for mcway and loco

[Necrosis]

Proof #45 - Consider Noah's Ark

Have you ever taken the time to read the Bible's story of Noah's flood? And have you ever pondered what this story's position in the Bible might actually mean? While there are many people who consider the Bible, and therefore Noah's story, to be literally true, most educated and intelligent people understand that the story of Noah's flood is a myth. They understand that Mt. Everest was never covered in flood water, they understand that the ark could not hold the millions of species that are now found on earth, and they understand that there is no DNA evidence to show that all animals on earth came from single breeding pairs just a few thousand years ago.

But there is one part of the story of Noah's Ark that deserves special recognition. It shows us something about God that is quite unsettling to any intelligent person who takes the time to consider his actions. That special section is this:

God senselessly murdered millions of humans and billions of animals in the flood
How do we know it was senseless? Because "God" is supposed to be "all-knowing" and "all-powerful." If God were to exist, God would know what was coming when he created Adam and Eve. Therefore, God knew he would be murdering millions of people.
This realization leads to an obvious question: Why didn't God simply speed up Jesus' arrival to avoid the atrocity that is the flood? Or why didn't God program Adam and Eve when he created them to completely circumvent the need for such a horrendous atrocity?

You may have never considered this question, but it is exquisitely important. Because the flood is an atrocity of the highest order. It is mass murder on a global scale.

The idea that Christians would accept a mass-murderer as their object of worship shows us something about Christians, does it not? Think about it - By (supposedly) murdering nearly every human on the planet, the Christian God is far more heinous than Hitler. No "loving" and "perfect" being can also be a mass-murderer bent of global genocide. Yet Christians willfully worship him. Why?

If you are a Christian, I would ask you to simply look inside yourself today. Why would you accept a mass murderer into your life?

And Noah's flood is not the only place where God displays these horrific tendencies toward mindless slaughter. Here are several other examples.

In the book of Exodus chapter 12 verse 28, God writes about one of his early massacres:

So the people of Israel did just as the LORD had commanded through Moses and Aaron. And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died.
Here the death of the children is directly at the hand of God.
In Isaiah chapter 13, God paints this word picture:

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.
Is this the imprint of a "loving" God?
In Jeremiah chapter 49, verse 20, God paints a similar picture:

Therefore hear the plan which the LORD has made against Edom and the purposes which he has formed against the inhabitants of Teman: Even the little ones of the flock shall be dragged away; surely their fold shall be appalled at their fate. At the sound of their fall the earth shall tremble; the sound of their cry shall be heard at the Red Sea.
In Hosea chapter 13, God paints a similar picture:
Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.
In Numbers chapter 31, God paints a similar picture:
Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live? Behold, these caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the LORD in the matter of Pe'or, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Here Moses, acting as an agent of God, specifies that thousands of male babies and children be killed, as well as thousands of women. The Bible states in verse 35 that the captured women numbered "thirty-two thousand persons in all, women who had not known man by lying with him." This was not a small attack. Tens of thousands men, women and children were massacred.
In Deuteronomy Chapter 3 we find this:

Next we turned and went up along the road toward Bashan, and Og king of Bashan with his whole army marched out to meet us in battle at Edrei. The LORD said to me, "Do not be afraid of him, for I have handed him over to you with his whole army and his land. Do to him what you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon." So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og's kingdom in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children. But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves.
They massacred all the men, women and children in 60 cities at God's request.
Even in the "New Testament" we find the same sort of thing. In the book of Matthew, chapter 2, mixed into the Christmas story, the Bible describes an amazing massacre of thousands of babies:

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
Think about the thousands of families who were affected by this massacre. The Bible describes their suffering: they wept and could not be comforted. Of course they could not be comforted. If you are a parent, you know exactly how distraught you would feel if an agent of the government came to your door one morning and slaughtered your children.
Why would God do this? Why would you want anything to do with such a muderous, horrific being? What can we say about people who would want to believe in such a being? Why would any normal, intelligent, ethical human being "worship" such a heinous, demented and despicable "god" as this?

It is impossible for a "perfect" and "loving" being to also be heinous, demented and despicable. As an intelligent person, you should be able to see that.

This impossibility tells us that God is imaginary.

[benz]

by loco you mean JOE"MELTDOWN"LOCO ?

[Deicide]

It all 'bout Jebus!

[Necrosis]

by loco you mean JOE"MELTDOWN"LOCO ?

shit i never put it togther. mr intenseone is loco who is joe loco who is stella

[Deicide]

Proof #45 - Consider Noah's Ark

Have you ever taken the time to read the Bible's story of Noah's flood? And have you ever pondered what this story's position in the Bible might actually mean? While there are many people who consider the Bible, and therefore Noah's story, to be literally true, most educated and intelligent people understand that the story of Noah's flood is a myth. They understand that Mt. Everest was never covered in flood water, they understand that the ark could not hold the millions of species that are now found on earth, and they understand that there is no DNA evidence to show that all animals on earth came from single breeding pairs just a few thousand years ago.

