Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Looking for some legit opinions here.

Even though the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because their "sins were grievous", the Lord preaches free will... That said, were not the citizens of S&D merely expressing their own free will by choosing to live a certain way? Sinned or not, it was still their choice to live that way. Were they destined to spend eternity in Hell because of the lifestyle they opted for? Yes, that punishment was unavoidable. I'm just wondering why God found it necessary to prematurely wipe out entire cities-worth of people who were, by definition, just expressing their own free will..?

To keep it from tainting other people?

That's the first thing I could come up with.

Because ew buttsecks.

Originally posted by Newjak
To keep it from tainting other people?

That's the first thing I could come up with. That's what I don't really understand. How can God give humans the gift of free will, then kill them for expressing it in a way he doesn't approve of?

Originally posted by Galan007
That's what I don't really understand. How can God give humans the gift of free will, then kill them for expressing it in a way he doesn't approve of? The idea of not allowing them destroy more and thus save everyone else?

To drive home what it is that God feels is correct to the rest of the populace?

Originally posted by Galan007
Looking for some legit opinions here.

Even though the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because their "sins were grievous", the Lord preaches free will... That said, were not the citizens of S&D merely expressing their own free will by choosing to live a certain way? Sinned or not, it was still their choice to live that way. Were they destined to spend eternity in Hell because of the lifestyle they opted for? Yes, that punishment was unavoidable. I'm just wondering why God found it necessary to prematurely wipe out entire cities-worth of people who were, by definition, just expressing their own free will..?

That was Old Testament God; that God flooded the Earth and turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just for looking back. That God doesn't take shit nor ****-around.

Originally posted by Galan007
Looking for some legit opinions here.

Even though the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because their "sins were grievous", the Lord preaches free will... That said, were not the citizens of S&D merely expressing their own free will by choosing to live a certain way? Sinned or not, it was still their choice to live that way. Were they destined to spend eternity in Hell because of the lifestyle they opted for? Yes, that punishment was unavoidable. I'm just wondering why God found it necessary to prematurely wipe out entire cities-worth of people who were, by definition, just expressing their own free will..?
There was no Hell as we understand it in the Old Testament, so the way God punished sinners was by smiting them with plagues or killing them.

And the entire Old Testament paints God as either a cruel child who makes rules and manipulates his creations into disobeying those rules so that he can punish them or as a colossal **** up who's created nearly as many different human races as the French have had republics.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Because ew buttsecks.

Some people interpret Sodom's and Gomorrah's sin as being that of greed, where they prospered in livestock and grain, but didn't share with their famine stricken neighbors.

Originally posted by Newjak
The idea of not allowing them destroy more and thus save everyone else?

To drive home what it is that God feels is correct to the rest of the populace? I understand why God opted to kill those people, and it was a just decision imo. I'm just saying that it seems... Odd/wrong/fallible for God to give humans the gift of free will, and then cherry-pick when they were able to freely express that gift. Whether their choices were right or wrong, God should have dealt with the consequences that came with those choices, because he is the one who gave them the ability to choose what they did with their lives. Instead, he didn't agree with their decisions, so he destroyed them.

Originally posted by Galan007
I understand why God opted to destroy those cities, and it was a just decision imo. I'm just saying that it seems... Odd/wrong/fallible for God to give humans the gift of free will, and then cherry-pick when they were able to freely express that gift. Whether their choices were right or wrong, God should have them, because he gave them the ability to choose what they did with their lives. Instead, he didn't agree with their decisions, so he destroyed them.

There's many examples of OT God punishing people for disobeying. You could see it as an injunction against free will, or you could see it as God being an extremely strict and belligerent parent.

Like if you told your child: "Listen, you're allowed to stay out and do what you like, but if you're not back before 10:00 or if you do anything I've forbidden while you're out, I'll beat you to death with my boots. Now run along and have some fun with your friends."

I would imagine that it's because this was before the time of Christ and before "Grace". Where one would be punished for their sin outright. Once the new covenant was established people had a lot more leniency with what they could get away with.

As for the free will thing, even in our normal everyday life we have complete free will but there are consequences to your actions. This is the law of the universe, wherein an action has a consequence whether it's good or bad.

For Sodom and Gomorrah, they never knew that all that buttsecks could summon a giant meteor from space to kill them. Lesson learned huh?

Originally posted by Robtard
That was Old Testament God; that God flooded the Earth and turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just for looking back. That God doesn't take shit nor ****-around. Yeah OT God was a dick. I'm just trying to understand some of his dickery.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There was no Hell as we understand it in the Old Testament, so the way God punished sinners was by smiting them with plagues or killing them. iirc, Hell did exist in the OT, but it was not the same 'woe unto me' Hell as described by the NT.

The story probably isn't supposed to be taken literally...

I mean, it may have, at one point, been a story that explained a massive geological disaster that befell the region, and may have wiped out a couple of cities, but the whole added part of sin, Lot and his wife, the angels, etc. That seems like it is supposed to be understood as something like "follow the lord, he will lead you from sin, forget your old ways and don't look back toward sin".

Originally posted by Robtard
or you could see it as God being an extremely strict and belligerent parent.

Like if you told your child: "Listen, you're allowed to stay out and do what you like, but if you're not back before 10:00 or if you do anything I've forbidden while you're out, I'll beat you to death with my boots. Now go along and have some fun with your friends." This, at its root, is an example of punishing someone for expressing free will. God shouldn't be doing that.

This is how I see it: OT God gave them a present. They played with that present in a way God didn't like, so he killed them.

Originally posted by Oliver North
The story probably isn't supposed to be taken literally...

I mean, it may have, at one point, been a story that explained a massive geological disaster that befell the region, and may have wiped out a couple of cities, but the whole added part of sin, Lot and his wife, the angels, etc. That seems like it is supposed to be understood as something like "follow the lord, he will lead you from sin, forget your old ways and don't look back toward sin".

Fred Phelps says the moral of the story is: "God Hates ****"

Originally posted by Oliver North
The story probably isn't supposed to be taken literally...

I mean, it may have, at one point, been a story that explained a massive geological disaster that befell the region, and may have wiped out a couple of cities, but the whole added part of sin, Lot and his wife, the angels, etc. That seems like it is supposed to be understood as something like "follow the lord, he will lead you from sin, forget your old ways and don't look back toward sin". I think it was ment to be taken literally, hence this portion of the story:


So yeah, I don't think it was a case of God saving the righteous from a natural disaster. I think it was God not liking what the people of S&D were doing, so he wiped them out to prove a point.

how is quoting part of what I think is a metaphorical story proof that it isn't metaphorical?

My point is that, the story of Lot et al is almost certainly based on previous legends in the region. Over time, much like a game of telephone, it would change to reflect the various ways the story was used (to explain nature, to explain evil, to empower someone, for population control, etc). So, the original kernel that generated what would be the story of Lot probably had nothing to do with Lot, however, as time went on and these stories changed, it would come to resemble what we know today.

Like, if you are trying to argue the case for Biblical literalism in the interpretation of the OT, well, good luck... the paradox of free will is one of the more academic contradictions you will have to parse, but the list of others is staggering. For instance, there is widespread disagreement over whether S&G were even real historical places.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fred Phelps says the moral of the story is: "God Hates ****"

he would be the most informed OT theologian I can think of

I personally do not believe the story of S&G was intended to be taken metaphorically, so I cannot agree with you. However, your point is well-taken.

ok, but you realize the paradox with free will only arises when you look at the story as an accurate representation of history, rather than looking for the possible symbolic message?

EDIT: like, it seems like the issue is more within how you see things than it is with the text itself. AFAIK, Jewish scholars don't interpret much of the OT as being literal at all, and there are parts that are obviously meant as metaphor. How do you determine what is or is not metaphorical, especially given that the people who have studied the text most (Jews) don't see it as literal?

Have to agree, the bible comes off as far less loony tune if you take the stories as metaphors, used to teach a lesson and such.

Like there literally wasn't a guy named Jonah who was swallowed by a giant fish and spent three days it its belly, but instead the story is used to illustrate that one must obey God.

Ah, to correct myself, Wiki seems to state that, even though there was never a time that all of Genesis was interpreted literally, it wasn't until the 11th century that the idea of the OT being metaphor became mainstream Jewish teaching. Since then, however, that has been the dominant view, with small ultra-conservative sects still holding to the literalist view.

Originally posted by Galan007
Yeah OT God was a dick. I'm just trying to understand some of his dickery.

iirc, Hell did exist in the OT, but it was not the same 'woe unto me' Hell as described by the NT.
As I said, Hell as we think of it did not exist in the OT. There was no place of punishment. The closest thing to a Hell in the OT was She'ol (sp?), which was a place that everyone went to after death, and it was really a place where everyone slept in darkness, a gloomy underworld similar to that envisioned by Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh, but not a place where sinners are punished for their sins.

