If God existed, can he be the nicest being?

[CorporalJackson]

[quote name='Quillion']I think you're trying to say large amounts of tar and such. I didn't realize that tar wasn't a naturally occuring phenomenon. Did they find a pillar of salt too?

Nobody knows the actual location of Sodom and Gomorrah, since the names for the two cities were given after the destruction. Sodom is hebrew for "Burnt" and Gomorrah is hebrew for "A Ruined Heap".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

Maybe if you learned some actual history, you might discover that as a historical text the Bible is rather lacking.[/quote]
Srry, not tar sulfur and yes it has been found before you make assumptions research Jesus loves you
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1497476.stm

 

[eldad9]

One has to question the neutrality of a site that plainly states this is god's doing.

The second link - the BBC - suggests the destruction was the result of an earthquake.

Look, trying to _prove_ the existance of any god, especially a particular one, is not doable.

And you keep stating things that are not facts ("Jesus loves you"). Well, I just made up nine aliens. I won't bother you with their names and such - but two of them love you, two hate you, and five couldn't care either way. Fun, huh?

 

[Quillion]

[quote name='CorporalJackson']Srry, not tar sulfur and yes it has been found before you make assumptions research Jesus loves you
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1497476.stm[/quote]

As eldad stated, the first article is biased. The second article closes with these words:

But more conclusive evidence is still needed; not unless the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah are found under the Dead Sea's salty waters will the theory be proved.

I'm done arguing with you on this particular point. The Bible as a historical record is completely unreliable.

For example, in multiple places, it even contradicts itself.

In fact, the Gospel of Matthew has the angel announcing the birth (and explaining matters) to Joseph (Matthew 1:20), while Luke has the angel visiting Mary (Luke 1:28).

http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/bible/discrepancies/

You're naive to blindly follow a book without questioning it. The purpose of the bible is to deliver a message. It's a valid and important message, but don't misinterperet that as anything more than it is.