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

1robin · May 23, 2013

God accepts human sacrifices

2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39

God forbids human sacrifice

Deut 12:30,31

Too many verses for the time available.

Because of man's wickedness God destroys him

Gen 6:5,7

Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him

Gen 8:21

This one answers it's self and must have been a typo or something.

Genesis 8:21
New International Version (NIV)
21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

There is nothing contradictory about saying I am spanking you because of X and saying I will not spank you again because of X. Changing methods changes nothing. Did you honestly think this one was contradictory? or are you simply copying a list?

Killing commanded

Ex 32:27

Killing forbidden

Ex 20:13

Good night nurse. First let get it right. God has never commanded that we shall not kill. He said that we shall not murder. Murder means to kill without justification. The Hebrew word is translated as murder 35 times in the OT and as kill 5. The context is obvious.
(Piel)
1) to murder, assassinate
2) murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)

Ex 32:27

And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+32%3A27&version=KJV

Notice the Hebrew word here was translated as slay. Not Murder. It is Harag and is a compltely different word than in the EX:20.
Also note that it is God who is ordering the killing. The only being that even theoretically would be perfectly able to distinguish justified killing from murder it is God. Not that we are left wondering why. The all important context:

Exd 32:26
Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who [is] on the LORD'S side? [let him come] unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&c=32&v=1&t=KJV#top

Not only were these people refusing to even claim to be on the side of the God that had delivered them from Egypt, an army, starvation, and parted a sea for them, they literally were worshiping their own Jewelry by dancing naked in front of an image. If that does not merit death then what possibly could? BTW on what basis can you even evaluate the question.

?

Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced

Deut 27:22/ Lev 20:17

Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union

Gen 20:11,12/ Gen 17:16

1. This one has many aspects. How could God declare what Abraham did wrong until he issued an injunction against it?

2. Your argument will inevitably be that it was always wrong even before God declared it to be so. Maybe. The injunction against incest is believed to be based on genetics (I however have no idea why God claimed it wrong). However that is only if there is harm produced. I have heard qualified medical experts claim that if the Human Genome was in its early and pristine state that there is very little potential harm. If there was initially a very limited population even geographically it also might be allowed even if potentially harmful.

3. Be this as it may it makes little difference because God many times was forced (by choice, given purpose and revelation) to accept non optimal things like divorce, servitude, out of wedlock births. For example Abraham had Isaac out of wedlock and based on non-faith. God reluctantly accepted this. He was happy with neither occurance. If you think Abraham got away with anything and God was mocked. Think again. Abraham suffered greatly and specifically for both sins and in many ways all of the trouble in the Middle East comes from his sin. Blessing a marriage is no to say God approved of every aspect of it. Any time God had to interact with a rebellious and sinful human race far less than optimal issues resulted. God could have killed everyone who messed up and you would yell Evil. He could approve of the sin its self and you would yell evil. He could make the best of our limitations and you yell he is self-contradictory. Heads you win tails he loses I guess but no contradiction. I hope God would bless imperfect things myself, as it is either that or anihilation of everything we ever did and ourselves as well.

Well it’s obvious the direct this is going and I am out of time. Have a good one and let me know if you require I address all of these before they are abandoned.

cottage · May 27, 2013

1robin said:
I was unaware of these posts for some reason.

Gen 8:22

"As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."

Gen 41:54,56/ Gen 45:6
All these say the same thing. A local famine occurred.

Gen 8:22 is a symbolic statement concerning the ceaseless cycles of things until the end times in general. It has nothing what so ever to do with a literal statement concerning every foot of Earth and every seed ever planted. That is absurd. Are you actually claiming Moses wrote that God claimed that on every square centimeter and for every attempt a crops every seed will grow? In the sea, on top of Everest, everywhere, every second? Since the obvious (non contradictory, common sense) reading would be so inconvenient for you that you with out much effort you never will allow it to stand, let see what the experts say.

Ahem! Im showing you the contradiction. You are attempting to go around the contradiction while leaving it firmly in place.

If I may remind you, God made a promise to the world through Noah in the most absolute terms:
Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."

