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

[AmbiguousGuy]

You just earned a serious ignore with that one.

I understand. Sometimes the truth hurts just too much to bear.

 

[1robin]

But you were! You’ve progressively backed out of your former position where you were attempting to find a way around the contradiction. It seems to me that the argument is now settled: suffering exists and there is no omnibenevolent God. And that is entirely consistent with the Bible (which isn’t of course proof of anything)

No I just realized the contradiction was based on the meaning of a single term which does not even occur in the Bible. I have never thought God made the teddy bear decision in every circumstance which would be what a all-forgiving God would do. I do not see there ever was an argument. Suffering can and does exist as a necessary or purpose and the purpose is consistent with a loving creator. I agree no gene granting wishes exists and so your argument was not a conflict with my God. My God is merciful and just, he is the Lamb and the Lion. You kind of need to have the Bible mention the description that your claiming conflicts with something else it says before you yell foul.

I have the overriding impression that you’re defending what you want to believe rather than the doctrine of Biblical Theism, in which suffering is reflected as much as it is in life generally.

But this isn’t really surprising since an abiding self-interest is certainly more elemental and necessary than any religious belief. In any action, event, thought or conception the self is absolutely prior. Even those who give up their lives for their God, or gods, are first giving consideration to the prior self. God must logically come second.

Let me make this very very clear. The God of the Bible is not a Teddy bear granting wishes. He does not always rescue in this life. He punishes. He demands. Yet he is merciful. The God your describing is not biblical and so is not even a subject I need to address. An God who always does what we want would be as unjust as we are and not God.

Please stop overwriting the bible with your terms. Use the ones provided in the most important 750,000 words ever written. There is no need to invent other God's there is more than enough words to find contradictions if they exist. It is very easy give me the verse that makes another impossible.

I see plenty! You have not given any logical explanation as to why God chose to create the world. If God is a personal, conscious being then creation would not have happened without a reason. You concede that a purpose is necessary but fail to tell us what that purpose is. But as I’ve demonstrated several times previously any reason or purpose runs to a contradiction. I’ll post my full argument for you again if you’ve forgotten.

1. God chose to create as an expression of his nature. The same way an artist does. He chose it to function with a purpose but had no requirement for that purpose. It is a very simple explanation.
2. I think your right God had a reason but I would not feel comfortable trying to guess what an infinite beings reason was, nor should I expect to be able to.
Having a reason is not having a requirement so no lack of sufficiency exists. This is also still a refutation of an argument Craig made, not me.
3. I did not say a purpose was necessary. God could have had any purpose consistent with his nature, or none at all. However given purpose, that necessitates everything we find. I claim to know what the purpose is and that it necessitates what we see around us. I do not claim to know or articulate the reason for the purpose.

No, I’m not. I’m saying quite evidently than the importance of life for humans only existed at, and from, the point where humans actually began to exist.

I do not see a conflict or even an interesting component to this. Regardless God indicates our importance existed prior to our existence. This will get into what is time before time existed and produce a bunch of guessing.

I haven’t responded to your every paragraph because it just seems to be lots of convoluted explanations and attempts at justifying evil, which of course confirms my argument. But if there was anything you really need me to address then please post it again.

You can surely admit that in certain situations what a person may consider evil is necessary. In war for example. Since it is justifiable in one case it is possible to be justified in another. Your trying to argue through labels and I won't go along with it. Explaining why evil exists does not mean I or God desires it. In fact the existence of evil is a very strong argument for God. But the God of the bible, not the God of cottages imagination. Without God good and evil as categories of truth are meaningless.

 

[1robin]

Quite right! Yes, they do.

The person you responded totally misunderstood my point. See post 3033. I meant to tell you the best debate I have ever seen came out recently. It was Craig versus Sean Carroll. IMO this is the only time Craig has met his match. Carroll was also articulate, rational, and respectful. I hope to see more from him and less from Krauss.

 

[cottage]

No I just realized the contradiction was based on the meaning of a single term which does not even occur in the Bible. I have never thought God made the teddy bear decision in every circumstance which would be what a all-forgiving God would do. I do not see there ever was an argument. Suffering can and does exist as a necessary or purpose and the purpose is consistent with a loving creator. I agree no gene granting wishes exists and so your argument was not a conflict with my God. My God is merciful and just, he is the Lamb and the Lion. You kind of need to have the Bible mention the description that your claiming conflicts with something else it says before you yell foul.

