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]

Again, people who hear voices to kill are likely in self-deception.

Those sorts of accusations are more appropriately disputed in a court of law, though.

No, we can debate them here. It's safe for both you and I to conclude countless people feel God speaks to them. When someone kills little children, in the name of God, it's likely self-deception. Right? I reckon the reference verse is no different. But go ahead and offer your "Christian apologetics" and "caveats".

Anyway, as I've pointed out millions more children have been murdered by atheistic supported wars and abortions for profit and convenance than God has ever commanded, so fake morality isn't a serious response to the subject.

Not going to chase the red herring.

I opt to elect answers which require fewer 'entities'. You opt for much much much more. With mental gymnastics to boot.

When I'm trying to explain it to someone who is obviously uninformed, perhaps. But then, "Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may. And Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests and are equally well-supported by evidence" (Wikipedia) It means not adding any unnecessary entities. I've already answered this post thoroughly but of course, you aren't going to accept it.

LOL! Please tell me why 'self-deception' is not the most likely answer here, in the reference Bible verses?

Rather than waste any more of my time sifting through more repetition of your typical uninformed smartass atheist nonsense and fake moral hypocrisy I'm going to explain why it's okay if God commands anything.

Hmm. Just when we might have started to get somewhere. I think I struck a nerve. Because I feel this topic is important for others, I will re-ask, again -- (unanswered so far):

a) When exactly did it dawn on God that these little children would later become obstacles?
b) Since God has many abilities, why not instead dis-allow their conception?

It's because he created life, the universe and everything. It belongs to him. He doesn't need your approval.

If God exists, he certainly can do whatever he wants. But I doubt such a said "Christian God' would order the slaughter of little children (ever). This is my point. Thus, the ones who killed little children, probably weren't receiving their instruction from such a God, if one wants to remain in logic. Kapeesh?

[boatsnguitars]

Wow, so if God owns everything I don't need to keep paying for my house and car? And, if God owns everything I can use it whenever I want? Yachts, airplanes?

As for your other answers they aren't really good, are they?

[POI]

1) If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then there is no need for a "creator", right?

Wrong.

So far, I'm not convinced with your response. Please explain why the above is 'wrong'.

2) Please demonstrate 'inherited sin'.

Demonstrate it?

Yes. Please demonstrate 'inherited sin'. Asserting "inherited sin" means nothing.

3) Is each and every claim on equal footing?

Any claim made is on an equal footing. A claim is just a claim.

Allow me to trek backward, to refresh your memory. You are avoiding....

You alluded to the notion that you cannot really prove anything. This is a tactic you used in an earlier exchange we had as well. I think many theists, including you, use this tactic to be a sidewinder, and not answer the direct question. Sure, we could all be a 'brain-in-a-vat'. But I ask you again:

Is demonstrating what one had for lunch that day THE SAME as demonstrating 'inherited sin'? I think not. So please stop with the games. If you think you cannot prove anything, then please take a geometry class, just for starters.

4) You claim God is not like Santa Claus, and yet we have claims of breaking natural law in the OT and NT. Which means God could most certainly also stop conceptions of folks who were later going to be obstacles.

I have no doubt that God could most certainly stop conceptions. That is scripturally supported.

Great. Then why instead choose to wait until they become little children, and then order their slaughter? If you were loving, and had the option to deny their conception versus slaughtering them as little children, which one would YOU choose, in keeping in line with the term 'love'?

5) If God allows for 'free will' then he still should not have ordered for the slaughter of little children anyway.

Free will is a non-issue, only God truly has free will.

Hmm. Is God's will upon us for everything that happens, including Hitler? I bring up Hitler only because you did. In other words, did Hitler have 'free will'?

[Data]

Wow, so if God owns everything I don't need to keep paying for my house and car? And, if God owns everything I can use it whenever I want? Yachts, airplanes?

As for your other answers they aren't really good, are they?

No, they aren't. I brought that up earlier, though. The typical atheist response doesn't consider the theist they are having the discussion with worthy of providing a response to any reasonable requests of civil discourse. It's more like an interrogation. A stupid one. It takes two to tango. All three of you left here in this "Christian" forum have pretty much made your bed and now you have to lie in it.

[POI]

Wow, so if God owns everything I don't need to keep paying for my house and car? And, if God owns everything I can use it whenever I want? Yachts, airplanes?

As for your other answers they aren't really good, are they?

No, they aren't. I brought that up earlier, though. The typical atheist response doesn't consider the theist they are having the discussion with worthy of providing a response to any reasonable requests of civil discourse. It's more like an interrogation. A stupid one. It takes two to tango. All three of you left here in this "Christian" forum have pretty much made your bed and now you have to lie in it.

