Logical deduction (religion, the PoE)

[Sgt. Pepper]

And supposedly your God created all of us. Sheesh He fails many before they "come of age".

Assuming that God exists, then I would say that he fails countless people in this world, including the countless innocent children who endure abuse and neglect, which is no fault of their own. Unfortunately, many of those children grow up to be abusers of their own children and even their spouses. Other times, these adults are so traumatized by the abuse and cruelty they suffered as children that they can barely function in life and suffer from PTSD, which results in severe depression and anxiety. The latter is what happened to me because I was one of those children. And like many of these hurting adults, I foolishly turned to God in sincere prayer, asking him to help me and not leave me alone in the darkness of depression and overwhelming sadness. But I received the same response from God as I received all those years ago when I endured abuse while I was growing up. I sincerely prayed to him then too and asked him to help me and protect me. And the response from God then was dead silence, as it was during all those years I prayed to him as an adult. To be quite honest, I'm ashamed to admit that it took me thirty years to finally come to my senses and accept the fact that God was never going to answer my prayers for emotional healing and that I had to save myself from the overwhelming depression and sadness that I felt if I wanted to continue to live for my husband and our children. I had to save myself, just as I did when I confronted my abusive older brother and mother when I was eighteen years old.

After years of desperate prayers to God, I finally found the courage within myself to confront my abusers when I was barely eighteen. God had nothing to do with it. I'm sad to say that I didn't admit that for almost thirty years. I was so brainwashed into believing in God that I could not see the forest for the trees. I know that I'm a prime example of how someone can be completely hoodwinked by a religion, or better yet, by Christianity. If my journey escaping Christianity has taught me anything, it's to be more understanding and compassionate toward other people who are going through their own exodus out of Christianity or are planning their own escape. I truly believe that the greatest and most damaging deception that humankind has ever perpetuated is that God, the alleged creator of this world and of mankind, is not morally responsible for the evil in the world and that the blame falls on humanity and the so-called devil. The second greatest and most damaging lie ever told, in my opinion, is that God loves humanity and that he is holy, just, and merciful.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Why should God prevent it or stop it?
Give me one good reason.
(Hint: Because God is omnipotent is not a reason)

The same reason one protects/helps one’s child.

 

[PearlSeeker]

No, of course not. It happens once, or is happening, then it is stopped and prevented in the future. Then knowledge of the incident is used to predict and prevent other events that are similar but not identical. The underlying incentives for the harmful acts are studied and redirected towards doing good, or identified proactively and contained.



There is a double blessing for doing good for others, and a double curse for doing harm to others which would include standing by complicit. People are encouraged by God to intervene, and discouraged by God to ignore. We are talking about the PoE, but there are other parts to this puzzle that aren't being discussed.

Hopefully you saw the other post where I acknowledge that discussing this topic is difficult for several reasons. One of those reasons is that it's possible that heinous acts are somehow encouraged if I am not careful. I appreciate your reply because it reminds me to bring the idea of these blessings and curses at the beginning.

If God is really doing something then there is no omnipotence. It is limited to what we can do about it and what we learn to do better.

 

[Koldo]

For criminal acts such as murder and rape moral responsibility and legal accountability go hand in hand.

Let's put aside whether that is true for a moment. It would still mean it is not always the case that legal accountability and moral responsibility go hand in hand. So stating that God won't be ever brought to a court of law is irrelevant to establish whether God has moral responsibility.

God enables or allows suffering but so what?

Then we are on the same page on this regard and we can continue our conversation from there.

If God has the desire/will for humans to attain perfection, why would the best method to attain perfection be the one that is the fastest and most cost effective?

Because in every case the best method to achieve anything means to do it the fastest and most cost effective way possible. Can you exemplify a case that would contradict this?

That same gain cannot be achieved by some other way, other than pain, so it follows that such gain necessitates pain.

Great. Now you need to prove that there is a relation of logical necessity between gain and pain.

Yes, for example, if one is training to be an athlete (gain) then a certain amount of physical pain is necessary to reach that goal.
Another example is a person who wants to become a physician (gain). A certain amount of pain is involved in earning a medical degree.

I am sorry but those examples don't work, because you are pointing out logical contingent examples. The fact that in our world we need to undergo some pain to achieve some gain is a given, I don't and won't dispute this.

Let me elaborate. God can't create married bachelors because such beings would be a logical contradiction. Either one is married or a bachelor. In other words, we can't reasonably expect God to do what is logically contradictory. I think you agree with this.

