re: Jesus was from Nazareth

quote:

---

retard

---

Oooh add hominem fallacy to your list of sins!

You never did take a logic class did you?

quote:

---

Nope. In both instances the deaths of the children have nothing to do with the objective.

---

So you openly admit that your example was False equivalence.

quote:

---

I can screw in a light bulb without killing children.

---

Taken out of context you can't.

quote:

---

God can remove wickedness without killing children.

---

So when their parents die... They starve to death?

Is He supposed to turn their parent's brains into robots?

quote:

---

You also said rules, plural. So go find at least two that actually fit.

---

Reading comprehension not your strong suite?

Contextomy, False equivalence, and now ad hominem, I could have added a claim about strawman fallacy, but well you had two when you replied.

quote:

---

"Drowning them isn't killing them!"

---

Again, failing the reading comprehension. He removed their souls from their bodies and put them in a better place.
Yes, that would be killing them, why are you some way claiming anyone thinks that removing the soul from the body doesn't involve death?

quote:

---

So God doesn't knit together children in their mother's womb? God doesn't bless people with children?

---

The laws of nature that God has put in place has biological processes that indeed knit together children in their parent womb. Much like when I write code, anyone executing the code calls the behavior I wrote.

That said there was one virgin birth, all other instances involved a woman being impregnated by a man. And yes, when there are biological blockers God can and does remove those blockers so that people who pray to have a family, are indeed blessed with more than they would naturally have.

quote:

---

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.

---

So all those children that are now in Paradise with God, were never born?
You would take the blessings of life and God's presence, of paradise from many thousands you never met?

Strange.

I guess we could castrate anyone likely to get an abortion or produce a criminal as well...

quote:

---

That drowning someone isn't killing them?

---

That there is a life of wonder after death.

quote:

---

So why kill children

---

Youre like an ant thinking that the bus wheel which just crushed it did so because it wanted to take over his ant hill.

You don't have the understanding required to even discuss this. You're even dumber than the guy who thought you had to be from Nazareth to be a 'Nazarene'.

quote:

---

Stop. I've always been consistent with my stance on this. You keep trying to pull me in, almost reflexively, as if hoping this time I'll give you what you want ("No Foo, I can have my cake and eat it too. There's no God AND objective morality!")

It's so odd we have to go through this everytime. I keep thinking you don't track usernames, but then you often reference things I've said in the past so you clearly remember me.

Is this the last time you'll pretend to surprise me with the idea that atheists cannot claim to have access to objective morality? (For the record, and we've discussed this at length so I don't want to get into it again, but I also contend theists also do not have access to objective morality).

---

I already acknowledged that you cannot lay claim to objective morality. I continue to explain it because you continue to argue as if others should care about what you believe to be evil when there is no such thing as true evil in your worldview. There is only what you prefer and what you don't prefer. As long as you continue to discuss God's actions in a way that is intended to convince others that He is evil, I'll continue to show that you have no basis for making such a judgement in the first place, and that when you do so anyway, you are acting inconsistently and irrationality. That's why I keep saying the same thing over and over again to you.

quote:

---

Sure it is.

---

Not it isn't. "Senseless", at least as you seem to be using it, refers to having no meaning or purpose to it. In the example you gave of the lightbulb and murder, the murder has no purpose in relation to the changing of the light bulb.

The flood had multiple purposes. Here are a few to start with:

1. To execute judgement against wickedness
2. To highlight God's own glory and holiness against sin
3. To preserve the covenant line of God's grace through Noah
4. To establish a covenantal sign of His common grace
5. To prefigure the judgement to come and the salvation through Christ, whom Jesus was send to save His people

God destroyed His own creations (which He had every prerogative to do, as God) for their sinfulness while showing mercy to Noah. The age of those people who died are irrelevant to whether or not God had the right and prerogative to do it. And, since God works through covenant, and since the covenant of works was made with Adam and broken by him, all his posterity remain guilty due to original sin, and therefore there is no one--man, woman, or child of any age--that is innocent and not deserving of the same fate.

So no, what happened during the flood was not senseless, but had purpose and meaning behind it.

quote:

---

No such logic follows. There's nothing preventing someone who believes in subjective morality from reasonably engaging in moral conversations.

