Why would a just and loving God allow a serial killer to claim thirty victims?

[MARCELLO]

It is called free will which may be very evil. That's why I dislike so called freedom of speech. Hatred,brutality,inequality,oppression cannot be ideologies to be encountered as freedom.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I think those fall into a category of things people say/think when they're in a distressing situation and trying to make sense of something traumatic that's happened, rather than a cogent theological point that they adhere to.

Actually, isn't what people say/think when in a distressing situation more indicative of what they truly believe in than a cogent theological point that they supposedly adhere to? After all, I can claim to believe in A when in a philosophical mood, but if during a stressful situation I react in a very B manner it suggests that at the core, I actually believe in B more than I believe in A. So if during a traumatic time you find yourself pleading with God to spare the life of a loved one, it suggests that in your heart you believe that God determines when a person dies, regardless of what any of your religious texts might claim.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I agree with this perspective. I'm a nihilist, myself. Life is full of suffering and is rather pointless. It's really only my fears and concern for how it would effect others that keep me from checking out of this hellhole. Thankfully, we're all going to die eventually anyway.

I do think it's tragically sad when innocent people are murdered, but it's just another symptom of humanity's wretchedness.

How sad.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Actually, isn't what people say/think when in a distressing situation more indicative of what they truly believe in than a cogent theological point that they supposedly adhere to? After all, I can claim to believe in A when in a philosophical mood, but if during a stressful situation I react in a very B manner it suggests that at the core, I actually believe in B more than I believe in A. So if during a traumatic time you find yourself pleading with God to spare the life of a loved one, it suggests that in your heart you believe that God determines when a person dies, regardless of what any of your religious texts might claim.

Not really, since people aren't typically thinking clearly during heightened emotional states.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I agree with this perspective. I'm a nihilist, myself. Life is full of suffering and is rather pointless. It's really only my fears and concern for how it would effect others that keep me from checking out of this hellhole. Thankfully, we're all going to die eventually anyway.

I do think it's tragically sad when innocent people are murdered, but it's just another symptom of humanity's wretchedness.

The more that I read what you've written, the more I have to think that you're completely missing out on the point of life.

Not really, since people aren't typically thinking clearly during heightened emotional states.

Which is precisely my point. A person's true beliefs aren't the philosophical conclusions that they've come to during times of relaxed contemplation. That's what they want to believe or think that they should believe. A person's GENUINE beliefs come to the surface in times of stress and uncertainty. And based upon how most people react during times of stress and uncertainty, I'd say that the majority of those who believe in God believe that God decides when you die.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The more that I read what you've written, the more I have to think that you're completely missing out on the point of life.

You have your subjective point in life and I'll have mine (or not).

Which is precisely my point. A person's true beliefs aren't the philosophical conclusions that they've come to during times of relaxed contemplation. That's what they want to believe or think that they should believe. A person's GENUINE beliefs come to the surface in times of stress and uncertainty. And based upon how most people react during times of stress and uncertainty, I'd say that the majority of those who believe in God believe that God decides when you die.

Whether that's true or not is rather irrelevant, isn't it? I don't believe it's true. So maybe you should find one of those people to discuss this with.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Not really, since people aren't typically thinking clearly during heightened emotional states.

You have your subjective point in life and I'll have mine (or not).


Whether that's true or not is rather irrelevant, isn't it? I don't believe it's true. So maybe you should find one of those people to discuss this with.

My apologies for assuming that since you claimed you'd never heard of anyone believing that God decides our time of death that you DID think it was relevant. Now I know better than to respond to your responses to my posts.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My apologies for assuming that since you claimed you'd never heard of anyone believing that God decides our time of death that you DID think it was relevant. Now I know better than to respond to your responses to my posts.

Huh?

I don't know of anyone who honestly believes that God decides when you die. That's fatalism. Maybe there's some people who believe that on this board. I think that view is popular among Muslims, at least. It's just not a belief I agree with.

 

[roger1440]

I’ve never understood why a just and loving God would ever allow a serial killer to murder thirty innocent victims. I’ve heard the argument that it’s all because God gave his creation’s free will; that we are not robots programmed to do only as God desires, but have been given the freedom to choose to do good or to do evil. That’s all well and good. I can understand a God that allows his creations to make their own path in life and generously gives them the opportunity to repent for the atrocities they may commit.


