharao do...

[Elheru Aran]

Uh huh It's minor to institute that which Jesus specifically forbade? (The whole "woman know your place" thing) Let me ask you a question and you tell me whether its a major or minor difference: Should Jesus have gone along with Judas' suggestion to sell the fragrant oil that the woman used to anoint his feet and give the money to the poor? Why did he reject that suggestion? Is this theological point major or minor?

You're referring to this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anointing_of_Jesus

What point exactly are you deriving from it that you think the 'progressive' church is missing?

BTW the church in question IS violating a core tenet IF they are saying "NO GAYZ" they should be saying "no sodomy" instead. Love the sinner and all that. I find =your lack of understanding on THAT point totally unsurprising.

Which church are you talking about? The progressive or the conservative church?

Any church that describes itself as 'progressive' is a major red flag in any case.

Care to elaborate?

[cmdrjones]

Anybody sane? The OT condones and sometimes advocates genocide, rape, pedophilia, slavery, people being punished for something their ancestors did, children being murdered for something God made their Pharao do...

If God does it, or directly orders it therefore.....?

[cmdrjones]

Uh huh It's minor to institute that which Jesus specifically forbade? (The whole "woman know your place" thing) Let me ask you a question and you tell me whether its a major or minor difference: Should Jesus have gone along with Judas' suggestion to sell the fragrant oil that the woman used to anoint his feet and give the money to the poor? Why did he reject that suggestion? Is this theological point major or minor?

You're referring to this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anointing_of_Jesus

What point exactly are you deriving from it that you think the 'progressive' church is missing?

BTW the church in question IS violating a core tenet IF they are saying "NO GAYZ" they should be saying "no sodomy" instead. Love the sinner and all that. I find =your lack of understanding on THAT point totally unsurprising.

Which church are you talking about? The progressive or the conservative church?

Any church that describes itself as 'progressive' is a major red flag in any case.

Care to elaborate?

Yes. the point is that Judas' point SEEMS to be compassionate it is in fact especially evil. He is advocating forced redistribution of wealth under the auspices of religion and "caring" hence Jesus (rightly) tells him to STFU. The Judas position is what every statist jackwagon has been selling since the Roman Empire. It don't work, never has and never will.

I am talking about ANY church that excludes someone based specifically on their sin. Now, that person may have a lot of work to do, and WILL have to repent and return to the fold, but there is NO sin that is unforgivable except to sin against the Holy Spirit (that's another can of worms).
So, therefore is some big haired preacher says "NO to teh GAYZ!!!" then he is being as disingenuous as if he says "No thieves!" or "No Liars!" What he should be saying is: "hey unrepentant sinners! Guess what? I have Good News!" and move on from there.

AS for 'progressive' church being a red flag.... well, If the mighty work was accomplished ~2015 years ago.... what progress is needed?
Sounds like a trojan horse to me.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Uh huh It's minor to institute that which Jesus specifically forbade? (The whole "woman know your place" thing)

How any things did Jesus preach in the Bible? Is every single one a major tenet of Christianity? If you consider this women issue so important, why do many existing Christian denominations not follow it to the letter? What do you consider the one true version of Christianity, since according to you any violation of any thing in the New Testament invalidates them as Christians?

Let me ask you a question and you tell me whether its a major or minor difference: Should Jesus have gone along with Judas' suggestion to sell the fragrant oil that the woman used to anoint his feet and give the money to the poor? Why did he reject that suggestion? Is this theological point major or minor?

Minor. Considering that each of the four gospels disagrees on the exact details, and there is no firm dogmatic interpretation of the event that's consistent across Christian teachings. And considering that it is one of the least important events in the New Testament. I mean, seriously, why did you pick this one? Just to be a pedantic jackass? Are you really so utterly out of touch with reality that you would consider a different interpretation of the events surrounding the anointing of Jesus such a severe departure from dogma that it would automatically disqualify someone as considering themselves a Christian?

I'll ask again: what denomination of Christianity do you consider "correct," since you have such incredibly strict standards for what can be considered Christian doctrine?

BTW the church in question IS violating a core tenet IF they are saying "NO GAYZ" they should be saying "no sodomy" instead. Love the sinner and all that. I find =your lack of understanding on THAT point totally unsurprising.

And I find your complete inability to recognize a joke, somehow thinking it was a sincere attempt at representing Church dogma, totally unsurprising. How fucking stupid can you possibly be to have misunderstood that statement? And further, you demonstrate that you lack any understanding of scripture and broader Christian teachings in general, so good job on that. Maybe you should check out Leviticus 18:22, and then try to find any passage in the Bible that says "no sodomy". Or, in fact, any passage in the Bible that even uses the word sodomy. I'll save you the trouble: the Bible never mentions sodomy. And before you say anything, because I know you are stupid and ill-informed enough to try and use this as a rebuttal, the account of Sodom and Gomorrah never mentions homosexuality at all (and the interpretation of what the sin of Sodom actually was is hotly debated among people who actually know what the fuck they are talking about, which you clearly don't).

