How do we know God is "Good"?

So the people of Sodom and Gomorrah weren't screwing like bunnies?You do know how babies are made, right Mike?And I notice you don't say anything about the male children in Egypt.

Mike, do you really mean that seriously? I really, really hope you don't. You're actually one of our better examples of creationists (or once a creationist). If you mean the above seriously then I have to tell you that the only result can be one of derision. It is laughable, silly, ridiculous, dumb and not the best of arguements. If you think otherwise I have to give up on you altogether. That sort of thing just makes the Dawkinists totally convinced that believers are mentally ill.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-17-2004 12:00 PM

Don't you mean the firstborn in Egypt? Quote please!Screwing like bunnies, doesn't necessarily get you baby bunnies, if God has made your wicked women barren.

Ned, have you read the talk between Abraham and God?Basically, Abraham asks if there are any righteouss in Sodom and Gomorah, that God would spare it. God says there are none. I cannot lie, and pretend the scripture mentions babies.As for Dawkins, he's not the most reasonable person to listen to.

I agree since I use the term "Dawkinist" to mean one who is rabidly anti religious. (e.g., Contra). At least as far as religious matters go. But that statement about babies makes the case that the Dawkinists want to make. That is that the religious are incompetant and unable to think clearly.I am thunderstruck that you would try to make such an obviously stupid argument. You're saying that an entire city had no babies. More than that you're saying that at the time of the flood there were no babies. You simply have to be kidding.I find it hard to state just how utterly ridiculous that idea looks. I am, for a change, at a loss for words.'Sides, while I'm no Biblical scholar, what does Abraham have to do with it?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-17-2004 12:13 PM

I know.It's great. You see - I am forced to take any position, even when highly improbable, yet possible.When people can hand pick statements from the bible, and use them against believers, "specifics" become extremely important in debate. So it really doesn't matter how ludicrous my claim is, it's what the scripture says that counts.This is my only way to eben out my prediciment. I am faced with people who will quote mine anything and everything to make God look bad, therefore - I will most certainly use against them, what isn't mentioned.

Yep. How 'bout 'em? Gee, Mike. Where does it say God made the women of the cities barren? Quote please!

You asked what Abraham had to do with it. Abraham was an intercessor for the people therein;
And Abraham answered and said, behold now, I have taken it upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes [Notice his humility]- peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteouss, wilt thou destroy all the city for the lack of five?And he said, if I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it........., Peradventure there shall be found twenty there......., peradventure ten shall be found there, And he said I shall not destroy it for ten's sake

Firstborn doesn't mean babies or children.As for them being barren, I'd only need that quote if it first said there were babies. Since it doesn't - babies or barren are both addages, for which you are correct. Disregard my claim of "barren". likewise - I will disregard your laim of babies.

Yes it does, Mike. If they were adults, there would be no need to define them by their parents. That's idiotic. The assumption is that people who screw all the time without birth control will have babies. It's just common sense. If you want to provide a reason why there are no babies, you have to show us why you think that.Anyway, I don't really see the point in continuing this. You pretty much admitted to Ned that you were defending an idiotic position. And apparently the goal in doing so is... to make God look good?Might want to rethink tactics there, Mike.

Erm, no Dan - my position is highly reasonable. I admitted nothing to ned, I just told him how it works with you critters. No - you have to quote where it says God killed babies. Thanks.My tactics are highly reaonable for one reason; I claim CHRISTianity. Yet no one mentions any good acts concerning Christ and the topic title. This basically means that you are hand picking events in the OT to use against God in anyway you can.It is thereofore HIGHLY relevant and correct, for me to ask you for a quote if you are going to assert things about God.If you can show where he killed babaies specifically, then that's fine. If you can't - tough cheese, I earn the right to observe scripture only- if you are going to attack our belief with it.As for first born, it's been established that Rameses the second firstborn died in adulthood.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-17-2004 12:41 PM

For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast.

It said they had lots of sex. Since sex is how babies are made, those who were having sex would have had babies. It says God killed everyone in both cities.There you go. You want to avoid the obvious conclusion, feel free to tell us why. Why would we? Christ has nothing to do with Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues of Egypt, or the flood. He wasn't even born yet. Cool. Scripture tells us God killed everyone at Sodom and Gamorrah, everyone in the world with the flood, and all the firstborn males in Egypt. Scripture says nothing about any bizarre childless societies. (Which you'd think would really be something someone would write down. "And check this shit out... there were no kids! How weird is that?")Observe that scripture, Mike. So let's see if we can sum up... Mike is saying that there were no firstborn male children in Egypt... that there were no children in either Sodom or Gamorrah... and that there were no children anywhere on the planet at the time of the flood.I gotta tell you Mike, this is getting funnier and funnier. You're really making Christians look retarded.

I'm not saying that there were no babies on earth, I'm just saying that the scripture doesn't mention that there were any babies killed. If you want to accuse God of the bible, with the bible - then you must show it - in the bible. "Ludicrous" claims are irrelevant Dan. What is there is relevant. Let evry man be a liar - and God be truth! Definitely I say I AM before anyone. Incorrect. Mike makes no claims, you did. You claimed baby death, mike says it isn't mentioned. You claim firstborn being babies - mike says it isn't mentioned.I claim what the scripture says. Please observe logic;If a man claims that I am a hero - and I say that my report doesn't make me out to be a hero - soes that mean I am saying I am not a hero? Or - am I claiming my report doesn't say I am?Message 237 is what the scripture says.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-17-2004 01:04 PM

Also, "retards" and "idiotic" are irrelevant to this topic. Please don't make me think that those extreme radicalists are correct about you guys only being able to post insults when having been refuted in debate.