chaosrage

Hmm.. My bible says "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Sounds to me like they are talking about water baptism. You left out the part about belief. The bible flat out says belief and baptism are both required, no exceptions for anyone. Jesus did a lot of things that he didn't need to do, such as sacrificing himself to save us from himself. He obviously just liked doing pointless things. It's not. What's a stretch is thinking that he'll go see his son in heaven when it doesn't say anything about heaven or David being dead. The line is David telling his servants why he's not fasting. Because it won't bring him back. His son is dead, he'll go see him, but nothing he does will make him return. Makes perfect sense. He doesn't say "I shall go to him when I die" so there's no reason to assume he means that other than your wanting it to mean that. Just stick to the bible the way it is and stop making things up, okay? But I didn't ask you to prove that Jerusalem isn't on the same level as hobbits. I asked you to prove that God isn't on the same level. BTW, tomorrow my penis will grow 4000 miles long and impregnate Elisha Cuthbert, and I live in the United States. That's a real country, so what I'm saying has to be true.

People here like you more than me so your argument must be better. You're the one that doesn't understand it. For God, he might be outside of time and there might not be a before, but for you there is. If something you do can be known before you do it, then you have no control over it. Since God is outside of time, and he can look at all points at the same time, every point in time must be already written down, and you're destined to make the "choice" that God sees. Therefore you can't choose to do differently. You might think you have a choice but you really don't. You're just a character moving along on a script. If that script says you're going to eat frosted flakes or dog shit for breakfast, that's what you're going to eat it and you can't choose not to. Correct, I would be emotionally incapable of doing it. I couldn't be able to do it. So I wouldn't say "Murdering my grandmother is possible or not very difficult". It actually isn't possible for me to do it and it would be difficult. If you're limited by your nature, then for you, not everything is possible. By the way, if you can understand how it can be out of our nature to do something, why can't you understand how it could be not in our nature to believe in God. I can't make a choice in that anymore than I could killing my grandmother. If he takes five and makes it four, then it's no longer five. It's four just being called five. I could do the same thing. And the NT writers took it literally when they described him as omnipotent. It says "The one who holds sway over all things." "2 + 2 = 5" is a thing, a concept. So is a squared circle. Does God over sway over these things? Why the hell wouldn't he want to make us believe? Belief is different from acceptence. It's possible that if he showed up, I still wouldn't accept him. If I show you proof that I exist, would you become a robot? Were the Egyptians turned into robots when God proved to them that he existed in the bible? None of the people in the bible had to use faith. They had miracles and disasters. And rods turning into snakes. And guys running around healing everyone and rising from the dead. Explain to me how they were robots. Why would you want to praise someone who would kill and torture your kids? I'm sure you wouldn't be groveling all over his feet in heaven if your atheist kids were being burned in hell at the same time. Well I'm not sure but I hope you wouldn't. How are you able to make the decision that he's justified in judging everything? Just because he's powerful or because he created you? The bible defines it as things we can't do, but with God there's no things that he can't do. Anything in the bible or any other work of fiction can be made to say anything, whether you take it at face value or not. This is why you should not accept things without evidence. Every single piece of evidence suggests that the universe is billions of years old, not thousands. The only thing you have suggesting that it's thousands is no evidence at all, a book written a couple thousands of years ago by people that didn't know shit about how the world worked. Then if for some inexplicable reason you believe in what that book says, you have to ask yourself why would God create the universe with maturity. There's no way to know. So let's guess. Maybe the reason God purposely made the universe look like it was 15 billion years old when it really isn't, as well as made it look like there wasn't a flood when there really was, as well as made it look like we evolved when we didn't was because he wanted to create atheists. He wanted people to use the minds that he gave him and not just be zombies believing whatever he said, so the atheists are the saved ones and the christians are the ones really going to hell. There's no evidence of