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

[1robin]

Don't forget the Persians who were not secularists (Zoroastrianism) and they were pretty cool to the Jewish People. The Babylonians were also not Secular...or the Assyrians, but they weren't all that nice to the Jewish people...takes all kinds I guess right?

Did the Persians or the Babylonians massacre tens of millions in histories greatest genocides. There was two parts to the claim I was responding to. An genocidal claim and an imperialistic cause attributed to Christian cultures as being responsible for it. I was not countering imperialism alone or genocide alone but a combination of the two. Unless I am integrating two recent subjects incorrectly.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Actually Ghengis Khan wasn't that much of a lunatic. While he did go on some roaring rampages of revenge he was also tolerant of religion and I think the ROman Empire had been disbanded by then. Atilla the Hun was not a fan of Rome but he wasn't a Mongol.

Also some info on Hindu Kush

Some sources state that the term Hindu Kush originally applied only to the peak in the area of the Kushan Pass, which had become a center of the Kushan Empire by the 1st century AD. This mountain range was also called Paropamisadae by Hellenic Greeks in the late first millennium BC.[2]
The Persian-English dictionary[3] indicates that the word Kuš (ک&#1588 is from the verb (kuštan کشت&#1606, meaning "to kill". Although the derivation is only a possible one, some authors have proposed the meaning "Kills the Hindu" for Hindū Kush, a derivation reproduced in Encyclopedia Americana (1993):
The name Hindu Kush means literally 'Kills the Hindu', a reminder of the days when Indian slaves from the Indian subcontinent died in the harsh weather typical of the Afghan mountains while being transported to Central Asia.[4]
A 1958 National Geographic article "West of Khyber Pass" states that "Generations of raiders brought captive Hindus past these peaks of perpetual snow. Such bitter journeys gave the range its name Hindu Kush - 'Killer of Hindus'".[5] The World Book Encyclopedia relates that "the name Kush, .. means Death",[6] while the Encyclopædia Britannica says "The name Hindu Kush first appears in 1333 AD in the writings of Ibn Battutah, the medieval Berber traveller, who said the name meant 'Hindu Killer', a meaning still given by Afghan mountain dwellers who are traditional enemies of Indian plainsmen (i.e. Hindus)."[7]
The word Koh or Kuh means "mountain" in some local languages. According to Nigel Allan, Hindu Kush meant both "mountains of India" and "sparkling snows of India", as he notes, from a Central Asian perspective.[8] Others maintain that the name Hindu Kush is probably a corruption of Hindi-Kash or Hindi-Kesh, the boundary of Hind (i.e. India).[9]

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Did the Persians or the Babylonians massacre tens of millions in histories greatest genocides. There was two parts to the claim I was responding to. An genocidal claim and an imperialistic cause attributed to Christian cultures as being responsible for it. I was not countering imperialism alone or genocide alone but a combination of the two. Unless I am integrating two recent subjects incorrectly.

Hmm I think the sacking of Jerusalem was pretty close to an attempted Genocide, but not everyone was killed some where just carried off as slaves by the Babylonians. But I don't know how common genocide was back in those times, it probably wasn't all that practical unless to make a point.

 

[Ingledsva]

But they were worshiping a false god. Now at least they have heard about the love of Jesus and his Father and have a chance to live in heaven with him forever. Isn't that wonderful.

No it isn't.

 

[johnhanks]

10. We have the shortest wait time of any industrialized country for non-emergency care. The worst is Britain which is a wealthy nation but with a government that has taken over health care.

Still waiting for your link to the UK's "official declaration" that the NHS is an abject failure. Couldn't be you made that up, could it?

 

[Ingledsva]

Yep I'm sure you would be right there murdering other civilizations for your God, using the false premise that you and your religion are superior to them, - so it is OK!

Come on man. Is there anything you will not say? I was in the most lethal military in human history and in two wars. If I had wished to kill people who disagree with me then why didn't I accept duty offered to me that would have enabled it? Never mind you do not know me and nothing I said justifies this base and childish comment. You normally do not stoop this low so I will ignore this one.

ING -- This was said because you consistently defend any atrocity done in the name of your God. All it takes for you to say it is OK, is to attach YHVH to it.

*

I said I have a basis for concluding that wrong is wrong. You do not. I did not say anything about what actions my faith demanded or promoted. Jesus died for every human on earth (including the Aztecs). Good luck trying to claim faith in him is a mandate for genocide. My God that is absurd.

ING -- And it has been pointed out to you -rightly - that this is a false statement. We do not need your god to be moral, or treat other people with respect.


*

What I have said all along is that religions do not have the right to destroy cultures.

