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

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think it would be was not claiming it was. I think torturing a child without justification would always be wrong but that was not what I claimed. I said if you believe there is an actual object moral truth it requires God. Justification is not treated as if it was subjective and with God's existence would not be. Your speaking of apprehension at best not foundation. The immoral part was a lack of justification as determined by God even if not apprehended by us.

It would have to be aprehended by us, if it's not then it's still subjective. If God sees it one way and we see it another then there isn't a middle ground. It's subjective. IF our morality or all sources of morality come from God then there would not be any differentiating degree of "it's okay here but not okay here"

 

[1robin]

It would have to be aprehended by us, if it's not then it's still subjective. If God sees it one way and we see it another then there isn't a middle ground. It's subjective. IF our morality or all sources of morality come from God then there would not be any differentiating degree of "it's okay here but not okay here"

No, Pluto was an objective reality long before it was apprehended by man. I am not saying justification is not apprahendable just that it's nature is not dependent on it. It may objectively wrong to use blue toothpaste even if we all thought it was the best thing in history. Apprehension has nothing to do with quality or nature. God can say murder is wrong and as a free moral agent I can say it is and do it. However because my apprehension and declarations do not determine truth I will have a rude awakening. Let me show this another way. You must show that no moral objective truths exist or that any one of them can be true without God or my proposition is valid.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

No, Pluto was an objective reality long before it was apprehended by man. I am not saying justification is not apprahendable just that it's nature is not dependent on it. It may objectively wrong to use blue toothpaste even if we all thought it was the best thing in history. Apprehension has nothing to do with quality or nature. God can say murder is wrong and as a free moral agent I can say it is and do it. However because my apprehension and declarations do not determine truth I will have a rude awakening. Let me show this another way. You must show that no moral objective truths exist or that any one of them can be true without God or my proposition is valid.

So what are these moral truths? You say murder is wrong, but murder is just a type of killing that we have agreed is wrong. Are all killings wrong? Only when it's murder, what defines murder? Because manslaughter falls under murder, but would you consider manslaughter as wrong as say full blown serial murders?

Pluto's existence was Objective reality, but morality does not fall in the same basis as "reality" in the sense that we cannot perceive morality. I can't look at something and say "this is moral" it has to have a definition given to it, and ocne defined put into use.

Like for instance Pluto's status as a planet being revoke. That isn't objective simply because it was just a definition that was given to what a planet needs to be.

Anexample I vaguely remember in physics is the directional flow of a current. If I remember correctly is that the flow that was used to determine how the electrons were going was just determined by what was first initially said, it has no actual value.

 

[1robin]

So what are these moral truths? You say murder is wrong, but murder is just a type of killing that we have agreed is wrong. Are all killings wrong? Only when it's murder, what defines murder? Because manslaughter falls under murder, but would you consider manslaughter as wrong as say full blown serial murders?

The argument I made does not require my apprehension. I can give some morals I believe are absolute but that was not part of what I claimed. Neither is the degree of guilt or wrongness. I can discuss them but they have no implication on what I claimed.

Pluto's existence was Objective reality, but morality does not fall in the same basis as "reality" in the sense that we cannot perceive morality. I can't look at something and say "this is moral" it has to have a definition given to it, and ocne defined put into use.

Objective reality has no types in this context. Things exist or do not and perception has no impact on it.

Like for instance Pluto's status as a planet being revoke. That isn't objective simply because it was just a definition that was given to what a planet needs to be.

It's name is subjective as it depends solely on opinion. It's existence did not.

Anexample I vaguely remember in physics is the directional flow of a current. If I remember correctly is that the flow that was used to determine how the electrons were going was just determined by what was first initially said, it has no actual value.

I do electronics for the military and if electrons did not flow in a certain direction very little would function. Electrons flow toward the positive potential by the least resistant path. However the objectiveness of electrons is not indicative of objectiveness on the whole. Maybe they reverse at near absolute zero for all I know.

