No Wiggling Out of This One!

treeplanter

Well-known member
You created YOUR version of him. Everybody does.
No, I did not

The bible says that God drowned babies
I did not make this up in my own head

The bible says that God is Almighty - enough so that He is capable of bringing babies to Heaven by any number of means
I did not make this up in my own head

I did not create a version of God - all I did was to simply read in scripture that God needlessly chose to drown babies and then, per my own moral standard, to judge Him evil on this basis
 

Algor

Well-known member
No, I did not

The bible says that God drowned babies
I did not make this up in my own head

The bible says that God is Almighty - enough so that He is capable of bringing babies to Heaven by any number of means
I did not make this up in my own head

I did not create a version of God - all I did was to simply read in scripture that God needlessly chose to drown babies and then, per my own moral standard, to judge Him evil on this basis
Truly, the ruach haHitchens has touched you.

It's the annunciation, in which treeplanter is visited by the Archangel Dawkins and sees the true nature of God
....and treeplanter kept these things, and pondered them in his heart....

LOL.

I swear, its Sola Scriptura back asswards.

You realise that Sola Scriptura is a minority view in Christianity? That's its one way of viewing God, and makes a huge number of assumptions about the nature of the text and its interpretability?

It's jaw dropping, sometimes. You're an atheist, not a Lutheran.
 
Last edited:

treeplanter

Well-known member
Nope. That isn't what almighty means. The maximum it means theologically is that things are as good as they could possibly be (even as per Liebniz). We have been through this: if you can't even deal with Aquinas (not to mention Job) don't be quoting Dawkins. Honestly, do some reading. Take notes.
You don't like the word 'omnipotent'
You don't like the word 'almighty'

Fine, let's go to something more concrete and discuss what God was capable of

God could have set fire to the babies
God could have smothered the babies
God could have fed the babies to wild animals
God could have dashed the babies upon rocks
God could have seen to it that the babies died peacefully in their sleep

We know that God could have chosen any one of these things because we know:
1. That God has a hand in the death of every human being {per Christian teaching}
2. That these particular death scenarios do exist and that babies have died by each of these means

And God chose to drown babies
God was capable of having chosen for the babies to die peacefully in their sleep, but He chose to drown them instead
God chose to inflict the NEEDLESS harm of drowning upon innocent babies

Nothing to do with omnipotence
Nothing to do with almightiness

God consciously and purposefully chose NOT to make it as good as it could have possibly been for those babies
 

Algor

Well-known member
You don't like the word 'omnipotent'
You don't like the word 'almighty'

Fine, let's go to something more concrete and discuss what God was capable of

God could have set fire to the babies
God could have smothered the babies
God could have fed the babies to wild animals
God could have dashed the babies upon rocks
God could have seen to it that the babies died peacefully in their sleep

We know that God could have chosen any one of these things because we know:
1. That God has a hand in the death of every human being {per Christian teaching}
2. That these particular death scenarios do exist and that babies have died by each of these means

And God chose to drown babies
God was capable of having chosen for the babies to die peacefully in their sleep, but He chose to drown them instead
God chose to inflict the NEEDLESS harm of drowning upon innocent babies

Nothing to do with omnipotence
Nothing to do with almightiness

God consciously and purposefully chose NOT to make it as good as it could have possibly been for those babies
It isn’t what I like and what I don’t. Its what the terms mean in common theologies. If you are going to argue theology don’t just make crap up and say its what the word means. Deal with actual arguments.

That aside, its late and my memory isn’t so great. Since apparently the one true nature of God in Christianity is only revealed by means of naive literalism, can you just remind me where in Genesis it talks about drowning babies? I mean, you did say that you got your ideas of God just by reading the bible, no creativity at all on your part. So remind me so I can give your argument the attention it deserves.
 
Last edited:

treeplanter

Well-known member
It isn’t what I like and what I don’t. Its what the terms mean in common theologies. If you are going to argue theology don’t just make crap up and say its what the word means. Deal with actual arguments.

That aside, its late and my memory isn’t so great. Since apparently the one true nature of God in Christianity is only revealed by means of naive literalism, can you just remind me where in Genesis it talks about drowning babies? I mean, you did say that you got your ideas of God just by reading the bible, no creativity at all on your part. So remind me so I can give your argument the attention it deserves.
News flash, Algor

Almighty, in the common parlance, as used by most every Christian on the face of the earth, means that God is/was perfectly capable of 'saving and resurrecting' babies by more than one means

You're full of crap claiming that I am making crap up



Genesis 6:7
"So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them"

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"

Genesis 6:17
"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish"

"the human race" includes babies!
"all people" includes babies!
"all life" includes babies!