Now, if there was some gain that could only achieved through pain, out of logical necessity, then it would also not make sense to expect God to give rise to that gain without the pain. As for your examples, it could be the case that no pain is required to become a pro athlete or a medical degree (I have no idea on where you see pain on this second one), and therefore there is no logical necessity between pain and gain here.

What is most beneficial is whatever helps us fulfill the purpose of our existence, which I believe is to know and love God. Other things that are beneficial are taking care of our mental and physical health, having healthy interpersonal relationships, getting married and raising a family (if we choose to do that), getting an education, doing gainful work we enjoy, engaging in enjoyable activities. All these increase our well-being.

Great, then you agree that what is beneficial to us is what increases our well-being. Right?

The part I disagree with is that an omnibenevolent God would choose either method, since God is not responsible for curing diseases.
Humans are responsible for curing diseases.

But I am not saying that God is responsible for curing diseases either. I am saying that God, if he is omnibenevolent, would cure diseases regardless of whether he is responsible for curing diseases or even despite of not being responsible for curing diseases. Isn't it an act of benevolence to cure diseases when you don't have the responsibility to do so?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is not what I was saying. Allow me to explain what I meant.

The material world was shaped by God.
Things in the material world influence us.

More than "shaped by;" aren't you claiming that the material world was entirely designed and created by God?

We pick and choose what we want to be influenced by.

You choose what you're influenced by? I don't believe you.

God does not determine what influences us since God does not make our choices for us.
What we choose to be influenced by shapes our experiences in life.
God does not shape our experiences in life since God does not determine what we choose to be influenced by.
So my point stands. "Nothing that influences us is shaped by God, it is shaped by our experiences in life."

But those experiences - along with how we respond to those experiences - are all things that God would have had control over, if God were real and created the universe.

For example:
If I choose to be influenced by alcohol and become an alcoholic that shapes my experiences in life.

A person who has a predisposition or vulnerability to alcohol addiction can choose behaviours that make it more or less likely that they'll suffer from alcoholism, but they had no control over whether they have that predisposition.

If I choose to be influenced by my religion and love God that shapes my experiences in life.

You can choose to love?

In the sense that God created everything that exists it can be traced back to God.
That includes all our experiences in life -- both good and bad.

That's what I'm saying. If God is the creator of the universe, then God is the ultimate source of everything, and therefore the ultimate source of all evil.

God did not create us with two natures. Since we were created in the image of God, we were created with only one nature - good.

Where do you think the evil nature came from, then?

I guess you never heard of "the fall" of man? Baha'is believe that man fell but not in the same way that Christians believe that.

As a Baha'i, I do not believe in the Adam and Eve were real people who existed. I do not believe that there was a literal garden with a tree and a snake and two people who ate a fruit from a tree. Rather, I interpret that part of Genesis as an allegory: 30: ADAM AND EVE

What I believe the allegory means is that humans inherited the propensity to sin from Adam, but not because Adam ate an apple from a tree. Rather, when Adam was born, he entered into the world of good and evil, the material world... The attachment to the material world, which is sin, was inherited by the descendants of Adam... It is because of this attachment that men have been deprived of essential spirituality and instead have the propensity to sin and do evil.

If Adam found himself in a world that already had good and evil, then the creator of that world is the ultimate source of evil.

As the descendants of Adam, humans have one nature which can choose to do evil and one that can choose to do good.

That is because this person's thoughts are focused on his spiritual or higher nature, so he has no desire to act on his lower nature and murder, steal, or commit any other negative act.

But again: those "natures" can vary without affecting free will.

Someone with no desire to murder still has their free will intact, so desire to murder isn't necessary for free will. IOW, the existence of murder can't be hand-waved away by saying "oh, but God wanted us to have free will."

Someone with no genetic predisposition to alcoholism also had their free will intact, so in the same way, we can't hand-wave away alcoholism with a "free will" excuse, either.

No, humans are responsible for evil and they commit evil acts when they choose not to follow the Laws of God.

Responsibility isn't a zero-sum game.

The problem if evil has a remedy. If everyone followed the Laws of God there would be no evil in the world.

