There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Blackdog22]

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.

Then you must of mispoke when you said God was helpless to save the people of the flood because he was bound by laws of nature. Not that consistency matters at this point.

 

[Serenity7855]

Then you must of mispoke when you said God was helpless to save the people of the flood because he was bound by laws of nature. Not that consistency matters at this point.

I didn't say that God was helpless in saving the people. He tried very hard to save them. They ignored him, or his prophet, Lot, and the natural law came into force and stopped the evil. It is consistent with all that I have said, but it is still anecdotal, just a very plausible and likely one. You see God is a reality and he is perfect in nature. He can only love, he cannot perform any evil, that is not debatable. So, God could not have killed anyone, that is a given. What we have to do is look for methods in which he overcame this dilemma, this is as good of a explanation as any, but it still remains anecdotal because you or I were not there. .

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible. Stuart Chase.

 

[ScuzManiac]

I didn't say that God was helpless in saving the people. He tried very hard to save them. They ignored him, or his prophet, Lot, and the natural law came into force and stopped the evil. It is consistent with all that I have said, but it is still anecdotal, just a very plausible and likely one. You see God is a reality and he is perfect in nature. He can only love, he cannot perform any evil, that is not debatable. So, God could not have killed anyone, that is a given. What we have to do is look for methods in which he overcame this dilemma, this is as good of a explanation as any, but it still remains anecdotal because you or I were not there. .

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible. Stuart Chase.

Exodus 12:29

At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.

He can only love, huh?

 

[viole]

I didn't say that God was helpless in saving the people. He tried very hard to save them. They ignored him, or his prophet, Lot, and the natural law came into force and stopped the evil. It is consistent with all that I have said, but it is still anecdotal, just a very plausible and likely one. You see God is a reality and he is perfect in nature. He can only love, he cannot perform any evil, that is not debatable. So, God could not have killed anyone, that is a given. What we have to do is look for methods in which he overcame this dilemma, this is as good of a explanation as any, but it still remains anecdotal because you or I were not there. .

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible. Stuart Chase.

The same Lot that gave his daughters to be gang raped by a mob in exchange for his angeilic guests?

And that was a a righteous man?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ScuzManiac]

The same Lot that gave his daughters to be gang raped by a mob in exchange for his angeilic guests?

And that was a a righteous man?

Ciao

- viole

Exactly.

It's right there in front of you in plain text.

:clap

 

[Serenity7855]

Exodus 12:29

At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.

He can only love, huh?

Yes, that is right. The destroying angel entered every dwelling unmarked with blood, as the messenger of woe. He did his dreadful errand. That is the destroying angel and not God.


The Egyptians had been for three days and nights kept in anxiety and horror by the darkness; now their rest is broken by a far more terrible calamity. The plague struck their first-born, the joy and hope of their families. They had slain the Hebrews' children, now God slew theirs. It reached from the throne to the dungeon: prince and peasant stand upon the same level before God's judgments. The destroying angel entered every dwelling unmarked with blood, as the messenger of woe. He did his dreadful errand, leaving not a house in which there was not one dead. Imagine then the cry that rang through the land of Egypt, the long, loud shriek of agony that burst from every dwelling. It will be thus in that dreadful hour when the Son of man shall visit sinners with the last judgment. God's sons, his first-born, were now released. Men had better come to God's terms at first, for he will never come to theirs. Now Pharaoh's pride is abased, and he yields. God's word will stand; we get nothing by disputing, or delaying to submit. In this terror the Egyptians would purchase the favour and the speedy departure of Israel. Thus the Lord took care that their hard-earned wages should be paid, and the people provided for their journey.

 

[outhouse]

The plague struck their first-born, the joy and hope of their families. They had slain the Hebrews' children, now God slew theirs.

.

You really think this happened?

Or is it more hiding opinions in dark places so you don't have to confront the truth?


Like your flood opinions?

 

[outhouse]

God's sons, his first-born, were now released. Men had better come to God's terms at first, for he will never come to theirs


.

Proselytize much?


He did not exist in OT times. His scipture was created later.

Augustus the living Emperor was first the "son of god" before jesus was born, guess who else used this "same term"

Could it be unknown biblical authors, who were far removed from jesus life an teachings who never heard a single word leave his lips????????

 

[Serenity7855]

The same Lot that gave his daughters to be gang raped by a mob in exchange for his angeilic guests?

And that was a a righteous man?

Ciao

- viole

Perhaps you could give me chapter and verse where this happened.

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps you could give me chapter and verse where this happened.

read the book

its in there

 

[ScuzManiac]

Yes, that is right. The destroying angel entered every dwelling unmarked with blood, as the messenger of woe. He did his dreadful errand. That is the destroying angel and not God.