So if I massacre a nation for personal reasons, evolutionary race superiority theories, and by virtue of by eliminating God I have eliminated any claim that life is sacred, men are equal, or have objective value, I am free and clear. It is only a religion that cannot counter ignorance.

Let me restate. Does truth have any sovereignty over falsehood in your views, even if that falsehood is called a culture?

ING -- Don't twist what I say. We are on a religions board discussing religion.

As to "truth," who's? You believe in YHVH, so that is your truth. What you hold as truth, and good, is not necessarily the same as what others hold.



*

The idea that the religions that did this had some moral right, or were superior, is ludicrous. They were torturing, murdering, raping. They were no better then the cultures they attacked, and often worse.

I believe I have established two things that render this claim moot.

1. You will cherry pick exceptions from any source (whether they had any basis in fact or not) and then make them the rule to allow condemnation of an obviously superior system.
2. You will term anything with any label necessary to indict it by semantics.

ING -- This is pure bull. We know they murdered, raped, tortured, etc. They also fought with and murdered their European neighbors. They were just as barbaric, or more so, then the cultures they destroyed. They did not have the right to destroy a culture because they thought themselves superior, or that they had the right religion, or they wanted their gold.


*

You said Alaska native children that were kidnapped from their parents, forced into Government Christian boarding schools, beaten if they used their language - or non Christian names - or their own religion, - were better off.

I do not remember saying. I said you are in a better position to know. I simply accepted it and made a point that included it without loosing it's general justification.

ING -- You specifically said they were better off.


*

Let me illustrate it again.

The Aztecs brutally suppressed their neighbors. In a barbaric and ignorant culture they exceeded all of them in brutality. They cut the hearts out of their neighbors while still alive on an industrial scale.

ING -- And the Spanish tossed infants into drums over a fire, and made their parents listen to their screams as they burned and their flesh was ripped from their little bodies, - in the name of the Christian God. You can look up European history and their murder and torture in the name of their God. They were FAR more barbaric then the Aztecs ever thought of being.

Now if the only solution to this was to, by force (which means when men are involved brutality will occur in exceptional cases) overthrow the ruling class and the system that perpetuated this. Would that not be in the long run a justifiable act that could and has produced a thousand fold gain for every loss?

Men who consider torture a sacred CULTURAL necessity and who thrive on oppressing others will not stop it without a fight. A fight always will include some barbarity and cruelty by necessity.

ING -- Gee, sounds to me like the inquisition - a sacred cultural necessity to torture and murder. And as I'm sure you know - Europeans tortured and murdered each other over land, thrones, which denomination of Christianity was the correct one, etc.


*

Alaska natives were not fighting anyone when this atrocious kidnapping, abuse, and purposeful destroying of their ancient culture took place.

Are you suggesting Alaskan's alone in human history had none of the violent tendencies of man which out of the last 5000 years included 300 years of peace? No tribal wars, no diabolical superstitious rites, no barbarity, no cruelty, and no oppression. I have no idea what is true of Alaskan natives but judging by human nature it's self I find your claim bizarre. I never suggested that whatever occurred in Alaska was justifiable anyway. It reminded me of a generalized question about the right of the just to overthrow the unjust or the civilized to overthrow the barbarous, and that was what I was asking about.

1. We can discuss what happened in Alaska specifically but I am not that knowledgeable about it.
2. Or we can discuss what the original subject was. The Aztecs.
3. Or we can discuss hostile overthrows in general.

ING -- LOL! As a matter of fact the Alaska natives had been friendly with the Russians, and their Russian Orthodox Priests, for a long time. So friendly in fact, that we still have Russian Orthodox churches and congregations, and native descendants with blond and red hair. These atrocities took place AFTER the USA took possession of Alaska, and sent in other Christian denominations.

*

You can't mix them all up and cry foul. Or shouldn't anyway. You obviously can.

LOL! Who is calling foul? We are having a debate.

*

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I found this interesting:

A hui or council of Moriori elders was convened at the settlement called Te Awapatiki. Despite knowing of the Māori predilection for killing and eating the conquered, and despite the admonition by some of the elder chiefs that the principle of Nunuku was not appropriate now, two chiefs — Tapata and Torea — declared that "the law of Nunuku was not a strategy for survival, to be varied as conditions changed; it was a moral imperative."[14] A Moriori survivor recalled : "[The Maori] commenced to kill us like sheep.... [We] were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed - men, women and children indiscriminately." A Māori conqueror explained, "We took possession... in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped....." [15] The invaders ritually killed some 10% of the population, a ritual that included staking out women and children on the beach and leaving them to die in great pain over several days. The Māori invaders forbade the speaking of the Moriori language. They forced Moriori to desecrate their sacred sites by urinating and defecating on them.[16]

 

[CG Didymus]

No it isn't.

