- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jesus was from Nazareth
Posted on 12/20/25 at 11:29 am to Azkiger
Posted on 12/20/25 at 11:29 am to Azkiger
quote:There is a categorical difference between food taste and morality and we treat them differently because of it. We don’t outlaw food merely because of how it tastes.
How can food taste good or bad if there is no objective standard for taste?
quote:I know you agree that morality is subjective in your worldview. What I keep trying to impress upon you is the irrationality of believing morality is subjective but then attempting to act as if it isn’t, and even expecting others to do the same.
You're so sad. Quite literally every interaction I have with you, all you do is try and pull me into this same issue. An issue I keep agreeing with you on. Yes, I do not believe there is objective morality.
Yet, just like taste, people still have strong opinions on the subject. Child killing is a bit like dog shite. Virtually no one likes it. So I don't need to go into objective morality for the 20th time with you. It's not relevant, AND I'm openly agreeing with you, I don't believe it exists.
You allow your moral preferences to affect your own beliefs and actions and expect the same of others, as if those moral preferences had true meaning. This is what I’m calling attention to.
You act as if morality is meaningful and objective and that it should inform actions, while your worldview doesn’t shpport such a thing.
In sum, your atheism makes you irrational, and you have to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to condemn anything as immoral in a meaningful way.
1
Posted on 12/20/25 at 11:33 am to FooManChoo
quote:
There is a categorical difference between food taste and morality and we treat them differently because of it. We don’t outlaw food merely because of how it tastes.
Are we talking about legal vs illegal?
Could have sworn we were talking about objective vs subjective.
quote:
What I keep trying to impress upon you is the irrationality of believing morality is subjective but then attempting to act as if it isn’t, and even expecting others to do the same.
I'm acting as if people have underlying foundational views on morality, however subjective. And not killing children is one of those moral stances.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 11:38 am to Azkiger
quote:Calling God a “child killer” is already a moral judgment, not a neutral description.
Do you disagree with either of those items?
And arguing that lethal action is unjustified because a less harmful alternative can be imagined applies a harm-minimization standard—that’s utilitarian reasoning, whether it’s labeled or not. It also quietly redefines “necessary” to mean “least harmful conceivable,” which is not how necessity functions in the biblical narrative or in Jesus’ moral reasoning.
So the disagreement isn’t factual -- it’s about the moral framework being imposed.
There’s also an asymmetry: full moral agency is assigned to God for death, but none for creation or sustaining life. If God exists and acts, then every child who dies exists only because God created and upheld them in the first place.
That doesn’t resolve the moral tension—but it does show your framework isn’t neutral. Agency can’t be counted only where it condemns.
I’m not dismissing your question or position. I’ve wrestled with it myself, seriously and for a long time.
What I’ve learned is that at some point this stops being an intellectual problem and becomes a question of what kind of explanation one is willing to accept in the first place. I don’t think I can bridge that gap for you in this thread.
I understand the objection. I just don’t think continuing this line of argument is going to get either of us anywhere.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 11:44 am to RoyalWe
quote:
Calling God a “child killer” is already a moral judgment, not a neutral description.
No, that's neutral.
Child murderer would be a moral judgement.
Child killer is neutral. And if you disagree, feel free to offer up neutral phrasing.
quote:
And arguing that lethal action is unjustified because a less harmful alternative can be imagined applies a harm-minimization standard—that’s utilitarian reasoning, whether it’s labeled or not. It also quietly redefines “necessary” to mean “least harmful conceivable,” which is not how necessity functions in the biblical narrative or in Jesus’ moral reasoning.
Non-harmful alternatives*
This isn't harm-minimization. It's simply not steering into a crowd of people on the sidewalk when there's an open street before you.
quote:
There’s also an asymmetry: full moral agency is assigned to God for death, but none for creation or sustaining life. If God exists and acts, then every child who dies exists only because God created and upheld them in the first place.
Even worse.
God created children knowing he'd kill them later. He could have not created them in the first place and they wouldn't have suffered.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 11:46 am to Azkiger
quote:We are, and I’m talking about why we treat food taste differently from food preparation when it comes to laws. We don’t treat issues pertaining to human health as mere preferences like we do food taste, though we should, if your atheism is correct.
Are we talking about legal vs illegal?
Could have sworn we were talking about objective vs subjective.
