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

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Higher thinking could be what keeps people from raping their shoe. What your saying is the mind makes it a sin. This is true in the sense that we fathom the ramifications.

Kind of but also the mind, makes it about power.

 

[1robin]

How did you come to the conclusion God has the sovereignty to bestow?
What does that even mean?

The questions assumptions made my response clumsy. Let me restate it. Someone asked where did got get his sovereignty. Instead of answering based on an assumption that question made sense let me put it another way. His sovereignty comes from two aspects.

1. His Omni-nature.
2. His having created everything that is.

Neither grant us any sovereignty because neither are true of us.

If i understood you correctly, your position is 'might makes right'.
If God does not interfer then we are the mighty.

Might does not appear in either of my responses above. However without God all rights, morals, laws, and institutions WOULD ultimately be attributable to who ever has power and that by virtue of might. With God morals are actually true. Without him they are contrived and enforced without ever being true. We are not all that mighty with or without God. Viruses are mighty.

 

[1robin]

What else do we judge with??

That was my fault. I stated that poorly. Judging makes nothing actually right or wrong. Moral truth is not derived by thinking into existence and can't necessarily be derived from nature. Without God things are legal or illegal. With God they are right or wrong. Having a brain changes nothing.

According to you, based on your religious views. Obviously I disagree.

Human notions of morality apply on earth because humans created morality. Few things are more obvious to me than that.

You only have a few options.

Morals are derived.

1. By opinion. Who's?
2. Convenience.
3. Might.

Take your pick but none are sufficient for justice.

That is exactly what Christianity is. Do what the big guy in the sky says … or else. That is not a system of morality. It is simply obedience to authority.

Morals are derived from God's nature not from his command. He may command what is right but it is not right because he commanded it alone. Murder would wrong as a part of the fabric of truth with God even if he never prohibited it. It would neither be wrong or right if he did not exist.

It amounts to this, imo:

“Why do I have to kill my child?”

Why in the world did you feel this is meaningful given that the only time in the Bible where a human child is to be sacrificed God strictly prohibited it?

“Because I said so.”

“Why do I have to (insert absolutely anything here)?”

“Because I said so.”


Instead of just saying “nuh uh” how about articulating why it is not what I assert to be? How can Christianity be considered a system of morality?

Let me state this another way for convenience. What ever "faults" you could invent or contrive against God based morality are infinitely worse for human based morality.

Try to brush me off all you like. My point stands.

No it does not, you lack of omniscience and omnipotence renders claiming something stands by virtue of your typing it meaningless. If you ever generate an analogy that is appropriate I will address it but it will not "stand" either.

 

[Koldo]

The questions assumptions made my response clumsy. Let me restate it. Someone asked where did got get his sovereignty. Instead of answering based on an assumption that question made sense let me put it another way. His sovereignty comes from two aspects.

1. His Omni-nature.
2. His having created everything that is.

What do you mean by 'omni-nature'?
Omnipotence and omniscience? Or do you mean something else?
It is abstract until you properly define it.

Why does creating something give you complete rights over it?

Might does not appear in either of my responses above. However without God all rights, morals, laws, and institutions WOULD ultimately be attributable to who ever has power and that by virtue of might. With God morals are actually true. Without him they are contrived and enforced without ever being true. We are not all that mighty with or without God. Viruses are mighty.

Mighty enough to control matter on some aspects.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The questions assumptions made my response clumsy. Let me restate it. Someone asked where did got get his sovereignty. Instead of answering based on an assumption that question made sense let me put it another way. His sovereignty comes from two aspects.

1. His Omni-nature.
2. His having created everything that is.

Neither grant us any sovereignty because neither are true of us.

What do either of these have to do with sovereignty? Are you just arguing that might makes right?

Might does not appear in either of my responses above. However without God all rights, morals, laws, and institutions WOULD ultimately be attributable to who ever has power and that by virtue of might. With God morals are actually true. Without him they are contrived and enforced without ever being true. We are not all that mighty with or without God. Viruses are mighty.

