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

[Ingledsva]

I will make this short, there is not one reliable scientific, historical, or philosophical fact inconsistent with the Bible's claims.

Not short enough.
The mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed.
Bats are NOT birds.
Rabbits do NOT chew a cud.


So you are at best just plain flat out wrong, at worse a bold faced liar.

Yep, and we can add to that.

Snakes have no larynx or vocal cords - so no speaking Hebrew.

Donkeys don't have sufficient vocal cords to speak Hebrew.

People can't survive in giant fish, or whales, etc. They would be digested.

The Ark wasn't big enough for all the critters in twos and sevens, and the sea and lake critters would have died off from the mixing of the salt and fresh water, mud and debris, and putrefying bodies, etc.

The Earth is a spherical shape - not a flat circle.

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth above the circle (chug) of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Chug = a flat circle = pancake shape - which allows for their tent shaped heavens.

Chug being a flat circle is proven by verse Pro 8:27, where they scribe a circle (chug.)

*

 

[adi2d]

Here's the gist of it. God has a plan for his creation. Humanity chose to pursue evil, and by doing so we fell from paradise (heaven). I believe God created Satan (sin nature), knowing full well that mankind would honor our sin nature and fall.


The wisdom in this, I think, is that God likewise knew we would one day rise in triumph over our sin nature through love. I believe that God created us with a sin nature so that we would slowly mature and grow wiser through the many trials and tribulations that it thrusts upon us, and all the pain and suffering our sins lead to (evil).


I think it had to be this way. Otherwise, there is no true freedom to be who and what WE want to be. We have a choice to sin or not to sin, to pursue evil or righteousness. We are free agents and as free agents we get to choose. However, life is a great teacher, and although it is sometimes painful, life enables us to mature, to build character, to further develop as individuals and as a people.


We are free to sin to our hearts desire, but there are consequences for our sins. God's plan entails universal reconciliation of all things. One day humanity will grow tired of sin, and will seek after righteousness. One day all things in heaven and on earth will be united through love. One day all things will be reconciled in love. God is love.


The 'plan' involves trial, tribulation, sin, pain, sorrow, and suffering. All of which leads us to want for something better. Love leads us to comfort and joy. One day I believe that humanity is going to wise up, and come to desire love above sin. Sin leads to pain, suffering, and death. Love leads to comfort, joy, and life.


ZM

The OP asked about the suffering and death of children. How is the "plan" helped? The child learns nothing and doesn't have a chance to choose to follow sin or not. No chance to mature or have those trials and tribulations you spoke of.


Where is the LOVE for those poor children?

 

[ZenMonkey]

The OP asked about the suffering and death of children. How is the "plan" helped? The child learns nothing and doesn't have a chance to choose to follow sin or not. No chance to mature or have those trials and tribulations you spoke of.


Where is the LOVE for those poor children?

They were likely (imo) spared another life of trial and tribulation and are headed to the kingdom of heaven. I believe in reincarnation of the soul. It could be that their souls journey on earth simply reached an end. They may very well be entering eternal life in heaven, which may be why they were taken from this world.


The wages of sin is death. We all sin, so even if our lives are found to be acceptable in life, we still have a debt to pay in the next. Jesus likewise did the same. It is written that He was the last Adam after all. Adam's journey on earth had likewise reached an end with Jesus who was said to be without sin.


Perhaps this happens to children so they are unable to commit sins that lead to death again (being children). The sins of the infants past life would then be paid upon their death in this life, whereby they can now enter into God's eternal kingdom debt free and as sinless creatures.

ZM

 

[Ingledsva]

They were likely (imo) spared another life of trial and tribulation and are headed to the kingdom of heaven. I believe in reincarnation of the soul. It could be that their souls journey on earth simply reached an end. They may very well be entering eternal life in heaven, which may be why they were taken from this world.


The wages of sin is death. We all sin, so even if our lives are found to be acceptable in life, we still have a debt to pay in the next. Jesus likewise did the same. It is written that He was the last Adam after all. Adam's journey on earth had likewise reached an end with Jesus who was said to be without sin.


