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)

[alexxcJRO]

So the whole nonsensical God gonna save us from the thing he created himself.

Death. Evil. A more accurate translation of evil is calamity.

Its irrelevant. God created the calamity according to you.

God sends himself on the Earth to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself.

No. Pagan religious nonsense.

Q: So Jesus is not God? So God did not create evil? Changing like the weather?

God is the ultimate “problem-reaction-solution” master.

The sentiment is a silly little expression. Like hearing an infant child explaining sex.

God creates the problem, escalates fear then offers the pre-plan solution in this macabre game.

See above. A more accurate explanation is that God warned mankind what would happen if they did what they did and then provided a solution. Like this: don't play on the busy street son, son does anyway, father takes son to hospital. Stop seeing God as only possibly a silly fantasy. Consider possible alternatives like a thinking person minus fake ideology. Otherwise, your contribution is only as silly as your flawed premise.

God created the problem and then offered the solution. According to you. Using your logic.
You said God created the problem sir. You said God created evil.

But this points to God being malevolont, evil and stupid. You off course believe God is not though.

Your God is you. Mankind. Mankind is malevolent, evil and stupid so you see God as those things.

A God that creates evil and suffering only to come after to offer the solution to the thing he made its pretty malevolent, evil and stupid.
PS: Clear sign of malevolence and evil: "Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”( 1 Samuel 15:3 )

[Data]

A shining example of 'good' people doing 'bad' things in the name of their believed God. Probably no different than the events leading up to the events recently in the middle east.

Repeat that statement again only replacing the word God with food and water and you will understand why I always dismiss such statements as irrelevant based on ideology. Alot.

Well, you either follow god because he says so, or because of reason. If you state you do not follow him because he says so, then you follow reason, which does not require following god at all. And just because you love someone, does not mean you always have to follow them.

Repeating this doesn't validate it.

a) We already agreed prior, that anyone can change their mind regardless of bias. I gave you examples, and you conquered. I've changed my mind many times about many things. Hence, your response is filled with nonsense here -- (especially your given broad-brush strokes regarding unbelievers not caring about truth, reason, and science).

See my first response in this post above. You can change your mind. I can change my mind. You and I could murder children but that doesn't mean we will.

b) This 'answer' does not address my question. Your responses in posts 5 and 7 suggest God does not always know the future.

I have often said that spiritual examinations, especially from an atheist vs theist perspective, tend to be quixotic vs mundane. I tend to be pragmatic as most unbelievers are. People "think" silly things. The future doesn't exist. God can't see into the future. Fortune tellers don't see into the future. So, what does an expression like God sees into the future mean? It means either of two things, and both are the same as saying you and I can see into the future. Either God can see the logical outcome (in his case far better than we can and with complete accuracy) or he states his purpose and must always fulfill it. God couldn't see that Adam was going to sin but he warned of the possibility. Same with Cain. God purposed for Israel to be a nation for an extremely important purpose regarding mankind and he knew that the perverse people in the cultures of that area were going to be an obstacle so murdering, in some cases, all men, women and children in those cases was paramount. The Israelites failed in some of those cases with disastrous results. God doesn't command the murder of children on a whim or some moral weakness.

Why did God know the future in THIS case, but not others?????

Because it was obvious to him.

In other words, how did God know these particular folks were going to be an obstacle, but had no clue about "Adam" or Hitler???

Hitler was the offspring of Adam. In God's eyes Adam was, prior to his sin, a potential obstacle but Hitler, the children in the vision, the firstborn of Egypt, the Pope, you and I and everyone else who has ever lived - King David, Solomon, Job, Mother Theresa, the Reverend Jim Jones, everyone of all time, with the exception of Jesus, who God also knew would be killed, fall into this same category of being a potential obstacle to God's stated purpose that mankind will as a whole, in a general sense, live forever in peace on earth as Adam was meant to do. Everyone dies. Bringing up the murder of children as a sort of moral obligation, as the OP does, may seem to be an appealing criticism on the part of uninformed unbelievers on an emotional level but not much else from my pragmatic perspective.

