Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I did not say it did. I said it may make us (who are finite and have an infinitely small amount of the fact involved) incapable of judging it. If God hilled Hitler at 1 year old his mother might have said God was evil. If she had Penguin in her name she certainly would have. However because she has no access to the fact God saved 50 million lives she would be wrong. Ants can't tell Newton calculus is wrong, children are almost always wrong in judging their parents, bushman in the Congo can't debate nuclear theory because of ignorance. Same with us and God to a large extent.

I did not say morality does not apply. I said our capacity to identify and understand the morality t hat would apply is faulty.

Not even close. What is true of a being that knows everything, created all life, can rectify any injustice that took place, place them in heaven before their parents can disqualify them from it, and has complete sovereignty over everything is not true of a puny finite race of morally insane people. The insanity can be seen in the fact that even without any of those attributes we do kill babies and deny call the one that does have them evil. Insanity is no basis for action or equivalence. I must have made this same point with you a dozen times. Why am I doing so if your just ignoring every time? There is not a hint of fault in the above reasoning yet you will make the same point again in a day or two. Why?

You've never given a satisfactory answer to my point: if God is the moral standard, then we can use him as the example of what is moral. Your ant may not be in a position to question Newton's calculus, but when Newton says that the area under the curve is 8, the ant can be sure that it really is 8 even if his calculations say it's 10.

None of your special pleading for God justifies a double standard:

- God knows all? Then his example can be followed with certainty.
- God created all life? Irrelevant to morality.
- God can rectify any injustices in his actions? Well, he can rectify injustices in human actions too.

But answe me this: you say that we can't have morality without God, but you reject God's example. Where do you get your morality from, then?

 

[Magic Man]

How do you know that what any human has ever thought about right and wrong is actually true?

It's not about what's true and what's not. It's about a consistent standard. We're going by what the Christian god says is moral and immoral.

1. You must first show that your or anyone's definition of wrong is actually objectively true.

Again that's not true. All we have to show is that God is not abiding by his own standard.

 

[1robin]

You've never given a satisfactory answer to my point: if God is the moral standard, then we can use him as the example of what is moral. Your ant may not be in a position to question Newton's calculus, but when Newton says that the area under the curve is 8, the ant can be sure that it really is 8 even if his calculations say it's 10.

I have given a sufficient explanation for one of your points above, I do not claimed it satisfied you. It is true of the Biblical concept of God whether that is satisfactory to you or not. You have made several comments above in a different context than my original claims existed in.

I was not arguing what the foundation of our moral standard is in my last post.
The ant analogy did not contain the ants arriving at another conclusion specifically because ants do not have the capacity to do so.

I can argue foundations and my analogies work if left in tact and in context.

However I have been arguing that our system of morality for one would not condemn God anyway if the Biblical God is left in the context he comes with. Only when stripped of everything else can someone say he should not have done this or that. Within the context he comes in his actions have the greatest justification even theoretically possible. It is also true that what is binding on a finite being would not be (and should not be) binding on one with infinite knowledge and sovereignty. Using that ant analogy we do not have the moral capacity to do what the ants lack the mathematical capacity to do. Prove to me anything God did was actually wrong. Prove that if God killed every life form in existence he was wrong. Prove even if I did so it would actually be wrong. Morality without God is ethical opinion and has no bearing on actual objective moral truth whatever. It is as many atheist professors say, an illusion or contrivance, not truth.

None of your special pleading for God justifies a double standard:

Not when my statements are used to attempt to prove something other than what they were stated to indicate. They work where used. They can't be put to another use and declared faulty.

- God knows all? Then his example can be followed with certainty.

That is not part of this latest discussion.

- God created all life? Irrelevant to morality.

That is false. Ownership based on creation is a fundamental principle of even our moral GU estimations. I can kill me dog, I can't kill my neighbors dog.

- God can rectify any injustices in his actions? Well, he can rectify injustices in human actions too.

That is not what I said. I said God can rectify any injustices that result in his being forced (by his purposes) to act in non-optimal ways. God can restore life even when our actions mandate he take it. We can't, yet in our presumed omniscience grant our selves the "sacred" right to kill the innocent for the sake of the guilty, but deny it to the one who created the life. This has no defense possible. Not even putting another's statements to purposes not intended by the one who made can salvage this moral train wreck.

But answe me this: you say that we can't have morality without God, but you reject God's example. Where do you get your morality from, then?

I never rejected God's example. I do not grant humans rights our capacity does not justify. We never KNOW a persons guilt, we never know their future, we never know the circumstances in totality for their actions, we did not create them, we do not KNOW what happens to them when we kill them. In fact your side denies anything good can happen after death. I do not grant infinite inequalities with the same rights. Why would I? I am not against capital punishment. I am just not for it in the womb, etc.... You can't defend humans wiping out lives on an industrial scale for convenience nor condemn God taking them in his infinite knowledge and sovereignty but your not even consistent. Deny them both or allow them both. The worst thing that can be done is to deny the competent authority and gratify the incompetent authority. When things are this wrong it suggests preference not reason IMO.

So far:

You have not condemned God.
You have not demonstrated the theoretical capacity to do so.
You have not justified humans claiming rights they deny to God.

