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

[cottage]

Woa, this is not a thread about slavery.

Yes, i thought the OP was fundamentally about the problem of evil.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, i thought the OP was fundamentally about the problem of evil.

It is, but slavery came up as an example of evil. Its relevance here is that the Bible is a basis for deciding what God sanctions as "moral". Does he sanction slavery? If so, is that not equivalent to sanctioning evil?

@Brickjectivity, I think it is difficult for us to put ourselves in the heads of Hebrews that may or may not have fled the Egypt of Ramses II. The Jews had enjoyed a relatively privileged status in Egypt, before they were increasingly oppressed, according to biblical legend. They probably would have shared the moral attitudes of Egyptians regarding the acceptability of slavery. There would have been rules regarding the proper treatment of slaves, and maybe they felt those rules were being violated. Maybe not. All we can do is speculate on the basis of scant records that we now possess.

 

[cottage]

It is, but slavery came up as an example of evil. Its relevance here is that the Bible is a basis for deciding what God sanctions as "moral". Does he sanction slavery? If so, is that not equivalent to sanctioning evil?

Yes indeed slavery is an example of evil. And for sure we can come up with numerous instances of evil in the face of a supposed loving God, but the OP does not deny that God is its cause. The poster accepts the logical conclusion, as she must, that God is either all good, or he is not all good (law of excluded middle).
1) God and evil
2) God and no evil.
Since #1 is true (assume God exists), #2 must be false.

So the causal question of evil would appear to be settled in this particular case (although in one response she said ‘God knows no sin’, which would seem to be contradictory). However in the example used she believes the child’s death can be defended ultimately by its being with God; but as I explained in my response, that does not alter the facts of the matter and what is done cannot be undone: the child suffered. Also, when the poster speaks of perpetrators going unpunished it is being forgotten that what she describes is nothing less than God’s will. So, far from denying evil with God as its cause, Lady B thinks evil can be justified, but only if we accept her premise – basically that God exists.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes indeed slavery is an example of evil. And for sure we can come up with numerous instances of evil in the face of a supposed loving God, but the OP does not deny that God is its cause. The poster accepts the logical conclusion, as she must, that God is either all good, or he is not all good (law of excluded middle).
1) God and evil
2) God and no evil.
Since #1 is true (assume God exists), #2 must be false.

So the causal question of evil would appear to be settled in this particular case (although in one response she said ‘God knows no sin’, which would seem to be contradictory). However in the example used she believes the child’s death can be defended ultimately by its being with God; but as I explained in my response, that does not alter the facts of the matter and what is done cannot be undone: the child suffered. Also, when the poster speaks of perpetrators going unpunished it is being forgotten that what she describes is nothing less than God’s will. So, far from denying evil with God as its cause, Lady B thinks evil can be justified, but only if we accept her premise – basically that God exists.

The slavery discussion was a case of thread drift, however. A lot of us have already commented extensively on Lady B's OP. My own conclusion was that her version of God was evil from my perspective. Robin1 has been going into detail about his version of God, which is not precisely the same as hers.

 

[Brickjectivity]

@Brickjectivity, I think it is difficult for us to put ourselves in the heads of Hebrews that may or may not have fled the Egypt of Ramses II. The Jews had enjoyed a relatively privileged status in Egypt, before they were increasingly oppressed, according to biblical legend. They probably would have shared the moral attitudes of Egyptians regarding the acceptability of slavery. There would have been rules regarding the proper treatment of slaves, and maybe they felt those rules were being violated. Maybe not. All we can do is speculate on the basis of scant records that we now possess.

Thanks for your response. I didn't mean we have to put ourselves into the " heads of Hebrews that may or may not have fled the Egypt of Ramses II" We merely need to consider the Passover, the thing that makes a Jew, Jewish. We can refer to the extensive history of Jewish liturgy (bookstore) to back this up. One of the first things children are taught, regardless of whether God or Moses are real, is to keep the Passover Seder --> to oppose slavery. Any time slavery is mentioned in their Bibles, it is always spoken of as an evil to be vanquished, a sad thing, an enemy. Ancient Israeli laws concerning 'Slaves' seem designed to make the practice of slavery troublesome, expensive, and to turn slaves into citizens of the country. What the ancient Jews had was one of the worlds first paid employment systems. A person could have a job in Israel without being a slave, and being neither a nobody nor a somebody a person could live.

No, it is not speculation that Jewish laws and the Jewish 'God' opposed slavery; but it doesn't answer the opening question. Besides it is disingenuous to misconstrue the Bible as pro-slavery and then try to use it as a straw-man to paint 'God' as evil. (Also it is not fair to Jews.) If God exists at all as a being, then God has to be older than the Bible or the Jews. Jewish slavery or opposition to such does not answer the question of whether God is evil.

