Where's the Justice?

[Drich]

[quote='Gambit' pid='309844' dateline='1342275550']
[quote]Drich, you are talking absolute shit, yet again. So, let's continue the conversation along the lines of the babies. Why couldn't God have rescued the innocents as he did the animals, Noah and his family? Surely innocent babies are more righteous than even Noah? You say my argument falls down, however, you are the one who has to redefine morality to make your truth fit. That is the conflict that you face and the only way you can resolve it is by changing the meaning of morality. [/quote]Who would take care of the 1000's of babies that were saved? one of the 8 people left on the planet? what would they eat? you do know they did not have powered baby formula back then right? Who would care for them when they got older? Let me put it this way: what happens when there are too many predators and not enough food? after everything is eaten the predators would starve.
So even if god saved the babies, they would soon eat every thing avaiable making the whole ark effort meaningless. Look at all of the additional "clean" aniamals Noah had to take to sustain 8 people.

[quote]Again I will ask, where are there any references in the bible that explicitly state, other than your interpretation of other passages, why God chose to kill all the innocent babies in the flood?[/quote]
Gladly if you can please show where I said the wrath of God was directed only at babies.
Cut and paste the quote along with the post number.

[quote] You are attempting to speak on behalf of God, which is not your place. [/quote] But it is.. It is the 'place' of every believer when asked a question about why he or she believes. Some answers will be more indeppth than others but all own an explaination.

[quote]Your mental gymnastics and attempts to discredit my observation of your weak arguments are not good enough.[/quote] If it were then it would be very easy for you to go line by line and disect my statement and prove me wrong on each and every level as i have done for you. But instead you lump everything to gether and make sweaping observations in an attempt to dismiss what you can not answer for.
[quote]
You have failed to provide me with what I ask for, time and time again.[/quote]Cut and paste an example.

[quote] You continually try to make tenuous links using phrasing like "We know from this" - how do you know anything? The only way you could is if your knowledge was specifically guided by God. Do you make such a claim? [/quote]We know this from the bible which is specific guideance from God. so yes.

[quote]I'm not even going to leave that as a loaded question; I'll expand on it right now. I've been told by many believers of different faiths that I am special and that God has charged me with a specific task - this is all due to some work I do outside of this forum. That includes Christians, Muslims, Hindus and psychics. Now, if I were to believe them, which I don't, I would state quite clearly that I've been sent to destroy your corruption of God's true message to mankind. On what grounds could you possibly challenge me? I think I can already anticipate your answer, but I'll wait.[/quote] why do you think I need to challenge you at all? You came here asking me questions. AND you asked that I directly address a thread you were going to post... So again it seems as if your challenging me, not the otherway round.

(was my response as you predicted?) It was easy enough to predict. After all it reflects your actions and the request you made.

[frankiej]

Those laughing things are reeeeaaaalllyyy annoying...

[Gambit]

Drich you have not proved me wrong, and you are still dodging the points. I'm not even going to bother discussing anything further with you, you're obviously not able to address a specific point without using avoiding tactics. I never once said you said the wrath was aimed only at babies; that is yet another attempt on your part to dodge the question. God is all powerful, God could have easily provided for the babies, seeing as it was God who decided to wipe them all out on a whim. That would have been too difficult, I guess. And what's with the laughing at me; are you trying to get a rise?

The mass slaughter of babies in indefensible. You cannot cite the bible as proof of anything; considering I have googled every one of your arguments and read countless different defenses for God's actions in the bible. Your argument rests on your interpretation being right and all the rest being wrong. I guess they must all wrong and you're right, though, otherwise you would be so confident to laugh in my face. It must be great to be so informed. Anyway, I'm done with you, your beliefs actually make me feel sick and you are an abhorrent excuse for a human being.

[Drich]

Drich you have not proved me wrong, and you are still dodging the points. I'm not even going to bother discussing anything further with you, you're obviously not able to address a specific point without using avoiding tactics. I never once said you said the wrath was aimed only at babies; that is yet another attempt on your part to dodge the question.

From your last post:

Again I will ask, where are there any references in the bible that explicitly state, other than your interpretation of other passages, why God chose to kill all the innocent babies in the flood?