---

When you expect others to conform to your preferences and seek to enact laws or changes in society based on those preferences, or if you seek to dissuade others from believing in the God of the Bible, you act as if your preferences are true and worthy of conformity over and against other preferences. It would be like arguing over your favorite flavor of ice cream, and then shaming others for liking a different flavor than your own, or acting as if your favorite flavor is THE RIGHT flavor because others agree with you.

When you start treating a personal preference as a standard that others should conform to, you start acting inconsistently with what you know to be true, namely that there is no true and objective moral standard that anyone should abide by.

Have all the discussions you want about morality, but you really shouldn't attempt to persuade others to change their moral preferences, or act like anyone's moral preferences are better or worse than your own.

By application, you shouldn't even hint at a condemnation of God's actions in destroying people--children or otherwise--during the flood, because you have no standard by which to say that such a thing is wrong. The best you can do is say that it seems unpleasant to you and to others.

quote:

---

In any other context, killing someone to solve a problem that could be solved without killing them would be considered senseless.

---

If all who sin deserve death, and God is capable and just to kill any of His own creatures, then why does it matter if He does it all at once or a few here and there? It's not senseless to do it all at once to show His power, authority, and justice and holiness as God over all creation. In fact it makes sense to do something like that to show HIs power and authority, especially to people like you who don't even believe He exists.

If one of the purposes of the flood was mass judgement (which includes the death of wicked people), then the flood makes perfect sense. It's contrary to being "senseless".

quote:

---

Did I make an ad hominem, or did I just insult you?

---

Considering you've been failing this entire argument to be logical, plus, now attacking those debating with you, you are definitely trying to use ad hominem to bolster your claims, it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

You aren't the first atheist to get angry about his inability to "prove something he believes to be true" and then starts lashing out in this way when the discussion doesn't go his way.

This is a weaker spinoff of Dawkins Savage Old Testament God.

quote:

---

You've admitted to using multiple fallacies

---

First fallacies, now lying?

Not surprised. You were do separate for a W you were actually trying to argue with me that drowning someone isn't killing them because their soul leaves their body and goes to Heaven.

^ I stopped taking you seriously at that moment ^

quote:

---

Let's check

---

You said I admitted to committing fallacies.

quote:

---

I've corrected you multiple times, yes it kills the body, but you have again failed to either create your own definition of why death is bad, (you are pro assisted suicide), or have any realization that all of Christianity treats death as a transform to another and better life.

---

I'm glad you changed your bad argument after the fact. I'm sad to see you chose another bad argument.

I never argued it was bad, only that it was senseless. You're free to think it's good like Foo does and see him killing children as divine justice.

quote:

---

You cant even explain why making someone never exist is good to you,

---

Your question was senseless. You pretended that God not creating those people to drown was a bad thing. This suggests not creating people is bad. So, if there were ten million people on the planet when God flooded the earth, why wasn't there twenty million? God could have created more, so why didn't he?

The amount of people is arbitrary. God could make 2, like Adam and Eve, or 8 billion like we have today.

God not making people isnt inherently evil. So your point was silly.

quote:

---

You want to both argue that God killed the whole world with a flood but doesn't know the future and what's best for people.

---

So you've dropped the drowning isn't really killing argument for drowning can be good for someone.

quote:

---

You said I admitted to committing fallacies.

---

Unless you want to pretend that demanding I prove a second one is now withdrawn and that you really do beleive that screwing in a lightbulb and removing extreme evil from earth are comparable.

Is that how you want people to see you? As someone who has that little grasp of reality?

If you want to be known as the guy who thinks screwing a lightbulb is similar to destroying global evil... go ahead, I doubt its going to hurt your reputation.

quote:

---

I'm glad you changed your bad argument after the fact

---

... wtf?

quote:

---

Posted by Narax12/20/25 at 3:00 pm to Azkiger
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.

---

You really miss the boat a lot... I addressed it clearly and you seem to have forgotten that.

quote:

---

I never argued it was bad, only that it was senseless.

---

Can you define senseless? I dont think you can.
Because it does makes sense to remove people from a bad situation. The police do it, the courts do it. When you can permanently remove someone from danger, they makes sense.

quote:

---

God could have created more, so why didn't he?

