God

[smalltime jam bandit]

Well this is what I think

1.

If God hadn't really made man, than man wouldn't particularly want to say He did. There are some unpleasant implications.

- If there is a God who has made us, then we will have a duty to Him. It means we are not free to do whatever we like, but we have a creater who we will be accountable to.

- If there is a God, and He is anything like like the God of the bible, that means there is something greater than man. So much greater that He puts man into insignificance, and compared to Him, makes the nations like a drop in a bucket. (Isaiah 40 v 15) Saying that God made man takes away any credit and any pride from man, because it means I have nothing except what God has given me.

- If there is a God who made me, He is more powerful than me, and I'm not able to stand against Him. So ultimatly I'm not in total control of my life and I am subject to whatever He choses to do with my life.

- If there is a good, upright, and holy God - as the Bible says, then I will be shown up, for everything in me that is selfish, impure, and immoral. No God, and I can be upright in my own mind and thats enough for me. But bring in the God of the Bible and compared to Him I am shown to be a sinner.

Would man chose to have these 4 implications? Man likes freedom, power, reputation, pride, and a clean conscience. The notion of the God of the Bible takes these things away. Man by nature doesn't want to believe in the God of the Bible, like the Bible says he doesn't.

(btw by man I mean mankind here, ie. male and female humans. I'm not sure if man still means that, but its handy to use it like that)

2.

I admit there are some things in man which want a creater, and want to believe in a God. Man has a desire for meaning and purpose in the world, and for the security that would bring. Everyone is living for something, and every human has a notion that there must be a meaning to his life outside the material things. So these things could be an argument for man saying God made man.

But I don't believe that craving for a purpose and meaning to life would be there if there was no God. If the universe is an accident, just formed by processes, then there is no meaning to it. That must be true, surely. So if there is no meaning to it, where did this massive awareness of meaning and craving for meaning come from?

Animals don't crave a meaning and purpose to existance but men do. If this is an evolutionary thing, then evolution has worked against itself, and I didn't think it did that. I say that because to fill people with a desire for a meaning to the world, when there is no meaning to the world, is not a good thing. Its not a good thing to have a craving for something that doesn't exist. I can't accept that an awarness of a meaning and purpose to life is something that would evolve.

So I say man wouldn't say God made man unless God had made man, and I say God made man and God said so.

Didn't mean to write all that much. Think its a rational argument though.

Lufe

 

[Kizlevru]

Originally posted by smalltime jam bandit


So I say man wouldn't say God made man unless God had made man, and I say God made man and God said so.

And who said the above............man did.

 

[smalltime jam bandit]

Well yeah, I said it. I'm a man, I can't help that.

I can't speak for God. All I can do is give a man's argument for why God is real, and not made up. (which I think I did) I'm not saying He's real just because I said so, I'm giving reasons.

If you've got a problem with my argument then can you explain what it is plz.

 

[Kizlevru]

I aint go a problem, and I aint arguing,

What I said was...... "God made man.......because man said so"

Peace

 

[muscleman]

Atleast as a christian we dont lie but give reasons and evidence to our belief, unlike the atheist...."There is no God...because I say so.." thats it. If atheist have reasons for their PURE BELIEF. then it can be summarized below...

1.) There is no God because I am born short and have a hard time getting a date, therefore because Im suffering I blame God for it therefore theres no God.

2.) Human race are always at war because they are greedy, self centered, hipocrites, liars, and on top of all that, uses Nationalism as an excuse, uses culture as an excuse, racism, and some uses God's name to excuse their disgusting act. Therefore there is no God because human makes mistakes.

3.) There is no proof of God that convinces me He exist, i dont care about ENVIRONMENTAL REALITY AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS, I will believe God if He comes down from Heaven and perform GREAT SIGNS OF WONDERS, therefore just like King Henry, King James, and Shakespeare, God and them are all myths.

THIS ARE PATHETIC ATHEISM'S BELIEF....ATLEAST AS A CHRISTIAN WE HAVE SCIENTIFIC FACTS, REASONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REALITY, UNLIKE THIS DELUSIONARY ATHEIST KIDS WHO HAVE NO REASONS AND EVIDENCE FOR THEIR BELIEF BY ADMITTANCE...

