Quote Originally Posted by DD2014 View Post
Again, what type of science are you referring to?
The type of science that proves smoking kills. You don't think that's a sin to die an early death because of smoking?

The exponential progression of conscience is not proven. My naturalistic explanation is..... Jesus was not resurrected.
Sure it is proven, since you prefer to live in a world without human sacrifices which reflects a better conscience in people. Saying Jesus wasn't resurrected is not a naturalistic explanation for why Jesus was not resurrected. A naturalistic explanation would be Swoon Theory, Hallucination Theory or Conspiracy Theory. However, none of these fit the data for the resurrection, the very data that most atheist scholars concede.

You should have enough for some names.
Of course, but you wanted everyone's name and everything they said.

Epic fail! Read your bible, the light is good, not the day.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
You are a trying to look for a petty loophole. You need to be delivered from your petty self. The light coming in on day 1 was good, yes, but it is also intrinsically part of day 1, hence, it was a good day. Day 2 was not called good because of what happened as a result of splitting the firmament. Don't wast my time with petty stuff. I am going to have to create an Infraction for Petty Self.

So where can I read about the Demons and Lucifer getting dunked in the pool? 'Cause its not in Genesis 1:2
It doesn't say it in Genesis 1.2, but you should ask yourself why make the earth desolate and waste for no reason at all? After you read the proof for why the fall of the spirits took place before Genesis 1.2, let's talk about it, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/moc12.htm

He did not prove anything to me.
He proved to you that you can find no naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data and through the exponential progression of conscience and your inability to perform abiogenesis.

It's amazing the stars they keep finding are larger and larger. This proves God by His amazing and wondrous design, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I34FNr_peUk

lol! That is a funny example to use. If you are gay, you get killed. If you trick your dad into getting you pregnant, its ok.
It wasn't ok what she did, for the Bible shows the resultant consequences of her sin. God hates homosexuality because it is an abomination to God. Again, if God did not preserve Israel through His responses, Israel would not have survived to usher in the birth of the Messiah.

I think it is evil for God to create them to be destroyed, then burn in hell for something they have not done yet. But your God didn't give them a chance. Now I guess they'll burn for an eternity for no reason at all. How is this loving? How is this Just? How is this God-like?
Who is to say the children are going to burn in Hell? In fact the children would be saved and prevented from being murderers. If God knows you are going to murder someone and He kills you beforehand, it is only because He knows you will waste all your chances. You don't see the justice and love by God removing those evil tribes and preserving Israel as a result?

So it is impossible for God to just kill the sinning parents? What about not allowing them to have children? Your bible claims he has done that before, why not save innocent lives?
Who is to say those children are not saved? The Bible teaches the age of accountability. I think God influencing the womb of many women is too much of an imposition by God...let's say God imposed on China and India and Africa a biological restriction where parents couldn't produce more than one child. That seems to infringe on free will and warps reality itself. I prefer the way God did it. I don't like it if God were to infringe on our free will, because that would be unrighteous and we would not have the full range of free will we have today.

Well, I would not like to be killed at all, especially if I'm a baby. But if you have to choose between a 100% death rate (Israel killing you) and maybe a 1 or 2% death rate (Molech sacrifice). I think me and my family would have a better chance with Molech, wouldn't you?
And to me my conscience finds this utterly evil, because if for the next 10,000 years my lineage had to wonder if they were the ones selected for human and child sacrifices, that would not comfort me; besides it violates the exponential progression we do observe. An exponential progression of conscience is better than flatlining evil you propose of never ending human sacrifices. I can't help think how this would corrupt society further in untold ways. But if a particular tribe of people in Canaan refused to continue this practice generation after generation, then I can see why God had to wipe them all out. He started wiping out the men leaving women and children. But they continued, so God had to kill the women also. Still they continued then all the children had to go. And that's exactly what happened. I think you are under appreciating how degenerated into evil these people were and how they have no future. You really should stop defending them. It certainly doesn't reflect well on you.

You mean killed? Is that not one of those sin things? I think if God is all-powerful he would think of a way to abolish the "evil" practice without murdering little kids.
He tried everything. Nothing worked.

So they were not evil, or even able to sin yet? But they were still killed? Why did they deserve that? How old is the age of accountability?
Because it was proven they would grow up to kill their own children in human sacrifices. We have been through this already. The age of accountability is unique to each person because we are all unique and develop differently, but for most everyone before the age of 20.

So its ok to murder if you are enslaved? Wow sin is starting to sound relative.
I can't comment on this because I need more details about the circumstance. The punishment should fit the crime.

He could have not made the tree. That would have saved us (and him) a lot of trouble.
Then you would be a robot or not made perfectly in God's image. It wouldn't be a perfect world, but an amoral one of robots or something like that. I like the way God did it; makes more sense to me.

Does that sound Just to you?
No, but that is the nature of sin. It's real and has real consequences. This is what God is constantly trying to get you to think about more to realize you are a sinner in need of salvation.

You can't be "righteous" and kill innocent people. See how that works?
Sure you can be if it is done righteously. You don't become unrighteous because you save your daughters life who is about to be killed by a madman.

So sin is relative. I get it now.
I wouldn't use the word relative, but punishment fits the crime. Relativism is the idea that whatever you believe is acceptable relative to you, e.g. Jesus is not God for you, but is God for others and both of you are right.

I ask you the same question.
I don't defend that evil you defend. Child sacrifices are horrific and deserves God's judgment and righteous dealing.