Originally posted by thorvoI suspect that forest fire evidence would last at least long enough for people to write down the event in a holy book, which is mainly what it takes to convince the faithful.
for a little while yes. but do you think it would still show now? or even 4000 years ago? Mt. Helens erupted and for miles around it the vegetation was burned. Yet now most of the ashes and stuff has disappeared and there is vegetation again. its been abut 25 years now since its eruption. Now, what God would do would be different, but how long do you think any sign of forest fires, charred bodies would last?
I mean, it's not like the evidence is in your favor on the flood. Before you can say that, you have to give good answers to the usual difficult questions:
Where did all that water come from?
Where did it go when the dry land was restored?
Did the ark really have enough room for EVERY species of plant and animal life?
Did the ark also have enough room to hold all the additional food supplies and excrement produced by the animals?
What about meat eaters? What did they eat if there was only two of everything on the ark?
What about plant life? Was that all on the ark too?
But you're not really interested in answering all these questions. If there is one that is too difficult to answer, you will just say "Goddunnit" and easily escape the difficulty.
Originally posted by NemesioAre you God to know how to punish other humans for their wrong doing? Are you God to know what is the right way of punishing, or the most "humane", "convenient", or "sensible" way as you put it? you keep ignoring what I have said of theh wickedness of the people on the earth. Look up Genesis chapter 6. It says it all. You seem to think that well the people could have repented adn then all would have been just fine, or they could have been struck by lightning or instant death. Good grief man, you act as if drowning in a flood is the most cruel punishment someone could ever have! But its not.
Originally posted by thorvo
[b]He had to flood the whole earth to punish mankind because that was his way of getting rid of the incredible wickedness of the people on the earth. He chose that way, for whatever his reasons.
So, basically you're saying that even though you and I both could come
up with what seems to be either more humane, or mo ...[text shortened]... he same 'God' who embodies the
essence of love (agape).
Nemesio[/b]
You havent shown me any records. From when do they date back? what records are they? How do you know the accuracy of the records' dating? This was over 4000 years ago. Ok 1700 years after Creation came the flood. And 2 billion people. But hey, hadn't you said before there were 20 million? But neways, yes I do believe all of those 2 billion deserved death, infants or adults. Read wha the Bible says. It states it clearly enough but i see you have troubles accepting it.
Look up 1 Peter 3:20. Read before or after if you care.
I dont know how many people heard HIM preach, but I do know that God gives everyone a chance, and I dont have to know exactly how he gave all people a chance to repent for me to believe that. And the earth was a lot different then than it is today. so im not gonna keep answering ne of your China or England stuff.
Yep. Genesis 6:11-12 says: "Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for ALL the people on earth had corrupted their ways." There, it says ALL. simple. Nothing more to be said. And Romans 6:23 says: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." And in another verse, I cant remember where, it says that from the time a child is born, he is a sinner. Because of Adams sin, we inherit that sin.
Yes it does. Today, there are plenty more people who are just as evil. And yes I do think all of them were offered a chance to repent. God can work in people's hearts. Infants, all infants, are born sinners, with a sinful nature. Ill find the passage if you want. Whether you wanna argue that is up to you, but you are wasting your time at it.
If you get smitten for free will, its your fault, not God's. Without free will it would be force, and force isnt what God wants.
I see you still dont understand God's character. And there are LOTS of scientific evidence of a world wide flood. You are wrong about that.
Originally posted by SwissGambityes coerce is force, but I wasnt saying coerce wasn't force. I was saying that "the consequences of not loving
co·erce
1 : to restrain or dominate by force 2 : to compel to an act or choice 3 : to achieve by force or threat
Pay heed to definitions 2) and 3).
me is to choose everlasting (or even temporary) torture" is not being forced because there are still people who choose to not love God and obey him. Those who love God dont do it, or dont JUST do it, because of the fear of going to hell.
Originally posted by thorvoSo, you are indicating that your belief in Christ stems from pragmatic reasons rather than evidentiary reasons, correct?
I believe in Christ as my savior not because I dont want to go to hell, but because I want to live with Hiim and serve Him and have Him as my friend.
Originally posted by thorvoWhy wouldn't they? Can you think of a worse threat than being sent to hell for eternity? I can't.
yes coerce is force, but I wasnt saying coerce wasn't force. I was saying that "the consequences of not loving
me is to choose everlasting (or even temporary) torture" is not being forced because there are still people who choose to not love God and obey him. Those who love God dont do it, or dont JUST do it, because of the fear of going to hell.
Originally posted by SwissGambitYes that is true. But God wants people who dont believe in Him to believe in Him. The faithfull will believe it, but what about those who arent faithful?
I suspect that forest fire evidence would last at least long enough for people to write down the event in a holy book, which is mainly what it takes to convince the faithful.