"What is truth?"

Funny how without your god, you turn into Pilate.

John 18:38 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[1robin]

NO! We are not BORN sinners - that is ridiculous.

Apparently this is an attempt to assert something into existence. Since me or you actually know this or can prove it let me move on to something that is known. We have a epidemic problem with evil that is getting worse. We have in our march toward the uberman or super secularism now have the capacity to kill everything on Earth and almost have twice. We are going the wrong direction and regardless of what we are born with or not we are heading towards a self imposed Armageddon, but the worst part is we are insane enough to think things are getting better. You can't fix what we are to stupid or corrupt to admit is broken.

More brain power - more choice.

That is a bizarre quantity claim in a quality discussion. Why? It is not how many ways we can be inhumane it is our willingness to do so. What is infinitely worse is our lack of ability to even know which way we are headed or at least a refusal to admit it.

What part of "WE CAN" do you not understand? CHOICE!

A jelly fish is just a jelly fish - no evil intent. A dolphin with the bigger brain can think - and make choices.

First of all you have apparently drawn an arbitrary line based on an amount of intelligence you do not know to indicate what being can do evil without informing the rest of humanity. How do you know what the intent or lack there of a jelly fish is. I am not discussing whether rocks or ASROCS are used to kill. I am discussing our willingness to use whatever is available to do things never seen in the animal kingdom. I am discussing Hitler's willingness to exterminate an entire race not necessarily the methods used not to mention a nation of people who cheered him for doing it. The stuff your side invents to explain away inconvenient facts never ceases to amaze.

First - one only needs enough thinking capacity to make a an informed choice to do good or evil.

That is my point and contrary to yours. A pride of lions could at the very least kill all other animals in it's range yet has never been known to even attempt it. We have attempted to wipe out even ourselves no matter what method was available many times.

Secondly - Actually every article or study I've ever seen suggest both Hitler and Stalin had above average IQs.

How do you give a person who you do not have access to a test? What can be known is what Hitler did. He cancelled the most successful assault rifle design in history. He turned the first Jet fighter in history into a bomber that did not work. He repeated what lost WW1 without any necessity and lost again. He cancelled the orders of actually genius military experts and substituted the worst military decisions known. I am no expert on IQ tests that can't be administered but am very competent with military history. He made every mistake possible to make. It was his doing more than anything that lost him the war. If he was smart he exhibited nothing to recommend it. Stalin is no better but enough is enough.

BULL! But you obviously will! Stick to the debate!

*

My point was there are as many evolutionary theories as evolutionists. Every one of you claim something mutually exclusive to the other. There is no common ground to debate evolution on and the irreconcilability of the range of theories makes even the attempt Ludacris.

 

[1robin]

What do you mean by 'omni-nature'?
Omnipotence and omniscience? Or do you mean something else?
It is abstract until you properly define it.

That is close enough to what I meant. The philosophers God is a maximal being in great making properties. The Christian God is very similar.

Why does creating something give you complete rights over it?

Is not the same principle reflected in patents, private property, and even national sovereignty? Even children makes rudimentary claims along these lines. I can find a rigorous proof in divine command theory but until you give even a theoretical reason as a challenge to what I have I will not do so as I am lazy. Creation is always associated with ownership and sovereignty but it need not be for God to have it.

Mighty enough to control matter on some aspects.

If you wish to debate relative might you must present some standards to judge by. The might of an omnipotent being is inherent and we are anything but omnipotent. We can't even efficiently control ourselves.

These points are capable of being debated but I do not see the relevance of the debate. They all seem to be a theoretical premise with no conclusion. What are you using these issues to demonstrate. Whatever a potential God's sovereignty or might could possibly be shown to be it exceeds ours be an infinite amount. Any argument that strips God's "rights" would infinitely more strip any we claim to have.