 

[ThatJerk]

Me oh my... I turn my back for a couple of days, and the fundies have a picnic in my thread. Thanks all for holding the fort, now it's my turn *cracks knuckles, allows brief toothy grin*.

Where to begin...

Muscleman, you are the poster-child for all that is wrong with the American pubik edjukashun sistim. I'm not sure if it's your complete ignorance as to actual science or you're inability to debate without sounding like an irate 13 year old boy who flunked English in grade 7. Allow me to explain... I'll try to avoid words above zero syllables so you can understand.

Evolution is a theory in the way gravity or relativity is a theory. Individual portions of a theory may be revised or even completely changed if new evidence arises, but the general conclusion of the theory remains pretty much the same; such as it is with relativity. Several portions of it have been changed, mainly because we now have access to super-computers that can make more calculations in a second than Einstein did in a life-time as well as the fact that we have far more sophisticated methods of observing the universe. He wasn't WRONG, relativity isn't WRONG or DISPROVED, it's merely been revised in some areas. The overall theory still stands. Such as it is with evolution. What's interesting is how you can go into the back of any museum, pore over the fossils, and actually see how these ancient creatures slowly evolved various features. In fact, archeologists say that if biologists hadn't come up with evolution that they (the archeologists) would have had to do it for them. If you actually LOOK at the available fossil record, then evolution becomes so obvious that you wonder how mouth-breathers such as yourself can believe otherwise. Want to talk about the so-called 'missing link' between humans and the rest of the primate family? "Oh, look, we don't have any fossils of a stage inbetween this and that pre-human so evolution is bunk." or some similar offal. Let's look at is as such...

1, 2,_ 4, _, _, 7, 8, _, 10.

I know I'm going out on a limb, assuming that you can actually count to ten, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.

See the pattern? I'm sure even you can fill in the blanks. Such as it is with pre-human fossils. We may not have every single stage in museums, but we sure has hell have enough of them for the pattern to become obvious.

Doesnt it make sense that atom mysteriously moved around by itself then CHING CHING! cytoplasm appeared, then it waited 1 million yrs then CHING CHING! another part appeared called "nucleus" then atoms runs around again in the pond then CHING CHING! then another million years CHING CHING! ribosome appeared, each waited millions of yrs because mr. earthquake couldnt design the right shape of ribosome to fit the cell membrane which has been waiting already for 1 million yrs, then mr. earthquake did its job again and gathered atoms together then CHING CHING! it became mitochondria magicly and each waited 1 million years. THEN later on thousands of the cell's parts appeared at once then it mysteriously came to life!! AND WHAT DO U KNOW? They happen to mysteriously have DNA!! WOW!

Then those little cells like runs around fast like speedy gonzales and bumps around over and over, until it became heart, liver, brain, plus the wind and hurricane keeps blowing their way that it sculps the form until all kinds of atoms were glued together and was magicly shaped into a fin, gills, until CHING CHING! it became a fish!!! then that fish became dinosaurs! CHING CHING AGAIN! Then that dinosaur ate grapes(which also magicly appeared) but the dinosaur guy was mean to one grape and spit it out, then the grape thought to itself "One of these days, i will bcome big and will kick your butt", SURELY millions of earthquake, tornado and lightning together, that same grape turned into a raisin, then into dinasaur! then that dinosaur remembered the bad thing that happened to him when he was a grape, so he kicked all the dinosaurs butt, and thats how they got instinct.

Therefore there is no God, and nature is pure chance.

There we have it, folks... our arguement for eugenics. With the magic of eugenics, we can make sure creatures with intelligence on par with a brain-damaged corgi such as we have here never make it past the embryonic stage!

The generation of the first RNA strand wasn't a fluke (RNA being the simplest form of life, a complex protein chain capable of reproducing itself); scientists, when simulating the conditions on Earth when life first arose, can create raw RNA from scratch. All you need is the right mixture of atmospheric gases (which were present at the time), various chemical compounds floating around and lots of electricity (lightning). Voila! RNA, the very first forms of life. It all snowballed from there.

