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

[Lady B]

And again, this makes no sense. You're going against any reasonable meaning of "responsible". If a child's death is preordained by God, then this means that God decided that the child should die. Do you agree that we're responsible for the consequences of our decisions?

Yes we are indeed responsible for all sin. Let me ask you,not that you believe either,but are you having more trouble with the Calvinist view then the Armenian view? I will try to show you how both of us believe in regards to sin and the author of sin.

The real difference between Calvinism and Armenian is If God has a reason or purpose when sin and suffering happen , both views affirm that nothing happens apart from God’s permission.However Calvinist believe God never allows any evil to happen that he has not already determined to use for our good and nothing He allows can be terminated in evil. Romans 8:28 "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." On the Armenian side, still God is not the author of evil yet he allows mans will to essentially rule and works around men's sin to establish his will sort of like man acts and God reacts. Or that he reluctantly permits disasters to happen with no plan or purpose in mind for the outcome.

I agree that any view making God the author of sin, he is indeed a moral monster,Scripture adamantly refutes this. But to those of you who see Calvinism as the worse view between the two,Armenian and calvinism, is saying you would prefer a God who has no plan, will not be sovereign and turn evil into something good. And any God that would stand back and permit however reluctantly, with no greater purpose is in my mind equally as reprehensible as him being the author of sin.

It is not God who is responsible for evil, though he has permitted evil and purposed it for our good, God allowing evil without purpose certainly would be this moral monster some here see him to be.

Eph 1:11 "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will"
How both predestination and men's responsibility for sin are reconciled is beyond the best of us to really comprehend:
As Calvin puts it," any attempt to unravel the mystery of predestination and human responsibility beyond Scripture is a “seeking outside the way.” “Better to limp along this path,” says Calvin, “than to rush with all speed outside of it.”

 

[Lady B]

So you are in essence asking us to take as a given that we are evil and deserve to be punished just like that? With no actual facts or logic to support such an assertion?

No I am not asking you to believe, but humor me for a moment and tell me if you feel you are good or not? if good, have you always been good? by what moral standards do you judge what is good or bad? and how do you determine which you are?

 

[LuisDantas]

No I am not asking you to believe, but humor me for a moment and tell me if you feel you are good or not?

Plenty enough to find the idea odd, at the very least.

if good, have you always been good? by what moral standards do you judge what is good or bad? and how do you determine which you are?

It is mainly a matter of being honest with oneself.

 

[Lady B]

You can prove anything from contradictory premises. If God defines what is good, then one cannot claim that God himself is either 'good' or 'bad'. From God's perspective, the meaning of the terms becomes whatever he wants them to mean--essentially meaningless. Nevertheless, people of faith seem seldom troubled enough by the linguistic sleight of hand to pause in their continual claims that God is 'good' (Alahu akbar!). If I believed that the consequence of not shouting such praises would result in my eternal torture, then I wouldn't care much about the logic or its lack either.

One of my major criticisms of the religious doctrine of 'objective morality' is that it effectively undermines our instinctive humanistic morality. What defines 'good behavior' is however one believes God defines it, and that can be much at odds with what we would usually consider morally justifiable behavior. Religious authorities can use this kind of reasoning to manipulate the behavior of those who accept their authority. In the end, 'objective morality' becomes completely arbitrary. It is what lets some religious fanatics justify unspeakable atrocities--even those whose commission consumes their own lives.

I would prefer an objective morality that men cannot adjust to his will at given period or culture. and as you stated be used to manipulate behavior by religious auhorities.Name if you can an example of a subjective morality that is not allready given in The bible, can you? Let's look at just the 10 commandments since most everyone even atheists know what they are, are any of those something that should be changed or adjusted to fit the morality of the day and /or culture? Obviously the ones regarding worship of other God's does not fit into this question, but what about do not kill, do not lie, do not covet or commit adultery, honor your parents ect...Do you think those are an example of bad objective morality?

 

[Lady B]

Plenty enough to find the idea odd, at the very least.



It is mainly a matter of being honest with oneself.

Can you explain a wee bit more? I am truly curious how anyone outside of God, my God to be precise, judges himself, whether good or bad, or sometimes either.

 

[Lady B]

Ok I need to go again and prepare for more celebrations,tomorrow Busy but I will be back next year, hehehehe, enjoy !

 

[Copernicus]

I would prefer an objective morality that men cannot adjust to his will at given period or culture. and as you stated be used to manipulate behavior by religious auhorities.Name if you can an example of a subjective morality that is not allready given in The bible, can you?

I am not sure what you are asking for here. The terms "objective morality" and "subjective morality" are defined in the philosophical literature, not the Bible. Religious morality is "objective" in that it is not supposed to change according to circumstance. It is invariant. Subjective morality is relative. It can differ according to context or circumstance.

Let's look at just the 10 commandments since most everyone even atheists know what they are, are any of those something that should be changed or adjusted to fit the morality of the day and /or culture? Obviously the ones regarding worship of other God's does not fit into this question, but what about do not kill, do not lie, do not covet or commit adultery, honor your parents ect...Do you think those are an example of bad objective morality?

Which version of the Ten Commandments are you talking about? Not every Christian sect agrees on what they are. They appear to be a simplified and condensed version of earlier Semitic laws, especially the code of Hammurabi.

