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

[1robin]

According to your earlier remarks I'd be OK, wouldn't I? Wouldn't god have sent them to my house to put me right on a few things?

I have never said God directly sent Cortez. I suggested he may have used Cortez. Regardless it did not end too well for 20 million Mexicans. If sent it was not a teaching exercise (at least not for that generation) it would have been punitive. I however make no claim to knowledge either way. Cortez was there for greed and himself almost exclusively. If God used him it was secondary and periodic.

I'm not sure you can literally "hate" such a remote and alien culture; revulsion isn't quite the same thing, and as I said earlier I'm glad not to have been born into that time and place. But some of their art is superb.

Art is subjective. Some of my family went there and they were repulsed by much of the art work. My Dad "and I still would not have believed it, if not from him" said they had a game there somewhere where the winners got their heads chopped off. I hate the culture whether I knew it's adherents or not. The same with the Nazis and Stalin's communist elite. I can hate what a world view produced regardless of whether I know anyone personally who participated. I also do not like art from a diseased mind even if well made. I can't look at the "screaming man" or Salvador Dali.

Tempting, of course, to get in a cheap shot and say I'd hate any tribe whose religious leaders commanded the extermination of entire cities, women and infants and all. But as I said it's hard literally to hate such a remote and alien culture, so again I'll settle for revulsion.

I hate that it was necessary. For example the Canaanites (as archeology has confirmed) walled up children alive in foundations, and made them walk through fire. They raided the Israelites specifically at harvest time and led to massive starvation. The Bible said God tried for a long time to get them to repent and turn around and only after their cup of iniquity was full were they attacked. Now if even slightly true we are not discussing equalities here. I am revolted at all killing but also know in this world it is at times necessary. It is hard for me to hate a culture that defended it's self from harvest time raids, but it is easy to hate one that was given a bride for their king and proceeded to skin her alive and then wear the skin back to their neighbors camp. With this event the Aztecs became a separate entity and were confined to a miserable island. From there they tortured, raped, and cut the hearts out of even their allies by the tens of thousands. I can easily hate that.

Hate is really not the issue. It is moral insanity.

BTW no genocide occurred concerning the Canaanites or any other culture. They appear prominently in the bible for centuries afterwards and the Jews paid dearly for their corrupting influence.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

For example the Canaanites (as archeology has confirmed) walled up children alive in foundations...

I'd be curious to hear your evidence fo this. ('Archeology' certainly has not confirmed it, by the way.)

...and made them walk through fire. They raided the Israelites specifically at harvest time and led to massive starvation. The Bible said God tried for a long time to get them to repent and turn around and only after their cup of iniquity was full were they attacked.

Don't believe everything you read in books written by the victors.

 

[adi2d]

You guys are easily impressed. What in the world was funny about it? I have no compulsion against admitting something was humorous regardless of source and have done so immediately and am know for a good sense of humor as much as anything. I do not even see the potentiality for humor in it. It is just a rational absurdity with no punch line and no witty reference point. Of course humor is subjective but I do not even think that would explain it.

You say you are known for your sense of humor. Now is your chance to show it
Give us a joke we will all think is funny.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That is the whole problem. Having a million insincere and (far worse), non humorous attempts at humor, is not something to be bragged about.

Right. Which is why I only brag about my sincere and humorous attempts at humor.

I could even take that if included with challenging and sincere attempts at scholarship and evidence but I do not even have that.

Yes, I believe most everyone here understands that you do not even have challenging and sincere attempts at scholarship... but I don't think that's something to be bragged about!

 

[1robin]

I'd be curious to hear your evidence fo this. ('Archeology' certainly has not confirmed it, by the way.)

Come off it man. Human skeletons are not rare in foundational deposits in many cultures. Nor is the pouring of human blood over a foundation before the building is erected on it. Even modern less diabolical versions of the ancient practice are still in use.

The Canaanites originated the practices of demon-worship, occult rites, child sacrifice and cannibalism. Eustace Mullins, The Curse of Canaan p. 8 (1987). They sacrificed children to Molech (a Semitic god). Mike Warnke, Schemes of Satan p. 29 (1991). In Palestine numerous bodies of children were discovered in the foundations of buildings proving without doubt that oblations of this character were common among Canaanites to strengthen the walls of homes and cities. Edwin O. James, Sacrifice and Sacrament, p. 94 (1962). The priests of the Canaanites, to control the populace, claimed that the first-born children were to be sacrificed to their demon gods (Isaiah 57:3-5). They practiced their horrible rites in "groves" or "shrines" where they could "murder children without being seen and punished by the descendents of Shem" Eustace Mullins, The Curse of Canaan, p. 24 (1987).

