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

[Mycroft]

POST FOUR OF FOUR

I really don't think its appropriate for a Mormon to use the Bible as a valid source.

 

[Mycroft]

And you blame this on God? This is the human side of immorality and not God’s absolute morality. "Corruption is a major part of the problem in Somalia," We human did it to ourselves.

God’s absolute morality is not subject to, or define by, our opinion.

So you answer to the suffering of children is that it's okay to do nothing because it's their own country's fault in the first place?

 

[Draupadi]

Strange God no longer sends angels to save His people. Or come by Himself for the matter. I have this confusion about all faiths.

 

[Mycroft]

Strange God no longer sends angels to save His people. Or come by Himself for the matter. I have this confusion about all faiths.

Indeed. God allowed Moses to part the red sea to save the Israelites, but does diddly squat for starving kids.

 

[1robin]

Hi Robin1;

While I do not live in the world of philosophy (but still respect your interactions), you do not live in the world of Early Christian textual historians. My point is that our contexts are different. Perhaps I can introduce the point of creation out of matter by using several frame of references that might make sense. Please remember, my point is simply that early judeo-christians did not accept your premise that the world was created "out of nothing". I think many of your other points were perfectly fine. In fact, some of your points were quite wonderful and well said and influential (at least to me). Some seemed oversimplified and overstated.




1) THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION FROM MATTER WAS TAUGHT ANCIENTLY

Many ancients and early Christians UNDERSTOOD a creation out of pre-existing matter, and not ex-nihilo. It is not merely Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, that teaches that God “…create[d] all things out of unformed matter(ex amorphou hyles). First Apology, 49. But Philo also describes the doctrine of his day when he says : "when the substance of the universe was without shape and figure God gave it these; when it had no definite character God molded it into definiteness. . ." (De Somniis 2.6.45).





2) EARLY JUDAO-CHRISTIAN WRITINGS



The early Jewish Apocalype of Abraham hails God as “the one who brings order out of confusion, ever preparing and renewing worlds for the righteous.:
The Berlin (Mandaean) Papyrus says " At the same time, the great thought came to the elements in united wisdom, spirit joining with matter." Matter can be imbued with spirit (such as the spirit and body of man), but it will always be undergoing change and processing.

Pistis Sophia says "I (christ) called upon Gabriel from the midst of the worlds (aeons) along with Michael, pursuant to the command of my Father...and I gave to them the task of outpouring of the light and caused them to go down into matter unorganized (chaos) and assist Pistis Sophis"

Even 2 Maccabees, which is often used to SUPPORT ex nihilo, has Syriac recensions as well as some Greek manuscripts describing an organization of inchoate matter, which is also the explicit position of Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 where we read of God's hand which "created the world out of unformed matter (κτισασατονκοσμονεχαμορφου hyles)," Even the "non-existent" cited in in 2 Maccabees 7:28 is not absolute nothing, but . . . the metaphysical substance . . . in an uncrystallized state." This relative "nonbeing" referred to a chaotic, shadowy state of matter before the world was made; as we might say in biblical terms, "without form and void."

The Early writings are full of references regarding how chaotic matter is used. The ancients understood that "At a new creation there is a reshuffling of elements" This particular 'restating' of the 'conservation of mass' is from Ben Sirach. But the principle is also found in the Odes of Solomon; it's in the Ginza; it's in the Mandaean Johannesbuch; it's in Berlin Manichaean; it's in the Pistis Sophia, and it's in the oldest and most impressive Coptic writings.

The point here is that these were common teachings and the ancients were NOT unaware of matter and how it was used in creation from chaotic matter (rather than the later doctrine of creation from "nothing").


POST TWO OF FOUR FOLLOWS
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Hi clear. You make such sophisticated claims why is your name so generic? Despite your estimation of your ability, you put up a good fight even if your copying and pasting. I have limited time and seem to attract the most long winded posters in the forum so my responses may be sporadic.