Those who invent theories to spare God culpability for murdering innocent babies and deny that babies were even drowned in The Flood are those who are creating their own version of God

I am not

As I have repeatedly explained to you - I am simply taking stock of God for who and what He is {as plainly described in scripture} and judging His actions {per my/our vastly superior moral standard}
 

Algor

Well-known member
News flash, Algor

Almighty, in the common parlance, as used by most every Christian on the face of the earth, means that God is/was perfectly capable of 'saving and resurrecting' babies by more than one means

You're full of crap claiming that I am making crap up

Nope. You said "God never, ever need cause harm because He is Almighty". That is not what almighty implies. So yeah, don't make crap up.

Genesis 6:7
"So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them"

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"

Genesis 6:17
"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish"

"the human race" includes babies!
"all people" includes babies!
"all life" includes babies!
Oh. So the text says there were babies, and God drowned them. I mean, you are perfectly willing to say that God is almighty, but you aren't perfectly willing to say that God stopped the baby making for 15 years prior to the flood. You aren't willing to say that he put tem all to sleep, or make a million other excuses, all permitted by the texts. Nope: God drowned babies, because it says so, except it doesn't.


Those who invent theories to spare God culpability for murdering innocent babies and deny that babies were even drowned in The Flood are those who are creating their own version of God

Look at that: the only true version of God is that permitted by a particular form of naive literalism, an approach that was actively discouraged, under threat of torture and damnation, in the large majority of Christian cultures, until what, a few centuries ago, and your particular form is essentially unheard of in any Abrahamic religion I've encountered. But you, you KNOW what the Christian God is. It's amazing.

You are such a protestant atheist.

I am not

As I have repeatedly explained to you - I am simply taking stock of God for who and what He is {as plainly described in scripture} and judging His actions {per my/our vastly superior moral standard}

I dunno. You deliberately use the products of slavery and global warming. Who knows what you would do if it was more convenient for you.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Nope. You said "God never, ever need cause harm because He is Almighty". That is not what almighty implies. So yeah, don't make crap up.
Yep
And I'll say it again because it is absolutely true - "God never, ever need cause harm because He is Almighty"

Almighty, in the common parlance, as used by most every Christian on the face of the earth, means that God is/was perfectly capable of achieving His desired end{s} by a multitude of means both harmful and non-harmful

Oh. So the text says there were babies, and God drowned them. I mean, you are perfectly willing to say that God is almighty, but you aren't perfectly willing to say that God stopped the baby making for 15 years prior to the flood. You aren't willing to say that he put tem all to sleep, or make a million other excuses, all permitted by the texts. Nope: God drowned babies, because it says so, except it doesn't.
The text says that God drowned "the human race"
The text says that God drowned "all people"
The text says that God drowned "all life"

By definition, this means that God drowned babies

I am taking the text {i.e. God} at His word
I am not reading anything further into the text, Algor

According to the text we know that:
1. God drowned babies
2. God didn't have to drown babies

Look at that: the only true version of God is that permitted by a particular form of naive literalism,
And look at who I am addressing here on CARM

Fundamentalist Christians who indulge in naive literalism!

You are such a protestant atheist.
In order to communicate with Protestant Christians it is prudent to adopt a Protestant Christian mindset

Shouldn't this be apparent to you?

You deliberately use the products of slavery and global warming. Who knows what you would do if it was more convenient for you.
Explain
 

Algor

Well-known member
Yep
And I'll say it again because it is absolutely true - "God never, ever need cause harm because He is Almighty
At this point you aren't even being logically coherent.

Almighty, in the common parlance, as used by most every Christian on the face of the earth, means that God is/was perfectly capable of achieving His desired end{s} by a multitude of means both harmful and non-harmful
Yes. This is true.
The text says that God drowned "the human race"
The text says that God drowned "all people"
The text says that God drowned "all life"

By definition, this means that God drowned babies

Uh, no, the text does not say that there were babies at that point. That's your interpolation. The text contains any number of anomalous things about the world at that point. Giants, a single language, angels, an apparent lack of atmospheric refraction, the presence of celestial sluicegates, and so forth: there is absolutely nothing preveting any number of other absudities, so saying that there AREN'T other oddities is not necessitated.
I am taking the text {i.e. God} at His word
I am not reading anything further into the text, Algor
I'd point out that by (putatively) refusing to read anything into the text, you have departed from the vast majority of Christian practice. its kind of weird to say that on the one hand you are critiquing the Christian God, and on the other hand using an interpretive rubric that is antithetical to most Christian tradition and practice.

