God kills 70000 Israelites!!!

[alexxcJRO]

According to the perfect inerrant word of God(Bible) the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Yahweh kills 70,000 Israelites including countless of innocent(of any wrong-doing, sin) small children, infants for the sin of one man(David) after he or Satan incites him to sin:

2 Samuel 24

“David Enrolls the Fighting Men
24 Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.�
2 So the king said to Joab and the army commanders[a] with him, “Go throughout the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beersheba and enroll the fighting men, so that I may know how many there are.�
3 But Joab replied to the king, “May the LORD your God multiply the troops a hundred times over, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king want to do such a thing?�
4 The king’s word, however, overruled Joab and the army commanders; so they left the presence of the king to enroll the fighting men of Israel.
5 After crossing the Jordan, they camped near Aroer, south of the town in the gorge, and then went through Gad and on to Jazer. 6 They went to Gilead and the region of Tahtim Hodshi, and on to Dan Jaan and around toward Sidon. 7 Then they went toward the fortress of Tyre and all the towns of the Hivites and Canaanites. Finally, they went on to Beershebain the Negev of Judah.
8 After they had gone through the entire land, they came back to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.
9 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand.
10 David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the LORD, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, LORD, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.�
11 Before David got up the next morning, the word of the LORD had come to Gad the prophet, David’s seer: 12 “Go and tell David, ‘This is what the LORD says: I am giving you three options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you.’�
13 So Gad went to David and said to him, “Shall there come on you three years of famine in your land? Or three months of fleeing from your enemies while they pursue you? Or three days of plague in your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should answer the one who sent me.�
14 David said to Gad, “I am in deep distress. Let us fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into human hands.�
15 So the LORD sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. 16 When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the LORD relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, “Enough! Withdraw your hand.� The angel of the LORD was then at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.
17 When David saw the angel who was striking down the people, he said to the LORD, “I have sinned; I, the shepherd,[c] have done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? Let your hand fall on me and my family.� “

Observation: The account in 1 Chronicles is different then the account in 2 Samuel. (So much for the perfect, inerrant word of God)

Someone would wonder what abominable sin David committed that angered God so much to make him act in such horrendous way: killing tens of thousands of men, woman and children.

Hold on your straps people, here it comes: He did a census!!!

Imagine that. The poor guy did a census and Yahweh in his perfect wisdom, justice, benevolence decided that the punishment suited for this was not to punish in some way the person guilty of the wrong-doing, sin but instead kill 70 000 people innocent of this wrong-doing, sin; kill thousands of small children, infants who are innocent of any wrong-doing, sin.

David even asks a very wise question to God. Why punish others when he was the one guilty:

“I have sinned; I, the shepherd,[c] have done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done?�

Off course the perfect God of the Bible does not answer the question. How would he?!!!

Q: How can anyone be so oblivious to such a huge discrepancy, contradiction between the supposed attributes of God (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, perfect wisdom, justice, mercy) and the actions of this being portrait in the Bible?

Q: How can anyone praise, worship a being that inflicts so easily, so much suffering and death to thousands of innocent children? How can one call this being benevolent or wise or loving?

Q: How can anyone in their right mind, with their rational faculties intact defend such actions and not smell the foul stench of nonsense rotting their brain?

[ttruscott]

Given all the above, logically we would all, without fail, have chosen a holy marriage with God; given all the above there would logically be no evil, no sinners to be suppressed nor banished.

I am curious why you chose this side of the issue to support rather than suppose that every one would logically without fail choose rebellion disguised as independance and denounce YHWH as a false GOD?

Even given all the list, you still have no reasonable method to predict what anyone would choose so that the Biblical reality that some chose to be eternally evil demons and others redeemable sinners is just as logical.

[alexxcJRO]

Oh, now we are adding moral agency to the definition of what is "evil". That would have been good to know from the beginning, which is why I am asking these questions. So, one must be able to discern concepts such as right, wrong, law and so on. Ok, from where do moral agents derive these concepts?