Cellular life is NOT the simplest form of life! The parts of a cell did not just 'magically appear', you stupid sack of rat dung, they came about slowly, over the course of millions of years, in very slow and unremarkable stages! Life cannot exist without RNA or DNA!!!!! *pop!*

Whoops, there goes my brain again. I'll just clean that up...

Conclusion? I weep for the species, I truely do... look, a tear on my cheek as I drink myself into a stupor. I'm taking my chances with alchohol poisoning; at least it won't kill as many brain cells as listening to one of the incoherant mounds of monkey semen you call an arguement.

*shakes head* Ok, back into polite verbal sparring mode...

Jan Ardana.

Originally posted by ThatJerk
I find that when I deny the existence of God I'm told to prove that he doesn't exist.

Denying the existence of God is different to stateing that He does not exist.

Denying his existence is different from stating he does not exist? Isn't that just turning the same sentence around? When I say he does not exist I am denying that he exists, while when I deny he exists I'm saying he does not exist. Saying 'I deny that God exists' is the grammatically correct version of 'I think that God doesn't exist'. Come back after you pass junior-high English.

Figures... apparantly believing in a fairy-tale rots one's brain to the extent that one does not even understand the simple concept of 'burden of proof'.

Does not the burden of proof, lay with the person who makes the claim?
How does believing in fairy tales rot the brain?

Why yes it does. Thank you very much for restating my point. You claim God exists, so prove it. It's not MY job to disprove YOUR claim.

And you're right to call me on the brain-rotting thing... I should have said "The ability to believe in a fairy-tale with blind faith demonstrates that an induhviduals brain is rotten". Sloppy sloppy me...

I claim to possess a large, fire-breathing dragon. People naturally want to see my dragon, so I show them. There's only one problem; it's invisible. Naturally they're a little skeptical so they ask me to prove that he exists. I respond with a snappy "Prove he DOESN'T exist!"

That wouldn't be nesaccery, they would still be able to see, feel and smell the fire he breathed.

Ah, I forgot to mention that his fire breath is invisible and undetectable by all sensory means. Second sloppy statement in my arguement; I must be getting Alzheimers as a punishment from God.

Without proof it is just that, a CLAIM. Not a truth. It is NOT the responsibility of the skeptics to prove that a claim is NOT true.

What if he can't back it up, but the claim is still true?

Ummm... how can a claim be true without proof? Please explain, as I'd very much like to know how to bend the rules of reality like that; it'd make it much easier to claim lottery prizes with old gum wrappers.

http://members.tripod.com/therev67/...dogon/index.htm

Conclusion: At best the belief that God as an entity exists is an unfounded CLAIM, due to a singular lack of actual evidence, and at worst it is an outright fabrication.

The same can be said of any belief system, including the theory of evolution, as their is no real scientific evidence, just suppostion, inferance, hope and wishfull thinking, IMHO.

Evolution is NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM! It is a SCIENTIFIC FACT! Your 'humble opinion' is as retarded as muscleman's; at least you're intelligent enough to not try and back it up with an arguement a flid could shoot down. Read my smackdown of him for a complete dissertation on why evolution is a fact and not a belief.

Attempts to use the bible as a reference are self-defeating and retarded.

You've just made a claim......now prove it?

I make no claims. I merely point out the absurdity of Christian claims, an arguement I back up with solid logic, careful thought and known facts.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Thanks, sweetie, love ya too. Sorry I was a little mean in there, but muscleman put me in a bad mood.

smalltime jam bandit.

You demonstrate your ignorance of the bible quite admirably here. God doesn't kill unbelievers, either personally or through his minions?

Exodus 22:20 "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed."

I haven't been destroyed, so God must be napping.

Exodus 17:13 "And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword."

Exodus 17:14 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven."

Exodus 17:16 "For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation."

The Israelites, under Joshua and Moses, slaughter the Amalekites with God's stamp of approval. I'm so VERY sure they tried preaching to them first.

Numbers 16:32 "And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods."

Numbers 16:33 "They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation."

Numbers 16:35 "And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense."

After an arguement with Moses, Korah and his family are swallowed by the earth at God's command. He then incinerates 250 bystanders, just to show us all how big his balls are. Ok, perhaps he isn't killing actual unbelievers here but it sure illustrates what an asshole he is.

And don't tell me Jesus makes it all better...

Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

The O.T. has Jesus' stamp of approval. Yeeehaw! C'mon, maw, let's git the pitch-fork and find us some heathens!

Well, I think I'm spent for today... I had a bitching halloween party last night and I'm still feeling it. I eagerly await resonses to my post.

P.S. to Xev.
That's what I like to hear . PM me when you get the inclination

 

[muscleman]

Originally posted by ThatJerk




The generation of the first RNA strand wasn't a fluke (RNA being the simplest form of life, a complex protein chain capable of reproducing itself); scientists, when simulating the conditions on Earth when life first arose, can create raw RNA from scratch. All you need is the right mixture of atmospheric gases (which were present at the time), various chemical compounds floating around and lots of electricity (lightning). Voila! RNA, the very first forms of life. It all snowballed from there.

Cellular life is NOT the simplest form of life! The parts of a cell did not just 'magically appear', you stupid sack of rat dung, they came about slowly, over the course of millions of years, in very slow and unremarkable stages! Life cannot exist without RNA or DNA!!!!! *pop!*

Whoops, there goes my brain again. I'll just clean that up...

Well here goes another false accuser, like Xelios (atheist are likely the same). I AM NOT AGAINST EVOLUTION YOU PIECE OF MONKEY____(Im sure you can fill the space in yourself.)Evolution is evident, therefore I believe in such theory, in fact to tickle yur lying pathetic brain, lets say EVOLUTION IS A FACT! I do believe in evolution and that things evolve, you false accuser! lying piece of monkey_____(fill in the blank, im sure u can do that).

O YEAH? RNA? AMINO ACIDS? SCIENCE INDEED REALIZED THAT ALL THE IGNREDIENTS THAT MAKE UP A LIVING CELL ARE ACCESSIBLE AND ARE FOUND EVERYWHERE (ACCORDING TO YOU) SO WHAT R U WAITING FOR? GIVE ME EVIDENCE THEN AND PROOF OF CLAIM...LOL, FACT IS SCIENCE WITH ALL THE MODERN TECHNOLOGY CANNOT CREATE A LIVING CELL, PERIOD.

YOU ALWAYS, AND ALWAYS SAY "CELL DIDNT JUST POPPED INTO EXISTENCE, THEY EVOLVE OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS" SO I EXPLAINED YOUR THEORY WHICH YOU FAILED BECAUSE U JUMP INTO CONCLUSION. I SAID "LIGHTNING OVER MILLIONNS OF YEARS GATHERED ATOMS TOGETHER AND "COINCIDENTALLY" HAPPEN TO SHAPE IT LIKE RIBOSOME! CHING CHING! WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF THAT! WOW, THATS THE BEAUTY OF SUPER LUCK ISNT IT, WAIT, THAT DIDNT END THERE, THERE ARE THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS MORE OF CELL'S PARTS YET TO APPEAR BY SUPER LUCK (ATHEIST LIKE TO CALL "RANDOM CHANCE"). LATER ON SERIES OF EARTHQUAKE AND TORNADO THEN GATHERED MORE ATOMS TOGETHER AND WITH THE HELP OF LIGHTNING, IT SHAPED WHAT "COINCIDENTALLY LOOK LIKE ENDOPLASMIC RETICULUM" AND IT HAPPEN TO MAGICLY FIND RIBOSOME ATTACH TO IT OUT OF MILLIONS OF ACRES PLANET EARTH HAVE, WHICH WAITED 1 MILLION YEARS EARLIER! CHING CHING! WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF THAT? THEN AGAIN SERIES OF LIGHTNING PERFOMR ITS "LUCK" AGAIN AND GATHERED ATOMS THEN WITH THE HELP OF EARTHQUAKE IT SHAPED IT INTO MITOCHONDRIA, THEN MYSTERIOUSLY FOUND THE RIBOSOME AND ENDOPLASMIC' RETICULUM'S LOCATION OUT OF MILLIONS OF ACRES IN PLANET EARTH, THEN ATTACHED TO IT, THEN CHING CHING! IT FITS JUST PERFECTLY AND STARTED FUNCTIONING JUST RIGHT! WOW! WHAT R THE ODDS OF THAT? AND THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF THE REST OF CELL PARTS ALSO APPEARED MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF "SUPER LUCK" LATER, BUT JUST AS IT BECAME A FULLY DEVELOPE, CELL, IT DIED BECAUSE IT HAS SHORT LIFE SPAN, AWWW...SORRY MR. LUCK, BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME...

