StarGateWars Forums

That is an assumption. Because two different happenings played out in a similar/the same way does not mean that one copied the other

The prophecies of Jeremiah pre-date some of "these similar cultural myths"

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)

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.

Its not hard to be unrighteous.

Who said the animals were wicked?At anty case their animals.. they have no soul

He could have, but why not? Only problem would have been all the disease and bodies, a flood doesn't have that problem

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.

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.

God’s "fairness" is different from the human sense of fairness -- that is something I can state unequivocally.

But if you're not God how can you know, with an absolute truth, that they're evil?

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.

Yep, irrelevancy at its best.

Please go through each piece of evidence and prove them wrong

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.

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.

Spyridon wrote:For me, we as humans create religion to explain natural phenomena and other mysteries so we can feel better. Particularly concerning the after life as man's nature is survival and would fear being nothing after death.
very true
Mind you, the Bible is nothing more then a retelling of more ancient civilizations. I just listen to the lesson behind the stories.

LiQuiD wrote:n3M351s i think that multicolour quote is a bit too complicated to use again without someone having a fit

Indeed.

That is an assumption. Because two different happenings played out in a similar/the same way does not mean that one copied the other

but its a very good indication. with the level of similarity between christian myths and earlier ones its safe to assume they are related. You can say that but it can't really ever be proven can it.

The prophecies of Jeremiah pre-date some of "these similar cultural myths"

and when were these prophecies written down? after earlier myths. 628 BC > That predates some of the myths you suggested.

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)

if i see die hard 2 i cant help thinking some parts build on material from die hard 1. its sensible to conclude things with many (strong) similarities are related. To some degree yes, but not in every case.

Its not hard to be unrighteous.

of course its not. if it were easy what control would the church have on peoples lives? how would they make people feel guilty and low for doing (often natural) human things? The act of being righteous or unrighteous is this context is unrelated to the Church.

Who said the animals were wicked?At any case their animals.. they have no soul

if the animals were killed in Gods purge of wickedness, would that not mean they were wicked? Nope. or perhaps God made a mistake. Nope again. or perhaps there was no mistake because there was no flood. if the animals have no soul perhaps they cannot be wicked. True. that means God created all those innocent creatures only to slaughter them knowing their deaths served no purpose whatsoever Yep. (other than to sate his desire for blood).
an all powerful God could have spared those animals yet did not. Yep he could have though it would have been impractical. why would a supposedly compassionate and loving God do that? Impracticability perhaps? I don't really see any relevance in debating over this.

He could have, but why not? Only problem would have been all the disease and bodies, a flood doesn't have that problem

there is little risk of disease from corpses. the main risk is from diseases that the person had while alive and are not a result of putrefaction. basically the dead bodies posed a risk comparable to that of living person. the risk of disease would be (almost entirely) gone in days anyway.
if God killed all humans, the animals would have eaten a few of the dead and the rest would have decomposed. simpler than a global flood dont you think? Perhaps. A flood would have purged the Earth all the bodies and every trace of civilization making good for a fresh beginning.

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.

so God seriously wanted to cause pain and suffering to this man and his child. think of the psychological damage to the child. thats an evil thing to put them both through, if it happened Isaac was in fact a grown man, he could easily have resisted if he wanted too.
and you make no mention of Jephthah. that particular episode cant be justified can it. its funny how i was never taught about it in church or school. convenient not having to make up an excuse for it probably. That extract I quoted answered your question fully. Maybe you missed it, here it is again for your convenience.

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.

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.

if person A kills thousands of children in egypt, then orders the deaths of untold thousands more people, person A would be guilty mass genocide. In accordance with the above information Person A would indeed be guilty mass genocide.

what example is it to follow when God ends the lives of so many people? Its not an example so to speak. who would aspire to live a life by his moral standards but evil killers?

God’s "fairness" is different from the human sense of fairness -- that is something I can state unequivocally.

yes, God is unfair. you cant say his fairness is different. its like shooting someone then saying you didnt because your definition of a gun differs from that of other people. either way the person is shot. either way, God isnt fair. but to be honest his being unfair pales in comparison to his evil biblical rampages. Defining what is fair and what is evil is relative.

But if you're not God how can you know, with an absolute truth, that they're evil?

it doesnt take an IQ of 350 to work out killing thousands of innocent children is an evil thing. Killing of thousands of innocent children is 'evil', however you can't put that down to a direct action of God.

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.

1> you would be surprised how many people believe stupid religious ideas such as his
2> does he sound like a crackpot for suggesting human sin is/will be responsible for natural disasters? you know. . . like the flood . . . In this day and age yes.