Child sacrifice , Israelite or Canannite? Now taken over by SW Baptist seminary: evidenceL

The whole area of the High Place was found on excavation to be a cemetery of new-born infants. That these infants were all the victims of sacrifice is suggested by their close association with the High Place, and confirmed by the fact that two at least displayed marks of fire. These infants were deposited in large jars, which were large two-handled, pointed* base vessels. Their position is indicated on the plans by the letter j. The body was usually put in head first; generally two or three smaller vessels-usually a bowl and a jug-were deposited either inside the jar between the body and the mouth of the vessel, or else outside and close by the large jar. None of these smaller vessels .contained organic remains or other deposits, and no ornaments or other objects were deposited with the bodies. The large jars were all badly cracked, and none of them could be even partially rescued. All were filled with earth, covering the bone and pottery deposits, but whether the earth was put in at the time of burial, or washed in afterwards I could not certainly decide from the indications afforded. So far as these excessively delicate bones could be examined, no evidence was found that the bodies were mutilated in any way. The photograph of a similar jar-burial, from a foundation deposit (fig. 513, post, p. 432) may be referred to. The High Place burials were identical in appearance.

ch 10, vol2 , THE
EXCAVATION OF GEZER, R. A. STEWART MACALISTER

It also shows up even in primitive Jewish cultures after they had exposure to the Canaanites.

It is almost universally certain the Canaanites revered Molek. It has always been assumed Molek was a God who demanded sacrifices. It is now thought the term meant human sacrifice it's self.

It took me about 45 seconds to find scholarly claims about what I stated. Of course you are going to invent some half satirical to deny what you wish to so I am not investing much time with you on this. Most of my claims come from a secular book called OT warfare I have at home.

Don't believe everything you read in books written by the victors.

This is not a us versus them claim. The Canaanites in many ways were the same people the later Jewish culture came from. They are all us and are all them. It was the returning Jewish tribes from Egypt that ran into their ancestors mixed with other races back in Canaan that were doing these things and Israel because THEY DID NOT wipe out the Canaanites later adopted the practice in small groups and at times. When the traditional Jews got way out of line they were no more spared God's wrath than their neighbors.

 

[1robin]

You say you are known for your sense of humor. Now is your chance to show it
Give us a joke we will all think is funny.

Humor on demand is not very humorous. I also never use canned jokes. I am more like a Larry David observational commentator. I occasionally make satirical comments but the issue demands I keep the satire to a minimum in debate. I also will not be commanded to do anything unnecessary by anyone.

 

[1robin]

Right. Which is why I only brag about my sincere and humorous attempts at humor.

You sir have bragged about every conceivable quality including prophet-hood and language expertise.

Yes, I believe most everyone here understands that you do not even have challenging and sincere attempts at scholarship... but I don't think that's something to be bragged about!

Well that was it. I no longer can justify this for the time being.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You sir have bragged about every conceivable quality including prophet-hood and language expertise.

It's not bragging if it's true.

Anyway, if you'll notice, I usually only brag in response to your own bragging. I find arrogance to be downright hilarious. I can't help parody it.

 

[adi2d]

Humor on demand is not very humorous. I also never use canned jokes. I am more like a Larry David observational commentator. I occasionally make satirical comments but the issue demands I keep the satire to a minimum in debate. I also will not be commanded to do anything unnecessary by anyone.

If you can't or won't share a universal joke just say so. Excuses are not necessary.
I believe you said you were in the military so if true I know you did things you were commanded to do

 

[1robin]

If you can't or won't share a universal joke just say so. Excuses are not necessary.
I believe you said you were in the military so if true I know you did things you were commanded to do

I thought I has said I was not going to do so in no uncertain terms. I also had a rational basis behind my orders. On occasion I was given arbitrary and unjustifiable orders and I rarely followed them if ever. Modern American soldiers are to be obedient, but rationally so.

 

[adi2d]

I thought I has said I was not going to do so in no uncertain terms. I also had a rational basis behind my orders. On occasion I was given arbitrary and unjustifiable orders and I rarely followed them if ever. Modern American soldiers are to be obedient, but rationally so.

