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

[adi2d]

When he doesn't like an answer, or the tenacity behind it, he belittles the person by accusing them of being "emotional!"



*

A fine example of pigeon chess.

He is pretty good at it tho

 

[sincerly]

This last has nothing to do with our discussion on the rape of female prisoners by the Hebrew!

Let me put this to you - that way I did to someone else awhile back.

The prisoner is now - YOU - or YOUR daughter!!!

There has been a war.
YOUR family and friends have been defeated and murdered!

One of the enemy decides he wants your, or your daughters a*s (after he murders you!)

He takes you/her captive, - dragging you back to his home!
He allows you/her to scream for only 30 days!

-- YOU -- are going to tell me the sex he has with you after only 30 days from the murder of your family - is marriage? He is raping YOU!

If you say yes to that question - YOU ARE LYING!

Sex with a captive prisoner is RAPE!

NO ifs, ands, or buts, about it! *

ING, you have taken the instructions given prior to the conquest of the "Promised land" and added your bias to those instructions.
In Jericho, such a scenario did occur, The harlot Rahab believed GOD from the reports prior to the taking of that city. All the males of the city were slain--therefore, she was "without a husband" and the Scriptures say she is in the linage of Jesus Christ. NO rape--she chose to be the wife of one of her captive Israelites.

You have insisted that the intentions of those instructions and that "warrior" to have one of the women was only for sexual gratification. Not to be the "husband" as the text plainly states.

You may LOL all you desire and deride/mock the Scriptures in any fashion that is pleasing to you---but that doesn't change the true meaning/message of the Scriptures.

 

[Ingledsva]

ING, you have taken the instructions given prior to the conquest of the "Promised land" and added your bias to those instructions.
In Jericho, such a scenario did occur, The harlot Rahab believed GOD from the reports prior to the taking of that city. All the males of the city were slain--therefore, she was "without a husband" and the Scriptures say she is in the linage of Jesus Christ. NO rape--she chose to be the wife of one of her captive Israelites.

You have insisted that the intentions of those instructions and that "warrior" to have one of the women was only for sexual gratification. Not to be the "husband" as the text plainly states.

You may LOL all you desire and deride/mock the Scriptures in any fashion that is pleasing to you---but that doesn't change the true meaning/message of the Scriptures.

Absolute BULL!


A captured 30 day slave is not agreeing to be a wife, she is being raped! PERIOD!




*

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
ING, you have taken the instructions given prior to the conquest of the "Promised land" and added your bias to those instructions.
In Jericho, such a scenario did occur, The harlot Rahab believed GOD from the reports prior to the taking of that city. All the males of the city were slain--therefore, she was "without a husband" and the Scriptures say she is in the linage of Jesus Christ. NO rape--she chose to be the wife of one of her captive Israelites.

You have insisted that the intentions of those instructions and that "warrior" to have one of the women was only for sexual gratification. Not to be the "husband" as the text plainly states.

You may LOL all you desire and deride/mock the Scriptures in any fashion that is pleasing to you---but that doesn't change the true meaning/message of the Scriptures.

Absolute BULL!

A captured 30 day slave is not agreeing to be a wife, she is being raped! PERIOD!
*

ING, what is BULL is the insistence that an act has occurred when the conquest of the Land hadn't even begun.

The only "rape" that occurred was in your mind.

 

[CG Didymus]

When he doesn't like an answer, or the tenacity behind it, he belittles the person by accusing them of being "emotional!"



*

Me emotional!!! What the heck is he talking about??? No, seriously, what is he talking about? I told him he won the debate and used his method of "deducing" from Scripture a Bible truth that isn't all that clear. Adulterers don't go to heaven. Command of Jesus... if you look upon a woman with lust you've committed adultery. If a person habitually keeps doing the same sin, do they really believe in Jesus? I think he said something about his true followers are those that obey his teachings. But, since he said I only have a "casual" understanding of the Bible, I'm probably wrong. What am I saying, of course I'm wrong, only IRobin's interpretation is the way the truth and the lie... I mean, life.

 

[CG Didymus]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
I see you still do not trust the Creator GOD. Nor are you seeing the "Big picture".

