• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Ingledsva

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Ingledsva said:
Isaiah 7:14 is about Isaiah and his son Immanuel and the war against Jerusalem.

He was told to go into the Temple Prophetess/virgin, - she conceived, - bore him a son - Immanuel.
Click to expand...
JM2C said:
Isaiah’s wife was not a virgin anymore to conceive “Immanuel” base on

Isa 7:3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;

IOW, base on your understanding Immanuel would have been Isaiah’s 2nd child. Therefore, his wife can not be a virgin anymore.
Click to expand...


ING - Again - Isaiah's wife is NOT the Temple Prophetess.

Nowhere in Tanakh does it say his wife is a Prophetess. In fact she is so- none story - she doesn't even get a name.


Ingledsva said:
This is talking about God telling him to get a little extra on the side - with a Temple Prophetess/Virgin.
Click to expand...


JM2C said:
Talking about fairy tales. Where did you get this story?

You make up stories like these without any foundation at all.

Isaiah’s wife was the prophetess in Isaiah 8:3.

Maher-shalal-hash-baz is not Immanuel.

Yeah, keep on guessing maybe someday you’ll get it right.
Click to expand...


LOL! It is you folks making up the story. Nowhere does it say Isaiah's wife is a Prophetess. Nor is he in his home town where his wife would be.

He has gone to war with his grown son - and they are losing.

GOD - tells him to go have SEX with the Prophetess.


Isa 7:5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,

Isa 7:6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:

Isa 7:7 Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

Isa 7:8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

Isa 7:9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.

Isa 7:10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
Isa 7:11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


NOTE - IT IS A SIGN - FOR THEM, - NOT, - AGAIN - NOT, - A FUTURE PROPHECY!


That blows your future Jesus idea all to Hell. As does the fact that Jesus is named "JESUS" - not Immanuel!


Isa 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.

Isa 8:2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.

Isa 8:3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.


Isa 8:4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, my father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

Isa 8:5 The LORD spake also unto me again, saying,

Isa 8:6 Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son;

Isa 8:7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks:

Isa 8:8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.


It should be very obvious to you by now that this whole thing is the war for Jerusalem.

Immanuel/Mahershalalhashbaz (his nickname) is Isaiah's son by the Prophetess - for a SIGN to them.


Isa 8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.



Now - you may not understand this - however - Christian Scholars DO know this.

If you look up IMMANUEL in your Strong's - H 6005 - you will find - "OH MY GOD" - that IMMANUEL is ISAIAH's SON.

There it is - staring you in the face - all else is Christian wishful thinking.


Just more bastardizing of Jewish texts.



*
 
Last edited:
Ingledsva

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Ingledsva said:
Göbekli Tepe has temples over 12,000 years old.

Underwater cities off India are thought to be much older, and will press this back even farther.
Click to expand...
JM2C said:
Read about carbon dating and you will see that those years were not accurate.
Click to expand...


ING - LOL! I studied Archaeology. However - just for you - even if we consider the dating off - BOTH sites were dated using the same methods - and their age ranking remains.


JM2C said:
The Hebrew word for Ethiopia is*Cush, the eastern branch of which is identified with India.

The Hebrew word for Libya is*Put*(Put was the third son of Ham, according to Genesis 10:6), whose eastern branch, like Cush, is also identified with India (Ames R. The Middle East in Prophecy. Booklet).

The old WCG reported:

Ham and his wife...One of their sons was named Cush (Gen. 10:6) which means "black" in Hebrew and is often translated into English as "Ethiopia" because the Greeks first called the children of Cush "Ethiopians." But not all Cu****es live in the modern nation of Ethiopia.

Cush first settled around ancient Babylon (Gen. 10:8-10). From Babylon, Cush spread far and wide. Most of the black children of Cush migrated across central Arabia and around its southern coast to East Africa.

Cush also had sons who went east into Asia rather than into Africa.

Herodotus wrote:
The Ethiopians from the sun-rise . . . were marshalled with the Indians, and did not at all differ from [them] in appearance but only in their language, and their hair. For the eastern Ethiopians are straight-haired; but those of (Africa) have hair more curly than that of any other people. These Ethiopians from Asia were accounted (almost the same as the Indians [of India]) (Polymnia, Section 20).

The brown people of southern India and Ceylon are also descendants of Cush. Historians call them Dravidians; the ancients called them Sibae (Smith's Classical Dictionary).

Their Bible name was Seba (Gen. 10:7). Josephus recognized an eastern and a western Cush--one in Asia, the other in Africa (Antiquities, Book 1, VI, 2). Herodotus calls them "Asiatic Ethiopians" (Thalia, Section 94). "Ethiopia" in Ezekiel 38:5 should be translated "Cush." It refers primarily to the Asiatic Cush, which is India today.