We act as if morality has an objective quality to it. I’m pointing out how that is irrational in an atheistic worldview.
quote:If you were consistent with your atheism, you would realize that “killing children” is not inherently evil according to your own worldview, and therefore whether people have a general distaste for it or not doesn’t actually matter to whether or not such a thing is really evil.
I'm acting as if people have underlying foundational views on morality, however subjective. And not killing children is one of those moral stances.
You are acting irrationally.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 11:52 am to FooManChoo
quote:
We are, and I’m talking about why we treat food taste differently from food preparation when it comes to laws. We don’t treat issues pertaining to human health as mere preferences like we do food taste, though we should, if your atheism is correct.
There's nothing about "my" atheism that suggests that.
quote:
We act as if morality has an objective quality to it. I’m pointing out how that is irrational in an atheistic worldview.
No, I think there could be reasons why people would act as if morality is objective even if, ultimately, it is subjective.
quote:
If you were consistent with your atheism, you would realize that “killing children” is not inherently evil according to your own worldview, and therefore whether people have a general distaste for it or not doesn’t actually matter to whether or not such a thing is really evil.
You are acting irrationally.
I'm not inconsistent. If I were I'd be saying child murder. But I'm not. I'm saying child killer. You don't like how this sounds, and I'm sorry about that. Maybe invent a time machine, go back, and tell the authors of the Bible to make up better stories.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 11:52 am to Azkiger
quote:
My goal is to change a light bulb. All I need is a ladder and a new bulb. I get a ladder, new bulb, kill my neighbors children, and change the bulb.
Wow... you violated about every rule of logic there.
If your goal was to stop your neighbors from sexually molesting their kids...
Would you remove the kids from their house? I hope you would call the police and the police would take the Parents to prison, and put the kids into a different home...
That's a better analogy.
Everyone was removed from their house.
quote:
If they were never formed in their mother's wombs in the first place, this wouldn't be a problem.
So people who are not wicked yet should be prejudged because things they would do?
There would be no people on earth.
God is a God of forgiveness. Of Chances, Of Opportunities and Free will.
You seem to be arguing for a god of your own liking who is nothing like the God of the Bible.
quote:
Bad framing. Why do you think I'll accept "God knows" in the above question?
It doesn't matter, you either base your attack on things in the Bible and accept the whole story or you reject both.
If you accept that God wiped out the world in the flood, then you also have to accept that God knows all.
It's the same book, it's like you reading one line in Lord of the Rings and start arguing that Gandalf was a bad guy because he killed an Orc.
Again this is a complete violation of the rules of logic.
quote:
I think the whole story is made up, and evidence that the people who wrote it were ignorant and primitive.
Then why would you argue about one section of the Bible, completely out of context rejecting all other information in that same source?
Let me take you out of context
quote:
Azkiger: I get a ladder, new bulb, kill my neighbors children
Oh wow child murderer right there!!!!
Posted on 12/20/25 at 11:57 am to Azkiger
“No, that’s neutral.” Okay, let’s assume you are being neutral.
“Even worse.” Oh wait, you’re assigning a moral judgement.
Which is it?
There are a lot of possibilities of what’s going on here. The most benign have you ill-equipped or not prepared to advance the conversation. I’ll go with the most benign option. I forgive you your trespasses.
“Even worse.” Oh wait, you’re assigning a moral judgement.
Which is it?
There are a lot of possibilities of what’s going on here. The most benign have you ill-equipped or not prepared to advance the conversation. I’ll go with the most benign option. I forgive you your trespasses.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 12:01 pm to Narax
quote:
Wow... you violated about every rule of logic there.
Name the rules I violated.
quote:
That's a better analogy.
Analogies are suppose to find relationships. Your analogy doesn't include children being killed, the crux of the issue. How is that analogous at all?
quote:
So people who are not wicked yet should be prejudged because things they would do?
Not forming a being is prejudgement?
So why didn't God create even MORE children preflood? As to not prejudge them (your "logic").
quote:
There would be no people on earth.
Close. Let Noah's family reproduce. Same result (all the wickedness goes away, only Noah's family is left over), without flooding the entire planet.
quote:
Again this is a complete violation of the rules of logic.
I'll be sure to hold my breath while you list all those rule violations.
quote:
Let me take you out of context
I haven't taken anything out of context. You're acting as if God said to not kill children, and I just chopped off the "not" and am running around pretending that he said TO kill children. I'm including all of the context that the Bible mentioned for that event.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 12:03 pm to RoyalWe
quote:
Which is it?