But there is one part of the story of Noah's Ark that deserves special recognition. It shows us something about God that is quite unsettling to any intelligent person who takes the time to consider his actions. That special section is this:

God senselessly murdered millions of humans and billions of animals in the flood
How do we know it was senseless? Because "God" is supposed to be "all-knowing" and "all-powerful." If God were to exist, God would know what was coming when he created Adam and Eve. Therefore, God knew he would be murdering millions of people.
This realization leads to an obvious question: Why didn't God simply speed up Jesus' arrival to avoid the atrocity that is the flood? Or why didn't God program Adam and Eve when he created them to completely circumvent the need for such a horrendous atrocity?

You may have never considered this question, but it is exquisitely important. Because the flood is an atrocity of the highest order. It is mass murder on a global scale.

The idea that Christians would accept a mass-murderer as their object of worship shows us something about Christians, does it not? Think about it - By (supposedly) murdering nearly every human on the planet, the Christian God is far more heinous than Hitler. No "loving" and "perfect" being can also be a mass-murderer bent of global genocide. Yet Christians willfully worship him. Why?

If you are a Christian, I would ask you to simply look inside yourself today. Why would you accept a mass murderer into your life?

And Noah's flood is not the only place where God displays these horrific tendencies toward mindless slaughter. Here are several other examples.

In the book of Exodus chapter 12 verse 28, God writes about one of his early massacres:

So the people of Israel did just as the LORD had commanded through Moses and Aaron. And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died.
Here the death of the children is directly at the hand of God.
In Isaiah chapter 13, God paints this word picture:

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.
Is this the imprint of a "loving" God?
In Jeremiah chapter 49, verse 20, God paints a similar picture:

Therefore hear the plan which the LORD has made against Edom and the purposes which he has formed against the inhabitants of Teman: Even the little ones of the flock shall be dragged away; surely their fold shall be appalled at their fate. At the sound of their fall the earth shall tremble; the sound of their cry shall be heard at the Red Sea.
In Hosea chapter 13, God paints a similar picture:
Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.
In Numbers chapter 31, God paints a similar picture:
Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live? Behold, these caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the LORD in the matter of Pe'or, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Here Moses, acting as an agent of God, specifies that thousands of male babies and children be killed, as well as thousands of women. The Bible states in verse 35 that the captured women numbered "thirty-two thousand persons in all, women who had not known man by lying with him." This was not a small attack. Tens of thousands men, women and children were massacred.
In Deuteronomy Chapter 3 we find this:

Next we turned and went up along the road toward Bashan, and Og king of Bashan with his whole army marched out to meet us in battle at Edrei. The LORD said to me, "Do not be afraid of him, for I have handed him over to you with his whole army and his land. Do to him what you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon." So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og's kingdom in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children. But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves.
They massacred all the men, women and children in 60 cities at God's request.
Even in the "New Testament" we find the same sort of thing. In the book of Matthew, chapter 2, mixed into the Christmas story, the Bible describes an amazing massacre of thousands of babies:

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
Think about the thousands of families who were affected by this massacre. The Bible describes their suffering: they wept and could not be comforted. Of course they could not be comforted. If you are a parent, you know exactly how distraught you would feel if an agent of the government came to your door one morning and slaughtered your children.
Why would God do this? Why would you want anything to do with such a muderous, horrific being? What can we say about people who would want to believe in such a being? Why would any normal, intelligent, ethical human being "worship" such a heinous, demented and despicable "god" as this?

It is impossible for a "perfect" and "loving" being to also be heinous, demented and despicable. As an intelligent person, you should be able to see that.

This impossibility tells us that God is imaginary.

You know my biochemically informed friend, the truth is that little of this matters. Man's mortality is the primary and driving force for the continual presence of religion in the world; fear of death (oblivion), a difficult and painful life without any objective purpose beyond procreation and survival for its own sake and a need for explanation (however poor that explanation may be). These are the things that motivate religious people all over the world. The absurdity of the Bible presents little difficulty to them, in light of the factors mentioned above. Some people lack the psychological werewithal to accept life as it is, in particular its conclusion. It seems to me to be an emotional impediment more than anything else.

[benz]

shit i never put it togther. mr intenseone is loco who is joe loco who is stella

what? joeloco is thecoach aka intenseone aka king of meltdown

[Necrosis]

You know my biochemically informed friend, the truth is that little of this matters. Man's mortality is the primary and driving force for the continual presence of religion in the world; fear of death (oblivion), a difficult and painful life without any objective purpose beyond procreation and survival for its own sake and a need for explanation (however poor that explanation may be). These are the things that motivate religious people all over the world. The absurdity of the Bible presents little difficulty to them, in light of the factors mentioned above. Some people lack the psychological werewithal to accept life as it is, in particular its conclusion. It seems to me to be an emotional impediment more than anything else.

i agree.

noahs ark is absolutely ridfuckingdiculous.

[OzmO]

shit i never put it togther. mr intenseone is loco who is joe loco who is stella

They are all one and all different, they are the trilogy 

[Necrosis]

man i cant follow this thread.

so ron avidan=barack obama?

[MCWAY]

YAAAAAAAAAAWN!!!!!

Pole has managed to cut and paste a long-winded diatribe, that reflects his often whiny emotional tirades about how God isn't a loving God, because He judges sin and sinful behavior.

WAAAH, WAAAAH, WAAAAAH!!!! God is a great big meanie!!!!

I actually thought this was something interesting.