 

[1robin]

What do either of these have to do with sovereignty? Are you just arguing that might makes right?

let me ask a question that renders even the discussion meaningless. If God is denied sovereignty then on what basis do we have any. We claim to, yet possess nothing to justify them that is even a meaningful fraction of what could be said about God.

"What is truth?"

Funny how without your god, you turn into Pilate.

John 18:38 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you think I was unfamiliar with Pilate?

Instead of making claims you think are witty (which appear to condemn your own views) complete this sentence.

Without God murder is actually wrong based on ___________________.

 

[Koldo]

That is close enough to what I meant. The philosophers God is a maximal being in great making properties. The Christian God is very similar.

Then it is the same as 'Might makes right'.

Is not the same principle reflected in patents, private property, and even national sovereignty? Even children makes rudimentary claims along these lines. I can find a rigorous proof in divine command theory but until you give even a theoretical reason as a challenge to what I have I will not do so as I am lazy. Creation is always associated with ownership and sovereignty but it need not be for God to have it.

Not quite. To give our own countries as examples, we are not allowed complete control over our children. We are like guardians to them. Private property exists as an agreement between the individuals within a society, and enforced by the state. National sovereignity over territory has often been contested over time.

If you wish to debate relative might you must present some standards to judge by. The might of an omnipotent being is inherent and we are anything but omnipotent. We can't even efficiently control ourselves.

These points are capable of being debated but I do not see the relevance of the debate. They all seem to be a theoretical premise with no conclusion. What are you using these issues to demonstrate. Whatever a potential God's sovereignty or might could possibly be shown to be it exceeds ours be an infinite amount. Any argument that strips God's "rights" would infinitely more strip any we claim to have.

The conclusion is that post #1483 exposes a valid reasoning.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Without God murder is actually wrong based on ___________________.

You causing harm to another being and those around them?

 

[kjw47]

Do you really believe being naked with your spouse is evil?

Just a couple verses after the tree of G and E there is another tree talked about. God supressed our free will with a flaming sword. He could have done that earlier and we would still be in the garden

The first death? Check what Adam and Eve wore. Given to them by God. I guess he could have skinned the animal without killing it but that seems a little cruel

Adam and Eve didn't realize they were naked until they ate of the tree. Being naked in a world filled with perverts is not a good thing. But being naked in front of ones own spouse is totally different.
God didn't suppress our free will--no where does it teach that. It doesn't teach that God killed any animal either.

 

[kjw47]

Adam and Eve didn't have sin within but chose wrong and caused God to curse their offspring by putting sin within them?

All the children of the wicked are "saved" from going to hell because God had them killed? But wait, they have sin within? Or, is that sin withing forgiven because they are too young to be held accountable? But the ignorant adults they are accountable?

Many are mislead and think they are right, but they are wrong? Where did those "wrong" ideas about God come from? From man's mind? From an evil spirit being deceiving humans? Or, is it all from the mind of man? How do you know the difference? By what the Bible says? But what about those that follow the Bible and are still wrong? Like all Jews and almost all other Christians except JW's?

The resurrection occurs within Gods kingdom-- there will be no satan influence until the very end of Jesus millennial reign--they will be taught Gods will and if they apply it and withstand the last test--they will get eternal life.
Jesus showed the result of ones future--Matt 7:21-23----
There are many on the earth who know of their need of spirituality, yet are being mislead to serve false gods and pagan practices---this is not Gods will---we find at Matt 7:21--- only those who live to do Gods will will be allowed into his kingdom.
Many think they are Christian, but Jesus showed them that in reality they are not.

 

[kjw47]

As for the Book of Genesis...

If God did not want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge, why did he create the tree of knowledge?

And why did he create the serpent?

And why did he allow the serpent to speak?

And why did he allow the serpent in to Eden?

Why would a just and loving God tempt his creations so?

And why would a just and loving God even instill hunger and desire in his creations?

And why would a just and loving God want to keep his creations ignorant of their nakedness?

