Sodom and Gomorrah

Originally posted by Newjak
As for statistics explain to me why I should listen to you on why I don't know what I'm talking about. what are your credentials or is it regulated to a college statistics class?

I teach statistics to undergraduates

as for the rest, well, serves me right for putting the effort into writing out my ideas

EDIT:

Originally posted by Newjak
Secondly you did it again? You're trying to use the firepit as an example of why S&D can't exist.

re:

Originally posted by Oliver North
You seem to have taken my point about firepits off on a tangent. I've never said "we found firepits therefore S&G doesn't exist". In fact, if it helps you comprehend what I'm saying, feel free to jettison that point for now, I was simply trying to say, look at how accomplished modern archeology is, we are able to identify things that would have far less of a footprint than a city would have.

ok, clearly the issue is that I am not being clear. What part of this statement do you think I am using to say S&D can't exist because of firepits, as I was deliberately trying to say that is not and has not been my point at all...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The Bible was very clear that Lot and his family were the only inhabitants of the two cities that God saw fit to spare from his wrath. Life was their absolution, just as death was the punishment for the others. There was no Hell or Heaven in the Old Testament.

* first, God destroyed not only two cities... even the cities surrounding Sodom and Gomor'rah are destroyed too...

"Just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."
Jude 7

* second, you want to see something fit to spare from God's wrath? just as i posted earlier: Sodom, Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities destroyed can be pardoned ---

"And whoever will not receive you nor hear you, when you depart from there, shake off the dust under your feet as a testimony against them. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!"
Mark 6:11

* third, if by "heaven and hell", you mean "eternal life and eternal damnation", then there is in the Old Testament:

"And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt."
Daniel 12:2

* fourth, you should not separate the Old Testament from the New... physical death can be a punishment, but not the punishment... the punishment is the everlasting fire in hell, of course with satan and his demon angels...

"Then He will also say to those on the left hand, Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:"
Matthew 25:41

Originally posted by Galan007
The sins of mankind were resolved/cleansed when the Jews nailed Jesus to that swastika...

Originally posted by peejayd
* so you want those babies to exist without a parent/guardian? even so, God is intelligent enough to put the babies in heaven, and the evildoers in hell...

* physical death can be a punishment, but it's not [b]the punishment... [/B]

If it were up to me, babies and children wouldn't ever die, death can come later. Call me a softy.

Did you just imply that babies should be killed along with their parents for the greater good?

Originally posted by Dolos
we choose not to sin for postive progress as it pertains to humanity improving it's civilization.

Robtard, what you see is the Christian retconning of the nature of God.

The ancient Jews believed that the destruction of S&D was ordained and bound to happen before the universe was even created. It was up to God to warn his children of the unavoidable destruction. When viewed from the old-Jew perspective on how the universe works, there was nothing God would have done to prevent what seems like a volcanic eruption. It was just the stubbornness of the people in S&D that led to their destruction. This is not to say God could not prevent the eruptions from destroying the cities: he just wouldn't because that was his covenant. God has...a...Prime Directive. 😐

Now YHWH doesn't seem so evil and murderous, right? Well, don't let that stop the Christians from slowly changing what God's intentions are. And some Christians wonder why the Jews dislike them...

Ha! The Jews view the Christians like the Christians view the Mormons: retconning their God. WEEE!

Originally posted by Mindship
Physically, it was the Romans who did the nailing. But ultimately, Jesus bears the final responsibility for his crucifixion: he knew he would be betrayed and allowed events to unfold. Had his death not been his choice, it would not have been a sacrifice, and there goes the whole shebang.

Holy shit...

You should teach Sunday School at a Christian church somewhere. 😐 Lots of Christians miss how important understanding that concept really is to the Atonement.

Originally posted by dadudemon
When viewed from the old-Jew perspective on how the universe works, there was nothing God would have done to prevent what seems like a volcanic eruption.

just because I'm a terrible pedant, from what I've read today, apparently there has not been volcanic activity in the region for over 4000 years. So, if it was a volcano, it doesn't line up with the timeline of the OT (not saying that you were trying to make that point, just food for thought)

Originally posted by Galan007
Obviously there are consequences for your actions-- spending eternal damnation in Hell is THE consequence of living a sinned lifestyle.

