Why does God not stop the evil?

[Dave Ellis]

Says the main who denies erecting strawmen. I'll ognore you any day, baby!

Seeing as I've asked you numerous times to point out where the strawman in my arguments were, and to date you have failed to provide even one example, I'll write this off as simply more nonsense

 

[Elioenai26]

What do you mean by harder things? I've been asking you about the killing of children from the very beginning and several pages later you are still stalling. What's the hold-up?

I find it funny that you, an ethical SUBJECTIVIST keep talking about the killing of children as if it is something that is wrong even if some think it is right.

This, I simply cannot stop smiling at.

 

[Elioenai26]

That being said, comparing D-Day to the holocaust is simply absurd. One was the systematic murder of innocent people based on race, or other similar characteristics.

So genocide is objectively wrong?

Is this your view?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I find it funny that you, an ethical SUBJECTIVIST keep talking about the killing of children as if it is something that is wrong even if some think it is right.

This, I simply cannot stop smiling at.

Why? Earlier you admitted that subjectivists can make moral claims. Are you disagreeing with yourself again?

PS. If you have read my posts, you would know that I am not settled on the topic. By the way, do you intend on addressing my question or not? Perhaps you could also try touching on the genocide question again, since you've avoided it across several threads now.

 

[seeking Christ]

If you have read my posts, you would know that I am not settled on the topic.

Well good, here I thought I had missed something. So you're not a moral subjectivist. Why do you have a fascination with killing children?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well good, here I thought I had missed something. So you're not a moral subjectivist. Why do you have a fascination with killing children?

My fascination is with your inability to answer the question.

 

[seeking Christ]

Well I have no idea what the question is nor why you would ask it, but I do think that due to the difficulty of the subject matter it would be courteous to all discuss the same point rather than trying to have all arguments at once.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well I have no idea what the question is nor why you would ask it, but I do think that due to the difficulty of the subject matter it would be courteous to all discuss the same point rather than trying to have all arguments at once.

Now you are just playing dumb. You know very well what the question is, since I've been asking you the very same question from the beginning. In fact, it is the same question I have put to Elioenai26. Perhaps I should make it even more specific. If you were there when your God commanded the killing of the Amalekites, what would you do?

 

[seeking Christ]

If you were there when your God commanded the killing of the Amalekites, what would you do?

What if God never commanded it?

Further, what if there never were any Amelekites?

Why can't you address what Scripture tries to address, w/o some twisted need to turn it into something its not?

And what about Naomi?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What if God never commanded it?

Further, what if there never were any Amelekites?

Why can't you address what Scripture tries to address, w/o some twisted need to turn it into something its not?

And what about Naomi?

So you are denying that the events happened as recorded in the Bible?

 

[seeking Christ]

So you are denying that the events happened as recorded in the Bible?

You can't just address a tiny little factoid like this and make any sense out of it. You have to discover the purpose of Scripture itself, and allow it to say what it says, rather than attempting to impose our own ideas upon it. Joshua - 2 Chronicles covers a heritage of Israel, passed down as oral history, not written down until perhaps as late as the Babylonian exile many hundreds of years later.

You and I cannot know if Amalekites ever existed or not, but we sure can know what they represent in the story. What difference does it make to our lives today if they existed or not? Its not the purpose of Scripture. Stories like this are INTENTIONALLY shocking, and horrible. So if you guys want to hang out and go "how shocking and horrible," that's a valid use of passages like this. If you want to do anything with it more than that, like maybe understand it or assign meaning to it, you'll have to use it in the way intended, which means to listen to those who have spent years and decades living with the harsh reality of what it says, and pondering it.

And of all the things you could pick from the Bible, this is just not a likely starting point. I have no idea what frame of reference anyone here has but I do know for a fact that everyone's is different, and if any glimmer of understanding were to pass on to one individual, it wouldn't likely make sense to anyone else in this diverse bunch, starting here.

So far what we have established in this thread about this all came about with Loudmouth:

God isn't some ignore reality and just do whatever dude, He's just and constrained to the reality He created, which is complex;

Nobody was killed due to their race so genocide isn't even an applicable concept; what's happening in all these gory stories is judgment according to works;

Even though genocide is an anachronism most of these slaughtered groups were warned ahead of time, giving the pacifists among them time to flee. This leaves only the warlike left in harm's way, which is a specific part of God's Judgment, which while controversial can be seen as an extension of the Judgment of the flood. Its key to target those that are warlike, and understanding these details definitely helps tie the whole of Scripture together.

If you were asking a complex question about a complex circumstance and expecting a simple answer - that was foolish wasn't it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You can't just address a tiny little factoid like this and make any sense out of it. You have to discover the purpose of Scripture itself, and allow it to say what it says, rather than attempting to impose our own ideas upon it. Joshua - 2 Chronicles covers a heritage of Israel, passed down as oral history, not written down until perhaps as late as the Babylonian exile many hundreds of years later.

You and I cannot know if Amalekites ever existed or not, but we sure can know what they represent in the story. What difference does it make to our lives today if they existed or not? Its not the purpose of Scripture. Stories like this are INTENTIONALLY shocking, and horrible. So if you guys want to hang out and go "how shocking and horrible," that's a valid use of passages like this. If you want to do anything with it more than that, like maybe understand it or assign meaning to it, you'll have to use it in the way intended, which means to listen to those who have spent years and decades living with the harsh reality of what it says, and pondering it.