How does God know? What does that mean, how? If I asked you how the meteorologist knows it's going to rain tomorrow and not Friday how would you answer? The meteorologist speculates with the training and technology afforded him/her. Still, they don't "really know" so is it possible that God knew only that if he killed them all that would suffice? By the way, throughout this thread I've been applying a broader perspective than the single example the OP gives. The Israelites allowed for conversion. The people from the nations around them could become one of them.

Further, if God knew of this particular case, why not just make their moms infertile? Why wait until their fully aware, and then slaughter them?

Why not have just not created Adam in the first place or made Eve infertile? On an emotional level you're imposing flawed human reasoning and theoretically applying morality on a being who isn't merely temporally or culturally different but also intellectually and morally on an entirely different level. To him we are but grasshoppers. Comparatively speaking doing that is sort of like a cow thinking why don't the humans eat the cows that have already died of disease instead of killing us? So why wait? Because mankind has always been given free reign during the end times. From the conception of Cain to the destruction of the world. with the exception of Israel's founding until the Messiah. Roughly speaking. Take your perspective of God away. Then contemplate why it was formed. I've asked if you've read my link, you haven't answered. Do people do that for the sake of debate? I consider it rude.

Wow! You got me there :) But seriously, you, yourself, agree that all other versions of the Bible, and also all other claims (from other claimed sacred texts for God) are all perversions of the truth. I merely go one step further, which includes yours.

Think about the contradiction you've made in that statement. I agree all versions of the Bible are perversions of the truth and you go one step further including the Bible. That isn't one step further, that's the same step.

My point being virtually no one agrees, while also claiming to be an expert, and/or being guided by God.

Expert means paid. Nothing else. Don't bother looking it up in a dictionary, they give only the common misunderstanding, which also applies to the amateur. Nonsense. And anyway, they do. The Bible itself does.

Which begs the question, why is God giving differing earnest Christians differing answers?

Simple answer. He isn't.

[Data]

Its irrelevant.

No.

God created the calamity according to you.

Correct. The Hebrew word for evil is ra. At Isiaih 45:7 the KJV translates the word as evil, but the more accurate translation is calamity. Compare translations at the link. The word can be translated, depending on the context as gloomy, bad, disingenuous, etc. Think of a parent telling their child not to play in the busy street. To the child this is bad [ra]. So, the child does it anyway, which is bad [ra]. Fortunately, nothing bad [ra] happens except for that the parent catches the child and punishes him. To the child the punishment is evil [ra].

Q: So Jesus is not God? So God did not create evil? Changing like the weather?

God is just a word. A title. In the Bible Jehovah, Moses, the judges of Israel, the angels, many pagan idols and deities and Satan are called gods. Jehovah alone is God almighty, Jesus was a mighty god, but not God almighty. Jehovah God, not Jesus, created evil. Punishment. Adam's death, the flood etc.

God created the problem and then offered the solution. According to you. Using your logic.
You said God created the problem sir. You said God created evil.

God created the evil as a solution.

A God that creates evil and suffering only to come after to offer the solution to the thing he made its pretty malevolent, evil and stupid.

Now you're getting' it!!! So put away those silly ideas and think more clearly about what it all means.

PS: Clear sign of malevolence and evil: "Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”( 1 Samuel 15:3 )

You almost had it.

[alexxcJRO]

God created the calamity according to you.

Correct. The Hebrew word for evil is ra. At Isiaih 45:7 the KJV translates the word as evil, but the more accurate translation is calamity. Compare translations at the link. The word can be translated, depending on the context as gloomy, bad, disingenuous, etc. Think of a parent telling their child not to play in the busy street. To the child this is bad [ra]. So, the child does it anyway, which is bad [ra]. Fortunately, nothing bad [ra] happens except for that the parent catches the child and punishes him. To the child the punishment is evil [ra].

