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

[adi2d]

Which occurrence of this are you challenging? Each one had unique factors to it.

This is what I am used to getting for an answer. You pick

Whichever instance you find easiest to justify the killing of children

 

[1robin]

This is what I am used to getting for an answer. You pick

Whichever instance you find easiest to justify the killing of children

You mean you expect me to clarify a thing before I answer and find that less than admirable?

Ok I will pick. I will even pick a hard one. There was a law in Israel that rebellious children were to be killed. Anyone would be revolted by that claim. Anyone with a preference for no God would stop and use it as an excuse to reject him. Others read a little more and find the rest of the story. A child who was covered under this rule had to have both parents testify to his abominable character. Then it had to go to a type of committee, then a chief priest had to agree. Now if a child was so astronomically evil as to have unanimous consent from all those sources would he not merit death? I do not believe I have ever heard of a single instance this actually took place.

Now if it is a war total annihilation is also a practical matter. The Jews never obeyed and did actually suffer terribly by being seduced by people they let live. In a practical way how can God give a list of only those that will be a problem. Wars are confusing and chaotic and having a court case before every attack for every individual is just not realistic. God did exercise total physical destruction but he justly judged every single individual for their eternal destiny. Only with God are this world's unjust occurrences compensated for. We have dead children regardless but only with God are they restored to what they deserve.


Only by dismissing most of the context is there anything to defend. Only by dismissing eternity is complete justice denied, only by dismissing God can he be condemned, only by dismissing his plans for the restoration of billions are the deaths of thousands unjustifiable.


I really wish you would go back and review the massive explanations I gave for specific events. I am not typing them over and what I do type always seems to have just scratched the surface.

 

[1robin]

I am not addressing Christianity in particular. I know atheists who do not understand or believe that, either.

I needed to add a question. Do you believe that an insect population exhibiting a resistance over time to a pesticide is an example of evolution?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I did not intend to. I'm am in a big hurry and perhaps I was too blunt.

There are two objections to violence. One it is that it is emotionally unpleasant. No one can do anything about this one. The other is about the lack or moral justification for it. I think I have at least pointed in the direction n of God having it. I really wish you would search for my in depth posts.


I gave up trying to determine if the story was literal or allegory but it does not matter. Freewill without the capacity to use it wrongly isn't free. Only if we have the capacity to hate can we love, and only that kind of love is of value to God. If he overwhelmed us with proof, made us unable to rebel, or built a world which no one would choose to rebel then we would not be free. Maybe it is the issue of his knowing the future you take issue with. I gave up trying to think what knowing the future would mean. The one thing I did determine is knowing what I will choose still leaves it subject to my choice.

Of course God could have made a world which we lacked the capacity to rebel. The method is irrelevant. He could not do so and leave freewill in tact. Think of the tree as a metaphor for choice. If I can't rebel is my allegiance valuable? Again sorry, but I have a lab full of science stuff that isn't working and am in a hurry.

I disagree. If your god overwhelmed us with evidence of his existence, any of us could still easily rebel, if we didn't agree with this god's moral actions, for example. There's still plenty of room for rebellion.

 

[1robin]

I disagree. If your god overwhelmed us with evidence of his existence, any of us could still easily rebel, if we didn't agree with this god's moral actions, for example. There's still plenty of room for rebellion.

This is a tough one. BTW I have not yet had time to research Pam's case yet but I have not forgotten.

I have plenty of evidence for cancer and I hate it. Yet I am compelled to believe in it. It is hard to distinguish exactly where the line between a strong effect and being compelled without any rational choice is. Rebellion was not the right word. I should have said the rational freedom to chose. Christians rebel even with faith so I don't think my word choice correct in this case. It was choice not emotion I intended to illustrate. I should have used denial instead perhaps.

 

[adi2d]

You mean you expect me to clarify a thing before I answer and find that less than admirable?

Ok I will pick. I will even pick a hard one. There was a law in Israel that rebellious children were to be killed. Anyone would be revolted by that claim. Anyone with a preference for no God would stop and use it as an excuse to reject him. Others read a little more and find the rest of the story. A child who was covered under this rule had to have both parents testify to his abominable character. Then it had to go to a type of committee, then a chief priest had to agree. Now if a child was so astronomically evil as to have unanimous consent from all those sources would he not merit death? I do not believe I have ever heard of a single instance this actually took place.

Now if it is a war total annihilation is also a practical matter. The Jews never obeyed and did actually suffer terribly by being seduced by people they let live. In a practical way how can God give a list of only those that will be a problem. Wars are confusing and chaotic and having a court case before every attack for every individual is just not realistic. God did exercise total physical destruction but he justly judged every single individual for their eternal destiny. Only with God are this world's unjust occurrences compensated for. We have dead children regardless but only with God are they restored to what they deserve.


Only by dismissing most of the context is there anything to defend. Only by dismissing eternity is complete justice denied, only by dismissing God can he be condemned, only by dismissing his plans for the restoration of billions are the deaths of thousands unjustifiable.


I really wish you would go back and review the massive explanations I gave for specific events. I am not typing them over and what I do type always seems to have just scratched the surface.

How did we go from wholesale slaughter of children for what they might do in the future to punishment of a child for what they had done?
When I said for you to pick I meant pick one of the times God said to kill all the children. There are a few to choose from
I think one of the problems is I'm trying to have a discussion you're trying to win a debate

Btw in your example it seems strange that the parrents would need to make up things the child did. The verse says if the child wouldn't obey. Why the need to tell the elders that the child is a drunk and a glutton?

 

[1robin]

How did we go from wholesale slaughter of children for what they might do in the future to punishment of a child for what they had done?

This is exactly why I tried to clarify up front. It seems no matter what I explain it was not the problem.

