Bring on World War 3. . .

[achilles12604]

I had an ephinany in church today. I believe I have decided for myself who's side God is on.

But I wanted to throw this out into the water and see where it goes for a bit first.


So the question for debate is this. . .


Who's side is God on? What makes you believe that this is true?

Considering the amount of suffering, poverty, crime, genocide, pestilence, disease, wars, starvation, subjugation, rapes, molestations, etc.... that currently exist globally, I really have to wonder which side He is on as well. If I had to judge it based on humanity, I would have to say that God is on the side of those who would cause harm because He sure isn't providing much protection to those who are trying to do good. But this is strictly MHO.

This made me think. Is the world REALLY this screwed up? Or is the world still decent enough to warrant living in?

If it is as described above, then would it not be better to simply start world war 3, have every launch Nukes, and if any one survives they can start over with a clean (albeit radioactive) slate?

Is this world worth keeping?

[Beto]

I don't think Achilles said there were no children or otherwise, but this seemed like a very important issue to me. I find a city devoid of children to be a statistical improbability. How does the scripture deal with that?

I deal with this quite simply.

Scripture is written by men with an agenda. Now there is good physical evidence for an occurence around Sodom which would have been close to what was described in the bible. However, this does not necessarily mean that it in fact was God's doing. These events were ascribed to God by men with said agenda.

If you read THIS thread you will see my conclusions about S and G.

firstly

So even if we can admit that eventually there might have been a city completely evil (btw there were no children there)

Lets deal with this first and then we can get to part two.


Please provide which post I wrote this. The posts are numbered. Tell everyone which post I wrote what you are accusing me of because frankly I have no idea.

Post 54 was mine and there was a question mark after "there" which disappeared from the quote. Using copy/paste is a good idea when quoting.

[achilles12604]

I don't think Achilles said there were no children or otherwise, but this seemed like a very important issue to me. I find a city devoid of children to be a statistical improbability. How does the scripture deal with that?

I deal with this quite simply.

Scripture is written by men with an agenda. Now there is good physical evidence for an occurence around Sodom which would have been close to what was described in the bible. However, this does not necessarily mean that it in fact was God's doing. These events were ascribed to God by men with said agenda.

If you read THIS thread you will see my conclusions about S and G.

firstly

So even if we can admit that eventually there might have been a city completely evil (btw there were no children there)

Lets deal with this first and then we can get to part two.


Please provide which post I wrote this. The posts are numbered. Tell everyone which post I wrote what you are accusing me of because frankly I have no idea.

Post 54 was mine and there was a question mark after "there" which disappeared from the quote. Using copy/paste is a good idea when quoting.

It doesn't happen often, but when someone puts words into my mouth claiming I said them and I didn't . . . *sigh*. It is quite the interruption to a good debate.

I guess I have no future in politics.

[zepper899]

I don't think Achilles said there were no children or otherwise, but this seemed like a very important issue to me. I find a city devoid of children to be a statistical improbability. How does the scripture deal with that?

I deal with this quite simply.

Scripture is written by men with an agenda. Now there is good physical evidence for an occurence around Sodom which would have been close to what was described in the bible. However, this does not necessarily mean that it in fact was God's doing. These events were ascribed to God by men with said agenda.

If you read THIS thread you will see my conclusions about S and G.

firstly

So even if we can admit that eventually there might have been a city completely evil (btw there were no children there)

Lets deal with this first and then we can get to part two.


Please provide which post I wrote this. The posts are numbered. Tell everyone which post I wrote what you are accusing me of because frankly I have no idea.

Post 54 was mine and there was a question mark after "there" which disappeared from the quote. Using copy/paste is a good idea when quoting.

It doesn't happen often, but when someone puts words into my mouth claiming I said them and I didn't . . . *sigh*. It is quite the interruption to a good debate.

I guess I have no future in politics.

lets not be pouty now, it still is a good debate, im looking forward to your continuation. i said i was sorry

[achilles12604]

I don't think Achilles said there were no children or otherwise, but this seemed like a very important issue to me. I find a city devoid of children to be a statistical improbability. How does the scripture deal with that?