 

[1robin]

It's not about what's true and what's not. It's about a consistent standard. We're going by what the Christian god says is moral and immoral.

If your are not interested in moral truth why are you even discussing morality? Being consistently wrong is of no value. What God says applies to humans. Those laws were given to regulate faulty, finite, morally insane people that will kill millions in the womb if left to their own devices. They are not to regulate a perfect being. That does not even make sense. My dad gave me rules for a child when I was one. He did not live by a child's rules nor should he. I am not bound by the rules I apply to my pets, nor children, Why should God be?

Again that's not true. All we have to show is that God is not abiding by his own standard.

What is God's self assigned standard? Is he bound by the genetics assigned to amphibians, the instincts assigned to lions, the physics assigned to quarks, or the morals given to finite, faulty, idiots, like us? Give me single good reason anyone would think that. Rules are always founded on capacity and limitation. What rules bind perfection or should?

 

[Magic Man]

If your are not interested in moral truth why are you even discussing morality? Being consistently wrong is of no value. What God says applies to humans. Those laws were given to regulate faulty, finite, morally insane people that will kill millions in the womb if left to their own devices. They are not to regulate a perfect being. That does not even make sense. My dad gave me rules for a child when I was one. He did not live by a child's rules nor should he. I am not bound by the rules I apply to my pets, nor children, Why should God be?

Because if something is morally wrong, it shouldn't matter who does it.

What is God's self assigned standard? Is he bound by the genetics assigned to amphibians, the instincts assigned to lions, the physics assigned to quarks, or the morals given to finite, faulty, idiots, like us? Give me single good reason anyone would think that. Rules are always founded on capacity and limitation. What rules bind perfection or should?

If something is morally wrong, it doesn't matter who does it. If you do it, it's immoral, so if God does it, it's still morally wrong. You can't have two different standards.

 

[McBell]

If something is morally wrong, it doesn't matter who does it. If you do it, it's immoral, so if God does it, it's still morally wrong. You can't have two different standards.

Yet the uncaused cause, the breaker of unbreakable laws, does not need to feel compelled to follow his own standards.
It is just one more example of logical contradictions that follow this ever elusive deity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have given a sufficient explanation for one of your points above, I do not claimed it satisfied you. It is true of the Biblical concept of God whether that is satisfactory to you or not. You have made several comments above in a different context than my original claims existed in.

I was not arguing what the foundation of our moral standard is in my last post.
The ant analogy did not contain the ants arriving at another conclusion specifically because ants do not have the capacity to do so.

I can argue foundations and my analogies work if left in tact and in context.

However I have been arguing that our system of morality for one would not condemn God anyway if the Biblical God is left in the context he comes with. Only when stripped of everything else can someone say he should not have done this or that. Within the context he comes in his actions have the greatest justification even theoretically possible. It is also true that what is binding on a finite being would not be (and should not be) binding on one with infinite knowledge and sovereignty. Using that ant analogy we do not have the moral capacity to do what the ants lack the mathematical capacity to do. Prove to me anything God did was actually wrong. Prove that if God killed every life form in existence he was wrong. Prove even if I did so it would actually be wrong. Morality without God is ethical opinion and has no bearing on actual objective moral truth whatever. It is as many atheist professors say, an illusion or contrivance, not truth.



Not when my statements are used to attempt to prove something other than what they were stated to indicate. They work where used. They can't be put to another use and declared faulty.

That is not part of this latest discussion.
That is false. Ownership based on creation is a fundamental principle of even our moral GU estimations. I can kill me dog, I can't kill my neighbors dog.

That is not what I said. I said God can rectify any injustices that result in his being forced (by his purposes) to act in non-optimal ways. God can restore life even when our actions mandate he take it. We can't, yet in our presumed omniscience grant our selves the "sacred" right to kill the innocent for the sake of the guilty, but deny it to the one who created the life. This has no defense possible. Not even putting another's statements to purposes not intended by the one who made can salvage this moral train wreck.


I never rejected God's example. I do not grant humans rights our capacity does not justify. We never KNOW a persons guilt, we never know their future, we never know the circumstances in totality for their actions, we did not create them, we do not KNOW what happens to them when we kill them. In fact your side denies anything good can happen after death. I do not grant infinite inequalities with the same rights. Why would I? I am not against capital punishment. I am just not for it in the womb, etc.... You can't defend humans wiping out lives on an industrial scale for convenience nor condemn God taking them in his infinite knowledge and sovereignty but your not even consistent. Deny them both or allow them both. The worst thing that can be done is to deny the competent authority and gratify the incompetent authority. When things are this wrong it suggests preference not reason IMO.

So far:

You have not condemned God.
You have not demonstrated the theoretical capacity to do so.
You have not justified humans claiming rights they deny to God.

Wait... so you don't think that murder is wrong in and of itself (because of the innate value of human life, for instance); you just think that damaging other people's stuff is wrong and you think that human beings are merely one example of "God's stuff". Do I understand you properly?

