There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[SkepticThinker]

I have answered it here.

With your perspective of the finality of life, you cannot possibly understand the principles behind this story. Unless you are capable of conceptualising the ability of a child, at that time and in that God forsaken place, to be corrupted at a very early age, you will never be able to conceive the sheer morality in taking the spirit from the body, and placing the spirit child safely into the highest Kingdom of heaven to be cared for. You just cannot comprehend this because you have not been blessed with the knowledge that there even is a heaven where the majority of us will end up. That in that place there are many mansions where God will find a place for each and everyone of us. That the happiness found in the kingdom where those children will reside is incomprehensible to our understanding, therefore, you can not see the benefits of the child taken out of such corruption as you would naturally think, better a bad life then no life at all and nothing at death. You simply cannot see it, but you do not have to. You are an atheist. You do not believe in the bible. You, therefore, do not have to believe in a flood where children and animals perished. It is all irrelevant to you and only really pertains to us Christians, who believe it. So, you have no ground on which to debate something that is a fallacy to you. Just put it down to Christian essentricity.

Well, no need to fret any more. The story is contained in the bible. You do not believe in the bible and it's stories so from your perspective it never happened. It is only relevant to Christians as they have an eternal perspective so can fully understand the principles involved, whereas, you think that the grave is the end of us. So, take a chill pill and leave us with our belief.

I am struggling to understand how a baby or small child can be considered wicked in any way. I mean, anyone can easily observe that babies aren't even physically or mentally capable of being wicked. Their brains have just begun developing, their cognitive skills have barely begun to develop, they can't speak or walk - they're basically helpless. But you want me to believe they're capable of evil actions because it says so in an ancient book? Sorry, but referencing an old book is no demonstration of anything.

I mean, seriously, is that what we're supposed to do? Just ignore logic, common sense, observation, and everything we've learned about human development because some ancient peoples in the Middle East were looking for excuses to kill babies and children? How about exercising some morality instead.

And you wonder what peoples' problem with religion is? Seriously, you apparently have to believe that babies are capable of wickedness because a book says you have to and so you have no choice but to come up with excuses and reasons to justify something that flies in the face of observable reality.

I'm really struggling to understand this.

 

[ScuzManiac]

I am struggling to understand how a baby or small child can be considered wicked in any way. I mean, anyone can easily observe that babies aren't even physically or mentally capable of being wicked. Their brains have just begun developing, their cognitive skills have barely begun to develop, they can't speak or walk - they're basically helpless. But you want me to believe they're capable of evil actions because it says so in an ancient book? Sorry, but referencing an old book is no demonstration of anything.

I mean, seriously, is that what we're supposed to do? Just ignore logic, common sense, observation, and everything we've learned about human development because some ancient peoples in the Middle East were looking for excuses to kill babies and children? How about exercising some morality instead.

And you wonder what peoples' problem with religion is? Seriously, you apparently have to believe that babies are capable of wickedness because a book says you have to and so you have no choice but to come up with excuses and reasons to justify something that flies in the face of observable reality.

I'm really struggling to understand this.

I agree with this 100%.

:clap

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree with this 100%.

:clap

Thank you. I'm sure someone else can, and will say it much better than I did.

 

[outhouse]

Define the flood

You define the flood.

I already did.

Where in Israel did it flood? what records are there of this?

 

[Ouroboros]

What I don't understand is if God had to kill the babies because they were evil and would become evil, why didn't God do that all the time and void us from all evil people at all times? Why would God kill some "evil" babies but not others? God wants some "evil" babies to live and grow up and do bad stuff, but others he kills off because they eventually would do something bad? That just doesn't make any sense. :/

 

[Blackdog22]

I know what you are saying. That God was the one who pushed the button that gave the injection, but does that make the executioner a murderer or a facilitator of the law.

Why are you completely ignoring that God created the law and then pushed the button because of his own law. Its entirely his fault.

Funny how you bash someone for comparing humans to God when it doesn't suit you, and then you compare humans to God when it does suit you.

 

[Serenity7855]

I am struggling to understand how a baby or small child can be considered wicked in any way. I mean, anyone can easily observe that babies aren't even physically or mentally capable of being wicked. Their brains have just begun developing, their cognitive skills have barely begun to develop, they can't speak or walk - they're basically helpless. But you want me to believe they're capable of evil actions because it says so in an ancient book? Sorry, but referencing an old book is no demonstration of anything.