Off course your analogy is not aplicable for natural evils that cause great suffering to non-moral agents like infants, non-human animals, the severaly mentally impaired. Both before there were any Homo Sapiens Sapiens and after.
Like for example Epidermolysis bullosa(genetic disisease) 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.

Q: So Jesus is not God? So God did not create evil? Changing like the weather?

God is just a word. A title. In the Bible Jehovah, Moses, the judges of Israel, the angels, many pagan idols and deities and Satan are called gods. Jehovah alone is God almighty, Jesus was a mighty god, but not God almighty. Jehovah God, not Jesus, created evil. Punishment. Adam's death, the flood etc.

So Jesus is just a lower god.
So you believe in polytheism.
Q: So Jesus is saving us from Jehovah? How can a lower god save us from the God almighty which is more powerful?

God created the problem and then offered the solution. According to you. Using your logic.
You said God created the problem sir. You said God created evil.

God created the evil as a solution.

Your not making any sense.
You said: "true God, Jehovah, created evil. ... So, in effect, if suffering and evil didn't exist, or never had existed, Christianity wouldn't exist because the Bible is all about salvation from the evil."
So you said: God almighty Jehovah created evil. That the Bible is about salvation from the evil.
But then you say evil is the solution. I am not getting it.
Still a convoluted illogical mess.

A God that creates evil and suffering only to come after to offer the solution to the thing he made its pretty malevolent, evil and stupid.

Now you're getting' it!!! So put away those silly ideas and think more clearly about what it all means.

Q: Getting what?
That's an textual example of “problem-reaction-solution”.

PS: Clear sign of malevolence and evil: "Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”( 1 Samuel 15:3 )

You almost had it.

Q: What is that suppose to mean?

[Data]

Off course your analogy is not aplicable for natural evils that cause great suffering to non-moral agents like infants, non-human animals, the severaly mentally impaired. Both before there were any Homo Sapiens Sapiens and after.
Like for example Epidermolysis bullosa(genetic disisease) 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.

Abortion?

So Jesus is just a lower god.

God means worshipped so how would you define lower god. Money is worshipped more than Jehovah and Jesus combined so is money the higher god?

So you believe in polytheism.

I believe in atheism. And henotheism.

Q: So Jesus is saving us from Jehovah? How can a lower god save us from the God almighty which is more powerful?

Jesus came to us from Jehovah to save us from ourselves.

Your not making any sense.
You said: "true God, Jehovah, created evil. ... So, in effect, if suffering and evil didn't exist, or never had existed, Christianity wouldn't exist because the Bible is all about salvation from the evil."
So you said: God almighty Jehovah created evil. That the Bible is about salvation from the evil.
But then you say evil is the solution. I am not getting it.
Still a convoluted illogical mess.

The analogy of the child playing on the busy street didn't register with you. All I can say is read this.

Q: What is that suppose to mean?

That you wouldn't have such a hard time understanding my position if you took a more scientific approach. Think of yourself as a scientist trying to understand primitive culture instead of an unbeliever in a pointless moral argument.

[alexxcJRO]

Off course your analogy is not aplicable for natural evils that cause great suffering to non-moral agents like infants, non-human animals, the severaly mentally impaired. Both before there were any Homo Sapiens Sapiens and after.
Like for example Epidermolysis bullosa(genetic disisease) 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.

Abortion?

Q: Sir are you trolling me ?
Q: What's up with this vague, crypted way of answering? Are you tryin to be obtuse on purpose?
Q: What has abortotion to do with natural evils?

So Jesus is just a lower god.

God means worshipped so how would you define lower god. Money is worshipped more than Jehovah and Jesus combined so is money the higher god?

Sir we are talking of powerful sentient beings not inanimate objects.
You said Jehovah alone is God almighty while Jesus is just a mighty god suggesting a lower status god.
Your only fighting with yourself. I am using your logic alone.

So you believe in polytheism.

I believe in atheism. And henotheism.

Both atheism and henotheism.
Q: What do you mean?