I mean, it's not like the evidence is in your favor on the flood. Before you can say that, you have to give good answers to the usual difficult questions:
Where did all that w ...[text shortened]... is too difficult to answer, you will just say "Goddunnit" and easily escape the difficulty.
1) Genesis 7:11-12 says: "In the six hundredth year of Noah's liffe, on the seventeenth day of the second month, on that day all the sprngs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights."
2) The water settled into what now are oceans and lakes and it sank into the soil. Thats where all the underground water comes from. Some of it might have gone back to the fountains of the deep.
3) yes it did. In Genesis 6 it gives the measurements.
4) yes it did. God knew how many animals there would be and how much food would be needed and how much space would be needed. Whats so hard to believe about that? thats a ridiculous question only for those who cant find any other way to argue about the flood and the ark, and for those who refuse to believe it.
5) The animals that we know as meat eaters today became meat eaters after the flood. Thats what I have heard, but I would like to check up on that.
6) There probably was. God told Noah to take food of every kind to use as food for him and the animals. I highly suspect there were plants as part of the food. But I would have to research more about that.
Yes I am interested in asnwering these questions. They are good questions and important ones.
Originally posted by thorvoWhat kind of "choice" is choosing between doing God's bidding and suffering in hell for all eternity?
Are you God to know how to punish other humans for their wrong doing? Are you God to know what is the right way of punishing, or the most "humane", "convenient", or "sensible" way as you put it? you keep ignoring what I have said of theh wickedness of the people on the earth. Look up Genesis chapter 6. It says it all. You seem to think that well the people co ...[text shortened]... are LOTS of scientific evidence of a world wide flood. You are wrong about that.
If I told you that your choices were to obey my every whim or get thrown into a pit of vipers would you really consider that any sort of reasonable choice? Why do you make your God a tyrant?
Originally posted by SwissGambitthat may be part of why they believe in God, but thats not only reason. Theyhave other reasons as well and I do too. no I cant think of anything worse than going to hell. but the fact that some people dont believe in God means that God doesnt force us too. Do you believe in God?
Why wouldn't they? Can you think of a worse threat than being sent to hell for eternity? I can't.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI dont understand some of the words you used. Could you please reword your question? thanks. ps. I am not through highschool yet. 😛 so i dont know some of the words you guys use.
So, you are indicating that your belief in Christ stems from pragmatic reasons rather than evidentiary reasons, correct?
Originally posted by TheSkipperGod made us to worship him. He also made us with a free will. He wants us to love him and worship him but wont MAKE us or FORCE us to do so. we have two options. choose God, or choose satan and hell. why would someone choose something bad over good?
What kind of "choice" is choosing between doing God's bidding and suffering in hell for all eternity?
If I told you that your choices were to obey my every whim or get thrown into a pit of vipers would you really consider that any sort of reasonable choice? Why do you make your God a tyrant?
no i wouldnt. but God doesnt act on whims, so it doesnt compare. When did i make my God a tyrant?
Originally posted by thorvo
Are you God to know how to punish other humans for their wrong doing?
No. I'm positing that, perhaps, there was a better way. The patriarchs
and prophets questioned God and speculated all the time. Why do you
seem bothered when I do it? In order to discern that the flood was the
best way, you would have to know what God's aims were. Were they:
1) To wipe out all of humankind;
2) To inconvenience Noah;
3) To start Creation all over again; or
4) Something else?
If you want to conclude that 'God's' way was necessarily the best, you
have to be prepared to justify it and defend it against other ways that
might superficially appear better, but don't meet God's aims. So, how
do you account for the death of the 'evil infants?' How do you account
for the tremendous inconvenience to Noah (when God could simply place
him in a protective bubble, say). How do you account for bothering with
the animals that God could so easily recreate? These are things that,
as a believer that the flood was the best option, you must reconcile.
Ok 1700 years after Creation came the flood. And 2 billion people. But hey, hadn't you said before there were 20 million?
I said that I believed 20 million. I cited a Creationist scholar who estimated
2 billion from the line of Adam.
But neways, yes I do believe all of those 2 billion deserved death, infants or adults. Read wha the Bible says. It states it clearly enough but i see you have troubles accepting it.
Then how do you conclude that God isn't a failure as a Creator? I mean,
it was only two thousand years since He established Creation. If God
pronounced His Creation as 'good,' then why did it go to unsalvagably
evil in just two thousand years?
I mean, if I had an ant farm or a fish tank and I set it up and it went
to hell in a short period of time, I wouldn't blame the ants or fish: It
would be my fault. And I didn't even create them; I did not have the
capacity to influence their character -- to make them more or less
charitable, compassionate, forgiving, and so forth -- like God has. This
isn't a refutation of 'free will,' but a commentary on the constraints that
our personalities have on the expression of free will.
Look up 1 Peter 3:20.
Yes? Let's put it in context, with 18-20:
For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the
unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh,
he was brought to life in the spirit. In it he (Christ) also went to preach
to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God waited
in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons,
eight in all, were saved through water.