Forgive me, but that is not an altogether honest reply. I’ve been looking back at our exchanges and you’ve been fighting tooth and nail to uphold God as all merciful. To say you’ve just realized the contradiction is based on a term not found in the Bible is disingenuous, since even I could have told you that! I have been arguing against the belief in Classical Theism that God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, which as you know is also the mainstream Christian belief quite regardless of that those exact terms not being found in the bible. The final point to be made here is that what is or is not written in the Bible has no effect on the brute fact of the matter, which is that suffering exists and the attributes awarded to God in Classic Theism are necessarily false. That is the essence and totality of my argument.

 

[Ingledsva]

I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly?


Did you mean to put question marks in front of the first three sentences, - making this sarcasm?


Or do you actually believe it is better to murder children, just in case they might do wrong in the future?

I am certainly glad to see even you call this into question.

Uhmmm! Robin! You understand you have given the same kind of argument when arguing about God murdering the innocent, - right?



*

 

[CG Didymus]

What if as the Bible says the people who reject God get exactly what they wanted? A place without him. The only place he is not is non-existence. I think the Bible teaches ultimate annihilation for those who deny their creator. Where is the injustice?

Do you believe people in other religions, that serve their definition of who God is, deserve annihilation? Do you believe JW's or Mormons are saved? How about Jews? They deserve annihilation or eternal hell fire because they didn't believe in your definition of God?

 

[CG Didymus]

Uhmmm! Robin! You understand you have given the same kind of argument when arguing about God murdering the innocent, - right?*

Yes, but his God knows that those children were going to deny him and turn out bad, like all the kids in Jericho and Sodom and Gomorrah... and all the kids he drowned in the flood. So no, you can't call them "innocent." They were bad seeds from the start. I imagine there were some pregnant ladies in all those places too. It's lucky God killed them off before they could get born and cause all sorts of evil.

But listen, it's easy to prove how knowledgeable his God is, just look at how good the kids he did save turned out. And don't even try to play that, you know, that logical fallic thing with me and say, "Oh yeah, name one?" Because it's not my burden of proof. But just in case it is, I'll name some. There was Joseph and Elijah and you have to include Elisha too, then there was aah... oh, Jeremiah and the other prophets. Maybe not Jonah, though. Then David and Solomon? Eh, maybe not. They're kind of marginal. Oh, then there was Daniel and his friends. So there's been a whole bunch. Oh, and I forgot about Enoch. He was a good kid right from the start. So yeah, God knows who to spare and who to annihilate.

Oh, I was wondering, could kill and annihilate be considered synonyms for abort? No, probably not, because God doesn't believe in aborting people's lives, especially kids, just blowing them up with fire from heaven and drowning them and having his people put them to the sword.

 

[newgodthinker]

I see evil as tests for strengthening the good. Or something.

 

[technomage]

Yes, but his God knows that those children were going to deny him and turn out bad, like all the kids in Jericho and Sodom and Gomorrah... and all the kids he drowned in the flood. So no, you can't call them "innocent." They were bad seeds from the start. I imagine there were some pregnant ladies in all those places too. It's lucky God killed them off before they could get born and cause all sorts of evil.

Yup ... it's not murder if they "deserved" it.

 

[1robin]

Forgive me, but that is not an altogether honest reply. I’ve been looking back at our exchanges and you’ve been fighting tooth and nail to uphold God as all merciful. To say you’ve just realized the contradiction is based on a term not found in the Bible is disingenuous, since even I could have told you that! I have been arguing against the belief in Classical Theism that God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, which as you know is also the mainstream Christian belief quite regardless of that those exact terms not being found in the bible. The final point to be made here is that what is or is not written in the Bible has no effect on the brute fact of the matter, which is that suffering exists and the attributes awarded to God in Classic Theism are necessarily false. That is the essence and totality of my argument.