However, this is the same God that has control over when you die. Clearly exercising this control over how long you remain within the Earthly realm does not violate a person’s free will; otherwise no one would die unless that was what they freely willed to have happen. So why would God wait until this serial killer has murdered thirty innocent victims before giving him a fatal heart attack at the age of sixty-seven? After the third or maybe even fourth victim, hasn’t this killer pretty much demonstrated an unwillingness to repent? Why didn’t God give him a heart attack after victim number four? Why would God allow this person to claim another twenty-six victims prior to ending his life?

Would you had preferred them to get hit by a truck, die of cancer?

 

[idea]

"
idea said: ↑
10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.

11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day."

Pardon my ignorance, but that passage makes absolutely so sense to me. Is it saying that one should not take steps to save the lives of suffering people, because when those people die God with receive them upon himself, in glory? I'm confused.

Life is a test. If someone is evil - if they kill and harm people, they will end up in outer darkness after this life - a place where they are isolated from others etc. If they were never allowed to actually kill / harm others, then it would not be just to actually punish them by isolating them...

"I might have thought that, but I would have never done that..." sort of a thing. They have to be allowed to actually harm others, or they cannot be justly separated from others in the afterlife.

 

[Smart_Guy]

It is the price we pay for having a choice. It is either this or we have no choice and go on as puppets. This life is not perfect, I'm afraid. It bothers me too, but I chose to live with it, try my best in doing the right choice and not worry/complain about it much.

 

[bain-druie]

Life is a test. If someone is evil - if they kill and harm people, they will end up in outer darkness after this life - a place where they are isolated from others etc. If they were never allowed to actually kill / harm others, then it would not be just to actually punish them by isolating them...

"I might have thought that, but I would have never done that..." sort of a thing. They have to be allowed to actually harm others, or they cannot be justly separated from others in the afterlife.

Assuming we're talking about the biblical god, this doesn't jive with his omniscience. A god who has all those omnis is an oxymoron; they contradict each other given the actual state of society. Both Old and New Testaments claim that god judges not only deeds, but also thoughts and intentions of the heart:

"As a man thinks in his heart, so is he" Proverbs 23:7

"Everyone who looks on a woman with lust in his heart has committed adultery with her in his heart already" Matthew 5:28

So if thoughts are equal to actions in the eyes of god, there is no need to permit a serial killer to even begin a spree; not if you're really all loving, all powerful, AND all knowing. No excuse for that, either; I doubt that even the nihilists among us would ignore someone actually being murdered in front of them.

I agree that death is not evil; it's simply a transition in my view. It's biblical to call it 'the last enemy', however, so it's decidedly odd of this god to fail so abysmally at saving anyone from it. In the case of murder, it's not a question of whether or not death is evil, it's a question of whether or not MURDER is evil; and I seriously doubt anyone would suggest murder is not wrong. At the very least, it is a willful infringement on the freedom of another person.

 

[Gharib]

I’ve never understood why a just and loving God would ever allow a serial killer to murder thirty innocent victims. I’ve heard the argument that it’s all because God gave his creation’s free will; that we are not robots programmed to do only as God desires, but have been given the freedom to choose to do good or to do evil. That’s all well and good. I can understand a God that allows his creations to make their own path in life and generously gives them the opportunity to repent for the atrocities they may commit.


However, this is the same God that has control over when you die. Clearly exercising this control over how long you remain within the Earthly realm does not violate a person’s free will; otherwise no one would die unless that was what they freely willed to have happen. So why would God wait until this serial killer has murdered thirty innocent victims before giving him a fatal heart attack at the age of sixty-seven? After the third or maybe even fourth victim, hasn’t this killer pretty much demonstrated an unwillingness to repent? Why didn’t God give him a heart attack after victim number four? Why would God allow this person to claim another twenty-six victims prior to ending his life?

Why always look at the apparent evil without paying attention to the deeper meaning and it's wisdom. Maybe that's the wrong thing to say since you aren't a Muslim and don't view things the same way as I do, but what better thing than to have someone kill thirty people, who may end up being rewarded with Paradise as compensation and then the person who is responsible for that repents to God over the years because of what he did and becomes such a good person that then God rewards him with Paradise too.

