Why does God not stop the evil?

[Archaeopteryx]

Who said the child had suffering inflicted upon it?

12:15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
12:16 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.
12:17 And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.
12:18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This record maybe?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7711675/

 

[Tiberius]

God commanded people to be murdered because they were of a certain race?

How did you come to that conclusion?

"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

God orders the murder of all babylonians.

Does that count?

 

[Elioenai26]

12:15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
12:16 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.
12:17 And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.
12:18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died.

And so because the child was sick, it was therefore suffering?

How do you know the child was even conscious to experience this "suffering"? Were you there in the room when all of this took place?

And surely you are not saying God did something "wrong" are you? I mean if you are a relativist, you can't say that right?

And if you were to have asked King David who was responsible for this child being sick, what would he have said?

Who caused the child to even be alive in the first place? Was it not God?

 

[Elioenai26]

"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

God orders the murder of all babylonians.

Does that count?

Not at all.

 

[Elioenai26]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7711675/

Yes, my thread about the moral argument. What about it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And so because the child was sick, it was therefore suffering?

How do you know the child was even conscious to experience this "suffering"? Were you there in the room when all of this took place?

And surely you are not saying God did something "wrong" are you? I mean if you are a relativist, you can't say that right?

This coming from someone who cannot consistently call genocide wrong? As I said earlier, it seems you are projecting your own peculiar relativism onto others.

 

[Elioenai26]

This coming from someone who cannot consistently call genocide wrong? As I said earlier, it seems you are projecting your own peculiar relativism onto others.

Speak on it. What are you saying? That God who gives life cannot take life?

How do you come to that conclusion?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Speak on it. What are you saying? That God who gives life cannot take life?

How do you come to that conclusion?

I have already spoken on it: Inflicting suffering on someone who is innocent just to teach someone else a lesson sounds sort of... well... sociopathic, right?

 

[Elioenai26]

I have already spoken on it: Inflicting suffering on someone who is innocent just to teach someone else a lesson sounds sort of... well... sociopathic, right?

Theres a slight problem with your thinking. You see, you are talking about the author of life.

But you have yet to prove why God, who creates life, is wrong in taking life.

Can you do this?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Theres a slight problem with your thinking. You see, you are talking about the author of life.

But you have yet to prove why God, who creates life, is wrong in taking life.

Can you do this?

So the author of life created life so that he'd have play things to manipulate? That sounds even more sociopathic.

 

[MyLordMySavior]

I agree with first post. Free will. Thank God for his unending Grace and Mercy on us as wretched and rebellious as we are.

 

[Davian]

Murdering people because they are a certain race is wrong. This is self-evident.

Murder is unlawful. Do you mean killing?

I am referring to the act of genocide.

Murder is sin.

So are whispered lies between schoolchildren.

Murderers will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

There will be no murderers or genocidal men and women in heaven.

You said, "Anyone means anyone, the rapist, the child molester, the worst sin you can think of was atoned for on the cross. This is the good news. This is the gospel."

Change of heart?

If a person murders someone and later repents and asks God to forgive him on the merits and finished work of Christ at the Cross and cleanse him of his sin and come into his life and lead him and guide him in the way of righteousness, then his sins will be forgiven, and he is justified. That is, when God sees this man, He does not see a murderer, but rather His Son Jesus Christ. For Christ is the propitiation of this man's sins.

Sounds like self-deception on God's part.

Does this mean the man does not have to pay for the consequences of his actions in this life? Of course not. He may very well end up dying by lethal injection or spending the rest of his life in prison.

Or he gets away scot-free. The laws of countries are subjective and inconsistent. He may never get caught by the authorities.

However, this man will not be condemned and eternally separated from God. He is saved. This is the gospel.

So, having committed genocide, he is 'saved' and goes to heaven.

King David committed adultery and then had the woman's husband killed in battle. King David suffered tremendously for his sins. But he repented and God forgave him.

So what is objectively wrong with genocide, if it is not going to preclude one from entering this hypothetical heaven of yours?

 

[Tiberius]

Not at all.

Why not?

Killing all Babylonians is not genocide?

If it said, "Kill all the Belgians," or "Kill all the Australians," then it would be. Why doesn't it count here?

BTW, "Genocide" is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948 as:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Even if you could successfully argue that the killing of all Babylonians was not genocide, you'd still fail, because God orders the death of anyone who worships a god other than him, which is genocide under the whole "religious group" part. Namely, ANY religious group other than Christians.

So God is still encouraging genocide.