You said you don't take unnecessary orders. Now you're changing it to unjustifiable. The two words are not interchangeable. Maybe if you want to be understood you could choose your words more carefully. Not a command. Just a suggestion

 

[1robin]

You said you don't take unnecessary orders. Now you're changing it to unjustifiable. The two words are not interchangeable. Maybe if you want to be understood you could choose your words more carefully. Not a command. Just a suggestion

The two word are constantly used in the same realm of application. Maybe I should instead my discussion counterpart would take words as they are commonly used and obviously used by me. Unjustifiable demands are by necessity unnecessary. Have we really gotten to the point that the semantics concerning my reasons for refusing silly requests and unjustifiable orders is relevant?

We could sell very few tickets to this travesty of relevance.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Come off it man. Human skeletons are not rare in foundational deposits in many cultures. Nor is the pouring of human blood over a foundation before the building is erected on it. Even modern less diabolical versions of the ancient practice are still in use.

If (since) you have no evidence that Caananite children were walled up alive in foundations, why don't you just retract your claim? Why continue blustering and presenting false information?

The Canaanites originated the practices of demon-worship, occult rites, child sacrifice and cannibalism. Eustace Mullins, The Curse of Canaan p. 8 (1987). They sacrificed children to Molech (a Semitic god).

Archeology has proved that Moses and his followerers were barbecuing and eating their own children at this same time. So why did God have the Jews destroy the Caananites -- since the Jews were even more evil than the Caananites?

The priests of the Canaanites, to control the populace, claimed that the first-born children were to be sacrificed to their demon gods (Isaiah 57:3-5).

Be skeptical of history written by the victors. Sometimes they fudge the facts about their enemies.

 

[1robin]

If (since) you have no evidence that Caananite children were walled up alive in foundations, why don't you just retract your claim? Why continue blustering and presenting false information?



Archeology has proved that Moses and his followerers were barbecuing and eating their own children at this same time. So why did God have the Jews destroy the Caananites -- since the Jews were even more evil than the Caananites?



Be skeptical of history written by the victors. Sometimes they fudge the facts about their enemies.

I guess post 2665 doe snot exist in that universe you have created and inhabit.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I guess post 2665 doe snot exist in that universe you have created and inhabit.

The post seems to exist. It just contains no evidence about children being walled up alive in foundations.

When we can find no evidence to support our claims, the honest thing is to retract our claims.

Do you retract your claim now?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The Canaanites originated the practices of demon-worship, occult rites, child sacrifice and cannibalism. Eustace Mullins, The Curse of Canaan p. 8 (1987). They sacrificed children to Molech (a Semitic god). Mike Warnke, Schemes of Satan p. 29 (1991). In Palestine numerous bodies of children were discovered in the foundations of buildings proving without doubt that oblations of this character were common among Canaanites to strengthen the walls of homes and cities. Edwin O. James, Sacrifice and Sacrament, p. 94 (1962). The priests of the Canaanites, to control the populace, claimed that the first-born children were to be sacrificed to their demon gods (Isaiah 57:3-5). They practiced their horrible rites in "groves" or "shrines" where they could "murder children without being seen and punished by the descendents of Shem" Eustace Mullins, The Curse of Canaan, p. 24 (1987).

Eustace Mullins and Mike Warnke are your "sources"?! Who are you going to use next, Henry Makow and David Icke?! Mullins was a Jew-hating Holocaust denier and Warnke is a proven fraudster who helped to perpetrate the "satanic panic" hoax of the '80s and '90s.

Eustace Mullins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mike Warnke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, that paragraph is copy+pasted from a racist, antisemitic, conspiracy site: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/edomites.htm

You have zero credibility at this point. Are you also a racist, antisemitic, conspiracy theorist? You apparently don't mind using them as sources!

 

[johnhanks]

Cortez was there for greed and himself almost exclusively. If God used him it was secondary and periodic.

And a remarkably poor choice for a morally perfect being. How do you distinguish your view that god might have used Cortes from that of loonies who claim god sent Hitler to punish the Jews?

Art is subjective. Some of my family went there and they were repulsed by much of the art work. My Dad "and I still would not have believed it, if not from him" said they had a game there somewhere where the winners got their heads chopped off.

The sacred ball game is more associated with the Maya, I think. You can still visit the ball court at Chichen Itza; and it's the losing team who apparently on some occasions were killed.

I hate the culture whether I knew it's adherents or not.

OK, I'll still quibble over the word hate, which I'd reserve for things I can feel connected to. I'd opt for "deplore".

I hate that it was necessary. For example the Canaanites (as archeology has confirmed) walled up children alive in foundations, and made them walk through fire.