1robin said:
But God graciously declared he never would drown the world again. While the earth remains, and man upon it, there shall be summer and winter. It is plain that this earth is not to remain always. It, and all the works in it, must shortly be burned up; and we look for new heavens and a new earth, when all these things shall be dissolved. But as long as it does remain, God's providence will cause the course of times and seasons to go on, and makes each to know its place. And on this word we depend, that thus it shall be.

The other verses about a local and temporary loss of a specific and very limited scope Harvest have no contradiction what so ever with the former one. I have searched and defended entire lists of contradictions and no one has ever used this one. Who did you get this from and why are the just randomly assigning hyperbolic literals and meanings to things that do not fit with any commentary or interpretation I could find anywhere? Actually I know very well why. Pure desperation and preference. If you distort the Bible into a unrecognizable and irrational form of what use is that? BTW the harvest season occurred in Egypt, it just sucked.

Oh come on! Its hardly desperation and preference; they are not my words but Gods covenant, and a contradiction is a contradiction. A thing cannot both be and not be, and the contradiction is sustained regardless of any qualitative, quantitative or geographical interpretation.

1robin said:
I am choosing which to answer based on brevity and it's challenge, BTW. This one is not as obviously wrong as the above.

Those that seek me early shall find me. - Proverbs 8:17

Then shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but shall not find me. - Proverbs 1:28

We are told that these contradict one another, but these verses are talking about two entirely different groups of people: Those who want wisdom, and those who don't (note the conditional word "then" that appears in verse 1:28). The arguments involved are a progressive proof that leads to a conclusion; rather like Paul's statements in Romans, first that the righteous shall be justified by deeds of the law, followed by his proof that no one is righteous.

The chapter 8 verse is indeed a counter-point to the chapter 1 verse, but in the sense of comparison, not in the sense of correction. This is a form of progressive dialogue argument typical of ANE literature -- for more on this genre, see here.
-JPH

N.B. There is no conditional term in the sentence: Those who seek me shall find me. If a conditional term is inserted subsequently then that perfectly demonstrates the contradiction.

God made it clear: Those who seek me shall find me. But being vengeful and unforgiving, he threatens and mocks his flock before contradicting what he has solemnly ordained: Then shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but shall not find me.

1robin said:
It is far too long to post but if you notice the words used for those and they here are referring to specific groups. Not to humanity in general. As the above points out the Biblical writings are meant to be viewed in context, are to augment each other, and be consistent with the overall context when interpreting.

That is incorrect. Matthew 7: 7-8: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. It really could not be more explicit.

1robin · May 30, 2013

cottage said:
Ahem! Im showing you the contradiction. You are attempting to go around the contradiction while leaving it firmly in place.

cottage said:
If I may remind you, God made a promise to the world through Noah in the most absolute terms:
Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."

The only thing in what you have posted here (added to your original claims) that even has the slightest potential of being even theoretically contradictory is "Never will I curse the ground" the rest of your claim went away with my previous post and so I will look at only this statement.

1. Your original post only gave Gen 8:22 (not 8:21) so I could hardly be expected to debate whatever verses you are thinking about.
2. The statement in question "never will I curse the ground" That statement could mean about a thousand different things. Of what value is it to arbitrarily assign it a value that allows you to make a point you wished if not true? What is the point? If we read "the US kicked Hitler's tail" have you gained anything by examining his remains and concluding no one actually kicked him? Have you changed what was meant? Have you changed WW2's outcome.
3. The ACTUAL context of this verse is to calm any fears that resulted from God's wiping out on a global scale of mankind. He is saying he will never do that again (in fact he is more specific, he says he will never do it in that way again). If you just can't stand the context the verse comes in then look at 100% of the commentators and quoted scholars at this site. They all agree with me and were not debating your or your point. http://biblehub.com/genesis/8-21.htm
4.However none of this matters because the "contradictory verses" were not about any curse on the land. They were about predicting a natural famine not an event that resulted from a specific curse.
5. There is no guarantee of global optimal rainfall nor global optimization of solid conditions. Simply a promise not to do what he had previously done a few verses earlier. Got context?