that, but since you can't prove it wrong, you have to admit that it's equally just as likely to be possible. So even if God exists, the odds of you going to hell and me going to hell are the same. Isn't making shit up fun? The moon can't be a source of light because it doesn't produce light. If I throw a rock and it bounces off of a wall and hits you in the head, is the wall a source of the rock? No, I am, the rock just bounced off. Why isn't anyone backing you up. Maybe because no cares or no one is reading. Maybe because it's a stupid irrelevant argument since you'll only make up something in the end anyway. If it's proved that the moon isn't a light, you would just say it used to be a light because you can't prove it wrong. Sorta like a kid going up to a teacher and saying he shouldn't get a F on a test because those aren't the answers he wrote, a monster came when he turned his back and changed them all. "OMG PROFESSOR CAN YOU PROVE THAT HE DIDN'T? IF YOU CANT DEN U CANT SAY IM WRONG ON THIS TEST! AHAHA" Yeah, why not? He should've told them that their word was wrong, and that from then on they should call it sky. Driveways and parkways aren't wrong words either, it's just wrong what they're called. I wouldn't call a driveway a parkway if the word driveway didn't exist. That would be stupid. I wouldn't even use a word, I'd just say it's the place where you park your car. Well you were, just look at the title of the thread. But okay, I'll let it slide and just pretend you said the bible is an equally valid viewpoint from the beginning. You can't prove the Illad false. Or Lord of the Rings, or The Stand, or Batman. Are you amazed by that? Does that mean it's an equally valid viewpoint to say that Batman exists? I don't think we're the smart ones and they're the dumb ones. Fear of death can make smart people believe in stupid things. Sure, they believed a God who would murder thousands of people and send plagues down on him if they didn't believe was love, but the sun going around the Earth was just way too far fetched. If I believed in a God and he told me that the final scene of Men and Black was true, I would believe it. Why wouldn't they believe it if he said it? They believe he existed, didn't they? If Moses came down and said "Guess what, guys? God said the sun revolves around the Earth and the sky isn't solid!" and they disbelieved, Moses would do just what he did, ask whoever was on his side to come over to him, then they would kill everyone that didn't beleive. Nothing would change. Places can be verified...not any of the major events or any of the main characters. Places can be verified with The Stand and Gone with the Wind too. So what? There's absolutely no evidence in support of the bible. Same as any other religious text. Besides that, you dodged the question. Your main argument is that because we can't prove the bible wrong it's an equally valid viewpoint. You just said it again a little while ago. BUT you can't prove that little mud people don't live in the center of the earth and aren't controlling your thoughts either. Do you think that's an equally valid viewpoint? It doesn't say "When X had lived Y years, he became the father of Z". It says "X begat Z when X was Y years old". So it doesn't matter if X is the father, or great great grandfather or whatever, X was still Y yeards old when Z was born. It's irrelevant what X is. All that matters is how old he was when Z came along. If you knew the genealogy can't cover billions of years, why are we even arguing about it? Anyone who writes a poem that says "My will is as immovable as the Earth", is a huge dumbass. Plus all my examples doesn't come from the poetic books. Unless Joshua is a book of poetry. If catholics aren't christians, then no one is a christian. That believe that the bible is the word of God, they believe that Christ is the son of God, came and died for their sins, they're christians. Jesus christ, how long is this post? The fact that he told them not to kill and then gave them a specific command to kill is a contradiction. Does he want people to kill or doesn't he? Why does he let his righteous people go around killing when he's not commanding them to? Like I said, if he didn't approve of them he would've done something like kill their sons and daughters or send plagues on them. See? Just by saying you worshipping the Christian devil, it shows that Christianity had a big influence on your life. I'm not saying you didn't approach it from an intellectual standpoint, I'm saying that you had a soft spot for it because you grew up with it. I mean, out of 1000 different religions, you chose the one that had the biggest impact on you. Doesn't that seem a bit strange to you? Have you studied 1000 different religions? Why should you be blamed if one of those unknown tribal religions was the right one and you chose incorrectly? Funny you should say that. It just so happens that I am another one of Zeus's sons. There, I'm telling you he's the real God. Now you've been told. No more excuses! Hell no.

