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

[1robin]

More that the source you used does not seem reliable. It may not have an impact on your response but it is still something I would caution. In research providing unreliable sources to defend yourself lends target for the rest of your argument as well.

Christian led empires have their fair share of genocides under their belt, but I would not say it was the greatest. There's plenty of reasons though for how and why genocide is implemented. The religious beliefs are only a small segment of that.

As far as I see, Genocide is indicative of humans not necessarily the religions that they preach.

My sources get as detailed and numerous as a claim gets contentious. I did not think anyone would deny claims about the genocide in India so I did not provide a wealth of sources. I can do so and will if you need them but I have been forced by time to always provide only what is justifiable in the time I have. Central and controversial claims get much attention, secondary and what I think is common knowledge get much less.

You are right that fallibility is a human condition. However would you not agree that for example Stalin's elimination of God would also eliminate any justification for the belief that human life has objective value, life has sanctity, humans have intrinsic worth and dignity, equality, or ultimate accountability. It would reduce a soul possessing divine creation to a genetic anomaly with no more rights or actual value than an ant. Could you not see how this would make what he did more likely? As Dostoevsky said without God all things are permissible. This is why in modern times most of the massive genocides have been from the great atheistic utopias. I take atheists one at a time and generally find them as moral as anyone. However atheism it's self has many many moral shortcomings compared with Christianity.

 

[1robin]

To me it seems that genocide is a product of tribalism. Tribes hate and sometimes kill other tribes.

And with humans, the tribe can be a mental one. A religion. We're surely the only animal which kills our fellows for thinking incorrect thoughts.

There exist no end to the reasons humans find to be inhuman. They are not exclusive to religion. The only reason you hear them said concerning religion so much is they are they direct contradictions of religions. I think this is appropriate but often mistakenly used. Any priest that abuses children should be publically ostracized, however unless a significant percentage are doing so the religion is not indicted by their actions. IOW there is nothing in the Bible that makes rape or torture legitimate. However there would be something in evolution to make racism justifiable. There might even be Islamic verses that justify violence. However indicting a religion for acts in contradiction to it are absurd but all too common.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

IOW there is nothing in the Bible that makes rape or torture legitimate. However there would be something in evolution to make racism justifiable. There might even be Islamic verses that justify violence. However indicting a religion for acts in contradiction to it are absurd but all too common.

Heehee... it just so happens that your religion teaches nothing negative, but others do.

Surprise, surprise.

 

[1robin]

Heehee... it just so happens that your religion teaches nothing negative, but others do.

Surprise, surprise.

That would be a natural necessity of any true religion. By divine command theory whatever God did would be right by it's very nature. However I was pointing out that what God revealed cannot even be used to justify what we commonly think as being wrong. Two different subjects.

See divine command theory as you do not seem to even know it exists.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

See divine command theory as you do not seem to even know it exists.

God and I are tight as ticks, so I don't need other people to instruct me in God theory. But thanks for offering.

 

[johnhanks]

I cannot understand why this is confusing.

My claim: God promised to protect and prosper those faithful to him.

1. The criteria is faithfulness to him.
2. Whatever happens in any nation not faithful to him is not part of the discussion.
3. A secular an unfaithful nation may prosper, it may fail. It has no relevance to his promise.
4. If that nation turns it's back on him he promised negative results would incur.
5. If a nation was not faithful and did not turn it's back on him they do not qualify under this promise.

You still put yourself in the position of claiming

1. All instances which tally with my hypothesis are evidence for it.
2. No instances which clash with my hypothesis are evidence against it.

I could by the same logic prove that ten years ago god punished Republican-voting states with hurricanes, citing this well-known graphic:

Faced with the obvious objections to my conclusion (such as instances of hurricanes in Democratic states), I can take my cue from 1robin and blithely say "Whatever happens in Democrat-voting states is not part of the discussion". Would that argument really impress you?

 

[1robin]

God and I are tight as ticks, so I don't need other people to instruct me in God theory. But thanks for offering.

