Originally posted by dadudemonI wouldn't listen to some random dude preaching the good word either... Same way I don't listen to Mormons when they tell me I'm going to Hell for not being Mormon. :/
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.
Either way, God still killed INNOCENT people. What was the point of killing babies? I mean, we know it is within God's power to pick and choose who he kills on a case-by-case basis(he only slew the first-born of Egypt and spared everyone else, for example)-- so why couldn't he have only killed the 'sinners' of S&G? Why kill the innocent as well?
I know why! Because he was a hypocritical/malevolent entity who did w/e the phuck he wanted without having to worry about consequences!
Originally posted by Oliver North
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.
That's the arguments made for many of the Book of Mormon parallels. Mormon scholars are careful as to not claim that the parallels are definitive evidences. They call them "parallels". The same should be true of things like S&G. There would most likely be some sort of parallel around that time because we get the benefit of moving around the timeline 100-200 years while also interpreting where the events took place.
However, there should be no doubt, to any person, that the stories are pieced together. There was no one single transcriber of all original authoriship. Meaning, they didn't just find all the original manuscripts, then for one transcriber to compile it into one book. If that were the case, it would not be so Frankenstein-ish. Instead, we get different scripts pieced together from different times and different transcribers/scribesmen. So we end up with a modern Bible that resembles Frankenstein more than it does a single-author book.
Originally posted by Oliver NorthYou're trying to say continue to say if we can find firepit 30000 years ago obviously we can find a city. You can use the much more generalized we have the technology to find such and such which is smaller than such and such therefore such and such can not exist cause we would have obviously found it or if it makes you feel better odds are we have found everything.
I teach statistics to undergraduatesas for the rest, well, serves [b]me
right for putting the effort into writing out my ideasEDIT:
re:
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... [/B]
That would be like saying we can go to the bottom of the ocean therefore we must have cataloged every living thing in the ocean.
Or maybe a better example for you would be this. Imagine if you will we are living decades ago. We have already discovered bacteria but we have not discovered the giant squid or found good evidence for it's existence.
By your very statement I could say well look how far our technology for discovering living organisms has progressed we can find bacteria which is older and smaller than the giant squid. Since the giant squid should be easier to find than bacteria I therefore make the claim that Giant squids can not exist and it's absolute.
Obviously there is some logic in the statement that makes sense but isn't sound enough to use it as a primary point for making your case that giant squids don't exist. In fact it's not even worth the words you have wasted typing it out.
Also teacher of statistics to undergrads when you look at my use of statistics what don't you like?
Originally posted by Galan007
I wouldn't listen to some random dude preaching the good word either... Same way I don't listen to Mormons when they tell me I'm going to Hell for not being Mormon. :/
Then those weren't Mormons because Mormons don't believe in hell. 😬
Additionally, you have the benefit of modern science: they didn't.
Additionally, they had the benefit of those prophecies coming true and then a 24 year cool-down period before the final destruction.
You'd be an idiot to not listen and you'd kill your children through your idiocy.
Originally posted by Galan007
Either way, God still killed INNOCENT people. What was the point of killing babies? I mean, we know it is within God's power to pick and choose who he kills on a case-by-case basis(he only slew the first-born of Egypt and spared everyone else, for example)-- so why couldn't he have only killed the 'sinners' of S&G? Why kill the innocent as well?I know why! Because he was a hypocritical/malevolent entity who did w/e the phuck he wanted without having to worry about consequences!
Stop arguing with me: you're anger is pointed in the wrong direction.
God killed no one, by my argument: they killed themselves. The destruction of those two cities was going to happen before the universe was even created, based on the early Jewish beliefs and around this time the story would have come into being. God did nothing, at all. He even tried to help save them but they wouldn't have it. It is only the Christian twist on the story that ends up with God destroying the cities.
Originally posted by Dolos
And how is religion, a major source of social control and war, helping with that these days in say, The Middle East?
Furthermore how can Christianity—which is the topic in question—be considered a means of control? Christianity teaches that it's only through the belief in Jesus Christ as the reincarnation of God that you can be saved. It doesn't matter who you serve or who you betray, as all sins can be forgiven through Christ.
Originally posted by Astner
Furthermore how can Christianity—which is the topic in question—be considered a means of control? Christianity teaches that it's only through the belief in Jesus Christ as the reincarnation of God that you can be saved. It doesn't matter who you serve or who you betray, as all sins can be forgiven through Christ.
Hey, that was pretty funny.
Did you hear the one about how Islam is incapable of being used to justify violence or oppression of women?
Originally posted by Galan007
Point: the existence of God on a fundamental level cannot be disproven any more than it can be proven
Anything, if left vague enough, is not open to investigation but people tend to believe in specific gods and one can look into these.
