Why is god benevolent?

[Sum1sgruj]

It is hopeless, because the bible is a fantastic example of malevolence on god's part. Have you read the bible (I have to ask, considering the Lot/sisters/daughters thing and the Nimrod connection to babel)?

Nimrod was the king, the tower was built in his kingdom, his soldiers flew arrows into the sky.
Nimrod was a tyrant. Just because the Bible doesn't specifically say Nimrod ordered it does not mean reason has to go out the window.

Considering this is all in Genesis, it would be really easy to throw up that you've read the Bible.
Which I honestly believe you to be lying about, but there is no way to prove that, is there?
The event with Lot was supposed to be an indication of the evil in Sodom. It doesn't really matter if it was his daughters and not sisters. Such things are negligible to the debate.

Oh wait, it's not because it's your way of trying to twist the debate at hand, as if my statements haven't wounded your relevant ones altogether.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Nimrod was the king, the tower was built in his kingdom, his soldiers flew arrows into the sky.
Nimrod was a tyrant. Just because the Bible doesn't specifically say Nimrod ordered it does not mean reason has to go out the window.

Actually, the bible specifically DOES say that people talking to each other decided to do it together. Nimrod could have been part of that collective, but he certainly didn't order it.

I still want to know how the term transformed into its modern connotations. Any ideas?

Considering this is all in Genesis, it would be really easy to throw up that you've read the Bible.

Which I have.

Which I honestly believe you to be lying about, but there is no way to prove that, is there?

There isn't any way to prove that, but then again, I'm not the one saying things contradictory to what is in it. I've actually been accurately representing what's in it, and not misrepresenting the contents (daughters/sisters, lot going to sodom instead of living there, nimrod ordering the tower of babel).

The event with Lot was supposed to be an indication of the evil in Sodom. It doesn't really matter if it was his daughters and not sisters. Such things are negligible to the debate.

But totally relevant to my innocent question of if you've read the bible or not. Which is why I asked if you have actually read the bible.

Oh wait, it's not because it's your way of trying to twist the debate at hand, as if my statements haven't wounded your relevant ones altogether.

Actually, I was just curious. You're the one that seems to be upset about my question (which you still haven't answered). You still haven't refuted the countless logical fallacies we've pointed out, or explained why your view of the bible is more valid than Hitler's. So how about we focus on that for a second (since you won't answer pretty much anything else I've asked):

How are your views of the bible more valid than Hitler's?

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Actually, the bible specifically DOES say that people talking to each other decided to do it together. Nimrod could have been part of that collective, but he certainly didn't order it.

The Bible also doesn't state that the Tower was destroyed, but I guess that just makes every Jew, Christian, and Muslim on Earth a liar, right?

The people simply wanted to have a mighty tower to serve as an icon to their pride. Nimrod would have surely known what was happening in his own kingdom, and it was soldiers that scaled the tower and shot arrows.
Nimrod was an idiot. That's why dumb people are called nimrods, as I said before.

There isn't any way to prove that, but then again, I'm not the one saying things contradictory to what is in it. I've actually been accurately representing what's in it, and not misrepresenting the contents (daughters/sisters, lot going to sodom instead of living there, nimrod ordering the tower of babel).

Yeah, you're just trying to say that literal intrigue beats reason. That simply is not the case, especially when it comes to the Bible.
And so what if I mistook Lot's daughters as sisters? Such things are negligible, as I do not have a a divine f*cking memory.
Oh, and you haven't read the bible. Go ahead and ride that train if you want..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sum1sgruj
A barbaric homosexual is more so to not only kill his target, but rape him as well.

Evidence shows that homosexuals are less likely than heterosexuals to sexually abuse their children, so extending that, it's safe to assume that barbaric homosexuals would be less likely to rape. Your claim is incorrect, and insulting to homosexuals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sum1sgruj
Your counter example is implying that Hitler and God have the same morals.

I love his counter-example. If I wasn't married, I would propose to it.

In all seriousness, his counter example makes a lot of sense and points out exactly what's wrong with your claim.

A certain moderator believes that I am the one not making sense, and yet these are two out of 10's and 20's of ridiculous statements.

For the 1st one, this is obviously an attempt to make me look bad in front of others, which is a cheap way of trying to get the upper hand on the debate. Any logical person would see that I was saying that when you have a bunch of barbaric people of all sexual constructs, everybody is getting raped. Woman, man, boy, girl.
It's this right here in which I should be fully justified as calling you a real asshole, but whatever.

The second. My claims have indicated exactly the opposite. Take a looksy, or leave me the hell alone.