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

[Saint Frankenstein]

Are you planning to eventually debate in the debate forum at some point. You cannot declare reality into existence and I would not waste my time trying to. If an argument makes an appearance at some point I will see to it at that time.

Why bother when your opponent will simply use intellectually dishonest sophistry to hand wave your objections away.

 

[1robin]

Why bother when your opponent will simply use intellectually dishonest sophistry to hand wave your objections away.

Just can't pull the trigger on an argument yet I see. Let me know if you can manage it at some point. I do not have time for this mess.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Just can't pull the trigger on an argument yet I see. Let me know if you can manage it at some point. I do not have time for this mess.

What, about Yahweh originally being a Canaanite war god? You were the one who couldn't respond to it.

 

[1robin]

What, about Yahweh originally being a Canaanite war god? You were the one who couldn't respond to it.

No I was the one who had responded to it so exhaustively previously I was not about to restate all that material over again. It can easily be found if you desired my response to that claim. Do you know how to go about using the search functions, I ask because you are a new poster to me.

 

[kjw47]

This thread was started by a Calvinist. 1Robin is Christian/Baptist. You're a Jehovah Witness. Why don't you believe like they do? Do you believe Jesus is God? They probably do. The Bible and those that follow it vary in their beliefs. You guys don't even agree on an "objective" truth. God and Jesus can say they hate sin all they want, but why did he create the Christian version of The Adversary, knowing full well that he would rebel and take one third of the heavenly messengers with him? Why did he create animals and microscopic creatures that eat dead and dying flesh, if, in his "perfect" creation, he didn't plan on there being death and disease? Apparently, he did plan on it. Why does he allow extreme bad behavior? Why not zap the person before they hurt someone? He's done it in the past. And, supposedly he is coming on his white horse to do it in the future.

The Christian "objective" truth is because Eve got deceived? We're getting what we deserved and what we asked for? I don't think so. Besides, if it really happened like the Bible says, it was a set up. She wasn't smart enough or wise enough to make an informed decision. So why would a "just" and "loving" God curse her, her husband and all of humanity? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, 'cause God and Jesus hate sin. Sorry, I forgot.

The great apostasy rose up after Jesus, apostles and Christians were all murdered--- they held councils headed by a pagan false god worshipping king--guess who had the final say? A trinity was created because the greeks refused to go to a religion with but a single God, also wanted the pagan filled celebrations as well--the great apostasy allowed both. Finally after letting flocks read Gods word themselves--protestants broke off the main trunk-- men kept seeing something was wrong with the prior one and kept starting new ones--never fixed. 33,000 --a disunified mass of confusion. 1 cor 1:10)
Whereas the religion( singular) that Jesus started is unified in love and peace worldwide.
Eve obviously could make an informed decision. The grass looked greener.

 

[cottage]

Statements of mitigation are exactly what I should offer. My clarifications mitigated the applicability of your claims. I think your determination of what an all merciful God should do to mistakenly represent what he can do.

Since you are as usual making only points that flow from what words mean I had to look up all merciful. It, as every word you used that I looked for does not exist in the bible ( I have quit looking for them in dozens of versions as they turned out to not exist and now only use one or two major versions).

So before this goes any further you need to suggest a biblical description of God.

As usual you reply with lots of words but without addressing the argument I gave you. What I’m saying to you at bottom is that there is no omnibenevolence on this planet because the inhabitants are subject to unspeakable suffering. That is a fact, and it is a fact whether or not there is any God or any particular gods. And that is the state of affairs I’m identifying. So the Bible or any other tome does nothing to make that state of affairs a non-fact.
Now let’s move on from the fact of suffering, which you accept. You’ve agreed that ‘God needn’t be ‘perfectly merciful in all cases.’ And that is my argument in a nutshell. So there’s nothing more to be said on that question since we’re both agreed that God is not all merciful. Of course you are perfectly entitled to make statements in mitigation – for those that want to believe in God – while for me the essence of matter is settled. But even the mitigating circumstances you offer are fallacious or just plain contradictory (below).