The Egyptians had been for three days and nights kept in anxiety and horror by the darkness; now their rest is broken by a far more terrible calamity. The plague struck their first-born, the joy and hope of their families. They had slain the Hebrews' children, now God slew theirs. It reached from the throne to the dungeon: prince and peasant stand upon the same level before God's judgments. The destroying angel entered every dwelling unmarked with blood, as the messenger of woe. He did his dreadful errand, leaving not a house in which there was not one dead. Imagine then the cry that rang through the land of Egypt, the long, loud shriek of agony that burst from every dwelling. It will be thus in that dreadful hour when the Son of man shall visit sinners with the last judgment. God's sons, his first-born, were now released. Men had better come to God's terms at first, for he will never come to theirs. Now Pharaoh's pride is abased, and he yields. God's word will stand; we get nothing by disputing, or delaying to submit. In this terror the Egyptians would purchase the favour and the speedy departure of Israel. Thus the Lord took care that their hard-earned wages should be paid, and the people provided for their journey.

But it clearly says "The Lord" unless I am missing something?

 

[Bunyip]

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



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



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.

That was just painfully dishonest. Either you really do forget what you have said post by post, or are not interested in being honest. Seriously mate, that was about as pathetic and shameful attempt to excuse yourself thatI have ever read.

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.



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


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

 

[Serenity7855]

That was just painfully dishonest. Either you really do forget what you have said post by post, or are not interested in being honest. Seriously mate, that was about as pathetic and shameful attempt to excuse yourself thatI have ever read.

No, that was honesty. You probably didn't recognise it. You really have some kind of obsession with me don't you? You just cannot help but to direct your derisive remarks at me instead of my post, as the rules, that you agreed to, states. Anti-theist, what else should we expect?

 

[Bunyip]

No, that was honesty. You probably didn't recognise it. You really have some kind of obsession with me don't you? You just cannot help but to direct your derisive remarks at me instead of my post, as the rules, that you agreed to, states. Anti-theist, what else should we expect?

You said that all of those killed in Soddom and Gomorrah deserved it, when I asked about the little children and babies you said that they deserved it also. That was a truly appalling attempt to backpeddle and re-invent your own posts.

And I have every right and reason to challenge you when it was my posts and comments that you were deliberately misreporting. If you are going to misquote somebody, don't whine and bleat about how you are getting victimised. THE RULES by the way specifically forbid misquoting others here buddy,

 

[ScuzManiac]

You said that all of those killed in Soddom and Gomorrah deserved it, when I asked about the little children and babies you said that they deserved it also. That was a truly appalling attempt to backpeddle and re-invent your own posts.

And I have every right and reason to challenge you when it was my posts and comments that you were deliberately misreporting. If you are going to misquote somebody, don't whine and bleat about how you are getting victimised. THE RULES by the way specifically forbid misquoting others here buddy,

Not like it matters now.

The majority of his posts that have anything to do with this have conveniently been edited.

 

[Bunyip]

Not like it matters now.

The majority of his posts that have anything to do with this have conveniently been edited.

No degree of revision will make that last attempt at harmonisation any less transparent. Children can not deserve the death penalty even if he revises his position from 'all' to 'all except babies', then to 'all except toddlers and babies' . Attempting a defence where he means children, not babies doesn't actually make it any less murderous.

It is amusing however to see him try.

 

[Serenity7855]

You said that all of those killed in Soddom and Gomorrah deserved it, when I asked about the little children and babies you said that they deserved it also. That was a truly appalling attempt to backpeddle and re-invent your own posts.

I didn't say they deserve it. That would require a judgement and I never knew them to judge them. What I said was that the children were possessed with many demons and euthanasia was a better choice then life in their current situation. These mis-quotes of yours are getting worse.

And I have every right and reason to challenge you when it was my posts and comments that you were deliberately misreporting. If you are going to misquote somebody, don't whine and bleat about how you are getting victimised. THE RULES by the way specifically forbid misquoting others here buddy,

You have every right to challenge my post, you have no right to challenge me personally.

I specifically cut and pasted your post in context so as not to be accused of this.

As I have said, I do not feel victimised, however, that does not mean that you are not attempting to victimise me. It just means that it ain't working.

I know what the rules say, which is why I have not misquoted you.

 

[Bunyip]

I didn't say they deserve it. That would require a judgement and I never knew them to judge them. What I said was that the children were possessed with many demons and euthanasia was a better choice then life in their current situation. These mis-quotes of yours are getting worse.



You have every right to challenge my post, you have no right to challenge me personally.

I specifically cut and pasted your post in context so as not to be accused of this.

As I have said, I do not feel victimised, however, that does not mean that you are not attempting to victimise me. It just means that it ain't working.

I know what the rules say, which is why I have not misquoted you.

 

[Serenity7855]

Not like it matters now.

The majority of his posts that have anything to do with this have conveniently been edited.

Are you suggesting that I have been so dishonest that I have changed all my post. That is a definite case of projecting.

 

[Serenity7855]

No degree of revision will make that last attempt at harmonisation any less transparent. Children can not deserve the death penalty even if he revises his position from 'all' to 'all except babies', then to 'all except toddlers and babies' . Attempting a defence where he means children, not babies doesn't actually make it any less murderous.

It is amusing however to see him try.

Perhaps you could show me where I said children but not babies or toddlers. I was making it clear that it was you who introduced the accusation that babies, toddlers and children under 3 were slaughtered. Now you are wriggling and squirming to get out of it by misrepresenting me. I hold no malice though, after all, you are a anti-theist.