Perhaps this happens to children so they are unable to commit sins that lead to death again (being children). The sins of the infants past life would then be paid upon their death in this life, whereby they can now enter into God's eternal kingdom debt free and as sinless creatures.

ZM

And what about the stories of YHVH murdering children?

*

 

[adi2d]

They were likely (imo) spared another life of trial and tribulation and are headed to the kingdom of heaven. I believe in reincarnation of the soul. It could be that their souls journey on earth simply reached an end. They may very well be entering eternal life in heaven, which may be why they were taken from this world.


The wages of sin is death. We all sin, so even if our lives are found to be acceptable in life, we still have a debt to pay in the next. Jesus likewise did the same. It is written that He was the last Adam after all. Adam's journey on earth had likewise reached an end with Jesus who was said to be without sin.


Perhaps this happens to children so they are unable to commit sins that lead to death again (being children). The sins of the infants past life would then be paid upon their death in this life, whereby they can now enter into God's eternal kingdom debt free and as sinless creatures.

ZM

Let's go over that first part
You believe that the child,in a past life,had matured and went through trial and tribulations enough that he/she was ready to enter heaven. All that was left was to be born,suffer and die once more.
Does that make sense? If the person had completed his journey what possible reason would there be to suffer one last time before entering the Kingdom?

Sorry friend but I'm still not seeing the love

 

[ZenMonkey]

Let's go over that first part
You believe that the child,in a past life,had matured and went through trial and tribulations enough that he/she was ready to enter heaven. All that was left was to be born,suffer and die once more.
Does that make sense? If the person had completed his journey what possible reason would there be to suffer one last time before entering the Kingdom?

Sorry friend but I'm still not seeing the love

Adam was the first to be given a temporal life and the first to be given eternal life. He came back and was born as the man Jesus. Being the first to live and die, his dues were paid. Our dues are not. Unless a person believes what Jesus says about eternal life, they will face death again in the life to come. Even if the journey was complete and they have become spiritually mature, they still have a debt to pay for past sins. Jesus makes a way to avoid this second death.


Adam chose to come back to show us the way. He came back to show us the path of reconciliation. He chose to come back as Jesus and to die again so that we through his life and teachings might come to know God's will for us. It's all good news. God's will for us is to love and to be loved. God is love and it was Jesus who made God known. Death is not an unloving thing to endure. It is merely a debt that must be paid for sin.

ZM

 

[ZenMonkey]

And what about the stories of YHVH murdering children?

*

Meh, old stories in an old Jewish holy book. The OT reveals how the Jewish people viewed their God, whereas the NT reveals the truth of God through Christ. Much of the OT identifies God as a jealous war god, whereas the NT identifies God as love. There is much truth to be drawn from the OT, but when something in the OT stands in opposition to love, I'm assured that is was man's sin nature (Satan) that was the culprit behind that opposition.

 

[1robin]

Not short enough.
The mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed.
Bats are NOT birds.
Rabbits do NOT chew a cud.


So you are at best just plain flat out wrong, at worse a bold faced liar.

Is it possible for you to make a claim without also making dishonorable and hypocritical personal comments. These dinosaurs have been addressed so many times I can hardly bring myself to do it again. Man this gets old. For the last time:

Mustard seed:
The Example of the Mustard Seed
As an example, many critics and biologists have claimed that the Bible contains an error and that this error actually came from the lips of Jesus Himself! They refer to the statement that Jesus made related to the famous Mustard Seed. Check it out:

Mark 4:30-32
Again he said, ‘What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground. Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade.’
​