Evil is caused by the rejection of God. All evil is a result of that. To prevent that God would have to prevent his own rejection. That would kill freewill, but if you had freewill for a split second I imagine you would claim that too was evil. So if God permits freewill and what it produces he is evil and if he stops both he is evil. That is a head you win tails God loses argument and not helpful. Again you must show one of two things.

1. God's purpose to allow freewill and the suffering it might produce for a limited time was unjustifiable given that love requires freewill.
2. Or that God could have met his exact same purpose using less inconvenient methods.



Your accusing me of a semantic out is the height of irony. It is your hyperbolic insistence on semantics that has caused me to be that insistent on it. I never choose to debate like that on my own. I grant common language use if allowed. You have not, so I cannot.

On the contrary, your entire response to me is based on semantic wriggling. My argument is factual: suffering exists, and therefore there is no all merciful being. There, simple!

God desired love.
1. Love mandates freewill.
2. Freewill must include choosing wrong.
3. Choosing wrong mandates suffering.

‘God desired love’. No he didn’t, he is self-sufficient, has and is everything by definition.

• ‘Love mandates fee will’
• ‘Freewill must include choosing wrong’
• Wrong choices only include suffering if that is what God ordains

If #3 is false then it is not in accordance with God’s will and hence we have a contradiction

So everything flows absolutely from God's desiring love. So you as always must show God was unjustified in desiring love.

I have done so, above.

Your semantic objection as usually has flaws.
1. The bible does not contain the label you objected to and your whole argument depends.
2. Even if found in it, the bible defines it's word usage. You cannot impose secular definition son biblical terminology in exactitude. It is a meaningless and futile effort. It only matters what the original word usage intended to convey.

Let me make this as simple as possible.

If God created man to exist in harmony with him, granted him freewill to freely chose it, gave chance after chance to repent based on the price he paid in full, and every single man ever born freely chose to deny their creator, God took back the life he created and all men ever born are annihilated. How does even that defy mercy? God is also Just. He is the lamb and also the lion of Judah. Taking either in a vacuum is to do justice to neither. Is God to pack heaven with rebels to meet your requirement that cannot even be found in the bible.

All of the above reduces to special pleading – and it is contradictory! From the top: you’re saying God created beings to live in harmony with him, which is to admit that God is not autonomous and sufficient in all things; next he granted free will with the caveat that evil and suffering would be possible, and actual, since God is omniscient and had foreknowledge; and God then annihilated humans for the mistakes he knew they would make, which he himself made possible and actual.

The facts are that God is defined by the Bible and your description does not exist there. If self evident then where is the argument. You claim God is all merciful, now you claim that is self evident, yet not true. Since God is not described in the bible as all merciful he is not obligated to be such and certainly not to be what you decided the term that is missing means. I simply disagree with the last half of that paragraph emphatically. I went back to look at what I said and unusually so found it extremely well stated and perfectly relevant and necessary. I think you have boxed your self in a corner which has betrayed you and you are simply thrashing about unhappy with that predicament.

As far as suffering is concerned the God of the Bible is subsequent to a question of fact. And the fact is that self-evidently suffering exists. And so I’m perfectly happy for you to say the God of the Bible is not described as ‘all merciful’ because that accords with what I’ve been arguing all along; but I’m completely baffled as to why you’ve been disputing that point with me for so many posts?

 

[cottage]

Appealing to authority is one of the most common forms of resolution or persuasion in law, historical studies, science, in fact every area that comes to mind uses it extensively. Why is it only challenged as a method for theology? I usually use those claims for a specific purpose. Either to indicate qualified conclusions to the opposite of what was claimed exist, or for a sufficiency of evidence issue. In those cases at least only names are necessary. Arguments themselves do not get better or worse by linking them to names.

