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

[AlphaAlex115]

[FONT=&quot]AlphaAlex115[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]Do you want me to describe the fall of Lucifer from Heaven from Jewish/Christian and Islamic texts?
[FONT=&quot]Clear[/FONT]

Yes please.

 

[CG Didymus]

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"

There are virtually endless lists of incompatibility's between any religion, or "Christian" denominations and the Bible. Who doesn't "spin" the Bible into what they want it to say and then claim that theirs is the correct way on interpreting it? Christians needed a virgin birth. They found it in Isaiah. They needed a trinity. They found it with Elohim. They needed a fallen angel. They found Lucifer.

With God being evil or not, you will continue to "spin" the Bible verses and Christian ideas into proofs that your God is good. But somebody created this mess. And the creation can't take all the blame. Somebody made us this screwed up. If he had to, to make us need to turn to him, then fine. But that means it was his idea to include pain and suffering and death to get us to turn to him.

But then to believe it all started with a fruit tree? And a tempter that God put there in the first place? Wow. What did God expect? If we ran that experiment in a hundred different universes, how many times would Adam and Eve fail? What do you think 90% of the time? 99%? Or, all of the time? I'm betting they'd never get it right. But God had no other way of doing it?

So let's pretend that everything that you believe about the Bible is true and that is exactly how everything happened. Then who's to blame. Isn't it the one who put everything together? You say it's all for the good. That it was necessary for him to do it this way. Fine. But then he's to blame. He made it this way. It's his creation. He set it up the way he wanted.

Why did He leave things with enough ambiguity for us to doubt him? What? Another test? That a few of us would sort through the BS and find the Truth? It's almost like He has left us here, virtually on our own, in a crazy survival game. He divided us all into different groups and gave us all different clues. Each group found things to believe in that worked for them. They made rules to make their lives better. But, in this game, only one group has got the real truth.

God tells one group that they are the ones he likes best and to go exterminate another group and take their land? Fine. What are we? His little toy soldiers? To make the game work right, he had to make some bad toys and some good ones? Great. To make even the good ones have to depend on him He made diseases and disasters? When the good ones start falling away, he allows the bad ones to kill off some of the good ones? Wow, great game.

But we are thinking and feeling little toy soldiers. It hurts to play this game. But, we don't have to play by those rules. Other people say God is different. That their God plays with different and better rules. Or, if we don't like theirs either, why can't we make up our own rules. Hey, we can even make up better concepts of God. It shouldn't be to hard to think up a better one. Wouldn't that be better than trying to keep trying to make your God fit into reality?

 

[Draupadi]

There are virtually endless lists of incompatibility's between any religion, or "Christian" denominations and the Bible. Who doesn't "spin" the Bible into what they want it to say and then claim that theirs is the correct way on interpreting it? Christians needed a virgin birth. They found it in Isaiah. They needed a trinity. They found it with Elohim. They needed a fallen angel. They found Lucifer.

With God being evil or not, you will continue to "spin" the Bible verses and Christian ideas into proofs that your God is good. But somebody created this mess. And the creation can't take all the blame. Somebody made us this screwed up. If he had to, to make us need to turn to him, then fine. But that means it was his idea to include pain and suffering and death to get us to turn to him.

But then to believe it all started with a fruit tree? And a tempter that God put there in the first place? Wow. What did God expect? If we ran that experiment in a hundred different universes, how many times would Adam and Eve fail? What do you think 90% of the time? 99%? Or, all of the time? I'm betting they'd never get it right. But God had no other way of doing it?

So let's pretend that everything that you believe about the Bible is true and that is exactly how everything happened. Then who's to blame. Isn't it the one who put everything together? You say it's all for the good. That it was necessary for him to do it this way. Fine. But then he's to blame. He made it this way. It's his creation. He set it up the way he wanted.

Why did He leave things with enough ambiguity for us to doubt him? What? Another test? That a few of us would sort through the BS and find the Truth? It's almost like He has left us here, virtually on our own, in a crazy survival game. He divided us all into different groups and gave us all different clues. Each group found things to believe in that worked for them. They made rules to make their lives better. But, in this game, only one group has got the real truth.

God tells one group that they are the ones he likes best and to go exterminate another group and take their land? Fine. What are we? His little toy soldiers? To make the game work right, he had to make some bad toys and some good ones? Great. To make even the good ones have to depend on him He made diseases and disasters? When the good ones start falling away, he allows the bad ones to kill off some of the good ones? Wow, great game.

