Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[beerisit]

Nay to you.

Are you not suggesting... standing face to face with God and blaming Him for all you have said and done?

This would not be heroic.
It would be foolish and suicidal.

A suicidal dead person, is so scary.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

So let's agree and Jesus did not die for your sins.
You are then responsible for what you say and do.
I would rather say, if you adhere to instruction of Someone Else....
and then you fail...you can blame Him.
If you make denial....ignore instruction...you're on your own.
Or maybe it would be even better for God to concede your discussion....
and erase all errors.

This is saying exactly the same thing as the last. QED, again.

Returning to the point originally made: God never stands up in front of anyone to be judged for his immoral actions. Why is that?
'Do as I command, not as I do' =/= moral

 

[sojourner]

Oh, dear.

Yes, do you understand what is causing those effects? The end of the World. Not my Gods. The enemies of my Gods. My Gods protect the Earth, will risk their existences protecting it.. while we both know, your God intends to destroy it. Again. It appears you don't have a grasp of the context of what you just Googled.
Ragnarök - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ragnarok is the final battle between the Gods of Earth, and the Jotun, who seek to destroy everything. The Gods do not cause Ragnarok; they are there to try and stop it, you see.


Yes. Potent wrath, at those who wrong them; usually the foes of earth, again. Perfectly sensible for the Gods of a race of warriors. They don't meet it out randomly. And, there's nothing immoral about being a glutton, or drinking, or brawling. Certainly nothing compared to the murder of the Egyptians [infants and army], the Canaanites, everyone on Earth from the Flood, etc etc etc... you get the idea.
And, wait... you're defending Jormungandr?? the Midgard Serpent? Really? Wow.
Jörmungandr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I must again mark this down as lack of understanding on your part. His venom poisons the sky, at the end of the world. It would appear you are unaware that Thor slays him, to protect the Earth. At the cost of his own life.

Though, I suppose the moral support for villains is something I should come to expect here. Interesting.
- clearly not No, it's nonsense talk, from you, on a subject you clearly aren't familiar with.

There is no comparison between the morals of my Gods, and yours; my Gods are moral. The rest speaks for itself.

Double-Standard! :redcard: :biglaugh:

 

[1robin]

It's you who still don't get it. It's murder no matter who does it [in the Flood example, not that we expounded on it]. We don't need his motivation to understand the inherent wrongness of the act. it's not a mystery. It's blatant.

At least in the flood, it was killing a few to prevent the unimaginable misery and torture of billions. When modern armies justifiably kill some to free many it's called heroism and honor. His motivation and basis for action is without doubt necessary. We always spend milions of dollars hashing out motivation and justification issue in a murder trial. I guess we should save the money and just ask you, being that apparently you are the moral judge which superseeds all others in all matters. I can't imagine a point more obvious than this.

Except it's patently absurd to assume EVERY SINGLE LIVING CREATURE WHO DIED was guilty of this. it doesn't need to go farther than that.

I have seen groups of people while I was in the navy where every individual was bent on evil. In a world much better than the one we are discussing, man's inhumanity against man is so obvious it needs no elaboration, where mass genocide commited by abortion is rampant, and all this in a civilized world of laws can you still deny that an uncivilised world far more corrupt could exist. New Living Translation (©2007)
The LORD observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil.
Genesis 6:5 And God saw. - The course of the primeval world was a great experiment going on before the eye of God, and of all intelligent observers, and manifesting the thorough depravity and full-grown degeneracy of the fallen race, when left to the bent of its perverted inclinations. "Every imagination" (יצר yētser). Here the object of thought is distinguished from the thought itself. This is a distinction not generally or constantly recognized by the mental philosopher, though of essential importance in the theory of the mind. The thought itself is a real phase or attitude of mind; the form, idea, species, object of thought may have matter, real content, or it may not. "Only evil every day." This is an unlimited condemnation of the state and process of the carnal man. The reason is obvious. Homage to God, to truth, to right, to love, does not reign in his heart; and the imaginations or purposes that are not regulated by this, however excellent and praiseworthy in other respects, are destitute of the first the essential principle of moral good. This is now made palpable to the eye of observation by the almost universal predominance of the ungodly spirit. This accordingly forms the ground of the divine procedure.Genesis 6:5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

What have you got in way of evidence for your contentions. Besides your opinion on a matter you have no access to.