When I said for you to pick I meant pick one of the times God said to kill all the children. There are a few to choose from
I think one of the problems is I'm trying to have a discussion you're trying to win a debate

No one wins a debate. I have never seen anything but the most trivial point conceded by anyone. My job is to explain the truth to the best of my ability to discover. I am to defend the reason for my faith. I am not required to make anyone believe it or win anything. I did go on to make a point about war and group judgment. Since I keep referring you back to very long posts that I am not going to repeat I did not concentrate on that issue here. You said explain God's allowing or ordering a child to be killed. I did.

Btw in your example it seems strange that the parrents would need to make up things the child did. The verse says if the child wouldn't obey. Why the need to tell the elders that the child is a drunk and a glutton?

My example did not contain anything made up. It was to ensure only the most desperate and obvious case would result in judgment. Only the most evil of children would ever have both parents condemn them. That was the point of the criteria. It was to keep Israel a unique moral culture which was partially successful but not to allow for whole sale accusations and judgments.

 

[CG Didymus]

Your own claims are evidence for what I have explained. God wanted to wipe out every vestige of Molec worship. Molec demanded human sacrifice. The Israelites did not do as God had commanded and even intermarried with the Canaanites and adopted their practices. This was proof that what God was attempting to prevent literally occurred because they did not carry out his instructions. You have no criteria by which to judge God at all but if we can see that exactly what he was trying to stop (but was disobeyed) literally spread human sacrifice to his own people I can't even think of a better justification for divine judgment. If the perpetual generation after generation, killing of children is not cause for judgment, what is?

Problem: If Genesis is true, then all are children of Adam and Eve and then all are children of Noah's family. So there were some brothers and sisters and later some cousins that were worse than the others? No, you pretty much believe we are all bad because we all sin and are worthy of death. So the only way any of us are saved is not by us getting good enough on our own it is through his son. But God hadn't sent his son yet, so how were any of those people good enough? They weren't. They were all guilty, some just worse than others. So why single out the evil doing Hebrews from the others? Why not kill them all?

Why did he "try" to get the Hebrews to obey him, when he knew very well they wouldn't? Why not save the Molecolites. They would have done just as well probably. Just as well at eventually failing and having God have to kill a few of them or all of them. And why did he spare the Ninehvites the first time? He knew they would soon fail and he'd have to destroy them anyway? And still, what did he accomplish by destroying Nineveh? Nothing. The adults are dead and waiting to go to hell and the children get to go to heaven?

Why does God keep pretending that the next time "His" people will do better? He could leave one family, one Christian family, and tell them to live by everything written in the Bible and it wouldn't happen. So what is he really doing? Nobody can and nobody ever will be able to follow his rules. His standards are so high that all fall short, even Christians. So what do his rules really do? It seems like all they accomplish is for non-Christians to easily point their fingers at Christians and call them hypocrites. Are they a guiding light for the rest of us? No. Are you a guiding light for the rest of us? No. You and all Christians aren't any better than anybody else. And it is only annoying to hear a Christian say, "Yes, but we are forgiven." Maybe, but it sure doesn't look like it. Christians look just as bad as everybody else. So why would God forgive them when he punishes everybody else that doesn't obey his laws?

So is there anything real about Christianity? For me, I still think Christianity could very easily be nothing more than a placebo. It is no better or no worse than any other religion. Yes, yes, I know you say Christianity is different. It has "mountains" of evidence. But, what you see as mountains of evidence is meaningless, because of the poor performance record of Christ's followers. They, as a whole, don't act like they really believe it themselves. They do act like "little Christs." They act closer to little Pharisees, a lot of talk and very little doing of the Word. And a lot of those that are doing "good works" in the name of Christ are Mormons, or Catholics, or JW's, so you can't count what they do as proving anything about the "truth" of the Bible. They believe different than you. They interpret the Bible different than you. Some Protestants probably don't believe most of them are even saved, yet they are better examples of following Jesus than a lot of them.

So who cares? He's going to kill us all anyway. So flood the world, kill the babies, burn it up by fire. Let your God do what ever he wants. Nobody deserves to live. But no more of this "remnant" stuff, because if he leaves one man and one woman, then it's his own fault. He knows their kids will fail him. He knows their parents will fail him. He can't keep saying, "Gee, I told them what to do. Why can't they just obey me?"

 

[1robin]

Problem: If Genesis is true, then all are children of Adam and Eve and then all are children of Noah's family. So there were some brothers and sisters and later some cousins that were worse than the others? No, you pretty much believe we are all bad because we all sin and are worthy of death. So the only way any of us are saved is not by us getting good enough on our own it is through his son. But God hadn't sent his son yet, so how were any of those people good enough? They weren't. They were all guilty, some just worse than others. So why single out the evil doing Hebrews from the others? Why not kill them all?

We have to have a standard by which to judge a thing. Humanity lacks the ability to have an objective standard. Only with God is there a standard that is true. His standard is perfection. So yes we all fail. However there is a relative difference in ho much we fail.

Over 95% of humanity existed post crucifixion. For the other 5% they were saved by faith in a future messiah the same as we are by a past messiah. There is another group which had no knowledge of Christ but I will let an expert handle the unevangelised. There are entire books explaining them.

Why did he "try" to get the Hebrews to obey him, when he knew very well they wouldn't? Why not save the Molecolites. They would have done just as well probably. Just as well at eventually failing and having God have to kill a few of them or all of them. And why did he spare the Ninehvites the first time? He knew they would soon fail and he'd have to destroy them anyway? And still, what did he accomplish by destroying Nineveh? Nothing. The adults are dead and waiting to go to hell and the children get to go to heaven?