I'd be interested to read how archaeology confirms these factoids.

They raided the Israelites specifically at harvest time and led to massive starvation.

Sounds like clever strategy if you're a neutral observer; not, of course, if you can see the Israelites only as innocent good guys.

The Bible said God tried for a long time to get them to repent ...

... but that was beyond god's capabilities?

Hate is really not the issue. It is moral insanity.

A term many would apply to ordering the slaughter of your enemies' babies.

 

[cottage]

You left the argument at hand completely and restated one used a while back. I have already addressed this. Creation is an expression of will or choice not a necessity. God chose to create he did not have and no necessity issues impact most choices. Necessity simply has no relevance in God's choice to create. I do finally get your benefit to non-existent creatures claim. You must have worded it differently. I do not know that benefit would be the operative word. I think being thankful for what was received would be more applicable. I may not have existed at one time, I would still be infinitely glad and fortunate to spend eternity in complete contentment with God. I would not choose to instead have never been created, instead. BTW in my view that is what occurs if you reject God. You get exactly what you chose. An eternity with him and infinite joy over it (whether I had once not existed or not), or non-existence. If I am eternally full of joy and consider the gain infinite does it really matter what philosophic gymnastics are used to suggest I should not be. I have a lot of reasons to doubt your benefit clause but it would take a long time to lay them out. The end result would render the effort moot anyway.

To make things a little easier to follow we’ll track back apiece. I said this:
“God is the sole creator, perfectly good and all powerful. Yet he punishes the vulnerable, fallible and error-prone beings of his own making. And yet he is not logically compelled to cause suffering in his creation and therefore there can be no special conditions that insulate God from the actions or effects of his works.”
To which you replied:

“It was not a statement that includes a conclusion. It was a premise that does not lend it's self to a conclusion beyond what I would expect given God and the purpose of creation. Again you must show ends do not justify the means. I do not think you or anyone even has the theoretical capacity to make any kind of determination about that.”

I replied thus (read it in conjunction with the paragraph you responded to):
“If God lies under no necessity to create worlds, then he certainly lies under no necessity to create humans. That he did so provokes the question: why when God is self-sufficient in all things does he seek a relationship with and glorification from his creation? And remember that creatures that didn’t formerly exist cannot benefit in any way by being brought into existence to experience God’s love. So the act of creation itself is incoherent.”

You then say this: “I may not have existed at one time, I would still be infinitely glad and fortunate to spend eternity in complete contentment with God. I would not choose to instead have never been created, instead.”

The point here, which should be obvious, is that you are in no position to say what you would rather do, antecedently, because you didn’t in fact exist! You can only be pleased after an event, which may or may not have occurred. Therefore you couldn’t profit or gain from being created, and God, the Supreme Being, could not gain or profit it any way from your creation. This is just very basic, logical stuff.

 

[cottage]

All of these objections are countered by purpose. You must show a God is inconsistent with his revelation by the adopting of his purpose. Since all aspects of reality follow necessarily from purpose the only chance of contradiction is in purpose. We would save a lot of time discussing purpose alone instead of objections to deductive necessities given purpose. I still claim this is one big ole false optimization fallacy at it's core.

You are attempting to circumnavigate the contradiction while leaving it soundly in place. And the argument to purpose, as I’ve shown in the previous post, is also a demonstrable contradiction. You’re alluding to God having reasons, but even if there are reasons it makes not a jot of difference to the logical contradiction, for he has compromised and retracted his supposed all loving and merciful nature by resorting to them. If, for an example, a state described itself as pacifist and said it would never make war, then that statement defines a self-concept. But if faced with an unprovoked attack the state would have a morally sufficient reason to resort to violent means in order to defend itself. But by definition it would then no longer identify as a pacifist state. Now please see my reply below, which also deals with this matter.

Of course he can. If a lack of mercy is required by perfect justice he could do not other.

I’m sorry but that is quite absurd! If God is all merciful then he cannot be unmerciful, and a single negative instance proves the contradiction. If all swans are white then no swans are black, but by your reasoning they can be! A thing is the same as itself (A=A) and cannot both be and not be what it is at the same time and in the same way.
And “perfect justice” is merely a remedy to address evil, which would not be necessary if God were perfectly good and all merciful. Think about it?

NO beyond any other claim you have made this one is unknowable. You can't possibly know suffering is some kind of objective test of ultimate moral justification. It is an obvious fact suffering produces good and that certain actions merit suffering in a just system.