It's also absurd to imagine Noah spoke to everyone to see if they would

. No it isn't, people were not dispersed at this time they all lived in the same geographical area. From studies done about information transmission by word of mouth it's very reasonable even though Noah didn't speak to every one personaly. It is also a factor he is building a boat the size of an aircraft carrier that everyone is talking about.

Well, i deny the bible itself as well, so welcome to the party.
And no, God killed so many millions more, your comparison is, again, inept. God is the number one killer in the Bible. He murders at a whim. You decry American troops for far less.

Denying the bible while I would dissagree with you is far less damaging to your credability than thinking you have the capacity to judge God. You just don't know much about the bible do you. I am a veteran I do not decry any of our troops. How did you twist what I actually said into the accusation that I did.

 

[1robin]

I don't call upon demons! I call upon Satan himself! Only those afraid of Satan would summon a "weaker" force such as a demon. And actually the G.E.D. isn't easy. It was revamped massively years ago, and a few parts almost got my off guard. 40% of high school graduates can't pass the G.E.D. on the day of graduation... don't you deride my accomplishment.

I'm saying I was "saved", but that it was all lies basically. yes, a spirit was in me, but I soon found out how evil it was. I got rid of it by renouncing the the spirit within me as well as the god who put it there... I don't want my soul to go to some god... I wanted it for myself.How did I do it? By saying nasty things then telling it to go, that it should depart from me. As I did to both Jesus and the "Father" too.

No, I'm saying that he didn't save me from hell because it didn't exist... your confusing what I was saying I used to believe and what I believe now. I don't think I said he didn't exist, but implied that he might not exist. Either way I don't believe he can save because he's not the God. That is what I call "Leviathan". Don't assume that "Christian god = creator god" whenever I speak of him.. that's your belief, not mine.

Creationism, Noah's Flood, The Census when Jesus was a Baby, Herod being a ruler when Jesus was born, ect ect

Being "too lazy" is a great excuse for keeping your mind closed. The fact is you admitted you wouldn't even look at them... If you really want to look at somehting, The Satanic Bible (Anton LaVey, 1969) is easy to get a hold of and probably has a more logical basis than mine. I'm not afraid to admit that a number of my beliefs are conjecture, as is all religion.

That is insane, there is no evidence to support the Bibliical claims of demonic possession. Most possesions are mental illness.

Christians are not a minority... isn't a third of the world a christian? also I forgot a comma between "Muslim" and "Christian", meaning that I was talking about two different groups.

That is true it didn't say Satan was god, but it DID say that originally it was just a title used for entities BOTH HUMAN AND DIVINE that tested people. Then if you took care to actually read it, you would notice that it then said that:


"In Christianity the title became a personal name, and "Satan" changed from an accuser appointed by God to test men's faith to the chief of the rebellious fallen angels"

You hear that? It was originally an accuser, APPOINTED BY GOD, to test people. ONLY WHEN CHRISTIANITY CAME DID IT CHANGE TO AN EVIL GUY.

I didn't say anything suggesting you didn't accomplish anything. Trust me though I have a math degree and am a senior in Electrical Eng and secondary math edu. There is no miracle needed to pass or do well on the GED just an intelligent mind. However if can pass a college level partial differential equations test without studying I will admit you got magic.

I'm saying I was "saved", No, I'm saying that he didn't save me
Not following you.

Why in the name of all thats Holy would you reject the most tested, defended, and cherished book in the history of man and substitute it with the ravings of a con artist (Levay). My coworker said be read his satanic bible and it was by far one of the silliest books he ever read. In my research I have found him to be a poser publicity hound who is to be dismissed. Now Crowley was different, he was the real deal of course he would probably repent these days if given the chance. The end of his life was dominated by morphine addiction which is consistent with anyone who messes with Satan eventually. His last words are reported to be "I am perplexed" sounds about right.

