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

[Terrywoodenpic]

That's why i started that post with: That depends on how you view the bible.

You believe in a God that neither caused nor ordered the death of people, but using the bible one could be justified in believing otherwise.

The Bible might lead some people to believe that. but they would be wrong, not justified.

 

[Koldo]

The Bible might lead some people to believe that. but they would be wrong, not justified.

How so? Why?
There are several verses in the bible where God clearly causes or orders the death of people. How could people not be justified in believing this to be case then? Wouldn't this also entail there is no justification to believe in anything that is written in the bible?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The Bible might lead some people to believe that. but they would be wrong, not justified.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The law recognises failure to act as an offence.
Religion recognises sins of omission in the same way.
It is a different responsibility to the murder.

But it is a type of responsibility. A type of responsibility that would apply to a person/god/entity/whatever that is aware of a person in trouble or a crime taking place and could intervene, but chooses not to.

The law punishes aggravated murder as the more serious.

That wasn't one of the choices.

My point was that the law punishes murder as a heinous crime, even if the manner of murder doesn't involve suffering for the victim.

 

[1robin]

Why is death evil?

That is a very relevant and confusing question. I would suggest that in secular circles it is feared and so has become associated with it. In Christian circles I don't think death is evil , but killing would be in many contexts, but the possability of judgement resulting in suffering might be viewed that way. I think it is mostly because of the fear that surrounds it that it is called evil but I have never heard a good explenation. BTW many people feel life is evil and choose death.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But it is a type of responsibility. A type of responsibility that would apply to a person/god/entity/whatever that is aware of a person in trouble or a crime taking place and could intervene, but chooses not to.


That wasn't one of the choices.

My point was that the law punishes murder as a heinous crime, even if the manner of murder doesn't involve suffering for the victim.

I did not know that my choices are limited by You. I rather thought I was able to think for myself.

As far as I can tell God never intervenes in these situations, though he might have?

It is the nature of God that we play by his rules, not he ours.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

How so? Why?
There are several verses in the bible where God clearly causes or orders the death of people. How could people not be justified in believing this to be case then? Wouldn't this also entail there is no justification to believe in anything that is written in the bible?

There is plenty of things in the Bible that are clearly not factually correct. That does not mean you can not learn from them, or that they do not contain a message.

The Bible becomes a mass of contradictions if it is read literally and with out understanding.
The Jews of the old testament often wrote things that showed God's displeasure.
either as a salutary warning, or as an example of what happened to a particular person or people for going against God. they did not necessarily differentiate between the two. We might see that as using God's name in vain, at that time it is clear that they did not.

 

[Koldo]

There is plenty of things in the Bible that are clearly not factually correct. That does not mean you can not learn from them, or that they do not contain a message.

The Bible becomes a mass of contradictions if it is read literally and with out understanding.
The Jews of the old testament often wrote things that showed God's displeasure.
either as a salutary warning, or as an example of what happened to a particular person or people for going against God. they did not necessarily differentiate between the two. We might see that as using God's name in vain, at that time it is clear that they did not.

So what?
Is is clearly written in the bible many cases where God ordered/caused the death of people. Why aren't people justified in reading any of these verses as literal and taking them as fact?

You must certainly have massive evidence for your particular reading of the bible, otherwise you wouldn't be so presumptuous as to say that people aren't justified in understanding the bible in a different manner, correct?

 

[PennyKay]

This was brought out many times by Atheists and agnostics, I would like to discuss it with you in a rational and respectful manner. My disclaimer is I am a true 5 point Calvinist and If that is offensive to you,You are free to close the thread now. If I may suggest , we leave out all slander against My God in the process of this discussion, slander being pre-defined as name calling as If he were real and present.Questioning scriptures depiction of God however you interpret is allowed. Example: Is God evil? Fair enough?

Here is my premise,
this is my belief based upon my scriptures.
God not only allows children to die, He has pre-ordained them to die. Hard for us to fathom, granted, but True nevertheless in Scripture. If we say he did not cause it and only allowed it to happen then God would be reacting to free will of man to accomplish their own destruction, thus putting too much power in men and essentially tying God's hands. God ordained for this latest tragedy for his own purposes, we cannot know them, we are not our creator, so The bible tells us we must accept that their is a divine plan and God is in control completely.

So you have asked, where is the comfort in that? Why do religious peoples comfort families of these tragedies with this premise of a God in control? Well let me ask you Atheists would you attempt to comfort these mothers with your precept that there is no God? No heaven and no hell? That their children are reduced to dust as they came? That the man who murdered them who took his life is also Dust and there is no justice for them either? Both parties cease to exist, one guilty, one innocent, both have the same fate in the end.

