For eighty years the Egyptians had caused the male children of the Israelites to be cast into the river [ Exodus 1:16 ], and now all their own first-born fell under the stroke of the death. They were made, in the justice of God, to feel something of what they had made His people feel. While Pharaoh killed every Hebrew infant boy, God only judged the firstborn of Egypt. God’s judgment was mild and merciful in comparison to Pharaoh’s judgment

Not what i asked.

Why did God cause more suffering by killing with a flood instead of a brain embolism while sleeping?

Why would you ask me that question? How would I know? And what does it matter? Its a punishment duh

The most bigot thing I encounter is when people tell half a story bc it supports what they believe. How can you mention God killing Egyptian babies and leave out the first part of the story? How can you tell any story and leave out other important parts? This only happens when people have an agenda to get you to believe what they do. Its slick and manipulative. I think most people have bad experiences with religion (ofc, the texts says Jesus did) and believe it some how relates to the bible and or the existence of a God. So they find ways to discredit the text.

Egyptian firstborns, not babies. I find it amusing that you accuse people of skipping context, while at the same thing making severe factual errors.

When you don't actually know the text you accuse people of cherry-picking from, you should probably keep silent.

For obvious reasons yous seem blind too.

Why did god kill at all, he could create an entirely new existence with a thought. The Ark story is nothing more than a scare story for primitive peoples.

The lack of evidence that it did.

We are all blind about things that happened when we weren't there. How would i know anymore about God or what happened than you would? Im not religious, I don't come from a christian or religion family, i dont go to church, im not biased towards these things.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? I think most scientists in this field agree that they believe there was a great flood in the earth's history, even the atheist ones.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evi...ry?id=17884533

Here are some scientific points to support the idea of a great flood...
-- There is a worldwide tradition among natives of a global flood.
-- According to current archaeological evidence, civilization appears to have originated in the Ararat/Babylon region.
-- The genealogical records of many of the European kings can be traced back to Japheth, son of Noah.
-- Marine fossils can be found on the crests of mountains. Apart from mountain uplifting, this can also be explained as the marine animals being washed there and then buried. A global flood could do this.
-- An analysis of population growth statistics confirms that there was zero population at the estimated time of the end of the flood. This indicates the global demise of humans by Noah's flood.
-- Human palaeontological evidence exists even in the earliest geologic 'ages' (eg human footprints in Cambrian, Carboniferous, and Cretaceous rocks). If the layers of rock were laid down by a global flood and then interpreted as evolutionary long-ages, human remains and artefacts would appear to be in such positions.
-- The most ancient human artefacts date to the post-flood era. This indicates that the earlier hardware could have been buried beyond reach by a huge flood.
-- Calculations have shown that there is nearly the same amount of organic material present today, worldwide, as there would have been if all the fossils were still alive (Morris p:685). This indicates the demise of all living things in a single global event.
-- The glacial period started very quickly. This would require a cataclysmic event such as a global flood to trigger such a rapid climatic change.
-- Similar geologic formations exist in rocks of all ages (eg rifts, folds, faults, thrusts, etc.). These can just as easily be explained as being created in the same cataclysmic global event.
-- Studies show that much of the world's folded beds of sediment have no compression fractures, indicating that they were contorted while they were still wet and soft. For this to occur on a global scale, and on sediment thousands of metres thick, it would have required a catastrophic global flood.
-- Rocks of different geologic 'ages' have similar physical features indicating that they could have been created by a single worldwide event - such as a global flood.
-- There is an absence of physical evidence that indicates a time change between rocks of 'successive ages'. Sedimentary rock layers worldwide appear to have been laid down very quickly, as by a global flood.
-- Globally, there is an almost complete absence of any evidence of animal and plant root activity within the tiny layers of sediment. Slowly deposited layers should show this activity, flood deposits wouldn't.
-- All types of rocks (eg limestone, shale, granite, etc) occur in all geologic 'ages'. This indicates a common formation on a global scale - the situation that would have been created by the mixing of sediment in a global flood.
-- Fossil 'graveyards' are found worldwide, and in rocks of all 'ages'. Only a catastrophic global flood could achieve this.
-- The burial of fossil deposits worldwide had to have occurred in a catastrophic event. Only massive flooding could bury in such a fashion.
-- There is a worldwide distribution of most of the fossil types, indicating transportation on a global scale by a global flood.
-- Fossils from different 'ages' are often found mixed. This indicates a huge mixing of animal bones that is not consistent with a local flood.
-- Worldwide, fossils from different 'ages' are often found in the wrong order. This indicates a global mixing of fossils as a consequence of a global flood.
-- Dinosaurs and many other prehistoric creatures died out suddenly. A catastrophe such as a global flood could have produced this result.
-- Animal tracks and other ephemeral markings (ripple-marks and raindrop imprints) have been preserved throughout the geological column. Rapid covering of these markings is required for this preservation worldwide - ie. by a global flood.
-- Meteorites are basically absent from the geologic column. With the large number of meteorites hitting the earth each year, they should be very plentiful throughout the sedimentary rocks - unless much of the world's sedimentary rocks were laid down in one year.