But, since I'm either bored out of my skull (winding down after Super Bowl 42) or I'm a glutton for punishment, I will actually address some of this atheist hissy-fit.

Have you ever taken the time to read the Bible's story of Noah's flood? And have you ever pondered what this story's position in the Bible might actually mean? While there are many people who consider the Bible, and therefore Noah's story, to be literally true, most educated and intelligent people understand that the story of Noah's flood is a myth. They understand that Mt. Everest was never covered in flood water, they understand that the ark could not hold the millions of species that are now found on earth, and they understand that there is no DNA evidence to show that all animals on earth came from single breeding pairs just a few thousand years ago.

They would also understand that:

1) They have nothing documenting that Mt. Everest wasn't covered on Earth or even that Mt. Everest as we know it now was standing immediately before or after the Flood.

2) No one ever claimed that the Ark carried "the million of species that are now found on Earth". Quite the opposite, in Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study, the author claims that Noah would have had needed (at best) about 16,000 animals in the Ark. And, thanks to selective breeding that the little thing called "natural selection", animals can do what they do best: reproduce after their own kind.

God senselessly murdered millions of humans and billions of animals in the flood
How do we know it was senseless? Because "God" is supposed to be "all-knowing" and "all-powerful." If God were to exist, God would know what was coming when he created Adam and Eve. Therefore, God knew he would be murdering millions of people.
This realization leads to an obvious question: Why didn't God simply speed up Jesus' arrival to avoid the atrocity that is the flood? Or why didn't God program Adam and Eve when he created them to completely circumvent the need for such a horrendous atrocity?

Whoever wrote this gibberish apparently forgot that God (through Noah) gave mankind about 120 years to repent of their sins, as "the thoughts of man were only evil continuously".

You may have never considered this question, but it is exquisitely important. Because the flood is an atrocity of the highest order. It is mass murder on a global scale.

Whoever assumed that is dead wrong. Perhaps, he should consider this question: WHy would a "mass murder" give His victims TWELVE DECADES TO REPENT and potentially spare them of their deserved fate, for violating His laws on a continued basis?

The idea that Christians would accept a mass-murderer as their object of worship shows us something about Christians, does it not? Think about it - By (supposedly) murdering nearly every human on the planet, the Christian God is far more heinous than Hitler. No "loving" and "perfect" being can also be a mass-murderer bent of global genocide. Yet Christians willfully worship him. Why?

1) Christians don't accept a "mass-murderer". They accept the almight and soveriegn God.

2)  A loving and perfect being can give people the opportunity to repent of their transgressions (no matter how severe), spare them, and redeem them. That, O misinformed Pole (or whoever penned this silliness) is one reason why Christians worship him. If mankind refuses to accept such grace, then they received the fate metted upon them. BTW, when did Hitler offer to forgive the Jews, or blacks, or anyone who wasn't part of his so-called "master race"?

In the book of Exodus chapter 12 verse 28, God writes about one of his early massacres:

So the people of Israel did just as the LORD had commanded through Moses and Aaron. And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died.
Here the death of the children is directly at the hand of God.

AHHHH YESSS!!! Here is the usual atheist tomfoolery of taking Bible texts way out of context and NOT posting the whole story in their infantile "God is a big meanie" rants.

Once again, the author "conveniently" forget that Israel was enslaved for 400 years, which included the killing of Israel's young boys as the population was growing too numerous. And, the famous words of Moses "conveniently" disappear from the memory of skeptics galore, LET MY PEOPLE GO!!!

I guess Team Skeptic expects us to forget that Pharoah had a mere NINE chances to release the Israelites, before the tenth (and most devastating plague) hits Egypt.

In Numbers chapter 31, God paints a similar picture:
Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live? Behold, these caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the LORD in the matter of Pe'or, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Here Moses, acting as an agent of God, specifies that thousands of male babies and children be killed, as well as thousands of women. The Bible states in verse 35 that the captured women numbered "thirty-two thousand persons in all, women who had not known man by lying with him." This was not a small attack. Tens of thousands men, women and children were massacred.

More of the same fluff!!!!

Let's recap how these women led Israel to act treacherously: If I recall, the Midianites were enemies of Israel, who assaulted them on multiple occasions. As Israel kept defeating them, the king of the Midianites figured, the only way he could subdue the Israelites was if the protective hand of God were not with them. One way to do that was to have the Israelites violate commandment #1 (Thou shalt have no other gods before Me). And what better way to get Israel's men to commit apostasy, than use the Midianite women to lure them into perverted sexual rituals, in worship of the Midianite god(s).

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.
Is this the imprint of a "loving" God?

Last time I checked, this sounds like one of the prophecies, concerning the fall of Babylon, as the Medes and Persians knocked them off in 539 B.C. If that's the case, then what we have is a preview of the world history.

Even in the "New Testament" we find the same sort of thing. In the book of Matthew, chapter 2, mixed into the Christmas story, the Bible describes an amazing massacre of thousands of babies:

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
Think about the thousands of families who were affected by this massacre. The Bible describes their suffering: they wept and could not be comforted. Of course they could not be comforted. If you are a parent, you know exactly how distraught you would feel if an agent of the government came to your door one morning and slaughtered your children.
Why would God do this? Why would you want anything to do with such a muderous, horrific being? What can we say about people who would want to believe in such a being? Why would any normal, intelligent, ethical human being "worship" such a heinous, demented and despicable "god" as this?