I notice you did not meet either of my conditions.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The argument I made does not require my apprehension. I can give some morals I believe are absolute but that was not part of what I claimed. Neither is the degree of guilt or wrongness. I can discuss them but they have no implication on what I claimed.

Objective reality has no types in this context. Things exist or do not and perception has no impact on it.

It's name is subjective as it depends solely on opinion. It's existence did not.

I do electronics for the military and if electrons did not flow in a certain direction very little would function. Electrons flow toward the positive potential by the least resistant path. However the objectiveness of electrons is not indicative of objectiveness on the whole. Maybe they reverse at near absolute zero for all I know.

I notice you did not meet either of my conditions.

Because your conditions presuppose that morality is objective. I do not believe it is. How would you prove that Morality is objective, even if God exists? Even degrees of Guilt indicate that we considering some things more moral or less moral than others. If there is a degree of moral acceptance, than it cannot be objective.

IF there needs to be justification it is not objective.

Yet even if God exists, you accept that God allowed Slavery, the slaughter of the Elderly, and Infants. You say that it's okay because we don't understand God, so you are not saying that morality is objective you are saying, that Morality is objective because God says it is Objective.

 

[1robin]

Because your conditions presuppose that morality is objective. I do not believe it is.

Then my argument can't be used with you. You had only those two choices and you have made one of them.

How would you prove that Morality is objective, even if God exists? Even degrees of Guilt indicate that we considering some things more moral or less moral than others. If there is a degree of moral acceptance, than it cannot be objective.

I can't prove it. I was making an argument if you agreed it was objective. If you deny it then the argument has no application with you. Though society will and has suffer for that assumption.

IF there needs to be justification it is not objective.

That is not true I do not think. Let's say God allowed you to kill if you were in a declared war. That would be an objective fact. All facts have circumstances associated with them. They are no less objective because of that.

Yet even if God exists, you accept that God allowed Slavery, the slaughter of the Elderly, and Infants. You say that it's okay because we don't understand God, so you are not saying that morality is objective you are saying, that Morality is objective because God says it is Objective.

Slavery is a word that did not exist at the time. Servitude is a much better interpretation. If servitude was out then is employment in? Why? They had property rights, homes, pay, etc.... It is impossible to have a standard capable of judging God objectively so I usually don't waste time discussing it. God created life, he has complete sovereignty, and he knows everything possible to know. If he can't take the life he created then on what basis do we take lives in the womb? It is a bunch of criminals on death row judging the warden (actually far worse). The base we could do is accept or reject him, we can't demonstrate his evil even if we claim it.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Then my argument can't be used with you. You had only those two choices and you have made one of them.

I can't prove it. I was making an argument if you agreed it was objective. If you deny it then the argument has no application with you. Though society will and has suffer for that assumption.

That is not true I do not think. Let's say God allowed you to kill if you were in a declared war. That would be an objective fact. All facts have circumstances associated with them. They are no less objective because of that.

Slavery is a word that did not exist at the time. Servitude is a much better interpretation. If servitude was out then is employment in? Why? They had property rights, homes, pay, etc.... It is impossible to have a standard capable of judging God objectively so I usually don't waste time discussing it. God created life, he has complete sovereignty, and he knows everything possible to know. If he can't take the life he created then on what basis do we take lives in the womb? It is a bunch of criminals on death row judging the warden (actually far worse). The base we could do is accept or reject him, we can't demonstrate his evil even if we claim it.

The word not existing for it does not make the act itself not a reality. A person was owned (and the OT applicable or not makes it clear that God allowed slaves of other nations to be made and they were not held to the same standards as the Israelites).

If the standard is God then it is by that Standard we would have to judge God.

The moment qualities are attributed to God then you have things to measure God by.

Usage of the term Agape for instance to describe Gods love, is an example. Agape is unconditional love. At any point a condition is put towards Gods love then you have something to Judge against or by.

 

[1robin]

The word not existing for it does not make the act itself not a reality. A person was owned (and the OT applicable or not makes it clear that God allowed slaves of other nations to be made and they were not held to the same standards as the Israelites).

