- 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 12/21/25 at 9:03 am to John somers
Posted on 12/21/25 at 9:03 am to John somers
quote:1) Christians are supposed to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in them. I’m seeking to do that.
Why do you argue with homosexuals about Christianity?
You'd have better luck arguing with flies about the superiority of honey.
These homosexuals like their filth and revel in it. Much like the fly and dogshlt. You're wasting your time.
2) I want to show people that the Bible is true and defensible.
3) I want to share the gospel with the lost. These discussions are good vehicles for that.
I appreciate the concern, though.
1
Posted on 12/21/25 at 9:22 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:The objective standard is God’s character, as reflected in the 10 commandments.
Neither can you, Foo, because there is absolutely no objective morality contained within the Bible.
It is a moral standard that originates outside of the human experience and is applicable to all humanity, and all humanity will have to give an account to how they measured up to that standard.
It is objective.
quote:My claim is not that you claim to have a source for objective morality. My claim is that you act as if there is a source for objective morality that others should be held to, making you inconsistent with what you profess to be true, and necessarily so.
Why do you always try to create a straw man? None of us atheists claim we have a source objective morality. Just stop your dishonesty.
If you were consistent, you would make allowance for moral subjectivity and not condemn theft, rape, or murder, or expect anyone else to condemn it if they don’t want to, either.
quote:I’m glad you agree that the consensus is subjective. That has been my point all along. It can easily change with the preferences of society. You can say chattel slavery is wrong today because the consensus today is that it is wrong, but you can’t say it was wrong 200 years ago, because the consensus back then was that it was morally acceptable.
The standard is the consensus of others’ thoughts about what is right and wrong, based on “good” being something that increases happiness or wellbeing or decreases unnecessary suffering, or both. It’s still subjective, but you can’t say there is no such thing as right and wrong without your God’s existence.
You can condemn child brides or forced conversions to a religion in the USA because we condemn those things in our society, but you can’t condemn those things happening other countries where they are socially acceptable. You can’t even condemn the Holocaust because it was what the Nazi society allowed. We imposed our own cultural morality on Germany, which is a violation of the subjectivity of morality that you are espousing.
We don’t live like morality is subjective, which is my entire point.
quote:Again, the 10 commandments are the standard that reflects God’s moral character to humanity.
And to reiterate… you do not have an objective standard either, because there is no objectivity contained within the Bible.
quote:I’ve gone over these with you many times in the last. You just always equivocate and then move on to another example, and then rinse and repeat. It’s the same with your false Michael Heiser garbage you reiterate over and over again.
I’m not going to waste my time giving you examples because you sheepishly and cowardly have not responded the last several times I gave them to you (we all know though it’s because you don’t have a leg on which to stand).
Posted on 12/21/25 at 10:36 am to Narax
quote:
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.
You think I might have been arguing that the soul was killed when someone drowned?
Stop.
You were trying to downplay God drowning children and we're extremely intellectually lazy with that rebuttal.
quote:
The children are unrelated to the lightbulb.
I'm not sure there is a good comparison that can effectively account for the dynamics both of this story and my solution. Im not going to spend hours thinking up an analogy that checks all of your boxes. The intent was to convey an idea.
God killed children to solve a problem that have could have been solved without killing children. Think up whatever scenario you want, that's the point I was trying to get across.
quote:
So you admit that the children are deeply intertwined in the wickedness of their parents and other adults.
No. Im saying making wicked people infertile ends up with the same result as flooding the entire world.
quote:
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.
Let's say, just for simple math, there was a million children drowned during Noah's flood. Theyre now in Heaven (which is actually an unjust judgement, but we'll ignore that for the sake of this conversation).
You know whats better than 1 million?
2 million.
Why didn't God allow for there to be 2 million children on Earth to be drowned?
Just like my suggestion would prevent 1 million children ending up in Heaven, the rules surrounding the creation of children that God installed in humans also limited millions of children from entering Heaven.
If you're going to criticize me suggestion based on that, the same applies to God as well.
quote:
To show you how God does not see death the way scared atheists see it, or how Christians see it.
Pretty sure it was to minimize what's happened.
You bitched about my example. Yours needs to include judges and police killing children, not just separating "criminals" from the public.
Hell, even the holding area for the criminals doesn't match. In reality criminals go to prison, in this scenario children go to Heaven.
Don't worry, I won't go online and make up logical fallacies you're making.
I'll just tell you that your analogy is weak.
quote:
Sounds as retarded as pearls before swine...