But we are thinking and feeling little toy soldiers. It hurts to play this game. But, we don't have to play by those rules. Other people say God is different. That their God plays with different and better rules. Or, if we don't like theirs either, why can't we make up our own rules. Hey, we can even make up better concepts of God. It shouldn't be to hard to think up a better one. Wouldn't that be better than trying to keep trying to make your God fit into reality?

:clap.

 

[CG Didymus]

:clap.

Thanks. It's nice to know that something I said had some meaning for someone and was able to touch their heart. I'm glad it was yours.

 

[1robin]

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

Whish side is perpetually stuck in universes we have no reasons to think exist, in tens less time no one acts as if is true, or with positions who's only merit is they are not impossible?

- 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.

That is simple. So simple it means nothing what ever. I could think of thousands of ways it could be moral to do just that. For example if I am holding a dead man switch to a nuclear test switch I could go help but I would kill many more people. If war was ever necessary for any reason this would necessarily occur. As far as God is concerned I might be constrained by my mandate of freewill, or I might have knowledge you don't, etc... ad infinitum. Your arbitrary and ridiculous criteria would have a single child with a cold proof of no God. Who thinks like this?

Let me amend my generalization. Atheists either make so complex or over simplified examples in such extremes as to have no real application.

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.

Moral systems always include restrictions based on capability. Your moral system is not your child's. I guess you no longer exist then. Just as most children think half the demands placed on them are because their parents are evil and mean we do so (based on infinite inequalities in knowledge) with God. That is pretty dang simple and also applicable. God has no such restrictions and can justifiably kill where we could not. In fact God would be just as righteous and good even if he killed us all because we all fall short and do not merit eternity with him. If he killed you tomorrow what would be your defense. If it was me he would produce several volumes worth of my sins and everything they cost, I could not honestly say that based on that I deserved the life he created, as it was misused so badly. Surprisingly the more moral a Christian is the more readily they will admit this (though that is not my explanation for admission here). Just out of curiosity what would your defense be, in a few words, if that is not to personal?

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.

Well objective is a notoriously elastic word. I imagine your using whatever definition suits you desired result. Mine comes from theological dictionaries and consists of a set of standards that do not involve the opinion of it's subjects. I find that almost everyone on either side agrees with this without too much modification. God's moral commands take into account our capacity, lack of for knowledge, imperfect perception, accurate appraisal of the moral principals in many cases, etc....... Not one of which God would share. It makes infinite more sense that God would actualize the exact same morals through other means because of his abilities just as parent do with kids. I have no power to place a child in heaven, I do not know which aborted fetus would have cured cancer, I have not created a single life (not even mine), I like certain things that I only find out the cost of years later, etc.......
God's morality is the same as his decrees but because of his advantages he is not restricted as we are.

What can possibly be simpler, more intuitive, or have more obvious parallels than this?

 

[1robin]

There are virtually endless lists of incompatibility's between any religion, or "Christian" denominations and the Bible. Who doesn't "spin" the Bible into what they want it to say and then claim that theirs is the correct way on interpreting it? Christians needed a virgin birth. They found it in Isaiah. They needed a trinity. They found it with Elohim. They needed a fallen angel. They found Lucifer.

This is true but far too simplistic to be meaningful. 90% of Christians agree on 90% of doctrine. How in the world could you expect better given the most divisive and profound 750,000 words ever written? However my faith doe snot depend on a single verse. It depends on my experience with Christ personally. I have been born again and all those that are born again Christ will call his own whether we differ on a literal or figurative flood or not. However this doe snot work between most religions. Mine says Christ died on the cross and is the only way to heaven. Islam says he did not die on the cross and he was not the savior. Well one of us or both are wrong. The worst possible conclusion you can make is well they are not identical so I give up and risk my soul for eternity out of laziness. I am not saying the book of Mormon differs from the Bible I am saying they are mutually exclusive and make claims that can't both be true. So instead of either throwing up my hands or thinking contradictions are both rue I set out to discover which one is more likely true. I could arrive at the wrong answer but the method is the only correct reaction here. I did not attempt to say which one was right but only to point out they both can't be. That is not my theological preference that is a philosophical fact.

With God being evil or not, you will continue to "spin" the Bible verses and Christian ideas into proofs that your God is good. But somebody created this mess. And the creation can't take all the blame. Somebody made us this screwed up. If he had to, to make us need to turn to him, then fine. But that means it was his idea to include pain and suffering and death to get us to turn to him.