I may tell a child to always be good but I know he occasionally will not. I have already explained the importance of obedience but I also showed it is not the criteria for salvation. Jesus death covers all cultures and races. His apostles tried to only minister to Israel. God specifically said that was not his purpose and told them to minister to all men. If your asking why the Jews I have explained it was a result of Abraham's faith. If your asking why not others first I will say he searched for a man who would follow, only Abraham responded, second I will refer you again to an expert on the unevangelised like Craig for example.

Why does God keep pretending that the next time "His" people will do better? He could leave one family, one Christian family, and tell them to live by everything written in the Bible and it wouldn't happen. So what is he really doing? Nobody can and nobody ever will be able to follow his rules. His standards are so high that all fall short, even Christians. So what do his rules really do? It seems like all they accomplish is for non-Christians to easily point their fingers at Christians and call them hypocrites. Are they a guiding light for the rest of us? No. Are you a guiding light for the rest of us? No. You and all Christians aren't any better than anybody else. And it is only annoying to hear a Christian say, "Yes, but we are forgiven." Maybe, but it sure doesn't look like it. Christians look just as bad as everybody else. So why would God forgive them when he punishes everybody else that doesn't obey his laws?

His rules are good. They remain good even if we fail to obey them. We should do them and many have made astronomical strides in obedience but no one is perfect. That is pretty mush the case with any moral, ethical, or legal system with or without God. We can and do follow his demands but never perfectly. How can heaven be heaven if it allows the same imperfections in it that have torn this world apart? If the price of legal perfection is free what exactly is the complaint? He did not demand your blood to accomplish it, he shed his own. You ask like a dozen questions in each paragraph so read my response accordingly. I personally am not a very bright light but the message I defend is the brightest light man ever beheld. How does it not look as if we are forgiven? I see people experience it and have felt God's incomprehensible presence several times yet was never perfect. Every other source of temporal hope becomes a shadow in the light of God's contentment provided to even sinners such as me.

So is there anything real about Christianity? For me, I still think Christianity could very easily be nothing more than a placebo. It is no better or no worse than any other religion. Yes, yes, I know you say Christianity is different. It has "mountains" of evidence. But, what you see as mountains of evidence is meaningless, because of the poor performance record of Christ's followers. They, as a whole, don't act like they really believe it themselves. They do act like "little Christs." They act closer to little Pharisees, a lot of talk and very little doing of the Word. And a lot of those that are doing "good works" in the name of Christ are Mormons, or Catholics, or JW's, so you can't count what they do as proving anything about the "truth" of the Bible. They believe different than you. They interpret the Bible different than you. Some Protestants probably don't believe most of them are even saved, yet they are better examples of following Jesus than a lot of them.

What do you mean is there anything real? You want a list chronological or alphabetically, philosophically or historical? Every Christian I know including me spends every day examining his faith. I must have asked myself if I could have somehow convinced myself into having an experience I mistook for God. No matter what else I doubt the answer to that one every single time is no dang way. If you want examples of far better than average moral actions Christianity will give you more than you will ever possibly read about. For example the conservative Christian demographic is the most generous demographic on earth. A Christian nation is the only nation to self impose and end to slavery. A Christian nation is the most powerful , successful, and generous nation in history. How many hundreds of hospitals do we have to build, how many public education systems do we have to start, how many groups have to lose their lives while ministering to the human detritus in third world nations? Mormons believe the bible so do Catholics why can't I include them. Your posts seem to be protests in quiz form. I get the impression you don't really desire answers (most of your questions do not even have a rational foundation in objective fact).

So who cares? He's going to kill us all anyway. So flood the world, kill the babies, burn it up by fire. Let your God do what ever he wants. Nobody deserves to live. But no more of this "remnant" stuff, because if he leaves one man and one woman, then it's his own fault. He knows their kids will fail him. He knows their parents will fail him. He can't keep saying, "Gee, I told them what to do. Why can't they just obey me?"

We are going to die with or without God, only with him is there any ultimate hope. He knows any agent with freewill will misuse it and he paid every ounce of the price to rectify that fact. It is the height of irrationality to deny the gift because you resent the need. In the end you get exactly what you wanted. You want God he paid the price to get him for eternity. If you want no God you will get exactly what you desire. The problem is if you have no God you no longer have access to anything that comes with him.

 

[Ingledsva]

Your own claims are evidence for what I have explained. God wanted to wipe out every vestige of Molec worship. Molec demanded human sacrifice. The Israelites did not do as God had commanded and even intermarried with the Canaanites and adopted their practices. This was proof that what God was attempting to prevent literally occurred because they did not carry out his instructions. You have no criteria by which to judge God at all but if we can see that exactly what he was trying to stop (but was disobeyed) literally spread human sacrifice to his own people I can't even think of a better justification for divine judgment. If the perpetual generation after generation, killing of children is not cause for judgment, what is?

And again - this is absolute BULL!


If it were the case - they would have killed ALL including female children.


They did NOT! Thus it is BULL!


They kept the little girls, to RAPE!


PS. The Israelites were wandering Canaanites (possibly mixed breed!)


*

 

[Ingledsva]

Problem: If Genesis is true, then all are children of Adam and Eve and then all are children of Noah's family. So there were some brothers and sisters and later some cousins that were worse than the others? No, you pretty much believe we are all bad because we all sin and are worthy of death. So the only way any of us are saved is not by us getting good enough on our own it is through his son. But God hadn't sent his son yet, so how were any of those people good enough? They weren't. They were all guilty, some just worse than others. So why single out the evil doing Hebrews from the others? Why not kill them all?