* as there is a reward of a righteous lifestyle... seems fair to me...

Originally posted by Galan007
Prematurely slaughtering thousands of people(of whom would've logically included many innocent/sin-free women, infants and children) for expressing their free will in a way he did not approve of, equates to OT God cherry-picking when the 'free will' he gave mankind was applicable and when it was not-- and going on to smite said 'sinners' and anyone associated with them. You're trying to justify that which cannot be justified.

* you're just saying it cannot be justified because i just already justified it... human babies are not animal babies that can survive without a parent/guardian... and again, God is intelligent enough to put the babies in heaven and the evildoers in hell eventhough He took both their lives...

Originally posted by Galan007
If I go kill a 2 month old baby just because he lives in a crime-ridden city, am I preforming the will of God? No. I'm murdering an innocent child, and I should burn in Hell.

* of course, stupid! 😛 that's God's job, not yours... no one should take other's person's life... since you are not the provider of it...

Originally posted by Galan007
...But apparently God doesn't need to follow the same rules he set for man. Apparently he can kill babies en gros w/o consequence. /shrug

* you already said it: why in the blue hell would He follow rules He set for man? God is greater than the rule itself! as i've said earlier, it's not technically "killing" but taking back the life of a person He Himself had provided in the first place... all will just go back to what it once was:

"Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it."
Ecclesiastes 12:7

* it was God who gave it, and it is also Him who has the power to take it back...

Originally posted by Oliver North
just because I'm a terrible pedant, from what I've read today, apparently there has not been volcanic activity in the region for over 4000 years. So, if it was a volcano, it doesn't line up with the timeline of the OT (not saying that you were trying to make that point, just food for thought)

Should be about right, actually: 4000 years ago.

That lines up.

Edit - Also, what is shocking about a potential discovery, the cities were not destroyed at the same time...maybe several years apart. If the "story" is to be believed, that means the people were quite stubborn even after seeing another city destroyed.

Originally posted by Mindship
Physically, it was the Romans who did the nailing. But ultimately, Jesus bears the final responsibility for his crucifixion: he knew he would be betrayed and allowed events to unfold. Had his death not been his choice, it would not have been a sacrifice, and there goes the whole shebang.

Hmmmm. Isn't a sacrifice willful though?

Like if someone's about to shoot my wife and I willfully jump in the way to save her at the expense of my life. That would be a sacrifice, no?

But if someone were to shoot my wife and I unknowingly get in the way and save her life by stopping the bullet with my body nonetheless. Not sure that's a sacrifice, more akin to good luck or bad luck, depending how you view your marriage.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Should be about right, actually: 4000 years ago.

That lines up.

lol, depends on the dates you go by

also, I'm not sure that means there was one 4000 years ago 😛

The region was on a fault line though, iirc

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - Also, what is shocking about a potential discovery, the cities were not destroyed at the same time...maybe several years apart. If the "story" is to be believed, that means the people were quite stubborn even after seeing another city destroyed.

haha, I'd have to give major kudos to anyone in the 4th city who still had the balls for butsex after seeing 3 other cities destroyed for it.

thats my kind of determination

Originally posted by Robtard
If it were up to me, babies and children wouldn't ever die, death can come later. Call me a softy.

Did you just imply that babies should be killed along with their parents for the greater good?

* no, i'm just saying that if we're talking about spirituality, then physical death is just plain so-so... fact: babies who are killed in any circumstance are of heaven... given that fact, if God takes the life of a baby, well then His will be done! because i believe that He is good enough to put them in heaven...

peejayed: have you ever thought of providing grief counseling to parents that have just lost a child?

Originally posted by peejayd
* as there is a reward of a righteous lifestyle... seems fair to me...

* you're just saying it cannot be justified because i just already justified it... human babies are not animal babies that can survive without a parent/guardian... and again, God is intelligent enough to put the babies in heaven and the evildoers in hell eventhough He took both their lives...

* of course, stupid! 😛 that's God's job, not yours... no one should take other's person's life... since you are [b]not the provider of it...

