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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Like a razor blade? Not really!

Read and understand:

Mk 2:15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him.

Mk 2:16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the “sinners” and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?”

Mk 2:17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have NOT come to call the righteous, but ‘sinners’.”

So all that stuff about trying to establish that babies are sinners wasn't about justifying why God lets them die? What is your justification based on, then?

 

[JM2C]

I mean exactly what I said. They do not know who actually wrote these texts.

And you went along with them without any proof at all.

You also need to take into account that these later Christians misunderstood the Hebrew texts.

What Hebrew text you are talking about?

This is very obvious - by for instance - Isaiah's son Emmanuel being turned into Jesus, and a King of Babylon being turned into Satan/Lucifer.

Who is the Emmanuel in Isaiah 7:14 then?

So, we know for a FACT that they got things wrong.

And you blamed Christians for this.

 

[JM2C]

So all that stuff about trying to establish that babies are sinners wasn't about justifying why God lets them die? What is your justification based on, then?

So, you’re the one who thought that sinners are disposable base on babies were sinners to begin with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, you’re the one who thought that sinners are disposable base on babies were sinners to begin with.

My mistake for assuming that your tangent was relevant to the thread, apparently.

 

[JM2C]

First notice that they ALL are in Hades/Sheol.

Luke 16:23 And being in the grave (Hades/Sheol) raised his eyes (huparcho,) being at the (basanos) bottom, to see the Abraam far above in the distance, and Lazaros in the bosom of him.

Bottom in Greek is “kato” while “torment” is “basanos”. You intentionally mistranslated or changed the word “TORMENT” with “BOTTOM” but gave the right meaning in Greek, and that is, “BASANOS”.

The rich man was in hades “being in torment” while Abraham and Lazarus were NOT in hades and not “being in torment”

LK 16:23 “In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.

IOW, only the rich man was in hades, and not like you suggested here “First notice that they ALL are in Hades/Sheol.”

Where did it say they all in hades?

I know what you going say, Christians changed the word “BOTTOM” into “TORMENT”, but Greek does not lie because it says “BASANOS”

And here’s another proof that there is no such thing as purgatory.

2Co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Present with the Lord in purgatory?
　
Ac 7:56 "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

Heaven is in purgatory?

“there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.”

What salvation are you talking about, thau?

 

[JM2C]

My mistake for assuming that your tangent was relevant to the thread, apparently.

You like that word "assuming" very much.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I said there is nothing more relevant to an equality than the two things being equal which was the polar opposite from what we had. Now once done that made what was said irrelevant because it was so flawed as to be meaningless. That however has nothing to do with being equal's being relevant to an equality. Using an analogy or equality is not irrelevant unless you wreck what makes equalities equal then it becomes irrelevant.

I wasn't making an analogy; I was making an inference: if God is the moral standard, then everything that God does is necessarily a moral act.

It looks like we are on a semantic off ramp that I don't want to take. Use whatever terms you like, but comparing a man to God in that case made the argument that unutilized that equality impotent for lacking any actual equality in that case. Call it what you want, it was a poor argument.

Again, it's not about equality and you're engaging in special pleading. Is letting children die good? Then it's moral to do... for gods or people. Is it evil? Then it's immoral to do... for gods or people.

The only way that God's (disputed) status as a "moral standard" is relevant here is that if letting kids die was immoral, then God wouldn't do it.

I was not drawing an equality (mine was actually an inequality) but a similarity between types. I posited out that even the comparative difference in information separated the same event in a moral aspect. Now given that God's informational difference is so astronomically larger than between us and a child then it also will follow that similar events will be morally correct in one case and not in another. I can point out quite a few of these differences that are as vast as things can get that easily justify a different moral code between two moral agents. You are going to have to show that regardless how big the differences that moral codes would always be identical to even begin an argument.

If God's moral code isn't the same as ours, then God isn't *our* moral standard. Are you sure you want to argue this?

That is ridiculous. If God can place a person in heaven then that makes whatever actions he takes a lot different than our taking them. In the same way a bum taking an arm off in the alley is wrong but a surgeon doing so in a hospital is justified. God can also know every resultant effect of his actions we can't. No wit may be true that taking life without moral justification is wrong whether God does it or we do but what determines moral justification has a lot to do with what we know.

But we're not talking about out-and-out murder; we're talking about letting a child die. If 10 people and God see the same starving child, if any one of them feeds him, the child lives. He only dies if all of them - including God - each decide not to feed him.

And it's worse for God, since a human being might pass the child and assume that someone else will help. God, with his vast superior knowledge (as you pointed out) would be in a position to know that he's really the child's last hope.