God is all powerful, God could have easily provided for the babies,

again it took 7 pairs of all clean animals to see 8 people through to the flood. How many more for the 1000's if not 10's of thousands of babies? again i ask which one of the 8 survivors of the flood would care for them?

as it is God did care for them when He called them home. Life is not always the greatest mercy. that is unles you are one of those who worships life over God. then anything less than the preceived 100 years you are entitled to, is considered to be a sin.

seeing as it was God who decided to wipe them all out on a whim. That would have been too difficult, I guess.

or simply not in the will of God.

And what's with the laughing at me; are you trying to get a rise?

No i want you to stop saying foolish things. Think about what you say before making a persumptous statement. Ask a question in place of making a foolish assertion.

The mass slaughter of babies in indefensible.

It's not.

You cannot cite the bible as proof of anything; considering I have googled every one of your arguments and read countless different defenses for God's actions in the bible.

Yet you FOOLISHLY cite the bible to condemn God for flooding the world and killing babies when everything you believe says there wasn't a flood to begin with. (See, here is another example of a foolishly thought out statement)

Your argument rests on your interpretation being right and all the rest being wrong.

and another for all 'interpertations' hinge on this fact to one degree or another.

I guess they must all wrong and you're right, though, otherwise you would be so confident to laugh in my face. It must be great to be so informed. Anyway, I'm done with you, your beliefs actually make me feel sick and you are an abhorrent excuse for a human being.

My responses are written with care to mirror your own efforts. if you wish to challenge and force acceptance of your points i will gladly respond in kind. However if you approach with honest questions and check your persumptions, and pride i will answer any question or concern you have with the same care.. In short if you push be ready to be pushed back.

[Gambit]

God is all powerful, God could have easily provided for the babies,

again it took 7 pairs of all clean animals to see 8 people through to the flood. How many more for the 1000's if not 10's of thousands of babies? again i ask which one of the 8 survivors of the flood would care for them?

Again, I quite clearly said: God is all powerful, God could have easily provided for the babies,

You really have a problem with reading, don't you?

as it is God did care for them when He called them home. Life is not always the greatest mercy. that is unles you are one of those who worships life over God. then anything less than the preceived 100 years you are entitled to, is considered to be a sin.

Yeah, but let them be born first because they need to die horribly in a flood before bringing them home, otherwise God wouldn't get his kicks. I say again, your God is an asshole.

seeing as it was God who decided to wipe them all out on a whim. That would have been too difficult, I guess.

No i want you to stop saying foolish things. Think about what you say before making a persumptous statement. Ask a question in place of making a foolish assertion.

Yet you haven't once proven that I said anything foolish, nor shown where I presumed anything. But I guess when your whole thought process is constructed of unproven assertions, you must start to see foolishness in everything.

The mass slaughter of babies in indefensible.

It's not.

Okay, let me rephrase that: The mass slaughter of babies is indefensible, to any right thinking person. You sir, do not qualify.

You cannot cite the bible as proof of anything; considering I have googled every one of your arguments and read countless different defenses for God's actions in the bible.

Yet you FOOLISHLY cite the bible to condemn God for flooding the world and killing babies when everything you believe says there wasn't a flood to begin with. (See, here is another example of a foolishly thought out statement)

This coming from the guy who is quite happy to pull the "We're discussing in the context of the bible" card, whenever it works in his favour. You're a sneaky little man, aren't you?

Your argument rests on your interpretation being right and all the rest being wrong.

and another for all 'interpertations' hinge on this fact to one degree or another.

Oh, but isn't this the infallible word of God? So let me paint it in black and white for you. If your interpretation is wrong and the others are right, you're fucked and going to hell with the rest of us. I'll get the drinks in, I've set up a tab ahead of time.

I guess they must all wrong and you're right, though, otherwise you would be so confident to laugh in my face. It must be great to be so informed. Anyway, I'm done with you, your beliefs actually make me feel sick and you are an abhorrent excuse for a human being.

My responses are written with care to mirror your own efforts. if you wish to challenge and force acceptance of your points i will gladly respond in kind. However if you approach with honest questions and check your persumptions, and pride i will answer any question or concern you have with the same care.. In short if you push be ready to be pushed back.

