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

[Clear]

CG DIDYMUS said : “Yes, to many Christians. However, I found two Jewish sites that say that God does not expect perfection. The first one also talks about the Jewish view of hell being similar to the Catholic purgatory. A point that was discussed a few pages ago. [FONT=&quot]From the article: Does Judaism Believe in Heaven and Hell?”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Clear responded : [FONT=&quot]Hi CG DIDYMUS : Though 1ROBIN has injected it into his comments multiple times, This idea of Perfection as a moral expectation from an imperfection being, is yet another theory that 1ROBIN has never (as far as I can tell) given us support for (as yet). I did not pursue it because it was not a priority and there were so many other concepts that were under controversy that it simply got buried inside the multiple issues.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However, I agree with the Jews on this point that the early Judeo-Christians also understood, in their own traditions and beliefs, that God knew even before Adam's spirit was placed into his body and he was placed into the garden of eden, that mankind was NOT going to be perfect and in fact did not expect them to BE perfect (that is, he did not expect the modern version of perfection of moral "flawlessness" from mankind). If you remember the discussion regarding the fall of Lucifer and his evolution into an enemy of God, the realization that if God carried forth his program to morally educate the spirits of mankind WOULD result in terrible evils upon the earth. That is, they knew that the spirits were not going to be perfect and were, in fact, going to do terrible evils upon the face of the earth. [/FONT]The early christian model of repentance as a principle of moral improvement in the early christian movement is much like that described in the jewish talmud.

1ROBIN : Until now I could at least allow you could possibly have been right. This one however is off the rational table. You can start by reading my response to DIDY then respond to me if you want. I know no other subject better in theology and no other subject has a conclusion this unavoidable.4668



1ROBIN ;

Perhaps we do not understand one another. In my statement there were four points (and others that are simply assumed but not described).
[FONT=&quot]
1)I had understood that you taught nothing less than perfection can please God since he is perfect. That is, that he, as a perfect being is not pleased by imperfection in any form. And, in the context of mankind and moral status, that all individuals come to be born “sinful” and thus, neither enter life morally acceptable nor are they able, morally, on their own to please God. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
2)My point was that the early Judeo-Christians understood, in their own traditions and beliefs, that God knew even before Adam's spirit was placed into his body and he was placed into the garden of eden, that mankind was NOT going to be morally perfect and in fact did not expect them to BE perfect (that is, he did not expect the modern version of perfection of moral "flawlessness" from mankind). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
3)I also said that, in context of the discussion regarding the fall of Lucifer and his evolution into an enemy of God. God and other spirits realized that this plan to morally educate the spirits of mankind WOULD result in terrible evils upon the earth. The early traditions tell us that this was known from before Adam was placed on the earth, that evil would result inside the accomplishment of Adam and the rest of us learning and experiencing both Good and Evil. God was not a good hearted Dupe in these traditions; a disappointed God who has his plans disrupted by a wiley Lucifer who scuttles Gods’ initial plan and thus forces a not-so-nearly “omniscient” God to create a plan “B” by having a “redeemer” set things right again. The fall and redemption of mankind WAS according to Gods plan if he was Omniscient.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The premise of these traditions is that they knew that the spirits were not going to be perfect and were, in fact, going to do terrible evils upon the face of the earth.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]4)The Jewish concept of repentance for moral sins as a mechanism important to mankinds moral progress was similar to the early Christian textual traditions. That is, the Christians describe repentance for sins as important both to forgiveness as well as an integral mechanism in the moral improvement of the individual.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Did I misunderstand your references to God, wanting “perfection” from mankind and moral imperfection NOT being a thing that could please God in your theory? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

REGARDING YOUR LATEST COMMENTS ON INFANT MORAL DEPRAVITY[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1ROBIN [/FONT][FONT=&quot], if you really want me to respond to your new discussion that babies “sin constantly” or that mankind come as newborns (100% of us) already morally tainted by sin, I will. I hope you remember as the other readers can see, you brought this up again rather than me. It was a dead issue in my own mind and, judging from some of the responses of other readers, I do not see anything that can resurrect this theory of infant depravity unless you truly have some new data that you haven’t already shared. If not. I’m signing it’s dead certificate again. It’s really a dead issue.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Clear[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]σιτζσεδρσιω[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]it's late, i'll check for grammar or other errors tomorrow am.
[/FONT]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Cause I am not god and don't know his motives or what he thinks evil is and what a super being would think pain and suffering is. Obviously if there is an issue it matter to us not to god. How am I to judge the perspective of an entity as being evil or good?