Apparently you do need it because if you had it you would not have asked questions it had answered long ago. God is the locus of moral truth. No matter what any human ever thought about it his declarations would be morally perfect because he is the source of the moral standard by which to judge them by. It is an all too convenient necessity but one that has no counter. If you knew this very simple stuff you could avoid a lot of your questions.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Apparently you do need it because if you had it you would not have asked questions it had answered long ago. God is the locus of moral truth. No matter what any human ever thought about it his declarations would be morally perfect because he is the source of the moral standard by which to judge them by. It is an all too convenient necessity but one that has no counter. If you knew this very simple stuff you could avoid a lot of your questions.

If I knew that simple stuff, I'd be as lost from God as the average American Christian seems to me.

God's declaration. Goodness. As if 1robin is the one person on this planet to tell me which words have come from God and which haven't.

 

[1robin]

You still put yourself in the position of claiming

1. All instances which tally with my hypothesis are evidence for it.
2. No instances which clash with my hypothesis are evidence against it.

I thought I had explained this thoroughly. The data set that is used to evaluate my claims is not a random data set that can be gathered from any preferred source. It must only come from places that meet the criteria. That was my whole point. I cannot in fact use any gain to claim God caused it or vice versa. I can only look at three groups for the three claims.

1. Claim one: requires I can only look at nations who are obedient to God. If they are successful my hypothesis is true, if not it if falsified.
2. Claim two: requires that I can only look at nations who were once obedient to God but have betrayed that charge. If they prosper my claim has failed. IF they consistently flounder my claim is valid.
3. Claim three: I can only look at post diaspora Israel. If they win wars they should not my theory is supported. If they are taken over as every neighbor they have has tried to do my theory is unsound.

I cannot use any data set I find. I can't use nominally Christian nations unless they were recently committed Christian nations. I can't use secular nations. I can't use nations with significant commitments to other religions. My data sets must only come from very specific groups which rule out vastly more data than they allow. This is exactly what I have been saying in recent posts and the exact opposite of what you claimed. Either I am in-articulate or your so committed to your theory you are not reading carefully. I am very restricted in data selection.

I could by the same logic prove that ten years ago god punished Republican-voting states with hurricanes, citing this well-known graphic:

Faced with the obvious objections to my conclusion (such as instances of hurricanes in Democratic states), I can take my cue from 1robin and blithely say "Whatever happens in Democrat-voting states is not part of the discussion". Would that argument really impress you?

There is no revelation about voting precincts to compare any data with. In almost every corporate judgment in the bible nations are used. Not counties, parishes, precincts, nor voting records. There are no prophecies about political parties and God. You have invented a prediction out of thin air, after the data was available. There is a word for that I can't remember. I am using several thousand year old revelation. You are slapping predictions from no where on data you already had. These two concepts are not equivalent or even similar so that was a false equality fallacy.

I do not care nor have made any claim about other predictions. I simply find a prediction long preceding data that correlates with reality. It was not even an attempt to prove anything. It was an attempt to show data (very specific data) correlates with Biblical predictions. If Israel is attacked by someone (or many someone's) that can actually fight and is taken over then you have a case. If the Christian US was not the most prosperous in history and the secular US a complete not a complete failure you would have a case. Or find a British empire that did not mirror the US in the exact same way you would have a case. Or find a Roman empire that did not mirror the case you have a point. What you provided was not a case.

 

[1robin]

Are you sure it exists? Sometimes we get confused in our argumentation. It happens to everyone.

Tell me who made the claim that Christians are responsible for most genocides. Maybe I can find it that way.

Pretty sure, but I am not perfect. I usually do not invest that much time countering a non-existent claim.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Pretty sure, but I am not perfect. I usually do not invest that much time countering a non-existent claim.

Sometimes our memories fail us. I didn't see anyone make that claim (which you say you are countering), so I was curious to study it. Not a big deal.

 

[1robin]

Sometimes our memories fail us. I didn't see anyone make that claim (which you say you are countering), so I was curious to study it. Not a big deal.

Then why don't you go with that. I guess we are done here, then.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Then why don't you go with that.

I was hoping you might stop and examine your claim. You know -- ask yourself whether you may have created something which didn't really exist.