Here you have introduced yet another absurdity by proposing that suffering, which is demonstrably unnecessary if God is all loving and all powerful, produces good. And what is the object of this “goodness” if not the alleviation of evil and suffering? So, your argument is that suffering produces good in order to alleviate suffering! That is to make a truly nonsensical circuit, which simply restates the problem while leaving it unanswered! A good person in a possible world that is all good can logically do an even greater good, without there ever being any need for people to suffer. If suffering must facilitate good then that is tacit confirmation of no perfectly good and all merciful God.

A conclusion derived from a false premise is of no use.

Then please identify the “false premise”? Is it the Major premise: can a thing both be and not be? Or is it premise #2 that restates the major premise? Or is it premise #3: no evidential case to be made for suffering?

Was this your argument capable of judging God?

I’m not judging God since I happen to think there is no such thing. I am judging, or rather I am examining, your arguments.

1. You have no idea if suffering is evil or not. You can't.

Irrelevant! But I do know two things, that suffering causes great pain and distress to my fellow human beings and that it is unnecessary given a God who had it in his power never to inflict it on the world.

2. Only if God exists can any suffering ever be evil.

3. Whether it was evil or good depends on the moral justifications for allowing it and that requires the existence of what you deny to begin with.

2 and 3. My argument is not concerned with the term “evil” but with the effects and evidence of pain and suffering, given the supposed existence of a wholly good and benevolent deity.

4. What is actually good would almost certainly not be in general what a creature as fallible as we think it is.

Special pleading.

5. It is no difference from ants telling Newton how to do calculus or a child telling a parent they are mean because neither have the necessary knowledge to accurately determine either.

Argument from ignorance.

You must have a God to have evil. The existence of evil is used constantly as evidence for God. The suffering of a biological anomalous bag of atoms has no objective moral significance. It requires a moral law to differentiate the two, this requires a moral law giver. A moral law giver is moral law. That is all technical necessity and not my main point.

Intentionally causing a child to suffer pain and die in agony demonstrates that there is no God-given moral law. And there is no distinction to be made, in the effect, between God or a human causing that child’s suffering, but because God permitted it to be so then he is indirectly but nevertheless causally culpable. By every argument, suffering is relative to God’s will and on that account there can be no objective morality. A thing is either objectively right or it is not.

My main point is that once purpose is allowed everything else is a necessity. You must show that purpose is contradictory to God's essence or character. I do not think a human can meaningfully even begin to do this. The effort seems hyper-trivial.

But purpose, as God wanting a relationship with his creation, can never be necessary unless mankind is necessary for God, which is self-evidently absurd and directly in contradiction to God’s supreme nature. This is self-apparent and shouldn’t need any explaining.

 

[cottage]

I do not believe God is the cause of all subsequent events. I think determinism regardless of source is a failed argument. I also do not believe he upholds all occurrences directly. I believe human choice is basically automatous and that God set up a system to sustain but not determine our environment. When man fell he stopped supervising all events for optimality and left us victim to natural law and our own choices. I do not claim we are completely severed from God's influence but his influence generally does not determine choice either.

Consider first St Thomas’ view on divine determinism:

Just as God not only gave being to things when they first began, but is also – as the conserving cause of being – the cause of their being as long as they lat…so he not only gave things their operative powers when they were first created, but is always the cause of these in things. Hence if this divine essence stopped, every operation would stop. Every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to him as its cause.*

St Thomas would seem to be correct. Everything contingent thing, according to the cosmological argument, has cause of existence and a reason for its continued being. This cause, say theists, is God. So if humans are able to act autonomously then their actions are by definition uncaused, and in which case the cosmological argument is false. But if God “set up a system” to sustain our environment then that it to say he determined it. And by the same argument “natural law is not something that exists independently of its creator but is contingent upon God for every minute of its existence. Concerning the matter of choice it is instructive to consider David Hume who said, of our thoughts and ideas that there are three principles of connection, namely Resemblance, Contiguity, and Cause and Effect.** And I think we can agree with Hume when he says the truth of that will not be much in doubt. But it is that last principle which is of particular interest, where every idea proceeds from some other thought or idea. And we must ask where this causal process has its inception, for there can not be an infinite regress? That being the case, then the cause of the ideas must come from an uncaused cause, be that God or some other thing. (The foregoing is upon the condition of course that there can be no uncaused cause, a principle that in fact implies no contradiction if denied).

*Aquinas, Summer contra Gentiles, III, 67

**Hume’s Enquiries, 1777, On the Association of ideas.