There is a wealth of info consistent with biblical claims of possession. The claim that they are actually cases of sickness. while some are, some exhibit symptoms that defy a sickness diagnosis. For example haveing information which is unknowable to them or speaking in foreign languages unknown to them. The amityville horror while fiction is very loosly based on a well known and documented case of a boy named Robbie. The Catholic church along with others have developed techniques to rule out a mental issue. Before you make the predictable point that the church is claiming posession for some personal gain, their training includes the instructions that possession is the last conclusion that is appealed to in an investigation. These priests are to examine every other natural reason and only if every one is conclusivly ruled out then a supernatural diagnosis is considered and many times denied anyway.

A third of the world being Christian means two thirds isn't. Therfore a minority.

Being that the new testament if acknowledged is the words of Christ (God himself) they supercede anything else. You can ignore it but if you allow the new testament then you can not deny that Christs words have authority. Besides the old testament and new seem to be recording different characteristics of the same being. Are you familiar with the concept of progressive revelation?

 

[sojourner]

It's you who still don't get it. It's murder no matter who does it [in the Flood example, not that we expounded on it]. We don't need his motivation to understand the inherent wrongness of the act. it's not a mystery. It's blatant.

First of all, it's a story.
Second, it's not even Christian -- or Jewish, for that matter -- in origin. it's Sumerian, I believe.
Third, murder is a legal term. It's an illegal killing of human beings. Since God isn't bound to human law, there was no murder. Our lives belong to God, and God can do with them as God pleases.

Except it's patently absurd to assume EVERY SINGLE LIVING CREATURE WHO DIED was guilty of this.

If it's "patently absurd" to assume that one fact of the story is true, then it's absurd to assume that the story, itself, is factually true.

Well, i deny the bible itself as well, so welcome to the party.

So why bother debating it? If you don't buy the bible, you don't buy Jesus. Since the thread is about soteriology from a Xtian perspective, why bother being here at all?

He murders at a whim.

No, God doesn't. I believe we just covered that.

God is the number one killer in the Bible.

God is also the number one life-giver, life-provider, life-saver. In fact, if you think the focus of the story is God's killing, then you know far less about the religion than you're letting on here. In fact, it's a remnant story -- a story about salvation (as is much of the Bible).

 

[sojourner]

I don't want my soul to go to some god... I wanted it for myself.

So...
you want to steal something that's not really yours to begin with and keep it for yourself? How noble!

 

[Heathen Hammer]

First of all, it's a story.
Second, it's not even Christian -- or Jewish, for that matter -- in origin. it's Sumerian, I believe.
Third, murder is a legal term. It's an illegal killing of human beings. Since God isn't bound to human law, there was no murder. Our lives belong to God, and God can do with them as God pleases.

Woooooooowwww. so, you're ok with it, because he's not bound by human morals? Let's not get picky about the semantics of what 'law' is.. it's the total killing of every living thing on the surface of teh Earth, at his whim, with no compunction whatsoever. Just his favorites are saved. Any time we see a movie about this idea spouted by a human, they are a 'supervillain' and we send james bond to kill them and save us.

In addition - um, yeah, I know it's a story, proven false by reality and evidence.. but, you STILL SEE people, like your pal there, believing the motives and actions inherent in the tale, are perfectly fine. That indicates an extremely sociopathic personality, at best.. and we are looking at huge portions of the population around us who believe it's fine!

If it's "patently absurd" to assume that one fact of the story is true, then it's absurd to assume that the story, itself, is factually true.

But I noted just above why it's lack of a factual basis does not negate the horrendousness of the moral implications of people agreeing with it.

So why bother debating it? If you don't buy the bible, you don't buy Jesus. Since the thread is about soteriology from a Xtian perspective, why bother being here at all?

