Acts of God?

But the TRUE story is that most of the inhabitants got out, and the few who died were no different from the ones who lived, just like the people who died in Katrina were not "more wicked" than the people who lived; things don't work the way the Bible tells the story, and they NEVER DID.
 
bob x said:
But the TRUE story is that most of the inhabitants got out, and the few who died were no different from the ones who lived, just like the people who died in Katrina were not "more wicked" than the people who lived; things don't work the way the Bible tells the story, and they NEVER DID.
Click to expand...

Bob, there is no argument here. God never said, "I will destroy the people". He said "I will destroy the cities". And the ones that did stay despite the warnings, did so because they challenged God's soveriegnty, and God said, "OK, here we go..." and they died because of their arrogance (which by the way is the primary reason for Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction), not for some such particular "sin" or another, but rather defiance.

God said, "you're rich, help those less fortunate than you, lift up your neighbor, be a beacon of light, don't be so arrogant". They replied "Up yours God".

Seems to me that anyone with any kind of moral and physical authority and in the majority as far as power, might react negatively to a minority telling them to pack sand...

What makes God any different?

v/r

Q
 
And the ones that did stay despite the warnings, did so because they challenged God's soveriegnty
Click to expand...
Now you are making up your own story, no relation either to the Genesis story, or to the actual history.
 
bob x said:
Now you are making up your own story, no relation either to the Genesis story, or to the actual history.
Click to expand...

No, Bob. It's called using the intelligence God gave you to read between the lines. Two prosperous cities, with arrogant people, ignoring their responsibilities to their fellow man, while they "party hardied", at the cost of all others' needs...sound familiar? It should. You are ignoring what is the truth. That is why the bible is so antiquated to you, instead of alive and well in today's world. But the truth is, the stories apply to everyday living, now, as back then. We keep making the same mistakes...

v/r

Q
 
As I read that Genesis story, Sodom was full of people who would treat Lot harshly, like sue him or punch him in the nose because he behaved as a judge and rebuked their actions. I think the people sealed their own fate.
 
Generally children are not perceived to be wicked, and are the beloved of God, so there most likely wasn't any around in that place.
 
madeinrussia89 said:
Generally children are not perceived to be wicked, and are the beloved of God, so there most likely wasn't any around in that place.
Click to expand...
Well the story of Noah certainly has children being drowned. The thing is, life is not about the possession within this world... if it were then why does everybody die? One way or another the flesh is designed to die from the very first breath until the last. In the Gospels, God sends or allows others to send his Son... a Son of God... to the cross. An act of evil by God? I don't think so.
 
cyberpi said:
Well the story of Noah certainly has children being drowned. The thing is, life is not about the possession within this world... if it were then why does everybody die? One way or another the flesh is designed to die from the very first breath until the last. In the Gospels, God sends or allows others to send his Son... a Son of God... to the cross. An act of evil by God? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

A lot of the old testament stories have children being killed. But it's not like God WANTS to do it " hey I'm just gonna go kill some kids ". The people during the time of Noah (if you want to believe it literally) lived a ridiculously long time, got constant warnings to save themselves (for apparently a 100 years) and their own children, ignored it and just kept on messing up, so **** had to happen.

So, maybe either the children weren't around at all (who knows, the place was pretty messed up) or children were prevented from that future by being killed.
 
Generally children are not perceived to be wicked, and are the beloved of God, so there most likely wasn't any around in that place.
Click to expand...
Of course there were children in that place. Of course there were children among the dead. Natural disasters back then were no more selective than they are now. It is just that back then, everyone took the ignorant attitude that disasters happen with intention, that anyone struck by lightning must, obviously, have done something to anger whichever deity they thought controlled lightning.
 
greymare said:
q were there not little children in these cities. Why would they have been destroyed? Thats the innocence I am talking about....
Click to expand...

I think there is no doubt there would have been children there, however it depends how you look at it. Every human will and must die, we do so at different ages. Certainly in my faith children are deemed innocent and would be permitted to enter heaven without being judged. So for me I see it as a mercy for any child that dies, not that I like the death of any young life but if it has to be then at least I can be happy they will not have to fear hell.

bob x said:
Whatever kind of upheaval destroyed Sdom and 'Umorah (probably, sulfurous gases released by earthquake activity, then catching fire), it gave plenty of warning for all the inhabitants to leave.
Click to expand...

I read the translation by an Arabic historian that gave quite a lot of evidence for this Bob. He described the distance the people would have been, hence seeing the 'fire' coming from the sky. The land even to this day shows where the lava flow followed a dried river bed with a split in it causing the lava to flow in 2 directions (if I remember correctly). I shall see if I can find it again, it was very interesting reading.
 
bob x said:
Of course there were children in that place. Of course there were children among the dead. Natural disasters back then were no more selective than they are now. It is just that back then, everyone took the ignorant attitude that disasters happen with intention, that anyone struck by lightning must, obviously, have done something to anger whichever deity they thought controlled lightning.
Click to expand...

And of course YOU were there to witness it all, so you know everything, right Bob?

That is why you know the Bible better than everyone else and we are all screwed up except for you...because you were there, and know so much better, that is also why you are so healthy, and vibrant, and positive about life...because YOU KNOW BETTER, THAN EVERYONE ELSE, and you LIVED the GOOD LIFE...

Well, I'll take my medicocre life over your grand life, I think. Has anyone ever called you a jerk?...

Consider it done.
 
Quahom1 said:
And of course YOU were there to witness it all, so you know everything, right Bob?