All because I won't say "Yeah, it's good millions of children drowned. I was divine justice!"
This post was edited on 12/21/25 at 10:44 am
Posted on 12/21/25 at 10:42 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Yes, and yet you act like you do when you condemn anything as evil and try to have others agree.
Feel free to point out where I condemned anything as evil in this thread.
Again, you keep trying to make me fit into your box so you can effectively argue against me.
It's tiring.
I don't mind continuing our discussion and diving deeper into this, but it's 100% pointless (and intellectually dishonest) when I say blue, and you keep pretending that I said red.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 10:47 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
None of us atheists claim we have a source objective morality. Just stop your dishonesty.
He's doing it with you too, huh?
I was only paying attention to the responses aimed at me, but I did catch this bit as I was scrolling.
Talk about one-tune...
This post was edited on 12/21/25 at 10:48 am
Posted on 12/21/25 at 11:24 am to Azkiger
quote:
You think I might have been arguing that the soul was killed when someone drowned?
No, you have refused to define what you mean by death.
quote:
Stop
Not while you are being foolish, you need to be held accountable.
quote:
You were trying to downplay God drowning children and we're extremely intellectually lazy with that rebuttal.
Downplay?
I'm still trying to get what exactly you ascribe to death?
You are fearful of it, it's the worst thing ever, but you seem to be unable to define it. Is that what scares you?
Describe what death means to you.
quote:
I'm not sure there is a good comparison that can effectively account for the dynamics both of this story and my solution. Im not going to spend hours thinking up an analogy that checks all of your boxes. The intent was to convey an idea.
When you don't put in effort it comes out badly, then you get a False equivalence. Then you get angry and jump into ad hominem.
quote:
God killed children to solve a problem that have could have been solved without killing children. Think up whatever scenario you want, that's the point I was trying to get across.
Again define killed, what happens to the soul, why is being killed bad, you already are pro assisted suicide, that's being killed. Everyone dies in the end.
Your entire point is "accept my premise about a god I created and it's motives" what we agree on is what you think of as "god" is no God at all, it's you masquerading as a god.
quote:
No. Im saying making wicked people infertile ends up with the same result as flooding the entire world.
Except the millions of souls in paradise.
quote:
Why didn't God allow for there to be 2 million children on Earth to be drowned?
He allowed people to use their free will and procreate.
That's plenty obvious.
Again this self derived religion of yours is super weird, you have reached Squirrel levels of self delusion.
quote:
the rules surrounding the creation of children that God installed in humans also limited millions of children from entering Heaven.
It allowed Free will, Do you think the soul pre-existed god?
quote:
If you're going to criticize me suggestion based on that, the same applies to God as well.
Again this is your putting what you prioritize on God, you want God to be someone who you declare Him to be.
You don't know so you ascribe all kinds of strange explanations that self justify your fundamental rejection of God.
quote:
Pretty sure it was to minimize what's happened.
No, I haven't even responded in that sense as you won't even say what you think the full implications of death is.
It's hard to debate vagueness, I'm trying to coax out your actual belief of what death is as it seems to be fundamental to your world view.
quote:
You bitched about my example. Yours needs to include judges and police killing children, not just separating "criminals" from the public.
Again, you define what you mean by death and I can make an example you would relate to.
quote:
All because I won't say "Yeah, it's good millions of children drowned. I was divine justice!"
No, you know that you are trying to avoid defining your fundamental argument, you want it to be vague.
Your words show an intense fear of death, a hatred of death,
Posted on 12/21/25 at 11:46 am to FooManChoo
I get it.
I'll talk to atheists. But once it's a guy who swims in sewers I no longer have the willpower to try to talk to them. I just point and laugh.
You're a better man than I.
I'll talk to atheists. But once it's a guy who swims in sewers I no longer have the willpower to try to talk to them. I just point and laugh.
You're a better man than I.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 11:51 am to John somers
I'll settle this argument right now.
From the spiritual point of view, this life is simply a training ground, a dream we will remember. Any pain and suffering we endure here will be remembered simply like something that happened, but had no lasting effects (other than its effect on spiritual growth) and is therefore unimportant.
From the unsaved point of view, this life is all there is. They are destined for eternal death, and they know it. That's why they say 'but God killed muh little children'. They have no understanding of the spiritual. Neither do they want to understand.
That's it in a nutshell. The opinions of those destined for eternal life vs. the opinions of those destined for eternal death.
An never the twain shall meet.