Critics look at this statement and criticize the claim that the mustard seed is the “smallest seed you plant in the ground”. They are quick to argue that the mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed on earth. In fact, there are many seeds that are smaller than a mustard seed. So how can Jesus, Lord and God over all, not know this? Well, the critics aren’t reading carefully and they aren’t trying to understand what the original text is saying. Read it again! Jesus is talking to a group of people that were living in an agricultural society. His listeners were farmers! He doesn’t say that the mustard seed is the smallest seed on earth! He says that the mustard seed “is the smallest seed YOU plant in the ground”! He is referring directly to the seeds that they were using in their day to plant their gardens: “it grows and becomes the largest of all GARDEN PLANTS…” As a further demonstration of this reference to garden seeds, look at a parallel account in another Gospel:

Matthew 13:31-32
He told them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.’
​

Careful reading with an effort to understand what the original text truly says will resolve the lion’s share of apparent ‘contradictions’ or ‘errors’ in the Bible. Read the scriptures carefully!
Please Convince Me


Hares refect at night and underground, all the more reason that Moses likely made a similar Linnaeus-like mistake that was, for the most part, based largely on appearances.
Hares actually do this mostly at night and underground, although not always, and the reason for this is that this behavior usually takes place 3-8 hours after eating. But the reason so few people know about this behavior today is because we spend so much time indoors, and because when we are outdoors, we tend to stomp around and scare timid creatures like hares. So, little wonder we don't see refection behaviors that much, if at all. Even rabbit owners don't see it because they of course feed their bunnies on their schedules, while refection happens when they are asleep.

In contrast, the ancients lived mainly outdoors and many of them were pastoral sorts who spent hours in the field. So, don't think for a moment that this wasn't something the average ancient wouldn't have known about. They were a lot more observant than we are (because they needed to be to survive) and spent a lot more time in places where they could observe and understand this behavior. At the same time, it would be rather pointless -- and an argument from silence -- to make the point that refection is not mentioned in any other ancient documents. For this objection to have merit, one must produce a surviving ancient documentation that should have mentioned it, but didn't -- and that's rather a hard row to hoe.

The verse says 'bring up' the cud -- sounds like regurgitation to me. Our other key word here is 'alah, and it is found in some grammatical form on literally every page of the OT. This is because it is a word that encompasses many concepts other than "bring up." It also can mean ascend up, carry up, cast up, fetch up, get up, recover, restore, take up and much more. It is a catch-all verb form describing the moving of something to another place. (The literal rendering here is, "maketh the gerah to 'alah.")
Now, in the verses in question, 'alah is used as a participle. Let's look at the other verses where it is used this way (NIV only implies some of these phrases, and shown in parentheses, the phrase is in the original, sometimes in the KJV):
Josh. 24:17 It was the Lord our God himself who brought us and our fathers up out of Egypt....
1 Sam. 7:10 While Samuel was sacrificing (offering) the burnt offering...
Nahum 3:3 Charging cavalry, flashing swords (lifted), and glittering spears!
Isaiah 8:7 ...therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty floodwaters of the River...
Ps. 135:7 He makes clouds rise (up) from the ends of the earth...
2 Sam. 6:15 ...while he and the entire house of Israel brought the ark of the Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets. (Similar quote, 1 Chr. 15:28)
So, the Hebrew word in question is not specific to the process of regurgitation but is instead merely a phrase of general movement. And related to the specific issue at hand, the rabbit is an animal that does "maketh" the previously digested material to "come" out of the body (though in a different way than a ruminant does) and does thereafter chew "predigested material." The mistake is in our applying of the scientific terms of rumination to something that does not require it.
Is the Bible Wrong About a Rabbit/Hare Chewing Cud?


I juts can't do this any longer. There are a thousand sites that explain these tired old canards. Look them up your self. Of course your claims are rooted in emotion (which is why they always come with insults) and have nothing to do with evidence or facts so I am sure you will look up nothing what so ever on your own. If you wish to wager everything you have on non-sense like this then have at it.

 

[1robin]

[/i]


Yep, and we can add to that.

Snakes have no larynx or vocal cords - so no speaking Hebrew.

Donkeys don't have sufficient vocal cords to speak Hebrew.

People can't survive in giant fish, or whales, etc. They would be digested.