So you have 31 people all admitted to paradise over something which outwardly seemed like a heinous crime at the time but served as salvation for all.

 

[Gharib]

QuestioningMind,Wrote: ". . .However, this is the same God that has control over when you die. . . "

Clearly, whatever preachers you may have met have failed to tell you that the God who created our world is not currently the god who manages world affairs. Consider the exchange between Jesus and Satan recorded by Matthew in ch 4, vs 8-10: Satan offered Jesus control over all the world's kingdoms. He could not have done so if he did not have it. Indeed, he refers to Satan as "the ruler of this world" in John 14:30.

However, Satan's lease is about to expire.

And you wouldn't think twice that maybe Satan was lying, it's not like he'd ever do it right.

 

[Koldo]

Why always look at the apparent evil without paying attention to the deeper meaning and it's wisdom. Maybe that's the wrong thing to say since you aren't a Muslim and don't view things the same way as I do, but what better thing than to have someone kill thirty people, who may end up being rewarded with Paradise as compensation and then the person who is responsible for that repents to God over the years because of what he did and becomes such a good person that then God rewards him with Paradise too.

So you have 31 people all admitted to paradise over something which outwardly seemed like a heinous crime at the time but served as salvation for all.

Which just goes to show how absurd some positions are.
To even consider that a serial killer might actually be doing a favour to its victims is as ridiculous as it can get.

 

[Gharib]

Which just goes to show how absurd some positions are.
To even consider that a serial killer might actually be doing a favour to its victims is as ridiculous as it can get.

I didn't say that he'd be doing them a favour. I said what better outcome that they are all admitted to paradise. To kill people is a very bad crime obviously, but there is always more than what meets the eye. A person that does it should be killed too, but I was keeping in line with what was offered in the OP. I wouldn't condone killing anyone or tell people to do it as the victims and the perpetrator might all go to heaven. I was merely offering a different perspective other than the plain obvious.

 

[Koldo]

I didn't say that he'd be doing them a favour. I said what better outcome that they are all admitted to paradise. To kill people is a very bad crime obviously, but there is always more than what meets the eye. A person that does it should be killed too, but I was keeping in line with what was offered in the OP. I wouldn't condone killing anyone or tell people to do it as the victims and the perpetrator might all go to heaven. I was merely offering a different perspective other than the plain obvious.

Then the best outcome would be them not being killed.

 

[bain-druie]

Why always look at the apparent evil without paying attention to the deeper meaning and it's wisdom. Maybe that's the wrong thing to say since you aren't a Muslim and don't view things the same way as I do, but what better thing than to have someone kill thirty people, who may end up being rewarded with Paradise as compensation and then the person who is responsible for that repents to God over the years because of what he did and becomes such a good person that then God rewards him with Paradise too.

So you have 31 people all admitted to paradise over something which outwardly seemed like a heinous crime at the time but served as salvation for all.

This is the kind of reasoning that has been used to justify massacres throughout the centuries by young faiths of all flavors; it is not acceptable. Injustice remains injustice regardless of favorable outcomes in this life or the next. Murder is inexcusable, period, no matter how much ecstasy may or may not await the victims in the afterlife [assuming there is one; not everyone believes that].

No one can prove what happens in the alleged next life, either, though we each have deeply held beliefs about it. The reason for law is to protect society from violence and injustice so far as is possible; that's far more than a lot of religions do.

 

[Gharib]

Then the best outcome would be them not being killed.

Of course. I wouldn't want it any other way. I wasn't condoning murder, I only gave a different view point.

 

[Gharib]

This is the kind of reasoning that has been used to justify massacres throughout the centuries by young faiths of all flavors; it is not acceptable. Injustice remains injustice regardless of favorable outcomes in this life or the next. Murder is inexcusable, period, no matter how much ecstasy may or may not await the victims in the afterlife [assuming there is one; not everyone believes that].

No one can prove what happens in the alleged next life, either, though we each have deeply held beliefs about it. The reason for law is to protect society from violence and injustice so far as is possible; that's far more than a lot of religions do.

I don't think any faith has ever used such an example to justify massacres, that people have a better chance to end up in Paradise as a result. Please cite your evidence if you believe otherwise as I've never come across it.