 

[Meow Mix]

I usually say God is right not good. I believe I have the God given conscience to determine he is good, but in a debate you must show that your standard apply to God. Yours are probably valid but until you show they can be used to judge God they are not useful in doing so. How do you know that what any human has ever thought about right and wrong is actually true?

I'm not using the terms "right" and "wrong," I'm focusing on suffering and malevolence. Unless you reject the existence of suffering, it's pretty objective to determine which states of affairs cause suffering or not.

No we know what we consider malevolence and you can't how he was using that standard either.

Here's the thing though: what "we consider" malevolence to be is what malevolence is. We use a particular word to point to a particular state of affairs. There's no such thing as us having a notion of "malevolence" that's incomplete because when we say "malevolent," we mean exactly that thing which we do cognize. If there is a different context or standard of "malevolence" that we don't understand, then it is not malevolence, it is something else altogether.

George H. Smith had an excellent blurb about this fallacy somewhere in his little book "Atheism: The Case Against God," wherein he uses the example of a dog's "love" for their human, a human's "love" for another human, and God's "love" for a human. Long story short is that even though English is a funny language and is using the same word for three things, it's fallacious to say that whatever God or the dog is doing is "love" as we mean it -- we try in vain to assign a meaning to it by analogy ("a greater love" "a lesser love") but it's really something entirely different.

"Love" is that thing which we can understand, and nothing more. If God has some feeling for us that in our confusion we want to call "love," there is a problem in that we're really only saying that an unknowable being is experiencing an unknowable feeling for us in an unknowable way -- in other words, we can't really say anything at all if we don't know what it is since what are we referring to? Words are pointers which must have understood references, otherwise we might as well be talking about slithey toves gyring and gimbling in wabes.

So, yes, I can use a standard of "malevolence" because what we understand malevolence to be is all that "malevolence" can be. If God has a different standard, that's fine -- but God is still either malevolent or not in the sense that we understand, because that's the only thing that "malevolence" can be. That's what the word means because words only have meanings if those meanings are understood. Otherwise you're talking about unknowable things, which is to not talk about anything at all (you must fall into the silence of agnosticism at that point).

So, if you believe God fulfills the "human" definition of malevolence (which is the ONLY definition of "malevolence," truly), then fine -- you avoid the Problem of Evil (as put in terms of suffering) by simply dropping the premise that God is never-malevolent. That's fine. That works. What doesn't work is to say that God isn't malevolent because God uses a super special sort of definition of malevolence that we can't understand -- this would be special pleading fallacy, and would be an example of the sort of fallacy Smith was writing about where we mistakenly try to equivocate known words with known definitions to familiar words referencing an unknown. That doesn't work.

1. You must first show that your or anyone's definition of wrong is actually objectively true.
2. You must then show that you know what God did.
3. You must then show that you know enough about why God did it to condemn him.

1 and 3 are impossible to know and 2 is possible if the Bible is accepted.

I've gone on a bit about (1) just above.

(2) is covered in my longer post earlier. Given the premises that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and created the cosmos, then we already know what God did: potentiated suffering, which is malevolent since there was a logical alternative. No Bible required here, just logic.

(3) engages in special pleading. Potentiating suffering when there is a logical alternative is malevolent. To say "when God does it maybe he has a special, unknowable reason for how it's not actually malevolent even though it appears malevolent" is a textbook example of special pleading fallacy -- and fallacies are never workable responses to arguments.

Let's just forget you can't do 1 and 3 above and instead pick a action God took and prove it is malevolent. You pick, pick your best. I will give you one hint. There is one that I have no capacity to defend but it is obscure. Anyway Good luck. I will even assume you could know #1 for this exercise.

I don't consider the Bible to really be worth discussing, I'm only talking about logic and premises here. So given that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and created the cosmos; then given the fact that it's logically possible to NOT have potentiated as much suffering as is potentiated in the created universe (given those premises), doing so was malevolent.

 

[Meow Mix]

That is an independent issue. Requiring optimality from God is one thing. What creatures with freewill means is another. If God allows freewill he must allow wrong choices, allowing wrong choices mandates suffering.

You're employing the same mistake that Alvin Plantinga makes in his book "God, Freedom & Evil." There is no reason to assume that to have free will means to have the capacity to inflict harm; and furthermore, deliberately providing the capacity to inflict harm is still malevolent.

Imagine God creates a world for instance where there is no ability to cause harm to one another, at least physically -- suffering isn't potentiated in this world, in other words. Trying to stab someone turns the knife to silly putty, trying to hit someone causes your arm to lose all inertia, whatever, you get the idea.

Are you seriously implying the residents of this world aren't free? They aren't able to choose whom to love? Whether they'd like to see a movie (and which movie) or play a video game? Whether they want to hang out with friends or take a walk in the park?

What about being ABLE to hurt people makes you say "aha! only NOW are we free?"

Is it because the total actions available to people would be less? Why do you not object right now, then, that we're... say... not free to walk on the ceiling or teleport or fly?

Go back to that world where suffering isn't potentiated, and now assume that I step into that world and release special weapons that circumvent the physics of that world which finally allow people to hurt one another.

Am I not unquestionably malevolent for having done so?

And do you really believe that only AFTER I have done so the people have "free will?"

