The validity of the Christian Bible take 2!!!

[Thriller]

the age of earth was just an examlpe use creation and big bang therosits instead if it clears it up for you

what does conservation of mass have to do with anything i just said?


all i said is there is no wining argument it's all distorted by the observers starting assumptions

What your saying doesn't make any sense.

Basically "no one is right, because no one can agree"

I'm using science (an open ended search for truth)
And he is using the bible( they think they know the truth already and nitpick info to support their ideas while ignoring the rest)

if i'm wrong plz correct me.

[Mister Sandman]

[spoiler]

the age of earth was just an examlpe use creation and big bang therosits instead if it clears it up for you

what does conservation of mass have to do with anything i just said?


all i said is there is no wining argument it's all distorted by the observers starting assumptions

What your saying doesn't make any sense.

Basically "no one is right, because no one can agree"

I'm using science (an open ended search for truth)
And he is using the bible( they think they know the truth already and nitpick info to support their ideas while ignoring the rest)

if i'm wrong plz correct me.

[/spoiler]

I will correct you. Im using science (an opened endued search for the truth) and Im using the bible to show that Real science does not contradict the bible.

IMO - If you have Theology and Science contradicting you either have Bad Scence, or Bad Theology. And since the bible is supported by science which you say is an open ended search for truth. Then The Bible must = Truth.


@Deaths_Rider - There is no contradiction between the Bible and the Big Bang theory. Since we were not at the beginning of time we must assume this, Everything had to start from some where. And through the law of thermodynamics it can be seen that matter was not and always was.

This is where you need a grip of science and logic.

Everything having a start - Not always being there. Leads to the law of conservation of mass, thus saying Matter cannot created or destroyed. > So logically, a being outside of time, science and the existence isnt even fully comprehensible. Would of had to create the universe.

[Thriller]

[spoiler]

the age of earth was just an examlpe use creation and big bang therosits instead if it clears it up for you

what does conservation of mass have to do with anything i just said?


all i said is there is no wining argument it's all distorted by the observers starting assumptions

What your saying doesn't make any sense.

Basically "no one is right, because no one can agree"

I'm using science (an open ended search for truth)
And he is using the bible( they think they know the truth already and nitpick info to support their ideas while ignoring the rest)

if i'm wrong plz correct me.

[/spoiler]

I will correct you. Im using science (an opened endued search for the truth) and Im using the bible to show that Real science does not contradict the bible.

IMO - If you have Theology and Science contradicting you either have Bad Scence, or Bad Theology. And since the bible is supported by science which you say is an open ended search for truth. Then The Bible must = Truth.


No pea brain, we already been over this

@Deaths_Rider - There is no contradiction between the Bible and the Big Bang theory. Since we were not at the beginning of time we must assume this, Everything had to start from some where. And through the law of thermodynamics it can be seen that matter was not and always was.

This is where you need a grip of science and logic.

Everything having a start - Not always being there. Leads to the law of conservation of mass, thus saying Matter cannot created or destroyed. > So logically, a being outside of time, science and the existence isnt even fully comprehensible. Would of had to create the universe.

In the above you are interpreting scripture to fit with scientific theory.

[Mister Sandman]

No, In above im just saying its logical to believe in God.

I didn't use any biblical scripture , just logic and science.

[Thriller]

Everything having a start - Not always being there. Leads to the law of conservation of mass, thus saying Matter cannot created or destroyed. > So logically, a being outside of time, science and the existence isnt even fully comprehensible. Would of had to create the universe.

This right here is logical fallacy, plz come back when you know what that means

[Mister Sandman]

Everything having a start - Not always being there. Leads to the law of conservation of mass, thus saying Matter cannot created or destroyed. > So logically, a being outside of time, science and the existence isnt even fully comprehensible. Would of had to create the universe.

This right here is logical fallacy, plz come back when you know what that means

If it is a logical fallacy please explain how it is. Dont make claims that, you cannot back up with real evidence.