Ummmm.....last time I checked, HEROD was responsible for what happened in this account from Matthew. This, by the way, was the same account Columbusdude claimed didn't happen, after I used it to refute his claim that the accounts about Jesus' early life in Matthew and Luke were contradictory.

And, Herod did this, because he felt that Jesus was a threat to his ruling Judea. He called for this edict, becasue all he knew about Jesus (the perceved threat) was that He was born in Bethlehem two years prior to the wise men's arrival.

I missed a few of the bleatings covered here. But, basically, you get the point.

The bottom line is this: People believe in this God, because He is the Creator of Earth. He sent Jesus here to redeem man and give us a chance at eternal life. The Gospel has offered hopes to millions of those in despair, peace in times of trouble, and joy in times of sorrow.

It is the greatest message on Earth. And, whether some of these self-proclaimed "enlightened", "free-thinking", or "bright" blowhards, often called atheists, like it or not, the God we serve reigns supreme. The frustration builds for them, because despite their best efforts, they CANNOT "rationalize" or "reason" Him out of existence.

Pophyry couldn't do it. Darwin couldn't do it; O'Hair couldn't it. Neither Dawkins nor Hitchens can do it. And, whatever atheist flavor-of-the-month succeeds them won't do it.

[Deicide]

YAAAAAAAAAAWN!!!!!

Pole has managed to cut and paste a long-winded diatribe, that reflects his often whiny emotional tirades about how God isn't a loving God, because He judges sin and sinful behavior.

WAAAH, WAAAAH, WAAAAAH!!!! God is a great big meanie!!!!

I actually thought this was something interesting.

But, since I'm either bored out of my skull (winding down after Super Bowl 42) or I'm a glutton for punishment, I will actually address some of this atheist hissy-fit.

They would also understand that:

1) They have nothing documenting that Mt. Everest wasn't covered on Earth or even that Mt. Everest as we know it now was standing immediately before or after the Flood.

2) No one ever claimed that the Ark carried "the million of species that are now found on Earth". Quite the opposite, in Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study, the author claims that Noah would have had needed (at best) about 16,000 animals in the Ark. And, thanks to selective breeding that the little thing called "natural selection", animals can do what they do best: reproduce after their own kind.

Whoever wrote this gibberish apparently forgot that God (through Noah) gave mankind about 120 years to repent of their sins, as "the thoughts of man were only evil continuously".

Whoever assumed that is dead wrong. Perhaps, he should consider this question: WHy would a "mass murder" give His victims TWELVE DECADES TO REPENT and potentially spare them of their deserved fate, for violating His laws on a continued basis?

1) Christians don't accept a "mass-murderer". They accept the almight and soveriegn God.

2)  A loving and perfect being can give people the opportunity to repent of their transgressions (no matter how severe), spare them, and redeem them. That, O misinformed Pole (or whoever penned this silliness) is one reason why Christians worship him. If mankind refuses to accept such grace, then they received the fate metted upon them. BTW, when did Hitler offer to forgive the Jews, or blacks, or anyone who wasn't part of his so-called "master race"?


AHHHH YESSS!!! Here is the usual atheist tomfoolery of taking Bible texts way out of context and NOT posting the whole story in their infantile "God is a big meanie" rants.

Once again, the author "conveniently" forget that Israel was enslaved for 400 years, which included the killing of Israel's young boys as the population was growing too numerous. And, the famous words of Moses "conveniently" disappear from the memory of skeptics galore, LET MY PEOPLE GO!!!

I guess Team Skeptic expects us to forget that Pharoah had a mere NINE chances to release the Israelites, before the tenth (and most devastating plague) hits Egypt.

More of the same fluff!!!!

Let's recap how these women led Israel to act treacherously: If I recall, the Midianites were enemies of Israel, who assaulted them on multiple occasions. As Israel kept defeating them, the king of the Midianites figured, the only way he could subdue the Israelites was if the protective hand of God were not with them. One way to do that was to have the Israelites violate commandment #1 (Thou shalt have no other gods before Me). And what better way to get Israel's men to commit apostasy, than use the Midianite women to lure them into perverted sexual rituals, in worship of the Midianite god(s).

Last time I checked, this sounds like one of the prophecies, concerning the fall of Babylon, as the Medes and Persians knocked them off in 539 B.C. If that's the case, then what we have is a preview of the world history.


Ummmm.....last time I checked, HEROD was responsible for what happened in this account from Matthew. This, by the way, was the same account Columbusdude claimed didn't happen, after I used it to refute his claim that the accounts about Jesus' early life in Matthew and Luke were contradictory.

And, Herod did this, because he felt that Jesus was a threat to his ruling Judea. He called for this edict, becasue all he knew about Jesus (the perceved threat) was that He was born in Bethlehem two years prior to the wise men's arrival.

I missed a few of the bleatings covered here. But, basically, you get the point.

[size=pt50]The bottom line is this: People believe in this God, because He is the Creator of Earth. He sent Jesus here to redeem man and give us a chance at eternal life. The Gospel has offered hopes to millions of those in despair, peace in times of trouble, and joy in times of sorrow. [/size]

It is the greatest message on Earth. And, whether some of these self-proclaimed "enlightened", "free-thinking", or "bright" blowhards, often called atheists, like it or not, the God we serve reigns supreme. The frustration builds for them, because despite their best efforts, they CANNOT "rationalize" or "reason" Him out of existence.

