Questions and Statements about God...

[And Step]

lol.

nigga do you read your responses to people? Your no better than me when it comes to slandering religions. The thing is I can admit it and enjoy doing it.
What the fuck is this forum for anyway? Race and Religion right? Nigga don't response or click on the link when you see my name other than that shut the fuck up and be entertained!

anyway most of my threads consist of a catchy title, and a direct quote, then I leave it open for discussion. Most of the time I'm asking what does the verse mean and I may post what I get from it. A lot of the times I admit I maybe wrong in my opinion!

So for you and anyone else that post in this near dead forum, bring so much emotions into my threads to get angry................................LMAO.

Now do you have anything to say about the verse?

Touchy, Touchy.

You must have me confused with someone else.

When did I slander religion?

LOL. You can dish it but you sure can't take it.

And no, I don't have any thing to say to you about the mistranslated scripture you quoted. I don't cast pearls to swine.

Nigga.

lol

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

gen 9:14-15

14And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

15And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

lmao

that dam bible god is crazy as hell. lol

Your reading comprehension skills are laughable. What grade are you in? I bolded and colored the key to the text above, because you seem to be lacking basic critical thinking skills.

 

[And Step]

lol.

nigga do you read your responses to people? Your no better than me when it comes to slandering religions. The thing is I can admit it and enjoy doing it.
What the fuck is this forum for anyway? Race and Religion right? Nigga don't response or click on the link when you see my name other than that shut the fuck up and be entertained!

anyway most of my threads consist of a catchy title, and a direct quote, then I leave it open for discussion. Most of the time I'm asking what does the verse mean and I may post what I get from it. A lot of the times I admit I maybe wrong in my opinion!

So for you and anyone else that post in this near dead forum, bring so much emotions into my threads to get angry................................LMAO.

Now do you have anything to say about the verse?

Well, to me, that is why the forum is dead, as you say.

This forum is for discussion and enlightenment. It further says Zero tolerance for antagonism, which admittedly you, try to do.

Religious trolling is corny, homey. But whatever, if it makes you feel good, then I guess...............

 

[And Step]

Ok. But what about the rainbow?

Well, the bible was translated out of it's original tongue and translated into allegorical language. And you would have to know a lot about zoology, botany, astronomy,and other fields to decipher the hidden meanings.

Most of the time it is talking of types of people and situations they find themselves in.

Snakes don't talk. Neither do donkeys. Those are types of people. Rainbow is the same.

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

Ohhhh so "all"changes everything huh? Lol

well he did kill em "all" the first time. He killed some!

Your taking the "all" as in he means everyone at the same time?

All means killing everybody. The flood of Genesis was global. It killed every living thing that was not aboard the arc. God said that He would never again send a flood to kill ALL flesh. He signified this covenant with the rainbow. Katrina was a hurricane that caused flooding to a local region of the earth. It was not global. God doesn't lie. The earth will not be destroyed by flooding ever again. The next time God judges the earth, it will be judged by fire. You ready?

 

[And Step]

All means killing everybody. The flood of Genesis was global. It killed every living thing that was not aboard the arc. God said that He would never again send a flood to kill ALL flesh. He signified this covenant with the rainbow. Katrina was a hurricane that caused flooding to a local region of the earth. It was not global. God doesn't lie. The earth will not be destroyed by flooding ever again. The next time God judges the earth, it will be judged by fire. You ready?

See this is what I mean about allegory and knowing about different fields of study.

It is physically impossible for the whole Earth to simultaneously flood because of the shape of the Earth and it's rotation patterns, it's connection to atmosphere the and it's connection to the moon.

It is even more impossible to fit every type of creature on the Earth in that ship. So they gathered up fleas,tics, lice, reptiles, all types of mammals with their varying species iin a few days from all the continents and fit them in a ship 450feet 45 feet high and 75 feet long? And kept them alive with just a few people?

Insert Ed Lover. gif

Why not say that Ark story is a symbolic allusion to different types of people kept in a secure enviroment in times of trouble? Because we don't know the history of King James nor anything else, so they make a fool out of us by selling us deep truths disguised in fairy tales. Like Aesop.

SMH, King James was a bad mamma jamma.

Furthermore, based on the dimensions of the ark, it would have been physically impossible

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

See this is what I mean about allegory and knowing about different fields of study.

1. It is physically impossible for the whole Earth to simultaneously flood because of the shape of the Earth and it's rotation patterns, it's connection to atmosphere the and it's connection to the moon.