That was true. When you suggest dishonesty that requires access to my motivation. You can know I was mistaken, you cannot know I was lying. In this case I was neither. When Christians use the terms all-merciful it is not in the sense you were. It took me a bit to see you were using a technical literal sense to these terms and basing an entire argument on that. At that point I thought that if it was in the bible I was going to have to deal with it as you were using it. I found it not to be so the whole argument crumbled. There was no dishonesty. I thought you meant it as we mean it. That God is a merciful being that usually grants benevolence far beyond what is deserved and possesses forgiveness beyond our capacity to even grasp. Since every single argument you have made or apparently even discuss is some hyper-liter technicality based on semantics I should have known better but I honestly did not.

The Bible describes God as a being that forgives beyond what is merited in general, not one that always forgives and is always a fuzzy Teddy bear. There exists no contradiction there. There is no argument there.

 

[1robin]

Uhmmm! Robin! You understand you have given the same kind of argument when arguing about God murdering the innocent, - right?



*

I have also pointed out why a God can do things that a person is not qualified to enact. Is that not the most obvious fact possible in this context? You can't know if you are aborting the guy who would cure cancer. You did not create that life (even if you had a roll in it). You do not have ultimate sovereignty over that life. You cannot know if your dooming hat child to oblivion, hell, or heaven. About this issue we know nothing yet do whatever we want, God knows everything and we deny him whatever we want. I literally can't invent better examples of moral insanity than what your side will actually claim as true.

 

[1robin]

Do you believe people in other religions, that serve their definition of who God is, deserve annihilation? Do you believe JW's or Mormons are saved? How about Jews? They deserve annihilation or eternal hell fire because they didn't believe in your definition of God?

Well this is an obvious set up.

1. As William money so eloquently put it, "deserves got nothing to do with it". Heaven and hell are not merited concepts they are qualified concepts.
I do not get to heaven because I was good and do not go to hell because I was bad. I go to either based on acknowledgement of truth and absolute necessity. God can't exist with rebellion forever and remain God. If I reject God I literally cannot exist with him eternally by necessity.
2. JW's and Mormons can be saved, in fact anyone can. However they will be in heaven because of Christ and despite their faiths.
3. Same with the Jews.


4. None of this it has the slightest thing to do with my definitions or rules. It has to do with this fellow's:

The New Birth
3 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; 2 this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these [a]signs that You do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4 Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born [c]again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

9 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony. 12 If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. 14 As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever [d]believes will in Him have eternal life.
John 3 - Jesus Teaches Nicodemus - Now there was - Bible Gateway

Jesus told Nicodemus that even though he was (a Jew, a good man, a priest) he could not even see the kingdom of God unless he was born again. Only through Christ can we be born again:

Acts 4:12


Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Acts 4:12.


Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.


- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

Now are those my ideas or Paul and Christ's?

 

[1robin]

Yes, but his God knows that those children were going to deny him and turn out bad, like all the kids in Jericho and Sodom and Gomorrah... and all the kids he drowned in the flood. So no, you can't call them "innocent." They were bad seeds from the start. I imagine there were some pregnant ladies in all those places too. It's lucky God killed them off before they could get born and cause all sorts of evil.

But listen, it's easy to prove how knowledgeable his God is, just look at how good the kids he did save turned out. And don't even try to play that, you know, that logical fallic thing with me and say, "Oh yeah, name one?" Because it's not my burden of proof. But just in case it is, I'll name some. There was Joseph and Elijah and you have to include Elisha too, then there was aah... oh, Jeremiah and the other prophets. Maybe not Jonah, though. Then David and Solomon? Eh, maybe not. They're kind of marginal. Oh, then there was Daniel and his friends. So there's been a whole bunch. Oh, and I forgot about Enoch. He was a good kid right from the start. So yeah, God knows who to spare and who to annihilate.

Oh, I was wondering, could kill and annihilate be considered synonyms for abort? No, probably not, because God doesn't believe in aborting people's lives, especially kids, just blowing them up with fire from heaven and drowning them and having his people put them to the sword.

What is this? A proxy argument?

 

[CG Didymus]

What is this? A proxy argument?

It was my sarcastic way of agreeing more with her and not you. We all understand your very fundamental and conservative Christian views. And, we are well aware of your debating skills. But your views don't work for all of us. I can't win a debate against you, but I can give my support to those that are trying to.
In your other post you said,

I do not get to heaven because I was good and do not go to hell because I was bad. I go to either based on acknowledgement of truth...