Remember my claim. It was that while some individual Christians may have thought and taught differently creation ex nihilo was the dominant interpretation and the only biblically valid position. Your response seems to be that some Christians taught creation ex materia. Since I allowed for that I don't see the problem here. So I will just give some relevant information in response.


A. What the bible says (which by far is the more effectual matter).

1. New International Version
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. first day.
2. The word translated as create was bara. The Hebrew definition does not shed to much light on what it was intended to mean so we must look else where.
3. However notice here that it does mention the first day. Now these are not heliocentric 24 hour periods which is why no Hebrew calendar has ever recorded these days before Adam. Because time given after Adam is Earth centric and the days before it are not. A brilliant and scholarly interpretation of what the days before Adam are relative can be found in Schroeder's "The Science of God". Regardless this was the beginning of the first block of time. If God had made something from something else then time would not have begun at this point no matter what day represents here. Time would have been infinitely existent if matter had.
4. Notice this verse: And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
It does not say and turned the nuclear reactions in the suns on because suns had not been created. This is the same light source as will exist in heaven and comes from God. God spoke it into existence he did not rearrange matter to produce light. Or at least the bible does not say anything to suggest it.
5. This one: John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
Read more: Bible Verses About Creation: 16 Quotes To Study

Now what began. God certainly did not. The only choice is that creation began.

This is very important. We must grant that God exists and produced the universe if we are to discuss how he did so. Given that he exists and produced the universe then it only remains as to whether by ex-nihilo or by ex materia. While he bible may not be quite as clear as I wished it certainly has a great many verses that suggest strongly that he created from nothing. lets just arbitrarily say it is 80% clear on that. However there are no verses that suggest strongly that God created from something else unless it is obvious he did so and specifically says he did. Like when he made Adam from the common elements found in the Earth. So that clarity would be 0%. I will go with creation from nothing even though it may not be an absolute certainty. Faith and historical claims are settled by best explanation not certainty.

B. What the church has taught.
1. Augustine taught creation ex nihilo
2. So did Calvin.
3. So did Wesley.
4. So did Mathew Henry.
5. Aquinas taught it. In fact helped to systematize and ground it philosophically.

If I stopped here I have accounted for much of Catholic, protestant, philosophic, and commentary theory because these people formulated much of them. Lets move on to early sources from these primary sources.

1. Irenaus and Tertullian taught creation ex nihilo as far back as the early 2nd century.
2. Even further back Gamaliel. That is a pre-Christian source and since he was Paul's primary teacher this also puts the earliest Christian source squarely in the creation from nothing camp. So we can easily see creation ex-nihilo goes back ever further that the first Christians.

So I have given foundational sources and the earliest sources possible. Let me just shot gun some things from here on in.

A philosopher challenged him, "Your God was indeed a great artist, but he had good materials [unformed space/void, darkness, water, wind, and the deep] to help him." Gamaliel, responded, "All of them are explicitly described as having been created by him [and not as preexistent]."
Gamaliel (Approx. 20-50AD)

"God, the begetter of all things, not only brought them into sight, but even made things which previously had no existence, being not merely an artificer but the Creator Himself."

But concerning the quantity of the essence, if indeed it really has any existence, we must also speak. God took care at the creation of the world that there should be an ample and most sufficient supply of matter, so exact that nothing might be wanting and nothing superfluous.
Philo (20 BC – 50 AD)

Anyway I can quote people from now to eternity and even though I think my sources far more relevant I do not think you are going to be convinced by me quoting people so in the end the bible will have to be the judge and it strongly in my favor. I will try and read over the rest of your posts but have only limited time. Regardless good post.

 

[1robin]

Indeed. God allowed Moses to part the red sea to save the Israelites, but does diddly squat for starving kids.