2. It is even more impossible to fit every type of creature on the Earth in that ship. So they gathered up fleas,tics, lice, reptiles, all types of mammals with their varying species iin a few days from all the continents and fit them in a ship 450feet 45 feet high and 75 feet long? And kept them alive with just a few people?

Insert Ed Lover. gif

Why not say that Ark story is a symbolic allusion to different types of people kept in a secure enviroment in times of trouble? Because we don't know the history of King James nor anything else, so they make a fool out of us by selling us deep truths disguised in fairy tales. Like Aesop.

SMH, King James was a bad mamma jamma.

Furthermore, based on the dimensions of the ark, it would have been physically impossible

1. "Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?" Jeremiah 32:27

When you are the Creator, there is nothing "physcially impossible" for you to do. The Creator has all power and thus is capable of doing what He wants with His creation.

2.

Question: "How did Noah fit all the animals on the Ark?"

Answer: How did Noah fit all of those animals on the ark? Was the ark big enough to fit “two of every kind… of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind,” and seven of some? What about food? There had to be enough room to store enough food to last Noah and his family (8 in all), plus all of the animals, at least a year (see Genesis 7:11; 8:13-18) and maybe more depending on how long it took for vegetation to grow back. That’s a lot of food! What about drinking water? Is it realistic to believe that Noah’s boat was big enough to store all of these animals and all of this food and water for over a year?

The dimensions for the ark given in Genesis are 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high (Genesis 6:15). What is a cubit? A cubit is an ancient unit of measurement, the length of the forearm from the elbow to the longest finger (the term “cubit” comes from the Latin word cubitum which means elbow. The Hebrew word for cubit is ammah. As everybody’s arms are different lengths, this unit may seem a bit ambiguous to some, but scholars generally agree that it represents somewhere between 17 and 22 inches (43-56 centimeters). The ancient Egyptian cubit is known to have been 21.888 inches. So doing the math:

300 x 22 inches = 6,600; 50 x 22 inches = 1,100; 30 x 22 inches = 660

6,600/12 = 550 feet; 1100/12 = 91.7 feet; 660/12 = 55 feet.

Thus, the ark could have been up to 550 feet long, 91.7 feet wide and 55 feet high. These are not unreasonable dimensions. But how much storage space does this amount to? Well, 550 x 91.7 x 55 = 2,773,925 cubic feet. (If we take the smaller measurement, 17 inches, we end up with 1,278,825 cubic feet). Of course, not all of it would have been free space. The ark had three levels (Genesis 6:16) and a lot of rooms (Genesis 6:14), the walls of which would have taken up space. Nevertheless, it has been calculated that even if the ark had only 1,518,750 cubic feet of free space, a little more than half (54.75%) of the 2,773,925, it could store up to 125,000 sheep-sized animals (see - http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta42.html).

John Woodmorappe, author of the definitive Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, estimated that only about 15% of the animals on the ark would have been larger than a sheep. This figure does not take into account the possibility that God may have brought Noah “infant” animals, which can be significantly smaller than adult animals.

How many animals were on the ark? Woodmorappe estimates about 16,000 “kinds.” What is a “kind”? The designation of “kind” is thought to be much broader than the designation “species.” Even as there are 400-something dog breeds but they all belong to one species (Canis familiaris), in the same way many species can belong to one kind. Some think that the designation “genus” may be somewhat close to the Biblical “kind.”

Nevertheless, even if we presume that “kind” is synonymous with “species,” “there are not very many species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. The leading systematic biologist, Ernst Mayr, gives the number as 17,600. Allowing for two of each species on the ark, plus seven of the few so-called “clean” kinds of animals, plus a reasonable increment for known extinct species, it is obvious that not more than say, 50,000 animals were on the ark.” (Morris, 1987)

Some have estimated that there were as many as 25,000 kinds of animals represented on the ark. This is a high-end estimation. With two of each kind and seven of some the number of animals would exceed 50,000, though not by very much relatively speaking. Regardless, whether there were 16,000 or 25,000 kinds of animals, even with two of each and seven of some, scholars agree that there was plenty of room for all of the animals on the ark, plus food and water with room to spare.

What about all of the excrement produced by all of these animals? How did 8 people manage to feed all of those animals and deal with tons of excrement on a daily basis? What about animals with specialized diet? How did plant-life survive? What about insects? There are a thousand other questions like these which could be raised and they are all good questions. In the minds of many, these questions are unanswerable. But they are certainly nothing new. They have been asked over and over for centuries. And in all of that time researchers have sought answers. There are now numerous, very scholarly feasibility studies which have put Noah and his ark to the test.