What God created was perfect according to the bible so I have no idea on what evidence you would indict him. I would use mess as you did but it would not technically be accurate. If this world is accomplishing God's goal in giving freedom to creatures (I mean actual freedom) then it would be functioning correctly even though it contains stuff God hates. I blame it on the improper use of our freedom. At least as far as our existence is concerned. I only know me and a few around me fully and we have all utterly failed even when we knew what was right. I have never met anyone who could not admit this. Do you? If you had only one mistake a day from only a billion people that makes a billion immoral actions a day, for thousands of years. It is a wonder we earth is not a smoking black hole by now. It takes thousands of correct actions to make a livable house but only one incorrect action to destroy it.

But then to believe it all started with a fruit tree? And a tempter that God put there in the first place? Wow. What did God expect? If we ran that experiment in a hundred different universes, how many times would Adam and Eve fail? What do you think 90% of the time? 99%? Or, all of the time? I'm betting they'd never get it right. But God had no other way of doing it?

You know I have no literal fruit tree position so cut it out please. IMO it represented choice. We all, every dang one of us chose the tree even if we know it is wrong constantly.

So let's pretend that everything that you believe about the Bible is true and that is exactly how everything happened. Then who's to blame. Isn't it the one who put everything together? You say it's all for the good. That it was necessary for him to do it this way. Fine. But then he's to blame. He made it this way. It's his creation. He set it up the way he wanted.

Get rid of the tree it doe snot matter. God created us with choice. He put in us a conscience that forbids X or Y, told us in his word not to do X or Y, he said what the cost would be for doing x or Y, we do X or Y anyway and he dies to free us from the ultimate punishment and some yell it is his fault. I don't get it. Sounds like me at 15 thinking it was my parents fault because they told me no to hang out with the in crowd because they drank and stayed out real late.

Why did He leave things with enough ambiguity for us to doubt him? What? Another test? That a few of us would sort through the BS and find the Truth? It's almost like He has left us here, virtually on our own, in a crazy survival game. He divided us all into different groups and gave us all different clues. Each group found things to believe in that worked for them. They made rules to make their lives better. But, in this game, only one group has got the real truth.

I am still not perfectly clear why but God values faith. I think it is the difference between a kiss from a manikin and your spouse. The manikin had no choice so the act means nothing, the spouse did so it is full of meaning and value. Having God shoved down your throat would make you faith meaningless and your love simply a reaction instead of a choice. That is probably why a marriage is often used to describe your relationship with Christ.

God tells one group that they are the ones he likes best and to go exterminate another group and take their land? Fine. What are we? His little toy soldiers? To make the game work right, he had to make some bad toys and some good ones? Great. To make even the good ones have to depend on him He made diseases and disasters? When the good ones start falling away, he allows the bad ones to kill off some of the good ones? Wow, great game.

You know when you intentionally mischaracterize Christianity or Judaism it costs credibility. If your right you require no straw men or caricatures. God di not tell a single Jew he liked them best and so go do X in the entire bible. God searched the world looking for someone to establish his covenant with and build the conduit for his revelations. Abraham was the first who agreed so he said his descendants would be that conduit and God would protect them in general. In reality he held them to a much higher standard and they suffered terribly for unfaithfulness. I am thankful I was not an OT Jew. Everything else flowed from his promise and need to protect the integrity of that conduit from the abject miserable moral depravity of their neighbors. This is fact occurred many times because of them not doing as he said and intermarrying, etc.... Israel would have disappeared with the most important book ever written and the most important person in history if God had not protected and disciplined them. I have stated this over and over. You seem to forget it every other day.

But we are thinking and feeling little toy soldiers. It hurts to play this game. But, we don't have to play by those rules. Other people say God is different. That their God plays with different and better rules. Or, if we don't like theirs either, why can't we make up our own rules. Hey, we can even make up better concepts of God. It shouldn't be to hard to think up a better one. Wouldn't that be better than trying to keep trying to make your God fit into reality?

This is no game, this is serious business. I remember thinking how empty the warnings were of my parents to not drink, have sex, do drugs. I was doing them all and having the best time I ever had. That is until they started taking things from me I was unwilling to pay. Then it was too late and I was too far gone. Only God fought my battles for me and conquered them. They were not philistines who were taking God away from Jews but the principle is the same. Philosophers have tried for decades to think up a certain world that was better but contained freewill but gave it up.
You either get less freewill or a lot of suffering. You can't chose right if wrong does not exist, I can't really love meaningfully unless I can hate, what is my being good if I could be bad. The entire argument has been given up except for die hards who prefer plausible denial instead of truth. It is not pretty, I don't like it, no one likes it but it is necessary if freewill exists.