Because the heinous immoralists among us need to be either educated about it's wrongness, or prevented from infecting others with the lie that it's ok, that's why.

No, God doesn't. I believe we just covered that.

You did nothing to dispel this idea, at all. it does, in fact, describe the situation.

God is also the number one life-giver, life-provider, life-saver. In fact, if you think the focus of the story is God's killing, then you know far less about the religion than you're letting on here.

that does not excuse his millions of murders, son.
Every man or woman who goes to teh death chamber in our prisons didn;t spend their entire lives from beginning to end, killing or raping. But because they DID commit those acts, even once, removes them from the "I'm a good moral person' list, and they are executed. Ted Bundy wasn't always a cannibal.. so he's ok!

Please, that's got to be one of the lamest apologetic excuses for murder i think I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of them.

In fact, it's a remnant story -- a story about salvation (as is much of the Bible).

Irrelevant.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Double-Standard! :redcard: :biglaugh:

Says the person who didn't even read what they were citing.

You fail pretty hard.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

At least in the flood, it was killing a few to prevent the unimaginable misery and torture of billions.

Absolutely false. It's the killing of millions, plus millions of other non-humans, at the whim of a tyrant who was slightly perturbed at his own faulty efforts at creation.

When modern armies justifiably kill some to free many it's called heroism and honor.

Actually, not always; today we all understand that each act is to be judged separately. And, military people routinely go to prison for wrongful killing, we assassinate foreign leaders who kill civilians, there are world courts.. your analogy falls flat.

His motivation and basis for action is without doubt necessary.

Absolutely doubtful.

We always spend milions of dollars hashing out motivation and justification issue in a murder trial. I guess we should save the money and just ask you, being that apparently you are the moral judge which superseeds all others in all matters. I can't imagine a point more obvious than this.

Reduction ad absurdium, a void argument.

I have seen groups of people while I was in the navy where every individual was bent on evil. In a world much better than the one we are discussing, man's inhumanity against man is so obvious it needs no elaboration, where mass genocide commited by abortion is rampant, and all this in a civilized world of laws can you still deny that an uncivilised world far more corrupt could exist. New Living Translation (©2007)
The LORD observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil.

"They do it too" is NO excuse for God doing it.

http://bible.cc/genesis/6-5.htm . Homage to God, to truth, to right, to love, does not reign in his heart; and the imaginations or purposes that are not regulated by this, however excellent and praiseworthy in other respects, are destitute of the first the essential principle of moral good. This is now made palpable to the eye of observation by the almost universal predominance of the ungodly spirit. This accordingly forms the ground of the divine procedure.Genesis 6:5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

The Bible will never show God in anything but a benevolent light so this entire passage is crap.

What have you got in way of evidence for your contentions. Besides your opinion on a matter you have no access to.

Wait, evidence in terms of what? Is that what the story claims occurred, or isn't it?
Don;t pretend to dissemble asking me for evidence. lol, read the Bible.

No it isn't, people were not dispersed at this time they all lived in the same geographical area. From studies done about information transmission by word of mouth it's very reasonable even though Noah didn't speak to every one personaly. It is also a factor he is building a boat the size of an aircraft carrier that everyone is talking about.

It's not the size of an aircraft carrier. And please, give us your factual estimation of the actual world population at that time; I believe your numbers are purposefully suggested to be small. Show us the work.

There's nothing reasonable about this entire story.

Denying the bible while I would dissagree with you is far less damaging to your credability than thinking you have the capacity to judge God. You just don't know much about the bible do you.

I know more about it than you, it seems.

I am a veteran I do not decry any of our troops. How did you twist what I actually said into the accusation that I did.

Did you not just discuss how we humans wage war, even citing imaginary expenses? Again, if you wish to distance yourself from your own posts moments later, you're not going to win even a passing-comment contest here.

 

[sojourner]

Woooooooowwww. so, you're ok with it, because he's not bound by human morals? Let's not get picky about the semantics of what 'law' is.. it's the total killing of every living thing on the surface of teh Earth, at his whim, with no compunction whatsoever. Just his favorites are saved. Any time we see a movie about this idea spouted by a human, they are a 'supervillain' and we send james bond to kill them and save us.