And who is correct? Those destined for eternal life. Because the others will be eternally dead.
From the spiritual point of view, this life is simply a training ground, a dream we will remember. Any pain and suffering we endure here will be remembered simply like something that happened, but had no lasting effects (other than its effect on spiritual growth) and is therefore unimportant.
From the unsaved point of view, this life is all there is. They are destined for eternal death, and they know it. That's why they say 'but God killed muh little children'. They have no understanding of the spiritual. Neither do they want to understand.
That's it in a nutshell. The opinions of those destined for eternal life vs. the opinions of those destined for eternal death.
An never the twain shall meet.
And who is correct? Those destined for eternal life. Because the others will be eternally dead.
This post was edited on 12/21/25 at 11:56 am
Posted on 12/21/25 at 12:34 pm to Narax
You're just handwaving. My only claims so far have been...
1.) God drowned children.
2.) He didn't need to drown children in order to accomplish the goal as listed in the verses covering this event.
Based on those two items, God senselessly drowned children.
That's it. Period. End of Story.
You can hide behind "Oh, but they're in Heaven" without realizing the larger implications about everyone else not killed by God at a young age not getting that free ticket to Heaven. You can pretend I'm angry at God or scared of death (which is itself an ad hominem ). You can rattle off random logical fallacies like you actually understand the concepts they cover. You can ask about assisted suicide, bring up free will, whatever else you want.
None of that touches either of the two above items.
Both are true.
Therefore God senselessly killed children.
Either try and counter one of my points, or accept it. If you want to go beyond that and argue that it's actually a good thing that God senselessly drowned children, we can. But you're being irrationally resistant from the start, playing dumb, misquoting logical fallacies, and being purposefully distracting. Look at how many ways out conversation has fractured. That's all because you threw spaghetti against the wall desperately trying to find something that'd stick.
1.) God drowned children.
2.) He didn't need to drown children in order to accomplish the goal as listed in the verses covering this event.
Based on those two items, God senselessly drowned children.
That's it. Period. End of Story.
You can hide behind "Oh, but they're in Heaven" without realizing the larger implications about everyone else not killed by God at a young age not getting that free ticket to Heaven. You can pretend I'm angry at God or scared of death (which is itself an ad hominem ). You can rattle off random logical fallacies like you actually understand the concepts they cover. You can ask about assisted suicide, bring up free will, whatever else you want.
None of that touches either of the two above items.
Both are true.
Therefore God senselessly killed children.
Either try and counter one of my points, or accept it. If you want to go beyond that and argue that it's actually a good thing that God senselessly drowned children, we can. But you're being irrationally resistant from the start, playing dumb, misquoting logical fallacies, and being purposefully distracting. Look at how many ways out conversation has fractured. That's all because you threw spaghetti against the wall desperately trying to find something that'd stick.
This post was edited on 12/21/25 at 12:36 pm
Posted on 12/21/25 at 1:28 pm to Azkiger
quote:
2.) He didn't need to drown children in order to accomplish the goal as listed in the verses covering this event.
1. you misrepresent the goal
2. You still refuse to explain why you think their deaths made no sense, other than you wouldn't have done it.
You are stating death is a bad thing, but assisted suicide isn't.
Are you anti Abortion?
quote:
senselessly
You keep using that word wrong.
Do you even know what it means?
quote:
That's it. Period. End of Story.
That's all you had and it's a joke, a half assed rant that is fundamentally unwilling to actually be serious.
quote:
You can hide behind "Oh, but they're in Heaven" without realizing the larger implications about everyone else not killed by God at a young age not getting that free ticket to Heaven.
You don't know much about Christian belief do you?
Are you talking about children killed, but not killed by God? Or children not killed at all who then grow up?
This is your problem, you refuse to be clear.
quote:
You can rattle off random logical fallacies like you actually understand the concepts they cover. You can ask about assisted suicide, bring up free will, whatever else you want.
Things you refuse to touch.
quote:
Both are true.
2 is not true, you wanted him to forcibly sterilize their parents with out regard to if their parents had sinned yet.
Other solutions are not senseless. Just because you see sterilization as your preferred solution (Because you fear death)
Your solution winds up with people being punished for things they haven't done.
It's nonsense, and has zero semblance to a God who died to forgive sins.
It's like you saying Mother Theresa should have been castrating those orphans... It's totally outside her character.