I have told you before evil has two aspects. An emotional one and an philosophical one. The philosophical one presents a perfectly satisfactory answer that is swamped by the fact that there is no emotional answer that we will ever be a peace with.

Why don't you get me a world with freewill that does not include an unlimited potential for evil and we can move there. Deal?

 

[1robin]

:clap.

have you begun arguing by proxy?

 

[1robin]

[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]

I would like the Jewish text but the Islamic text is invalid for anything, including Islam.

 

[Draupadi]

have you begun arguing by proxy?

Nope. If my appreciation of very good logics enrage you, which your insinuating comment suggests you are, I can't do anything about your immature thoughts and activities.

 

[CG Didymus]

Nope. If my appreciation of very good logics enrage you, which your insinuating comment suggests you are, I can't do anything about your immature thoughts and activities.

:clapActually, he means well. He believes he's right... and without him, and a couple of others, this thread would have faded long ago.

But I truly appreciate everything you've said along with AlphaAlex115 and 9-10ths_Penguin. I'm sure that you've seen the good and bad religion has to offer. Is there anything positive that you've seen happening?

 

[CG Didymus]

You know I have no literal fruit tree position so cut it out please. IMO it represented choice. We all, every dang one of us chose the tree even if we know it is wrong constantly.

Get rid of the tree it doe snot matter.

The tree is important, because so many Christians do take it literal. I'm glad you don't.

God created us with choice. He put in us a conscience that forbids X or Y, told us in his word not to do X or Y, he said what the cost would be for doing x or Y, we do X or Y anyway and he dies to free us from the ultimate punishment and some yell it is his fault. I don't get it. Sounds like me at 15 thinking it was my parents fault because they told me no to hang out with the in crowd because they drank and stayed out real late.

Parents are a great analogy. So let's say one kid's parents tell him not to hang out with the "in crowd". They say, "That path will lead to trouble". He listens and becomes a lonely outcast.

Another kid sneaks out, has a great time, gets wasted, has sex and becomes popular and confident in himself. Years later, he thinks back and realizes that it was pure luck that he didn't get the girl pregnant and that he didn't crash the car and kill himself or somebody else.

So you're right. Having a choice and doing the wrong thing is a much better lesson. That way, you know by experience. That first kid will always wonder what he missed.

But actually, a more true to the Bible version, would be if the parents told him "We don't want you hanging out with that in-crowd gang." Then flew out of town, left the car keys on the coffee table, next to some condoms, with a note that said, "There's beer in the fridge. We won't be back until Tuesday. Don't drink. Don't go driving around town with your friends. And don't throw a party."

But that's not the end of it. The bad neighbor kid comes over and says, "Hey, your folks took off. Let's call some friends over and have some fun." "But, my parents said no." "How are they going to know? We'll only invite a few people." He reads the note on the table. "Hey, there's beer in the fridge?" "Yes, but my parents don't want me drinking it." "They won't notice a couple of beers missing. Hey, are those the keys to your Dad's BMW?" "Yeah, but I'm not allowed to drive it." "Okay, I'll drive." "No, no, I'll do it." "That's the spirit."

After they drank the beer and crashed the car and died, who do the police blame? When the police asked the parents why they left the temptation in front of their son and left him with no supervision, what would be their answer? "We loved him... and didn't want to interfere with his freewill." "Oh, I see. You have any more kids?" "Yes, a three year old daughter named Eve." "Great. Here's my loaded gun. Let me take the safety off. Now, take it upstairs and give it to her to play with." "What? That would be stupid. No parent would do that." "Exactly."

 

[Katzpur]

I am not saying the book of Mormon differs from the Bible I am saying they are mutually exclusive and make claims that can't both be true.

Would you kindly CAN IT!

They are absolutely NOT mutually exclusive. If they were, 15 million people worldwide would not believe both of them to be true. I have never had to choose between believing one book versus the other. If you think they're mutually exclusive, it's obviously because you've gotten all of your information on Mormonism from inaccurate sources. I'm not the slightest bit surprised. You would obviously much prefer to believe the half-truths and outright lies spread by anti-Mormon websites and literature than take the time to actually learn the facts. Now would you kindly get back to discussing the OP? Or should I take the matter of your hijacking this thread up with the staff?

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes please.

Why?

There is no Lucifer in Tanakh, so if later Christian and Islamic texts use such - they are obviously compounding an error.


That Isaiah text is about a "human" King of Babylon.



*

 

[CG Didymus]

[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?[/FONT]

Yes, because some Christians don't agree with you. And I don't know any Jews that equate the name "Lucifer" with their "The Adversary". So, sure describe it.