That depends what you consider good and evil to be. If they're subjective judgements, then we may very well be correct in saying that God is evil by our standard... even if he's good according to his own. Our judgements are - must be, in fact - based on our own morality.

OTOH, if morality is truly objective, then God's actions may very well be bad according to it and we are in a position to judge - albeit imperfectly - whether this is the case.

My question would go the other way. Why should god make life unrestrained, would that be better off for anyone or thing, for whom? An unrestrained life abundant planet doesn't sound feasible either.

When we talk about "letting children die", I don't think just of the fact that life is finite, but also the process of dying. Many (most?) people who die suffer horribly as they die.

So what is evil? God giving life good, taking life bad? What if life is gods attempt at avoiding hell?

An attempt that either largely fails or is unnecessary by all the religions I can think of?

In the scheme of things I doubt anything would be really necessarily good or bad, it always boils down to a matter of perspective and opinion whether or not we are the good guys. Gods sovereignty allows him to tell us to just suck it up, our ignorance is what keeps us in suffering, even real pain type suffering.

If God is truly sovereign and perfectly moral, then we can follow his example. As I touched on earlier, any child who is saved by God doesn't die, so when we refuse to help a starving child, for instance, if the child does die, it means that God refused to help, too. If, as you suggest, God's perspective is better than ours, then we can take the fact that the child does die as a sign that we did the right thing, since we did the same as God.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Topic title: Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?
--------------------------------------------------------------

Look at it another way-
Infant mortality rate was about 30% in medieval times, but nowadays it's only 3%, so maybe we should thank God for giving humans the brainpower to create lifesaving medicines and stuff?

Infant Mortality - Measuring Infant Mortality, Infant Mortality in the Developed Nations before the Twentieth Century - Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society

 

[CG Didymus]

Topic title: Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?
--------------------------------------------------------------

Look at it another way-
Infant mortality rate was about 30% in medieval times, but nowadays it's only 3%, so maybe we should thank God for giving humans the brainpower to create lifesaving medicines and stuff?

Infant Mortality - Measuring Infant Mortality, Infant Mortality in the Developed Nations before the Twentieth Century - Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society

Has the mortality rate dropped because of Christianity or has it been because of people using scientific methods and discovering the causes of why so many babies die?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Topic title: Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?
--------------------------------------------------------------

Look at it another way-
Infant mortality rate was about 30% in medieval times, but nowadays it's only 3%, so maybe we should thank God for giving humans the brainpower to create lifesaving medicines and stuff?

Infant Mortality - Measuring Infant Mortality, Infant Mortality in the Developed Nations before the Twentieth Century - Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society

Why would we thank God for any of that?

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Has the mortality rate dropped because of Christianity or has it been because of people using scientific methods and discovering the causes of why so many babies die?

Why would we thank God for any of that?

Well, gospel-writer Luke was a doctor..
"We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us" (Romans 12:6-8)
Heck even atheists have God-given gifts of strength and courage if only they knew it..

God said to the young Jeremiah- "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart" (Jer 1:4)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, gospel-writer Luke was a doctor..

The gospel-writer presumed to be Luke by some is also presumed to be a doctor by some, you mean.

"We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us" (Romans 12:6-8)
Heck even atheists have God-given gifts of strength and courage if only they knew it..[/
quote]
I got my strength and courage from the same magic pixies that invented all the major religons.


Heh... this "baseless attribution of things to invisible supernatural beings" game is fun.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

BTW: I should also point out that when it's taken along with all the "God isn't responsible for human action" excuse-making from your fellow Christians in this thread when asked to explain why God shouldn't be held responsible for evil acts committed by people, your cartoon comes off as rather hypocritical:

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..The gospel-writer presumed to be Luke by some is also presumed to be a doctor by some, you mean..

Aha! another conspiracy-theory! You'll be telling us next that Elvis is alive and well and pumping gas in Nome Alaska!
Everybody KNOWS Elvis gigs at 'The Caff' in St. Marychurch Rd, Torquay, England, look he was caught on Google Street view..

 

[JM2C]

Interesting questions!

I have wrestled with them a lot during my time.

If God is loving how can evil even exist ... not EASY 2 answer ...

Best wishes 2 all!

You know I was asking the same thing. Why God did not get rid of satan before he tempted Eve in the Garden? Or why God gave Adam this commandment in Genesis 2:16-17? From these verses we can only speculate that God knew satan was going after Adam like what he/satan did with Job.
The only difference between Adam/Eve and Job is, Job knew what is good and evil while Adam and Eve knew nothing of both. IOW, the sinless Adam and Eve sinned against God, while Job, with all those things he went through compared to Adam and Eve, did not sin against God, and both were tempted by the same.