The only display of pride here is you, and your insistence that all your interpretations of scriptures are correct and all others are incorrect. You haven't pushed anything other than a collection of assertions which only serve to justify the abhorrent actions of the Christian God.

They're not even original either. You didn't come by them through a relationship with the holy spirit, they are taught. So you sit there, feeling proud that you have been given insider knowledge. While all the time you are using selective memory to hide away the reading, lectures and preaching it took for you to come to the conclusions that you have. You are a clone, and like all clones you don't even know it. Your indoctrination does not allow you to access that part of your ego, lest you have a complete mental break down.

Call me foolish if you wish, but you're the one who has been fooled.

[Drich]

Again, I quite clearly said: God is all powerful, God could have easily provided for the babies,

You really have a problem with reading, don't you?

again here is where you should have asked another question rather than assert what or How you think 'God would provide.' Now it is up to you and your interpertation of the bible to show How god is to provide for 10's of thousands of infants. with only 8 adults, 7 pairs of clean animals, and 1 pair of unclean animals.. Just know Any answer you give should result in a Rotf imoticon, but will save you the humilation to give you the honest oppertunity to explore your precept.

Yeah, but let them be born first because they need to die horribly in a flood before bringing them home, otherwise God wouldn't get his kicks. I say again, your God is an asshole.

You make a good point here. How is it you know of any Children being born that are not hybrids? For the only type of child the bible mentions are these hybrids. That is something i had not perviously noticed.

Translation: I don't have an answer, so I'm going to trot out "It's part of God's plan, man."

Ok let's see what you do with the oppertunity I gave you to answer.

This coming from the guy who is quite happy to pull the "We're discussing in the context of the bible" card, whenever it works in his favour. You're a sneaky little man, aren't you?

Ok you want an example of something foolish? this is one of many. For this is not a matter of simply contextual error. This is a matter of failed logic. as I've already pointed out. You have cherry picked one part of the flood story, (even though everything you believe says their wasn't a flood) you've ignored the rest of reference material that says their was flood, and substituted you own story as to what happened, just so you could try and convict god and his followers. again this is not so much as a contextual error as you rewritting the bible to persecute the Whole of Christianity and the God of the bible. So then it become you 'moral obligation' to distance yourself from God and His followers.

Oh, but isn't this the infallible word of God? So let me paint it in black and white for you. If your interpretation is wrong and the others are right, you're fucked and going to hell with the rest of us. I'll get the drinks in, I've set up a tab ahead of time.

were it that simple. For the same grace that is extended to those who willfully sin is extended to those who spend all of their ablity to find and worship God but come up short. For you see the command isn't to 'get things 100% right. it is to put in the 100% effort. If getting things 100% right was the goal we'd all be in trouble. Because the goal is to do your best is the reason we have so many different denominations. (I did a thread on this if you care to look it up)

The only display of pride here is you, and your insistence that all your interpretations of scriptures are correct and all others are incorrect.

Here is another place you should have asked a question. For incorrect is not damning someone else to hell. It simply means it is not biblically accurate.

You haven't pushed anything other than a collection of assertions which only serve to justify the abhorrent actions of the Christian God.

My work has not offered any commentary denoting the condemnation of the God of the bible. You simply have taken what was offered and filtered it through you failed morality to come to your own conclusion.

They're not even original either.

Of course they are not.

You didn't come by them through a relationship with the holy spirit, they are taught.

By whom? My atheist Father? My buddhist Mother? I was 26 before I went to my first formal bible study, and we only studied the NT.. Matter of fact I do not know that I have ever sat through an OT bible study ever. so please tell me who and how it was i was taught.

So you sit there, feeling proud that you have been given insider knowledge.

There is nothing inside here it is all written on the page! wasn't it you who requested to know where the story was orginally recorded? This is another FOOLISH statement! How is it you think you have a better understanding of the evens of the flood and NOt even have read or know where to find the account of the Ark? Than some on who has? If you give it an honest read and put aside your own version you would have the same information I have now!

The reason what I said sounds familiar to you is perhaps the last guy who argued with you also simply READ THE ACCOUNT AS WRITTEN. The Reason you are having so much trouble understanding what is going on and the reason your logic has failed is because your throwing your version against what God saw fit to have printed. You are going against God here. I am just a parrot repeating what He has already said.

