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

[Ingledsva]

How do you know? According to your logic the whole bible might just be a myth

We are talking here about stories taken from Tanakh - with no basis in reality.


For instance we end up with a virgin birth Jesus story, (written by people AFTER his death) because they misinterpreted Isaiah - which is about an actual war for Jerusalem - and Isaiah's son Emmanuel - from a Temple Virgin.


There is no need for Jesus to be from such a "virgin" story, to be the Messiah.




*

 

[AlphaAlex115]

We are talking here about stories taken from Tanakh - with no basis in reality.


For instance we end up with a virgin birth Jesus story, (written by people AFTER his death) because they misinterpreted Isaiah - which is about an actual war for Jerusalem - and Isaiah's son Emmanuel - from a Temple Virgin.


There is no need for Jesus to be from such a "virgin" story, to be the Messiah.




*

And there is also not a need for Jesus to be from such a virgin story
... you make No sense

 

[Clear]

[FONT=&quot]AlphaAlex115[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Actually, I think you are making a good point regarding the early Jewish and Christian (and Islamic) belief of the fall of Satan/Lucifer from heaven.. As I explained to JM2C, we don’t really know what the original Hebrew Bible text actually said. We do know there are many changes that have taken place in this text. I gave examples in post # 3900. (In fact, one of Justyn Martyr's complaints against the Jews is that the Jews made changes to the Hebrew Bible that would have made the Christian claim more recognizable, the virgin birth was one of Justyns specific complaints where Jews changed the text...)

Jewish history itself, tells us there were conflicting versions of the Hebrew Bible (tanakh) and there were changes made to the text that, almost arbitrarily becomes the one most religious Jews accept nowadays. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]However the Jewish Genesis Rabba tells Jews that “[/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is forbidden to inquire what existed before creation, as Moses distinctly tells us (Deut. 4. 32): 'Ask now of the days that are past which were before thee, since the day God created man upon earth.' Thus the scope of inquiry is limited to the time since the Creation.--Gen. Rabba 1.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thus, Jews from later eras that came to believe such prohibitions, would not BE aware of much that happened before creation.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]EARLY Jewish textual witness certainly DO describe the fall of Lucifer/Satan/Devil from heaven AND this single historical story IS an intersecting point of agreement between early Christian, early Jewish AND early Islamic doctrinal traditions. It is only LATER Jews that came to eschew such textual traditions and witnesses.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Do you want me to describe the fall of Lucifer from Heaven from Jewish/Christian and Islamic texts? I'm not sure as an athiest whether you would be interested (since it is a religious "spat"), however, as a historian, I am always surprised that Christians and Jews have little knowledge of the source of this specific Evil and thus the philosophers (rightly so), give them endless grief about the source of Evil inside the model of God having created ex-nihilo.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clear[/FONT]

 

[Ingledsva]

We are talking here about stories taken from Tanakh - with no basis in reality.


For instance we end up with a virgin birth Jesus story, (written by people later - AFTER Jesus' death) because they misinterpreted Isaiah - which is about an actual war for Jerusalem - and Isaiah's son Emmanuel - from a Temple Virgin.


There is no need for Jesus to be from such a "virgin" story, to be the Messiah.

And there is also not a need for Jesus to be from such a virgin story
... you make No sense

In other words -


They took a story about a war, and a person born DURING that war, - and AFTER JESUS'S DEATH, - turned it into a prophecy of Jesus' birth.

Since Jesus is obviously not named "Emmanuel" we end up with songs and extra stories to try and qualify this problem, etc.


The awaited Hebrew Messiah - which Jesus was claiming to be - was human - not a God, - or part of a trinity, nor born in that supernatural virgin story.




*

 

[Ingledsva]

Justin Martyr was a convert to Christianity, that believed everything the Christians of his time told him, - including erroneous Isaiah stories.

He wrote the Apology around 155 -157 CE.



*

 

[1robin]

And there is also not a need for Jesus to be from such a virgin story
... you make No sense

There is a very important need. David's blood line had a curse on it. God (being God) found a way to get Jesus legally in David's line so he was eligible for kingship without being liable for the curse placed on David's bloodline. Genius is an understatement.