With over 1,200 scholarly references to academic studies, Woodmorappe’s book is “a modern systematic evaluation of the alleged difficulties surrounding Noah's Ark” (John Woodmorappe, “A Resource for Answering the Critics of Noah’s Ark,” Impact No. 273 March 1996. Institute for Creation Research, 30 January 2005 http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-273.htm). Woodmorappe claims that after years of systematically examining all of the questions which have been raised over the years, “all of the arguments against the Ark are… found wanting. In fact, the vast majority of the anti-Ark arguments, at first superficially plausible, turn out to be easily invalidated.”

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

@douthinkuwannagotoheaven

what about this?

Genesis 9:11 (King James Version)

11And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

I notice the ";"

so do you think the "all" means simultaneously here also, or does it just mean to include all flesh in general?

very powerful that "all" is wouldn't you agree? could confuse a lot of people huh?

There is nothing confusing about it. There hasn't been a global flood since Noah. All the floods that have occurred since the time of Noah have been local to whatever region the flood happened at.

God can't lie. The next time global judgment takes place, it will be by fire. Are you ready?

 

[And Step]

1. "Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?" Jeremiah 32:27

When you are the Creator, there is nothing "physcially impossible" for you to do. The Creator has all power and thus is capable of doing what He wants with His creation.

2.

Question: "How did Noah fit all the animals on the Ark?"

Answer: How did Noah fit all of those animals on the ark? Was the ark big enough to fit “two of every kind… of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind,” and seven of some? What about food? There had to be enough room to store enough food to last Noah and his family (8 in all), plus all of the animals, at least a year (see Genesis 7:11; 8:13-18) and maybe more depending on how long it took for vegetation to grow back. That’s a lot of food! What about drinking water? Is it realistic to believe that Noah’s boat was big enough to store all of these animals and all of this food and water for over a year?

The dimensions for the ark given in Genesis are 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high (Genesis 6:15). What is a cubit? A cubit is an ancient unit of measurement, the length of the forearm from the elbow to the longest finger (the term “cubit” comes from the Latin word cubitum which means elbow. The Hebrew word for cubit is ammah. As everybody’s arms are different lengths, this unit may seem a bit ambiguous to some, but scholars generally agree that it represents somewhere between 17 and 22 inches (43-56 centimeters). The ancient Egyptian cubit is known to have been 21.888 inches. So doing the math:

300 x 22 inches = 6,600; 50 x 22 inches = 1,100; 30 x 22 inches = 660
6,600/12 = 550 feet; 1100/12 = 91.7 feet; 660/12 = 55 feet.

Thus, the ark could have been up to 550 feet long, 91.7 feet wide and 55 feet high. These are not unreasonable dimensions. But how much storage space does this amount to? Well, 550 x 91.7 x 55 = 2,773,925 cubic feet. (If we take the smaller measurement, 17 inches, we end up with 1,278,825 cubic feet). Of course, not all of it would have been free space. The ark had three levels (Genesis 6:16) and a lot of rooms (Genesis 6:14), the walls of which would have taken up space. Nevertheless, it has been calculated that even if the ark had only 1,518,750 cubic feet of free space, a little more than half (54.75%) of the 2,773,925, it could store up to 125,000 sheep-sized animals (see - http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta42.html).

John Woodmorappe, author of the definitive Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, estimated that only about 15% of the animals on the ark would have been larger than a sheep. This figure does not take into account the possibility that God may have brought Noah “infant” animals, which can be significantly smaller than adult animals.

How many animals were on the ark? Woodmorappe estimates about 16,000 “kinds.” What is a “kind”? The designation of “kind” is thought to be much broader than the designation “species.” Even as there are 400-something dog breeds but they all belong to one species (Canis familiaris), in the same way many species can belong to one kind. Some think that the designation “genus” may be somewhat close to the Biblical “kind.”

Nevertheless, even if we presume that “kind” is synonymous with “species,” “there are not very many species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. The leading systematic biologist, Ernst Mayr, gives the number as 17,600. Allowing for two of each species on the ark, plus seven of the few so-called “clean” kinds of animals, plus a reasonable increment for known extinct species, it is obvious that not more than say, 50,000 animals were on the ark.” (Morris, 1987)

Some have estimated that there were as many as 25,000 kinds of animals represented on the ark. This is a high-end estimation. With two of each kind and seven of some the number of animals would exceed 50,000, though not by very much relatively speaking. Regardless, whether there were 16,000 or 25,000 kinds of animals, even with two of each and seven of some, scholars agree that there was plenty of room for all of the animals on the ark, plus food and water with room to spare.