Q: So Jesus is saving us from Jehovah? How can a lower god save us from the God almighty which is more powerful?

Jesus came to us from Jehovah to save us from ourselves.

Q: So Jesus is not going against Jehova's will?
You said salvation from evil. Now you say: "Jesus came to us from Jehovah to save us from ourselves. "
So Jehovah send Jesus to sacrifice himself to save us from what Jehovah did. Still nonsensical garbage.

Q:What about Epidermolysis bullosa(genetic disisease) 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?

Your not making any sense.
You said: "true God, Jehovah, created evil. ... So, in effect, if suffering and evil didn't exist, or never had existed, Christianity wouldn't exist because the Bible is all about salvation from the evil."
So you said: God almighty Jehovah created evil. That the Bible is about salvation from the evil.
But then you say evil is the solution. I am not getting it.
Still a convoluted illogical mess.

The analogy of the child playing on the busy street didn't register with you. All I can say is read this.

The analogy does not explain the existence of natural evils:Epidermolysis bullosa(genetic disisease) 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. Your only talking of moral evils.
Please dont avoid again.

Q: What is that suppose to mean?

That you wouldn't have such a hard time understanding my position if you took a more scientific approach. Think of yourself as a scientist trying to understand primitive culture instead of an unbeliever in a pointless moral argument.

Its about logic sir. You cannot excape the clawss of logic. It will crush you like a bug.

[POI]

A shining example of 'good' people doing 'bad' things in the name of their believed God. Probably no different than the events leading up to the events recently in the middle east.

Repeat that statement again only replacing the word God with food and water and you will understand why I always dismiss such statements as irrelevant based on ideology. Alot.

My point being countless people kill little children, because they (believe) God told them to. This would include you. If I "heard" or "received" such an order, I would ignore it. Why? I do not think any such claimed God would ever order the killing of little children. It would be contradictory to the claim of God's loving nature. In essence, the ones killing little children, "in the name of God", are likely either just delusional, or lying because they actually want to kill little children. Thus, I find it interesting to read that you would absolutely kill little children in this case.

You can change your mind. I can change my mind. You and I could murder children but that doesn't mean we will.

Well, you state you would if "God" wanted you to.

b) This 'answer' does not address my question. Your responses in posts 5 and 7 suggest God does not always know the future.

I have often said that spiritual examinations, especially from an atheist vs theist perspective, tend to be quixotic vs mundane. I tend to be pragmatic as most unbelievers are. People "think" silly things. The future doesn't exist. a) God can't see into the future. Fortune tellers don't see into the future. So, what does an expression like God sees into the future mean? It means either of two things, and both are the same as saying you and I can see into the future. Either God can see the logical outcome (in his case far better than we can and with complete accuracy) or he states his purpose and must always fulfill it. God couldn't see that Adam was going to sin but he warned of the possibility. Same with Cain. b) God purposed for Israel to be a nation for an extremely important purpose regarding mankind and he knew that the perverse people in the cultures of that area were going to be an obstacle so murdering, in some cases, all men, women and children in those cases was paramount. The Israelites failed in some of those cases with disastrous results. c) God doesn't command the murder of children on a whim or some moral weakness.

a) If God cannot see into the future, why still call him a God?
b) Seems odd God cares about bloodlines and specific geographic locations. It's almost as if this is another one of those tribal religions.
c) Seems odd that God's best plan was to murder little children at all. If God has any power, God could have instead made the mothers of these would-be children infertile.

In other words, how did God know these particular folks were going to be an obstacle, but had no clue about "Adam" or Hitler???

Hitler was the offspring of Adam. In God's eyes Adam was, prior to his sin, a potential obstacle but Hitler, the children in the vision, the firstborn of Egypt, the Pope, you and I and everyone else who has ever lived - King David, Solomon, Job, Mother Theresa, the Reverend Jim Jones, everyone of all time, with the exception of Jesus, who God also knew would be killed, fall into this same category of being a potential obstacle to God's stated purpose that mankind will as a whole, in a general sense, live forever in peace on earth as Adam was meant to do. Everyone dies. Bringing up the murder of children as a sort of moral obligation, as the OP does, may seem to be an appealing criticism on the part of uninformed unbelievers on an emotional level but not much else from my pragmatic perspective.