Originally posted by Oliver North
ok, but you realize the paradox with free will only arises when you look at the story as an accurate representation of history, rather than looking for the possible symbolic message?

EDIT: like, it seems like the issue is more within how you see things than it is with the text itself. AFAIK, Jewish scholars don't interpret much of the OT as being literal at all, and there are parts that are obviously meant as metaphor. How do you determine what is or is not metaphorical, especially given that the people who have studied the text most (Jews) don't see it as literal? It's been some time(like 20 years) since I've read the Bible, however, I do not believe it was meant to be read exclusively by a certainly people, nor do I believe there is only one 'right' way to interpret something as religiously(and spiritually) complex as the Bible. Does the Bible have metaphoric messages out the wazoo? Absolutely. Heck, at its root the Bible is really just a giant compendium of 'right vs. wrong' scenarios.

Even though my own belief is that the Bible itself is purely fictional, I also believe the stories themselves were meant to be taken at face value by the men who wrote the Bible. Do I think Moses parted the red sea? No. However, I believe the Bible wants us to think he literally did. Same coin, I believe the intention of the Bible was to have God wipe out S&G to merely prove a point and display his power over mankind. Again: this is just my interpretation of something I view as a fictional work.

Either way, I don't disagree with what you're saying.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
As I said, Hell as we think of it did not exist in the OT. There was no place of punishment. The closest thing to a Hell in the OT was She'ol (sp?), which was a place that everyone went to after death, and it was really a place where everyone slept in darkness, a gloomy underworld similar to that envisioned by Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh, but not a place where sinners are punished for their sins. Weren't there still 2 divisions of sheol-- the good people went to one part, and the bad people went to another..?

My Uncle's theory about the Old Testament is that it was originally intended as historical/allegorical fiction written by a bunch of out of work priests in the desert, because at the time of the writing the Jews were dispersed throughout the Near East and lacked temples and worshipers and so had nothing to do but write about how great they used to be and how the people who were putting them down were sure going to get it one day.

Originally posted by Galan007
It's been some time(like 20 years) since I've read the Bible, however, I do not believe it was meant to be read exclusively by a certainly people, nor do I believe there is only one 'right' way to interpret something as religiously(and spiritually) complex as the Bible. Does the Bible have metaphoric messages out the wazoo? Absolutely. Heck, at its root the Bible is really just a giant compendium of 'right vs. wrong' scenarios.

Even though my own belief is that the Bible itself is purely fictional, I also believe the stories themselves were meant to be taken at face value by the men who wrote the Bible. Do I think Moses parted the red sea? No. However, I believe the Bible wants us to believe he literally did. Same coin, I believe the intention of the Bible was to have God wipe out S&G to merely prove a point and display his power over mankind. Again: this is just my interpretation.

Either way, I don't disagree with what you're saying.

Weren't there still 2 divisions of sheol-- the good people went to one part, and the bad people went to another..?
I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I don't think there was any distinction. You have to understand that the idea of a bifurcated afterlife wasn't very popular in BCE days. The Ancient Greeks were quite content with the belief that only the greatest of heroes (who were basically Gods anyway) would get to dwell in the Elysian Fields while everyone else would dwell in Hades. And as I mentioned, Enkidu of the Epic of Gilgamesh was doomed to spend all eternity in a gloomy underworld despite his greatness, as was Gilgamesh himself.

More importantly though, why did they go with Sodom to derive the word "sodomize" and not use Gomorrah as the root word?

Originally posted by Robtard
More importantly though, why did they go with Sodom to derive the word "sodomize" and not use Gomorrah as the root word? Because "Gomorrahize" doesn't have the same ring to it.

You may be onto something. But I bet the Gomorrahians still felt cheated.

I would too. What better way to have your name remembered than for it to be synonymous with sweet, sweet ass play/boy love.

Originally posted by Oliver North
The story probably isn't supposed to be taken literally...

I mean, it may have, at one point, been a story that explained a massive geological disaster that befell the region, and may have wiped out a couple of cities, but the whole added part of sin, Lot and his wife, the angels, etc. That seems like it is supposed to be understood as something like "follow the lord, he will lead you from sin, forget your old ways and don't look back toward sin".

Or, you know, it could be that it actually happened...

Originally posted by Robtard
More importantly though, why did they go with Sodom to derive the word "sodomize" and not use Gomorrah as the root word?

Gomorrizing someone is a different thing and its just so disturbing that no one ever talks about it.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Or, you know, it could be that it actually happened...

a) then you may wish to try your hand with the OP's initial paradox

b) sure, it could be, but lacking even the historical evidence to say these cities existed in the first place, I'm going to hold out for something more concrete before I concede that they were destroyed by supernatural means

c) the people who wrote the OT, ie: the Jews, did not have a tradition of writing literal stories to be taken as historical fact

Originally posted by Oliver North
a) then you may wish to try your hand with the OP's initial paradox

b) sure, it could be, but lacking even the historical evidence to say these cities existed in the first place, I'm going to hold out for something more concrete before I concede that they were destroyed by supernatural means

c) the people who wrote the OT, ie: the Jews, did not have a tradition of writing literal stories to be taken as historical fact

a) God gives us free will to make our own choices, yes, but that doesn't mean there aren't right and wrong choices. It's like this: should a country not enforce its laws against murder because someone chooses to "express themselves" through killing?

b) The evidence is right in front of you. It's called a Bible. Other than that, how would there be any other evidence left? the whole friggin' city got wiped out with fire and brimstone!

c) Then it's a good thing that God inspired the Bible, otherwise we'd be stuck with a whole bunch of gnostic, esoteric "metaphorical" nonsense...

Originally posted by Bat Dude
a) God gives us free will to make our own choices, yes, but that doesn't mean there aren't right and wrong choices. It's like this: should a country not enforce its laws against murder because someone chooses to "express themselves" through killing?

did the nation give the murderer free will?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
b) The evidence is right in front of you. It's called a Bible. Other than that, how would there be any other evidence left? the whole friggin' city got wiped out with fire and brimstone!

lol, oh, sorry, I must just have a higher standard of evidence than you do... like, not hearsay

also, a massive city being destroyed by fire would almost certainly leave historical record. They can find campsites from over 30000 years ago using modern techniques. The type of destruction at S&G would scar the earth.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
c) Then it's a good thing that God inspired the Bible, otherwise we'd be stuck with a whole bunch of gnostic, esoteric "metaphorical" nonsense...

that doesn't change the intent of the people who wrote it...

or are you saying that the Jews who wrote the OT actually did take it literally? and if so, can you provide any evidence from a source that isn't demanding part of my paycheque on Sunday?

Originally posted by Bat Dude

b) The evidence is right in front of you. It's called a Bible. Other than that, how would there be any other evidence left? the whole friggin' city got wiped out with fire and brimstone!

And Lord of the Rings is evidence that orcs and elves used to roam the Earth before recorded history.

Originally posted by Oliver North
did the nation give the murderer free will?



lol, oh, sorry, I must just have a higher standard of evidence than you do... like, not hearsay

also, a massive city being destroyed by fire would almost certainly leave historical record. They can find campsites from over 30000 years ago using modern techniques. The type of destruction at S&G would scar the earth.



that doesn't change the intent of the people who wrote it...

or are you saying that the Jews who wrote the OT actually did take it literally? and if so, can you provide any evidence from a source that isn't demanding part of my paycheque on Sunday?

The churches that demand a "tithe" are not Christian. They are wolves in sheep's clothing, are money hungry (the love of money is the root of all evil, as the Bible states) and "serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly." (Romans 16:18)

The vast majority of primary sources and historical records of these types of things (specifically the life of Jesus) were destroyed by the Roman Empire.

The only historical record that hasn't been destroyed is the Bible itself. It is God's word. The Bible says "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6-7) And that was when David was king of Israel, many years before the Roman Empire did these things.

I thought knowledge was the root of all evil?

ya, no, I mean the earth itself would bare physical scars from fire and brimstone raining from the sky in volumes enough to wipe a city from the map.

otherwise what you are trying to do is turn not having any evidence into an excuse for not needing evidence, which is a cop out and really not an intellectually honest position anyways, is it?

edit: wait... unless you read ancient Hebrew, any version of the bible you believe, by near tautology, has not had its words preserved. even the act of translation with no malice intent changes the scripture. Islam had to invent a language in an attempt to preserve it scripture, and even that failed.