According to the text we know that:
1. God drowned babies
2. God didn't have to drown babies
It doesn't say that in the text.
And look at who I am addressing here on CARM

Fundamentalist Christians who indulge in naive literalism!
Ah, but you go even firther. Naive literalists don't bar as impossible things that are consistent with the text. That's just you.
In order to communicate with Protestant Christians it is prudent to adopt a Protestant Christian mindset

Shouldn't this be apparent to you?
Sure: adopt away! See, I haven't seen you say that faith and experience are prior to doctrine. A couple of Protestants have pointed that out to you, but you seem to be a bit refractory on that score. Also, protestants typically do not reject as impossible things that are textually consistent. You do.
I already did. You do things that you KNOW cause harm, and you completely refuse to stop.and your only justification for not stopping was reference to what some amorphous "collective" values. Brief reflection on the history of similar moral justifications in no way makes you morally superior to anyone, least of all your idea of God. You're just a lot weaker.

I mean, seriously, the collective values life, and so you do too? THAT'S superior to Christian morality? It isn't: it's warped.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
1A. thread titled: As long as you're inexplicably hating on what you think is imaginary
in response to treeplanter's assertion that:
"To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral"

Stiggy wiggy's post #30 response:
"Correct, for the 6,764th time, Parrot."


2A. thread titled: As long as you're inexplicably hating on what you think is imaginary
in response to treeplanter's assertion that:
"Got it, stigs - you're acknowledging that when God inflicts harm {such as drowning babies and making childbirth painful} He is doing so NEEDLESSLY!"

Stiggy wiggy's post #53 response:
"Correct. He has no needs, so everything He does is needless. He didn't even need to create us."


3A. thread titled: As long as you're inexplicably hating on what you think is imaginary
in response to treeplanter's assertion that:
"Good and just gods do NOT needlessly drown innocent babies, stiggy"

Stiggy wiggy's post #35 response:
"Correct."



1B. Stiggy wiggy admits that it is immoral to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm
2B. Stiggy wiggy admits that God inflicts such needless harm as drowning babies upon us
3B. Stiggy wiggy admits that God, on this basis, is neither good nor just

And to think, I only had to go over this stuff 6,764 times with stiggy before he finally got it!

God doesn't drown anyone silly. People destroy themselves and their own children on mass. For example look at the parents who have embraced abortion, socialism and wokeness, they are destroying their own children and this they are doing a great job.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
God doesn't drown anyone silly. People destroy themselves and their own children on mass. For example look at the parents who have embraced abortion, socialism and wokeness, they are destroying their own children and this they are doing a great job.
According to the Bible, God drowned the entire population of the earth (except for Noah and co).

And the phrase is "en masse", not "on mass". It's French, and means 'in a body, as a whole'.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Uh, no, the text does not say that there were babies at that point. That's your interpolation.
Unless stated otherwise, it is a given that babies are included under the headings of "human race" and "all people" and "all life"

I'd point out that by (putatively) refusing to read anything into the text, you have departed from the vast majority of Christian practice.
If, as you claim, the vast majority of Christians are reading 'something extra' into the text then they are doing so sinfully

See Deuteronomy 4:2 and Proverbs 30:6 and Revelation 22:18

Just because scripture says that other things exist - things that we view as anomalous, like giants - does not mean that Christians are free to add to the Word

It doesn't say that in the text.
It does so

The text says that God drowned babies - see Genesis 6:7 and Genesis 6:13 and Genesis 6:17

The text says that God is almighty - see Jeremiah 32:27 and Matthew 19:26 and Revelation 1:8
{and almighty beings are not required to drown babies, Algor - an assertion that you just agreed to in the very post to which I am now replying}

Naive literalists don't bar as impossible things that are consistent with the text.
Consistent with the text?

Adding to and subtracting from scripture so as to make the God of scripture conform to the version of God that they have created in their own minds is NOT consistent with the text

You do things that you KNOW cause harm
Such as?

