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]

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.

We know matter exists. We do not know if Jehovah exists.

Why conclude matter has not always existed, which would then render the assertion of a "creator" logically nonsensical?

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.

If you are not going to, or are not prepared to, demonstrate 'inherited sin', then don't bring it up.

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've given your apologetics, yes. But that is really about it.

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.

Then please stop. If you, like many other Christian apologists, wish to try and reduce every exchange to 'we all have faith', then the exchange will never really go anywhere. I'm already aware you or I will not change our position. But maybe the ones reading along are still undecided about something.

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.

You are either still missing my point, or are engaging in more apologetics. I'll assume you are still missing the point.

Unless we are a 'brain-in-a-vat', we share reality. In this reality we share, not all claims are created equal. Me demonstrating what I had for lunch is more easily provable than attempting to prove the topic of 'inherited sin'. I do not think my assertion here is even debatable -- among all who are reading along and also share the same reality.

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

They were children when it was time.

Fifth attempt: When exactly DID it dawn on God that these little children were later going to become obstacles?

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.

I already did. But I'll take another go at it... You admit God can do stuff. You also admit God has or does intervene. God opted not to stop the conception of these known obstacles. To instead allow their existence, only to order their slaughter -- as little children, reads extra and unnecessary. It instead reads like a God who is not truly 'loving'. On the contrary, if you claimed to be loving, and had the opportunity to prevent something from happening, would you wait until they were little children, and order their execution? Prolly not. Hence, you are more logical than the God you worship.

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.

I asked you a specific question. Remember, you brought up Hitler, not me. If Hitler did not have true free will, then God willed the holocaust. Another shining example of God's 'love'.

[Data]

Another red herring argument.... Seems this is one of your go-to's.

My original reaction to this was to make a deal with you. If you would stop using "logical fallacies" (HA!) as an argument with me (just me specifically) I would stop doing one thing that bugged you about what I do. What would it be that I do do that bugs you?

Instead, although that is still on the table, let me just ask you (for what it's worth because you never answer my questions) to tell me how is it a red herring, what difference does that make to the making of your argument, (it should make it easier but instead is only an excuse not to provide one) and how could I rephrase my "red herring" so that it wasn't a "red herring." Something more like a poached salmon marrinated in a white wine sauce, perhaps? Huh?

Please remember both you and I have chosen to debate in a 'debating Christianity' apologetics arena.

Isn't that wonderful? Let's give it a fake smile y'all are so fond of, shall we? Couldn't do it.

If you read question 2 of the OP, you will see where this is going.

Again?! I've answered it like 15 times and stated exactly where I thought it was going from the start. Moving on . . .

Further, the point I'm making above, is God has a very perverse version of the term "love".

How many times can I use the word subjective in a thread? This one must be the record. The Bible has four words used for various types of love. Maybe you're a liberal thinking person? From my perspective, paraphrasing a Frank Herber quote from the Dune series: "Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." A parent (used to) discipline their child out of love. A temporarily unpleasant experience for the child which, ideally, instructed them regarding what was acceptable behavior as an adult. As society has abandoned the practice it produces more and more - shall we say? Idiots? That's part of the meaning of the Bible. Man has become like one of us. (Genesis 3:22) Also, God as love means God created, first Michael, then the spirit heavens, then the "angels," then the physical universe, then everything on earth concluding with man, out of love. His stated purpose for life on Earth? For us to enjoy ourselves.

To remain Christian in any capacity, after reading the Bible, is to continue engaging in cognitive dissonance; (just for starters).

Hmmm. What is that smell? Fish? Ugh. Uh, no. Reading the Bible is meant to give the reader the information to either accept or reject the alleged truth therein. And it does that perfectly. Your assumption is based upon - you guessed it! Ideological fixation.

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?

