stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
EXACTLY!
Correct.
And yet I didn't; thus your failure to show where.
Give it up. You're just no good at this.
CARM Christian Needs your Help!
- Thread starter treeplanter
- Start date
EXACTLY!
Correct.
And yet I didn't; thus your failure to show where.
Give it up. You're just no good at this.
treeplanter
Well-known member
What are you denying?
That God drowned babies in the Great Flood?
You spent YEARS trying to tell me that God is good and just despite having drowned babies because:
1. He created them and can do with them as He pleases
2. He then resurrected them to Heaven
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
treeplanter
Well-known member
And yet you DID acknowledge that God drowned babies!
Thread titled:
Least Funny Joke of All Time: Did you hear the one about the arborist......
Post #9
ME:
"What excuse does your God have?
He monstrously drowned what each and every one of us agree were living, breathing, fully fledged human beings!"
Thread titled:
Least Funny Joke of All Time: Did you hear the one about the arborist......
Post #12
YOU:
"He doesn't need one. If you can create people and then resurrect them to glory, then you too can kill them with impunity."
"You TOO can kill them" is your affirmation that God did drown babies!!
treeplanter
Well-known member
You agreed that it is immoral to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm
You agreed that God inflicted the needless harm of drowning upon babies
You agreed that God, on this basis, is neither good nor just
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
Correct.
And yet I didn't; thus your failure to show where.
Give it up. You're just no good at this.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
Not according to the Calvinists, and they can cite the Bible in support of that position.
Some are predestined for heaven; the rest... predestined for not-heaven.
People with the opposite position to yours say that about their position.
They think you are the one in the wrong.
If Calvinism vs Arminianism is so obvious, why does the "wrong" answer still exist after all these years?
Exactly what your opponents say.
They think their opinion is supported by "Lord-helped" scripture, too.
If somebody wrote that Jesus testified that scripture cannot be broken, why does it follow that it can't? We have no reason besides the Bible to think that Jesus did pretty much anything except exist, be baptised, preach, and be crucified; that's all we can confirm elsewhere.
Why would somebody who is not a believer do this?
You are suggesting that I address a question to somebody I don't think is there to answer.
treeplanter
Well-known member
No, stiggy - it's YOU who are all screwed up
Let's review:
1. You acknowledge that God inflicted the harm of drowning upon babies
2. You acknowledge that God did so needlessly
3. You acknowledge that it is immoral to needlessly inflict harm
4. You have acknowledged that God is immoral
Took ya long enough!
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
And yet I didn't; thus your failure to show where.
Give it up. You're just no good at this.
treeplanter
Well-known member
You didn't what?
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
treeplanter
Well-known member
I'm so embarrassed for you that I almost feel sorry for you...
You didn't acknowledge that God's drowning of babies was needless?
Of course you did!
Post #53
Thread titled: As long as you're inexplicably hating on what you think is imaginary
Your words:
"He has no needs, so everything He does is needless. He didn't even need to create us."
EVERYTHING HE DOES IS NEEDLESS!!
EVERYTHING!!!
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
For God, yes. Not for the baaaaaaaaaaaaabies.
Correct. Unlike the baaaaaaaaaaaabies, He has no needs.
treeplanter
Well-known member
The babies, themselves, NEEDED to be drowned in order to be saved and resurrected?
How stupid!
And even if true, since when does God kowtow to babies {us}?
Isn't God more powerful than a baby?
Doesn't God know better than a baby what the baby does and does not need?
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
Apparently.
Since the Incarnation and Calvary. And before.
Much more.
Correct. You're learning.
They are not proving everything with Jesus Christ by the scripture when scripture cannot go against scripture. They rest in somebody's ese work without actually proving or reproving it with Him.
God sent Jesus into the world to save sinners; to reconcile them with God the Father. That means God wants a personal relationship with us through Jesus Christ as our Good shepherd & friend. The more we learn about Jesus, the more we learn about God.
Some seekers want the truth about God & the reality we live in. Some just don't care to but seek reasons to mock while they prefer to live in sin..
I do not know where you are coming from and so I leave you to God the Father to draw you unto the Son to believe in Him to be saved or He will not until a later time when Jesus appears as the Bridegroom to judge the House of God first and then the world afterwards.
You will still have a chance to call on Him to be saved when you see that fiery calamity coming on a third of the earth. Luke 21:33-36;2 Peter 3:3-18
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
You should watch the debate between Matt Slick (Calv.) and Jesse Morrell (Arm.), because that is literally scripture going against scripture - one man cites something in favour of Calv, the other cites something in favour of Arm, and at no point did either man point out why the other had the wrong interpretation.
As an atheist, it is my favourite religious debate.
Why should I believe any of this?
I'm happy to tell you: I am coming from
"I find Chrisitianity too proposterous and too unevidenced to believe it, but the instant somebody gives me a good reason, I will believe."
That's it. There is no agenda on my part - I neither want Christianity to be true, nor want it to be false. If it were true, I would want to believe it. And if it were false, I would not.
A hypothetical for you: let's say, through no fault of my own, that he does not draw me... are you OK with that? Do you have any moral issue with him playing favourites and drawing some, but not others?
So atheists can "hedge our bets" and withhold belief until the last possible moment, when the ultimate proof is right there in front of our faces?
If so, why would anybody be a Christian before that time?
I am not a follower of Matt Slick, but regardless, scripture teaches us to prove everything by Jesus Christ, and that includes whatever Matt Slick puts forth.
I'm sure it is.
The eternal consequence. Not to mention in your sinful state, you will get worse & worse as your sins will rule over you & ruin your life..
Begs the question, why are you here, wasting time when you could be living your life free as you seemingly pleased to do? Or i it that you know something is not quite right with your life for why the father is drawing you unto the Son to save you from your sins & have eternal life?
God the Father knows who would rather be with Him and all that is good from those that prefer to live in their evil deeds & get worse & worse.
Death can strike at any moment. The idea that sinners can put off converting tomorrow, forget that sin has a way of getting worse & worse until they reach such a state that they do not care to call on Him to be saved even when death is knocking at their door.
Hebrews 3:15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.
2 Corinthians 6:2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)
Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
So at any time when you are alive and death is coming, feel free to call on the name of the Lord and be saved. If you happened to be mute or speechless at the time, just believe in Him & He will save you. I'll be glad in the Lord Jesus Christ to see you in Heaven & I shall rejoice.
Last edited:
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
I don't know what "prove everything by Christ" means, but each man in that debate cited Christ in support of their respective - opposite - positions.
Why should I believe in the eternal consequence?
This is Pascal's Wager - "believe, just in case". Well, I can't conjure up a belief in Jesus, so expecting me to conjure up a belief in the consequences for not believing in Jesus is just pouring petrol on the problem.
We know that it is possible for a meteorite to hit your house - it has happened in the past, though the probability is small.
Does your house have meteorite insurance? If not, why should - why would - I take out "hell insurance"? I don't even know that hell is possible, let alone its probability.
Because whether or not Chrisitianity is true, it does harm that I want to combat.
This is a common "he doth protest too much" from apologists.
Again, why would I call on the lord to be saved when I believe in neither the lord nor the saving?