CARM Christian Needs your Help!

treeplanter

Well-known member
The verses he provided say zilch about babies.
And

John 14:6
“Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”

says zilch about left handed midgets


Funny, though, how Jesus' use of the term "no one" is understood by stiggy to include ALL PEOPLE
{i.e. of all people, no one, not even left handed midgets can come to the Father except through Jesus}
but the term "all people" - as found in the following verse:
“I am going to put an end to all people"
{Genesis 6:13}
is understood, by stiggy, to exclude babies...


You people can't have it both ways
If NO ONE means NO ONE then ALL PEOPLE means ALL PEOPLE!
 

CrowCross

Super Member
"No one comes to the Father except through me”
means that NO ONE comes to God except through Jesus
but
“I am going to put an end to all people"
doesn't mean that God drowned ALL PEOPLE {minus Noah & co}

EXPLAIN!
You are correct.

No one means no one.

As for the flood, all died..even babies...Minus Noah & co.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
And

John 14:6
“Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”

says zilch about left handed midgets

VERY GOOD! Therefore we conclude that no left handed midget comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ.

Funny, though, how Jesus' use of the term "no one" is understood by stiggy to include ALL PEOPLE

WRONG! No one would include NO PEOPLE.

{i.e. of all people, no one, not even left handed midgets can come to the Father except through Jesus

AMEN! Preach it! And don't forget harelipped albinos.

but the term "all people" - as found in the following verse:
“I am going to put an end to all people"
{Genesis 6:13}
is understood, by stiggy, to exclude babies...

Noah was a mere baby when he built an ark? LOL
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Red bolding mine. Do you think that this statement will help your case? It won't. It just makes you look like a bully. Dan tried that with me. He doesn't anymore. Anyone who will disrespect their own grandmother by stating things about her that are not true, in a book that they sell, has no credibility with me. I thought that atheists and liberals didn't like bullies. I admit, I could be misinformed on this point.

Misquoting the poster, further demonstrates a losing position.

No such lie was told. Your random stardust needs a serious refill.
I'm not sure that you are fully up to speed here
I'll catch you up...

This thread was born out of a conversation that stiggy and I were having in another thread
{in fact, this thread is a continuation of a discussion that stiggy and I have been engaged in for a period of years}

It is my contention that to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon another is immoral

Furthermore, it is my contention that God consciously and purposefully inflicted the needless harm of drowning upon innocent babies

Stiggy's position has always been twofold:

1. God is morally justified in having drowned babies because He is the creator of said babies and can do with them as He pleases

{an appeal to the fallacy of 'might making right'}

2. God having drowned babies was morally justified because He then resurrected them to a better world

{an appeal to 'the end justifying the means'}

And while it is true that human beings very often have no other choice except to inflict harm in order to achieve a greater good - this is not the case for God

God could have saved and resurrected those babies WITHOUT causing them the harm of drowning because He is Almighty God!
When God chooses to achieve His end through harmful means it is, by definition, needless

Just yesterday - during the course of our discussion in the very thread that inspired me to start this thread - stiggy decided to reverse course and is now, for the first time, claiming that God didn't drown babies at all

This, despite God, Himself, telling us that His intention was to "wipe from the face of the earth the human race" and "put an end to all people"
Genesis 6:7 and Genesis 6:13 respectively


If it is valid to deny that God drowned babies on the basis of scripture not explicitly saying that babies were drowned
AND
it is valid to deny that God drowned babies despite scripture making clear that God drowned the HUMAN RACE and ALL PEOPLE

then it is equally valid to deny the words of Jesus Christ when He proclaims that NO ONE can come to the Father except through Him

Where, after all, does scripture explicitly state that senior citizens cannot come to the Father except through Christ?
So what if Jesus said that NO ONE can come to the Father except through Him?
NO ONE doesn't have to mean NO ONE
Obviously, NO ONE doesn't include those age 65+
"No one" no more means NO ONE than "all people" means ALL PEOPLE, right?

Well, per the logic of stiggy, yeah - that would have to be right...

I have not misquoted anyone and I have never called anyone a liar unless they call me a liar first

{and if you'll take the time to read through the entire exchange spanning more than just this one thread - you'll see that it was stiggy who called me a liar before I responded in kind}
 
Last edited:

treeplanter

Well-known member
WRONG! No one would include NO PEOPLE.
WRONG!

"No one" means that of all the people on earth - not one single one of them can ever come to the Father except through Christ

Except, per your logic, "no one" doesn't mean NO ONE
If there can be exceptions to ALL PEOPLE {such as babies} then there can be exceptions to NO ONE as well {such as left handed midgets}

Noah was a mere baby when he built an ark? LOL
Stop being dishonest

It is a given and understood by all that {fully grown} Noah and his family were spared God's wrath
Not even a 4 year old needs that spelled out for him!
 
Last edited:

treeplanter

Well-known member
Yes. When Jesus says NO ONE, He means NO ONE. So yes, it includes the entire human race. Never ceases to amaze me how biblical literalists take metaphor and other figurative language literally and very concrete and specific non-figurative language literally in order to get the Bible to say what they what they want it to say.

