• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I don't think you have any evidence of it. There is no new model concerning multiple independent origins of life. Not even the slightest hint at it.
I draw that conclusion from it but I would not be that aggressive in my claims for what others see in it. I will only say they have no known links and so produce pictorials which have no commonality. It may be they eventually will but my point is the trend things are heading in.

Why? If there were any remote possibility or scientific evidence/controversy that there were independent origins of life on earth, that is, no common ancestor, I would expect that Answers in Genesis would take the opportunity to vindicate the Bible, no matter how awkwardly. Alas, the only "evidence" they have in this area is still the Bible only, with those absurdities (sorry) concerning evolution only within kinds.
I have never looked at answers in genesis on purpose. Besides I believe you for some reason restricted my to secular science. If you want Christian models of life I will have a far easier time providing non-Darwinian models. I don't think a single objection I have to any part of evolution comes from a Christian source unless they are also a scholar in a relevant field. I do not recall ever making a Genesis complaint about Darwin. My arguments are either scientific or intuitive. Let me give two additional arguments A - Z evolution for just one body part.

1. How did evolution go from a non sighted ancestor to solving the sight issue (as if it cared) in almost identical ways in several branches of taxonomy?
2. How did unintentional nature manage to get the right lens, optical nerve, muscles and in the exact places needed, the correct visual cortex, and a hundred other necessities for each eye type? Even if it could why was not the earth covered with the mistakes along the way.

So, nothing new on the western front. No need to search further. They have already, without success.
I did not challenge the idea of common descent I showed the lack of sufficient evidence for it to justify the claims made about it.

I am not surprised that you have difficulty providing it, because it does not exist. There is no model that contemplates life with different independent roots. You can have a bush within a tree (for instance human evolution) but the ultimate root of life is still one. And it cannot be otherwise, if we think about it.
I have seen these models and heard about them dozens of times. They are individual and exclusive "foliage pictorials". Unless you think I would lie about it your claims above are not justifiable. I do not expect you to consider my word persuasive but you cannot suggest it is abjectly wrong without proof. I fond genetic debates boring, I have no idea how I wound up in one for so long, but I know exactly why we are going to ignore everything else I claimed to concentrate on a picture I can't find easily.
 

Apple Sugar

Active Member
No, it says we have original sin. Thanks.


The Bible doesn't say we have original sin.


It Says we are born into a world of choice, and death, because of Adam and Chav'vah's original sin.


Satan is not evil in Tanakh, nor is there a Hell there. Later Christians misunderstood Satan's role from YHVH, and they misunderstood what Sheol was, - the place where ALL the dead went to await the end and final Judgment.


Indeed YHVH and the Hebrew did not condemn abortion. In fact there is a verse where, to find out if a wife had been unfaithful while her husband was away, - she was given a bitter drink - that if guilty (pregnant,) caused an abortion.


Indeed, YHVH of the Bible is malevolent, very evil, because he is made up by patriarchal herdsmen, whom gave themselves the "god-right" to own and rape slaves, rape prisoners, own women, murder people that were different, etc.



*
 

kjw47

Well-Known Member
Do you advocate we should do this with our own children? After all they could be led astray by the world. Better to die young so they be ready for the reserection. Don't be ridiculous


Mortals have 0 right to end life. Only God can resurrect.

not could be---they are being mislead= 99%

The wise path---- learn every truth taught by Jesus and then apply every truth taught by Jesus---one doesn't get taught Jesus' real truths in any building called a church.
 

kjw47

Well-Known Member
This is just bull!


It says it is OK to kill the innocent because their parents supposedly sinned!


What happened to the "choice" Christians harp about?


In your God created the earth scenario - why would there even be people on earth then, as Adam and Chav'vah sinned? Off with the heads of their children. No people on earth. (according to the Bible, of course.)


*


Their wicked parents, would have taught them to be wicked( that is what is meant by the sins of the fathers--they hand them down( they will do the same sins)--God spared them living wicked lives--thus a good judgement instead of a bad judgement---



You have a serious lack of good judgement against our creator. a serious lack of understanding because you do not know him.
 

adi2d

Active Member
Their wicked parents, would have taught them to be wicked( that is what is meant by the sins of the fathers--they hand them down( they will do the same sins)--God spared them living wicked lives--thus a good judgement instead of a bad judgement---



You have a serious lack of good judgement against our creator. a serious lack of understanding because you do not know him.