You are off in a far fantasy land.
quote:
Either try and counter one of my points, or accept it
I have multiple times, you are using words wrongly, delusional about the personality of God,
quote:
If you want to go beyond that and argue that it's actually a good thing that God senselessly drowned children, we can.
Not until you define what you mean by death, it must really frighten you.
Else we will just shout past each other.
quote:
But you're being irrationally resistant from the start, playing dumb, misquoting logical fallacies, and being purposefully distracting. Look at how many ways out conversation has fractured. That's all because you threw spaghetti against the wall desperately trying to find something that'd stick.
Wow... you really have no self reflection.
I've repeatedly tried to define the terminology and hold you accountable for your inability to put together anything remotely resembling logic.
Please look up senselessly in the dictionary.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 2:36 pm to Azkiger
Homosexual.
Sewer Swimmer.
Fly eater.
Sewer Swimmer.
Fly eater.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 3:55 pm to Narax
quote:
1. you misrepresent the goal
Tell me the goal, then.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 4:26 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Tell me the goal, then.
You could read the Bible.
quote:
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved..
quote:
Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them.
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.
quote:
And fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him that is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
“Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
quote:
"'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the Lord. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts'"
Do you think for one second that your entire life and meaning is a bunch of random chemicals that have been building up against thermodynamics?
That all of human civilization is one random chemical reaction chain?
That a God who died one of the most brutal deaths mankind could create, who knows when even a sparrow lands on the ground is unable to come up with a more apt solution than you can?
quote:
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,
Posted on 12/21/25 at 5:33 pm to Narax
Bro I ask you a simple question and you post verses not related to Noah's flood and start going off on more tangents about thermodynamics, chemical reactions, sparrows and shite.
You've done this the entire time.
I was correct in my understanding of God's goal in Noah's flood. If I weren't, you'd have responded in a sentence or two telling me what I've missed.
But you didn't. More hand waving, more incoherent babbling about scientific theories you don't understand. I have no doubt if I keep speaking with you we'll be soon talking about aliens and black holes and Jew tunnels in NYC.
My man, we're talking about Noah's flood.
You're clearly a troll.
I'm out.
You've done this the entire time.
I was correct in my understanding of God's goal in Noah's flood. If I weren't, you'd have responded in a sentence or two telling me what I've missed.
But you didn't. More hand waving, more incoherent babbling about scientific theories you don't understand. I have no doubt if I keep speaking with you we'll be soon talking about aliens and black holes and Jew tunnels in NYC.
My man, we're talking about Noah's flood.
You're clearly a troll.
I'm out.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 5:48 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Bro I ask you a simple question and you post verses not related to Noah's flood and start going off on more tangents about thermodynamics, chemical reactions, sparrows and shite.
Wow...
Just wow...
quote:
I was correct in my understanding of God's goal in Noah's flood. If I weren't, you'd have responded in a sentence or two telling me what I've missed.
I explained exactly what you missed, I guess I needed to dumb it down.
quote:
More hand waving, more incoherent babbling about scientific theories you don't understand
Do you really think things you don't understand are not understood by others?
quote:
My man, we're talking about Noah's flood.
You asked about the goals of God in the flood.
I explained them to you, you might not like the answer, but that is the answer, that you completely fail to understand the goals, thus in your lack of understanding your claims about senselessness... are shockingly ignorant.
you asked
quote:
Tell me the goal, then.
I told you the goal.
Are you really so incapable of reading?
You can run away all you want, you can pretend you "know what would be better for God to do (Mass sterilization).
But that's all that is, fear of death, fear of God, that said I expect you to keep getting angry and insisting that light bulbs and world wide evil are the same, that you are the one person who understands what God should do, that you are wiser than Dawkins as if only he understood God as well as you did, he would have made that argument...
You can run, for a while anyway.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:27 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The objective standard is God’s character,
The one that commands rape of conquered women and slaughter of babies? The one that strikes Israelites dead if they don’t obey every minute detail of every command (e.g. Aaron’s sons struck dead because they used the wrong kind of incense) and the one that commits mass slaughter of Israelites when they do obey every minute detail of every command (e.g. David conducting the census commanded by Yahweh and the Yahweh got pissed and slaughtered 78,000 innocent Israelites). Is that the “objective” standard?
quote:
as reflected in the 10 commandments.
I fail to see how a prohibition of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk is reflective of moral character. Most of the commands of the first and second sets of 10 commandments were simply borrowed from the code of Hammurabi. At any rate, why don’t you make up your mind whether works of the law are required or not, because you tend to follow the contingent that says the law is a curse and Jesus freed us from the law. Develop some consistency, why don’t ya?