Have you got secretaries or something. I can't keep up. The assigning of a word that did not exist at the time and has gained modern associations may not necessarily reflect the quality of the word it is used to interpret. By what standard can you claim that God's allowing ownership (which is another inaccurate English word) is actually wrong? You said you do not believe there is even a moral truth at all. What standard are you condemning God, Your opinion? Tradition? Hitler's opinion? Mother Theresa's? There are two other issue that are involved. God may allow but not desire. He allowed divorce and slavery because of out sin not his? He is not bound by rules that apply to finite fallible creatures. He may kill a nice guy who would later be a worse Hitler, or in our ignorance we may kill a fetus that would later cure cancer. The rules derived in ignorance do not bind the omniscient.

If the standard is God then it is by that Standard we would have to judge God.

I agree. Can you condemn God by God. That is why I don't spend to much time judging him? I either accept him or reject him, judging him is a waste of time.

The moment qualities are attributed to God then you have things to measure God by.

Yes. If he ever said that he would never do X and then did X then you can condemn him as a liar.

Usage of the term Agape for instance to describe Gods love, is an example. Agape is unconditional love. At any point a condition is put towards Gods love then you have something to Judge against or by.

My parents loved me but whipped me quite often for good reason even though I did not agree in my ignorance. Isn't the same true of our existence and God. You can love something and destroy it without contradiction.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Have you got secretaries or something. I can't keep up. The assigning of a word that did not exist at the time and has gained modern associations may not necessarily reflect the quality of the word it is used to interpret. By what standard can you claim that God's allowing ownership (which is another inaccurate English word) is actually wrong? You said you do not believe there is even a moral truth at all. What standard are you condemning God, Your opinion? Tradition? Hitler's opinion? Mother Theresa's? There are two other issue that are involved. God may allow but not desire. He allowed divorce and slavery because of out sin not his? He is not bound by rules that apply to finite fallible creatures. He may kill a nice guy who would later be a worse Hitler, or in our ignorance we may kill a fetus that would later cure cancer. The rules derived in ignorance do not bind the omniscient.

I agree. Can you condemn God by God. That is why I don't spend to much time judging him? I either accept him or reject him, judging him is a waste of time.

Yes. If he ever said that he would never do X and then did X then you can condemn him as a liar.

My parents loved me but whipped me quite often for good reason even though I did not agree in my ignorance. Isn't the same true of our existence and God. You can love something and destroy it without contradiction.

Lol, while I understand the whipping thing, research has shown that it does more damage than actual Good for a child.

That being said though, Parents only have a limited amount of Options. Options, if we presuppose an omni-max God, are virtually unlimited. So while a parent may have to resort to whipping, it isn't the only way, while a parent might have to resort to destroying it isn't the only way.

Further, the Omni-max quality gives God the ability to make any decision the best possible decision. There is virtually no limit to what God can do (even if you try to use natural law-in this case logic).

So Yes while you can Destroy what you Love, you do not have the qualities that God has. And if the Love is Agape God's attempt will be to further your happiness, not Gods own.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

These very early issues are hard to pin down as they are usually in apocalyptic and archaic language and not the part of the Bible I read much. Satan was not created rebellious but with the capacity to rebel.

God could not be perfectly righteous Himself and create something evil. But He clearly made Satan with a will, and with the ability to choose whether to obey Him or not. Thus while God did not create evil, He allowed for the possibility of evil.
Satan Becomes Evil

You might want to think about the issue more, even if those passages are hard for you to read, because what you've told us so far suggests that at least one of these possibilities is true:

- God created evil. Not just "allowed for" evil, but he actually created it himself.
- It is not evil to rebel against God... which has all sorts of implications for the justness of sentencing non-believers to Hell.

 

[1robin]

Lol, while I understand the whipping thing, research has shown that it does more damage than actual Good for a child.

Is that why it is known that the worst thing that can be done to a kid is to not discipline him. I had a teacher that I hated and feared for my life at times with. Everyone in the class made a B or better. I do not care how a child gets disciplined but the worst thing is to not do so effectively.