If you can agree with me that the people are still free agents BEFORE the introduction of the special weapons -- that they can make real choices of their own volition, even if they can't make choices to harm people any more than you or I can make a choice to walk on the ceiling -- then you need to come up with a different argument; because clearly being able to harm isn't necessary to have free will any more than being able to walk on the ceiling is.

(Now, it can be pointed out that some forms of harm are unavoidable in order to make free will possible: for instance, unrequited love. Possibly insults. Those sorts of things. THAT is a legitimate point and not one that I dispute: it's not possible for God to make a world without that while also containing free agents, so God is NOT culpable for those sorts of things specifically. However, God IS culpable for physical suffering since there is a logical alternative that still allows free agency!)

The most common mistake non-theists make concerning God is they include some irrational derivatives based on his attributes but never include purpose and will. God created the universe and man for a purpose. He wants beings who will freely chose to love him. That necessitates freewill, freewill necessitates wrong choices, wrong choices necessitates suffering, sufferings purpose is to indicate right from wrong. God's purpose mandates the existence of suffering as a part of his passive will. He allows it, he does not desire it, but just as a circle must be round, his purpose mandates freewill and so on. The fact he eliminates suffering, death, sin, etc... in heaven indicates he does not like suffering but that it has a function given his purpose.

As I pointed out, free will does *not* necessitate physical suffering. So why is it there?

Without physical suffering, mankind would still be free to choose to love God or not -- so why is physical suffering there?

Without physical suffering, mankind would still be free to choose right or wrong in dealing with each other (will I insult you? will I cheat while playing a friendly game? will I cheat on my loved one? so on and so forth), so humans are still culpable and can still learn to be good through their lives -- but physical suffering is still irrelevant to all this. So why is it there?

There is no explanation for physical suffering to be there, and it's logically possible for it not to be there, so it was certainly malevolent to put it there.

If you just throw up your arms and say "Physical suffering is there because God wants it to be there as part of his plan," well, then that's just saying "God is malevolent." Simple.

He could do so. He could not do so and still meet his purpose. It is one of the most futile things I can imagine to sit around and try and think of ways God could have done better given purpose, and especially when purpose is ignored. God's purpose was not to maximize happiness, human flourishing, luxury, and comfort in this life. It was to reveal himself, his nature, the nature of morality, and allow free choice based on comprehension of those things.

Creating the capacity for suffering to allow "moral choice" is the same as saying it's good to create smallpox to allow for the creation of a vaccine. It's self-referential, absurd, and ultimately -- still malevolent. That's fine. From what I understand about what you're saying, you're simply just okay with God being malevolent because God wanted to potentiate suffering as part of his plan. And that's fine. That does solve the Problem of Evil. It's just not... I guess, a very subjectively appealing way to do it. (But hey, I can't make that as an argument -- that would be the fallacy of arguing against adverse consequences).

Who would believe in sin if sin had no effect? Who would believe in God if God did not judge? Who would believe in love if love was al there was? Up is meaningless unless down exists. Left is meaningless unless right exists. Right is meaningless unless wrong exists.

Sin would have effect -- refer above to where I talked about how God isn't culpable for things like people insulting one another: the culpability for that would be on the insulters alone (just as an example), and would have an effect.

God would still be able to judge people and their intentions.

Why do you assume everyone would HAVE to love? Love wouldn't be all that existed.

What doesn't HAVE to exist for ANY of these reasons you've been talking about, though, is physical suffering.

 

[1robin]

Because if something is morally wrong, it shouldn't matter who does it.

It in countless times means just that. The guy giving an abortion in the alley bey the bar with a coat hanger is doing something immoral. The guy doing the something in the hospital and being a doctor might be doing nothing illegal (could still be immoral). Giving a 6 year old a gun is immoral, giving a teenager under supervision is not. A guy driving home is not immoral, him driving home drunk is immoral.. Almost all sins or immoralities involve using a valid thing or concept that has a purpose or design application, for another purpose never intended or designed for. Killing with justification is moral but no optimal. Killing with no justification is murder and immoral. The quality of a moral action is determined at time by circumstances, by time, by authority, and competence. All of humanity has operated under that fundamental truth for as long back as records exist.
Murder in unjustified killing. Murder is always wrong but depending on the circumstances known to God alone, killing may be justified and not murder.

If something is morally wrong, it doesn't matter who does it. If you do it, it's immoral, so if God does it, it's still morally wrong. You can't have two different standards.

We have hundreds of standards based on age, competence, knowledge, circumstances, availability, mental health, training, etc....

God's morality usually states to do or not to do X based on Y. It comes down to justification. You can always do X if justified, but you can never do X if unjustified. The point being we almost never even know all our own circumstantial, we know infinitely little about God's justification and so can't adequately judge him.

Every point I made needs a chapter to illustrate all its facets. This is the best that can be done in five minutes.

Try this; pick your best specific action that God carried out you think is actually wrong and what I said will be illustrated in the discussion.