New International Version (©2011)
For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will be no plowing and reaping.
New International Version (©2011)
and the seven years of famine began, just as Joseph had said. There was famine in all the other lands, but in the whole land of Egypt there was food.

It was further not a curse because God alleviated the people of it's effects. What is the point of cursing something then getting everyone out of it. Did you read the verses you gave or copy them from some site? Did you read any context, any commentaries, or original language use? The slightest study would have saved a lot of time here.

Oh come on! Its hardly desperation and preference; they are not my words but Gods covenant, and a contradiction is a contradiction. A thing cannot both be and not be, and the contradiction is sustained regardless of any qualitative, quantitative or geographical interpretation

Click to expand...

It took me 5 minutes reading to learn you first did not include this verse in your original claims, no context at all allows your interpretations, I found not one scholar that even allows your context a possibility (and they were not arguing against your point), and I showed that even with your context there exists no possibility of a contradiction. I am out of time and this is going as it always goes so I will look into your additional rabid efforts to salvage a cherished "contradiction" that can't survive the slightest scrutiny. I recommend additional research before your credibility is put on the line by copying what someone put on a site somewhere.

Titanic · May 30, 2013

If there are any God's I hope not. Cause if that is the case I would hate to see the afterlife.

CG Didymus · May 30, 2013

1robin said:
1robin said:

I did not realize anyone still thought like this. ...this same lame argument.

Click to expand...

Classic 1Robinism.

When I asked: Does God control the weather? You said,

For the most part, not directly.

Click to expand...

Great answer. So the tornado hit the school and killed the kids on its own? Or, did God give it a nudge that direction to test the faith of the parents that are Christian? And to do what to the parents that aren't Christian? To show his power? To get them to reconsider and believe? To get those evil kids of those parents out of the world and into hell where they belong?

...what is wrong with your argumentation, Biblical ignorance.

Click to expand...

More classic 1Robinism. Then, teach me. I'm asking questions more than arguing. When God sent a storm to sink Paul's boat and almost sink Jonah's, and, when Jesus calmed the winds, that was God controlling the weather. He only does it sometimes?

The children are dead either way. With God they are in heaven... Without God there is no satisfactory explanation, only annihilation possible for the children, and no restitution from an indifferent meaningless and purposeless universe.

Click to expand...

Yes, the children are dead, but are they with God? That is the question. Do you believe there is an age of accountability? If so, then what about the kid that is one day older then that age? They go to hell? Then the question about God or no God, the problem is: Is your "God" and your definition of him the real one?

The Bible claims nature in it's unpredictable furry is a result of man's preferring to live in a nature devoid of God's constant input and direction... It was also to serve as an indication of out futility to live without God, the fragile nature and finite duration of life, and our lack of mastery over virtually anything and our need of one who is and promises to one take calm the storms.
His direct involvement is the exception since we rebelled not the norm.

Click to expand...

So, for the most part, life and nature goes on as if there is no God, accept for the occasional intervention? And that thing about my Mom and the coffee table? What is that supposed to be? The tree in the garden of Eden analogy? It would be more like she put forbidden cookies on the table with a glass of milk and told me not to touch them. I don't think an evil snake would have to help tempt me; I'd eat them, but then, what would a loving, kind, nurturing mother do with her ignorant, rebellious child? Curse him and all his children? Why did she put the cookies there and then leave? What did she expect a kid to do? What did God expect Adam and Eve to do?

God took his perfect supervision and control from natural law because we desired to live apart from him.

Click to expand...

Where was that supervision when the snake tempted Eve? He didn't know what was happening? He didn't care? Or, he knew and let it happen and even wanted it to happen? Or, it's all a Jewish story of how good and evil came into the world and Christians built off it to make their religion and are now stuck trying to make it all make sense?

If you read the refernce material I named you will soon discover this argumentation is a philsisophic, theologic, and rational absurdity even in theory.

Click to expand...