The Ark wasn't big enough for all the critters in twos and sevens, and the sea and lake critters would have died off from the mixing of the salt and fresh water, mud and debris, and putrefying bodies, etc.

The Earth is a spherical shape - not a flat circle.

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth above the circle (chug) of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Chug = a flat circle = pancake shape - which allows for their tent shaped heavens.

Chug being a flat circle is proven by verse Pro 8:27, where they scribe a circle (chug.)

*

I think I have answered every single one of these ignorance based claims and have answered two of them for at least the third time above. There exists countless places where scholars go through these is detail. If you have no desire to look them up your selves and have an emotional conclusion in search of a premise based on a lack of Biblical knowledge I don't think my explaining these over and over again would help. You can search the site for my and many others responses to these but we both know you won't.

 

[1robin]

And what about the stories of YHVH murdering children?

*

Yet another claim of absolute knowledge which carries a burden that was not even attempted to be met. Murder implies lack of moral justification. You demand the right to end human life in the womb without sufficient justification (You demand the rights to your body by denying them the fetus' body) but deny God the right to take life without showing he does not have justification. Double standards are the trademark of failed arguments. There exists no standard that can show God killed without justification and no standard that can provide justification for the billions of killings we carry out. Yet those without justification are arrogant enough to judge the only being ever known that has perfect justification. Is it any wonder this circus can't possibly last? This is moral insanity.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yet another claim of absolute knowledge which carries a burden that was not even attempted to be met. Murder implies lack of moral justification. You demand the right to end human life in the womb without sufficient justification (You demand the rights to your body by denying them the fetus' body) but deny God the right to take life without showing he does not have justification. Double standards are the trademark of failed arguments. There exists no standard that can show God killed without justification and no standard that can provide justification for the billions of killings we carry out. Yet those without justification are arrogant enough to judge the only being ever known that has perfect justification. Is it any wonder this circus can't possibly last? This is moral insanity.

This is not a question of morality than it is a question of might makes right. Even figures of authority are held to standards. If there exists no authority to judge God by or say God is not justified, then by that there is no authority to make any claim about what God is and what God is not. As such even saying that God is Just carries no meaning because by what are we calling God Just?

However we do that, we say God is perfectly Just, but perfectly Just by our Standards, since God would have no standard to be meaured by but our own.

 

[McBell]

I juts can't do this any longer. There are a thousand sites that explain these tired old canards. Look them up your self. Of course your claims are rooted in emotion (which is why they always come with insults) and have nothing to do with evidence or facts so I am sure you will look up nothing what so ever on your own. If you wish to wager everything you have on non-sense like this then have at it.

I am not "wagering" anything.
That is your worldview, remember?
Not mine.

You are most skilled in transference.
To bad your debating skills with those outside your choir are not nearly as good.

 

[McBell]

Is it possible for you to make a claim without also making dishonorable and hypocritical personal comments. These dinosaurs have been addressed so many times I can hardly bring myself to do it again. Man this gets old. For the last time:

Mustard seed:
The Example of the Mustard Seed
As an example, many critics and biologists have claimed that the Bible contains an error and that this error actually came from the lips of Jesus Himself! They refer to the statement that Jesus made related to the famous Mustard Seed. Check it out:

Mark 4:30-32
Again he said, ‘What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground. Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade.’
​

Critics look at this statement and criticize the claim that the mustard seed is the “smallest seed you plant in the ground”. They are quick to argue that the mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed on earth. In fact, there are many seeds that are smaller than a mustard seed. So how can Jesus, Lord and God over all, not know this? Well, the critics aren’t reading carefully and they aren’t trying to understand what the original text is saying. Read it again! Jesus is talking to a group of people that were living in an agricultural society. His listeners were farmers! He doesn’t say that the mustard seed is the smallest seed on earth! He says that the mustard seed “is the smallest seed YOU plant in the ground”! He is referring directly to the seeds that they were using in their day to plant their gardens: “it grows and becomes the largest of all GARDEN PLANTS…” As a further demonstration of this reference to garden seeds, look at a parallel account in another Gospel:

Matthew 13:31-32
He told them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.’
​

Careful reading with an effort to understand what the original text truly says will resolve the lion’s share of apparent ‘contradictions’ or ‘errors’ in the Bible. Read the scriptures carefully!
Please Convince Me

what version of the Bible are this ratifying verses from?
Seeing as I have esword with all the English versions and cannot find the version presented above.