Originally posted by Oliver North
ya, no, I mean the earth itself would bare physical scars from fire and brimstone raining from the sky in volumes enough to wipe a city from the map.

otherwise what you are trying to do is turn not having any evidence into an excuse for not needing evidence, which is a cop out and really not an intellectually honest position anyways, is it?

edit: wait... unless you read ancient Hebrew, any version of the bible you believe, by near tautology, has not had its words preserved. even the act of translation with no malice intent changes the scripture. Islam had to invent a language in an attempt to preserve it scripture, and even that failed.

Why would there still be scars on the earth, exactly?

I don't need to prove God's existence. God exists whether one believes or not. That's not a cop out, that's just the truth. I don't need to make any excuses.

The Word has been preserved. The same doctrine and meaning of the words has been preserved since they were written down years ago. Translating it faithfully into other languages does not change the meaning of the words. When you translate it incorrectly and change the meaning of the words (like the NIV, NKJV, ASV, etc. did), THAT'S when you pervert God's words and they are no longer preserved. But God won't allow His word to be completely perverted.

Originally posted by Bat Dude


I don't need to prove God's existence. God exists whether one believes or not. That's not a cop out, that's just the truth. I don't need to make any excuses.



You can't negate a cop-out by making an even bigger cop-out, which is precisely what you just did.

Originally posted by Bat Dude

I don't need to prove God's existence. God exists whether one believes or not. That's not a cop out, that's just the truth. I don't need to make any excuses.
This is a classic example of a cop out. You literally couldn't make a better example if you tried.

"This is correct because it's correct."

You make me think of a priest who isn't prepared to answer a precocious kid's questions, so just tells him to read the Bible because the "answer is in there somewhere".

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
You can't negate a cop-out by making an even bigger cop-out, which is precisely what you just did.

I'll be honest with you, I don't see that as a cop out. God exists whether one believes He does or not. I don't know what else to tell you. You can choose to believe or not, but God exists regardless.

As I stated previously, much if not all of the non-Bible records on Biblical events have been destroyed by the Roman Empire (by design).

We need FAITH, not PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALISM.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Why would there still be scars on the earth, exactly?

think about what you are asking

Originally posted by Bat Dude

The Word has been preserved. The same doctrine and meaning of the words has been preserved since they were written down years ago. Translating it faithfully into other languages does not change the meaning of the words. When you translate it incorrectly and change the meaning of the words (like the NIV, NKJV, ASV, etc. did), THAT'S when you pervert God's words and they are no longer preserved. But God won't allow His word to be completely perverted.

Two questions:

Which version of the Bible did God protect from perversion?

Why did God allow some versions to be perverted and not others (or other, if there's only one non molested version)?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I'll be honest with you, I don't see that as a cop out. God exists whether one believes He does or not. I don't know what else to tell you. You can choose to believe or not, but God exists regardless.

As I stated previously, much if not all of the non-Bible records on Biblical events have been destroyed by the Roman Empire (by design).

We need FAITH, not PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALISM.

You went from a cop-out to a cop-out squared and now you've made it into a cop-out cubed. Sweet Jesus on a stick, my good man.

We need neither. What we need is rationality and actual intellectualism.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This is a classic example of a cop out. You literally couldn't make a better example if you tried.

"This is correct because it's correct."

You make me think of a priest who isn't prepared to answer a precocious kid's questions, so just tells him to read the Bible because the "answer is in there somewhere". I don't believe in God, but I'm still trying to look at this objectively... IF there is a God, his existence cannot be 'proven'. However, his existence cannot be disproven either. Where this argument is concerned, it's all about faith.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
We need FAITH, not PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALISM. I agree. Faith is the most important aspect of life.

"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding."

Originally posted by Galan007
I don't believe in God, but I'm still trying to look at this objectively... IF there is a God, his existence cannot be 'proven'. However, his existence cannot be disproven either. Where this argument is concerned, it's all about faith.

it depends on the God you believe in

for instance, the God of the Bible and most other major religions are demonstrably false. As in, there are claims made about the God in the holy books which do not come to pass (prayer not having any effect being one of the major ones).

There are logical ways around this (sometimes God says no), but this is not in line with literal interpretations of the bible.

Its only when you introduce such logical-rationalizations, or, if you introduce Gods which are unknowable by definition, that you get into the idea of not being able to disprove God. However, all major religions make claims about God and its relationship with man which are testable, and all have failed to provide evidence in support of God.

Originally posted by Galan007
IF there is a God, his existence cannot be 'proven'.

This is not exactly true. God is only outside of rational inquiry if God is defined that way. In particular once you make claims about God doing things in the world then God is testable. Unless you want to get into Hume-esque "no one can ever really know anything" most gods can be proven or disproven since few people really believe in a demiurge that exists but does nothing.

Originally posted by Oliver North
it depends on the God you believe in

for instance, the God of the Bible and most other major religions are demonstrably false.

Depends upon what you want to do.

If you ask questions like: "Do the gospels line up with each other's temporal accounts of the events surrounding Jesus?"

Answer: No. They do not.

Then you conclude that the God of the Bible has to be false based off of that, then, sure, you can conclude that and not really be logically faulted.

However, that does not logically mean the God of the Bible is false (and by extension, the God of the Jews and the God of the Muslims).

That's just one of many different possible conclusions based on a single point of contention.

Originally posted by Oliver North
As in, there are claims made about the God in the holy books which do not come to pass (prayer not having any effect being one of the major ones).

You'd have to cherry pick very specific studies, that also have faults, in order for that to be true.

Originally posted by Oliver North
There are logical ways around this (sometimes God says no), but this is not in line with literal interpretations of the bible.

That's also cherry-picking a very specific kind of group (biblical fundamentalists and very rare kinds of Muslims).


Originally posted by Oliver North
Its only when you introduce such logical-rationalizations, or, if you introduce Gods which are unknowable by definition,

Which is what the Christian God is supposed to be...as well the Jewish, Muslim, and some flavors of Hinduism. By definition, it is literally impossible to know God without becoming omniscient yourself.

Originally posted by Oliver North
that you get into the idea of not being able to disprove God.

Are you familiar with some of the early Christian apologetics and theosophical writings? I believe you are so you know what you just said her easily applies to most Christian religions...as well as Muslim faiths...as well as some perspectives from Jews...as well as some Hindu belief systems.

Originally posted by Oliver North
However, all major religions make claims about God and its relationship with man which are testable, and all have failed to provide evidence in support of God.

This point is similar to the very first point you made. It really depends on how one likes to manipulate conclusions and logic.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...most gods can be proven or disproven since few people really believe in a demiurge that exists but does nothing.

Well, let's have a thought experiment from a Mormon perspective.

Only the pure in heart can see God.

Joseph Smith saw God as a lad and was supposedly pure in heart.

You pray and ask to see God. God does not appear. Conclusion: you are not pure in heart.

That's one possible conclusion.



Could be that God doesn't exist. Could be that God only appears to people foreordained to see God in this existence. Or, another possibility, God is a deistic god.

yes ddm, my point about God's testabiliy being related to what you believe about God is entirely dependent of the conclusions one makes about God.

Originally posted by Oliver North
yes ddm, my point about God's testabiliy being related to what you believe about God is entirely dependent of the conclusions one makes about God.

Yeah, that's true and is a point you made but probably did not realize you were making it. Your arguments were very weak, honestly.

I don't think you understood what I said

Originally posted by Galan007
Looking for some legit opinions here.

Even though the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because their "sins were grievous", the Lord preaches free will... That said, were not the citizens of S&D merely expressing their own free will by choosing to live a certain way? Sinned or not, it was still their choice to live that way. Were they destined to spend eternity in Hell because of the lifestyle they opted for? Yes, that punishment was unavoidable. I'm just wondering why God found it necessary to prematurely wipe out entire cities-worth of people who were, by definition, just expressing their own free will..?

They were corrupting innocents...they were inbred swine, their actions hurt children; God was cleaning up, to save.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I don't think you understood what I said

I did. I don't think you understood why your arguments were weak. Go back and read you post. Then read mine, again. It will make sense, eventually.

I can write another counter-post, in the same manner of words you used, which should help it make more sense. Would you like me to do that?

What point are you making besides what is encompassed by the first line of my post, re: "it depends on the God you believe in"

Originally posted by Oliver North
What point are you making besides what is encompassed by the first line of my post, re: "it depends on the God you believe in"


This should help you better understand what I was talking about since I used your words.

Here you go:



It really does not depend on the God in which you believe.

For instance, the God of the Bible and most other major religions are demonstrably true. As in, there are claims made about the God in the holy books and apologetics which come to pass (prayer having an effect being one of the major ones).

There are logical ways around this (sometimes God says nothing), but this is in line with some literal interpretations of the bible as well as symbolic and allegorical interpretations.

When you introduce logical rationalizations (which is what almost any major religion has done or is doing), or, if you introduce Gods which are unknowable by definition, that you get into the idea of not being able to disprove God.