In India the highest castes were not only called Brahmins, but also Rajputs. "Rajput" means "king or chief of Put" (Raja," Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed.).

"Phut" or "Put" means a "warrior" in Hebrew.

The Rajputs are the most noted warriors in India...Of the four sons of Ham, only Cush bears a name that means "black." Just as some of the sons of Cush are brown, so some of the children of Phut are black.

The Indians of central and northern India vary from light to dark brown. (Personal Correspondence Department. Letter L270, L270-688. Worldwide Church of God)
Click to expand...


ING - LOL! I don't know what you think you are telling me here? I have written several post on ancient historians saying the Hebrew were originally Brahmin from India - that settled first in Egypt - then the "Hebrew" lands.

"The tribe of Ioud or the Brahmin Abraham, left the Maturea of the kingdom of Oude in India and, settling in Goshen, or the house of the Sun or Heliopolis in Egypt, gave it the name of the place which they had left in India, Maturea." (Anacalypsis; Vol. I, p. 405.)


Ingledsva said:
WHAT! Did you forget you've only got 4000 years between Adam and Jesus? LOL!
Click to expand...
JM2C said:
How do we figure this out? 4000 years between the Lord Jesus Christ and Adam while you are saying that,
Click to expand...


ING - Being funny LOL. That is the time given in the Genealogies in the Bible, from Adam turned out on Earth.




Ingledsva said:
Göbekli Tepe has temples over 12,000 years old.

Underwater cities off India are thought to be much older, and will press this back even farther.
Click to expand...
JM2C said:
If India came from Cush and Cush came from Adam then we have a problem on dates, don’t we?

Carbon dating is unreliable.
Click to expand...


LOL! No we don't. Christian dating is - way - way -way - OFF.


And it does not say Adam came from Cush.


The ancient historian tells us they were originally BRAHMIN, whom had many Gods.

And we know the Hebrew originally had many Gods and Goddesses.


It says they settled first in Egypt - which has the first - ONE GOD - visualized as the Sun.


The "Hebrew" coming out of Egypt - bring the new ONE GOD (with Sun Image) - out of Egypt with them.

The Bible makes it very plain that this is a NEW Covenant with ONE GOD.



*
 
CG Didymus

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Skwim said:
Then I invite you to Google "Problem of evil" and look at the first 10 pages. They contain 100---count 'em, 100---web sources on the problem, and with many more to follow on subsequent pages. No, dear 1robin, as much as you would like the problem put to death it remains quite alive.
And no such encyclopedia would bother going into the details here ↓ if it was an untenable (dead) issue.

Click to expand...
No, no, it's no use. He's right. God's not evil. The devil and the people he made are evil, not him. Any philosopher worth his salt would tell you that. How was God supposed to know that the devil would turn on him? And that we would rather follow our own way instead of listening to him and obeying all of his rules.

It's our own fault. We know the rules. They written in his Bible. And if we disobey certain ones, we deserve to be stoned to death. And, because we all deserve to be punished, it's not his fault when we get killed by volcanoes, hurricanes and other "acts" of God. He's merely doing his job of keeping the world working like he set it up to work. We just get in the way sometimes. He can't help that.

What would you want him to do? Tell us to move to safer places to live? He can't do that. That would be interfering with our freewill. Like here in California, we know God will soon kill thousands of us in an earthquake. We know that, and yet, we don't move. So stop blaming God. And start blaming ourselves and the devil... like the good book so clearly says.
 
Ingledsva

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
JM2C said:
Not at all!

From Genesis to Revelation are the Words of God written by holy men.

They were not the inventions of the finite human mind but came from the infinite mind of the almighty God.
Click to expand...


A book saying so, does not make it so.


"Holy" men writing it, does not make it true.


There is no way to prove the Bible is any more from a God, then any other of the world's religious books.



*
 
JM2C

JM2C

CHRISTIAN
ruffen said:
That's good for you of course, but how did you arrive to the conclusion that you trust the Lord Jesus Christ with all your heart?
Click to expand...
I don’t know how to answer this. You know that from “Reason and Rationality” any conclusion should come from a premise. Now, what is the premise where I base my trust or as you have said “how did I arrive to the conclusion” in trusting the Lord Jesus Christ with all my heart.

I once read here in RF this saying,

“The things to be revealed are "unsearchable" because they are beyond the grasp of human knowledge”

Meaning logic and reason or in your philosophy its “Reason and Rationality” cannot or can never arrive to a conclusion on what God had revealed to those who trusted in Him. IOW, my trust in the Lord Jesus Christ was not base on human knowledge or reason and rationality but solely on God‘s mercy.

Ro 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.

Its all about God’s mercy
 
JM2C

JM2C

CHRISTIAN
Ingledsva said:
There is no way to prove the Bible is any more from a God, then any other of the world's religious books.
*
Click to expand...
I just did from your posts.

