chaosrage

Holy shit, Ray is defending Shawn. I had to read that a couple times to make sure it wasn't sarcasm. You've changed.

Yeah, how does that even make sense? It's like you can help someone kill a million enemies but never get one final blow and you would still be just as inexperienced as when you started.

Do the pupils give the mentors exp? I didn't know they got exp from combo attacks. Is it the same amount as if one person would have killed the enemy or do they divide it up?

About 10 minutes. If you eat 10 hamburgers, then he throws up. You have to leave and go back in. Eat 10 more hamburgers, throw up again. Keep doing it. Forget about Vice City.

Ok, I'm going by your order since SO3 is being a beeyatch and won't give me one. 30 minutes into Disgaea..... Characters can't gain exp without killing the enemy? Then how can I make my cleric gain levels? The instruction book is way too small for a game like this.

Should've just skipped it. I just beat the game. That's the only mission I couldn't do. Great last mission. I starting to bitch around San Fierro because I wanted to go back and take over gangs instead of doing random shit jobs for people. But it got better around the flying missions and working for Tereno. I loved all the stats and having to eat and being able to swim and how big the city was. Easily the best GTA game.

Yeah, I know they're all excellent, but I might not have time to play them all. I'm going to try to but just in case I only get to play one or two, I want to play the best. Come on, order them.

Actually, that's a different episode with a similar theme. This particular episode is the one where Kenny takes his class picture wearing his suit upside down (to where his ass is where the face hole on the suit is). Cartman then gets it on the side of a milk-carton. Oh, then scratch what I said about 510 too. That ep sucked.

Heh. Can you order those for me from best to worst? S02, SO3, VP, Grandia 2. And throw in Disgaea. And since I haven't finished it yet, throw in DW7. I played about 40 hours, then some new games came out, and I never went back. Now I'll have to start back over from the beginning.

Not really for the first three you didn't see. 510 and 512 and 514 are pretty funny. Kenny Dies is one of the best episodes they've ever done I think. If you haven't see that one, I would go download it right now from mrtwig instead of waiting until March 1st.

Well maybe I could try Ebay. What do you think of the Tales games? I have to say I didn't really like any of them. Real Time 2D battles sounded like it would be a good idea at first. But in the end, you're just winning every battle by pressing attack over and over. The other characters only make it confusing with too much shit happening on the screen so I tended to not even worry about them. After awhile of playing it, I stopped paying attention to the battles completely and each time I got in one, my eyes would drift to the TV and I would just keep pressing attack and left and right on the controls. I don't know if that's just because it was too easy or what. Then there's a battle every 4 steps. And the story, well.. they barely have one. And the small bit they do have is just typical RPG cliche. I've never played Valkyrie Profile either.

Ok. I've never played any SO. And I've played Grandia 1 but not Grandia 2. I would ask if you thought I should play SO2 instead of SO3 but I guess that would be kind of hard to find, so I won't. What game would you say feels the closest to SO? How's the story?

Hey SO3, sell me on SO3. I need another RPG to play too. What's so great about it? You like DW7 so you automatically must have better tastes than most people.

That was the best SP ending in a long time. Edit: What did they do on Drawn Together?

I already have most of those matches on tape (a lot of them from the RF Video shoot), but I might still get it. They should've put the RVD/Lynn from TNN and the RVD/Sabu draw from Hardcore TV. Are those on DVD anywhere? Why Tommy Dreamer and Balls Mahoney over another eliminators match? November to Remember 96 was a lot better than Crossing the Line Again. Kinda sad that they've never done anything with him in over a year.

Each Halloween after 2 was supposed to be a different story, I think. 1 and 2 were two halves of the same story, just about one night. Michael died, and was going to stay dead. But people didn't like H3 and they wanted him back. I love Halloween 3. I don't know why everyone hates it other than the fact that it didn't have Michael in it.