SEE, THAT ISN'T SO HARD TO EXPLAIN ISNT IT, I DID IT FOR YOU AND YOUR ATHEIST KIND, OHH DONT WORRY, DONT THANK ME, IT WAS MY PLEASURE OF EXPOSING YOUR LIES...

 

[Kizlevru]

Originally posted by muscleman
At least as a christian we dont lie

You liar, you mean to tell me that you have NEVER lied in your christian life??????????????

yeah right

 

[muscleman]

ok i confess, i made a mistake there, we lie like everyone else, but not according to claims, in this topic "existence" we have evidence of claim unlike atheist who have no proof of claim by admittance, by admittance atheist are simply saying "Ok, Ok I dont know what the heck Im talking about and I have no proof, but doesnt my ignorance and stupidity prove God is a myth? C'mon christian people, give this ignorant atheist a chance, please accept my claims without proof please..". True Christian say "Get a life, you need Jesus".

 

[ThatJerk]

Ah, muscleman, so you do acknowledge that evolution is a fact? My apologies, it seemed rather evident that you thought otherwise. That said...

*takes muscleman by collar and shakes vigourously*

Can you read? Did I say we can artificially create a cell in a lab? No. Please tell me where I wrote that if I did, so I can hit myself over the head. I said we can create RNA molecules in a lab, there's just a SLIGHT difference, if you can wrap your head around that fact. Did I say we could find it everywhere? Yes, but BACK WHEN LIFE FIRST APPEARED, A FEW BILLION YEARS AGO, the compounds necessary were EXTREMELY COMMON in the atmosphere, plus the weather back then was always some variation of "raining sulpheric acid with high probability of lightning strikes". Again, demonstrating your ignorance as to any sort of scientific knowledge. Here, I'll make it easy for you... no big words, I promise.

Cells did not come first. RNA molecules came first, the parts for which were common in the environment of the time. We can make self-replicating RNA molecules in a lab. We cannot make living cells in labs.

Here's your proof that humans can create self-replicating RNA molecules in a lab. I don't have access to the full article, but that's the summary. It says everything I've said, only in far thicker language.

I'm only going to play this game once. I don't have the patience to back up every single scientific fact I know with written proof. If you doubt me so much, then bloody well go out and find the article that says I'm lying. You'll note that I've said I KNOW these facts, not that I'm CLAIMING that they're true. I have seen them before and know that they are real. Therefore, when trying to debunk established FACT, it's up to YOU to try and find your proof. If I liked, I could back up every single one of my biology arguements with published fact, but that would waste my time digging up what I needed.

In your so-called rebuttal (really a long-winded rant that only further illustrates your inability think coherantly), you manage to completely fail to address even a SINGLE ONE of my points. Rather, you twist words using pseudoscience, outright attacks upon science (born out of ignorance), outright lies (known or not), religious bigotry, very hasty generalistions, lopsided burden of proof arguements, and countless strawman attacks topped off with a liberal dose of ad hominem attacks for good measure. Essentially, an example of pretty well every major faux-pas one can commit in a debate. Ergo, your arguement is useless. Come back when you can provide something other than hot-air and foolishness. Until then, I declare victory over you by default and will no longer respond to your puerile mewlings unless you can meet the above requirements.

Oh, yes. You may notice I called your ARGUEMENT a pile of monky semen, not YOU as a person. Rather, I called YOU a sack of rat dung. Get it straight, dipshit.

And don't try to turn my insults back on me; at least have the dignity to try and come up with your own.

*my rendition of muscleman preparing to deliver another stunning riposte*

 

[smalltime jam bandit]

You demonstrate your ignorance of the bible quite admirably here. God doesn't kill unbelievers, either personally or through his minions?

What I said was that we are not commanded in the Bible to kill non Christians. I didn't say that God doesn't punish sinners, I didn't say He has never used people to kill others. But there is no scripture which says that God desires all of His people to kill non believers. God told Noah to build an ark - that doesn't mean all Christians should go about building arks. There are special commands for special circumstances.

