God Allows Murder of Children at Sandy Hook Elementary Schol

[Jagella]

Does anybody remember the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? Twenty-six people including twenty kids were shot to death. If you were God, would you have stopped that shooting?

No--Then you, like God, would have done nothing to save those people from being gunned down.

Yes--Then how would you explain how you would act morally while God did not?

If I was God or was otherwise able to stop the murder of those kids and adults, then yes, of course I would have stopped the shooter. Assuming the God of Christianity exists, then I can say I'm more moral than he is. If any Christian here disagrees with my saying I'm more moral then God, then you must conclude that allowing kids to be shot to death was the right thing to do at the Sandy Hook Elementary School.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 219 by By Grace]

Not really. Jesus gave us a very good answer, and i quote it here again because no one took this into consideration previously:

Luke 13:2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way?
3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem?
5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.�
ESV

I'm glad you posted this passage because it has led to seeing victims of tragedy as "sinful" and deserving their suffering.

By the way, Jesus the supposed miracle worker who allegedly raised people from the dead appears to be very impotent here. All he can do is rant about sin and people dying. Hmmm--maybe there was a historical Jesus after all.

Please read this aloud, and then tell me what this means to you after the Eagles whip the Patriots.

At least you're on that winning team.

[By Grace]

Not really. Jesus gave us a very good answer, and i quote it here again because no one took this into consideration previously:

Luke 13:2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way?
3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem?
5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.�
ESV

[Replying to post 221 by Jagella]


Obviously, you did not REALLY bother to read this aloud.

Imagine yourself as saying this. What are you telling others?

CLUE
There is absolutely nothing about ANYONE "deserving their suffering" in the words of Jesus.

I got bored with Jason Timberlake

Back to the game, halftime is over.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 213 by rikuoamero]


"If you knew there was a group of people who were planning to do some small scale ethnic cleansing, wouldn't you alert the authorities? Do something to help the would-be victims?
I would, and I hope you would to. The difference between you and I though is that if there is a God, I'd be wondering why the heck he isn't helping out too. "

God is not your servant.

Guns kill..aaah sorry, people kill.
And we the people want our human rights to carry a gun, a deadly weapon.
We the people also do not want religious education.

People do not know right from wrong and they don't care.

We want it our way and blame God when things do not work out.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 212 by By Grace]

Is it possible that you are upset that your derails were not followed?

The points I am making are not 'derails' they are logical conclusions based upon the fact that GOD doesn't intervene in any directly objectively observable manner in relation to human atrocity so the Sandy Hook incident is just the same old same old dressed up and presented as something new, but dealing with the same old whipped to death argument. ad nauseum

All I did was to bring the topic back to the OP when I began posting here.

I don't know why YOU even answered my post as it wasn't directed at you.

But what you did do is become the little rabbit who's arguments are exactly what the atheists are looking for, because my arguments are in the too hard basket for them. Your argument has been heard before.

So - perhaps there is something for you to learn in that.

If neither 'side' is willing to address my arguments, and just continue to play the old hunter and and rabbit game, ad nauseum, that is fine my me, as I am looking for more mature interaction anyway - obviously.

Will leave ya'll to it then...

Moderator Warning


First, this is a public forum, and that means that anyone can, and is encouraged to, reply to any post that interests them.
Second, address the content of a post without commenting upon, especially in a disparaging manner, the writer of it.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[By Grace]

[Replying to post 203 by By Grace]

By Grace,
1. Words don't ever prove anything.

Is it correct that your position is that "Words mean what you want them to say?" That seems to be the gist of this first comment. If that is correct, then what is the difference between what you posted and the poem "Jabberwocky" by Lewis Carroll?

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!�

2. You can never get the context and culture from another language, exactly.

This is contrary to the meanings of ALL words, and in particular the meanings of the words "context" and "culture".

3. Hebrew is a language that has been dead twice. God did a poor job there.

CFR

Semitic language of the Northern Central (also called Northwestern) group; it is closely related to Phoenician and Moabite, with which it is often placed by scholars in a Canaanite subgroup. Spoken in ancient times in Palestine, Hebrew was supplanted by the western dialect of Aramaic beginning about the 3rd century BC; the language continued to be used as a liturgical and literary language, however. It was revived as a spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries and is the official language of Israel...

Use of the spoken language declined from the 9th century until the 18th century. Nevertheless, the medieval language underwent development, however spasmodic, in various directions. The cult of the liturgical poem called a piyyûṭ (itself a Greek word) in the 6th–9th century enriched the written vocabulary by giving fresh meanings to old words and coining new ones, especially in the so-called Kalirian style; and the Spanish-Hebrew poets of the period 900–1250 followed suit. This period saw also the addition of about 2,000 or 3,000 scientific, philological, and philosophical terms......

Hebrew language. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica. Deluxe Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.

4. Hebrew is translated to mean one thing 90 times, and something that supports the religion once, where convenient.

More Jabberwocky. You are saying that words do not have meaning, and that is absurd.

Most Hebrew is reconstructed from Old Lebanese.

Untenable statement; no basis in fact See Brittanica above

In short, Hebrew is a rubber crutch, a reference that requires more research and references if it is to be trusted.

Obviously you are not a fan of Hebrew, but IMHO, I believe that it is important that you base your opinions more on fact than on fantasy.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 203 by By Grace]

By Grace,
1. Words don't ever prove anything.

Is it correct that your position is that "Words mean what you want them to say?" That seems to be the gist of this first comment. If that is correct, then what is the difference between what you posted and the poem "Jabberwocky" by Lewis Carroll?