 

[1robin]

The slavery discussion was a case of thread drift, however. A lot of us have already commented extensively on Lady B's OP. My own conclusion was that her version of God was evil from my perspective. Robin1 has been going into detail about his version of God, which is not precisely the same as hers.

I have been running in circles attempting to make a few points.

1. God can't be called evil unless God exists so ground evil in an objective manner.
2. Whatever God declared is morally "right". I used to shy away from this conclusion but it is inevitable so I will stand by it. It can be that what he commands even though right is personally reprehensible but our moral assumptions are not capable of therefore making his requirement "wrong".
3. That in the case of OT slavery God never instituted the practice. He only added rules that made an existent practice more benevolent. It was mainly a form of debt servitude where the employer paid a person's debts and the "owned" them for a few years in return.
4. NT slavery was a fact of Roman law and the verses on it concern how the apostles or Christians were to react when they came across it. God knew the Romans punished runaways severely (by death most of the time) and so would have killed the "freed" slaves and the apostles who told them to run away.
5. The comeback is always why didn't God simply fix all this stuff or do away with it. I do not know, but I know that that is not how God has operated throughout history. His method when we said screw you and we want to be interdependent was to abandon us to our fate. He still steps in in very rare circumstances but he is not intent of fixing the world our sin broke. He wants us to realize the suffering our rebellion has resulted in.

In short I believe the Biblical God is benevolent given his purpose and regard any attempts to prove any God morally right or wrong an impossible task.

 

[Copernicus]

I have been running in circles attempting to make a few points.

1. God can't be called evil unless God exists so ground evil in an objective manner.
2. Whatever God declared is morally "right". I used to shy away from this conclusion but it is inevitable so I will stand by it. It can be that what he commands even though right is personally reprehensible but our moral assumptions are not capable of therefore making his requirement "wrong".
3. That in the case of OT slavery God never instituted the practice. He only added rules that made an existent practice more benevolent. It was mainly a form of debt servitude where the employer paid a person's debts and the "owned" them for a few years in return.
4. NT slavery was a fact of Roman law and the verses on it concern how the apostles or Christians were to react when they came across it. God knew the Romans punished runaways severely (by death most of the time) and so would have killed the "freed" slaves and the apostles who told them to run away.
5. The comeback is always why didn't God simply fix all this stuff or do away with it. I do not know, but I know that that is not how God has operated throughout history. His method when we said screw you and we want to be interdependent was to abandon us to our fate. He still steps in in very rare circumstances but he is not intent of fixing the world our sin broke. He wants us to realize the suffering our rebellion has resulted in.

In short I believe the Biblical God is benevolent given his purpose and regard any attempts to prove any God morally right or wrong an impossible task.

Thanks for the summary, Robin. I think that you've received a lot of feedback on all of those points, and most of us have an opinion on how well you did in your responses. I'm one who wasn't satisfied by them, but it doesn't look like there is anything further to be gained by more debate. I don't think that any of us is looking for proof of God's benevolence. We just like to understand how some folks justify calling a God "benevolent" that appears to condone egregious suffering. There are versions of God that I would not consider evil, but the one depicted in the OT strikes me as particularly evil. The one in the NT has mellowed somewhat in comparison to the older one.

 

[1robin]

Thanks for the summary, Robin. I think that you've received a lot of feedback on all of those points, and most of us have an opinion on how well you did in your responses. I'm one who wasn't satisfied by them, but it doesn't look like there is anything further to be gained by more debate. I don't think that any of us is looking for proof of God's benevolence. We just like to understand how some folks justify calling a God "benevolent" that appears to condone egregious suffering. There are versions of God that I would not consider evil, but the one depicted in the OT strikes me as particularly evil. The one in the NT has mellowed somewhat in comparison to the older one.

Well it was only an effort to consolidate what I have attempted to show, so as to be available for a continuation of this discussion if someone so desires. Of course people who are ideologically resistant to even the concept of God are going to view things in a way that allows plausible denial and they are for more prevalent in forums than orthodox Christians. I have often wondered why there are so many dedicated Christians and so very few dedicated Christian debaters. I think it is the natural tendency of a Christian to avoid contention, and contention is incessant in these threads. I am not so much arguing to convince (I think most but not all determinations made against God are ideologically or preference based not factually based) and there is no fact ever formed that will prosper against that. You may very well be an exception so do not take this personally. I argue to my satisfaction and education. If I believe I have made the case or presented the truth my job and/or responsibility is done, I can't force belief. I am no evangelist.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Why would God intervine with us to such a great extent? As humans we are suppose to learn and grow spiritually and intellectually.
This reminds me of a classic episode from Futurama of all things .
This world is for us, not for god. Our spirits are for god. God has designed this immaculate world and many more beyond (Alamin as we Muslims say) just the people that dwell in it. There are hardships in it of course but that cannot discourage us from realizing that there is a god and he cares for us. Without hardship the seeds of intellectualism would not root in our minds or the desire for us to even believe in a god. Find solace in god and not in the worries of this world because you will fall into an old trap.