Why did he "try" to get the Hebrews to obey him, when he knew very well they wouldn't? Why not save the Molecolites. They would have done just as well probably. Just as well at eventually failing and having God have to kill a few of them or all of them. And why did he spare the Ninehvites the first time? He knew they would soon fail and he'd have to destroy them anyway? And still, what did he accomplish by destroying Nineveh? Nothing. The adults are dead and waiting to go to hell and the children get to go to heaven?

Why does God keep pretending that the next time "His" people will do better? He could leave one family, one Christian family, and tell them to live by everything written in the Bible and it wouldn't happen. So what is he really doing? Nobody can and nobody ever will be able to follow his rules. His standards are so high that all fall short, even Christians. So what do his rules really do? It seems like all they accomplish is for non-Christians to easily point their fingers at Christians and call them hypocrites. Are they a guiding light for the rest of us? No. Are you a guiding light for the rest of us? No. You and all Christians aren't any better than anybody else. And it is only annoying to hear a Christian say, "Yes, but we are forgiven." Maybe, but it sure doesn't look like it. Christians look just as bad as everybody else. So why would God forgive them when he punishes everybody else that doesn't obey his laws?

So is there anything real about Christianity? For me, I still think Christianity could very easily be nothing more than a placebo. It is no better or no worse than any other religion. Yes, yes, I know you say Christianity is different. It has "mountains" of evidence. But, what you see as mountains of evidence is meaningless, because of the poor performance record of Christ's followers. They, as a whole, don't act like they really believe it themselves. They do act like "little Christs." They act closer to little Pharisees, a lot of talk and very little doing of the Word. And a lot of those that are doing "good works" in the name of Christ are Mormons, or Catholics, or JW's, so you can't count what they do as proving anything about the "truth" of the Bible. They believe different than you. They interpret the Bible different than you. Some Protestants probably don't believe most of them are even saved, yet they are better examples of following Jesus than a lot of them.

So who cares? He's going to kill us all anyway. So flood the world, kill the babies, burn it up by fire. Let your God do what ever he wants. Nobody deserves to live. But no more of this "remnant" stuff, because if he leaves one man and one woman, then it's his own fault. He knows their kids will fail him. He knows their parents will fail him. He can't keep saying, "Gee, I told them what to do. Why can't they just obey me?"

Very good questions, and points.


Somewhere back a few, I asked the question, -


if it is as these Christians are saying, - children killed because of the parents, so as to save them, -

then why are there ANY people on earth - as Adam and Chav'vah SINNED, and so did their child.


Logically if their ideas are right, - then Adam and Chav'vah and the kids, should have been squashed! leading to no people on earth.


This puts the LIE , as to the "why" they are claiming, whole peoples and CHILDREN, are being murdered.


And the female children saved for RAPE, are obviously more evidence that they are wrong.


*

 

[Norman]

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?

Hi Lady B, I would like to add to your comments just a segment of a pamphlet that I have. In all of this I am reminded of what the Savior Jesus Christ did for all of us. Because he died, we will one day live again. Jesus descended below all things that he may be able to succor his people. God Bless You.

Tragedy or Destiny?
Spencer W. Kimball,
Faith Precedes the Miracle ( Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1972.), pp.95-106
The daily newspaper screamed the headlines: “Plane
Crash Kills 43. No Survivors of Mountain Tragedy,” and
thousands of voices joined in a chorus: “Why did the Lord
let this terrible thing happen?”
Two automobiles crashed when one went through a
red light, and six people were killed. Why would God not
prevent this?
Why should the young mother die of cancer and leave
her eight children motherless? Why did not the Lord heal
her?
A little child was drowned; another was run over.
Why?
A man died one day suddenly of a coronary occlusion
as he climbed a stairway. His body was found slumped on
the floor. His wife cried out in agony, “Why? Why would
the Lord do this to me? Could he not have considered my
three little children who still need a father?”
A young man died in the mission field and people
critically questioned: “Why did not the Lord protect this
youth while he was doing proselyting work?”
I wish I could answer these questions with authority,
but I cannot. I am sure that sometime we’ll understand
and be reconciled. But for the present we must seek
understanding as best we can in the gospel principles.
Was it the Lord who directed the plane into the
mountain to snuff out the lives of its occupants, or were
there mechanical faults or human errors?
Did our Father in heaven cause the collision of the
cars that took six people into eternity, or was it the error
of the driver who ignored safety rules?
Did God take the life of the young mother or prompt
the child to toddle into the canal or guide the other child
into the path of the oncoming car?
Did the Lord cause the man to suffer a heart attack?
Was the death of the missionary untimely? Answer, if you
can. I cannot, for though I know God has a major role in
our lives, I do not know how much he causes to happen
and how much he merely permits. Whatever the answer to
this question, there is another I feel sure about.
Could the Lord have prevented these tragedies? The
answer is, Yes. The Lord is omnipotent, with all power to
control our lives, save us pain, prevent all accidents, drive
all planes and cars, feed us, protect us, save us from
labor, effort, sickness, even from death, if he will. But he will not.
We should be able to understand this, because we can

realize how unwise it would be for us to shield our
children from all effort, from disappointments,
temptations, sorrows, and suffering.
The basic gospel law is free agency and eternal
development. To force us to be careful or righteous would
be to nullify that fundamental law and make growth
impossible.
And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as
thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin
to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste
the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.
And it is given unto them to know good from
evil; wherefore they are agents unto
themselves…. (Moses 6:55-56.)
. . . Satan rebelled against me, and sought to
destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord
God, had given him…. (Moses 4:3.)
If we looked at mortality as the whole of existence,
then pain, sorrow, failure, and short life would be
calamity. But if we look upon life as an eternal thing
stretching far into the premortal past and on into the
eternal post-death future, then all happenings may be put
in proper perspective.
Is there not wisdom in his giving us trials that we
might rise above them, responsibilities that we might
achieve, work to harden our muscles, sorrows to try our
souls? Are we not exposed to temptations to test our
strength, sickness that we might learn patience, death that
we might be immortalized and glorified?
If all the sick for whom we pray were healed, if all the
righteous were protected and the wicked destroyed, the
whole program of the Father would be annulled and the
basic principle of the gospel, free agency, would be ended.
No man would have to live by faith.
If joy and peace and rewards were instantaneously
given the doer of good, there could be no evil—all would
do good but not because of the rightness of doing good.
There would be no test of strength, no development of
character, no growth of powers, no free agency, only
satanic controls.
Should all prayers be immediately answered
according to our selfish desires and our limited
understanding, then there would be little or no suffering,
sorrow, disappointment, or even death, and if these were