[Gambit]

again here is where you should have asked another question rather than assert what or How you think 'God would provide.' Now it is up to you and your interpertation of the bible to show How god is to provide for 10's of thousands of infants. with only 8 adults, 7 pairs of clean animals, and 1 pair of unclean animals.. Just know Any answer you give should result in a Rotf imoticon, but will save you the humilation to give you the honest oppertunity to explore your precept.

Again, this is where you fail to recognize the supposed all powerful nature of you God. If he saw fit to construct a flood that wiped out the world, he can sure as hell provide food and protection for the babies rather than kill them. What is so hard to understand that I have to literally spell it out for you?

You make a good point here. How is it you know of any Children being born that are not hybrids? For the only type of child the bible mentions are these hybrids. That is something i had not perviously noticed.

Ok... I'll leave you to look into that.

Ok let's see what you do with the oppertunity I gave you to answer.

I honestly have no idea what you are alluding to here, so I'll have to pass.

Ok you want an example of something foolish? this is one of many. For this is not a matter of simply contextual error. This is a matter of failed logic. as I've already pointed out. You have cherry picked one part of the flood story, (even though everything you believe says their wasn't a flood) you've ignored the rest of reference material that says their was flood, and substituted you own story as to what happened, just so you could try and convict god and his followers. again this is not so much as a contextual error as you rewritting the bible to persecute the Whole of Christianity and the God of the bible. So then it become you 'moral obligation' to distance yourself from God and His followers.

Please direct me to where I created any story or rewrote anything. Otherwise all you have is a strawman of what I actually said.

were it that simple. For the same grace that is extended to those who willfully sin is extended to those who spend all of their ablity to find and worship God but come up short. For you see the command isn't to 'get things 100% right. it is to put in the 100% effort. If getting things 100% right was the goal we'd all be in trouble. Because the goal is to do your best is the reason we have so many different denominations. (I did a thread on this if you care to look it up)

Great, then I'm going to heaven then.

Here is another place you should have asked a question. For incorrect is not damning someone else to hell. It simply means it is not biblically accurate.

If you are not biblical accurate then you have no place to speak on behalf of or claim to know the mind of the Christian God. You are slowly starting to agree with me, and you don't even know it.

My work has not offered any commentary denoting the condemnation of the God of the bible. You simply have taken what was offered and filtered it through you failed morality to come to your own conclusion.

That doesn't even make sense in the context of what I said. I can only assume that you are not capable of comprehending what I said or misinterpreted it, so I'll have to move on.

Of course they are not.

I'll answer this in my next response.

By whom? My atheist Father? My buddhist Mother? I was 26 before I went to my first formal bible study, and we only studied the NT.. Matter of fact I do not know that I have ever sat through an OT bible study ever. so please tell me who and how it was i was taught.

You have professes to studying the bible for over 10 years on another thread; going so far as to learn the original greek words etc. Now, unless I'm very much mistaken, God in the voice of Morgan Freeman did not narrate that shit to you.

There is nothing inside here it is all written on the page! wasn't it you who requested to know where the story was orginally recorded? This is another FOOLISH statement! How is it you think you have a better understanding of the evens of the flood and NOt even have read or know where to find the account of the Ark? Than some on who has? If you give it an honest read and put aside your own version you would have the same information I have now!

And I'd still think God is an asshole. FYI I have read it, but you could ask me the same questions about parts of Lord of the Rings, which I read around the same time, and I'd struggle to give you an accurate recollection of the order of events. You're the one making the positive claims about God's reasons for the flood, I am simply challenging them as you present them. Hence the reason I ask for reference material.

The reason what I said sounds familiar to you is perhaps the last guy who argued with you also simply READ THE ACCOUNT AS WRITTEN. The Reason you are having so much trouble understanding what is going on and the reason your logic has failed is because your throwing your version against what God saw fit to have printed. You are going against God here. I am just a parrot repeating what He has already said.

Nope. The reason is that you use the same reference material. Anyway, I really am done with this discussion because it is getting tiresome watching you try to mock me when you are clearly incapable of understanding the most simple statements. Trying to make me feel stupid is quite funny too, but I'll let you figure out why that is. Let's just say I'm really seeing red right now.