 

[Copernicus]

Why would God intervine with us to such a great extent? As humans we are suppose to learn and grow spiritually and intellectually.
This reminds me of a classic episode from Futurama of all things .
This world is for us, not for god. Our spirits are for god. God has designed this immaculate world and many more beyond (Alamin as we Muslims say) just the people that dwell in it. There are hardships in it of course but that cannot discourage us from realizing that there is a god and he cares for us. Without hardship the seeds of intellectualism would not root in our minds or the desire for us to even believe in a god. Find solace in god and not in the worries of this world because you will fall into an old trap.

That's a common argument, and you make the point as well as anyone else. God is supposed to judge our character, so it would seem that a life without challenge would not meet his goal in that respect. He wants all of us to mature to the point where we are worthy of heaven. But you still need to look around and ask whether the world we see makes sense from even that perspective. Infants dying at childbirth may help to shape the character of the parents under this scenario, but what about the infants? Did they get the same chance as others to develop their characters? What about very wealthy people who never experience great trauma in their lives? Not all challenges are equal, and some suffer outrageously in comparison to others. It isn't just the existence of evil or suffering that calls your argument into question. It is also the unevenness. The appearance of unfairness. So that argument falls very flat, IMO.

 

[1robin]

Why would God intervine with us to such a great extent? As humans we are suppose to learn and grow spiritually and intellectually.
This reminds me of a classic episode from Futurama of all things .
This world is for us, not for god. Our spirits are for god. God has designed this immaculate world and many more beyond (Alamin as we Muslims say) just the people that dwell in it. There are hardships in it of course but that cannot discourage us from realizing that there is a god and he cares for us. Without hardship the seeds of intellectualism would not root in our minds or the desire for us to even believe in a god. Find solace in god and not in the worries of this world because you will fall into an old trap.

Hello, what is unique to "Dharmic Islam"?

I will add a few points here.
1. God intervenes though I would suggest infrequently because if he left us alone we would do what the pre flood goobers did. Wreck everything. We told him no thanks in the Garden of Eden, we got this, and he said then have at it. We, being us, then proceeded to screw it up over and over again. Occasionally he must stop it from self-imploding.
2. As Godless humans we can't grow or even if we do it is in the wrong direction until we can re-establish the relationship lost long ago through the price Jesus paid to make it possible. (I am aware you do not agree)
3. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve God made other worlds. May have, no idea.
4. Hardships as you put it according to the Bible were made necessary because of our rebellion. What used to be learned through direct communication with God must now be taught be the hard hand of harsh reality.

 

[Sha'irullah]

That's a common argument, and you make the point as well as anyone else. God is supposed to judge our character, so it would seem that a life without challenge would not meet his goal in that respect. He wants all of us to mature to the point where we are worthy of heaven. But you still need to look around and ask whether the world we see makes sense from even that perspective. Infants dying at childbirth may help to shape the character of the parents under this scenario, but what about the infants? Did they get the same chance as others to develop their characters? What about very wealthy people who never experience great trauma in their lives? Not all challenges are equal, and some suffer outrageously in comparison to others. It isn't just the existence of evil or suffering that calls your argument into question. It is also the unevenness. The appearance of unfairness. So that argument falls very flat, IMO.

Well it comes down to this for me.
Dictatorships are bad even if the sole dictator does good for his country. If god was to come down and make everything "good" that would mean the elimination of free will, we will have no free thought and mankind will be limited to such an existent that we will suffocate under this rule.
The uneven negativity in this world comes from free will and I like many others enjoy free will. Much like a deist but I do not believe that god directly intervenes in this world physically. Spiritually yes, mentally perhaps but physically no.
A dictatorship is still a dictatorship and god solving all our issues would involve the removal of basic human attributes. I sin and commit 'evil' deeds and I will not deny the fact that I enjoy them. You are an atheist so you by default do not have the same moral codes as a theist. Many things you do are deemed sinful in the eyes of numerous religions.
Do you want god to come down and force you to stop those actions by removing your free will? To remove pain and suffering in this world you must remove life or free will and desire. One of the two, take your pick.
I would rather live in a chaotic world then not live at all.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Hello, what is unique to "Dharmic Islam"?

