God Allows Murder of Children at Sandy Hook Elementary Schol

[Jagella]

Does anybody remember the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? Twenty-six people including twenty kids were shot to death. If you were God, would you have stopped that shooting?

No--Then you, like God, would have done nothing to save those people from being gunned down.

Yes--Then how would you explain how you would act morally while God did not?

If I was God or was otherwise able to stop the murder of those kids and adults, then yes, of course I would have stopped the shooter. Assuming the God of Christianity exists, then I can say I'm more moral than he is. If any Christian here disagrees with my saying I'm more moral then God, then you must conclude that allowing kids to be shot to death was the right thing to do at the Sandy Hook Elementary School.

[By Grace]

[Replying to post 239 by rikuoamero]

Still, you're responding to what...three people? (can't remember if there's anyone else) so by logic, you're calling at least one of three people as someone who posts absurdities. If not all three.

There is another poster, whom I now have on ignore (but it does not seem to work), so your counting is inaccurate.

Grace, which person here is part of a group that DOES have 'collective beliefs'? Do you understand what collective beliefs even are?

Begging your pardon, but I did lump all four of you into a group because you seem to be wanting to have a "conformational bias" and not a discussion. By that I am meaning that because y'all dislike Christianity, you will not bother to give anything a fair hearing. Your collective ignoring of that passage from Luke 3 is a particularly obvious example.

No one bothered to ask what it meant because they were attempting to poke holes it, and find irony when there was none.

If one really examines the text, he was being asked the same thing as you guys are about Sandy Hook. It did not get him flustered because he stated the reason for it (since he is the Son of God) from the viewpoint of God the Father.

In pointing that out, I am not demanding that you guys believe that, but it is expected that you can see the perspective that Jesus gave as the answer. Basically, it looks beyond Earth, and He sees a greater purpose.

Instead of engaging or asking me what I meant, some one said that I was slandering. That is a preposterous statement as well as a derail down a rabbit path, which I will not chase.

[OnceConvinced]

When any poster posts absurdities, it is the end of any further responses.

Moderator Comment
Hi BG, this here post is uncivil, as well as being a one liner that adds nothing to the debate. Personal attacks on other members are not permitted and will gain you warnings. Please avoid such comments in the future.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[OnceConvinced]

When any poster posts absurdities, it is the end of any further responses.

What a shame. Your replies showed hope that we might get to something worth discussing. Maybe next time...

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

Moderator Comment

Please avoid tit-for-tat. Reporting the post as uncivil would have been the best action (as another member did).

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 241 by By Grace]

There is another poster, whom I now have on ignore (but it does not seem to work), so your counting is inaccurate.

Fair enough. While not a mod on the site (just a poster like you), what exactly is the problem? Their posts can still be seen by you if another person quotes them, and that person is not on your ignore list.
So if I quote the person you're ignoring, you'll see what they wrote in my post, in my reply to them.
If it's a bug, then I suggest going into the Comments, Suggestions and Questions subforum and letting the mods know.

Begging your pardon, but I did lump all four of you into a group because you seem to be wanting to have a "conformational bias" and not a discussion.

This is evidently not true, in that while I myself told you in no uncertain terms that I didn't want to discuss the translation issue of the line from Isaiah, another user did at length.
Also, how is it that this ISN'T a discussion? Looks like one to me. We maybe getting a little emotional, but not too much, and look where we are now, 25 pages and almost 250 posts on this one topic.

By that I am meaning that because y'all dislike Christianity,

If you're discussing a topic with four people (well three now, since one of them is on your ignore list), are we to be treated as a bloc because we share one trait?
I don't think I did that myself in this tread. Remember when I pointed out to you a difference between you and dianaiad?

you will not bother to give anything a fair hearing.

In my mind, I have done so. I wonder what it is you consider a fair hearing.

Your collective ignoring of that passage from Luke 3 is a particularly obvious example.

I have just rechecked this thread. You joined the site on 31st Jan and made your first post on this thread on 1st Feb (top post on page 18).
Page 19, Post 188 is where you have your first mention of the quote from Luke.