[Undeceived]

This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

You have not answered my question. Why should we love god and why should this god love us?

There is no imperative 'should'. God chose to love us; we know he loves us because he sacrificed himself for us. We can choose to love him back, or not.

Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us."

Why to any of this?

"If we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us." We want God to live in us because we feel fulfilled inside. Without him we are always searching and anxious, and experience grief. I suppose we might love for a feeling. Feelings are why we do most things--we want pleasure or an escape from hardship. That is our selfish motivation, anyway. Once I recognized what God did for me, he put a desire in my heart to love him back apart from a reward. He lives inside me. That's the whole point. If someone loves you, why do you love them back? Is it because you will get something? If not, why? Answer that and you will have answered your own question.

God does not need us to do anything for Him because He is all powerful.

Contradiction. You said this thing wants our devotion. Why does it need our love?

He doesn't need anything. He loves us like a father loves a child. Like a father, he would melt with happiness if we loved him back. He does not need anything from us, his creation, to survive. He simply wants the best for us. And he knows the best means having a strong relationship with him. Imagine your son is getting caught up with gangs and drugs. Do you 'need' him to set his life straight? Or are you just frustrated because he can't see how much better his life would be without the gangs and drugs?

With Jesus, our death will no longer be eternal.

I find the fact of eternal oblivion to be wonderful. Its true peace and everlasting freedom from the chains of reality and the burden of identity. Its greater than your silly god concept.

Which would you rather do--have an eternal feast of all your favorite foods or sleep eternally at the table? The choice is not difficult to make--all it requires is one thought. Of course, I believe the sleep (oblivion) option does not exist. Rather, there is a pit below the table where you will be eternally hungry.
(All a metaphor. Not literal as far as I know.)

[Drich]

Again, this is where you fail to recognize the supposed all powerful nature of you God.

Which is why I have asked you to provide some sort of precedent in which God is careing for 10's of thousands of infants. If I failed to recognize this then by all means show me.

If he saw fit to construct a flood that wiped out the world, he can sure as hell provide food and protection for the babies rather than kill them.

He did in that He called them home, where He is personally caring for them. (this is my arguement, where is yours?)

Ok... I'll leave you to look into that.

I did and I told you that the bible only mentions that Hybrids were being born. Now you claim that human babies were being born so it is your turn to provide that proof.

Ok you want an example of something foolish? this is one of many. For this is not a matter of simply contextual error. This is a matter of failed logic. as I've already pointed out. You have cherry picked one part of the flood story, (even though everything you believe says their wasn't a flood) you've ignored the rest of reference material that says their was flood, and substituted you own story as to what happened, just so you could try and convict god and his followers. again this is not so much as a contextual error as you rewritting the bible to persecute the Whole of Christianity and the God of the bible. So then it become you 'moral obligation' to distance yourself from God and His followers.

Please direct me to where I created any story or rewrote anything. Otherwise all you have is a strawman of what I actually said.

You said God destroyed innocent babies. I pointed out that the bible only records Hybrids being born... So unless you can find book chapter and verse that says otherwise, you are making up a story in order to persecute God and his followers.

Great, then I'm going to heaven then.

That is between you and God.

If you are not biblical accurate then you have no place to speak on behalf of or claim to know the mind of the Christian God.

I am absolutly in a position to speak on the recorded aspects of the nature and mind of God.

You are slowly starting to agree with me, and you don't even know it.

You are right in the fact that there is a change happening here just not correct in the direction of said change is happening.

You have professes to studying the bible for over 10 years on another thread; going so far as to learn the original greek words etc. Now, unless I'm very much mistaken, God in the voice of Morgan Freeman did not narrate that shit to you.

No you are right, Morgan freeman's voice was not used. Just FYI The 'Greek' is the language of the NT. The OT was/is perserved in the Hebrew. The story of Noah's Ark is found in the OT.

And I'd still think God is an asshole. FYI I have read it, but you could ask me the same questions about parts of Lord of the Rings, which I read around the same time, and I'd struggle to give you an accurate recollection of the order of events. You're the one making the positive claims about God's reasons for the flood, I am simply challenging them as you present them. Hence the reason I ask for reference material.