With respect, you are completely misinformed on this matter. An ‘Appeal to authority’ is a fallacy. Quoting sources is not. In courts of law, scientific journals, or historical studies, a case is made, arguments are presented, precedents quoted and examples provided. And yes, even in theology this applies: there are innumerable presentations of scholarly exegesis that even on a simple point run to many hundreds of pages, and in which case it is acceptable to just quote the Abstract; and that applies to any philosophical or scientific paper or discussion as well. Without wanting to appear discourteous I have to say you seem not to understand that it is the arguments that matter, whereas names are used for reference and to credit the authors' intellectual property rights .

 

[CG Didymus]

Evil is caused by the rejection of God. All evil is a result of that.

A little parable...

I gave my daughter $20 last weekend and told her she was "free" to spend it however she wished. Although, I recommended see spend it "wisely." The little rascal spent it on candy. Can you believe it? She rejected my recommendation. So, in essence, she is rejecting me. She's essentially saying that I'm not smart enough to know what's best for her, the little snot. Now, in the short-term, she'll ruin her appetite for dinner. But, in the long-term she's probably on her way to obesity and ruining her teeth.

What should I do? I love her, but I can't allow her to make "wrong" choices. Suffering and evil result from "all" wrong choices. So, what choice do I have? I can't force her to listen to my rules. I have to kick her out of the house. A little suffering, going hungry, a few nights in the cold, and she'll come to her senses and come back to me on her own, and realize, that I know what's best for her, and come to realize that I love her more than anything. What do you think? She's only five and might not survive, but that's her own fault. She rejected me.

A few days later... I kicked her out, for her own "greater" good. But, I can't believe it, she had the audacity to call me "evil." I'm glad I learned this now before she got older, and I'm glad I have other "respectful" children. Especially now, they all listen to what I say, and they obey it. But, I'm not sure it's out of love? They seem to fear me. They only "love" me when I do nice things for them, hmmm? How should I punish them and get them to love me for me, for who I am, the wise and knowledgeable, the caregiver and provider that I am? The one that helped bring them into this world, hmmm? Maybe, kick them out for a while and let them suffer? I wonder what God would do, hmmm?

 

[adi2d]

A little parable...

I gave my daughter $20 last weekend and told her she was "free" to spend it however she wished. Although, I recommended see spend it "wisely." The little rascal spent it on candy. Can you believe it? She rejected my recommendation. So, in essence, she is rejecting me. She's essentially saying that I'm not smart enough to know what's best for her, the little snot. Now, in the short-term, she'll ruin her appetite for dinner. But, in the long-term she's probably on her way to obesity and ruining her teeth.

What should I do? I love her, but I can't allow her to make "wrong" choices. Suffering and evil result from "all" wrong choices. So, what choice do I have? I can't force her to listen to my rules. I have to kick her out of the house. A little suffering, going hungry, a few nights in the cold, and she'll come to her senses and come back to me on her own, and realize, that I know what's best for her, and come to realize that I love her more than anything. What do you think? She's only five and might not survive, but that's her own fault. She rejected me.

A few days later... I kicked her out, for her own "greater" good. But, I can't believe it, she had the audacity to call me "evil." I'm glad I learned this now before she got older, and I'm glad I have other "respectful" children. Especially now, they all listen to what I say, and they obey it. But, I'm not sure it's out of love? They seem to fear me. They only "love" me when I do nice things for them, hmmm? How should I punish them and get them to love me for me, for who I am, the wise and knowledgeable, the caregiver and provider that I am? The one that helped bring them into this world, hmmm? Maybe, kick them out for a while and let them suffer? I wonder what God would do, hmmm?

Just keep her away from the lawyers. She will be suing for child support and college ??

 

[CG Didymus]

Just keep her away from the lawyers. She will be suing for child support and college ??

Dang, I didn't think of that. Maybe I'll leave the country and change my name. It'll be like I'm invisible. Hmm, an invisible Dad that loves her but allows her to suffer, for her own good mind you, until she obeys me, on her own, out of love and respect. I think it'll work! It's the perfect plan! Maybe, I'll have some friends write her letters telling her how nice I really am, if obeyed that is. If only she knew how much I really love her. I didn't want to be so wrathful, but it's for the greater good. Why did she have to buy candy?