Hares refect at night and underground, all the more reason that Moses likely made a similar Linnaeus-like mistake that was, for the most part, based largely on appearances.
Hares actually do this mostly at night and underground, although not always, and the reason for this is that this behavior usually takes place 3-8 hours after eating. But the reason so few people know about this behavior today is because we spend so much time indoors, and because when we are outdoors, we tend to stomp around and scare timid creatures like hares. So, little wonder we don't see refection behaviors that much, if at all. Even rabbit owners don't see it because they of course feed their bunnies on their schedules, while refection happens when they are asleep.

In contrast, the ancients lived mainly outdoors and many of them were pastoral sorts who spent hours in the field. So, don't think for a moment that this wasn't something the average ancient wouldn't have known about. They were a lot more observant than we are (because they needed to be to survive) and spent a lot more time in places where they could observe and understand this behavior. At the same time, it would be rather pointless -- and an argument from silence -- to make the point that refection is not mentioned in any other ancient documents. For this objection to have merit, one must produce a surviving ancient documentation that should have mentioned it, but didn't -- and that's rather a hard row to hoe.

The verse says 'bring up' the cud -- sounds like regurgitation to me. Our other key word here is 'alah, and it is found in some grammatical form on literally every page of the OT. This is because it is a word that encompasses many concepts other than "bring up." It also can mean ascend up, carry up, cast up, fetch up, get up, recover, restore, take up and much more. It is a catch-all verb form describing the moving of something to another place. (The literal rendering here is, "maketh the gerah to 'alah.")
Now, in the verses in question, 'alah is used as a participle. Let's look at the other verses where it is used this way (NIV only implies some of these phrases, and shown in parentheses, the phrase is in the original, sometimes in the KJV):
Josh. 24:17 It was the Lord our God himself who brought us and our fathers up out of Egypt....
1 Sam. 7:10 While Samuel was sacrificing (offering) the burnt offering...
Nahum 3:3 Charging cavalry, flashing swords (lifted), and glittering spears!
Isaiah 8:7 ...therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty floodwaters of the River...
Ps. 135:7 He makes clouds rise (up) from the ends of the earth...
2 Sam. 6:15 ...while he and the entire house of Israel brought the ark of the Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets. (Similar quote, 1 Chr. 15:28)
So, the Hebrew word in question is not specific to the process of regurgitation but is instead merely a phrase of general movement. And related to the specific issue at hand, the rabbit is an animal that does "maketh" the previously digested material to "come" out of the body (though in a different way than a ruminant does) and does thereafter chew "predigested material." The mistake is in our applying of the scientific terms of rumination to something that does not require it.
Is the Bible Wrong About a Rabbit/Hare Chewing Cud?

Seriously?
talk about splitting hairs.
If your deity is that petty, I most definitely want nothing to do with it.

I juts can't do this any longer. There are a thousand sites that explain these tired old canards. Look them up your self. Of course your claims are rooted in emotion (which is why they always come with insults) and have nothing to do with evidence or facts so I am sure you will look up nothing what so ever on your own. If you wish to wager everything you have on non-sense like this then have at it.

Do what?
Can't be your tired of providing valid rebuttals.
You need to actually start first.

BTW, You ever going to present your math?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How do you prove the absence of something? As an atheist I imagine you would be the expert. The claim stands until at least a theoretical standard is shown to exist. Your side is the one that began judging God. You require a sufficient standard to do so. Where is it?

Here you go:

Morality is an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, and has the lessening of evil or harm as its goal.

The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Using this definition, an act that has the goal of increasing harm would be considered "immoral".

Now... is the killing of children an example of lessening or increasing harm? Think hard.