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!�

2. You can never get the context and culture from another language, exactly.

This is contrary to the meanings of ALL words, and in particular the meanings of the words "context" and "culture".

3. Hebrew is a language that has been dead twice. God did a poor job there.

CFR

Semitic language of the Northern Central (also called Northwestern) group; it is closely related to Phoenician and Moabite, with which it is often placed by scholars in a Canaanite subgroup. Spoken in ancient times in Palestine, Hebrew was supplanted by the western dialect of Aramaic beginning about the 3rd century BC; the language continued to be used as a liturgical and literary language, however. It was revived as a spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries and is the official language of Israel...

Use of the spoken language declined from the 9th century until the 18th century. Nevertheless, the medieval language underwent development, however spasmodic, in various directions. The cult of the liturgical poem called a piyyûṭ (itself a Greek word) in the 6th–9th century enriched the written vocabulary by giving fresh meanings to old words and coining new ones, especially in the so-called Kalirian style; and the Spanish-Hebrew poets of the period 900–1250 followed suit. This period saw also the addition of about 2,000 or 3,000 scientific, philological, and philosophical terms......

Hebrew language. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica. Deluxe Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.

4. Hebrew is translated to mean one thing 90 times, and something that supports the religion once, where convenient.

More Jabberwocky. You are saying that words do not have meaning, and that is absurd.

Most Hebrew is reconstructed from Old Lebanese.

Untenable statement; no basis in fact See Brittanica above

In short, Hebrew is a rubber crutch, a reference that requires more research and references if it is to be trusted.

Obviously you are not a fan of Hebrew, but IMHO, I believe that it is important that you base your opinions more on fact than on fantasy.

Why all the seeming dodging on your part?
You seem to want to focus on the translation issue in Isaiah, but for what reason? I can only assume it is your defense mechanism at play to avoid the issues that are being brought up to you.

Perhaps you will attempt to address them, or just beat the pulp out of the already bloody horse?

Post 206: "The main point of my arguments here is that Christians such as yourself praise God for helping out certain situations, both in the past and in the present, but do not question him when he doesn't help out in situations like Sandy Hook.
To me, that's logically inconsistent. It doesn't make sense, other than in wanting to keep God in his special place."

Will you address his main argument, or continue with your Isaiah dodge?

"From my point of view, the line from Isaiah says something like "I create {insert word for bad}". It doesn't matter for my arguments which word exactly is put in there, evil, darkness, calamity, whatever,"

Will you acknowledge this so we can have debate? Your seeming avoidance of this comes off as a dodge.

"Does the line from Isaiah even really do anything to counter the points both Jagella and myself raised? Even if Isaiah didn't have that line, I honestly think the arguments we've been raising still stand."

Yet here we are, beating the bloody horse to a pulp when the horse seems irrelevant.

"What does your victory on the translation of Isaiah do to my and Jagella's arguments? "
"What does your victory on the translation of Isaiah do to my and Jagella's arguments? " (Thought I would post this one twice)
Here you are even awarded the translation argument. I was over joyed when I saw this as I thought perhaps you would focus on the actual points being raised. So far, no such luck though.

All of these from just post 206: "You no doubt believe that the God you worship to be kind, just, merciful and loving. All sorts of positive adjectives.
I counter that by pointing to what is on the printed page of the very Bible that you yourselves point to as an authority. Where's the kindness, justice, mercy and love when God kills Onan for pulling out, for example?"
I know! Let's talk about Isaiah! Gahhhhhh!!!!!!!!! ](*,)

[By Grace]

[Replying to post 226 by Clownboat]

Why all the seeming dodging on your part?
You seem to want to focus on the translation issue in Isaiah, but for what reason? I can only assume it is your defense mechanism at play to avoid the issues that are being brought up to you.

I am not a fan of "pop psychology" so kindly refrain.

The "issue" is very simple:

• Words mean what they say in the original language
  Unfortunate mis-translations do not establish anything

Post 206: "The main point of my arguments here is that Christians such as yourself praise God for helping out certain situations, both in the past and in the present, but do not question him when he doesn't help out in situations like Sandy Hook.

To me, that's logically inconsistent. It doesn't make sense, other than in wanting to keep God in his special place."

Will you address his main argument, or continue with your Isaiah dodge?

As for my "evasion", I post this FOR THE THIRD TIME because it is a Bible parallel taken from the time of Jesus:

Jesus gave us a very good answer, and i quote it here again because no one took this into consideration previously:

Luke 13:2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way?
3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem?
5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.�
ESV

Basically, y'all are asking the wrong question. It is not about God's inability to stop evil; it is about the preparation y'all have for the sure end of your life.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 225 by By Grace]

So, I suppose you think I should base my opinions on the fantasy a man can come back from the dead, rather than, as you even mentioned, that Hebrew died in favour of Aramaic?

Whyfor is it you said one thing, then drew a completely different conclusion from it?

Words in any language can say anything.

"And the ant-king ruled over Europe from the age of elephant to the end of time."

No matter what language you write it in, it is just a nonsensical as a flood covering the entire planet in water and only two of every kind surviving.

[By Grace]

When any poster posts absurdities, it is the end of any further responses.

[Tcg]

I am not a fan of "pop psychology" so kindly refrain.

3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

I am not a fan of empty and meaningless threats used to try to dishonestly win an argument so kindly refrain.

The fact is everyone will perish no matter what they do or do not believe. With the right connections, one may be able to avoid taxes, but no one will be able to avoid death. It is a fact of life.