I've got a good idea. Before my other kids make wrong freewill choices and disobey me, I'll test them. I'll put some candy out on the coffee table in front of the TV. I'll tell them that I forbid them to eat it. And, I'll really make it tough, I'll forbid them to watch TV. I wonder what they will do? If only I could know the future. Hmmm? What if I knew the future and knew they made the wrong choice? Would I do things differently? Nah, it's the perfect test. Freewill demands it.

 

[adi2d]

Dang, I didn't think of that. Maybe I'll leave the country and change my name. It'll be like I'm invisible. Hmm, an invisible Dad that loves her but allows her to suffer, for her own good mind you, until she obeys me, on her own, out of love and respect. I think it'll work! It's the perfect plan! Maybe, I'll have some friends write her letters telling her how nice I really am, if obeyed that is. If only she knew how much I really love her. I didn't want to be so wrathful, but it's for the greater good. Why did she have to buy candy?

I've got a good idea. Before my other kids make wrong freewill choices and disobey me, I'll test them. I'll put some candy out on the coffee table in front of the TV. I'll tell them that I forbid them to eat it. And, I'll really make it tough, I'll forbid them to watch TV. I wonder what they will do? If only I could know the future. Hmmm? What if I knew the future and knew they made the wrong choice? Would I do things differently? Nah, it's the perfect test. Freewill demands it.

It would be easy for an all knowing dad. You know the future of all your kids. Just give the breath of life to the ones that will use their free will to follow your commands. The rest of them wouldn't live,wouldn't disobey you, wouldn't suffer your wrath. Its a win-win for all

 

[CG Didymus]

It would be easy for an all knowing dad. You know the future of all your kids. Just give the breath of life to the ones that will use their free will to follow your commands. The rest of them wouldn't live,wouldn't disobey you, wouldn't suffer your wrath. Its a win-win for all

What are you saying? That my "perfect" plan isn't so perfect? That if I know what is going to happen, why would I let it happen? I'm sorry but my loving kindness and my sense of justice demands that I let it all play out. Then I can reward the good kids and eternally punish the bad ones or destroy them in a lake of fire. I haven't decided which one yet, but I'm leaning toward eternal punishment in a lake of fire. After all, they disobeyed me.

I was talking to my neighbor and he thinks it was harsh of me to test my little girl in the first place. He talks to his kids and tries to guide them and teach them right from wrong. And actually forgive them when they make mistakes. He does spank them occasionally and puts them on restriction, but do you really think that wimpy stuff works? Tough love seems the best way. One mistake and you're guilty of all and deserving of death, don't you think?

Oh my God, I just thought of another great test. I'll send them to "camp." But, it's not an ordinary camp. It's disaster camp, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, wild animals, everything. They'll get one phone call per night to get on their hands and knees to beg me to save them and bring them back home to safety. But, the thing is, even the good ones might get maimed or killed. It's totally random. Even if they call on me to save them, I might or I might not, but as far as they know, they have to keep calling to have any chance at all. But, in reality I might save some of the bad kids, even if they never call me. So none of them will know for sure who will die and who I'll save. Of course, I will promise to give a reward to the ones that do keep calling on me. What do you think I should give them for a reward? Candy?

Oh, wait a minute, someone is at the door. It's a cop. What the heck does he want?

 

[adi2d]

What are you saying? That my "perfect" plan isn't so perfect? That if I know what is going to happen, why would I let it happen? I'm sorry but my loving kindness and my sense of justice demands that I let it all play out. Then I can reward the good kids and eternally punish the bad ones or destroy them in a lake of fire. I haven't decided which one yet, but I'm leaning toward eternal punishment in a lake of fire. After all, they disobeyed me.

I was talking to my neighbor and he thinks it was harsh of me to test my little girl in the first place. He talks to his kids and tries to guide them and teach them right from wrong. And actually forgive them when they make mistakes. He does spank them occasionally and puts them on restriction, but do you really think that wimpy stuff works? Tough love seems the best way. One mistake and you're guilty of all and deserving of death, don't you think?