[Thriller]

Somehow you tied in the conservation of mass to the proof of God. You went from A to D but you forgot to put, B and C. But you don't understand A so that's prolly why you can't provide B and C

[Deaths_Rider]

@Deaths_Rider - There is no contradiction between the Bible and the Big Bang theory. Since we were not at the beginning of time we must assume this, Everything had to start from some where. And through the law of thermodynamics it can be seen that matter was not and always was.

This is where you need a grip of science and logic.

Everything having a start - Not always being there. Leads to the law of conservation of mass, thus saying Matter cannot created or destroyed. > So logically, a being outside of time, science and the existence isnt even fully comprehensible. Would of had to create the universe.

[/color]

where i need a grip of science and logic you say i be a freaking sciencist at the end of the year when i finish my course a double major in physics and geo science the two fields this thread is trying to destroy with badly thought out "proofs" on each side.

conservation of mass yes it cantbe destroyed we think but it can be changed to energy it's harly a proof of anything.

if you actually took the time to read the bible which i think your basing your arguments on although i don't see how it says there was matter before God created the world. conservation of mass? don't think it comes into it

[Phoenix of Terra]

Was there a response there?

[Demeisen]

if the flood did occur (as you claim mr sandman) how did noah fit all the animals on his boat?

a wooden vessel big enough to hold every creature on earth isnt physically possible. there is no way the ark could have worked. how do you explain this?

if there was a flood, how did the humble cactus (and similar life) survive? every time i even slightly over water mine they die

most if not all the 'evidence' you posted is BS and can be explained by science. there isnt enough water to cover the entire earth anyways unless the water was a few feet deep.

take a look:


that little ball of blue could cover the earth eh? and i suppose a can of coke could cover london?

[Mister Sandman]

if the flood did occur (as you claim mr sandman) how did noah fit all the animals on his boat?

a wooden vessel big enough to hold every creature on earth isnt physically possible. there is no way the ark could have worked. how do you explain this?

if there was a flood, how did the humble cactus (and similar life) survive? every time i even slightly over water mine they die

most if not all the 'evidence' you posted is BS and can be explained by science. there isnt enough water to cover the entire earth anyways unless the water was a few feet deep.

take a look:


that little ball of blue could cover the earth eh? and i suppose a can of coke could cover london?

OMG Did I ever say that the flood was all over the earth?

Dum Dum dum, another assumption.

The question to answer when looking at biblical accounts is the question of whether we can verify in any way that the story told is true. In folklore, there is no attempt to verify the story that is told. There may be something that is explained in a tongue-in-cheek way in the story, but no documentation is attempted.

Documentation can come about in a myriad of ways. There can be archaeological evidence, anthropological evidence, eye witness accounts, evidence from the physical sciences, or evidence from the social sciences. In virtually all biblical stories, there is documentation. In the flood story, for example, there is supporting evidence from a wide range of sources. Virtually all cultures have a flood account and, in many cases, it is very close to the biblical narrative. Evidence of massive flooding exists in virtually all parts of the world--although no sediment layer is continuous. Dilution of large bodies of salt water and various flood features of a topographic nature also assist in supporting the probability that the event took place. Similar methods can be used in all biblical accounts.

These supportive evidences are not absolute proof. The events took place so long ago that there are always unanswered questions. The point is that the accounts do not qualify as folklore because they have enough documentation to make them at least legitimate as possibilities. If all this were not true, we would not have to have faith at all. The point about faith is that we are not called to blind faith. Blind faith can accept any folklore as valid. We are called to a reasoned faith bolstered and supported by a mountain of evidence. You can intelligently believe in the Bible as God's Word.


I now go to Noah and his ark.

Thanks to the knowledge of genes.