I'm so glad you're posting to this thread. I've really missed you. Have you talked with Gnostic lately?

Anyway, maybe you can help me. This whole issue with the "age of accountability". What does your Church teach about it? And, if you know, could you tell me: When did this age of accountability first become a doctrine? And, who was the first Christian that "deduced" it. Okay, one more question, what are all the verses used to show that it is a "Biblical" fact? I've asked 1Robin, but he has never given me an answer.

It is pretty important to this thread, because with it all kids that God "allows" to die would go to heaven. Without it, it makes God seem cruel and evil to allow kids to die and to send them to hell for not trusting in Jesus. Thanks.

 

[Ingledsva]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
ING, you have taken the instructions given prior to the conquest of the "Promised land" and added your bias to those instructions.
In Jericho, such a scenario did occur, The harlot Rahab believed GOD from the reports prior to the taking of that city. All the males of the city were slain--therefore, she was "without a husband" and the Scriptures say she is in the linage of Jesus Christ. NO rape--she chose to be the wife of one of her captive Israelites.

You have insisted that the intentions of those instructions and that "warrior" to have one of the women was only for sexual gratification. Not to be the "husband" as the text plainly states.

You may LOL all you desire and deride/mock the Scriptures in any fashion that is pleasing to you---but that doesn't change the true meaning/message of the Scriptures.



ING, what is BULL is the insistence that an act has occurred when the conquest of the Land hadn't even begun.

The only "rape" that occurred was in your mind.

Dude! Even if the Hebrew side considered it marriage (which they didn't - they had a law against such,) it would still be rape of the captive, whom has no choice.


She could be raped by her captor, or bred with another slave (also rape) to produce more slaves, as the other texts I have shown - prove!


I mean good grief you guys - ISIS put out a video explaining they are just using these same Abrahamic laws, to kill all the males, and kidnap, and rape, and sell the females!


You have the ongoing true meaning of these texts right in front of you on the news every night!


And it ISN'T marriage!


Also - Rahab was a whore whom chose to rat out her own people and scr*w the enemy. Why would you try to use her as an example of raped captured slaves?


She was not a kidnapped captive, as the RAPED women in these verses!


*

 

[1robin]

You answer didn't deserve a better answer. There is no age of accountability. It is a Christian tradition. You deduced one verse into a universal God-given truth? Give me a break. Out.

For crying out loud. I told you specifically I only was going to give one verse from the bible at a time.

In fact here is that statement I made.

I have been trying to make sure you weren't going to launch into a word fit and give me a thousand questions in a row again and in your two line agreement to that you asked 4 questions.

To reduce this kind of thing we will go one verse at a time but I will first answer these questions.

I stated that I would only give one verse at a time, said why I was doing so, and indicated there are plenty more but you barely even responded to the one verse I did include. You jumped all over the place and gave me the word salad I was trying to avoid anyway and it wasn't even on the one verse I gave. I even pointed out in my deduction what parts of it have many other verses that justify it and would have went on to supply them.

Every single deduction I made not only follows necessarily from the single verse I made but as I said has many verses backing them all up as well.

I do not recall a single contention you made to any of them. Your seething resentment of the bible involuntarily produced the unjustified dismissal of whatever was inconvenient. I used to hate even the concept of God. I know what emotionally based denial looks like. I have long ignored yours until it became so crystal clear no more time was needed. I know very well that no fat, no evidence, and no reason can make a dent in emotional rejection. I was once the same way and it had no effect on me either. There exists no reason to debate emotion with things denied pre-emptively. So let the obligatory blaming of your emotional denial be said to be my fault, begin.

 

[1robin]

A fine example of pigeon chess.

He is pretty good at it tho

In over ten thousand posts I have ended a discussion on reasons of emotional commitment to denial maybe 5 times. I must be the laziest tap dancer in human history. I have answered posts on issues way harder to deal with than children getting to heaven or even biblical slavery (which I have typed dozens of very long posts on at least). I also don't remember you being here long enough to generate any generalized conclusions. This kind of stuff just ruins debates and the willingness to even attempt them. What I do not have time for is an emotional commitment so strong to denying something that no evidence, deductions, or even proof can even make a dent. I know what that looks like because I used to have the same mindset as an atheist. I practically patented disguising emotional rejection as reason. I am currently short of time and don't have much to waste banging my head against the wall.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post I see you still do not trust the Creator GOD. Nor are you seeing the "Big picture".

