Dear Christians: What does your god actually do?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

So wait, I do the very simple math to prove how much rainfall it would take to cover Mt. Ararat in 40 days/nights, per the story, and we're talking about bird blood, instead?!

Anyone who thinks a storm over fifty times more powerful than Super Typhoon Haiyan is plausible has never been in a hurricane, or even a strong south Louisiana thunderstorm.

It's really simple. Figure out how many inches tall Mt. Ararat is (if you want to exclude Everest, somehow), then divide by the number of hours in 40 days/nights. It's fifth grader math, at most. Or, alternatively, you could just cover your eyes and hum loudly, like you didn't see it.

[Godscreated]

Because he makes promises and then breaks them. Do you not subscribe to the dispensationalist view point? And if you don't what is your opinion on his ancient covenants then?

You say He does but you've failed to prove it. The children of Israel broke the covenant, therefore they lost what they were given as God said they would.

Are you going to keep this within the confines of scripture or will you draw on speculation from outside the scriptures.
Isn't this God's right as creator of the universe and all that is contained in it. God says He is perfect and His creation was perfect until Adam and Eve change things by rejecting His love in disobedience, God's judgement is appropriate and does, as you say, stand today.

I believe I kept well within the confines of the Biblical scriptures.

By the way, if God is perfect then how are his created beings able to modify his creation? If you're saying Adam and Eve could do that - and they were just two human beings - imagine how much a celestial being like Lucifer could change God's creation? Imagine how much he and his legion of 1/3 of the angles of heaven could change God's creation then?

God's creation was perfect until Adam and Eve disobeyed God and brought sin into the world, sin that corrupted the entire creation, just how many times do I have to repeat something you good and well knows in the scriptures, you've already started speculating outside of the scriptures. Lucifer has no more power to do anything other than what God allows, the story of Job tells us this. Adam and Eve changed nothing, it was their choice to disobey that changed everything. You are still speculating outside scripture.

Yes humans were vegetarians before the flood, after the flood there was little vegetation and what was there the animals needed. Animals were plentiful and God gave man permission to eat meat to sustain both the vegetation and man. I would think that most of what man had consumed pre-flood was extremely limited and widely scattered. God made the animals fear man so they wouldn't be hunted to extinction quickly, it is for their survival and man having to toil for his food as God said under Adam's judgement. He hasn't flooded the earth again. Man wasn't killing animals before the flood, so God gave a distinction by law on killing, man's value is greater than an animal. Before the flood God punished, post flood God is allowing man to carry out punishment, this is new. Man was not allowed to punish Cain. As for the homosexuals this could be something new with man and we know God calls it an abomination, unnatural, against the creation command it populate the world and against what God set-up as marriage.

Humans cannot manufacture Vitamin B12. We need to import it wholesale from meat. Therefore it is impossible for us to survive without meat, we could not ever have been a vegetarian people.

You can argue modern humans can get B12 injections from their physician - and I have a family member who does this because their B12 levels are low despite the fact they eat meat every day.

Eggs and cheeses and milks from various animals all contain B12, these were things people could eat because it did not require the killing of animals, and since you seem to be lacking in Bible knowledge let me remind you, God created the domestic animals also, God knew what was needed, God supplies our needs.

There are many animals that don't fear us.

Only domesticated animals, and even they will be afraid if raised away from humans. 

We still see rainbows. Surely if this covenant no longer applies than God would have removed the visual seal by now?

Do you see the problem? God sealed the covenant, and the seal is still visible today, yet he no longer keeps the covenant.

Where in scripture does God say He would take away the rainbow, the covenant does apply today, the world has never been flooded again, you do not seem to know much about this covenant.

What lie, you believe God lied because He didn't give Abraham all the details of the future, exactly why would the Creator of the universe be required to give all details, because you think the omniscient and omnipotent God should do as you want, that's simply a crazy notion. They would have the whole of the land of Canaan to posses as long as they obeyed Him. They were disobeying God from the get go and started suffering the consequences of the disobedience. Do you know all the land God was going to hand over to them as long as they obeyed? I believe what I've stated here eats up what you have said below.

I wasn't talking about what he "doesn't say" GC. I was talking about what he does say. He tells Abram explicitly that the whole of the Canaan land shall be an inheritance for his offspring to possess forever. It is an unconditional covenant, meaning he doesn't require Abram do anything or keep any commandment to earn it. Hid descendants didn't have to obey anything to receive the covenant, it's unconditional.

You were judging God because He didn't give details and I pointed this out, know you're denying it.
Yes they did have to obey, to receive the whole of Canaan, they were suppose to take parts they never went after, but then I guess you've missed that part as many Christians have. God even told Moses to tell the Israelites that their disobedience would cost them the land as it was intended for them. Israelites have lived on this land from the time they took it from the peoples who occupied it till this very day. Know if you would show me where God said the covenant was unconditional, I'm pretty sure that word is not found in the scriptures.