A biblical "kind" would have been a "genus" or possibly even a "family". Since the flood, each "kind" has undergone variation through both natural and artificial selection into various related species, but (not macro-evolution) into new kinds. Today a species is often defined as a group of animals who cannot interbreed with another group. However, many modern species can interbreed (dogs/wolves; lions/tigers (liger), whales/dolphins (wholphin), zebras/horses (zorse) ). In addition, the current inability of some modern species to interbreed within their genus or family is primarily due to structural variation (house cat & a tiger), and destructive DNA mutation. Remember that all mutations known involve a loss of genetic information, not an addition of information.
Therefore, back in Noah's time before the flood, the number of "kinds" was dramatically smaller than the number of species and even genera we see today.Another Link Here

[Demeisen]

The Flood:

the idea of the flood was derived from the myth of Uta-Napisthim and is also known from older myths of several cultures. it is not an exclusively christian myth.

Virtually all cultures have a flood account and, in many cases, it is very close to the biblical narrative. Evidence of massive flooding exists in virtually all parts of the world-

not surprising considering the fact that the biblical version of the flood came from many earlier myths. this is like to the tale of Jesus Christ in a way. many cultures have a similar figure to Jesus in their mythology. the resurrection and other events are often contained in these myths, indicating that they are the source of many happenings attributed to him. note that many of these similar cultural myths pre-date the bible, Jesus, and christianity.

the flood would be yet another case of God committing mass murder. God decides he doesnt like what some humans do so he kills every last one with the exception of Noah and his family? he must have drowned a huge number of innocent men, women and children.
not to mention all the animals which would have died. surely they were blameless yet they would have perished along with everything else not on the ark. hardly the sign of a fair and loving God. . .

i also find it funny how christianity has such a high opinion of itself to think human sin caused events on the scale of global disasters. its presumptuous egocentricity to think these events must have a human connection.
this reminds me of hurricane Katrina. a well-known christian named Pat Robertson (a former presidential candidate) was said to have claimed it was punishment because a lesbian comedian lived in New Orleans. this same man also warned Florida not to fly gay pride flags 'in God's face' as they were 'in the way of some serious hurricanes.' its stupidity at its worst. he went on to warn of impending disaster in Dover, Pennsylvania when their school board voted not to teach fundamentalist christian ideas to their children.

OMG Did I ever say that the flood was all over the earth?

Dum Dum dum, another assumption.

you trip yourself again. if the flood were not all over the earth, humans and animals would surely have survived without the need of an ark. so which is it? was the entire world flooded (which is not possible) or was a portion flooded (as your above quote states) meaning the ark was unnecessary?


i believe to any reasonable measure myself, and other sensible posters, have proven your flood argument false and groundless.



shall we move on to the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah? its an interesting tale of incest, murder by God, drunkenness and the low respect/value accorded to women in the bible.
is Lot's offering to trade his daughters virginity to avoid the two angels being sodomized a christian act i wonder? if you wish there are biblical quotes i can give to back this paragraph? you do like your bible quotes and always trust and believe them so i assume you want to see the biblical proof. . .

[n3M351s]

The Flood:

the idea of the flood was derived from the myth of Uta-Napisthim and is also known from older myths of several cultures. it is not an exclusively christian myth.

Virtually all cultures have a flood account and, in many cases, it is very close to the biblical narrative. Evidence of massive flooding exists in virtually all parts of the world-

not surprising considering the fact that the biblical version of the flood came from many earlier myths. Your getting a little ahead of yourself there. Just because an "older myth" told of a flood doesn't mean that the Great Flood never happened. this is like to the tale of Jesus Christ in a way. many cultures have a similar figure to Jesus in their mythology. Please share. the resurrection and other events are often contained in these myths, indicating that they are the source of many happenings attributed to him. LoL, seriously man. Just because "other myths" supposedly had similar happenings to that of Jesus means absolutely nothing. note that many of these similar cultural myths pre-date the bible, Jesus, and christianity. Again, that has no relevance whatsoever.