Joseph Smith confirmed:
The Lord takes many away even in infancy,
that they may escape the envy of man and the
sorrows and evils of this present world; they were
too pure, too lovely, to live on this earth.
Therefore, if rightly considered, instead of
mourning we have reason to rejoice as they are
delivered from evil and we shall have them again.
The only difference between the old and the
young dying is, one lives longer in heaven and
eternal light and glory than the other, and is freed
a little sooner from this miserable world.

Just as Ecclesiastes (3:2) says, I am confident that
there is a time to die,

 

[Ingledsva]

Hi Lady B, I would like to add to your comments just a segment of a pamphlet that I have. In all of this I am reminded of what the Savior Jesus Christ did for all of us. Because he died, we will one day live again. Jesus descended below all things that he may be able to succor his people. God Bless You.

Tragedy or Destiny?
Spencer W. Kimball,
Faith Precedes the Miracle ( Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1972.), pp.95-106
The daily newspaper screamed the headlines: “Plane
Crash Kills 43. No Survivors of Mountain Tragedy,” and
thousands of voices joined in a chorus: “Why did the Lord
let this terrible thing happen?”
Two automobiles crashed when one went through a
red light, and six people were killed. Why would God not
prevent this?
Why should the young mother die of cancer and leave
her eight children motherless? Why did not the Lord heal
her?
A little child was drowned; another was run over.
Why?
A man died one day suddenly of a coronary occlusion
as he climbed a stairway. His body was found slumped on
the floor. His wife cried out in agony, “Why? Why would
the Lord do this to me? Could he not have considered my
three little children who still need a father?”
A young man died in the mission field and people
critically questioned: “Why did not the Lord protect this
youth while he was doing proselyting work?”
I wish I could answer these questions with authority,
but I cannot. I am sure that sometime we’ll understand
and be reconciled. But for the present we must seek
understanding as best we can in the gospel principles.
Was it the Lord who directed the plane into the
mountain to snuff out the lives of its occupants, or were
there mechanical faults or human errors?
Did our Father in heaven cause the collision of the
cars that took six people into eternity, or was it the error
of the driver who ignored safety rules?
Did God take the life of the young mother or prompt
the child to toddle into the canal or guide the other child
into the path of the oncoming car?
Did the Lord cause the man to suffer a heart attack?
Was the death of the missionary untimely? Answer, if you
can. I cannot, for though I know God has a major role in
our lives, I do not know how much he causes to happen
and how much he merely permits. Whatever the answer to
this question, there is another I feel sure about.
Could the Lord have prevented these tragedies? The
answer is, Yes. The Lord is omnipotent, with all power to
control our lives, save us pain, prevent all accidents, drive
all planes and cars, feed us, protect us, save us from
labor, effort, sickness, even from death, if he will. But he will not.
We should be able to understand this, because we can

realize how unwise it would be for us to shield our
children from all effort, from disappointments,
temptations, sorrows, and suffering.
The basic gospel law is free agency and eternal
development. To force us to be careful or righteous would
be to nullify that fundamental law and make growth
impossible.
And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as
thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin
to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste
the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.
And it is given unto them to know good from
evil; wherefore they are agents unto
themselves…. (Moses 6:55-56.)
. . . Satan rebelled against me, and sought to
destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord
God, had given him…. (Moses 4:3.)
If we looked at mortality as the whole of existence,
then pain, sorrow, failure, and short life would be
calamity. But if we look upon life as an eternal thing
stretching far into the premortal past and on into the
eternal post-death future, then all happenings may be put
in proper perspective.
Is there not wisdom in his giving us trials that we
might rise above them, responsibilities that we might
achieve, work to harden our muscles, sorrows to try our
souls? Are we not exposed to temptations to test our
strength, sickness that we might learn patience, death that
we might be immortalized and glorified?
If all the sick for whom we pray were healed, if all the
righteous were protected and the wicked destroyed, the
whole program of the Father would be annulled and the
basic principle of the gospel, free agency, would be ended.
No man would have to live by faith.
If joy and peace and rewards were instantaneously
given the doer of good, there could be no evil—all would
do good but not because of the rightness of doing good.
There would be no test of strength, no development of
character, no growth of powers, no free agency, only
satanic controls.
Should all prayers be immediately answered
according to our selfish desires and our limited
understanding, then there would be little or no suffering,
sorrow, disappointment, or even death, and if these were

Joseph Smith confirmed:
The Lord takes many away even in infancy,
that they may escape the envy of man and the
sorrows and evils of this present world; they were
too pure, too lovely, to live on this earth.
Therefore, if rightly considered, instead of
mourning we have reason to rejoice as they are
delivered from evil and we shall have them again.
The only difference between the old and the
young dying is, one lives longer in heaven and
eternal light and glory than the other, and is freed
a little sooner from this miserable world.

Just as Ecclesiastes (3:2) says, I am confident that
there is a time to die,

This is NOT talking about religious people purposely MURDERING children!