 

[LuisDantas]

Lady B, for the most part morality and judgements about whether I am being good or not at any given moment come from paying attention to my own feelings and goals.

Sometimes I have unpleasant surprises, even painful ones. But it is not very difficult all in all, and I can very sincerely tell you that belief in God would be no help at all.

 

[McBell]

I would prefer an objective morality that men cannot adjust to his will at given period or culture. and as you stated be used to manipulate behavior by religious auhorities.Name if you can an example of a subjective morality that is not allready given in The bible, can you? Let's look at just the 10 commandments since most everyone even atheists know what they are, are any of those something that should be changed or adjusted to fit the morality of the day and /or culture? Obviously the ones regarding worship of other God's does not fit into this question, but what about do not kill, do not lie, do not covet or commit adultery, honor your parents ect...Do you think those are an example of bad objective morality?

They are not examples of "objective" morality.
The second you make you god an exception it is no longer objective.

Of course, i am now waiting for the inevitable "when I say objective, I do not mean objective for god I meant for man blah blah blah"

 

[averageJOE]

Again, God did not kill those children and he is not responsible for the sin of murder. Men are totally responsible, whether the children were pre-ordained to die or not.

This doesn't make any sense. Your attempt to explain in in post #361 doesn't even come close to explaining this blatant contradiction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which version of the Ten Commandments are you talking about? Not every Christian sect agrees on what they are. They appear to be a simplified and condensed version of earlier Semitic laws, especially the code of Hammurabi.

And if we're just taking any code of behaviour handed down by God (or at least presumed to be handed down by God) as "objective morality", then we shouldn't discount the other Ten Commandments. If all we have to use as our basis of morality is what the Bible says, then we don't have any justification to consider "you shall not murder" any more important than "you shall not boil a kid goat in its mother's milk."

 

[Koldo]

Yes we are indeed responsible for all sin.

Do you also agree that God is responsible for the consequences of his decisions ( whatever they may be ) ?

 

[idav]

However Calvinist believe God never allows any evil to happen that he has not already determined to use for our good and nothing He allows can be terminated in evil.

Here is where I notice a contradiction. Humans cannot be totally responsible because it was preordained to be so. What your saying here is that, with god, the ends will always justify the means. IOW god allows and ordained the children to suffer for the purpose of some greater good. Telling a person that god has some purpose in people dying and suffering isn't all that effective in consoling the grieving.

It takes faith to believe there is some greater purpose and it makes people wonder whether or not God couldn't have done it a better way, intervened more, for some of the worst atrocities.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Do you also agree that God is responsible for the consequences of his decisions ( whatever they may be ) ?

God is not responsible for His decisions since He hasn't interacted in the universe since the Creation, we, having free will, are responsible for ours however.

 

[Copernicus]

God is not responsible for His decisions since He hasn't interacted in the universe since the Creation, we, having free will, are responsible for ours however.

By that logic, if I throw a rock at your head, you can't blame me for the rock hitting your head, because I haven't interacted with the rock since it left my hand. You should have chosen to move your head out of the way.

 

[Koldo]

God is not responsible for His decisions since He hasn't interacted in the universe since the Creation, we, having free will, are responsible for ours however.

But, in this case, he is certainly responsible for the creation. Don't you agree?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

By that logic, if I throw a rock at your head, you can't blame me for the rock hitting your head, because I haven't interacted with the rock since it left my hand. You should have chosen to move your head out of the way.

You could fire a bullet at my head as well. :cover::ignore:

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Telling a person that god has some purpose in people dying and suffering isn't all that effective in consoling the grieving.

Having gone through the death of my beloved wife, I can say with certainly that the only salve for grief it time. But my certainty that God does not intervene saved me from the angst of the question of why He didn't. Every death or tribulation, no matter how apparently senseless, every good fortune no matter how wrongly it's obtained, is a monument to God's commitment to our free will. Against the backdrop of eternity it's but a blink.

It takes faith to believe there is some greater purpose and it makes people wonder whether or not God couldn't have done it a better way, intervened more, for some of the worst atrocities.

The problem is so few people realize the vital importance of free will. It is THE one and only purpose for Creation. He could create us and everything else instantly if free will was not required. I put my faith in this because it makes reasoned sense as well.

 

[Copernicus]

Having gone through the death of my beloved wife, I can say with certainly that the only salve for grief it time. But my certainty that God does not intervene saved me from the angst of the question of why He didn't. Every death or tribulation, no matter how apparently senseless, every good fortune no matter how wrongly it's obtained, is a monument to God's commitment to our free will. Against the backdrop of eternity it's but a blink.

The problem is so few people realize the vital importance of free will. It is THE one and only purpose for Creation. He could create us and everything else instantly if free will was not required. I put my faith in this because it makes reasoned sense as well.

I believe in both free will and determinism. Choice is not a random process, but the chaotic interaction of events in our environment makes our behavior essentially non-deterministic. If choice were not determined, then we would never be able to predict anyone's behavior or explain our own motivations for our choices. Since we cannot know with certainty what will happen in the future, we behave just like robots that encounter obstacles in their path. That is, we modify our behavior to suit our circumstances, based on some very complex programming that is designed to calculate outcomes. Free will is not a gift from God. It is a necessary means to our survival.

 

[Falvlun]

If choice were not determined, then we would never be able to predict anyone's behavior or explain our own motivations for our choices.

I know this probably isn't the thread for this, but that does not follow.