I Guess if God Commands it, Then it's Okay?

[POI]

For Debate:

1) Isn't it always cowardly to kill small defenseless children? Or, is there a circumstance(s) and/or time where killing small children/babies is/was instead deemed "correct/good/righteous"?

2) How does one know God is asking them to do this/that, verses not?

Reference:

“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” (Ezekiel 9:5-7)

[Data]

God doesn't exist. Let's stop the farce. If God does, tell him to speak to me now. Tell Odin to come down from his throne and make himself known to me - whether I want him to or not.

Why? Why should or would God come looking for you? If you wanted to find God you could.

Let me guess... God doesn't work that way? Really? Did you check that with God - or are you speaking for him?

Specifically for your doubt, no. But God did work like that for me.

Search yourself: Why do you believe in God? You'll find there is no reason - only a hope. Hope isn't evidence.

Nor is doubt.

[Data]

Maybe the Jehovah you love is a 'sadistic voyeur.' God decides to be proactive here, but not with the little child's cancer. Maybe because Jehovah is a 'sadistic voyeur.'

Is that supposed to bother me? Like, I mean, that you think that? Because it doesn't. At all.

Either you have empathy and therefore you are not trully truthful or a psychopath and then it would make sense.
Q: So which one is it though?

Empathy has nothing to do with me not being bothered by POI's commentary, so I suppose you mean am I bothered not by God allegedly being a sadistic voyeur in POI's uninformed opinion but rather am I bothered by God not intervening with cancer while commanding the destruction of children in ancient Israel? The reason I am not bothered by POI's opinion is that I'm not ideologically fixated with or emoting a poorly constructed moral quandary.

I've explained, in this thread, why we die, why God doesn't intervene in suffering and why he commanded children to be destroyed. You want to talk about that now?

Q: Also why would you trust and/or worship/venerate a malevolent, evil being(Yahweh)?

Please answer these two questions.

I wouldn't. Why do you ask questions you refuse to accept or understand?

[POI]

God proves to be a 'sadistic voyeur.' Apparently, God opts not to intervene to stop a little child's cancer, but will intervene to order their slaughter.

That's correct.

Why love and follow a 'sadistic voyeur'?

[POI]

Before they were born? Evidence?

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." -- Jeremiah 1:5

Right. What did I say about God "seeing into the future?"

It does not matter what you said about "seeing into the future". The verse I provided demonstrates insight to a claimed God which knows you before you are even born. This goes well beyond human capability. If you were to say you know your unborn daughter is going to become president of the United States, you would not be taken seriously.

I was going to get into the case of Cyrus the Great in your other thread where you kept bugging me to tell you exactly what it was about the Bible that made me a believer. I decided not to because there isn't one thing alone about the Bible that does that. I don't look at the Bible in little pieces. It has to work as a harmonious whole for me.

It's likely 'harmonious' because the later writers already read what was already written of the previous writers. It all needs to "fit"; especially where we get to the "answering of the prophetic".

[alexxcJRO]

Maybe the Jehovah you love is a 'sadistic voyeur.' God decides to be proactive here, but not with the little child's cancer. Maybe because Jehovah is a 'sadistic voyeur.'

Is that supposed to bother me? Like, I mean, that you think that? Because it doesn't. At all.

Either you have empathy and therefore you are not trully truthful or a psychopath and then it would make sense.
Q: So which one is it though?

Empathy has nothing to do with me not being bothered by POI's commentary, so I suppose you mean am I bothered not by God allegedly being a sadistic voyeur in POI's uninformed opinion but rather am I bothered by God not intervening with cancer while commanding the destruction of children in ancient Israel? The reason I am not bothered by POI's opinion is that I'm not ideologically fixated with or emoting a poorly constructed moral quandary.
I've explained, in this thread, why we die, why God doesn't intervene in suffering and why he commanded children to be destroyed. You want to talk about that now?

Dear sir,
Morality evolved as the social behavior of the "pack", "group", "community", "tribe" of animals and humans into what we have today.
Scientists say that the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes: attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and
reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group. They also argue that these pre-moral sentiments evolved in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups.
For any social species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group should outweigh the benefits of individualism. For example, lack of group cohesion could make individuals more vulnerable
to attack from outsiders. Being part of group may also improve the chances of finding food. This is evident among animals that hunt in packs to take down large or dangerous prey.

Morality evolved because of natural selection.

