Dave to Anna, no godly foster care program?
> b) God could foresee that theseGod having foreknowledge of what people will be like
> > babies would grow up and become just like their
> First, where does the bible say that God foresaw
> that these babies
> would "grow up and become just like their parents"?
> A: God can foresee everything, so of course also
> what these babies
> would become like. God is all knowing, for God one
> day is like a
> thousand years, in the way that he is a and o, he is
> the beginning
> and the end. He can look into the future. Try to
> prove that this
> isn¡¦t so. That is your job.
when they grow up, where does the bible say that God
foresaw that these babies would "grow up and become
just like their parents"? Indeed, how do you know
that god believed they would only grow up to be like
their parents? Did you read that in the bible? Or
are you using desperation-apologetics to make the
ancient savage god of the Hebrew tribe more pallatable
for non-ANE audiences?
> c) if heHow do you know that god knew there would be more evil
> > let
> > them live, there would be even more evil people to
> tempt also other
> tribes to perform child sacrifices and other evil
in letting them live? Just because god knows a
child's future doesn't automatically guarantee that
the child will be evil. Please document your
assertion that god killed the babies because he knew
letting them live would merely result in more evil.
> That excuse could be used today to justify killingWhy do you assert that God showed the Hebrews "plenty
> all militant
> atheists, like me, who seek to rid the world of
> Christianity. But
> since you don't want your reasoning to be used
> elsewhere as a check
> for consistency, your excuse here doesn't count.
> A: And that¡¦s why I keep telling you that human
> beings may NOT play
> God and eliminate people. This is a job for God
>In the Bible
> he used the Hebrews as his tools, but then he made
> sure to show them
> plenty of signs so that there was no doubt about
> that he spoke to
> them about his will.
of signs so that there was no doubt about that he
spoke to them about his will"...when you admit you
have no proof?
How do you expect me to "refute" you, when your
position is nothing but a bunch of baseless assertions
that you confidently refuse to give proof for? When I
said I can refute the bible and Christianity, I
obviously meant the bible and Christianity. I never
said I could refute an assertion that was never based
on evidence to begin with. You learn that stuff your
first day in Philosophy 101.
then again, I refute you by noting that you admit you
have no proof upon which to base your assertions,
therefore you have NOT proven your arguments from the
bible, against my arguments, because you are the first
to admit that you arguments are nothing more than
Whether you ever claimed you could prove something or
not is irrelevant to the fact that you do indeed USE
THE BIBLE to "respond" to me. Well, is your use of
the bible also nothing but a bunch of assertions since
"we cannot prove our distant past"? If so, why do you
bother giving me something that has no proof? Missed
> Also the Canaanites knew whatYou are wrong if you think it is my "job" to prove the
> was coming. I
> showed you what Rahab said for instance. Try to
> prove all this
> wrong. That is your job.
bible wrong. I don't believe EVERYTHING in the bible
is an utter falsehood from start to finish. There are
lots of historical accuracies in the bible. What I
intend to prove wrong is YOUR particular justification
of ancient Hebraic infanticide. I don't have to prove
the bible wrong, all i have to do is demonstrate that
your faith in the bible rests upon nothing, because
you can't prove your distant past. You already
admitted that, so then why you choose to respond with
the bible when you don't believe it can be proved in
order to actually SUPPORT your use of it, and why you
use the bible in such a shallow cavalier way as that,
remains a mystery. You go around quoting a book to
people when you acknowledge that nothing in it can be
proven. why are you doing this on a list that is
concerned with biblical APOLOGETICS? Are you just
bored or what?
>Let's take your excuses one at a time, to insure as
> d) who
> > would take care of the babies if all the adults
> were eliminated by
> > God, and when the Hebrews couldn't take care of
> them all?
> Didn't god make water gush from a rock when the
> Israelites exodused
> to the desert and had no water? ----
> A: Dave, if you view the OTHER reasons I list (why
> do you view the
> list as though one reason must be used as the sole
> one exclusively?)