Anyway, maybe you can help me. This whole issue with the "age of accountability". What does your Church teach about it? And, if you know, could you tell me: When did this age of accountability first become a doctrine? And, who was the first Christian that "deduced" it. Okay, one more question, what are all the verses used to show that it is a "Biblical" fact? I've asked 1Robin, but he has never given me an answer.

It is pretty important to this thread, because with it all kids that God "allows" to die would go to heaven. Without it, it makes God seem cruel and evil to allow kids to die and to send them to hell for not trusting in Jesus. Thanks.

Hi CGD, "Help you?", That depends on which side of the Scriptures you are on. As I posted previously, what I see is still a lack of trust in the Creator GOD.

I do not find the word "accountability" in the KJV Scriptures. However, all of created mankind are his "children" and GOD is not a respecter of persons. Therefore, "age" is not a factor in who is included into the Kingdom of heaven.
Yes, Jesus did say, "suffer the little children to come unto me", but that doesn't validate that "all" children will be accepted into heaven. The old/elderly person has to have that trusting faith to "believe" that the Creator GOD means the things which are told/shown/expressed in the Scriptures as truth/real/valid--just as the toddler trusts the parent to "catch him".

What does a child know? Only what it is taught(right or wrong). Like the adult, the child has the freedom to choose that which is pleasing to the child--tempered with the "knowledge" obtained to that point.

The Creator GOD knows the hearts of all mankind--whether loving or selfishly/greedy/evil. Therefore, Ex.34:6-7, "And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation".

One's "accountability" is determined by one's knowledge---the "hearing and the doing." Therefore, the instructions to "Go Ye"---"You are my witnesses".

There is another "witness" as seen in Rom.1:17-22---that of "all creation."

Because GOD knows the Hearts/minds of Mankind, HE is able to discern the "innocent" from the "guilty"---even before they are born.(that to the 3rd. and 4th. generations of the unborn).
Do you see how insidious sin can be when indulged?

GOD makes no mistakes. Mankind presumes wrongly.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes God is evil. In the sense that God hold no one individuals best interests at heart.

If another's child is saved and mine is not, then that is evil as far as I'm concerned.

If anyone goes to hell or is spiritually destroyed, then that is evil. If God plays favorites and you are one of the favorites, doesn't make God any less evil. Just makes you lucky.

 

[adi2d]

In over ten thousand posts I have ended a discussion on reasons of emotional commitment to denial maybe 5 times. I must be the laziest tap dancer in human history. I have answered posts on issues way harder to deal with than children getting to heaven or even biblical slavery (which I have typed dozens of very long posts on at least). I also don't remember you being here long enough to generate any generalized conclusions. This kind of stuff just ruins debates and the willingness to even attempt them. What I do not have time for is an emotional commitment so strong to denying something that no evidence, deductions, or even proof can even make a dent. I know what that looks like because I used to have the same mindset as an atheist. I practically patented disguising emotional rejection as reason. I am currently short of time and don't have much to waste banging my head against the wall.

But you did keep posting. You wouldn't defend the whole OT. Wanted the actual verses when it was obvious you knew what verses were commented on. The verses were posted more than once then you decided the poster was too emotional for you. I haven't been emotional and would like to see how you justify those verses
Please don't tell me to look up your past postings.
Also remember that I picked the A and E story to discus but you kept on about this

 

[CG Didymus]

...God could not give instructions for every single detail anyone would ever encounter. That would produce a book not even a library could contain. It was intended to give us essential answers and a very exhaustive frame work to make conclusions from and a mind with the capacity to do so correctly if our heart is right with him. BTW no one has to know this. This is God's business alone. I can make a very rational deduction but I have no need for one. What would I do with it...