Yep, irrelevancy at its best.

if science is totally irrelevant. that picture is based on science and shows the amount of water on earth. the amount shown cannot have covered the earth. that can be seen simply by looking, with the use of eyes. isnt hard to comprehend mate If you could comprehend God you might be able to comprehend a flood that could cover the earth. Its possible for God to work outside of science as we know it.

Please go through each piece of evidence and prove them wrong

if someone gave me a list of 101 ways a bumble could eat an elephant, i wouldnt need to individually dismiss them. its the same with his 'evidence.' Hahaha. This evidence isn't as easily dismissed. I take it you can't be stuffed.

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.

true science does not penetrate the religious shield you and your fellow creationist fanatics have erected. you were not there when the flood happened. how does anyone know God created the world. he hadnt baked any humans up yet to witness his smiting. by your logic how can you personally know any of it happened? answer; you cant. I knew you were gonna come back on what I said like that. Evolution, the Big Bang and whatever else cannot be proven. Its equally true what you said; I wasn't there when the Earth was flooded and no one was around to witness Creation. This is where Faith and Religion come into the picture. Humans know that God created the world as he has revealed himself and talked to many people over the ages, this in a more literal sense than a personal relationship with God. I choose to believe in God and the word of the Bible, that is my personal decision. I have seen God work through people and seen others turn their lives around through coming to know him. I know God is real, that is my belief. You can choose to believe in whatever you want - Evolution or whatever else it may be, that is your belief. You may think I've got it all wrong but that's exactly the same way I see your beliefs.
options:
1) you are right and as 'no one was there at the time to witness' the biblical events (ie creation) happen, they didnt happen and therefore you are wrong. Correct; no one was there at Creation however there were people around to witness the other Biblical events. That's a pretty ignorant assumption you got there.
2) you are wrong. as no one is needed to witness an event to know it happened, they could have happened. which would make you 'right.' that would also make science right. I don't deny that no one needs to be witness to an event to know that it happened, nor did I say science was wrong.
do you see your error now? Nope...

n3M351s wrote:

LiQuiD wrote:n3M351s i think that multicolour quote is a bit too complicated to use again without someone having a fit

Indeed.

That is an assumption. Because two different happenings played out in a similar/the same way does not mean that one copied the other

but its a very good indication. with the level of similarity between christian myths and earlier ones its safe to assume they are related. You can say that but it can't really ever be proven can it.
so you would say i cant prove die hard 2 is related to die hard 1? if there are enough similarities, they are proof enough in most cases.

The prophecies of Jeremiah pre-date some of "these similar cultural myths"

and when were these prophecies written down? after earlier myths. 628 BC > That predates some of the myths you suggested.
some maybe, but not all. the other (earlier) myths influenced the later christian beliefs. the exception (Jeremiah prophecies) proves the rule.

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)

if i see die hard 2 i cant help thinking some parts build on material from die hard 1. its sensible to conclude things with many (strong) similarities are related. To some degree yes, but not in every case.
relation can be assumed in every case where there are many strong similarities.

Its not hard to be unrighteous.

of course its not. if it were easy what control would the church have on peoples lives? how would they make people feel guilty and low for doing (often natural) human things? The act of being righteous or unrighteous is this context is unrelated to the Church.

Who said the animals were wicked?At any case their animals.. they have no soul

if the animals were killed in Gods purge of wickedness, would that not mean they were wicked? Nope. then why kill them? theres no reason. it is the pointless killing of earths animals. perhaps noah screened the creatures on his ark to make sure they were christian and not wicked? or perhaps God made a mistake. Nope again. or perhaps there was no mistake because there was no flood. if the animals have no soul perhaps they cannot be wicked. True. that means God created all those innocent creatures only to slaughter them knowing their deaths served no purpose whatsoever Yep. (other than to sate his desire for blood).
an all powerful God could have spared those animals yet did not. Yep he could have though it would have been impractical. to God there is no such thing as impractical as he is all powerful. therefore he must have wanted to kill the blameless animals. why would a supposedly compassionate and loving God do that? Impracticability perhaps? I don't really see any relevance in debating over this.
translation: i have no basis from which to argue because sir liquid is correct God unnecessarily killed countless animals according to the bible. unnecessary killing is worth thinking about in my view

He could have, but why not? Only problem would have been all the disease and bodies, a flood doesn't have that problem

there is little risk of disease from corpses. the main risk is from diseases that the person had while alive and are not a result of putrefaction. basically the dead bodies posed a risk comparable to that of living person. the risk of disease would be (almost entirely) gone in days anyway.
if God killed all humans, the animals would have eaten a few of the dead and the rest would have decomposed. simpler than a global flood dont you think? Perhaps. A flood would have purged the Earth all the bodies and every trace of civilization making good for a fresh beginning.
thats an impossibility. a flood could not rid the world of all signs of civilisation. therefore the flood is further proven pointless for anything other than the mass extinction of life.