Pophyry couldn't do it. Darwin couldn't do it; O'Hair couldn't it. Neither Dawkins nor Hitchens can do it. And, whatever atheist flavor-of-the-month succeeds them won't do it.

What you Bible thumpers don't get is that simply because something is consoling, makes people happy or offers hope, does NOT have the slightest bearing on whether or not it is true. If your basic premise were true then the Bible and its contents as well as the claims of the faithful would be confirmed as true by the greatest minds alive, astrophysicists at Cambridge unravelling the mysteries of the universe, MIT biologists penetrating new levels of understanding in DNA and Harvard historians and archaeologists confirming Exodus and all the rest of the Bible as accurate. They do not.

Who cares if Christianity comforts people; what matters is whether or not it is true.

BTW, how does it feel to get owned by the Minimalist?

[Necrosis]

YAAAAAAAAAAWN!!!!!

Pole has managed to cut and paste a long-winded diatribe, that reflects his often whiny emotional tirades about how God isn't a loving God, because He judges sin and sinful behavior.

WAAAH, WAAAAH, WAAAAAH!!!! God is a great big meanie!!!!

I actually thought this was something interesting.

But, since I'm either bored out of my skull (winding down after Super Bowl 42) or I'm a glutton for punishment, I will actually address some of this atheist hissy-fit.

They would also understand that:

1) They have nothing documenting that Mt. Everest wasn't covered on Earth or even that Mt. Everest as we know it now was standing immediately before or after the Flood.

2) No one ever claimed that the Ark carried "the million of species that are now found on Earth". Quite the opposite, in Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study, the author claims that Noah would have had needed (at best) about 16,000 animals in the Ark. And, thanks to selective breeding that the little thing called "natural selection", animals can do what they do best: reproduce after their own kind.

Whoever wrote this gibberish apparently forgot that God (through Noah) gave mankind about 120 years to repent of their sins, as "the thoughts of man were only evil continuously".

Whoever assumed that is dead wrong. Perhaps, he should consider this question: WHy would a "mass murder" give His victims TWELVE DECADES TO REPENT and potentially spare them of their deserved fate, for violating His laws on a continued basis?

1) Christians don't accept a "mass-murderer". They accept the almight and soveriegn God.

2)  A loving and perfect being can give people the opportunity to repent of their transgressions (no matter how severe), spare them, and redeem them. That, O misinformed Pole (or whoever penned this silliness) is one reason why Christians worship him. If mankind refuses to accept such grace, then they received the fate metted upon them. BTW, when did Hitler offer to forgive the Jews, or blacks, or anyone who wasn't part of his so-called "master race"?


AHHHH YESSS!!! Here is the usual atheist tomfoolery of taking Bible texts way out of context and NOT posting the whole story in their infantile "God is a big meanie" rants.

Once again, the author "conveniently" forget that Israel was enslaved for 400 years, which included the killing of Israel's young boys as the population was growing too numerous. And, the famous words of Moses "conveniently" disappear from the memory of skeptics galore, LET MY PEOPLE GO!!!

I guess Team Skeptic expects us to forget that Pharoah had a mere NINE chances to release the Israelites, before the tenth (and most devastating plague) hits Egypt.

More of the same fluff!!!!

Let's recap how these women led Israel to act treacherously: If I recall, the Midianites were enemies of Israel, who assaulted them on multiple occasions. As Israel kept defeating them, the king of the Midianites figured, the only way he could subdue the Israelites was if the protective hand of God were not with them. One way to do that was to have the Israelites violate commandment #1 (Thou shalt have no other gods before Me). And what better way to get Israel's men to commit apostasy, than use the Midianite women to lure them into perverted sexual rituals, in worship of the Midianite god(s).

Last time I checked, this sounds like one of the prophecies, concerning the fall of Babylon, as the Medes and Persians knocked them off in 539 B.C. If that's the case, then what we have is a preview of the world history.


Ummmm.....last time I checked, HEROD was responsible for what happened in this account from Matthew. This, by the way, was the same account Columbusdude claimed didn't happen, after I used it to refute his claim that the accounts about Jesus' early life in Matthew and Luke were contradictory.

And, Herod did this, because he felt that Jesus was a threat to his ruling Judea. He called for this edict, becasue all he knew about Jesus (the perceved threat) was that He was born in Bethlehem two years prior to the wise men's arrival.

I missed a few of the bleatings covered here. But, basically, you get the point.

The bottom line is this: People believe in this God, because He is the Creator of Earth. He sent Jesus here to redeem man and give us a chance at eternal life. The Gospel has offered hopes to millions of those in despair, peace in times of trouble, and joy in times of sorrow.

It is the greatest message on Earth. And, whether some of these self-proclaimed "enlightened", "free-thinking", or "bright" blowhards, often called atheists, like it or not, the God we serve reigns supreme. The frustration builds for them, because despite their best efforts, they CANNOT "rationalize" or "reason" Him out of existence.