---

So again God gave humans the ability to have babies, its up to humans to make another human...
You spend all this time arguing about a god of your own making, one nothing like the one of the Bible.
Yes that is a sad god you have made, which is expected as you made it in your own image.

quote:

---

God not making people isnt inherently evil. So your point was silly.

---

You really have never read the Bible have you?
Your weird idea of a god making people is quite un biblical.
If I write the code and deploy it, others still chose when to run it. If that code makes an object then it is I who enabled that object to be made, but others who decided that object is to be made.

quote:

---

So you've dropped the drowning isn't really killing argument for drowning can be good for someone

---

Are you drinking?
That quote was entirely explaining how lacking your logic was...
You replied that you interpreted that as me changing my argument to something as illogical as yours?

I would not show this to your fellow atheists...
They will not be impressed...

quote:

---

Also, just because an analogy might not be strong doesn't mean it's a false equivalency.

---

Not strong?
Its ridiculous. Of course I expect you to back out of you saying its not strong soon.
Sure you can back out of your slip that you thought I needed a second case of you violating logic.

quote:

---

It wasn't perfect, but, assuming you don't have room temp IQ, you should be able to understand what I was suggesting.

---

You were suggesting something with no value, a completely unrelated example, in scope, in impact, in complexity.

Screwing in a lightbulb has nothing to do with children. Sin across a planet has everything to do with children, they are intertwined with the sin and the sinners.

quote:

---

Yes, you pretended not to know "what is killed" after someone is drowned.

Uh, the person you frickwit?

---

No I am stating that you need to define what that is, what is the person, the body? The soul?

Just because you refuse to think exactly about things does not mean you get a free pass for sloppy statements.

quote:

---

Yes, not needed to accomplish a goal.

---

The closest a dictionary will get to that is meaningless.

quote:

---

If I need to screw in a lightbulb, killing my neighbor's children has nothing to do with that activity so doing so would be pointless.

---

The children are unrelated to the lightbulb.

quote:

---

Likewise, removing wickedness from the earth doesn't necessitate killing people (as I've already shown). Had God just not sewn those wicked people together in their mother's wombs, the wickedness would never have existed.

---

So you admit that the children are deeply intertwined in the wickedness of their parents and other adults.

God's purpose is to have a relationship with those who want it.
None of us would be here if he didnt give us a chance to go along with free will.

In this case there are millions of children in paradise, in your case those people's parents were unable to have children at all so those people never could experience everlasting paradise.

It looks like your "god" of your own making is the pointless one. A weak creation of yours that no one would beleive in.

quote:

---

Why did you switch from drown to remove? Just wondering

---

To show you how God does not see death the way scared atheists see it, or how Christians see it.
Our God went to his death on the cross, He then rose again, and is our surety of eternal life.
Thats all death is, the removal from this world and the start of the next.

In that case drowning isnt this end of all existence or worse that you think it is.
Generations of martyrs have held this to be true.

quote:

---

Cool, so there's nothing wrong with God making wicked people infertile then.

Why didn't he?

---

Because he gave them a chance and free will, because he is just and does not pre punish people for what they have done yet, more so than that, he holds out forgiveness for the wicked.

Forgiveness paid for by his own death.

quote:

---

You went from "Dude, what is killed?

---

Sigh...
You have such a lazy mind, you fail to define what the bounds of your claim is and why you put weight behind it.

quote:

---

So, first its "drowning isn't killing them". After that failed, its "Bro, its really in their best interest to be drowned".

---

Im trying to help you to see something other than your ridiculous circular reasoning.

Dawkins wouldn't be caught dead in the circular trap you made for yourself.

quote:

---

Do you know how retarded that sounds?

---

Sounds as retarded as pearls before swine...

quote:

---

Do you acknowledge that I do not claim to have access to objective morality, though?

---

Yes, and yet you act like you do when you condemn anything as evil and try to have others agree.

quote:

---

I'm putting my views out there for other like-minded people to see. I knew of Noah's flood for decades and never questioned it in this way before (never thought of it). Perhaps there are other people out there who haven't thought about it.

---

Why do you care if anyone considers it? Are you as interested in people reconsidering what flavor of ice cream is best?

quote:

---

You claiming I shouldn't care is really just saying "stop saying things I disagree with".