What about all of the excrement produced by all of these animals? How did 8 people manage to feed all of those animals and deal with tons of excrement on a daily basis? What about animals with specialized diet? How did plant-life survive? What about insects? There are a thousand other questions like these which could be raised and they are all good questions. In the minds of many, these questions are unanswerable. But they are certainly nothing new. They have been asked over and over for centuries. And in all of that time researchers have sought answers. There are now numerous, very scholarly feasibility studies which have put Noah and his ark to the test.

With over 1,200 scholarly references to academic studies, Woodmorappe’s book is “a modern systematic evaluation of the alleged difficulties surrounding Noah's Ark” (John Woodmorappe, “A Resource for Answering the Critics of Noah’s Ark,” Impact No. 273 March 1996. Institute for Creation Research, 30 January 2005 http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-273.htm). Woodmorappe claims that after years of systematically examining all of the questions which have been raised over the years, “all of the arguments against the Ark are… found wanting. In fact, the vast majority of the anti-Ark arguments, at first superficially plausible, turn out to be easily invalidated.”

He did not provide any evidence to refute claims. You even provided this split up quote "all of the arguments against the Ark are… found wanting. In fact, the vast majority of the anti-Ark arguments, at first superficially plausible, turn out to be easily invalidated. The periods in the middle of the text means words are taking out. He says they are easily validated but doesn't provide any validation. You provide no validation.

There are millions of known animals, and 1% of them would be too much for a boat 500 yards long.

This is simple mathematics.

 

[The GMW]

I could be wrong, but if God created "power", then power is independent from who God is. Power is subjected to God's Will.

I wasn't trying to define love. However, if you don't think the truth is not a factor in love, then you are really missing something.

I don't think God is thought to have "created" power. If we're speaking in terms of the Christian belief system, God never began and has always existed. Thus, his power has always existed, not independently of him, but rather as the very thing that makes him God, and thus the most integral part of him. Think about it... if God had ever "created" power, then before doing that he must have been powerless, so how could he have created anything in the first place? It makes no sense to suggest that he created that which gives him the ability to create.

Truth may be a factor in love, but it does not equate to love. Anyone can know the truth about anything without loving it. And I do not see how the truth/basketball analogy applies to whether you can simultaneously love something and call for its needless suffering.

 

[TX_Made713]

so why does he go back and say "For if a man sleeps with ________________(you know the scriputres) he shall be put/stoned to death, the blood is on his hands"

and if u dont know what verses im speaking of you know nothing of the bible...

the 10 commandments are THE LAW so why would god go back and contradict these commandsments in the same book?

 

[TX_Made713]

The rainbow is nothing biblical......it is mere light reflecting off water....just get a waterhose and cut it on on a sunny day and you can make one yourself.....smh at some of the things in here

 

[TX_Made713]

1. Question: "How did Noah fit all the animals on the Ark?"

Answer: How did Noah fit all of those animals on the ark? Was the ark big enough to fit “two of every kind…

The dimensions for the ark given in Genesis are 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high (Genesis 6:15). The ancient Egyptian cubit is known to have been 21.888 inches. So doing the math:

300 x 22 inches = 6,600; 50 x 22 inches = 1,100; 30 x 22 inches = 660

6,600/12 = 550 feet; 1100/12 = 91.7 feet; 660/12 = 55 feet.

Thus, the ark could have been up to 550 feet long, 91.7 feet wide and 55 feet high.

John Woodmorappe, author of the definitive Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, estimated that only about 15% of the animals on the ark would have been larger than a sheep. This figure does not take into account the possibility that God may have brought Noah “infant” animals, which can be significantly smaller than adult animals.

How many animals were on the ark? Woodmorappe estimates about 16,000 “kinds.”

Nevertheless, even if we presume that “kind” is synonymous with “species,” “there are not very many species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. The leading systematic biologist, Ernst Mayr, gives the number as 17,600. Allowing for two of each species on the ark, plus seven of the few so-called “clean” kinds of animals, plus a reasonable increment for known extinct species, it is obvious that not more than say, 50,000 animals were on the ark.” (Morris, 1987)

Some have estimated that there were as many as 25,000 kinds of animals represented on the ark. This is a high-end estimation. With two of each kind and seven of some the number of animals would exceed 50,000, though not by very much relatively speaking. Regardless, whether there were 16,000 or 25,000 kinds of animals, even with two of each and seven of some, scholars agree that there was plenty of room for all of the animals on the ark, plus food and water with room to spare.