That's the problem. It is acknowledgement of what you believe is the truth. Those people in other denominations and other religions believe they already have the "truth." And, I always like to mention the Jews because they don't have many of the major Christian beliefs as part of their religion. So how is Fundy Christianity the "only" truth? Sure you believe it but the Bible is too vague in too many areas for many of us to "know" your way of interpreting it, is the one and only "truth."

Here's another parable for you...
Once a father took his teenage son and daughter to the park. He told them, "Stay here and eat the nice food your mother prepared for you." He pointed to the long-haired skateboarders on the other side of the park. He said, "Stay away from them. They drink, have pre-marital sex and do drugs. However, because I love you, I'm going to let you make your own choice. You have freewill. I'll be back in two hours. Be good."

As soon as he left they went and hung out with the other teenagers. She got drunk, had sex and got pregnant. He got stoned, thought he could fly and broke his arm jumping out of a tree. The father picked up the mother. She asked, "Where's the kids? "At the park." He said. Stunned, she asked, "Alone? Unsupervised?" "Yes." He answered. "I can't interfere with their freewill. Not if I really love them."

They got to the park and saw what happened. The father said, "Oh well, they made their choice." She glared at him. "What did you expect? You idiot."

So the moral of the story is: No, we don't have "freewill." It has some pretty high costs if we make the wrong choices. And, loving parents watch, protect and teach their kids right from wrong until they can go out on their own and not be screwups. That is, unless it's your definition of God we're talking about. His hands are tied. His love forces him to give us the freedom to choose from a zillion bad choices, many of which seem like harmless fun, but then he punishes us and rejects us, because of course, we are rejecting him.

But not all of us are that bad. Some people are very religious and spiritual and, all and all, pretty good people. But your definition of God allows all sorts of different religious beliefs to exist? And, then he rejects the people in all of them except one? Sorry, I wish I knew how to debate good enough to show you how stupid it all sounds.

 

[Katzpur]

JW's and Mormons can be saved, in fact anyone can. However they will be in heaven because of Christ and despite their faiths.

Isn't that the same reason you're going to be there? I mean if "deserves" has nothing to to with it...

 

[1robin]

It was my sarcastic way of agreeing more with her and not you. We all understand your very fundamental and conservative Christian views. And, we are well aware of your debating skills. But your views don't work for all of us. I can't win a debate against you, but I can give my support to those that are trying to.

I was just joking.

In your other post you said,That's the problem. It is acknowledgement of what you believe is the truth. Those people in other denominations and other religions believe they already have the "truth." And, I always like to mention the Jews because they don't have many of the major Christian beliefs as part of their religion. So how is Fundy Christianity the "only" truth? Sure you believe it but the Bible is too vague in too many areas for many of us to "know" your way of interpreting it, is the one and only "truth."

I have never ever been called a fundamental until about two weeks ago, now it seems every person I talk to uses that word. What is true is not determined by how many feel it is true. Experiential claims are a little different but agreement with theoretical propositions are either true or not and numbers make little difference. IOW even if no one believed it did Pluto would still exist. So whether the Jews have given in yet to what I believe is the truth is not really an argument. Some notes however: The bible records along with Israel's great falling apart in the diaspora, it's coming together again as a nation that will never again be driven out, also says they will come to faith in Christ in large numbers at the end times. Think of how much pressure there is for a Jew to not acknowledge Christ, it would be a bard thing to admit your race killed God, plus you would have to admit your race has been wrong for 2000 years, and defy 4000 years of tradition. I imagine it is a very hard thing to do, despite that there are many Messianic Jews and the numbers are growing.

Here's another parable for you...
Once a father took his teenage son and daughter to the park. He told them, "Stay here and eat the nice food your mother prepared for you." He pointed to the long-haired skateboarders on the other side of the park. He said, "Stay away from them. They drink, have pre-marital sex and do drugs. However, because I love you, I'm going to let you make your own choice. You have freewill. I'll be back in two hours. Be good."

As soon as he left they went and hung out with the other teenagers. She got drunk, had sex and got pregnant. He got stoned, thought he could fly and broke his arm jumping out of a tree. The father picked up the mother. She asked, "Where's the kids? "At the park." He said. Stunned, she asked, "Alone? Unsupervised?" "Yes." He answered. "I can't interfere with their freewill. Not if I really love them."