the flood would be yet another case of God committing mass murder. Murder is one human killing another. I would explain it more as purging the world of wickedness. God decides he doesnt like what some humans "doesn't like" doesn't fit into this at all do so he kills every last one with the exception of Noah and his family? Yep you got it. he must have drowned a huge number of innocent men, women and children. Mankind was wicked with the exception of the righteous Noah and his family.
not to mention all the animals which would have died. surely they were blameless yet they would have perished along with everything else not on the ark. hardly the sign of a fair and loving God. . . God is fair and loving but also just and righteous. The actions of God do not need to be justified, you cannot place yourself as judge over God. The concept of fairness and God is one convoluted by people’s flawed analogy of His fairness to our own concept of fairness. Therein lies my point: "our own concept of fairness." Everyone has their own views of fairness. Fairness is subjective, but being right is governed by rules. Fairness is a nebulous concept defined by one's feelings and experiences, whereas righteousness is defined by the absolute. By this, God IS the rules that govern the universe. He cannot work against Himself; and, since He's absolute, relativistic concepts of fairness are irrelevant. How can anyone on this planet think that any of us can understand even the faintest idea of God’s work with our feeble intelligences when compared to the mind of God?

i also find it funny how christianity has such a high opinion of itself to think human sin caused events on the scale of global disasters. Its got nothing to do with Christianity's opinion of itself its presumptuous egocentricity to think these events must have a human connection. But would it not be both presumptuous and egocentric to think that they weren't if they in fact were?
this reminds me of hurricane Katrina. a well-known christian named Pat Robertson (a former presidential candidate) was said to have claimed it was punishment because a lesbian comedian lived in New Orleans. this same man also warned Florida not to fly gay pride flags 'in God's face' as they were 'in the way of some serious hurricanes.' its stupidity at its worst. he went on to warn of impending disaster in Dover, Pennsylvania when their school board voted not to teach fundamentalist christian ideas to their children. That's nice, thanks for sharing that bit of irrelevant information.

OMG Did I ever say that the flood was all over the earth?

Dum Dum dum, another assumption.

you trip yourself again. if the flood were not all over the earth, humans and animals would surely have survived without the need of an ark. so which is it? was the entire world flooded (which is not possible) or was a portion flooded (as your above quote states) meaning the ark was unnecessary? I believe the whole world was flooded. It is not an impossible feat. God has ultimate power over the Earth.

i believe to any reasonable measure myself, and other sensible posters, have proven your flood argument false and groundless. If you go back and have a look Sandman posted lots of evidence that supported the flood and no one proved that evidence false or groundless. (Unless you count Thrillers "lol" as his dismissed it due to not being able to counter the evidence)

[Demeisen]

The Flood:

the idea of the flood was derived from the myth of Uta-Napisthim and is also known from older myths of several cultures. it is not an exclusively christian myth.

Virtually all cultures have a flood account and, in many cases, it is very close to the biblical narrative. Evidence of massive flooding exists in virtually all parts of the world-

not surprising considering the fact that the biblical version of the flood came from many earlier myths. Your getting a little ahead of yourself there. Just because an "older myth" told of a flood doesn't mean that the Great Flood never happened. it does show how christianity contains myths from earlier times though. that is important. this is like to the tale of Jesus Christ in a way. many cultures have a similar figure to Jesus in their mythology. Please share. perseus and dionysus in greek mythology, mithra, a persian deity and horus in egyption were all 'born of virgins.' there are other common themes chance cannot properly explain. the resurrection and other events are often contained in these myths, indicating that they are the source of many happenings attributed to him. LoL, seriously man. Just because "other myths" supposedly had similar happenings to that of Jesus means absolutely nothing. . note that many of these similar cultural myths pre-date the bible, Jesus, and christianity. Again, that has no relevance whatsoever. sigh. it shows the christian tale of jesus wasnt original