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.

so God seriously wanted to cause pain and suffering to this man and his child. think of the psychological damage to the child. thats an evil thing to put them both through, if it happened Isaac was in fact a grown man, he could easily have resisted if he wanted too. please state the part of the bible of where its written he was a grown man. i may be wrong (see, i can admit that thanks to my religious freedom) but i thought Isaac was a child. also, i believe Isaac was restrained when the Fairy Angel appeared.
on a related subject, do you know Abraham's personal history? how he passed his wife off as his sister so she could join the Pharaoh's harem. all so he could live in luxury. by the way, you may notice how that story is remarkably similar to another where Abraham pulls the same trick with Abimelech, king of Gerar. note how both of the tricked rulers expressed their anger in nearly identical terms. a sign of accidental repetition and textual unreliability maybe?
Pharaoah (Genesis 12: 18-19)
King of Gerar (Genesis 20: 2-5)

and you make no mention of Jephthah. that particular episode cant be justified can it. its funny how i was never taught about it in church or school. convenient not having to make up an excuse for it probably. That extract I quoted answered your question fully. Maybe you missed it, here it is again for your convenience.
that i did.

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.

well, Jephthah did get his victory over the Ammonites with 'a very great slaughter' (made possible by God) and he kept his promise. after her two month stay in the mountains she was burnt as an offering. you say how the relevant part 'possibly indicates.' following the text, we can see events happened as i had stated. the possibility argument is made up and is groundless. if it were fact you would surely have mentioned it. im using the bible to prove my points. im using what is clearly written. you are using biased guesses. its not the foundation of a strong counter-argument is it?

you say God had forbidden human scarifice and it 'never entered God's mind.' why then did he ask on at least two occasions for human sacrifice as can be seen above. one time the sacrifice was actually carried out. Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5, and 32:35 would apparently contradict other parts of the bible would it not? that fact cannot be avoided.

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.

if person A kills thousands of children in egypt, then orders the deaths of untold thousands more people, person A would be guilty mass genocide. In accordance with the above information Person A would indeed be guilty mass genocide.
and if i were to replace 'person A' with 'God?'

what example is it to follow when God ends the lives of so many people? Its not an example so to speak. who would aspire to live a life by his moral standards but evil killers?
who would worship a Deity who sets a bad example though?

God’s "fairness" is different from the human sense of fairness -- that is something I can state unequivocally.

yes, God is unfair. you cant say his fairness is different. its like shooting someone then saying you didnt because your definition of a gun differs from that of other people. either way the person is shot. either way, God isnt fair. but to be honest his being unfair pales in comparison to his evil biblical rampages. Defining what is fair and what is evil is relative.
no, its relatively easy. genocide = evil. cute fluffy rabbits = not evil. giving someone an impartial trial = fair. killing thousands for the crimes of some = unfair. its quite simple really.

But if you're not God how can you know, with an absolute truth, that they're evil?

it doesnt take an IQ of 350 to work out killing thousands of innocent children is an evil thing. Killing of thousands of innocent children is 'evil', however you can't put that down to a direct action of God.
did someone else order the killing of thousands of innocent children then?

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.

1> you would be surprised how many people believe stupid religious ideas such as his
2> does he sound like a crackpot for suggesting human sin is/will be responsible for natural disasters? you know. . . like the flood . . . In this day and age yes.
what about 50 years ago or a thousand years ago? why does time effect God's judgement when he is apparently 'outside of time'? if it doesnt happen now its safe to say it didnt happen then. God is eternal so the human passage of time wouldnt change how he punishes people. maybe you say it doesnt happen 'In this day and age' because if it happened now we would explain it scientifically.

Yep, irrelevancy at its best.

if science is totally irrelevant. that picture is based on science and shows the amount of water on earth. the amount shown cannot have covered the earth. that can be seen simply by looking, with the use of eyes. isnt hard to comprehend mate If you could comprehend God you might be able to comprehend a flood that could cover the earth. Its possible for God to work outside of science as we know it.
you claim you comprehend the flood, yet you cannot comprehend an infinite God. comprehending God isnt a requirment of sensible thought dude