The body is innocent the spirit has been corrupted by the corruption of the parents. But this is all whoha to you because none of it is true, so why concern yourself with a fallacy. Of course, we also do not know if the children were killed. God may have taken them up before turning the tap on. None of us know for sure.

I mean, seriously, is that what we're supposed to do? Just ignore logic, common sense, observation, and everything we've learned about human development because some ancient peoples in the Middle East were looking for excuses to kill babies and children? How about exercising some morality instead.

Well, to be honest I pretty much ignore a good proportion of what you say about us because it is not true so the same sentiment should exist between you and us. Only if you have believed it and are now confronted with it would you have cause to complain, but you do not believe any of this so why are you allowing it to cause you concern, unless, as I have said, you are trying to take Christians away from their beliefs or you enjoy being confrontational with Christians. What other reasoning is their behind your need to prove to Christians that they are wrong.

And you wonder what peoples' problem with religion is? Seriously, you apparently have to believe that babies are capable of wickedness because a book says you have to and so you have no choice but to come up with excuses and reasons to justify something that flies in the face of observable reality.

That is not true. Take a plane trip to Brazil and meet the street children. See how young some of them are. Check out if the are playing with toys or stealing from tourists. Listening to nursery rhymes or being solicited by corrupt and satanic adults. Children can be corrupted from a very early age, after all, they are sponges to new knowledge from birth to 3 years old. You are looking at this through rose tinted glasses instead of seeing the real truth.

 

[Serenity7855]

You define the flood.

I already did.

Where in Israel did it flood? what records are there of this?

Evidence that you do not read the post properly that you respond to. I have said that there is no archaeological evidence to support a flood, however, we should not look for naturalistic evidence for a supernatural event.

You really should stop misrepresenting me because you are not reading my post.

 

[Serenity7855]

What I don't understand is if God had to kill the babies because they were evil and would become evil, why didn't God do that all the time and void us from all evil people at all times? Why would God kill some "evil" babies but not others? God wants some "evil" babies to live and grow up and do bad stuff, but others he kills off because they eventually would do something bad? That just doesn't make any sense. :/

I am not being funny, but it becomes very frustrating when you have to keep answering the same question many times. If God took all children before the age of accountability then how will we prove ourself in the flesh. Of course the plan of salvation allows for children to only gain a body for a short time. They are spirits of the valiant who only need a body for a short period of time to prove themselves because they are so valiant in nature.

 

[Serenity7855]

Why are you completely ignoring that God created the law and then pushed the button because of his own law. Its entirely his fault.

Funny how you bash someone for comparing humans to God when it doesn't suit you, and then you compare humans to God when it does suit you.

The laws are naturalistic coming into being when the universe expanded.

 

[Serenity7855]

Thank you. I'm sure someone else can, and will say it much better than I did.

I do hope so.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The body is innocent the spirit has been corrupted by the corruption of the parents. But this is all whoha to you because none of it is true, so why concern yourself with a fallacy. Of course, we also do not know if the children were killed. God may have taken them up before turning the tap on. None of us know for sure.

So the baby is corrupt because the parents are? Or will become corrupt because their parents are? Who says?

Well, to be honest I pretty much ignore a good proportion of what you say about us because it is not true so the same sentiment should exist between you and us.

Us who? Am I talking to more than one person?

Only if you have believed it and are now confronted with it would you have cause to complain, but you do not believe any of this so why are you allowing it to cause you concern, unless, as I have said, you are trying to take Christians away from their beliefs or you enjoy being confrontational with Christians. What other reasoning is their behind your need to prove to Christians that they are wrong.

I have cause to complain because apparently at least one person is somehow under the impression that babies can be wicked when there’s no evidence in observable reality to indicate as much. In fact, all the evidence points in the exact opposite direction. It causes me concern because there’s no reason outside of some ancient text for people to actually believe that babies are wicked. It causes me concern because I don’t want any harm brought to innocent babies. It’s a lot easier to harm a baby when you’re already under the impression that they can be wicked. That’s apparently how the people of the Bible were able to justify their terrible actions against other babies and human beings. It's an easy way to demonize and dehumanize one's enemies.