Any church that describes itself as 'progressive' is a major red flag in any case.

Why? What do you consider 'progressive' to mean, and why do you think that's a bad thing? Do you not realize that Protestants were once considered 'progressive'? Are you honestly stupid enough to not realize that the differences between modern Christian teachings and teachings 1,000 years ago are significantly larger than the differences in this thread that have so riled you up?

If God does it, or directly orders it therefore.....?

Therefore what? Do you consider it moral to kill if God orders it? Have you willfully ignored the past 2,000 years of history?

[Gandalf]

Anybody sane? The OT condones and sometimes advocates genocide, rape, pedophilia, slavery, people being punished for something their ancestors did, children being murdered for something God made their Pharao do...

To be fair, that's anyone sane now. We've had centuries of Enlightenment thinking behind us helping to build an idea of morals that isn't based on authoritative figures.

[Flagg]

This entire thread reminds me of a bunch of blind men describing an elephant... LOL

That's because all of the posts I made explaining how the whole "religious/race war" thing was a joke, but for some reason it's been HoS'd.

Imagine that we replace the word "christian" with Basketball player. Then we trace the development of Basketball in america to the point that it gets poular enough that in more than one city we have groups playing it. Then they start forming local and city teams. Then somebody comes along and decides to have a conference to set down the rules of basketball and there is a large conference (of basketball team leaders) to decide what those rules are. There is a vote, and it is decided.
Later on, some people notice there were regional or local rules that were left out of the finalized version of basketball and that these obsolete or irrelevant rules are no longer used, mostly.... Sometime later, some groups begin to question the orignial conference and several more are called to explain or clarify this or that rule or answer pertinent questions.

Even LATER, some people decide that they want to make their OWN versions of basketball or revive some older regional sets of rules. Of course, the NBA disavows these hereti--- I mean hoodlums.

Now, if I try out for the LA lakers and I don't make the cut, or I don't agree with the set of rules that determins "who is and is NOT an LA Laker" can I BE an LA Laker by putting on the Jersey and proclaiming myself one? WHat if I start a team in Boise and CALL it the LA Lakers? How long do I have to call myself an LA Laker before I AM one? How many people do I have to get to agree that I AM an LA Laker before I can be one for real? What if I get a retired LA Laker to sponsor my Boise team? Or Former fans? Or if I buy some merchandise? Or get some old rulebooks? How about a signed basketball?

See where I am going with this?

No. Because it's not even close to the reality you're trying (and badly failing) to analogize. All you need to be a Christian and go to heaven is baptism (to cleanse you of original sin) and to truly, faithfully, and with all your heart believe that Jesus of Nazareth, the son of God, was crucified to save you and forgive you of all your sins and the sins of all mankind, rose from death on the third day after he was crucified and then rose to heaven body and soul to become The Lord our Father Jesus Christ.

So to try and somehow salvage your analogy from itself: The game of Basketball is simply throwing a round bouncing ball through a horizontal hoop or basket set a few feet above the head of the player(s). The NBA can come and claim dominion over it and set up rules (just to make it easier for the dumb: Dogma), but it doesn't change the fact that all you need is a bouncing round ball and a hoop or basket.

[Flagg]

This is the sort of thing that leads to holy wars and crusades and jihads.

Yes I'm sure that's why the rise of Unitarianism in early 19th Century New England or the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the early 20th Century led to mass outbreaks of violence.

It's almost like the sarcastic subtext went over your head.

Don't do it, man! Sarcasm and subtext lead to bad things in this thread!

[Flagg]

Anybody sane? The OT condones and sometimes advocates genocide, rape, pedophilia, slavery, people being punished for something their ancestors did, children being murdered for something God made their Pharao do...

If God does it, or directly orders it therefore.....?

If God does it, or directly orders it therefore..... If it's killing babies in their cribs, genociding Canaan, binding burying children up to their waist to be killed by a mob with rocks, or any of the other horrors "god" did or ordered his followers to do... It's still evil. We know it is. How? We ate from "the tree of knowledge" and became aware of good and evil, so we were kicked out of Eden.
But, what does god need with reproducing biological machines that do not know right from wrong? I suppose our "puny human brains" can never understand because we are not the all knowing and all powerful force that created everything, correct?
The ultimate dodge: "We cannot comprehend, therefore we cannot know."