However, all major religions make claims about God and its relationship with man which are testable, and some points of contention have failed whereas others have succeeded making The Question difficult to honestly answer.

lol

Originally posted by dadudemon
Could be that God doesn't exist. Could be that God only appears to people foreordained to see God in this existence. Or, another possibility, God is a deistic god.

Yes, as I said if you define God in a way that makes investigating it impossible then investigating God is impossible. That is a tautology. In practice, however, I don't think many people actually believe in the deistic God needed for this to be the case.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In practice, however, I don't think many people actually believe in the deistic God needed for this to be the case.

Except for many of the "Founding Fathers."

Shhhh. Don't tell the Americans. They think the founding fathers were Evangelical Christians that wanted God to be in everything government.

Originally posted by Oliver North
for instance, the God of the Bible and most other major religions are demonstrably false. Tbh this is an intensely subjective opinion. You might believe that God is purely apocryphal based on your personal feelings and/or any 'research' you've hand-selected to support you. However, that doesn't mean God must be false to everyone by proxy. For instance, there are millions of people world-wide who believe in God-begat miracles. Example(s): some people might perceive something as simple as rain falling in a drought-stricken area as God saving their land/livestock/crops from certain doom. Some people might survive a horrible motor vehicle accident unscathed, and perceive that as God protecting them from harm. Some people might get laid for the first time in their life and perceive it as divine intervention. Etc.

Point: the existence of God on a fundamental level cannot be disproven any more than it can be proven. And like I said: I'm trying to overlook my personal religious beliefs(or lack thereof) for the sake of retaining objectivity throughout this argument.

alright guys, you have to read the whole paragraph to understand the point I was making.

Religious books generally make claims (A, B, C) about the relationship between God and man. these can be tested. it is that simple.

now, individuals can come up with reasons for why A, B or C are or are not seen in a particular instance, but they are doing that based on their personal interpretations of the event, not on the scripture itself.

ie: the God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is demonstrably not existent because there is little if any evidence that these cities existed in the first place, and none whatsoever that would be expected based on the literal description of the event (fire and brimstone would leave a mark modern archeology would be able to detect, as we can identify hearths from over 30000 years ago). There are ways to rationalize this, but in doing so, you are creating a God that isn't of scripture.

Originally posted by Oliver North
ie: the God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is demonstrably not existent because there is little if any evidence that these cities existed in the first place, and none whatsoever that would be expected based on the literal description of the event (fire and brimstone would leave a mark modern archeology would be able to detect, as we can identify hearths from over 30000 years ago).
That has to be the poorest form of reasoning I've seen in a long time. Not only is it a textbook example of the appeal to ignorance fallacy, but it also clarifies your ignorance as far as geography and history are concerned.

First and foremost, the Book of Genesis was written around 5 - 6 centuries before the common era. Meaning that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had to take place before then.

This means that there would be very little evidence in the form of literature simply due to the fact that literature doesn't last for that long.

Secondly there are a number of meteor impact sites close to the Dead Sea, either of which may have been where the cities in question were located.

Originally posted by Astner
That has to be the poorest form of reasoning I've seen in a long time. Not only is it a textbook example of the appeal to ignorance fallacy, but it also clarifies your ignorance as far as geography and history are concerned.

right, keep holding out for phrenology and geocentrism

Originally posted by Astner
Secondly there are a number of meteor impact sites close to the Dead Sea, either of which may have been where the cities in question were located.

source?

Originally posted by Oliver North
alright guys, you have to read the whole paragraph to understand the point I was making.

Religious books generally make claims (A, B, C) about the relationship between God and man. these can be tested. it is that simple.

now, individuals can come up with reasons for why A, B or C are or are not seen in a particular instance, but they are doing that based on their personal interpretations of the event, not on the scripture itself.

ie: the God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is demonstrably not existent because there is little if any evidence that these cities existed in the first place, and none whatsoever that would be expected based on the literal description of the event (fire and brimstone would leave a mark modern archeology would be able to detect, as we can identify hearths from over 30000 years ago). There are ways to rationalize this, but in doing so, you are creating a God that isn't of scripture. How well preserved were these 30000 year old fire sites?

Is it common to find these types of fire sites? Is at all possible there some that can not be observed because they were not preserved that well or were cleaned over?

Is possible for natural forces to clean the area, cover, or humans to do the same thing?


Back to Galan's post. If you take the OT at face value than God being the God of all would with knowledge far exceeding our own known that Sodom and Gommorah needed to be destroyed for a good reason, and one would have to accept it.

IE Sodom and Gomoorah made a Free Will decision and God knew that it could destroy everything or hold dire consequences so cleansed the cities to protect everyone.

Originally posted by Newjak
How well preserved were these 30000 year old fire sites?

considering the materials are almost all things that degrade over time, not very well

now, these are 30000 years old and made from decaying matter, whereas we have fire and brimstone in amounts great enough to wipe 4 cities off the map (genesis includes more than just S&G in the judgement) only 5-6 thousand years ago. Sure, it is possible the evidence has decayed over time, but it is also possible that dinosaurs are alive today and we just havent found the evidence.

Originally posted by Newjak
Is it common to find these types of fire sites?

they are exceedingly rare, we are talking the literal first settlements of humans

Originally posted by Newjak
Is at all possible there some that can not be observed because they were not preserved that well or were cleaned over?

sure? and it is possible all time before this instant never existed and you are in a computer simulation

the study of history requires evidence /sigh

Originally posted by Newjak
Is possible for natural forces to clean the area, cover, or humans to do the same thing?

ok, but if we use that as a standard of evidence, I can literally make up anything about history and you have to say "well, we never know"

Its not a gotcha-moment to get me to admit I might be wrong... lol

Originally posted by Newjak
IE Sodom and Gomoorah made a Free Will decision and God knew that it could destroy everything or hold dire consequences so cleansed the cities to protect everyone.

sure, and now you have introduced a rationalization NOT FROM THE BIBLE, therefore making the God you are talking about NOT THE ONE FROM THE BIBLE, but rather one based on your own personal interpretations. Hence, my statement about THE GOD OF THE BIBLE remains true, and my statement that Gods not from the bible being unfalsifiable also still true.

Originally posted by Oliver North
considering the materials are almost all things that degrade over time, not very well

now, these are 30000 years old and made from decaying matter, whereas we have fire and brimstone in amounts great enough to wipe 4 cities off the map (genesis includes more than just S&G in the judgement) only 5-6 thousand years ago. Sure, it is possible the evidence has decayed over time, but it is also possible that dinosaurs are alive today and we just havent found the evidence.



they are exceedingly rare, we are talking the literal first settlements of humans



sure? and it is possible all time before this instant never existed and you are in a computer simulation

the study of history requires evidence /sigh



ok, but if we use that as a standard of evidence, I can literally make up anything about history and you have to say "well, we never know"

Its not a gotcha-moment to get me to admit I might be wrong... lol



sure, and now you have introduced a rationalization NOT FROM THE BIBLE, therefore making the God you are talking about NOT THE ONE FROM THE BIBLE, but rather one based on your own personal interpretations. Hence, my statement about THE GOD OF THE BIBLE remains true, and my statement that Gods not from the bible being unfalsifiable also still true. I like how you make outrageous claims to back your statements.

Well it could be possible insert extreme comment to make my claims sound better.

I'm talking statistics my friend.

You made the claim well if we can find a fire site from 30000 years ago then obviously we can detect Sodom and Gomorrah with ease.

Just because we can do something doesn't meant there is a high probability of it happening. If we can only observe less than 1%, an estimation on my part, of firepits throughout history then it isn't good evidence to support your stance of if we can find firepits then surely we would have found the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah.

So show me actual facts to support your stance if you want me to believe it.

I did not introduce my interpretations of God into the OT. In the bible people are stated to need to have faith in God's decisions and that he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they sinning.

Therefore according to the bible we must have faith that's God's decision to punish them was the right one because he is God. I introduced no new concept at all and used the Bible's version of God.

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm talking statistics my friend.

no you aren't... you are weakly talking about probabilities...

Originally posted by Newjak
You made the claim well if we can find a fire site from 30000 years ago then obviously we can detect Sodom and Gomorrah with ease.