*

 

[CG Didymus]

Very good questions, and points.


Somewhere back a few, I asked the question, -


if it is as these Christians are saying, - children killed because of the parents, so as to save them, -

then why are there ANY people on earth - as Adam and Chav'vah SINNED, and so did their child.


Logically if their ideas are right, - then Adam and Chav'vah and the kids, should have been squashed! leading to no people on earth.


This puts the LIE , as to the "why" they are claiming, whole peoples and CHILDREN, are being murdered.


And the female children saved for RAPE, are obviously more evidence that they are wrong.


*

You obviously know your stuff, whether you searched it out on your own or it was forced on you by your parents, doesn't matter, you know the Bible. If it worked. If it made sense. If there was mountains of evidence. If hundreds of prophecies were fulfilled, then I'm sure we'd be telling a different story. What would be so wrong about believing that Jesus is God and that by believing in him are sins are forgiven and we get to go to heaven? The excuse that we reject it because we love the darkness, and we love our sins too much, doesn't work, because we could still keep on sinning. And probably do it like so many Christians do, in the dark. Where no one else will see us. Then, conveniently, confess and "repent." Except, does anybody truly repent?

If they keep sinning. If they keep doing the same sin, then that ain't having a repentant heart. And I don't blame them. I couldn't do it. I imagine. I dream. I "like" very deeply looking (which, I guess, is lusting) at women. I know some guys that don't have that problem. They look at other men. Jesus said that we've committed adultery. Well then why did he make the hormones that stirred us up so much? Why did some people get a double dose? And being a Christian didn't stop the hormones.

When I was a "Christian" in the mid 70's, all the guys I knew, about twenty of them, were doing it and hiding it. That included a gay youth pastor and a music director that was having an affair. I, personally, had two girlfriends as a Christian. The first one was "led" to go "minister" at a Christian camp and broke up with me. Nine months later she married one of the guys that also "ministered" at the camp. Twelve months later they had a beautiful, born in sin, child. My second girlfriend and I lasted at least a week before we started fooling around. I fooled myself for awhile, that someday I'd repent, and stop "sinning", then realized, who was I kidding? Sex was fun. Sex wasn't "evil" ...like some Christians made it out to be.

So that's why I challenge them, can any Christians, themselves, live by Jesus' rules? If not, how can they say they really believe in him? I guess in theory, maybe? But what does that prove? Because, isn't the big knock on the Jews was that they couldn't obey the Law? So how are Christians any better than them or anybody else? When they say that people in other religions are still lost in their sins. Well then, they have to look at themselves. They are still lost doing their sins. What's the difference?

When I look at any religion, I see some things that do help their people live better, more spiritual lives. I see all the "mystical" stories of gods and battles between good and evil. They all sound similar. They all kind of explain reality and why things are the way they are. And, they all sound like myth. Some religions had crazy notions that sacrificing children appeased the gods. Some threw virgins into volcanoes or cut their hearts out. Did God want that or did people think he wanted that or needed that to bring prosperity? Did sacrificing animals make things better? If done wrong, did God really get upset? All those things, we know really didn't cause anything, whether good or bad, to happen.

But now what about praying to an invisible sky being? Does prayer really work? Or, does good stuff still happen along with the bad? Does it make the person feel better? I'm sure it does, while it's working, but how many unanswered prayers or bad things happening in spite of prayer does it take before a person start to wonder if, this too, is just like those sacrifices. Things just happen. The prayer seems to work sometimes and does nothing other times. So is it real? Or, just wishful thinking?

I'm beginning to wonder why God just doesn't lighten up on all his rules. Or, at least give us a "day off", when we can sin all we want and not get in trouble? Like let's say, every Friday from sunset to Sunday at dawn, is Sinday. Then, Sunday morning is repent and healing all those people we might have maimed and murdered day. We could lay hands on each other. Bring those that we killed back to life. Give back the things we stole from others and truly say we are sorry and that we won't do it again for a whole week.The rest of that day can be completely devoted to God... prayers, singing and the rest of the religious stuff. I'm sure we could probably tolerate one day living for God, knowing that the next week we could bust loose again. The remaining days, of course, could be work days and "clean" fun days with only minor "sins" allowed.

Anyway, thanks Ingledsva for all the great points that you've made. I always enjoy your posts.

 

[adi2d]

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

Bumpity bump

 

[viole]

I needed to add a question. Do you believe that an insect population exhibiting a resistance over time to a pesticide is an example of evolution?

Natural selection is definetely there. Whether this rsistance is developed via a selected mutation under the harsh environment or was already pre-existing in few individuals, that I cannot say.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

This is a detail I myself am not well versed in. I however have heard so often the problem of the mutation being duplicated not only in the functionality of the new creature but also in the sexual transmission mechanisms and material to conclude it is a real question or paradox. Apparently the sexual transmission material is created in a way that does not necessarily include whatever mutation the creature its self has. Like I said I left off on evolution years ago so maybe they have a recent explanation but it is a legitimate issue in need of resolution. I hate genetics and the quantum primarily because most laymen in a forum don't have the level of education to get highly detailed about it or at least I suspect it.

Well, probably that depends on the fact that we have only one genome. Not one to build us and one to reproduce. When you reproduce, you transfer the whole thing. Or half of it if you belong to species with two sexes.

This might explain something I mentioned but not anything I recall mentioning. Having eyes appear in independent branches is like having 6 trillion slot roulette wheels all land on the same number in a small time frame.

I wonder why you think that. I think that being able to see provides advatages that are shared by many species. So, it is not surprising that it developed independently. After all, you just need to start with a photo sensitive cell.