Third request:

When exactly did God know these little children were LATER going to become obstacles? Because if God knew they were LATER going to become obstacles, why WAIT until they are little children, and then slaughter them? How is that, in any way, equivalent to the term 'love'? Since you might not answer (again), allow me to push this forward.... Seems odd God waited until they were little children, and then ordered their slaughter. These little children were not obstacles yet. They would only be later in life. Since God decided to intervene here, seems somewhat precarious that a loving God would choose to prevent these obstacles as they are still little children? Why not instead intervene in their conception, or maybe prevent them just before they become obstacles, (as adults). Seems God likely had a choice when to prevent this. Seems odd God choose a time where they were little children.

Further, why not instead assume that all people, who think/thought God is/was telling them to slaughter little children, were/are not really receiving messages from the 'Christian God' at all?

[POI]

The typical atheist response doesn't consider the theist they are having the discussion with worthy of providing a response to any reasonable requests of civil discourse. It's more like an interrogation.

Second response:

It only becomes an "interrogation" when your answers appear less-than genuine. Please re-read the title of this topic, for which you decided to engage. If anyone hears voices, regarding murdering little kids, it prolly ain't coming from any 'loving' agency, unless you wish to perversely redefine the term 'love'.

Further, God sometimes intervenes himself, but other times, merely only tells group A to KILL group B. Got it

How about instead just conclude this is yet another one of those religions created by man? You know, like you conclude with Scientology, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc etc etc etc

[boatsnguitars]

I'm not sure Data has gotten to 1 Peter 3:15 yet.... He must be a slow reader...

[TRANSPONDER]

Wow, so if God owns everything I don't need to keep paying for my house and car? And, if God owns everything I can use it whenever I want? Yachts, airplanes?

As for your other answers they aren't really good, are they?

No, they aren't. I brought that up earlier, though. The typical atheist response doesn't consider the theist they are having the discussion with worthy of providing a response to any reasonable requests of civil discourse. It's more like an interrogation. A stupid one. It takes two to tango. All three of you left here in this "Christian" forum have pretty much made your bed and now you have to lie in it.

And yet Bible -apologists have so spread the accusation that atheists are the nasty ones that even South Park used the accusation in their show about atheism in the future (let's face it, they hadn't much else fault to find) when the Christian apologists are the nastiest, most judgemental and hostile, before we even get near consideration of the case.

It is 'Typical' in fact that atheist apologists do their opposition the respect of discussing seriously an apologetic that would be laughed out of court "Your honour..my client is innocent. Satan probably put the bullet in the victim"... and project their own fury at being shown irrational and dismissive of actual evidence onto the atheist opposition. As usual, they must rely on the general populace being brainwashed into seeing Christians as the victimised good guys and atheists as a social group that all decent people should distrust and dislike.

We can only carry on trying to keep it sweet as we deal with Bible apologists who start off with evidence based arguments and then when those get knocked down, revert astonishingly quickly and astonishingly often (1) to abuse, faithclaims, accusations, denial and various endgame ploys like running away with a parting shot, starting a fight so they can play the victim, 'scraping a draw' (My belief is as good as yours) or just the Deep dive (as seems to have happened with the empty tomb' discussion). Or just denunciation as you did here. That is actually mire discreditable than the poor apologetics we have seen up to now, but there we are - will anyone see it? Will the general boddery out there get to hear it? Or will the Christian - speaking people continue to only hear how the Good Decent Christian teachers are saving us all while those nasty lying atheists try to bring civilisation down? Hearts and minds, in the end, folks. Who controls the media and who wins the propaganda war. (2) We see it all the time - control the media and the people will believe you and never even hear both sides.

(1) suggesting they cut and paste their apologetics and when they get knocked down have nothing of their own but abuse and denial and threatening to ban people, which has happened to me in the past with a lying, bullying, dishonest and hypocritical apologetics site - owner who banned me for posting on another forum he looked at and didn't like, and even his Christians protested and brought me back (one deconverted and became an apologetics mate of mine).

(2) Indulge me, I have to compare the Creationist videos battling with the ones like 'Don't drink the Koolaid' and 'Paulogia' where they get refuted. But people have to watch both sides (the atheists show what they are refuting while the Theists ones I can recall never show the atheist case) or we continue to get those fallacies like Strobel's totally one - sided evidence for the resurrection and that ex detective (he claims) saying that the resurrection case would stand up in a court of law. In a pigs' eye. Not even Trump's legal team could save it.

[Data]

I'm not sure Data has gotten to 1 Peter 3:15 yet.... He must be a slow reader...

Do you really expect your holding me to that obligates me to provide any real answer that you will accept. I could give you a dozen reasons the mere suggestion is absurd.