Pophyry couldn't do it. Darwin couldn't do it; O'Hair couldn't it. Neither Dawkins nor Hitchens can do it. And, whatever atheist flavor-of-the-month succeeds them won't do it.

for example

"Whoever wrote this gibberish apparently forgot that God (through Noah) gave mankind about 120 years to repent of their sins, as "the thoughts of man were only evil continuously".

you didnt even counter his point that an all loving all knowing god would know that these people would sin hence he basically created them to drown them? why didnt he speed up jesus's arrival, why not create them without the ability to sin? an all loving god could never commit mass murder and drown everyone.

[MCWAY]

What you Bible thumpers don't get is that simply because something is consoling, makes people happy or offers hope, does NOT have the slightest bearing on whether or not it is true. If your basic premise were true then the Bible and its contents as well as the claims of the faithful would be confirmed as true by the greatest minds alive, astrophysicists at Cambridge unravelling the mysteries of the universe, MIT biologists penetrating new levels of understanding in DNA and Harvard historians and archaeologists confirming Exodus and all the rest of the Bible as accurate. They do not.

That's what got you in trouble, in the first place. How many more times are you atheists going to wail about something in the Bible being false, only to dine on crow (extra crispy), once discoveries show the Bible's accounts to be valid? As it is, you guys are already doing the two-step with the supposedly non-existent town of Nazareth. And, don't let Loco remind you......AGAIN......of how many times skeptics have been burned, when archaeological finds have supported the Biblical accounts.

Who cares if Christianity comforts people; what matters is whether or not it is true.

BTW, how does it feel to get owned by the Minimalist?

Lots of people care, and the historical validation over the centuries have shown it to be true, thus making its comforting value quite significant. It's also what makes you (and a ton of other skeptics) MAD beyond belief. Christianity is simple one nut you can't crack, period.

BTW, In what bizarro universe did this alleged owning happened?

The mere fact that you invited me to that site shows how feeble your arguments were (and still are).

Rather than stand on your own two feet and make your points on your own, you ran like a punk, hoping that Minimalist (among others) would save your hide. In fact, one poster (Whore of Babylon) is actually complaining that after you invited me to that site, you've yet to address me head on, with regards to certain topics.

But, of course, I knew from the get-go that your invitation was merely of your playing the "safety-in-numbers" game, with the foolish belief that a bunch of foul-mouthed, condescending, overbearing atheists would brow-beat me into submission and show that "Fundy" MCWAY who's boss.

That didn't happen, because just as it is in your case, all one has to do is carve through the cussing and bleating, get to the meat-and-potatoes of the matter, and go to work, refuting such silliness with cold hard facts.

[MCWAY]

for example

"Whoever wrote this gibberish apparently forgot that God (through Noah) gave mankind about 120 years to repent of their sins, as "the thoughts of man were only evil continuously".

you didnt even counter his point that an all loving all knowing god would know that these people would sin hence he basically created them to drown them? why didnt he speed up jesus's arrival, why not create them without the ability to sin? an all loving god could never commit mass murder and drown everyone.

Counter whose point? If you're going to do the cut-and-paste routine, at least cite your source.

An all-loving and all-loving God created His being with this little thing called FREE WILL, the one thing that seems to escape your mindset.

In the end, it's HIS creation, not yours or mine. That means He can do what He wants with what is His, whether you (or I) like it or not.

[Necrosis]

Counter whose point? If you're going to do the cut-and-paste routine, at least cite your source.

An all-loving and all-loving God created His being with this little thing called FREE WILL, the one thing that seems to escape your mindset.

In the end, it's HIS creation, not yours or mine. That means He can do what He wants with what is His, whether you (or I) like it or not.

so whats your defintion of all knowing? wouldnt god know what you would do, or are your actions foreign to him, in that because you have free will god is unsure what may or may not happen?

[Deicide]

That's what got you in trouble, in the first place. How many more times are you atheists going to wail about something in the Bible being false, only to dine on crow (extra crispy), once discoveries show the Bible's accounts to be valid? As it is, you guys are already doing the two-step with the supposedly non-existent town of Nazareth. And, don't let Loco remind you......AGAIN......of how many times skeptics have been burned, when archaeological finds have supported the Biblical accounts.

Lots of people care, and the historical validation over the centuries have shown it to be true, thus making its comforting value quite significant. It's also what makes you (and a ton of other skeptics) MAD beyond belief. Christianity is simple one nut you can't crack, period.

BTW, In what bizarro universe did this alleged owning happened?

The mere fact that you invited me to that site shows how feeble your arguments were (and still are).

Rather than stand on your own two feet and make your points on your own, you ran like a punk, hoping that Minimalist (among others) would save your hide. In fact, one poster (Whore of Babylon) is actually complaining that after you invited me to that site, you've yet to address me head on, with regards to certain topics.

But, of course, I knew from the get-go that your invitation was merely of your playing the "safety-in-numbers" game, with the foolish belief that a bunch of foul-mouthed, condescending, overbearing atheists would brow-beat me into submission and show that "Fundy" MCWAY who's boss.

That didn't happen, because just as it is in your case, all one has to do is carve through the cussing and bleating, get to the meat-and-potatoes of the matter, and go to work, refuting such silliness with cold hard facts.