I took one look at the Viewtiful Joe commercials, and looked at the company that made it. Capcom absolutely hated Nintendo for a long time, so I take it as no surprise that they would make a second-rate for them. I knew it was going to blow just by watching the commercials. In all seriousness, Viewtiful Joe is just a modern up-to-date rehashing of the Ghosts and Goblins franchise. Nothing more, nothing less. I wish it was like Ghosts N Goblins. If I had to pick one game to compare VJ to, it would be TMNT: Turtles in Time. How repetitive it is fighting the same enemies over and over and taking forever to do it. I thought it was a pretty good game besides that, but I wouldn't buy it. There's too many better games out there to get. And Next Gen was the last mag worth paying money for.

I think I'm done with this thread. If you don't get it after all this time, I don't think you ever will. These posts are getting way too long.

Spontaneous generation is stupid. Abiogenesis.... on the other hand isn't. The fact that you would call abiogenesis evolution proves that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. For further proof, you seem to think abiogenesis means spontaneous generation. No, it wouldn't be good. I might think it was good but if I got caught, I'd still get thrown in jail. You can say it comes down to majority if you like. I guess if God didn't exist, you think we shouldn't have jails because there's no right or wrong. What a crock of shit. And I'm pretty sure I could throw a brick at someone and never get caught or have one thrown at me. In essense, it's still self preservation because morals come from survival traits, but not in the same way that you think. If the bible says it, then the bible is wrong. It's ridiculously stupid to think that disobeying God automatically created earthquakes and evolution on it's own. Funny, I don't remember saying don't know for sure. I said you can't know at all. You can't even say it probably is one way or the other because you can't judge him. Believing in God is like believing your house is on the edge of a volcano by the way. "Evil is what God is not, by definition." Because if evil is what God is not, by definition, he couldn't be responsible for evil. Simple. Right here. You just said it again. We can only judge God if we agree with you that he's good. We have to think he's good or believe nothing. Wrong bitch, that's not my response. My response is to think he's evil. If it was good for children to work in a factory for one reason, it'd have to be good for all children to work in a factory for the same reason and good for all epileptics to play Nintendo. What's your point? When everyone has a different but equally correct perspective, that's what people call an opinion. If I had the same argument as that guy and I admitted he was wrong, then I would be admitting that you're right. It's a perspective that Hitler was wrong. Since you said he was wrong, I guess that means you think he is. Since you're using the same argument a nazi would use to defend Hitler, you are actually admitting that you're wrong. Even if you don't realize it. That's great.

They have faith, just dead faith. Dead faith means faith is alone, not that it doesn't exist....... according to James.