Please go through each piece of evidence and prove them wrong

if someone gave me a list of 101 ways a bumble could eat an elephant, i wouldnt need to individually dismiss them. its the same with his 'evidence.' Hahaha. This evidence isn't as easily dismissed. I take it you can't be stuffed.
i notice how you're latching on to this point. maybe you think its an anchor for your biblical delusions beliefs, the rest of which have been swept aside. anyone who looks at his points will see they have no substance. i personally disproved them while reading them. thats how simple, transparent, and wrong they were. besides, if i use science to disprove his 'evidence' you will not accept what i post. you will dismiss it and flood this debate with material from creationist scientific websites. hence my use of the bible (and a dash of common sense) as you cannot simply deny the obvious conclusions i draw

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.

true science does not penetrate the religious shield you and your fellow creationist fanatics have erected. you were not there when the flood happened. how does anyone know God created the world. he hadnt baked any humans up yet to witness his smiting. by your logic how can you personally know any of it happened? answer; you cant. I knew you were gonna come back on what I said like that. Evolution, the Big Bang and whatever else cannot be proven. Its equally true what you said; I wasn't there when the Earth was flooded and no one was around to witness Creation. This is where Faith and Religion come into the picture. Humans know that God created the world as he has revealed himself and talked to many people over the ages, this in a more literal sense than a personal relationship with God. I choose to believe in God and the word of the Bible, that is my personal decision. I have seen God work through people and seen others turn their lives around through coming to know him. I know God is real, that is my belief. You can choose to believe in whatever you want - Evolution or whatever else it may be, that is your belief. You may think I've got it all wrong but that's exactly the same way I see your beliefs.
Evolution is fact but ill not delve into that pit of creationist denial. the big bang theory? if i go into my garage and see red all over the walls i can say what occured. i dont need to be there and see the paint tin explode to know it happened. it is something every human does; coming to conclusions by observation of the world and experimentation. from what we know the big bang happened. for all i know God set the fuse. notice how i am flexible where there are possibilities we cannot be sure of. fanatical religious belief kills flexibility and reasoned thought. science opens eyes. religion shuts them tight to new ideas.

it is your choice to have faith and i respect that. i fully accept your decision to believe in God. it is your right. but why do you need to prove your faith with the bible? thats surely a contradiction. faith shouldnt need a text to prove its justified. its not a one-way street. if the bible is good enough to prove christianity, its good enough to show how immoral it is. science plays its part also by showing how many biblical occurances could not happen.
there is a huge difference between believing in God and believing every word written in a text (over many centuries) is fact.

options:
1) you are right and as 'no one was there at the time to witness' the biblical events (ie creation) happen, they didnt happen and therefore you are wrong. Correct; no one was there at Creation however there were people around to witness the other Biblical events. That's a pretty ignorant assumption you got there.
i was making a point.
you said 'How can anyone be sure of anything if no one was there at the time to witness it when it occurred?'
that means you cannot be sure of creation as no one saw it happen. if you change your mind and say something can be true regardless of whether people are present, you open the gates to all the scientific knowledge you previously denied.

2) you are wrong. as no one is needed to witness an event to know it happened, they could have happened. which would make you 'right.' that would also make science right. I don't deny that no one needs to be witness to an event to know that it happened, nor did I say science was wrong. you said science was wrong as sometimes no one saw the events in question actually happen. prehistoric events discovered with science have evidence to prove them, even though no on saw them. you attribute absolute certainty to creation even though no one was there to see it, and there is no evidence. chefs special: double standards pie

do you see your error now? Nope...

You will never be able to sway the beliefs of a highly dedicated Christian nor an Atheist. Both believe they're right and wont back down. Believing and knowing is a different thing entirely. From where one is standing they may say they know they're right, but they cannot be completely and utterly sure without absolute evidence or enlightenment. Spiritual enlightenment is obtainable, one then knows absolute truth. Absolute evidence and answers to an Atheists beliefs don't exist. They can make estimates, assumptions, theories and calculations but that doesn't result in any absolute evidence. No ignorance intended. Believe what you want to believe, open your mind to possibility, tolerate the beliefs of others.

im not looking to destroy anyones belief in God. im simply showing that the blind belief in a plainly imperfect and immoral text is wrong. it is wrong to make people see lies as undeniable fact.
we have shown the bible isnt scientifically correct.
we have shown it is historically inaccurate.
we have shown it is immoral and not in keeping with modern christian values.
we have shown that absolute answers to a christians literal interpretation of the bible do exist.

i am tolerant. i actually have Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, Atheist, Buddhist and even Rastararian friends. im probably too tolerant for a good christian, associating with heathens an all

however i am firmly intolerant towards religions which insist people view the imperfect work of man, the bible, as entirely true and factual. it is unnatural. it stifles independent thought. it is wrong.

truth is precious.

btw im not an atheist

LiQuiD wrote:

n3M351s wrote:

LiQuiD wrote:

That is an assumption. Because two different happenings played out in a similar/the same way does not mean that one copied the other

but its a very good indication. with the level of similarity between christian myths and earlier ones its safe to assume they are related. You can say that but it can't really ever be proven can it.
so you would say i cant prove die hard 2 is related to die hard 1? if there are enough similarities, they are proof enough in most cases. So by your reasoning your saying that Armageddon is related to the Die Hard series since they both feature Bruce Willis? (lol at putting it down to movies )

The prophecies of Jeremiah pre-date some of "these similar cultural myths"

and when were these prophecies written down? after earlier myths. 628 BC > That predates some of the myths you suggested.
some maybe, but not all. the other (earlier) myths influenced the later christian beliefs. the exception (Jeremiah prophecies) proves the rule. You can't prove that. Similarities do not mean they originated from the same source, the same can be said to anything. To speculate such things is vain.

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)

if i see die hard 2 i cant help thinking some parts build on material from die hard 1. its sensible to conclude things with many (strong) similarities are related. To some degree yes, but not in every case.
relation can be assumed in every case where there are many strong similarities. It can be assumed but that doesn't make it true. (Throwing this in for some controversy) Chimpanzees share 98-99% of their genes with Humans along with a number of other similarities. One could assume that they are related by bloodline. On the other hand; acknowledging that they may have similarities, it could just be (and in my opinion is) a load of garbage that they are related.

Who said the animals were wicked?At any case their animals.. they have no soul

if the animals were killed in Gods purge of wickedness, would that not mean they were wicked? Nope. then why kill them? theres no reason. it is the pointless killing of earths animals. perhaps noah screened the creatures on his ark to make sure they were christian and not wicked? Lol, why are you so intent on the animals. I don't see anything to it. or perhaps God made a mistake. Nope again. or perhaps there was no mistake because there was no flood. if the animals have no soul perhaps they cannot be wicked. True. that means God created all those innocent creatures only to slaughter them knowing their deaths served no purpose whatsoever Yep. (other than to sate his desire for blood).
an all powerful God could have spared those animals yet did not. Yep he could have though it would have been impractical. to God there is no such thing as impractical as he is all powerful. I'm glad you finally acknowledge that. therefore he must have wanted to kill the blameless animals.I wouldn't say "wanted", it was a neutral follow-on effect. why would a supposedly compassionate and loving God do that? Impracticability perhaps? I don't really see any relevance in debating over this.
translation: i have no basis from which to argue because sir liquid is correct God unnecessarily killed countless animals according to the bible. unnecessary killing is worth thinking about in my view You may need to touch up on your translation skills as they non-existent to say the least. Like I said, the way I see it; irrelevant. You say "i have no basis from which to argue", here it is plain and simple for you, I really don't care. Some animals died, wow-wee, end of story, capire. If you want to argue about this find someone who cares.

He could have, but why not? Only problem would have been all the disease and bodies, a flood doesn't have that problem

there is little risk of disease from corpses. the main risk is from diseases that the person had while alive and are not a result of putrefaction. basically the dead bodies posed a risk comparable to that of living person. the risk of disease would be (almost entirely) gone in days anyway.
if God killed all humans, the animals would have eaten a few of the dead and the rest would have decomposed. simpler than a global flood dont you think? Perhaps. A flood would have purged the Earth all the bodies and every trace of civilization making good for a fresh beginning.
thats an impossibility. a flood could not rid the world of all signs of civilisation. therefore the flood is further proven pointless for anything other than the mass extinction of life. Umm, the "mass extinction of life" as you put it is kind of the reason for the Flood.

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.

so God seriously wanted to cause pain and suffering to this man and his child. think of the psychological damage to the child. thats an evil thing to put them both through, if it happened Isaac was in fact a grown man, he could easily have resisted if he wanted too. please state the part of the bible of where its written he was a grown man. It isn't stated anywhere in the Bible, however nor is it stated that he was a child. If research into this you'll find the answer. (even a quick Google search will suffice) i may be wrong (see, i can admit that thanks to my religious freedom) but i thought Isaac was a child. also, i believe Isaac was restrained when the Fairy Angel appeared. Yes Isaac was indeed bound.
on a related subject, do you know Abraham's personal history? how he passed his wife off as his sister so she could join the Pharaoh's harem. all so he could live in luxury. by the way, you may notice how that story is remarkably similar to another where Abraham pulls the same trick with Abimelech, king of Gerar. note how both of the tricked rulers expressed their anger in nearly identical terms. a sign of accidental repetition and textual unreliability maybe?
Pharaoah (Genesis 12: 18-19)
King of Gerar (Genesis 20: 2-5)

and you make no mention of Jephthah. that particular episode cant be justified can it. its funny how i was never taught about it in church or school. convenient not having to make up an excuse for it probably. That extract I quoted answered your question fully. Maybe you missed it, here it is again for your convenience.
that i did.