I hope you know I was being sarcastic. I think it's the most appalling thing ever. Even if somehow the imperialistic christian nations justified destroying the culture of so-called "primitive" people and their tribal ways, how do they justify what they did to the middle-eastern countries and to India and China and other Asian countries. They went their to exploit. The morals and ethics they got from their religion were what? Might makes right? Our way or you're dead?

Then the missionaries come in and teach them about the "love" of the christian god? Civilizations and tribes that had existed for 1000's of years were now economic slaves to the whims of the European nations? I don't know what they took from the Eskimo people, but do they really think they helped them? Or, helped themselves to whatever they could take from the Eskimos, especially their freedom and way of life, along with the land and resources.

 

[InChrist]

I think in all this discussion one must consider that there are Christians whose lives have been transformed by Christ and they represent Jesus in their interactions with others and then there are "Christians" in name only whose interactions reveal their own personal or political agendas. There is a huge distinction, the first demonstrates Christ and the second the sinful human nature which the scriptures state that everyone has unless saved and changed by the Savior Jesus Christ.

There are many examples of Christian missionaries who truly respected the culture and sacrificially cared for the people they worked among, one being Amy Carmichael...

"Initially Carmichael traveled to Japan for fifteen months, but after a brief period of service in Ceylon (Sri Lanka), she found her lifelong vocation in India. She was commissioned by the Church of England Zenana Mission. Hindu temple children were young girls dedicated to the gods and forced into prostitution to earn money for the priests i.e. Devadasi. Much of her work was with young ladies, some of whom were saved from forced prostitution.When the children were asked what drew them to Amy,they most often replied It was love.Amma (Amy) loved us.[1] The organization she founded was known as the Dohnavur Fellowship. Dohnavur is situated in Tamil Nadu, thirty miles from the southern tip of India. The fellowship would become a sanctuary for over one thousand children who would otherwise have faced a bleak future.She had often said that her Ministry of rescuing temple children started with a girl named Preena. Having become a temple servant against her wishes, Preena escaped in an opportune day to Amy Carmichael. Amy Carmichael provided her shelter and stood against the threats of the locals, who insisted that the girl be returned. The number of such incidents soon grew and Amy Carmichael's new Ministry began.[2]

Respecting Indian culture, members of the organization wore Indian dress and the children were given Indian names. She herself dressed in Indian clothes, dyed her skin with dark coffee, and often traveled long distances on India's hot, dusty roads to save just one child from suffering."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Carmichael

 

[1robin]

So there's really no way to tell who is just and devoted to god based on a country's military and economic strength.

That is not exactly true. I said God guarantees security nations that follow his message with devotion and he promised he would defend Israel and they would never be removed from their land again after the diaspora (this one is dependent on interpretation but seems to line up). Now what I did not say and which you are for some reason extrapolating from this is:

1. All military strength is a result of Christian blessings. I never said that.
2. All prosperity is a result of Christian blessings. I never said that.
3. All economic weakness is because of disobedience to God. I never said that.

I in fact explained that using that same verse.

Now if I look at the US or whoever when they were acting fairly consistency with Christianity and I see they have the most powerful military and economy in history. I also see that very soon after they drifted towards secularism all that began to change rapidly. I also see that Israel has won wars there exists no military explanation for. BTW you can find recorded miracles in several battle reports from Jewish commanders. I also see in general that when the Catholics betrayed the Bible and God they produced the dark ages. However the instant Christ's freedom was restored life was restored to Europe.


In other words in general things seem to line up with God's promise. However here is even a more specific one and one of the most emphatic in the Bible.

New International Version
Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it.
Malachi 3:10

Here is one of the most remarkable statements in theology as a whole. God is saying I dare you to do as I asked and see if I will not provide what I promised. First let me state I have never known a single Christian who tested God faithfully in this and did not receive exactly what he promised in ways you would not believe. Before you get started let me head you off at the pass as I have learned I must do.

1. This does not say anything about everything always going perfectly.
2. Bad things will happen to even the faithful.
3. It does however suggest that inexplicable blessing will occur because of faithfulness.
4. This also is another unnecessary empirical burden that Christianity assumes without any necessity to do so. If a lie they could have said you will receive rewards in heaven alone. This would mean that no proof should be expected. As usual Biblical authors assumed a burden for evidence they had no need of if lying.


IOW whether Qatar is rich or on fire has nothing to do with anything. BTW did you say Qatar is the richest nation on earth. You must mean using some specific qualifiers.