“God hath in that Book, and by His behest, decreed as lawful whatsoever He hath pleased to decree, and hath, through the power of His sovereign might, forbidden whatsoever He elected to forbid. To this testifieth the text of that Book. Will ye not bear witness? Men, however, have wittingly broken His law. Is such a behavior to be attributed to God, or to their proper selves? Be fair in your judgment. Every good thing is of God, and every evil thing is from yourselves. Will ye not comprehend? This same truth hath been revealed in all the Scriptures, if ye be of them that understand.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 149-150​

No, God did not put the desire to murder in anyone's mind. Man was created good but fell from grace (see above).

Why do you think we fell? Here's an exhaustive list of options:

- God wanted humanity to fall.
- God didn't want humanity to fall, but failed to anticipate the influences we would face.
- God didn't want humanity to fall, anticipated the influences we would face, but failed to adequately account for them when designing us.

All people have a lower nature thus the propensity to sin but only some people act on it. Owing to our inherited dispositions and life experiences (nature and nurture) you and I do not have a desire to murder. Owing to his/her inherited dispositions and life experiences (nature and nurture) a murderer has a desire to murder.

Right: so if God were to snap his fingers and erase those inherited predispositions that lead people to evil, everyone's free will would be preserved.

So why doesn't he do this?

God did not give us an evil nature. God created us good (see above).

The implication of what you'rearguing is that God created a world with good and evil, created us initially good, and then put us in that world knowing that we would be corrupted.

This still amounts to God giving us an evil nature.

 

[dybmh]

If God is really doing something then there is no omnipotence. It is limited to what we can do about it and what we learn to do better.

There is omnipotence. It's just not omnipotence the way that people imagine it.

Explaining what I mean is very difficult, because, I'm talking about a very specific god concept. And from this, I need to explain how this god creates. And I also need to explain the source for evil. Then I need to explain why this evil cannot be cut-off or completely obscured. If I can accomplish all of those things, and I think I can given enough time with a patient audience who wants to learn all of this, then I can explain what's happening in the here-and-now.

If all the above is granted, and that's a big ask, then evil is woven into the fabric ( so to speak ) of the material world. There is no spectrum of options when it comes to creating the material world. There is only 1 option, create-or-not. And so, omnipotence isn't what people imagine when it comes to creation. Yes, there are massive unlimited options once the first few steps are completed. But those first few steps are binary choices. 1) Create-or-not. 2) Create material-or-not.

Eventhough the source for evil cannot be cut-off or completely obscured, in the here-and-now, God does have options, unlimited options to intervene and reduce evil. And I think that this is where most people become frustrated. The frustration is, "Why doesn't God intervene more?" And that's a great question. There's several possible answers. All of them involve taking this necessary evil and making it into something good. And from this, one can correctly say all of creation is good. It is not a mix of good and bad. God had a plan all along for creation of a material world. And none of this compromises God's omnipotence.

 

[dybmh]

If you want to have a serious discussion, stop making vacuous claims of superiority and start properly and logically explaining yourself.

I granted you respect and spoke to you like an equal until you started pretending to be stupid. Asking questions as if you don't understand what a domain is combined with insults justifies my response.

If you pretend to be stupid, then I'm going to treat you like someone who is pretending to be stupid.

I really don't care whether or not we continue the discussion at ths point. I am not making vacuous claims, but it will read that way if you turn off your brain.

I know what it means in several different contexts. None of them make what you said make sense.

Sure it does. It makes perfect sense. If you can properly define the domain, what I am describing is the result. If you do not properly define the domain, then it won't. Duh. Back when I had granted you respect, before you flushed that down the commode, this is what I said:

So, it seems we are not good to here. And that is where you are stuck. The right thing to do would have been to say so. But perhaps the ego does not permit it.

So what? That doesn't make god creating a perfect world anything like the mathematics of transfinite numbers.

It does. And it is. God cannot make perfection from perfection. There is nothing being created, it is just like infinity+infinity. All that results is infinity which is eclipsed and subsumed into itself. "OTHER" is necessary. Without it, nothing is created. Anything that is created immediately reassimilates back into the source.

Nonsense. God exists, god creates a perfect world, separate from itself. There is simply no logic that says it has to be different in every respect to be separate and a new creation. That is an absurd assertion.

It's not absurd. You simply take for granted the meaning of "seperate".

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The same reason one protects/helps one’s child.

Speaking as a former Christian and survivor of childhood abuse, I see God as a narcissistic and abusive parent who only "loves" you when you do or say exactly what they want you to do. And you think that if you don't make them angry, they won't hurt you, but you're not completely sure because they have an extremely violent temper and are known to lash out in anger. So, if you disobey them and make them angry at you, then there will be hell to pay.