* you already said it: why in the blue hell would He follow rules He set for man? God is greater than the rule itself! as i've said earlier, it's not technically "killing" but taking back the life of a person He Himself had provided in the first place... all will just go back to what it once was:

"Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it."
Ecclesiastes 12:7

* it was God who gave it, and it is also Him who has the power to take it back... [/B]

"God can kill innocent babies because he's God." Perfectly logical. 🙄

Originally posted by Oliver North
peejayed: have you ever thought of providing grief counseling to parents that have just lost a child?

pre- or post birth?

Originally posted by peejayd
* no, i'm just saying that if we're talking about spirituality, then physical death is just plain so-so... [b]fact: babies who are killed in any circumstance are of heaven... given that fact, if God takes the life of a baby, well then His will be done! because i believe that He is good enough to put them in heaven... [/B]

So the Sodomites and Gomorraheans where killed for their sins and any innocents that happened to get caught up in the destruction, oh well, God's gonna take care of them in heaven.

Sounds like a blanket excuse. imo

Dare I ask what your thoughts are on Lot offering up his daughters to be anally (cos that's what sodomites do)gang raped; possibly killed?

Originally posted by Oliver North
lol, depends on the dates you go by

also, I'm not sure that means there was one 4000 years ago 😛

The region was on a fault line though, iirc

Well, there was 3 types of destruction: volcanic, earthquake, and being sacked by another tribal militant group (said 4 kings...meh). I always assumed the earthquake and volcanic were symptoms of the same problem. The sacking happened to one city, iirc, not both. I don't remember. Too much stuff about those cities to remember. But the dates are around 4000 years ago...possibly closer to 2500 bce. I would have to look it up but it was close enough. Also, the supposed cities have burned shit....and bodies...

It may not be a volcano. That's just what I assume it was.

Edit - Christians are apt to use radiometric dating for events like discovering and dating the twin cities....but not fossils. Go figure. 😬

Originally posted by Oliver North
haha, I'd have to give major kudos to anyone in the 4th city who still had the balls for butsex after seeing 3 other cities destroyed for it.

thats my kind of determination

😆 😆 😆

Oh man...I laughed pretty damn hard.

Originally posted by Robtard
So the Sodomites and Gomorraheans where killed for their sins and any innocents that happened to get caught up in the destruction, oh well, God's gonna take care of them in heaven.

Sounds like a blanket excuse.

Read my posts, dammit.

Also, if you view the story the way it was intended, the parents killed their own children by not listening to the warning from Lot and co. It would be like me coming to your house and telling you there is going to be a horrible earthquake and to leave the greater LA area. You don't listen, you die along with your kids in a stupid powerful earthquake. Oh, and my wife turns to salt as I'm leaving, apparently. I guess I could use her to season the meat I hunt in the woods.

Originally posted by Bardock42
pre- or post birth?

I'd say he is equally qualified for either

Originally posted by Astner
People are more interested in themselves and their perseverance than others. Without moral codes as well as the desensitizing stemming from the glorification of violence in media I see no walls between one choosing to commit suicide, and choosing to commit suicide after a killing spree.

And how is religion, a major source of social control and war, helping with that these days in say, The Middle East?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, there was 3 types of destruction: volcanic, earthquake, and being sacked by another tribal militant group (said 4 kings...meh). I always assumed the earthquake and volcanic were symptoms of the same problem. The sacking happened to one city, iirc, not both. I don't remember. Too much stuff about those cities to remember. But the dates are around 4000 years ago...possibly closer to 2500 bce. I would have to look it up but it was close enough. Also, the supposed cities have burned shit....and bodies...

It may not be a volcano. That's just what I assume it was.

Edit - Christians are apt to use radiometric dating for events like discovering and dating the twin cities....but not fossils. Go figure. 😬

there was a meteor around 3500 bc that would have created a fireball in the region because of the angle of its descent to earth (eventually landing in Austria). The problem I see is that, the further back the even is pushed, the more it becomes like the historicity of Jesus: There probably was someone named "Jesus" who lived in that time and caused some ruckus for the Roman authorities, who may or may not have been the impetus for the New Testament, but the stories and feats attributed to him may be entirely fabricated.

Similarly, I'd actually not be surprised if cities that bare some analog to S&G show up at some point in the historical record, but given the OT puts the judgement sometime between 2000 and 1800 BC, the further back we push the natural even that may be the origin of the story, the more we have to ask if the other parts of the story might also be fabricated or pieced together from other sources.