That is not true. Take a plane trip to Brazil and meet the street children. See how young some of them are. Check out if the are playing with toys or stealing from tourists. Listening to nursery rhymes or being solicited by corrupt and satanic adults. Children can be corrupted from a very early age, after all, they are sponges to new knowledge from birth to 3 years old. You are looking at this through rose tinted glasses instead of seeing the real truth.

Are you for real? How many babies do you see walking the streets of Brazil? I’m guessing none, since babies can’t actually walk.

You are looking at it through Bible tinted glasses, my friend. And you’re coming to alarming conclusions.

Besides like I pointed out above, what then is the point of all the redemption and salvation stuff which is also found in the Bible you follow?

 

[outhouse]

we should not look for naturalistic evidence for a supernatural event.

.

What exactly does that mean?


It happened? or it did not happen?

People died? or people did not die?


quit dodging

 

[Blackdog22]

The laws are naturalistic coming into being when the universe expanded.

So laws transcend God? God bows down to the laws of nature? Then who controls nature? You seem to be implying you believe in a fairly weak God among gods, which would make some of this make a bit more sense.

 

[Serenity7855]

So the baby is corrupt because the parents are? Or will become corrupt because their parents are? Who says?

As I have already said, and I quote "It is all anecdotal, and you are not a fan of that."

Us who? Am I talking to more than one person?

I refer to the Christian faith. It is very juvenile to play title for tat on a debating forum.

I have cause to complain because apparently at least one person is somehow under the impression that babies can be wicked when there’s no evidence in observable reality to indicate as much. In fact, all the evidence points in the exact opposite direction. It causes me concern because there’s no reason outside of some ancient text for people to actually believe that babies are wicked. It causes me concern because I don’t want any harm brought to innocent babies. It’s a lot easier to harm a baby when you’re already under the impression that they can be wicked. That’s apparently how the people of the Bible were able to justify their terrible actions against other babies and human beings. It's an easy way to demonize and dehumanize one's enemies.

I did not say that any babies were killed in Sodom and Gomorrah. Bunyip did, and I quote

"God destroying the entire populations of Soddom and Gomorrah, babies, innocent children and all was malicious."

He also said this"Tens of thousands of innocents were slaughtered - the babies and little children were innocent. The babies and children were not alive decades earlier"

And this:

"And what crime did the under three year olds commit to deserve annihilation?
For what crime would you think the death penalty for toddlers was appropriate?"

And I responded thus:

"No one in Sodom or Gomorrah were innocent. Even the children were corrupted at an early age and were wicked."

That is children not babies.

That is - Under Three year olds - Toddlers - The Babies and Little Children, that Bunyip has conjured up to have been killed.

So I did not say that the babies were taken up, you and Bunyip have, and then you projected it onto me. Another example of what anti-theists do. You are doing your cause no favours.

Are you for real? How many babies do you see walking the streets of Brazil? I’m guessing none, since babies can’t actually walk.

I did not say baby were walking the streets in Brazil. I said "Take a plane trip to Brazil and meet the street children." You are insinuating that I said babies for the sole purpose of belittlement. That is what anti-theists do.

You are looking at it through Bible tinted glasses, my friend. And you’re coming to alarming conclusions.

Well, yes, of course I am. It happened in Bible times.

Besides like I pointed out above, what then is the point of all the redemption and salvation stuff which is also found in the Bible you follow?

And as I answered, eternal life in the presence of God.

 

[Serenity7855]

So laws transcend God? God bows down to the laws of nature? Then who controls nature? You seem to be implying you believe in a fairly weak God among gods, which would make some of this make a bit more sense.

Why do laws of nature need to be controlled. What law of nature do you feel is controlled.

No, I do not believe in a weak God. My God is omnipotent and omniscient. Natural laws do not take anything from him. They only pertain to us.

 

[Serenity7855]

What exactly does that mean?


It happened? or it did not happen?

People died? or people did not die?


quit dodging

Do you really need that explaining to you?

 

[outhouse]

Do you really need that explaining to you?

Yes

Explain your view unless your to embarrassed

No one can figure out your unsubstantiated view on evolution.

Im sure this whole flood opinion of yours to be quite enlightening

 

[Serenity7855]

Yes

Explain your view unless your to embarrassed

No one can figure out your unsubstantiated view on evolution.

Im sure this whole flood opinion of yours to be quite enlightening

Clearly I would be wasting my time.

 

[outhouse]

Clearly I would be wasting my time.

Hide your opinion away where it wont get damaged, its OK.