That being said though, Parents only have a limited amount of Options. Options, if we presuppose an omni-max God, are virtually unlimited. So while a parent may have to resort to whipping, it isn't the only way, while a parent might have to resort to destroying it isn't the only way.

Ok

Further, the Omni-max quality gives God the ability to make any decision the best possible decision. There is virtually no limit to what God can do (even if you try to use natural law-in this case logic).

God doe snot have infinite options in dealing with a creature that he has given certain rights, capacities and limitations. However the argument can't even take place until you show God both has other options and better options given his purposes. If God killed you must show he should not have? Good luck.

So Yes while you can Destroy what you Love, you do not have the qualities that God has. And if the Love is Agape God's attempt will be to further your happiness, not Gods own.

Unconditional love is not inconsistent with destruction of the object that is loved. He is also perfectly just. He is the lamb and also the lion. I do not even think God loves us all in that way. Agape is a capacity to love what does not merit love, not universal love. God hated Esau. Fortunately that is the only exception to his loving us I know of but he loves us despite our having no merits that compels his love. I can love a dog and kill the dog even if I have other options. I do not know that he always loves everyone that way. I will look into it. I have enjoyed the debate. Your are civil and respectful even if your math is quite funky. I have to go for today. Have a good one.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Is that why it is known that the worst thing that can be done to a kid is to not discipline him. I had a teacher that I hated and feared for my life at times with. Everyone in the class made a B or better. I do not care how a child gets disciplined but the worst thing is to not do so effectively.

Ok

God doe snot have infinite options in dealing with a creature that he has given certain rights, capacities and limitations. However the argument can't even take place until you show God both has other options and better options given his purposes. If God killed you must show he should not have? Good luck.

Unconditional love is not inconsistent with destruction of the object that is loved. He is also perfectly just. He is the lamb and also the lion. I do not even think God loves us all in that way. Agape is a capacity to love what does not merit love, not universal love. God hated Esau. Fortunately that is the only exception to his loving us I know of but he loves us despite our having no merits that compels his love. I can love a dog and kill the dog even if I have other options. I do not know that he always loves everyone that way. I will look into it. I have enjoyed the debate. Your are civil and respectful even if your math is quite funky. I have to go for today. Have a good one.

Right but you are limited. That's the difference between God and People. God would not have those limitations that we have, as such while we would require pain and suffering to discipline God would not. I may not be able to show all the possibilities, but I am not omniscient. Nor or powerful. God could easily create a universe were all those who do not want to serve God would be place their and allowed to live out their days. God could create a completely perfect world with free will. Given that most of our actions throughout the day tend more towards neutrality than Good or Bad, I would say that it's feasible.

Agape is usually attributed to Love of Humankind (not just sections of humans), as such it relates to God and Christ for us. Of course like many words it has had many meanings, but many look at Agape as not only unconditional, but as also active.

If we go by that Gods love is Agape then it would stand that it is an active love (not a one time thing), and is something that is demonstrated. I also refer to God doing what is best for the individual off the case of the verse that a father would not give a child a serpent who asks for a loaf of bread (paraphrasing), going at that, God will provide for humanity the best that can be given.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Good Lord man. If God ordered the death of someone in what way could it be shown he was wrong? BY what standard? He did carry out his wrath at times and he was attacked for it as well by those who are apparently such God's themselves their standards can judge him even if they can't even create a just world. If you are going to indicate God for killing then you are going to have to come up with a competent judge, sufficient standard, and prove injustice. I do not even see an attempt at any one of these.

Don’t sidestep the question. God commands that murder is wrong, and then commands that his chosen people commit murder. How does that make sense, and what’s moral about it?

Don’t give me this “we can’t judge god’s morality” stuff when you’re using your own judgment to deem that “he” is good and moral in the first place.

In my opinion, the Bible was obviously written by human beings which is reflected in the fact that what they wrote was in line with the society in which they found themselves. So what I am doing is judging the morality of human beings who lived thousands of years ago.