My reluctance isn't merely the nomenclature in question specifically, but generally. I'm not in any group because it pigeonholes at the least and negates responsibility of the individual (free thinking and individuality, for example) while subjecting the adherent to a broad and almost always questionable paradigm. It replaces personal responsibility with groupthink. Ignorance. And I didn't just read the Bible, I studied it very carefully for 30 years. Big difference. The difference between groupthink and knowledge.

[POI]

tell me how is it a red herring

The point of my post was to ask if it is cowardly to order the slaughter of little children, via the provided Bible verses. The point of my thread was also to ask how to begin discerning if an order has actually come from the Christian God.

Making statements , as you did, is not only meant to mislead or distract from the OP, but also make the Bible verse not seem "as bad" as it reads. (i.e.): "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."

Again?! I've answered it like 15 times and stated exactly where I thought it was going from the start. Moving on . . .

Not the question that truly counts... Attempt 6 and counting:

When exactly DID it dawn on God that these little children were later going to become obstacles?

Is there a specific reason you have avoided answering this question?

Further, the point I'm making above, is God has a very perverse version of the term "love".

How many times can I use the word subjective in a thread? This one must be the record. The Bible has four words used for various types of love. Maybe you're a liberal thinking person? From my perspective, paraphrasing a Frank Herber quote from the Dune series: "Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." A parent (used to) discipline their child out of love. A temporarily unpleasant experience for the child which, ideally, instructed them regarding what was acceptable behavior as an adult. As society has abandoned the practice it produces more and more - shall we say? Idiots? That's part of the meaning of the Bible. Man has become like one of us. (Genesis 3:22) Also, God as love means God created, first Michael, then the spirit heavens, then the "angels," then the physical universe, then everything on earth concluding with man, out of love. His stated purpose for life on Earth? For us to enjoy ourselves.

Maybe when you finally decide to answer the question above in bold, is when we may finally start to get somewhere.

To remain Christian in any capacity, after reading the Bible, is to continue engaging in cognitive dissonance; (just for starters).

Hmmm. What is that smell? Fish? Ugh. Uh, no. Reading the Bible is meant to give the reader the information to either accept or reject the alleged truth therein. And it does that perfectly. Your assumption is based upon - you guessed it! Ideological fixation.

I smell your defeat. That's what I smell

Since God knows these folks are later going to become obstacles, seems a little peculiar he waited until they became little children to then order their slaughter.

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?

My reluctance isn't merely the nomenclature in question specifically, but generally. I'm not in any group because it pigeonholes at the least and negates responsibility of the individual (free thinking and individuality, for example) while subjecting the adherent to a broad and almost always questionable paradigm. It replaces personal responsibility with groupthink. Ignorance. And I didn't just read the Bible, I studied it very carefully for 30 years. Big difference. The difference between groupthink and knowledge.

So you denounce 'Christianity' as a whole? I think not. Let's not kid ourselves.

[Data]

We know matter exists. We do not know if Jehovah exists.

Correct.

Why conclude matter has not always existed, which would then render the assertion of a "creator" logically nonsensical?

How so?

If you are not going to, or are not prepared to, demonstrate 'inherited sin', then don't bring it up.

Inherited means received as an heir at the death of the previous holder; derived genetically from one's parents or ancestors. Sin means missing the mark. According to the Bible we've all inherited the results of Adam's sin. You should know that. If I have to "demonstrate" it to you you shouldn't be constructing arguments on the subject.

Then please stop. If you, like many other Christian apologists, wish to try and reduce every exchange to 'we all have faith', then the exchange will never really go anywhere. I'm already aware you or I will not change our position. But maybe the ones reading along are still undecided about something.

Salmon, anyone? No one is reading this except for the few who actively participate in the discussion. Spiders and bots.

Fifth attempt: When exactly DID it dawn on God that these little children were later going to become obstacles?

1473 BCE. Genesis 9:20-27; 1 Chronicles 16:18; Deuteronomy 7.1-2; 20.16-18.

I already did. But I'll take another go at it... You admit God can do stuff.

Check.