So God exists but does not do exactly what you would have him do so you will risk damnation out of spite. Not a very rational or noble position. By the way God has provided ultimate hope for every human who has every lived even if occasional they might be hungry for what in comparison is a microscopic blink of time. He also commissioned his followers to help in that cosmic blink and they have responded with billion of their own money and millions of their own hours on Earth suffering and facing death to do so.

 

[1robin]

Strange God no longer sends angels to save His people. Or come by Himself for the matter. I have this confusion about all faiths.

1. First based on what do you claim this to begin with.
2. How in the world could you know your are right even if you are. Are you omnipresent, can you see all spiritual activity that ever occurs, do you know the millions of claims to supernatural intervention are wrong in every single case? If you do then you must be God yourself and should ask your self the question.

 

[1robin]

I really don't think its appropriate for a Mormon to use the Bible as a valid source.

I reject Mormonism but do not agree with your claim here. What in the world is it based on?

 

[Mycroft]

I reject Mormonism but do not agree with your claim here. What in the world is it based on?

In my own research I have found that the Books of Mormon and Abraham and the Doctrine and Covenants are far too contradictory to the bible for a Mormon to be able to use the bible authoritatively from his own religious perspective. They don't believe in god, or jesus, or the bible, they believe in Joseph Smith and nothing more.

 

[1robin]

I probably missed the part where you mention hands on work currently being done by Christians because that came after my initial post.

Ok

Sorry, but just telling people that some god exists, imo, is not any ultimate solution to anything. It doesn’t change their situation in any way. I would agree that educating, feeding and clothing them certainly does change their situation for the better.

Heaven is the ultimate solution to everything. Feeding a person will not prevent them from dying so you have no hope to offer in the context of eternity. Atheism is such a narrow world view.

You have no more idea than anyone else what happens when we all die. What if you’re offering nothing but false hope? I’d rather focus my efforts and energies on the only life we KNOW for certain that we get to live and to work on improving this world we have to live in.

I most certainly do have more of a idea but I do not have any certainty. I am not offering God in exclusion to food. My preacher used to always say feed their stomachs first then their souls. Certainly meet the immediate need then offer the remedy for eternity.

Sure it does. I have all kinds of eternal hope for humanity AND for actual solutions to problems we face

I find this one of the most irrational views atheists have. Every secular science show I see seems to think 2 things. 1. Life is allowed to come from anywhere in the universe except the one place it is known to exist. and 2. They get some kind of comfort from thinking the human race will continue. neither have the slightest hope of benefitting you. Even if a 1000 years from now we go to other planets you, me, and everyone will ultimately die. Where is the hope in that if there is there is. Every single thing ends and ends for eternity. Halleluiah I feel better now. Without God why would what humans do after you die have any relevance to you? I have always wanted to question a non-theist about these things.

I highlighted the words in your statement that prompted my response.

You highlighted part of my words, and neglected to read the others I guess. So what you highlighted was used improperly and so your conclusion invalid.

In regards to starving children you said non-theists can only just shrug our shoulders and say “oh well,” while theists are trying to help them and share their god and some kind of god-hope with them. You said “my side” doesn’t deal with roots of problems. I’m trying to point out to you that a great deal of us care just as much about other human beings as the people who believe in god(s) do.

At secularism seminars do they teach you how to neglect context. It must be systematically trained into you. My comments were in the context of eternity (which I believe was your complaint). Many of my statements were concerning eternity and the rest about temporal issues and history. I never said anything about how much you care.

You don’t have the slightest clue whether your world view is true or not either. You don’t have any special information that other people aren’t privy to. You’re stuck on this earth with the rest of us

I most certainly do because unlike atheism my views are based on positive feedback. The negation of a possible truth is not arrived at by positive means but by negative means.

We all know for a fact that we get at least this one life, here on earth. That’s all we know for certain. I prefer to work with that.

Again so narrow. We probably do more per person to alleviate problems in this world that atheists do and we add in eternity. We win both ways. Christian conservatives are the most generous demographic on earth. That is not to say great numbers of atheists do not also help with needs but they only treat symptoms in most cases and never offer eternal hope. So we do at least as much as your side does and potentially offer an infinite amount more.