I mean, seriously, the collective values life, and so you do too? THAT'S superior to Christian morality? It isn't: it's warped.
Valuing human life is superior to glorifying God
If you can't see this then I would suggest that your vision is warped
 

Algor

Well-known member
Unless stated otherwise, it is a given that babies are included under the headings of "human race" and "all people" and "all life"
That's a rule you just made up: babies are nowhere mentioned in the story of Noah's flood.

If, as you claim, the vast majority of Christians are reading 'something extra' into the text then they are doing so sinfully

See Deuteronomy 4:2 and Proverbs 30:6 and Revelation 22:18

Just because scripture says that other things exist - things that we view as anomalous, like giants - does not mean that Christians are free to add to the Word
They can't claim something they add to be true. They can speculate, however, and they do. Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims. Just about everybody, except the guy who claims to be criticizing the Christian God and using a Protestant mindset. It's hysterically funny, to be honest. On the one hand you claim to have interpreted nothing, and on the other you interpolate babies where they aren't mentioned. You claim to be criticizing the "Christian" notion of God, but you use an exegetical rubric divorced from any Christian sect I can think of.
It does so

The text says that God drowned babies - see Genesis 6:7 and Genesis 6:13 and Genesis 6:17
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

No mention of babies there. No reason why they must be there. Sorry: as reasonable as your interpolation may seem, it remains an interpolation, and given the fantastic nature of the earth as described in Genesis, no necessity for such an interpolation. I mean think about it: you are actually saying "I have to accept talking snakes and donkeys, but I cannot allow that there might not have been any babies at the time of the flood." Why, it is all so rational....
The text says that God is almighty - see Jeremiah 32:27 and Matthew 19:26 and Revelation 1:8
{and almighty beings are not required to drown babies, Algor - an assertion that you just agreed to in the very post to which I am now replying}
However, almighty does not mean "God never, ever need cause harm". That's an interpolation that is logically problematic, as has been pointed out to you.
Consistent with the text?

Adding to and subtracting from scripture so as to make the God of scripture conform to the version of God that they have created in their own minds is NOT consistent with the text
Whoops! Sola scriptura again! This is NOT the doctrinal position of the majority of Christians historically or currently, and again, adding to the text means declaring it to be true, not accepting it as a possibility.

Already went through this.
Valuing human life is superior to glorifying God
If you can't see this then I would suggest that your vision is warped
Good for you, chairman. The collective supports your cultural revolution. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
 
Last edited:

treeplanter

Well-known member
That's a rule you just made up: babies are nowhere mentioned in the story of Noah's flood.
Adults, both male and female, are to “all people” as eyes are to the face
Adolescents, both male and female, are to “all people” as the nose is to the face
Children, both male and female, are to “all people” as ears are to the face
Babies, both male and female, are to “all people” as the mouth is to the face

"All people" includes babies just as surely as a written mention of "face" includes the mouth!

They can't claim something they add to be true. They can speculate, however, and they do.
Hebrews 4:12
"For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart"

Speculation {i.e. entertaining the possibility that God's word is insufficient and/or incorrect}
and
faith {i.e. removal of ultimate trust from self to God}
are contradictory concepts

However, almighty does not mean "God never, ever need cause harm". That's an interpolation that is logically problematic, as has been pointed out to you.
Actually, it does mean precisely that

Almighty gods are able to achieve their every end without causing harm in the process
A god that needs to cause harm in order to achieve a desired end is not almighty

Whoops! Sola scriptura again! This is NOT the doctrinal position of the majority of Christians
It is, however, the doctrinal position of fundamentalist Christians
The same Christians that I am conversing with on CARM

That said, what exactly is your problem?

Already went through this.
Not really

What do I consciously and purposefully do knowing that I am inflicting needless harm?
 

Algor

Well-known member
Adults, both male and female, are to “all people” as eyes are to the face
Adolescents, both male and female, are to “all people” as the nose is to the face
Children, both male and female, are to “all people” as ears are to the face
Babies, both male and female, are to “all people” as the mouth is to the face

Yap yap. You don’t know that there were babies alive st the time if the flood at the time: you are interpolating that. Its really simple.
"All people" includes babies just as surely as a written mention of "face" includes the mouth!
No, that’s dumb. “All people” in a highschool doesn’t necessarily include babies.
Hebrews 4:12
"For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart"