Is it just me or does Kerry never even attempt to answer how he's going to get other countries to fight for the wrong war at the wrong time, no matter how many times Bush brings it up?

Answer this. How can I MAKE myself believe in something that I think doesn't make sense? Can you make yourself believe in the Tooth Fairy or little mud people living underneath the Earth? Even if I wanted to believe in a God, I wouldn't know which one to pick. There's thousands and they all pretty much have the same amount of evidence.

Why not? Wouldn't a loving God want to give people a second chance to fix their mistakes? Wouldn't he give them as many chances as it took? He could have made it where people are just tortured for awhile until they learn their lesson or atone for their sins, or he could have set it up so everyone keeps going through life until they get it right, so everyone goes to heaven, it just takes some a little longer than others. But no, your god chose eternal torture. Since they can't get out of it and nothing can be learned or changed it's pure cruelty and nothing else. Which brings up the absurdity of Hitler going to heaven while all the Jews he tortured and murdered went to hell. It amazes me that anyone could see this as a good thing. But if you're a christian you have to. This is dumb Spider. I can't MAKE myself believe in something there is no evidence for, anymore than I can make myself believe in unicorns or the Tooth Fairy. And your God is responsible for this and you worship him and call him love. Personally, I can't think of anything sicker.

Uhh... That, or we can see it taking place every day. Read the title of this thread and maybe you'll be laughing as hard as I am right now. No crime deserves eternal torture. Maybe I would send them there for 100 years and then make him disappear, but I don't even know if I could do that. How am I nicer than God? Anyway if you believe in the bible, these are the kind of sickos that go to heaven, as long as they have faith. While if any one of those kids he tortured was an atheist, they would've went straight to hell after he killed them. The bible says there's no excuse so there must not be! Then I don't have anything to worry about. Buy yourself a dictionary. "Free" means nothing is required in return. Yet belief is required for salvation, so please stop claiming this is a "free" gift. Webster's says cruel is to cause pain and suffering. Is there pain and suffering in the world he created or in hell? Is torturing babies to punish their parents causing pain and suffering? Yep. So it's not an opinion that he's cruel. It's just what he is. You can't take the deliberately designed pain and torture and say it isn't cruel just because you don't want him to be cruel. Things don't work that way. How can you be so wrong on every single sentence you type?

Is it an eternal flame? Or a lake of fire? What about being able to destroy both body and soul? I didn't say anything about eternal torment. Those people who don't want to be with God should be happy since they got what they wanted, they shouldn't be wailing and gnashing their teeth. Lazarus wasn't there (you're right, I mixed that up), the rich man wanted Abraham to send Lazarus. And it does unless you can show how it isn't. If rich, greedy, evil don't go to a place where they get tormented in flame, then that was a pretty pointless parable. Because he described it as another realm. You even believe in another realm for people who don't believe in God, you also believe in eternal torment, so why don't you believe they're tormented in flame? That's what Jesus said they would be tormented in. If the other realm isn't really a lake of fire, then what the hell is it? Where are these people separated from God going to?

Yeah, there is a requirement of baptism and a requirement of belief. If you already know the verses I'll quote, good, then I don't have to bother looking them up again. I already posted them in the last page or the page before that. Show me that babies go to heaven. The servants told him that his son died, so he stopped fasting and he went eat. They asked him why, and he said he was hoping that God would show some mercy, but he didn't because he's an asshole. So now there's no way to bring him back. He'll go see him, but he won't come back. How does that not make sense? And how in the fuck did you pull "he will see him when he died" from that? Prove it wrong. You won't because you can't.

I already know I won. The first time you replied to something saying I'm ignorant or "everyone knows that isn't true" without any backup was when you were finished. The more you post, the more the more convinced I get. If there's no before for God, then I guess he doesn't know it. For example, 10 minutes BEFORE you "choose" between Fruit Loops and Frosted Flakes. He either knows what you're going to pick or he doesn't. If he does know, then you can't make a choice because your choice was already made. You would have the illusion of a choice, not an actual choice. Everyone else doesn't understand it. SP, croweater, and you think that you can have a choice, Jingus, Brian, Rudo, and me are saying that you can't. That's not the fucking verse. The verse doesn't say "What he does, he can." It says "With God, nothing is impossible or too difficult." However, according to you, making 2 + 2 = 5 would be too difficult. There's no way to talk your way out of this one. You admitted that the bible is wrong. I gave you the link so you could check for yourself. The word means omnipotent or al-mighty, both words meaning that he can do everything. Thanks for playing. The fact that they didn't believe should tell you something, but it probably won't. If God wanted me and everyone else to believe, he would know exactly what it would take to get us to believe. If he came down and did it, that would solve a lot of problems. How does someone rejecting him damn well deserve eternal torment? That makes God sound like an evil king or something. If your kids say they don't want anything to do with you, will you hire people to throw them in a dungeon and torture them for as long as they live? Remember, we're presupposing the hell with fire. Although even if we didn't, you still admit that it is eternal torment. Apparently, he's not that nice after all. Either it didn't happen, or God can do the impossible. So your answer is God just made it look like the universe is 15 billion years old. Ok, give me your evidence for this. "Dinosaurs didn't exist because God could've made fossils to trick you! P.S. The bible is true because I believe in it." And I explained why you were wrong. Then as usual, you dropped it. Well before I did that, I'd have to know how the hell you thought I did. They believed in a solid sky, so their word for sky meant solid sky. The same word used to describe the sky in the bible. Nope, I like religion debates. Honestly, I hope this thread never ends. It would be more fun if you gave me some actual arguments or something to work with, but that might be too much to ask. "It went over my head again." would have sufficed. If you can't prove something wrong, does that make it true? If it does, then you have to concede that I am God because I said I was. If the bible had said flat out that the sun revolves around the Earth, the sky isn't solid, and the earth isn't flat, when no one at the time thought these things, then it would be very powerful evidence that maybe there IS something to the book. But instead, God just goes along with what the people of the time believed. Which is exactly what you'd expect to see if they made it all up. And you haven't done it. Do you think it's an equally valid viewpoint to think that there are little mud people living in the center of the earth controlling your thoughts as to think that there aren't because you can't prove that they're not there? That'd be a start. First, you told me to do research, but I don't have to, I already read it and know that it doesn't have any. Second, the line from Adam to Abraham, which is what we were talking about is all in Genesis, without any gaps. Third, the fact that you still can't come up with any gaps or any problem with the 6,000 year timeline shows that you don't have a clue and you just want it not to be true. The basis for thinking it's literal is because there's no reason to think it isn't. Also it's what the people believed at the time, and most christians up until way after Galileo believed it to be literal. Catholics probably still take it to be literal today. Hell, it wasn't until about 10 years ago that they forgave Galileo for saying the Sun was the center of the universe. And no, just answer the question. Most christians. That's exactly what it means. righteous It's not semantics, it's a contradiction because he told his people not to kill but told another group to go around slaughtering people and committing genocides. Unless you were born in another country, you probably had christian parents, christian brothers, sisters, or other family members, and christian friends. You saw and talked to christians every day, you watched christians on TV, read things they wrote, etc.. If you grew up here, you grew up with the fairy tale and people believing in it. I never said there weren't christians in India. But if you lived in India, you would most likely be Hindu since it's the main religion over there. People are products of their cultural programming, and nobody has a choice of what that programming will be, including you. Even if omnipotence didn't exist, you still aren't making a choice to believe. Yes they do, they just didn't say it. Like your great explanation for the water in the flood story. But he does send you to hell for that, so he is an asshole.