Maybe they need a school where they can be educated on such important information.

Fine since Christian have built some of the greatest public school systems in history. Look at Charlemagne or the US. Did you know many schools systems were created primarily to teach literacy so the bible could be read, and grew from that?

Was learning about Christianity a prerequisite for receiving help from said missionaries?

I have never heard of any that made it mandatory, many do not even engage in theology at all. The red Cross for instance. I do think that many offer it but do not require it in connection with aid. However even if they did exactly what is so bad about that.

For all you know you could be just making up half of this “reality” you speak of. Maybe you’re just giving people false hope without the slightest idea “if your justified.”

Wrong. Please quit equating not having certainty with having no evidence .

The only reality I know, as I said, is that we get this one life to live. That’s a demonstrable fact.

I agree that is all we are certain of. So what? Does anyone who has ever lived live by the rule that only what is known is relevant? If that was true science would never have gone past go.

Again, reality for everyone doesn’t include this god you speak of. For some people reality used to be that Zeus, Hera, etc. were watching us all from Mount Olympus.

Maybe but if he exists their reality does include him whether they admit it or not.

They certainly help prevent the spread of it. So does comprehensive sexual education. AIDS is caused by a virus.

So you give them condoms and we will give them morality. That however is not allowed, your side blurs morality until the problem and what causes it becomes an accepted norm which is not even discouraged anymore. Is it better to prevent stealing or to take from others to make up for it. You treat symptoms and try and alleviate costs, we try and solve the problems. I guess I must point out that I am speaking in sexual context and in generalities.

There are at this very moment all kinds of doctors and scientists doing their best to eradicate this terrible virus (the cause of AIDS).

I got a better idea. Let's outlaw/discourage a practice, which has no basis in nature or logic that is practiced by 4% but produces 60% of aids cases and we will see which one reduces it the most. In the meantime quit asking/forcing people who do not practice it to pay for those who do. The majority of this country is not in favor of this. What happened to your secular standards based on what society wants. States vote it down and a single liberal secular judge says he does not care what the people want and allows it.

Lack of food and water aren’t causes of poverty? They aren’t at least some of the causes of war? Really?

I am trying very hard not to get to theological on you, but your pushing pretty hard. God laid out the path to prosperity, and ruin. While in this world it does not work out that way every single time it does do so in most. He is so emphatic about the road to reduce suffering he says "Just test me on this and see what happens" which is very rare biblically. Societies reject God or do not practice what he said to and misery is coming, sooner or later. It is not coincidence that the nation founded on God is also the most successful in human history and that most of those that deny God suffer accordingly. Why is it always the western nations founded on Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem that bail other nations out so often instead of it being even over all. You may use geography but Indians were here for thousands of years and lived like poppers (BTW I am an Indian) Christians come here and in 200 years have the richest nation in history.

Good. Original sin didn’t cause AIDS or poverty. Tithing and obedience to god won’t make them disappear. Actual action on our part can.

Completely wrong. We have been acting on them for thousands of years and even with modern technological advances they are as bad as ever. What kind of data do you use anyway?

The only thing I could find on the guy was his obituary that stated he died peacefully at his home and two quotes which had nothing to do with what you had said.

This may take me a bit. It was quoted in two debates that are each 2 hours long and I can't remember which ones though I know who said it. I emphatically trust the sources and I need the info so I will try and find it. AS far as this debate goes you can chunk it until verified if desirable. I certainly do not need it.

It has nothing to do with the “secular evolution” of the 50’s, and everything to do with the development of new drugs, advances in medicine and neuroscience and the surge in technology we’ve seen over the last half century.

I emphatically disagree. The two sets of data are far to constant but this would become it own topic and I don't have time.

1. We massively over medicate children and have since the 50's.
2. We have (at least politically and institutionally) moved away from God since the 50's.