 

[CG Didymus]

Where in Tanakh does it actually say Satan is a fallen angel?

It doesn't.

Where does it say in Tanakh that 1/3 followed him?

It doesn't.

People that wrote after Jesus was dead - and that did not understand the Jewish texts - misinterpreted those texts - coming up with incorrect myths.

I hope you know that I was trying to be sarcastic, not accurate. But, somehow, in the Christian translation it does say all those things. Whether it comes from non-canonical sources or from creative manipulation of Bible verses, but it's there.

If you take part of one verse that says "one" and another verse that says "third", you get "one third". Another place uses the word "fallen" and somewhere else it says "angel". Put all those separate verses that obviously all belong together and you get "one third of the angels fell from heaven and followed their leader, Lucifer". It might be hard to find for the non-believer because you need special eyes to see it, very special eyes. Like you have to be almost blind to everything else but Christian approved points of view.

 

[1robin]

There is nothing in Mormon doctrine which, when properly understood, is inconsistent with the Bible, and the LDS understanding of God is probably more biblical than traditional Christianity's. For instance, there is nowhere in the Bible where God is described as a three-in-one essence which fills the universe. A further discussion on this topic, however, would take us off the topic of the OP. That's something I don't like to do.

There are virtually endless lists of incompatibility's between the book of Mormon and the Bible. By "properly understood", it seems in my experience to mean "properly spinning both the Bible by unjustifiable means and the book of Mormon by whatever means"

I did not mention the Trinity as a disagreement. However the bible gives clear teaching that we were not God's before our birth, spiritual children in the sense Christ is, nor will we be God's after we die. I have hundreds of this absurdities by which to reject Mormonism even if many Mormons seem to be sincere and moral (even if deluded).

You sure you want to get into this?

 

[AlphaAlex115]

There is a very important need. David's blood line had a curse on it. God (being God) found a way to get Jesus legally in David's line so he was eligible for kingship without being liable for the curse placed on David's bloodline. Genius is an understatement.

No sorry get your facts straight. ... Joseph was jesus' father.. Not this david bloke or god... and there was no curse in his bloodline anyway. .

 

[1robin]

Any God who is humane won't let us suffer for anything. That Palestine-Israel situation was an example. You say TV isn't enough? Are you saying the channel somehow produced the bombing via special effects? You claim million miracles? I claim more non-miracles. And as for which God, let us say Christian God who is the ultimate epitome of mercy and doesn't distinguish.

That is 100% wrong, not only theologically but also philosophically.

Once upon a time a few decades or centuries ago the atheists thought they stumbled onto something by saying that evil was incompatible with an all good all powerful God. So be the law of non-contradiction God could not exist. That was systematically torn to shreds by philosophic scholars like Plantinga, Craig, Zacharias, Aquinas, Inwagen, etc ad infintum...... so utterly that it no longer is thought to have any merit at all except to a few die hard(s). The consensus is that God and the existence of evil are completely compatible. So much for rigorous scholarship so lets move on to theology.

You are totally ignoring purpose. God's purpose was to create free moral creatures that could accept or deny him. Given purpose you could not create a world with freewill where wrong choices, hate, evil, and mistakes cannot occur. God can do anything that is logically possible. He can't make round squares, he can't make rocks to heavy for him to lift, and he can't make free creatures without their being able to go very wrong. He wants love and love only occurs where hate is possible. If your partner was a computer and you pressed kiss, it would have no choice and the act would mean nothing. Love requires freewill, freewill requires the ability to chose wrong, the ability to chose wrong produces suffering.

You apparently want us all to be robots who have no choice about anything. So even given the presence of evil God is far more human that you. BTW you are humane I assume and yet there is an endless amount of suffering you could prevent but do not.

Not to mention that your promise that seeing bombs kill people means no angels exists is pathetically flawed and so the entire argument is also wrong. Your trying to build the taj mahal on a foundation of quick sand. My bible does not say angels will show up and prevent all suffering but in fact states suffering will be rampant, Exhaustively explains why, gives instructions on how to handle it, and eventually eradicates it forever after it serves it's purpose. So nothing you saw was any threat to my faith or God's activities.