But it depends also on what you mean with branches. For Instance, fungi do not have eyes. Trees don't either. Insects have them , and they can see colors. This is why the flowers I receive sometimes have such beautiful colors..

And cows and humans have both eyes because the both come from fish. If we came from flies, we would have completely different eyes.

And you can lose your eyes. For instance if you are a certain species of salamander that now lives in the dark.

That is precisely what I did. I listened to hundreds of hours of the experts debate points about evolution. I even read a few books on the issues. Besides boredom I kept being frustrated by the fact the problems always had theoretical solutions and no actual evidence. They were practical theories but not proven ones. The more I studied the more questions I had and the less answers. I finally determined that no answers were even likely. For example it is so slow no one will ever observe a new species being created. It is just it's nature to be reluctant to give up proof.

It is not reluctant. Lol. It simply has its timelines which vastly surpass our llives and our ability to observe it in a lab, usually.

Btw. Did you observe the alleged beginning of the universein a lab? Can you reproduce the experiment by checking with other universes? All you have in this area are also theoretical conclusions, at least according to your criteria.

You have no access to the volume of what I have been exposed to. The model I mentioned but can't find is not conducive to common descent but I have never heard a non-theist be as bold as to actually point that out. At least I can remember none that did.

No current scientific model of evolution expects independent origins of life. I would start getting used to the idea. We all have a self catalyzing piece of chemistry or something like that in our family album. With "we" I incude fungi, roses and cockroaches.

I have no idea whether anyone could answer it or not. Neither did he, that is why he was interested. Anyone with a Phd in a technical field would be a naturally curious person interested in the mechanics of systems. BTW I used the wrong word. Probiotic is not right. It was supposed to be prokaryote cell. One which doe snot have a nucleus.

You mean those cells that have not been invaded by preistoric bacteria that turned them into our familiar eucaryotes?

I have no interest in what the theory is bound by. The only relevancy is what the reality it intends to describe is dependent on. For it to have any application in a theological context there must be a reasonable nothing to everything process. He is a Phd in information theory.

Information theory? You mean Shannon and stuff?

Well, then ask him how is that possible that a completely random string contains more information than a Shakespear sonnet that has the same length.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

What do you mean is there anything real? You want a list chronological or alphabetically, philosophically or historical? Every Christian I know including me spends every day examining his faith. I must have asked myself if I could have somehow convinced myself into having an experience I mistook for God. No matter what else I doubt the answer to that one every single time is no dang way. If you want examples of far better than average moral actions Christianity will give you more than you will ever possibly read about. For example the conservative Christian demographic is the most generous demographic on earth. A Christian nation is the only nation to self impose and end to slavery. A Christian nation is the most powerful , successful, and generous nation in history. How many hundreds of hospitals do we have to build, how many public education systems do we have to start, how many groups have to lose their lives while ministering to the human detritus in third world nations? Mormons believe the bible so do Catholics why can't I include them. Your posts seem to be protests in quiz form. I get the impression you don't really desire answers (most of your questions do not even have a rational foundation in objective fact).

I find this statement to be kind of odd. I mean, we're talking about the same "Christian nation" that perpetuated the practice of slavery for centuries.

 

[CG Didymus]

The basic gospel law is free agency and eternal
development. To force us to be careful or righteous would
be to nullify that fundamental law and make growth
impossible.

whole program of the Father would be annulled and the
basic principle of the gospel, free agency, would be ended.
No man would have to live by faith.

The way the Law is presented to the Hebrews has nothing to do with free will or free agency, it was follow the Law or suffer a penalty. In the NT, the "gospel" was that Jesus came to save us from our sins. What's the "freewill" choice there? Choose to believe in Jesus and go to heaven or deny him and be condemned to hell? I don't see how this is really letting us choose freely. Those of us that care, check it out and "freely" choose to believe it is not the truth. It is not the way things are. That religions are making things up, seemingly, to get people to follow certain rules of behavior. With the reward being the promise of a spiritual life with an invisible God that no one can see or prove to exist. The punishment is to be cast into hell to be tormented forever. If that were true, there is no choice. Only a fool would disobey. But the rules given by this invisible God are so foolish that it makes those that believe he is real look like fools.

The Lord takes many away even in infancy,
that they may escape the envy of man and the
sorrows and evils of this present world; they were
too pure, too lovely, to live on this earth.

God ordered the killing. Why? Because they were "too" pure? Or, like someone said, they would grow up to be as evil as their parents? When God, allegedly, flooded the whole world, he killed young and old and no doubt, there was varying degrees of good and bad people, but he killed them all. Along with most of the animals that he had, supposedly, created. The people he did save gave birth to more evil people along with a few "good" ones. But even they weren't perfect. And some of their children turned out bad.

So it doesn't matter who he kills or who he saves. People have the ability to commit what we call "evil". It happens. It continues to happen. Religion hasn't stopped it. God hasn't stopped it. Jesus hasn't stopped it. If we're the ones doing it, we might try to find a way to justify it. Like "We killed them because they were pagans, or infidels, or heathens, or blasphemers." Or when some epidemic hits a certain group of people we might say: "They got that disease because they were doing evil, sinful things. It was God's punishment."

Religions tries to give us answers. When those answers don't work anymore, we find new interpretations of the old religions or invent new religions. Or, a new religions is "revealed" by God, to us and then we fight and argue with them saying, "You can't be right, because you don't believe like we do." "Your God is not like our God, therefore you're wrong." "Our Book is inspired by God. Yours is made up by man." "Our Book has tons of prophecies that are exactly right... if you turn, twist, and look at them in their true context, not the context they seem to be in, but the context we tell you they should be in and really are in, then you will see how right on all these prophecies really are." And then we fight and kill each other over religious differences. Hmmm? And God is really in control? He is not the author of confusion? And, if he isn't the respecter of persons, why does he play favorites? He'll reveal himself to one unworthy, sinful person and kill another and use the excuse that they were too evil? Plus, kill their kids?