the flood would be yet another case of God committing mass murder. Murder is one human killing another. I would explain it more as purging the world of wickedness. it seems you know nothing of the bible. murder, in the biblical context, is the killing of one jew by another jew. the killing of gentiles wasnt considered murder. and thinking every person hypothetically killed by this mythical flood was wicked is stupid to say the least. and how can all the animals killed be wicked?. God decides he doesnt like what some humans "doesn't like" doesn't fit into this at all do so he kills every last one with the exception of Noah and his family? Yep you got it. he must have drowned a huge number of innocent men, women and children. Mankind was wicked with the exception of the righteous Noah and his family. that is plain silly mate. every human would not have been deserving of death. and why couldnt an all powerful God use a more targeted method? is it beyond God to, for example, have every 'wicked' human die of a heart attack instead of inflicting a catastrophe on the earth?
not to mention all the animals which would have died. surely they were blameless yet they would have perished along with everything else not on the ark. hardly the sign of a fair and loving God. . . God is fair and loving but also just and righteous. The actions of God do not need to be justified, you cannot place yourself as judge over God. The concept of fairness and God is one convoluted by people’s flawed analogy of His fairness to our own concept of fairness. Therein lies my point: "our own concept of fairness." Everyone has their own views of fairness. Fairness is subjective, but being right is governed by rules. Fairness is a nebulous concept defined by one's feelings and experiences, whereas righteousness is defined by the absolute. By this, God IS the rules that govern the universe. He cannot work against Himself; and, since He's absolute, relativistic concepts of fairness are irrelevant. How can anyone on this planet think that any of us can understand even the faintest idea of God’s work with our feeble intelligences when compared to the mind of God?

if getting people to kill their innocent children (such as Jephthah had to. not forgetting the cruel 'joke' played by God on Abraham) is 'just and righteous' then you need to check your definitions. . .

i can judge God's portrayal in the bible. and if judged he would be guilty (using biblical information) of terrible deeds beyond imagination.

you mention the word 'fair' a lot. would you say its fair for an old man to hand over his daughter and his levite priest's concubine to a mob in order to save his levite guest from being sodomized? hand them over for an entire night of rape and abuse which killed the concubine? and that resulted in revenge leading to the death of 60,000 men? the old mans action was justified and said to be correct in the bible. if that is the biblical idea of just and fair i would the bible evil. there is no doubt that it is an evil act being praised. the bible teaches skewed, evil and misogynistic morals by any normal persons definition if they but look for themselves. (Judges 19: 23-4) read it yourself

you say 'He cannot work against Himself.' Jesus was God in a way. Jesus was killed. by your reasoning God controls everything and therefore he killed himself. he worked against himself.

anyone on this planet can judge evil deeds, regardless of whether they are committed by God or not. religious fundamentalists would curb this freedom if they could, im sure.


i also find it funny how christianity has such a high opinion of itself to think human sin caused events on the scale of global disasters. Its got nothing to do with Christianity's opinion of itself its presumptuous egocentricity to think these events must have a human connection. But would it not be both presumptuous and egocentric to think that they weren't if they in fact were? no
this reminds me of hurricane Katrina. a well-known christian named Pat Robertson (a former presidential candidate) was said to have claimed it was punishment because a lesbian comedian lived in New Orleans. this same man also warned Florida not to fly gay pride flags 'in God's face' as they were 'in the way of some serious hurricanes.' its stupidity at its worst. he went on to warn of impending disaster in Dover, Pennsylvania when their school board voted not to teach fundamentalist christian ideas to their children. That's nice, thanks for sharing that bit of irrelevant information.
do you not see a connection with the flood points? shall i write it again in crayon, scan it, then post the picture? it shows christianitys love of blaming natural disasters on human sin. the flood was apparently caused by human sin. the recent examples above are groundless and have no basis. i argue the flood was equally ridiculous.

OMG Did I ever say that the flood was all over the earth?