 

[Magic Man]

Killing with justification is moral but no optimal. Killing with no justification is murder and immoral. The quality of a moral action is determined at time by circumstances, by time, by authority, and competence. All of humanity has operated under that fundamental truth for as long back as records exist.
Murder in unjustified killing. Murder is always wrong but depending on the circumstances known to God alone, killing may be justified and not murder.

This is the heart of it. What could God possibly know that would justify the killing of millions of humans, including children? I don't think there's anything that would justify that, especially for a being with the power to do anything he wanted.

We have hundreds of standards based on age, competence, knowledge, circumstances, availability, mental health, training, etc....

Not really. If a 5-year-old murders a baby with no justification, it's wrong. If an adult does it, it's still wrong, etc. Things are illegal depending on age, knowledge, etc., but that doesn't mean they're wrong.

 

[Skyrim25]

It in countless times means just that. The guy giving an abortion in the alley bey the bar with a coat hanger is doing something immoral. The guy doing the something in the hospital and being a doctor might be doing nothing illegal (could still be immoral). Giving a 6 year old a gun is immoral, giving a teenager under supervision is not. A guy driving home is not immoral, him driving home drunk is immoral.. Almost all sins or immoralities involve using a valid thing or concept that has a purpose or design application, for another purpose never intended or designed for. Killing with justification is moral but no optimal. Killing with no justification is murder and immoral. The quality of a moral action is determined at time by circumstances, by time, by authority, and competence. All of humanity has operated under that fundamental truth for as long back as records exist.
Murder in unjustified killing. Murder is always wrong but depending on the circumstances known to God alone, killing may be justified and not murder.



We have hundreds of standards based on age, competence, knowledge, circumstances, availability, mental health, training, etc....

God's morality usually states to do or not to do X based on Y. It comes down to justification. You can always do X if justified, but you can never do X if unjustified. The point being we almost never even know all our own circumstantial, we know infinitely little about God's justification and so can't adequately judge him.

Every point I made needs a chapter to illustrate all its facets. This is the best that can be done in five minutes.

Try this; pick your best specific action that God carried out you think is actually wrong and what I said will be illustrated in the discussion.

The Canaanites were wrongfully killed by Moses's people because Moses thought that the Promise Land was the land of Canaan. Only Moses has EVER said the promise land was Canaan(the first 5 books were written by Moses that tell this).

We know that the actions of Jesus tell us that the Promise land is ACTUALLY in our hearts and not an actual land because ONLY Moses says that its the land of Canaan.

Moses got the promise of God wrong in two ways
1) The laws of Moses were wrong as Jesus states...
Even the Ten Commandments (the holiest part of the Law) has come to be a "ministration of death" (2 Corinthians 3:7). Its "glory was to be done away" (2 Corinthians 3:7). Paul spoke of its conclusion as "that which is abolished" (2 Corinthians 3:13).

We are now "dead to the Law" (Romans 7:4);

That they have been "delivered from the Law" (Romans 7:6);

That the Law is now in a state of decay (Hebrews 8:13);

That it has been disannulled (Hebrews 7:18);

That the Law was only a schoolmaster intended for spiritual infants to which we are no longer subject (Galatians 3:24–25);

as a consequence of these things, are no longer under Law (Romans 6:14).

2) To obtain the promise land required that Moses's people kill unarmed women and children. This means that in order to get the promise they had to do a GREAT evil. What good comes from doing evil? This is another bit of proof that the promise land is NOT as Moses says.

Moses got it wrong!.....I even doubt that Moses even talked to God on Mt Zion and I even doubt that the 10 Commandments even came from God!

1) Jealousy is a sin [Galatians 5:19-20]
2) For I am a Jealous God [Exodus 34:14]

Is God a sinner or is Moses wrong?...Is God a child killing God or is Moses wrong? Is God an innocent killing God or is Moses wrong? Is God a selfish God or is Moses wrong?

By the actions of Jesus and his teachings of a different promise land it shows that Moses WAS wrong!

 

[McBell]

We have hundreds of standards based on age, competence, knowledge, circumstances, availability, mental health, training, etc....

Which dictate the type and amount of punishment to be dished out, not to say that the action was not wrong.

 

[1robin]

This is the heart of it. What could God possibly know that would justify the killing of millions of humans, including children? I don't think there's anything that would justify that, especially for a being with the power to do anything he wanted.

It is amazing how many ways this was incorrect. 1. Humans have periodically killed millions of ourselves. 2. Yet that same race is now denying God the right to do so even though he never has. Not even in the flood (even if literal) were millions involved. 3. A race that can't even make an accurate and applicable accusation surely can't make an accurate judgment. 4. The numbers are al wrong but irrelevant as well. If 1 person ever deserved to ne killed why could not a billion. In what way does the numbers make things true? 5. You have no idea whether God had justification for killing us all or not. He could have at any time killed us all without violating anything about his nature. We have all sinned and deserve death. 6. Now if you do not lie this or you think it is debatable then if this is not deserving of death:

Genesis 6:5

5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination and intention of all human thinking was only evil continually.



Then what is? 7. I suppose in your omniscience you would have let complete evil reign for a thousand years making life its self a burden instead of ending it and starting ever. That is why you were not given that authority and why you can't judge much of anything, much less God.