 

[1robin]

Actually Ghengis Khan wasn't that much of a lunatic. While he did go on some roaring rampages of revenge he was also tolerant of religion and I think the ROman Empire had been disbanded by then. Atilla the Hun was not a fan of Rome but he wasn't a Mongol.

Also some info on Hindu Kush

Some sources state that the term Hindu Kush originally applied only to the peak in the area of the Kushan Pass, which had become a center of the Kushan Empire by the 1st century AD. This mountain range was also called Paropamisadae by Hellenic Greeks in the late first millennium BC.[2]
The Persian-English dictionary[3] indicates that the word Kuš (ک&#1588 is from the verb (kuštan کشت&#1606, meaning "to kill". Although the derivation is only a possible one, some authors have proposed the meaning "Kills the Hindu" for Hindū Kush, a derivation reproduced in Encyclopedia Americana (1993):
The name Hindu Kush means literally 'Kills the Hindu', a reminder of the days when Indian slaves from the Indian subcontinent died in the harsh weather typical of the Afghan mountains while being transported to Central Asia.[4]
A 1958 National Geographic article "West of Khyber Pass" states that "Generations of raiders brought captive Hindus past these peaks of perpetual snow. Such bitter journeys gave the range its name Hindu Kush - 'Killer of Hindus'".[5] The World Book Encyclopedia relates that "the name Kush, .. means Death",[6] while the Encyclopædia Britannica says "The name Hindu Kush first appears in 1333 AD in the writings of Ibn Battutah, the medieval Berber traveller, who said the name meant 'Hindu Killer', a meaning still given by Afghan mountain dwellers who are traditional enemies of Indian plainsmen (i.e. Hindus)."[7]
The word Koh or Kuh means "mountain" in some local languages. According to Nigel Allan, Hindu Kush meant both "mountains of India" and "sparkling snows of India", as he notes, from a Central Asian perspective.[8] Others maintain that the name Hindu Kush is probably a corruption of Hindi-Kash or Hindi-Kesh, the boundary of Hind (i.e. India).[9]

Genghis Kahn claimed to be the scourge of God and sent to punish Rome. That does not sound rational to me coming from a barbarian. An angel maybe, a warlord from Russian's steps not so much. However his relative sanity was not the central issue. I have also noticed any issue except for the central issue will be discussed but never it.

Someone claimed Christianity was responsible for histories great genocides. My claims were only to illustrate the absurdity of that claim. The issue was who and what happened in India not what the name Hindu Kush means.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Genghis Kahn claimed to be the scourge of God and sent to punish Rome. That does not sound rational to me coming from a barbarian. An angel maybe, a warlord from Russian's steps not so much. However his relative sanity was not the central issue. I have also noticed any issue except for the central issue will be discussed but never it.

Someone claimed Christianity was responsible for histories great genocides. My claims were only to illustrate the absurdity of that claim. The issue was who and what happened in India not what the name Hindu Kush means.

By the time Ghengis Khan came into power, Rome had already fallen. So no Ghengis Khan did not "hate Rome" you are thinking of Attila the Hun (two different historical characters).

But what happened to India was not related to the Hindu Kush though, not at least your statement. I didn't find anything there that spoke of being burned by fire by those who practice Islam. I did find info that there were Indian slaves who were brought through those passes and one of the reasons for the names. I was curious to why you brought that up, from what I found it did not seem that you had used a reliable source. But I am open up to finding more information.

 

[1robin]

By the time Ghengis Khan came into power, Rome had already fallen. So no Ghengis Khan did not "hate Rome" you are thinking of Attila the Hun (two different historical characters).

But what happened to India was not related to the Hindu Kush though, not at least your statement. I didn't find anything there that spoke of being burned by fire by those who practice Islam. I did find info that there were Indian slaves who were brought through those passes and one of the reasons for the names. I was curious to why you brought that up, from what I found it did not seem that you had used a reliable source. But I am open up to finding more information.

You are absolutely correct. I get them confused because they were so similar.

I need more specificity in your question about India. Are you saying the Muslims did not instigate what many claim is the worst genocide in history, in India? Or are you saying the label Hindu Kush arose from another event. I think I pasted that info so I will have to investigate why they stated what you disagree with.

Keep in mind my original claim was a response to the claim that Christianity is the cause of the greatest genocides. My point was that it certainly was not. Any mistake I made in 2nd or 3rd tier details has no effect on my response. I have no problem correcting them or admitting them but want to make sure you understood the purpose of my statements.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Keep in mind my original claim was a response to the claim that Christianity is the cause of the greatest genocides. My point was that it certainly was not.