The most important aspect of atheist vs theist debate that the unbeliever (atheist, agnostic, etc.) can learn, in my opinion, is that their argument is against Christianity, not the Bible. To help you understand that it would be like me arguing science with you using only Answers in Genesis as a scientific source and ignoring anything else as a debatable interpretation of science. If you want to argue Christianity the best strategy is to learn the Bible because the Bible disproves Christianity. You can't effectively use logic and reason against superstition, mythology and religion.

I'm a slow reader? I answered the question back on the first page. A militant fundamentalist atheist will never accept any answer given by a theist. That's a hyperbolic intensifier, not an obvious fact.

The subject heading question is if God commands it, then it's Okay? The answer was it's subjective. To some the answer is yes, to others the answer is no, therefore, in effect, the answer could be either. That, mind you, is the answer to any subject it could be applied to. Killing children or eating pork.

The questions for debate were:

1) Isn't it always cowardly to kill small defenseless children?

In general? Yes. We aren't talking about a general application. More about that later, but ultimately again, it's not only subjective but it also is a question of broad application. The underlieing question, which is actually the primary focus, is a moral judgment against the God concept, believers and the ancient text from which one example was carelessly given without even bothering to explain or understand anything about it.

Or, is there a circumstance(s) and/or time where killing small children/babies is/was instead deemed "correct/good/righteous"?

It wasn't a question of righteousness in and of itself. It wasn't in general practice, a righteous objective, it certainly never was good in that way, it was correct exclusively in specific biblical context. The murder of the innocents, bad. The destruction of the Canaanites, good. Always subjective.

The unbeliever doesn't care about the answer. That's why these so-called debates are more like an interrogation or beratement than debate or civil discourse. That's why the OP refused to give me an explanation of the scripture he himself provided in the OP. Doesn't matter. What follows, my perspective, doesn't matter. It's a waste of our time. It will be ignored because the only real point to the OP was a disrespect of the beliefs of others by making the question a moral smokescreen.

Subjective. Right and wrong, good and bad, are always subjective. From the perspective of the Bible believer the answer is that God cursed mankind with death upon Adam's sin. That means children would die. God demanded the death of the Egyptian firstborn, some of whom were children and some of whom were not. Some humans and some beasts. Jehovah wanted to remove the Hebrew slaves from Egypt to fulfil their position as a nation of laws to instruct them and further generations about what sin was and how it applied to them, and then have them provide a Messiah to save mankind from what would ultimately be their own destruction and fulfill their (mankind's) divine purpose of living forever in paradise earth without sin, death, sickness etc.

Pharaoh himself was a god. One of many Egyptian gods. His god was Amon-Ra who was the Egyptian god that was allegedly the preserver of the firstborn. Firstborn of Man and beast. According to the Bible, whether you think it historical fact or not, the Hebrew slaves and the Egyptians themselves were all going to die. It didn't matter to God whether it was today, or tomorrow, or 80 years from now - except for the fact that the Hebrews had to be preserved only in order to fulfill the aforementioned divine purpose. So, it was a demonstration, God vs gods, to the Egyptians so that Pharoah would release them, and to them, all but two who would themselves die and not enter into the promised land, that God wasn't playing games. That he could do what he meant to do. It was a demonstration of exactly who could destroy and preserve. Because sometime something has to be destroyed in order to preserve another.

When God was bringing them into that land there were inhabitants that needed to be dealt with. More often than not God commanded the Israelites to warn those people that they would be taking over and give them the opportunity to peacefully surrender. If the Israelites acted in haste and didn't afford their enemy this opportunity they had to answer to God. Other people, like the Canaanites, were to be completely destroyed. Man, woman, young, old, beast and material possessions. So that there was nothing left of them. Not their gods, idols, priests, followers - present or future. The Israelites didn't do that and there were constant problems because of it. In the case of the aforementioned tenth plague of Egypt, any Israelite who didn't follow the instructions of the Passover also lost their own firstborn.

It doesn't matter if that's "okay" with us or not. Whether we think the Bible is fact or fiction. The writers or their divine inspiration don't care about your feelings on the subject. We are all as good as dead as well, and, either according to that tribal religious text or Jehovah's inspired word and the most remarkable history ever recorded, we wouldn't have the possible opportunity to live forever in paradise earth if that Messiah hadn't been carefully produced and documented. Some reject that, back then when God was commanding children be destroyed, and now. The unbeliever isn't going to save their children from everlasting destruction when the wrath of God is unleashed. They are going to laugh, mock and scorn the believers. It wasn't Noah and his family that destroyed the wicked in the flood. The same applies to the apocalypse, the believers aren't going to defend themselves, and that wrath of God comes only when the unbelievers begin to kill believers and their children. Then and only then, is the party over.

So, from the time of the founding of the world, which was Adam and Eve's conception of Cain, until then, mankind is a steward of the Earth. Earth was given to them to do whatever they will. Murder, theft, atheism, etc. The suffering you see is our doing. The only interference of God is to supply us with a possible way out so that when he ends that stewardship by setting up his own kingdom, which is the reason for his command of the destruction of certain - specific - people, including children.

