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

[starlite]

Killing innocent babies, and dumb animals, is evil.

*

where does it say that God kills them?

 

[adi2d]

where does it say that God kills them?

I know you guys have a new and improved Bible but isn't the flood story still in it?

 

[Ingledsva]

Killing innocent babies, and dumb animals, is evil.

where does it say that God kills them?

Flood, Firstborn of Egypt, King David's Baby, 42 Children killed by bears 2 Ki 2:23, etc. He also orders the murder of many more.


*

 

[idav]

1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love has not come to know God, because God is love.

Does this describe a God who would do evil things?

If evil is not within his capacity then he is not all powerful. God is love through his will and it is within his capacity to will otherwise.

 

[CG Didymus]

Those are strange questions...

Okay, let's make it simple. What "objective" morals did God give us in the Bible?

 

[CG Didymus]

Killing innocent babies, and dumb animals, is evil.*

It's understandable that a just and loving God had to curse Adam and Eve and all their descendants. After all, he told them flat out, "Don't eat from the tree." But why do animals suffer? What did they do? I wonder why do they feel pain just like us? Why would a kind, loving God punish them? Does he give them eternal life as a reward maybe? Or, do they just turn into dust and are forgotten? Nah, God wouldn't do that. He'd have to be evil to be that unfair to helpless creatures.

 

[1robin]

Killing innocent babies, and dumb animals, is evil.


*

Says the abortion supporter and the defender of any culture no matter how cruel because if it's a culture it is immune to judgment, unless it is a Christian culture. Prove anything you said above is actually true.

 

[1robin]

Okay, let's make it simple. What "objective" morals did God give us in the Bible?

What? Murder is wrong, theft is wrong, and blasphemy is wrong. Are you unfamiliar with the ten commandments? I guarantee your about to make a ontological/epistemological mistake in your response.

 

[1robin]

It requires real proof! Not, - "I saw a ghost today. I really did!"


*

No it does not. The burden of faith is intellectual permissibility. Meaning faith can be logically held in any proposition that does not define known reality. However the question was for you to provide proof for your moral claims not to assert a burden faith does not have and a materialist does.

 

[1robin]

This view discounts theists who view morality as a human system and not rules commanded by one or more gods.

That is the very opposite of what theism means. Theists claim morality is rooted in the nature of God.

No moral system completely stands still for eternity whether we view our ethos as divine or human or a combo. If divine you still work from a perception and understanding not divine whispering of exact details concerning each specific problem.

Yes one could. You are speaking about perception or application not ontology. Your confusing what humans say is true with what actually is.

No matter what you end up with human thought and feelings at the end of the maze.

So your existence is no more significant that a human's feelings on the subject.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What? Murder is wrong, theft is wrong, and blasphemy is wrong. Are you unfamiliar with the ten commandments? I guarantee your about to make a ontological/epistemological mistake in your response.

I've asked you to try and define what 'murder' means in the commandment, but you've been unable to do so.

How can something be an objective moral truth if you don't even know what it is?

 

[1robin]

I am not saying he will do evil only that it is within his almighty power to do so if it is willed. Every power can be used for good or evil, some choose the latter.

I guess I can agree with that.

 

[CG Didymus]

I've asked you to try and define what 'murder' means in the commandment, but you've been unable to do so.

How can something be an objective moral truth if you don't even know what it is?

So I think it's an objective moral truth but in a subjective way? It's funny he added the Ten Commandments, yet how many Christians follow the commandment about the Sabbath? Or, maybe that's subjective and all the rest are objective. Anyway, I've got to be careful, he guaranteed I'd make some kind of epista-something and ontologigastic mistake. But for sure God is real because there is objective moral truths. We stupid humans couldn't have decided that murder, theft, lying are bad on our own. We needed an absolute divine being to tell us what is right and wrong. Like don't eat forbidden fruit. It's lucky he told us. Too bad our stupid supposed ancestors Adam and Eve didn't listen. Now a kind, loving God has to punish all of us for their mistake.

But seriously, what civilization didn't have moral codes? They didn't know the God of Israel. Who told them what was right and wrong? I wonder how Christians wiggle out of that? The devil told them that murder and stealing are wrong? A false god? Or, maybe people, the rulers and spiritual leaders of the group. Maybe they made them up for the good of their society? Naturally, they'd only be subjective laws and moral codes and would change with time and different cultures. Not like The God's moral codes and laws that never change and are perfectly defined... nothing subjective about them.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But seriously, what civilization didn't have moral codes? They didn't know the God of Israel.

Yeah. All civilizations have had moral codes, necessarily. They could not have been civilizations without such rules. And of course 'murder' has always been illegal, in every society.

I've asked 1robin what 'murder' means in the commandment, but he hasn't answered yet. If he ever does, he'll have to say, "Well, murder means offending the laws against murder."

In other words, God was saying that we shall not offend the murder laws of the Wandering Jews at the time the tablets were handed down.

I wonder what those laws were? Maybe it's still (morally) OK to kill a guy if he looks at your wife wrong or kills your favorite goat. I dunno.

 

[Ingledsva]

It requires real proof! Not, - "I saw a ghost today. I really did!"

No it does not. The burden of faith is intellectual permissibility. Meaning faith can be logically held in any proposition that does not define known reality. However the question was for you to provide proof for your moral claims not to assert a burden faith does not have and a materialist does.

You can hold any fairy dust view you want, - however, - it does not hold up as proof of anything in a debate.





*

 

[Ingledsva]

Killing innocent babies, and dumb animals, is evil.

Says the abortion supporter and the defender of any culture no matter how cruel because if it's a culture it is immune to judgment, unless it is a Christian culture. Prove anything you said above is actually true.

What are you smoking dude?


I've never said anything like that.


Quit trying to twist the meaning of what I say.




*

 

[adi2d]

What are you smoking dude?


I've never said anything like that.


Quit trying to twist the meaning of what I say.




Now Ing he has to win. How can he do that when you keep making sense. Twisting is all he's got

 

[Sees]

That is the very opposite of what theism means. Theists claim morality is rooted in the nature of God.

Yes one could. You are speaking about perception or application not ontology. Your confusing what humans say is true with what actually is.

So your existence is no more significant that a human's feelings on the subject.

Not all theists think like this, I certainly don't.

I would likewise say you are confusing what humans say is true with what is actually true - essence of revealed religions.

Human morality is rooted in the nature of humanity. Common sense after a little bit of observation and experience teaches us that we are more likely to be happy and alive by being kind and cooperative. Teamwork, family, tribes, communities, etc. Golden Rule or any other basic teaching/principle doesn't need any divine mind to ring true and useful.

 

[1robin]

I've asked you to try and define what 'murder' means in the commandment, but you've been unable to do so.

How can something be an objective moral truth if you don't even know what it is?

No you did not. This is what you asked.

What "objective" morals did God give us in the Bible?

That is not a request for a description.

If you want a description then ask for one. Murder is Biblically the unjustifiable taking of human life by another human with intent.

 

[1robin]

What are you smoking dude?


I've never said anything like that.


Quit trying to twist the meaning of what I say.




*

Which one?

1. Abortion? I believe you have defended it quite exhaustively.
2. Cultural immunity? So far you have defended the Aztec culture, American Indian culture, Alaskan Culture, and cultures in general from any outside influence. I do not need to distort your position to show it's faults. They come built in. I will let you restate your position if you wish. However it must comply with both your moral foundations (reason and opinion) and your previous defense of cultures for no other reasons than that they antedate others or are labeled cultures. I have a moral foundation that can judge other cultures like the Aztecs, you do not.