How do we know God is "Good"?

But it does say that everyone on Earth was killed. If you're saying no babies were killed, then you are saying there were no babies on Earth.And if you're not saying that no babies were killed, then what exactly is your point? Can you please rephrase this abortion of a sentence for me? As it stands, it seems to have nothing to do with what I said. See above. If there were babies to be found in any of these situations, then there was baby death.You can repeat "but it doesn't specifically mention the babies" as many times as you want. But it still boils down to you defending the asinine idea that there were no babies to be found in any of these societies. (One of these societies being the planet Earth.)

Oh Mike, I think you've made them extremely relevant to this topic.

Dan, Dan, Dan - I've provided what God said. Every firstborn - man - and also, Abraham pleads with God. I've provided both scriptures. I haven't claimed that there were no babies on earth during the flood because they could have been in heaven by then. AHAHAHAHAHA *swallows tongue*. But how could I possibly know if there were any babies on earth at the time? All I can say is that the bible doesn't mention God killing babies in specific. Can I judge and say "God - erm, despite it not saying you killed babies - Dan says you did so what have you to say for yourself".Again, I'm not claiming there weren't babies on earth, you have claimed something - that babies were killed, I have said - that the report doesn't mention this. That's all I have said on the matter. No, I have neither said that I am a hero or not a hero - it was you who made the claims here.If I say "everyone was killed" - can you decidedly say that babies were killed?It doesn't mention babies. If yu are saying that you can conclude things without the bible saying them things, then I conclude God put all babies on a spaceship untill it was over.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-17-2004 01:30 PM

God said:1) Everyone on Earth was killed in the flood.
2) Everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah was killed by God.
3) Every first born male in Egypt was killed.Babies, last I checked, fall under the category of "everyone". See how relevant words like "retarded" and "idiotic" are here, Mike?If there were people... especially ones who are specifically identified as having sex all the time... then there were babies. So basically, you're saying that if you ignore the obvious implications of the Bible, then you won't have to think about the fact that God killed babies.

Whoops, an edit! Knock yourself out. But you'll just be making your own faith look bad, by admitting that it requires ludicrous solutions to cover for obvious flaws.

No - I'm saying that if you dismiss all logical possibilities, and count what the bible doesn't say - then I can invoke anything I want, if we are going to make God accountable for what the bible doesn't say. I now say that because the bible doesn't specifically mention babies - that God made a big baba spacecraft for all cutie babas to get on while the flood occurred, afterall - the bible doesn't say this. MUST that logically mean babies? Quote please. I've established none were righteouss according to God. I've established that it only mentions men. You still haven't quoted where God says he killed babies, in Sodom, or Egypt. If you say these things happened without the bible saying them, then I can also invoke my own topics. God said evolution occurred. because the bible doesn't mention it. Afterall, evolution did happen - everyone knows that! So if you can't see the biblical implications of evolution.......Roflamyazzoff.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-17-2004 01:46 PM

So, a totally babyless society is a logical possibility now? Because the complete absence of babies is the only way there could have been no babies killed. If that's what you need to maintain your faith in the Bible, then knock yourself out. It's no sillier than a guy living inside a whale.I can understand your need to invent stuff like this, though. The Bible, as it stands on its own, is pretty difficult to take seriously. Yes, Mike. "Everyone" does indeed include any babies that were there. So once again, unless it was some sort of bizarre babyless world, then it does logically mean babies.If you want to avoid the conclusion that God killed babies, feel free to defend the stance that there were no babies on the Earth at the time of the flood. Because "there were no babies" is really the only way to avoid the conclusion "God killed babies".And again, you'd really think the authors of the Bible would have mentioned something like, "By the way, there were no babies. Like... anywhere! Messed up, huh? I mean... a whole planet with no babies? What's up with that?" God's really got a mad-on for those sinful babies. So I guess there were no first-born male children or babies in Egypt, huh? Because if there were, then God killed 'em dead!That'll teach 'em a lesson.