I responded to your quotation of Luke in Post 192, on page 20.
On Page 23, top post, number 221, Jagella also quotes from and responds to, your second quotation of that passage from Gospel Luke. And you yourself responded to that response.

Then in Post 227, you quote Luke and make sure to say that you're doing this for THE THIRD TIME in caps, as if in your mind no-one had yet responded to it...which is false. Prior to that, it had been addressed TWICE. The person that post 227 is addressed to, Clownboat, hadn't responded to it yet...but myself and Jagella had, and after you quoted Luke that third time, you complained

Basically, y'all are asking the wrong question. It is not about God's inability to stop evil; it is about the preparation y'all have for the sure end of your life.
Y'all, you said.
So from what I'm seeing, when you wrote 227, in your mind, you had had to quote from Luke three times and no-one had responded to it.

Oh and in Post 232, I responded to your third Luke quotation. I didn't quote your quoting Luke, but I did quote that question of "y'all are asking the wrong question" and responded to it.

In Post 234, Jagella quotes a line from Jesus from the Luke quotation and responds to you talking about that.

-------
So, By Grace, that's three times you have quoted Gospel Luke and it has been responded to four times, twice by myself and twice by Jagella.
And yet, you for some reason, are complaining that we are 'collectively ignoring it'.

Since you are making such a fuss about it, I am hereby going to demand an apology.

No one bothered to ask what it meant because they were attempting to poke holes it, and find irony when there was none.

I really should finish reading posts in full before starting replies.

So...we're not ignoring the Luke passage. We're reading it, poking holes in it and finding irony.
What does 'ignore' mean in your mind, Grace?

EDIT - I also have to ask what exactly it is you mean by 'no-one bothered to ask what it meant'. I'm curious about this charge. Even assuming it to be true, why is it we HAVE to ask what a Bible passage means? Are we somehow incapable of discerning this for ourselves, by mere fact of being atheists? Anytime a Christian quotes from the Bible, are atheists not supposed to interpret the passage for themselves but must they ask the quoter what it means? Is this to say that the Christian who quotes from the Bible is automatically to be considered an authority on it, and atheists are not?
What if an atheist quotes the Bible, By Grace? Should you then have to ask us what it means?

If one really examines the text, he was being asked the same thing as you guys are about Sandy Hook. It did not get him flustered because he stated the reason for it (since he is the Son of God) from the viewpoint of God the Father.

If a cop responds to a question of "why didn't you do something when you were there" by giving an answer from his viewpoint (or the viewpoint of a colleague who was also there and also didn't do anything), does the mere fact of viewpoint mean anything or do anything to the charge?

In pointing that out, I am not demanding that you guys believe that, but it is expected that you can see the perspective that Jesus gave as the answer. Basically, it looks beyond Earth, and He sees a greater purpose.

So what is the greater purpose in having a deranged gunman shoot TWENTY kids to death? It's not enough to claim that there is a greater purpose but not to tell us.

Instead of engaging or asking me what I meant, some one said that I was slandering. That is a preposterous statement as well as a derail down a rabbit path, which I will not chase.

Tit for tat. You did say that at least one person was saying absurdities. Who that person is unknown to the rest of us.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 238 by Clownboat]

If you cannot distinguish between a statement like "You are a horse's xxxxxxxxxxx" or "Your posts are a waste of bandwidth" both of which constitute slander because they fit the definition of defamation, calumny, a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report, and statement that describes a SENTENCE as absurd, then there is really no hope for discussion.

That is because you seem to perceive that I am attacking you or your friends, when the only thing I am doing is describing what I am seeing as accurately as I can, and without any "digs" at the others.

"When any poster posts absurdities, it is the end of any further responses." - By Grace

Whomever you were replying to, we are to believe that they/we/me are just posting absurdities?
Such a sentence seems slanderous. It also came across as a dodge because it read as if you were bowing out of the debate due to these posters and their absurdities.