If you have an alternative then you must have the capacity to rightly judge God. Is that going to show up any time soon. Your side of the aisle has lacked the capacity to justly govern Earthly matters but insists it can judge God's. Is it possible to get any more arrogant than this.]A race that kills it's own by the billions on an industrial scale just has no case against God.

The race that kills its own by the billions seems to be almost perfectly in line with god’s desires, given that he supposedly commanded acts of genocide on many occasions, in your holy book.

I find it utterly bizarre that you can readily admit that genocide is wrong and immoral when you think humans have made the judgment call, but right and good when you believe your god is making the judgment call. And it speaks to one of the major issues I have with religion, which I already mentioned. In one instance it’s a-ok, in another it’s a heinous act. How about you just exercise your own morality, as we all do, and admit that genocide is wrong and immoral in all instances, rather than defending it because you have no other choice but to agree with what the Bible dictates. It seems that in defense of the Bible and/or god, people are willing to throw their own morality to the wind which is extremely disconcerting to me. Once you can do that, you’re on the fast track to committing atrocities with impunity.

And here again, you sidestepped my point about the problems with divine authority and how it is not a system of morality. You do it every time I bring it up.

The God of the bible comes within a context. That context has nature running unsupervised most of the time and God only occasional stepping into it. We also have a nature than can regulate its self but not explain or produce its self. A god that explains exceptions is the exact type of God the Bible posits. I deny you assertion motivation because we did not invent that God (at least not since the things that needed explaining were known). Call God whatever you wish if it makes you feel better but our motivation is not to invent anything to fill gaps that happen to not be known at the time.

Sorry but like I say, I’ve seen it time and time again. Ray Comfort is famous for it. He pushes and pushes until you’re forced to say “I don’t know” then he crams god into your “I don’t know.”

Calm down? If I was any more calm I would be dead. Of course there is work to be done. 100% of it as a matter of fact. I am all for them attempting it to. I only insist God (which has mountains of evidence) is not dismissed for lack of proof, if multiverses (which have 0 evidence) are posited as a valid possibility.

Multiverses actually have some (preliminary) evidence, as I’ve JUST demonstrated.

When you can come up with some empirical evidence for the specific god you believe in that amounts to more than personal experience, feel free to let me know.

I believe I already read that same nothing you posted. I quoted the site!!! We do not know what gravity is or why it does what it does, nor what the weather will be 48 hours from now and argue on how many soldier Picket's charge had in it with battle reports from participants but you suggest we know what happened a billion years ago and that wethink multiverse exist because of four non-typical measurements in a universe where 99.999999999999% of it is unobservable. Simply remarkable.

Yes, I know you at least skimmed over it. When I quote something, I like to try to give the source.

I suggest it is possible to determine what happened billions of years ago and SO DO YOU, as you readily and eagerly accept Big Bang (without considering any other options for some reason).

First it was not evidence at all. It was a measurement that a theory was associated with.

Uh, yes it is. Feeney and his colleagues hypothesized that if multiverses do in fact exist, we should be able to find inhomogeneities in the cosmic background radiation that would be produced as a result of bubble universes colliding with each other. They created an algorithm to search for these “bubble collisions” with specific properties, and found four circular patterns. If it’s not preliminary evidence, what would you call it?

Second the other 99.999999999999% of evidence we actually do have posits a finite universe. We are also finite and decisions must be made that are consistent with the most reliable facts actually known. Why is it only concerning God that things are deferred or theories considered in-spite of reliable evidence. Believe what you wish but I insist on consistent standards in a debate. Either always go with the best evidence or against it but do so consistently.

Gee, how did they manage to figure out what might have happened billions of years ago? And why do you accept it without even considering anything else? Is it because you think it fits with your preconceived ideas about your god?

There is no empirical evidence for god. I think you have said there never can be. So there’s your answer.

I don't care what they do. In fact I am all for their checking into whatever they wish. I only insist that consistent standards are maintained and they are not.