I have an old NASB. The "OT" is 1334 pages. There are novels longer than that. Jews have other writings that Christians reject. Isn't it, The Talmud, that is considered by some Jews to be the God-given "Oral Torah"? And with in it, things not spelled out in the Torah are explained? But some Christians call it nothing but the "traditions of men". So there are more books where, supposedly, God has clarified what he wants, but they get rejected by Christians.

Now the NT, 396 pages? Not very long. Most of it is letters written by Paul. And, none of it written by Jesus. Isn't that a little strange? God has the time. Plenty of people write things about the NT. So there's tons of books. Yet, God couldn't "inspire" a few more people to write a few more do's and don't for us to live by? He certainly could have but didn't.

So now here we are. God neglected to make it clear what happens to children. What to do? What to do? One thing for sure is that if they are all automatically saved, he could have easily said that in one sentence. He could have gone all out and taken a whole paragraph if he wanted to. He could have had Paul put his stamp of approval on it and put it in one of his letters. He could have even had Jesus say, "Kids are not responsible for inherited sin from Adam nor their own personal sins they commit. I will forgive them and cover them with my blood until they get old enough to understand what it means to give their hearts and lives to me." What's that two sentences. Not too long. It wouldn't have added a page to the NT.

So, no, if that is what God does with children, he should have and could have made it perfectly clear. But, he didn't. And, if true, it is too important of a detail to have left out of his Word. Therefore, it's nothing but an after thought and a "tradition" of some Christians.

 

[CG Didymus]

I do not find the word "accountability" in the KJV Scriptures.

Exactly, so where did this so-called "doctrine" come from? I found this on what I believe is a Catholic site. It talks about the different views in the early church.

Pre-Augustinian tradition

… statement of St. Gregory of Nazianzus may be taken as representative:
It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished. [Oration 40, no. 23]

… Tertullian opposes infant baptism on the ground that infants are innocent, while St. Ambrose explains that original sin is rather an inclination to evil than guilt in the strict sense, and that it need occasion no fear at the day of judgement; and the Ambrosiaster teaches that the "second death," which means condemnation to the hell of torment of the damned, is not incurred by Adam's sin, but by our own. This was undoubtedly the general tradition before St. Augustine's time.

Teaching of St. Augustine

In his earlier writings St. Augustine himself agrees with the common tradition. Thus in De libero arbitrio III, written several years before the Pelagian controversy, discussing the fate of unbaptized infants after death, he writes: "It is superfluous to inquire about the merits of one who has not any merits. For one need not hesitate to hold that life may be neutral as between good conduct and sin, and that as between reward and punishment there may be a neutral sentence of the judge." But even before the outbreak of the Pelagian controversy St. Augustine had already abandoned the lenient traditional view, and in the course of the controversy he himself condemned, and persuaded the Council of Carthage (418) to condemn, the substantially identical Pelagian teaching affirming the existence of "an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness" (Denzinger 102). This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned…

St. Thomas was the first great teacher who broke away completely from the Augustinian tradition on this subject, and relying on the principle, derived through the Pseudo-Dionysius from the Greek Fathers, that human nature as such with all its powers and rights was unaffected by the Fall (quod naturalia manent integra), maintained, at least virtually, what the great majority of later Catholic theologians have expressly taught, that the limbus infantium is a place or state of perfect natural happiness.
…At the Reformation, Protestants generally, but more especially the Calvinists, in reviving Augustinian teaching, added to its original harshness

So there was a lot of question as to what happens to kids. I suppose Catholics feel that infant baptism cleanses them from "original sin". It sounds like some Baptists believe there is such a thing as an "age of accountability" and all kids get a free pass. Was this, maybe, a reaction to the "harshness" of Calvin's position?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
ING, you have taken the instructions given prior to the conquest of the "Promised land" and added your bias to those instructions.
In Jericho, such a scenario did occur, The harlot Rahab believed GOD from the reports prior to the taking of that city. All the males of the city were slain--therefore, she was "without a husband" and the Scriptures say she is in the linage of Jesus Christ. NO rape--she chose to be the wife of one of her captive Israelites.

You have insisted that the intentions of those instructions and that "warrior" to have one of the women was only for sexual gratification. Not to be the "husband" as the text plainly states.