You are saying the children were killed so they could go to heaven. Why shouldn't all children be killed for the same reason? Or maybe instead of just keeping the virgin girls they could have kept all children
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I go back to the 60's. When I was in High School Dylan got popular. But I liked how the Byrds played his songs. There was Simon and Garfunkel, the Yardbirds, of course the Rolling Stones and Beatles, then later the San Francisco groups. I thought their music was very cerebral, especially when a few thought enhancing substances were added. On the darker side was the Doors. On the lighter, more spiritual side was the Moody Blues. All of them brought me to a place far above the every day world. They led me into a search for a spiritual reality. Unlike you, I'm still searching and still listening to music. I work in construction and those that work under me grew up with 90's Alternative. I like it. They maybe lost and have no real answers, and a lot of them, already dead, but they can be very honest about what they see around them.
I was going to call the hippy police and report your leaving out Led Zeppelin but the yard birds was close. I like all those bands. I think the 80's was the funeral pyre for music. I however would not use a single one of hem for spiritual research. I still listen to them but not for educational purposes.

What's important about them, I think for you, is how society has failed them. It gives them little hope, and that includes Christianity. I'm sure you're very different from what you used to be since you became a believer. But what happens? You get judged, not from where you came from, but as to why you aren't even better than what you are. Because you believe in Jesus, you're in the spotlight. Your life has to be almost perfect or someone's going to point their finger at you and say, "I told you Christians aren't that good."
This is what happens when you get theology from burned out hipster duffuses. Juts kidding but your Christianity is incorrect.

1. God's demands perfection. No bell curves, no how far I progressed, no 6 billion differencing standards.
2. I failed and every human who ever existed failed except Christ.
3. God provided my solution to his equation.
4. By faith my sin was punished on the cross and Christ's perfection applied to my account. That is where all those verses about putting on Christ or white robes. Or it is now not I but Christ who lives within me come from. My record is no longer what is judged eternally, it is Christ's. He passed with a mark of perfect in every category so I will.
5. That does not suggest I am not to be as moral as I can be. I will still be judged temporally for my actions but not eternally.

That not only is the biblical message of substitutionary atonement it is also the only coherent salvation model possible.



So even if you are a shining example of what a good Christian should be, because you're not perfect, people will still find a flaw. But what about all the so-so Christians? The ones that do virtually nothing, but still love to preach at people. They go to church on Sunday and live like the devil the rest of the week. They don't even come close to being a good example of how a Christians should be living. I think that's the worst. Here we are, all looking for the light. They say they have the light. They show us in the Book where it talks about the light, but when we see how they live, we don't see the light. We see a messed up person living a lie... that has nothing we want and nothing we need. And because of that, we question God and his Book and say, "Yeah, it's all a bunch of myths and legends. It's nothing real. Heck, God probably isn't even real."
Well my position does not include judgments people make about each other.

1. The bible says when we are born again the Holy Spirit comes to live in our hearts ( I was not expecting that as I was not biblically educated) but that is exactly what occurred to me, it also says our name is written into the book of life (the book in revelations that determines who gets into heaven, and that God is the guarantor of our salvation from that moment (not our behavior).
2. All of our sins were committed after the cross, Christ said he came to forgive all the sins of those who believe, he said he will never leave us nor forsake us.

I can go on all day but the point is our behavior is no longer eternally the question. We are too be good but it is Christ's merits that make up the difference between our behavior and God's standard and his merits were of infinite quality and capacity. We all come up short, but no one with faith comes up too short for Christ to remedy. So from Billy Graham, to Jeffrey Dahmer (if his conversion claims were true) you are seeing an example of Grace. No Christian deserves or merits heaven so your disappointment in their actions is caused by your looking for something no one has. Now if you want examples of moral excellence (not perfection) even in the face of death and lifelong hardship Christianity has more than you can research but when Paul calls himself the chief of sinners Christian perfection is not to be expected.

Anyway, take care. I'm going to get my guitar and try and learn a couple Nirvana songs and maybe a Stone Temple Pilot song. Or, maybe I should read the Bible? Nah, it's so antiquated. What could it possibly teach me? Maybe I'll write a song: Life sucks. There's no meaning in it. Maybe I'll take some drugs.. Oh yeah, yeah. It's dark and lonely. I'm going nowhere, but there's no where to go anyway. So, I'll stay here... Yeah, yeah...
[/QUOTE]

Some of your questions are good but you seem to always assume some unjustifiable, unknowable, and negative answer to them. There must be a reason the bible changed the world more than any other subject or text, there must be a reason Jesus is the most morally influential being in I history, etc.... Maybe

Let me end with an anecdotal story. In England's lowest point in WW2, being bombed into rubble by thousands of German planes. Churchill could have picked anyone to address the nation. He chose C.S. Lewis. His talks were recorded and put in book form. They are among the most important extra biblical words in history. I will paraphrase a relevant claim he made. He said you can accept Christ as God, or curse him as a lunatic, what you can't do is ignore him as simply another moral teacher.