Consistent standard ARE maintained. You’re just upset they won’t consider your unverifiable god ideas.

That is fine but what we know now is consistent with God and we must decide upon that within our lifespan. Why have you adopted the theological position in spite of the evidence and talked mostly about the almost infinitely less evidenced cosmological nature of the universe. Inconsistent. God is consistent with facts and multiverse inconsistent.

What we know now is consistent with god? What are you talking about? What facts are you talking about????????

 

[SkepticThinker]

The heck it isn't. It is so accurate it is a primary archeology resource. In every historical or legal claim what can be verified is used to establish the reliability of what can't. Why are you yet again going against that perfectly logical method only when it concerns God. The unreliability of other theological works where they can be checked are the very reasons I deny them the same as why I accept he Bible. The Quran is a historical train wreck.

The heck it is! It is not so accurate. Maybe it is to believers like yourself who wish it to be so. It has about the same historical significance as any other folk story or mythology. The miracle claims contained within the Bible are not verifiable in any way.

As I have said over and over. The most accepted cosmological model is a single finite universe. A theory that has a total of four non-typical measurements in an entire universe is not science. I can look around and make up unsubstantiated theories but I do not call it science. The universe is defined as everything. How is the study of other everything's science? It is not even coherent.

Big Bang doesn’t rule out the possibility of a multiverse and it doesn’t tell us what, if anything, existed prior to it.

Measurement of cosmic background radiation IS science. It’s how they determined there was a big bang in the first place! You might not like what they’re doing, but you can’t say it isn’t science. You’re just wrong.

He is an authority on science, no one is an authority on multiple universes.

Well, you said the things he is doing aren’t science. So he can’t be an authority on science if he’s not doing science. Please stop referring to him.

The big bang is not based on the same evidence and has almost infinitely more of it than multiverses. We can see things flying apart. You can't see other universes. If you consider the two even remotely based on the same quality of evidence or the amount of it I just give up.

We can potentially see the EFFECTS of other universes colliding with each other, for example. As we can the effects that wind produces when it interacts with the environment. That’s what was discussed in the article you dismissed. Didn’t you say you read it??

Yes it is based on the same kinds of evidence. Are you actually saying this? Of course there’s more evidence for it, but at one point there wasn’t, until they studied further and acquired more evidence. According to you, studying cosmic background radiation isn’t practicing science, so why do you accept Big Bang as scientific?

I see that invisible high ground is still a substitute for an argument that could not be made on merit.

Sorry, but you just said you weren’t going to read any more articles on the subject. To me, that is giving up to ignorance. You want to just accept the thing you like and forget the rest. Go right ahead if that’s what you want to do. I’m not going to do that when all the data isn’t in yet. I don’t think that’s a good way of acquiring new knowledge.

That is almost the polar opposite of what is the best solution for the given facts.

I don’t see how it is. Why do you disagree that people have been making religious claims for centuries and that all of them cannot possibly be right, but they can all be wrong? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Only in your world is the virtually universal apprehension of something evidence it does not exist. God grief.

Only in your mind does this sentence make any sense.

Then multiverses are off that short list. In fact the only thing on it is that we think we think. That is a perfect example of double standards. Science - anything and everything is just fine, even nothing is evidence. Theology - nothing but demonstrable proof is sufficient (and it is only theoretically enough, I actually doubt it).

There are many thinks that are verifiable and demonstrable beyond “we think we think.”

Nothing is evidence? What are you talking about? Four circular patterns is not “nothing.” It is four circular patterns. What is it? What does it mean? According to you, it’s nothing and we should forget about it. Good thing Hubble didn’t say the same about Cepheid variables.

There is no double standard here. The existence (or non-existence) of multiverses is potentially demonstrable, as explained in the article you dismissed.

You may have read the Bible but if you do not know this you did not understand it. The law in every form has two functions. To pattern our living and to point out our failure. The law has never saved anyone and is powerless to do so. The standard is perfection.