Oh my God, I just thought of another great test. I'll send them to "camp." But, it's not an ordinary camp. It's disaster camp, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, wild animals, everything. They'll get one phone call per night to get on their hands and knees to beg me to save them and bring them back home to safety. But, the thing is, even the good ones might get maimed or killed. It's totally random. Even if they call on me to save them, I might or I might not, but as far as they know, they have to keep calling to have any chance at all. But, in reality I might save some of the bad kids, even if they never call me. So none of them will know for sure who will die and who I'll save. Of course, I will promise to give a reward to the ones that do keep calling on me. What do you think I should give them for a reward? Candy?

Oh, wait a minute, someone is at the door. It's a cop. What the heck does he want?

Far be it for me to tell you how to treat your little tax deductions. I was just showing a way the little darlings could have their free will and not have to suffer for eternity


The cops came to my door too. Did you get tickets to the policemans ball?

 

[CG Didymus]

Far be it for me to tell you how to treat your little tax deductions. I was just showing a way the little darlings could have their free will and not have to suffer for eternity


The cops came to my door too. Did you get tickets to the policemans ball?

No, I snuck out the back. Do you think that's all it was? The policeman's ball? Anyway, I'm hiding out now. In the mean time, I hired a guy in a trenchcoat to keep an eye on my kids. I told him he has free rain to tempt them with candy and things to try and get them to disobey me. Trouble is, I thought I could trust him, but he's gone rogue and I think he's trying to steal my kids from me. Can you believe it. I'm the nicest, most loving Dad in the world, and I tell them that all the time. But this guy, not only tempts them, but he tells them I'm evil and no good. He says that I don't have their best interests at heart. But I do. I just want them to love me as much as I love them.

Wait, one of them is calling from disaster camp... Oh my God, how funny. One of them just drowned in a flash flood and the other is stuck in a tree in the middle of the raging waters and is begging me to help him. And get this, he's sorry for disobey me and says if I save him he'll listen and obey from now on. Yeah, right, I heard that before. I'll let him sweat it out a little longer.

 

[adi2d]

Serves the little buggers right. What did they expect when they turned their backs to you. Think their better than you. You told them not to eat the candy. You love them but justice has to be done



That cop was probably bring your Father of the Year award

 

[CG Didymus]

Serves the little buggers right. What did they expect when they turned their backs to you. Think their better than you. You told them not to eat the candy. You love them but justice has to be done



That cop was probably bring your Father of the Year award

Hey, thanks for playing the game with me. It's obvious that an Earthly, human father that acted like this would be deemed evil and a little crazy. But, Our Father in Heaven, that does know all and created all, including the devil, disease, and natural disasters, he gets a free pass? He is immune to being considered evil? Because, it was our fault? We should have known better? We don't know anything. If he's real, we need his guiding hand. The God of fundy christians is playing games with us. The good and the bad both suffer. Innocent children do die.

But enough of that, that's all spiritual conjecture anyway. Back to the parable: Do you really think he was bringing me an award? Wait 'til they see my next trick, I mean test. I'm going to send my favorite Son down to disaster camp to save them. The trick is, that they'll still go through all hell, but they'll be promised a reward after they die, if they praise and worship me.

A few days later... Oh crap! They killed my favorite son! What got into them? Why would they act so cruelly? I'll bet trenchcoat guy had something to do with this.

 

[adi2d]

What is wrong with those people? Killing your favorite son that you sent to die. When will they learn?

Just a few generations you showed them your love by killing every ma woman and child in the world except for the Noah clan.


I'm still waiting for someone to explain why its crazy for a man but the only possible way for a god to act

 

[kjw47]

What is wrong with those people? Killing your favorite son that you sent to die. When will they learn?

Just a few generations you showed them your love by killing every ma woman and child in the world except for the Noah clan.


I'm still waiting for someone to explain why its crazy for a man but the only possible way for a god to act

God created everything--God owns all of creation--lock-stock and barrel--- God says there is 0 room for sin in his world.

