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

[Koldo]

It would never make us happy eternally, it's not possible to achieve perfect happiness in this world, only by God is that possible.

1. A person will become bored with the unending opulence.
2. There will be eternal evolutionary stagnation.
3. The brain is a very limited thing, it can only hold so much information.

Once again, unless you can show that must be the case, this is not relevant.

We're one galaxy, among millions, in a universe that's barely out if it's diapers, with infinite other universes just as old/young as this one. Contemplate, why would God be too concerned with what happens to a bacteria (human body.) why not be worried about the person (soul.)

In other words, God doesn't care about us as a whole, but only about our souls. Not very benevolent, i must say.

 

[johnhanks]

That an assumption of the point. Wrongful is derivative not determinative. What is determinative is unjustifiable taking of human life. In the context you used my question would be how do you know unjustified taking of human life is wrong without assuming it.

You have defined it as wrong in calling it unjustified. What you are trying to add is some philosophical derivation which will make wrongness or rightness absolute; several millennia of philosophical exertion have shown this to be a futile quest.

Without God humans are biological anomalies that have no basis for claiming any actual value or sanctity.

Why anomalies? Substitute "entities", and you're spot on.

Let me restate. You know wrongful homicide IS actually wrong based on __________________ without God.

The capitals won't make the ugly reality go away. Like everyone else, I call this or that act right or wrong based on my enculturation. Were I a member of this culture and my sister "dishonoured" the family, I might well regard killing her as not merely morally acceptable but a moral duty; were I a Yanomami tribesman I would regard raiding other villages to kill the men and abduct the women as lying quite normally within my moral boundaries. Your enculturation and mine make us regard these acts as "actually wrong"; but we are kidding ourselves if we think our judgments are based on more than that. As I said earlier, you don't have to like this; but your not liking it doesn't make it false.

I am discussing ontology not epistemology. I want foundations not definitions or aspects of apprehension.

What you want and what operates in the real world are very different things. I am concerned with the latter.

 

[kjw47]

So owning another human being is correct?

That only occurred in this satan ruled world, not in Gods original plan.

 

[adi2d]

That only occurred in this satan ruled world, not in Gods original plan.

EVERYTHING that has happened must be according to Gods plan. He is omni everything remember(according to the story at least)

 

[kjw47]

or the child could become a great person as well.

How we raise are children will have a pretty big impact on who they become. How society sets us up has a big impact on who will become. To say that "could have been an evil man" ignores a lot of factors that account for a persons growth and development.

What makes a person become great as you put it? Mans view or Gods view? Those childrens own parents would have handed false god worship and pagan practices to their children--so in Gods view they would have become wicked just like their parents. Is a wicked man great in the view of another man--because he becomes wealthy--intelligent?
satan has used that tool very well over the course of human history--parent to child( wickedness handed down) for almost all of human history--99% have been mislead( wicked in Gods view)-- same today.

1 reason why is because they do not know the difference between the table of God and the table of demons-- because their spiritual teachers are in darkness.

 

[1robin]

You have defined it as wrong in calling it unjustified. What you are trying to add is some philosophical derivation which will make wrongness or rightness absolute; several millennia of philosophical exertion have shown this to be a futile quest.

I see we have went the long way around the barn to wind up exactly where I said we started. With God morality is true. Without him it is a contrivance. Definitions have nothing to do with what reality actually is. I can define the North poll as all covered by steaming black tar but that will not effect what it actually is. Reality is not determined by description. I would hope that those that wish to make laws that deny life to millions of innocent lives in the womb would care if their laws reflected truth or not. My point being that the lack of foundations without God should prohibit gambling others lives but doesn't and that is a reflection of the moral insanity secularism produces.

Why anomalies? Substitute "entities", and you're spot on.

Fine, the terminology changes nothing. Entities do not have inherent rights because they are not called anomalies. They gain no sanctity or value by the arrangement of letters used to label them. Killing a million entities if God does not exist has nothing inherently wrong about it. If humans have God given value, and sanctity there is a real basis for declaring rights and moral truths concerning them. You can't reject God then try and smuggle things only true if he exists back into society and claim it is good or valid.

