CARM Christian Needs your Help!


Well-known member
Jesus is talking about the only way provided by the Father to come to Him and that is by coming to the Son.

There are wayward believers that seem to think the Holy Spirit is another way to come to the father by in worship, but He is not; only the Son by honoring the Son is how any believer can honor the father per John 5:22-23 & John 13:32-33 & Philippians 2:5-11..

There are unbelievers that think they can come to God other than by believing in Jesus Christ, and there isn't because that wuld lead to a lot of stuck up religious people & still carnal people in Heaven and there cannot be any peace of God in that.

1 Corinthians 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Jesus is even warning believers that if they climb up another way like by way of the Holy Spirit in coming to God the father, then that saved believer is behaving like a thief per John 10:1

There is nothing in between us and Jesus when Jesus is the only way to the Father. There will be a falling away from the faith ( 1 timothy 4:1-2 & 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 ) because of the focus on the holy Spirit in worship, giving heed to visiting spirits as if that is the Holy Spirit when they are not, but the spirt of the antichrist when the real indwelling Holy Spirit is in us to keep the spotlight on the son in worship to glorify God the Father by. They broaden the way in the worship place ( Matthew 7:13-14 ) where it is ecumenical in nature ( Matthew 7:15-20 ) bringing signs & wonders ( Matthew 21-23 ), causing believers to lose self control & fall ( Matthew 7L24-27 ) like in slain in the spirit phenomenon and holy laughter movement of seeking another baptism with the Holy Ghost with evidence of tongues when God will permit that strong delusion to occur for believing the lie that they can receive the Holy Spirit again apart from salvation ( 2 Corinthians 11:3-4; 13:5 & 2 Thessalonians 2:9-15

The invitation is given to all people but not all people will heed that invitation to be saved, not even saved believers that go astray whom are at risk of being left behind when the Bridegroom comes but they are still saved because when they die, they will be with the Lord in Heaven in spirits, awaiting their resurrection after the great tribulation.

Jesus is emphasizing how to come to God the Father by and that is by Him alone; not only for salvation, but to avoid being led astray by the spirits of the antichrist. so saved believers will not get left behind when the Bridegroom comes per Luke 13:24-30.
I agree - you have, more or less, laid out what Christianity teaches...

The actual point of the OP, though, is to demonstrate to the Christian poster stiggy wiggy that it is every bit as ridiculous to suggest that babies were not included when God told Noah that He intended to put an end to ALL PEOPLE as it would be to suggest that senior citizens were not included when Jesus said that NO ONE may come to the Father except through Him!


Well-known member
Nope. Zero conditions.

Those aren't conditions for love. They are manifestations. His love produces repentance and trust..
They are requirements, stiggy

Fail to repent and you will not receive salvation
Fail to remove trust from self to Christ and you will not receive salvation

Play your little word games all you like, but it will never change the fact there are conditions to God's 'love'

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member


Well-known member
You keep making that statement...but so far haven't shown why.

I typed you up a scenario....and you seemed to skip over the meat of it.
There is no scenario you can devise that erases God's almightiness, Crow!

Assuming, as we agreed to do, that the babies at the time of the Great Flood were salvageable - God could have saved and resurrected them WITHOUT causing them the harm of drowning them in the process because He is an almighty, powerful, omnipotent God

Nonetheless, God chose to drown them
God consciously and purposefully chose to inflict the needless harm of drowning upon those babies

And, as always, to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm is immoral
Last edited:


Well-known member
....... like when you were born?
Yes, needless harm - just like when I was born

God needlessly chose that I suffer trauma during the birthing process because of something that somebody else did

Worse yet, God needlessly chose that I be born with a sinful nature inevitably compelling sin and thus warranting eternal damnation - and, again, the reason He did so is because of something that somebody else did

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Yes, needless harm - just like when I was born

Poor suffering soul. Permanently scarred from having to evacuate Mommy's womb.

God needlessly chose that I suffer trauma during the birthing process ....

Aww, did da widdow bitty sapling suffer? Did you never get over it, weeping willow Twee?

Worse yet, God needlessly chose that I be born with a sinful nature

Awww, did that cause problems in kiddiegarden? Did you steal the paste off little bush planter's desk and eat it?

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
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
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}

Yes, I believe you are correct about me not knowing the history.

I'm not here to contradict other protestants, it's against the rules.

I stand by my opinion on atheism and it's motivations.

I'm also not a teacher who has to tell adults about the rules for discussion. Sometimes, my third graders behave so much better than some of the things I have seen here.

When you start a new thread for the express purpose of refuting another person, you have to identify who that person is by use of a link.

I provide the rules here, not to correct you, but to make you aware of what is required.
Rule 12.7
No negative comments of any sort concerning a board user, do not quote or misquote a poster in signature or body of message unless linked to the full context of the quote as a copyright issue, since only Super Members may link in the signature, quoting of users in signatures not permitted for the average poster. Feel free to quote posters in the body of messages to a thread as usual to using quote feature responses with context, do not misquote users, do not discuss or gossip about a forum poster. Again, if you begin a new thread with a poster quote, you must link to the original quote in context.

Red bolding mine.

If you had done this, I would not have posted the way I did.

I understand you don't like the God of the Universe. You have that right. But most atheist rhetoric amounts to the denial of purpose in life. We are just random thoughtless stardust. No morals, no objective sense of what is right and what is wrong.

You are no different than atheists throughout time. Some assisted in wholesale murder of anyone who opposed them. Christians throughout time have done the same. So, you really don't believe that we are just stardust. you do have a purpose.

No sale.

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
How about ALL PEOPLE, Bob?

When God told Noah that He would be putting an end to all people {minus Noah & co} - did He mean ALL PEOPLE?
Apparently so, since the indication seems to be that The Adamic race had been adulterated (by the sons of god). it was essentially an "Ethnic cleansing".