What exactly would be the purpose of a story about genocide? What moral or spiritual lesson can one acquire from a story about a genocidal God?

So far what we have established in this thread about this all came about with Loudmouth:

God isn't some ignore reality and just do whatever dude, He's just and constrained to the reality He created, which is complex;

Nobody was killed due to their race so genocide isn't even an applicable concept; what's happening in all these gory stories is judgment according to works;

Genocide isn't always about race.

Even though genocide is an anachronism most of these slaughtered groups were warned ahead of time, giving the pacifists among them time to flee. This leaves only the warlike left in harm's way,

The children and infants among them were warlike?

which is a specific part of God's Judgment, which while controversial can be seen as an extension of the Judgment of the flood. Its key to target those that are warlike, and understanding these details definitely helps tie the whole of Scripture together.

So far you seem to be brushing over the details when they are inconvenient. Like the details about the children.

 

[Davian]

So, in what way is genocide and child rape not permissible, if those that commit such acts can still enter this theoretical heaven?

...


Now there is a tough question!

And here I thought you might know a lot about Christianity.

Not sure I can address that one without just making it even more confusing than it already is.

I am sure you can't.

Can I ask if anyone here would ever do either one, and if not that the question isn't applicable?

Nice dodge! Who didn't see that one coming?

When you are done with the dodge-and-weave, amusing as it is, the question is:

In what way is genocide and child rape not permissible, if those that commit such acts can still enter this theoretical heaven?

And what about serial killers, such as Jeffrey Dahmer?

"Dahmer served his time at the Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage, Wisconsin, where he ultimately declared himself a born-again Christian. Roy Ratcliff, a local preacher from the Churches of Christ, met with Dahmer and agreed to baptize him." - wiki

He should be good to go too?

 

[seeking Christ]

What exactly would be the purpose of a story about genocide? What moral or spiritual lesson can one acquire from a story about a genocidal God?

If you were interested in honest discussion, why would you be ignoring my address of the anachronism that is "genocide," and still using that term?

 

[seeking Christ]

When you are done with the dodge-and-weave, amusing as it is

How 'bout you ask something applicable? Because there's simply no application for what you're asking here. All sorts of good people could devote all sorts of time to it, and come up with all sorts of responses. After all that it wouldn't mean a hill of beans because there's no application for it.

And what about serial killers, such as Jeffrey Dahmer?

What about him? I think his evil was stopped, don't you? If I were to formulate an opinion as to his Salvation, what difference would that make?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you were interested in honest discussion, why would you be ignoring my address of the anachronism that is "genocide," and still using that term?

Because that is the correct term.

 

[seeking Christ]

Because that is the correct term.

In what way do you find anachronism to be "correct?" Clearly no matter what anyone says on the subject of your question you aren't going to listen anyway, so why play the charade?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In what way do you find anachronism to be "correct?" Clearly no matter what anyone says on the subject of your question you aren't going to listen anyway, so why play the charade?

Fine, we'll use a euphemism instead. How about "judgment"? Now will you answer the question?

 

[seeking Christ]

What exactly would be the purpose of a story about judgment? What moral or spiritual lesson can one acquire from a story about a God of judgment?

Couching it in a relevant term, do you still have to ask the question? Why can you not see that these are stories about judgment? Surely you have also seen the claims here that God is somehow "all loving, all good," etc etc? Well, no. Clearly not. We are in fact judged for even THINKING that! God will do good, and He will do evil. He's kinda adamant about that, and making sure we know it.

So the lessons about Divine Judgment teach us about Divine Judgment. Not such a stretch, is it? Now, what did you want to know about Divine Judgment? You already know we don't have clear answers about that, other than Judgment based on works.

Judgment isn't always about race.

See there, using appropriate terms DOES matter! Judgment is NEVER about race. Compare that terrible thinking to what Scripture actually says, and then see what you come up with.

The children and infants among them were warlike?

See, this is where it gets more difficult. Obviously children aren't a threat in war - or are they? Male children can be QUITE damaging beginning at a pretty young age, and if anything was different in this time and culture this was even moreso back then. So I can't say that has nothing to do with it, but its only one factor. I won't attempt to speak for you but at the ripe old age of 4 if I had seen invading hordes kill the older men in my family and make off with the women, I wouldn't have grown up as an obedient child. I would've been sabotaging everything I could, and plotting the unseemly demise of my captors. I would've also spread that kind of spirit to those around me everywhere I could, and been quite difficult to detect.

So yeah, that counts as warlike.

And yet that really misses the larger point. What do you know about the purpose of the flood?

 

[Davian]

How 'bout you ask something applicable? Because there's simply no application for what you're asking here. All sorts of good people could devote all sorts of time to it, and come up with all sorts of responses. After all that it wouldn't mean a hill of beans because there's no application for it.

Dodge-and-weave.

What about him? I think his evil was stopped, don't you?

Not by any god(s), as the story goes.

If I were to formulate an opinion as to his Salvation, what difference would that make?

It is your opinion I am asking for. Did his actions as a serial killer preclude him from entering this theoretical heaven?