I don't know, but in a lot of ways it sure seems like life has to do with a little luck of the draw, being at the right or wrong place at the right or wrong time, a little bit of survival of the fittest... or luckiest. But God sure can make a person feel good about ones self. When things are good you can say: "God is blessing me with prosperity." When things are bad: "God is testing me. I must be strong and trust him." When he lets you die, your kids can say that Dad or Mom... "Were great people. They believed right to the end. Now they get to be with the Lord." It he lets them live: "God spared them." All simplistic answers that work for all occasions. Are they real? Or, just make believe? Does it even matter? Of course it matters. It matters for the believer. But, since everyone believes differently, somebody's wrong, somebody's following a fantasy. Is it the Jews, the Mormons, the Protestants, the Catholics or all of them? Or, none of them... is the truth somehow relative? And the Great Spirit in the sky doesn't really care about which religion is right... as long as you do your best at being a good person? I don't know. That's pretty simplistic too.

I think the world is filled with selfish people that have the capacity to do good, and, since they feel better when they do good, they made up spiritual laws and rules to get others to try and do good and avoid doing evil. They, of course, needed an authority figure, so an invisible God that knows all and is always there watching us, was the perfect solution. Since bad things happen anyway, to the good and bad, then they had to come up with an explanation why a benevolent, invisible sky God would let bad things happen. The easiest answer was to make it our fault. We disobeyed him, therefore, out of love and justice, he had to curse us. Another answer would be to add an evil spirit being.

That really helped, because that evil spirit being could be blamed for most of the bad things that happen. The invisible sky God is letting it all happen to show how much he loves some of us. The animals and most of humanity, I don't think he likes them all that much, but they were a necessary part of the plan. After all, what good would it do if he only killed a couple of people and animals? Not very impressive. But all of humanity and all of the animals except a chosen few? Now that is power.

Now what about Jesus? Too many questions. He seems to good to be true. The story has too many if's and but's. It doesn't fit with the story line of the Jewish Bible perfectly. It can be made to fit, but they need to abandon all of God's Law. Which is weird. If the laws were so good, shouldn't they still work? If Jesus is so real, why call him Jesus? That wasn't his real name. What was wrong with his Hebrew name? And the evil spirit beings name? And who he is and what he does? It keeps changing. Almost as if people are making things up as they go. Really, religious people haven't shown enough consistency in their beliefs to be trusted.

Most of their explanations stink. The "age of accountability"? Nice try. It stinks. God is one and invisible and is a spirit, fine. But then, he is three in one? A Father, that is an invisible spirit... a Son, that had a physical body that got transformed into a resurrected body, but, I would guess, is still some kind of physical substance... and finally God, The Holy Spirit, that is also spirit. Dumb. It stinks. God is not invisible if Jesus is God. God does have a physical body if Jesus is God. God is not one. God is in three parts. Part of God died for three days, or Jesus never really died. God is everywhere? Then where is the devil? Dumb. It stinks. Evil is everywhere. God is good? He put natural laws at work that cause natural things to happen that kill people. He created bacteria and viruses that kill people. It stinks. If he is real, he planned it this way. To show us how much he loves us? To be honest, it's as good as my explanation, but it still stinks.

 

[CG Didymus]

We have to have a standard by which to judge a thing. Humanity lacks the ability to have an objective standard. Only with God is there a standard that is true. His standard is perfection. So yes we all fail. However there is a relative difference in ho much we fail.

Over 95% of humanity existed post crucifixion. For the other 5% they were saved by faith in a future messiah the same as we are by a past messiah. There is another group which had no knowledge of Christ but I will let an expert handle the unevangelised. There are entire books explaining them.

Where in the Bible does it say: "This is God's standard"? Let's start there and see how "objective" it is. If you use the Ten Commandments than I'll have to ask why omit the one about the Sabbath. Why isn't it the "objective" everlasting day set aside by God for his people to worship him? If his "standard" was the other laws, then why don't we follow them? Why don't we stone people to death for breaking them? Why not use the eye for an eye standard? I keep asking if any Christian can live up to Jesus' standard for sexual morality, if you look upon a woman with lust that you've already committed adultery. What is the "objective" standard spelled out in the Bible? Of course it's no adultery. What does the Bible say should be done to adulterers? Stoning. We don't do that. Christians don't do that. So were those laws and moral codes "relative" to the times? They certainly don't apply to our times.

The other thing about faith in a "future" messiah. That's related to my questions about how much other cultures influenced Judaism. So when did things about a future Messiah first start being part of Jewish thought? Never mind, that's not the main point. I looked up what a Jewish site said about the Messiah:

Modern scholars suggest that the messianic concept was introduced later in the history of Judaism, during the age of the prophets. They note that the messianic concept is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible).
However, traditional Judaism maintains that the messianic idea has always been a part of Judaism. The mashiach is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, because the Torah was written in terms that all people could understand, and the abstract concept of a distant, spiritual, future reward was beyond the comprehension of some people. However, the Torah contains several references to "the End of Days" (acharit ha-yamim), which is the time of the mashiach; thus, the concept of mashiach was known in the most ancient times.
The term "mashiach" literally means "the anointed one," and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The mashiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days.
The word "mashiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought.

So even if they had a belief in a future "Anointed One", it wasn't anyone like Jesus that they were thinking of. So how does "faith" in the wrong concept of who and what the Messiah will do count as something that could "save" them? Especially, when they didn't even believe in the Christian concept of needing to be saved?