Exodus? Archaeologically validated? How many fucking decades have they been looking for it? Not a single top archaeologist claims there is firm evidence for an Exodus. And you have dodged my main point. The best minds of the world would be confirming EVERY detail of the Bible, from the magic garden and the talking snake, to the Exodus and self-resurrecting godman in a loincloth; it would all be confirmed as fact or at the very least as very likely. The greatest minds in the best universities do NOT do that. Are they all wrong? All the scientists and scholars? Answer the question, don't dodge.

I did participate on Kokobridge but in case you missed it, check it out:

Meh. One can only speak of historical probablities concerning such issues and it does stick out like a sore thumb that hundreds of years went by without any Christian author prior to Eusebius mentioning those lines; therefore it is improbable that they were there before him.

There is something quite amazing here and the fact remains that competent scholars DO argue against authenticity of the entire passage (both Jesus passages actually), believing there to be no mention of a Jesus. It is at the end of the day not a concrete issue. We can speak concretely of Caesar and even of Alexander, because there is much more evidence of their lives than there is of a Jesus of Nazareth. Even if the passages were legitimate, what does that amount to, but a series of one liners about the most important man in a loincloth in the history of the world. Why is there no contemporary witness (early 1st century CE) of Jesus by the prominent writers and chroniclers of the time (Philo, Justus of Tiberias, Pliny the Elder)? Why is there no mention of Jesus when we hear of Herod? Why is the census mentioned in the NT NOT documented elsewhere by anyone? It seems like you are chasing a ghost.

[MCWAY]

Exodus? Archaeologically validated? How many fucking decades have they been looking for it? Not a single top archaeologist claims there is firm evidence for an Exodus. And you have dodged my main point. The best minds of the world would be confirming EVERY detail of the Bible, from the magic garden and the talking snake, to the Exodus and self-resurrecting godman in a loincloth; it would all be confirmed as fact or at the very least as very likely. The greatest minds in the best universities do NOT do that. Are they all wrong? All the scientists and scholars? Answer the question, don't dodge.

I did participate on Kokobridge but in case you missed it, check it out:

The "best minds in the world" have yet to cure cancer, AIDS, and host of other diseases. What's your point? With that said, it often takes centuries to find ancient artifacts. For example, it wasn't until the 19th century that cuneiform evidence was found, confirming the existence of Belshazzar, whose name was virtually unknown, outside the Bible.

Not that it matters, anyway, as every time scholars find evidence the does confirm the existence of people, places, and certain events in the Bible, you and many of your skeptic brethren (after bouts of profane hissy-fits) start breaking out the excuses and conspiracy theories. You've done that several times with items that include (but are not limited to):

- The non-Christian references to Jesus Christ
- Archaeological evidence for Nazareth
- Archaeological evidence supporting the Exodus (which would even include that special, done by National Geographic, in which scientists attempt to link the plagues on Egypt with certain natural disasters).


So, excuse me, if I seriously doubt that any more evidence backing such events/people/places would make one shred of difference, as far as your mindset goes.

Meh. One can only speak of historical probablities concerning such issues and it does stick out like a sore thumb that hundreds of years went by without any Christian author prior to Eusebius mentioning those lines; therefore it is improbable that they were there before him.

Again, neither you nor your buddy on the other forum have established why such was (or is) necessary. Plus, that leaves you with the task of explaining:

 - Why Origen would claim that Josephus did not recognize Jesus as the Christ, after reading Book 18 of the Antiquities (and perhaps Book 20), if Josephus made no reference to Jesus Christ at all.

 - Why an interpolator would add a mere two references to Jesus Christ, playing up His divinity in just one of them.

There is something quite amazing here and the fact remains that competent scholars DO argue against authenticity of the entire passage (both Jesus passages actually), believing there to be no mention of a Jesus. It is at the end of the day not a concrete issue.

Correction: Competent scholars argue against the authenticity of the entire passage (the first one, anyway); but, as the reference (that Loco has so graciously provided on multiple occasions) suggests, the consensus is that Josephus DID make reference to Jesus Christ in the Antiquities.

We can speak concretely of Caesar and even of Alexander, because there is much more evidence of their lives than there is of a Jesus of Nazareth. Even if the passages were legitimate, what does that amount to, but a series of one liners about the most important man in a loincloth in the history of the world.

Much of the evidence, as I pointed out to you some time ago, comes from second-hand sources, the earliest extant copies of which date centuries after those rulers' reported lifetimes. Such doesn't seem to be a problem, UNLESS it concerns one Jesus Christ. Then, all of a sudden, it has to be during His lifetime, or it's conspiracies galore. Then, there's the minor fact that Caesar and Alexander were earthly monarchs; while Jesus Christ was not, nor was He "the most important man in a loincloth in the hisotry of the world", during 1st century A.D. That is a status that, to many, He holds now and has held for centuries since then, hence a reason why we reference time as B.C. and A.D.

Why is there no contemporary witness (early 1st century CE) of Jesus by the prominent writers and chroniclers of the time (Philo, Justus of Tiberias, Pliny the Elder)? Why is there no mention of Jesus when we hear of Herod?

Hmmmmm.....I guess the fact that Jesus Christ was executed as a criminal MIGHT have had something to do some of that. Once again, Herod was an earthly king; Jesus was not. Of course, that has little to do with whether or not Jesus Christ actually existed.  Regardless, there were first century A.D. writers who wrote about Jesus, which include (despite your conspiratory claims to the contary) Josephus and Tacitus.