How does that show that no one receives the holy spirit until they're saved? All you showed was that they need it to be saved. The Holy Ghost earns us salvation. If any man doesn't have the spirit, God doesn't have you. No shit. That's not the same thing. You can read those verses thinking that you need both and it makes just as much sense. Again, it doesn't even matter because if it was true you can't prove that babies get the Holy Ghost when they die. So you have no point. Show me that God saved them at the judgement. You can't because it doesn't say that. Niggard isn't wrong, most people just don't know what it means. 'And' meaning 'even' is wrong because 'and' doesn't mean 'even'. Look it up if you don't know. And I'll trust the experts' translations over your working knowledge and keep on thinking you're full of shit. They can't accept or reject him because they don't believe, just like atheists and people who believe in a different God. It would hardly make sense to exempt them, but he does it. It would hardly make sense to create people that he knows won't believe in him and are destined to go to hell, but he does it. It would hardly make sense to kill the innocent children and animals along with the guilty in the flood and the cities he smited, but he did it. It would hardly make sense to expect someone who would kill the innocent along with the guilty to make exceptions for the innocents to be saved, but you do. Makes sense to me too, but the fact is God can't do anything for them. At least that's what you said. Following the same logic of why he sends us to hell, God by his nature must put those who sin away from him. He can't make them give it up either. There's nothing he can do about it. No one would reject him if they saw proof of him, so this is false. Most people aren't attached to sin, they just don't believe... hey, like babies. Same position. The analogy was supposed to back up your claim that babies deserve eternal torture. So I asked you if babies addicted to crack deserve to be that way? (Do babies deserve to have sin?) Do they deserve to be killed because they're addicted to it? (Do babies deserve eternal torture because they have sin?) It's not theoretical since you think they really do deserve it, you just think God is so nice and merciful that he saves them from it. But you can take it back if you like. We've already established that he wasn't fasting because he was sad. It was to see if God would show mercy. He didn't, so he stopped. That's why his behavior changed. Please don't pretend like you give a shit about babies when you said they deserved to be tortured forever. I think that's just a little more offensive than anything I or anyone else could say. What I said was true and you would know it if you weren't so screwed up in the head. I care what someone who would defend a murderer finds offensive about as much as I would care what a murderer finds offensive. Was the quote "You have to believe to be saved."? Oh, that's right, the quote was "Those that believe are saved, and those that don't are damned." For a second there I thought you had a point. It'd be more accurate to say someone claimed to be good at basketball but never shows anyone how good he is. Does that mean he isn't good at basketball? It's possible, but it's also possible that he really is good. James 2:17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." See, he isn't saying they don't have faith. He's saying the faith is dead because it's alone. So everyone that believes does good works? There's no such thing as a person who believes in God and doesn't do good? Well we can strike that down right now because you already admitted there's many people who believe and don't do what God wants. You know, you're right. "For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." 2 Cor 5:10 "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works." Matthew 16:27 "If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." Matthew 19:17 "But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds." Romans 2:6 "The Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work." 1 Pet 1:17 He was a high school graduate but he couldn't get his diploma. If you believe in God, and you don't do good works, you still believe in God, but you won't get into heaven. Now do you get it? First, they didn't have a choice. How many times do I have to say that? If you put a baby on a stove and put the burner on and tell him not to touch it, they're not making a choice to go against what you're saying and touch it anyway. They do it because they don't know any better. They don't know that they'll get burned. Second, pretending they had a choice for a minute, how the fuck is the choice of a baby touching the stove remotely