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)

[POI]

what did God tell you?

God doesn't tell me anything. Most likely because there exists no such god.

No. I don't.

But you do agree to murdering little children in the reference verse from the OP.

a) then for self-preservation? I.e. it doesn't matter if God is a monster as long as I survive? No. Not for me. Good and bad (evil) are always subjective. Everyone decides if they agree with God or not.
b) I don't know what that means. I trust God, I don't trust myself. Interpretation, bias, etc. in interpreting what God wants has to be taken into account. The theistic idealism and the atheistic response are sophomoric.

You either follow god because a) 'he says so', or b) a reason(s) outside his say-so, which then means you do not need god. So either, a) submit to a god which can change His mind arbitrarily and is right because of might -- (void of reasons), or b) follow reasons outside god's command -- rendering god unnecessary. Which crappy answer does the theist choose? I see no option c) for the theist?

Did I imply he didn't know in that specific case?

Why does the Bible God know, in this case, that little children needed to be killed without any pity; but not in other cases -- like with "Adam and Eve" for instance?

The Bible. The quickest way to address this is for you to give me an example. Let's take the one you've already given. Some crazy thinks God or Satan told him to mow down a gay pride parade, bomb an abortion clinic, blow up a Muslim temple or go to war because God is on their side. Correct understanding of the Bible would prevent this in numerous ways but it doesn't matter to the crazy. It wouldn't matter if his violence was inspired by freedom, democracy, Christianity etc. How to distinguish? Understand the Bible and don't listen to the crazy. The solution is to remove the ideology, atheistic and theistic, and learn the Bible.

I've read the Bible, just like you. How do you know the reference passage, from the OP, is the "real deal" and not yet another claim from an ancient "crazy mad-man"?

Compare it to Bible understanding, insist on God's command directly through Christ Jesus. God doesn't randomly insist on murdering children who are an obstacle. Only in specific cases in the past.

Again, I've read the Bible too. "Bible-understanding" really means nothing. I've debated hermeneutic scholars who do not agree. And insisting on God's command only reconfirms option a) above. How do you know the passage from the OP is from God? How do you know ALL commands to murder children, with no pity, aren't all counterfeit?

Subjective.

You admit God's commands are subjective too?

[POI]

Care to translate that. Speak clearly.

Modern day apostate Christianity, far removed from the original for nearly two thousand years of oppression, suppression, murder and greed, among other atrocities, has thrived upon those things. It has benefitted, rather than been harmed by them. Their political and social power having rapidly diminished since the industrial revolutions, now focuses on a fake morality which subscribes to the scripturally unsupported hellfire doctrine which has their moral opponents suffering further punishment. That's what benefits Christianity now. The Problem of Gratuitous suffering and Gratuitous evils isn't the ultimate deathblow to Christianity since in the past it was a literal financial incentive and, in the present, a figurative financial incentive. Simply, in the past they achieved money and power through might and in the present through the unscriptural supported hell doctrine which gives them a false sense of moral superiority.

Make sense?

I reckon an unbeliever could make the exact same argument for the version you believe. 'Politics' were around plenty for the version you uphold as well.

No. The atheistic response is a sociopolitical ideological one. God, the Bible aren't very relevant to it.

I'm going to rubber-stamp your last response as a 'deepidy'. It sounds really cool, sophisticated, and profound, but instead, offers nothing. Care to try again? Here is my last response, unanswered:

I reckon an unbeliever could make the exact same argument for the version you believe. 'Politics' were around plenty for the version you uphold as well.

[Data]

Care to translate that. Speak clearly.

Modern day apostate Christianity, far removed from the original for nearly two thousand years of oppression, suppression, murder and greed, among other atrocities, has thrived upon those things. It has benefitted, rather than been harmed by them. Their political and social power having rapidly diminished since the industrial revolutions, now focuses on a fake morality which subscribes to the scripturally unsupported hellfire doctrine which has their moral opponents suffering further punishment. That's what benefits Christianity now. The Problem of Gratuitous suffering and Gratuitous evils isn't the ultimate deathblow to Christianity since in the past it was a literal financial incentive and, in the present, a figurative financial incentive. Simply, in the past they achieved money and power through might and in the present through the unscriptural supported hell doctrine which gives them a false sense of moral superiority.