I’m asking YOU what YOU think. As we know, Christians disagree on a ton of things, Biblical interpretation being one of them.

Great, so if the standard is perfection, then we’re all doomed. Great philosophy you’ve got there.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is that why it is known that the worst thing that can be done to a kid is to not discipline him. I had a teacher that I hated and feared for my life at times with. Everyone in the class made a B or better. I do not care how a child gets disciplined but the worst thing is to not do so effectively.

Who is this known to? I'd say the worst thing that can be done to a child is to torture, beat or sexually assault them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well I am in good company.

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists.”


William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.
He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.

No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.

He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian

So what? Should I provide some Hitchens and Harris quotes to back up my opinion? What’s the point?

None of these quotes back up your claim anyway.

The conservative Christian American is the most generous demographic on Earth. Christians created more school systems, charities, and hospitals than any cultural group has. The Christian US saved the world from tyranny twice and communism many times. It contains both the book and the person more universally associated with love, compassion, perfection, and benevolence of any in human history. We invented many of the fields of science and the breakthroughs they contain.

Oh boy! More grandiose claims to add to the pile!

See above. You must first prove they were Christians then that they were obeying Christ. Only your side would evaluate a teacher by his most rebellious students and ignore the most loyal and obedient.

Well, let’s see … they said they were Christians, and they used the Bible to justify their actions. That makes them Christians to me. It wasn’t just a few random, rogue people committing those atrocities against humanity for hundreds of years, it was church leaders and elders. How do you know they’re not the true Christians and you aren’t?

Don’t give me this no true Scotsman junk.

Science has never cured anything. Science is a word.

Oh excuse me. The PRODUCTS of the scientific method have done the most good for humanity, by far. I’m sure you had no idea what I was talking about, right?
It has cured horrible diseases, increased the human lifespan, provided us with every bit of knowledge we currently hold, drastically decreased infant mortality rates, allowed us to view and traverse parts of the universe, you name it.

A word that Hitler used to sew twins together with, Stalin used to implement genocidal tactics based on evolution, and has been actually used to claim morality is an illusion its self.

Hitler and Stalin weren’t real scientists. There, I used your shoddy line of argumentation.

One of sciences chemicals in less than 4 years alone killed more people that Christians did in 2000. We have cell phones and yet kill millions of humans in the womb. We have Nintendo and the capacity to wipe all life in the known universe out and the moral insanity to have almost done so at least twice and it is getting worse. Even at sciences best it is ultimately futile because we still die and always will. See the above again. Christ said what will you profit if you gain the world and lose your soul. Apparently you are striking an even less appealing bargain.

Yes, science is waste of time and produces terrible things which have never helped humanity in any way. There’s no way you believe that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good Lord man. If God ordered the death of someone in what way could it be shown he was wrong? BY what standard?

By any normal standard.

By what standard can God be shown to be good? If you can find one - a VALID one - then you can use it to judge God's evil actions to be evil.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Well I think the current consensus is that there isn't much backing for the conquests that are recorded in the book of Joshua.

 

[1robin]

Right but you are limited. That's the difference between God and People. God would not have those limitations that we have, as such while we would require pain and suffering to discipline God would not. I may not be able to show all the possibilities, but I am not omniscient. Nor or powerful. God could easily create a universe were all those who do not want to serve God would be place their and allowed to live out their days. God could create a completely perfect world with free will. Given that most of our actions throughout the day tend more towards neutrality than Good or Bad, I would say that it's feasible.

Agape is usually attributed to Love of Humankind (not just sections of humans), as such it relates to God and Christ for us. Of course like many words it has had many meanings, but many look at Agape as not only unconditional, but as also active.

If we go by that Gods love is Agape then it would stand that it is an active love (not a one time thing), and is something that is demonstrated. I also refer to God doing what is best for the individual off the case of the verse that a father would not give a child a serpent who asks for a loaf of bread (paraphrasing), going at that, God will provide for humanity the best that can be given.