Let me recommend someone to you, you will find him as caring as a Teddy bear and as knowledgeable as Newton. At least give one of Ravi Zacharias talks a few minutes on u-tube. He is not a systematic debater like Craig or D'Souza. He is a devoted philosopher with more degrees than you can count and probably the most respected defender of the faith next to Billy Graham.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Their wicked parents, would have taught them to be wicked( that is what is meant by the sins of the fathers--they hand them down( they will do the same sins)--God spared them living wicked lives--thus a good judgement instead of a bad judgement---



You have a serious lack of good judgement against our creator. a serious lack of understanding because you do not know him.

So if god just killed their parents and left the kids alive, wouldn't god have been saving those kids from the wicked lives they would have been destined to live? No need to go on and kill the babies and children as well.

That would have been the more moral, logical and practical act of "judgment" in my opinion.
 

Apple Sugar

Active Member
No it doesn't. You need to reread it in the Hebrew.


And you Christians never believe me, - so, - ask one of our Jewish members here! :D



*
It's so odd when people tell Christians they need to set aside the Bible and go get a codex, or some other book and learn what the Bible really says.

Since the new testament was written in Greek, look for προπατορικὴ ἁμαρτία . Original Sin, aka/ Ancestral sin. A doctrine in orthodox and eastern Christianity.

While Jews are divided on the issue.


"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--" (Romans 5:12)
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
It's so odd when people tell Christians they need to set aside the Bible and go get a codex, or some other book and learn what the Bible really says.

Since the new testament was written in Greek, look for προπατορικὴ ἁμαρτία . Original Sin, aka/ Ancestral sin. A doctrine in orthodox and eastern Christianity.

While Jews are divided on the issue.


"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--" (Romans 5:12)


LOL! The story is from TANAKH - and says nothing about all other people being born with that sin!


Now on to Romans -


Romans does not in any way say people have original sin!


It says - through one man sin and death entered THE WORLD!


Therefore we are born into a world in which all humans die.


It does NOT in any way say we are born WITH Adam and Chav'vah's "Original sin!"


They created the conditions we are born into - nothing more.



*
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Ingledsva said:
This is just bull!


It says it is OK to kill the innocent because their parents supposedly sinned!


What happened to the "choice" Christians harp about?


In your God created the earth scenario - why would there even be people on earth then, as Adam and Chav'vah sinned? Off with the heads of their children. No people on earth. (according to the Bible, of course.)
Their wicked parents, would have taught them to be wicked( that is what is meant by the sins of the fathers--they hand them down( they will do the same sins)--God spared them living wicked lives--thus a good judgement instead of a bad judgement---



You have a serious lack of good judgement against our creator. a serious lack of understanding because you do not know him.



LOL! You folks are a kick when you try to defend stories of your "God's" murder of the innocent.


Did you miss the last sentence?


If your idea is correct - why are there any people - as Adam and Chav'vah sinned - and according to you - their children should have been killed - because they would be evil anyway?


Do you have kids? Should they be killed because YOU have done something wrong? After all they are just going to turn out to be wicked like you! They are being saved!



*
 
Last edited:

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Mortals have 0 right to end life. Only God can resurrect.

not could be---they are being mislead= 99%

The wise path---- learn every truth taught by Jesus and then apply every truth taught by Jesus---one doesn't get taught Jesus' real truths in any building called a church.


Ah-ha! So what about kill everybody except the virgins (for later fun rape?)



*
 

adi2d

Active Member
Ah-ha! So what about kill everybody except the virgins (for later fun rape?)



*

Its funny that they won't answer this. Guess its hard to defend killing innocents.

Its like the story about the tree and A and E. If God didn't want them to eat why didn't He use the bouncers He had for the tree of life.

Hard to make sense of nonsense
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
1. How did evolution go from a non sighted ancestor to solving the sight issue (as if it cared) in almost identical ways in several branches of taxonomy?
it does not care. If it did, it would have probably provided a couple of eyes on the back of our head, too. Imagine the evolutionary advantages of havig 360 degrees view. I think flyes can do that to a certain degree, though. It just depends on which path a certain organism is stuck. If you come from a fish, it is logical to expect that you are stuck with two eyes for additional ones would require a huge step to profit from and evolution does not like huge steps.