The even worse is a commentary on how now the argument for "it's not senseless" has gotten harder to prove.
If you're assigning their existence to God, as opposed to just the universe/world/biological reality that sex=babies, now he's creating children he's going to have to kill in weeks/months/years.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 12:04 pm to Errerrerrwere
I've heard Jesus referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth" many times, so, I'm totally stunned that you would tell us that Jesus was from Nazareth.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 12:05 pm to Azkiger
The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, if you take my meaning.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 12:06 pm to RoyalWe
quote:
The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, if you take my meaning.
I don't, but I do suspect we both have better things to do this Saturday.
I'm behind on a literary deadline, so I'm going to drop out. Have a wonderful weekend.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 12:06 pm to Azkiger
quote:All atheism suggests it. I’m just making it personal to show how you, specially, are being irrational because of it.
There's nothing about "my" atheism that suggests that.
quote:The reality is that if atheism is correct, morality is entirely subjective, as you’ve admitted. Therefore, to act as if morality is objective is a logical inconsistency, regardless of why a person might want to act otherwise, which is why I keep highlighting the irrationality of atheism.
No, I think there could be reasons why people would act as if morality is objective even if, ultimately, it is subjective.
We are “programmed” to act as if morality is objective. The Christian worldview makes sense of this in both a rational and practical way where atheism cannot.
quote:You've already betrayed that you are not merely stating facts, but are attempting to persuade others of the immorality of the facts. You are trying to weasel your way out of it by attempting to rely on linguistic loopholes.
I'm not inconsistent. If I were I'd be saying child murder. But I'm not. I'm saying child killer. You don't like how this sounds, and I'm sorry about that. Maybe invent a time machine, go back, and tell the authors of the Bible to make up better stories.
Because of this, I’ll ask you plainly: do you think the biblical narrative of the flood portrays an evil God, particularly due to the consequence of children dying?
This post was edited on 12/20/25 at 12:11 pm
Posted on 12/20/25 at 12:19 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Name the rules I violated.
False equivalence
That was every way a false equivalence.
quote:
Analogies are suppose to find relationships. Your analogy doesn't include children being killed, the crux of the issue. How is that analogous at all?
Uh... Dude, what is killed?
Removed from the body they call home and sent somewhere else.
I've already explained why you see "killed" as a bad thing.
You reject an afterlife, the permanent home of the soul.
quote:
Not forming a being is prejudgement?
Yes of course, your logic is cruel and unusual.
quote:
So why didn't God create even MORE children preflood? As to not prejudge them (your "logic").
So when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much.... Babies are born.
That is the method that God has given humanity to create more humans.
You seem to be off in some weird fantasy somewhere that's untethered to reality...
quote:
Close. Let Noah's family reproduce. Same result (all the wickedness goes away, only Noah's family is left over), without flooding the entire planet.
Dude, they all die anyway...
You didn't think that through...
Everyone dies either way.
quote:
I'll be sure to hold my breath while you list all those rule violations.
Contextomy
quote:
I haven't taken anything out of context. You're acting as if God said to not kill children, and I just chopped off the "not" and am running around pretending that he said TO kill children. I'm including all of the context that the Bible mentioned for that event.
It's literally contextomy, you need to take the entire material into account.
Again with out context you just murdered some children.
You are as illogical as Errerrerrwere right now.
You don't think it's real so you haven't put any effort into refuting it which leads to lazy, embarrassing, and ill formed arguments that only make sense to you as your presuppositions allow you to be circular in your logic.
You brain continues to connect things in a circle which gives you the feeling that you are right.
No different than Errerrerrwere.
This is why Logic is taught, because feeling right and being right are two different things, and humans often feel superior and think they are right (Real women have Penises!) while being completely illogical and wrong.
There are many good arguments against Christianity, yours are not, but I understand how you are fooled into thinking such.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 12:25 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:Stupid deduction.
He was a Nazarene. Nazarene was in Galilee and Galilee was in Israel. Not Judaea. Making Jesus NOT a Jew.
I was in the Army. I moved my pregnant wife to be with me. My first born came to us while we were living in Germany. I suppose my son is now a German although his mother is pure Cajun.
quote:Study your ancestry.