What about all of the excrement produced by all of these animals? How did 8 people manage to feed all of those animals and deal with tons of excrement on a daily basis? What about animals with specialized diet? How did plant-life survive? What about insects? There are a thousand other questions like these which could be raised and they are all good questions. In the minds of many, these questions are unanswerable. But they are certainly nothing new. They have been asked over and over for centuries. And in all of that time researchers have sought answers. There are now numerous, very scholarly feasibility studies which have put Noah and his ark to the test.

”

well im not denying or taking away from the power of god, so i know its possible to fit a universe on an ark if he really wanted to...with that said, assuming god had all the animals in the world in the ark, why did this have to transpire in the first place? he was going to flood a sinful city...but isnt one of his main commandment "Thou shall not kill" ????? so its like hes telling us not to kill yet he does it himself...what part of the game is this?

 

[And Step]

well im not denying or taking away from the power of god, so i know its possible to fit a universe on an ark if he really wanted to...with that said, assuming god had all the animals in the world in the ark, why did this have to transpire in the first place? he was going to flood a sinful city...but isnt one of his main commandment "Thou shall not kill" ????? so its like hes telling us not to kill yet he does it himself...what part of the game is this?

Not an Ark the dimensions of the one stated.

 

[And Step]

Murder outside of the law of justice.

There is a difference.

 

[alissowack]

I don't think God is thought to have "created" power. If we're speaking in terms of the Christian belief system, God never began and has always existed. Thus, his power has always existed, not independently of him, but rather as the very thing that makes him God, and thus the most integral part of him. Think about it... if God had ever "created" power, then before doing that he must have been powerless, so how could he have created anything in the first place? It makes no sense to suggest that he created that which gives him the ability to create.

Truth may be a factor in love, but it does not equate to love. Anyone can know the truth about anything without loving it. And I do not see how the truth/basketball analogy applies to whether you can simultaneously love something and call for its needless suffering.

If God created "everything", then power is no exception. Power originated from Him. To say that power existed before God is to say that maybe there is a possiblility that God can't control it, that God would not know how to answer to power when it acts. Even the smallest disasters or the grandest wonders of power would leave God speechless. God would either have to submit to it or rebel against it.

For a basketball player to appreciate the sport, they have to accept the good along with the bad. In order to get better, they would have to suffer. They would have to practice and practice. And even if they do practice, there is nothing to guarantee that their efforts translate into winning games. They may be on a losing team or have a very long losing streak. They will get their shots blocked, get dunked on or miss the game winning shot for the championship. If they are not willing to accept these truths about basketball, then there is a possibility that they may not love the game.

Suffering does hurt, but hurts even more is to not suffer and be blind to the truth about it.

 

[The GMW]

If God created "everything", then power is no exception. Power originated from Him. To say that power existed before God is to say that maybe there is a possiblility that God can't control it, that God would not know how to answer to power when it acts. Even the smallest disasters or the grandest wonders of power would leave God speechless. God would either have to submit to it or rebel against it.

For a basketball player to appreciate the sport, they have to accept the good along with the bad. In order to get better, they would have to suffer. They would have to practice and practice. And even if they do practice, there is nothing to guarantee that their efforts translate into winning games. They may be on a losing team or have a very long losing streak. They will get their shots blocked, get dunked on or miss the game winning shot for the championship. If they are not willing to accept these truths about basketball, then there is a possibility that they may not love the game.

Suffering does hurt, but hurts even more is to not suffer and be blind to the truth about it.

If God "created" power, then before doing that he must have been powerless, so how could he have created anything in the first place?

Please answer that question if you think that it is possible for a god to "create" power. I never said that power existed before God. What I'm saying is that if there is an omnipotent god, that god's power has existed for as long as that god has existed. Further, "power" is not an independent entity, nor is it really anything at all except a term that describes one's capabilities. A "powerful" being is capable of doing many things; a "powerless" being is not. "Power" is not something that has a will, nor can it be submitted to or rebelled against. So no, there is no chance that an omnipotent god would be engaged in any kind of struggle with his own power, no more than you could be engaged in a struggle to move your own arm.

