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

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I was not speaking of Carthage. The children found in Canaanite sites were found in the exact same vessels known to be employed in lamp and bowl sacrificial ceremonies. Over the years what was placed in these deposits varied but their nature did not. There are so few remains of Canaanite life I will willingly concede no certainty exists but faith does not require certainty. In fact it only requires no defeaters to exist. I raise my bar to best explanation or best fit. IMO the totality of the evidence suggests child sacrifice was a common Canaanite practice. In fact after reviewing what that is based on I thing the evidence is more than enough to justify that conclusion concerning at least Canaanite's but I do not know about Carthaginians. Did you bring up Carthage to hint at the Phoenician connection?

That was a continuation of the wiki article in your post. What is indicated is that child sacrifice was common among all nations, but not necessarily common within the individual cultures. Did it happen? Yes, was it common? Doubtful. Was it widely practiced by the populace? Doubtful. There isn't enough evidence to support that claim.

 

[johnhanks]

There are so few remains of Canaanite life I will willingly concede no certainty exists but faith does not require certainty.

A few posts back you said archaeological evidence had confirmed child sacrifice (and something about being kids being forced to walk over hot coals, as I recall). The confirmation now turns out to be your own faith that it is true.

I raise my bar to best explanation or best fit. ... after reviewing what that is based on I thing the evidence is more than enough to justify that conclusion

Actually you seem to have lowered the bar quite a lot, from the previously claimed archaeological confirmation to what you think might be true.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well thank you for tolerating me your worshipfulness. Perhaps your patience will run out soon.

It is no problem. Noblesse oblige -- in all things intellectual -- has of course been my necessary burden.

Or not get to close to a ball of hot gas.

Not bad. Especially if you came up with it on your own.

 

[1robin]

I wasn't saying that you dismiss him, I was just wondering why you think he's biased.

Because on when forced will he explain what his numbers actually mean and he contradicts himself often.

Ehrman describes his born-again experience in the Introduction of Misquoting Jesus. It happened while he was a sophomore in high school.

This claim (made by very very few people) has always completely baffled me. In the few cases where I can inquire I find their born again experiences do not line up with my research. It is kind of like being in love. If you have been you know it but if you have not been you want so badly to think you have you mistake other things for it. But let us take him at his word. It is the equivalent of saying you knew of a rare drug that would cure X. You took it and X was cured. Later you decided that not only did the medicine not work, the doctor was not a doctor, and the medical field is invalid. I do not see how that claim can be made by anyone. However if he made this claim (one I have never heard him make in at least 3 debates) I will have to retract my claim.

His name sounds familiar. I may have seen him in a debate or two.

I think most Islamic apologists stink and are hostile but Shabir is a pleasure to hear.

 

[1robin]

The whole point is that your god commands people to murder other people?

That is a meaningless point. A perfect God terminating a life he gave that was woefully misused and corrupted is exactly appropriate even if a human proxy is used. The only meaningful claim would be that he preferred that event to occur and I have made it clear he does not. Punishing the wicked and even collateral damage used to prevent the inevitable corruption of the innocent, especially when using a proxy is easily understood.

I do not see any problem here. Both I, most Christians, and God regret the necessity but it is still necessary given freewill.

Apparently "he" does, yes. Including women, children and infants, as specified.

Again this is only meaningful if the command was preferred by him instead of a logical necessity brought on by our actions. You must show he preferred our choices incur his wrath if you want to make a persuasive point. You can't. A perfect God and a wayward world will inevitably be in conflict. The only wonder is why we do not see more of his justified wrath.

We are just lowly sinners, according to you. We are not your god.

I think all three of those are obvious truths but they have nothing to do with my analogy. I was not saying we can never be right because we are not God. However my main point was that we value in general, exactly what you condemn.

I'm talking about the verses I cited. In the Bible, commanded Saul to go out and kill a whole population of people, including their sheep and other animals, women, children and infants (" so listen now to the message from the Lord ... "). When Saul did all of that but left the sheep alive, god became angry because Saul didn't follow his orders. Samuel then gives Saul a message from god. What is that message?

22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”
1 Samuel 15 - The LORD Rejects Saul as King - Samuel - Bible Gateway

The message apparently is that we're supposed to do exactly as god tells us without question, even if that means we have to kill infants and children. And sheep, apparently he had a problem killing the sheep and the cattle, or in the words in the Bible, "everything that was good." Not the babies though. They had to go.

I will answer this by using an example most historians believe is reliable. It at least is found in the same book as this story. God commanded Saul to do as those verses suggest. Saul as usual did not do so. He at minimum kept the king and queen alive. Samuel found them alive and said Saul had sinned. The prophet beheaded the king but the queen escaped. The queen was pregnant. Her son was named Haman. Haman wound up in Persia and hated the Jews with a passion (remarkably he hated them for reasons that did not include what occurred before he was born, I forget their exact nature). He wormed his way into the Persian court. He was given permission to kill every Jew in Persia. God had to ask Esther to risk her life to save all the Jews who lived in what was 4/5ths of the civilized world. God has reason for demanding total destruction we do not have access to. On another occasion the loot forbidden to them was taken anyway and became a source of conflict and crime. You are denying all the context. You see kill children and freak out. The children would have been corrupted completely by their evil parents. They would not have had anyone to take care of them. In all likelihood they would have become beggars and thieves raping the countryside and split Hell wide open. I know this all seems convenient but there is much evidence that it occurred and the stories are inseparable from that context. You cannot import half of the context. For example you have not once acknowledged the necessity of maintaining the moral integrity of the nation God used as a conduit for his revelation.

BTW how do you condemn the act of an all knowing being killing a child with moral justification and justify the killing of human life in the womb by fallible finite humans for convenience? This is not a rational moral system. It is moral schizophrenia. It is exactly why your foundations are so incapable of producing justice.

God didn't do it himself though. He commanded the people he created to do so. Oddly enough, he does that even though he supposedly put right in the Commandments that we're not supposed to kill.

The original language says to not murder. Murder is killing without justification. These killings had the greatest possible theoretical justification.

Why couldn't your god just wipe out the entire culture himself with an earthquake or some other natural disaster? Couldn't he just strike them all dead with a single thought, or a lightning bolt or something? I mean, we're talking about a god who can supposedly do anything. Or does that kind of thing weigh on his conscience, so he has to get us lowly sinners to do his dirty work?

He did and your side complains bitterly about it as well. BTW Israel's lack of obedience is why God said he forced them to do some of the dirty work. Many times he specifically forbid them from helping as in Gideon's case. It depended on what God wished to accomplish and what were the circumstances.

This leaves me claiming what I originally claimed: That your god condones the killing of children and infants in the Bible. It says so right in the Bible.

Yes my God will permit or even order the taking of life. He does not wish it to be necessary and has no desire anyone should perish. You have not shown the problem with this yet. It certainly is not an optimal situation but our sin removed that possibility all together. However God can restore perfect justice to those who lacked it on Earth. He created all lives and has perfect sovereignty over them all. Etc....... as has been stated many times.

You are basically making the argument that God may not do what you dislike and remain God. That is not an argument it is an unjustified complaint. WE have also been over this time and again.

My claims still stand.

1. God above any other being has the right to take life and by far the best position to know whether it is justifiable. Even our feeble efforts can easily find justifications for his biblical acts and if the entire context is included it is obvious.
2. God is not obligated to behave as you wish.
3. Between a rebellious world, freewill, and a perfect God these situations are exactly what I would expect.
4. A race as morally insane and hypocritical as I have shown as we are cannot make an argument like this from a reliable position anyway.
5. God is a necessity to claim anything at all is evil or good. You must have a God to even attempt to condemn him.

You have no way of knowing what your god desires. Obviously we can't go by the words in the Bible, because you contest them in place of your own personal interpretation. Where does it say anywhere in that story that god regretted sending Saul to kill a whole population of people including children, babies, women and livestock? It actually doesn't. The only thing your god apparently regrets in that particular story is that he made Saul king over Israel. It says nothing about "him" regretting ordering the murder of babies.

Forget my interpretations are almost exclusively the exact same as hundreds of millions and over 90% consistent with all major interpretations for a minute. The possibility I am wrong does not in any way equal either that I am actually wrong or that I have no possibility of being right. This is that same hyperbolic inflation of uncertainty I complained of the other day. BTW I notice you seem to think you have plenty of information to condemn God even after you have a priori excluded most of the context. This is again hypocritical and unjustifiable.

I supplied many scriptures and many more can be found where God emphatically claims he has no wish any human should parish but desires to save all. He says the exact thing you say he never says in many forms and in many places. That last claim is completely false.

 

[1robin]

Maybe you're overanalyzing it.

In maybe a half dozen requests for what was funny about the post I have received everything except what was funny about the claim. I also do not consider this worth debating.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

In maybe a half dozen requests for what was funny about the post I have received everything except what was funny about the claim. I also do not consider this worth debating.

You claimed your heroes were mighty heroes indeed and could vanquish all those who would dare to come onto the field with them.

I replied that you should bring your heroes here so that I might spank them and make them cry in front of everyone.

If you don't think that's funny.... hey, you don't think it's funny.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because on when forced will he explain what his numbers actually mean and he contradicts himself often.

This claim (made by very very few people) has always completely baffled me. In the few cases where I can inquire I find their born again experiences do not line up with my research. It is kind of like being in love. If you have been you know it but if you have not been you want so badly to think you have you mistake other things for it. But let us take him at his word. It is the equivalent of saying you knew of a rare drug that would cure X. You took it and X was cured. Later you decided that not only did the medicine not work, the doctor was not a doctor, and the medical field is invalid. I do not see how that claim can be made by anyone. However if he made this claim (one I have never heard him make in at least 3 debates) I will have to retract my claim.

Grab a copy of Misquoting Jesus. I assure you, the description I speak of is there.

I take a person's word for it when they tell me they were/are a Christian.

I think most Islamic apologists stink and are hostile but Shabir is a pleasure to hear.

I haven't really heard all that many Islamic apologists, so I can't speak much on this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In maybe a half dozen requests for what was funny about the post I have received everything except what was funny about the claim. I also do not consider this worth debating.

Jokes kind of lose their luster when they have to be explained.

 

[1robin]

So we can safely dismiss everything you say. You're only looking for "sources" that say what you agree with and copy+pasting them to make it look "official", no matter what lunatic corner of the Internet you have dredge it from. What a joke. What a lack of integrity. You might as well just start citing Christian Identity and neo-Nazi sites. Those people are very close to it, anyway.

How in the heck did you get this from statements that meant the exact opposite to this. My claim was and it can be verified I typically never say a claim was wrong based on what source it came from alone. I almost always include why I think a source is wrong. Evidence, logic, philosophy, history, etc..... I think many Islamic and atheist sources are completely biased yet I virtually never complain about a source. In fact I many times will use exclusively Islamic sources and include many secular sources in my claims.


I can make similar cases for most of my primary position only from opposition sources. I will fight a claim to death but not usually because it came from a source on the other side alone, and never suggest only scholars from my side be used for anything. You drastically misunderstood my claims.

 

[1robin]

Vengeance seems a remarkably petty (and very human) motive to ascribe to an all-powerful deity.

IT is the natural and expected result given a perfectly just God who is literally morally perfect against a wayward and rebellious race which displays nothing more than our inhumanity towards our fellow man. There is something so evil and corrupt in general concerning human nature I would object much more if a just God did not at least occasionally pour out his wrath upon it. Can you even imagine how much God must hate what we do if he exists. Punishing evil is one of the most honored virtues and social necessities humans value. I think it is a pale reflection of God's nature but a reflection none the less. Humans are pale reflections so attributing something in some for to humanity does nothing to make it less Godly.

You are too generous.

Not too generous. Just right generous. Actually in truth probably not generous enough but that was not the issue. Trying to determine a objective threshold for permission to hate is impossible. Even given an objective standard it will necessarily be subjectively interpreted and your standards do not apply to others.

The term moral insanity; any number of opposing tribes' babies; and orders like these: 1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey; Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (I had by the way to interpolate "donkey" into the first quote from 1 Samuel, as RF would not allow its three-letter synonym.)

None of this will fly if you actually include all the context. If you will see post #2705 for just the minimum context. You can search for my posts where I gave a considerable amount of the relevant context a while back. I explain every single thing you mention using the exact same book you quoted selectively from.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is a meaningless point. A perfect God terminating a life he gave that was woefully misused and corrupted is exactly appropriate even if a human proxy is used. The only meaningful claim would be that he preferred that event to occur and I have made it clear he does not. Punishing the wicked and even collateral damage used to prevent the inevitable corruption of the innocent, especially when using a proxy is easily understood.

It's meaningless to ask you what your point is??

He ORDERED the event to take place. I don't care if he really meant it or didn't or wanted it or didn't really like it or whatever. The fact of the matter is, the Bible says that he ordered Saul to murder men, women, children, infants and all animals of a neighbouring tribe. This is after this god ordered human beings not to murder, by way of the ten commandments, correct? Why can't "he" handle his dirty work himself, rather than contradicting himself?

The murder of infants is considered moral ... how? And you want me to believe that belief in this god is the only way a person can absolutely say that human life has any kind of value? You're kidding, right?

And if your god preferred not to actually order the death of children and infants, it certainly doesn't say as much in the Bible, so I don't know where you come up with that part. The only thing it says in there about god regretting anything was that he made Saul king because Saul disobeyed god's orders.

I do not see any problem here. Both I, most Christians, and God regret the necessity but it is still necessary given freewill.

What freewill are infants exercising??? How about sheep?

Again this is only meaningful if the command was preferred by him instead of a logical necessity brought on by our actions. You must show he preferred our choices incur his wrath if you want to make a persuasive point. You can't. A perfect God and a wayward world will inevitably be in conflict. The only wonder is why we do not see more of his justified wrath.

Ya know, this is one of the reasons I have a problem with religion(s). Look at the kind of sick things you have to defend because you follow this particular religion and your god cannot ever be wrong. Even when" he" orders the murder of babies.

Whatever the reason, your god commanded a person to murder women, children and infants. Who cares what the reason is? Is it ever moral to murder babies??

I think all three of those are obvious truths but they have nothing to do with my analogy. I was not saying we can never be right because we are not God. However my main point was that we value in general, exactly what you condemn.

Why are you comparing humans to your god, is what I want to know.

I will answer this by using an example most historians believe is reliable. It at least is found in the same book as this story. God commanded Saul to do as those verses suggest. Saul as usual did not do so. He at minimum kept the king and queen alive. Samuel found them alive and said Saul had sinned. The prophet beheaded the king but the queen escaped. The queen was pregnant. Her son was named Haman. Haman wound up in Persia and hated the Jews with a passion (remarkably he hated them for reasons that did not include what occurred before he was born, I forget their exact nature). He wormed his way into the Persian court. He was given permission to kill every Jew in Persia. God had to ask Esther to risk her life to save all the Jews who lived in what was 4/5ths of the civilized world. God has reason for demanding total destruction we do not have access to. On another occasion the loot forbidden to them was taken anyway and became a source of conflict and crime. You are denying all the context. You see kill children and freak out. The children would have been corrupted completely by their evil parents. They would not have had anyone to take care of them. In all likelihood they would have become beggars and thieves raping the countryside and split Hell wide open. I know this all seems convenient but there is much evidence that it occurred and the stories are inseparable from that context. You cannot import half of the context. For example you have not once acknowledged the necessity of maintaining the moral integrity of the nation God used as a conduit for his revelation.

Well, instead of ordering the murder of an entire population of people, god should have simply ordered the murder of the queen, had he foreseen what was to happen.

I find the rest of this to just be sick justification for the murder of innocent babies.

BTW how do you condemn the act of an all knowing being killing a child with moral justification and justify the killing of human life in the womb by fallible finite humans for convenience? This is not a rational moral system. It is moral schizophrenia. It is exactly why your foundations are so incapable of producing justice.

I don't think your god actually commanded anything because I don't believe he exists.

The stories written by humans are to me, just ways for people to justify their actions and behaviors, kind of like what you're doing here and what you do when you defend Biblical slavery. And on that note, why didn't god just allow thse babies to grow up into begging and thievery and then just have then sold into slavery, or "indentured servititude" as you call it. According to you, that would have been quite a treat for them.

I acknowledge a difference between a nonviable fetus and a living, breathing, developed human baby. And as I told you, with abortion, there are many other factors at play, like the autonomy of the mother, for instance that make the moral aspect a bit more difficult to deal with. But, I'd like to see abortion wiped off the map which will never happen unless certain people give up their bizarre hang ups about telling women they can't use birth control.

The original language says to not murder. Murder is killing without justification. These killings had the greatest possible theoretical justification.

Well gee, I guess if god tells you to take a human life then it's justified, right? So that women who drowned her 5 children in a bathtub a number of years ago was perfectly justified when she said god wanted her to do it. I'm sure there was some greater plan involved.

He did and your side complains bitterly about it as well. BTW Israel's lack of obedience is why God said he forced them to do some of the dirty work. Many times he specifically forbid them from helping as in Gideon's case. It depended on what God wished to accomplish and what were the circumstances.

He should do his own dirty work 100% of the time. That would make it a lot easier for us poor saps down here who can't seem to distinguish between natural disasters and god-commanded punishments. Or the people who supposedly hear god's voice in their head or see him in a dream and then go out and murder people. Maybe schizophrenic people have a direct connection to god. Who knows? There's no way to test that, I guess we'll have to just take it on faith.

There's that reference to blind obedience again. Still waiting for you to explain how that's moral.

Yes my God will permit or even order the taking of life. He does not wish it to be necessary and has no desire anyone should perish. You have not shown the problem with this yet. It certainly is not an optimal situation but our sin removed that possibility all together. However God can restore perfect justice to those who lacked it on Earth. He created all lives and has perfect sovereignty over them all. Etc....... as has been stated many times.

This is your claim, that I had initially responded to:

"Give me a single verse where God desires the death of anyone. At times our own actions (as in all societies) has merited lethality but it was not God's desire it was necessary."

I gave you a single verse that showed that god commanded the death of babies. If he didn't "desire" it then he wouldn't have commanded it. You're just playing word games here to avoid the fact that the god of the Bible commanded the murder of babies, which now you seem to have changed your tune about, anyway.

Continued ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are basically making the argument that God may not do what you dislike and remain God. That is not an argument it is an unjustified complaint. WE have also been over this time and again.

I'm saying your god is immoral and contradictory. "He" doesn't want us to murder but then orders us to murder. You keep telling me that absolute morality is objective because it comes from god. Then you give me all kinds of reasons to believe that god's commands are subjective.

This is aside from the fact that I don't see how obedience to authority amounts to any kind of exercise of morality at all.

My claims still stand.
1. God above any other being has the right to take life and by far the best position to know whether it is justifiable. Even our feeble efforts can easily find justifications for his biblical acts and if the entire context is included it is obvious.

You also say human beings have the right to take life, if a person commits a crime we don't like.

What part did the murder of the livestock and sheep play in this grand scheme you talk about?

2. God is not obligated to behave as you wish.

Of course not. But I don't have to like what the Bible says about "him" and I can use my own judgment to determine whether or not I find "his" opinions to be immoral.

3. Between a rebellious world, freewill, and a perfect God these situations are exactly what I would expect.

What did the sheep and livestock do to deserve god's punishment? Do sheep and livestock have rebellion and free will??

4. A race as morally insane and hypocritical as I have shown as we are cannot make an argument like this from a reliable position anyway.

I think many of the people, as described in the Bible, to be morally insane. What with all the murder of babies and the slavery and all that. Not to mention the fact that your god, as described in the Bible, appears to be no less hypocritical than us lowly sinners.

5. God is a necessity to claim anything at all is evil or good. You must have a God to even attempt to condemn him.

We both know I disagree with this. I"m certainly not the only one.

Forget my interpretations are almost exclusively the exact same as hundreds of millions and over 90% consistent with all major interpretations for a minute. The possibility I am wrong does not in any way equal either that I am actually wrong or that I have no possibility of being right. This is that same hyperbolic inflation of uncertainty I complained of the other day. BTW I notice you seem to think you have plenty of information to condemn God even after you have a priori excluded most of the context. This is again hypocritical and unjustifiable.

Sure, that must be why there are how many thousands of different sects of Christianity?
Many of my family members are Christian (in fact, most of them are) and they don't agree with your interpretations.

I supplied many scriptures and many more can be found where God emphatically claims he has no wish any human should parish but desires to save all. He says the exact thing you say he never says in many forms and in many places. That last claim is completely false.

Which are countered by the parts of the Bible where he commands people to murder other people.

 

[1robin]

There are three: 1.Purpose. 2. Creation (related to 1.) 3. Suffering

Including sub points 4 is not a bad guess.

A lengthy piece of writing, and forgive me, but overall it isn’t particularly coherent. It comprises a confection of confused or unsupported assertions, special pleading, and fallacious arguments from ignorance, but nowhere have you addressed the contradictions that I’ve identified.

I could not pack that many errors in a single post even on purpose.

I’ll deal with the parts of your post that are relevant and require a response, beginning with that statement of yours at the beginning of #1: “In fact God could make suffering good and it would be. He could make pain an objective good and it would be. That is clearly nonsense. If suffering were a good thing then there would be no Problem of Evil, and would you be prepared to inform the mother of a dying child that, actually, the child’s suffering is a good thing? Utterly preposterous! Then you go on to say: “What we think of as good or bad is irrelevant to what it actually is.” So rape and murder is good, and mercy, generosity and love are bad? That is more abject nonsense. But then we’re into more confusion and self-contradiction when you say: “My point is not that suffering is good. My point is that a purpose that must allow for suffering but results in an ultimate good from GOD"S perspective would be good.” So now suffering is not bad but is good if God thinks it is!

I knew you were going to do this. I did not say he had done so. I said he could have. What is cannot be used to evaluate what could have been. My point was you have absolutely no criteria available by which to judge God. If God exists you are programmed to be in tune with his moral nature. That is what made in his image means. We can apprehend what is good and evil because we have been given that ability by God. It literally cannot occur if he did not exist. We have no theoretical access to moral truths without God. Even if we all agreed that X was wrong that would not have the slightest power to make X wrong or indicate it actually was because X can't be objectively wrong without a standard that only God can provide. If he exist our moral perceptions if true are 100% provided and determined by him. If he does not exist our moral perceptions are not true in an objective sense and incapable of judging him (or the concept of God). Either way divine command theory suggests we just have no ability and no standard capable of judging God. Almost every point you make requires something that does not exist. For every one my mind goes searching through an increasing hierarchy or criteria and runs out of standards before I find one capable of deciding the issue.


Most of these issues require a standard independent from God that objectively binds God to settle it. There is no such thing. For example if you show up with your side who claims the cosmological argument is logically valid, and I show up with my side that claim it is logically valid, and God shows up and says your side is wrong and have mistakenly understood what is logically valid. You would need just such a standard as I mentioned to determine the correctness of that conclusion. The same with contradictions concerning morally justified suffering given purpose. You would need a criteria that unjustified the purpose that is binding and supersedes God. That is the only way our differences could be resolved.

You also appear to believe that any amount of suffering is acceptable if there is eventually a state of no suffering. That’s like saying it is acceptable if a murderer one day ceases killing people. More to the point, whatever is done cannot be undone. Not even God can change the past. So he will always have blood on his hands.

No, I believe suffering is justifiable if the purpose sufficiently explains it and results in a greater good (as God has enabled me to see the good). However this is not the real issue. You ignored this because compared to the way we think it is an absurd claim but the flaw is in how we think not my claim.

Continued as usual below:

 

[1robin]

If God is God and something in his nature resulted in suffering being good there exists no possibility it would not be true. You can't over turn it, you cannot even meaningfully question it. I do not say this because I claim he has. I say so because if something is still true in an example that extreme it certainly would be true in that case where God would justify his creation that included suffering by claiming the over all result as a morally good an justifiable event. It is not that your argument against that is bad. It is that there is no possible argument that could ever even meaningfully call it into question. I do not think either one of us like this unavoidable fact but I have given up trying to reason past it. If God exists it is an unavoidable consequence of his existence and nature. I would prefer to have an external and objective standard by which I could show that God could be evil but is only obeying the good aspects of it but it can't possibly exist.

This particular paragraph of yours is heavy with irony:
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Which one?

“Purpose” is where it all falls down! If God’s supposed purpose is to have a relationship with his creation then that is absurd as a square circle, if god is the Supreme Being. And God can, if he wishes, be the cause pain and suffering and call it “good”, just as a serial killer thinks his depravity good. And if that is your position then you are out of step with the rest of humanity. To sum up briefly, then, we have a Supreme Being that desires that his creation come to know him in a loving relationship and he does this, by way of introduction, by making his created creatures suffer. There’s your square circle again!

I nor the bible suggests that is his primary purpose. His purpose is to freely allow us to choose a relationship with us. He could have but did not desire creating automatons that will inevitably choose to follow him. Love mandates freewill. Love also introduces consequences of that choice but does not mandate the choice its self. Your mixing up many of the things I said together and misunderstanding the purpose.

My point was not that God could choose evil and fool us. My point was that what he chose or is determines what is evil or good. You said a psychopath would think unjustifiable killing was good and you of course would not. My point what determines who if anyone is right is God. I of course believe he would have sided with you but the point is you are binding God by standards that are wholly incapable of doing so. Your are basically saying that good means that a being that was good could not have any purpose that included suffering. How in the world could you possibly know that even if it was true? On what theoretical basis could that be true? God's nature determines both what is good and what he will do. If he exists these can't possibly ever conflict. He literally could not get it wrong in general. However it might be objectively wrong (actually false) for him to state that a creation that included suffering is wrong and then did so anyway. But that is not what we have. It is very helpful to think of morals as wrong or right (true or false) instead of wrong or right. Wrong and right come with illegitimate baggage. They assume we know what is wrong or right and it is some kind of brute fixed fact that everything must conform to including God. This cannot be so if God exists and can't be so especially if he did not.

I’m slightly perplexed by your not being able to see the absurdity here, in particular where you speak of being able to choose existence over non-existence! If there was once a point where we didn’t exist how then do you suppose you can choose to gainfully come into existence? And if God created us as an “outworking of his nature” it would still require a purpose, and that could only be for God’s gain or ours – both of which for the reasons I’ve already given are absurd and contradictory.

Of all your claims this one has given me the most trouble. I am not sure how to even view it. A benefit is a subjective term. A benefit to me is exactly what I consider it to be. I think your comment is true within the narrow band of our non-existence. But given out existence it becomes moot. However I have not gotten a firm handle on this one. I do not see how anything I considered a benefit is not in truth one by that mere fact. I normally operate in evidence, history, and textual criticism. You have the advantage on me in semantics and rigorous philosophy because I consider it irrelevant once reliable evidence indicates a certain truth. I like it but prioritize it as secondary. I regard it as non-determinative but only indicative.

You have it the wrong way about! If the logical arguments cannot be met then the Bible’s claims cannot possibly be true. You haven't met the logical arguments and therefore the biblical God is incoherent or impossible.

I do not concede the logical arguments conclusions. I do not see the contradictions you pose, and in a couple of areas I am not capable of satisfying myself that I am competent to evaluate your claims. This is why I suggested submitting them to Craig. BTW to include Craig's arguments but exclude his resolving contentions concerning them is irrational. It is certainly up to you but it makes little sense.

This is why I keep wanting to switch gears to areas where more certainty can be gained. If Christ is who he claimed to be every philosophical claim against him is rendered void and wrong. It is remarkable to me the level of resistance to doing this I have gotten from you. You literally do not even entertain the suggestion at all but launch into another cycle of semantic objections. I remember being told (whether true or not it proves the point) that physics indicated a bumble bee could not fly and all the evidence suggests the moon should not exist where it is and how it does. I know at least one of these is true of physics, but it does not matter if neither were. The point is that technical objections to things are never ever the final arbiter of truth. Evidence is. Bumble bees fly, the moon exists, and God is the arbiter of all moral truth if he exists.

BTW sorry for the grammar. As you can see at this time I am the only one representing orthodox Christianity. I am the target for everyone on your side. So I am replying in a rush and still can't get to everyone.