This is what i meant about foolish responses. Why in the world would you take on this challenge with out reading what it was you are challenging? How could you possiably hope to understand what is being communicated? I read the three chapters that contained this account and I am still learning things. How foolish is it to think you have even a working understanding of what is going on if you've never studied this account let alone haven't even taken the time to read it in 10 years time?

Nope. The reason is that you use the same reference material.

YES THAT REFERENCE MATERIAL IS CALLED THE BIBLE!!!

Anyway, I really am done with this discussion because it is getting tiresome watching you try to mock me when you are clearly incapable of understanding the most simple statements. Trying to make me feel stupid is quite funny too, but I'll let you figure out why that is. Let's just say I'm really seeing red right now.

I am not trying to provoke you to anger. I am trying to raise the bar in this discussion, by showing you your deficencies and logical errors. the way I am doing it is on you, and how you approach me. If you like for a more civial tone then try and be a little more respectful. Do not dictate terms or insist/persume on your knoweledge of me, of the bible or of God. Ask Questions Rather than make Declerations, or insult.

I honestly do look forward to your other Questions I promise to start fresh, and not let anything from here carry over.

[Thor]

So.. you are, now blaming God for miscarages,

I don't blame your deity for anything. I can't blame your god for miscarriages any more than I can blame Paul Bunyan for trampling my garden.

How do I know He is not satan? Because I worship the God of the bible.

My point exactly! How do you know Satan didn't inspire men to write the Babble? In which case, he has you worshipping him! A pretty neat trick, I'd say!

This God has been consistent and Identifiable nature, that can be confirmed through scripture.

You mean the Babble confirms the Babble? How about that!

• Prov. 6:16-19, "There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

This deity "hates... hands that shed innocent blood"? Then he must hate himself. How many innocents did he kill with that flood? How many innocents did he kill when he condemned the first born sons to die?

(Joseph Smith/Mohammad crazy)

Interesting that you find Joseph Smith and Muhammad to be "crazy". You can stand outside the Mormon or Islamic bubble and see quite clearly how crazy their beliefs are. But you're stuck in your Christian bubble and are unable to see the craziness of your own beliefs.

So no even if i was convinced it stood before God (at the time) and he gave me a command not consitant with established scripture I would have to decline, maybe even lay the bible smack down on him as well..

You have basically said that anything this deity commands is "righteous". Yet, you would refuse one of his commands? You're not being consistent here.

Babies are not always the one who grow up to be criminals. some babies are to be victims. What is better dying at the hand of a loving God or being sacerficed beaten, raped, and/or eaten.

What an idiotic argument. First you say that the babies would have grown up to be evil. Well, if all the babies who would have grown up to be evil were killed, who would have been a victim? You're trying to have it both ways.

Bullshit. Everyone does things they shouldn't do. This doesn't necessarily make you "evil".

According to the sliding scale of morality you have adopted no. But according to God's standard it does.

Then your god is an asshole.

Was Mother Theresa "evil"?

According to the God she worshiped Yes, absolutly, without Question!!

More evidence your god is an asshole.

What is with you guys? IF You can use the bible to condemn God for a flood you say did not even exist. That means your whole case is predicated upon what the bible teaches. That means (Logically) that you can not ignore the bible when it Give reasons and explainations as to the reason why.

Because the "reasons why" are pahetic.

No Hitler was one man who inspired a whole nation. The hybrid wickedness that roamed the earth in the day of noah was so far above and beyond the efforts of one man/one nation of men, the bible says world had not every witnessed nor will ever witness again the evil that walk this earth.

Oh, yeah.... everyone on the entire planet was wicked and needed to be wiped out, except for one family. How this can make sense to anyone above the age of six mystifies me.

So what? The baboon mothers take care of their offspring.

Until their is a new alpha. then she hands the baby over to be killed and or eaten.

I really doubt baboon mothers "hand the baby over to be killed". You have a reference for that statement? A new male may chase the mothers away, but that is hardly the same thing.

This is why we need God to tell us not to do these things.

You really need a deity to tell you not to kill children? Couldn't figure that out on your own, huh?