I will add a few points here.
1. God intervenes though I would suggest infrequently because if he left us alone we would do what the pre flood goobers did. Wreck everything. We told him no thanks in the Garden of Eden, we got this, and he said then have at it. We, being us, then proceeded to screw it up over and over again. Occasionally he must stop it from self-imploding.
2. As Godless humans we can't grow or even if we do it is in the wrong direction until we can re-establish the relationship lost long ago through the price Jesus paid to make it possible. (I am aware you do not agree)
3. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve God made other worlds. May have, no idea.
4. Hardships as you put it according to the Bible were made necessary because of our rebellion. What used to be learned through direct communication with God must now be taught be the hard hand of harsh reality.

Dharmic implies Dharma which is a theological philosophy found in Hinduism and Buddhism. When I say Dharmic I am referring to the fact I accept a lot of Hindu scriptures and concepts as long as they abide by Quranic principles.
I am a Quraniyun Muslim tin reality meaning I do not accept Ahadith which are outside texts fabricated against Muhammad. Being a Quraniyun I have a bit more in common with Karaite Judaism since they to do not accept the oral teachings outside of the Tanakh.

1. According to me God does not directly intervene. God does not come out of the sky and cast brimstone upon the earth. He would send the meteor that would explode above the earth thus casting brimstone...... that is more logical to me . The Quran does not display god as a being constantly intervening with the lives of men and involving himself in our affairs deeply. It is extremely vague about god which adds to his greatness since he is so mysterious nobody has seen his face or possibly could.
2. I do not agree with Jesus being the son of god.
Qur'an Surah An-Nisa 171 "Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender"
Not trinity exist in Islam, just god (Arabs Allah and Persians use Khuda since it implies no gender or multiplicity but any names that designates singularity and supremacy will do....such as Yahweh).
Jesus is the Al-Masih(The Messiah) and the pinnacle of all prophets. Muhammad was the reformer and the final nabbi(prophet). not much differs on Jesus in Christianity or Islam, just a few key differences.
3. Other dimensions are mentioned in mystical Judaic traditions and loosely mentioned in the Bible. Islam has many but a noticeable one is the worlds of Jinn(Americans say "genie" for some reason). Jinn are essentially wandering spirits (good or bad like humans) that exist in a parallel dimension of sorts. Christians say demons are entirely evil while Muslims say jinn have free will like humans. Even Jinn were sent messengers just like us humans. But because Jinn have free will unlike angels Muslims DO NOT mess with them, some Sufi Muslims allow summoning of Jinn but they are not a majority sect.
4. I agree with this on so many levels. God laid the foundation for mankind and gave us prophets and messengers to continue it. To clarify I do believe god had direct contact with this world earlier on but has then on left this world to us alone. Witht he exclusion of angels and what not though.

 

[1robin]

Dharmic implies Dharma which is a theological philosophy found in Hinduism and Buddhism. When I say Dharmic I am referring to the fact I accept a lot of Hindu scriptures and concepts as long as they abide by Quranic principles.

That is interesting, never heard that flavor before.

I am a Quraniyun Muslim tin reality meaning I do not accept Ahadith which are outside texts fabricated against Muhammad. Being a Quraniyun I have a bit more in common with Karaite Judaism since they to do not accept the oral teachings outside of the Tanakh.

I would agree and then some but classic Islam defends the Ahdith's pretty fiercely.

1. According to me God does not directly intervene. God does not come out of the sky and cast brimstone upon the earth. He would send the meteor that would explode above the earth thus casting brimstone...... that is more logical to me . The Quran does not display god as a being constantly intervening with the lives of men and involving himself in our affairs deeply. It is extremely vague about god which adds to his greatness since he is so mysterious nobody has seen his face or possibly could.

I will only add that the concept of a God that intervenes to correct and curtail in extreme circumstances but still allows freewill to be free 99.9% of the time is more consistent with a benevolent being than one that indifferently looks on (to a certain extent). I also would add that the 750,000 words in the Bible and the however many in the Quran would also be evince of direct involvement. It is also funny what you said in a previous post. You said even a good dictator is bad. Plato, Socrates or one of those smart geeks (Greeks) said rightfully that the most benevolent form og government is a good dictatorship. Unfortunately the worst form is a bad one and they are far more common.

