??? Please elaborate. The dead since Jesus was on Earth have not risen too Heaven and will not rise or go to Heaven until the second coming of Christ.


1 Thessalonians 4:16

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

I mean it's a beautiful wonderful thought to think about your diseased relatives or maybe loved ones being in Heaven, but that isn't the case. They are in hell atm, or as we call it the "grave" awaiting Jesus' return to be taken home.


Revelation 20:13

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

And mary had a little lamb. What was your point?

Was just clarifying your attempt of belittling the belief with your statement of

Besides being made up by very bored individuals over 2000 years ago it holds multiple purposes. It is as a placebo for those that lack purpose. Also it helps people cope with their fear of death. But logic and consoling along with the inner strength to get on ones own feet instead of always being on ones knees for a non-existent entity, these things would fill the void if the fairy tales didn't exist.

Everything is logically explainable if you take the god-blinders off and listen.
I wonder, is it that you simply refuse logic or that your life cannot go on without god(or at least the perception of one)? Perhaps it's that you've been living for "him" too long and it's like those people that spend decades in prison and have no idea how to live in the real world?
I suppose that last one I could understand, the real world is hard to deal with. I've considered turning to religion for a purpose in this otherwise sad void of a world but I just find it far too silly and childish. Like those people that LARP, it just isn't for me.

BTW it wasn't an attempt at belittling the belief, it was me saying I'll believe it when I see it, real proof, not through some event that may or may not have happened without some divine intervention.

It wasn't very loving of God to drown all the animals who didn't make it onto the floating shoebox with Noah & Company just because he wanted to "off" a bunch of unruly humans.
All he had to do was crank up his patented Ananias and Sapphira Death Beam (Acts 5:1-11.) and take all the miscreants out like a Heavenly sniper. For that matter, he could also have cranked up the intensity on the ASDB and fried them completely. No muss, no fuss, and no bloated carcasses littering the landscape for Noah and Company to have to clean up. ("Damn, Shem. Look at the size of those elephants. It's going to take us a month to dig a big enough hole for them. And they're really starting to smell, too!")

God exists.
Get used to it

Perhaps you could share your evidence for that assertion on one of the other threads dealing with that question.

It wasn't very loving of God to dispatch two of his Hitbears to maul forty-two kids for acting like kids (Proverbs 22:15) by mocking Elisha:

2 Kings 2:23-24

"23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

OUCH! That's gonna' leave a mark! The final score is: Bears-42, Kids-0.
Jeez. I guess a time-out, or even a spanking was out of the question.

There is plenty of evidence that God exists. You simply choose to close your eyes to them.
So I simply choose to say:
God exists. Get used to it.

LOL, suuure there is. Whenever evidence is asked for though the answer always trails off or someone quotes something from the bible. Don't try to act condecending, it doesn't work if it's only used as deflection.

"Deflection" Ha Haaaa!

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuses.

Now deflect that one.

Uhh... I don't have to deflect it.. All you've done is say "all that stuff that's already been explained logically by science, well.. Some all powerful superbeing did it because he was bored" can't argue that logic!

That's right!

Animals/beasts don't have "souls". They are for our use. Either direct use, or in the long run bee's pollinating, riding horses, ect. It wasn't just about "offing" a bunch of unruly humans. It was 1. Prophesied it would happen when certain factors met, 2. It don't suspect it was just about judging the unruly, as it also changed the fact of the world. So therefore brought forth more positive then negative.

There are many Bible passages that depict Yahweh as instructing humans to treat animals kindly (Even though he also required scads of animal sacrifice. D.I.D. Yahweh strikes again!), so it isn't as cut-and-dry as you claim. For, if animals are just "for our use," there would have been no need for Yahweh to say things like this:

Jonah 4:11

"11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?"

Within the context of forgiving the Ninevites' sins, which is what Yahweh and Jonah are here discussing, the cattle should not have even been a consideration, according to your assertion above.

But, all that aside, consider this:
Animals feel pain.
Animals show fear.
Animals suffer.
Animals did not cause all the wickedness that Yahweh was in a snit about in the story. Humans, and "sons of God," did.

So, regardless of what you might claim animals' purpose is, it was unloving of God to NEEDLESSLY drown all of the animals who didn't get a boarding ticket for the floating shoe-box.

As for why Yahweh brought the flood, Genesis says this:
Genesis 6:5-7

"5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

Sure sounds like he wanted to "off" a bunch of unruly humans to me. Particularly since, after the whole horrid affair was concluded, he said this:

Genesis 8:21

"21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."

Notice the parallel? The human heart hadn't changed. Humans were still "evil" according to Yahweh. So, apparently Yahweh brought the flood specifically to "off" the unruly humans who were infesting the place at that time.
Otherwise, one must conclude that he went to all the trouble of bringing the flood for nothing, as he knew that the whole process would just begin again, anyway.

Furthermore, it is strange to consider that an All-Wise God would do something so monstrous, and then afterwords conclude that it was not a good idea. After all, he said afterwards that he would never do anything like that again. (I.E. "Curse the ground any more for man's sake.")
Hey...come to think of it...maybe THAT was when he constructed the Ananias and Sapphira Death Beam! So he wouldn't have to wipe out EVERYTHING again. He could just pick off the ******* humans he didn't like.
I may be onto something there...

At any rate, in keeping with the whole point of this entire thread, bringing the flood wasn't very loving.

You know, you just did EXACTLY what Lazarus predicted you would do. You quoted the Bible!

Romans 1:20

"20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

(*Gasp!*) Lazarus must be a prophet!

Ya, lol, then topped it off with an "I'm right and you're wrong because, reasons!". At this point I'm not sure if he's actually religious or just trolling.

The sacrifices were to pay for mankind's faults and mistakes. Yes he's told us to be loving to the beasts of the world, but allowed the sacrifice of animals in terms of allowing them to give up something they needed to "show" their remorse for their actions. There wasn't grocery stores and such then, food was more scarce there then it is now. The sacrifices in themselves never brought him pleasure though.


Isaiah 1:11

11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.




I do not understand your point here, please elaborate. Those cattle or reference of cattle were no where near any reference towards sacrifice. Again, there weren't grocery stores and such, the reference of the cattle here was purely along those lines explaining how much they had. Not specifically again anything in reference of sacrificial or anything, please do elaborate on the intentions with this verse.



That is exactly why he did the flood... didn't know there was confusion about that. Also remember/keep in mind the flood happened in old testament times, old covenant times, where people were judged on Earth and paid for their sins on Earth. Thus the world had become over ruly with sinful actions, therefore God judged the whole world as sinful and carried out his judgement. And again the animals don't have any baring in that... still don't see your point. Animals are here for our usage, either food chain wise, pollinating flowers, our food, transportation, protection, or whatever may be the case at hand. They do not have souls, they will not join us in Heaven, or be thrown into the lake of fire.

Sorry, Sir, but you are incorrect. I do not choose to close my eyes to the evidence of God's existence. On the contrary, I have examined the evidence my whole life. I spent the first forty years of my life as a Christian. I spent many a year as an apologist, so I know well the position you are in as regards trying to defend the indefensible.

At this point in my life, I simply choose to examine any evidence I see on the subject with logic and common sense.

You never know!
How about it, Rooster? Are you legit, or trolling?
Also...follow up question...since you didn't attribute that quote to the Bible yourself, were you trying to pass those words off as your own?
Or, did you just not feel like mentioning that it was a Bible quote?