How could they choose evil if they didn't know the difference between good and evil?

As lame as this is gonna sound, if there was no suffering, we'd already be in Heaven. And what's wrong with that? Will we be able to appreciate good things in heaven or will they just be things?

Except that these are flames are eternal flames and the fire is a lake of fire that people get thrown in. And the difference between that and now is? Parables illistrate their point by using real things. Just because the story didn't really happen doesn't mean that hell isn't a real place. There is no reason for any christian to claim the hell described isn't real.

What it does say and what you want it to say are two different things. Maybe it's the baby's fault for not staying alive long enough to believe in Jesus. Maybe it's the parents fault for not making sure the baby could stay alive until they could believe in Jesus. "OMG God wouldn't punish the babies for something they couldn't control!" We know that's false. Nowhere does it say that babies automatically go to heaven or about the standard being different. But it DOES specifically say that without baptism and belief, you can't go to heaven. Oh and that there's no excuse. It's a tough break. It doesn't say he'll go to him when he dies, it just says he'll go to him. Maybe he'll go to his dead body. Again you're assuming things that aren't there. I haven't been shown him and neither have you. The only evidence for god is that some people wrote a story about him, putting him on the same level as elves, trolls, and hobbits. But the Magic Goat told me there was no Jesus, so he couldn't have said that, obviously.

