The Design of Torture

[Meow Mix]

The Canaanites practiced burning their children alive.
The Israelites were forbidden to do such a thing.- Deut 18v10;12v31.

As far as minor children [1Cor7v14] the parent is responsible.
The parents of Noah's day were beyond repentance or reform.
There is a cut off point after being warned.
Noah had half a century to warn the people.
The people chose to disobey God.

This is also a reason why the global preaching work of Matt 24v14 is so urgent today because God does not desire any to be destroyed or perish but all to repent- 2nd Peter 3v9; Ez 33v11.

Think about what you're saying... you say God killed the infants because the parents were responsible for them?

How much power do you suppose your god has? INFINITE? Oh, well then it's no problem to save the children from harm, is it?

 

[Meow Mix]

God purposely allowed Pharaoh's heart to be hardened because that was Pharaoh's choice. All the plagues were a warning. Pharaoh chose to ignore.
Please read: Exodus 8 v15,19,32.

We choose which type of clay we wish to be.
Brittle and hard or soft and malleable clay.
If we choose to be hard clay we can not be molded into vessels of glory.

From KJV Romans 9 (website: King James Version: Romans: Romans Chapter 9) with highlighting from me:

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

So... God has a purpose for people before they are born, before they have done "good or evil?" Regardless of what they do ("works") but rather dependent on whether God elects them? Let's read on.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Who hardens here? Is it God? It looks like it...

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Translation:
Who are you to question God, who has made you thus? Doesn't God have power over you as a potter has over clay, of the same stuff to make some people unto salvation and others unto damnation?

What if God, willing to flex His muscles, put up with the whining of those He predestined to Hell so that he can show his awesomeness to those he's saved and ***AFORE*** prepared unto salvation?

 

[PolyHedral]

Of course your conclusion of a God who is not good might be justified if it could be shown that absolutely no good what so ever comes about from/as a result of such circumstances.

Actually, it could be justified if you can show that the bad circumstances are not necessary for the benefits. (Since it would mean God was inflicting bad things unnecessarily, a fairly good standard for what is "evil")

-I fail to see what wheather or not a virus (irreducible complex system) can evolve or not has to do with wheather God is good or not. Please explain.

If a virus is irreducibly complex, God must have created it.
Physically, the virus gives no benefit to the infected organism.
Therefore, God has created something that has no beneficial purpose, and causes harm.
Therefore, God cannot be described as all-good.

 

[logician]

It can easily be proven that an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god cannot exist.

No others are worthy of worship, if you're into that.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

From KJV Romans 9 (website: King James Version: Romans: Romans Chapter 9) with highlighting from me:
So... God has a purpose for people before they are born, before they have done "good or evil?" Regardless of what they do ("works") but rather dependent on whether God elects them? Let's read on.
Who hardens here? Is it God? It looks like it...
Translation:
Who are you to question God, who has made you thus? Doesn't God have power over you as a potter has over clay, of the same stuff to make some people unto salvation and others unto damnation?
What if God, willing to flex His muscles, put up with the whining of those He predestined to Hell so that he can show his awesomeness to those he's saved and ***AFORE*** prepared unto salvation?

Romans 9vs10,11 is regarding Rebekah's two children Jacob and Esau.
They were to be in the line of the Messiah.
The older one sold his birthright, so the younger one was accepted.
Doesn't v 11 continue election [choosing] might stand, not on works, but upon the one that calls?
So God was choosing or calling the one that accepted the birthright and rejected the one who sold his birthright.

Vs 18 who are the ones he hardens or be obstinate, but those of verse 19 who resist his will, and vs 20 those that reply against him.
Resist is on purpose by choice and answering or replying back is also by choice. -Deut 30v19; 32v5.
2nd Timothy 2v21 says [choice] if a man purge himself....he will be a vessel unto honor.... Esau did not, so to speak, purge himself.

Who are we to question God's decision? Who are we to question God's judgment such as whether his Golden Rule is wrong or right?

By God refraining from immediate destruction serves to give time to be molded if wished to be soft clay or hard clay. Hardhearted ones reach a point of no remorse or repentance damning themselves. -2 Peter 3v7 B and 9B