Q: Why is this so hard, huh?

You said "After much consideration Shlomo concludes, (Ecc. 12:13B-14) "Fear Elohim, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For Elohim shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."

Therefore God has put forward some moral obligations(respecting the moral law comprised of the commandments).

Right("Good") represent according to your God's logic abiding to this moral law.

Wrong("Evil") represent according to your God's logic not abiding to this moral law.

Non-moral agents(non-human animals, infants, mentally impaired people) don't have the mental capacity to understand abstract concepts like: wrong, right, evil, good, commandment, salvation, judgment. Therefore they cannot be judged or punished for not respecting the moral law. They are by default innocent. Therefore God should show benevolence to non-moral agents for they are innocent.

We have multiple instances in the Bible where we see God inflicting countless suffering, pain and death to countless non-moral agents punishing them together with the moral agents. Therefore shows malevolence.

Therefore we have a logical contradiction.

Either God is a moron(he is incapable to understand simple logic) and not omnipotent or malevolent(he understand non-moral agents are innocent but does not care) or it simply does not exist(it is just an illogical concept conjured by bronze age morons).

Q: How about now, dear sir?

[Bust Nak]

Firstly, how can you POSSIBLY know you have ALL the relevant information?

It's easy with there is very little information that is relevant. How can you POSSIBLY have ALL your marbles in one bag? It's easy when I only have one marble.

And if you don't how are you in a position to say your "no pain ever" is the "best" solution?

n/a

It is the painless solution, but the painless always "the best"?

With all other things being equal, yes.

The most you can say is within you very very (in comparison to infinity) limited understanding you believe with all your heart that "painless" is the best solution every time. That's fine, we call that "faith" and each to his own, but its never a good idea to try and impose ones faith on others.

Nah, all you need logic, no faith involved.

[Bust Nak]

Again you try to make omnipotence to be able to do anything which is absurd...

Incorrect. We have already established, yes established, that there is nothing absurd involved, when you affirmed that 100% success rate is logically possible.

it can only do anything which takes power. No power in the 'verse can add two ones to equal anything but 2 and no power can make a square circle. How much power does it take not to break a promise?

Neither can HE use power to bring someone with no free will to true love or a real marriage.

How can a forced love be true love if unchosen? How can a forced marriage be anything but a rape? Is the fact that the person doesn't know they are being forced to (approximate) love (as if they had chosen it) enough to make the forced marriage correct? The person in the fake but feel good marriage might find it acceptable but it does not fit the necessary definition of love nor marriage and therefore unacceptable to a moral person who does know the truth.

These are the same red herrings as before. Nowhere have I implied nor suggested, let alone stated anything along the lines of:

1) making 1+1 anything other than 2.
2) breaking of any promises
3) bringing someone with no free will to true love.
4) bringing someone with no free will to a real marriage.
5) forcing true love.
6) unchosen true love.
7) forced marriage.
8) forced love being an approximation of love
9) fake but feel good marriage

This is far from the first time I explicitly denied implying any of these, so don't you dare pin any of that on me. I can hardly make it anymore explicit. It is time you stop creating strawman and address what I actually said, repeated here for your convenience: logically we would all, without fail, have chosen a holy marriage with God, without any form of coercion, nor faking anything, without any absurdities.

I am curious why you chose this side of the issue to support rather than suppose that every one would logically without fail choose rebellion disguised as independance and denounce YHWH as a false GOD?

Because that is irrational, objectively counter-productive, harmful to self, universally undesirable. One option is smart, the other is dumb, everyone without fail, given the same rational, problem solving, thinking mind, would choose the smart option. Logic is the one and only reasonable method to predict what everyone would choose given the premises you set out - i.e. same tabula rasa, same ability, same opportunity, same carefully design leaning experience. i.e. smart enough, have enough wisdom to avoid sin, as you stated yourself elsewhere.