They got to the park and saw what happened. The father said, "Oh well, they made their choice." She glared at him. "What did you expect? You idiot."

So the moral of the story is: No, we don't have "freewill." It has some pretty high costs if we make the wrong choices. And, loving parents watch, protect and teach their kids right from wrong until they can go out on their own and not be screwups. That is, unless it's your definition of God we're talking about. His hands are tied. His love forces him to give us the freedom to choose from a zillion bad choices, many of which seem like harmless fun, but then he punishes us and rejects us, because of course, we are rejecting him.

But not all of us are that bad. Some people are very religious and spiritual and, all and all, pretty good people. But your definition of God allows all sorts of different religious beliefs to exist? And, then he rejects the people in all of them except one? Sorry, I wish I knew how to debate good enough to show you how stupid it all sounds.

The moral of this story would be that freedom comes with qualifications or it is not a moral act. Children are not morally able to predict and understand evil that well. This is why they go to heaven. They sin their rear ends off but are not accountable because they do not understand the truth. However as we grow up our parents do allow us to go down wrong paths and they are many times forced to let those paths risk killing us so that we may learn. Just as God has done, we warn, we explain, we influence, we even rescue but if evil is relentlessly pursued both parents and God will allow it to occur. I remember growing in in a strict home. My mom got cancer and when sick enough I thought she would not notice I snuck out and walked to a party down the block. I had been there maybe 30 minutes when she came in a drug me out of there. I was about 13 I think. When I was about 17 I was at a party and got stranded there. I called her and she refused to pick me up. I asked her why and she said I got into the mess and she was not always going to get me out. Wise women. You used children in your operable to specifically try and make the point hat innocents were left to their ignorance. However God has not done that. He has spent exhaustive efforts making sure when we face him we cannot say we did not know. The parable also has nothing to do with freewill one way or another. Theologically free-will means the ability to chose that which we desire to. It has nothing to do with our capacity to enact that choice and we will not be judged for what we had no choice on.


However lets say God was as unfair as what your parable intended to suggest. Would that still make hundreds of millions of claims to experiencing him less valid? Would it make sense to deny him?

Your a good debater, its your position that hamstrings you.

 

[1robin]

Isn't that the same reason you're going to be there? I mean if "deserves" has nothing to to with it...

100%. My record merits Hell on it's own. That is why my record had to be exchanged with Christ's perfect record legally on the cross in order to me to get to heaven. AS the bible says it is no longer me but the Christ that lives within me that will be judged at the throne and it will pass where my own would fail. My point was that you can get to heaven despite having believed bad doctrine as long as you believed enough good doctrine to become born again. As long as you are saved and your name is found in the book of life it makes no difference what denomination you belonged to, or even if you belonged to one at all.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

My point was that you can get to heaven despite having believed bad doctrine as long as you believed enough good doctrine to become born again. As long as you are saved and your name is found in the book of life it makes no difference what denomination you belonged to, or even if you belonged to one at all.

I don't think God cares one little bit what we believe.

 

[1robin]

I don't think God cares one little bit what we believe.

Just to let you know, I have officially ignored you after one of your last posts. You are not sincere and are only antagonistic. I normally get around to putting people I consider so on my ignore list and it is long over due. So I mercifully will not be able to see what you post.

 

[Nakosis]

100%. My record merits Hell on it's own. That is why my record had to be exchanged with Christ's perfect record legally on the cross in order to me to get to heaven. AS the bible says it is no longer me but the Christ that lives within me that will be judged at the throne and it will pass where my own would fail. My point was that you can get to heaven despite having believed bad doctrine as long as you believed enough good doctrine to become born again. As long as you are saved and your name is found in the book of life it makes no difference what denomination you belonged to, or even if you belonged to one at all.

Kind of happenstance though...

Much of the advice given by Jesus I am happy to accept as good advice but it's not that I've chosen to believe of disbelieve. My circumstances, my upbringing, my culture all dictate what make sense to me. I don't choose to believe, I believe what makes sense to believe.

So what I choose to believe or disbelieve is is not ultimately in my control. So if I go to heaven or I don't, it not my fault, not in my control.

Why should I be punished for something that is not in my control? I really don't think God is mean-spirited enough to punish people for something that is beyond their control.