Or could it be more comforting that a God in control is with their babies now, that they know no suffering,feel no pain have no more tears and the man that took their life will be punished by a Just and perfect God. Where is the evil in my premise and the lack of evil in yours? I find evil in evildoing going unpunished.I find evil in a life given for no purpose but to die and cease to exist.
What say you?

Ok, going to the original post...

I agree, to people who have lost loved ones (and lets face it, who hasn't) the idea that they still exist in some manner of speaking and are being looked after, can bring immense confort, and you cannot deny that from anybody.

You pointed out that it can't be very comforting for athiests when people die, believing that we all just got into 'dust'. As an athiest, I believe that everything has it's time. Every galaxy, star, planet and human has it's time to shine. Then, one day, it dies, and to quote Steve Jobs 'death is probably the best invention of life'. Without death, life would loose meaning for many people, like myself. The belief that this is your one and only chance, for a lot of people can urge them to contibute something more to life with a greater sense of urgency.

To me, as a scientist, the fact that when we die, our body decomposes into the basic elements that make us up, then goes on to form many other things, from grass and trees, to other people, is beautiful. In a very broad sense, we do live on.

Nothing, no matter how good, should live forever.

 

[thau]

Ok, going to the original post...

I agree, to people who have lost loved ones (and lets face it, who hasn't) the idea that they still exist in some manner of speaking and are being looked after, can bring immense confort, and you cannot deny that from anybody.

You pointed out that it can't be very comforting for athiests when people die, believing that we all just got into 'dust'. As an athiest, I believe that everything has it's time. Every galaxy, star, planet and human has it's time to shine. Then, one day, it dies, and to quote Steve Jobs 'death is probably the best invention of life'. Without death, life would loose meaning for many people, like myself. The belief that this is your one and only chance, for a lot of people can urge them to contibute something more to life with a greater sense of urgency.

To me, as a scientist, the fact that when we die, our body decomposes into the basic elements that make us up, then goes on to form many other things, from grass and trees, to other people, is beautiful. In a very broad sense, we do live on.

Nothing, no matter how good, should live forever.

That's quite a testimony (if I may intrude?).

But it is so sad when looked upon by those who know God exists and so does eternity.

No, atheism is not such a wonderful catalyst as you or Steven Jobs want to believe or suggest. Human nature remains pretty selfish, not grandiose, and 2/3 of the world remain in their poverty and suffering. IOW, yours or his message of "isn't life beautiful" rings hollow.

For me, it has never been a question of faith. As a child I believed, as an adult it was highly evident that the Judeo-Christian God was real and so were His promises. The evidence abounds, the faith portion is in the incidentals, not in the core. The core is beyond doubt. For me. I wish you well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I did not know that my choices are limited by You. I rather thought I was able to think for myself.

My question was meant to clarify whether you really did think that there's nothing wrong with murder. On that issue, the answer you gave was a red herring.

As far as I can tell God never intervenes in these situations, though he might have?

But in cases where negative outcomes (death, suffering, pain, or however we would like to define "negative") occur, from the fact they they did occur, it stands to reason that either:

- God did not intervene to prevent that negative outcome, or
- God intervened, but the intervention was ineffective.

It is the nature of God that we play by his rules, not he ours.

Are you arguing for the Divine Command theory of morality?

Also, regardless of the source of our "rules", it's a tenet of faith for many believers that human beings have been granted with a moral sense that's sufficient to tell right from wrong. This is implicit in the argument that punishment for our "sins" is just: we were able to recognize the wrong but did it anyway.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

So what?
Is is clearly written in the bible many cases where God ordered/caused the death of people. Why aren't people justified in reading any of these verses as literal and taking them as fact?

You must certainly have massive evidence for your particular reading of the bible, otherwise you wouldn't be so presumptuous as to say that people aren't justified in understanding the bible in a different manner, correct?

There seem to be two sorts of people ...the Bible literalists and the rest.
The literalists seem to be concentrated in the nonconformist protestants of America and their followers. It is a way of reading the Bible that is certainly very vocal and persistent.
However It is not a tradition that I understand, as it gives an authority to particular Bibles that differ one to another, and leads to a discussion as to which is true.

If you read and interpret the Bible in the traditional way, readings and meanings are far more open. Though no Christian has the training and ability to interpret the Old testament in the manner of a Jewish scholar.