But, and it's a big "but" (I cannot lie), assuming there is some all powerful entity that created the heavens and the Earth and all that reside upon it in 6 days and then compared his clothes with his neighbors clothes on the 7th ( ), and it suddenly comes back and is pissed we haven't been doing what it has been commanding us to do... Why in the bloody bleeding buttfuck would you follow it's commands if you know them to be evil?

We have morality, we know might does not make right. So just because this god of yours is all powerful, all knowing, and threatens to destroy all of humanity unless we bow before him, murder our children for him, and commit unspeakable acts of horror and evil for him, do we do it? Would you? I mean I can't be sure until the moment my piece of pure fiction and fantasy comes true (probably because some dick gave a kid a magical movie ticket made by Houdini and the little bastard goes and see's a fucking Kirk Cameron movie instead of 'The Avengers' and "God" gets ahold of the ticket just like the villain in the best movie ever made starring Arnold Schwarzenegger (in 1993) 'The Last Action Hero'), I'd like to think (but one can never be sure until the moment of truth) that I and billions of my fellows in humanity would have the courage to stand and all say at once, in one massive unified voice: "Go fuck yourself!" and give whatever the fuck it was the finger and die with our morality intact.

[cmdrjones]

How any things did Jesus preach in the Bible? Is every single one a major tenet of Christianity? If you consider this women issue so important, why do many existing Christian denominations not follow it to the letter? What do you consider the one true version of Christianity, since according to you any violation of any thing in the New Testament invalidates them as Christians?

Minor. Considering that each of the four gospels disagrees on the exact details, and there is no firm dogmatic interpretation of the event that's consistent across Christian teachings. And considering that it is one of the least important events in the New Testament. I mean, seriously, why did you pick this one? Just to be a pedantic jackass? Are you really so utterly out of touch with reality that you would consider a different interpretation of the events surrounding the anointing of Jesus such a severe departure from dogma that it would automatically disqualify someone as considering themselves a Christian?

I'll ask again: what denomination of Christianity do you consider "correct," since you have such incredibly strict standards for what can be considered Christian doctrine?

And I find your complete inability to recognize a joke, somehow thinking it was a sincere attempt at representing Church dogma, totally unsurprising. How fucking stupid can you possibly be to have misunderstood that statement? And further, you demonstrate that you lack any understanding of scripture and broader Christian teachings in general, so good job on that. Maybe you should check out Leviticus 18:22, and then try to find any passage in the Bible that says "no sodomy". Or, in fact, any passage in the Bible that even uses the word sodomy. I'll save you the trouble: the Bible never mentions sodomy. And before you say anything, because I know you are stupid and ill-informed enough to try and use this as a rebuttal, the account of Sodom and Gomorrah never mentions homosexuality at all (and the interpretation of what the sin of Sodom actually was is hotly debated among people who actually know what the fuck they are talking about, which you clearly don't).

Therefore what? Do you consider it moral to kill if God orders it? Have you willfully ignored the past 2,000 years of history?

A LOT. Well, he IS the word, right? Good question, there are a lot of reasons, I suspect one is that they are heretics. I already answered this, I specifically stated that they ARE Christians, they are just heretical on this point.

So, to you something can only be considered a major point if ALL Christians agree on it? Do you realize how many denominations there are, just in America?

Actually this is a VERY important moment in the new testament. There are several things going on here. #1 Jesus is announcing his death and burial #2 he is announcing that his body will not be there to BE anointed. #3 he is specifically giving this woman a place of honor in Christianity that was heretofore UNHEARD OF. #4 he specifically renounces FOR ALL TIME the major justification of pure socialism that many on this board seem son in love with, and associates the desire to use force to do "good" with Judas. You cannot through human means eliminate the poor or change the human condition. It is only with the intervention of the divine that human nature can be elevated.

And no, see above, already answered that.

Orthodoxy and I don't have very strict standards, that is your insinuation.

And I find your complete inability to recognize a joke, somehow thinking it was a sincere attempt at representing Church dogma, totally unsurprising. How fucking stupid can you possibly be to have misunderstood that statement?

You realize I can dismiss everything you say, just from this statement, right?

Why? What do you consider 'progressive' to mean, and why do you think that's a bad thing? Do you not realize that Protestants were once considered 'progressive'? Are you honestly stupid enough to not realize that the differences between modern Christian teachings and teachings 1,000 years ago are significantly larger than the differences in this thread that have so riled you up?

Again, I reiterate... if the great work was accomplished ~2015 years ago, what progress is needed? What type? Towards what? I am honestly curious.


AS for Sodom, at the end of along list of their sins, they wanted to rape some angels.... sodomy is not limited to homosexual sex, you get that right?

And as for you up in arms about God ordering murder, if God IS God, then how can he order murder?