2. I do not agree with Jesus being the son of god.
Qur'an Surah An-Nisa 171 "Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender"
Not trinity exist in Islam, just god (Arabs Allah and Persians use Khuda since it implies no gender or multiplicity but any names that designates singularity and supremacy will do....such as Yahweh).
Jesus is the Al-Masih(The Messiah) and the pinnacle of all prophets. Muhammad was the reformer and the final nabbi(prophet). not much differs on Jesus in Christianity or Islam, just a few key differences.

I know that. I assume it to be the case within Islam. I can debate it but did not want to tackle that here.

3. Other dimensions are mentioned in mystical Judaic traditions and loosely mentioned in the Bible. Islam has many but a noticeable one is the worlds of Jinn(Americans say "genie" for some reason). Jinn are essentially wandering spirits (good or bad like humans) that exist in a parallel dimension of sorts. Christians say demons are entirely evil while Muslims say jinn have free will like humans. Even Jinn were sent messengers just like us humans. But because Jinn have free will unlike angels Muslims DO NOT mess with them, some Sufi Muslims allow summoning of Jinn but they are not a majority sect.

I was aware of this but my comment was about other worlds and I did not see how this response relates to that. Did you only mean spiritual "worlds". I of course acknowledge a spiritual world. What do you say about Allah throwing meteors and comets at Jinn given your views?

4. I agree with this on so many levels. God laid the foundation for mankind and gave us prophets and messengers to continue it. To clarify I do believe god had direct contact with this world earlier on but has then on left this world to us alone. With he exclusion of angels and what not though.

It is good to be able to find agreement with a Muslim. I of course do not agree with the since early on God has abandoned us to our fate (such a God IMO is not worthy of worship). I thought Islam believed in the flood and judgments in the OT.

 

[Sha'irullah]

That is interesting, never heard that flavor before.
I would agree and then some but classic Islam defends the Ahdith's pretty fiercely.
I will only add that the concept of a God that intervenes to correct and curtail in extreme circumstances but still allows freewill to be free 99.9% of the time is more consistent with a benevolent being than one that indifferently looks on (to a certain extent). I also would add that the 750,000 words in the Bible and the however many in the Quran would also be evince of direct involvement. It is also funny what you said in a previous post. You said even a good dictator is bad. Plato, Socrates or one of those smart geeks (Greeks) said rightfully that the most benevolent form og government is a good dictatorship. Unfortunately the worst form is a bad one and they are far more common.
I know that. I assume it to be the case within Islam. I can debate it but did not want to tackle that here.
I was aware of this but my comment was about other worlds and I did not see how this response relates to that. Did you only mean spiritual "worlds". I of course acknowledge a spiritual world. What do you say about Allah throwing meteors and comets at Jinn given your views?
It is good to be able to find agreement with a Muslim. I of course do not agree with the since early on God has abandoned us to our fate (such a God IMO is not worthy of worship). I thought Islam believed in the flood and judgments in the OT.

A lot of Muslims in India and Indonesia began mixing Islam and Hinduism to a greater or lesser extent. No actual title was given to it except for words such as heresy or infidel. In my eyes, you are a Muslim as long as you don't go outside of the Quran's fundamental teachings.
The things about Jinn is that the Quran does not always place them as being "spiritual beings". To much of an extent they are physical in some regards since they are made of smokeless flames which can be taken metaphorically or literally. Also by default a spiritual realm is a dimension unto itself. I know you do not think of it that way but Jannah(Heaven), Jahannam(Hell), and the spiritual or physical worlds under them are by definition a dimension or alternate realm of existence. The Quran makes no actual distinction between them. Heaven is described as physical yet outside of this reality which pretty much implies the scientific usage of the word dimension or 'world'. It all comes down to semantics really

Yes Muslims believe in the flood but as a Quraniyun I do not believe in the end of days. The flood and such things as Sodom and Gomorrah do not break my belief that god has actually taken permanent dominion over mankind. When I say intervene I imply that god has permanently came down and taken dominion over this entire world. Such actions as floods which manifest the greatness of god do not mean god is constantly controlling our world to bring about peace or a change other then reuniting us back to him.
Sorry if I am leaving out details here, hard to describe my words in written form.

 

[Brickjectivity]

2. Whatever God declared is morally "right". I used to shy away from this conclusion but it is inevitable so I will stand by it. It can be that what he commands even though right is personally reprehensible but our moral assumptions are not capable of therefore making his requirement "wrong".

You were right to shy away from it. I'd suggest Genesis 18:25 represents the LORD can be discovered through justice. Clearly Abra. here makes it a point that righteousness is a standard against which the LORD can be measured. Its just one verse, but it is a verse.

3. That in the case of OT slavery God never instituted the practice. He only added rules that made an existent practice more benevolent. It was mainly a form of debt servitude where the employer paid a person's debts and the "owned" them for a few years in return.