You also admit God has or does intervene.

Check.

God opted not to stop the conception of these known obstacles.

Check.

To instead allow their existence, only to order their slaughter -- as little children, reads extra and unnecessary.

He does that with everyone. We are allowed to operate while the trial of God establishes its case. We can do whatever we want, and suffer the consequences, unless and until there was, in that case for example, need for interference.

It instead reads like a God who is not truly 'loving'.

Okay.

On the contrary, if you claimed to be loving, and had the opportunity to prevent something from happening, would you wait until they were little children, and order their execution? Prolly not. Hence, you are more logical than the God you worship.

You're emoting. I'm responding in a general sense, not to specific events. If you want that you will have to provide your explanation of the verses in the OP.

You don't like that? Tough.

I asked you a specific question. Remember, you brought up Hitler, not me. If Hitler did not have true free will, then God willed the holocaust. Another shining example of God's 'love'.

God willed that we demonstrate, to us and the myriad more spirit beings, what's going on. He allows us to address the slanderous charges made by Satan resulting in Adam's sin.

[Data]

Up until now, you still have not answered.

I hate math. If you present to me a math problem of the simplest nature, I get all wonky. A sort of kinetic energy all through my body. In math class the poor teacher would explain it to me and all I could do is rub my empty head as if it were going to implode and say it doesn't make sense to me! Why did we put the decimal point there in the first place?! To make it easier! Aaaaggghhhh!!!

I've answered several times in several different ways. This is the last. God can get to know anything he wants to know, but, he doesn't inherently know everything. Let me give you an example of how this is typically misunderstood. When asked when the end of the world would be, Jesus said no one knows but the father, God. Right? That doesn't mean what most people think it does. It doesn't mean he can magically see into the future, which doesn't, or more accurately, didn't exist at that time. What it does mean is that God will know when events have unfolded to the point where it's time for him to end the world. Only God will know when it is time.

Now in the specific case of the children in question, as I've said (over and over) we all inherit sin and therefore death. Okay. What is sin? Sin is the English transliteration of the Hebrew, and means to miss the target, or the mark. If your boss says to be at work at 9 AM and you show up at 9:15 you've sinned against your boss. If you exceed the speed limit you've sinned against the government. The word was used for archers or spear throwers, sling shootist. Marksmen. Adam missed the mark, which was simply, don't touch the tree or touch or eat the fruit of the tree. The tree represented Jehovah's sovereignty. His right, similar to that of a parent, to decide what was right or wrong, good or bad, for his young creation, children so to speak, until they were mature enough to, like Genesis 3:22 says, do that for themselves.

Satan deceived Eve into disobedience and then Adam, fearing the loneliness following Eve's subsequent death, followed in disobedience.

You follow me so far?

[POI]

Why conclude matter has not always existed, which would then render the assertion of a "creator" logically nonsensical?

How so?

Because creators are necessary to create matter. Since matter likely always was, no creator is necessary.

According to the Bible we've all inherited the results of Adam's sin. You should know that.

Why should anyone logically believe such assertions from the Bible?

Then please stop. If you, like many other Christian apologists, wish to try and reduce every exchange to 'we all have faith', then the exchange will never really go anywhere. I'm already aware you or I will not change our position. But maybe the ones reading along are still undecided about something.

Salmon, anyone? No one is reading this except for the few who actively participate in the discussion. Spiders and bots.

I read other threads all the time. I'm sure you do too. I would imagine others do as well. So please stop with the 'you cannot really prove anything, which means we all have faith' apologetic.

Fifth attempt: When exactly DID it dawn on God that these little children were later going to become obstacles?

1473 BCE. Genesis 9:20-27; 1 Chronicles 16:18; Deuteronomy 7.1-2; 20.16-18.

You know exactly what I'm asking, and you still choose to avoid. I wonder why?