No, what is absurd is: Is God in control or not? Did he create the devil and evil or not? Is he really going to make things perfect someday? If so, then why put us through all of this now? He knows which ones will believe and which ones won't. When did he create hell? And, when did he know who he was going to send there? Why not uncreate them instead of letting them burn in hell forever? Because they choose it? They choose to be separated from God? No, they choose to separate themselves from your God. He's philsisophic, theologic, and rationally absurd.

cottage · Jun 1, 2013

1robin said:
The only thing in what you have posted here (added to your original claims) that even has the slightest potential of being even theoretically contradictory is "Never will I curse the ground" the rest of your claim went away with my previous post and so I will look at only this statement.

1. Your original post only gave Gen 8:22 (not 8:21) so I could hardly be expected to debate whatever verses you are thinking about.

It is simple. Genesis 8:22 is a statement that is self-evidently contradicted in fact, as you have previously confirmed in your apologetic, and which is contradicted propositionally according to God’s promise in 8:21.

1robin said:
2. The statement in question "never will I curse the ground" That statement could mean about a thousand different things. Of what value is it to arbitrarily assign it a value that allows you to make a point you wished if not true? What is the point? If we read "the US kicked Hitler's tail" have you gained anything by examining his remains and concluding no one actually kicked him? Have you changed what was meant? Have you changed WW2's outcome.

The very understanding of God is that unlike error-prone humans who lack wisdom and foresight the Almighty says what he means and means what he says, and that what is ordained or commanded will not and cannot be retracted or contradicted. If it were otherwise then God is not God, a logical absurdity that even the most committed theologian must acknowledge. ‘Never again will I curse the ground’ is a statement that is a clear as it could possibly be, containing the subject ‘ground’ and the predicate ‘curse’, conjoined with the personal pronoun ‘I’. The adverb ‘never’ means not ever, not at all and to no extent or degree. The statement is made in the most absolute terms.

1robin said:
3. The ACTUAL context of this verse is to calm any fears that resulted from God's wiping out on a global scale of mankind. He is saying he will never do that again (in fact he is more specific, he says he will never do it in that way again). If you just can't stand the context the verse comes in then look at 100% of the commentators and quoted scholars at this site. They all agree with me and were not debating your or your point.

My comments in the previous paragraph answers this and I refer you to them again.

1robin said:
4.However none of this matters because the "contradictory verses" were not about any curse on the land. They were about predicting a natural famine not an event that resulted from a specific curse.
5. There is no guarantee of global optimal rainfall nor global optimization of solid conditions. Simply a promise not to do what he had previously done a few verses earlier. Got context?

The 'context is exactly what God said it was. I’ll repeat this again: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease." It really could not be clearer.

1robin said:
It was further not a curse because God alleviated the people of it's effects. What is the point of cursing something then getting everyone out of it.

1robin said:
Did you read the verses you gave or copy them from some site? Did you read any context, any commentaries, or original language use? The slightest study would have saved a lot of time here.

Well, I’m sorry but all this circumlocution does nothing to answer the contradictory passages. And if it was not a curse why did God say “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans…” Also a thing done cannot be undone, not even by God. Therefore the contradiction is confirmed out of your own mouth when you say ‘God alleviated the people of its effects’. The thing has to happen in order for there to be the effects. And of course we know that throughout history such things did happen and continue to happen even today.

1robin said:
It took me 5 minutes reading to learn you first did not include this verse in your original claims, no context at all allows your interpretations, I found not one scholar that even allows your context a possibility (and they were not arguing against your point), and I showed that even with your context there exists nopossibility of a contradiction. I am out of time and this is going as it always goes so I will look into your additional rabid efforts to salvage a cherished "contradiction" that can't survive the slightest scrutiny. I recommend additional research before your credibility is put on the line by copying what someone put on a site somewhere.

Instead of becoming angry and resorting to ad hominem attacks, it would be far better if you debated disinterestedly and with the same courtesy that I show to you. Oh, and I’m flattered that you think my comments are copied, when actually I’ve had this stuff on my computer as a result of another protracted discussion on this very message board; I even have a well-thumbed Bible to check C & V. But anyway lighten up and enjoy the debate.

