Him wrote: [on why Satan is allowed to exist, and who created him]
Because that which is once created can never cease to exist, this is true no matter if it is about angels, demons or humans.
God created the world but Satan created his own evil
Me wrote: But dinosaurs obviously ceased to exist. Or do you admit that they could have evolved into birds? [Note: He said that evolution didn't exist in an other thread]
[answer to the Satan is evil thingy]
And what evils has Satan done? Has he drowned the inhabitants of a
whole world? Has he murdered the first born childs in an entire country? Does he condemn people to enternal suffering [in hell] if they don't believe in him? Or could be that Satan is evil because God says so and God is evil because God says so?
Him wrote: I said that it applied to angels, demons and humans. In which category would you put dinos?
God didn't drown anyone, the people drowned themselves through their own decisions.
God didn't kill the first borns, they killed themselves through their own decisions.
God doesn't condemn people, people condemn theirselves.
You know, you don't seem very serious about this if you blame God for things that the people did to themselves.
Me wrote: [on the dinos]
Some would categorise them as angels, some as demons. Most people would categorise them as animals, though.
[on the flood]
They decided not to build an oversized wooden boat? I suppose God couldn't help but pour water over the Earth and thus effectively drowning everyone?
[on Egypt]
No, infact, it was a, angel who God had sent out who killed the children. Is it the same thing here, that it wasn't God's fault that he sent out the angel?
[on hell]
Of course, all the indians in the 14th century who had never heard of God or Jesus had themselves to blame for their own ignorance and therefor had to burn in Hell? You know that it's just those who believe who goes to heaven, don't you?
It seems like has a very small part in everything. If he never does anything, do you think you seem very serious if you believe in him?
[on the good/bad]
What evils had Satan done? You forgot to tell me.
Him wrote: If you think that they are angels or demons then you don't know what dinos are. They are animals. If you mean that they are angels then you mean that they aren't physical, that they have never walked on the Earth and that no-one has ever found any bones from them. [Note: No-one has found any bones from dinos, just fossilized bones. But I'm not that of a nitpicker so I didn't write that to him]
[on the flood]
They had a choice: Either face the consequences of their actions (murder, rape, thefts, assault and more) or you can convert, and be good.
I understand if you think that every crime should go unpunished and that total anarchy should be, but neither the Biblical or Swedish system of justice thinks like you.
A person isn't really judged by the court of law, he is judged by his own actions. A court can't judge anyone just like that but only the ones who have committed a crime. It's therefor your own fault if you are judged.
[on Egypt]
The Bible acctually says if you read the basic text [Note: I really have no idea what he means by that.] that God _allowed_ the angel to do this. God couldn't do otherwise, because the Egyptians had a god they worshipped who would protect their firstborns. This god wanted nothing else, infact, than to kill all the firstborns and now he could do that, when the Egyptians turned away from Gods protection. [Note: And he read that in Bible? The "basic text" of the Bible, he spoke must be a completely different book...]
[on the indians]
How do you know that?
[on God]
Try to be a bit serious when you debate. Just because God doesn't do the bad things you acuse him for, doesn't mean that never does anything.
[on Satan]
He made the people do the sinful things that they got punished for. Once again we're in the part where you thinks that a criminal shouldn't get punished for his criminal actions and that you should be able to do anything without being punished for it (I'm sure you were in Gothenburg and threw stones as well... [Note: There were riots in Gothenburg some years ago when Bush and the boys had a meeting there with the EU, I think it was. People threw stones at the police and a guy got shot by them but I don't think anyone died. Very nasty, but I wasn't there. Furthermore: Notice how he tells me what I think. He will soon acuse me of doing that very thing, as you shall see]
All the suffering in this world, war, disease etc, stems from Satan. Then you can around and that all that is good and well but don't expect many people to think like you. [Note: When did I say I thought that suffering was a good thing?]
Me wrote: [On what used to be dinos]
Why can animals cease to exist but not humans?
[On what used to be the flood]
Do you think every little crime should be punished with drowning?
One get punished FOR their actions, not BY them. Unfortunatly for you, justice isn't the topic here, it's that you think that it was okay for God to drown millions of people. Unless you see some similarity between the deaths of millions of people and the Swedish system of justice of course?