You know what is funny about people like you?

You said there is no God, but you are quoting God from the bible and adding words too.

Ingledsva said:
This is talking about God telling him to get a little extra on the side - with a Temple Prophetess/Virgin.
Click to expand...

Please revise your opinion.
 
JM2C

JM2C

CHRISTIAN
Ingledsva said:
ING - LOL! I don't know what you think you are telling me here? I have written several post on ancient historians saying the Hebrew were originally Brahmin from India - that settled first in Egypt - then the "Hebrew" lands.
Click to expand...

Hebrews came from India? From wikipedia again? Wow!

India came from Cush, Cush came from Ham, Ham came from Noah. Hewbrews came from Abraham, Abraham came from Shem the brother of Ham. That is why they were called the Semitic people.

The three great monotheistic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--all had Semitic origins, “the Lord, the God of Shem -Gen.9:26“.

Do you understand it now?

Timeline is very important when studying ancient history. Your timeline does not compute with the bible and yet you love to quote from the bible.

You are contradicting your own statements because you do not have any basis on your twisted theories. You bragged about the things you wrote here in RF and the things you studied [I studied Archaeology] and yet you can not find a footing on what you are saying.
 
1robin

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Skwim said:
Then I invite you to Google "Problem of evil" and look at the first 10 pages. They contain 100---count 'em, 100---web sources on the problem, and with many more to follow on subsequent pages. No, dear 1robin, as much as you would like the problem put to death it remains quite alive.
And no such encyclopedia would bother going into the details here ↓ if it was an untenable (dead) issue.

Click to expand...
Does the fact a classic argument is listed somewhere make that argument consistent with modern scholarship? Of course old arguments that were debated over decades will be recorded somewhere. For example:

1. There are 11.5 MILLION count them million web sites on the steady state of the universe. I guess Hubble did not make that untenable after all.
2. There are 16.5 million on the flat earth. I guess bronze age men in Greece were really right after all.
3. I guess Ptolemy was right about the earth being the center of everything there are 1000's X the number of pages you gave me for Geo-centricity.


I want you also to notice two things (among many) about your source.
1. It mainly references to men who existed before Christ. Exactly why would I think Plato is on the cutting edge of Philosophy.
2. Among the modern sources I merely see listed is Inwagen who is one of the modern philosophers who pronounced the "problem of evil" unsustainable in philosophy.

You might want to take another run at this.

No. I'm looking for the source of your claim that "It falsely masquerades as a problem by those who desire the problem remain and are not among the majority professional philosophers but operate on the fringes of lay scholarship."
Click to expand...
I would have never guessed you were asking for the source of hat statement. That source is the famous scholar called "me". I believe I indicated that or thought it obvious when I wrote it. I make many IMO statements.

It was a reference to your habit of avoiding direct questions, and going off on irrelevant issues. And, NO, I'm not going to provide you with examples of something you know to be true.
Click to expand...
What has this been maybe 6 posts each at the most and already you have me pigeon holed. Not to mention you complain about me avoiding questions and in the very next statement above avoid a question. Remarkable.

Don't play coy. You know exactly what they are. ;)
Click to expand...
I certainly do know what they are but that has nothing to do with in what way you are attempting to use them. They are in fact rhetorical tools used in propaganda and based on abject ignorance and bias. Now I did not want to assume you knew that and posted them anyway so I paid you the courtesy of asking. I see I might not have bothered.

I've seen the same many times before; playing fast and loose with words as if they actually make the argument their authors claim. Such purple prose would be tossed out of a freshman logic class before you could pronounce "syllogism." Another pitfall is that it blatantly assumes freewill to be a viable state of affairs, whereas most of those who have given the issue any thought see it for what it is: pure illusion, promulgated by Christians in particular to save their concept of sin/salvation.
Click to expand...
Is this some kind of attempt to dismiss the greatest Christian commentator in history, all theologians, or all scholars? If you had told me you were just going to ignore and dismiss anything you found inconvenient I would not have began any debate with you. You mentioned something absurd about freshmen logic above. Would you instead like the response on this issue from one of the scholars who freshmen philosophy students are taught wrote the second most important philosophic/theological work in history?

Sorry that we're biased toward reason and employ rhetoric that deftly puts many Christian claims to shame, but so it goes. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Is that what you actually think your cartoons were? This is like debating my niece. I expect the tried and true I know you are but what am I to show up soon.

Hey, if you don't want an answer don't ask the question.
Click to expand...
The point was you did not answer. You complain I have not answered and yet refuse every attempt to get an answer. I see unlike Doc holiday your hypocrisy knows no bounds. BTW how is it that you post without any of the arrows that enable a person to back track posts in them?