Hahaha, do you ever listen to yourself? You just said if he tried to make 2 + 2 = 5, he couldn't do it. So according to you, that verse is wrong. This thread is over with. Pantokrator meaning almighty or omnipotent. Satan saw God and talked to him, I never even met the guy. We aren't in the same position. If he wanted me to believe, all he'd have to do is come down and show himself. That would solve a lot of problems, wouldn't it? For that matter, why is he forced to make Satan burn in fire forever and why would he be forced to do the same thing to us? And how would that make us robots if he didn't? Making light from nothing is impossible. Because we have ways of measuring sunlight and how fast stars are moving, and we calculated the universe to be about 15 billion years old, not 6 days. Feel free to demonstrate how I'm wrong at any time. It's not an interpretation that says they believed the sky was solid. It's just what they believed. Also, impossible. Then stop replying if you're bored. I'm saying there's no evidence of it happening, so it didn't happen. You're saying "A wizard did it probably, so it happened." My response to that and obviously it went way over your head was that if you make shit up and assume things happened that the book doesn't say, there's nothing you could prove it wrong on. Even if there was a verse that says the water went away by natural means, you would just say he changed his mind. Or aliens came down and took it or something. I could make a book that says I'm God, and by the same argument, whatever I wrote would be literally true and some idiots would believe it. You need to do some reading up on Geology, take a class in it or read the flood faqs at the site I linked you to. First, I've read the entire bible. Second, I skimmed through Genesis the other night just to make sure there weren't any gaps. There aren't. Third, if you knew what gaps it had you would have thrown it in my face by now. So stop trying to pretend like you know what you're talking about. No, just because most of the recorded history is wrong doesn't mean it all is. Just like the church for 2000 years got it online..... I've already explained to you that you that you don't have any basis for saying it's not literal. The only reason you don't think it's literal is because you don't want it to be literal. Popes are supposed to have been ordained by God. For this analogy to make any sense, Charlie Manson would've had to have been appointed by the Beatles to be their messenger. Nice try. It isn't against the law to kill today, it's against the law to murder. If an agent of government went around murdering people like Moses and Joshua did in the Old Testament, they would be fried in the electric chair. Labeling someone as righteous is definitely a stamp of approval. If he didn't endorse an action, they would've found out about it. Like how David found out. You're a christian in a christian society. Do you want me to throw you a party or something? In India, where Hindu is the main religion, you would be a Hindu. You would be wrong, yeah, just as much as you're wrong now. But you're a christian because that's the story you grew up with. Now if the Hindu god or Zeus is the right one, would it be fair to blame you for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time? He doesn't have to, but if he wasn't an asshole, he should want to.

Bullshit. If things are fated to us then we HAVE to do it. We don't have a choice in it unless that fate can be wrong. The only way you can have free will is if the future isn't written already, meaning no one can know about it because you haven't made your choices yet. If god knows what we will choose before we make the "choice", then there was only one option we could have chosen. It doesn't, because it it already happened. They already chose. But according to omniscience, God doesn't only know AFTER something happens, he also knows BEFORE it happens. It's like watching survivor for the first time and knowing what they will do. If we're like a tape to God, then we can't change what is on his tape. All of our choices we will make is set in stone on the tape. So no free will. No, you're confusing omniscience with omnipotence. The argument isn't that god makes us choose one way over another. The argument is that since god knew we would make a certain choice, "our choice" was an illusion since we only had one choice as an option. Then he can't be wrong and you can't choose fruit loops. Or he doesn't exist. Who said anything about heaven? We were talking about hell. Why would an omnipotent God be forced to send people to hell? Do you really think he doesn't have the power to make another place where people who don't believe in him don't get tortured forever? The thing is I'm not agreeing with it. I think we can make a judgment about him. Love is a human concept, and torturing babies to punish their parents isn't part of that concept. And I don't think it's pointless either. If we can't come to a conclusion about him, then we can't come to a conclusion about anybody or anything. Every single criminal may have hidden motives. Hitler may have had good motives behind what he did that we just don't know about. But who gives a fuck, really? No, it's the same as reading the entire novel and saying the killer didn't do it because the killer didn't think he did. The question is "If there is a loving God, wouldn't there not be any suffering?" Motives aren't even important when we're discussing omnipotent beings. God doesn't have to choose between two bad choices. He's God. He can do everything. Bad things only happen because he wants them to happen. He only does bad things because he wants to do them.

