yguy

Show me evidence that God intended to kill the innocent with the guilty. You can't, because it isn't there - as much as I know you guys want it to be.

keyser_soze

Don't want that gentlemanly way out? Fine. Please refute his with a decent argument(you have not done so yet), and then proceed to the exodus verses.

yguy

This idea that there can be a winner or a loser in a debate about scripture is a purely chimerical fatuity. You guys, having not only the home field advantage but refs biased in your favor, can easily circle-jerk your way to apparent victory. Them's the rules, and I don't have a problem with it - but you guys are kidding yourselves.

If you want me to admit error, you have to show me where the error is. You haven't done it; and you can't, because there are no previously agreed upon criteria by which such a thing may be judged.

yguy

Next you'll be demanding I prove there is no such thing as a unicorn,
for which there is as much evidence as there is for the idea that God intended to kill any innocent people in Sodom and Gomorrah.

keyser_soze

Occams razor cuts deeply, especially into religions fatty tumor. You want to have things both ways. You want to have an irrational belief system unsupported by reality, or common sense, or even physics. Against all of the world, every other religion's own irrational god systems...

And inside this bubble, you want to have irrational beliefs that ARE CONTRARY to the book (which is the only evidence of your faith) that you rely on.

You want to believe god doesn't change his mind. But when verses from YOUR VERY OWN GOD BOOK are used to show that he does(for the sake of argument) you not only ignore it, but make leaps of reasoning that would break the back of the average acrobat, to conclude--despite the very obvious and plain information supplied--that god does not change his mind. I'm sorry, it's rather obvious, even to a dimwit I'd bet(as long as it's not a fundy dimwit) that it MEANS WHAT IT SAYS!

What planet do you come from that you can turn "Bob is a dog" into "Bob is really a cat, but he underwent an operation in Istanbul to become a wolf...which is close to a dog, but you're wrong because it's a different species". That is exactly what apologetics looks like to everyone, like backpedaling and making stuff up to suit your fancy. It's intellectually dishonest, primarily with yourself...which is the hardest thing of all to understand. Apologetics absolutely boggles the rational mind, and then you smile and act like you're innocent of any wrong doing, that you are of course "reading it right" when every single piece of data contradicts what you believe! Would you stand in the road with a a truck approaching you and ignore it's presence? Then why would you ignore the mountain of evidence to to the contrary of your position? Why would you look at all the evidence in the world, what your eyes tell you, what your rational mind tells you, and then close your eyes to it on the authority of a poorly written book that is badly designed and for the love of whatever deity, WAS WRITTEN BY IRON AGE GOATHERDERS? What lapse in reasoning allows this travesty to take place?:banghead: :banghead:

keyser_soze

This says it all. Despite what exodus says, this is what you get from it. Where the hell do you get "I believe it was a test, god didn't really intend to do what he said he was going to do..." He didn't come out and say "ha, ha, just kidding" like he did to abraham...unless I missed that verse...so where the hell do you see it?:banghead: :banghead:

keyser_soze

Nevermind, someone else can deal with you, I haven't the patience. It's like arguing with my 2 year old...no clue.

yguy

But there is nothing indicating that He intended to kill innocents in the first place. In fact, the first indication God intended to destroy S&G comes from Abraham, not God. The "negotiation" could easily have been a clarification of what He intended to do. In my mind, it is likely Abraham felt like an idiot when he reflected on the incident, having asked such a silly series of questions. This idea that there was any negotiation going on is totally unsupported.

keyser_soze

I truly, absolutely, believe that in your mind...that particular scenario could exist.... Did you ever think of an acrobatic technique to get around exodus? If anyone can do it, I'm sure that you can. Don't disappoint. Even magus decided to run away on this one....

Mageth

But there is nothing indicating that He intended to kill innocents in the first place.

Gen 19:25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

I would imagine there were a lot of children, even infants, killed in those cities. Were they not innocents?