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

[Agnostic75]

The Bible is not so difficult really, sometimes when we see a difficult passage we need help from someone who earnestly studies the original language and can execute the definitions of certain words and their use in contexts.

Dr. Robert Price is an agnostic, and former Christian college professor. He has two doctorate degrees, and translated the entire Hebrew Old Testament into English. He is also fluent in ancient Greek. He understands ancient Hebrew and Greek better than you ever will, so there is much more to this than understanding ancient Hebrew and Greek.

 

[Lady B]

Dr. Robert Price is an agnostic, and former Christian college professor. He has two doctorate degrees, and translated the entire Hebrew Old Testament into English. He is also fluent in ancient Greek. He understands ancient Hebrew and Greek better than you ever will, so there is much more to this than understanding ancient Hebrew and Greek.

I agree, and the Bible declares it as well, God does open up the scriptures to his own, we do have an understanding that unbelievers just cannot However even believers stumble and should seek out other believers who have studied the original language. Such as John 3:16, at face value many read this to mean God gave his son for all. Period, but when we go to the Greek the words "whosoever believes in him" literally means for the believing ones. Even I as a younger Christian believed Christ died for the entirety, but this would only mean God failed right? And so the original language helps immensely in these kinds of verses.

 

[McBell]

The Bible is not so difficult really,...

I agree.
Especially when people have no qualms to make it say what they want.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree, and the Bible declares it as well, God does open up the scriptures to his own, we do have an understanding that unbelievers just cannot

Doesn't it then follow that there is no good reason to worry about whether people believe or not?

Maybe it is just me, but it seems that you are saying that it is God, not us, who chooses whether we should believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems to me that this:

The Bible is not so difficult really,

Contradicts this:

God does open up the scriptures to his own, we do have an understanding that unbelievers just cannot

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

So... if I try to kill someone and I'm unsuccessful at actually killing them, I haven't made a choice?

No, not if you know God's going to reverse what you did and negate your action.

Personally, I'm not prepared to accept your word that the arguments you gave elsewhere were excellent and that your position now has been carefully formulated and honed. If you want me to believe that, you'll have to show me. And so far, you haven't.

Most people don't understand because they don't want to. If you can't understand how our free will to make moral decisions would be negated by His making it certain that we know He exists and is looking over our shoulder constantly, there's nothing more I can say. Fire departments and good Samaritans are of this natural world and are constrained by natural law. God is not.

So? Where are you trying to get at?

(See above)

How so? Further explain this point. ( This is the most important part of your post and you haven't throughly explained it.)

He can't reveal Himself or make His existence known without undermining our free will to be moral or not. And we have to be able to make moral choices rationally, ergo the natural, rational universe. It's that simple. I think the only complication is that it doesn't fit with divine revelation.

Actually, it is completely possible for a God to exist and no afterlife to exist.

I didn't say it was. I said there must be an afterlife if there is a God. Consider it God's ultimate intervention. He mustn't save us from suffering and pain in this world, but an afterlife, or at least a choice to participate in that afterlife, would be that salvation. People ask why God didn't intervene to save (fill in the blank), that's why. He mustn't now, but He will.

But this is irrelevant to this debate. What matters is that putting people into a given condition where they will experience major suffering can not be excused by giving some sort of reward at the end of the road.

Now whose judging God? Does it make you feel better to just put it in the "God works in mysterious ways" column? This is a rational answer. Take it.

This would be akin to a random guy killing your father and giving you a million dollars. He is not excused from killing your father simply because he turned you into a millionarie.

God allows it so that we may create our souls. The murderer works towards the destruction of his soul.

Determined beings can be programmed to feel "fulfilled". What is not "free" in these discussions over free will is what our desires are. We don't get to choose what we desire to do. We can only choose to resist or give in to a desire,

You just dismissed your own argument, "We can only choose to resist or give in to a desire". That is our free will.

and we only ever do so when there are conflicting desires.

Which is a choice. Determinism says there is no choice.

You keep forgetting that we are dealing with a hypothetical case here. Given the existence of the Calvinist God, do we judge him evil?

The existence of a Calvinist God is an unacceptable hypothetical. Our only choice for argument is God or No God.

The concept of "depraved indifference" applies here. If God had a choice to prevent evil and failed to prevent it, then we would normally judge that kind of restraint as depraved indifference to suffering. Calvinists are not claiming that we have any choices from God's perspective. God already knows who will be condemned by him, and he chooses not to intervene to prevent that condemnation. Or does he really have any choice in the matter?

If God already knows, wherefore the universe and us suffering and dying in it for no reason. Now THAT would be evil. Calvinists tie themselves up in that Gordian Knot where all they can see is rope and then declare, "See!'