Dum Dum dum, another assumption.

you trip yourself again. if the flood were not all over the earth, humans and animals would surely have survived without the need of an ark. so which is it? was the entire world flooded (which is not possible) or was a portion flooded (as your above quote states) meaning the ark was unnecessary? I believe the whole world was flooded. It is not an impossible feat. God has ultimate power over the Earth.
did you look at the picture i posted showing the amount of water compared to the earths size. the water could not have flooded the earth. are you saying God used his magic to make an insane amount of water vanish? if God could do that, why not just kill all 'wicked' humans by will alone and save noah some trouble

i believe to any reasonable measure myself, and other sensible posters, have proven your flood argument false and groundless. If you go back and have a look Sandman posted lots of evidence that supported the flood and no one proved that evidence false or groundless. (Unless you count Thrillers "lol" as his dismissed it due to not being able to counter the evidence)

none of the 'evidence' was credible. its all maybe, could haves etc. none of it stands up. it was BS plain and simply. it was actually so preposterous that i was shocked while i was laughing. thriller's lol was due to the fact that the 'evidence' is laughable by the way. we have proven ourselves scientifically. now i am using your ammunition; the bible. and still you fail eh?

[n3M351s]

The Flood:

the idea of the flood was derived from the myth of Uta-Napisthim and is also known from older myths of several cultures. it is not an exclusively christian myth.

Virtually all cultures have a flood account and, in many cases, it is very close to the biblical narrative. Evidence of massive flooding exists in virtually all parts of the world-

not surprising considering the fact that the biblical version of the flood came from many earlier myths. Your getting a little ahead of yourself there. Just because an "older myth" told of a flood doesn't mean that the Great Flood never happened. it does show how christianity contains myths from earlier times though. that is important. That is an assumption. Because two different happenings played out in a similar/the same way does not mean that one copied the other. this is like to the tale of Jesus Christ in a way. many cultures have a similar figure to Jesus in their mythology. Please share. perseus and dionysus in greek mythology, mithra, a persian deity and horus in egyption were all 'born of virgins.' there are other common themes chance cannot properly explain. Again, similar characters/happenings in these myths mean nothing. Its quite narrow to say that because they all contain 'being born of a virgin' means that they all originated from one myth/story. the resurrection and other events are often contained in these myths, indicating that they are the source of many happenings attributed to him. LoL, seriously man. Just because "other myths" supposedly had similar happenings to that of Jesus means absolutely nothing. . note that many of these similar cultural myths pre-date the bible, Jesus, and christianity. Again, that has no relevance whatsoever. The prophecies of Jeremiah pre-date some of "these similar cultural myths". sigh. it shows the christian tale of jesus wasnt original Who are you to judge what is and isn't original? I've said this many times over, because similarities exist with these "cultural myths that pre-date the bible" and the Bible it means nothing. That's like saying World War II was in fact just a made up story of World War I. (Sorry bad example there lol)

the flood would be yet another case of God committing mass murder. Murder is one human killing another. I would explain it more as purging the world of wickedness. it seems you know nothing of the bible. murder, in the biblical context, is the killing of one jew by another jew. the killing of gentiles wasnt considered murder. You're contradicted yourself with "God committing mass murder" then didn't you. FYI I wasn't taking the definition of 'murder' in a Biblical context, I was just correcting you on how you said "God committed mass murder" when God cannot murder people. and thinking every person hypothetically killed by this mythical flood was wicked is stupid to say the least. Is it? Its not hard to be unrighteous. and how can all the animals killed be wicked? Who said the animals were wicked?At anty case their animals.. they have no soul. God decides he doesnt like what some humans "doesn't like" doesn't fit into this at all do so he kills every last one with the exception of Noah and his family? Yep you got it. he must have drowned a huge number of innocent men, women and children. Mankind was wicked with the exception of the righteous Noah and his family. that is plain silly mate. every human would not have been deserving of death. Again, who are we to judge. I wasn't there so can't know.and why couldnt an all powerful God use a more targeted method? is it beyond God to, for example, have every 'wicked' human die of a heart attack instead of inflicting a catastrophe on the earth? He could have, but why not? Only problem would have been all the disease and bodies, a flood doesn't have that problem.
not to mention all the animals which would have died. surely they were blameless yet they would have perished along with everything else not on the ark. hardly the sign of a fair and loving God. . . God is fair and loving but also just and righteous. The actions of God do not need to be justified, you cannot place yourself as judge over God. The concept of fairness and God is one convoluted by people’s flawed analogy of His fairness to our own concept of fairness. Therein lies my point: "our own concept of fairness." Everyone has their own views of fairness. Fairness is subjective, but being right is governed by rules. Fairness is a nebulous concept defined by one's feelings and experiences, whereas righteousness is defined by the absolute. By this, God IS the rules that govern the universe. He cannot work against Himself; and, since He's absolute, relativistic concepts of fairness are irrelevant. How can anyone on this planet think that any of us can understand even the faintest idea of God’s work with our feeble intelligences when compared to the mind of God?