The BIBLE?
"God had a purpose in the creation of this universe. It was to facilitate intelligent life that could freely choose to accept his reality or deny."
​
is in the Bible?

Sounds like a fabrication or at the very least a loosy-goosy interpretation of various passages cobbled together. But on the outside chance that this is unequivocally stated or implied in the scriptures please cite chapter and verse. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Is sounds like a rigorous argument. What it actually sounds like is the exact same conclusion mainstream scholars have come to about the purpose of the universe given in the bible, and have for thousands of years. I do not think your going to find my statement as scripture in the bible, after all I did not write it. I do think that is one of the most obvious and simple of deductions if you actually read the bible with one exception. It could be said one other priority might outweigh what I said but the other is kind of attached to it anyway. It may be said that the universe was created to establish a kingdom for Christ in a manner of speaking. However that employs citizens of that kingdom inherently so says the same thing anyway but wanted to throw it in there any way. I apparently have not learned my lesson yet so I will ask, do you want the scriptures for which these two obvious conclusions come?
 
1robin

1robin

Christian/Baptist
CG Didymus said:
No, no, it's no use. He's right. God's not evil. The devil and the people he made are evil, not him. Any philosopher worth his salt would tell you that. How was God supposed to know that the devil would turn on him? And that we would rather follow our own way instead of listening to him and obeying all of his rules.

It's our own fault. We know the rules. They written in his Bible. And if we disobey certain ones, we deserve to be stoned to death. And, because we all deserve to be punished, it's not his fault when we get killed by volcanoes, hurricanes and other "acts" of God. He's merely doing his job of keeping the world working like he set it up to work. We just get in the way sometimes. He can't help that.

What would you want him to do? Tell us to move to safer places to live? He can't do that. That would be interfering with our freewill. Like here in California, we know God will soon kill thousands of us in an earthquake. We know that, and yet, we don't move. So stop blaming God. And start blaming ourselves and the devil... like the good book so clearly says.
Click to expand...
I stopped reading half way through since not one point I read was biblically valid nor part of any mainstream doctrine I know of. If you going to create a caricature of Christianity then argue against it then you do not need me.
 
Ingledsva

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Ingledsva said:
ING - LOL! I don't know what you think you are telling me here? I have written several post on ancient historians saying the Hebrew were originally Brahmin from India - that settled first in Egypt - then the "Hebrew" lands.
Click to expand...

JM2C said:
Hebrews came from India? From wikipedia again? Wow!


ING - LOL! You don't pay attention! NOT from Wiki. I used an ancient historian for a reason. LOL!

Here is Josephus saying it. -

"...These Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calani." Josephus (37 - 100 A.D.), (Book I:22.)

"Megasthenes, who was sent to India by Seleucus Nicator, about three hundred years before Christ says that the Jews 'were an Indian tribe or sect called Kalani...'" (Anacalypsis, by Godfrey Higgins, Vol. I; p. 400.)



India came from Cush, Cush came from Ham, Ham came from Noah. Hewbrews came from Abraham, Abraham came from Shem the brother of Ham. That is why they were called the Semitic people.


ING - Dude, India did not come from Ham's son Cush. LOL!

And don't tell me you are one of those people that believe the "curse" was to be turned black?.


The three great monotheistic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--all had Semitic origins, “the Lord, the God of Shem -Gen.9:26“.

Do you understand it now?


ING - LOL! All of which have nothing to do with what you said about ADAM! LOL!


Also - obviously all three of the religions of ABRAHAM have the same source - ABRAHAM - and the Abrahamic God.


And you are putting way too much stock in the Bible creation story.


It is absolute BULL that a few people re-populated the world.



Timeline is very important when studying ancient history. Your timeline does not compute with the bible and yet you love to quote from the bible.

You are contradicting your own statements because you do not have any basis on your twisted theories. You bragged about the things you wrote here in RF and the things you studied [I studied Archaeology] and yet you can not find a footing on what you are saying.
Click to expand...


LOL! You are using a book of tribal history, mixed with myth.


I got the timeline from a Christian site that used the Bible genealogies section.


Nor have I contradicted anything I have written.



*
 
CG Didymus

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
1robin said:
I stopped reading half way through since not one point I read was biblically valid nor part of any mainstream doctrine I know of. If you going to create a caricature of Christianity then argue against it then you do not need me.
Click to expand...
Half way? Not bad. Let me simplify my question for you. It 's the same one I've asked many times. Did God know that the devil and man would fall? Did he know they would do all sorts of evil things? Did he create the universe with things crashing into each other and exploding? Did he create the Earth in such a way that natural occurrences, like floods, hurricanes and volcanoes would kill a certain amount of people? If yes, then how is it that he's not a least a little bit evil for coming up with such a creation? Yeah, his overall plan has a happy ending, but it's rough going for us all to get there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top