This list will never end but I must stop at some point. Again you MUST show God did not have moral justification before calling him evil. Good luck.

Not really. If a 5-year-old murders a baby with no justification, it's wrong. If an adult does it, it's still wrong, etc. Things are illegal depending on age, knowledge, etc., but that doesn't mean they're wrong.

The first part is exactly what I said and the second is a contradiction of the first part. I was not discussing legality, as it is independent of moral truth. I was discussing the fact that circumstances almost always affect what we call right and wrong. You must show God had no justification and how you know that before a conversation is even justified. There is little point discussing anything else until you can prove this. Discussing what is true of what we do not know is not very profitable.

 

[McBell]

Discussing what is true of what we do not know is not very profitable.

Yet you have how many overly long winded posts doing exactly that?

 

[Magic Man]

It is amazing how many ways this was incorrect. 1. Humans have periodically killed millions of ourselves.

And when they did, it was morally wrong, well, except for the times people are doing it out of self-defense. The self-defense justification doesn't apply to God, though.

2. Yet that same race is now denying God the right to do so even though he never has. Not even in the flood (even if literal) were millions involved.

1) Well, yeah. You seem to be using the fallacy that humans have done it, so they can't tell God not to do it. I'm not sure how that's supposed to make sense. It's morally wrong when humans do it and when God does it.

2) How were millions not involved with the flood?

3. A race that can't even make an accurate and applicable accusation surely can't make an accurate judgment. 4. The numbers are al wrong but irrelevant as well. If 1 person ever deserved to ne killed why could not a billion. In what way does the numbers make things true? 5. You have no idea whether God had justification for killing us all or not. He could have at any time killed us all without violating anything about his nature. We have all sinned and deserve death.

Ah, the last false premise is the problem here. You incorrectly assume we all deserve death. I'll just wait for you to explain to me how a 3-year-old deserves death.

5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination and intention of all human thinking was only evil continually.

Oh, I realize the attempted justification. But that would mean that every single human being aside from Noah's family was so evil they deserved death. That's impossible, if for no other reason than because some were children.

Then what is? 7. I suppose in your omniscience you would have let complete evil reign for a thousand years making life its self a burden instead of ending it and starting ever. That is why you were not given that authority and why you can't judge much of anything, much less God.

This list will never end but I must stop at some point. Again you MUST show God did not have moral justification before calling him evil. Good luck.

I've already shown he didn't have moral justification. There simply is no justification for God to have killed every human being except for Noah's family.

 

[1robin]

The Canaanites were wrongfully killed by Moses's people because Moses thought that the Promise Land was the land of Canaan. Only Moses has EVER said the promise land was Canaan(the first 5 books were written by Moses that tell this).

Well this is certainly a unique approach.

1. Moses could possibly have been wrong but it is God who is supposed to have ordered the attack. Was he wrong? Do you know that Moses lied about who ordered it?
2. I have read three secular books on OT warfare. None include anything about promised lands. They record that the Canaanites buried live children in their foundations for luck, burned them alive for false God's, and constantly raided the Hebrews at harvest time year after year producing famines. Is any one of these not reason for a battle?
3. God is recorded to have tried and tried to get the Canaanites to repent. They refused. It was only after God said their cup of iniquity was full that he allowed Israel to attack them.
4. Those are reasons for an attack. Are you claiming that if any race claims to have been promised a land they have the right to kill everyone in it? I was not using promised land as justification for their war.
5. I do not think you are right about Moses being mistaken but that was not part of what I sued for justification. It would be but I do not remember using it.

We know that the actions of Jesus tell us that the Promise land is ACTUALLY in our hearts and not an actual land because ONLY Moses says that its the land of Canaan.

Moses got the promise of God wrong in two ways
1) The laws of Moses were wrong as Jesus states...
Even the Ten Commandments (the holiest part of the Law) has come to be a "ministration of death" (2 Corinthians 3:7). Its "glory was to be done away" (2 Corinthians 3:7). Paul spoke of its conclusion as "that which is abolished" (2 Corinthians 3:13).

Oh for crying out loud, the Hebrews were homeless and were promised a geographical area in the ANE. In fact their ancestors had lived their but some had migrated to Egypt during a famine and enslaved. They had rights to the land even if the Bible was all wrong. The context for Jesus words (which were not the promised land anyway) were completely different from Moses' a thousand years earlier.

We are now "dead to the Law" (Romans 7:4);

I agree but what does that have to do with OT warfare and God's actions 3000 years ago.

That they have been "delivered from the Law" (Romans 7:6);

That the Law is now in a state of decay (Hebrews 8:13);

That it has been disannulled (Hebrews 7:18);

That the Law was only a schoolmaster intended for spiritual infants to which we are no longer subject (Galatians 3:24–25);

as a consequence of these things, are no longer under Law (Romans 6:14).

I agree with all of this and have used the same verses myself in other arguments. However they have nothing to do with literal wars and land. Do you wish to discuss salvation, atonement, the law, wars, the promised land, the acts of God, Moses. or what. Your getting all types of contexts mixed up.