You may LOL all you desire and deride/mock the Scriptures in any fashion that is pleasing to you---but that doesn't change the true meaning/message of the Scriptures.

ING, what is BULL is the insistence that an act has occurred when the conquest of the Land hadn't even begun.

The only "rape" that occurred was in your mind.

Dude! Even if the Hebrew side considered it marriage (which they didn't - they had a law against such,) it would still be rape of the captive, whom has no choice.

ING, The message given by Moses to the Israelites was before there was a conquest/war/or enemies. Marriage was established by GOD from Creation. Samson's choice for a wife showed the instructions which Moses was teaching and GOD had sanctioned--Male and female were to by one flesh. That warrior was "married" for life as the "laws" stated when he "went in unto her".
The "woman" had 30 days to understand the situation of the facts--there were no males for her to marry of "her people" other than male children--and they were in no position to care for her. Yes, she could be a servant or a wife( that willingly or in hate/disobedient) Then as Moses pointed out(as in Samson's case) the lust of one's "desire" may not be shared by the object "desired" and therefore, "displeasure" occurs. And the only solution to the situation would be "let her go". But, GOD'S Law of marriage still held true--don't commit adultery. Make sure there is a "compatibility of "minds"--because there is a "compatibility of sexual organs". That 30 days should/would give an indication of whether there was a meeting of the minds.

She could be raped by her captor, or bred with another slave (also rape) to produce more slaves, as the other texts I have shown - prove!
I mean good grief you guys - ISIS put out a video explaining they are just using these same Abrahamic laws, to kill all the males, and kidnap, and rape, and sell the females!
You have the ongoing true meaning of these texts right in front of you on the news every night!
And it ISN'T marriage!

ING, "Rape" is contrary to the Laws of the Creator GOD and what the Prophets of the GOD has stated. Like ISIS you are distorting/corrupting the messages given by GOD.

Also - Rahab was a whore whom chose to rat out her own people and scr*w the enemy. Why would you try to use her as an example of raped captured slaves?
She was not a kidnapped captive, as the RAPED women in these verses!
*

Those verses are silent upon what "would be the decision of the woman" at the end of thirty days" of an event that was "supposed"--in the future--"when".

The "raping" only was conjured up in your mind--Not scripturally and certainly wasn't the law of GOD. The Evil doings of mankind are reasons that the wrath of GOD will be given.---HIS "strange act".

 

[sincerly]

Yes God is evil. In the sense that God hold no one individuals best interests at heart.

Nakosis, There is NO scripture which states that GOD is evil. That is your own conclusion. Also, the second part of that quote is wrong. Because the Scriptures state/confirm that GOD is Love, GOD desires that ALL be saved/not perish---which is in one's best interest.

If another's child is saved and mine is not, then that is evil as far as I'm concerned.

GOD doesn't reward one on "ifs", but actions---obedience or disobedience. Since there are good things to be had(as Scripturally indicated), then shouldn't you be preparing your child to accept them?

If anyone goes to hell or is spiritually destroyed, then that is evil. If God plays favorites and you are one of the favorites, doesn't make God any less evil. Just makes you lucky.

It isn't "IF'S", but the with the Scriptures it is "since". Hell is the grave or pit that ALL go to at the first death. The Spiritual death is only for those who die the second death--because they refuse to live in harmony with the Creator GOD who made them. Again, a matter Obedience or disobedience. NO "favorites" and no "luck", just a choice to confess one's disobedience, repent of such and submit to GOD's will---GOD does it all the "saving" in Love, Mercy, Grace, and Justness.

 

[1robin]

I have an old NASB. The "OT" is 1334 pages. There are novels longer than that. Jews have other writings that Christians reject. Isn't it, The Talmud, that is considered by some Jews to be the God-given "Oral Torah"? And with in it, things not spelled out in the Torah are explained? But some Christians call it nothing but the "traditions of men". So there are more books where, supposedly, God has clarified what he wants, but they get rejected by Christians.