Let's try to stay focused on the particular version of God under discussion here.

What particular version of God? There's only one, Truth, wherever that leads.....

That God does not see us as having a choice to do other than what he knows we will do.

.....not the divine revelation that Copernicus (not his namesake who's surely turning over in his grave right now) "reveals".

Rube Goldberg created some wonderful chain reactions, but he was still responsible for what his machines did. He couldn't step away from them and say that it wasn't his fault that the ball dropped in the middle of the chain reaction he set off. If the ball did what it was programmed to do, then it did what he desired it to do.

So, the Truth is that God is Rube Goldberg. Analogies are only so useful, and then only if there some shred of a connection.

Lady B has told us that we cannot really understand her God's motives. Maybe your God has more understandable motives. If he's just looking for companionship and freedom from boredom, he sounds like a nice guy. He still doesn't sound any more plausible to me than Lady B's God.

If we have no hope of understanding God at all, then we aren't made in His image.

Didn't Satan fail the test?

Satan and hell wouldn't exist, neither would angels since they don't have free will and are nothing but mere human inventions for God's fictional actions among men. You have to have free will to be tested. What could angels do that an omnipotent, omnipresent God couldn't do Himself; or what could we do that He couldn't, for that matter, without our free will.

 

[Koldo]

No, not if you know God's going to reverse what you did and negate your action.

He is not reversing it nor negating it in that case.
He is preventing it by design, not by intervetion.

He can't reveal Himself or make His existence known without undermining our free will to be moral or not. And we have to be able to make moral choices rationally, ergo the natural, rational universe. It's that simple. I think the only complication is that it doesn't fit with divine revelation.

This has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
He doesn't have to reveal himself to prevent evil.
Plus, he could simply design our universe in such a manner that the moral choices we are able to do aren't particularly important by nature. We are, by design ( if god exists ), restricted not only in our physical free will but also in our moral free will as a consequence. There are only so many moral choices i can make.

You have yet to provide a reason as to why our moral choices must be tunned exactly as they are, and what is the advantage of this scenario over one where suffering doesn't exist.

I didn't say it was. I said there must be an afterlife if there is a God.

You are contradicting yourself. You probably misread what i said.
What i said, in other words, is that: An afterlife doesn't necessarily exists if there is a God.

Consider it God's ultimate intervention. He mustn't save us from suffering and pain in this world, but an afterlife, or at least a choice to participate in that afterlife, would be that salvation. People ask why God didn't intervene to save (fill in the blank), that's why. He mustn't now, but He will.

Now whose judging God? Does it make you feel better to just put it in the "God works in mysterious ways" column? This is a rational answer. Take it.

God allows it so that we may create our souls. The murderer works towards the destruction of his soul.

Judging God? I am comparing scenarios.

Would you consider it moral if someone were to kill your father and give you a million dollars for it? Because if you don't, then you can't argue that it is moral for God to allow suffering in this world and reward people with an afterlife.

 

[Copernicus]

No, not if you know God's going to reverse what you did and negate your action.

Just one comment on your exchange there: this in no way excuses God letting the murder go forward. First of all, a person would be stupid to try to commit a murder, if he had that knowledge. Then there is the life of the victim to consider. Finally, God does not need to let criminals actually commit the acts to know all he needs to know about the individual. After all, God is supposed to be omniscient.

You just dismissed your own argument, "We can only choose to resist or give in to a desire". That is our free will.

You just dismissed your own argument, "We can only choose to resist or give in to a desire". That is our free will.

You completely misunderstand my argument. I'm saying that choice is a fully determined process, i.e. compatible with determinism. You can call it "free will", but you haven't actually thought through what that means. Desire determines choice, and you have no control over what you desire. What you are missing here is that you can have more than one desire, and they can conflict with each other. So choice is really a matter of conflict resolution, and that depends on which of the conflicting desires is strongest. Since we do not choose what our strongest desires are, then the responsibility accrues to God, who allegedly did choose what we would most come to desire.

Which is a choice. Determinism says there is no choice.

No it doesn't. Determinism is just the claim that all behavior is caused. The doctrine of "free will" claims that choice is incompatible with determinism, and that is what I'm denying.

The existence of a Calvinist God is an unacceptable hypothetical. Our only choice for argument is God or No God.

No, this thread is framed in the OP. Let's not stray off-topic by bringing in your version of God, which is not under discussion here.

If God already knows, wherefore the universe and us suffering and dying in it for no reason. Now THAT would be evil. Calvinists tie themselves up in that Gordian Knot where all they can see is rope and then declare, "See!'