Sorry but im not blind to the reality of the bible and that in it God chose a method of execution that caused more suffering in the world them if he chose a different method.

Not buying that you are not biased.

You obv are if you haven't read the book. And if God chose to torture everyone how would that change that he is God or that he created this place, or that there was a flood. We're not debating your views on God, we're debating what happened and where things/these texts came from. Sounds to me like a poker is rigged mentality.

I mean I have beliefs but they don't come from any religions or people groups. They come from my own mind, and my own discernment, which I have found through time to trust more than other peoples' . I studied this stuff a lot for school and it lead me to my own conclusions. All those conclusions came from the best facts I could gather. So those are my biases. The logical stuff that makes the most sense to me and what I believe the most to be true. Not just in studying ancient manuscripts or theology but in everything in life. I haven't spent much time in last 5 years even thinking about this stuff, but if people are going to talk about it, I think it deserves honest discussion. Im not even arguing for the existence of a God, just for intellectual conversation about the facts, and accurate assessment of the findings. Seems to me that most people are angry and prefer not to engage in the notion of a God bc their life sucks and they blame a God, or bc what they do/who they are doesn't fit in with the norm of society or with a religious group they grew up around. These things don't go into my assessment of these texts.

Ive read the book. But since what im saying you have already agreed too. That the flood happened. Dont see how that comes into play.

It wouldn't. It would call into question his mercy and how loving he is. Questions you are avoiding at all costs it seems.

We are talking about the flood story. For arguments sake ive said ok it happened and God did it to necessarily kill all the humans except for Noah and family.

So why didnt God kill all the humans that had to die in a way that caused less suffering?

You dont know is fine. Better then all the avoidance look over there stuff.

Why would he flood the place in the first place? You seem to think that mercy and judgement can't coexist. Lol Its a punishment dude suffering is the point. You should be thankful he didn't torch the place or you wouldn't be here. Seems like some mercy in that.

Yeah you are not reading my posts or trolling. Either way...were done.

I think you are intellectually challenged

Ok i guess.. More deflection. Ive already agreed they needed to die.

No punishment is not suffering. We could, with the death plenty, create much more suffering. But we dont. We try to do it with the suffering. We sometimes even try do that with animals we kill. Why didn't God show the mercy we sometimes show?


Yeah.

I think you think you are much better at this then you are.

Idk what this means

I don't really think humane killing is really so humane. I don't think killing and humane should really be in the same sentence. What makes you think that a flood is such a worse death then a brain embolism while sleeping? What happens if you weren't sleeping while everyone else was? So you walk around knowing that all your relatives are dead and as soon as you go to sleep its over for you. This seems way less humane. Not to mention if he chose the path of giving everyone a brain embolism while sleeping there would be no evidence of the event for future generations to learn from. So it seems like a flood could be more/most humane way. Hope that answered your question that nobody can know the answer to.

Cool.

Guess you answered my question anyway. God wanted suffering to be a part of the punishment, lucky we/some humans are outgrowing that, and the kids and the old folk deserved being battered by flood debris and drowning them was the right amount of suffering. Swell God.

More deflection. You have ways you want to die and dont. Some are worse then others.


Ok. But besides any point.

I think there are better ways to die. You dont?

Sure there would. They would write about the Great Sleep Death of all humanity bar Noah and his kin.

I think drowning is actually pretty good way. A lot of people who have lost consciousnesses during drowning but were rescued and resuscitated described the process as a euphoric sensation came over them and they didn't feel pain.
What more humane way would work?

I sure hope not. Some suffering and punishment are good things and often it is a necessity in the world. I don't think humanely killing a cow and eating the steak is more humane than what happened in this story. God seemed to do this to benefit the future of the world and its inhabitants. Killing the cow has no real purpose.

Ive almost had it happen twice. There was fear and panic....

Also you dont just drown form floods. You get battered to death too.

But since im being killed be a big brained omnipotent ill go with my first one. Blinked out of existence. I figure he can do that.

I missed this part but think ive said all ill say on it. Plus you cut my post up. So gl.