You are right that someone who loves the game of basketball would have to accept the lows along with the highs. But we're talking about an omnipotent being, one who has the ability to bring about anything he chooses. If a basketball player had absolute control over every aspect of every game, would he ever deliberately choose to lose?

 

[alissowack]

If God "created" power, then before doing that he must have been powerless, so how could he have created anything in the first place?

Please answer that question if you think that it is possible for a god to "create" power. I never said that power existed before God. What I'm saying is that if there is an omnipotent god, that god's power has existed for as long as that god has existed. Further, "power" is not an independent entity, nor is it really anything at all except a term that describes one's capabilities. A "powerful" being is capable of doing many things; a "powerless" being is not. "Power" is not something that has a will, nor can it be submitted to or rebelled against. So no, there is no chance that an omnipotent god would be engaged in any kind of struggle with his own power, no more than you could be engaged in a struggle to move your own arm.

You are right that someone who loves the game of basketball would have to accept the lows along with the highs. But we're talking about an omnipotent being, one who has the ability to bring about anything he chooses. If a basketball player had absolute control over every aspect of every game, would he ever deliberately choose to lose?

God would have to be the source of power; the source of life. To suggest that God is powerless is to say that power came from a different source. He wouldn't know or have an idea of what power was if it came from somewhere else. Maybe the impression you are getting is if God created power, He had to learn about it; work His way up until He becomes the "master" of power.

I'm sure that basketball players don't deliberately lose, but who is to say that a loss is good or bad ultimately. How does losing a basketball game (or winning) effect life as a whole? Who knows? I hate to play the role of "I knew beforehand" for I would rather not know how the story ends. I would rather my disasters and disapointments surprise me. However, if they are meant for my good in respect to life, then I hope I will accept that.

 

[The GMW]

God would have to be the source of power; the source of life. To suggest that God is powerless is to say that power came from a different source. He wouldn't know or have an idea of what power was if it came from somewhere else. Maybe the impression you are getting is if God created power, He had to learn about it; work His way up until He becomes the "master" of power.

I'm sure that basketball players don't deliberately lose, but who is to say that a loss is good or bad ultimately. How does losing a basketball game (or winning) effect life as a whole? Who knows? I hate to play the role of "I knew beforehand" for I would rather not know how the story ends. I would rather my disasters and disapointments surprise me. However, if they are meant for my good in respect to life, then I hope I will accept that.

I fully agree. Assuming the existence of an omnipotent god, he would indeed be the natural source of all power -- without ever having to manually "create" it. I am not suggesting that god was ever powerless, because I am not suggesting that he "created" power. You, however, are suggesting that he created power. That, of course, would mean that this god existed before he created power. So what was god before he created power? Was god ever not omnipotent? What did he use to create power, since his own power had yet to be created?

A loss in basketball, or any other sport, could only possibly be considered "good" for the loser if it either helps him win more games in the long run, or helps him in some other area of life. But there is no upside to a blood sacrifice, other than that arbitrarily assigned to it by God. God, being omnipotent, could just as easily have assigned that upside to anything else (i.e. forgiveness in exchange for a wood sacrifice or a cloth sacrifice) or perhaps to nothing at all (i.e. forgiveness just for forgiveness' sake). But he chose something that is accompanied by suffering and death to be the only currency he accepts.

 

[alissowack]

I fully agree. Assuming the existence of an omnipotent god, he would indeed be the natural source of all power -- without ever having to manually "create" it. I am not suggesting that god was ever powerless, because I am not suggesting that he "created" power. You, however, are suggesting that he created power. That, of course, would mean that this god existed before he created power. So what was god before he created power? Was god ever not omnipotent? What did he use to create power, since his own power had yet to be created?

A loss in basketball, or any other sport, could only possibly be considered "good" for the loser if it either helps him win more games in the long run, or helps him in some other area of life. But there is no upside to a blood sacrifice, other than that arbitrarily assigned to it by God. God, being omnipotent, could just as easily have assigned that upside to anything else (i.e. forgiveness in exchange for a wood sacrifice or a cloth sacrifice) or perhaps to nothing at all (i.e. forgiveness just for forgiveness' sake). But he chose something that is accompanied by suffering and death to be the only currency he accepts.

There is an upside if Jesus's Blood is a substitute for mankind's blood for atonement. What is forgiveness if the convenant that mankind made is still broken? I can break something and apologize to somebody about it. This person forgives me. However, that thing is still broken and needs to be replaced.

One thing that I don't want to do is make you think that believing in God is easy. There is nothing easy about believing in God. I'm just trying to address what we believe and why we believe it.