I disagree but would accept that because the debate is boring and unnecessary.

Judgements about whether an action is moral or immoral (or "right" or "wrong", if you prefer) require a moral standard. Things that are outside any moral standard are amoral, not immoral or moral. When you say that God is "good", "right", or "moral", you implicitly appeal to a moral standard.

God's nature determines both what is right and what is done. His nature is the standard but your burden non the less.

Exactly how is "God's nature" a valid standard for morality? Are you appealing to some sort of "might makes right" principle?

 

[1robin]

This is not a question of morality than it is a question of might makes right. Even figures of authority are held to standards. If there exists no authority to judge God by or say God is not justified, then by that there is no authority to make any claim about what God is and what God is not. As such even saying that God is Just carries no meaning because by what are we calling God Just?

That is not very good thinking IMO. Reject God because you do not like his nature or the nature of any similar God in general. I do not like cold very much nor high heat. Maybe I should deny the equator or the N pole be believed in. Inconvenience or convenience is not mush of an arbiter of fact. Authority and capacity are used by us to determine moral actions continuously, why only when God is the authority is that no longer valid.

However we do that, we say God is perfectly Just, but perfectly Just by our Standards, since God would have no standard to be meaured by but our own.

I think God is just according to my own standards but I can't prove he is or not by those same standards. It is your side who constantly initiates these moral claims about God and so your burden. I almost never initiate a God is great claim as they are almost meaningless. I speak on it a lot but almost always as a response only. I claim God is consistent with the best evidence known. That is independent of his moral quality.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

This is not a question of morality than it is a question of might makes right. Even figures of authority are held to standards. If there exists no authority to judge God by or say God is not justified, then by that there is no authority to make any claim about what God is and what God is not. As such even saying that God is Just carries no meaning because by what are we calling God Just?

That is not very good thinking IMO. Reject God because you do not like his nature or the nature of any similar God in general. I do not like cold very much nor high heat. Maybe I should deny the equator or the N pole be believed in. Inconvenience or convenience is not mush of an arbiter of fact. Authority and capacity are used by us to determine moral actions continuously, why only when God is the authority is that no longer valid.

I think God is just according to my own standards but I can't prove he is or not by those same standards. It is your side who constantly initiates these moral claims about God and so your burden. I almost never initiate a God is great claim as they are almost meaningless. I speak on it a lot but almost always as a response only. I claim God is consistent with the best evidence known. That is independent of his moral quality.

What side? I made no argument that is not a reason to believe in God, don't know why you are making that assumption.

I simply said you have no standard to say anything about God at all. If the standard is God, then it is not related to humans as with our finite minds as you have put it, we could not even begin to fathom the depths of Gods morality or thinking or judgement.

What is the best evidence known? What standard do you judge that it is evidence?

As well how can you tell it is independent of Gods moral quality if you have no standard for what morality is? Is Gods morality black and white? Then which one is correct?

Is it Grey and Gray? If so is one shade darker?

 

[1robin]

Here you go:

Goody. Here I go what?



http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/#NorDefMor

The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Using this definition, an act that has the goal of increasing harm would be considered "immoral".

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/#NorDefMor That is 30 minutes I will never get back I guess. There were dozens of definitions of morality in that paper. None of which are sufficient to bind or judge God. Why did you choose only one? Especially since it does not work on several levels.

1. You MUST prove that causing the least harm is actually a moral truth.
2. You Must prove God's actions caused more harm that his inaction would have.
3. You MUST establish a true hierarchy for different types of harm. I would rather be physically harmed if it produced spiritual or eternal good.
4. You MUST provide an accurate account of all relevant issues for each act of God you wish to condemn.

I can do this all day but there is no point because emotion and preference are what is driving these claims not logic. Logic dictates "as many honest atheists admit" that without God there is no known moral truths. That no standard exists that is sufficient to judge God. Maybe your a brain in a vat being fed garbage all day that is not true. You must show you actually KNOW something sufficient to do what your preference is writing checks for. It does not exist but wear yourself out trying if you wish. It is theoretically impossible.