Recently you repented and did what is right in my sight: Each of you proclaimed freedom to your own people. You even made a covenant before me in the house that bears my Name. (Jeremiah 34:15)

"Because the patriarchs were jealous of Joseph, they sold him as a slave into Egypt. But God was with him and rescued him from all his troubles...." (Acts 7:9-10)

If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. (Deuteronomy 23:15)

They and their buyer are to count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for their release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired worker for that number of years. (Leviticus 25:50)

 

[Copernicus]

Well it comes down to this for me.
Dictatorships are bad even if the sole dictator does good for his country. If god was to come down and make everything "good" that would mean the elimination of free will, we will have no free thought and mankind will be limited to such an existent that we will suffocate under this rule.

That is actually not true. People who live under dictators have free will, but their choices are restricted. Under the God scenario, our choices are limited by God's creation of them, even if he doesn't make his existence obvious. And it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that we are supposed to have faith in a God who intentionally makes his existence not so obvious. Indeed, many of us think of the Abrahamic God as a very implausible being, given that all the uneven suffering we observe does not need to be rationalized. It is what we would expect of a godless universe.

The uneven negativity in this world comes from free will and I like many others enjoy free will. Much like a deist but I do not believe that god directly intervenes in this world physically. Spiritually yes, mentally perhaps but physically no.

That's not actually true. Not all the "negativity"--human suffering--has anything at all to do with human behavior. God could contrive to eliminate it by only allowing suffering that is human-caused. People born with serious birth defects, for example, are not necessarily the result of bad behavior by the parents or any other person. And the uneven suffering also applies to the suffering that happens to babies that die in horrible pain. How does that experience test their character? God may still have some hidden purpose to allowing all the suffering, but your explanation is far from explaining what that could possibly be.

A dictatorship is still a dictatorship and god solving all our issues would involve the removal of basic human attributes. I sin and commit 'evil' deeds and I will not deny the fact that I enjoy them. You are an atheist so you by default do not have the same moral codes as a theist. Many things you do are deemed sinful in the eyes of numerous religions.

I find it extremely puzzling that you would liken absolute knowledge of God's existence to a dictatorship. Surely you realize that not everyone living in a dictatorship feels oppressed. When people feel that the dictator's interests align with their own, they tend to lend support to him. And the ultimate aim of most Christians I know is to live forever with that "dictator" in heaven and in full knowledge of his existence.

Regarding moral codes, you should realize that many things you do are deemed sinful in the eyes of numerous religions, so it is hypocritical to criticize me on those grounds. In fact, I share most of your moral values, and I have no idea what 'evil' deeds you think are enjoyable and would commit if you were not religious. I got my moral values from the same place you did: the people around me during my formative years. I happen to have been raised a Christian, so I even got a good dose of Christian cultural attitudes in those years, but I certainly do not think a religious upbringing is at all needed for people to develop good moral character. I would go further and say that your religious upbringing has made you biased in your view of non-religious people.

Do you want god to come down and force you to stop those actions by removing your free will? To remove pain and suffering in this world you must remove life or free will and desire. One of the two, take your pick.
I would rather live in a chaotic world then not live at all.

I think that you do live in a chaotic world, whether you acknowledge it or not. And it strikes me as bizarre that you think my free will would be compromised or my desires removed by sure knowledge that God existed. Is that what you think happens to people who go to heaven?

 

[Sha'irullah]

That is actually not true. People who live under dictators have free will, but their choices are restricted. Under the God scenario, our choices are limited by God's creation of them, even if he doesn't make his existence obvious. And it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that we are supposed to have faith in a God who intentionally makes his existence not so obvious. Indeed, many of us think of the Abrahamic God as a very implausible being, given that all the uneven suffering we observe does not need to be rationalized. It is what we would expect of a godless universe.


That's not actually true. Not all the "negativity"--human suffering--has anything at all to do with human behavior. God could contrive to eliminate it by only allowing suffering that is human-caused. People born with serious birth defects, for example, are not necessarily the result of bad behavior by the parents or any other person. And the uneven suffering also applies to the suffering that happens to babies that die in horrible pain. How does that experience test their character? God may still have some hidden purpose to allowing all the suffering, but your explanation is far from explaining what that could possibly be.


I find it extremely puzzling that you would liken absolute knowledge of God's existence to a dictatorship. Surely you realize that not everyone living in a dictatorship feels oppressed. When people feel that the dictator's interests align with their own, they tend to lend support to him. And the ultimate aim of most Christians I know is to live forever with that "dictator" in heaven and in full knowledge of his existence.