Groups, pack, tribes that were more altruistic, that showed more cohesion, sympathy and empathy and cooperation were more likely to survive and find food. Groups were psychopathy was prevalent and showed mostly individual selfishness were less likely to survive.

We have an objective mechanism leading to a morality that is independent of religious propaganda or societal influence.

Evolution -> Mirror neurons -> Affective Empathy.

As a result of this mirroring process =affective empathy we humans(except psychopaths who have a innate problem involving the affective empathy) have developed intrinsically a sense of morality) mostly guided by the Golden Rule or law of reciprocity which is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself.

It is a fact that when you see children, women being raped, tortured or killed; when you see the face of someone experiencing intense fear/pain/suffering your mirror neurons fire and the affective empathy process is triggered. You empathize with these people for you put yourself in their shoes aka the mirroring process and because you would not want to be raped, tortured, killed(your existence to be stopped, because of the survival instinct) you instinctively find these actions abhorrent.

Our intrinsic "Morality" is tied to Affective Empathy.

Q: So again I ask are you psychopath with his "Affective Empathy" affected or not being truthful that you are not being bothered by suffering and pain that is inflicted to babies?

Q: Also why would you trust and/or worship/venerate a malevolent, evil being(Yahweh)?

Please answer these two questions.

I wouldn't. Why do you ask questions you refuse to accept or understand?

Yahweh is clearly depicted in the Bible as malevolent, evil inflicting great suffering and pain to a great number of humans including non-moral agents(infants, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired). Yahweh orders the genocides of some humans, Yahweh kills 70,000 Israelites for the sin of one man(David), Yahweh kills all living things on the planet in Noah story. And so on.

This together with the current state of affair where natural evils( Epidermolysis bullosa(genetic disease) affecting an infant where the skin is falling off creating copious amounts of pain, a forest fire/asteroid impact hitting the earth/tsunamis which indiscriminately/random inflicts copious amounts of pain, suffering and death to many to both moral agents and non-moral agents.) exist can only point to malevolence-evil.

[Data]

It does not matter what you said about "seeing into the future".

That's the problem. What I say doesn't matter because you can only see your preconceived notions. What we say in this discussion matters. It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong we have to address it as evidence rather than operate on our preconceived notions. That's why I listen to you and you don't listen to me. You say the verse means that God knows what you will do before you do it. Period. I say no, his foreknowledge is practical. The evidence is in my favor. Here's why: Greek mythology portrayed the three goddesses, the Fates, as those who spun the thread of life and determining the length of it, cut it. The Bible teaches no such thing. Though the language used in modern translations can be somewhat misleading, when looking at this difficult subject it is important that we are careful with language. For example, under the heading “God determines who is going to heaven” it is important to note that that statement is true. God does determine, or decide, who is going to heaven. It doesn’t necessarily imply that God predetermines this. There is no conflict with an accurate interpretation of scripture in the statement "God determines" whereas there would be with "God predetermines."

Acts 13:48 (KJV) uses the term “ordained.” To be ordained in a religious sense is to officially appoint someone to a position such as Priest or Rabbi. Keep in mind that to appoint someone doesn’t in itself determine the outcome of it. It doesn’t dictate their success or failure. To ordain in a legal sense means to establish something formerly as by law. Again, this doesn’t dictate success or failure. The law ordained isn’t necessarily obeyed or followed.

In an attempt to get a better sense of what is being implied, compare the verse with other translations. The NIV, YLT and ESV use the term appointed. To me this is a more appropriate term. It can mean previously agreed upon, and met at the appointed time, but it can also mean decorated in the sense of being well furnished or equipped.

With all of this in mind consider the NWT, which uses the most easily understood and scripturally accurate (supported) terminology. They use the term “rightly disposed.”

So the reader has the choice of leaning towards a fate predetermined like the goddesses of Greek mythology mentioned above, which isn’t supported by scripture, or leaning, instead, to the peoples of the nations hearing the statement given at Acts 13:47: “For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth” they would see themselves as being given the opportunity to meet this appointment quoted from Isaiah 42:6-7. The Christian era had opened the possibility of salvation to the Gentiles; the nations.

The possibility of salvation. There would be no need for repentance of the wicked, nor the need to continue in righteousness if it were all decided for each of us beforehand. (2 Peter 3:17)

The point being that God at some point knew that the Gentiles would have this opportunity but didn’t foreordain the acceptance of those Gentiles of that opportunity, the choice was up to them.