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.

well, Jephthah did get his victory over the Ammonites with 'a very great slaughter' (made possible by God) and he kept his promise. after her two month stay in the mountains she was burnt as an offering. you say how the relevant part 'possibly indicates.' following the text, we can see events happened as i had stated. the possibility argument is made up and is groundless. if it were fact you would surely have mentioned it. im using the bible to prove my points. im using what is clearly written. you are using biased guesses. its not the foundation of a strong counter-argument is it? Umm, I didn't write that - like I said its an extract.

you say God had forbidden human scarifice and it 'never entered God's mind.' why then did he ask on at least two occasions for human sacrifice as can be seen above. one time the sacrifice was actually carried out. Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5, and 32:35 would apparently contradict other parts of the bible would it not? that fact cannot be avoided. Issac was not sacrificed, whom was the other?

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.

if person A kills thousands of children in egypt, then orders the deaths of untold thousands more people, person A would be guilty mass genocide. In accordance with the above information Person A would indeed be guilty mass genocide.
and if i were to replace 'person A' with 'God?' Well it wouldn't really work would it as God isn't a person.

what example is it to follow when God ends the lives of so many people? Its not an example so to speak. who would aspire to live a life by his moral standards but evil killers?
who would worship a Deity who sets a bad example though? Not me. Btw if you were referring to God as a bad example I would disagree.

God’s "fairness" is different from the human sense of fairness -- that is something I can state unequivocally.

yes, God is unfair. you cant say his fairness is different. its like shooting someone then saying you didnt because your definition of a gun differs from that of other people. either way the person is shot. either way, God isnt fair. but to be honest his being unfair pales in comparison to his evil biblical rampages. Defining what is fair and what is evil is relative.
no, its relatively easy. genocide = evil. cute fluffy rabbits = not evil. giving someone an impartial trial = fair. killing thousands for the crimes of some = unfair. its quite simple really.
I'll post this again:

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 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?…

did someone else order the killing of thousands of innocent children then? What are you referring too?

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.

1> you would be surprised how many people believe stupid religious ideas such as his
2> does he sound like a crackpot for suggesting human sin is/will be responsible for natural disasters? you know. . . like the flood . . . In this day and age yes.
what about 50 years ago or a thousand years ago? why does time effect God's judgement when he is apparently 'outside of time'? if it doesnt happen now its safe to say it didnt happen then. God is eternal so the human passage of time wouldnt change how he punishes people. maybe you say it doesnt happen 'In this day and age' because if it happened now we would explain it scientifically. Who is to say that God doesn't use the forces of nature? That could be explained as scientific.

Yep, irrelevancy at its best.

if science is totally irrelevant. that picture is based on science and shows the amount of water on earth. the amount shown cannot have covered the earth. that can be seen simply by looking, with the use of eyes. isnt hard to comprehend mate If you could comprehend God you might be able to comprehend a flood that could cover the earth. Its possible for God to work outside of science as we know it.
you claim you comprehend the flood (yep), yet you cannot comprehend an infinite God. (Umm, last time I checked that was you?) comprehending God isnt a requirment of sensible thought dude Who said it was.

Please go through each piece of evidence and prove them wrong

if someone gave me a list of 101 ways a bumble could eat an elephant, i wouldnt need to individually dismiss them. its the same with his 'evidence.' Hahaha. This evidence isn't as easily dismissed. I take it you can't be stuffed.
i notice how you're latching on to this point. maybe you think its an anchor for your biblical delusions beliefs, the rest of which have been swept aside. anyone who looks at his points will see they have no substance. i personally disproved them while reading them. thats how simple, transparent, and wrong they were. besides, if i use science to disprove his 'evidence' you will not accept what i post. you will dismiss it and flood this debate with material from creationist scientific websites. hence my use of the bible (and a dash of common sense) as you cannot simply deny the obvious conclusions i draw says the person that contradicts himself by refusing to accept science and facts. I'll quote it again for you.

[spoiler]

Mister Sandman wrote:You need evidence for the great flood?
Here I go:
* Sea originating fossils have been found at high altitudes of every continent.

* The oldest known living trees, Bristlecone Pines in California, are close to 5000 years old. This would coincide with the recovery of the earth after the flood.

* The Origin of Civilization appeared near the resting place of the Ark at about the same time that the flood occurred.

