Elijah Mohammad
Registered on
Oct-14-2005
More User Info
|
Message #113443 posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 21, 2008 04:16:06 ET
In Reply to: why does god hate babies so much? posted by forged registration (Info) March 20, 2008 22:09:23 ET
""this case is not about the full truth of what actually happened back then....it is about what the Bible says happened, and what the Bible claims is God's role in it."
- but hydro, the bible is the literal word of god so it's god's claim about god's role, and that has to be the full truth, or else it means we can't trust anything that god says or does...in his bible, god said that he committed, ordered, and rewarded genocide, including babies and children...can you link me to any respected theologians who share your opinion that babies and children didn't exist when god slaughtered entire villages and even the entire earth?
"This example does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that there were either babies or innocent people present in the destruction...neither are mentioned."
- interesting logic...let me try it out:
the bible does not specifically mention jesus christ's nose, so we cannot make the biased assumption that he actually had one...the lack of olfactory sense might explain why jesus thought he actually changed water into wine...the bible also fails to make note of jesus' thumbs so he obviously didn't have any, and that's why he abandoned the family carpentry business...similarly, the bible doesn't mention anything about christ's bum...ipso facto, jesus didn't have an asshole which explains why he went around acting like his shit didn't stink...ditto for the lack of dick explaining why jesus was celibate
it all makes sense now...the complete absence of babies and children across the entire earth makes god's genocides seem perfectly rational and benevolent...jesus disfigured body explains everything else
more baby killing for god:
Psalm 137
7 Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
"Tear it down," they cried,
"tear it down to its foundations!"
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
(but wait: how could there be any infants to bash against rocks for god if infants didn't exist back then?)"
FORGED, LET'S MAKE THIS PERFECTLY CLEAR....IF JESUS WERE TO BE TRIED IN A CRIMINAL CASE, WHERE HIS GUILT WOULD BE BASED ON THE PRESENCE OR ABSCENCE OF HIS NOSE AND HIS HANDS, YOU CERTAINLY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONVICT HIM BASED ON THE EVIDENCE IN THE BIBLE FOR EXACTLY THE REASON YOU SAID....THE BIBLE DOESN'T MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT HIS NOSE AND HANDS.....NOW, IF YOU WERE JUST MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CULPABILITY IN BAD BEHAVIOR, THEN YES, YOU COULD PROBABLY ASSUME THAT JESUS PROBABLY DID HAVE A NOSE AND THUMBS. YOU COULD NOT PROVE THIS, HOWEVER....ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE IN THE BIBLE TO SUGGEST THAT MAYBE JESUS DID NOT HAVE A NOSE OR THUMBS......
SIMILARLY, YOU CANNOT CONVICT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE OF ORDERING PEOPLE TO KILL BABIES OR INNOCENTS, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF EVIDENCE OF THE TESTIMONY OF AT LEAST TWO WITNESSES(EXAMPLES). THE BIBLE DOESN'T MENTION GOD ORDERING THE KILLING OF BABIES OR INNOCENT PEOPLE MORE THAN ONCE, IN ONE CASE.....AS WE HAVE ALREADY COVERED, YOU CANNOT CONVICT SOMEONE IN A CRIMINAL CASE BASED ON THE TESTIMONY OF ONLY ONE PERSON WITH NO OTHER EVIDENCE. I HAVE ALREADY TRIED TO SPEAK REASONABLY WITH YOU ABOUT THIS, AND YOU REFUSE....THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT GOD DIRECTLY KILLING PEOPLE HIMSELF, FIRST OF ALL, IT IS ABOUT THE GOD DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE ORDERING PEOPLE TO KILL OTHER INNOCENT PEOPLE AND/OR BABIES ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE BIBLE. THE FLOOD HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT....TESTIMONY ABOUT PEOPLE KILLING BABIES AND INNOCENTS WITHOUT BEING DIRECTLY ORDERED BY GOD TO DO SO ALSO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
I HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT NOT ONLY DOES GOD NOT SPECIFICALLY ORDER THE KILLING OF BABIES OR INNOCENT PEOPLE, BUT ALSO, THAT THE PLACES HE ORDERED DESTROYED, ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE, DID NOT HAVE ANY BABIES OR INNOCENT PEOPLE IN THEM. YOU HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS THIS EVIDENCE, AND YOU HAVE FAILED TO BRING FORWARD ANY NEW EVIDENCE WHICH CLEARLY DISPROVES IT, OR CLEARLY SHOWS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF GOD DIRECTLY ORDERING PEOPLE TO KILL BABIES OR INNOCENT PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY. I WILL GIVE YOU ONE MORE CHANCE TO REPLY AND POST ANY OF THIS KIND OF EVIDENCE YOU MAY HAVE GATHERED....IF YOU DO NOT OR CAN NOT, THEN THE CASE WILL BE DISMISSED....THAT WILL BE MY ONLY REPLY.
P.S.
YOU SAID, "(but wait: how could there be any infants to bash against rocks for god if infants didn't exist back then?)"
IN REPLY, I NEVER SAID, NEITHER DOES THE BIBLE SUPPORT THAT THERE WERE NO INFANTS ANYWHERE...WHAT IT SUPPORTS IS THAT THERE WERE NO INFANTS IN THE COMPLETELY WICKED PLACES GOD ORDERED THE ISRAELITES TO DESTROY, AND NO BABIES KILLED BY THE FLOOD. ALSO, IN THE VERSE YOU QUOTE, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY COVERED....MAYBE YOU FORGOT???.....IN THE VERSE YOU QUOTE, GOD DOES NOT ORDER FOR THOSE BABIES TO BE KILLED. WHERE IN THAT EXAMPLE DOES IT SAY, "AND THE LORD SPOKE TO THE KING OF THE PERSIANS, AND SAID, SMASH TO DEATH ON THE ROCKS THE BABIES OF THE BABYLONIANS?"
IF YOU SAID TO ME, "THOSE SOLDIERS IN IRAQ ARE JUST HAVING A BLAST KILLING AND RAPING," SHOULD I TAKE THAT TO IMPLY THAT YOUR GOD ORDERED THE SOLDIERS IN IRAQ TO DO THIS FOR HIM? THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT DAVID....HE MAKES A SIMPLE STATEMENT OF THE MINDSETS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING EVIL THINGS......HOW CAN THIS BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT HIS GOD TOLD THOSE PEOPLE TO DO THOSE THINGS?
|