Errerrerrwere
Posted on 12/20/25 at 12:29 pm to Errerrerrwere
Do you have to be born in Ireland to be Irish? In Italy to be Italian?
Posted on 12/20/25 at 1:52 pm to Narax
Just when I think I'm out the retard pulls me back in....
Nope. In both instances the deaths of the children have nothing to do with the objective.
I can screw in a light bulb without killing children.
God can remove wickedness without killing children.
You also said rules, plural. So go find at least two that actually fit.
This is what Christian apologetics does to your brain.
"Drowning them isn't killing them!"
So God doesn't knit together children in their mother's womb? God doesn't bless people with children?
You're not understanding.
Make all the wicked people infertile 100 years prior to the flood. By the time the flood rolls around, only Noah and his family are left. So now there's no need to flood the world.
What have I not taken into account?
That drowning someone isn't killing them?
quote:
False equivalence
That was every way a false equivalence.
Nope. In both instances the deaths of the children have nothing to do with the objective.
I can screw in a light bulb without killing children.
God can remove wickedness without killing children.
You also said rules, plural. So go find at least two that actually fit.
quote:
Uh... Dude, what is killed?
Removed from the body they call home and sent somewhere else.
This is what Christian apologetics does to your brain.
"Drowning them isn't killing them!"
quote:
So when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much.... Babies are born.
That is the method that God has given humanity to create more humans.
You seem to be off in some weird fantasy somewhere that's untethered to reality...
So God doesn't knit together children in their mother's womb? God doesn't bless people with children?
quote:
Dude, they all die anyway...
You didn't think that through...
Everyone dies either way.
You're not understanding.
Make all the wicked people infertile 100 years prior to the flood. By the time the flood rolls around, only Noah and his family are left. So now there's no need to flood the world.
quote:
...you need to take the entire material into account.
What have I not taken into account?
That drowning someone isn't killing them?
This post was edited on 12/20/25 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 12/20/25 at 1:57 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Do you think the biblical narrative of the flood portrays an evil God, particularly due to the consequence of children dying?
Yes.
And I'm fine with that's just an opinion because most people share the opinion that children shouldn't be senselessly killed. Objective or not, the reality is still that the vast majority of the population agree that the senseless killing of children is immoral/evil/wrong.
That's what makes this argument powerful. Not to you, you're fine with God senselessly killing children. But most people aren't a hardliner like you.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 2:04 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:quote:
He was a Nazarene. Nazarene was in Galilee and Galilee was in Israel. Not Judaea. Making Jesus NOT a Jew.
What was false?
Let's first look at geography since that was your first point. Now I don't know about "false" (ie: intentionally intending to deceive) but it's incorrect, depending on how you look at "Israel".
Israel was the name of the original kingdom, but it also became the common name for the region even after the tribes split. After the northern kingdom of Israel fell to the Assyrians in 722BC, many of the surviving Israelites fled to the kingdom of Judah (which would eventually become change linguistically to "Judea" during the Hellenistic period, then get solidified by the Romans).
Even after the kingdom of Israel fell, many in the region continued to refer to themselves is "Israelites" for generations, this eventually became interchangeable with Jewish ("of Judah") because to the people of that time it meant the same thing.
When the Romans came in, they bundled Judea, Samaria, and Galilee into the province of Judea.
So both geographically and linguistically it doesn't matter whether we consider Jesus a Nazarene, Galilean, Judean or Israelite in the present because those terms could all mean the same thing to someone born of Jewish descent and hailing from the Galilee area at that time and that's really what we're discussing.
Religiously, Jesus was a Jew. We know this because while he never states "I'm a Jew" he so deeply implies it in John 4:22 that it's impossible to take it any other way unless one is being purposely obtuse.
quote:
You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.
What we see with this passage is that:
-Jesus contrasts Samaritan worship with Jewish worship
-Jesus uses "we" to align himself with the Jews ("we know what we worship"), distinguishing them from the Samaritan ("you").
-Jesus clearly includes himself among the Jews, as he was speaking as a participant in Jewish worship and tradition.
Along with that, we have the context of John 4:9
quote:
The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?”
Here Jesus is being called a Jew and doesn't correct the woman. Why? Because he considered himself to be a Jew.
Genetically, Jesus' mother Mary was a descendant of the House of David, which was from the Tribe of Judah.
So geographically, linguistically, genetically and religiously Jesus was indeed a Jew.
Page 10 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News