if getting people to kill their innocent children (such as Jephthah had to. not forgetting the cruel 'joke' played by God on Abraham) is 'just and righteous' then you need to check your definitions. . .
[spoiler]A judge of Israel, Jephthah, had made a foolish vow to the Lord that if God gave him victory in battle, he would sacrifice whatever first came out of his door when he came home (Judges 11:30-31). Jephthah’s daughter was the first thing to come of out his door when he came home (Judges 11:34). The Bible never specifically tells us whether Jephthah actually sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering. Judges 11:39 seems to indicate that he did, "he did to her as he had vowed." However, since his daughter was mourning the fact that she would never marry instead of mourning that she was about to die (Judges 11:37-37), possibly indicates that Jephthah gave her to the tabernacle as a servant instead of sacrificing her.

Whatever the case, God had specifically forbidden offering human sacrifices, so God never would have wanted Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter (Leviticus 20:1-5). Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5, and 32:35 clearly indicate that the idea of human sacrifice has "never even entered God's mind." Jephthah serves as an example for us, not to make foolish vows or oaths.[/spoiler]God did not play a 'joke' on Abraham. It was an ultimate test of his loyalty to God. This test was also in order so that the prophecy might be fulfilled. Many people compare Abraham to God and Issac to Jesus in that God sacrificed his son to die on the cross as a substitute for humanity. "Abraham's willingness to give up his own son Isaac is seen, in this view, as foreshadowing the willingness of God the Father to sacrifice his Son; also contrasted is Isaac's submission in the whole ordeal with Christ's, the two choosing to lay down their own lives in order for the will of God to be accomplished, as no struggle is mentioned in the Genesis account. Indeed, both stories portray the participants carrying the wood for their own sacrifice up a mountain." Because of Abraham's loyalty he became the father of the people of Israel.

i can judge God's portrayal in the bible. and if judged he would be guilty (using biblical information) of terrible deeds beyond imagination. We, as mortal human beings, cannot judge God. God IS the rules that govern the universe. He cannot work against Himself; and, since He's absolute, relativistic concepts are irrelevant.

you mention the word 'fair' a lot. Indeed, in reply to you questioned the fairness of God somewhere above. would you say its fair for an old man to hand over his daughter and his levite priest's concubine to a mob in order to save his levite guest from being sodomized? hand them over for an entire night of rape and abuse which killed the concubine? and that resulted in revenge leading to the death of 60,000 men? the old mans action was justified and said to be correct in the bible. if that is the biblical idea of just and fair i would the bible evil. there is no doubt that it is an evil act being praised. the bible teaches skewed, evil and misogynistic morals by any normal persons definition if they but look for themselves. (Judges 19: 23-4) read it yourself Consider this:[spoiler]Mass-murderer and rapist Ted Bundy professed his belief in Christ before he was executed – if he indeed came to Christ, then he’s in Heaven. Is that fair?

Or, this: Tom Smith, down the street, always helped his neighbors, donated to charity consistently, fed the poor, helped old ladies cross the street, and was a generally “good” guy before he died. However, he was an atheist – is he in Heaven? No. Is this fair?