I think Agape means that God loves without what he loves deserving the love he has for it. I do not think it is compulsory heaven for all and God must choke back his wrath. He does love even though we do not deserve it but he does judge and does execute judgment. What was the original premise in the debate? What are you trying to demonstrate?

 

[1robin]

Don’t sidestep the question. God commands that murder is wrong, and then commands that his chosen people commit murder. How does that make sense, and what’s moral about it?

Don’t give me this “we can’t judge god’s morality” stuff when you’re using your own judgment to deem that “he” is good and moral in the first place.

How many times do I have to state I rarely use good in connection with God. I use right. However I grant him goodness as a matter of faith, not judgment or as only consistent with my moral opinion of what good is. You can claim God is inconsistent with your moral codes (whatever they might be) but if you wish to claim he is actually bad or evil then you MUST have a standard capable of making that judgment. I side-stepped nothing but went back to find the absolutely necessary standards you must have but do not. Stop side stepping and provide them or the argument is invalid.

In my opinion, the Bible was obviously written by human beings

So your assuming the premise and then simply asserting a conclusion. Of what persuasive value is that? BTW how did those ignorant men make 2500 accurate prophecies and 25,000 extremely accurate descriptions and then suddenly go insane every time a supernatural claim is made and then die for the lie they knew was untrue by the thousands. Dyeing in the process of killing others for a faith is very common. Willingly laying down lives passively by thousands including those that knew it was a lie if it was, is very rare. The Bible has every mark of sincerity and honesty that a methods exists to test it with.

The race that kills its own by the billions seems to be almost perfectly in line with god’s desires, given that he supposedly commanded acts of genocide on many occasions, in your holy book.

If you added up everyone God killed (including the flood), ordered killed, Jews killed with or without permission, all the Christians wars (30 years, 100 years, crusades) plus the inquisitions and even the military deaths the conquistadors caused without permission from God they would still not total a meaningful fraction of either the abortions performed or what atheist Stalin killed alone. However let's just pretend they each killed one billion people per side. The side that did not create the life, has no sovereignty over any of the lives, does not have a fraction of the needed information to make the decision justly, and can't take care of the soul after death demands the right to kill at will, but denies it to the side that has all those things. This is not simply wrong this is moral insanity. Since even the slowest witted among us can't justify this but even the most intelligent attempt to it must be spiritual and moral blindness that affirms yet another biblical claim.

I find it utterly bizarre that you can readily admit that genocide is wrong and immoral when you think humans have made the judgment call, but right and good when you believe your god is making the judgment call.

And until you actually come up with the capacity, standard, or reason why your judgment should even be considered accurate enough to even be relevant I will continue to do so. BTW where do you get genocide anyway. God did not kill the Canaanites because they were Canaanites nor did he wipe them out in the first place.

And it speaks to one of the major issues I have with religion, which I already mentioned. In one instance it’s a-ok, in another it’s a heinous act.

Just as in cutting off an appendages. It depends on circumstances, capacity, and authority. You must prove several things before you can even begin to actually make the argument you are simply assuming.

1. God did not have morally justifiable reasons to take a life.
2. That your moral compass is true and objectively accurate.

I will make it easy and only give you those two. You MUST prove both to even begin the argument. You can resist or hate God all you wish but you have no case until those two questions are answered. Until you do you are only able to say you do not like what God did which is irrelevant.

And here again, you sidestepped my point about the problems with divine authority and how it is not a system of morality. You do it every time I bring it up.

I do not like the philosophy of divine authority. I avoided it for years but unlike other I eventually give in to what is correct even if I do not like it. The argument necessitates you deal with standards and capacities. You keep wishing to assume the entire premise of your claim which is a terrible defect of your sides argumentation and I will keep going back to the necessities of the argument until you meet the. It's logic and so I am not surprised you resent it.

Sorry but like I say, I’ve seen it time and time again. Ray Comfort is famous for it. He pushes and pushes until you’re forced to say “I don’t know” then he crams god into your “I don’t know.”

Never heard of him. I have explained this enough. Believe what you wish as you would anyway.

Continued: