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

[Lady B]

Perhaps, if you had a choice. But seeing how there are several mutually exclusive scriptures around, you can't help but decide which, if any, to trust.




How did you decide to trust the Bible (and that specific definition of the Bible at that, instead of perhaps the Catholic or LDS interpretations) as opposed to alternatives such as the Baghavad Gita or the Quran, however?

Did you perhaps inherit that belief from your social environment and decided to trust it? If so, fine, but that is still a choice even if by default.

Good question. I will come back to this in a few, I have some errands I must run,Peace.

 

[Falvlun]

I think the allegation was that we presume without any authority.

I'm not sure where you got that notion. The allegation is that you presume to know the mind of God, which is manifestly evident by the things you claim to know about God, his desires, and his plans.

Besides, how do you know you have the authority to claim things about the mind of God? Isn't that just another presumption?

I disagree in that all we know or claim to know is Biblical. If I said to you purple is God's favorite color, that indeed would presume something without evidence, I have not done this. To presume what God has revealed to us is different that presuming what he has not.

But you presume that the Bible, and your interpretation, is what God has revealed. You presume that it is true, and that you are correct in how you interpret it.

So you discredit my evidence to support your allegation of my presumptuousness,

What evidence? You have provided no evidence for us to believe that the Bible, and your interpretation, should be considered an accurate depiction of God and his plans. You have simply said that this is the case.

Well that would be fine except it is not applicable in this debate where I have set the precepts.

Huh? We are debating whether God is wrong, or evil, for allowing suffering. Obviously, you don't believe that God is wrong for what he does. So if we must take your assumptions in order to debate with you, then there would be no debate, since after all, within your assumptions, God is not wrong.

If you want to use this argument that I only presume the Bibles authenticity, in every debatable issue, well we would have nothing to discuss at all.So when debating a particular topic, try to consider what the absolutes are with the opponent. My absolute is that the Bible is the word of God and so I will try to show my support from this position.Taking away my position by concluding it is not valid without proof at all is not debate worthy and only takes us off-topic. Remember my title specifically states MY GOD, I am not debating from any position but my own.

I am not trying to take away your ability to debate from your beliefs; I am not even talking about the validity or accuracy of your beliefs.

We are discussing a specific aspect: You have accused us for being presumptuous for assuming that God would act differently than how you believe he acts.

This is a strange allegation coming from someone with beliefs such as yours. In my opinion, your beliefs are orders of magnitude more presumptuous than my own in regards to God. You believe you know A LOT about the mind of God. It is hypocritical to accuse us of making claims about how we believe God would act, when you make even greater claims yourself. That is the point.

 

[horizon_mj1]

We are discussing a specific aspect: You have accused us for being presumptuous for assuming that God would act differently than how you believe he acts.

Couldn't have "said" it better:yes:. To know God is not to be God and to be God is to Know All; to be presumptuous of this is 'sinful" in itself.

 

[McBell]

I am responding to your own allegations against me, you have accused me of dishonesty, denial, contradictions and when you do so, you give no support,Is that fair?

And every one of the things I have "accused" you of is right here in this thread.

John 3:16, the most common verse atheists use as support for their theory against calvinism. Problem here is if you look good at the verse "For God so loved the world, That he gave his only begotten son,that whosoever believeth in him shall not die but have ever lasting life."
Look at the word world, and then go thru the rest of John and see that this word is used 8 times in a different context ,If you try to say that the world means every single person and thing on earth, then why would God give a stipulation of whosoever believes in him, in the second part of same verse. If he loves us all and sent his son for all, then why limit this all to whether they believe or not?

TULIP states that those who god has ALREADY elected have absolutely no choice in the matter.

So regardless of their believing in him or not, the elect are going.
TULIP claims that the elect have no choice in the matter.

TULIP also calls Revelation a lie, for if no matter what gods elect are gods elect then it is a lie that ones name can be removed from the Book of Life.

So yes, you can inject your TULIP into the Bible, but not without causing a bunch of problems.

 

[Lady B]

And every one of the things I have "accused" you of is right here in this thread.


TULIP states that those who god has ALREADY elected have absolutely no choice in the matter.

So regardless of their believing in him or not, the elect are going.
TULIP claims that the elect have no choice in the matter.

TULIP also calls Revelation a lie, for if no matter what gods elect are gods elect then it is a lie that ones name can be removed from the Book of Life.

So yes, you can inject your TULIP into the Bible, but not without causing a bunch of problems.

That is another question I am still seeking answer for, The book of life. I don't have the answer there, but I surely would not throw out all the foundational references that assert Calvanism for one complicated verse in a very complicated book of the Bible.

 

[Lady B]

I'm not sure where you got that notion. The allegation is that you presume to know the mind of God, which is manifestly evident by the things you claim to know about God, his desires, and his plans.

Besides, how do you know you have the authority to claim things about the mind of God? Isn't that just another presumption?


But you presume that the Bible, and your interpretation, is what God has revealed. You presume that it is true, and that you are correct in how you interpret it.


What evidence? You have provided no evidence for us to believe that the Bible, and your interpretation, should be considered an accurate depiction of God and his plans. You have simply said that this is the case.


Huh? We are debating whether God is wrong, or evil, for allowing suffering. Obviously, you don't believe that God is wrong for what he does. So if we must take your assumptions in order to debate with you, then there would be no debate, since after all, within your assumptions, God is not wrong.


I am not trying to take away your ability to debate from your beliefs; I am not even talking about the validity or accuracy of your beliefs.

We are discussing a specific aspect: You have accused us for being presumptuous for assuming that God would act differently than how you believe he acts.

This is a strange allegation coming from someone with beliefs such as yours. In my opinion, your beliefs are orders of magnitude more presumptuous than my own in regards to God. You believe you know A LOT about the mind of God. It is hypocritical to accuse us of making claims about how we believe God would act, when you make even greater claims yourself. That is the point.

Problem is, I make my claims based on what He himself has said, not on speculation. So you are questioning not what He said in the Bible which is my evidence, But that my whole evidence is not allowed in this debate.

 

[McBell]

That is another question I am still seeking answer for, The book of life. I don't have the answer there, but I surely would not throw out all the foundational references that assert Calvanism for one complicated verse in a very complicated book of the Bible.

With all the problems you are having actually "dealing with" john 3:16...

Are you going to address the actual point or are you content with your denial?

 

[Lady B]

With all the problems you are having actually "dealing with" john 3:16...

Are you going to address the actual point or are you content with your denial?

I allready adressed JOhn 3:16, it does not contradict calvanism. tell me exactly how you feel it does and we can dig deep into it.
what exactly am I denying again?

 

[McBell]

I allready adressed JOhn 3:16,

No you didn't.
You merely offered a sad attempt at skirting around it.

it does not contradict calvanism.

Then perhaps you should present the version of calvinism that does not include TULIP?
Cause John 3:16 is in direct conflict with TULIP.

tell me exactly how you feel it does and we can dig deep into it.

Are you going to actually "dig into it" or are you merely going to skirt the issue with more attempts at diversion?

I already started with post #264.
You know, the post you completely ignored even though you quoted it in post #265...

 

[Lady B]

No you didn't.
You merely offered a sad attempt at skirting around it.


Then perhaps you should present the version of calvinism that does not include TULIP?
Cause John 3:16 is in direct conflict with TULIP.


Are you going to actually "dig into it" or are you merely going to skirt the issue with more attempts at diversion?

Is this your debate tactic to accuse me of diversion,dishonesty and denial when you don't get an answer you like? calm down sir, We can discuss things without disrespecting eachother right?

 

[horizon_mj1]

Problem is, I make my claims based on what He himself has said, not on speculation. So you are questioning not what He said in the Bible which is my evidence, But that my whole evidence is not allowed in this debate.

You really do not know much about the ONE you claim to know do ya ? No matter what Book it is that has been written, it is still only the perspective of the writer. You claim to believe the KJV Bible, well then the only written works of God were the 10 Commandments in which are believed to be in the Ark of the Covenant. It sounds to me that you can not even follow what you say you do.

 

[Falvlun]

Problem is, I make my claims based on what He himself has said, not on speculation. So you are questioning not what He said in the Bible which is my evidence, But that my whole evidence is not allowed in this debate.

You need to read the posts before you respond to them. I explicitly said that I am not criticizing your usage of the bible as the source of your beliefs. I am saying that it is presumptuous to claim to know the mind of God, which is a claim that you make, and that it is hypocritical to accuse us of being presumptuous because of this.

 

[Lady B]

You need to read the posts before you respond to them. I explicitly said that I am not criticizing your usage of the bible as the source of your beliefs. I am saying that it is presumptuous to claim to know the mind of God, which is a claim that you make, and that it is hypocritical to accuse us of being presumptuous because of this.

To be fair , I was responding to others as well as you in the same post. I never specifically claimed to know the mind of God Falvlun. I claimed what I believe he has revealed to us, period. If you really read my posts, I have said no one can really know the mind of God and say what is his intent, not me not you not anyone. In the Bible it gives his intent for creation, That being his will and for his Glory. I am not presuming by telling you my belief in scripture and what He has revealed, How am I? unless you are indeed criticizing my source and my presumptousness of that. Which is fine If we are debating multiple religions, we are not, we are debating mine.

 

[Copernicus]

Again you accuse me of contradiction where there is none. I can speak for what is in my scriptures and what I believe is the words of God. God has said it is for his Glory, therefore that is not speculative.

I've been slow in getting back to you, but others have perceived the same contradictions that I have. You seem to be going through some rather agile mental gymnastics to keep yourself from acknowledging them. That is, you don't claim to know the mind of God directly, but you claim to know that the Bible reveals it to you. So you can speak with confidence about what is in God's mind by relying on the Bible as the source of your knowledge. Somehow, you think it not as presumptuous to claim that the Bible is an accurate reflection of what is in God's mind, despite your complete lack of any support for that claim. You do not speculate what the Bible says, but you do speculate that it is God's revealed word as you interpret the Bible.

I do not presume to know the mind of God and I have said many times over that I cannot speak for what God has not given answer. But what God has revealed in the scriptures, I believe are his words to that I can give testimony. His intent being his Will and his Glory are two of these scriptural evidences. I have said also it is arrogant to say we can know the mind of God and his purposes. What God has given us is his word and by this we can know some things about him and can attest to such things by his permission.

Right here I think is where you attempt to have it both ways--declaring that you do not presume to know what is in God's mind, yet you do presume gratuitously that the Bible reveals it. Hence, you can go ahead and express what is in God's mind on the basis of your interpretation of the Bible.

Your statement that I am in no better position than an unbeliever is an unbelievers position only...

I wouldn't know about that, but I do know that the majority of religious people in the world disagree with your judgment that the Christian Bible is the revealed word of God. Others have pointed this out to you, and I have not seen you attempt to refute it. I and others have asked how you could reject other religious scripture over that which you've chosen to take as 'evidence' of God's intentions. I have yet to see you to try to answer that question. What sets your judgment above that of a Hindu's, a Muslim's, a Buddhist's, or an atheist's?

I do believe the Bible to be the sole word of God given to men. All men. You can tell me you do not believe that and that is fine, then argue that in another thread. I am not attesting to what other peoples beliefs are here, We are arguing my precept in this thread, my beliefs and those likeminded, therefore I do have the right to argue from my own standpoint. I have not misspoken, all I have said comes from the scriptures and what is not written, I have said I do not know and cannot give answer.

You have a right to argue from your own standpoint. You have people addressing it in this thread. This is not about whether I reject your beliefs, but I certainly have a right to ask what sets your judgment about the significance of the Bible over mine or anyone else's, don't I? Most of us have not been questioning your faith in God, but your faith in the Bible, which was compiled, edited, and recorded by men. On what basis do you accept it as anything but what some very ordinary human beings claimed?

 

[McBell]

Is this your debate tactic to accuse me of diversion,dishonesty and denial when you don't get an answer you like? calm down sir, We can discuss things without disrespecting eachother right?

If you want me to stop pointing it out, stop doing it.