1. How is owning a longer book relevant? What does that prove about anything? I said to put every command in a book for every possible situation would require the Vatican vaults, the library of Alexandria, and the temple of doom to hold them all and more. Also how many pages the OT has depends on the size of the text, not that how long it is has anything to do with anything.
2. The Torah is simply the five books of Moses. We accept all five in spite of the fact only Hebrews' authorship is less certain. If any part of the bible is suspicious it is the Torah.
3. Writing from the OT days falls into two categories in general. Direct revelations from God and works which are not inspired. Most of what Christians reject is the non-inspired works. We do still read them we just do not consider them apostolic or inspired. However what difference does any of this make?
4. Even if you include every book that any Jew might include you don't have .00000000000000001% of what would be needed to answer every moral question we could encounter so who cares about any of this. This was not a textual debate, or an inspiration debate. And the books you mention would primarily be about temple law not general morality anyway.

Now the NT, 396 pages? Not very long. Most of it is letters written by Paul. And, none of it written by Jesus. Isn't that a little strange?

Nope.

God has the time. Plenty of people write things about the NT. So there's tons of books. Yet, God couldn't "inspire" a few more people to write a few more do's and don't for us to live by? He certainly could have but didn't.

He did not need to (and how do you know he did not inspire other men to write)? The NT cannon was very very conservative. It's criteria was apostolic writing not inspiration it's self. All Christians read other books and find wisdom in them,. The Catholics even add the apocryphal books in their bible after pointing out they are not cannon.

So now here we are. God neglected to make it clear what happens to children.

Yes he did. He just did not make it so clear that it would convince a mind that is already at enmity with him and who has every motivation to deny clarity. He also had no need to make it crystal clear because it does not have any direct relevance to us. We have no need to know this. This is God's business not ours. We don't make laws that require us to know this. However your side kills unborn in the womb regardless. Now if a bunch of self serving idiots will kill unborns on an industrial scale without knowing what happens to them making it emphatically clear that hey go to heaven would only multiply this morally insane practice.

What to do? What to do?

There is nothing to do. We should act no differently about children with or without clarity on this issue. You might as well suggest him not telling us what temperature the core of VY Canis Majoris is, is a fault.

One thing for sure is that if they are all automatically saved, he could have easily said that in one sentence. He could have gone all out and taken a whole paragraph if he wanted to. He could have had Paul put his stamp of approval on it and put it in one of his letters. He could have even had Jesus say, "Kids are not responsible for inherited sin from Adam nor their own personal sins they commit. I will forgive them and cover them with my blood until they get old enough to understand what it means to give their hearts and lives to me." What's that two sentences. Not too long. It wouldn't have added a page to the NT.

Your just repeating the same old vacuous false optimality argument over and over.

So, no, if that is what God does with children, he should have and could have made it perfectly clear. But, he didn't. And, if true, it is too important of a detail to have left out of his Word. Therefore, it's nothing but an after thought and a "tradition" of some Christians.

Rinse and repeat. You could have made this argument in one sentence and doing so over and over again is less than optimal I guess you either don't exist or are evil. Do you by that argument about yourself, no, I don't buy it about God.

He gave you a moral conscience, he gave you the written principles by which almost every single moral decision I can think of can easily be based upon. And if you believed he would give you the Holy Spirit on top of all that. What exactly is lacking that you have justification for demanding?

 

[1robin]

But you did keep posting. You wouldn't defend the whole OT. Wanted the actual verses when it was obvious you knew what verses were commented on. The verses were posted more than once then you decided the poster was too emotional for you. I haven't been emotional and would like to see how you justify those verses
Please don't tell me to look up your past postings.
Also remember that I picked the A and E story to discus but you kept on about this

1. I was not talking to you. Your new to me and I have seen no evidence yet that your position is an emotional one looking for ways to justify it.
2. I was talking to a person who I actually like but have recognized the emotional basis behind her arguments for many months now.
3. It appeared she was so tore up about this issue that no matter how many times I pointed it out all the extra quips and paraphrasing would not cease.
3. She did finally post only a few verses as I asked but the color commentary just kept going on and on. You can't argue with emotions because they are not evidence based. Or even if they are the evidence is no longer what your dealing with. Since evidence was of no use and any explanation no matter how airtight was of no use I finally decide enough was enough.
4. I also have responded in depth to some of the verses when originally brought up, and I have covered many of the same general issues with her before, exhaustively and to no avail.
5. In any morally shocking event there are two aspects to them. If they are of killing or some other horrible event we react to the facts about them and respond emotionally to them. I can show that the facts justify God's actions and have countless times but there is no weapon formed which can negate our emotional shock to the events.