Even given all the list, you still have no reasonable method to predict what anyone would choose so that the Biblical reality that some chose to be eternally evil demons and others redeemable sinners is just as logical.

First of all, had it been logical to choose eternal evil, then God himself would choose evil because God is a logical, rational thinking being - therefore we can rule out this scenario of evil being somehow logical or rational. Secondly had it been logical to choose eternal evil, then we would ALL without fail have chosen it, because we are all supposedly equally smart and logical, it would never be the case that some would choose evil while others choose good. This attempt at salvaging your theology fails on two counts.

[rikuoamero]

Do you claim to have all the information over every repurcussion that any given action would have in every dimension that could possibly exist for every individual in every universe that exists or will exist until the end of time?

No, but I do have all the relevant information.

Firstly, how can you POSSIBLY know you have ALL the relevant information? And if you don't how are you in a position to say your "no pain ever" is the "best" solution? It is the painless solution, but the painless always "the best"? The most you can say is within you very very (in comparison to infinity) limited understanding you believe with all your heart that "painless" is the best solution every time. That's fine, we call that "faith" and each to his own, but its never a good idea to try and impose ones faith on others.

JW

JehovahsWitness, you probably predicted this response (if not from me, from someone else) but do YOU have ALL the relevant information?
This is actually an important question for you. Look at what you are doing in response to Bust Nak. He makes a response to a theistic claim and your own counter-response is to point out that he doesn't have all the relevant information.
So then, let's go with that. What happens if I and others here accept this counter-response of yours? Why...the only thing I can see happening is that it means that no point raised by Bust Nak, or indeed by anyone else, including yourself should ever be accepted, because debate opponents could always say there is some hypothetical information that they're not using.
Reread that sentence, JW, including the bolded and underlined part. This problem of "Not all relevant information" applies to YOU as well. If it is to apply, then let it apply equally, across the board, both Bust Nak and JehovahsWitness.
It would mean that Bust Nak (and myself) could easily go to this website
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesse ... s-beliefs/
and say of it
how can you POSSIBLY know you have ALL the relevant information? And if you don't how are you in a position to say your[strike] "no pain ever"[/strike] global flood is the "best" solution? It is the [strike]painless[/strike] one of the most painful solutions solution, but the [strike]painless[/strike] painful always "the best"?


--------------
JW, I remember a while back you opined that Jehovah's Witnesses are open to learning new things, to being corrected. Do you accept what I said here? Will you respond?

[bluethread]

Oh, now we are adding moral agency to the definition of what is "evil". That would have been good to know from the beginning, which is why I am asking these questions. So, one must be able to discern concepts such as right, wrong, law and so on. Ok, from where do moral agents derive these concepts?

Q: Why is this so hard, huh?

You said "After much consideration Shlomo concludes, (Ecc. 12:13B-14) "Fear Elohim, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For Elohim shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."

Oh, we are talking about the Scriptural term that is translated as "evil". Danmark did not make that clear. That is what makes this so hard. The term is just thrown out there as a given, without clear definition. Since this is the C&A forum the Scriptural term translated as "evil" is not a presumed definition of the term "evil". So, now that we are talking about the Scriptural term ra', which is translated as "evil" let's proceed.

Therefore God has put forward some moral obligations(respecting the moral law comprised of the commandments).

Right("Good") represent according to your God's logic abiding to this moral law.

Wrong("Evil") represent according to your God's logic not abiding to this moral law.

Non-moral agents(non-human animals, infants, mentally impaired people) don't have the mental capacity to understand abstract concepts like: wrong, right, evil, good, commandment, salvation, judgment. Therefore they cannot be judged or punished for not respecting the moral law. They are by default innocent. Therefore God should show benevolence to non-moral agents for they are innocent.

No, they are not innocent of the law, the law does not apply to not only them, but also, moral agents to whom it is not addressed. Therefore, those are not only not subject to it's curses, but they are also not afforded it's blessings.

We have multiple instances in the Bible where we see God inflicting countless suffering, pain and death to countless non-moral agents punishing them together with the moral agents. Therefore shows malevolence.