Make sense?

I reckon an unbeliever could make the exact same argument for the version you believe. 'Politics' were around plenty for the version you uphold as well.

No. The atheistic response is a sociopolitical ideological one. God, the Bible aren't very relevant to it.

I'm going to rubber-stamp your last response as a 'deepidy'. It sounds really cool, sophisticated, and profound, but instead, offers nothing. Care to try again? Here is my last response, unanswered:

I reckon an unbeliever could make the exact same argument for the version you believe. 'Politics' were around plenty for the version you uphold as well.

Fair enough. I've made similar calls. The atheistic response is a sociopolitical response to theism, not God, which the atheist doesn't believe in, or the Bible, which they believe is a fairy tale. Atheism. So, the argument that my version is sociopolitical could be argued much the same as the moon is made of cheese could be argued. The atheist vs theist argument isn't dependent upon theology, theism, or Biblical studies, it is about politics, society and ideology.

The atheistic free thinker doesn't think God kills children. What's the point? Ideological, political and social differences which even in themselves are silly for their virtual absence in reality. Crazies kill children for all sorts of reasons, the atheists are not out there fighting against South Park, Marilyn Manson or the latest potentially lethal tic-toc trend because they know the issue is the crazy, not those things. It's fake morality for sociopolitical ideology.

[POI]

Care to translate that. Speak clearly.

Modern day apostate Christianity, far removed from the original for nearly two thousand years of oppression, suppression, murder and greed, among other atrocities, has thrived upon those things. It has benefitted, rather than been harmed by them. Their political and social power having rapidly diminished since the industrial revolutions, now focuses on a fake morality which subscribes to the scripturally unsupported hellfire doctrine which has their moral opponents suffering further punishment. That's what benefits Christianity now. The Problem of Gratuitous suffering and Gratuitous evils isn't the ultimate deathblow to Christianity since in the past it was a literal financial incentive and, in the present, a figurative financial incentive. Simply, in the past they achieved money and power through might and in the present through the unscriptural supported hell doctrine which gives them a false sense of moral superiority.

Make sense?

I reckon an unbeliever could make the exact same argument for the version you believe. 'Politics' were around plenty for the version you uphold as well.

No. The atheistic response is a sociopolitical ideological one. God, the Bible aren't very relevant to it.

I'm going to rubber-stamp your last response as a 'deepidy'. It sounds really cool, sophisticated, and profound, but instead, offers nothing. Care to try again? Here is my last response, unanswered:

I reckon an unbeliever could make the exact same argument for the version you believe. 'Politics' were around plenty for the version you uphold as well.

Fair enough. I've made similar calls. The atheistic response is a sociopolitical response to theism, not God, which the atheist doesn't believe in, or the Bible, which they believe is a fairy tale. Atheism. So, the argument that my version is sociopolitical could be argued much the same as the moon is made of cheese could be argued. The atheist vs theist argument isn't dependent upon theology, theism, or Biblical studies, it is about politics, society and ideology.

The atheistic free thinker doesn't think God kills children. What's the point? Ideological, political and social differences which even in themselves are silly for their virtual absence in reality. Crazies kill children for all sorts of reasons, the atheists are not out there fighting against South Park, Marilyn Manson or the latest potentially lethal tic-toc trend because they know the issue is the crazy, not those things. It's fake morality for sociopolitical ideology.

Any version of the Bible you think is true could ALSO be associated directly with the part in bold above.

[Data]

Any version of the Bible you think is true could ALSO be associated directly with the part in bold above.

So could anything else. Music, art, politics, nationality, love, freedom, land, security, fear, anger, science, sports, fashion, lifestyle, sexuality, guns, abortion, etc. etc. etc.

[alexxcJRO]

Care to translate that. Speak clearly.