The capitals won't make the ugly reality go away. Like everyone else, I call this or that act right or wrong based on my enculturation. Were I a member of this culture and my sister "dishonoured" the family, I might well regard killing her as not merely morally acceptable but a moral duty; were I a Yanomami tribesman I would regard raiding other villages to kill the men and abduct the women as lying quite normally within my moral boundaries. Your enculturation and mine make us regard these acts as "actually wrong"; but we are kidding ourselves if we think our judgments are based on more than that. As I said earlier, you don't have to like this; but your not liking it doesn't make it false.

The ugliness is a result of the attempt at morals with insufficient foundations that secularism produces. When you have untethered morality from any foundation beyond human opinion it gets ugly very fast. I reject the claim that morals are produced by cultures so all that follows on that premise has no connection with my argument. To tie morals to the immoral track record of human behavior is inherently faulty and insufficient to even attempt justice. "Enculturation" things do not cease to be mere opinion and preference because you hang a $100 label on them. In a country with a benevolent Christian tradition like the US these insufficiencies are obvious but not as much of a necessity as when you must justify actions against "honor killings" or your tribesman above. If cultural norms were an actual basis for morality you would have to violate your own standard to oppose them. Thank God even those who refuse to admit it still believe there are absolute moral truths and in a country with our tradition have been able to stop the true tyrants and atheist utopias from oppressing everyone, but the moral appeals used to justify our past actions are not justified in your world view or at least inconsistent with it.

What you want and what operates in the real world are very different things. I am concerned with the latter.

Since the polar and mutually exclusive cultural moral norms have operating throughout history, if that is all there is then we are truly without hope. I have not been making an argument that what is good is true. I have been making the argument that if you believe moral truths exist beyond human opinion (things ARE actually right or wrong) then only with God does anyone have any foundation for thinking that way. Without God, the Moral right and wrong, justice, sanctity, equality, and dignity we ALL hold so dear is a subjective delusion.

 

[Ingledsva]

..

Fine, the terminology changes nothing. Entities do not have inherent rights because they are not called anomalies. They gain no sanctity or value by the arrangement of letters used to label them. Killing a million entities if God does not exist has nothing inherently wrong about it. If humans have God given value, and sanctity there is a real basis for declaring rights and moral truths concerning them. You can't reject God then try and smuggle things only true if he exists back into society and claim it is good or valid.

...

Where do you get these ideas?

Human worth is not dependent on a god.

We have evolved to the point where we have personal, cultural, and collective moral values, laws, and "worth."

These are brought about by our experience - not god.

We are not without value because we were not created by a god.

Our "worth" is self realized, and implemented. Self preservation expanded to a group creates our moral ideas and laws.

*

 

[adi2d]

Where do you get these ideas?

Human worth is not dependent on a god.

We have evolved to the point where we have personal, cultural, and collective moral values, laws, and "worth."

These are brought about by our experience - not god.

We are not without value because we were not created by a god.

Our "worth" is self realized, and implemented. Self preservation expanded to a group creates our moral ideas and laws.

*

It seems that many here would be out killing millions if it wasn't for their belief in their God. Maybe best to leave them to their version of reality

 

[johnhanks]

I reject the claim that morals are produced by cultures so all that follows on that premise has no connection with my argument.

Your rejecting the claim does not make it less true, or your argument less futile. But it probably does make any further exchange between us pointless. Feel free to have the last word.

 

[johnhanks]

Where do you get these ideas?

Human worth is not dependent on a god.

We have evolved to the point where we have personal, cultural, and collective moral values, laws, and "worth."

These are brought about by our experience - not god.

We are not without value because we were not created by a god.

Our "worth" is self realized, and implemented. Self preservation expanded to a group creates our moral ideas and laws.

*

What she said.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That only occurred in this satan ruled world, not in Gods original plan.