[On Egypt]
So God kills everyone he doesn't protect? There's good God right there...
If God is so good and omnipotent, why couldn't he just not kill the people?
[On the indians]
Are you saying that they knew about God but chose to ignore him?
[On God]
He does do all the things I acuse him to do.
[On what used to be Satan]
When did I say that I thought that every crime should go unpunished? Just because you think that shoplifting should be punished with drowning... [Note: OK, I told him what he thought here, but seriously, he had it coming]
Him wrote: [On what used to be dinos]
Did I say that? No, I didn't.
[On crime.]
Did I say that? No I didn't. I said that cruel and inhuman crimes should be punished with death.
[On systems of justice and the flood]
I see similarities between systems of justice, yes. No matter if it is the Swedish, Norwegian or Israeli [note: I think he wanted me to start on that part on the Israeli so he could evade from the subject even more, I didn't, though]
And who said that it was millions of people's deaths? Bit just a bit more serious here now...
[On Egypt]
Another lap around the midsomerpole we go [note: A midsomerpole is a large cross-shaped pole, about the height of a flagpole, that has a lot of flowers and grass and stuff on it. Some of us Swedes dances and runs around it while singing weird songs. This usually happens around midsomer but we do similar things with the christmas tree during christmas]...... It still wasn't God who killed them. Got it? No? Should I say it one more time?
[On indians]
I say nothing. I don't know any indians that lived 600 hundred years before I was born. I thought you were grown up enough to understand that. [Note: In the other thread he basically said that I was too young to understand the Big Bang is a flawed theory...]
[On God]
No he doesn't. It's you who can't read from the book.
[Note: He removed the other points from his post]
Me wrote: [dinos]
Yes you did. Humans angels and demons couldn't cease to exist. Dinosaurs could because they weren't any of the three you mentioned. Is there a reason to why you say you never said things you obviously have [Note: He did the very same thing in the other thread but that's a completely different story].
[back on the flood]
Why do you then think God did right when drowned them? It's impossible for all of them to have committed those crimes.
How many do you think drowned in the flood then? 3-400?
[Egypt and the midsomerpole]
You can say it how many times you'd like. It doesn't change the fact that the Bible says that God sent an angel to kill them.
[indians]
If you meant nothing with it, then why did you write it? But my previous experiences with you tells me that one has nothing more than that to expect from you.
[On what used to be God]
I can't interpret the Bible in such a way that it's made clear God himself wasn't resonsible for what he did in egypt. You would obviously need 30 years of indoctrination to be able to do believe that God is good no matter what he does. In other words: A strong belief in moral relativism.
Okay, I'm seeing it's getting very long so I'm shorting it up a little from here on... The Red is him, the green is me.Him wrote: [Dinos?]
I didn't say anything about fixing cars either. Does that mean that I don't think that it's possible [Note: You tell me. As far as I know car fixing don't have anything at all in common with dinos and their ability to stop existing]??? Get a grip on yourself!! Just because I don't mention animals doesn't mean that I don't think that they cease to live, end of story.
Why do you lie so much? I haven't said anything about animals how can I then have said anything about them? I'm not responsible for you seeing texts that aren't there.
[THE flood]
Why is that? Were you there and wrote down the crimes of every single person?
[how many was killed in the flood?]
Probably less than that.
[On Egypt]
I can only conclude that you can't understand a written text.
[Native Americans]
You were the one who brought them up, not me, so why am I beeing blamed for that?
On the other hand, it seems like you always blames your fantasies on others so I don't care.
[On God]
You can't interpret at all because you can't read. So I understand why you don't understand anything of what you read [note: But how can I read if I can't read?].
[The Dino "Debate"]
You didn't say anything about living. What's once created can't cease to exist, was what you said.
I then said that dinos stopped existing and you asked in which category I would put dinos. That implies that dinos doesn't fit in any of the categories human, angel and demon and that is why they stopped existing. Unless you admit that you're just trying to confuse your opponent, that is.
But you can't conclude that to apply to everything I don't say.
You want it to look like an imply but I was merely asking in which category you would put dinos. I wasn't at all talking about them being eternal or not [note: even though that was the subject
]. It's not my fault that you get confused by things I don't write. [Note: Just to show him what I mean I could have said somthing like "I've never said I got confused, please be serious when you debate. Take a reading!". Good thing I'm not like him]Then why didn't you just write "everything that has been created cannot stop existing", if that was what you meant?