Doesn't matter. If he knew you were going to pick frosted flakes before you did it, then you couldn't pick fruit loops. Unless he tries to make 2+2 = 5 and tries to make that rock that he can't lift, then it becomes pretty difficult. Taking the word impossible out and putting "too difficult" in doesn't change anything. It still means he can do everything! Rev. 19:6, "...for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." No, I meant why by God's nature must he send someone there? That interpretation of hell... Let's see. The lake of fire in revelations, furnace of fire and wailing and gnashing of teeth in Matthew, Jesus's parable of Lazarus being tormented in flame, etc.. But according to you, that verse is wrong and God can't do the unpossible. The important part was that it didn't take just 6 days. Do you honestly think the universe and Earth were both 6 days old when the first people appeared? If so, how? If not, how long did you think it took? Light n 3.a. A source of light, especially a lamp, a lantern, or an electric lighting fixture: Turn out the lights when you leave. b. The illumination derived from a source of light: by the light of the moon. c. The particular quantity or quality of such illumination: moved the lamp closer to get better light. d. The pathway or route of such illumination to a person: You're standing in his light. Is the moon a source of light? Is it illumination? Is it a quanity of quality of illumination? Is it a path of illumination? If you think it's A, then you're wrong, the moon isn't a source of light, it's only a reflection of light. The sun is the source. If you think it's B, that's like saying if I shine a light on you that you are a light. No, you just have a light on you. You aren't a light. And C is just the quality of B and D is just the path of B. In regard to the sky, raqiya only meant solid. Why? Because all of the hebrews thought that the sky was solid. Wow, that's some pretty fast evolution for all those new species to come about in 4000 years. Nevermind the impossibility of reproducing every population using 2 animals. If God wanted to use miracles, why wouldn't he just make a plague and have it kill everyone except for two of each species? What the hell is the point of making a flood and having Noah build an ark? Besides, if you go the "A wizard did it" route, why stop there? Might as well say that God planted fossils in the ground to trick us, or the moon used to be a light but God turned it into a rock 1000 years later to test our faith, or God put contradictions in the bible just to amuse himself, maybe there used to be a solid platform in the sky but God dissolved it. Maybe aliens came down and wrote the bible as a test to see how gullible people are. Strange way to show how the bible is true. It's silly enough that all of the other stuff isn't necessary, but that doesn't make it any less fun. Where did all the water go? Why is there no geological record of it? I don't have to. I can just say read Genesis for yourself and you can see that there aren't any gaps. From Adam to Abraham, it tells you the name of each son and how old the father was when each one was born. That's 2000 years. Then 430 more years from the covenant with Abraham to the exodus. And from 1 Kings, 480 years from the exodus to King Solomon. If Solomon ever existed for real, that would be about 1000 BC. So? Not true. Mention is made, but you don't think it's supposed to be taken literally. Same with these verses I guess, Job 9:6, Psalms 93:1, and Psalms 104:5. It would be nice if God had explained to them what the sun and earth actually did do so they wouldn't have been so confused. Or maybe God is all the more stupider for using poetic language that they wouldn't be able to understand. I mean, did God only write the bible so people after Galileo's time would understand it? It would only not be a contradiction if the government didn't have people in it and they didn't kill. Plus, what about Joshua and Moses? Are they governments? I'll pick some more after we get past this one. But abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with evolution. You could've just said you don't believe in the theory for the origin of life. Yes, now WHY? where did you come up with that from? Why do people need to be sent into hell or we turn into robots? Why do you keep thinking I'm not following you? I know that and three times now I've been asking you, within this framework of heaven or hell, why would God be FORCED to send people there for not believing in him? Free will to do what? Believe in God? Sure, I don't believe in predestination. Although it's arguable just how much free control you have. Culture and genetics obviously play a huge role. Example: If you had born in India there would be a compltely different god you'd be sure of, and you would be defending the Hindu bible as literally true. Think about that one for a minute. If I fucked up and did a shitty job, let's say I worked for a car company and I designed a car that ran fine half the time and the other half of the time it would collapse and kill everyone inside, not only would I not expect to get paid, I would expect to get fired. Maybe even sued or put in jail. Instead of saying "the standard of salvation is proportionate to your capability", that's actually saying there's "no excuse". 2 Sam. 12:23 refers to David's eventual death, nothing is said about the baby being in heaven 2 Sam 13:14 where Ammon rapes his sister doesn't say David's son is in heaven. Hebrews 11:32 just lists David, doesn't say anything about his son going to heaven either. No, it's like you finding a note signed by your mother (that may or may not have been written by her) saying not to cross the street, deciding to cross the street anyway, and then getting run down by your mother in a car to illistrate her point. Why should I believe something just because it was written down and handed to me by some strangers? Do you (or would you) tell your children to obey strangers? Show me the parent and maybe I won't cross the street. The Invisible Magic Goat doesn't appreciate being brushed aside like that. He created you, the least you can do for him is prove that he doesn't exist.

Excellent example. Buffy doesn't have a real choice (even though it seems like she does) because she's only a character moving along on a script. Which is what we would be if the future could be known before it happened. Just characters moving along on a script.

We didn't say it was dictation. God doesn't have to MAKE us choose, but he has to know the outcome. As such, we have no choice, the outcome was determined before we had a choice to make. If he knows I will pick black socks tomorrow morning, then i cannot wear red socks, thus i have no choice. Not because god made me wear black socks, but because I was going to wear black socks anyways, negating any choice i felt I had. He isn't? Then explain why we have earthquakes and hurricanes and diseases. We went over Christ already. We found out that unless you think God couldn't have redeemed us without sacrificing himself, Jesus's death was totally pointless. Once again, Adam and Eve didn't have a choice. First, there's predestination. Second, they had no way to tell right from wrong, so they obviously couldn't decide if it was right to obey God and wrong to obey the snake. Just like you ignore what Zeus and hundreds of other gods have given.