When exactly DID it dawn on God that these little children were later going to become obstacles? In other words, why was "it time" only when these folks were little children, and NOT before they were conceived? Or how about after, just before they become obstacles (as adults) --- as God does intervene whenever he wants/chooses.

To instead allow their existence, only to order their slaughter -- as little children, reads extra and unnecessary.

He does that with everyone. We are allowed to operate while the trial of God establishes its case. We can do whatever we want, and suffer the consequences, unless and until there was, in that case for example, need for interference.

Your response here makes no logical sense. These little children suffer no consequences because they have yet to become obstacles. And also, if God was to interfere, why do it when they are little children?

It instead reads like a God who is not truly 'loving'.

Okay.

"Okay" what? "Okay" you agree with me, "okay" you disagree? Other? And why? If you disagree....

On the contrary, if you claimed to be loving, and had the opportunity to prevent something from happening, would you wait until they were little children, and order their execution? Prolly not. Hence, you are more logical than the God you worship.

I'm responding in a general sense, not to specific events. If you want that you will have to provide your explanation of the verses in the OP.

You don't like that? Tough.

I've already done that. If I had the foreknowledge to prevent an event, I would not think the 'right time' to prevent the event is when they are little children. And presumably, neither would you. Under any definition of "love" you wish to bring forth, I doubt the 'right time' would include instructing others to "show no mercy; have no pity! Kill little children".

I asked you a specific question. Remember, you brought up Hitler, not me. If Hitler did not have true free will, then God willed the holocaust. Another shining example of God's 'love'.

God willed that we demonstrate, to us and the myriad more spirit beings, what's going on. He allows us to address the slanderous charges made by Satan resulting in Adam's sin.

Thanks for the sermon. But this does not address my point. I guess it was God's will for the holocaust to take place as well since you claim we humans do not have "free will". It was God's choice to kill, not Hitler.

[POI]

Up until now, you still have not answered.

I hate math. If you present to me a math problem of the simplest nature, I get all wonky. A sort of kinetic energy all through my body. In math class the poor teacher would explain it to me and all I could do is rub my empty head as if it were going to implode and say it doesn't make sense to me! Why did we put the decimal point there in the first place?! To make it easier! Aaaaggghhhh!!!

I've answered several times in several different ways. This is the last. God can get to know anything he wants to know, but, he doesn't inherently know everything. Let me give you an example of how this is typically misunderstood. When asked when the end of the world would be, Jesus said no one knows but the father, God. Right? That doesn't mean what most people think it does. It doesn't mean he can magically see into the future, which doesn't, or more accurately, didn't exist at that time. What it does mean is that God will know when events have unfolded to the point where it's time for him to end the world. Only God will know when it is time.

Now in the specific case of the children in question, as I've said (over and over) we all inherit sin and therefore death. Okay. What is sin? Sin is the English transliteration of the Hebrew, and means to miss the target, or the mark. If your boss says to be at work at 9 AM and you show up at 9:15 you've sinned against your boss. If you exceed the speed limit you've sinned against the government. The word was used for archers or spear throwers, sling shootist. Marksmen. Adam missed the mark, which was simply, don't touch the tree or touch or eat the fruit of the tree. The tree represented Jehovah's sovereignty. His right, similar to that of a parent, to decide what was right or wrong, good or bad, for his young creation, children so to speak, until they were mature enough to, like Genesis 3:22 says, do that for themselves.

Satan deceived Eve into disobedience and then Adam, fearing the loneliness following Eve's subsequent death, followed in disobedience.

You follow me so far?

Yes, you have said nothing new here. I've debated many apologists. Some with your views, and some with others. But none of this addresses my point(s).

God thinks the 'right time' to prevent an obstacle, is when they are little children; even though he also knew they were going to be obstacles at their conception. By definition, the God you worship presents as a "sadistic voyeur." Maybe God likes to see little children terrified and suffer, who knows?

[Data]

Up until now, you still have not answered.