important? I don't know about you, but I'd keep them away from the stove and make sure the stove is turned off. I don't care that I'm taking away their free will to burn themselves. Then again, I'm not some asshole who thinks babies deserve torture. I thought you read the bible. The book of Job is the book where God lets Satan torment Job because he has a bet with him. Most of the book is Job arguing with his friends about God. God only shows up at the end to say "Who are you to question me? I know more than you. Haha!" And then Job says he's sorry. God doesn't talk to Job until chapter 38. Did you really think he was in a spoken conversation with him at chapter 3? Restful people don't wail and gnash their teeth. Job was obviously talking about a different afterlife than Jesus. Either Job was wrong or Jesus was wrong. Take your pick. Actually, it's not like saying that because I didn't say Jonah wanted them to go to heaven. In fact, I said they probably went to hell. The point is heaven and hell isn't the issue here. Jonah simply said he wanted Ninevah to be overthrown and never mentioned heaven or hell. So stop fucking talking about it. Well, Jonah wanted the city to be destroyed. He said it would happen in 40 days. Of course it didn't happen because 120,000 of the people were stupid. Yes, he looks at them differently than regular sinners. But I've still shown you with the flood and Saul's massacre that he doesn't really care about them and punishes them with the rest. Why do you keep dodging that? The people of Ninevah didn't anger God like the other cities because many of them were so stupid. They must have gotten smarter a century later though, perhaps there were only around 50,000 or so people who didn't know the right from their left then. Wrong, the fact that he still destroyed the city shows you they weren't spared. Your KKK analogy completely backfires on you here. Why would he kill them all and then send them to heaven? Think about it. Good? So you admit that the story of the civil war with a hobbit can be dismissed because it has a hobbit in it? Not only haven't I contradicted it but you just agreed with my argument that the bible can be dismissed because it has a God in it. Just like if hobbits are real, then LOTR is true. Your point? Until we find evidence that hobbits are real, it's still not history. No matter how much of a big LOTR nerd you are, it still isn't history. Yeah, I'm using supernatural negation. I've never seen any evidence of anything supernatural. That's reason enough for me to discredit the bible. I haven't seen any evidence of dragons and magic. That's reason enough to discredit the story of King Arthur. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It can still be true, but a billion of other weird shit can be true as well. Who cares. Do you believe that you live in a computer program because a movie said you are? Why not? OMG u cant discredit the matrix by presupposing it's untruth! Do you go around believing in elves, leprechauns, mud men, space goats, the tooth fairy, Batman, etc..? No, you would probably say they don't exist by the same reasoning you hate. If you want to be consistant, you would have to say the same thing about God. I say none of those things exist and neither do any gods. Merlin made the dragons disappear. Now there's a counterbalance. On an equal level with "Where the fuck did all that water go?" Ok. there was a murder. The gun at the crime scene was traced to you, it has your finger prints on it. The bullets in the victim match the gun. The victim was your girlfriend who just broke up with you. There's 100 eyewitnesses ready to testify. You go to court, get on the stand, and say you're innocent. You tell them an alien from outer space came in a UFO and stopped time, shot your girlfriend, and put the gun in your hand. Is this evidence to you? If you want to think it's evidence, well that's fine by me, it doesn't help your argument that God has more evidence than hobbits or Greek Gods if you want to think of it that way. Why? Because they have the same amount of evidence, a book. Remember that we have fossils of hobbit-sized creatures and we found the location of Troy from the Illiad, on top of having records from historians talking about Hercules. The bias is your thinking that those stories aren't true and the bible is true. It's too bad that I've responded to every single one of your counter points telling you how they weren't valid. You could only say that were that not true. And it's only a stalemate if you consider "a wizard did it" arguments to be valid. I've been trying to explain to you for about the past 10 pages why they aren't. Nah, he isn't a god, he's just a regular goat. He sneezed and the universe came out.