I can leave it there.

 

[1robin]

In my own research I have found that the Books of Mormon and Abraham and the Doctrine and Covenants are far too contradictory to the bible for a Mormon to be able to use the bible authoritatively from his own religious perspective. They don't believe in god, or jesus, or the bible, they believe in Joseph Smith and nothing more.

I agree they are not biblically consistent. I think you were saying they can be intellectually honest and both use and violate the bible at the same time. They do believe in God just not a biblical God.

 

[Draupadi]

1. First based on what do you claim this to begin with.
2. How in the world could you know your are right even if you are. Are you omnipresent, can you see all spiritual activity that ever occurs, do you know the millions of claims to supernatural intervention are wrong in every single case? If you do then you must be God yourself and should ask your self the question.

No I am not but I can ask the same question to you. But my TV showed how the Palestinians died in Israeli bombing and a bunch of the latter were enjoying them. Maybe I always don't need to be omnipresent ? Same goes for the Israeli dying in the hands of the Palestinians. I do wonder where is God now? I also wonder why there are at least no new instructions from God regarding the current situation to His Chosen People?

By the way I personally asked for God's help in certain areas of my life with all my heart and the necessary and potent worship. But didn't receive any help. Everybody doesn't receive miraculous help from God and I again wonder why?

 

[1robin]

So what are you saying? The people of India didn't have moral truth until Christianity came to India, because their God isn't like the Christian God? And then you use the term "Judeo Christian God" as if it's the same thing, but Jews don't believe in the God that most Christians do? So what is this "fact"? Could you clarify what you're trying to say a little.

No I must have said a hundred times this same simple thing.

1. I made an ontological claim. Yet non theists always (even when asked not to respond with epistemology. I mentioned foundation now you respond with methodological issues about perception. Fine I guess you can't help it so I will respond in kind.
2. I claim God is the source of all morals and that every single human (at least a healthy one) has a God given conscience. Yes that includes Indians and atheists. (which is why atheistic moral theory is never what an atheist lives by)
3. God's full moral demands are in every heart. Even the heart that has become so hard it no longer can recognize them.
4. God's declarations only reflect and ground this fact. Murder was wrong and known to be wrong before Moses lived. However when he received the command from God it confirmed our intuition and grounded it's source.

I am not getting into semantic technicalities so use Christian instead of Judeo/Christian God (even though they are equated by scholars every single day) if you want, I don't care.

 

[Mycroft]

I agree they are not biblically consistent. I think you were saying they can be intellectually honest and both use and violate the bible at the same time. They do believe in God just not a biblical God.

I can get behind that. But they shouldn't come ( or appear to) - in my opinion - from the perspective that they believe in the bible and that god.

 

[1robin]

No I am not but I can ask the same question to you. But my TV showed how the Palestinians died in Israeli bombing and a bunch of the latter were enjoying them.

It is human nature for men to feel relief and gratitude when their enemies who have shot across the border at their families, have terrorized their nation, and have fired rockets from school grounds and hospitals are stopped. It may ultimately be ungodly but it certainly understandable. However this has nothing to do with angels or supernatural entities acting on mankind. Which is what you mentioned and I responded to. If you want to discuss Israel or terrorism that is fine but that was not the subject originally.

Maybe I always don't need to be omnipresent ?

You said this

Strange God no longer sends angels to save His people.

Yes you do need omnipresence to even have the slightest clue if what you said is right. BTW the TV is about the worst possible source for spiritual reality. It is like using a ruler to get the temperature.

Same goes for the Israeli dying in the hands of the Palestinians. I do wonder where is God now? I also wonder why there are at least no new instructions from God regarding the current situation to His Chosen People?

You said he no longer saves his people. Despite hundreds of millions living today that say otherwise, Moses died, Jesus died, Abraham died, God predicted death for everyone. How is death proof he was wrong nor once saved but not anymore. He can and does save us physically at times but primarily he saves us spiritually for eternity. How in the world do you know he stopped doing so. How do you know if angels do anything or not? Is something bad happening proof nothing good happens. Especially when at best you see less than .000000001% of what occurs. Come on!!!!