I agree, and this is a topical response to the OP. It does not require us to believe or disbelieve in any other version of God in order to carry on the discussion.

What particular version of God? There's only one, Truth, wherever that leads.....

I told you the particular version: Lady B's Calvinist version. If you want to talk about your version of God, please start a different thread.

So, the Truth is that God is Rube Goldberg. Analogies are only so useful, and then only if there some shred of a connection.

In this case, there is direct relevance. A God-initiated deterministic universe is God's Rube Goldberg Machine. He built it. He owns it.

If we have no hope of understanding God at all, then we aren't made in His image.

That doesn't follow, but it isn't relevant anyway. Lady B has made it quite clear that it is beyond our ability to understand her God's intentions with respect to the evil that he caused to come into existence.

Satan and hell wouldn't exist, neither would angels since they don't have free will and are nothing but mere human inventions for God's fictional actions among men. You have to have free will to be tested. What could angels do that an omnipotent, omnipresent God couldn't do Himself; or what could we do that He couldn't, for that matter, without our free will.

You don't need free will in order to be "tested". I've seen plenty of robots being tested. It is a bit puzzling to me that an omniscient being would actually have to test things, however. Usually, one does tests to discover things one doesn't actually know for certain. That's the whole point of a test.

 

[CG Didymus]

Hey Lady B you asked about my "reasoning" about the siblings and the parents. I questioning the "age of accountability" concept. I think it is an attempt at some Christians to give God a "loophole" so he doesn't seem as evil when a child dies. In my hypothetical story the child that was too young to know better is "saved" by default. The parents and the rest of the kids were old enough to have heard and understand the gospel and rejected it. So the one child goes to Abraham's bosom and sees across the chasm and sees his family. If that's what you think is the truth fine. I just think it's kind of weird, because then in Jericho or Sodom there were infants that God killed or had killed by Joshua and then he takes them to be with him in Heaven? Weird.

Hey but I think a lot of things about Christianity are weird. But you are not weird. You're a strong and beautiful and loving example of a Christian. You crying for those that have died shows your deep love. Since you're not an extreme Calvinist, you are showing a strong desire to try and convince the lost of what you believe is the truth. Sorry, but even your level of belief, I still consider "extreme" or "hyper." I'm too liberal in my beliefs to think that God is so exclusive that he rejects people over doctrines. Sure the Bible says this and says that, but to me they are words that men wrote and interpreted. Therefore, they are "traditions of men." Your beliefs give you spiritual strength, but what about a Hindu that reads the Gita and believes Krishna when he says he is God? Or, what about a Mormon when he swears that an angel talked to Joseph Smith? To me it is a sort of brain washing. Are any of these religious beliefs true? They don't have to be. They are true to the believer.
There are problems with Calvinism that many will question, and it will never be the truth to them. But, you've been a spectacular witness for its ability to make one wonderful and beautiful person. Ah, geez, now you've made me cry. So forget about me. I'll be alright. You get in there and show some of these other guys a thing or two.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, not if you know God's going to reverse what you did and negate your action.

I'm not talking about God reversing the action; I'm talking about him preventing it in the first place, the way he's prevented us from killing people with our thoughts, for instance.

Most people don't understand because they don't want to. If you can't understand how our free will to make moral decisions would be negated by His making it certain that we know He exists and is looking over our shoulder constantly, there's nothing more I can say. Fire departments and good Samaritans are of this natural world and are constrained by natural law. God is not.

No, I can't understand. "Obvious choice" is not the same thing as "no choice". Knowledge may suggest to us the right choice to make, but it doesn't take away our ability to choose.

 

[Lady B]

Hey Lady B you asked about my "reasoning" about the siblings and the parents. I questioning the "age of accountability" concept. I think it is an attempt at some Christians to give God a "loophole" so he doesn't seem as evil when a child dies. In my hypothetical story the child that was too young to know better is "saved" by default. The parents and the rest of the kids were old enough to have heard and understand the gospel and rejected it. So the one child goes to Abraham's bosom and sees across the chasm and sees his family. If that's what you think is the truth fine. I just think it's kind of weird, because then in Jericho or Sodom there were infants that God killed or had killed by Joshua and then he takes them to be with him in Heaven? Weird.