Even though God is outside of time, the choice still has to happen first if his knowledge is dependent on it. It's like the analogy someone made with the VCR tape. You're outside of the timeline, you can rewind and fast forward, but everything still has to be written on that tape for you to know about it. Now let's say, God comes up to you and tells you what you'll do tomorrow. Now what happens tomorrow? Do you have to do what he said or can his knowledge be wrong? I have no idea what you're trying to get at right here. I saw the essay but didn't read it. It was long winded and insanely boring. Summarize it plz. Not really. If I had a seizure and did it, I wouldn't have control over myself and couldn't choose not to do it. That's not the power to do anything, I'm just going along for the ride. I couldn't phyically make myself have a seizure if I knew what would happen. Again, no power. Of course you realize this, so you're left with redefining the word omnipotence. Alright, if his power is limited, you can say he has unilmited power if you're lying. I agree with that. Limited unlimited power, eh? Can I quote you on that? Also, self imposed limits on his power would be him making himself not omnipotent, and that's incoherent. It's like making himself not God. Proving himself better than their gods is proving himself. If they didn't throw down their gods and worship him, sometimes he killed them or had his followers kill them. Then if they didn't convert, he killed more. That would be overthrowing their belief system. Hell, just Jesus coming down to Earth and resurrecting is overthrowing people's belief system. That doesn't mean everyone has to do it, not everyone would do it if God showed himself again, but it would be moronic to say he didn't prove himself. This isn't one of your better arguments. Since it doesn't prove it, God existing wouldn't overthrow the theory of Evolution. Therefore, he has no excuse for not showing himself. No, but we created them nonetheless. If God has has full authority over what he created, we should too. About as cool as being in a town full of zombies. Once again, you don't know. Perhaps he wants you to come to a belief about God through analysis and study, and thinks you're a fool for using the spiritual aspect. He wants you to use the brain he gave you and not take his word for everything. Like a puzzle. Or as you put it before, a challenge. The bible is filled with violence, murder, genocide, infanticide, intolerence, eternal damnation, etc... But God is supposed to be good and love. That's a perfect reason to think he wants you to use compassion and reject him. If he's omnipotent, he can do both. If he isn't, then the bible is wrong, and he can't. If not everyone in the thread understands it, then everyone in the world doesn't understand it. Duh. I didn't think it was supporting anything. You actually believe there was an atmospheric layer of water? So there was a logical reason for the water, but after the flood, God made all the water disappear? Or did aliens take it into outer space? No, he didn't because he didn't exist and they didn't know any better. They did write it down, but you think it's meant to be metaphorical or something, which is a dumb thing to think because we know they actually believed those things. You haven't backed that up at all though. It means he won out over the rest. That's all. If Mithra had won, you'd be defending him and calling Jesus a nobody. The reason you believe in Jesus over Mithra is because he's more popular? You must have worded that wrong because you can't have meant to say that. 1. No, I don't remember that book. 2. If there's no evidence for something, and a story predating it by hundreds of years is nearly identical, it's a sure sign that it was just copied. 3. They're both lies, but if I had to believe in one, I would believe in the one that came first, not the plagiarized story. Give me 17 pages. Acts came before Luke, so if Acts is 40 years after, Luke is even later. I didn't think I had to point that out. If nothing was written about 1964 until 2004, and there's no evidence that anything was written for 40 years, it would be a 40 year game of telephone and VERY unreliable as far as what people are quoted as saying. He couldn't have said a sentence and died twice, saying a different sentence both times. If the Amalekites lied, that would be a contradiction. It doesn't say God allowed it to happen. It says God slew him, second contradiction. Plus, the Philistines slew him, third contradiction. Man, that guy had a lot of lives! Nope, if they cared about being accurate and had contradicting stories, they would say "This group of people believe blah blah" and "this other group believes blah blah". So your take is that if we can't believe a story because it has zombies, all of history is a lie? Does evidence of Hercules make the Illad a history book? Just like the Flat Earth society is evidence of a Flat Earth and the Heavens Gaters are evidence of a spaceship behind the hale-bopp comet. Oh wait, that's not evidence of anything! Just evidence of people with stupid beliefs. If Josephus didn't actually write about Jesus and it was tacked on to him by a bishop in the third century, we should throw out everything he said about Jesus. Except Nebuchadnezzar wasn't Belshazzar's son or related to him at all. Belshazzar's father was part of a faction that overthrew the old king. And he was a sitting king, but not a real king. Third ruler in the kingdom. Does that mean Daniel was made co-co-regent? Did Daniel become the last king after Belshazzar died? No, so that's fucking vague. Third ruler of what in the kingdom? Back then I don't think we had evidence of Belshazzar. Now we have Babylonian records. They say Belshazar existed, but a Darius the Mede didn't. The same purpose making up Mithra served and the same way Mithra got converts. How come those crowds of thousands of Jews didn't get automatically converted when they saw a famous guy performing miracles? Maybe because it never happened. Jesus didn't create the religion or propagate it, it was all done after his death. He's so unimportant he doesn't even need to have existed. Even if he existed, it would have probably died were it not for "Paul". You couldn't say that about Buddhism or Islam because Siddhartha and Mohammed were the creators. We might have their names wrong or have know no real facts about them, but they're.... the ones who did it. I don't expect any evidence of Abraham and Noah, but that doesn't change the fact that there isn't evidence. Although for Noah, we would expect evidence of a flood and there isn't any. Did you? It says there's no trace of him saying it before the 15th century. Yeah, it really was. Time to take you back to talkorigins. All About Archaeopteryx Well if yalad in the Hifil means direct physical offspring, that would mean there's no gaps. I don't know if it does or not. I don't care enough to check. Fuck these long posts. No, but it shows that people were around much earlier than the Bible says, just the same. Of course it matters what they believed. It's an insight to what they meant. If they believed one thing, they probably wouldn't have meant what they wrote to be the opposite of what they believed. You have to take that into account. Like you said, Noah was the only one who could write an account of the flood. But again it's funny how there is no archaelogical evidence of a global flood, isn't it? Same story, same cup. Everyone is just looking at the one particular cup and seeing something different. And every single christian believes their own particular version of Christianity is the real one. Cultural bias is picking Christianity because it's accepted by society and rejecting Mithraism because no one cares about it anymore. You have to go into some detail about how abiogenesis proves a god.