Just because we can do something doesn't meant there is a high probability of it happening. If we can only observe less than 1%, an estimation on my part, of firepits throughout history then it isn't good evidence to support your stance of if we can find firepits then surely we would have found the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah.

so your actual position is that hellfire raining from the sky in a volume enough to destroy 4 cities would not leave a verifiable impact on the Earth?

if so, we simply disagree about the ontology, and I would suggest looking into things like, idk, the study of volcanic rock

Originally posted by Newjak
So show me actual facts to support your stance if you want me to believe it.

show you evidence of there being no evidence?

ok, exhibit A:



Originally posted by Newjak
I did not introduce my interpretations of God into the OT. In the bible people are stated to need to have faith in God's decisions and that he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they sinning.

the rationalization that God would hide the site is a rationalization

Originally posted by Oliver North
no you aren't... you are weakly talking about probabilities...



so your actual position is that hellfire raining from the sky in a volume enough to destroy 4 cities would not leave a verifiable impact on the Earth?

if so, we simply disagree about the ontology, and I would suggest looking into things like, idk, the study of volcanic rock



show you evidence of there being no evidence?

ok, exhibit A:





the rationalization that God would hide the site is a rationalization Probabilities is fine.

Well what were the size of the cities, what would the blast radius have been, where was it located, what other types of phenomena happened around it or happens normally due to it's location? What were the size of the objects being hurtled down unto Sodom and Gomorrah?

Show me the evidence that suggest since we can find firepits from 30000 years that we can find all things related to fire or fire like destruction throughout history. Or show me where it gives us a high probability of finding such things?

Where did I say God hid the city cause I don't remember saying that at all?

Originally posted by Newjak
Well what were the size of the cities, what would the blast radius have been, where was it located, what other types of phenomena happened around it or happens normally due to it's location? What were the size of the objects being hurtled down unto Sodom and Gomorrah?

given my position is that there isn't enough evidence to suggest these things ever existed, I don't see why the burden would be on me to provide any of that information

Originally posted by Newjak
Show me the evidence that suggest since we can find firepits from 30000 years that we can find all things related to fire or fire like destruction throughout history. Or show me where it gives us a high probability of finding such things?

It is a matter of scale, the force of the destruction, and the materials in question.

A city, made of stone, destroyed by overwhelming supernatural force would be order of magnitude more likely to leave some detectable trace than would the organic, decomposing matter of ancient hearths. Proof of this would be, you know, cities destroyed by volcanoes being almost perfectly intact thousands of years later, there being more ruins from civilizations that used stone in their construction, etc...

like, really, your argument seems to be "it could have happened", and fine, it "could have", but there are an infinite number of "could haves" that I really don't find that to be a convincing position at all. Like I said, the study of history requires evidence...

Originally posted by Newjak
Where did I say God hid the city cause I don't remember saying that at all?

sorry, I misinterpreted when you said "cleansed"

Originally posted by Oliver North
given my position is that there isn't enough evidence to suggest these things ever existed, I don't see why the burden would be on me to provide any of that information



It is a matter of scale, the force of the destruction, and the materials in question.

A city, made of stone, destroyed by overwhelming supernatural force would be order of magnitude more likely to leave some detectable trace than would the organic, decomposing matter of ancient hearths. Proof of this would be, you know, cities destroyed by volcanoes being almost perfectly intact thousands of years later, there being more ruins from civilizations that used stone in their construction, etc...

like, really, your argument seems to be "it could have happened", and fine, it "could have", but there are an infinite number of "could haves" that I really don't find that to be a convincing position at all. Like I said, the study of history requires evidence...



sorry, I misinterpreted when you said "cleansed" Correction your stance as stated above was that if they did exist we would have found them.

So explain to me with actual evidence why we would have found them by now if they existed.

So are we assuming that it was supernatural force that did this? In that case unless you have great knowledge of supernatural forces everything you're gonna say from this point on is moot on the subject imo.

But let's assume you mean measurable circumstances, you are right in that it would be easier to detect a burned out city destroyed by fire and brimstone from the sky then a firepit. If that was the only statement to take into account.

But first how did the firepits get preserved and survive the centuries unlike the millions of others that existed? How does that correlate into the preservation of a city.

Even if you want to adheretly stick to your notion of firepit equals discovering a city easier, I do agree it is easier to find cties, considering the firepit is a rare occurrence itself how much easier is finding a city compared to that?

Is it easier but still rare to find?

What types of numbers and data are you using to come to this?

And like Astner said there are areas around the Dead Sea where it is possible that the damage you are talking about exists.

Originally posted by Newjak
Correction your stance as stated above was that if they did exist we would have found them.

So explain to me with actual evidence why we would have found them by now if they existed.

re:

Originally posted by Oliver North
It is a matter of scale, the force of the destruction, and the materials in question.

A city, made of stone, destroyed by overwhelming supernatural force would be order of magnitude more likely to leave some detectable trace than would the organic, decomposing matter of ancient hearths. Proof of this would be, you know, cities destroyed by volcanoes being almost perfectly intact thousands of years later, there being more ruins from civilizations that used stone in their construction, etc...

Originally posted by Newjak
So are we assuming that it was supernatural force that did this? In that case unless you have great knowledge of supernatural forces everything you're gonna say from this point on is moot on the subject imo.

yes, if god destroyed the cities, it was supernatural...

Originally posted by Newjak
Even if you want to adheretly stick to your notion of firepit equaks discovering a city easier, considering the firepit is a rare occurrence itself how much easier is finding a city compared to that?

4 cities that were part of a major disaster and that we ostensibly know the locations of

it should be fairly simple actually, unless for some crazy reason there is absolutely no trace of it left, but given the circumstances and the plethora of other sites that exist from this period, no evidence at all is pretty damning.

you can disagree with that, sure. I think it is crazy, but if you are steadfast to the position that it is harder to find the ruins of 10000 year old cities than 30000 yo firepits, sure, great, rock on


Originally posted by Newjak
What types of numbers and data are you using to come to this?

again, I can't provide numbers for data I don't think exists

Originally posted by Newjak
And like Astner said there are areas around the Dead Sea where it is possible that the damage you are talking about exists.

such as?

Originally posted by Newjak
Back to Galan's post. If you take the OT at face value than God being the God of all would with knowledge far exceeding our own known that Sodom and Gommorah needed to be destroyed for a good reason, and one would have to accept it.

IE Sodom and Gomoorah made a Free Will decision and God knew that it could destroy everything or hold dire consequences so cleansed the cities to protect everyone. So like I said: this would mean that God did kill-off those cities just for choosing to live a particular lifestyle that he didn't agree with. He gave them the gift of free will and said "do as you will." They did as they wished. He killed them for it, just to prove a point.

That's Hitler-level mentality right there. Not joking. But what else would would expect from an entity with enough ego to make a comment like this?:

Originally posted by Galan007
So like I said: this would mean that God did kill-off those cities just for choosing to live a particular lifestyle that he didn't agree with. He gave them the gift of free will and said "do as you will." They did as they wished. He killed them for it, just to prove a point.

That's Hitler-level mentality right there. Not joking. But what else would would expect from an entity with enough ego to make a comment like this?: I think the counter to that would be how would you know better than God what is right and wrong?

It might seem cruel and unusual to you but if it serves the greater purpose then who are we to question?

so, not only do we have morality wrong, we have it so wrong that we are completely unable to know what is right (ie, we are disgusted by what is moral)?

Originally posted by Newjak
I think the counter to that would be how would you know better than God what is right and wrong? I don't. All I can go by are the 10 standards of right and wrong that God himself supposedly delivered to Moses/mankind-- one of which was: "Thou shalt not kill."

I see his slaying of S&G as hypocritical, and moreover, malevolent. It's like a smoker killing you for using chewing tobacco... Just because he thought it was gross.

Originally posted by Oliver North
re:





yes, if god destroyed the cities, it was supernatural...



4 cities that were part of a major disaster and that we ostensibly know the locations of

it should be fairly simple actually, unless for some crazy reason there is absolutely no trace of it left, but given the circumstances and the plethora of other sites that exist from this period, no evidence at all is pretty damning.

you can disagree with that, sure. I think it is crazy, but if you are steadfast to the position that it is harder to find the ruins of 10000 year old cities than 30000 yo firepits, sure, great, rock on




again, I can't provide numbers for data I don't think exists



such as? Once again what is the evidence you used to come to the conclusion? How hard is it to find an ancient city?

What is the probabilities we would have found such a city.

Well in that case if we are assuming the whole thing is Supernatural then you have no evidence to back anything you claim. For instance explain to me how Supernautral fire works, does it leave the same types of damage as normal fire? Does it burn as hot, or hotter or is very precise?

It doesn't matter if you feel it doesn't exist you can still provide data and numbers as to why you feel it doesn't exist?

As in I don't think it exists because the probability of finding asteroid damage conclusive enough to destroy a city the size of Sodom and Gomorrah is 99% because the damage would produce a minimum 5 mile diameter that unless completely covered, unlikely do to the environmental factors surrounding the area, by some obstruction would have been spotted via satellites that constantly monitor the area.

Since in the proposed areas of Sodom and Gomorah their exist no such impact areas,although Asnter claims there are, I can safely deduce with a 90% certainty that they don't exist and have never existed.