That isn't a relationship based on unconditional love, but rather one based on fear and mistrust. If God exists, then I don't believe that he is worthy of my respect and reverence, let alone my love and worship. I do believe, however, that he has earned my contempt. If God exists, then he can go to hell. He obviously doesn't think I'm worth his time, and I now don't think he's worth mine. I also see God as a sadistic and psychopathic monster who delights in inflicting pain and torturing people, as well as in causing total chaos and disasters in order to inflict pain and kill people. I don't see him as loving and just.

According to the Bible, God is capable of hatred as well as anger and jealousy. In my opinion, Christians are deceiving themselves by focusing solely on his alleged love and mercy while ignoring the other verses that depict his hatred, anger, and jealousy. When I left Christianity, I reread the Bible without wearing rose-colored glasses, and now I don't believe anyone should derive their understanding of morality (or love, mercy, and justice) from the Bible.

In my opinion, the following Bible stories aren't exemplary examples of upright moral behavior: forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist; smashing infants' heads against rocks; ordering the death of witches; God commanding his "chosen people" to kill an entire populace of foreign nations for their land in a conquest to possess a "promised land"; or God being irrationally angry and committing global genocide by killing every living creature and eradicating the entire human race (aside from Noah and his family) in a worldwide flood. Is that a loving and merciful God? In my opinion, that's a genocidal God.

And according to Genesis 6:6-7, God Almighty regretted creating not only mankind but also every animal, every creature that creeps on the ground, and the birds of the air. The Bible contains several other verses that mention God's regrets in addition to creating humanity, all animals, and birds (1 Samuel 15:11; 2 Samuel 24:16; Jeremiah 42:10). The Bible also mentions God changing his mind about bringing disasters down on his own people as punishment for their transgressions against him (Jeremiah 26:13, 1 Chronicles 21:15, Joel 2:13). For the record, Jeremiah 26:13, 1 Chronicles 21:15, and Joel 2:13 coincide with Isaiah 45:7 (NIV), which states, "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things." Also, the New King James Version uses the word "calamity" instead of "disaster," and the King James Version uses the word "evil" instead of "disaster" or "calamity."

Furthermore, 1 Samuel 15:3 states that God commanded the Israelites to attack and not spare the Amalekites (killing every man, woman, child, newborn, and animal and destroying everything that belonged to them). And Psalm 137:9 states, "Happy is the one who seizes your children and smashes them against the rocks." So much for the biblical commandment of "Thou shalt not kill." In my opinion, the God of the Bible has a sadistic mentality of "Do as I say, not as I do," making him the most hypocritical (detestable and barbarous) figure known to mankind. And this article, "Violence in the Bible: Greatest Hits," has several other instances of severe violence in the Bible. Despite my criticism of the Bible and assertion that it should not be relied on for moral guidance, I believe that what the Bible says should be taken with a grain of salt. As far as I'm concerned, there are many contradictions in the Bible, as well as a few stories of Jesus that were copied and adapted from Greek mythology and other pagan religions, as I explained in other posts, such as this one.

Edited: I searched online for an alternative interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:28–29, but it was rather difficult to find one that wasn't biased in favor of defending the Bible. I attempted to find a source that was at least impartial and provided a more concise explanation. I discovered one (see here), but I'm sure there will be Abrahamic theists who strongly disagree with the source. Nonetheless, I'm not interested in continuing this conversation. I've said what I wanted to say on the topic because I don't consider it worth my time to continue arguing with Abrahamic theists. It's highly unlikely that we'll ever agree.

 

[dybmh]

I am not sure I understand. If that is what you believe, why wouldn't you allow children to touch a hot stove?

Because believing is not knowing. I am not God. My child doesn't have the experiences of an immortal, so the suffering from the hot stove will be experienced as a mortal. The suffering is only diminshed when all of those past-life memories, if they exist, are remembered. My child will not understand why I permitted them to touch the hot stove, in the same way that people don't understand why God permits pain and suffering.

In order examine this, there's both me and God. We're not the same. God permits the possibilty of the child touching the hot stove, I am supposed to prevent it. God permits it, and if it happens, then I learn from it. I vicariously experience the pain ( something you may not understand without having kids of your own ). That is coupled with the shame and self-deprecation from being negligent. Those feelings fade over time, but they make an impression. And I'm less likely to be negligent in the future.