Aren't you OK with your mythic stories being stories???
It's told in order to challenge us. And it does challenge us. The story does what it's designed to do. Big whoop.

but, you STILL SEE people, like your pal there, believing the motives and actions inherent in the tale, are perfectly fine. That indicates an extremely sociopathic personality, at best.. and we are looking at huge portions of the population around us who believe it's fine!

That's not the story's fault.

But I noted just above why it's lack of a factual basis does not negate the horrendousness of the moral implications of people agreeing with it.

But I noted just above that it's not the story's fault.

Because the heinous immoralists among us need to be either educated about it's wrongness, or prevented from infecting others with the lie that it's ok, that's why.

An accurate and honest assessment of the story might be a better strategy to attain that goal, rather than simply making fun of it.

You did nothing to dispel this idea, at all. it does, in fact, describe the situation.

No, it doesn't. Murder is a particular type of killing that only applies to a narrow set of circumstances. Murder is not the issue here. Calling it "murder" is to engage in hyperbole and to dismiss a theological treatment that is vital to the meaning of the story.

that does not excuse his millions of murders, son.

Once again, they are not murders, Pumpkin.

Every man or woman who goes to teh death chamber in our prisons didn;t spend their entire lives from beginning to end, killing or raping. But because they DID commit those acts, even once, removes them from the "I'm a good moral person' list, and they are executed. Ted Bundy wasn't always a cannibal.. so he's ok!

Please, that's got to be one of the lamest apologetic excuses for murder i think I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of them.

The story isn't about "God on trial." The story is about the sparing of the holy remnant. If you want to exercise a moral judgment, then it must be against the meaning of the story, not against its literary elements.

Irrelevant.

It's completely relevant, because that's the whole meaning of the story in question.

 

[sojourner]

Says the person who didn't even read what they were citing.

You fail pretty hard.

Says the person who didn't even give the story its due regard.

I specifically treated your stories in the same manner in which you treat my stories, in order to make a point. Point made, huh! You don't like it when people dismiss your stories, do you?:beach:

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Aren't you OK with your mythic stories being stories???
It's told in order to challenge us. And it does challenge us. The story does what it's designed to do. Big whoop.

OK, I see you don't get it. The Norse story doesn't say what you thought it does. The effects you want to attribute to the Gods aren't inflicted by the Gods; they come from the destruction of the world by other entities. So you're wrong; you simply won't realize it. Ou stories, though, aren't mythic

That's not the story's fault.

You're right! it's the fault of the individual, in this case, 1robin. You're not recognizing what that means.

An accurate and honest assessment of the story might be a better strategy to attain that goal, rather than simply making fun of it.

Three's nothing funny about the assessment. My assessment though, was accurate.

No, it doesn't. Murder is a particular type of killing that only applies to a narrow set of circumstances. Murder is not the issue here. Calling it "murder" is to engage in hyperbole and to dismiss a theological treatment that is vital to the meaning of the story.

Again, your semantic diatribe would not be acceptable if the event were initiated by a human. Your objection is picayune-ish, ad irrelevant, an apologist's weak attempt.

Once again, they are not murders, Pumpkin.

OK, let's use 'senseless slaughter' instead, then. because you want our secular laws to be applicable, rather than simple moral truths, to God. Coward.

The story isn't about "God on trial." The story is about the sparing of the holy remnant. If you want to exercise a moral judgment, then it must be against the meaning of the story, not against its literary elements.

And it was; and in the story, God's morals fail. He is a brutal killer. The story is inadvertantly about 'God on trial', because of his actions. When rationally examined, it becomes an embarrassment.

It's completely relevant, because that's the whole meaning of the story in question.

It's irrelevant, because there is only salvation for a handful, literally, while MILLIONS die.
And my QED is, you're ok, with millions dieing so that handful can be spared.