How many people are needed to fulfil God's purpose to live forever in paradise on earth? The same number that had been expelled from Eden. The same as the number of Israelites who made it from Egypt to the more temporal promised land of ancient Israel. Two. Two people. Though the latter case were both male, and there would need be male and female to preserve mankind, the number is the same. The point is, though God wants everyone (individuals) to be saved.

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

Now? Today? Simple. If you think God speaks to you, and I have to be very specific about this, by speaking directly to you, by that I mean whispering in your ear or face to face, then you are deluded, insane or misinformed. It has never worked that way. If you think that God is asking you to do it for the same reason as had been done in the past, you're wrong. There will never be another event like that. It's done. So, when I was asked if I would do such a thing I answered hypothetically. With the stipulation that there would be no question in my mind the command wasn't delusion on my part. That may not seem like much to someone who hasn't taken the time to thoroughly study the Bible, but it is to me.

The question really becomes can an insane person, most likely ignorant of God's word the Bible, but not necessarily, and perhaps only insane or irrational, kill children? I've answered it. Yes. Or, they could actually kill children by justifying war and abortion which is far more likely. That's unfortunate, but the solution isn't fake moral judgment, the solution is education.

[Data]

And yet Bible -apologists have so spread the accusation that atheists are the nasty ones that even South Park used the accusation in their show about atheism in the future (let's face it, they hadn't much else fault to find) when the Christian apologists are the nastiest, most judgemental and hostile, before we even get near consideration of the case.

A couple points. South Park is, in my opinion, the best television show of all time, but their portrayal of atheists wasn't inspired by any Christian apologetics, it was inspired by the atheistic assumption that the creators were themselves atheists. The show is so good because of its satirical portrayal of all of mankind's stupidity. That includes theism and atheism alike. Their portrayal of the "Christian" perspective of Jesus or Mormon and Scientology are equally humorous and so appealing because they are, in my opinion, about as realistic as they are satirical.

It is 'Typical' in fact that atheist apologists do their opposition the respect of discussing seriously an apologetic that would be laughed out of court "Your honour..my client is innocent. Satan probably put the bullet in the victim"... and project their own fury at being shown irrational and dismissive of actual evidence onto the atheist opposition. As usual, they must rely on the general populace being brainwashed into seeing Christians as the victimised good guys and atheists as a social group that all decent people should distrust and dislike.

I am the exception, then, because I prefer atheists over "Christians." And I see us all having come from the same sin. I'm no better, morally or otherwise, than I was the first 27 years of as an unbeliever. I don't deny any of that. My position is that Christians have transmogrified Biblical teachings and fundamental militant atheists are equally nonsensical because instead of rising above the nonsense with a logical and reasonable argument they prefer phony morality. Their argument is a sociopolitical frustration which is, by response, the same nonsensical pagan teachings the Christians themselves teach.

We can only carry on trying to keep it sweet as we deal with Bible apologists who start off with evidence based arguments and then when those get knocked down,

Nonsense. Evidence indeed. (I can't use expletives here or I certainly would) It has nothing to do with evidence.

revert astonishingly quickly and astonishingly often (1) to abuse, faithclaims, accusations, denial and various endgame ploys like running away with a parting shot, starting a fight so they can play the victim, 'scraping a draw' (My belief is as good as yours) or just the Deep dive (as seems to have happened with the empty tomb' discussion).

As for that discussion I haven't time to participate as much as I would like to, and I have no doubt what you are saying is true. I won't even usually talk to "Christians." But - Waaah! - so what? I've been kicked around plenty by atheists on atheist forums. You know, it's human nature. I don't hold it against them and although I do wish they had a more challenging argument or at least a basic knowledge, an acknowledgment Christian deviation of the Bible to present to the believer, I can't really hold that against them, because it isn't their argument. Their argument is political and social or straight up ideology.

Or just denunciation as you did here. That is actually mire discreditable than the poor apologetics we have seen up to now, but there we are - will anyone see it? Will the general boddery out there get to hear it? Or will the Christian - speaking people continue to only hear how the Good Decent Christian teachers are saving us all while those nasty lying atheists try to bring civilization down? Hearts and minds, in the end, folks. Who controls the media and who wins the propaganda war. (2) We see it all the time - control the media and the people will believe you and never even hear both sides.

The liberals own the media, including big tech, and they are typically atheist. The conservatives are the phony Christians. But who cares? Politics is nonsense. A silly distraction. Religion. Divide and conquer. The tearing down of so-called civilization is fine in my eyes, whether accomplished by atheists or theists. But it's far more likely to be the result of the combined effort of the both of you. If that's the way it is, then it's fine by me. Have at it.