When considering Romans 8:29-30 it is apparent that it isn’t a reference to specific individuals, but rather with a class of people. Jehovah has determined that there will be a group of people - Christians - who would be justified or declared righteous rather than that specific individuals were predestined for it. This is obvious, again as with Acts 13:48, when addressing the same group of possible candidates for this group, Peter warns of the possibility of failing. (2 Peter 1:10) If God had predestined these individuals for either failing or succeeding in being a part of this group there would be nothing they could do to change that. The possibility of failing wouldn’t be for those whom God had foreordained for that position, so that is not the case.

The King James Version reads the latter portion of 2 Timothy 1:9 as “before the world began.” Various translations differ: YLT "Before the time of the ages" / NIV "before the beginning of time." / Douay-Rheims "before the times of the world." / ESV "before the ages began." What exactly does this term mean? Most people tend to think of it incorrectly as being before the creation of earth and man, meaning that all since then had been foreknown by God. That isn’t the case at all.

The Greek term katabole is used, and literally means a casting or laying down. For example, throwing down a seed. At Hebrews 11:11 the term is applied to Sarah's being given the gift to "conceive" at a late age.

At Luke 11:50-51 Jesus gives us insight on when this term, the founding of the world, began. From the blood of Abel. Abel, of course, was the offspring of Adam and Eve, so this time began when the first human couple conceived and began the race of mankind.

The word "world" is translated from the Greek kosmos, which has various meanings. 1. Humankind as a whole. 2. The structure of the human circumstances into which one is born and lives and 3. The masses of humankind apart from God's servants.

So, in a sense we are all living in the same period as Abel, though he is at the beginning and we are closer to the conclusion. The founding of the world, in this sense, then, would be the period of time after Adam’s sin but before Adam and Eve conceived. This is the period of time in which God began to allow for the possibility of salvation from the harmful effects of Adam’s sin. Genesis 3:15, the first prophecy of the Bible, is often overlooked as the beginning of all of this because it is often viewed as strictly a pronouncement upon Adam and Eve and the Serpent. When actually it is the first indication that there would be a division of, in a sense of the word, worlds. Those siding with Satan’s seed; his “offspring” so to speak and those of Jehovah’s seed from the woman, his earthly organization of faithful followers who were proved to be rightly disposed or ordained as a class of people from that moment until the conclusion of the world. Put simply, there would be those for Jehovah and those against.

The same would apply to Ephesians 1:4-5 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as with 2 Timothy 1:9

At 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, where the KJV uses the term "a strong delusion" other translations use "working of error," (ASV) "a misleading influence, a working of error," (AMP) "fooled into believing a lie." (CEV) The question is, what does this mean?

In a basic sense it means God will allow them to believe as they will, which in this case, was a lie as it was with King Ahab at 1 Kings 22:1-38; 2 Chronicles 18. If you prefer the lie there is nothing that God can do to change that except hold you accountable to it. Note that other translations use the term "judged" rather than damned as the KJV uses. Also note that, where most translations, including the KJV, use the term "found pleasure" in unrighteousness literally means in Greek "having thought well." They have given it thought and strive in an intellectual sense, to come to the conclusion they desire.

Romans 9:11-22 - Verses such as these are often judged from a predestinarian perspective which is, at best, arbitrary. Fortunately, God's perfection isn't so demanding so as to feel the need to measure up completely to the standards of excellence set by those who are not qualified to judge its merits. Put simply, as the Christian would put it, most often without having even the slightest knowledge of why, it amounts to God’s grace. In other words, God’s undeserved kindness. There is nothing we can do to make it so we "deserve" it.

In the case of Jacob and Esau, the firstborn, by tradition, was expected to have a claim on birthright, but Jehovah decided that it would be Jacob. Esau didn't appreciate it. Jehovah would see to Jacob‘s prospering. Is this a case of predestination? No. Even in the womb before they were born the twins struggled, and so then Jehovah revealed to Rebekah the way things would be. (Genesis 25:22-23; also see Psalm 139:13-16)

The verse I provided demonstrates insight to a claimed God which knows you before you are even born.

Me? That verse isn't about me, it's about Jeremiah. The verse informs Jeremiah that God had purposed there be a prophet as he was appointed as a prophet and Jehovah insured that that was the case, as with the others I mentioned. Samson, Cyrus, etc. Before Jeremiah was in the womb.

This goes well beyond human capability. If you were to say you know your unborn daughter is going to become president of the United States, you would not be taken seriously.