You're as pathetically inhuman as Robin is.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Says the person who didn't even give the story its due regard.

I specifically treated your stories in the same manner in which you treat my stories, in order to make a point. Point made, huh! You don't like it when people dismiss your stories, do you?:beach:

Sonny, you don't even really know what the stories said; i showed this, plainly.

What you did was a tit-for-tat that did not have any actual scriptural support in our Lore. You want our Gods to be as bloodthirsty, immoral and worthless as yours is. And you failed to show this.

 

[sojourner]

Ou stories, though, aren't mythic

Prove it. Prove that Thor ripped the head of a poor, defenseless ox.

Three's nothing funny about the assessment. My assessment though, was accurate.

No, it's not. As I've shown. Your assessment was hyperbole and misdirection.

Again, your semantic diatribe would not be acceptable if the event were initiated by a human. Your objection is picayune-ish, ad irrelevant, an apologist's weak attempt.

Not so, since you're trying to foist something upon God that clearly cannot be the case.

OK, let's use 'senseless slaughter' instead, then. because you want our secular laws to be applicable, rather than simple moral truths, to God. Coward.

Once again: Morality is for human beings. Why do you insist on anthropomorphizing God to the point that God is subject to arbitrary morality laws? In fact, why hold God accountable to stories that predate the God we're speaking of?

And it was; and in the story, God's morals fail. He is a brutal killer. The story is inadvertantly about 'God on trial', because of his actions. When rationally examined, it becomes an embarrassment.

Except the "rational examination" is an embarrassment, when you fail to accurately exegete the text in question.

It's irrelevant, because there is only salvation for a handful, literally, while MILLIONS die.
And my QED is, you're ok, with millions dieing so that handful can be spared.

You're as pathetically inhuman as Robin is.

You're twisting the message of the story to mean something it was never meant to convey, though. I'm patently not OK with "millions dying," but that's merely a literary tool, not a historical fact. The point of the story is that God always saves a righteous remnant. Israel saw itself as "God's righteous remnant." My guess is that the story was included in the compendium of sacred stories to show that that truth has always been the case. Even when the earth is destroyed (hyperbole), God saves a remnant (spiritual truth). It is relevant, because it's the theological point of telling the story.

That being said, most Christians I'm acquainted with reject the whole "righteous remnant" issue. I know I certainly do. Even so, the story still speaks volumes about God's capacity to save.

 

[sojourner]

Sonny, you don't even really know what the stories said; i showed this, plainly.

What you did was a tit-for-tat that did not have any actual scriptural support in our Lore. You want our Gods to be as bloodthirsty, immoral and worthless as yours is. And you failed to show this.

It's obvious, Infant, that you are unaware of the meaning of the flood narrative. I showed this plainly.

what you have done is raise a judgment about a passage that has no critical support in our Tradition. You want our God to be as bloodthirsty, immoral and worthless as yours are. You have failed to show this.

 

[1robin]

Absolutely false. It's the killing of millions, plus millions of other non-humans, at the whim of a tyrant who was slightly perturbed at his own faulty efforts at creation.

Most graphs on the BC side show 3,000 to 4,000 years levels at a nearly horizontal line indicating a very slow curve not even noticeable until about 150 years ago. In AD 1850, an estimated one billion people lived on earth. From there it spikes straight into the stratosphere to 2008 at 6.6 billion. We live on a very tiny globe, the only place for life to exist with a suitable environment, as some have calculated it in calories and DNA life reproduction expectancy. Population Curve According to the Bible This is based a biblically cinsistent population curve that is correlated with secular population estimates.I could not get the picture of the curve copied correctly but can be found in a hundred sites. Being that the population curve is a standard asymptotic curve who's tail is virtually horizontal, then the population at the time in question was small in the low millions at most. The population in 1850 was 1 billion and that was 4000yrs later. Even if a billion people were killed in the flood it is by far less than would have had to live in the hell they would have created. This is an absolute fact because the size of the population that was killed is the starting point for adding up how many would have lived from then on.