I'm always trying to help folks self-examine. But I don't always succeed.

 

[truthBtold]

If a christian prays to god to get rid of their cancer, and the cancer is then gone.. Christians say that god answers prayers! But if it doesnt go away for say 2 years and then its gone christians say that god finally answered the prayer. In that time of 2 years of having the cancer and all the pain and all the heart ache and stress, what possibly can be the reason that god waited while u suffered? The answer of "its all in gods plan" or "god works in mysterious ways" will not cut it in this scenario.

 

[johnhanks]

I cannot use any data set I find. I can't use nominally Christian nations unless they were recently committed Christian nations.

And by what criterion do you decide that Uganda (for example) is not a committed Christian nation? Other, that is, than the fact that it is neither wealthy nor powerful and does not fit your hypothesis.

I can't use secular nations. I can't use nations with significant commitments to other religions. My data sets must only come from very specific groups which rule out vastly more data than they allow. This is exactly what I have been saying in recent posts and the exact opposite of what you claimed. Either I am in-articulate or your so committed to your theory you are not reading carefully. I am very restricted in data selection.

A restriction you impose upon yourself conveniently to eliminate contrary cases. You have yet to show us that you are selecting the data on any grounds other than their support for your position.

Dress it up how you like, robin, but your entire argument still boils down to "national prosperity is a consequence of god's beneficence, except when it isn't".

 

[1robin]

If a christian prays to god to get rid of their cancer, and the cancer is then gone.. Christians say that god answers prayers! But if it doesnt go away for say 2 years and then its gone christians say that god finally answered the prayer. In that time of 2 years of having the cancer and all the pain and all the heart ache and stress, what possibly can be the reason that god waited while u suffered? The answer of "its all in gods plan" or "god works in mysterious ways" will not cut it in this scenario.

The heck it will not work. It may or may not be true but it certainly is consistent and sound reasoning. Evil and our revulsion to it has two components. A philosophical component and an emotional component. I can and will show you how the philosophical problems associated with evil can easily be cleared up. No weapon ever formed has any effect on the emotional component. So even if I clear up the philosophical problems the revulsion remains because it is based on emotion. Regardless, God can use what we consider evil or bad in ways no human could ever fathom. A mind as finite and faulty as ours has shown it's self to be trying to decide what a perfect and infinite mind could have done or not is worse than a slug telling Newton his calculus was wrong. I will give you a few examples.

One of the Apostles (can't remember which for some reason) had what he called was a thorn in the flesh. Most think it a medical infirmity or even a bad habit of some kind. However he asked God to remove it and God said he would not. That used to bother me quite a bit until I found out why. That apostle had a problem with pride and self reliance. His infirmity made him far more humble and dependent on God that he would have been without it.

In my own case my Mother was the only Christian in my family but we went to a mediocre church regularly. Not one of the rest of us were saved but had some notion of head faith. My mother contracted cancer. Over the next five years prayer teams and everything known to man was used, nothing worked. Since I do not like remembering this let me just say that this example was probably worse than anything you have ever heard of. I do not know how this worked but because of this I became obsessed with God. Mainly because I wanted to once and for all show he was either missing or evil. That meant I was constantly thinking about him and evaluating anything said about him. This eventually produced so much evidence I had no other explanation for I started considering he may exist after all. Immediately God placed very meaningful people in my path and eventually (against my previous will) I was born again. Not long after my sister and brother were saved. Now knowing more about me and my family than anyone I would say if not for her getting sick we would all have never been saved but thought we were getting to heaven anyway by association and would have instead wound up in hell. Because God became a necessary issue to discern because of her sickness we are all born again believers and will be in heaven. Not one person on earth would have predicted what that sickness could be used for.

Humans are so rebellious it many times takes shocking tragedies to wake us up and take our minds off of the club, the new computers, or face book and really think about God seriously. You will find tragedy in almost every Christians past. Usually only when this trivial world betrays you and looses it's luster are we free to contemplate the more meaningful aspects of reality. Who is to say exactly what form that takes.

Your decisions made in complete ignorance about how much suffering or evil is no longer acceptable is completely unjustifiable. You could not possibly know.