This doesn't say anything about Noah's preaching. It talks about Christ's
preaching to all the souls in prison (presumably Hell, and presumably
in between His death and His resurrection). Do you want to try again?
And don't try citing II Peter 2:4-5, because that doesn't talk about Noah's
supposed preaching either.
I dont know how many people heard HIM preach, but I do know that God gives everyone a chance, and I dont have to know exactly how he gave all people a chance to repent for me to believe that.
You don't even know that he preached.
And the earth was a lot different then than it is today. so im not gonna keep answering ne of your China or England stuff.
Well, how many people do you think there were, because they HAD to
be somewhere? New York City is pretty dense, and there are only
are only 18 million people. Do you think that people lived in cities like
that? If not, then you are obligated to believe that they were spread
out. If they were spread out, then how far? Within walking distance of
Noah's house?
How do you know it was different? How do you know there weren't
people in China 4000 years ago? You are asking me to give you evidence,
so I will ask the same in turn.
http://www.china.org.cn/e-gudai/index-1.htm
In the very first sentence, it says that China had written records going
back four thousand years ago.
How about this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1018888320071111
Here, in Peru (in South America) there is a temple that is dated to
four thousand years ago.
How about this one:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080101193653.htm
Here, in Australia, the first murder victim by spear is dated to four thousand
years ago.
If you want, I can cite a hundred more. You pick the region (except
Antarctica), and I'll find a study from some archeological dig that helps
you to see how widely spread humankind was four thousand years ago.
Now, if you are going to question these studies (that is, their dating),
I need to know what standard would suffice to prove that some item or
object is, say, four thousand years old. If you're just going to reject them
out of some vague disbelief in anything scientific without justification,
then I'm wasting my time with you just as surely as I waste it with JosephW.
Genesis 6:11-12 says: "Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for ALL the people on earth had corrupted their ways." There, it says ALL. simple. Nothing more to be said.
Here is your standard: The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.
That is, I don't sincerely believe that there is any proof, no matter how
voluminous, no matter how detailed, no matter how carefully I explain it,
that will compel you to believe something different than (what you think)
the Bible records.
Infants, all infants, are born sinners, with a sinful nature. Ill find the passage if you want. Whether you wanna argue that is up to you, but you are wasting your time at it.
I know the Bible indicates that infants 'have sin.' That wasn't my question,
however. My question was were all of the infants among those 10s of
millions-to-2 billion people so evil as to warrant being slaughtered by
God's wrath?
And there are LOTS of scientific evidence of a world wide flood. You are wrong about that.
As with JosephW, I don't believe that anything that anyone says --
whether its dispostive proof of a world-wide flood or a refutation of the
'evidence' you think justifies your belief -- will ever change your mind.
Consequently, I'm not going to pursue it with you, because you will not
endeavor to reflect or study that which I would present.
If, however, you want to work towards convincing me that there was a
world-wide flood, you may certainly go to whatever lengths you want and
I will respond to each of your points (agreeing with, refuting, or offering
other interpretations). I'm not interested in responding, however, to
some cut-and-paste job, so if you're not going to make the effort on
your own behalf, I will respond in kind (citing some cut-and-paste job
from somewhere else).
Nemesio
Originally posted by thorvoThis actually explains a lot! Once you get to college you should enroll in a geology course, because the things you apparently believe about Earth's hydrologic cycle are completely divorced from reality. A biology course might be a good idea too, because meat eating animals don't switch from veggies to meat in the course of one lifespan...they don't have the right teeth...to say nothing of thier digestive systems etc.
ps. I am not through highschool yet. 😛 so i dont know some of the words you guys use.
It is good to see you here expressing yourself, but there is a wealth of information out there you still need to get a grasp of, and you will, have fun with it.
Originally posted by thorvoTwo simple questions:
I believe in Christ as my savior not because I dont want to go to hell, but because I want to live with Hiim and serve Him and have Him as my friend.
Let's say God sent all people no matter what to Hell, would you worship Him?
Let's say, no matter what, you would cease to exist when you died would you worship Him?
(no Heaven/no Hell/no Paradise/no Purgatory/no Limbo/no Elesian Fields/no nothing)
Nemesio
Originally posted by thorvoIf God's purpose in giving us free will is because he wants us to choose to be with him freely then the choice he should present us with is God vs. nothing...not God vs. eternal torment. God vs. eternal torment is a very weighted choice.
God made us to worship him. He also made us with a free will. He wants us to love him and worship him but wont MAKE us or FORCE us to do so. we have two options. choose God, or choose satan and hell. why would someone choose something bad over good?
no i wouldnt. but God doesnt act on whims, so it doesnt compare. When did i make my God a tyrant?
Do you see the difference between my presenting you with a choice between following me or dying, and my asking you to choose between following me or continue doing whatever you want?