 

[Koldo]

There seem to be two sorts of people ...the Bible literalists and the rest.
The literalists seem to be concentrated in the nonconformist protestants of America and their followers. It is a way of reading the Bible that is certainly very vocal and persistent.
However It is not a tradition that I understand, as it gives an authority to particular Bibles that differ one to another, and leads to a discussion as to which is true.

If you read and interpret the Bible in the traditional way, readings and meanings are far more open. Though no Christian has the training and ability to interpret the Old testament in the manner of a Jewish scholar.

Where are you trying to get at?
That everyone who reads some given passages as literal are bible literalists?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But in cases where negative outcomes (death, suffering, pain, or however we would like to define "negative") occur, from the fact they they did occur, it stands to reason that either:

- God did not intervene to prevent that negative outcome, or
- God intervened, but the intervention was ineffective.

...Not at... all God gives both a victim and a murderer free will.
I would not expect him to interfere.

However when we pray he always answers, but how he answers is of his own own choosing.

Are you arguing for the Divine Command theory of morality?

No...God is not bound by our morality.
Nor are we bound by our own.

Morality is advisory but has social consequences

Also, regardless of the source of our "rules", it's a tenet of faith for many believers that human beings have been granted with a moral sense that's sufficient to tell right from wrong. This is implicit in the argument that punishment for our "sins" is just: we were able to recognize the wrong but did it anyway.

Man is a social animal and establishes rules to live by. Other animals do the same...
however the rules we follow seem to have a different morality... not better , just different. Your "implicit" argument suggests that there is an universal morality.
I do not believe that to be true.

We apply our social morality to our religions. We do not recieve them from our religions.

 

[Me Myself]

Bible god allowing his children to be eternaly tortured accounts more for his evil than anythhing else.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Where are you trying to get at?
That everyone who reads some given passages as literal are bible literalists?

No ... if they believe their Bible should be read as literal , they are Bible literalists.

Most passages in a Bible can have more than one application or meaning. This can include the "Literal" one from any given Bible compilation or translation.

There is no single authoritative Bible or Bible translation.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Bible god allowing his children to be eternaly tortured accounts more for his evil than anythhing else.

It would take an evil mind to think that is true...
The concept of Hell is Greek not early Christian. I prefer the Jewish concept of the after life. which would have been understood by Jesus and his disciples.

 

[Koldo]

No ... if they believe their Bible should be read as literal , they are Bible literalists.

Most passages in a Bible can have more than one application or meaning. This can include the "Literal" one from any given Bible compilation or translation.

There is no single authoritative Bible or Bible translation.

First you say that people aren't justified in believing that God commanded the death of many people. Then you say there is no single authoritative bible or bible translation, and that most passages can have more than one meaning.

It seems to me you are contradicting yourself. If there are multiple possible readings of most passages, then people are justified in believing that God caused the death of many people.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

First you say that people aren't justified in believing that God commanded the death of many people. Then you say there is no single authoritative bible or bible translation, and that most passages can have more than one meaning.

It seems to me you are contradicting yourself. If there are multiple possible readings of most passages, then people are justified in believing that God caused the death of many people.

You might believe that
I couldn't possibly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

...Not at... all God gives both a victim and a murderer free will.
I would not expect him to interfere.

What does free will have to do with God intervening?

However when we pray he always answers, but how he answers is of his own own choosing.

Hmm.

No...God is not bound by our morality.
Nor are we bound by our own.

Morality is advisory but has social consequences

But are you saying that morality is nothing more than social consequences?

Man is a social animal and establishes rules to live by. Other animals do the same...
however the rules we follow seem to have a different morality... not better , just different. Your "implicit" argument suggests that there is an universal morality.
I do not believe that to be true.

Not universal per se, but my take on morality is that it's an expression of values. A given set of values will dictate what the person holding them should and shouldn't do.

If God - or anyone else - acts in a manner that shows a disregard for humanity, then we can infer that God has a disregard for humanity.

I realize that we could get into a meta-argument of whether God should have regard for humanity, but in most normal contexts, I think it's reasonable enough to say that a disregard for humanity can be considered negative if not evil. In any case, I don't think that there are many believers who, when they say "God is good", mean "God has a disregard for humanity and that's A-OK."

We apply our social morality to our religions. We do not recieve them from our religions.

I'm not sure that the source of morality is relevant here. All that matters is that we have it - however we obtained it - and can measure the actions of you, me, God or anyone else against it.