The Biblical hell is mankind's temporary stone-cold common grave.
Jesus was in hell until God resurrected him.- Acts 2vs27,31,32
[notice the condition of the dead: Ecc9v5; Psalm 6v5; 13v3; 115v17; 146v4]
Jesus believed the dead sleep that deep sleep of death. -John 11vs11-14
Hell is temporary according to Rev 20 vs13,14.
During Jesus peaceful 1000-year reign over earth all in hell are 'delivered up'.
Delivered up or resurrected from hell [haides/ sheol] gravedom.
Please notice once all in hell are delivered up then emptied-out hell is vacant and void of people. Empty hell is then thrown into a symbolic death.
A second death of no return. That is why Rev 21vs4,5 can go on to say that even death will be no more. Or as 1st Cor 15v26 says our last enemy death will be brought to nothing. Isaiah also wrote [25v8] death will be swallowed up forever.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Actually, it could be justified if you can show that the bad circumstances are not necessary for the benefits. (Since it would mean God was inflicting bad things unnecessarily, a fairly good standard for what is "evil")
If a virus is irreducibly complex, God must have created it.
Physically, the virus gives no benefit to the infected organism.
Therefore, God has created something that has no beneficial purpose, and causes harm.
Therefore, God cannot be described as all-good.

But 'Jack', according to Scripture [2cor 4v4], who is the god of this world of badness but Satan the Devil. Doesn't Satan bring 'woe' to earth? Rev 12vs9,12

Please notice Satan's slur at Job [2v4,5]. Satan did not limit that slur to just Job.
Satan statement includes that all 'a man' has he will give in exchange for his life implies all of us. Satan was making that statement as a general rule for all mankind. Jesus followers are challenged that they will not remain faithful.
We will betray God in order to save our own skin. Touch our bone and flesh [person himself] or loose our health and see if man will not curse God?

Time has allowed for us to be born and for all to prove Satan the liar that he is.
We can all have integrity and be faithful if we choose as Job and Jesus example showed.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This Blog.

Ok, I'm not going to read someone's blog to find out what the source is. Cite something credible and I'll follow along with you.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

And in your judgement, are the cases given in the OP examples of times when God intends harm?

No, a clear example would be somethng like the Noatic Flood.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Then God can't be benevolent.

Benevolence and malevolence are dichotomous, you can't be both. Either you are benevolent, or you are malevolent.

Human beings can change their minds; they can "reform" or become corrupted. An omniscient being can't change its mind -- that's a contradiction.

So God is eternally either benevolent or malevolent.

If God intentionally harms, then God is not benevolent by definition; and is therefore malevolent.

By your same reasoning, since God intentionally causes good He cannot be malevolent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It can easily be proven that an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god cannot exist.

I'm with you so far.

No others are worthy of worship, if you're into that.

Here's where you lose me. Do you think there are objective criteria for what any of us should or shouldn't value?

Personally, I can see where, for instance, Shinto practicioners are coming from with worship of ancestors and kami, none of which are purported to be all-powerful, all-knowing or perfectly good. I don't think that their religion is grounded in truth, but I can appreciate it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So, then, the question arises: why does god intend harm to innocents?

God evidently see things a bit different than you or I. But, give me an example and we will go from there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, a clear example would be somethng like the Noatic Flood.

What do you think of the general idea that God's characteristics can be explored by examining his creation and inferring his intent?

By your same reasoning, since God intentionally causes good He cannot be malevolent.

Perfectly malevolent, no. A God who caused both good and evil would be neither perfectly malevolent nor perfectly benevolent.

 

[PolyHedral]

God evidently see things a bit different than you or I. But, give me an example and we will go from there.

Everybody suffering from every kind of birth defect, harmful mutation, or similarly uncontrollable circumstance.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What do you think of the general idea that God's characteristics can be explored by examining his creation and inferring his intent?

It would seem to one of the signs that would help us understand His character.

Perfectly malevolent, no. A God who caused both good and evil would be neither perfectly malevolent nor perfectly benevolent.

The quality of those characteristics, it seems to be argued, can only apply when they are constantly and exclusively in evidence. I find nothing in the definitions of those terms which imply exclusivity.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Everybody suffering from every kind of birth defect, harmful mutation, or similarly uncontrollable circumstance.

Even though I did not address this to you make the case as to why this is intended harm.

 

[PolyHedral]

All of these (nightmare fuel warning) directly lead to the death of the person involved. Want me to find more?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

All of these (nightmare fuel warning) directly lead to the death of the person involved. Want me to find more?

No, I want you to make a case as to why this is intended harm.

 

[PolyHedral]

directly lead to the death of the person involved.

How is that not intended harm?

We will betray God in order to save our own skin. Touch our bone and flesh [person himself] or loose our health and see if man will not curse God?

Is God not the root cause of all of the universe? If so, it logically follows that He must be responsible for everything in it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

How is that not intended harm?

For you it is because you think so, but make the case please.

 

[PolyHedral]

What meaning of "harm" are you using that indirect killing does not fall under it? There's very little reasoning to support me, since the act either qualifies as harm or it does not, but I can't see how any useful definition of harm does not include indirect killing.