* Geologist classify rock formations by the type of rock they contain. A layer of the same type of rock is called a stratum. Many scientist believe that certain types of stratum originated in certain time periods such as the Eocene, Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods of time. There are many places on the earth where the order of these strata in reversed. Examples of this are the Matterhorn and Mythen peaks in the Alps. The order of the strata has been completely reversed in respect to the earth around it. Though many explanations have been offered for this phenomenon, the castestrophic effects of a flood as described in the Bible is still the best explanation.

* Sedimentary deposits cover large parts of the earth. These are the type of deposits that result from movement of water.

* An analysis of 30,000 radiocarbon dating results published in the "Radiocarbon" journal shows an unmistakable spike in the death of living things about 5,000 years ago.

* Fossils of once living organisms have been found in places not suitable for their habitat:
* In Lincoln County, Wyoming fossils have been found of an alligator, deep sea bass, sunfish, crustaceans, and palm leaves. Obviously these would not grow well in Wyoming's climate. It also suggest that at one time Wyoming was covered water. The fossils of the life found in this vicinity are very well preserved indicating a fast burial and preservation.
* The Florissant, Colorado fossil beds contain fossilized insects that are preserved remarkably well. In addition, the remains of giant sequoia trees have been found here. The sequoia trees and many of the types of insects do not exist in this region today.

* (1)Volcanic rocks are found interbedded with sedimentary rocks of all supposed geologic ages. This correlates with the Biblical implication that the "fountains of the great deep" poured out their contents throughout the flood (Genesis 8:2).

* (4)Radiometric dating performed on volcanic rocks from the erruption of Mount St. Helens in 1986 indicated that the rocks were between .34 million years to 2.8 million years old. This suggests that the rardiometric dating methods to determine the earth are at the best inaccurate.

* The shape of the continents hints that they may have been connected at one time. The fossil records of mountain ranges seem to indicate that the mountains were created by the collision of two continents. It is also noted that earthquakes are caused by movement of continents along fault lines. This supports the theory of plate tectonics. A catastophe such as a the Biblical flood would create enough force to rearrange continents. In fact a flood of these proportions easily becomes a "best fit" for the geological data that exist today.

[/spoiler]

These are FACTS, they are not related to the Bible at all. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could possibly deny this evidence. Unless, that is, they were a seriously deluded person and empty-headed person. If you are to dismiss this evidence you might as well dismiss science, geology, palaeontology, dendrology and archaeology while your at it. I don't know how you can look yourself in the mirror and tell yourself this evidence is untrue.

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.

true science does not penetrate the religious shield you and your fellow creationist fanatics have erected. you were not there when the flood happened. how does anyone know God created the world. he hadnt baked any humans up yet to witness his smiting. by your logic how can you personally know any of it happened? answer; you cant. I knew you were gonna come back on what I said like that. Evolution, the Big Bang and whatever else cannot be proven. Its equally true what you said; I wasn't there when the Earth was flooded and no one was around to witness Creation. This is where Faith and Religion come into the picture. Humans know that God created the world as he has revealed himself and talked to many people over the ages, this in a more literal sense than a personal relationship with God. I choose to believe in God and the word of the Bible, that is my personal decision. I have seen God work through people and seen others turn their lives around through coming to know him. I know God is real, that is my belief. You can choose to believe in whatever you want - Evolution or whatever else it may be, that is your belief. You may think I've got it all wrong but that's exactly the same way I see your beliefs.
Evolution is fact but ill not delve into that pit of creationist denial. Evolution. the big bang theory? if i go into my garage and see red all over the walls i can say what occured. i dont need to be there and see the paint tin explode to know it happened. it is something every human does; coming to conclusions by observation of the world and experimentation. from what we know the big bang happened. for all i know God set the fuse. There we go a breakthrough! There is a huge difference saying that there is no God and the Big Bang just happened by itself and acknowledging that God exists (or could exist as in your case) and created the would in some way or another. There is nothing that says the actions of God need not be scientific. notice how i am flexible where there are possibilities we cannot be sure of. That's great that you are flexible and open-minded in this regard. But you still don't understand... fanatical religious belief kills flexibility and reasoned thought....Christians don't need to be flexible in this matter. If they are a born-again Christian they know the truth. Again I don't blame you for being skeptical, if it's something you have not experienced you would not understand. science opens eyes. religion shuts them tight to new ideas. Religion does not disprove of science but in fact opens your eyes to the truth and allows you to interpret what is real and what is misleading. It is Science that needs to open its eyes to Religion.