Speculation {i.e. entertaining the possibility that God's word is insufficient and/or incorrect}
and
faith {i.e. removal of ultimate trust from self to God}
are contradictory concepts
Nope, sorry. You don’t get to make up a hermeneutic and call it Christian.
Actually, it does mean precisely that
No it does’t. It only means that God acts freely withon his nature and intents. That’s Christian doctrine for millenia. You don’t get to pull stuff out of your butt and say its Christian.
Almighty gods are able to achieve their every end without causing harm in the process
Nope. Only according to Gods nature and ends. Take notes, Tercon. We’ve been over this before.
A god that needs to cause harm in order to achieve a desired end is not almighty
Repeating stuff you make up doesn’t make it true.
It is, however, the doctrinal position of fundamentalist Christians
The same Christians that I am conversing with on CARM
Your version of it, where you can’t even interpret things (unless you ant to add babies to the text that aren’t there) and call it “Christian” is not, nor is it their “mindset”.
That said, what exactly is your problem?
People who describe whole religions as cancer. Just substitute “Judaism” for “Christian” in your rants. Its pretty ugly, isn’t it?
Not really
Yep
What do I consciously and purposefully do knowing that I am inflicting needless harm?
Eat, wear cotton, play on the internet.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Yap yap. You don’t know that there were babies alive st the time if the flood at the time: you are interpolating that. Its really simple.

No, that’s dumb. “All people” in a highschool doesn’t necessarily include babies.
And yet "all people" in the "human race" DOES include babies

Have you forgotten that, in addition to promising to drown "all people" - God also specifically said that He intends to drown the "human race"?

You're yapping, but you're not making much progress...

Nope, sorry. You don’t get to make up a hermeneutic and call it Christian.
I'm not making anything up

This comes from God, Algor, not me

The Christian God demands faith - {removal of ultimate trust from self to Him}
The Christian God prohibits 'the adding to' or 'taking away from' His word

No it does’t. It only means that God acts freely withon his nature and intents. That’s Christian doctrine for millenia.
You think that almightiness is defined by God acting within His nature and intents?
That's dumb!

Almightiness speaks to God's capabilities - what He can and cannot physically DO within His nature and His intent

A God who claims that, for Him, all things are possible
{given that it is within His nature and intent}
has no difficulty achieving His every desired end WITHOUT causing harm

Repeating stuff you make up doesn’t make it true.
Amen

And yet you keep repeating yourself...

People who describe whole religions as cancer.
Christianity IS a cancer

Show me another religion wherein God immorally imposes a problem upon us, immorally presents Himself as the solution to the problem that He is responsible for, and then immorally demands, at the the threat of an immoral eternal damnation, to be praised and glorified for His actions and I will gladly describe this religion, likewise, as a cancer

Eat, wear cotton, play on the internet.
That's dumb

I am not consciously and purposefully inflicting needless harm upon others by virtue of eating, wearing cotton, or using the internet

If you beg to differ, then explain to me precisely how I am inflicting needless harm upon someone by doing these things because I honestly do not see it
 

Algor

Well-known member
And yet "all people" in the "human race" DOES include babies
You don't know that it did, at that time. That's your interpolation into a FICTIONAL story. You are literally trying to tell me what a fictional story, full of magic and miracles,improbable wonders and bizarre characters, MUST imply internally. Utterly bizarre.

I wrote a long reply. Then I got to "Christianity IS a cancer" below, and I realised, this really is just deranged self-hate. Seek help dude, you have troubles, and I say that as a professional, and I don't mean your issues with Christianity. The best thing for me to do at this point is say good bye, wish you well, and put you on the ignore, because anything I say more is not going to help anyone at all. Sayanora.
 
Last edited:

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member

This is crazy talk.

I posted this as a new OP, but in case the Mods remove it:

There once was an arborist from CARM
Who whined day and night 'bout the harm
To some babies whom he
Thought were drowned in the sea
So he feigned a great deal of alarm.

If you're wondering why I say feigned,
In spite of his whines he maintained
That no such drownings occurred.
Now who's ever heard
Of such madness that can't be explained?
 

Algor

Well-known member



I posted this as a new OP, but in case the Mods remove it:

There once was an arborist from CARM
Who whined day and night 'bout the harm
To some babies whom he
Thought were drowned in the sea
So he feigned a great deal of alarm.

If you're wondering why I say feigned,
In spite of his whines he maintained
That no such drownings occurred.
Now who's ever heard
Of such madness that can't be explained?
Yeah, well, I thought better of it. I'm not going to engage that craziness any more. Important to know that its there, but some things I shouldn't argue with.
 
Top