 

[1robin]

And by what criterion do you decide that Uganda (for example) is not a committed Christian nation? Other, that is, than the fact that it is neither wealthy nor powerful and does not fit your hypothesis.
A restriction you impose upon yourself conveniently to eliminate contrary cases. You have yet to show us that you are selecting the data on any grounds other than their support for your position.

Well I am glad that you are now actually talking reasonably about my claims instead of red hearing it up. There would be some uncertainty about what is obedient enough. this is how I would resolve it. I would find the extremes of the relative spectrum. IOW I would look at the Christian nations most obedient among those on earth and those Christian nations that have swung farthest towards secularism as compared to others. If I see a consistent pattern of blessing and cursing in respect to obedience among those nations it gives me good reason to believe the dynamic is in operation. Once I can seethe principle is true then I can use it as the test to determine who is obedient and who is not.

I though of another one for you besides the promises to Israel it's self. The bible also emphatically states that whoever blesses Israel he will bless and who ever curses Israel he will curse. Once again using the extremes as testing grounds.

1. Blessed Israel.
a. The US - Their greatest ally in modern times has been the US. We were blessed in countless ways until we started pulling our support from Israel, then our blessing began to fade immediately.
2. Cursed Israel.
a. USSR - Many people do not know but at the USSR's height of power (about 1950) they were on Israel's side. However they soon turned against Israel and sided with her enemies. They slide down the tubes and disintegrated all together.
b. Iran - Wrecked economy, sanctions, poverty, misery.
c. Egypt - Wrecked economy and political structure. One of the richest nations in the middle east can't feed it's own.
d. Syria - this one needs no commentary.
e. Jordan - Has been defeated in every war it has ever fought with Israel.
f. etc... Almost every nation that opposes Israel is among the most backwards and poverty stricken on earth.


The Bible makes a myriad of predictions. 2000 plus prophecies (350 about a single man), makes many conditional promises, and records ten of thousands of little known historical facts. I know of not a single one that is false outside a few scribal errors. Any single one is not very convincing, however after finding thousands correct in every detail they become undeniable.

Dress it up how you like, robin, but your entire argument still boils down to "national prosperity is a consequence of god's beneficence, except when it isn't".

My argument bears no similarity what so ever with all national prosperity and dysfunction is predicted by the bible. That is completely false. Apparently that is the only tactic you have to combat what is unavoidable, so regardless of it being completely false you must hang on to your false analogy at any cost. My claims apply to a very narrow band of nations. Covenants are conditional and their conditions extremely limit what is available as data sets. I cannot, have not, and will not choose random data sets that confirm my claims because I do not have that option. Mine have specific conditions that define what is evaluated for confirmation or denial.

I also notice you left out 50% of my claim that has no ambiguity what so ever. Israel after the diaspora is a specific nation. It has met the promises made about it in undeniable and spectacular ways. Why did it get lost in your effort to deny what can't be. I also added a very specific additional promise above, plus gave you 2000 detail prophecies as well.

 

[johnhanks]

IOW I would look at the Christian nations most obedient among those on earth...

And what exactly makes you a judge of that? For example, how exactly is Uganda not judged obedient enough?

My argument bears no similarity what so ever with all national prosperity and dysfunction is predicted by the bible. That is completely false.

So, like I said: in your view prosperity is a consequence of god's beneficence, except when it isn't.

My claims apply to a very narrow band of nations.

Indeed they do: the ones that fit. Sorry, but you've said nothing to dismiss that view.

 

[johnhanks]

1. Blessed Israel.
a. The US - Their greatest ally in modern times has been the US. We were blessed in countless ways until we started pulling our support from Israel, then our blessing began to fade immediately.

So, no "blessings" for the US before 1948? And how exactly was the US punished for joining the USSR in forcing Israeli withdrawal from Egypt after the 1956 invasion? You are giving a masterclass in selecting evidence that fits your thesis.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And what exactly makes you a judge of that? For example, how exactly is Uganda not judged obedient enough?

Uganda is one of the most Biblically-obedient nations on earth. Just look at their anti-homosexuality laws.