Regarding moral codes, you should realize that many things you do are deemed sinful in the eyes of numerous religions, so it is hypocritical to criticize me on those grounds. In fact, I share most of your moral values, and I have no idea what 'evil' deeds you think are enjoyable and would commit if you were not religious. I got my moral values from the same place you did: the people around me during my formative years. I happen to have been raised a Christian, so I even got a good dose of Christian cultural attitudes in those years, but I certainly do not think a religious upbringing is at all needed for people to develop good moral character. I would go further and say that your religious upbringing has made you biased in your view of non-religious people.

You are aware your argument is going way over the actual topic and you have missed almost everything I have said right? Your making my metaphorical words literal and actually going far off topic in regards to what I said.

Well my argument is not about whether god exist but whether or not it would be beneficial for god to intervene with our lives. And people who live under dictatorships have limited free will of course but I am referring to god. If god is all powerful then surely he can remove free will from us entirely.
It is obvious that quite a bit of suffering is not from human behavior. And I NEVER said it comes solely from human behavior.
I never compared God's existence to a dictatorship. I said if he came down from the heavens and ruled the earth to prevent all suffering it would be a dictatorship that would involve no free will since a lot of human suffering comes from free will. If he stopped natural disasters it would not bother us but if he controlled us, entirely different story.
Many things I do are sinful to numerous religions. I never singled you out amongst the bunch to criticize you. I specifically told you that many things you do are sinful to another religion and if their god stopped freewill and permitted actions deemed righteous to that deity you would obviously hate that. Which the same applies for me. If my god came to have dominion over the earth you would not enjoy it obviously
Also I never acquired my morals from my parents. I actually grew up entirely different from the environment I was raised within. We decide whether we wish to abide by another's morals.

I think that you do live in a chaotic world, whether you acknowledge it or not. And it strikes me as bizarre that you think my free will would be compromised or my desires removed by sure knowledge that God existed. Is that what you think happens to people who go to heaven?

Dude you can't be any further off basis then with that statement. As I told you before I am speaking hypothetically that if my god or anyone else's came down to earth to stop suffering it would have to include the elimination of free will. Free will is something that we enjoy and to bring about absolute peace you must get rid of it. This has been mentioned by numerous philosophers throughout history. Free will to murder, plunder and pillage is the most contributing factor to death throughout the world.
I cannot prove that god exist and I do not care if he does or doesn't because I alone am convinced.
And why would I believe loss of free will occurs in heaven? What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Copernicus]

You are aware your argument is going way over the actual topic and you have missed almost everything I have said right? Your making my metaphorical words literal and actually going far off topic in regards to what I said.

Technically, what you were making was more of an analogy than a metaphor, which is a type of analogy. I was responding directly to your argument, which suggested that God would be behaving like a dictator if he were to intervene in our lives too much.

Well my argument is not about whether god exist but whether or not it would be beneficial for god to intervene with our lives. And people who live under dictatorships have limited free will of course but I am referring to god. If god is all powerful then surely he can remove free will from us entirely.

I'm not trying to argue with you over the existence of God, but I am trying to make you understand an atheist's perspective on these matters better than you seem to. People under dictatorships have exactly the same amount of free will that you and I do. They have more limited choices, but free will is not equivalent to unlimited choices. Our choices are always constrained by circumstances, be they under dictators or gods. Free will means that we are free to choose among those choices available to us. If someone threatens to shoot you if you don't do what they say, you can still exercise your free will not to do what they say.

It is obvious that quite a bit of suffering is not from human behavior. And I NEVER said it comes solely from human behavior.

It appeared to me that you very much implied that when you blamed suffering on humans exercising free will. If you agree that suffering is not entirely due to bad behavior by humans, then I think I made my point.

I never compared God's existence to a dictatorship. I said if he came down from the heavens and ruled the earth to prevent all suffering it would be a dictatorship that would involve no free will since a lot of human suffering comes from free will. If he stopped natural disasters it would not bother us but if he controlled us, entirely different story.

So you admit that he could stop natural disasters without compromising free will. Yet they happen anyway. Why? That was part of my argument. And you were making an analogy between God and a dictator. However, my point is that dictators do not compromise free will. They just limit choices. Supposedly, God did the same thing when he created us. We do not have an unlimited range of choices in any given situation, and God created the situation that we find ourselves in. He is not only responsible for having set up the conditions for natural disasters, but he fails to intervene to prevent suffering when they happen.

Many things I do are sinful to numerous religions. I never singled you out amongst the bunch to criticize you. I specifically told you that many things you do are sinful to another religion and if their god stopped freewill and permitted actions deemed righteous to that deity you would obviously hate that. Which the same applies for me.