There is no Lucifer in Tanakh, so if later Christian and Islamic texts use such - they are obviously compounding an error.

That Isaiah text is about a "human" King of Babylon.

I found Christian sites that believed in the "Lucifer" story and some that didn't. I don't see how a Latin word can have anything to do with being the original name of Satan, though. It's understandable why the Church Fathers came up with it, but why, in this day and age of google, does anybody still believe it is factual? I can't wait for Clear's answer.

 

[1robin]

Nope. If my appreciation of very good logics enrage you, which your insinuating comment suggests you are, I can't do anything about your immature thoughts and activities.

What in my post even hinted at me being enraged, immature, etc........? I was actually laughing when I made that joke about a proxy. Don't take my comments out of context and invent stuff you dreamed up and apply it to me. Nothing you have said has had enough fact behind it to make anyone enraged. Give me a break. Do you have an actual argument at some point, or is it personal commentaries from here on out?

 

[1robin]

The tree is important, because so many Christians do take it literal. I'm glad you don't.

An interpretation does not become relevant or meaningful unless accurate. The mere holding of it does not make it pertinent. I have no firm position on Genesis outside some general but emphatically clear verses. My faith has nothing to do with Genesis so I have never devoted the huge amount of time required to resolve it's exact intentions for every verse. The most interesting and satisfactory interpretations I have ever found are in Schroder's "The science of God" if you are interested.

BTW while not complimentary I do appreciate your bursting of Draupadi's bubble based on my being enraged. Far from it, my response was a joke and I was laughing when I wrote it.

Parents are a great analogy. So let's say one kid's parents tell him not to hang out with the "in crowd". They say, "That path will lead to trouble". He listens and becomes a lonely outcast.

Well that would be a bizarre rule because in crowd does not necessarily mean bad crowd. I was in the in crowd of my small high school but we were no more immoral than any other crowd and better than many. It is also not a default of not being in it that you are lonely. Each category of people had several members. I liked to wonder between groups and were friends with members of each.

Another kid sneaks out, has a great time, gets wasted, has sex and becomes popular and confident in himself. Years later, he thinks back and realizes that it was pure luck that he didn't get the girl pregnant and that he didn't crash the car and kill himself or somebody else.

So you're right. Having a choice and doing the wrong thing is a much better lesson. That way, you know by experience. That first kid will always wonder what he missed.

I doubt it because while one or two of the cool guys get away without dire costs by luck many of them do not. I had 1 killed, 3 seriously injured in a car wreck, and one with a kid from about a dozen "cool" guys. Plus the DUI's, lower test scores (I was so hung over I fell asleep on the math part of the SAT's), etc........ Even at 18 there was so little doubt that the drinking at living it up would soon catch up to me that I joined the Navy to get away and get some discipline. To be honest I only modified my habits enough to meet the standard and changed little until I met Christ 9 years later, and I still have some changes needed.

But actually, a more true to the Bible version, would be if the parents told him "We don't want you hanging out with that in-crowd gang." Then flew out of town, left the car keys on the coffee table, next to some condoms, with a note that said, "There's beer in the fridge. We won't be back until Tuesday. Don't drink. Don't go driving around town with your friends. And don't throw a party."

Since parents do that constantly I don't get the point. It depends on the age. God in your bizarre analogy (God is everywhere even our consciences so he did not flee town) does not hold those too young to understand responsible ultimately and a police form, libraries full of moral texts, political systems, societal norms, 5000 years of historical knowledge, etc.... for the lets say 20 year old to rely on. Are you saying that because we may be tempted to do something wrong and have the capacity to do so God is at fault? I do not get the point. Would you rather he automate you where you can't chose to do wrong, where is the allowance for genuine love in that situation.

But that's not the end of it. The bad neighbor kid comes over and says, "Hey, your folks took off. Let's call some friends over and have some fun." "But, my parents said no." "How are they going to know? We'll only invite a few people." He reads the note on the table. "Hey, there's beer in the fridge?" "Yes, but my parents don't want me drinking it." "They won't notice a couple of beers missing. Hey, are those the keys to your Dad's BMW?" "Yeah, but I'm not allowed to drive it." "Okay, I'll drive." "No, no, I'll do it." "That's the spirit."

Your analogy goes off the rails again here. God will see, heck even my parents saw. I only had one party like this. Within 5 minutes of my Dad being home I was in serious trouble because he knew what I had done. And even as I planned and did it I knew it was perfectly wrong so what defense did I have. Was it his fault because he did not tie me to a chair, or did not ride on my shoulders dictating every move, or wire me up like a robot. I get your analogy but do not get the point behind it.