My point being God knew specific individuals were going to do stuff God did not want to happen. God has alternative solutions to slaughtering them when they are little children. And yet, his chosen solution, to detour them from being an obstacle, was ordering other humans to slaughter them?

Further, if God knew of this particular case, why not just make their moms infertile? Why wait until their fully aware, and then slaughter them?

Why not have just not created Adam in the first place or made Eve infertile? On an emotional level you're imposing flawed human reasoning and theoretically applying morality on a being who isn't merely temporally or culturally different but also intellectually and morally on an entirely different level. To him we are but grasshoppers. Comparatively speaking doing that is sort of like a cow thinking why don't the humans eat the cows that have already died of disease instead of killing us? So why wait? Because mankind has always been given free reign during the end times. From the conception of Cain to the destruction of the world. with the exception of Israel's founding until the Messiah. Roughly speaking. Take your perspective of God away. Then contemplate why it was formed. I've asked if you've read my link, you haven't answered. Do people do that for the sake of debate? I consider it rude.

a) How about, in Adam's case, judge each offspring based upon their own merits alone, and not attach all offspring's 'guilt' to the choices of the parent?
b) Why not make Hitler's mom infertile? God has no problem ordering slaughter, which means God orders human intervention to prevent what God does not want or like. This means God could use other alternative intervention(s), such as ordering influential/educational people to come into Hitler's life which ultimately reshapes Hitler's thinking.

Wow! You got me there But seriously, you, yourself, agree that all other versions of the Bible, and also all other claims (from other claimed sacred texts for God) are all perversions of the truth. I merely go one step further, which includes yours.

Think about the contradiction you've made in that statement. I agree all versions of the Bible are perversions of the truth and you go one step further including the Bible. That isn't one step further, that's the same step.

So you do not adhere to any version of what the Bible says? If not, then we have nothing to discuss here.

Expert means paid. Nothing else. Don't bother looking it up in a dictionary, they give only the common misunderstanding, which also applies to the amateur. Nonsense. And anyway, they do. The Bible itself does.

Your view, and many others ("expert" or not), differ. And yet, all of you think you have the right version.

Which begs the question, why is God giving differing earnest Christians differing answers?

Simple answer. He isn't.

Then how do you know you are receiving God's information correctly?

[boatsnguitars]

If I "heard" or "received" such an order, I would ignore it. Why? I do not think any such claimed God would ever order the killing of little children. It would be contradictory to the claim of God's loving nature. In essence, the ones killing little children, "in the name of God", are likely either just delusional, or lying because they actually want to kill little children. Thus, I find it interesting to read that you would absolutely kill little children in this case.

This is why I have argued that any religion that asserts that God commands or has commanded people to kill for him is Evil. It is literally the indicator of an evil religion, since any God of average intelligence would know that - especially with mental illness - people would be easily convinced that God commanded them to kill, and that it would be righteous. To have this as a real feature of out world (in which you can't know if the person murdering you or your family is doing it with God's approval or not) is untenable.

This incongruity can't stand. One can't have a religion, especially one that claims to be the source of all Goodness and Light, that claims you occasionally might be asked to murder a child.

[Data]

My point being countless people kill little children, because they (believe) God told them to. This would include you.

It's not a subtle point you're making, I get it, but no, I don't kill children. Let me put this in a perspective which negates your personal ideological fixation with theism. If I was a scientist I wouldn't build nuclear bombs to kill large groups of people, including children and cute puppies, just because I knew the science. I would only do it because I was insane. So, do insane people believe in God and are there insane scientists. Yes.