I hate math. If you present to me a math problem of the simplest nature, I get all wonky. A sort of kinetic energy all through my body. In math class the poor teacher would explain it to me and all I could do is rub my empty head as if it were going to implode and say it doesn't make sense to me! Why did we put the decimal point there in the first place?! To make it easier! Aaaaggghhhh!!!

I've answered several times in several different ways. This is the last. God can get to know anything he wants to know, but, he doesn't inherently know everything. Let me give you an example of how this is typically misunderstood. When asked when the end of the world would be, Jesus said no one knows but the father, God. Right? That doesn't mean what most people think it does. It doesn't mean he can magically see into the future, which doesn't, or more accurately, didn't exist at that time. What it does mean is that God will know when events have unfolded to the point where it's time for him to end the world. Only God will know when it is time.

Now in the specific case of the children in question, as I've said (over and over) we all inherit sin and therefore death. Okay. What is sin? Sin is the English transliteration of the Hebrew, and means to miss the target, or the mark. If your boss says to be at work at 9 AM and you show up at 9:15 you've sinned against your boss. If you exceed the speed limit you've sinned against the government. The word was used for archers or spear throwers, sling shootist. Marksmen. Adam missed the mark, which was simply, don't touch the tree or touch or eat the fruit of the tree. The tree represented Jehovah's sovereignty. His right, similar to that of a parent, to decide what was right or wrong, good or bad, for his young creation, children so to speak, until they were mature enough to, like Genesis 3:22 says, do that for themselves.

Satan deceived Eve into disobedience and then Adam, fearing the loneliness following Eve's subsequent death, followed in disobedience.

You follow me so far?

Yes, you have said nothing new here. I've debated many apologists. Some with your views, and some with others. But none of this addresses my point(s).

You asked me to demonstrate sin. What, then, in your own words is sin?

God thinks the 'right time' to prevent an obstacle, is when they are little children; even though he also knew they were going to be obstacles at their conception. By definition, the God you worship presents as a "sadistic voyeur." Maybe God likes to see little children terrified and suffer, who knows?

Maybe. That isn't the question. I've explained that we are all obstacles, we all die. I was an unbeliever until I was 27. Why didn't God destroy me or you before our conception? You insisted in another thread that you could change your mind.

[Data]

Because creators are necessary to create matter. Since matter likely always was, no creator is necessary.

How do you know it is likely?

Why should anyone logically believe such assertions from the Bible?

Study. Observation. Maybe they shouldn't. It's up to the individual.

You know exactly what I'm asking, and you still choose to avoid. I wonder why?

The answer to your question IS 1473 BCE. Genesis 9:20-27; 1 Chronicles 16:18; Deuteronomy 7:1-2; 20:16-18. Why don't you try debating that instead of just dismissing, or as you say, avoiding it. There isn't any point in me talking to you if you don't listen. Don't ask me questions you THINK you already know the answer to.

When exactly DID it dawn on God that these little children were later going to become obstacles?

What have I told you?

In other words, why was "it time" only when these folks were little children, and NOT before they were conceived? Or how about after, just before they become obstacles (as adults) --- as God does intervene whenever he wants/chooses.

Sorry. Done.

[POI]

You asked me to demonstrate sin. What, then, in your own words is sin?

Aside from the assertion in 'ancient book", I have seen no demonstration of 'inherited sin'.

God thinks the 'right time' to prevent an obstacle, is when they are little children; even though he also knew they were going to be obstacles at their conception. By definition, the God you worship presents as a "sadistic voyeur." Maybe God likes to see little children terrified and suffer, who knows?

Maybe.

I guess this is as close as you are going to get in admitting you agree with me.

That isn't the question. I've explained that we are all obstacles, we all die. I was an unbeliever until I was 27. Why didn't God destroy me or you before our conception? You insisted in another thread that you could change your mind.

And yet God sparingly intervenes. And when God does, he decides to do so while they are little children, even though he already knew of what kind of obstacle they would be? Talk about "loving your enemy."