At the end God gave Job what Adam and Eve had in the Garden of Eden, before they sinned against God, but the sad thing is, Job died because of Adam’s failure to obey God. Had they, Adam and Eve, resisted the temptation of satan like what Job did, then we would be all like Job with all those blessings that God gave him but the most important of them all is, we do not have to go through with any temptation and we are not going die like Job or Adam and Eve.

But do you think God would have gotten rid of satan for good had Adam and Eve resisted the temptation like Job did? I think that would have been the end of satan because that was the only command of God to Adam.

Satan did not tempt Job again.

Therefore, satan’s failure to tempt Adam would be his end and God would get rid of him for good and that would have been the end of any temptation and eventually Adam and Eve would eat from the tree of life and live forever sinless and so the rest of mankind.

IOW, Satan cannot tempt Adam and Eve again with anything else, except for that commandment in Genesis 2:16-17. Satan cannot tempt Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life or any other trees because God did not command Adam and Eve not to eat from those trees except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

If God says you cannot jump then you can do anything else except for jumping and only then can satan tempt you, and that is, to jump. Satan cannot tempt you to run, or walk or anything else, except for one thing, and that is, to jump. If satan failed then no more temptation.

I for one would love to go back to that original setting before the fall of man and this is the promise of God in Revelation 21:1-4, the eternal life that we could have had with God.

Common sense is saying, why not?

Swallow the pride and be humble before God and live eternally with Him.

SOLAR STORM IS COMING!

 

[1robin]

What is the odds of picking the right # if I ask to pick a # from 1 thru 10?

What? Whole numbers? Rational numbers? Perfect numbers? Prime numbers? Odds evens? That question is so irrelevant and simplistic that I suspect a trap so clarification is required.

 

[1robin]

1ROBIN;
Perhaps we do not understand one another. In my statement there are three points.

To analyze what the standard is the most obvious way is to set up either and see if both are possible and rational. Mine obviously is so you need to show yours could be. My contention is that any other standard will have flaws so glaring as to make them impossible or impractical. So I await a workable counter system to mine.

[FONT=&quot]1)I had understood that you taught nothing less than perfection can please God since he is perfect. That is, that he, as a perfect being is not pleased by imperfection in any form. And, in the context of mankind and moral status, that all individuals come to be born “sinful” and thus, neither enter life morally acceptable nor are they able, morally, on their own to please God. [/FONT]

Not exactly. God may be pleased by less than perfection but his standard for salvation is perfection. While I do not believe a human can achieve a perfect record by effort he may approach it in a single act. Anyway the issue is what standard reconciles me to God not what single act he might approve of.

[FONT=&quot]2)My point was that the early Judeo-Christians understood, in their own traditions and beliefs, that God knew even before Adam's spirit was placed into his body and he was placed into the garden of eden, that mankind was NOT going to be morally perfect and in fact did not expect them to BE perfect (that is, he did not expect the modern version of perfection of moral "flawlessness" from mankind). [/FONT]

I will just assume that is accurate and it may be. However it is because we are not perfect that Jesus determined to save the world before it was made. I can't measure up to God's perfection and so God made a method by which he rectified it and I become legally perfect though technically guilty. That is what all those dozens of verse about putting on Christ, participating in his death, that now it is his son who he sees in me instead of my pitiful record. It is the very essence of substitutionary atonement. How can God let imperfection into heaven and it still remain heaven? How can he be juts and arbitrarily hand wave away 6 billion differing and unknown amounts of sin per person? My position is both logical and the only game in town.

[FONT=&quot]3)I also said that, in context of the discussion regarding the fall of Lucifer and his evolution into an enemy of God. God and other spirits realized that this plan to morally educate the spirits of mankind WOULD result in terrible evils upon the earth. The early traditions tell us that this was known from before Adam was placed on the earth, that evil would result inside the accomplishment of Adam and the rest of us learning and experiencing both Good and Evil. God was not a good hearted Dupe in these traditions; a disappointed God who has his plans disrupted by a wiley Lucifer who scuttles Gods’ initial plan and thus forces a not-so-nearly “omniscient” God to create a plan “B” by having a “redeemer” set things right again. The fall and redemption of mankind WAS according to Gods plan if he was Omniscient.[/FONT]

That is more of an original sin doctrine issue which is not really meaningful here. Do not confuse my stating we must be perfect that I think any man will get there by effort. That is the whole point. Christ had to come, had to die, and I must believe to be made perfect. That is the explanation behind those verse about taking off the filthy rags and putting on the white ones in heaven. Robes we do not make, never earn, and can never merit.