 

[quatona]

You can never justifiably use the word "'wrong" as a relativist. I think this is what you cannot grasp.

Yes, I can use it quite fine - as an expression of my subjective opinion and feeling.
What you cannot grasp is that I am world´s leading expert when it comes to what I mean to say, and no amount of sophism on your part will change that into what you would like me to mean.

Relativism/subjectivism even have words like "morality" or "right/wrong" in their definitions (as being concepts relative to environment, time, culture, upbringing, individuality, whatnot). This is how words like "right" and "wrong" are used in relativism and subjectivism, by definition. By the very definition of these views, a relativist or subjectivist does not refer to a supposedly objective source when saying "right", "wrong", "should" or "shouldn´t".
Relativism and subjectivism acknowledge that concepts of "right" and "wrong" are a matter of perspective. They don´t preclude the relativist or subjectivist to have a perspective of their own and to make judgements with this perspective as a referent, nor do they preclude them from communicating their perspective or judgements, using words like "right" or "wrong".

In fact, you cannot even answer this question:

Should I be honest when talking with you?

Any question that has the word "should" in it cannot even be addressed by you.

There would be no problem whatsoever for a subjectivist or relativist with saying "In my opinion you should be honest."
Yet, I usually abstain from this wording because it is unprecise.
I would say "I´d rather you not lie", or "If dishonesty is an acceptable method in your world there is a mismatch between you and me, and I will abstain from contact with you", or "If you want to have a conversation with me , you need to abstain from using disingenious debate tactics (I´m sure you´ll find yourself someone else who enjoys this sort of battle just like you do)."

When I say "garlic tastes awful" I am not intending to refer to a supposedly objective authority on taste. I mean to say "It tastes awful to me". Now you could go to great length telling me how the judgement "is awful" technically implies an objective referent - however, that wouldn´t change the message I intended to communicate: That it tastes awful to me. As a taste-subjectivist I can use the terms "awful, bad, good, excellent, delicious" quite fine - as expressions of my subjective taste. A taste-subjectivist can also say "If you want me to eat the meal you are cooking for us you shouldn´t put garlic in it."

*****To everyone who thinks that morality is relative, I would like for you to see how quatona addresses the above post.********

All I can do is repeat most simple things time and again, anyway - until they eventually sink in. There was nothing new in your post, all your points had been answered and addressed numerous times before. You just don´t listen.

 

[Elioenai26]

So the author of life created life so that he'd have play things to manipulate?

I would like for you to sit down one day and starting at Genesis 1:1, I want you to go through and write down or highlight every verse that gives us a description of who God is, what He is like, and the things He delights in and the things He hates. List everytime it speaks about God CREATING life. Start there and stop when you get to the last word of the Book of Revelation. Make note of every reference to God's mercy, love, grace, longsuffering, compassion, kindness, forgiveness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, reluctance to judge men for their atrocities, and the numerous acts of God's love towards men most signified in Christs life and death.

Make that list and then along side of that I want you to make a list of the FEW passages that speak about God JUDGING people for their ATROCITIES and WICKEDNESS which you think is somehow inconsistent with His character.

Compare the two lists and then talk to me about what you have found.

Read the entire bible several times all the way through like i have. Then you will have a clearer picture of who God is. Read the Gospels. See the love, see the compassion Jesus Christ had for people. The same people that mocked Him and spit on Him and crucified Him. People just like you who mock Jesus and mock God for being righteous and being just. People like you who would rather have God just kind of wink at babies being burned alive. People like you who think they know better how to deal with the dull, hard hearts of men.

You are a man barely out of your teens and you dare to sit in judgment upon the God of the Universe as if you really think you know something about life.

If you want to know God, then ask Him to show you who He is. Why listen to men who DENY HE EVEN EXISTS for your source of information? If I wanted to know about you Archaeopteryx, I wouldn't be asking people for information about you WHO DON'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR EXISTENCE. I would go to you and say: "Tell me about yourself. what are your likes and dislikes? "

God has shown us what He desires and what He hates. I fear for you. I fear you have the answers right in front of you but you do not want them to be the answers. And you have that choice. You can ask God to show you who He is through His word, or you can reject this "concept" of God that you have which is not even God at all but something created by unbelieving, evil, wicked men who deny He even exists.

I pray you seek Him with all your heart. It is only then that you shall find Him.

That sounds even more sociopathic.

The concept of God that you have is one who is sociopathic, genocidal, arbitrary, tyrannical, and generally an all around bad fellow. You sound like Christopher Hitchens.

If I knew God to be this way, I would hate him too.