That's not true as God gives the commandment to the owning of slaves in the OT and Paul defends slavery in the new.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What makes a person become great as you put it? Mans view or Gods view? Those childrens own parents would have handed false god worship and pagan practices to their children--so in Gods view they would have become wicked just like their parents. Is a wicked man great in the view of another man--because he becomes wealthy--intelligent?
satan has used that tool very well over the course of human history--parent to child( wickedness handed down) for almost all of human history--99% have been mislead( wicked in Gods view)-- same today.

1 reason why is because they do not know the difference between the table of God and the table of demons-- because their spiritual teachers are in darkness.

Any view is Gods view if morality comes from God. Noah, Abraham, and Job were considered blameless before God.

 

[CG Didymus]

Any view is Gods view if morality comes from God. Noah, Abraham, and Job were considered blameless before God.

To switch your words around a bit--Anybody (like someone claiming to be a prophet) can make anything morally right by claiming God said it. IRobin acts as if there is only one definition and moral code of the supposed "One God." He is many and people have built their moral standards around their own definitions of that "One God." He is whatever people make him to be. 1Robin's version is very much like a fundamentalist/conservative God. That's the one, that if he exists, does seem very evil. He's nothing like the God that is described in Psalm 91 (Koldo's post #1612). In fact, he's fickle. He keeps changing the rules himself. One time he'll say, "Love thy neighbor" and the next "Go kill your neighbor and all his children and livestock." One time he'll say, "I love my creation" the next he's flooding it and saying "I'm sorry I created man." An absolute moral standard from that guy? Come on 1Robin.

 

[CG Didymus]

Because they were created. God, and the souls were not created, therefore they are not subject to death.



Why? Why take away his free will? Who knows, he may come to repent and lead an upright life, or he could die and be subject to painful rebirths, in any case, it is his will, and out of love for us, God doesn't take our free will away.

What happens to the soul? If it was not created but eternal, how is it different than God? In the Christian way of seeing it, the soul is connected somehow to a physical body with limited brain power to choose correctly. If the body makes the wrong choices and rejects God's plan for salvation, then that eternal soul is condemned for the rest of eternity to hell? Hopefully, you have a better explanation. Maybe reincarnation of the soul? But still, what purpose for several lifetimes of suffering in a physical body? What did the soul need to learn?

 

[Silver Wolf]

What happens to the soul? If it was not created but eternal, how is it different than God? In the Christian way of seeing it, the soul is connected somehow to a physical body with limited brain power to choose correctly. If the body makes the wrong choices and rejects God's plan for salvation, then that eternal soul is condemned for the rest of eternity to hell? Hopefully, you have a better explanation. Maybe reincarnation of the soul? But still, what purpose for several lifetimes of suffering in a physical body? What did the soul need to learn?

Eternal hell makes no sense. It's a slight on God's power. If there was/is a hell, I doubt it would be eternal.
What plan of salvation? There is no such thing. There is salvation (Nirvana & Moksha.) but it has nothing to do with being God's plan.
People need to suffer, no matter how sadistic and perverted that sounds. We also need joy and happiness as well. Through suffering and joy both, we eventually find enlightenment and unification with God.

 

[kjw47]

That's not true as God gives the commandment to the owning of slaves in the OT and Paul defends slavery in the new.

Its a reality in this satan ruled world--Not in Gods original plan which has never changed, and will be a reality within his coming kingdom.

The slaves God was speaking about in the ot was most likely--more like indentured servants--many sold themselves into that arrangement. But there was also slaves who were forced by hard hearts living in darkness.

 

[Rapture Era]

So God stopping Adam and eve from eating from the tree of knowledge wouldn't have stopped our free will? Then why blame them for eating from it? If it was his plan from the start for us to sin why blame us?

If you told your child not to touch the stove and put their fave toy on stove who's at fault when they get burned?

When Adam and Eve were created they were perfect in a perfect world, which is what God intended. God also intended that His creation live forever. Our free will was demostrated and tested by simply saying, look, I have given everything in this perfect world to you. But dont eat from the tree of knowledge, because if you do, you will surely die! What was the reason God said this? There was no reason. He is saying, Im telling you this because I said so. It was NEVER Gods PLAN for us to sin just like it isnt the plan parents for our child to get hurt which is why we warn them of certain things because we know the outcome or consequences of that choice because we are more wise. So then, do we blame our children for making the wrong choice, yes. We warned them and they did it anyway!