Now... is the killing of children an example of lessening or increasing harm? Think hard.

Depends. A million children may be killed so save a billion. It may be that the parents of children in the flood were so evil they would have completely corrupted every child they had and sent them to Hell and God saved them all from that. You have every bit of your work ahead of you. Assumptions on top of assumptions do not become facts by repetition. You have not even shown your definition is true yet nor why you shoes that one out of all the ones in your own paper nor even if true and the right one to pick that it is binding on God.

Judgements about whether an action is moral or immoral (or "right" or "wrong", if you prefer) require a moral standard. Things that are outside any moral standard are amoral, not immoral or moral. When you say that God is "good", "right", or "moral", you implicitly appeal to a moral standard.

Your moral standards at the very best possible state are opinions and if anything is true of human history is that our opinions are not reliable and especially in this case as we do not even follow those opinion's and those opinions seem to swing from one end of the spectrum to the other. Who's standard's are to be used. Hitler's or Mother Theresa's.

Exactly how is "God's nature" a valid standard for morality? Are you appealing to some sort of "might makes right" principle?

Nope I am appealing to right makes right. Absolute zero is cold by it's nature. It's being cold is right. Murder is wrong because the fabric of God's nature determines the fabric of reality to be consistent with that. Why are you so much more active in God is bad threads than anything else? I only gave you 4 things you must do to be right out of hundreds. Good luck.

 

[1robin]

If there exists no authority to judge God by or say God is not justified, then by that there is no authority to make any claim about what God is and what God is not. As such even saying that God is Just carries no meaning because by what are we calling God Just?

That is a matter of personal determination and we will be held accountable for what we decide. I can decide if I believe God is just even it no one could ever prove if he was or not. Christianity is designed to govern personal lives not corporations or governments. It can't always be objectively resolvable. That is why I do not spend much time claiming God is good. I can't even get atheists many times to agree what is good to begin with. I respond to accusations about his being evil that are invalid, I am at least consistent.

What side? I made no argument that is not a reason to believe in God, don't know why you are making that assumption.

I made that posts thinking you were someone else but by side I mean the non-theistic side but your are not as rabid a defender of that side as the one I had in mind. Just ignore that sentence.

I simply said you have no standard to say anything about God at all. If the standard is God, then it is not related to humans as with our finite minds as you have put it, we could not even begin to fathom the depths of Gods morality or thinking or judgement.

I mostly debate that God is the best explanation of the most facts. I think he is good and would defend why I think that but rarely argue it is provable. His existence does have standards for verification his morality has very little.

What is the best evidence known? What standard do you judge that it is evidence?

Best evidence for what? If his existence a few examples are:

1. The apprehension of a general objective moral realm.
2. Fine tuning.
3. The existence of anything rather than nothing.
4. 25,000 historical corroborations among 750,000 words in the most scrutinized and influential book in history.
5. The general apprehension of a realm beyond the natural.

This list will never end but I must do so at some point.

The standards vary. Best fit, the historical method, internal consistency, testimonial methodology, cause and effect, etc......

As well how can you tell it is independent of Gods moral quality if you have no standard for what morality is? Is Gods morality black and white? Then which one is correct?

I have a subjective standard that I trust. I have no proven objective standard and so make few objective claims about moral quality. I think you are confusing my claims about the lack of ability to judge God as evil as a claim that he is proven objectively good. I can make a much better case that God is objectively good than anyone could make that he is objectively evil but it is less than a certainty.

Is it Grey and Gray? If so is one shade darker?

I didn't understand this.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That is a matter of personal determination and we will be held accountable for what we decide. I can decide if I believe God is just even it no one could ever prove if he was or not. Christianity is designed to govern personal lives not corporations or governments. It can't always be objectively resolvable. That is why I do not spend much time claiming God is good. I can't even get atheists many times to agree what is good to begin with. I respond to accusations about his being evil that are invalid, I am at least consistent.