I'm pretty sure their faith isn't dead. They know that God's there. James said that faith was dead without good works. That applies to humans. Demons & Angels aren't human. Therefore, my statement stands. Says who? You? James says "You think that believing in God is enough? Well remember that the demons believe in him too, so strongly that they tremble in terror! Fool! Faith without works is dead!" Meaning of course that faith isn't enough to save you.

........ Spontaneous generation hasn't been a scientific theory in like hundreds of years. Abiogenesis isn't spontaneous generation. No one who knows what they're talking about would use the theory of evolution to refer to abiogenesis. Hello? I already explained to you what it changed. If a strong wind knocks a brick off of a building and it hits you in the head, it's neither good or evil because nature is mindless. It just happens. However, if someone picked up the brick and threw it at you, it would be evil because it was deliberately thrown and intended to kill you. It's not because sin didn't make evolution. Sin didn't make earthquakes. God did. In fact, it could be argued that without evolution, there wouldn't be sin. (Except for the retarded not believing in God kind) Evolution rewards greed. Hate and violence comes from greed. First, nice job avoiding the question again. How do you know? Well, the answer is obvious, you don't know. And if you DON'T know, then you have no reason to call him good since you admit that we can't judge him for ourselves. Okay, so we might be doomed because we have no way of overcoming his lies, there may not be any good or evil at all, fine, you have no way of knowing if this is true or not. God could be a liar and that could all be the way it is. So stop calling him good when you don't have a clue what he is. Second, if you say unless God is good, there is no good, why can't I say unless God is evil, there is no evil? If it's possible for him to be the definition of good and have good and evil exist, then it's possible for him to be the definition of evil and have good and evil exist. If he created both, he'd have to be both anyway. Just to be clear on this, he did create both. (Isaiah 45:7) Third, why doesn't there have to be a higher standard by which God is judged if he's good? Why does it only work if we call him evil? Essentially, what you're saying is "you can judge him but ONLY if you agree with me and JUDGE HIM TO BE GOOD." How you can sit there and expect to get away with this bullshit? Finally, we know God is a liar from the bible verses where he admitted to lying. I wouldn't consider stealing bread to feed your starving family an evil act. However, I'd consider killing children to punish their parents an evil act. You don't have to agree, but if you think it's a good act, it has to be good for everyone to do it. If two people get in a fight and one of them goes to the other's home after its over and chops his kids' heads off, maybe we shouldn't put him in jail. Maybe we should give him a medal instead. Oh, so what you're really saying is that there still would be a right and a wrong, it would just be an opinion. Well newsflash, it's an opinion even if God exists. You pick and choose your own authority. No one else does it for you. Your authority can be God or Hitler or Santa Claus or me. Just don't expect everyone else to be as retarded as you. You're basically a nazi arguing that Hitler is the standard of right and wrong because he says he is and unless Hitler is good, then no one is good, since if he wasn't the standard, then no one would be the standard. How, when I've been saying all along that even the most evil people that ever lived don't deserve to suffer for eternity? To do something to deserve an infinite amount of torture, you'd have to do..... an infinite amount of evil. That's not possible... at least not humanly possible. God might qualify. It's rejection of the belief in God, nothing else. If I don't believe I'm going to win the lottery and I win, am I rejecting my win? Intellectually capable doesn't have jackshit to do with it. No one has any facts that prove God. All they have is faith. Some people might think they have evidence, but guess what? I don't. To some people, the universe might be evidence of God, to others, it's just evidence of the universe. I can't force myself think that it's evidence if I don't think that it's true. What you're saying is "A lot of people smarter than you has red as their favorite color, so you should be able to make red your favorite color too!" You can tell yourself all day that red is your favorite color, but is your favorite color really red or are you just lying to yourself? Come on, do it. Make red your favorite color in 24 hours or I'll come through the computer and eat your soul. Pain and suffering isn't arbitrary. You may like pain, but that doesn't mean it isn't pain. Yep, old crazy hippie chaosrage thinking infants don't deserve to be eternally tortured for something they didn't do. Have you ever considered that I might be normal and you might be a psychopath? I think most people would agree with me. Even most christians would usually make things up rather than defend original sin by saying infants deserve to be tortured. Exactly my point. The statement that God is good is a fallacy because it can't be good to have evil. Yet God, not only creates evil, but allows it to exist. Is it good to choose evil? No. Then why do you think it would be good to