Modern day apostate Christianity, far removed from the original for nearly two thousand years of oppression, suppression, murder and greed, among other atrocities, has thrived upon those things. It has benefitted, rather than been harmed by them. Their political and social power having rapidly diminished since the industrial revolutions, now focuses on a fake morality which subscribes to the scripturally unsupported hellfire doctrine which has their moral opponents suffering further punishment. That's what benefits Christianity now. The Problem of Gratuitous suffering and Gratuitous evils isn't the ultimate deathblow to Christianity since in the past it was a literal financial incentive and, in the present, a figurative financial incentive. Simply, in the past they achieved money and power through might and in the present through the unscriptural supported hell doctrine which gives them a false sense of moral superiority.

Make sense?

More convolutive nonsense.
It does not make sense.
Q: How does what you said refute the The Problem of Gratuitous suffering and Gratuitous evils ?

The Problem of Gratuitous suffering and Gratuitous evils disproves Yahweh-Jesus in 2023 or 1500 or 10000 BC or 1000000 BC. It disproved Yahweh-Jesus before even it was invented by ignorant ancient goat herders.

[Data]

More convolutive nonsense.
It does not make sense.
Q: How does what you said refute the The Problem of Gratuitous suffering and Gratuitous evils ?

The Problem of Gratuitous suffering and Gratuitous evils disproves Yahweh-Jesus in 2023 or 1500 or 10000 BC or 1000000 BC. It disproved Yahweh-Jesus before even it was invented by ignorant ancient goat herders.

Right - the Bible was written during the Babylonian exile in 597 BCE and the gratuitous suffering disproved it prior to that makes more sense. It disproved itself before it existed. I often wonder if the alleged skeptics have ever thought any of that stuff out.

[alexxcJRO]

More convolutive nonsense.
It does not make sense.
Q: How does what you said refute the The Problem of Gratuitous suffering and Gratuitous evils ?

The Problem of Gratuitous suffering and Gratuitous evils disproves Yahweh-Jesus in 2023 or 1500 or 10000 BC or 1000000 BC. It disproved Yahweh-Jesus before even it was invented by ignorant ancient goat herders.

Right - the Bible was written during the Babylonian exile in 597 BCE and the gratuitous suffering disproved it prior to that makes more sense. It disproved itself before it existed. I often wonder if the alleged skeptics have ever thought any of that stuff out.

Yes dear sir the concept is disproved by reality long before was imagined by morons from iron age.

[Data]

More convolutive nonsense.
It does not make sense.
Q: How does what you said refute the The Problem of Gratuitous suffering and Gratuitous evils ?

The Problem of Gratuitous suffering and Gratuitous evils disproves Yahweh-Jesus in 2023 or 1500 or 10000 BC or 1000000 BC. It disproved Yahweh-Jesus before even it was invented by ignorant ancient goat herders.

Right - the Bible was written during the Babylonian exile in 597 BCE and the gratuitous suffering disproved it prior to that makes more sense. It disproved itself before it existed. I often wonder if the alleged skeptics have ever thought any of that stuff out.

Yes dear sir the concept is disproved by reality long before was imagined by morons from iron age.

Let me guess. The problem of gratuitous suffering and evil is just a natural product of evolution, then, correct?

[alexxcJRO]

More convolutive nonsense.
It does not make sense.
Q: How does what you said refute the The Problem of Gratuitous suffering and Gratuitous evils ?

The Problem of Gratuitous suffering and Gratuitous evils disproves Yahweh-Jesus in 2023 or 1500 or 10000 BC or 1000000 BC. It disproved Yahweh-Jesus before even it was invented by ignorant ancient goat herders.

Right - the Bible was written during the Babylonian exile in 597 BCE and the gratuitous suffering disproved it prior to that makes more sense. It disproved itself before it existed. I often wonder if the alleged skeptics have ever thought any of that stuff out.

Yes dear sir the concept is disproved by reality long before was imagined by morons from iron age.

Let me guess. The problem of gratuitous suffering and evil is just a natural product of evolution, then, correct?

There is no problem of gratuitous suffering and evil in a universe where the process of evolution is responsible for all diversity of life together with all the suffering. Process which is not a perfect mechanism and not guided by omni prefect beings. Its an expected outcome. A realistic one.
The problem only exists when one posits omni perfect beings.