Since you don't believe God exists or tells anyone anything the essence of your point is why believe in a God that kills children because you know only a crazy person would do that without God actually saying so. The crux of my argument would be different, in that it would say scripturally speaking it isn't likely to ever have happened other than with ancient Israel because that was the only time there was a need for it. The destruction of children in the deluge of Noah's day was directly performed by God rather than men, and in Revelation it will either be destruction by fellow men without any command of God or again, similar to the deluge, directly by God and his angels.

If I "heard" or "received" such an order, I would ignore it. Why? I do not think any such claimed God would ever order the killing of little children.

That isn't good enough. If you were insane and you heard a voice commanding such a thing, a) it wouldn't matter whether it was "God's" voice or "Elvis's" voice. b) Your uninformed assumption on any such claimed God is erroneous based upon the very scripture you provided in the OP. The argument that it was only a vision isn't sound because 1) visions are one method of communication God uses and 2) there are also cases of literal commands to kill children. (Numbers 31:17; Deuteronomy 7:1-2; 20:16-18)

It would be contradictory to the claim of God's loving nature.

You've made that unsupported claim earlier, the evidence even you provided refutes it and there isn't any other source.

In essence, the ones killing little children, "in the name of God", are likely either just delusional, or lying because they actually want to kill little children. Thus, I find it interesting to read that you would absolutely kill little children in this case.

You should definitely consider more careful phrasing in such delicate cases as this. I would have killed children as commanded in ancient Israel, and in the extremely unlikely event in the present or future only if making absolutely sure there was no room for error. God would have to make it very clear to me that I wasn't crazy, sick, poisoned or tricked by mortal or demonic influence. The actual divine command itself is so unlikely so as to be virtually impossible. If I felt compelled to do that without that divine assurance I would rather take my own life.

I always find these sorts of idealistic moral conundrums very hypocritical. I'm apolitical so I would die before going to war for my country. And I have no doubt that more children were killed by American soldiers in the gulf war than all of the children ever killed by God's command, either realistically or by crazy people. This demonstrates the importance of the ancient Israelite objective. The children being killed were also being sacrificed by fire by their own parents. The fact that the Israelites didn't follow God's command to kill them all, men, women, and children, led Israel to copy this ritualistic murder of children which Jehovah thought was detestable. Likewise, in the future, if the battle of Armageddon is literal, American "Christian" soldiers who have only ever known the apostate mythology of Christianity will unwittingly war against God himself.

Well, you state you would if "God" wanted you to.

I did and I meant it, but I don't sit around and think to myself "I reccon' Jees-us hankers for me ta' kill me a few of these pesky chil'lin! Sounds like a plan, I'll do it too, 'soon as I put my banjo away."

a) If God cannot see into the future, why still call him a God?

Because the future doesn't exist and I have no use of it, because to me God isn't some Santa Claus fantasy or cosmic cash cow. Because I'm not retarded or superstitious. Any number of reasons.

b) Seems odd God cares about bloodlines and specific geographic locations. It's almost as if this is another one of those tribal religions.

Originally the plan was to save only Israel but when they rejected the messiah the invitation was extended to the gentile. Realistically the intent is simply the preservation of mankind, not any specific group or tribe. Even if it had been that the Israelites were saved it would still only amount to the preservation of mankind, it just happens that originally in order to do that the Israelites were selected.

c) Seems odd that God's best plan was to murder little children at all. If God has any power, God could have instead made the mothers of these would-be children infertile.

There's that Santa Claus mentality. You may not believe it, but God is real, not some magic old man in the sky who can wave a wand and defy natural law. If he had wanted mechanical robots he could have manufactured them. He had the power to create the universe so that the aforementioned natural laws were to be adhered to. It works like that because that's the way he set it up. Just because he doesn't live up to nonsensical and fantastical expectations doesn't mean he is powerless or not worthy to be a god. This is why I'm always frustrated at unbelievers for adopting from the "Christians" the quixotic definition of the word god in their myopic criticism.

My point being God knew specific individuals were going to do stuff God did not want to happen. God has alternative solutions to slaughtering them when they are little children. And yet, his chosen solution, to detour them from being an obstacle, was ordering other humans to slaughter them?