have the ability to choose evil? Is it good to have the ability to choose to murder someone? Before you start with any robot crap, keep in mind that you already acknowledged that we wouldn't be able to kill our grandmothers because it goes against our natures. We DON'T have the ability to choose to do it. Is that a bad thing? Would it be bad if no one else had that ability either? Unless you're of the opinion that murder is good, both answers would have to be "no". I never said that it was a fact that he was evil, just that he was cruel. I think it holds a little more water than "Everyone deserves it because that's what God thinks. Oh, and I can't tell if what he thinks is actually good because I can't make a judgement about him." PS. I'm only arguing for his nonexistance is because you said I can't say that he isn't good. This is what tends to happen when you define God as a feeling. If you don't like it, then you can take that back and I'll change my argument to him just being evil. Yet if I get you to admit that we can call him evil, is it still the Christian God? Yep. All that's required to believe in the Easter Bunny is the Easter Bunny's help, yours for the asking. Do you believe in the Easter Bunny now? I just asked BTW. Nothing happened! Guess that means he really doesn't exist. Or you're wrong and I really am that deeply entrenched in sin. (whatever that means) There's no significance of rejecting God because people are only making the best decision they can make with the intelligence that he gave them. If we don't believe, it's because we're flawed humans making reasonable human mistakes, the way God intended for us to turn out. He is a Catholic. I'm sure you know they never excommunicated him, right? Catholicism doesn't say killing people is wrong. Remember the Crusades? Killing was what God's chosen people did in the OT, not always under orders. Let's look at the war crimes of Moses. "And the children of Israel took ALL the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods." "And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all these women alive?" "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women and children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." You said before that it didn't mean God wanted them to do it, but are you going to argue that they were no longer chosen people based on that? Let's see what else is in the bible. “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed” (Exodus 22:20). “If thou shalt hear... certain men... saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword” (Deuteronomy 13:12-15). “That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman” (2 Chronicles 15:13). "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him" (Levitcus 24:16) Hitler was just being a good christian. Then that's why you wouldn't be. If you're okay with it, just say it (and explain why) so I know where you're coming from. Or better yet, let's just skip ahead so I can say the only reason you're ok with it is because you're a scared little bitch afraid of hell. I say that some sins are too harsh to be forgiven, and still nobody deserves to go to hell. I morally object to him. If believing means I accept him, then I morally object to that. To the Christian, God has the authority to make such judgements. To the Nazi, Hitler has the authority to make such judgements. No difference. If I said I was incapable, then I must be. I didn't address it because you wanted me to say God is loving based on those guidelines, and he would be, but your guidelines are crap. "If he wants to kill everybody but decides to not to kill 1 or 2, you should praise him for it". Sorta like saying "Imagine that up is down, now the sky is down, right? AHAHA!" Um yeah, but it's a pretty fucking stupid point to make. The sky is still up, you're just saying something that isn't true to make it look like it's down. Once again, we didn't ruin it. Two of our ancestors who didn't know right from wrong ruined it. The obvious solution is to do it again, but this time let us know right from wrong. If I can figure it out, God should be able to figure it out if he thinks hard enough. He should do it because he's supposed to be love and he was the one that fucked it up the first time around. A good god would make an Earth-like place for people who die and don't want to be with him, unless this wouldn't be good to do something like that, but it would. Every professing Christian spreads fear and hate because that's what Christianity is. If God and Christians weren't making threats with torture, then hell wouldn't even be in the picture. We wouldn't be talking about it. We would just be talking about how great heaven is. If your kids don't want to go to first grade, will you hold up a knife and say you'll stab them in the face? And I don't know if you're blind or you're ignoring this by choice, but God does have a choice of not putting people who believe in him out of his presense. Earth is proof of that. Babies going to heaven, at least according to you, is proof of that. It's not intelligent or unintelligent. It's cowardly, although it might still be the best course of action if you're a christian. That's what makes it sad. It forces people to think that torturing even one person for eternity is just and babies are deserving of eternal torment because it's the best course of action to think that way. Yeah, I know. The analogy is wrong because you like evil God better than evil Santa.