And, forgive me, but the rest of the paragraph is just bluster and is saying nothing at all.

Ingledsva · Jun 1, 2013

1robin said:
Good night nurse. First let get it right. God has never commanded that we shall not kill. He said that we shall not murder. Murder means to kill without justification. The Hebrew word is translated as murder 35 times in the OT and as kill 5. The context is obvious.
(Piel)
1) to murder, assassinate
2) murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)

Ex 32:27

And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+32%3A27&version=KJV

Notice the Hebrew word here was translated as slay. Not Murder. It is Harag and is a compltely different word than in the EX:20.
Also note that it is God who is ordering the killing. The only being that even theoretically would be perfectly able to distinguish justified killing from murder it is God. Not that we are left wondering why. The all important context:

Exd 32:26
Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who [is] on the LORD'S side? [let him come] unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&c=32&v=1&t=KJV#top

Not only were these people refusing to even claim to be on the side of the God that had delivered them from Egypt, an army, starvation, and parted a sea for them, they literally were worshiping their own Jewelry by dancing naked in front of an image. If that does not merit death then what possibly could? BTW on what basis can you even evaluate the question.

I find it rather problematic that you think it isn't murder to kill people that choose to worship differently, or follow a different God!

*

Trace · Jun 1, 2013

God is a creator, God is a saviour. God forgives, God forgets. God is merciful, yet his wrath is something to be feared by all beings. He is wise, yet he is stupid. God is everything we wanted, yet he is nothing. He created us and watched us grow into wretched, evil beings; not content with anything, ruining the lives of others and only caring for ourselves. There are some things God must allow to keep balance in the universe, death of people, including children, being one of them. It may be an awful thing but it is just what happens, God allows them to die not only to keep the balance, but show us how easily we can be destroyed. He allows it to show us how tragic things happen. We should not hate him for it, for that is his task. He is the ruler of us all, and he must allow all creatures to die no matter what. God is beyond our primitive grasp of morals, he is a being far beyond our understanding. Good and evil is much more complicated when put on that scale, and us as humans will never understand it as it is now. Do not hate God, for he is doing what he must. He has given us the gift of life, so he must also give us the gift of death. That is the price people must pay for living their lives, they must eventually give it all up once again and journey into the unknown. The eternal oblivion, the everlasting paradise, or the unending nothingness in between... -Trace

BrokenHearted2 · Jul 11, 2013

Lady B said:
This was brought out many times by Atheists and agnostics, I would like to discuss it with you in a rational and respectful manner. My disclaimer is I am a true 5 point Calvinist and If that is offensive to you,You are free to close the thread now. If I may suggest , we leave out all slander against My God in the process of this discussion, slander being pre-defined as name calling as If he were real and present.Questioning scriptures depiction of God however you interpret is allowed. Example: Is God evil? Fair enough?

Here is my premise,
this is my belief based upon my scriptures.
God not only allows children to die, He has pre-ordained them to die. Hard for us to fathom, granted, but True nevertheless in Scripture. If we say he did not cause it and only allowed it to happen then God would be reacting to free will of man to accomplish their own destruction, thus putting too much power in men and essentially tying God's hands. God ordained for this latest tragedy for his own purposes, we cannot know them, we are not our creator, so The bible tells us we must accept that their is a divine plan and God is in control completely.

So you have asked, where is the comfort in that? Why do religious peoples comfort families of these tragedies with this premise of a God in control? Well let me ask you Atheists would you attempt to comfort these mothers with your precept that there is no God? No heaven and no hell? That their children are reduced to dust as they came? That the man who murdered them who took his life is also Dust and there is no justice for them either? Both parties cease to exist, one guilty, one innocent, both have the same fate in the end.

Or could it be more comforting that a God in control is with their babies now, that they know no suffering,feel no pain have no more tears and the man that took their life will be punished by a Just and perfect God. Where is the evil in my premise and the lack of evil in yours? I find evil in evildoing going unpunished.I find evil in a life given for no purpose but to die and cease to exist.
What say you?