Why is the census mentioned in the NT NOT documented elsewhere by anyone? It seems like you are chasing a ghost.

At one time, there were a number of things "NOT documented elsewhere by anyone" (the town of Nazareth, Belshazzar, the Hittites, etc.). But, this archaeology thing has a funny way of validating Scripture and tripping up skeptics.

[Necrosis]

so whats your defintion of all knowing? wouldnt god know what you would do, or are your actions foreign to him, in that because you have free will god is unsure what may or may not happen?

bump for mcway to explain how god can be all knowing yet not know what you would do with you life, basically putting him in the dark.

[OzmO]

If god is all-knowing then life is a re-run.   

All his people are already "found" by him.  There's no sense in even trying.

Foot note:  Finding cities form the bible does not validate scripture in that those miracles and such happened.  It only shows scripture is based on some truth as far locations are concerned.  Nothing more.

Remember, Mt Olympus.....   

[Necrosis]

bump for mcway to explain how one can be all knowing yet not be responsible for the actions of man who when those actions where known before creation


bump

bump.

[loco]

If god is all-knowing then life is a re-run.   

All his people are already "found" by him.  There's no sense in even trying.

How do you know who "all his people" are?  There's no sense in even trying what?  Christians spread the message of the Gospel, provide shelter for the homeless, feed the hungry, defend those who can't defend themselves...why?  Because Jesus said so, and because Jesus gives us the desire and the power to do so.

Foot note:  Finding cities form the bible does not validate scripture in that those miracles and such happened.  It only shows scripture is based on some truth as far locations are concerned.  Nothing more.

Remember, Mt Olympus.....   

Tell that to the skeptics who say that the Bible can't be taken seriously because there is no town of Nazareth, no king David, no Hittites, no Belshazzar, etc., only to be proved wrong time and time again by new Archaeological discoveries.

Archeology and History do validate that the Bible is not just some book of fairy tales, as some here keep saying.  It validates that the Bible, though not a book of history, it does speak authoritatively when it speaks about history.

[loco]

bump for mcway to explain how one can be all knowing yet not be responsible for the actions of man who when those actions where known before creation


bump

bump.

Knowing the future doesn't mean that God wants to control every part of it.  He gives us choices to sin or not to sin, to do good or not to do good.  Yes, God knows what we will choose, but He does not choose for us.

[OzmO]

How do you know who "all his people" are?  There's no sense in even trying what?  Christians spread the message of the Gospel, provide shelter for the homeless, feed the hungry, defend those who can't defend themselves...why?  Because Jesus said so, and because Jesus gives us the desire and the power to do so.

I don;t know who all his people are.  Did i say i did?  show me.   My point was that if he all knowing then he knows who will or will not truely accept Jesus Christ as their savior and the if that's the case why try to save, why try to be good, etc...

Tell that to the skeptics who say that the Bible can't be taken seriously because there is no town of Nazareth, no king David, no Hittites, no Belshazzar, etc., only to be proved wrong time and time again by new Archaeological discoveries.

Archeology and History do validate that the Bible is not just some book of fairy tales, as some here keep saying.  It validates that the Bible, though not a book of history, it does speak authoritatively when it speaks about history.

The bible can't be taken seriously becuase of it's doctrine and it's alleged "magic", not becuase of the town of Nazareth.

Trying to turn it into an argument about its validity based on locations is juvenile and for stupid people.  As a whole you must take into account it's "fairy tales" or "Works of God" depending on your beliefs and faith, as part of its entire work.  Because of that it's much of a history book.  More like historical fiction

[loco]

I don;t know who all his people are.  Did i say i did?  show me.   My point was that if he all knowing then he knows who will or will not truely accept Jesus Christ as their savior and the if that's the case why try to save, why try to be good, etc...

I wasn't talking about you, OzmO.  I was making a point.  Nobody knows who "all his people are".  That is why Christians must simply obey Jesus' command and follow his example, spreading his message and helping the helpless.  For Christians, knowing that God knows the future does not change that.

The bible can't be taken seriously becuase of it's doctrine and it's alleged "magic", not becuase of the town of Nazareth.

Trying to turn it into an argument about its validity based on locations is juvenile and for stupid people.  As a whole you must take into account it's "fairy tales" or "Works of God" depending on your beliefs and faith, as part of its entire work.  Because of that it's much of a history book.  More like historical fiction

Again, tell that to the skeptics who argue against "its validity based on locations".  There are plenty of them out there, and a few here on this board.

[OzmO]

I wasn't talking about you, OzmO.  I was making a point.  Nobody knows who "all his people are".  That is why Christians must simply obey Jesus' command and follow his example, spreading his message and helping the helpless.  For Christians, knowing that God knows the future does not change that.

But the root point is that an "all knowing" god would know.   We aren't talking about other people knowing.  who would know that?  Why are you even bringing that up?  How is that related to the discussion about an "all knowing" god?   anyone who thinks they know is probably a good candidate for a cult leader.

Again, tell that to the skeptics who argue against "its validity based on locations".  There are plenty of them out there, and a few here on this board.

What i wrote is what i think the skeptics are saying.  verifying Location in scrupture does not make all the other stuff true.