Actually, not always; today we all understand that each act is to be judged separately. And, military people routinely go to prison for wrongful killing, we assassinate foreign leaders who kill civilians, there are world courts.. your analogy falls flat.

Your glowing self praiseing estimation of your accomplishment is directly preportional to the lack of merit of that claim. You must have missed the qualifier in my statement I said Justified. How can someone be convicted for a justified crime. I did not claim that all wars or killing is justified. Your your claim for falling flat falls flat. Even if your counter point had any merit at all it still falls short of there being no such thing as the justified killing of a guilty few in order to preserve an innocent many relativly innocent anyway.

Absolutely doubtful.

There are very few claims I have ever heard more obviously rediculous than this one of yours. His justification is absolutly related to his responsibility.

Reduction ad absurdium, a void argument.

Argumentum semanticus procedural ad nausium (I can make up pointless latin as well)

"They do it too" is NO excuse for God doing it.

Amazing!! The point was simply that I have observed that groups of people do become unanimously evil and justifies God's claim and refutes your counterclaim. New Living Translation (©2007)
The LORD observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil.

If I have to laboriously and exhaustivly spell out the most simple points my lazyness will soon exceed my desire to address your points.

The Bible will never show God in anything but a benevolent light so this entire passage is crap.

Once again claiming that which you cannot know. You have elsewhere insisted a strict adherence to the bible about this subject until it says something you don't like.

Wait, evidence in terms of what? Is that what the story claims occurred, or isn't it?
Don;t pretend to dissemble asking me for evidence. lol, read the Bible.

Let's see you said that surely not every one was evil who was killed at the time of the flood and provided no evidence to support this and then refered me to the bible which contains only statements that deny your assertion. What a tactic.

It's not the size of an aircraft carrier. And please, give us your factual estimation of the actual world population at that time; I believe your numbers are purposefully suggested to be small. Show us the work.

I will grant you the size estimate of the ark. The Ark was between 500 and 600 ft long and a small aircraft carrier is 590 ft. That is not firm enough info for my claim so I retract it but not the point it was made for. Anyone in a time of no boats building a huge boat would have been the subject attention of everyone. My population info has already been addressed.

There's nothing reasonable about this entire story.

I disagree but even unreasonable things are often true. How do you justify a requirement for everything to be reasonable for it to be true many of the things known today would have been determined unreasonable five hundred years ago.

I know more about it than you, it seems.

No one would conclude this judging from these posts.

Did you not just discuss how we humans wage war, even citing imaginary expenses? Again, if you wish to distance yourself from your own posts moments later, you're not going to win even a passing-comment contest here.

Yes I said humans wage war, and we spend millions (collectivly) on gathering testimonies in virtualy all cases of judgement. Are you dissagreeing with that? What is a passing-comment contest? I am not sure I want to win it.

 

[PolyHedral]

Even if a billion people were killed in the flood it is by far less than would have had to live in the hell they would have created. This is an absolute fact because the size of the population that was killed is the starting point for adding up how many would have lived from then on.

That would also be God's fault. He can predict how human psychology works; he's therefore entirely responsible for its impact.

 

[Thief]

This is saying exactly the same thing as the last. QED, again.

Returning to the point originally made: God never stands up in front of anyone to be judged for his immoral actions. Why is that?
'Do as I command, not as I do' =/= moral

And if you were the Almighty...
Who would be your judge?

Someone has to be on top. Someone beyond the ability of all others.
Someone without equal.

But at the same time, that level of ability allows Him to stand back...
And you get to be whatever you can be.
And suffer the consequence for having done so.

What's so hard about that?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

And if you were the Almighty...
Who would be your judge?

Someone has to be on top. Someone beyond the ability of all others.
Someone without equal.

But at the same time, that level of ability allows Him to stand back...
And you get to be whatever you can be.
And suffer the consequence for having done so.

What's so hard about that?

Oh, there's nothing 'hard' about it; what's so hard about you simply admitting it's completely immoral?

That's not hard at all, either.