 

[1robin]

I'm saying your god is immoral and contradictory. "He" doesn't want us to murder but then orders us to murder. You keep telling me that absolute morality is objective because it comes from god. Then you give me all kinds of reasons to believe that god's commands are subjective.

So you agree that the biblical God exists but you just do not like what he has done. There is no other option here. You are also only saying that God does not line up with your contrived ideas about morality. The criteria capable of knowing what you claim to does not exist. You are only able to do what I do with Allah. If he exist I deny him. He does not line up with my sense of morality of the bible's. I reject him, I have no way to claim he is evil. Neither do you. I really wish I did, but I am not into wish fulfillment reality.

This is aside from the fact that I don't see how obedience to authority amounts to any kind of exercise of morality at all.

In a vacuum it wouldn't. Obedience to authority alone does not necessarily produce moral correctness. If however you are obedient to the literal locus of moral truth you could not help but be moral by obedience.

You also say human beings have the right to take life, if a person commits a crime we don't like.

I think so.

What part did the murder of the livestock and sheep play in this grand scheme you talk about?

I do not know. Some very real possibilities have occurred in all wars. The deprival of the enemy of food stores. The fact loot routinely produces divisions in the army. Islam almost destroyed it's self within a few years of Muhammad's death because of similar issues. Armies have literally lost battles only because the troops quit doing anything but securing plunder. It is a real military problem. It had already caused this exact problem in the Jewish army. I can give you a bunch of reasons I do not know if they are true but these few indicate they at least exist.

Of course not. But I don't have to like what the Bible says about "him" and I can use my own judgment to determine whether or not I find "his" opinions to be immoral.

No you can't. You have no capacity to determine whether he is immoral or not. You can say he does not line up with your guesses about morality and I do so of other God's. This is literally impossible.

What did the sheep and livestock do to deserve god's punishment? Do sheep and livestock have rebellion and free will??

Livestock lives have no sanctity and do not have covenant relationships. Also I have addressed this earlier. We kill them by the billions after genetically wrecking their contentment and health because we suppose for no reason we are more important. Whatever complaint you have against God is far far worse without him.

I think many of the people, as described in the Bible, to be morally insane. What with all the murder of babies and the slavery and all that. Not to mention the fact that your god, as described in the Bible, appears to be no less hypocritical than us lowly sinners.

Many were and only one was free from moral error.

We both know I disagree with this. I"m certainly not the only one.

I know your not and I know that you nor even if every one else "believed" this would ever make it true. It can't be true.

Sure, that must be why there are how many thousands of different sects of Christianity?
Many of my family members are Christian (in fact, most of them are) and they don't agree with your interpretations.

I guarantee that if your family are members of any major traditional Christian denomination we agree on almost all core doctrine. Regardless minor differences exist because no document written over the course of 1800 years and applying to all cultures in all and concerning the most controversial and potent doctrines ever recorded can't possibly have universal agreement of every topic.

Let me illuminate this another way. No claim about disagreement has the slightest power to indicate any specific person is wrong on it's own. It could be true but until actually proven it just won't work.

Which are countered by the parts of the Bible where he commands people to murder other people.

Find any verse in the Bible where God commands anyone to kill someone where the word used is murder in a prominent English bible version.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Ya know, this is one of the reasons I have a problem with religion(s). Look at the kind of sick things you have to defend because you follow this particular religion and your god cannot ever be wrong. Even when" he" orders the murder of babies.

Yep. Morality based on God belief can be an ugly thing indeed. I am so happy that the US is finally casting aside 'religious' morality and maturing in its moral thought. Secular morality is the only true morality.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Find any verse in the Bible where God commands anyone to kill someone where the word used is murder in a prominent English bible version.

Are you actually serious?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yep. Morality based on God belief can be an ugly thing indeed. I am so happy that the US is finally casting aside 'religious' morality and maturing in its moral thought. Secular morality is the only true morality.

Me too.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Yep. Morality based on God belief can be an ugly thing indeed. I am so happy that the US is finally casting aside 'religious' morality and maturing in its moral thought. Secular morality is the only true morality.

But Atheism does not have morals, a world that run without God is a world that cannot survive ;