God’s "fairness" is different from the human sense of fairness -- that is something I can state unequivocally. In human terms, if someone commits a crime, then it is only fair for that person to be punished for that crime. Also, if a person works hard enough, it is only fair that he or she gets a good grade. And, if a person treats others well, it is only fair that he or she get treated well.

Moreover, if God were truly "fair", then was it fair that God sent His one and only Son to be killed for our transgressions? Was it fair that Christ was crucified alongside two thieves? Was it fair that Christ was slated for execution in lieu of the murderer Barabas?… [/spoiler] you say 'He cannot work against Himself.' Jesus was God in a way. Jesus was killed. by your reasoning God controls everything and therefore he killed himself. he worked against himself. You take me out of context. FYI; God exists as three persons (The Holy Trinity), consisting of God the Father, God the Son (incarnate as Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit, each of them having the one identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.

anyone on this planet can judge evil deeds, regardless of whether they are committed by God or not. religious fundamentalists would curb this freedom if they could, im sure. But if you're not God how can you know, with an absolute truth, that they're evil?

i also find it funny how christianity has such a high opinion of itself to think human sin caused events on the scale of global disasters. Its got nothing to do with Christianity's opinion of itself its presumptuous egocentricity to think these events must have a human connection. But would it not be both presumptuous and egocentric to think that they weren't if they in fact were? no But it is. The actions of man is what prompted God to enact these events.
this reminds me of hurricane Katrina. a well-known christian named Pat Robertson (a former presidential candidate) was said to have claimed it was punishment because a lesbian comedian lived in New Orleans. this same man also warned Florida not to fly gay pride flags 'in God's face' as they were 'in the way of some serious hurricanes.' its stupidity at its worst. he went on to warn of impending disaster in Dover, Pennsylvania when their school board voted not to teach fundamentalist christian ideas to their children. That's nice, thanks for sharing that bit of irrelevant information.
do you not see a connection with the flood points? shall i write it again in crayon, scan it, then post the picture? Please do, you like your crayons. it shows christianitys love of blaming natural disasters on human sin. Umm.. the flood was apparently caused by human sin. Correct. the recent examples above are groundless and have no basis. Completely agree with you. i argue the flood was equally ridiculous. This Pat Robertson sounds like a crackpot to me. Just because he's says he's a Christian doesn't mean that all Christians believe the same thing as him or support his ideas.

OMG Did I ever say that the flood was all over the earth?

Dum Dum dum, another assumption.

you trip yourself again. if the flood were not all over the earth, humans and animals would surely have survived without the need of an ark. so which is it? was the entire world flooded (which is not possible) or was a portion flooded (as your above quote states) meaning the ark was unnecessary? I believe the whole world was flooded. It is not an impossible feat. God has ultimate power over the Earth.
did you look at the picture i posted showing the amount of water compared to the earths size. Yep, irrelevancy at its best. the water could not have flooded the earth. are you saying God used his magic to make an insane amount of water vanish? Something like that. if God could do that, why not just kill all 'wicked' humans by will alone and save noah some trouble Already answered this somewhere.

i believe to any reasonable measure myself, and other sensible posters, have proven your flood argument false and groundless. If you go back and have a look Sandman posted lots of evidence that supported the flood and no one proved that evidence false or groundless. (Unless you count Thrillers "lol" as his dismissed it due to not being able to counter the evidence)

none of the 'evidence' was credible. its all maybe, could haves etc. none of it stands up. Please go through each piece of evidence and prove them wrong. it was BS plain and simply. it was actually so preposterous that i was shocked while i was laughing. thriller's lol was due to the fact that the 'evidence' is laughable by the way. we have proven ourselves scientifically. You have not. Your scientific conclusions are as open ended as you say the Bible is. They cannot be proven. How can anyone be sure of anything if no one was there at the time to witness it when it occurred? All your can prove is you know how to make assumptions and estimations. now i am using your ammunition; the bible. and still you fail eh? Negative.

Though I may not agree with you, I'm actually impressed with your posting LiQuiD, you've really stepped it up a notch... besides your last statement.