[FONT=&quot]The premise of these traditions is that they knew that the spirits were not going to be perfect and were, in fact, going to do terrible evils upon the face of the earth.[/FONT]

That is perfectly consistent with my position and is in fact a necessity of it.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4)The Jewish concept of repentance for moral sins as a mechanism important to mankinds moral progress was similar to the early Christian textual traditions. That is, the Christians describe repentance for sins as important both to forgiveness as well as an integral mechanism in the moral improvement of the individual.[/FONT]

Repentance is useless without the mechanism by which it works. They repented through a future messiah the same as we do through a past one. Even if we are sorry, even if we attempt to atone, without Christ no sins are ever removed.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Did I misunderstand your references to God, wanting “perfection” from mankind and moral imperfection NOT being a thing that could please God in your theory? [/FONT]

Well they are definitely two different issues. Salvation is unique. Pleasing God is unique. You seem to suggest I can please my way into heaven. If I did would I not be rightfully entitled to boast. I earned my way there and should be proud. Yet this is expressly forbidden.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]REGARDING YOUR LATEST COMMENTS ON INFANT MORAL DEPRAVITY[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1ROBIN [/FONT][FONT=&quot], if you really want me to respond to your new discussion that babies “sin constantly” or that mankind come as newborns (100% of us) already morally tainted by sin, I will. I hope you remember as the other readers can see, you brought this up again rather than me. It was a dead issue in my own mind and, judging from some of the responses of other readers, I do not see anything that can resurrect this theory of infant depravity unless you truly have some new data that you haven’t already shared. If not. I’m signing it’s dead certificate again. It’s really a dead issue.[/FONT]

I find that impossible to believe. I have hated this whole issue since I realized what it was used for weeks ago. However it does not matter. I have no desire to discuss babies and unless shown emphatically to be relevant will not do so.

 

[1robin]

Has the mortality rate dropped because of Christianity or has it been because of people using scientific methods and discovering the causes of why so many babies die?

Since modern science is a Christian product they are in many ways the same thing. Abstract science was almost the exclusive result of Christian faith. They believed a rational God would create a rational universe and set out to decode it's rationality. Most of the fields of science themselves were created in that effort. Modern quasi-secular science has no foundation without what Christian did. Look at any list of sciences greats and it will be knee deep in theists.

 

[1robin]

The gospel-writer presumed to be Luke by some is also presumed to be a doctor by some, you mean.

Yeah like Caesar is presumed to have existed, presumed to be a general, presumed to have been assassinated. Along with presuming Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Pliny, Xerxes, Darius, etc... are presumed to exist. Or life came from non-life, consciousness came from non-consciousness, morality came from the amoral, complexity without intent, dinosaurs turned into birds, Humans evolved from lower primates, cows became whales or the other way around, slow evolution was true - wait fast evolution was true - no wait punctuated equilibrium was true. It was a tree, then a bush, then a forest, and all were presumed. Wait a minute that is not true. They were all taught in universities as facts. Exactly what kind of standards determine this crap?

 

[viole]

Good gracious. Nothing with an actual probability of zero can ever occur. If it did it never had zero probability. Ho many semesters of probability did you. I had three and we never got to that conclusion. Nor is there any justification (most professional atheist scholars would be embarrassment to claim) that supernatural events have any relevant probability. You know nothing, not low, not high, not computable by any means. They are brute facts or non-existent and no one can even begin to justify they latter.

Oh dear. You Christians are so predictable . A little provocation and boom, appeal to intuition or to three semesters of probability. I really would like to see the paragraph or section of the books you studied that states that all events with zero probability cannot possibly occur. Can you provide a reference?

I don't want to go so far as to invoke almost certainty or the Lebesgue theory of measure and its applications on the theory of probability. Just a little experiment.

Think of a number. Any number. What is the probability that I will guess it, in your opinion?

Some additional more rigorous reference: http://www.statlect.com/subon/probab2.htm

Ciao

- viole

P.S. the rest later.

 

[1robin]

Oh dear. You Christians are so predictable . A little provocation and boom, appeal to intuition or to three semesters of probability. I really would like to see the paragraph or section of the books you studied that states that all events with zero probability cannot possibly occur. Can you provide a reference?