Perhaps you were not calling my/someones post absurd after all?
Clarify if you wish, or better yet, maybe comment on the morality of not helping in tragedies when one has the knowledge, power and ability to.

[rikuoamero]

Since By Grace has complained that "y'all" are 'collectively ignoring' the passage from Luke 13, let's discuss that shall we?

Here it is again (for the fourth time, with this being the FIFTH time it's been responded to)

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.�

Grace argues that in terms of this discussion, it's just like Sandy Hook.
(Post 188 Page 19)

You see, ALL of your arguments could be hurled against that tower falling, and killing 18 people.

I disagree. The biggest difference between the tower of Siloam and Sandy Hook is that Siloam was presumably an accident, whereas Sandy Hook was a deliberately planned act of mass murder.
I would use the adjective 'evil' to describe the Sandy Hook shooting. I can only presume Grace does as well. I presume most other Christians would as well.
So we've got a man who is planning an act of evil, an atrocious one, one of the most repugnant acts I can think of (just off the top of my head, I can't think of anything short of desecrating the childrens' corpses that would have been worse).
My argument is that Grace (presumably in real life) and other Christians on this thread believe and promote their God as being a protector. A loving Father God. A warder against evil.
Well...here's an act of evil. Pure evil. And I notice that God was nowhere to be found.
I can somewhat buy the argument that God doesn't promise to protect against accidents like falling towers (just barely though!)...but deliberate plans for acts of mass murder?

[otseng]

Moderator Comment

Please cease from the tit-for-tat about slander. If someone says anything personal, please simply report it and ignore it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[ttruscott]

Words in any language can say anything.

This is just not true....words in any language can mean anything within the parameters of that language! Period.

[marco]

Your collective ignoring of that passage from Luke 3 is a particularly obvious example.

No one bothered to ask what it meant because they were attempting to poke holes it, and find irony when there was none.

The passage is:


Luke 13:2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way?
3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem?
5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.�



So Christ indicates that tragedy doesn't happen as a result of someone sinning. That is sensible. In the statement "unless you repent, you will likewise perish" the supposition is that repentence brings life, but I cannot see what's meant by "likewise perish", since likewise perishing is to die in a tragic accident. And repentance has nothing to do with this, as Christ has said. So likewise perish must be metaphoric, in which case it is not "likewise."

The message seems to be that pain in this world is of no consequence, though Jesus himself wept. God allows whatever will be, to be. Why then did he interfere so often in the OT to right earthly wrongs? Christ's reply does not address this.

[By Grace]

To those whom I offended (sounds like a Willie nelson song) I am sorry. I was carrying the rules of engagement from one forum to here. I will endeavor to be better, and i give you permission to call me out (via PM, though) so that I can correct what I stated.

[Replying to post 249 by marco]

THANK YOU FOR POSTING THAT. This is the sort of thing that I had in mind when i made the point that others failed to deal with the Scripture. it seemed to me as if they were utterly dismissing it out of hand.

So Christ indicates that tragedy doesn't happen as a result of someone sinning. That is sensible.

Thank you for stating it that way, because I interpreted that others were stating that, and extrapolating their belief to blame God for evil.

In the statement "unless you repent, you will likewise perish" the supposition is that repentance brings life,

Not exactly what I would state because it may lead some to believe that "obedience to God makes one live forever". Again, I picked up that tidbit from another poster.

but I cannot see what's meant by "likewise perish", since likewise perishing is to die in a tragic accident.

Those 18, on whom the tower of Silom fell had unexpected deaths, not unlike those at Sandy Hook or on 9/11. It is expected that all of us will die, but a sudden and unexpected death is by definition something that cannot be prepared for.

And that is what I believe that Jesus was teaching here: we all need to be prepared (especially in this era of terrorism) that there is no guarantee that if one sees sunrise, that s/he will see sunset.

And repentance has nothing to do with this, as Christ has said. So likewise perish must be metaphoric, in which case it is not "likewise.

I do not know that I would go to the point of metaphoric life and metaphoric death.