That said, Jesus does NOT literally "mean to say that there are certain people who can come to God without going through Him". Not in the way that Christians typically use it: Everyone must "believe in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus" or some variation thereof. The real question is what does Jesus mean by "the way and the truth and the life" and "through me"? The context does not support the concept that "the way and the truth and the life" means " "believe in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus".
Indeed

No one means NO ONE
and
all people means ALL PEOPLE
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
It is my contention that to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon another is immoral

AMEN! Ethics 101

Furthermore, it is my contention that God consciously and purposefully inflicted the needless harm of drowning upon innocent babies

Prove it. Your mere "contention" doesn't cut it.

Stiggy's position has always been twofold:

1. God is morally justified in having drowned babies because He is the creator of said babies and can do with them as He pleases

And don't forget the part about rescuing them from an evil world by resurrecting them to glory.


God could have saved and resurrected those babies WITHOUT causing them the harm of drowning because He is Almighty God!
When God chooses to achieve His end through harmful means it is, by definition, needless

You admitted you were harmed at birth. You cried. So ditch the fake sympathy for centuries old babies and start this new thread:

"WAAAAAH, God's a big meanie for causing us 'needless harm' when we were born. I rue the day I was born. WAAAAAAAHH"
 
Last edited:

treeplanter

Well-known member
His friend claimed 'except babies', but that's not in the scripture in this context.
The "friend" is stiggy!

Stiggy is claiming that God did not drown babies in the Great Flood

God tells us in scripture that He intended to wipe the HUMAN RACE from the face of the earth and put an end to ALL PEOPLE
Surely, babies are a part of the "human race" and are included among "all people"

To deny this is no different than to deny that Jesus literally meant NO ONE when He said that no one can come to the Father except through Him

Babies are no more an exception to "human race" and "all people" than cross eyed Canadians are an exception to "no one" when Jesus says that no one may come to the Father except through Him
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
There obviously are other exceptions
Sequence of events:

God sees the supposed wickedness of the human race
God decides to wipe the human race from the face of the earth
God decides that there is one man righteous and blameless and faithful enough to save - Noah

Genesis 6:13
"So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth." "

It is disingenuous to argue that Noah is an exception to ALL PEOPLE when God told Noah {after having decided to spare him} that He/God then intended to drown everyone else

*And everyone else {i.e. ALL PEOPLE}, by definition, included babies
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Sequence of events:

God sees the supposed wickedness of the human race
God decides to wipe the human race from the face of the earth
God decides that there is one man righteous and blameless and faithful enough to save - Noah

Genesis 6:13
"So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth." "

It is disingenuous to argue that Noah is an exception to ALL PEOPLE

So Noah wasn't a person? Was he an armadillo? A giraffe?
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
WRONG! I never claimed that; thus your miserable failure to show where.
You're right

You did not definitively assert this
You allowed for the possibility

I apologize to you for the poor choice of words on my part

He may have. I don't care what method He used.
God could have saved and resurrected those babies without inflicting the harm of drowning upon them

Instead, He chose to save and resurrect them by means of drowning

God consciously and purposefully chose to inflict needless harm upon those babies

To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral
{You, yourself, agreed in post #29: "AMEN! Ethics 101"}

So I'm confused...do you care about God's moral character or not?
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
So Noah wasn't a person? Was he an armadillo? A giraffe?
What?

Noah was a person, stigs

And the reason that Noah {unlike babies} isn't included in the ALL PEOPLE whom God drowned is because of the sequence of events that I have already outlined for you:

God decided that the human race was wicked
God decided to drown the human race
God decided to spare Noah
God told Noah that, of the rest of the human race, He intended to put an end to ALL PEOPLE {which includes babies}
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
So I'm confused...do you care about God's moral character or not?

Not in the slightest.

 

CrowCross

Super Member
Furthermore, it is my contention that God consciously and purposefully inflicted the needless harm of drowning upon innocent babies
Lots of wadda..shoulda..cuddas concerning how you think God should have responded....but I'll comment on the babies.

Keeping in mind Satans desire to stop the linage of Jesus so Jesus couldn't be born and then become the savior...Satan tried to throw in a monkey wrench.
Now keep in mind I can't be dogmatic about this possibility but currently I think it's the best explanation. The theology is based upon what Enoch is said to have written and Genesis 6, Job and Jude.

When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.

The sons of God are angels. Fallen angels in this instance who left their first realm. (Jude 1:6 hints at it)
Job 1:6 speaks of angels as sons of God...Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. Job 38:7 also mentions angels as sons of God.

What was the result of these fallen angel and human unions?
Gen 6:4 tells us....The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and afterward as well—when the sons of God had relations with the daughters of men. And they bore them children who became the mighty men of old, men of renown.

Basically human DNA had become polluted due to the human/fallen angel off spring. Satans monkey wrench to pollute the linage from where Jesus would be born.

The verses go on to explain how wicket man had become due to their fallen nature and breeding with fallen angels.
Now, Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God....unpolluted DNA. Noahs sons would have also had pure DNA. The sons wives??? Don't know. I would imagine Shems wife was unpolluted providing a pure human DNA linage from whence Jesus came.

All the babies...polluted. When the world was flooded the babies were killed. Was salvation possible for these half breeds? That's up for debate.

Lets say it was...if that be the case then the death of the babies resulted in them going to Paradise. This would be considered as a good thing so to speak...because if they lived and grew up...they would have eventually sinned and lost their place with God. They would be in your current predicament. Lost.

Your claim that the killing of the babies in Noahs flood is unfounded according to this biblically based scenario.
 
Top