After my wife's sister and our brother in law died in a 1999 car accident we adopted their 4 year old son. Years later when he was 7 or 8 he would ask me why God "Took his Mom and Dad away". I told him that we have it all backwards. God doesn't "take away", we have to think of it from God's point of view. God knows that a baby or a child may only have a handful of years to live. So he searches all of humanity to find the most noble hearts to have the privilege of holding and loving that child. God knew that my son's Momma only had 25 years to live. So He looked out and picked the child that would come to love and cherish her memory the most. That is definitely my son. I believe that God handpicked me to be his second dad because God saw my heart from an Eternal perspective.

Even with my own situation...How could God let me be born to an abusive alcoholic? I believe God knew I would be instrumental in my mother's sobriety, in the happiness of my sibling's lives, and as a mark of nobility in my own soul.

This is what I feel very deeply to be true.

1robin · Jul 11, 2013

Ingledsva said:
I find it rather problematic that you think it isn't murder to kill people that choose to worship differently, or follow a different God!

*[/left]

You are the debate equivalent of what Jerry Seinfeld called the pop in. You sort of materialize, make a comment, and evaporate. Murder is the taking of life without sufficient moral cause. 1. On what basis would you ever know it if God did not have sufficient cause even if he did not in fact have? 2. On what basis could any faulty and extremely limited finite mind ever know if any infinite mind had lacked sufficient cause even theoretically? 3. How would God's taking back what he created and we never did, ever be unjustified? He has sovereignty and ownership of all life or he does not exist to commit wrongs. 4. Even if the only motivation for God was that a human rebelled against the God who existed and worshiped one who does not on what basis can you prove that wrong? The issue is far more complex but even simplistically how can this be done?

1robin · Jul 11, 2013

BrokenHearted2 said:
After my wife's sister and our brother in law died in a 1999 car accident we adopted their 4 year old son. Years later when he was 7 or 8 he would ask me why God "Took his Mom and Dad away". I told him that we have it all backwards. God doesn't "take away", we have to think of it from God's point of view. God knows that a baby or a child may only have a handful of years to live. So he searches all of humanity to find the most noble hearts to have the privilege of holding and loving that child. God knew that my son's Momma only had 25 years to live. So He looked out and picked the child that would come to love and cherish her memory the most. That is definitely my son. I believe that God handpicked me to be his second dad because God saw my heart from an Eternal perspective.

Even with my own situation...How could God let me be born to an abusive alcoholic? I believe God knew I would be instrumental in my mother's sobriety, in the happiness of my sibling's lives, and as a mark of nobility in my own soul.

This is what I feel very deeply to be true.

I was raised in Church most of the time but the only actual Christian was my mother. When I was 12 she got cancer and the sicker She got the madder at the God I didn't really believe was there I got. Eventually it that experience that did more to bring me kicking and screaming into actual experiential faith with God. You are right to allow that God can use the worst of circumstances to produce faith. The faith its self exploded with the death of God himself. Statistics like 9/11 indicate beyond question that tragedy clarifies priority and has produced maybe more faith than benumbing contentedness and the passivity it generates.

Ingledsva · Jul 11, 2013

1robin said:
1A. You are the debate equivalent of what Jerry Seinfeld called the pop in. You sort of materialize, make a comment, and evaporate. Murder is the taking of life without sufficient moral cause. 1. On what basis would you ever know it if God did not have sufficient cause even if he did not in fact have? 2. On what basis could any faulty and extremely limited finite mind ever know if any infinite mind had lacked sufficient cause even theoretically? 3. How would God's taking back what he created and we never did, ever be unjustified? He has sovereignty and ownership of all life or he does not exist to commit wrongs. 4. Even if the only motivation for God was that a human rebelled against the God who existed and worshiped one who does not on what basis can you prove that wrong? The issue is far more complex but even simplistically how can this be done?

1A. LOL! Well you haven't been paying attention have you. I'm usually the one translating and arguing the text. I've made quite a few posts in this thread - AND you yourself made commentary to me. Did you forget?