After they drank the beer and crashed the car and died, who do the police blame? When the police asked the parents why they left the temptation in front of their son and left him with no supervision, what would be their answer? "We loved him... and didn't want to interfere with his freewill." "Oh, I see. You have any more kids?" "Yes, a three year old daughter named Eve." "Great. Here's my loaded gun. Let me take the safety off. Now, take it upstairs and give it to her to play with." "What? That would be stupid. No parent would do that." "Exactly."

They don't do that unless the kids are pre-teen. Laws about leaving kids at home are very well defined because in our modern secular money is everything and single parent homes it is a necessity and these types of things occur frequently. Parents may bear some financial burden (in the analogy God paid it by giving his son) but the kids bear responsibility if teenagers of driving the car, killing themselves, or others, etc.....


BTW when an analogy is used it is never ever 100% accurate and is usually only accurate in the way it is used. It is not always correct to take the analogy and stretch it over everything to see if it will tear somewhere when it was never used in that way originally. I used to indicate not all subjects have identical morals and you used it to establish legal liabilities and hand a 3 year old a gun.

 

[1robin]

Would you kindly CAN IT!

What? Are you new to debate or something? I have fought and know people who died to give me AND YOU the right to free speech. If you can't handle inconvenient information your in the wrong place. You should move to Islamabad or Gaza.

They are absolutely NOT mutually exclusive. If they were, 15 million people worldwide would not believe both of them to be true. I have never had to choose between believing one book versus the other. If you think they're mutually exclusive, it's obviously because you've gotten all of your information on Mormonism from inaccurate sources. I'm not the slightest bit surprised. You would obviously much prefer to believe the half-truths and outright lies spread by anti-Mormon websites and literature than take the time to actually learn the facts. Now would you kindly get back to discussing the OP? Or should I take the matter of your hijacking this thread up with the staff?

For crying out loud billions believe Allah and Yahweh are the same God but in one book he says Christ died on the cross for our sins, and the other book says he did not die and could not pay for our sins. Humans can believe the most contradictory claims possible and in huge numbers.

You will see me use numbers so let me explain. Not all numbers are the same. If we asked what it feels like at the north pole the word of 100 people who had been there and experienced it would mean more that 10,000 who did not go there did not experience it and were guessing.

Your claim is like the latter. It is almost negligible how many people grant consent to an intellectual proposal they do not know the truth of. Especially one which more people disbelieve than believe, because they do not know and will not know this side of the dirt. Of the handful of people who could have experienced and known if Mormonism was true most were eventually kicked out of the church or left on their own.


You have no idea what facts I know or have researched because we have not been discussing them in any detail at all. If you actually want to get into this I could use only the words of Mormon leaders to condemn it as non Christian alone. I however have been trying to not get too much into it because you did not seem to desire it and Mormon arguments are exasperatingly empty and tiresome. I have never met a Mormon I did not like or a Mormon argument that had any merit. Even compared to Islam Mormons are biased and cognitive dissonance reigns supreme.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Whish side is perpetually stuck in universes we have no reasons to think exist, in tens less time no one acts as if is true, or with positions who's only merit is they are not impossible?

That is simple. So simple it means nothing what ever. I could think of thousands of ways it could be moral to do just that. For example if I am holding a dead man switch to a nuclear test switch I could go help but I would kill many more people. If war was ever necessary for any reason this would necessarily occur.

That actually supports my position. It's BECAUSE letting children die is bad that choosing the option that results in fewer children dying overall is the morally correct one. It's better to hold onto thr switch and let the children near you die because more children (and people in general) would die if you did try to help.

As far as God is concerned I might be constrained by my mandate of freewill, or I might have knowledge you don't, etc... ad infinitum. Your arbitrary and ridiculous criteria would have a single child with a cold proof of no God. Who thinks like this?

It wouldn't be proof of no god; it would be proof that if God exists, he's imperfect.

Let me amend my generalization. Atheists either make so complex or over simplified examples in such extremes as to have no real application.

You think the idea "letting children die is bad" has no real application?

Moral systems always include restrictions based on capability. Your moral system is not your child's. I guess you no longer exist then. Just as most children think half the demands placed on them are because their parents are evil and mean we do so (based on infinite inequalities in knowledge) with God. That is pretty dang simple and also applicable. God has no such restrictions and can justifiably kill where we could not. In fact God would be just as righteous and good even if he killed us all because we all fall short and do not merit eternity with him. If he killed you tomorrow what would be your defense. If it was me he would produce several volumes worth of my sins and everything they cost, I could not honestly say that based on that I deserved the life he created, as it was misused so badly. Surprisingly the more moral a Christian is the more readily they will admit this (though that is not my explanation for admission here). Just out of curiosity what would your defense be, in a few words, if that is not to personal?