I'm sorry, but you were generalizing about atheists, and you acknowledged that I was in that category. I think your point is rendered moot that the argument applies to everyone, not just atheists.

If my god came to have dominion over the earth you would not enjoy it obviously. Also I never acquired my morals from my parents. I actually grew up entirely different from the environment I was raised within. We decide whether we wish to abide by another's morals.

I didn't mention anything about parents. I referred to the people around us during our formative years. I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say that you did not grow up in the environment you were raised in. Is that even possible?

Dude you can't be any further off basis then with that statement. As I told you before I am speaking hypothetically that if my god or anyone else's came down to earth to stop suffering it would have to include the elimination of free will. Free will is something that we enjoy and to bring about absolute peace you must get rid of it. This has been mentioned by numerous philosophers throughout history. Free will to murder, plunder and pillage is the most contributing factor to death throughout the world.

That is just bizarre. Do you think that people only refrain from murdering, plundering, and pillaging because they are religious? Can you really not imagine any other reasons for refraining from that kind of behavior? I am not religious, and I can assure you that I feel no desire to murder, plunder, and pillage, although I will play the occasional video game. As for free will, I argue that you have not really thought much about the difference between free will and having a lot of different options to exercise free will with. If I lack wings, that doesn't mean that I lack the free will to soar around in the sky. I can only choose to do things that I can do. Christians pray all the time for God to intervene on their behalf to stop their suffering and the suffering of others. Let's not pretend they don't.

I cannot prove that god exist and I do not care if he does or doesn't because I alone am convinced.

Why would being convinced God exists cause you not to care whether he existed? I am convinced that a lot of people I care for exist. And I'm not asking you to prove that God exists. We aren't discussing that question, although I will try to explain the perspective of people like myself, who believe that we live in a godless universe. You seem to have some mistaken impressions about that.

And why would I believe loss of free will occurs in heaven? What does that have to do with anything?

I'm truly puzzled by that remark. You spent some time trying to say that our free will would somehow be compromised if God were to reveal himself unambiguously to everyone on Earth, yet that would presumably be the situation for everyone who went to heaven. Why would his obvious presence on Earth make him like a dictator, but his obvious presence in the afterlife not? If your argument about free will makes any sense at all, then we would presumably lose free will the moment we entered heaven.

 

[1robin]

You were right to shy away from it. I'd suggest Genesis 18:25 represents the LORD can be discovered through justice. Clearly Abra. here makes it a point that righteousness is a standard against which the LORD can be measured. It’s just one verse, but it is a verse.

This was a little confusing. Let me list why.
1. I shied away from it because it seemed like an appeal to sympathy and a little hard to determine. I realized that it would be true regardless, and so have adopted it even if it can be used as an "ooohhh look what he said" kind of thing. God is morality. His nature dictates what is morally correct. There for whatever he did is correct. I may not like it, I may resent it, I may hate him because of it. What I can't do is find a standard above him to declare his act wrong. For better or worse true is true.
2. This verse and your comments are a little off from each other. You said that we can determine if God is righteous. By what standard can God be judged? Is our perception of what is good sufficient to judge God? e may for example think that if he commanded no aid to be sent to Africa that he was evil. That would be our mistake. I just read some stats and letters from missions in Africa. Many of those nations live entirely on aid and because of it have doubled or tripled in population. We in our infinite wisdom are literally guaranteeing that in the future feeding an increasing population will eventually bankrupt the feeders and slowly kill hundreds of millions of the ones dependent on aid. We are feeding the problem and making it much much worse. Not sending them more aid my to us seem bad yet in reality God would be right.
The verse has an important context. The context is God exists and has implanted a reflection of his morality in us. Abraham, I believe was saying that judging by the God given moral compass in him that he knew God would not destroy the righteous with the unrighteous. These verses where Moses, Abraham, etc... seem to plead with God to do X or Y are confusing so my understanding may not be perfect.

Recently you repented and did what is right in my sight: Each of you proclaimed freedom to your own people. You even made a covenant before me in the house that bears my Name. (Jeremiah 34:15)
"Because the patriarchs were jealous of Joseph, they sold him as a slave into Egypt. But God was with him and rescued him from all his troubles...." (Acts 7:9-10)
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. (Deuteronomy 23:15)
They and their buyer are to count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for their release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired worker for that number of years. (Leviticus 25:50)

Those are interesting verses and thankfully more clear than Genesis 28 but I am unsure what purpose you are using them for. Are you challenging my statement, augmenting it, or agreeing with it?