If you want Bible references which show what general conduct should be to non-Christians, look at Matthew 28 19-20, Luke 24 46-48. These things are obviously general commands to Christians, not particular commands to the disciples, because they talk about the gospel being taken to all nations. The disciples couldn't do that on their own, it is something that will go on until every country has heard about Christ and the message of salvation.

What was your point about God killing people who reject Him? OK, it seems harsh and unnecesary, looking at it from man's point of view. But that doesn't mean its not true.

I haven't been destroyed, so God must be napping.

That's what Adam and Eve thought. They thought God was feeble - He hadn't kept His promise that they would surely die. But they did die. They didn't die when they would have expected to, on the same day that they disobeyed Him, but in due time they died.

Don't expect God to do everything at the time you'd expect. He has his own timings. God must punish sinners, because He is just and right and sin deserves punishment. The day when men will be judged properly and sinners punished is the judgement day. Hebrews 9 27.

And don't tell me Jesus makes it all better...
Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

Yeah, that verse is amazing, it sums up the gospel. The law is kept through Christ. All the holiness God expects from man, and standard that He requires is dulfilled by Christ. Thats not a reason to fitchfork heathens. Its a reason to believe in Christ, because although we can't keep the law perfectly, He did. We can't remain sinless, but He did. Thats why God accepts people who believe entirely on Christ, and don't trust themselves. Because God sees the perfection of Christ and so can accept imperfect sinners.

The law is not destroyed - we should still keep it as best we can. But that doesn't mean keeping literally all the particular ordinances of the Isralites, it means loving God with all our being and loving others as ourselves. Matthew 22 v 40 On these 2 commandments hang all the law on the prophets.

 

[Ekimklaw]

Aha!

==============================================
Xev wrote:
Love? For God? How can I love something that doesn't exist?
==============================================

Well, some atheists seem to HATE "something that doesn't exist". I suppose one could LOVE just as well.

-Mike

Ps. I care about you Xev. No matter what anyone says about you.

 

[CounslerCoffee]

Well, you seem to HATE "something that doesn't exist". I suppose you could LOVE just as well.

Xev doesnt hate god you silly person you. Xev doesnt believe in it/him/her. And if that makes god mad (if its really up there) then so be it.

Good work pissing off the almighty walnut xev!

 

[Ekimklaw]

I fixed it...

Hey Mr. Coffee,

when I said "you" in my above post I didn't neccessarily mean XEV herself. It was used in the general sense. Anyway, I edited it and fixed it. That better?

[Ekim mutters offensive diatribe about Counselorcoffee under his breath as he turns away...]

-Mike

 

[CounslerCoffee]

Ekimklaw, dont make me kick yo ass! *Gets in Kung Foo position* Bring it!!!

On the other hand Im sorry. I apoligize to damn much.

 

[ThatJerk]

Originally posted by smalltime jam bandit
What I said was that we are not commanded in the Bible to kill non Christians. I didn't say that God doesn't punish sinners, I didn't say He has never used people to kill others. But there is no scripture which says that God desires all of His people to kill non believers. God told Noah to build an ark - that doesn't mean all Christians should go about building arks. There are special commands for special circumstances.

Exodus 15:3 "The Lord is a man of war: the LORD is his name."

So he gets off on wars, eh? How much do you want to bet that those wars are to waged against unbelievers?

Exodus 23:27 "I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee."

Here's some land, and by the time you get there I'll have made all the current tenants go away. How would you like it if your land was suddenly 'given' to another tribe by their God and driven off it by him?

Numbers 21:33 "And they turned and went up by the way of Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he, and all his people, to the battle at Edrei."

Numbers 21:34 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon."

Numbers 21:35 "So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land."

God, if not outright instructing them to, is at the very least actively encouraging his people to destroy other tribes and take their lands. Wholesale slaughter seems to be something that God partakes in a lot.

2 Chronicles 14:9 "And there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an host of a thousand thousand, and three hundred chariots; and came unto Mareshah."

2 Chronicles 14:11 "And Asa cried unto the LORD his God, and said, LORD, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power: help us, O LORD our God; for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. O LORD, thou art our God; let no man prevail against thee."