Why did you aske it at all then? Do you think it has anything at all to do with the subject of the debate unless you're talking about dinos eternality?
Because I don't know about animals, so I'm not choosing side in that debate. Plants are also created but they don't live forever.
Well I have to ask what you're babblibg about when you bring up dinos in a debate without any relevans at all to the subejct.
But you do in the debate about plants?
The subject was certain lifeforms inability to stop existing once they were created. The easy answer would be that dinos don't because the Bible says nothing about them, or some such.
[Flood]
How cruel crimes do you think babies can commit? It's likely that the only "crime" they had committed was to not believe in God. Something you think it's good to drown someone for?
You're missing a small thing here: None of the people in the Flood died. We've aldready concluded that humans are eternal beings[Note: Did we? He said they were very often by I didn't see any proof for it. True, I didn't ask for it, but should I really have had to?
] that can't die. Any babies caught in the Flood would go directly to heaven, and how could anything be better than that?So you think God did them a favor by drowning them?
No it was like a side effect.
Exactly, this shows us that God didn't want the best of the people and that some of them got to heaven was just a side effect from his Flood drowning those who had yet to commit a sin. So therefor we have proof that your God is a evil and vengeful god.
I'm skipping the part about the number of people killed in the flood because it basically came down to him trying show me that I can't read. And that those few people he spoke of wouldn't be inbred because their genetic code was nearly perfect
.[Egypt]
This is how it writes:(Exodus 12:29). How the fuck can you get that to not mean that God killed them? If someone can't read here, it's you.
In the basic text we cleary see that it is a passive form of causing their deaths. It even says that it's the angel of death who killed them, one of Gods classic foes.
If you can show something from that text that shows that you're right then do so.
Passive form? So you're saying they would have been killed even if the israelites wouldn't have be slaves there? Intresting...
See, now you're trying to say that I say things I don't. I'm seriously wondering if you're schizofrenic. Seriously, I'm not lying.
That was what you wrote. God did nothing to prevent it so it probably would have happend even if they weren't slaves there. As you said, they worshipped an other God so why would God care about them any more if the Israelites wouldn't have been there?
I thank you for your ad hominem about schizofrenia and it acctually fits you better since you constantly change opinion. FYI Schizofrenia is a disease that makes you think that you're many persons. Not that you give opinions to people.
The thing about indians was what started the whole thing that I tried to tell him what he thought. He said that his question was just a question with no meaning and tried to blame me for him asking it. And guess what it ended with? Him telling me that I can't read and that I am schizofrenic.
[Back to Satan]
He let innocent babies and animals be killed no matter if he did it personally or let one of his angels do it. Satan has never done anything near as evil as that.
Sigh... It was Satan who did it.
It was? It the people themselves that did it that was your first theory. Then it was God himself, then the angel of death and now Satan? Can you make up your mind, please? [Note:Or is he schizofrenic?]
His last message:
Since it is completely impossible to talk civilized with you I'm going to end this debate. As long you live in your fantasyworld I'm not going to talk to you ever again. You can keep talking to that wall of yours at home and make opinions for it which you later acuses it of having.
So long!
Wow is that your ordinary day you're talking about now or could it that you are the one imagining things?
Yep that strange debate had many subjects and he claimed many strange thing. Among others that he had proved that I made up things I accused him of doing. Even though he evidently was the one doing it (my opinions about crimes and punishment that he got out of his ass). He couldn't show me an example of him doing so and when I asked he got convinced over my psychological status. And after he decided that I was schizofrenic he left, as you can see in his final post. He hadn't made any points what so ever but just claiming he had and then avoiding the subject. The flood thing is a good example of this, as is his various ad hominems where he instead of telling what was wrong or show me where the bible said the things he claimed he just said that I couldn't read.
Oh well...That other forum seriously need a qoute function. That would have been extra helpful in the debate about Big Bang (which I really should post because you would laugh your ass off, but two ultralong posts in the same thread?)
And sorry for this ultra long post. Anyone who wasted his/her time with reading the whole thing deserves cookies and milk.
Now, what do you think? What could I have done better? I know I was completely logical because then he wouldn't have answered to my first post.