I deal with this quite simply.

Scripture is written by men with an agenda. Now there is good physical evidence for an occurence around Sodom which would have been close to what was described in the bible. However, this does not necessarily mean that it in fact was God's doing. These events were ascribed to God by men with said agenda.

If you read THIS thread you will see my conclusions about S and G.

firstly

So even if we can admit that eventually there might have been a city completely evil (btw there were no children there)

Lets deal with this first and then we can get to part two.


Please provide which post I wrote this. The posts are numbered. Tell everyone which post I wrote what you are accusing me of because frankly I have no idea.

oh poop, my bad. in post 54 beto questioned you saying that. but upon further investigation, i realize that you didn't say that. i was writing hastily, i fully apologize and take the blame for silly arguments

Sorry. I missed this post.

Ok now I feel dumb. Let's both feel dumb together and move on shall we?

[Beto]

My poor use of the english language was the culprit... I feel dumb as well.

[zepper899]

that is pretty much as supplicant as i get. i did reference beto's question mark in words ("beto quetioned")
i would love for you guys to continue. you're both putting lots of work forward

[achilles12604]

that is pretty much as supplicant as i get. i did reference beto's question mark in words ("beto quetioned")
i would love for you guys to continue. you're both putting lots of work forward

Ok so where were we?

secondly, great thread on sodom. i find we will agree. im jsut too lazy to do the reaseach on teh biblical events, so ill supply a second argument on other cultures.
as i usually say, interpretation is everything. i believe in teh bible. i believe in teh bible as much as i believe in any other ancient text. i believe that gilgamesh was teh king of uruk. an exerpt from an essay: "Marduk, after conquering Tiamat and Qingu, orders the creation of a city for his followers. He tells the Anunnaki to “create Babylon, whose construction [they request]” (Dalley 262). This gives a plausible explanation for the existence of their city... The Enuma Elish also functioned to show a shift in authority. When a group was dominant, the most powerful god would be the central city’s patron god. The Akkadians located Babylon as their axis city, so when they were in power, they expressed the Babylonian god, Marduk, as dominant. Dalley describes Marduk founding cultic centers for Ellil, "the king of all populated lands" (321), signifying the dominance of the Babylonians (255). myth can be used to explain many aspects of society. they can be natural events, beyond the scope of the current population. in a lecture, one possible explanation of the events in egypt, the 10 plagues, all explained as natural phenonmenon. every single one. i'm not trying to swing this argument either way, just suppling food for thought.
by the way: mesopotamian society was the near eastern society before teh abraham. Marduk, tiamat, qingu, ellil are all gods in this culture. dalley translated mesopotamian cuniform tablets into english.the akkadians and babylonians are teh citizens of two different 'tribes.'
if one on this forum doesn't know o fthe mesopotamians i highly suggest reading their literature. there are so many myths in this culture that have so many parallels it is impossible to suggest that many stories of the bible are not based on these people's myth

I appreciate the praise here. I'm not sure if I need to respond so thanks.

Beto, I think the ball is in your court. Take a look at my thread on Sodom and see if it answers your questions.

[Beto]

Alrighty, but before I do, I have to "razor" this one up. What do you find more likely... that a mythology was built around a natural disaster, or that the mythology is not mythology, but indeed historical fact (with all its implications, and there are quite a few)? With this in mind, do you think the thread makes an atheist think that the latter is more likely?

[achilles12604]

Alrighty, but before I do, I have to "razor" this one up. What do you find more likely... that a mythology was built around a natural disaster, or that the mythology is not mythology, but indeed historical fact (with all its implications, and there are quite a few)? With this in mind, do you think the thread makes an atheist think that the latter is more likely?

If you read through my posts there I believe (if I remember correctly) that I hold S and G as historically plausible but entirely without merit spiritually. I think it was an event which had significance attached to it by men. Nothing more.

[Beto]

I think it was an event which had significance attached to it by men. Nothing more.

This is your view concerning all the OT events?