---

Not at all. I’m trying to show you the foolishness of your own worldview. You act as if some things are objectively evil while acknowledging that objective evil doesn’t exist. You can’t act consistently within your worldview because it is false. You know there is actual evil in this world that is objectively true, and you know everyone should acknowledge it, as well, which is why you react the same way most everyone else doesn’t violence and injustice. It’s why you have no problem calling out the flood narrative as an example of God’s cruelty as an evil being, because you think that such an act as killing all human life like that is evil.

Again, if you were consistent, you would treat such things like a personal preference to be shrugged off rather than something to speak out against.

quote:

---

1.) There was wickedness pre and post flood, why no floods?
2.) Why can't making someone infertile also accomplish that?

---

1) Death is a judgment for sin and individuals did die prior to the flood. By the time of Noah, rejection of God was so pervasive that Noah and his family alone worshipped Him and lived lives devoted to Him. God showed patience by not judging the earth prior to Noah.

2) Sin deserves death. Merely preventing reproduction is not sufficient of a judgment in those who are wicked. Imagine if someone raped and killed many children and was then sentenced to castration and released. Do you think that’s justice? Someone has to pay for sin against God.

quote:

---

1.) Why does that necessitate a flood, though? Can't other, non-violent, actions highlight God's own glory? Or does it have to be violence?
2.) Also, what were God attempts to stamp out sin globally (violently of course) against sin pre and post flood?

---

1) While God can glorify Himself in many other ways, this was tied to His justice. Wickedness was so pervasive that this massive judgment showed God’s power, holiness, and justice in a way that typical acts could not. An individual dying at God’s hand could be dismissed as natural causes or the work of another so-called god, but the God of Noah was the one that judged the earth.

2) Before the flood, none. He showed patience to all until wickedness spread all over. After the flood, He created a special nation for Himself (Israel) to receive Him and His law and a system of judgment and forgiveness to point toward the future Messiah that He would send to pay for sin. Christ died for sinners, and will one day come again in judgment of all through the destruction of the earth and sentencing all to either glory or damnation based on their guilt.

quote:

---

Making all the wicked infertile solves this problem.

---

As I said, it doesn’t. It prevents future wickedness but it doesn’t deal with existing guilt. The flood did both, at least for that generation.

quote:

---

And only a flood/violence allows him to do this?

---

Yes. The sign that God will not destroy the earth again necessitates that it would happen at least once before. It would be a meaningless sign if God’s judgment for global wickedness never happened in the first place.

quote:

---

Again, only a flood/violence can accomplish this?

---

Yes. Jesus will return with violence, casting many into Hell for their wickedness. It will be much worse for them in Hell than any temporal judgment of drowning would be. The whole earth will be destroyed with fire at that point. The destruction of the earth with water is a prefiguring of the final judgment.

quote:

---

Yes, and my ladder couldn't quite reach the lightbulb, so I killed my neighbors children to lay under the ladder. That extra foot boost allowed me to change the lightbulb.

---

Not even comparable. The flood was necessary for what God intended to do. If you did not intend to kill your neighbor, then doing so only to change a lightbulb would certainly be senseless. The flood was sent as a judgment against wickedness. It wasn’t senseless.

quote:

---

No, it would be like arguing that ice cream tastes better than dog shite.

I'd rather people not go around eating dog shite because it increases health care costs. Society would be better off if less people ate dog shite, regardless of the subjectivity of taste.

---

That is still a subjective argument and standard. “Better off” according to what standard? Someone might argue that if someone ate dog feces and died, it was a good thing because it got weird people out of the gene pool. Others who think we are already overcrowded might see people dying from eating it as good for reducing the population. Just because you personally think this bad to get sick and die from eating feces doesn’t mean it objectively is, and even here you expose that you can’t escape God’s reality, because you are speaking as if this example is objective.

quote:

---

That's the same context. I mean outside of God's special ability to not be bound by the same morality we are.

This is basically just another special pleading fallacy that Christians invoke.

---

God is bound by the same moral standard. The application is different based on His authority. It is murder for us to kill another person in cold blood, but not as a punishment for crime. God can kill guilty persons for their crimes, as well, except all are guilty before God and He can execute anyone of us if He chooses. He can also pardon sin if He chooses, but not at the expense of justice. That is why Jesus suffered as a substitute to receive God’s wrath against sin so guilty sinners can receive forgiveness. Repent and trust in Christ and you will be forgiven.