2 Chronicles 14:12 "So the LORD smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled."

2 Chronicles 14:13 "And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar: and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before the LORD, and before his host; and they carried away very much spoil."

Do you know how many people God smote? 1 million, just like that. This is only the worst of his atrocities; he's in the running with Hitler and Stalin for worst kill-counts in history. And that's not all... the LORD's hosts carried away very much spoil. Translation? They stripped the bodies of the dead Ethiopians. They then went about raping and pillaging all their cities. Yes, God of love and peace hard at work smiting millions of his enemies while his people rape and pillage their cities. Protective gear required when in love and peace zone.

This is
If you want Bible references which show what general conduct should be to non-Christians, look at Matthew 28 19-20, Luke 24 46-48. These things are obviously general commands to Christians, not particular commands to the disciples, because they talk about the gospel being taken to all nations. The disciples couldn't do that on their own, it is something that will go on until every country has heard about Christ and the message of salvation.

Oh, I love this one. Here are some bible references saying what will happen to people who want to be left alone when preached at.

Matthew 10:14 "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet."

Matthew 10:15 "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."

Households and cities that turn away Jesus rabble-rousers will be destroyed, in more terrible ways than Sodom and Gomorrha. Wow, I'd better fucking listen next time Mormons come to my door.

What was your point about God killing people who reject Him? OK, it seems harsh and unnecesary, looking at it from man's point of view. But that doesn't mean its not true.

My point? You're asking for my point? Here's my point.

That you're (if he exists) god is an evil, sadistic creature that I want nothing to do with. Oh he has plenty of positive propaganda, such as in 2 Thessalonians 3:16, but actions (see above examples of atrocities) speak louder than words, I think.

That's what Adam and Eve thought. They thought God was feeble - He hadn't kept His promise that they would surely die. But they did die. They didn't die when they would have expected to, on the same day that they disobeyed Him, but in due time they died.

When did Adam and Eve think God was feeble? After they ate the fruit and heard (!) God coming, they HID from him! That implies that they were pretty scared of him.

Genesis 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Seems pretty specific to me. God must have been lying, since they certainly lived far beyond the day they ate the apple and eventually died of natural causes. I don't get what you're trying to prove with that last paragraph.

Don't expect God to do everything at the time you'd expect. He has his own timings. God must punish sinners, because He is just and right and sin deserves punishment. The day when men will be judged properly and sinners punished is the judgement day. Hebrews 9 27.

I don't expect God to 'do' anything, ever, since he doesn't exist. And why must he punish sinners? What gives him the right to arbitrarily decide what's right and wrong? While I agree that killing people and the like is wrong, I rather violently disagree with the rule "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." and its ilk. Is God so insecure that he'll lash out at people for acclaiming other gods?

Yeah, that verse is amazing, it sums up the gospel. The law is kept through Christ. All the holiness God expects from man, and standard that He requires is dulfilled by Christ. Thats not a reason to fitchfork heathens. Its a reason to believe in Christ, because although we can't keep the law perfectly, He did. We can't remain sinless, but He did. Thats why God accepts people who believe entirely on Christ, and don't trust themselves. Because God sees the perfection of Christ and so can accept imperfect sinners.

*yawn* Oh, what, you're done? Finally.

Yes, Jesus upheld the law perfectly. I'm not disputing that; in fact, he upheld it admirably well when he called the Pharisees for not killing children who disobey their parents. He's so kind and loving I can almost feel the light! Wait... no, that's just the radiation from my monitor. False alarm.

The law is not destroyed - we should still keep it as best we can. But that doesn't mean keeping literally all the particular ordinances of the Isralites, it means loving God with all our being and loving others as ourselves. Matthew 22 v 40 On these 2 commandments hang all the law on the prophets.

Right, the law isn't destroyed. In fact, it's to be UPHELD. Jesus said it pretty specifically. Funny, how the two commandments there about not killing people and loving your neighbours are supposed to be upheld first and formost, when the example set in the O.T. is blood-soaked and hate-filled. I'll bet Asa and the Israelites were chock-full of neighbourly loving when they were raping and pillagin the Ethiopians while studiously not-not-killing them.