I think there is some clever, diabolical, horrific, stupendous, trick going on here because this issue is all to clear to be demanding proof. Are you talking about the actually probability that a thing can exist or the probability computed about it's existence which may or may not be true? I thought we were talking about things that actually have zero chance to exist but if a middle school education is enough for that. So I suspect you talking about something else. Nothing that actually exists can possibly have actually zero chance to exist.

I don't want to go so far as to invoke almost certainty or the Lebesgue theory of measure and its applications on the theory of probability. Just a little experiment.

Thanks for that. I would not have gotten it. What is a Lebesque? Spell check does not even get it.

Think of a number. Any number. What is the probability that I will guess it, in your opinion?

1 in almost zero.

Some additional more rigorous reference: Zero-probability events

I stopped when I saw infinity. Infinity always makes a mockery of application. I think that was the point there. Infinity produces such arbitrary and results that I think something was being attempted be smuggled in with it. I am not qualified to say for sure in the few minutes I have to go through it.


Why is there never an intuitive, clear, unambiguous argument against God? Why is all the evidence against him vaguely alluded to in graduate level ambiguous studies? I do not recall any mathematics, or scientific principle I had in 10 years of college (ten because I was slow and had to work full time) ever used to even contend with God. It is always stuffed into the quantum, infinity, semantics, assumption. I am more and more starting to notice the consistency of this phenomena. There were at least two symbols in that paper I never even saw before.


I looked at that paper again. It looks as if the conclusion is similar to some historical probability calculus I have seen. It seems to suggest things with zero probability are not possible but certain. Is that correct?

 

[adi2d]

What? Whole numbers? Rational numbers? Perfect numbers? Prime numbers? Odds evens? That question is so irrelevant and simplistic that I suspect a trap so clarification is required.

No trap. Just an example of what you were looking for. There is an infinate amount if numbers making the odds infinite to one of picking the right number but it is possible to pick the number

 

[1robin]

No trap. Just an example of what you were looking for. There is an infinate amount if numbers making the odds infinite to one of picking the right number but it is possible to pick the number

Numbers are abstract concepts not real entities. There are not only not an infinite number of actually numbers there is not a single one. There are no actual infinites known anywhere. No lottery has an actually infinite number of possibilities. No roulette wheel has an infinite number of squares. You gave me a mental exercise that does not reflect a single reality.


However lets pretend this was all true and did reflect reality. Is it the best explanation that you had infinity to choose from but got the right number by chance or you cheated, rigged it some how, used some method to deduce it. Every single intentional explanation beets chance here. Especially if you did it over and over. It's even worse since nothing does not guess anything, ever. What chance does no one have to pick anything and be right?

Your example assumed an agent in order to disprove an agent.

 

[Ingledsva]

Well - I'm happy you guys are happy with each other now - however, way back, I posted the verse you mention.

We are talking about Sheol. The only torment is knowing they placed themselves in the position they find themselves in, awaiting judgment, and then we are told Hades/Sheol and those judged evil, are destroyed. No Hell.


Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and Hades/Sheol delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Rev 20:14 And death and Hades/Sheol were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


Hades/Sheol gives up her DEAD - THEN - they are JUDGED - THEN - tossed into the Lake of Fire = totally destroyed.


That last word translated "fire," comes from the word for a refiner's furnace that burns off/destroys the dross (impurities.)

I'm not sure what your saying here. Are you trying to say is eternal torture instead on annihilation? That would be all to predictable of your position. I will let you tell me what it is your trying to say before I go digging through verses to contend with it.

What? I very specifically say "totally destroyed."

It is saying after Judgment - the wicked are tossed into the Lake of fire, along with Hades/Sheol, and totally destroyed, like dross/impurities in a refining furnace.



*

 

[idav]

Yeah like Caesar is presumed to have existed, presumed to be a general, presumed to have been assassinated. Along with presuming Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Pliny, Xerxes, Darius, etc... are presumed to exist. Or life came from non-life, consciousness came from non-consciousness, morality came from the amoral, complexity without intent, dinosaurs turned into birds, Humans evolved from lower primates, cows became whales or the other way around, slow evolution was true - wait fast evolution was true - no wait punctuated equilibrium was true. It was a tree, then a bush, then a forest, and all were presumed. Wait a minute that is not true. They were all taught in universities as facts. Exactly what kind of standards determine this crap?

Every event on earth is like a crime scene that leave clues behind. Some clues are impossible to recover after so much time but humans are clever.