it is your choice to have faith and i respect that. i fully accept your decision to believe in God. it is your right. but why do you need to prove your faith with the bible? thats surely a contradiction. faith shouldnt need a text to prove its justified. Correct, no proof or justification is needed. One of the main reasons of the Bible is to help and guide people through life and to teach them of the life of Christ. its not a one-way street. if the bible is good enough to prove christianity, its good enough to show how immoral it is. The Bible is the most moral book ever written, and yes it does contain immoral acts to which fit into the context of its history and parables. science plays its part also by showing how many biblical occurances could not happen. The main one being the Flood? God has no bounds making what we would consider impossible possible.
there is a huge difference between believing in God and believing every word written in a text (over many centuries) is fact. I agree but ultimately the message is the same.

options:
1) you are right and as 'no one was there at the time to witness' the biblical events (ie creation) happen, they didnt happen and therefore you are wrong. Correct; no one was there at Creation however there were people around to witness the other Biblical events. That's a pretty ignorant assumption you got there.
i was making a point.
you said 'How can anyone be sure of anything if no one was there at the time to witness it when it occurred?'
that means you cannot be sure of creation as no one saw it happen. if you change your mind and say something can be true regardless of whether people are present, you open the gates to all the scientific knowledge you previously denied. In regard to my statement: 'How can anyone be sure of anything if no one was there at the time to witness it when it occurred?' Easy answer, enlightenment. FYI, I do not deny sensible and proven scientific knowledge, its when it can't be proven and falls onto assumptions and theories that I loose faith in them.

2) you are wrong. as no one is needed to witness an event to know it happened, they could have happened. which would make you 'right.' that would also make science right. I don't deny that no one needs to be witness to an event to know that it happened, nor did I say science was wrong. you said science was wrong as sometimes no one saw the events in question actually happen. That I did. So in your eyes which one is true: the Big Bang Theory, the String Theory or one of the many others? They can't all be true can they?.. even though they all use science, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, mathematics, theoretical physics etc. I wonder which one could be true and how long ago? What billions.. no?.. trillions of years? Science has found a sticky area indeed. prehistoric events discovered with science have evidence to prove them, even though no on saw them. Yes these prehistoric events may have evidence to support them taking place but saying it took place millions/billions of years ago is complete nonsense. Do you know what a billion year old rock looks like? Does it look any different from a million year old rock or even a thousand year old rock? That's one of my biggest problem in all of this, how can they say thats how old this is and that's hold old that it and this happened so many years ago etc. That isn't science, that's just guessing. you attribute absolute certainty to creation even though no one was there to see it, and there is no evidence. God was there to witness Creation as it was his doing and he told man. No evidence is needed. All the evidence you could ever hope for is free to see for anyone who opens their eyes and sees the beauty and wonders of nature, the cause of which can only be intelligent design. chefs special: double standards pie

do you see your error now? Nope...

You will never be able to sway the beliefs of a highly dedicated Christian nor an Atheist. Both believe they're right and wont back down. Believing and knowing is a different thing entirely. From where one is standing they may say they know they're right, but they cannot be completely and utterly sure without absolute evidence or enlightenment. Spiritual enlightenment is obtainable, one then knows absolute truth. Absolute evidence and answers to an Atheists beliefs don't exist. They can make estimates, assumptions, theories and calculations but that doesn't result in any absolute evidence. No ignorance intended. Believe what you want to believe, open your mind to possibility, tolerate the beliefs of others.

im not looking to destroy anyones belief in God. im simply showing that the blind belief in a plainly imperfect and immoral text is wrong. it is wrong to make people see lies as undeniable fact. Come on, the Bible is not an immoral text. I wouldn't say its "plainly imperfect" either. It may have had translation errors over its time, all of which I think have now been resolved.
we have shown the bible isnt scientifically correct. Have you?
we have shown it is historically inaccurate. I'm guessing you referring to the Flood? Again there is evidence that supports it, its up to you whether you believe it or not.
we have shown it is immoral and not in keeping with modern christian values. You forget the time when it was written.
we have shown that absolute answers to a christians literal interpretation of the bible do exist.

i am tolerant. i actually have Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, Atheist, Buddhist and even Rastararian friends. im probably too tolerant for a good christian, associating with heathens an all

however i am firmly intolerant towards religions which insist people view the imperfect work of man, the bible, as entirely true and factual. it is unnatural. it stifles independent thought. it is wrong. You say you are tolerant of various religions though intolerant of the Bible. The Bible may have been written by man but was inspired by God. Or you could say written by God through man. I don't know why you always bring it down to being "blind", you make it sound like some kind of mind control. Far from it my friend.

truth is precious. That it is.

btw im not an atheist Could have fooled me, you seem too intent on dejecting Religion and God to be anything else.

Semper wrote:wow.. lol.

OK children. Try to reduce the length of these quotes. Refer to the points in a summarised sense, rather than quoting someone's entire argument.