> then you have plenty of reasons to see why God not
> choose to do
much as possible that the discussion doesn't get
cluttered with 60,000 different ideas.
You ask who would take care of the babies if god
didn't kill them, and I reminded you of that
convenient artifice that desperate apologists make use
of as much as they can, when they are in a tight spot
and can't reason their way past a skeptic's logic,
namely: God can do miracles. If god can make water
gush from a rock, and liberate the Israelites from the
powerful Pharaoh via a series of miracles, then god
obviously doesn't have a problem with finding adequate
Israelite foster care services for the innocent babies
and children of the Amalakites which he ordered
so please reply to this single point, and we will
progress through each of your individual excuses one
by one to assess their probable level of veracity.
What's wrong with taking it slow and investigating
your rebuttals to me one point at a time?
> If you read for instance b) and c), well inWe will soon see! But answer the foster care problem
> fact ALL other
> reasons, you would see that God had reasons enough
> to eliminate the
> kids too.
first. You can appeal to cumulative properties of
your whole case if you wish, but you shouldn't do so
until you have thoroughly examined it and made sure
that each of your excuses are valid.
The Canaanites were evil due for
> environmental reasons andYou get that from the totally biased account given by
> for biological reasons. Just like environment and
> genes affect
> people today.
the bible. Why are you citing the bible, if you and I
agree that it cannot be proven? You say I promised to
DISprove the bible?
I wasn't talking in absolute terms like you
fallaciously understand proofs or disproofs. I didn't
mean that I could force you to change your mind
totally. I meant that I could supply arguments to
show that many Christian beliefs involving the bible
are more probably false than they are true. But
seeing as you don't even have a basic epistemological
framework from within which to even understand what
constitutes proof and evidence in the first place, I
can understand what frame of mind you must have been
in when you saw me come to this group and offer debate
challenges to any Christian.
> A: You may regret that you claimed the BibleNow that I know you fallaciously think that proof has
> contains errors or
> inconsistencies because you don¡¦t seem to be able
> to prove the Bible
to be absolute (a standard of proof not accepted by
any historian or bible scholar on the face of the
earth), yes, it is most unfortunate that you should
have such a wrongful state of mind when you read
challenges from bible skeptics.
> I¡¦ve never claimed I could prove it so theI accept that, but I'm just curious, why do you attend
> burden of proof is
> on you.
an apologetics group, if you don't think the bible's
record of the distant past can be proven? Sat in the
chair before you wiped off all the super-glue?
> You can solve your problem with telling meI admit that it is stupendously stupid to think that
> that you were
> wrong to be able to list clear Biblical errors.
anybody could prove an error in the bible with the
kind of absolute clarity that you fallaciously demand.
> IfWhy not one at a time? What is your malfunction
> you say that you
> trust Evolution to be true, then I wouldn¡¦t have a
> problem with
> that, but of course I would list the inconsistencies
> one by one.
regarding overblowing your opponent with long lists?
DO you think that sheer volume will make something
> IfYou are way too interested in bringing evolution into
> you told me Evolution is a fact, then the burden of
> proof is on you
> and not on me.
a discussion where it doesn't belong; you constantly
taunt me with requests to prove evolution, when the
discussion was never about evolution in the first
place....which tells me you are more than likely a
fundamentalist Christian parotting a list of
"evidences" you got from your pastor or bible teacher
or creationist website, which you instantly found
compelling and unanswerable. You list them one at a
time, and when we go through them one at a time, you
will discover that you need slightly more education on
evolution than you can get from some guy named Ham at
a website called "AnswersInGenesis.org"
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
- On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Dave Wave wrote:
> [snip wild handwaving, mouth foaming]Dave, it's quite simple: my observation is correct, and your argument is
fallacious. There is no shame in correcting an honest mistake and moving
on - some people might even see it as a sign of wisdom and maturity. But a
proud and arrogant fool refuses correction.
Michael Hamblin michaelh@...
7815 McCallum Blvd Apt 17201 http://www.michaelh.com/
Dallas, TX 75252-6801 Home Phone: 972-733-3357