1 & 2. The stories in the Bible which have YHVH killing the innocent babies for the supposed infractions of adults - makes him EVIL. Also, the idea that your "God" told the Hebrew to kill innocent people - is only in the minds of the war machine - excusing their murder of the innocent - by claiming "God told me to do it."

3 & 4. Is your YHVH Law (and all that that logically implies) or a skitzo murdering the innocent?

*

RJ50 · Jul 12, 2013

The deity featured in the Bible is pure evil, if it exists, and the things attributed to it are true.

1robin · Jul 12, 2013

Ingledsva said:
1A. LOL! Well you haven't been paying attention have you. I'm usually the one translating and arguing the text. I've made quite a few posts in this thread - AND you yourself made commentary to me. Did you forget?

I was joking around but have no idea what your contending here.

1 & 2. The stories in the Bible which have YHVH killing the innocent babies for the supposed infractions of adults - makes him EVIL. Also, the idea that your "God" told the Hebrew to kill innocent people - is only in the minds of the war machine - excusing their murder of the innocent - by claiming "God told me to do it."

That is far too broad to contend. Give an example of what story your are talking about. BTW is God evil or non-existent in your view. Context is important.

3 & 4. Is your YHVH Law (and all that that logically implies) or a skitzo murdering the innocent?

*

I do not know what that means. Nothing you have said even implied God did not have morally sufficient reasons for anything he did. At best you only know that you do not know enough to know one way or the other.

1robin · Jul 12, 2013

RJ50 said:
The deity featured in the Bible is pure evil, if it exists, and the things attributed to it are true.

That is not only wrong. It is impossible. What standard are you using to judge God? On what basis is that capacity of a finite and very fallible human able to determine the objective moral quality of the actions of an infinite and omniscient mind? That is like only having a thermometer to judge what band is best. As the atheist hero Dawkins has said. What in evolution can stop us from saying Hitler was not right? Or as the philosopher of science has said morality is an illusion.

FranklinMichaelV.3 · Jul 12, 2013

1robin said:
That is not only wrong. It is impossible. What standard are you using to judge God? On what basis is that capacity of a finite and very fallible human able to determine the objective moral quality of the actions of an infinite and omniscient mind? That is like only having a thermometer to judge what band is best. As the atheist hero Dawkins has said. What in evolution can stop us from saying Hitler was not right? Or as the philosopher of science has said morality is an illusion.

If our morality comes from God then it is with that we can question God. If our morality is truly objective regardless what is allowed in the context of time would not matter. I.e slavery in the old testament would be considered immoral despite the consensus at the time.

1robin · Jul 12, 2013

FranklinMichaelV.3 said:
If our morality comes from God then it is with that we can question God. If our morality is truly objective regardless what is allowed in the context of time would not matter. I.e slavery in the old testament would be considered immoral despite the consensus at the time.

That is not true IMO. Very few things are immoral regardless of circumstances. To let a child drive at 6 is immoral compared with 20. Can you show that servitude in the absence of welfare and almost always voluntary, or an alternative to killing captives in war is wrong even if slavery as practiced as we think of it in the old south was. The circumstances surrounding the event making killing in some cases an act to be rewarded and in others to be condemned. BTW What is given as a command to a very finite and fallible man is not binding even theoretically on an omniscient God. This last thing gets a little complex based on what version of God and what type of injunction but I hope you get the drift. Even if God was bound by his moral instructions to us in what way could we know anyone he killed he had a lack of moral justification for.

Trantorfuzz · Jul 12, 2013

//Lady B wrote: If we say he did not cause [children to die] and only allowed it to happen then God would be reacting to free will of man to accomplish their own destruction, thus putting too much power in men and essentially tying God's hands. //

Its illogical to argue that Gods decision not to interfere ties Gods hands. Deciding not to do something is not the same as being restrained or lacking power.

//Lady B wrote: God ordained for this latest tragedy for his own purposes, we cannot know them, we are not our creator, so the bible tells us we must accept that there is a divine plan and God is in control completely.//

This argument does nothing to vindicate Gods goodness. If Gods actions are alien to the moral intuitions that tell us that killing children is wrong, then one might as well worship a devil as God.

