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)

[otseng]

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

Moderator Warning



Please do not comment on others and do not post unproductive one-liners.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Data]

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'.

What difference does that make? What do you want? Do you want as many people as possible to come to some realization that God isn't going to destroy them out of love? Love for what? You want to stop crazy religious fanatics from murdering children? You think they're going to listen to you? You think the voices will stop when God is a memory? Influenza and pneumonia are the least cause of death in children. Being killed by religious fanatics isn't even on the list. Don't you think you're wasting your time? Do you think that more children are killed by governments than religions? Think about it.

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

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

It doesn't matter to me. I loathe religion. They're all the same. They reach mass appeal and they become political tools of destruction. That's all man wants to do. Kill and destroy. Just stand by and watch. Your concern is fake. Show me someone with reform on their mind and I'll show you someone with a head full of evil plans.

[Data]

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?

Not going to get tired of that, huh? I don't care. It makes no difference. Lots of people think it wasn't a Christian God. Don't care. It doesn't matter if I'm the only one that believes it was God, and I'm on my deathbed. Not a bit of difference. Why would it?

[Data]

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

Okay. Why is it wrong? Because you have two options. Either matter existed forever without creation, like Jehovah, or energy did and was converted into matter. Energy is spiritual. God is spirit. That's just a thought off the top of my head, but to me, science is as reliable as religion is to you. I don't care what your science says like you don't care what my Bible says. Fair enough. If science came out tomorrow and said they've "proven" God exists, I wouldn't even give it a listen. Unimpressed.

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

Okay. You've read Genesis through Revelation? You should already know. If that doesn't work, look around you.

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

You're not going to change your opinion about my avoiding. And I don't care. That's your problem. I've answered everything you've asked while you've ignored everything I've said. That's why I don't care.

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.

Yup.

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.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
Truth: a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

Great. Then why instead choose to wait until they become little children, and then order their slaughter?

They were children when it was time.

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'?

Conjectural, speculative, subjective. Please! Provide a reasonable and informed argument. We can dance around indefinitely but I get bored really quick.

For example, tell me what difference it would practically make. You could say he let them enjoy life briefly and call that love. If you want. It doesn't really matter though, because you are asking me to make a moral judgment you know nothing about and don't care to learn. Assumption of ignorance. That's your proposition. Just be like you, who knows all about what love is. Just say no to God. Say yes to you. Everything solved. That fascinates me, because it's such an arrogant and silly argument.

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'?

No. You don't even understand the basic sense of the Bible? All the suffering you see is because Adam rejected God. And you? You gonna' fix that? Are you asking me about the teaching? You missed something during your tenure because you got the fake religion and now . . . you got what? Answers? Let's hear 'em. One question I asked was what's your solution. Wouldn't answer me. Beneath you? I don't care about you or your thoughts.

[brunumb]

All the suffering you see is because Adam rejected God.

Wow. It doesn't pay to tick off an omnipotent being with an infinite ego it would seem. Pity that wasn't matched by infinite love and compassion. That said, Adam didn't reject God, in ignorance the original hapless couple were beguiled by one of God's creatures into being disobedient. Being sorely aggrieved, the omnipotent one took it out on everyone and everything not even part of that dastardly act. Feel the love.

[Data]

All the suffering you see is because Adam rejected God.

Wow.

Yeah.

It doesn't pay to tick off an omnipotent being with an infinite ego it would seem.

I scrapped my original response.

Theoretically, since God doesn't exist and given what mankind has become without his alleged existence, wouldn't it be equally logical to conclude that what mankind has become is his own responsibility?

Pity that wasn't matched by infinite love and compassion.

It's not about love as much as it is about justice.

That said, Adam didn't reject God, in ignorance the original hapless couple were beguiled by one of God's creatures into being disobedient. Being sorely aggrieved, the omnipotent one took it out on everyone and everything not even part of that dastardly act. Feel the love.

Nonsense. You know it's nonsense.

[alexxcJRO]

First you say . . . .

1. Sir do not project on me things that do not exist.

Then you say . . .

2. Evolution by natural selection is a real natural phenomenon.
Modern humans have evolved from apelike ancestors into what we see today.

Which is silly and hypocritical. Darwinian evolution is a failed metaphysical experiment rooted in elitist racism, especially eugenics. But that's another thread in another forum.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic and truthfullness.
1. You were trying to project things one me that were not there: "I was passing moral judgment on something i don't believe in".
But I was not passing judgjment. Again dear sir concepts can be analyzed for logical consistency with zero emotion and judgement involved. I could be cold as ice as the most logical Vulkan and emotion free as the most calous psychopath and still come to the same conclusion.
2. Conspiratorial thinking is not gonna help you sir. Its gonna make you look more silly.
There is plenty of evidence for the theory of evolution. Being one of the most robust scientific theory out there.

Concepts can be analyzed for logical consistency without believing they exit in reality.