People suffer that's enough proof that God doesn't exist. I won't say He does because I can't imagine a such a sadistic being creating us just to worship Him. It is for all God(s)/ess(es).

As I said above, even beyond the theologians which know very well the bible says suffering will occur and why it will, the secular scholars no longer even consider suffering inconsistent with a benevolent God. God has morally sufficient reasons to permit evil to exist temporarily, in fact suffering has consistently been shown to increase faith in a thousand examples. One example was the rise in church attendance after 9/11. You have no actual argument at all and it looks as if you are not familiar with how these things are argued or resolved in professional circles. You seem to only be complaining about something you can't even begin to demonstrate.

God's suggest we worship him is like suggesting water run down hill. It is the nature of God and us that worshiping him is the natural state of affairs the same as water obeying gravity. He does not need our worship but that worship is altogether proper and benefits us immensely.

Everything you say is a complaint instead of an argument and lacks any theological or philosophical basis at all.

 

[1robin]

If it were obvious, there wouldn't be atheists.

There are flat earther folks and those that believe politicians are actually lizards.

 

[Katzpur]

There are virtually endless lists of incompatibility's between the book of Mormon and the Bible. By "properly understood", it seems in my experience to mean "properly spinning both the Bible by unjustifiable means and the book of Mormon by whatever means"

I did not mention the Trinity as a disagreement. However the bible gives clear teaching that we were not God's before our birth, spiritual children in the sense Christ is, nor will we be God's after we die. I have hundreds of this absurdities by which to reject Mormonism even if many Mormons seem to be sincere and moral (even if deluded).

You sure you want to get into this?

Actually, I don't want to get into it on this particular thread because it would be hijacking the topic of the OP, but it wasn't me who brought up the subject in the first place. On another occasion when you started in on why you believe Mormonism is false, you made so many inaccurate statements that I started a whole new thread in order to set the record straight. I invited you to respond on that thread and you never bothered to do so. I am always willing to discuss and defend my beliefs, but it seems most of you anti-Mormons would prefer to just throw in a snide remark or two in the middle of whatever thread you happen to be posting on. I have told both you and several other people that if they want to debate any aspect of Mormonism, I would be happy to. All you have to do is take me up on my invitation -- just not in the middle of somebody else's thread.

 

[1robin]

I don't think anything you say is "simple". You make everything as complicated as possible. Now it sounds like you're saying that everyone, whether they realize it or not, know the real God? So define this real God. Your definition, hopefully, won't be too complex. I would imagine it should include things like... he's the creator and he loves us, that he has revealed himself to us... yet, all the different religions define him differently. Yet, all religions offer a different way of reaching or knowing God. Yet, all religions have a moral code they expect their followers to adhere to. Why are they so far off base on who he is? Why are the Jews so far off base as compared to Christians as to who their God is?

Complexity is a relative term. Compared to the extremely theoretical scientific realm and the obscure conclusion derived from intricate philosophy my claims are strait forward. Another poster gave me three arguments against God from 3 subjects. I looked up the degree required to have taken the classes where the subjects were taught. I would have had to have a PhD in (experimental physics), a masters in math, and a bachelors in philosophy. So I do not consider the majority of my claims complex in comparison at all. In fact I complain about that non-stop. Far is also relative. The Jews are comparatively not very far off but why in the world would I have to explain how any group was so wrong in order to know the right answer. I have no such burden but I will make you a deal. Pick any of the big 5 and I will examine why and how they went wrong with you.

I never said everyone knows God. I said everyone has an apprehension of objective morality because they have a God given conscience. Maybe it's what you do with what I claim that makes it seem complex.

Anyway, all I was hoping for was that you would have to admit that some people made up their own religions and their own gods, but, obviously, that's not going to happen. It just seems strange to me that since, to a Christian, those religions didn't come from the one true God, and since, they have a moral code, that they, the people, made up their own set of morals also and attributed it to their God. I know you would never admit to anything like that, but why not? Why isn't that possible? Instead of what you seem to be saying, that we all have basically the same moral code, because the true God put it there?