This post was edited on 12/22/25 at 8:43 am
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:46 am to Azkiger
quote:
He's doing it with you too, huh?
He’s like a program with a memory leak running an infinite loop with a 8086 cpu. He can’t even make up his mind on what he believes, but he knows his believes to be the “Truth”.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 11:43 am to Azkiger
quote:LINK
Feel free to point out where I condemned anything as evil in this thread.
I had asked, "Do you think the biblical narrative of the flood portrays an evil God, particularly due to the consequence of children dying?", to when you responded with "Yes".
Your estimation was that the God of the Bible is evil.
quote:I don't need to make you fit into a box that you are already in.
Again, you keep trying to make me fit into your box so you can effectively argue against me.
It's tiring.
What I'm pointing out is a logical reality of rejecting that existence of objective morality. This isn't me making some false accusation, but assessing the facts and applying reason to them.
I'll say it again: when you reject the existence of any objective moral standards, you are left with moral subjectivity (which you agreed with). Subjective morality, by definition, is subjective, and originates from within the human experience. The human experience is different from person to person and even changes over time based on the emotions, beliefs, and interpretations of reality of individuals. Collective morality is merely subjective morality that is shared by more than one person.
Subjective morality results in morality being nothing more than personal preferences. When I say it's like someone's favorite flavor of ice cream, I mean just that. Someone's favorite flavor of ice cream is entirely subjective, as there is no outside standard of what to judge the best flavor, so therefore each person has to decide for themselves what they like, and that favorite flavor can even change over time, just like subjective morality.
You can give whatever reasons you like for why a certain moral standard is to be preferred by others, but even those standards are subjective and ultimately arbitrary. When you say human flourishing is the moral standard to pursue, that, in itself, is a subjective an arbitrary standard, because there is no objective guide to say that human flourishing is what we should pursue, over and against a different goal or standard.
Since you believe morality is subjective, you remove all meaning from moral praise or condemnation. When you try to point out that God is evil, that doesn't actually mean anything in your own worldview. He's not actually evil, because there is no objective standard for evil according to you. What you have to mean, logically, is that you don't like and do not personally prefer the God that is described in the Bible, but you can't say He's evil or that He's "wrong" to do what He is described as doing, at least not in any meaningful way that is different from saying people shouldn't eat a certain flavor of ice cream because it's yucky to you.
quote:I'm not pretending anything. I'm pointing out the inconsistency of your atheistic worldview, which makes moral condemnation meaningless while you act as if it is meaningful.
I don't mind continuing our discussion and diving deeper into this, but it's 100% pointless (and intellectually dishonest) when I say blue, and you keep pretending that I said red.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 11:51 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:Yes, God is consistent. I'm pretty sure I've addressed every one of those allegations before, and you continue to show either your ignorance or your desire to twist reality to attack the character of a holy God.
The one that commands rape of conquered women and slaughter of babies? The one that strikes Israelites dead if they don’t obey every minute detail of every command (e.g. Aaron’s sons struck dead because they used the wrong kind of incense) and the one that commits mass slaughter of Israelites when they do obey every minute detail of every command (e.g. David conducting the census commanded by Yahweh and the Yahweh got pissed and slaughtered 78,000 innocent Israelites). Is that the “objective” standard?
quote:I'm quite consistent. You are the one who frequently miscites the Bible, ignores its own context, and ignores 2000 years of Christian theology on these basic issues. We recently had a long discussion about why you are wrong to believe Ex. 34 was changing the 10 commandments, and you still cite that as an attack on God. You are deluded and I hope God opens your eyes before the end.
I fail to see how a prohibition of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk is reflective of moral character. Most of the commands of the first and second sets of 10 commandments were simply borrowed from the code of Hammurabi. At any rate, why don’t you make up your mind whether works of the law are required or not, because you tend to follow the contingent that says the law is a curse and Jesus freed us from the law. Develop some consistency, why don’t ya?
Posted on 12/22/25 at 11:54 am to Azkiger
quote:I'm not. I expressly stated that I'm not. I'm agreeing that your worldview embraces subjective morality and denies the existence of objective morality. What I keep showing you is that you can't act consistently with that belief. You still make moral judgements as if they are meaningful, even though it's impossible to make meaningful moral judgements if morality is only subjective. I'm highlighting the irrationality of your own worldview, particularly in regards to morality.
He's doing it with you too, huh?
Page 12 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News