Now as for your requests.

1. I have posted long and exhaustive responses on biblical slavery and God's instructions to kill off a particular group. I will not go through all that over and over again. I can add some details or summary comments but I am not typing 100,000 words every few days or so when I already have and it can be easily found.
2. If you post a new topic with verses minus emotional rhetoric others have used, or if you only want a summary to the previous issues then I will oblige you.
3. Give me a verse and whatever the accusation is and I will respond but please read the whole context that concerns it.
4. I just got through going through the A and E story with someone but can't remember who. Make your case again about it and we can discuss it if you wish.

 

[Nakosis]

Nakosis, There is NO scripture which states that GOD is evil. That is your own conclusion. Also, the second part of that quote is wrong. Because the Scriptures state/confirm that GOD is Love, GOD desires that ALL be saved/not perish---which is in one's best interest.

What's the problem with that conclusion. God destroyed almost the entirety of man with the flood. Certainly God held no concern for all those he murdered. How many newborns were killed to erase God's mistake?

God killed all the first born of Egypt to free one group of slaves. No concern about whether they were good or bad. No concern about any other slaves. At a whim, anyone could be on God's hit list. If you were going to take my life at a whim, I'd see that as evil.

GOD doesn't reward one on "ifs", but actions---obedience or disobedience. Since there are good things to be had(as Scripturally indicated), then shouldn't you be preparing your child to accept them?

It's immoral to accept bribes to ignore the pain an suffering of others. I don't need to be bribed to do the right thing. I'd prefer my kids not to accept bribes either. But I can't always control that.

It isn't "IF'S", but the with the Scriptures it is "since". Hell is the grave or pit that ALL go to at the first death. The Spiritual death is only for those who die the second death--because they refuse to live in harmony with the Creator GOD who made them. Again, a matter Obedience or disobedience. NO "favorites" and no "luck", just a choice to confess one's disobedience, repent of such and submit to GOD's will---GOD does it all the "saving" in Love, Mercy, Grace, and Justness.

If I knew what God wanted I might agree or disagree. I can't figure out what God wants by reading the Bible. It's beyond my ability to make any sense of. There's plenty of people about all claiming different things about what God wants. No reason I should trust any of them.

If God wanted people to live in harmony God should of done a better job of explaining what God wanted from us. At least then if I disagreed I know what the heck I was disagreeing to. If God wasn't so cryptic I might even agree.

So leaving a set of instruction I can't understand and then punishing me for not following them, I see as evil. Certainly none of it has been done for my benefit.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post I do not find the word "accountability" in the KJV Scriptures.

Exactly, so where did this so-called "doctrine" come from? I found this on what I believe is a Catholic site. It talks about the different views in the early church.

CGD, You keep forgetting(or not wanting to see) the Scriptural teachings and Prophecies from GOD. Again, It was prophesied by Dan.7:23-25: "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."
Paul spoke of this same ecclesiastical power in 2Thess.2:3-4, (and still future at that time), "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

That "power" arose out of the break-up of the Roman Empire. The "early church fathers" which you sited in that "Catholic site" are the "think to change GOD'S times and laws".

So there was a lot of question as to what happens to kids. I suppose Catholics feel that infant baptism cleanses them from "original sin". It sounds like some Baptists believe there is such a thing as an "age of accountability" and all kids get a free pass. Was this, maybe, a reaction to the "harshness" of Calvin's position?

The issue of "accountability" is real. It all starts with knowledge and wisdom. When does one first "hear" to "know" and then apply that information wisely in obedience or unwisely in disobedience? As you can see, a person's "age" isn't necessarily the factor. However, GOD knows the heart/mind. GOD makes no mistakes. Those HE has determined as having gotten the right information or the wrong information will be so judged.

Therefore, one's choice, as the scriptures indicate---Who does the child "follow"---in the steps of iniquity or Righteousness?