For example: Alice believes in a God that always answer prayers in a highly literal way within 24 hours. Alice prays to have a Ford Pinto appear in her driveway. 24 hours later there is no Ford Pinto in her driveway. Alice's God does not exist (there may be a but Alice doesn't believe in a God she believe in her God).
The only way to get around this is to retreat to a philosophical position where no knowledge is possible of anything. Such people are, of course, invited to go jump off a bridge.
Originally posted by Galan007
Wow, lots of cop-outs here."God can kill innocent babies because he's God." Perfectly logical.
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. imo
* it only seemed a cop-out or an excuse maybe because you don't believe in God? or you don't believe in His power... again, if we are talking within the boundaries of the Bible, that's how it is... in fact, that's the faith of Abraham when he was commanded to sacrifice his own son, only in his scenario, Abraham's faith was, since God is the provider of life, He can resurrect Isaac from death:
"By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son,
Of whom it was said, Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.
He considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead; hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back."
Hebrews 11:17-19
* you also refused to accept the Biblical fact: God is the provider of life and He did not violate anything if He chooses to take that life back from a person, even if it was a baby...
Originally posted by Galan007
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?
* first, although Lot offered his own two daughters, it never consummated... the sodomites insisted on the two men (angels in disguise)... now, why would a perfectly sane and holy man like Lot do that? you see, in the Old Testament, angels are treated as though they were Gods and Lords... and when the sodomites attempted to rape the two angels, it's the most logical thing in that kind of scenario... and second, if the angels are Gods and are powerful, then what would hinder those angels to save Lot's daughters from the filthy sodomites? in fact, the angels did them save eventhough Lot's daughters were not taken by the sodomites:
"And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door."
Genesis 19:11
Originally posted by peejayd
* it only seemed a cop-out or an excuse maybe because you don't believe in God? or you don't believe in His power... again, if we are talking within the boundaries of the Bible, that's how it is...
This seems inconsistent with your previous claim that all babies go to heaven. God doesn't say "I can kill anyone I want, cause I'm God". According to the Bible there was not a single living creature in Sodom and Gommorah that did not deserve death (I believe one of the angel's investigates this). In that case everyone, including unborn children, is capable of being evil.
Originally posted by Galan007
Either way, God still killed INNOCENT people. What was the point of killing babies? I mean, we know it is within God's power to pick and choose who he kills on a case-by-case basis(he only slew the first-born of Egypt and spared everyone else, for example)-- so why couldn't he have only killed the 'sinners' of S&G? Why kill the innocent as well?I know why! Because he was a hypocritical/malevolent entity who did w/e the phuck he wanted without having to worry about consequences!
* it's hopeless to argue with someone cannot accept the Biblical truth... if you want to argue within the boundaries of Bible and spirituality, fine... you got it... then when you're in it, you just can't accept the fact that lies therein...
* God kills? no, He just took the life that He Himself had given in the first place... justified? justified! you just cannot accept it...
Originally posted by Galan007
I wouldn't listen to some random dude preaching the good word either...
* i cannot force you to believe, but if this is a Biblical debate, it's very clear that you lose...
Originally posted by dadudemonMormons do believe in Hell-- it's just a different type of Hell than the Christian rendition(Google it.) 🙂
Then those weren't Mormons because Mormons don't believe in hell. 😬Additionally, you have the benefit of modern science: they didn't.
Additionally, they had the benefit of those prophecies coming true and then a 24 year cool-down period before the final destruction.
You'd be an idiot to not listen and you'd kill your children through your idiocy.
No, I would not listen to some random joe who walked up to me on the street as said: "the end is near!" Just like I didn't listen to the idiots who said the end of the world was 12/21/12. Stupidity existed then, just as it exists now. It takes an extremely naive person to whole-heartedly trust the word of any random schmuck they come across.
Originally posted by dadudemonI'm not arguing with you; I'm merely stating fact. Christianity states that God destroyed those cities because he was unhappy with their people. Even though he could have undoubtedly saved the innocent(ie. children) of S&G he still opted to slaughter them just the same.
Stop arguing with me: you're anger is pointed in the wrong direction.God killed no one, by my argument: they killed themselves. The destruction of those two cities was going to happen before the universe was even created, based on the early Jewish beliefs and around this time the story would have come into being. God did nothing, at all. He even tried to help save them but they wouldn't have it. It is only the Christian twist on the story that ends up with God destroying the cities.
There's really no justification to be had. OT God bordered on evil.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This seems inconsistent with your previous claim that all babies go to heaven. God doesn't say "I can kill anyone I want, cause I'm God". According to the Bible there was not a single living creature in Sodom and Gommorah that did not deserve death (I believe one of the angel's investigates this). In that case everyone, including unborn children, is capable of being evil.
* Biblical semantics... at that point, yes... everyone deserved to die... but in comparison to Mark 6:10-11, they can still be pardoned...