Admit it... for every seemingly positive verse in the bible there's at least one elsewhere that directly contradicts it.

 

[ThatJerk]

Fun fit for a God!

Wnat to know what it's like to be an irate, wrathful deity? Find out here!

With only the click of a mouse you too can experience the heady rush of slaughtering thousands of innocents! People, dumb animals, they are all the same in the face of your righteous vengeance: DEAD!

Isn't being all-powerful grand?

 

[Kizlevru]

That is one sad sicko site, the guy who made that site is very ill.

 

[muscleman]

Originally posted by ThatJerk
Can you read? Did I say we can artificially create a cell in a lab? No. Please tell me where I wrote that if I did, so I can hit myself over the head. I said we can create RNA molecules in a lab, there's just a SLIGHT difference, if you can wrap your head around that fact. Did I say we could find it everywhere? Yes, but BACK WHEN LIFE FIRST APPEARED, A FEW BILLION YEARS AGO, the compounds necessary were EXTREMELY COMMON in the atmosphere, plus the weather back then was always some variation of "raining sulpheric acid with high probability of lightning strikes". Again, demonstrating your ignorance as to any sort of scientific knowledge. Here, I'll make it easy for you... no big words, I promise.

Cells did not come first. RNA molecules came first, the parts for which were common in the environment of the time. We can make self-replicating RNA molecules in a lab. We cannot make living cells in labs.

Here's your proof that humans can create self-replicating RNA molecules in a lab. I don't have access to the full article, but that's the summary. It says everything I've said, only in far thicker language.

I'm only going to play this game once. I don't have the patience to back up every single scientific fact I know with written proof. If you doubt me so much, then bloody well go out and find the article that says I'm lying. You'll note that I've said I KNOW these facts, not that I'm CLAIMING that they're true. I have seen them before and know that they are real. Therefore, when trying to debunk established FACT, it's up to YOU to try and find your proof. If I liked, I could back up every single one of my biology arguements with published fact, but that would waste my time digging up what I needed.

In your so-called rebuttal (really a long-winded rant that only further illustrates your inability think coherantly), you manage to completely fail to address even a SINGLE ONE of my points. Rather, you twist words using pseudoscience, outright attacks upon science (born out of ignorance), outright lies (known or not), religious bigotry, very hasty generalistions, lopsided burden of proof arguements, and countless strawman attacks topped off with a liberal dose of ad hominem attacks for good measure.

Oh, so BACK THEN A FEW BILLION YEARS AGO, the compounds necessary were EXTREMELY COMMON in the atmosphere, plus the weather back then was always some variation of "raining sulpheric acid with high probability of lightning strikes".
So back then it as raining sulfuric acid and much more lightning strikes, and now we dont have that, ahh I see. LOL. Well too bad for me huh, now I can never see so much lightning strikes and sulfuric acid falling down the earth, I miss it by billions of years, damn I miss that and I wish i was there. Well too bad for you too you can never see God creating life forms because you also miss him by billions of years, same logic. But then again, intelligence is still proven, and chance isnt. Got it?
SCIENCE CAN NEVER FIND EVIDENCE OF CHANCE AND YOU CAN NEVER CREATE A LIVING CELL by admittance. THEREFORE BY ADMITTANCE YOU ACKNOWLEDGE NATURE EXISTING THROUGH "CHANCE" CAN NEVER BE PROVEN. Well Thank you for confirming that, I appreciate that very much. You cantype whatever you want, I dont care about RNA, YMCA, NBA, WBA, etc. It is easy to diassemble my stereo components and label whats inside it, however it is not easy for me to create a stereo, I ont care about giving names to whats within the cell, I am more interested in creating a living cell, BUT THE ARGUMENT IS DONE HERE ALREADY, BY ADMITTANCE YOU LOST, I REST MY CASE, ONE VICTORY AFTER ANOTHER. AMEN.

note: Im impressed! So far you show more intelligence in the field of insults than of disproving God, you are proving God the more. SO THANK YOU.

 

[CounslerCoffee]

Hey I like the New Vannila Coke! Wait... THis thread is about God. Well, who gives a $*it?

*Goes back to singing I am the very model of a Modern Major-General*