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]

Then your first response is irrelevant. Care to try again?

The OP question is subjective.

I find it interesting theists will often point out the subjectivity of a topic when it might place them in a precarious position to agree Do you agree it is cowardly to kill little children? If not, why not?

Further, how do we know God ordered the slaughter of these children in the first place?

Further still, if you thought God ordered you to kill children, would you, in your subjective opinion, think this was a good god?

God didn't know Adam would sin and die. What else is there?

Well, there is the topic I brought forth. The reference, in the OP, asserts God instructed the killing of little children. And so far, you offered a hypothetical, and when I responded to your hypothetical, you called out the hypothetical.

My point to your initial response is ultimately if God wanted to prevent something, he would not have to order the killing of small children. He could make/create certain women infertile, etc....

[tam]

Peace to you,

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)

Just quickly for the moment: your reference is to a vision, not an act that actual human men were commanded to commit upon anyone.

Your OP questions can still be answered on their own (when I have more time), but it did not appear as though you were aware of the circumstances of your reference.


Peace again.

[POI]

Peace to you,

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)

Just quickly for the moment: your reference is to a vision, not an act that actual human men were commanded to commit upon anyone.

Your OP questions can still be answered on their own (when I have more time), but it did not appear as though you were aware of the circumstances of your reference.


Peace again.

Was the vision self-manifested, or guided by God, and what God wanted?

[Data]

I find it interesting theists will often point out the subjectivity of a topic when it might place them in a precarious position to agree ;)

I think it's okay, others don't. What about that isn't subjective? Do you really think anyone can put me in a more precarious position than God on the subject?

Do you agree it is cowardly to kill little children? If not, why not?

Again, it depends. A child raping murderer is cowardly, the creator of life, the universe and everything, not so much. The reason God killed people, including children, is because they were an obstacle to his purpose of mankind living forever. See my meaning of the Bible post elsewhere.

Further, how do we know God ordered the slaughter of these children in the first place?

Since that, I assume, isn't realistically up for dispute considering the Bible says it clearly, you must be talking about the existence of the alleged God?

Further still, if you thought God ordered you to kill children, would you, in your subjective opinion, think this was a good god?

Yes. And I would gladly do it. But only if I had made certain there was no other explanation for the actual command itself.

Well, there is the topic I brought forth. The reference, in the OP, asserts God instructed the killing of little children. And so far, you offered a hypothetical, and when I responded to your hypothetical, you called out the hypothetical.

My point to your initial response is ultimately if God wanted to prevent something, he would not have to order the killing of small children. He could make/create certain women infertile, etc....

Okay, what do you base your claim upon? What evidence is there?

[alexxcJRO]

The Problem of Gratuitous suffering and Gratuitous evils is the ultimate deathblow to Christianity.

No, it isn't, it's their bread and butter.

Care to translate that. Speak clearly.

Millions of women, men and children have suffered and died in Christian inquisition, Christian Witch trials, Christian/Islamic Holy Wars, terrorist attacks for not reason.

See? Bread and butter. You can say bread and circuses if you like. Same thing.

Don't understand. Please rephrase that without ușe of metaphores.

[POI]

Do you really think you can put me in a more precarious position than God on the subject?

I think it is the same, whether I ask you <or> 'God'. The question then becomes, why do you always agree with God? Is it because of:

a) might makes right? Which ultimately renders God's wants subjective as well...
b) reason outside of God's mere say-so? Which means following what God wants is unnecessary to justify a want...
c) other???

a) Again, it depends. A child raping murderer is cowardly, the creator of life, the universe and everything, not so much. The reason God killed people, including children, is because they were an obstacle to his purpose of mankind living forever.

Your response makes no sense though. If god does not know which children would grow up to be an obstacle, then how did god know which children to kill?

Since that, I assume, isn't realistically up for dispute considering the Bible says it clearly, you must be talking about the existence of the alleged God?

It points back to question 2) of the OP:

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

Many think they receive communication from God. How is one to distinguish between self-deception <vs> genuine god interactions? Isn't it likely the referenced verses, in the OP, are mere self-deception? And now, you are left "holding the bag", in an effort to try and 'defend' it?

Yes. And I would gladly do it. But only if I had made certain there was no other explanation for the actual command itself.

Then you fit right in with the title of this topic

-- How would you make certain there was no other solution?
-- How would you know God commanded it?
-- And why is God's command correct?
-- Why didn't God instead make/create certain women infertile? If God does not know which children would later grow up to be an obstacle. then the ordered killing of children is instead arbitrary.

Okay, what do you base your claim upon? What evidence is there?

I'm responding to what you have stated thus far. I'm following your lead. See above, which already addresses all of it...

[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?

[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.

[Data]

I think it is the same, whether I ask you <or> 'God'.

I gave you my answer, what did God tell you?

The question then becomes, why do you always agree with God?

No. I don't. Two examples come to mind. God shouldn't have allowed Israel to select a human king in his stead, and when Uzzah was killed trying to prevent the ark of the covenant from falling. What has to be done is fairly examine the reasons. In your scenario, since the Hitler one didn't seem to suffice, say a child was murdering children and in preventing it one was forced to decide whether or not to kill the murdering child to prevent other children, innocent children from being murdered. The poorly constructed moralistic argument of the atheist isn't typically that thought out.

Is it because of:

a) might makes right? Which ultimately renders God's wants subjective as well...
b) reason outside of God's mere say-so? Which means following what God wants is unnecessary to justify a want...
c) other???

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.

Your response makes no sense though. If god does not know which children would grow up to be an obstacle, then how did god know which children to kill?

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

It points back to question 2) of the OP:

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

Many think they receive communication from God. How is one to distinguish between self-deception <vs> genuine god interactions? Isn't it likely the referenced verses, in the OP, are mere self-deception? And now, you are left "holding the bag", in an effort to try and 'defend' it?

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.

Yes. And I would gladly do it. But only if I had made certain there was no other explanation for the actual command itself.

Then you fit right in with the title of this topic ;)

Lovely smile.

-- How would you make certain there was no other solution?
-- How would you know God commanded it?

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.

-- And why is God's command correct?

Subjective.

-- Why didn't God instead make/create certain women infertile? If God does not know which children would later grow up to be an obstacle. then the ordered killing of children is instead arbitrary.

God knew, in the specific cases mentioned in the Bible.

I'm responding to what you have stated thus far. I'm following your lead. See above, which already addresses all of it...

No, I implied no such thing. It's nonsensical.

[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.