Mind you all of that is hog wash cause I don't know the numbers but I think you get the general idea.

Instead you say well we can find a firepit 30000 years ago therefore a city is much easier to find therefore S&G can not exist.

Well what does that mean. How accurately can we find firepits from that age. Does that mean if we go to an area and say well we don't see a firepit does that mean I can say with 99% certainty a firepit did not exist in that particular area since we didn't find one?

And how does firepit probabilities relate to cities? Is a city 30 times as likely to be found in an area if it existed than a firepit? A thousand times?

If you want to say I don't believe the city exists cause it just seems unlikely to me. Fine I doubt you will find a person to argue with you or have reasonable points to say you are wrong, logically it's hard to think of us not finding a city or an area like it, but to sit here and act like you have definitive proof it couldn't have existed isn't the same.

That claim denotes you have actual factual data to support your claim in that you know numbers and data sets to prove it.

Originally posted by Galan007
I don't. All I can go by are the 10 standards of right and wrong that God himself supposedly delivered to Moses/mankind-- one of which was: "Thou shalt not kill."

I see his slaying of S&G as hypocritical, and moreover, malevolent. It's like a smoker killing you for using chewing tobacco... Just because he thought it was gross. Those are rules for mankind to follow. Once again who are you to decide that God was a hypocrite for doing it or evil for doing it. It once again states you know better than God.

Originally posted by Newjak
Those are rules for mankind to follow. Once again who are you to decide that God was a hypocrite for doing it or evil for doing it. It once again states you know better than God. I'm not saying I know the concept of right/wrong better than God. I'm saying that him telling mankind that it is a top-tier sin to kill when he, himself, killed cities-worth of people just because he didn't approve of the choices they made, is overtly hypocritical. Malevolent, almost.

The proverb "do as I say, not as I do" is not something I would expect from a 'supreme' entity.

Originally posted by Galan007
I'm not saying I know the concept of right/wrong better than God. I'm saying that him telling mankind that it is a top-tier sin to kill when he, himself, killed cities-worth of people just because he didn't approve of the choices they made, is overtly hypocritical. Malevolent, almost.

The proverb "do as I say, not as I do" is not something I would expect from a 'supreme' entity. Yet if we assume the bible is correct he is the supreme authority and therefore above us and what we think.

OT God was a malevolent hypocrite. He, himself, wrote that it is a sin of the highest order to kill a fellow human--- yet he personally slaughtered thousands of humans simply because he didn't approve of their lifestyle choices.

"Do as a say, not as I do." What a dick.

Originally posted by Galan007
OT God was a malevolent hypocrite. He, himself, wrote that it is a sin of the highest order to kill a fellow human--- yet he personally slaughtered thousands of humans simply because he didn't approve of their lifestyle choices.

"Do as a say, not as I do." What a dick. Except God isn't human therefore he isn't killing his fellow humans.

It's like a Shepard tending to his flock. He doesn't want them fighting themselves but he knows if some of them need to get taken away from the rest he will

Originally posted by Newjak
Except God isn't human therefore he isn't killing his fellow humans.

God made us in his image, didn't he? The argument I always hear about why killing is wrong is that killing a human is tarnishing God's image, therefore when God kills humans he also tarnishes his own image.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
God made us in his image, didn't he? The argument I always hear about why killing is wrong is that killing a human is tarnishing God's image, therefore when God kills humans he also tarnishes his own image. An Image doesn't mean we are exactly like him, after all can you create another Universe? Then God and us are different

Originally posted by Omega Vision
God made us in his image, didn't he? The argument I always hear about why killing is wrong is that killing a human is tarnishing God's image, therefore when God kills humans he also tarnishes his own image.

I think the mentally is that God's allowed to break his own toys.

Originally posted by Galan007
OT God was a malevolent hypocrite. He, himself, wrote that it is a sin of the highest order to kill a fellow human--- yet he personally slaughtered thousands of humans simply because he didn't approve of their lifestyle choices.

"Do as a say, not as I do." What a dick.

* that's your definition of "free will"? to do evil things and not get punished? wow, you're something...

"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

* you do know that acting immorally and indulging in unnatural lust are wrong, don't you?

* but eventhough the people in Sodom and Gomor'rah did awful things, what if i tell you that Jesus Himself said that they can be pardoned?

"Also He said to them, In whatever place you enter a house, stay there till you depart from that place.
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 6:10-11

* the lesson here is: don't judge THE Judge... He is merciful so much more than you'll ever imagine...

Originally posted by Robtard
I think the mentally is that God's allowed to break his own toys. That's how I perceive his actions in the OT, personally.

Originally posted by peejayd
He is merciful so much more than you'll ever imagine...

How is wiping out an entire cities merciful?

Even if we go with the notion that every single man and woman in those cities were murdering sodomites without an ounce of morality between them, there had to have been infants and children.

Originally posted by peejayd
* that's your definition of "free will"? to do evil things and not get punished? wow, you're something...

"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

* you do know that acting immorally and indulging in unnatural lust are wrong, don't you?

* but eventhough the people in Sodom and Gomor'rah did awful things, what if i tell you that Jesus Himself said that they can be pardoned?

"Also He said to them, In whatever place you enter a house, stay there till you depart from that place.
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 6:10-11

* the lesson here is: don't judge THE Judge... He is merciful so much more than you'll ever imagine... You haven't comprehended what I've been saying, apparently. I have mentioned a few times that the peoples of S&G were, by definition, sinners.

However, God still gave them the free will to make their own choices(right or wrong)-- and they chose to express their free will by acting immorally. God didn't like them using his gift in that kind of way, so he killed them to prove a point. Woman, children, elderly... They were all slaughtered just the same.

That's like killing a kid for playing with a toy you gave him.

Originally posted by Robtard
How is wiping out an entire cities merciful?

Even if we go with the notion that every single man and woman in those cities were murdering sodomites without an ounce of morality between them, there had to have been infants and children. Now, now, to be fair, he just burned people to death, it's not like he turned them into pillars of salt......oh

Originally posted by Galan007


That's like killing a kid for playing with a toy you gave him.

To be fair, it's more akin to giving a kid an action figure and saying "You can play with it however you like; just don't stick it up your ass."

Then you come back later, find the kid with the action figure up his ass and proceed to stomp him to death.

We can even dwell into more insanity if we bring up the whole "here, rape my daughters instead" angle of the story. But let's save that for later.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
God made us in his image, didn't he? The argument I always hear about why killing is wrong is that killing a human is tarnishing God's image, therefore when God kills humans he also tarnishes his own image.

* one thing you need to learn is that God and man are two different beings... first, one is the creator and the other is a creature... man being made in God's image and likeness does not imply that man is also God...

* Biblically and techinically, man does not really own his life... that's why, the life of man is limited and not eternal... it is God who provides life... and being the provider of life, He also has this power to take it away... and that's not technically "killing", but it is, in man's terms...

"Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand."
Deuteronomy 32:39

Originally posted by Robtard
We can even dwell into more insanity if we bring up the whole "here, rape my daughters instead" angle of the story. But let's save that for later. "Don't rape these man-angels... I have a better idea: rape my virgin daughters instead!"

*said Lot to the horde of murderers and rapists.*

Doesn't the Bible say that we're all sinners and deserving of death, and that it's only through Jesus Christ that we can become free of sin?

By that line of logic God wouldn't be doing anything wrong by killing people. Unless he killed people that believed in Jesus Christ as their savior.

Originally posted by Astner
Doesn't the Bible say that we're all sinners and deserving of death, and that it's only through Jesus Christ that we can become free of sin?

By that line of logic God wouldn't be doing anything wrong by killing people. Unless he killed people that believed in Jesus Christ as their savior.

That's one interpretation of the new testament.

Originally posted by Galan007
You haven't comprehended what I've been saying, apparently. I have mentioned a few times that the peoples of S&G were, by definition, sinners.

However, God still gave them the free will to make their own choices(right or wrong)-- and they chose to express their free will by acting immorally. God didn't like them using his gift in that kind of way, so he killed them to prove a point. Woman, children, elderly... They were all slaughtered just the same.

That's like killing a kid for playing with a toy you gave him. or another analogy could be you getting a person a gun for Christmas only to see him going on a killing spree with it. If you had the ability would you not stop them from abusing your gift

Originally posted by Galan007
You haven't comprehended what I've been saying, apparently. I have mentioned a few times that the peoples of S&G were, by definition, sinners.

However, God still gave them the free will to make their own choices(right or wrong)-- and they chose to express their free will by acting immorally. God didn't like them using his gift in that kind of way, so he killed them to prove a point. Woman, children, elderly... They were all slaughtered just the same.

