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}
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.
https://carm.org/uncategorized/carm-discussion-rules/
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.