Let me explain, God first delivers the covenant in Genesis 12. It's not until Genesis 17 that he instructs Abram to keep the ritual of circumcision. In any case, by Jesus's time by every account the Jewish people had kept the custom of circumcision as instructed in Genesis 17 but did not any longer possess the land God promised Abram.

The circumcision command wasn't the only one they had to obey.

Just because no one has disproved the Exodus or proved it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Chariot wheels have been found at the bottom of the Red Sea, do you think the Egyptians were trying to make floating chariots for battles at sea. They didn't possess the whole of Canaan because of their disobedience and lack of trust and faith in God. God said this would happen before they entered Canaan and that it would be seized by other nations before they entered Canaan.

I have a six hour trip tomorrow so I need to stop here and go to bed, maybe I can find the time to counter your points later.

GC

Ron Wyatt was a quack. If he had really found chariot wheels in the Red Sea he would have documented it properly so it could be properly investigated - which he didn't. Who knows what he saw.

He filmed these things, yet you doubt, why, to keep your delusion alive. He never got permission to remove any items from where they laid. The people of those lands do not want the Bible proven, so they do everything to deter the process, something atheist agree with, unfortunately.

GC

[Crossless2.0]

So, since you still trust the bible, I take it you think that leprosy can be cured with the blood of a dead bird? 

There's a veritable plethora of things in the bible that are demonstrably not true.

 So you think you can prove God can't cure leprosy with the blood of a bird.

GC

Better yet, why don't you demonstrate that it's possible? You and God are tight (so you say), and he is surely not unaware of the heroic lengths you go to for his sake to bring The Truth to us heathens. Surely, he'd help you out with a little demonstration. Why not? He loves us very much and wants more than anything that we should turn to him and confess his son as our lord and savior. I'm sure he's bright enough to have figured out by now that there are some of his children who outgrew the storybook and who might require something more than "because someone said so a long time ago".

I know, we're not supposed to "test" your god and something like real evidence would violate his deep respect for our free will (at least prior to damning us for eternity for exercising our freedom), but you know what? It doesn't really matter because I know that you know that these are just excuses you believers use because you can't and never will produce the goods.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Ron Wyatt was a quack. If he had really found chariot wheels in the Red Sea he would have documented it properly so it could be properly investigated - which he didn't. Who knows what he saw.

He filmed these things, yet you doubt, why, to keep your delusion alive. He never got permission to remove any items from where they laid. The people of those lands do not want the Bible proven, so they do everything to deter the process, something atheist agree with, unfortunately.

GC

Really? The people of "those lands" do not want the Bible proven? REALLY, dude?

No one on this earth has more to profit by than the Israel Antiquities Authority, since the tourism that their archaeological finds generate is massive. And yet, here's what they had to say about him:

Archaeologist 

Joe Zias of Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) has stated that "Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. ... [His claims] fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun, etc."

(emphasis mine)

[Redbeard The Pink]

 This is what I believe, if any one thing is not true in the scriptures how am I to trust any other part. If the flood is false then how do I know that Christ isn't false. It has to be true from the beginning to the end, if any part is false then how do I determine what is real, or how could you. People who start reading the Bible and come to the conclusion that this part or that part isn't true, then they put doubt into the equation before they can find the truth through God, in other words a person stifles the Holy Spirit's conviction without being able to be lead to the truth. Why people do this is beyond me, it's like telling your math teacher he/she doesn't know what they are teaching simply because when the student first encounters the math they do not understand it so they reject it.
 You know I didn't say they were eating a king's meal, what I did do, was point out it was very possible for Noah and his family and the next generation or two to easily survive and not cause any extinction of any animal before the world could recover from the flood. I did this with only three animals and some vegetation, there are more possibilities to go with what I proposed, viable ones.

GC

The same way everyone else does: by doing sufficient mental gymnastics to convince yourself that nothing in "the scriptures" is untrue, even if it is demonstrably untrue because of evidence. All you have to do is dismiss and/or repurpose all evidence that is contrary to your presupposed belief. It's easy.


Furthermore, you're actually quite good at it already. Otherwise it would bother you that the animals wouldn't have had the genetic diversity to speciate. It might also bother you that the boat was floors deep, sealed with pitch, and had one window on the top deck, meaning all the animals on lower floors would have been dead within days, if not hours.


Oh, and the animals would have killed each other, and the herbivores would have had nothing to eat when they got off the boat (do not give me some bullshit about olive trees), and the carnivores would have made an entire "kind" go extinct every time they ate anything.


Oh yeah, and all the aquatic life would have died out because fresh water would be mixing with salt water (take that, Muslims), currents would be changing, water temperature would be changing...yeah, everything would die. Everything. All the humans, all the land animals, all the sea animals, all the plants and fungi, and noah and his family and his boat full of rotten meat. That shit would have killed every...living...thing.


But none of that matters because the Wholly Babble says it and your Gaud is magic, right? Right?


I'm sure you'd like to belabor the Great Fictional Flood for a while before we move on to the fact that, say, there's not even the scantest minimum of necessary archaeological evidence for any large-scale Jewish components to the Egyptian slave population ever, ever, let alone the Exodus or the wandering in the nearby desert for 40 years, but there's also that.