I would think it would be obvious from the exclusivity of Christianity that I think billions have made up their own God's and rules. I would also suggest many Christians have as well. We were talking about moral ontology and the ten commandments. I have no need to examine Buddhism or Shinto to respond.

But then I wonder, if that's so, why didn't he put a little more faith in all of us, so we would know him?

I did not say he put faith in us all, he might have on some minimal level but I didn't say that. I said he gave us all a moral conscience (which we proceed to wreck or adhere to in varying degrees as life goes on).

But, I guess, that's kind of what he does do... for the believers anyway. He gives them the "gift" of faith so they can believe, right? Otherwise, it would be our "works" of searching and seeking him? And, it can't be our works can it? So it's like those posts about the clay and the potter? Some he made to be bad vessels and some good... but the weird thing is, and why some of us say the Christian God is evil, is he then blames the bad ones for being bad? But he made them that way. Freewill, didn't do it. Freewill is an illusion. He made them love evil enough to deny him. He made others basically good people but in a "false" religion. He did it. Great for his "chosen" ones, not so good for the ones he made to fall short of his "perfect" plan.

How did this become a conversation about faith. Anyway I guess my story is pretty typical. I acquired about 90% of what constitutes my intellectual ground for faith by effort. However the last portion was infinite in depth. It may have only been 10% of the whole but that 10% was beyond my capacity to acquire personally. I was a gift of God. Not the gift from God but the gift OF God. I instantly knew certain things were true and experienced God personally. Salvation is a gift but I have to meet the gift giver to receive it. In that analogy I have to walk to where he is but nothing about that walk produced anything in the gift. I have heard many stories about those who received the gift where ever they were, no study, no church, no counseling, but I think they are the exception.

Do you want a complexity discussion, a morality discussion, or a faith discussion? I can't do justice to all three in one post.

Summary:
1. My claims are very straightforward in 90% of the cases. Atheists always use the most theoretical and speculative claims possible.
2. We all (except for some psychopaths, etc) act as if objective morality exists. That strongly suggests it is the same way almost everyone agreeing on what they saw does.
3. I had a role in my faith but nothing I did made up what constitutes salvation. It was a gift and can't be earned, but I have to be able to receive it. Just as I must reach my hands out to receive a gift that I had nothing to do with purchasing or constructing. By reaching out I mainly mean an open mind produced by study, a friends counseling, dissatisfaction with atheism, or a miraculous event, etc.....

 

[1robin]

Hi Robin1 :



1) ARBITRARY ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING THE CREATION OF MATERIAL THINGS OUT OF “NOTHING”

The premise that things are created out of “nothing” is somewhat arbitrary and personal and doesn’t apply to the material world in which most of us live.

Robin1, you want all to accept your personal theory that God created material worlds “out of nothing”, and then lay logical arguments on top of this illogical premise when many of us don’t believe material things are created “from nothing”. Thus, the logic and claims using that premise seem irrelevant.

For example, most secularists you want to influence, probably do not accept creation out of “nothing” and do not see how it applies to reality. Early Judeo-Christians who believed material things were made out of material would not have accepted your theory as well. Your premise simply would have been irrelevant to them..



2) ARBITRARY INTERPRETATIONS OF SACRED TEXTS
IF you simply argue that your interpretation of the bible supports this premise, then the interpretation itself is also arbitrary since early Judeo Christians interpreted their texts differently and believed the world was created out of matter as do modern scientists and most secularists. I am not faulting all of your logic and your points, (I think some of them are fine) but rather the premise that God creates things out of nothing and how this premise affects moral principles.



3) USING DOCTRINES FROM DIFFERENT TIMES IN THE CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT

Robin1 said : “Remember my claim. It was that while some individual Christians may have thought and taught differently creation ex nihilo was the dominant interpretation and the only biblically valid position. “

Thank you for at least the small movement towards recognizing this doctrine existed. (You have also influenced me as well with some of your statements.)

I have given you textual examples from multiple early Judeo-Christian texts separated in both significant geographical space and time where creation from matter (rather than from “nothing”) was the dominant interpretation before “creation from nothing” became popular. Since many of these Christians would have been familiar with the earliest and most authentic biblical stories and their meanings, I hope you will allow that your interpretation is not the “only biblically valid position”.