That is why you know the Bible better than everyone else and we are all screwed up except for you...because you were there, and know so much better, that is also why you are so healthy, and vibrant, and positive about life...because YOU KNOW BETTER, THAN EVERYONE ELSE, and you LIVED the GOOD LIFE...

Well, I'll take my medicocre life over your grand life, I think. Has anyone ever called you a jerk?...

Consider it done.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm... Q this post smells like vinegar.
 
Quahom1 said:
Better that, than tasting like sickly sweet honey...
Click to expand...
Maybe I am just a little concerned that bob_x is next in line to be on the same plank that Silas and Niranjan were ushered off of, being called names, stoked to return fire, and then whiskfully banned without a peep. With that modus operandi maybe we could have a scholarly analysis of terms like 'idiot' or 'jerk' before an unjust dirty deed is carried out again.

Personally I like vinegar, but Bob might not.
 
cyberpi said:
Maybe I am just a little concerned that bob_x is next in line to be on the same plank that Silas and Niranjan were ushered off of, being called names, stoked to return fire, and then whiskfully banned without a peep. With that modus operandi maybe we could have a scholarly analysis of terms like 'idiot' or 'jerk' before an unjust dirty deed is carried out again.

Personally I like vinegar, but Bob might not.
Click to expand...

There are no moderators who have even entertained the idea of Bob x departing the forum. Never crossed OUR minds, Cyberpi...

And as far as acting a "jerk" is concerned, Mr. Bob x there has delighted in calling and or alluding to others as much worse...

If he is concerned about it, he'll be sure to let me know. I'm quite certain he can handle himself very nicely...

v/r

Q
 
bob x said:
Of course there were children in that place. Of course there were children among the dead. Natural disasters back then were no more selective than they are now. It is just that back then, everyone took the ignorant attitude that disasters happen with intention, that anyone struck by lightning must, obviously, have done something to anger whichever deity they thought controlled lightning.
Click to expand...

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and just proclaim you don't believe in ANY of it and stop leading others into error already?

Children get heaven automatically anyway, and it probably was to prevent them from encountering something MUCH worse. God is merciful, and like I said, doesn't go around killing kids for jollies.

The Logos is truth, and I think I'll stick with that.
 
"And of course YOU were there to witness it all, so you know everything, right Bob?"
We were talking about what the archaeologists actually *found* at the sites traditionally named Sdom and 'Umeirah by the south end of the Dead Sea: two ruined cities, apparently destroyed by explosive sulfurous outgassing, with few dead bodies, indicating that most had time to get out-- but OF COURSE among those dead were children, why would you expect otherwise? The area is part of the Rift Valley complex from Sea of Galilee down the Jordan to the Dead Sea, on down a sharp-walled valley to the Red Sea and across eastern Africa; there is a lot of earthquake activity all up and down the Rift Valley, and as Muslimwoman correctly points out, even lava flows are not unknown south of the Dead Sea, and one of them may have been part of this particular natural disaster, which was no more selective in its victims than any other such event. There is nothing unusual about people of that time telling stories about how the victims must have been especially wicked for such a thing to happen, but I would bet that they were neither better nor worse than any other people.
 
Comparing our “last days” to those of Lot, Luke 17:28-30 reports: “Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building. But on the day that Lot came out of Sodom it rained fire and sulphur from heaven and destroyed them all. The same way it will be on that day when the Son of man is to be revealed.” The fate of Sodom and Gomorrah on that awesome day of Jehovah conveys a clear warning to us in this time of Jesus’ . PRESENCE The modern generation of mankind has also “committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use.” (Jude 7) Moreover, the immoral sex of our times have been responsible for many of the “pestilences” foretold by Jesus for this day.—Luke 21:11.
 
Today, we are facing another destruction—that of the present wicked system of things during the great day of Jehovah. (Luke 17:26-30; Galatians 1:4; 2 Peter 3:10) How would Abraham view the people living in this world that is soon to be destroyed? He most likely would be concerned about those who have not yet heard the “good news of the kingdom.” (Matthew 24:14)
 
Quahom1 said:
There are no moderators who have even entertained the idea of Bob x departing the forum. Never crossed OUR minds, Cyberpi...

And as far as acting a "jerk" is concerned, Mr. Bob x there has delighted in calling and or alluding to others as much worse...

If he is concerned about it, he'll be sure to let me know. I'm quite certain he can handle himself very nicely...

v/r

Q
Click to expand...
So if I stooped to calling you a jerk, or juantoo3 an arrogant putz, then you wouldn't get your panties all bunched up claiming that I'm too personal or uncivil for doing the same thing that you do, right? Or would you gripe and I be at risk of being banned per someone's brand of civil conduct in the same way that Silas and Niranjan were banned due to someone's intolerance? It seems like we have yet to consider the ramifications of being the hypocrite. Q, I don't know if anyone ever asked you: Do you think it was good that Silas or Niranjan were banned? Did they deserve it?

Yes I know I sound like a broken record or rubber necked ducky because nobody wants to keep hearing or talking about those vile wretched uncivil people anymore. They were justly punished, right? For a while, when my wife and I were teaching one our uncivil children the golden rule she would come back with it as, "I did to her what she did to me". I saw that in your words there Q. Don't get me wrong... you can call me any name in the dictionary including 'jerk' or 'idiot' or 'arrogant putz', or even 'hypocrite' or 'snake'. I might even learn from it but if you can't receive those words then I see a problem and I'm just raising the red flag. Smells like the vinegar you personally hate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top