That's why I say that letting a child die is a collaborative act between humanity and God: either one could stop it, so it only happens when both agree.

We do not die because God neglect us. We die because we neglected him.

Sounds like you're saying that when someone dies, they did something to deserve it.

He gave us eternal life and we told him to take a hike. When we were separated from him by our own request we were separated from the thing that sustained us. We not only have doomed ourselves in eternity but for 5000 years we have only had 300 where we were not killing each other whole sale, we not have invented our own destruction, and call the moral insanity to have almost done it twice progress then on top of all that we turn around and blame the only solution to our madness. We do not even have claim to what life we do get.

There is no standard external to God. He is the highest, most objective, most transcendent standard possible. Everything that is came from him. Where is your moral standard that is higher than God, who created it, why is it true? God did not invent morality he is morality. Moral commands are only reflections of his moral nature. Even theoretically what could possibly exist that would bind God? Talk about lacking logic.

Actual morality restricts one's actions. If your God has no restrictions, then he's not moral.

That is not really important. I hold so many beliefs I do not like that you really can't create any kind of wish fulfillment explanation for them but it really does not matter. I am required to present truth not to make you believe it.

You're required to present "truth" but not to present it effectively? Suit yourself.

Well God's action would certainly comment on morality but they would never define our exact moral duties. Without God their is no moral truth for anything or anyone to defy or agree with to begin with. Nothing about that fact has anything go do with any action God may do is right for us. You can't prove the latter, nor can it be defended, but it certainly cannot be linked to the former claim.

So we can't use God as a standard for human morality, but you say that nothing else can be used either. What do you suggest we use as the basis of morality?

Let me give you a thought experiment., If God killed every human on earth this second, what moral fact has he violated? How is he guilty of any wrong doing? If we killed a single person without moral justification what moral fact have we acted constantly with? How are we not guilty of breaking factual moral codes?

What "factual moral code" are you talking about?

Morals are derived from values. Slaughtering all of humanity would only be moral if humanity had no value, but this lack of value would inform human morality, too.

There something weird you non-theists do that has always tickled me. You will pick on God for a thousand lesser things but almost never mention the fact that he claims to have sentenced us all to death. Jesus was the lamb of God but you forget he is also the lion of Judah. Why worry about what happened to the Canaanites or some hypothetical baby, when we are all sentenced to die?

Believe me - I don't forget and that bothers me, too. Christian theology is offensive on many levels, but to keep the discussion manageable, we have to deal with it in small chunks.

I think in the discussion about that particular issue, the "slaughtering most of humanity" problem gets lost in the conversation about the "eternal suffering" issue that usually accompanies it. Not many things top the immortality of genocide, but infinite torture does.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You like that word "assuming" very much.

And you like to distract people from the fact that you're not giving a justification for your God's immoral acts.

Edit: the main question of this thread can be broken down into just two component questions:

- does your God allow children to die?
- is it moral to allow children to die?

They're both very easy questions to answer; both are just yes or no.

 

[JM2C]

And you like to distract people from the fact that you're not giving a justification for your God's immoral acts.

Try to read the OP again and see who or what is relevant to this thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Try to read the OP again and see who or what is relevant to this thread.

More avoidance. Are you going to provide a justification or not?

 

[JM2C]

And you like to distract people from the fact that you're not giving a justification for your God's immoral acts.

Edit: the main question of this thread can be broken down into just two component questions:

- does your God allow children to die?
- is it moral to allow children to die?

They're both very easy questions to answer; both are just yes or no.

More avoidance. Are you going to provide a justification or not?

Avoid what? Did you read it? If you did, then what is your understanding of what the OP was saying? Different people different thoughts, so tell me how you understand it and we go from there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Avoid what?

Giving your justification for God's actions. We've established that the arguments you gave about sinful babies were a sideshow, so I'm asking you to provide your argument. Your relevant argument.

Did you read it? If you did, then what is your understanding of what the OP was saying? Different people different thoughts, so tell me how you understand it and we go from there.

I gave my thoughts on the OP almost 2 years ago:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3186117-post19.html

 

[CG Didymus]

Joshua’s time Or Hitler’s?

Joshua's. But, in any time, would you have believed a leader that told you that God told him to tell you to go into a city and kill everybody, including women and children? I know you pretty much have to say that you would without question, because it is Joshua and supposedly the true God saying it, but what if it were today? Or even if Christian leaders still had people killed for being witches or heretics? Would you join in and take part? I just think at some point religious leaders have to be questioned.