The question is, is this an accurate representation of Jesus Christ and the God of the Bible?

No. No it is not.

The truth is, you want this ONE SIDED, warped, untrue view of God to be true so you will feel justified in rejecting Him. I pray you come to know Him as I, and the hundreds of millions of other Christians have.

 

[Freodin]

As I said before, I have seen this type of behaviour so often before in debates with absolutists.

They are unable to disregard their own "objectivist" view even for debate's sake, and thus keep trying to apply their own view to their opponent.

In this way, they are right: a relativist cannot say that something is wrong.... objectively[/i]. That the relativist has no problems and is completely consistent in his worldview (as quatona has shown over and over again) to say that something is wrong in their subjective view (and, in extrapolation, in intersubjective views shared with others) is something that the absolutist just cannot imagine.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I would like for you to sit down one day and starting at Genesis 1:1, I want you to go through and write down or highlight every verse that gives us a description of who God is, what He is like, and the things He delights in and the things He hates. List everytime it speaks about God CREATING life. Start there and stop when you get to the last word of the Book of Revelation. Make note of every reference to God's mercy, love, grace, longsuffering, compassion, kindness, forgiveness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, reluctance to judge men for their atrocities, and the numerous acts of God's love towards men most signified in Christs life and death.

Make that list and then along side of that I want you to make a list of the FEW passages that speak about God JUDGING people for their ATROCITIES and WICKEDNESS which you think is somehow inconsistent with His character.

Compare the two lists and then talk to me about what you have found.

Read the entire bible several times all the way through like i have. Then you will have a clearer picture of who God is. Read the Gospels.

Why are you assuming that I haven't read them?

See the love, see the compassion Jesus Christ had for people. The same people that mocked Him and spit on Him and crucified Him. People just like you who mock Jesus and mock God for being righteous and being just. People like you who would rather have God just kind of wink at babies being burned alive. People like you who think they know better how to deal with the dull, hard hearts of men.

Commanding genocide is righteous and just?

You are a man barely out of your teens and you dare to sit in judgment upon the God of the Universe as if you really think you know something about life.

From recollection, you are barely a few years older than I am (26 or 27?). So how much do you think someone needs to know about life to be a theist?

There is some irony behind that comment. I'm willing to admit there are many things I don't know about the world. You are the one claiming to possess "the truth".

If you want to know God, then ask Him to show you who He is. Why listen to men who DENY HE EVEN EXISTS for your source of information? If I wanted to know about you Archaeopteryx, I wouldn't be asking people for information about you WHO DON'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR EXISTENCE. I would go to you and say: "Tell me about yourself. what are your likes and dislikes? "

God has shown us what He desires and what He hates. I fear for you. I fear you have the answers right in front of you but you do not want them to be the answers. And you have that choice. You can ask God to show you who He is through His word, or you can reject this "concept" of God that you have which is not even God at all but something created by unbelieving, evil, wicked men who deny He even exists.

I pray you seek Him with all your heart. It is only then that you shall find Him.

Spare me the preaching.

The concept of God that you have is one who is sociopathic, genocidal, arbitrary, tyrannical, and generally an all around bad fellow. You sound like Christopher Hitchens.

If I knew God to be this way, I would hate him too.

The question is, is this an accurate representation of Jesus Christ and the God of the Bible?

No. No it is not.

The truth is, you want this ONE SIDED, warped, untrue view of God to be true so you will feel justified in rejecting Him.

If that's what you think the truth is, then you are way off.

 

[Freodin]

Commanding genocide is righteous and just?

It is the necessary conclusion from their "objectivist" moral view... which is nothing but "whatever (I think) God says".

God is righteous and just. God is defined as righteous and just. It is impossible that God is not righteous and just.

Therefore, everything God (alledgedly) does is righteous and just. That includes genocide. Whole books of apologetics have been written to defend this view and to explain why God alone is righteous and just even while commanding or commiting genocide.

So much for "objective morals".

The most interesting point here is that that isn't even a clear distinction between "God's doing" (God can kill people, because he created life, and if he does it he has a good reason), but also includes "God's commands" (The Israelites were righteous and just in killing all the (insert some non-israelite tribe here) because God commanded them to do so).

Based on that excusive explanations for everything they need to explain away, it is the objectivists who are not able to say that something is wrong. They simply have no way of knowing whether the specific "atrocity" was commanded by God or not.

 

[Davian]

...
And surely you are not saying God did something "wrong" are you? I mean if you are a relativist, you can't say that right?
...

Describe moral nihilism, in your words, in a manner that differentiates it from moral relativism.