So, God permitting the hot stove is:

1) not as bad as one thinks for the child in the grand scheme of things
2) if it happens I learn not to be so negligent
3) God permitting the event is not "evil"

But that does not mean I should permit it. I'm supposed to prevent it. When I see the hot stove, or think about the hot stove, I'm supposed to imagine what it would be like if the child touches it. And this reaction is what prevents the negligence. All of this requires that the hot stove is painful to begin with. So God is permitting the hot stove for the purpose of preventing it.

That would presume that ALL of evil is converted into good. What's the basis for believing in this? How is it Chaos, for example?

First, it's not all Chaos. Chaos and order coexist. Examples of chaos leveraged into good are: epiphanies, happy accidents, seizing an opportunity, etc...

The reason I believe that all of it can be converted into good is life experience. And, I discovered I'm not alone in this assessment.

Post-traumatic growth - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This Turns Tragedy into an Opportunity for Personal Growth

75% of all people will live through a traumatic event. 35-37% will experience PTG.

bigthink.com

 

[dybmh]

If chaos doesn't have to be absolute in 'OTHER' then it can be minimal, which would in practice allow for suffering to never happen.

It is absolute in "OTHER". And it can be minimized. The question is how much can it be minimized and still result in something that can be converted into good without any other bizarre side-effects.

For example, going back to God's magic wand. How much is God going to dominate and control what's happening on a minute by minute basis? I am 90% sure that the OP, as an anarchist, is not going to agree to being a marianette. So, if we're not losing freedom, then only the discomfort is eliminated? That's weird too. I can hit myself in the face with a hammer and it doesn't hurt? If I get sick, how do I know? And then we start talking about death and dying. Nobody dies? What if I want to depart for this? What if I'm tired? And so that's weird. Do I experience pain when someone dies? Or is that no one dies? If not, so, I light myself on fire and there's no damage? I don't hurt myself at all? I can light you on fire and there's no damage at all? And then someone says, "oh! you won't desire to set yourself on fire, or anyone else". OK.

Then we're back to the marianette. There's no way that each and every person is going to agree on which rules are right and which rules are wrong. The only way to make that happen is to make everyone exactly the same in every way, and no one wants that either.

Instead, this element of randomness exists. It's not blocked or cut-off for multiple reasons in real-time by God's magic wand ( miracles ). And Chaos is only 1 aspect of this "OTHER". There are so many ... ummmm ... other aspects to it, and those can't be cut-off or completely obscured either.

But a chaotic universe doesn't require the existence of an actualized state of affairs where it is possible to harm someone in the first place.

It does. If we are talking about pathology, it's just a matter of time. Given enough time, someone is going be born with a defective brain.

What constitutes 'goodness'?

So many things

I like New York in June! How about you? But seriously. If we're talking about suffering, then goodness is relief.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

How is that bad?

Part of manifesting and processing reality is understanding the increasing entropy that occurs throughout the Universe that causes many of the woes that create chaos and hurts or kills many people. Since processing reality takes time, processing also develops much of the Universal entropy, along with a little extropy here on Earth. But when we find ways to prevent or reverse aging, along with other reverse-entropy procedures we will soon be able to undertake, manifesting and processing reality may one day actually heal rather than hurt people.

 

[dybmh]

forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist

ummm, this is completely debunked by reading the verses that occur in the same chapter. It says explicitly, if it is forced intimacy, the rapist is killed.

ואם־בשדה ימצא האיש את־הנער המארשה והחזיק־בה האיש ושכב עמה ומת האיש אשר־שכב עמה לבדו׃​

​

But if a man finds a betrothed girl in the field, and the man forces her, and lies with her; then the man only who lay with her shall die;​

Christians are deceiving themselves by focusing solely on his alleged love and mercy while ignoring the other verses that depict his hatred, anger, and jealousy.

Critics are deceiving themselves by ignoring the verses that prohibit rape, and kill the rapist that exist in the same chapter. Please, you had a horrible experience. I'm not excusing that. But practice what you preach. It is hypocritical to point at others and say, "You're ignoring the verses that don't agree with your bias", while at the same time ignoring the verses that don't agree with your bias.

 

[1213]

Thanks for the source. Evidence now, please?

Evidence for that people wanted to know? One evidence is obviously that we are in this first death.

1) Knowing evil is not the same as experiencing evil.