2) To obtain the promise land required that Moses's people kill unarmed women and children. This means that in order to get the promise they had to do a GREAT evil. What good comes from doing evil? This is another bit of proof that the promise land is NOT as Moses says.

Killing is not wrong if justification exists even for humans. Moses had it. God can kill and have justifications we cannot access. The promised land is exactly hat Moses said. The OT contains literal types and shadows of things that had symbology for spiritual things but were literal truths. Yes the promised land is a spiritual concept, and IT WAS also a literal piece of geography. Are you suggesting God delivered Israel from Egypt's bondage to wonder homeless in the desert. I have never heard anyone claim this.

Moses got it wrong!.....I even doubt that Moses even talked to God on Mt Zion and I even doubt that the 10 Commandments even came from God!

1) Jealousy is a sin [Galatians 5:19-20]
2) For I am a Jealous God [Exodus 34:14]

Is God a sinner or is Moses wrong?...Is God a child killing God or is Moses wrong? Is God an innocent killing God or is Moses wrong? Is God a selfish God or is Moses wrong?

Well neither of us know whether Moses talked to God or not, or for that matter anyone. Every single test for divine authorship is passed by the Pentateuch and if you doubt that I can put you in touch with a very knowledgeable member of the Nazarene tribe and you can discuss it with him. What you want to believe is not really a debate issue. What you can demonstrate is. As for sin. Sin is almost always based on the wrong use of a thing or concept that has a valid use. What is wrong for children is ok for adults, what is wrong for pets is ok for humans, what is ok for doctors is not ok for amateurs. Competence and knowledge base can make a thing ok for one group and not ok for another. Jealousy is a sin as humans misapply it through envy, etc.. It is not wrong for God to resent a human whirring after false God's because it will ultimately harm the human. You have identified one of the semantic technicalities associated with a language that doe snot have the capacity to fully describe the infinite. God is greater than al the languages combined and is never perfectly described. In fact Jealousy is not even the word used in the OT. It is invalid to interpret quanna with some modern English concept. The word means intolerant of another God or rival and does not apply to human jealousy. So no God is not a sinner. You must look up the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek if you are hanging an argument on a word.

By the actions of Jesus and his teachings of a different promise land it shows that Moses WAS wrong!

No it shows as it usually does, that an OT literal reality was symbolic of a NT spiritual concept. The lambs blood on the door posts as real, and it symbolized Christ's blood. Real slavery was symbolic of spiritual slavery. The atonement offered by literal and real priests was symbolic of Christ's permanent role as high priests. God is a lot bidder than you give him credit for.

 

[1robin]

And when they did, it was morally wrong, well, except for the times people are doing it out of self-defense. The self-defense justification doesn't apply to God, though.

What the heck? Was Alexander, Xerxes, Attila, Hitler and Genghis Kahn acting out of self defense when they killed a hundred million? Self defense does not even excuse all of the half of one side of some battles. The great atheist utopias leader Stalin killed 20 million by himself without no justification possible. That is more than God, the crusaders, and 400 years of inquisitions all combined and tripled. No God was not defending himself, he was defending the moral subsection of humanity. We on the other hand have killed off the Godly section of humanity as well as the only perfectly moral being in history.

1) Well, yeah. You seem to be using the fallacy that humans have done it, so they can't tell God not to do it. I'm not sure how that's supposed to make sense. It's morally wrong when humans do it and when God does it.

Do you not get the difference in beings acting on infinitely small sections of the available and relevant data who are condemning the being with all of the data necessary to know if something is justifiable/ I am really at a loss to make this more clear. Did you know that it is a proven fact that when a man who is wrong is shown he is wrong he will more stubbornly defend his position more often than conceding it?

2) How were millions not involved with the flood?

Have you never seen a population graph? Over 95% of people have lived since Christ died. What difference does it make if 2 evil people or 10 trillion evil people were killed? I have looked it up and it is estimated at less than 100,000 and that is only if the story was intended as literal and universal and the numbers make no difference anyway. This is irrelevance squared.

Ah, the last false premise is the problem here. You incorrectly assume we all deserve death. I'll just wait for you to explain to me how a 3-year-old deserves death.

No that is the context God comes with. It is not my problem if you try and condemn God in a context he does not come with. If you have a Biblical God to condemn he comes with the fall of man. No fall of man and no God to call evil. You literally have to crawl in God's lap to slap his face. Atheism usually causes these logical paradoxes because it is self-contradictory.

Oh, I realize the attempted justification. But that would mean that every single human being aside from Noah's family was so evil they deserved death. That's impossible, if for no other reason than because some were children.

No it is not impossible, it is only not preferred by some. The standard is perfection. God will not eternally dwell with imperfection nor tolerate total depravity in the race, he can't and be God. That is why only Christ could save. On the basis of faith we are credited with his perfection (he never sinned) and our sin is placed on him and punished on the cross. You can disagree, you can hate it, you can make futile attempts to contend with the logic. What you can't do is condemn God apart from the context he comes with. I take that back you can, and do, but you shouldn't. God is perfection, everything imperfect is condemned unless reprieved by a cost he paid 100% of. The God you condemn has no relevance and is not mine.

I already shown he didn't have moral justification. There simply is no justification for God to have killed every human being except for Noah's family.