I made that posts thinking you were someone else but by side I mean the non-theistic side but your are not as rabid a defender of that side as the one I had in mind. Just ignore that sentence.

I mostly debate that God is the best explanation of the most facts. I think he is good and would defend why I think that but rarely argue it is provable. His existence does have standards for verification his morality has very little.


Best evidence for what? If his existence a few examples are:

1. The apprehension of a general objective moral realm.
2. Fine tuning.
3. The existence of anything rather than nothing.
4. 25,000 historical corroborations among 750,000 words in the most scrutinized and influential book in history.
5. The general apprehension of a realm beyond the natural.

This list will never end but I must do so at some point.

The standards vary. Best fit, the historical method, internal consistency, testimonial methodology, cause and effect, etc......




I have a subjective standard that I trust. I have no proven objective standard and so make few objective claims about moral quality. I think you are confusing my claims about the lack of ability to judge God as evil as a claim that he is proven objectively good. I can make a much better case that God is objectively good than anyone could make that he is objectively evil but it is less than a certainty.

I didn't understand this.

Well if you can make the claim that defending that God is good is easy then you must have a standard that allows you to do that. What is that standard?

What exactly is fine tuning? Are you talking about the Universe? The Earth? The Solar system? And what is it fine-tune for?

What do you qualify as something? Can you imagine/envision nothing? At what point was there ever nothing in cosmology?

What in the Bible that has been scrutinized has been shown to be 100%? While it may have historically accurate events recounted, that does not at all mean much for the metaphysical aspects. Since we also do not know the true writers of the Gospels, that leads to even more problems? It may not effect the historicity of the individuals mention, but it certainly raises issues for their motives, intentions, and actions.

General apprehension of the world beyond the natural? What exactly is beyond the natural? You have said our senses are limited, so why assume it is supernatural if it may very well just be natural?

 

[cottage]

Here's the gist of it. God has a plan for his creation. Humanity chose to pursue evil, and by doing so we fell from paradise (heaven). I believe God created Satan (sin nature), knowing full well that mankind would honor our sin nature and fall.


The wisdom in this, I think, is that God likewise knew we would one day rise in triumph over our sin nature through love. I believe that God created us with a sin nature so that we would slowly mature and grow wiser through the many trials and tribulations that it thrusts upon us, and all the pain and suffering our sins lead to (evil).


I think it had to be this way. Otherwise, there is no true freedom to be who and what WE want to be. We have a choice to sin or not to sin, to pursue evil or righteousness. We are free agents and as free agents we get to choose. However, life is a great teacher, and although it is sometimes painful, life enables us to mature, to build character, to further develop as individuals and as a people.


We are free to sin to our hearts desire, but there are consequences for our sins. God's plan entails universal reconciliation of all things. One day humanity will grow tired of sin, and will seek after righteousness. One day all things in heaven and on earth will be united through love. One day all things will be reconciled in love. God is love.


The 'plan' involves trial, tribulation, sin, pain, sorrow, and suffering. All of which leads us to want for something better. Love leads us to comfort and joy. One day I believe that humanity is going to wise up, and come to desire love above sin. Sin leads to pain, suffering, and death. Love leads to comfort, joy, and life.

All you’ve done here Zen is to re-state and confirm the Problem of Evil with its only possible conclusion, which is that a supposedly perfectly moral being created suffering and sent it into the world – and hence the contradiction. But you attempt to justify this with a question-begging premise, a la St Irenaeus, that suffering was necessary as a soul making process by which humans could grow and learn, when it is immediately obvious that such an expedient is only necessary because of the ‘trials and tribulations that God himself puts in place! The absurdity is the circularity in the argument where God creates suffering so that…wait for it…mankind can overcome suffering! And it is even more absurd, if that can be possible, to propose that the goal of this ill-conceived plan is that by suffering we will ‘desire love’, when our Creator and sustainer himself is supposedly the omnipotent epitome of love and benevolence. I’m sorry but every paragraph in your post implies a direct contradiction.