The next question then becomes, just because supposedly God said to do it, should we believe it and do it? After all, how do we know it was really God? Because a prophet said so? What if the prophet is wrong? Or maybe the person is a false prophet? Maybe because we had a dream or saw a vision or heard a voice? And how would you know if it was real?

In this crazy mixed up world usually both sides think they are the ones that are right, or at least pretend that they are, and then they try to justify their actions. And the best way to justify it is to say God wanted us to do it because those other people are evil.

 

[Clear]

[FONT=&quot]1) REGARDING THE CONCEPT OF HADES AS A WORLD OF SPIRITS INTO WHICH ALL DEAD ENTER [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
INGLEDSVA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] SAID : “Luke 16:23 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]And being in the grave (Hades/Sheol) raised his eyes (huparcho,) being at the (basanos) bottom, to see the Abraam far above in the distance, and Lazaros in the bosom of him[/FONT][FONT=&quot].”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
JM2C[/FONT][FONT=&quot] countered[FONT=&quot] : [/FONT] “[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Bottom in Greek is “kato” while “torment” is “basanos”. You intentionally mistranslated or changed the word “TORMENT” with “BOTTOM” but gave the right meaning in Greek, and that is, “BASANOS[/FONT][FONT=&quot]”. [/FONT]

This is an unusual situation.


INGLEDSVA clearly represents the correct base theology of Hades as a way-station for the spirits of mankind while JM2C is correct that Ingledsva ‘s attempt to translate the greek of Luke 16:23 is not just incorrect, but it is absolutely "bizarre".

Yπαρχων / huparchon is NOT “raised his eyes” (as per her "translation") and Βασανοις / Basanois has nothing to do with “being at the bottom”. (as she "translated" it). JM2C is completely correct that Βασανοις / Basanois in this instance is “torment”(torture was it’s most common reference usage in the early papyri)

However, INGLEDSVA is, historically, completely correct that hades was the place into which all individuals who had died, went while awaiting judgment and resurrection.

I think one point of confusion is that, Hades, in early Judeo-Christian tradition was divided into different areas based on moral charateristics. Sophocles explained “For we believe that there are two paths in Hades, one for the just, the other for the impious."

The “torment” of the "impious" was not actual “flames” (though the term was applied metaphorically and not literally). The earliest descriptions of hades from early sacred texts describe the self-imposed shame and regret as the main “torments” suffered (Hades was before resurrection or judgment in the early Judeo-Christian textual descriptions).

The early Judeo-Christian belief in a "world of spirits" / Hades / Sheol / Hell / "spirit world" / etc. was an important concept in early Judeo-Christian worldviews since much of the injustice that took place in life could be justified by this doctrinal mechanism. Thus, just as early Judeo-Christian belief included a world of spirits before mortality that affected mortality, the Judeo-christian belief was that mortality affected the spirit inside individuals after they died. The inclusion of these traditions change the dynamics of Judeo-Christian Theory in ways that help justify apparent injustices within mortality. Without them, a God who creates an ex-nihilo spirit as an imperfect being could not punish the spirit for being imperfect without becoming unjust himself.

The abandonment of these early Judeo-Christians traditions and the creation of and adoption of other theories partly explains why certain philosophical arguments did not plague the early christian movement as arguments plague Christian theories now. There were arguments, but they were different.


[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2) REGARDING THE THEORY THAT "BABIES SIN CONSTANTLY" AND THAT [FONT=&quot]INFANTS ARE MOR[FONT=&quot]ALLY "DEPRAVED"[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] (Please note that I did not bring th[FONT=&quot]is up again, but 1[FONT=&quot]ROBIN [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]brought it up a[FONT=&quot]gain in post 4545....)

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] 1ROBIN[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“This baby thing has been given far more attention than it deserves. It deserves none and has gotten quite a bit. I have many times said I would no longer waste any more time on something so meaningless and I am going to stick by that. I have even asked someone to explain why this subject has any impotence at all. Only one person even attempted it and even it was arbitrary and vague. I will give one more shot at it. How is either conclusion in this case of vital interest to a theological discussion? They wind up in heaven either. What is at stake here? “ POST 4545
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]CLEAR[/FONT][FONT=&quot] replied : Robin;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I think what is at stake is the coherence of your theory and your theory’s implications regarding the justice of God. You and JM2C have theorized that “babies sin constantly”; and that infants are morally “depraved” (respectively) and, thus, all infants (thus all of US) enter the world ALREADY morally depraved. Your specific theory implies something about the justice of God that obviously bothers readers and their sense of justice.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If your theory is that God creates morally imperfect beings and introduces them into the world imperfect and then punishes the imperfect beings for having the very moral imperfections God placed into them, it creates injustice in Gods’ criteria for judgment and condemnation and punishment.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]THIS moral dissonance was the reason your theory was seen as illogical and incoherent by agnostics and Atheists and Christians and other theists in this thread. It was not rejected by agnostics and Atheists because they are “bad people” or “god haters” who need to “repent” as JM2C suggested. They and other Christians and theists in this thread reject your theory because your theory is less coherent and less logical and less reasonable than the early Christian belief that infants have not yet sinned and do not (yet) sin.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I also think that what is at stake is the creation of active bias against "Christianity". For example, if your interpretation is not authentic Christian doctrine (it certainly is not original christian doctrine as it doesn't appear in the earliest sacred texts), then I am concerned that individuals who reject your theory because of it's inherent injustice will dismiss ALL christian traditions because they were exposed to your specific theory and saw it's injustice. If you are creating such bias against authentic Christian doctrine, then you are harming the christian goals, confusing the investigators of religion and providing them with justification for NOT to look to Christianity for meaning, but instead, to look elsewhere for meaning and understanding.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I might also remind you that your [post] STILL did not answer the question as to what sort of sins you think infants commit. CLEAR. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]POST 4547[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Regarding the creation of bias against “Christianity” by Christians themselves
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]CG DIDYMUS[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said : “ That is what is at stake. So many of us find the things believed in by some people's religion don't make sense. How they defend their beliefs often turns us off even more.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]You are different. Lady Blue, the starter of this thread, is a Calvinist, something I'll probably never, ever believe in, but she was humble and respectful. You are too. Thanks Clear for being part of this discussion[/FONT][FONT=&quot].” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]POST 4550[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]CG DIDYMUS [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for the kind remarks. I do not think that I am much different than those we all find so judgmental and offensive. I think I am probably just further along in this social/moral process that all of us are going through in mortality than those who are judgmental and offensive.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We are all inside a process of learning moral/social principles and I think the reason some christians are abrasive is that they have not yet learned to feel honest empathy for agnostics and athiests but instead their communication is contaminated by self-satisfaction that can come with finding religious conviction. This self satisfaction however, tends to fade as one matures over a few years and thus, they tend to lose attitudes that kept them at arms length from any “disbeliever”. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am glad you survived the visit with your grand child. I wanted to scan the papers and internet for your death, but I could not bring myself to submit to the suspense. I also want you to know that I learn from you, and Skeptic, and Nakosis, Mestima, and from many of the other posters who themselves, disagree with my own base positions. I assume that I have some errors in my own models as to what is going on in this existence and welcome the chance to find my errors and to correct them. Consideration of other views and other data is not merely helpful, but needed.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thanks CG DIDYMUS and others[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clear
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]σενεειτ[FONT=&quot]ωτζω[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[CG Didymus]

Was Hitler ever excommunicated?

I agree: it's not about his own private beliefs; it's about how Christians responded to him. Regardless of his own personal beliefs, he payed lip-service to Christianity his entire life... and it worked. Countless Christians followed him without having a problem reconciling this with their own faiths.

The important thing isn't whether Hitler was a Christian in private; it's that his public Christian image (whether real or fake) was so readily accepted as plausible and sincere.

When we ask about Hitler's beliefs, we look at things like the evidence that he dabbled in the occult. We DON'T base it on claims like "he couldn't have been a Christian because no Christian would have committed genocide."

I think it's also worth pointing out that regardless of Hitler's personal religious beliefs, he took much of the inspiration for his anti-Semitism from the writings of Martin Luther (who most certainly was a Christian), so quite a bit of Nazi ideology most definitely can be traced back to Christian religious beliefs, only it's to those of Luther rather than Hitler.

... which has more troubling implications for Christianity today (Protestant denominations, anyhow) than Hitler's beliefs could ever have, when you really think about it.

Weren't JW's standing up against him and I know there was a German Christian leader that was killed for speaking out against him? But, when passing out blame, wasn't there a boat load of Jews that got turned away and had return to Germany?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Weren't JW's standing up against him and I know there was a German Christian leader that was killed for speaking out against him? But, when passing out blame, wasn't there a boat load of Jews that got turned away and had return to Germany?

Lots of people, Christian and non-Christian, spoke out against Hitler. Lots of people, Christian and non-Christian (though more Christian than non-Christian) supported him. I'm not saying that every Christian is somehow required to support Hitler; I'm saying that regardless of Hitler's own private beliefs, it seemed plausible enough at the time that he was a Christian, and most of his followers, people who agreed with his ideology and helped carry it out, were Christian.

Under Hitler, the Nazi Party was an explicitly Christian movement (really - it's in Point 24 of the NSDAP's 25-point plan). Hitler's personal religious beliefs can't change this fact.

 

[CG Didymus]

[FONT=&quot]1)
[FONT=&quot]I am glad you survived the visit with your grand child.

I'm still here in Washington. We're staying one more night to watch the Seahawks game on TV with my wife's son and his wife and... their daughter. Yes, I'm still alive but barely. I'm suffering from sleep deprivation. Every night she pretends to be asleep, then, as soon as I start to doze off, it happens. That shrill, incessant sound...Wah! It doesn't stop, and it won't stop until she gets what she wants. Her mother gets up to hold her. My wife gets up to help, but it's of no avail. She wants me. My wife says, "Come on grandpa. Come sing to her."

"No! Leave me be. I can't take it any more. Let me go back to California where I can go back to work and get some rest."

"Come on, one more time. Sing her a song."

"One more time? I don't think so. It's only one in the morning. There will be at least two more times."

"Get over here now!"

I throw off the covers and roll out of bed. I go to the other bedroom. "Okay, what song this time?"

"She really likes that lullaby by Ozzy Osborne."

"Figures."

Clear, I don't know. One more night. If the Seahawks lose, then what? I told them I prayed that they have a good game? What do I say if they don't win? That God loves the Packers better? It might get ugly. We might have to sneak out of town tonight and make a run for the border.

 

[Ingledsva]

[

I mean exactly what I said. They do not know who actually wrote these texts.

And you went along with them without any proof at all.

ING - Don't be ridiculous! Saying it is so because the Bible says so, - that is without any proof.

I on the other hand directed you to Biblical Scholarship, and the debates on age and author.

You also need to take into account that these later Christians misunderstood the Hebrew texts.

What Hebrew text you are talking about?


ING - Obviously I've already given you several, as you ask about Isaiah below!

This is very obvious - by for instance - Isaiah's son Emmanuel being turned into Jesus, and a King of Babylon being turned into Satan/Lucifer.

Who is the Emmanuel in Isaiah 7:14 then?


ING - Isaiah is told to go into the Temple Woman (virgin) and their son is Emmanuel. This is known. Look up Emmanuel in your Strong's. It will tell you Isaiah's son. Anything else is just added crap.

So, we know for a FACT that they got things wrong.

And you blamed Christians for this.

Since they misinterpreted the texts - obviously. All they had to do was ask the Jews the meaning of those JEWISH texts.



*

 

[adi2d]

I'm still here in Washington. We're staying one more night to watch the Seahawks game on TV with my wife's son and his wife and... their daughter. Yes, I'm still alive but barely. I'm suffering from sleep deprivation. Every night she pretends to be asleep, then, as soon as I start to doze off, it happens. That shrill, incessant sound...Wah! It doesn't stop, and it won't stop until she gets what she wants. Her mother gets up to hold her. My wife gets up to help, but it's of no avail. She wants me. My wife says, "Come on grandpa. Come sing to her."

"No! Leave me be. I can't take it any more. Let me go back to California where I can go back to work and get some rest."

"Come on, one more time. Sing her a song."

"One more time? I don't think so. It's only one in the morning. There will be at least two more times."

"Get over here now!"

I throw off the covers and roll out of bed. I go to the other bedroom. "Okay, what song this time?"

"She really likes that lullaby by Ozzy Osborne."

"Figures."

Clear, I don't know. One more night. If the Seahawks lose, then what? I told them I prayed that they have a good game? What do I say if they don't win? That God loves the Packers better? It might get ugly. We might have to sneak out of town tonight and make a run for the border.

Despite my feelings on you abusing your gdaughter buy singing Ozzy to her. If her parents are ok with it SPD will probably leave you alone
Your last paragraph must be jumbled up. It looks like you used Seahawks and lose in the same sentence! Better keep that thinking to yourself or you could be heading down I 5 sooner than you planned

 

[CG Didymus]

Despite my feelings on you abusing your gdaughter buy singing Ozzy to her. If her parents are ok with it SPD will probably leave you alone
Your last paragraph must be jumbled up. It looks like you used Seahawks and lose in the same sentence! Better keep that thinking to yourself or you could be heading down I 5 sooner than you planned

I'm over by Raymond. I think I can cross the bridge at Astoria. I've got a Seahawk T-shirt as a disguise. I' just got to remember to remove it before I cross the border into California. That might get ugly.