Can you point me to the message in which someone claims that Christianity is the cause of the greatest genocides. I've sorta suspected that might be the case but haven't been convinced of it, Christianity being so new. But I would like to review that person's argument and examples. Thanks.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You are absolutely correct. I get them confused because they were so similar.

I need more specificity in your question about India. Are you saying the Muslims did not instigate what many claim is the worst genocide in history, in India? Or are you saying the label Hindu Kush arose from another event. I think I pasted that info so I will have to investigate why they stated what you disagree with.

Keep in mind my original claim was a response to the claim that Christianity is the cause of the greatest genocides. My point was that it certainly was not. Any mistake I made in 2nd or 3rd tier details has no effect on my response. I have no problem correcting them or admitting them but want to make sure you understood the purpose of my statements.

More that the source you used does not seem reliable. It may not have an impact on your response but it is still something I would caution. In research providing unreliable sources to defend yourself lends target for the rest of your argument as well.

Christian led empires have their fair share of genocides under their belt, but I would not say it was the greatest. There's plenty of reasons though for how and why genocide is implemented. The religious beliefs are only a small segment of that.

As far as I see, Genocide is indicative of humans not necessarily the religions that they preach.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

As far as I see, Genocide is indicative of humans not necessarily the religions that they preach.

To me it seems that genocide is a product of tribalism. Tribes hate and sometimes kill other tribes.

And with humans, the tribe can be a mental one. A religion. We're surely the only animal which kills our fellows for thinking incorrect thoughts.

 

[johnhanks]

That is not exactly true. I said God guarantees security nations that follow his message with devotion and he promised he would defend Israel and they would never be removed from their land again after the diaspora (this one is dependent on interpretation but seems to line up). Now what I did not say and which you are for some reason extrapolating from this is:

1. All military strength is a result of Christian blessings. I never said that.
2. All prosperity is a result of Christian blessings. I never said that.
3. All economic weakness is because of disobedience to God. I never said that.

This seems a classic case of insisting you're right whatever the evidence. You want us to believe that your god rewards nations faithful to him (x) with prosperity and power (y) - i.e. that x implies y. At the same time you deny any significance to cases where x has not led to y (Uganda?) or where y exists without x (Sweden?). Don't you see that this renders your argument threadbare?

 

[1robin]

This seems a classic case of insisting you're right whatever the evidence. You want us to believe that your god rewards nations faithful to him (x) with prosperity and power (y) - i.e. that x implies y. At the same time you deny any significance to cases where x has not led to y (Uganda?) or where y exists without x (Sweden?). Don't you see that this renders your argument threadbare?

I cannot understand why this is confusing.

My claim: God promised to protect and prosper those faithful to him.

1. The criteria is faithfulness to him.
2. Whatever happens in any nation not faithful to him is not part of the discussion.
3. A secular an unfaithful nation may prosper, it may fail. It has no relevance to his promise.
4. If that nation turns it's back on him he promised negative results would incur.
5. If a nation was not faithful and did not turn it's back on him they do not qualify under this promise.

Now the best examples to consider IMO would be 1930 - 1950 US. We were a relatively faithful nation and were blessed more than any nation in history. We started turning our back on God in the 60's. Almost every way in which you can evaluate our success, security, and moral soundness has decreased steadily since then.

I made secondary but similar claims.

1. God promised to bless anyone who faithfully tithed. In my experience that has ben true in ways you would never believe.
2. God promised (if interpretations are accurate) to never allow Israel to be removed from their land again after the diaspora. They have systematically fought some of the most lopsided (against them) battles in history and just as often obtained some of the most lopsided (in their favor) victories in history.

I would say this gives reasonable evidence to suggest God's promises are true. I making this a little too general and black and white but more detail is not necessary at the moment.

What happens in Qatar, Libya, or the Congo is not subject to the promises.

In summary evaluation is only valid for nations that meet the criteria.

It is a better argument than many in science. Mine is falsifiable, many of theirs are not. Why are theirs accepted as valid yet you reject mine as invalid?

 

[1robin]

Can you point me to the message in which someone claims that Christianity is the cause of the greatest genocides. I've sorta suspected that might be the case but haven't been convinced of it, Christianity being so new. But I would like to review that person's argument and examples. Thanks.

I would do so even for you ambiguous guy but it has been quite a few posts back and I do not remember who began it. So I have no advantage over you in finding it and I am certain far less time to do so.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I would do so even for you ambiguous guy but it has been quite a few posts back and I do not remember who began it. So I have no advantage over you in finding it and I am certain far less time to do so.

Are you sure it exists? Sometimes we get confused in our argumentation. It happens to everyone.

Tell me who made the claim that Christians are responsible for most genocides. Maybe I can find it that way.