By the way I personally asked for God's help in certain areas of my life with all my heart and the necessary and potent worship. But didn't receive any help. Everybody doesn't receive miraculous help from God and I again wonder why?

Which God? The one that exists or between the 1 and 330 million India alone believes in. Also find me a verse in any holy book that says God will answer every request ever made. I may have asked for thousands of things and gotten only a few dozen. However it only takes one to make your claims untrue. There are hundreds of millions of claims to miracles, if your right, every single one of them is false. I only need one to be right.

 

[McBell]

I really don't think its appropriate for a Mormon to use the Bible as a valid source.

Why not?

 

[1robin]

I can get behind that. But they shouldn't come ( or appear to) - in my opinion - from the perspective that they believe in the bible and that god.

Now that one I can agree to without reservation.

 

[Katzpur]

I agree they are not biblically consistent. I think you were saying they can be intellectually honest and both use and violate the bible at the same time. They do believe in God just not a biblical God.

There is nothing in Mormon doctrine which, when properly understood, is inconsistent with the Bible, and the LDS understanding of God is probably more biblical than traditional Christianity's. For instance, there is nowhere in the Bible where God is described as a three-in-one essence which fills the universe. A further discussion on this topic, however, would take us off the topic of the OP. That's something I don't like to do.

 

[Katzpur]

Why not?

'Cause Quatermass hates Mormons, that's why not. If I believe the Bible to be the word of God, I should be able to use it as a source as much much as any other Christian on this forum. As a matter of fact, when I'm discussing theology with non-Mormons, it would be pretty pointless for me to appeal to the uniquely Mormon scriptures. That would be like a Muslim trying to convince me that Islamic teachings are correct by saying, "Well, it says so right here in the Qur'an!" The thing is, Mormons can find plenty of evidence to support their doctrine right in the Bible. That's probably why Quatermass objects to Mormons using the Bible as a source.

 

[Draupadi]

It is human nature for men to feel relief and gratitude when their enemies who have shot across the border at their families, have terrorized their nation, and have fired rockets from school grounds and hospitals are stopped. It may ultimately be ungodly but it certainly understandable. However this has nothing to do with angels or supernatural entities acting on mankind. Which is what you mentioned and I responded to. If you want to discuss Israel or terrorism that is fine but that was not the subject originally.




You said this Yes you do need omnipresence to even have the slightest clue if what you said is right. BTW the TV is about the worst possible source for spiritual reality. It is like using a ruler to get the temperature.






You said he no longer saves his people. Despite hundreds of millions living today that say otherwise, Moses died, Jesus died, Abraham died, God predicted death for everyone. How is death proof he was wrong nor once saved but not anymore. He can and does save us physically at times but primarily he saves us spiritually for eternity. How in the world do you know he stopped doing so. How do you know if angels do anything or not? Is something bad happening proof nothing good happens. Especially when at best you see less than .000000001% of what occurs. Come on!!!!

Which God? The one that exists or between the 1 and 330 million India alone believes in. Also find me a verse in any holy book that says God will answer every request ever made. I may have asked for thousands of things and gotten only a few dozen. However it only takes one to make your claims untrue. There are hundreds of millions of claims to miracles, if your right, every single one of them is false. I only need one to be right.

Any God who is humane won't let us suffer for anything. That Palestine-Israel situation was an example. You say TV isn't enough? Are you saying the channel somehow produced the bombing via special effects? You claim million miracles? I claim more non-miracles. And as for which God, let us say Christian God who is the ultimate epitome of mercy and doesn't distinguish.

People suffer that's enough proof that God doesn't exist. I won't say He does because I can't imagine a such a sadistic being creating us just to worship Him. It is for all God(s)/ess(es).