True, if the one doing the analyzing is conversant enough to make the distinction between the reality and the mythological syncretism.

You mean cherry picking the Bible to suit one dogma: " I(Data) will ignore verses when God is clearly depicted as being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent".
Bending reality to ones beliefs and dogma. Not the other way around.

It is well known in philosophy that non-moral agents are blameless.
God punishing moral agents together with non-moral agents is evil, malevolent, illogical per usage/meaning of those words/concepts.

Irrelevant, subjective. As I've indicated, it's about cultural influence and punishment has nothing to do with it. If someone is racist because of the culture they were born in they are still racist. God didn't tell Abraham to kill his firstborn, Isaac, to punish either one of them, he did it to establish whether or not Abraham's offspring would be willing to make the sacrifice God himself would make with his own firstborn only son, the Messiah. The children who God commanded to be destroyed were a threat to the purpose of that arrangement which was set in place to save mankind as a whole. The children, as a pa

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic, consistency and truthfullness. \

Q: Clueless infants are a threat to mankind and God's plan which is the ultimate being creator of the cosmos?!

Let's not spare the suffering inflicted to them even though they are non-moral agents and blameless and did not deserve to suffer.

Off course God of the Bible the ultimate being in the universe could not find a better solution.

Again the most idiotic thing: God is gonna save mankind from the thing God created himself.

Q: Who can believe such stupid things? We were not born yesterday!

Natural evils that inflict suffering, pain and death indiscriminately/random to both moral agents and non-moral agents cannot be explained away.

Hmmm. Let's test that theory. A man who carelessly sets fire to a forest isn't punishing the lifeforms destroyed in the fire.

That was easy.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic, consistency and truthfullness.
Another failed analogy.
Sir God created the fire. God is responsible, to blame for the genetic diseases, tsunamies, asteroid impacts.
He does not stop any of this either after being existent in his creation.
That was easy!

If your not interested to actually debate I suggest to go to the preachy section of the forum.

I suggest you read it again more carefully. You asked if Jesus was lower than Jehovah. A lesser God. I answered by supplying scriptural support to that effect. Why the confusion?

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic, consistency and truthfullness.
Q: You answered with a question?
More confusion and gish gallop.

You said salvation from evil. Then you said: "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.

Jehovah God provides salvation from the evil created as a result specifically to Adam's sin and its subsequent results. Adam was warned not to do something but he did it anyway resulting in death, Jehovah promises to take death away. Sin equals death. Upon our death we are acquitted from our sins. (Romans 6:8) because Jesus paid the ransom sacrifice. The "evil" is sin, which Adam, our forefather, handed down to us. We are a product of that just as racism as mentioned above.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic, consistency and truthfullness.
You said God created evil sir.
Q: Now its not God who create evil?
Q: Are you dishonestly equivocating on how evil appeared in order to escape the claws of logic sir?

[brunumb]

It's not about love as much as it is about justice.

You're right about the first part, absolutely no sign of love. And if you call the rest of it justice, then all I can say is nonsense. You know it's nonsense.

That said, Adam didn't reject God, in ignorance the original hapless couple were beguiled by one of God's creatures into being disobedient. Being sorely aggrieved, the omnipotent one took it out on everyone and everything not even part of that dastardly act. Feel the love.

Nonsense. You know it's nonsense.

Nope. Bible God is just one big ego maniac who really doesn't give a toss about anyone. Whoever invented him gave him too many fallible human traits which renders him very ungodly.

[POI]

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'.

What difference does that make? What do you want? Do you want as many people as possible to come to some realization that God isn't going to destroy them out of love? Love for what? You want to stop crazy religious fanatics from murdering children? You think they're going to listen to you? You think the voices will stop when God is a memory? Influenza and pneumonia are the least cause of death in children. Being killed by religious fanatics isn't even on the list. Don't you think you're wasting your time? Do you think that more children are killed by governments than religions? Think about it.

Another red herring argument.... Seems this is one of your go-to's. Please remember both you and I have chosen to debate in a 'debating Christianity' apologetics arena. If you read question 2 of the OP, you will see where this is going. Further, the point I'm making above, is God has a very perverse version of the term "love". To remain Christian in any capacity, after reading the Bible, is to continue engaging in cognitive dissonance; (just for starters).

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

It doesn't matter to me. I loathe religion. They're all the same. They reach mass appeal and they become political tools of destruction. That's all man wants to do. Kill and destroy. Just stand by and watch. Your concern is fake. Show me someone with reform on their mind and I'll show you someone with a head full of evil plans.

My concern is to know why you still call yourself any form of a 'Christian' after having read the Bible? Why not instead become some form of a generic deist or an agnostic atheist?

[POI]

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?

Not going to get tired of that, huh? I don't care. It makes no difference. Lots of people think it wasn't a Christian God. Don't care. It doesn't matter if I'm the only one that believes it was God, and I'm on my deathbed. Not a bit of difference. Why would it?

Up until now, you still have not answered.