Maybe it might not send us there out of mercy alone, but that goes against what he said and there's nothing to make us think that he would. If a cursory study will demonstrate it, then it should be easy to do it. However, you'd also have to demonstrate that all babies receive the holy spirit for the point to really to be valid. That's why it's a wrong translation, because it doesn't sound that way in English. The more accurate one would be 'even'. Now I don't speak Greek, and I doubt you do. I just think it's a little odd that none of the translations use even. Why would they all ignore the context? All I wanted to see was if you'd acknowledge that they're born sinners. If they're born sinners, why would you expect God to save them? God by his nature must put sin away from him, remember? He can't show mercy simply because he feels like it. He has no choice. Otherwise, most of your arguments would be void, and he could just as easily save all of us but chooses instead to send us to hell because he's a dickhead. He CAN'T save them outright. Babies are sinful, so something must be done to them to put away their sin. The Holy Ghost can't just go to them and save them anymore than it could go to us. As for the crack addict analogy, do babies deserve to be addicted to crack because their parents did it? Did they DESERVE to be shot in the head because they're addicted to it? It is horrifying, not because it's true since it isn't, but because some people believe it's true. Babies can't do anything to deserve something bad to happen to them, let alone torture, let alone torture for a 100 years, let alone eternal torture. Please tell me you were high on crack yourself when you wrote that. I meant after he died. You're wrong though. Either way, they need belief. Because James said it? They believe in God. Yet, they can't be saved because faith isn't enough according to James. I'm not the one that made the comparision. James did. Take it up with him. That last part is an interpolation. He doesn't say an empty claim isn't faith. What he says is you need to have more than faith. James says that you need to graduate from high school and get a diploma to be a high school graduate while Paul says you just need the diploma. How is that not a contradiction? Sorry, I'm still not following you. One of my friends missed the ceremony and they wouldn't give him a diploma. He had to go to the ceremony the next year to get it. He punished them for their sin by kicking them out of the garden of Eden. Plus he turned the stove on and put the baby next to it. Uh, Job was in a spoken conversation with God as much about like I would be if I yelled "Yo, hey God, there is a hell!" God never responded to him. Sheol might be a complicated issue, but hell isn't. Jesus says that those who believeth not are damned and cast into the fire. He's very clear on that. Everyone will be tormented there. Perhaps God changed his mind, or perhaps in exchange for Jesus dying for your sins, he created the hell of fire. No matter what Job said, if you don't believe in Jesus's hell, maybe you should be Jewish instead of a Christian. We don't know if Jonah wanted them to go to heaven. All is we know is Jonah wanted them to be killed. He didn't speak of condemnation. God said he wouldn't kill them. Then centuries later, he did it anyway. He didn't show them mercy if he killed them! The only way you could make that argument was if he let all the people who didn't know their right from their left live and never ever destroyed the city. Then you could say "He spared them, so why would he send them to hell?" They probably are condemned. When did I say everything in the bible didn't happen? Never. If there was a story about the Civil War with a hobbit, it wouldn't be evidence of a hobbit. It wouldn't be evidence of a Civil War either. The story can be dismissed because it has a hobbit in it, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. That doesn't mean LOTR isn't true either. As history? Yes. Otherwise, Hercules is history. If dragons and hobbits were in Gone With the Wind and we didn't know who wrote it, it would negate the entire thing. Because we don't know what parts were true and what parts were made up. The question would be Was There Hobbits and Dragons? The answer is no, because we don't have any evidence of them. Well.. we actually found evidence of hobbits, so we should probably drop that whole hobbit thing and replace them with zombies or something. Wouldn't a real King named Arthur and Troy be counterbalances? Adfh dkdfkd dskjhdf jjh djjd siweh sjhdaj sakjsh skjhdkj? It's not evidence against the civil war and it's not evidence against dragons! Fucking listen. The bible isn't evidence against God. It just isn't evidence FOR God. Anymore than the Illad is evidence of Greek Gods. Anymore than fossils of hobbit sized humans are evidence that Sauron, the deceiver has come back and is looking for his ring of power. By now, you HAVE to know I don't think the bible is logically self sufficient. I think it falls under EVERY area we can test. And it is impossible. That's not evidence of God, that's evidence of the magic Space Goat.