I'm sure that doesn't bother you either, right? Right?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Furthermore, you're actually quite good at it already. Otherwise it would bother you that the animals wouldn't have had the genetic diversity to speciate. It might also bother you that the boat was floors deep, sealed with pitch, and had one window on the top deck, meaning all the animals on lower floors would have been dead within days, if not hours.


Oh, and the animals would have killed each other, and the herbivores would have had nothing to eat when they got off the boat (do not give me some bullshit about olive trees), and the carnivores would have made an entire "kind" go extinct every time they ate anything.


Oh yeah, and all the aquatic life would have died out because fresh water would be mixing with salt water (take that, Muslims), currents would be changing, water temperature would be changing...yeah, everything would die. Everything. All the humans, all the land animals, all the sea animals, all the plants and fungi, and noah and his family and his boat full of rotten meat. That shit would have killed every...living...thing.


But none of that matters because the Wholly Babble says it and your Gaud is magic, right? Right?


I'm sure you'd like to belabor the Great Fictional Flood for a while before we move on to the fact that, say, there's not even the scantest minimum of necessary archaeological evidence for any large-scale Jewish components to the Egyptian slave population ever, ever, let alone the Exodus or the wandering in the nearby desert for 40 years, but there's also that.


I'm sure that doesn't bother you either, right? Right?

I'm still chuckling over the fact that the mythology of their God can be defeated by a nine year old with a calculator.

[Crossless2.0]

Or an Israelite with an abacus.

[Vicki Q]

Whilst I agree that broadly speaking the covenants that God makes combine blessings and responsibilities, there are exceptions where a covenant is simply blessings with no strings attached, that is no responsibilities expected of the Israelites to receive the blessing. The Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional covenant - God does not expect anything in return. It is given well before the instruction to keep the practise of circumcision, and that is merely a seal - a sign from God - not a condition for receiving the promised land. The Jews had kept this custom anyway, they didn't break it, so for what reason did they lose their eternal inheritance?

The promise to Abraham was unconditional, but Deuteronomy 28-30 develops the covenant relationship with Israel further, and here the success/failure issue comes into play.

It was was it? So why does Jesus say "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matt 5:17-18. You couldn't get a statement any stronger in favour of keeping the Law of Moses.
<snip>  
What Paul taught and what Jesus taught are two entirely different things.

The key parts are “I am come to fulfil (the law and prophets)...till all be fulfilled”.

Paul analyses at length the purpose of the Torah/covenant relationship, and concludes that, in a way no-one had quite been expecting, the covenant had been completed, and the purpose of Torah had- successfully -been accomplished. Given the new kind of Judaism that had arrived, post Torah, there was a different approach to food (Mark 7:14-23; Jesus declared foods clean. Also Peter's dream about food Acts 10).

The key part of Paul's analysis here is that the Torah was acting as a nanny; with the coming of faithfulness/pistis the child grew up and no longer needed the nanny. He sees that Torah was able to draw sin into one place- Israel- where it could be dealt with (the echoes from Dt 28-30 are very important here).

Jesus also put a lot of effort into moving Judaism into a post Torah world. (Much more than is generally realised by today's church; as modern third Quest theology explains how Jewish the whole business was, that should change.) In fact far from contradicting Paul, that passage affirms his position; the mission of Jesus is not to go against what Torah and prophets had to say, but to fulfil their purpose.


BTW, who is in your picture?

[Aractus]

You say He does but you've failed to prove it. The children of Israel broke the covenant, therefore they lost what they were given as God said they would.

How can they break an unconditional covenant GC?

Eggs and cheeses and milks from various animals all contain B12, these were things people could eat because it did not require the killing of animals, and since you seem to be lacking in Bible knowledge let me remind you, God created the domestic animals also, God knew what was needed, God supplies our needs.

Eggs contain a fraction of the B12 that is found in meat - about 1/3rd or so. The amount in two eggs weighing 120g together would be 1/8th or so of what would be found in a 300g piece of meat.

But, GC, they couldn't eggs anyway because they hadn't been instructed to. They couldn't eat dairy as there were no domesticated Aurochs in ancient times, most people didn't have one of the lactate persistence genes (and even today most of the world's population doesn't) - and there is no instruction from God to eat dairy. Furthermore, milk contains only around 1/3d the amount of B12 found in Eggs - let alone found in meat!! You would need to drink 2L of milk to get the same amount of B12 in a 350g steak.

By the way domestic animals weren't created by God - he claimed to have domesticated all animals (or at least have made them all fear man) to Noah - however all domestic animals were domesticated from wild animals.

Know if you would show me where God said the covenant was unconditional, I'm pretty sure that word is not found in the scriptures.

Genesis 12. There is no "unconditional" word but no conditions whatsoever are given to Abram.

[Catholic_Lady]

"ARACTUS" sounds/looks either like "erection" or "a rectum".