 

[adi2d]

God created everything--God owns all of creation--lock-stock and barrel--- God says there is 0 room for sin in his world.

No room? Look around friend. There is plenty of sin and suffering in this world you say He created

 

[1robin]

As usual you reply with lots of words but without addressing the argument I gave you. What I’m saying to you at bottom is that there is no omnibenevolence on this planet because the inhabitants are subject to unspeakable suffering. That is a fact, and it is a fact whether or not there is any God or any particular gods. And that is the state of affairs I’m identifying. So the Bible or any other tome does nothing to make that state of affairs a non-fact.
Now let’s move on from the fact of suffering, which you accept. You’ve agreed that ‘God needn’t be ‘perfectly merciful in all cases.’ And that is my argument in a nutshell. So there’s nothing more to be said on that question since we’re both agreed that God is not all merciful. Of course you are perfectly entitled to make statements in mitigation – for those that want to believe in God – while for me the essence of matter is settled. But even the mitigating circumstances you offer are fallacious or just plain contradictory (below). Crap, now I have to go see if Omni benevolence is in the bible, then see what it was translated from, then see what it was translated from means. That is why I need so many words. Well that was easy in three versions and even a topical index Omni benevolence does not appear. Well I do not have to waste words on this one. So far your three for three on characteristics given to God that are not in the bible.

On the contrary, your entire response to me is based on semantic wriggling. My argument is factual: suffering exists, and therefore there is no all merciful being. There, simple!

Yes, every single point you make is a semantic technicality so I MUST be semantically accurate. So far that accuracy has shown the very foundations of your argument are not biblical. You can't have an entire position based on linguistic technicalities and then object to my insistence your language be accurate.

I did not think God is described as all merciful or Omni benevolent because that would conflict with being just. he is merciful, he is benevolent, he is just but he is not any one of them al the time as your argument suggests. He is those things employed at his all knowing discretion.

‘God desired love’. No he didn’t, he is self-sufficient, has and is everything by definition.

• ‘Love mandates fee will’
• ‘Freewill must include choosing wrong’
• Wrong choices only include suffering if that is what God ordains

If #3 is false then it is not in accordance with God’s will and hence we have a contradiction

Ok here is where your word choice is relevant because I did use it. I also used creation as a natural expression of his nature. I will now only use the latter to avoid whatever problem it is you have with the former. I have also been thinking about your non-beings can't benefit. Human life is the most valuable commodity in existence to humans. people love life, preserve life, fight for life, would trade anything for life. And that is for this transient veil of tears life. Sounds like we feel it is a benefit of the highest order. From now on use expression of his nature for creation as far as I am concerned. It was to fill a whole in God.

All of the above reduces to special pleading – and it is contradictory! From the top: you’re saying God created beings to live in harmony with him, which is to admit that God is not autonomous and sufficient in all things; next he granted free will with the caveat that evil and suffering would be possible, and actual, since God is omniscient and had foreknowledge; and God then annihilated humans for the mistakes he knew they would make, which he himself made possible and actual.

Crating a being to be in harmony with him does not imply he needed being to be in harmony with him. It is like a painter not having to paint but it is the natural expression of his ability. Suffering is not a caveat. Suffering is a necessity with freewill if used in correctly. You notice when Adam was obedient he lived in perfect contentment. God pronounced the sentence of death for denying the source of all life. Kind of automatic would you not say. However he paid every once of the price to commute the sentence and erase all past, present, and future sins to eventually make us perfect and able to dwell in contentment forever despite out denying life's source. What a monster.

As far as suffering is concerned the God of the Bible is subsequent to a question of fact. And the fact is that self-evidently suffering exists. And so I’m perfectly happy for you to say the God of the Bible is not described as ‘all merciful’ because that accords with what I’ve been arguing all along; but I’m completely baffled as to why you’ve been disputing that point with me for so many posts?

God's character is merciful, benevolent, righteous, vengeful, and just. How these are enacted depends on many things. Your attaching all to some of them is what betrays your argumentation. If all merciful no judgment for evil is possible and that is hardly a just God.