Nope, just like God, matter could have always existed. Okay, here's the relevant part. If God knew you would pick frosted flakes and then you picked fruit loops, then God is wrong and not omniscient. No, because you don't know for sure. He could pick the chocolate just to trick you. Are you saying he couldn't? Now if you had a wizard's glass that knew the future and you looked into it and saw the future, and you saw him picking the ice cream on his right, when it came time to give him the choice, could he pick the chocolate? No, not unless the crystal ball was wrong, and never actually knew the future to begin with. Your actions tell us who you are. If you go around killing people, then you're probably a psycho. If you go around acting snobby, then you're probably a snob. If you act nice everywhere you go, then you're probably a nice guy. It doesn't mean it's necessarily right, but that's all we have to go on. If we can't judge him, we don't have a way of being able to tell if he's good or bad. So what's left? A neutral position. And if you're neutral towards him, I have to ask why you would want to worship him. Mark 16:16-18, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. It doesn't give it a date, but it's very strict on giving the ages of people when they had sons and how long it took for things to happen. You can trace it, by finding a reference to a real event, and working backwards. Tell me, how exactly does one make the sun stand still?

No, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. If God existed, you're right, he would be love because that's who he is. What I am saying is he doesn't exist because what he does or what he allows isn't love. A good, loving god doesn't torture and kill his creations. A good, loving god doesn't allow his creations to torture and kill each other. If a god does this, he isn't a good loving God, so the fact that the universe has things like an eternal torture chamber, earthquakes, and murderers means the christian God can't exist. If you call God love, you either A) call him that because you read it in the bible and you think the bible has to be true. In which case, you're using the same logic that people who fly planes into buildings use. "God is love, whatever he says to do must be right no matter what. After all, the book even said he was." So if you think he says to kill random people, you don't have to question it or bother thinking for yourself, just have faith and be convinced that it's love and has some greater good behind it. OR B) you have arrived at this decision based on some understanding of the word. If you call a being who tortures people love, you must think torture is a good and loving act. It either is, or it isn't. If it's love for God, it has to be love for us to do it too. Especially if God defines what love is. So which is it? A or B? You must also remember Christians believe in heaven and free will. Death to a Christian isn't a punishment, it's a freedom. So yes, in an earthquake you may have 100 people dead, but that's 100 people living for all of eternity in heaven on the other side of the coin. But not all 100 of those people are christians and go to heaven. Another thing, if I went around killing christians and setting them free, would you consider me a loving person? Serious question.

Never said it couldn't be. But is the act of killing and torturing a loving act? Specifically, the kind of killing and torture God did in the bible. Is torturing babies to punish their parents a loving act?

The same place God came from. It was always there. There's a lot of evidence for the Big Bang and no evidence for any gods .

Pointless if you don't care about what kind of a being you're worshipping, I suppose. If you DO care, actions must be evaluated. Conclusions must be reached. Two things. 1. We didn't choose to not have it. Our ancestors 6000 years ago did. Do you believe in punishing someone for something their grandparents or great greatparents did? If not, how can you stand behind something like this? (if you consider the story to be true) 2. To have a real free will choice, Adam and Eve had to be able to tell the difference between the choices. God not only neglected to tell them, but he forbade them from knowing the difference. They were set up. Again even with ignoring the issue of predestination.