Nothing. Morality is irrelevant to an immoral god. A sufficiently powerful god or human being could inflict whatever suffering on me that they chose. Nothing about this makes what they do moral.

You talked about capacity; something else to remember is limitation. Take the example of a parent getting their child vaccinated: the child realizes that the pain of the needle is bad in and of itself. The parent realizes that the benefit of the vaccine outweighs the pain of the needle... but this depends on something else: the fact that the parent has no other way to get that benefit. If the parent had a painless way to vaccinate their child that was just as good, then inflicting that pain on the child WOULD be immoral.

Only a limited being can justify the bad side effects of their actions by saying that they're outweighed by the good of their goal. To an unlimited being, all side effects are avoidable.

Well objective is a notoriously elastic word.

When you use it, it sure is.

I imagine your using whatever definition suits you desired result. Mine comes from theological dictionaries and consists of a set of standards that do not involve the opinion of it's subjects. I find that almost everyone on either side agrees with this without too much modification.

I disagree with the "of its subjects" part in this context, since you've rejected the shared morality of a culture (which is independent of the opinion of any particular individual in that culture) as not "objective". It seems that you've been arguing based on "objective" meaning something like "universal"... until it's pointed out that God fails at his own standard... and only then do you argue that he's exempt.

God's moral commands take into account our capacity, lack of for knowledge, imperfect perception, accurate appraisal of the moral principals in many cases, etc....... Not one of which God would share. It makes infinite more sense that God would actualize the exact same morals through other means because of his abilities just as parent do with kids. I have no power to place a child in heaven, I do not know which aborted fetus would have cured cancer, I have not created a single life (not even mine), I like certain things that I only find out the cost of years later, etc.......
God's morality is the same as his decrees but because of his advantages he is not restricted as we are.

And because he is less restricted in terms of his abilities, he is actually MORE restricted in terms of morality. Many human actions are only moral because we, as imperfect beings, only have imperfect means to reach our ends. God doesn't have this excuse for when his actions cause harm.

To an all-powerful, all-knowing deity, there is no such thing as an inadvertent side effect. All side effects are avoidable and foreseeable, so every aspect of every act of God is deliberate.

When God is "vaccinating" his children, if the needle hurts, it's because God wanted it to hurt. He could have vaccinated you painlessly, but he deliberately chose the painful way.

That's the difference between God's morality and ours.

What can possibly be simpler, more intuitive, or have more obvious parallels than this?

This could be: if a god's actions are imperfect, then the god is imperfect.

 

[Mycroft]

What? Are you new to debate or something?

Mormons don't debate very well. Especially when you're trying to make their (bad) Science Fiction Author Convicted Criminal Leader look bad.

 

[1robin]

That actually supports my position. It's BECAUSE letting children die is bad that choosing the option that results in fewer children dying overall is the morally correct one. It's better to hold onto thr switch and let the children near you die because more children (and people in general) would die if you did try to help.

Ok lets stay on that tact then. God did the exact same thing only "to live" means something very different to him. Instead of 80 years in this world it means eternity with him. In ordering Israel to wipe out the Canaanites (which is every atheist's favorite) he enabled far more people to live. The Canaanites were terrible people. They walled up children in walls (I have provided archeological evidence for this several times), worship Molech who demanded constant human sacrifice, and raided their neighbors at harvest time, etc..... Yet God is so merciful he held his people in the desert trying last ditch efforts to save the Canaanites. They refused so God had them killed. Now why did he do this?

1. They would have watered down Israel's religious uniqueness and moral standing. This would have meant their message and Christ's would not have had as much effect as it did and perhaps millions would not have made it to heaven.
2. This proved to be true in a limited sense because the Jews did not kill all the Canaanites and intermarried with them and were plagued by them for generations and only through more violence was their influence restricted. They had even built temples too Molech in Israel and converted Jews.
3. Well what about the innocent young children. The only way any of this is relevant is if the Bible is true and if it is then instead of being sacrificed or completely corrupted by their parents they went straight to heaven without the continuous heartbreaks of this life to endure. Especially bad in that time frame.

So God actually did way more than you request above and yet it is he you condemn.