2. How did unintentional nature manage to get the right lens, optical nerve, muscles and in the exact places needed, the correct visual cortex, and a hundred other necessities for each eye type? Even if it could why was not the earth covered with the mistakes along the way.

The earth is covered with the "mistakes". 99% of all species are now extinct. And you still seem to not understand how evolution works. The vast majority of mistakes fizzle immediately, only the few lucky one remain and are passed. Luck remains and is passed to the progeny, and this is essential to have a cumulation of "improvements". It is like winning one lottery by chance and pass this to your kids so that they will always win it, not by chance anymore.

There is no right lens. There are only good enough lenses. If one of my kids had a small genetic random "error" that very sligthly curves his lens so that he can see 1 meter farther than the others, his progeny will inherit this advantage (seeing predators and food before others, etc) until everybody has this better lens. The other lens curving genes are simply outperformed out of existence. Symmetrically, if the error would make him see one meter less than the others, then it is obvious that we should not expect this mutated gene to survive long.

My suggestion is that you close your nose and read Dawkins. Climbing mount improbable is a good introduction of this subject.

I did not challenge the idea of common descent I showed the lack of sufficient evidence for it to justify the claims made about it.

I think the evidence is overwhelming. Common descent is to biology like Newton is to classical physics. It would not make sense without it.

I have seen these models and heard about them dozens of times. They are individual and exclusive "foliage pictorials". Unless you think I would lie about it your claims above are not justifiable. I do not expect you to consider my word persuasive but you cannot suggest it is abjectly wrong without proof. I fond genetic debates boring, I have no idea how I wound up in one for so long, but I know exactly why we are going to ignore everything else I claimed to concentrate on a picture I can't find easily.

I never suspected for a moment that you are lying. I think you are clever enough to realize that lies in this area are easy to expose.

What I suspect is confirmation bias. You just watch a debate and filter or interpret only the parts that confirm your a priori beliefs. You hear "bush", probably for a subset of life, and deduce that life must be a forest for the scientists too. You hear "punctuated equilbrium" as an alternative to Darwinian gradualism and feel like naturalism is dead or in trouble.

Everybody suffers from that. It happens to me all the time I read about chocolate or whiskey helping against cancer. First reaction is: great! Alas, when you analyse the subject properly and off-line, you realize such claims have no merit.

Cio

- viole
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Its funny that they won't answer this. Guess its hard to defend killing innocents.

Its like the story about the tree and A and E. If God didn't want them to eat why didn't He use the bouncers He had for the tree of life.

Hard to make sense of nonsense
I was not asked. I have no idea what the answer is but if you want me to find out I will look into it. It is a little too early to be making generalized claims for your camp, is it not?
 

adi2d

Active Member
I was not asked. I have no idea what the answer is but if you want me to find out I will look into it. It is a little too early to be making generalized claims for your camp, is it not?

These questions have been brought up many times on this forum. I've never seen any convincing answers.

You're being asked now
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
it does not care. If it did, it would have probably provided a couple of eyes on the back of our head, too. Imagine the evolutionary advantages of havig 360 degrees view. I think flyes can do that to a certain degree, though. It just depends on which path a certain organism is stuck. If you come from a fish, it is logical to expect that you are stuck with two eyes for additional ones would require a huge step to profit from and evolution does not like huge steps.
That would make for one strange set of spectacles. However none of that addressed the point I made.



The earth is covered with the "mistakes". 99% of all species are now extinct. And you still seem to not understand how evolution works. The vast majority of mistakes fizzle immediately, only the few lucky one remain and are passed. Luck remains and is passed to the progeny, and this is essential to have a cumulation of "improvements". It is like winning one lottery by chance and pass this to your kids so that they will always win it, not by chance anymore.
Most did not die from a bad mutations. They died because of random circumstances. I see we have the obligatory "The Christian just does not get it" retreat. I know at least in general exactly how evolution works. I don't care if the mistakes are fatal within a year of birth we ought to find piles of fossils of them. I once considered taking the beneficial mutation rate, the neutral mutation rate, and the fatal mutation rates, plus the rates at which fossils are left behind and model a predictive system. I realized that every single step would involve an assumption so that any result would be meaningless. Anyway I know how mutation and selection works but I do not find what they predict. At least I am not aware of anyone finding it.