People can learn what evil means by easy, or by hard way. Easy way was to ask directly from God, in the beginning. Hard way is this what we now have, the learning by experience.

2) If your kids wanted to touch a hot stove, would you let them do it?

I would say, don't do it, because it burns. I would not throw the stove out of house, just because it is possible that kids would not believe me.

 

[1213]

Pain is not the absence of joy.
Cruel action is not merely absence of kind action.
In general since an evil act is not merely the absence of a good act, evil cannot simply be the absence of good.

But the evil action comes because the lack of good. If person would be good, he would not do it.

 

[1213]

So what? The god character still decided that we should all suffer because of the actions of two people. It's a blatant, cruel and vindictive injustice.

Why do you suffer?

 

[sayak83]

But the evil action comes because the lack of good. If person would be good, he would not do it.

No. A person may neither be good or evil. He may be apathetic or indifferent. So evil action comes because of the positive presence of emotions like greed, malice etc. This shows that evil itself is a positive state, not a mere absence.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

ummm, this is completely debunked by reading the verses that occur in the same chapter. It says explicitly, if it is forced intimacy, the rapist is killed.

ואם־בשדה ימצא האיש את־הנער המארשה והחזיק־בה האיש ושכב עמה ומת האיש אשר־שכב עמה לבדו׃​

​

But if a man finds a betrothed girl in the field, and the man forces her, and lies with her; then the man only who lay with her shall die;​

Critics are deceiving themselves by ignoring the verses that prohibit rape, and kill the rapist that exist in the same chapter. Please, you had a horrible experience. I'm not excusing that. But practice what you preach. It is hypocritical to point at others and say, "You're ignoring the verses that don't agree with your bias", while at the same time ignoring the verses that don't agree with your bias.

I was unaware that someone else had refuted this verse with an alternative interpretation. For the record, I think that other people are entitled to their interpretation, just as I am entitled to mine. For what it's worth, I believe it's unfair of you to accuse me of being hypocritical when I wasn't aware of an alternative interpretation. I'm certainly willing to listen to someone else's interpretation of the Bible, but that doesn't mean I'll necessarily agree with them.

 

[dybmh]

I was unaware that someone else had refuted this verse with an alternative interpretation. For the record, I think that other people are entitled to their interpretation, just as I am entitled to mine.

This is NOT interpretation. This is a word-for-word translation.

For what it's worth, I believe it's unfair of you to accuse me of being hypocritical when I wasn't aware of an alternative interpretation. I'm certainly willing to listen to someone else's interpretation of the Bible, but that doesn't mean I'll necessarily agree with them.

See below:

When I left Christianity, I reread the Bible without rose-colored glasses, and now I don't believe anyone should derive their understanding of morality (or love, mercy, and justice) from the Bible. In my opinion, the following Bible stories aren't exemplary examples of upright moral behavior: forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist;

No, it's not unfair. You said you reread the bible, and according to you, it says a girl is forced to marry her rapist. The truth is, this idea about marrying a rapist comes from verses 28-29. But that's false because literally 3 verses prior it says the rapist is killed.

Look,

See? This is where that false claim comes from. It's not interpretation. It is skipping verse 25, and going straight to 28-29. Most people get this idea from word of mouth, or they read it on a critic's website. It does not come from reading the bible. It comes from skipping reading the bible.

So, you said, you got these ideas from rereading the bible without rose colored glasses. That cannot be true. And then you're claiming others are reading it in a biased manner.

If you want to claim, this is "interpretation" find any translation of Deuteronomy 2:25 which does not indicate that the rapist is killed. Any.

Here I'll give you a head start:

Deuteronomy 22:25 - Marriage Violations

But if the man encounters a betrothed woman in the open country, and he overpowers her and lies with her, only the man who has done this must die.

biblehub.com

 

[Trailblazer]

The same reason one protects/helps one’s child.

To expect God to do what a human would do under the same circumstances is the fallacy of false equivalence since God is not a human.

 

[Koldo]

Evidence for that people wanted to know? One evidence is obviously that we are in this first death.

I have no idea how this counts as evidence to you.

People can learn what evil means by easy, or by hard way. Easy way was to ask directly from God, in the beginning. Hard way is this what we now have, the learning by experience.

Do you believe the story of Adam and Eva is real? That it actually happened? Evidence please?

I would say, don't do it, because it burns. I would not throw the stove out of house, just because it is possible that kids would not believe me.

Sure, but if you saw your child about do it you would stop them, right?