Um, where was I blaming God? If it never happened as I claimed I was crediting the storyteller. If it did happen I still wasn't blaming God, I was saying the people who did it claimed they were doing God's will to justify the action.The notion of destruction is somewhat vague. We all die. Disaster strike in all parts of the world. Terrible things happened to cities and people that were not part of the story of Isreal. It's the logic that I am disagreeing with.lfen

Mike, that is a silly defense. If God had decided to sterilize the entire human race, i.e. prevent all birth/conceptions for x years prior to the flood so that no babies would drown he wouldn't have needed a flood to wipe out the human species now would he?But we don't have any writing by God. These aren't God's words this is a subset of the worlds literature of people claiming to speak for God, or attributing their views to God. It's of historical cultural interest about how people think. Babies die in floods, earth quakes, car accidents. Babies die. Eventually everyone dies guilty or innocent. But what is interesting is that some people have thought God kills the wicked wholesale.lfen

I can't blame you for saying man done these acts, possibly, and then blamed God. Indeed, I said it myself on another forum, so it would be hypocritical to blame you or Dan - so I know where you're coming from, yet I now consider myself refuted by those men of faith, though ofcourse - I allow the possibility in my mind, as it's inspired by God but not written by him. I think the flood is explained as the fruit of man's doing. All penalties are the fruit of our doing. Don't believe me? Check every supposed "bad God act", look through the preceeding sentences.You see Ifen - I desire Dan's quote from what happened, and what God said concerning their sin. I will provide it shortly, it will tell us what I foretold about "preceeding reasons". In effect - man made the flood, not God. In the bible, it mentions "the fruit of your evil doings". In effect, we only reap what we sow.What matters concerning Sodom, is what I quoted from the scriptures, which allows us to trust God.What could we say - that God is unjust? I think not.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-17-2004 08:30 PM

Listen - don't blame me - blame logic. Errm, yeah - to a modern day secularist atheist, in his minority. Each to his own ofcourse. I expect you await the worm party. The issue is, whether God admitts in the scriptures, to baby death. But you have another problem anyway. Even if there were babies - man's sin caused their death. That's the problem with you modern chaps who simply read the bible and dismiss it - you don't actually listen to it, because you are listening to what yourselves. WE are punished according to the fruit of OUR doings. If you sin (A) - you will kill your own children (B). Simple as that. It's the same with satan - give him authority - and he WILL literally take it. You have "given" the authority you own on earth - to him. Read Genesis, and what God says about man having dominion. I suggest you phome Mr Spock, and have a debate with him. If "everyone" MUST mean "babies where alive" then you win. But I'm going to induce barren women again, because you have induced God kiling babies. Irrelevant - no babies are mentioned as being killed. Read my quote - there were no righteouss found, which means I can trust God. Maybe you have difficulty reading. I provided a quote - where God himself said he only will kill men and beasts.You see how you continue to invoke whatever pleases you?

quote:

---

I am faced with people who will quote mine anything and everything to make God look bad,

---

No, mike, we are only looking at God as he is written in the Bible.There are many times in the Bible that God is good and wonderful.There are also many times that God is cruel, terrible, makes mistakes, and is in general much more human in nature, with many of the human faults and foibles we have.It is YOU who has to distort and twist what the Bible actually says about God and how the Bible describes God in order to make him what YOU require him to be; an entity which can only do good, never regrets it's actions, etc.So, it's you who quote mine, really, not us. We are just taking the Bible as a whole while you are picking, choosing and using very strained interpretations of the text to make God be what you want God to be like instead of how God actually appears.

quote:

---

therefore - I will most certainly use against them, what isn't mentioned.

---

...which simply results in making your arguments quite ridiculous and silly.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-17-2004 08:56 PM

quote:

---

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.

---

Mike, you are smarter than this argument.

Shraff - if you guys are so innocent - why haven't you mentioned Christ yet? The topic title is "How do we know God is good". Since I am a CHRIST believer? Well? But have you digged deep and looked into the theological explanations, because of the translation to english? Do you even know about authority and how we can give it away etc? Do you know that these "terrible God" stance you take, is infact - to be blamed on sin? HUMAN'S made the flood happen. They were not forced to be wicked - "every thought of their heart continually". When we sin - we invite satan to be our authority, satan - the "destroyer". When we sin - we give our authority away, we "choose" destruction. Do you know any of these reasons?The only way you can make God out is "terrible" - your bias is shown by the fact that you ONLY mention apparent terrible things. Well, let's see what Jesus Christ says; "Only one is good - God"/ All I've done is believe him. Since we are not good, and we even unbelieve - that kinda is going to make our arguments full of mis-understandings for a start.You don't want to believe in God of the bible, you'll make him look bad by mentioning how humans came to an end BECAUSE of theor own sin.If I'm wrong biblically, why does the bible say "the fruit of YOUR doings"? I'm not twisting the bible - I'm doing what I must against the crowd. I know your intentions.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-17-2004 09:28 PM

God himself said he was only going to kill man and beast?? What's the problem Shraff?Did God force the Egyptians to sin?