BTW without God no human has any more value that any bug or pest, yet you murder them for sheer convenience (and I would imagine you would wipe out billions of them to save one child's life) without God this is speciesm and not moral at all. Far worse than racism or sexism. Only with God do our actions have justification and a foundation.

It wouldn't be proof of no god; it would be proof that if God exists, he's imperfect.

By what logic do you make that connection since it is God who would establish what is good in the first place and it would be true even if you and everyone else disagreed. What you should have said is you would not like a God that did X. You can't say he is any less perfect.

You think the idea "letting children die is bad" has no real application?

No, in my view it does but without God it has little significance, which is why the most brutal genocidal maniacs in history always get rid of God first. If Stalin can get rid of God then we are only accidental biological anomalies, have no inherent value, and life has no sanctity, there is no more significance to a child dying that the calf that died for dinner without God. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Ceausescu, Kim Sung, etc........ subscribed to Darwinian social evolution where the strong dominating the weak is good, and Nietzsche where getting rid of God gets rid of traditional morality. Not everyone mentioned believed both but all acted consistently with both.

Nothing. Morality is irrelevant to an immoral god. A sufficiently powerful god or human being could inflict whatever suffering on me that they chose. Nothing about this makes what they do moral.

That was no the intention of the question. So, granting God was perfectly moral but he killed you today, what would be your defense against that God?

You talked about capacity; something else to remember is limitation. Take the example of a parent getting their child vaccinated: the child realizes that the pain of the needle is bad in and of itself. The parent realizes that the benefit of the vaccine outweighs the pain of the needle... but this depends on something else: the fact that the parent has no other way to get that benefit. If the parent had a painless way to vaccinate their child that was just as good, then inflicting that pain on the child WOULD be immoral.

That is my point, you can't have freewill without the suffering it potentially could cause. God makes it perfectly clear in verse after verse he wants us to chose right and not suffer the way we do because of rebellion. However he must and we must endure suffering because we disobey both personally and corporately. If your argument is that God is immoral and desires suffering how do you explain these verses?

New International Version
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.

New International Version
This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.

New International Version
He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

There are hundreds like this but we won't have it. We chose the curse and then blame God for the suffering he predicted and warned against.

Only a limited being can justify the bad side effects of their actions by saying that they're outweighed by the good of their goal. To an unlimited being, all side effects are avoidable.

No they are not (as even countless secular philosophers admit readily). God can't make round squares, rocks so heavy he can't lift them, or worlds with freewill that have no potential for suffering. He cannot do logically impossible things.

When you use it, it sure is.

Remind me not to throw any bones your way again.

I disagree with the "of its subjects" part in this context, since you've rejected the shared morality of a culture (which is independent of the opinion of any particular individual in that culture) as not "objective". It seems that you've been arguing based on "objective" meaning something like "universal"... until it's pointed out that God fails at his own standard... and only then do you argue that he's exempt.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. In fact God is the highest possible source of an objective anything if he exists. If you deny that then get that word out of the dictionary as it has no meaning what so ever.

Here is the definition: Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true.

Now do you honestly think a secular dictionary included God as one of these persons without even delineating between them. Even if you did out of desperation it would not matter because God's morality is still free of his opinion. God is morality he did not chose it. His moral commands are simply a reflection of his nature. He did not sit down one day and think what they should be, they never were anything but what they are and never will be different.

And because he is less restricted in terms of his abilities, he is actually MORE restricted in terms of morality. Many human actions are only moral because we, as imperfect beings, only have imperfect means to reach our ends. God doesn't have this excuse for when his actions cause harm.

That is completely absurd. If I as a technician remove your heart I am guilty or murder if a doctor does so he is paid a lot of money because of his capability alone.

To an all-powerful, all-knowing deity, there is no such thing as an inadvertent side effect. All side effects are avoidable and foreseeable, so every aspect of every act of God is deliberate.

There most certainly is if God creates a thing that requires it. God can't make a square without straight lines and 90 degree angles by definition and neither freewill without the ability to choose wrong.

When God is "vaccinating" his children, if the needle hurts, it's because God wanted it to hurt. He could have vaccinated you painlessly, but he deliberately chose the painful way.

That is why you should not have used the analogy to begin with. If God has an inoculation it is salvation and I promise you it does not hurt, it might be the opposite of pain. It is the first experience of true peace and contentment you will ever have. God does not inoculate against temporal mistakes and physical pain because they have rolls and may be deserved and is not part of the grand plan.

That's the difference between God's morality and ours.

What was?

This could be: if a god's actions are imperfect, then the god is imperfect.

For that you need a standard for perfection that transcends God. Good luck.