That's like killing a kid for playing with a toy you gave him.

* no... first, the gift of free will is not something you can compare to a toy... and it is not given to a "kid"...

* free will is given to a person with a sense of responsibility to do righteously... free will is not just a choice... it is a choice with consequence, that's why God gave a recommendation:

"I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;"
Deuteronomy 30:19

* it's like giving a responsible man a knife... not to kill people, but to help him in cooking? anyway, this is free will:

"For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another."
Galatians 5:13

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's one interpretation of the new testament.
How else to interpret "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," - Romans 3:23?

Originally posted by Astner
How else to interpret "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," - Romans 3:23?

You should probably take that up with the many, many denominations that don't interpret it the way you do. (I think almost all would take issue with the "deserving of death" part)

Originally posted by Astner
How else to interpret "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," - Romans 3:23?

It means that they won't be going to heaven. Unless they John 14:16 it up.

Well, the way Catholics interpret that, for example and as far as I know, is that everyone is born as a sinner due to original sin an' shit. And they have to confess and be absolved of their sins (no Jesus factoring in there for example, to answer your question again, Astner).

Lots of denominations do think that babies are innocent though for example, and we can find Bible passages that can be interpreted as a promise heaven (and with that eternal life) to groups regardless of the believe in Jesus. Famous is this one:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:3

Originally posted by peejayd
* it's like giving a responsible man a knife... not to kill people, but to help him in cooking? anyway, this is free will:

"For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another."
Galatians 5:13 Asking people to express their freedom/free will in a selfless way ≠ killing those same people for not doing what you asked of them-- which is what God did at S&G.

I think of God as an entity whom will lead you to water when you are thirsty, but he will not put the water in your mouth-- you have to make that decision for yourself. OT God, on the other hand, would lead you to water, then shout "psych!" whilst drowning you in it.

Originally posted by Galan007
Asking people to express their freedom/free will in a selfless way ≠ killing those same people for not doing what you asked of them-- which is what God did at S&G.

I think of God as an entity whom will lead you to water when you are thirsty, but he will not put the water in your mouth-- you have to make that decision for yourself. OT God, on the other hand, would lead you to water, then shout "psych!" whilst drowning you in it. Only if you abused his gift in his eyes.

So best do as God says

* babies are innocent... i don't buy Catholic's "original sin" shtick... it's just their way of manipulating people to be their members from the very beginning of life, by baptizing babies... whereas, in the Bible, baptism is provided to people old enough to acquire faith and do good works...

Originally posted by Robtard
It means that they won't be going to heaven. Unless they John 14:16 it up.
Right.

So the question is, why hasn't it been brought up yet that according to Christianity all have sinned and are worthy of death, and it's only through Jesus Christ that one can be saved?

Because if all are worthy of death, then what God supposedly did in Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't wrong.

The sins of mankind were resolved/cleansed when the Jews nailed Jesus to that swastika... So I'm not sure if that statement still holds true post-crucifixion..?

Originally posted by peejayd
* babies are innocent... i don't buy Catholic's "original sin" shtick... it's just their way of manipulating people to be their members from the very beginning of life, by baptizing babies... whereas, in the Bible, baptism is provided to people old enough to acquire faith and do good works...

So why where the babies in Sodom and Gomorrah blasted from the planet along with their sodomite parents, cousins, uncles etc.?

Originally posted by Newjak
Once again what is the evidence you used to come to the conclusion? How hard is it to find an ancient city?

What is the probabilities we would have found such a city.

Well in that case if we are assuming the whole thing is Supernatural then you have no evidence to back anything you claim. For instance explain to me how Supernautral fire works, does it leave the same types of damage as normal fire? Does it burn as hot, or hotter or is very precise?

It doesn't matter if you feel it doesn't exist you can still provide data and numbers as to why you feel it doesn't exist?

As in I don't think it exists because the probability of finding asteroid damage conclusive enough to destroy a city the size of Sodom and Gomorrah is 99% because the damage would produce a minimum 5 mile diameter that unless completely covered, unlikely do to the environmental factors surrounding the area, by some obstruction would have been spotted via satellites that constantly monitor the area.

Since in the proposed areas of Sodom and Gomorah their exist no such impact areas,although Asnter claims there are, I can safely deduce with a 90% certainty that they don't exist and have never existed.

Mind you all of that is hog wash cause I don't know the numbers but I think you get the general idea.

Instead you say well we can find a firepit 30000 years ago therefore a city is much easier to find therefore S&G can not exist.

Well what does that mean. How accurately can we find firepits from that age. Does that mean if we go to an area and say well we don't see a firepit does that mean I can say with 99% certainty a firepit did not exist in that particular area since we didn't find one?

And how does firepit probabilities relate to cities? Is a city 30 times as likely to be found in an area if it existed than a firepit? A thousand times?

If you want to say I don't believe the city exists cause it just seems unlikely to me. Fine I doubt you will find a person to argue with you or have reasonable points to say you are wrong, logically it's hard to think of us not finding a city or an area like it, but to sit here and act like you have definitive proof it couldn't have existed isn't the same.

That claim denotes you have actual factual data to support your claim in that you know numbers and data sets to prove it.

holy shit you are all over the place... I'm not sure if you want an answer about the methods of archeology and paleontology, a diatribe on epistemology or my thoughts on burden of proof... let me approach it like this:

To me, for something to be categorized as "existing", evidence is required. Now, it is fine if you don't hold this view on knowledge, reasonable people can disagree on fundamental things, and I wont try to stop you from believing in something based on the probability that it might have occurred, though without any good reason to think it did. I would point out that I can name an infinite number of things that have a non-zero probability of existing that I know for a fact you don't believe in, but I will digress for reasons of concision.

Now, you are totally correct to point out that, for some things, and especially in the study of early human history, it may be the case that evidence of such things is either exceptionally rare or has not survived time, yet we know they must have occurred. So, let me give a non-controversial example:

Squids and Octopi have no bones. After dying, their bodies are either eaten quickly by scavengers at the bottom of the ocean, or the ocean itself decomposes them beyond recognition, rapidly. This makes finding any fossil remains of squid or octopi ancestors nearly impossible (a recent discovery was only possible because the bodies of the proto-octopi had descended into an oxygen deprived area of ocean). Yet, we know there must be an ancestor to the modern squid.

Similarly, we know that, at some point, hominids began using wooden tools, probably some 100 000 years ago, though maybe longer. However, wooden tools, if they survived, would be indistinguishable from other pieces of wood aged hundreds of thousands of years, yet, we know they must have been employed at some point (we didn't go from no tools to complex wood/stone tools).

So, what do we do in circumstances like this? Well, one thing that is obvious is that, in terms of squid and human tool use, we have observations in the modern world that necessitate some historical explanation. We have modern tools, therefore, we can assume at some point we had more primitive tools. Modern squid exist, therefore we can assume there was an evolutionary ancestor to the squid. So, given there is no evidence for the existence of S&G, what in the modern world do we see that necessitates their existence?

I would say nothing. We have a story with clear metaphorical themes (if not completely a metaphor itself) in a book full of stories of questionable historicity (there is no evidence that Egyptians held Jews as slaves; the entire book of Exodus is plagued with this issue) written by people who have a cultural tradition of using stories as metaphor. There are very few archeological sites that may be S&G, however, none are widely accepted and certainly no definitive evidence has been provided to suggest these are the cities in question (read the link, some of the best sites are actually from centuries after the story of S&G would have taken place). Keep in mind, there are also people who claim to have found the Holy Grail, the Cross Jesus was crucified on, Noah's Arc, or the grave that Jesus and his family were supposedly buried in. Certainly you and I can agree that something needs a little bit of verification before we say "a-ha, this is clearly historical site X".

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.

I mean, outside of this explanation, I'm not sure what you want me to demonstrate...

Here, try this:

So, it is not really clear when S&G were supposedly destroyed. The Battle of Siddim, the story of Lot preceding the judgement is said to be early second milenium BC, with this page giving the exact date of 1877 BC. Well, lets look at what else archeology has found in that region from that time, or even further back.

Dating back to beyond 5000 BC, Sumer is one of, but certainly not the oldest civilization known to history. There are dozens of sites attributable to their culture, dating back well beyond 2000 BC, of which we know quite a bit more than we do of S&G. Looking at one such city, Ur. Archeological record not only gives us an idea of who the people of Ur were, but we know much of their trade, we know it was the most important port in the region in the period before 2000 BC, we know about their politics, their laws, their culture, their relations with their neighbours, etc. We know about their conflicts and eventual conquest in the same time period as S&G was allegedly being destroyed. I mean, take some time looking over these civilizations, and the type of artifacts and sites left by them, sometimes dating back over 3000 years from when S&G was being destroyed.