Pt. Two

// Lady B. wrote: So you have asked, where is the comfort in that? Why do religious peoples comfort families of these tragedies with this premise of a God in control?

Well let me ask you Atheists would you attempt to comfort these mothers with your precept that there is no God? No heaven and no hell? That their children are reduced to dust as they came? That the man who murdered them who took his life is also Dust and there is no justice for them either? Both parties cease to exist, one guilty, one innocent, both have the same fate in the end.//

Life isnt less valuable for being finite. And when life ends, so do fear and suffering. And losing a child to murder is inconceivably hard no matter what the parents believe.

//Or could it be more comforting that a God in control is with their babies now, that they know no suffering,feel no pain have no more tears and the man that took their life will be punished by a Just and perfect God. Where is the evil in my premise and the lack of evil in yours? I find evil in evildoing going unpunished.I find evil in a life given for no purpose but to die and cease to exist. What say you?//

The evil in your premise lies in the idea that God wants children to be murdered. If God ordained that a murderer killed a child, then holding the murderer responsible for his crime makes no moral sense.

FranklinMichaelV.3 · Jul 12, 2013

1robin said:
That is not true IMO. Very few things are immoral regardless of circumstances. To let a child drive at 6 is immoral compared with 20. Can you show that servitude in the absence of welfare and almost always voluntary, or an alternative to killing captives in war is wrong even if slavery as practiced as we think of it in the old south was. The circumstances surrounding the event making killing in some cases an act to be rewarded and in others to be condemned. BTW What is given as a command to a very finite and fallible man is not binding even theoretically on an omniscient God. This last thing gets a little complex based on what version of God and what type of injunction but I hope you get the drift. Even if God was bound by his moral instructions to us in what way could we know anyone he killed he had a lack of moral justification for.

Except that the servitude was not always voluntary. A closer reading shows that there is a difference between a Jewish Slave and a Non-Jewish Slave.

The treatment of the Jewish slave which was at times voluntary was far more benign, the other slave was considered property and was to be treated as one would treat property. It is made very clear in Leviticus.

If God is not bound by Moral Instructions then would that not make God a hypocrite? To command us to do one thing but do another? That seems a common argument for a more human God then a Divine God. It seems like something Zeus or one of the other Greek Gods would do.

Ingledsva · Jul 12, 2013

1robin said:
That is not true IMO. Very few things are immoral regardless of circumstances. To let a child drive at 6 is immoral compared with 20. Can you show that servitude in the absence of welfare and almost always voluntary, or an alternative to killing captives in war is wrong even if slavery as practiced as we think of it in the old south was. The circumstances surrounding the event making killing in some cases an act to be rewarded and in others to be condemned. BTW What is given as a command to a very finite and fallible man is not binding even theoretically on an omniscient God. This last thing gets a little complex based on what version of God and what type of injunction but I hope you get the drift. Even if God was bound by his moral instructions to us in what way could we know anyone he killed he had a lack of moral justification for.

And all this is just bull.

Christians teach about their, loving, just, God of law -

then we read the skitzo stuff like killing babies -

and you folks try to make excuses -

by saying he is God, he can do anything he wants .

NOT IN MY WORLD!

I would never follow a God I had to make excuses for.

*

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

Christian/Baptist

Well-Known Member

Christian/Baptist

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

HEATHEN ALASKAN

New Member

Ð²ÑÏÐºÑÎ· Ð²Ï Ñ Ð²ÑÎ¹Î·g ÑÑÑÑÏÑÑâ

Christian/Baptist

Christian/Baptist

HEATHEN ALASKAN

Active Member

Christian/Baptist

Christian/Baptist

Well-Known Member

Christian/Baptist

Member

Well-Known Member

HEATHEN ALASKAN

Ð²ÑÏÐºÑÎ· Ð²ÏÑ Ð²ÑÎ¹Î·g ÑÑÑÑÏÑÑâ