By alternatives you mean waving his wand and what? Setting them down somewhere where they wouldn't interfere? Wiping their memories so they are fatherless orphans in the midst of Israel their enemies? Those bloodlines you mentioned were very important to the survival of ancient Israel. No inheritance? No future, no hope. My sick cow analogy didn't impress you. I'm going to have to take a class on that or something. If a farmer has rabid pigs he regrets he has to destroy some but not because they are innocent and adorable. If he doesn't destroy them they destroy the entire litter. That's difficult for someone to see because they don't think God is real.

a) How about, in Adam's case, judge each offspring based upon their own merits alone, and not attach all offspring's 'guilt' to the choices of the parent?

It isn't a case of guilt, it's a case of inherited sin which we all do have. It's our, for a lack of a better term, "cultural" environment.

b) Why not make Hitler's mom infertile? God has no problem ordering slaughter, which means God orders human intervention to prevent what God does not want or like. This means God could use other alternative intervention(s), such as ordering influential/educational people to come into Hitler's life which ultimately reshapes Hitler's thinking.

First of all, I think Hitler was made into much more of an ominous monster than he actually was by Soviet, British and American wartime propaganda. Secondly, Adam, as steward of Earth and representation of mankind, rejected God. Man is like a son who abandoned their father and their father isn't going to assist them nor interfere in their rebellion. The suffering is a product or result of that. The question Satan raised was can mankind thrive without God? So God isn't going to fudge the effort. It's their ball. God gives us the opportunity to reject the godless world which is only destroying itself, but that's it.

So you do not adhere to any version of what the Bible says? If not, then we have nothing to discuss here.

Do you not adhere to science because it is fallible? The inspired and infallible word of God was written for people in a specific time and place, and can subsequently be used by us only as an example. Look at what happened to the Sodomites. Could be us. That sort of thing. The uninspired fallible translation of the Bible is very important to those who want to get to know God and his purpose for mankind, but it's not the same. We don't have to burn witches, abstain from eating pork etc.

Your view, and many others ("expert" or not), differ. And yet, all of you think you have the right version.

And in science? No debate. No independent thinkers. Nothing new. Just the infallible utopia if only we could get rid of religion. You are an unbeliever and you think you have the right version, and that's as it should be, but you and I are not going to dictate or take a vote on who is "right." No one is right. It's a personal responsibility to gain knowledge. (John 17:3) It isn't wise to delegate that to some phony experts who's bottom line is the bottom line. Prophets for profit or zealous old men.

Then how do you know you are receiving God's information correctly?

Always with the "How do you know?" I don't know, which is why I would take killing children by God's command very seriously.

[Data]

Q: What has abortotion to do with natural evils?

In a discussion on God's command to kill children you mentioned that infants were non-moral non-human like animals. Of course, there's the theory of evolution which says we are all animals, but that is really only eugenics in disguise. Morally you object to God's command in ancient Israel of killing children of war, but what are your thoughts on abortion and war, like the past 30 years of American history where many more children have died than those commanded by God. 63 million abortions took place in the US alone since 1973 and you have a moral judgment to pass on the creator of life you don't even think exists? Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. The goatherders would have scratched their heads over that, I think.

Sir we are talking of powerful sentient beings not inanimate objects.
You said Jehovah alone is God almighty while Jesus is just a mighty god suggesting a lower status god.
Your only fighting with yourself. I am using your logic alone.

A little lower than the angels? Hebrews 2:9

Both atheism and henotheism.
Q: What do you mean?

I'm henotheistic, like the ancient Jews and early Christians. The term atheist is a misnomer by definition. Oxford: Atheist - a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods. That's pure ignorance. Atheism means without gods whether you believe in them or not, plus anything, like money for example, can be gods. What I said when I said I believe in atheism means I believe atheism to exist. Since you like my witty and cryptic prose I thought I would say that. For fun.

Q: So Jesus is not going against Jehova's will?

No.