Since this is twice you have completely ignored the contents of the post your quote...
And you have the gall to talk about being disrespectful?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes I have concluded that the Bible is God's word but not from my own presumptions of God prior to knowing him through his revealed word.

How did you reach that conclusion, then? How on Earth could you decide that the Bible is God's word without having some sort of criteria for what "God's word" would look like, evaluating the Bible against those criteria, and concluding that the Bible meets them?

I mean, you aren't arguing that you were born believing that the Bible is God's word, are you?

 

[Falvlun]

If you really read my posts, I have said no one can really know the mind of God and say what is his intent, not me not you not anyone. In the Bible it gives his intent for creation, That being his will and for his Glory.

I truly don't think you understand what we are getting at here, so this will likely will be my last attempt.

Do you not see how the statement in purple is contradicted by the statement in green? You claim in one breath that no one, no even you, can know what the mind of God is or what his intent is, and then turn around and tell us what God's intent is. The contradiction is clear as day.

Either no one, not even you, can tell us what the mind of God is, or you know the mind of God via the Bible. You cannot have both.

 

[CG Didymus]

Lady B asked, "Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?"

It sounds like it's all part of God's plan to let them die by accidents, murder, disease etc. But is he evil? If you think that's not evil than what is it? If my cat catches and eats a mouse, if that evil? If I squish a mosquito is that evil? If the mosquito bites me and I get malaria and die was the mosquito evil?

I don't know if any Christian cares about any thing else dying but humans because we supposedly have an immortal soul and they don't. They return to dust. It seems that the rest of creation doesn't matter that much. They seem to be acting more on natural laws like "survival of the fittest" or the survival of the luckiest. They eat, kill, live and die and make more babies.They don't need some "divine" plan, but humans are different?

Was Genghis Khan or Alexander evil when they conquered and killed tons of people? Was the guy who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima evil? Was Joshua evil when he destroyed Jericho? All of them probably killed children. Did your God pardoned some of the children--the kids of non-Christians? If he does, that's not fair to the other kids that were too old to make the cutoff. If he doesn't, then he created all those souls of all those children, plus all the aborted kids only to send them to the Christian hell?
Naturally, no believer could ever say that their God is evil, but didn't he say, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Isaiah 45:7 KJV. So, if we take the Bible literally, then I guess he created evil, no doubt, for a good reason. Like to get us to believe on him. Gee, I wonder why so many are questioning and asking, "What is going on in the mind of the Christian God? Who can know it?"
Hey, but one thing Lady B, just in case you're the one that is right and by chance I'm one of the elect, God bless you and guide you as you try and "rightly divide" his word of truth.


[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Copernicus]

One can question whether it is truly possible for anyone to be evil. After all, is the serial killer evil or merely acting out of a compulsion that he has no control over? Human law, however, does make judgments about culpability. If someone stands by and watches another die without doing what is in his or her power to prevent, that is called depraved indifference, which is a type of evil behavior. When talking about deities, one does not usually question their power to prevent evil. Indeed, a great many believers are convinced that God intervenes in human affairs to cause good things to happen. Seldom do we hear Christians claiming that God causes little children to die horribly, but we do find some who make that claim. It is hard to excuse the powerful combination of omniscience and omnipotence when it comes to such things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One can question whether it is truly possible for anyone to be evil. After all, is the serial killer evil or merely acting out of a compulsion that he has no control over? Human law, however, does make judgments about culpability. If someone stands by and watches another die without doing what is in his or her power to prevent, that is called depraved indifference, which is a type of evil behavior. When talking about deities, one does not usually question their power to prevent evil. Indeed, a great many believers are convinced that God intervenes in human affairs to cause good things to happen. Seldom do we hear Christians claiming that God causes little children to die horribly, but we do find some who make that claim. It is hard to excuse the powerful combination of omniscience and omnipotence when it comes to such things.

I remember seeing that Chinese video where a child is hit by a car and then just lies there while drivers swerve around him without stopping and people walk by without giving him a second look. As I was watching, I thought to myself "how godly of all those people! How noble is it of them to not deprive that child of his free will! How majestic it is for them to allow *someone else* to step forward and help that dying child so that grace can enter *that* person's life!"

:sarcastic