Therefore we have a logical contradiction.

No contradiction, as Paul puts it, (Rom. 2:12) "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;" Only those covered by the law are afforded appeal to it. Those who are not covered by the law can not appeal to the law. In the courts in these United States, there is a presumption of innocence. So, one is not found innocent, but is found not guilty. Such is not the case with Adonai. There is not presumption of innocence, because their guilt or innocence is known to Him.

Either God is a moron(he is incapable to understand simple logic) and not omnipotent or malevolent(he understand non-moral agents are innocent but does not care) or it simply does not exist(it is just an illogical concept conjured by bronze age morons).

Q: How about now, dear sir?

The answer is D. Adonai understands that it is not logical, but presumptuous, to think that one to whom a moral code does not apply is absolutely innocent. Also, even bronze age people understood that one life form is not inherently obligated to treat another life form in any particular way. In fact, nature shows us that violent predation is as common as symbioses, and indifferent destruction is just as common. How would you say those relate to the Scriptural concept of ra'(evil)? I suggest that, if they are tov(good) or ra'(evil), one would have to say they are tov, presuming these biological relationships have not changed since creation.

[alexxcJRO]

Oh, now we are adding moral agency to the definition of what is "evil". That would have been good to know from the beginning, which is why I am asking these questions. So, one must be able to discern concepts such as right, wrong, law and so on. Ok, from where do moral agents derive these concepts?

Q: Why is this so hard, huh?

You said "After much consideration Shlomo concludes, (Ecc. 12:13B-14) "Fear Elohim, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For Elohim shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."

Oh, we are talking about the Scriptural term that is translated as "evil". Danmark did not make that clear. That is what makes this so hard. The term is just thrown out there as a given, without clear definition. Since this is the C&A forum the Scriptural term translated as "evil" is not a presumed definition of the term "evil". So, now that we are talking about the Scriptural term ra', which is translated as "evil" let's proceed.

Therefore God has put forward some moral obligations(respecting the moral law comprised of the commandments).

Right("Good") represent according to your God's logic abiding to this moral law.

Wrong("Evil") represent according to your God's logic not abiding to this moral law.

Non-moral agents(non-human animals, infants, mentally impaired people) don't have the mental capacity to understand abstract concepts like: wrong, right, evil, good, commandment, salvation, judgment. Therefore they cannot be judged or punished for not respecting the moral law. They are by default innocent. Therefore God should show benevolence to non-moral agents for they are innocent.

No, they are not innocent of the law, the law does not apply to not only them, but also, moral agents to whom it is not addressed. Therefore, those are not only not subject to it's curses, but they are also not afforded it's blessings.

We have multiple instances in the Bible where we see God inflicting countless suffering, pain and death to countless non-moral agents punishing them together with the moral agents. Therefore shows malevolence.

Therefore we have a logical contradiction.

No contradiction, as Paul puts it, (Rom. 2:12) "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;" Only those covered by the law are afforded appeal to it. Those who are not covered by the law can not appeal to the law. In the courts in these United States, there is a presumption of innocence. So, one is not found innocent, but is found not guilty. Such is not the case with Adonai. There is not presumption of innocence, because their guilt or innocence is known to Him.

Either God is a moron(he is incapable to understand simple logic) and not omnipotent or malevolent(he understand non-moral agents are innocent but does not care) or it simply does not exist(it is just an illogical concept conjured by bronze age morons).

Q: How about now, dear sir?

The answer is D. Adonai understands that it is not logical, but presumptuous, to think that one to whom a moral code does not apply is absolutely innocent. Also, even bronze age people understood that one life form is not inherently obligated to treat another life form in any particular way. In fact, nature shows us that violent predation is as common as symbioses, and indifferent destruction is just as common. How would you say those relate to the Scriptural concept of ra'(evil)? I suggest that, if they are tov(good) or ra'(evil), one would have to say they are tov, presuming these biological relationships have not changed since creation.