Hey but I think a lot of things about Christianity are weird. But you are not weird. You're a strong and beautiful and loving example of a Christian. You crying for those that have died shows your deep love. Since you're not an extreme Calvinist, you are showing a strong desire to try and convince the lost of what you believe is the truth. Sorry, but even your level of belief, I still consider "extreme" or "hyper." I'm too liberal in my beliefs to think that God is so exclusive that he rejects people over doctrines. Sure the Bible says this and says that, but to me they are words that men wrote and interpreted. Therefore, they are "traditions of men." Your beliefs give you spiritual strength, but what about a Hindu that reads the Gita and believes Krishna when he says he is God? Or, what about a Mormon when he swears that an angel talked to Joseph Smith? To me it is a sort of brain washing. Are any of these religious beliefs true? They don't have to be. They are true to the believer.
There are problems with Calvinism that many will question, and it will never be the truth to them. But, you've been a spectacular witness for its ability to make one wonderful and beautiful person. Ah, geez, now you've made me cry. So forget about me. I'll be alright. You get in there and show some of these other guys a thing or two.

I understand your view, really I do. Many things seem unfair to us, the destruction of Sodom and Ghemora also seems quite drastic to me, and other Bible stories where children are killed while entire tribes are destroyed. But I try to look at things outside of my emotions and see how this could be. Imagine a farmer, He has 100 cows,lets say a few cows were infected with mad cow disease, He would have to kill the entire flock because he could not sell the meat without fear. Now let's look at sodom and Ghemora, This village was infected with sin, child sacrifices, homosexuality, and whatever they were accused of by God. God was going to destroy the entire city, because it was effecting tribes outside the city and drawing more people in. After negotiating with Abraham he saved some.

What I think we miss with our emotions is that God has the right to destroy us all, we all have fallen short, we all sin, but yet he does give us grace, he does allow us to live another day. I sure don't know why he allows me to continue on , I sin daily, I sometimes wish I could just die or that Christ would hurry back just to keep myself from more sin, but by His grace I live and I know there is a purpose for my life as there is a purpose for who has lived and died before me.

I understand you have a lot of confusion in why there are so many different religions or sects of religions. I myself wonder constantly why God will not just set us all straight, so to speak..... And I know in my many conversations with Muslims, Bahai, Jehovah witnesses and Mormons, they are as convinced in their truth as I am in mine. This is so perplexing to me really, and I think for all men it is so. All I can do is keep studying, Praying and trust the spirit inside me to guide me rightly.

You are a kind soul and I wish God will bring you to some knowledge of him If that is what you seek, If it is not, then I wish you find peace in whatever you can

.

 

[Lady B]

It seems to me that this:



Contradicts this:

Yes those are seemingly contradictory, But I was responding to someone who possibly may have ears to hear and eyes to see, at any rate both are actually true based on scripture.

"God is not the author of confusion"
"those he has given ears to hear will hear, and those given eyes to see will see"

If someone is seeking truth and opens the Bible,God could surely open it up for them, or he can let them remain If they are only using the Word for unGodly purpose.

 

[Lady B]

Doesn't it then follow that there is no good reason to worry about whether people believe or not?

Maybe it is just me, but it seems that you are saying that it is God, not us, who chooses whether we should believe.

That is actually exactly what I am saying. God draws his elect to himself. No man seeketh after God. With that being said, men are still accountable for rebelling against God. Look at it this way, God made a world, he made a people, sin entered the world and all men chose sin and became slaves of sin.would anyone in sin go to God on his own? From his own free will? No, God must act or none will come. That is the power of sin in this world.

Also, there is a great reason to care about peoples salvation, God has commanded believers to spread the gospel so that all can hear. He has set up his church and will use his word to bring his elect to himself. "Faith comes by hearing,and hearing the word of God". So we do not know who is God's elect, how could we not try to reach anyone who will listen?

 

[JustWondering]

That is actually exactly what I am saying. God draws his elect to himself. No man seeketh after God. With that being said, men are still accountable for rebelling against God. Look at it this way, God made a world, he made a people, sin entered the world and all men chose sin and became slaves of sin.would anyone in sin go to God on his own? From his own free will? No, God must act or none will come. That is the power of sin in this world.

Also, there is a great reason to care about peoples salvation, God has commanded believers to spread the gospel so that all can hear. He has set up his church and will use his word to bring his elect to himself. "Faith comes by hearing,and hearing the word of God". So we do not know who is God's elect, how could we not try to reach anyone who will listen?

Where did "sin" and "evil" come from? If god created us to behave and act in a certain manner and we fail to behave and act in that manner is it truly our fault? It makes no more sense for god to blame us for any defect we may have then for a cook to blame a bowl of soup he made for not tasting right. If we are created beings, we can only act and function the way in which we were designed and programmed to act. Can you refer me to where in the bible it claims humans have free will and why it is neccesary for us to have it? Additionally, I don't believe in your god because I think he's evil, I just think he is a human creation like every other god. I find it hard to believe that a all-powerful god that is offended by people not believing in his existence allowing people to not believe in him. The only way any of it makes sense to me is that your god doesn't exist.

 

[idav]

That is actually exactly what I am saying. God draws his elect to himself. No man seeketh after God. With that being said, men are still accountable for rebelling against God. Look at it this way, God made a world, he made a people, sin entered the world and all men chose sin and became slaves of sin.would anyone in sin go to God on his own? From his own free will? No, God must act or none will come. That is the power of sin in this world.

Not all men chose sin so free will beyond the sins of the father would be necessary.

If humans are all born unworthy to begin with then he'd have nothing to do with any of us. Needing god to create believers makes any wrath unjust. Allowing children to suffer because God didn't want to "call" someone makes it Gods fault since God causes the state of the person causing the suffering.

 

[Lady B]

Not all men chose sin so free will beyond the sins of the father would be necessary.

If humans are all born unworthy to begin with then he'd have nothing to do with any of us. Needing god to create believers makes any wrath unjust. Allowing children to suffer because God didn't want to "call" someone makes it Gods fault since God causes the state of the person causing the suffering.

Not all men choose sin? really? based on the biblical definitions of sin, do you know anyone like ever who has lived sin free? It is not about God not wanting to call anyone, It is about no man would seek God on his own.

 

[Lady B]

Where did "sin" and "evil" come from? If god created us to behave and act in a certain manner and we fail to behave and act in that manner is it truly our fault? It makes no more sense for god to blame us for any defect we may have then for a cook to blame a bowl of soup he made for not tasting right. If we are created beings, we can only act and function the way in which we were designed and programmed to act. Can you refer me to where in the bible it claims humans have free will and why it is neccesary for us to have it? Additionally, I don't believe in your god because I think he's evil, I just think he is a human creation like every other god. I find it hard to believe that a all-powerful god that is offended by people not believing in his existence allowing people to not believe in him. The only way any of it makes sense to me is that your god doesn't exist.

As you like

 

[idav]

Not all men choose sin? really? based on the biblical definitions of sin, do you know anyone like ever who has lived sin free? It is not about God not wanting to call anyone, It is about no man would seek God on his own.

Your saying it was chose for us by Adam. We didn't choose it. We weren't given a choice like adam, god or sin. We all have a choice beyond what was brought down upon us through our lineage. Scripture would support, like john 4:16 for example, that god gives everyone the choice. I look at it as meeting god half way. God would have already made the effort on his behalf and each individual is responsible for the rest. If god is completely directing belief that we have no control over then it sounds rather evil.

 

[Lady B]

Your saying it was chose for us by Adam. We didn't choose it. We weren't given a choice like adam, god or sin. We all have a choice beyond what was brought down upon us through our lineage. Scripture would support, like john 4:16 for example, that god gives everyone the choice. I look at it as meeting god half way. God would have already made the effort on his behalf and each individual is responsible for the rest. If god is completely directing belief that we have no control over then it sounds rather evil.

I am not one of the Christians in this forum who blame Adam for my sin, Thru Adam sin entered the world. period. There is no innocent persons, no man woman or child can say he/she is without sin. When we stand before God in judgement, no man can say " Adam made me do it".

Let us look close at the choices we all have, do you honestly never remeber choosing wrong? I do, I have done things knowing before hand they are wrong, yet choosing to do them anyway. I have done things wrong without knowing, yet seeing afterwards how wrong they really were. I have had choices put before me all my life and I have not always chose good. I cannot blame anyone but myself for my choices and I can't say I am any better than anyone else who battles sin. If a person really knows himself good, he will see all the choices he himself makes, not God, not satan, not Adam, but himself alone.

 

[no-body]

I understand your view, really I do. Many things seem unfair to us, the destruction of Sodom and Ghemora also seems quite drastic to me, and other Bible stories where children are killed while entire tribes are destroyed. But I try to look at things outside of my emotions and see how this could be. Imagine a farmer, He has 100 cows,lets say a few cows were infected with mad cow disease, He would have to kill the entire flock because he could not sell the meat without fear. Now let's look at sodom and Ghemora, This village was infected with sin, child sacrifices, homosexuality, and whatever they were accused of by God. God was going to destroy the entire city, because it was effecting tribes outside the city and drawing more people in. After negotiating with Abraham he saved some.

What I think we miss with our emotions is that God has the right to destroy us all, we all have fallen short, we all sin, but yet he does give us grace, he does allow us to live another day.

To tweak your analogy I see God as a mad scientist farmer who could cure all the cow diseases but keeps them around and lets them spread so he can teach lessons and keep all the cows in line.