Which is why the concept of Original Sin doesn't work all that well. The point I think the story was making is that people were made with conflicting natures, that when given a choice between good and evil they can end up making the negative choice.

I even find it more interesting in that it was their reaction more so than their action. For instance, when asked about their crime, neither Adam or Eve take responsbility. Eve blames the serpent, Adam blames Eve and God.

To me it shows they had an opportunity to ask for Forgiveness but did not. Which is a nother reflection of human nature, that in times of doing wrong we will avoid revealing our fault.

Thats funny! I dont believe Adam and Eve were created with conflicting natures. I believe that when given a choice, yes, we can make the wrong choice and this one was a doozy, because it brought sin into the world that was not part of the original plan due to satan decieving Eve. Had satan not fallen and becoming evil, there would have been no sin, there would have been no tree of knowledge and no tree of life. Funny thing is, we make that same decision every day! We know right from wrong, but say, you know God, we want to decide for ourselves whats right and wrong and whether we should do it or not. When we make the worng decision and get busted, we blame someone or something else just like they did!

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Its a reality in this satan ruled world--Not in Gods original plan which has never changed, and will be a reality within his coming kingdom.

The slaves God was speaking about in the ot was most likely--more like indentured servants--many sold themselves into that arrangement. But there was also slaves who were forced by hard hearts living in darkness.

Nope. There was a difference between Hebrew slaves and non-Hebrew slaves.


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Those were commandments of The Lord

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

When Adam and Eve were created they were perfect in a perfect world, which is what God intended. God also intended that His creation live forever. Our free will was demostrated and tested by simply saying, look, I have given everything in this perfect world to you. But dont eat from the tree of knowledge, because if you do, you will surely die! What was the reason God said this? There was no reason. He is saying, Im telling you this because I said so. It was NEVER Gods PLAN for us to sin just like it isnt the plan parents for our child to get hurt which is why we warn them of certain things because we know the outcome or consequences of that choice because we are more wise. So then, do we blame our children for making the wrong choice, yes. We warned them and they did it anyway!


Thats funny! I dont believe Adam and Eve were created with conflicting natures. I believe that when given a choice, yes, we can make the wrong choice and this one was a doozy, because it brought sin into the world that was not part of the original plan due to satan decieving Eve. Had satan not fallen and becoming evil, there would have been no sin, there would have been no tree of knowledge and no tree of life. Funny thing is, we make that same decision every day! We know right from wrong, but say, you know God, we want to decide for ourselves whats right and wrong and whether we should do it or not. When we make the worng decision and get busted, we blame someone or something else just like they did!

I would argue that Adam and Eve are allegorical. Given what we have learned now which many will of course Deny, it would not be possible for two humans to populate the earth especially in a World as cruel and crude as this one is supposed to be, not to mention that the genetic variety found in our race would not have been possible. But the burden is on you to prove that the serpent in the garden was actually the devil. As I don't think anyone of Jewish descent would even at all entertain that thought. As even in genesis it says "the serpent was the craftiest" indicate that it was the nature of the serpent itself, something found in large amounts of mythology that snakes are crafty, sneaky creatures.

Here's a wiki article on satan in various religions. Look at the one from Judaism

Satan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's why I mention picking and choosing. As Christians we tend to just grab parts of the Jewish midrash's(sp) that we agree on and discard the others. The concept of original sin, does not work in the context of the Old Testament.

And again we have to willfully ignore the evidence that comes before us. Continuously we pick and choose what fits in our reality and disregard the others. That tendency to cling to the old and reject the new. For instance if I asked you who wrote the gospels you would give those names on the top. But scholarly concensus says no, rather we accept what was said long ago as true.

 

[kjw47]

Nope. There was a difference between Hebrew slaves and non-Hebrew slaves.


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Those were commandments of The Lord

And those were indentured servants-- they sold themselves into slavery and yes some sold their children as well.