I mean, there is this asteroid impact, in Austria, roughly 1500 years before the events of S&G... Supporting my original idea about a kernel of truth and metaphor.

Was this what you wanted? if not, just like, a clear sentence about what you want me to explain would be helpful. Its hard to be clear in a response when you are all over the place (and seriously, stop trying to talk stats, it is painfully obvious you don't know what you are doing).

Originally posted by Galan007
Asking people to express their freedom/free will in a selfless way ≠ killing those same people for not doing what you asked of them-- which is what God did at S&G.

I think of God as an entity whom will lead you to water when you are thirsty, but he will not put the water in your mouth-- you have to make that decision for yourself. OT God, on the other hand, would lead you to water, then shout "psych!" whilst drowning you in it.

* one way to summarize this is:

"But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,"
I Timothy 1:8

* you have been given a gift --- use it correctly, responsibly and righteously... that gift is not something like "oh, it's mine! i'll use it in any way i want to!" there are still rules and regulations... do not use your freedom as an opportunity to do evil things... God gave you a heart and a brain --- use it...

Originally posted by Robtard
So why where the babies in Sodom and Gomorrah blasted from the planet along with their sodomite parents, cousins, uncles etc.?

* 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 the punishment...

Originally posted by Galan007
The sins of mankind were resolved/cleansed when the Jews nailed Jesus to that swastika... So I'm not sure if that statement still holds true post-crucifixion..?
Only the ones that believe in Jesus will be cleansed of sin according to the Bible.

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 the punishment...
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.

Originally posted by Oliver North
holy shit you are all over the place... I'm not sure if you want an answer about the methods of archeology and paleontology, a diatribe on epistemology or my thoughts on burden of proof... let me approach it like this:

To me, for something to be categorized as "existing", evidence is required. Now, it is fine if you don't hold this view on knowledge, reasonable people can disagree on fundamental things, and I wont try to stop you from believing in something based on the probability that it might have occurred, though without any good reason to think it did. I would point out that I can name an infinite number of things that have a non-zero probability of existing that I know for a fact you don't believe in, but I will digress for reasons of concision.

Now, you are totally correct to point out that, for some things, and especially in the study of early human history, it may be the case that evidence of such things is either exceptionally rare or has not survived time, yet we know they must have occurred. So, let me give a non-controversial example:

Squids and Octopi have no bones. After dying, their bodies are either eaten quickly by scavengers at the bottom of the ocean, or the ocean itself decomposes them beyond recognition, rapidly. This makes finding any fossil remains of squid or octopi ancestors nearly impossible (a recent discovery was only possible because the bodies of the proto-octopi had descended into an oxygen deprived area of ocean). Yet, we know there must be an ancestor to the modern squid.

Similarly, we know that, at some point, hominids began using wooden tools, probably some 100 000 years ago, though maybe longer. However, wooden tools, if they survived, would be indistinguishable from other pieces of wood aged hundreds of thousands of years, yet, we know they must have been employed at some point (we didn't go from no tools to complex wood/stone tools).

So, what do we do in circumstances like this? Well, one thing that is obvious is that, in terms of squid and human tool use, we have observations in the modern world that necessitate some historical explanation. We have modern tools, therefore, we can assume at some point we had more primitive tools. Modern squid exist, therefore we can assume there was an evolutionary ancestor to the squid. So, given there is no evidence for the existence of S&G, what in the modern world do we see that necessitates their existence?

I would say nothing. We have a story with clear metaphorical themes (if not completely a metaphor itself) in a book full of stories of questionable historicity (there is no evidence that Egyptians held Jews as slaves; the entire book of Exodus is plagued with this issue) written by people who have a cultural tradition of using stories as metaphor. There are very few archeological sites that may be S&G, however, none are widely accepted and certainly no definitive evidence has been provided to suggest these are the cities in question (read the link, some of the best sites are actually from centuries after the story of S&G would have taken place). Keep in mind, there are also people who claim to have found the Holy Grail, the Cross Jesus was crucified on, Noah's Arc, or the grave that Jesus and his family were supposedly buried in. Certainly you and I can agree that something needs a little bit of verification before we say "a-ha, this is clearly historical site X".

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.

I mean, outside of this explanation, I'm not sure what you want me to demonstrate...

Here, try this:

So, it is not really clear when S&G were supposedly destroyed. The Battle of Siddim, the story of Lot preceding the judgement is said to be early second milenium BC, with this page giving the exact date of 1877 BC. Well, lets look at what else archeology has found in that region from that time, or even further back.

Dating back to beyond 5000 BC, Sumer is one of, but certainly not the oldest civilization known to history. There are dozens of sites attributable to their culture, dating back well beyond 2000 BC, of which we know quite a bit more than we do of S&G. Looking at one such city, Ur. Archeological record not only gives us an idea of who the people of Ur were, but we know much of their trade, we know it was the most important port in the region in the period before 2000 BC, we know about their politics, their laws, their culture, their relations with their neighbours, etc. We know about their conflicts and eventual conquest in the same time period as S&G was allegedly being destroyed. I mean, take some time looking over these civilizations, and the type of artifacts and sites left by them, sometimes dating back over 3000 years from when S&G was being destroyed.

I mean, there is this asteroid impact, in Austria, roughly 1500 years before the events of S&G... Supporting my original idea about a kernel of truth and metaphor.

Was this what you wanted? if not, just like, a clear sentence about what you want me to explain would be helpful. Its hard to be clear in a response when you are all over the place (and seriously, stop trying to talk stats, it is painfully obvious you don't know what you are doing). Whoever said I believe S&D exist?

I was just pointing out the faults in your reasoning.

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

Yes we have come far in our ability to find ancient history that still and in of itself does not hold any valid point to the existence or lack there of for a city without any context to it.

I'm not gonna disagree with squid and human tool usage example in that you are right there are logical conclusions people can reach.

There are also other examples one could use where there are competing theories that can both be valid.

The last bit of what you posted is much better than the rest of what you've been doing I'll give you that.

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?

And I'm all over the place cause I'm finding multiple things that are just off putting in your posts.

Originally posted by Astner
Only the ones that believe in Jesus will be cleansed of sin according to the Bible.

I offer an alternative to the Bible and to Hinduism, two religions that should have been made into mythologies like Greek and Norse EONS ago but have lived in evolving manmade ideals ever since.

How about instead of offering the garantee of some big-daddy rewarding us, we choose not to sin for postive progress as it pertains to humanity improving it's civilization.

Why not? I'll tell you why not, grown ass children too stupid to be able to make good choices unless they're afraid of the boogeyman. We men are wretched, superstitious, idiotic things.

Originally posted by peejayd
* you have been given a gift --- use it correctly, responsibly and righteously... that gift is not something like "oh, it's mine! i'll use it in any way i want to!" there are still rules and regulations... do not use your freedom as an opportunity to do evil things... God gave you a heart and a brain --- use it... Obviously there are consequences for your actions-- spending eternal damnation in Hell is THE consequence of living a sinned lifestyle.

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.

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.

...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

Originally posted by Dolos
I offer an alternative to the Bible and to Hinduism, two religions that should have been made into mythologies like Greek and Norse EONS ago but have lived in evolving manmade ideals ever since.

How about instead of offering the garantee of some big-daddy rewarding us, we choose not to sin for postive progress as it pertains to humanity improving it's civilization.

Why not? I'll tell you why not, grown ass children too stupid to be able to make good choices unless they're afraid of the boogeyman. We men are wretched, superstitious, idiotic things. Isn't that a bit pompous to assume anyone who believes in a higher power is automatically a grown ass child and hindering human development?

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.

Did you even read his posts?

Originally posted by Newjak
Isn't that a bit pompous to assume anyone who believes in The Odin Power is automatically a grown ass child Noppp.



Quit putting words into my mouth. I said human development should be all the cause a grown up needs to act proper.

A manly man would feel secure enough in accepting that he doesn't know anything about an elderly-chap who decided to create the universe just for the purpose of creating him and his family, and nurture them for divine bonding, and make good decisions in life regardless.

Most men and women aren't. Period.

It's just that simple.

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...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.

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 the punishment...

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.
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.

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 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... Wow, lots of cop-outs here.

"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... 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...

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.

So, are you saying the Bible is sort of like a huge comic crossover event to unify stories of all people. Like a sort of Crisis of Infinite Myths?

Originally posted by dadudemon
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. 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. :/

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 Bardock42
So, are you saying the Bible is sort of like a huge comic crossover event to unify stories of all people. Like a sort of Crisis of Infinite Myths?

hey, don't give away my ideas for the writers tourney

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 North
I teach statistics to undergraduates

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

EDIT:



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... You'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.

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 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 Symmetric Chaos
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?
Reread.