The 70, 000 Israelites punished by God were under the Deuteronomy law. Plus they were punished, killed for breaking such a law.

So this whole , "the law does not apply to not only them", "For as many have sinned without law shall also perish without law" is irrelevant.

My point still stands.

[bluethread]

The 70, 000 Israelites punished by God were under the Deuteronomy law. Plus they were punished, killed for breaking such a law.

So this whole , "the law does not apply to not only them", "For as many have sinned without law shall also perish without law" is irrelevant.

My point still stands.

Oh, you are specifically talking about the 70,000. I was talking to Danmark when you first responded to me, and he was talking about the concept of "evil" in general. That said, you seem to have ignored the part of what Paul said with regard to them. "(A)s many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;" How is it that the death of those 70,000 was not in accordance with HaTorah?

[alexxcJRO]

The 70, 000 Israelites punished by God were under the Deuteronomy law. Plus they were punished, killed for breaking such a law.

So this whole , "the law does not apply to not only them", "For as many have sinned without law shall also perish without law" is irrelevant.

My point still stands.

Oh, you are specifically talking about the 70,000. I was talking to Danmark when you first responded to me, and he was talking about the concept of "evil" in general. That said, you seem to have ignored the part of what Paul said with regard to them. "(A)s many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;" How is it that the death of those 70,000 was not in accordance with HaTorah?

Q: Seriously?!!!!!!!!!!!

Q: Why is this so damnnnnnnnnnn hard, huh? ](*,)

You said "After much consideration Shlomo concludes, (Ecc. 12:13B-14) "Fear Elohim, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For Elohim shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."

Therefore God has put forward some moral obligations(respecting the moral law comprised of the commandments + rest of Deuteronomy laws).

Right("Good") represent according to your God's logic abiding to this moral law.

Wrong("Evil") represent according to your God's logic not abiding to this moral law.

Non-moral agents(non-human animals, infants, mentally impaired people) don't have the mental capacity to understand abstract concepts like: wrong, right, evil, good, commandment, law, salvation, judgment. Therefore they cannot be judged or punished for not respecting the moral law. They are by default innocent. Therefore God should show benevolence to non-moral agents for they are innocent.

We have an instance(the 70, 000 Israelites that died of plague) in the Bible where we see God inflicting countless suffering, pain and death to countless non-moral agents punishing them together with the moral agents. Therefore shows malevolence.

Therefore we have a logical contradiction.

Either God is a moron(he is incapable to understand simple logic) and not omnipotent or malevolent(he understand non-moral agents are innocent but does not care) or it simply does not exist(it is just an illogical concept conjured by bronze age morons).

Q: How about now, dear sir?

[ttruscott]

Given God's end goal of true love and real marriage.
Given that true love and real marriage is better than robotic happiness.
Given freewill to choose love and marriage or disobedience and sin, (shorten to just good or bad.)
Given an equal ability to choose good or bad.
Given an equal opportunity to choose good or bad.
Given an equal start as tabula rasa.
Given involvement in a full gamut of available scenarios to interact with each other in Pre-Conception Existence.
Given an equal opportunity to develop our likes and dislikes in Pre-Conception Existence.
Given the required time to slowly experience all we needed in Pre-Conception Existence, to gain a feeling for our likes and dislikes until we were ready.
Given our non-random, carefully chosen circumstances to stimulate our self awareness about how we felt about the others people in Pre-Conception Existence.
Given a complete experience of maturing by small incremental choices to be attracted to both good or evil in Pre-Conception Existence.

Given all the above, logically we would all, without fail, have chosen a holy marriage with God; given all the above there would logically be no evil, no sinners to be suppressed nor banished.

Quite the all inclusive list - I don't think you left anything out! But your opinion that such a situation must, without fail, end in all choosing heaven has no more ballast than mine that it did not. Your conclusion is not logical but a leap of logic which, without any proof for it to be accepted makes it an act of faith.