There is no right lens. There are only good enough lenses. If one of my kids had a small genetic random "error" that very sligthly curves his lens so that he can see 1 meter farther than the others, his progeny will inherit this advantage (seeing predators and food before others, etc) until everybody has this better lens. The other lens curving genes are simply outperformed out of existence. Symmetrically, if the error would make him see one meter less than the others, then it is obvious that we should not expect this mutated gene to survive long.
By right I mean functional. In the range of possible lenses only a narrow band would be right.

How would the genetic anomaly be present in his reproductive material?

I do not think seeing predators would be a survival necessity these days but I do understand what your saying.

What you have not done is explain what I asked about. You have attempted to modulate it's emphatic impact. Even if I granted everything you say in every case it does not explain the "paradox'" I mentioned.

My suggestion is that you close your nose and read Dawkins. Climbing mount improbable is a good introduction of this subject.
This reminds me of a quote from a NASA scientist. He said when the scientists finally cross the last peak and scramble to the top of the mountain of knowledge he will probably find a bunch of theists who have been there the whole time. What about my constant complaints of boredom suggest I am going to pick up a tomb on genetics.



I think the evidence is overwhelming. Common descent is to biology like Newton is to classical physics. It would not make sense without it.
Didn't you say Isaac Quantum replaced Isaac Newton?



I never suspected for a moment that you are lying. I think you are clever enough to realize that lies in this area are easy to expose.
Honest maybe but clever is stretching things a bit.

What I suspect is confirmation bias. You just watch a debate and filter or interpret only the parts that confirm your a priori beliefs. You hear "bush", probably for a subset of life, and deduce that life must be a forest for the scientists too. You hear "punctuated equilbrium" as an alternative to Darwinian gradualism and feel like naturalism is dead or in trouble.
There is probably truth to that but my bias seems to be random. I remember many things that are not convenient for my views. Regardless, bias, filters, preference or not I did not make them say what they said. It may be that I was watching theological debates which for reasons that defy atheistic claims are always sponsored by theological societies. They may have only used scientists that had relevant positions which would have been a challenge to Darwinism. But my bias plus their bias would not explain the sheer volume of secular people I have seen support a non-slow evolutionary model.

Everybody suffers from that. It happens to me all the time I read about chocolate or whiskey helping against cancer. First reaction is: great! Alas, when you analyse the subject properly and off-line, you realize such claims have no merit.
Well I only have so much time. My job is making scientific instruments do what they are designed to do and they do so, so little of the time I stay hip deep in circuits.

Hey let me give you a "problem" my PhD boss always mentions. How could a (probiotic) cell reproduce at all. I don't think that is the right word and my boss is buried in code. The idea is that whatever was first was simplistic and any procreation even division is a complicated issue. How did the first extremely simple whatever make a new one. How does lightening and sea water produce a thing that can both create a copy of it's self and harness energy to create complexity? Looking at evolution from a distance it is uncontestable. Looking at many of it's events in detail is often pathetically absurd.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
These questions have been brought up many times on this forum. I've never seen any convincing answers.

You're being asked now

Ok, I assume the question is why were virgins spared and the rest killed. I have exhaustively and with much detail time and again explained why an entire culture was wiped out. Actually none ever were but that was the instruction from God. So I assume it is the virgin exception that is causing the problem here. I am pretty busy but I will get into this and post a biblical explanation good or bad.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Ingledsva said:
Ah-ha! So what about kill everybody except the virgins (for later fun rape?)
Its funny that they won't answer this. Guess its hard to defend killing innocents.

Its like the story about the tree and A and E. If God didn't want them to eat why didn't He use the bouncers He had for the tree of life.

Hard to make sense of nonsense


Yep! Puts the false to what they are saying.


If they are evil and thus killing them, saves them, - then saving little girls for rape, - shows the falsity in this notion. Obviously "killing them because they will be evil, to save them" is NOT the reason for the murder of the young.


According to their laws they can keep and rape the little virgins, and if they see a beautiful female that the fancy, they can kidnap her, and take her home to rape.


Interestingly - these Abrahamic laws are exactly what ISIS is using as an excuse to kidnap, rape, and sell, women, while killing the males!


*
 

adi2d

Active Member
Ok, I assume the question is why were virgins spared and the rest killed. I have exhaustively and with much detail time and again explained why an entire culture was wiped out. Actually none ever were but that was the instruction from God. So I assume it is the virgin exception that is causing the problem here. I am pretty busy but I will get into this and post a biblical explanation good or bad.


No Robin the problem is not why the young virgins were kept (spared?). That is obvious. Why would God want everyone else killed?

I would love to see your answer to A and E. If factual God never wanted Adam and Eve to walk with Him. He made them knowing what they would do and blaming them when they did what He planned
 
Top