Why would a just and loving God NOT want his creations to eat from the tree of knowledge and the tree of life?

1) so mortals could choose out of their hearts to listen to God and apply. the tree made free will a reality. free will to choose to listen to our creator.
2) satan spoke through the serpent.
3)All beings spirit and mortal were given free will. God isn't interfering in free will( much)
4) temptation came when the rebel satan lied to Eve.
5) the knowledge of evil brought about hunger and desire( unnatural)
6) again the knowledge of evil brought about the knowing of nakedness.
) God created man to know only good, and gave them the tree of life--their rebellion stopped us acess to the tree of life until the issues raised against God were settled once and for all time. God knew it was best for mankind to know only good and not know evil--he is 100% correct.

 

[1robin]

Then it is the same as 'Might makes right'.

You asked a question about sovereignty then made a moral conclusion. Sovereignty is not morally derived. Murder is wrong is not true because God is powerful it is true because there exists no place it is untrue.

Not quite. To give our own countries as examples, we are not allowed complete control over our children.

Nor did we fully create our children.

We are like guardians to them. Private property exists as an agreement between the individuals within a society, and enforced by the state.

Which half of congress had the rights to private property stored away to grant? Rights are not in theory what governments distribute but what individuals possess they are not to inhibit. As Jefferson said it was our creator not our representative that granted us rights. Governments are simply other people. I do not possess your rights. You do not possess another's rights. Congress does not possess anyone's rights to give.

National sovereignty over territory has often been contested over time.

I was using a pale reflection as evidence of a pure reality even though we screw up everything God has given. We assume rights to sovereignty exist even with far less justification that God would have. On what basis do you deny his sovereignty but insist on yours (over anything including your self which you did not create). Women will often claim to have sovereignty over their own bodies (forget that they do this at the same time they deny sovereignty to an unborn child). If they have a point at all on what basis do you claim God would not?

The conclusion is that post #1483 exposes a valid reasoning.

Did you assume I would have that in mind even if true? I reviewed and that would not be true regardless of what you showed concerning God.

 

[1robin]

Without God murder is actually wrong based on ___________________.

You causing harm to another being and those around them?

So you have conveniently redefined wrong to mean what in your opinion it should. Since car accidents cause harm are all car accidents that cause harm immoral? You may think you can but I do not think you can redefine reality into existence. If you can define reality into existence based on opinion why should Hitler not be able to do the same?

 

[Ingledsva]

1) so mortals could choose out of their hearts to listen to God and apply. the tree made free will a reality. free will to choose to listen to our creator.
2) satan spoke through the serpent.
3)All beings spirit and mortal were given free will. God isn't interfering in free will( much)
4) temptation came when the rebel satan lied to Eve.
5) the knowledge of evil brought about hunger and desire( unnatural)
6) again the knowledge of evil brought about the knowing of nakedness.
) God created man to know only good, and gave them the tree of life--their rebellion stopped us acess to the tree of life until the issues raised against God were settled once and for all time. God knew it was best for mankind to know only good and not know evil--he is 100% correct.

Dude, It is just a story trying to explain how we got here. Serpents don't talk, and Eve was not taken out of Adam.

*

*

 

[1robin]

Dude, It is just a story trying to explain how we got here. Serpents don't talk, and Eve was not taken out of Adam.

*

*

How do you know any of this?

 

[Ingledsva]

How do you know any of this?

Science and Logic. :yes:


*

 

[Ingledsva]

So you have conveniently redefined wrong to mean what in your opinion it should. Since car accidents cause harm are all car accidents that cause harm immoral? You may think you can but I do not think you can redefine reality into existence. If you can define reality into existence based on opinion why should Hitler not be able to do the same?

The basic for murder is unlawfully killing another human.

A God is not needed to come up with human laws.

*

 

[1robin]

Science and Logic. :yes:


*

Neither justify your claiming to know a single thing in that post. I even agree with most of it but your claims to knowledge bear the burden of proofs which were not even attempted.