There is no way you even believe that yourself. You must show that that no one can do anything worthy of death given God to claim it is impossible for everyone to be so evil it is justified to terminate them all. Let's pretend (because I have to reach common ground with non-theists) that every human ever killed by God was a pretty good person. Even in that case why is it unjustified? God created the lives themselves, he has complete sovereignty, no matter how god in human terms they were fell short of the standard, they have no rights that did not originate with God, God moral regulations bind humans because we are fallible not God because he is not. On what basis would you object? I nor you would like it, however I would admit God did not violate his nature in killing me. No one deserves life or salvation. We did not create either and have abused both. Yet members of the race that has killed other members of that race incessantly for 5000 years is condemning a God that could rightly kill us all but at a cost paid totally by him billions are saved. What is not wrong with that equation? Death is coming whether you like it or not what is the logic in condemning the only possible solution for spite concerning the inevitable?

 

[Magic Man]

What the heck? Was Alexander, Xerxes, Attila, Hitler and Genghis Kahn acting out of self defense when they killed a hundred million? Self defense does not even excuse all of the half of one side of some battles. The great atheist utopias leader Stalin killed 20 million by himself without no justification possible. That is more than God, the crusaders, and 400 years of inquisitions all combined and tripled.

You might want to read more carefully before responding. I said they were all wrong, unless they were doing it out of self-defense. You can justify the Allies' killing of Germans in WWII because it was necessary for their defense. The examples you used were ones I already in that very post you're responding to called immoral.

No God was not defending himself, he was defending the moral subsection of humanity. We on the other hand have killed off the Godly section of humanity as well as the only perfectly moral being in history.

Then he defended the moral subsection of humanity in a horribly immoral way.

Do you not get the difference in beings acting on infinitely small sections of the available and relevant data who are condemning the being with all of the data necessary to know if something is justifiable/ I am really at a loss to make this more clear. Did you know that it is a proven fact that when a man who is wrong is shown he is wrong he will more stubbornly defend his position more often than conceding it?

Have you never seen a population graph? Over 95% of people have lived since Christ died. What difference does it make if 2 evil people or 10 trillion evil people were killed? I have looked it up and it is estimated at less than 100,000 and that is only if the story was intended as literal and universal and the numbers make no difference anyway. This is irrelevance squared.

I realize you're trying to make the argument that God knows so much more than us, so it's impossible to question him, but then he fails as an example or as a teacher. It also makes the false assumption that there is something else to know. God killed almost every human being alive because supposedly they were all evil. It's impossible for them all to have been evil, and for an omnipotent being, killing all those people wold be unnecessary. He would have many other options to accomplish the same goal without resorting to an immoral action like murder.

 

[1robin]

You might want to read more carefully before responding. I said they were all wrong, unless they were doing it out of self-defense. You can justify the Allies' killing of Germans in WWII because it was necessary for their defense. The examples you used were ones I already in that very post you're responding to called immoral.

You are right. My mistake. I am one of the few orthodox Christians stupid enough to debate non-theists and am the focus of much of their venom. I feel myself obligated to respond to all civil posts and it puts me in a rush. You were correct about your statement. Now see if it has any relevance. The US did not kill Nazi's because we were defending California. We killed Nazi's to save other free people. IOW it is justifiable to kill evil people to preserve good people. That does not become less true depending on ratios.

Then he defended the moral subsection of humanity in a horribly immoral way.

Then the US defended the free world in a horribly immoral way yet we give them medals and condemn God for an act God has infinitely more information to decide on.

I realize you're trying to make the argument that God knows so much more than us, so it's impossible to question him, but then he fails as an example or as a teacher. It also makes the false assumption that there is something else to know. God killed almost every human being alive because supposedly they were all evil. It's impossible for them all to have been evil, and for an omnipotent being, killing all those people wold be unnecessary. He would have many other options to accomplish the same goal without resorting to an immoral action like murder.

A teacher can do many things and not break any rules because of authority and knowledge base that his students cannot. Why does that exact dynamic applied in countless areas of our lives become suddenly irrelevant in it's most extreme form. There is no assumption in claiming we know less than what is available. It is not impossible for them to be evil. If anything history teaches it is that man has something dreadfully wrong with him morally. We literally kill by the millions the most innocent forms of human life for the sake of convenience and the mistakes of others. In 5000 years of recorded history there are at most 300 years of peace. If 1 or a 100, or a 1000 or 10,000 men can be wrong. Have you ever researched Sparta. It was an entire nation built on killing and slavery. 99% of it's citizens were the cruelest and deadliest soldiers (for their time) in history and a slave owner or the wife of one. If virtually an entire nation can cheer Hitler as he slaughters other races on an industrial standard, we are no moral judges of anything and can all go wrong and have. Freewill necessitates a limiting of possibilities. Justice and freewill dictate judgment. God can do anything, he has limited himself voluntarily to acting in certain ways. It may be inconvenient, it may be appalling, it may be upsetting or even dreadful what it isn't is inconsistent.

Let me ask something. Do you grant God exists but claim he is evil, or do you deny he exists but if he does he must be evil?