That is somewhat true. We don't have the capability to insure such a thing with the degree of certainty God does. If I say my son will inherit my vast wealth and be the owner of my estate I can do things, within my limited power, to see it happen. So, the verses after the one you posted, what do they say? You know, you're like a horse. Google can sometimes point you in the right direction but it can't make you drink. Jeremiah had no confidence. But he didn't need any because Jehovah was operating, through his holy spirit, ensuring Jeremiah did what God purposed for him. Take Jonah as an example. He wasn't happy with Nineveh. Said, nope. Not going to do it. Jeremiah, at one point, says he's had enough. Doesn't want to do it anymore. No one is listening, it's nothing but trouble for him. He changes his mind because Jehovah was with him.

Now, just because it was the case with them doesn't mean it is the case with anyone today. Those were individual cases of real people. In a specific place and time where events were unfolding. Jehovah helps us in a similar way but not exactly as was called for then. We have the Bible, as an example, and those events took place for their specific purpose. Looking at them as you do isn't a fair or accurate measure of the evidence, especially with your aforementioned preconceived notions.

It's likely 'harmonious' because the later writers already read what was already written of the previous writers. It all needs to "fit"; especially where we get to the "answering of the prophetic".

That's a fair proposition. The evidence can be properly examined.

[POI]

The reason I am not bothered by POI's opinion is that I'm not ideologically fixated with or emoting a poorly constructed moral quandary.

Just curious.... Why is my assessment poorly constructed? Here it is again, for clarification:

God chooses not to intervene, so some children can remain in suffering. God chooses to intervene, to begin the child's suffering. You have already acknowledged both. I think you would not do the same

I've explained, in this thread, 1) why we die, 2) why God doesn't intervene in suffering and 3) why he commanded children to be destroyed.

1) According to the Bible, we die because of 'inherited sin'.
2) But God does intervene, to create suffering. You already acknowledged this.
3) He could just as easily deny their conception(s). It would make no difference. The same goal would have been achieved - to stop them from later becoming obstacles. Instead, God simply watches what he already knew was going to happen. In this case, the slaughter of little children - as he also knew they were going to be an obstacle prior to their birth.

[Data]

God proves to be a 'sadistic voyeur.' Apparently, God opts not to intervene to stop a little child's cancer, but will intervene to order their slaughter.

That's correct.

:approve: Why love and follow a 'sadistic voyeur'?

I was rather under the impression that you didn't. Why believe in evolution?

[POI]

That's the problem. What I say doesn't matter because you can only see your preconceived notions. What we say in this discussion matters. It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong we have to address it as evidence rather than operate on our preconceived notions. That's why I listen to you and you don't listen to me.

Negative. I read and listen. But I find some of your responses quite incongruent. You stated your time here is limited. So is mine. Since God states he 'created and also knew of someone's fate in the womb', game over. You cannot compare any human. So please stop trying. No human knows any humans exact fate, before they are born. Sure, I could make vague generalizations about mine, or someone else's, unborn. Such as, "I bet your children will inherit your eyes." And wow, I could be right.

This goes well beyond human capability. If you were to say you know your unborn daughter is going to become president of the United States, you would not be taken seriously.

That is somewhat true. We don't have the capability to insure such a thing with the degree of certainty God does. If I say my son will inherit my vast wealth and be the owner of my estate I can do things, within my limited power, to see it happen. So, the verses after the one you posted, what do they say? You know, you're like a horse. Google can sometimes point you in the right direction but it can't make you drink. Jeremiah had no confidence. But he didn't need any because Jehovah was operating, through his holy spirit, ensuring Jeremiah did what God purposed for him.

Okay, I'm going to stop you again right here. The verse I provided was not a 'prediction', it was a certainty. On the contrary, if I were to claim that my first born would inherit my wealth, but they are not yet born, there is still a chance my wife is baron or will only have miscarriages. I make an educated guess.

It's likely 'harmonious' because the later writers already read what was already written of the previous writers. It all needs to "fit"; especially where we get to the "answering of the prophetic".

That's a fair proposition. The evidence can be properly examined.

[POI]

God proves to be a 'sadistic voyeur.' Apparently, God opts not to intervene to stop a little child's cancer, but will intervene to order their slaughter.

That's correct.

Why love and follow a 'sadistic voyeur'?

I was rather under the impression that you didn't. Why believe in evolution?

I'm asking you why you love and/or follow a God which is the source of little children's suffering?

Not sure why you brought evolution into this at all? If evolution was debunked, to my personal satisfaction, it would have absolutely no bearing on this discussion one way or another.