How can we do anything other than what god knows we will do? If he knows, free will doesn't exist because there's no way you can change what God already knows will happen. It's set in stone whether or not you would believe in him before you were ever born. And there's nothing you can do about it. It's pretty easy to understand. Here's a scenerio for you. You wake up in the morning. You yawn and stumble down the stairs. You make your way to the kitchen, grab a bowl and spoon for your morning cereal. You open the cupboard and see Fruit Loops and Frosted Flakes, your 2 favorite cereals in the world. You love them both so much and can't decide which you want today. God is sitting in the clouds, doing whatever god does in the morning. He looks down from his cloud and before you even wake up, knows with 100% certainty that you will choose Frosted Flakes this morning. You reach up to the cupboard and grab your Frosted Flakes. Here is the question: Could you have chosen Fruit Loops? Yes or No. Well, so much for omnipotence, eh? Looks like we found another part of the bible that you don't think is literally true. Luke 1:37, "For with God, nothing shall be impossible." Why is that? And if he didn't make up the rule that if we don't believe a man 2000 years ago was the son of God, died, and turned into a zombie, we get sent to hell, then who did make up that silly rule, and why is God bound to it? So if God really was all-powerful like the bible says and DID have a control over hell, he would still be ultimately more concerned with what we think of him than with human suffering. "You don't love me? BURN IN HELL FOREVER!!!" Yeah, what a nice guy. Was that a concession? Oh and you missed the one about the universe not being made in 6 days. From the perspective of Earth, the sun rises every day. Right, just like at night we get light from the moon. But the sun does in fact rise over the horizon in our field of vision and we do have light from the moon. So it makes perfect sense to have words like sunrise and moonlight. What would be incorrect and fucking stupid would be to say that the moon IS a light. It isn't. It might appear to be but that doesn't change the fact that it's just a big rock. From no perspective does the moon make light. Sunrise example doesn't work. And are you trying to say the Hebrew word for firmament meant something other than a solid platform? If so, you're wrong. Um, I don't think anyone mentioned the flora that wouldn't be able to survive in water, the diseases, the fish, the size of the arc, some species not being able to survive outside their natural habitats, etc.. If you can't answer it, just be a man and admit it. Actually, it does. The timeline of the bible starting with Adam and Eve covers a 6000 year period of time. That's why we have young Earth creationists trying to prove that Earth is only about that old. They are of course insane, but well... that's what it takes to believe in a literally true bible. Here's a timeline btw. http://agards-bible-timeline.com/timeline_online.html no u It says God made the sun stand still. One time he even moved the sun backwards. But no mention was made of the Earth rotating or going around the sun. Wonder why that is. And the roman catholic church saw Galileo’s theory of the solar system so much of a threat to the faith that they forced him to recant it. I wonder why that is. They must all have been too stupid to tell the difference. As for poetic language, do you even know what the word literal means? There's plenty of christians that think the entire book of Genesis is poetic language. And you don't have any more evidence to say it's poetic language than they do. Maybe God also assumes that you'd be smart enough to not believe in a global flood and to think that Noah gathered two velicoraptors and put them on a boat. There was a link to hundreds of them that no one responded to yet. But alright, here's one for now. "Thou shall not kill" and "Eye for an eye, life for a life". That's nice. If you HAD read it, you would know that evolution says nothing about the origins of life. It only deals with the diversification of species after the first life appeared. The word you're looking for is 'abiogenesis'. Maybe you should try reading it again. But Genesis is proved false by Lord of the Rings. Uh-oh. Jingus didn't ask you how they would be robots if they didn't get sent to hell and you didn't address robots in your repsonse. So what's the answer? Please explain to me how if he didn't send us to hell, we would be robots. I'm dying to hear this. Or you could just give a straight response. You said there were no other way he could do it, but I showed you that there are some other ways. This isn't even a logical contradiction, like the rock paradox. It's just simply not sending people to hell. Instead of sending them there, he could send them to a world made out of ice cream. No contradiction here. Yeah, apparently. What does this have to do with god sacrificing himself to save humanity from himself? This implies that he actually gave us free will. He didn't. Even if you ignore predestination for some strange reason, God is essentially saying "I will allow you to do whatever you want. But if you don't do what I WANT you to do, I will take away your freedom and RESTRAIN you in hell!" Is this supposed to make any kind of sense? He is very stupid and likes pain? To boost his ego. That's pretty obvious. A deity that requires worship and praise has a HUGE ego problem. Site verse, please. Again, verse. This is your sense. A man walks up to you and puts a gun to your head and says if you don't him your wallet he will shoot you. You refuse, he shoots. By your logic getting shot is your own fault for making the wrong choice, not the guy with the gun. What happened to "Give me a god and I will."? I happen to follow the invisible Magic Goat God. Start picking it apart.

No, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. If God existed, you're right, he would be love because that's who he is. What I am saying is he doesn't exist because what he does or what he allows isn't love. A good, loving god doesn't torture and kill his creations. A good, loving god doesn't allow his creations to torture and kill each other. If a god does this, he isn't a good loving God, so the fact that the universe has things like an eternal torture chamber, earthquakes, and murderers means the christian God can't exist. If you call God love, you either A) call him that because you read it in the bible and you think the bible has to be true. In which case, you're using the same logic that people who fly planes into buildings use. "God is love, whatever he says to do must be right no matter what. After all, the book even said he was." So if you think he says to kill random people, you don't have to question it or bother thinking for yourself, just have faith and be convinced that it's love and has some greater good behind it. OR B) you have arrived at this decision based on some understanding of the word. If you call a being who tortures people love, you must think torture is a good and loving act. It either is, or it isn't. If it's love for God, it has to be love for us to do it too. Especially if God defines what love is. So which is it? A or B?