Also, since I have given you examples where bibles themselves are changing to reflect new data on creation and Genesis. Thus, you are still speaking of both interpretations AND texts that are changing and are therefore somewhat arbitrary according to the text one reads, the time in which one lives, and in terms of personal bias. Ex-nihilo may be the only way you personally could interpret the biblical text in the past, but I’ve given you multiple examples of early Judeo-Christians who did NOT interpret their sacred texts as you do, AND, they were clearly in a better position to tell us what such texts and doctrines actually meant to individuals in the age when sacred texts were being written. Some of them lived in that age.


4) MORE TEXTUAL EXAMPLES AND DISCUSSION OF CREATION FROM MATTER IN EARLY SACRED LITERATURE

To consider a sampling of a wide variety of early Judeo-christian literature is important since much of the earliest literature originates from the earliest periods and was used in the eras of the earliest Christian movement when these doctrines were being formulated and taught as the Christian movement grew and evolved. The concept of creation was one of the things New Converts to Christianity were to learn (AposCon 7.39.2-4)

For example, in the enochian literature, God speaks of his plan to create, commands matter to obey, and it obeys : For, before any visible things had come into existence, I, the ONE, moved around in the invisible things, like the sun, from east to west and from west to east. But the sun has rest in himself; yet I did not find rest, because everything was not yet created. And I thought up the idea of establishing a foundation, to create a visible creation. Ch 25 1 And I commanded the lowest things; Let one of the invisible things descend visibly!”.... Ch 26 1 “And I called out a second time into the very lowest things, and I said, ‘Let one of the [in]visible things come out visibly, solid.’... “ 2nd Enoch (version “J”) Ch 24:2-4; 25:1 & 26:1 The “lowest things” are less organized. Some are αορατο (not seen), but they are all “things” that are being commanded. It is not “nothing” that is being commanded.

Jewish Kabbalah describes this initial stages of this great cosmic creation as being like a fog forming in the unformed...” as small bits of lighter material come together to create larger objects. The Coptic Christian song book includes psalms describing how God “built this whole World up out of the mixture that had come into existence... “ Psalm 223 (Allberry 9-11) p 328; The Gospel of Bartholomew describes Jesus’ mother, Mary, blessing God, saying : “O God, exceeding great and all wise, king of the ages, indescribable, ineffable, .who created the breadths of the heavens by your word and arranged the vault of heaven in harmony, who gave form to disorderly matter and brought together that which was separated....”


POST TWO OF THREE FOLLOWS

Hello Clear: I responded to your first post but I did not see a response to mine in return. Your going to require a lot of time to be invested so before I can justify it please respond to my first rely to you so I can be sure you are engaged in the debate.

 

[1robin]

Actually, I don't want to get into it on this particular thread because it would be hijacking the topic of the OP, but it wasn't me who brought up the subject in the first place. On another occasion when you started in on why you believe Mormonism is false, you made so many inaccurate statements that I started a whole new thread in order to set the record straight. I invited you to respond on that thread and you never bothered to do so. I am always willing to discuss and defend my beliefs, but it seems most of you anti-Mormons would prefer to just throw in a snide remark or two in the middle of whatever thread you happen to be posting on. I have told both you and several other people that if they want to debate any aspect of Mormonism, I would be happy to. All you have to do is take me up on my invitation -- just not in the middle of somebody else's thread.

That is perfectly fine. It is a very involved issue. I have had to recently investigate Mormonism for another reason so am well prepared but it is completely up to you. I seem to attract the most long winded of posters so the threads I am already in are all I have time for but maybe in the future we can get into it in another. Do you already have a thread to do that in or will you have to create one?

 

[viole]

As I said above, even beyond the theologians which know very well the bible says suffering will occur and why it will, the secular scholars no longer even consider suffering inconsistent with a benevolent God. God has morally sufficient reasons to permit evil to exist temporarily, in fact suffering has consistently been shown to increase faith in a thousand examples. One example was the rise in church attendance after 9/11.

I wonder whether the outbreak of a very dangerous and contagious disease would increase church attendance as well.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Katzpur]

That is perfectly fine. It is a very involved issue. I have had to recently investigate Mormonism for another reason so am well prepared but it is completely up to you. I seem to attract the most long winded of posters so the threads I am already in are all I have time for but maybe in the future we can get into it in another. Do you already have a thread to do that in or will you have to create one?

I have a thread in the LDS DIR, where I frequently post anti-Mormon statements which are off-topic of the OP on the thread where they were posted (such as yours on this thread). I have started other threads on debate forums of RF in the past, but it's been quite a while. If you're too involved on other threads to get involved in a discussion about Mormonism right now, I understand. I don't plan on going anywhere, and we can have a discussion any time you want. Meanwhile, I trust you'll find yourself busy enough sticking to the topic of this thread that you won't continue to post unrelated opinions about Mormonism on it.

 

[1robin]

I wonder whether the ooutbreak of a very dangerous and contagious disease would increase church attendance as well.

Ciao

- viole

IMO it would without a doubt if the death toll of those who would have gone was not higher than those that did. IOW the effect of suffering making people come to grips with their mortality etc..... would still be in operation even if there were so many deaths that Church attendance shrank.

I will give you a related but not identical story.

Rome's Caesar demanded Pontius Pilot's successor in Judea to force everyone to admit or agree that Caesar was divine and receive a paper that allowed them to but and sell, etc.... I have actually seen the letter (but it is hard to find) that the Roman official sent back. In it he said that so many Jews were refusing that there would shortly be no Judean's to rule over unless new tactics were adopted.

Another example would be the FACT that Christians by the score flock to diseased areas and countless numbers have died by being in contact with them. My brother in law is a district supervisor for red cross, I could tell you stories that would curl your toes. That is not to say secular people do not go in emergencies but it is interesting that most secular people who do come from nations that have a strong Christian moral tradition. How many times do you see China or Russia being first on the scene on international epidemics? Not too many.

I was not sure I fully understood what you were asking so I just guessed a bit.

 

[viole]

IMO it would without a doubt if the death toll of those who would have gone was not higher than those that did. IOW the effect of suffering making people come to grips with their mortality etc..... would still be in operation even if there were so many deaths that Church attendance shrank.

Possible. But I think that increase in belief when confronted with one's death is a defeater of the objective reality of the God beiieved in. Hope springs eternal, after all. And this suggests that God is a product of our fears.

And I suspect that the same applies to all sorts of beliefs.

I will give you a related but not identical story.

Rome's Caesar demanded Pontius Pilot's successor in Judea to force everyone to admit or agree that Caesar was divine and receive a paper that allowed them to but and sell, etc.... I have actually seen the letter (but it is hard to find) that the Roman official sent back. In it he said that so many Jews were refusing that there would shortly be no Judean's to rule over unless new tactics were adopted.

I bet they would have signed without problems if asked to renounce the divinity of Jesus.

Another example would be the FACT that Christians by the score flock to diseased areas and countless numbers have died by being in contact with them. My brother in law is a district supervisor for red cross, I could tell you stories that would curl your toes. That is not to say secular people do not go in emergencies but it is interesting that most secular people who do come from nations that have a strong Christian moral tradition. How many times do you see China or Russia being first on the scene on international epidemics? Not too many.

Well, I have never seen very Christian nations like Uganda being first on the scene, either. But I saw Japan, I think.

Probably, the ex-Christians are simply richer or better organized.

Btw: do you think that Russia does not have a strong Christian moral tradition, whatever that means?


Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1. My claims are very straightforward in 90% of the cases. Atheists always use the most theoretical and speculative claims possible.

From my perspective, it's been the exact opposite. It's the atheists who have based their positions on very straightforward ideas:

- It's bad to kill a child
- It's bad to watch a suffering child die and do nothing when you could step in and help.

You say that "everyone apprehends objective morality because they have a God given conscience" yet you dance around this position while making excuses for your God when he does these things.

Your position is fundamentally hypocritical. You point to God as the foundation for some objective morality but then see fit to throw that supposedly objective morality away when it casts your God in a bad light.