Hypothetical dialogue

[Nihilist Virus]

In logic, we we never reject a conclusion when the reasoning is sound and the premises are true. Theology should operate in the same manner, since, as the root words suggest, it is the logic of theism. However, theists are known to reject conclusions of arguments with sound reasoning and true premises. That will probably happen here.

Allow me to build upon a basic Christian axiom: God is just.

A quick Google search shows that the definition of "just" is as follows:

based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

The problem, of course, is that when we ask certain questions, either the burden of being just is removed from God or else the definition of "just" becomes warped.

The following dialogue is, in my view, a fair representation of what might happen between an apologist and a skeptic. The end is where I feel the skeptic finally manages to wrestle the apologist off his script and so at that point I feel there are many possible paths the conversation can take. You can rescue the apologist by starting where I've ended, or, if you feel I've misrepresented the apologist, you can alter the conversation before that point.

Skeptic: Was it morally right and fair for God to torture and execute David's infant son?

Apologist: Yes.

Skeptic: Why?

Apologist: God is sovereign and can do as he pleases.

Skeptic: Then he is not just because respecting justice limits one's potential actions.

Apologist: False. God is just.

Skeptic: Then we can only conclude that the execution of infants is morally right and fair at least under certain circumstances.

Apologist: The only such circumstances is when it is God acting.

Skeptic: Special pleading fallacy. Unless specified, definitions make no exceptions. There is no exception to the definition of "just." You can define a new word which is a variant of "just" and say that God satisfies the definition of the new word, but you may not say that God is just unless you allow for humans to torture and execute infants as well. As I understand it, you are against late-term abortion.

Apologist: ...

 

[Tree of Life]

In logic, we we never reject a conclusion when the reasoning is sound and the premises are true. Theology should operate in the same manner, since, as the root words suggest, it is the logic of theism. However, theists are known to reject conclusions of arguments with sound reasoning and true premises. That will probably happen here.

I agree. Theology and logic are not mutually exclusive. An illogical conclusion should be unacceptable to any theist.

Skeptic: Was it morally right and fair for God to torture and execute David's infant son?

Let me stop you here. You're using two very loaded terms that do not really apply to God in this situation - namely "torture" and "execute". So your hidden assumption is that God "tortured" and "executed" David's son via Bathsheba.

I don't accept that assumption so I couldn't follow your argument. You'd have to first explain your use of those two loaded terms and then demonstrate that they apply to God's actions in this situation.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I agree. Theology and logic are not mutually exclusive. An illogical conclusion should be unacceptable to any theist.

You miss the entire point. Re-read what I said please.

Let me stop you here. You're using two very loaded terms that do not really apply to God in this situation - namely "torture" and "execute". So your hidden assumption is that God "tortured" and "executed" David's son via Bathsheba.

I don't accept that assumption so I couldn't follow your argument. You'd have to first explain your use of those two loaded terms and then demonstrate that they apply to God's actions in this situation.

Please don't play games with me. I specifically included this in the dialogue:

Special pleading fallacy. Unless specified, definitions make no exceptions.

Torture: to inflict severe and prolonged pain or suffering

Execute: to kill a human being in accordance with authority

God obviously tortured and executed the infant. If you can't own up to that then we can't have a conversation. Also you should think twice about trying to contradict the deity you worship seeing as how he proudly proclaims that he tortured the infant. If you fear God, maybe just admit that God is sovereign and not just.

 

[Tree of Life]

Torture: to inflict severe and prolonged pain or suffering

The text tells us that the child was "afflicted", "sick", and died within a week. I'm not sure that this amounts to "severe and prolonged pain" in the sense that we normally think of torture. So it is a strange use of the word. But whatever.

Execute: to kill a human being in accordance with authority

Usually execution has some legal angle which I suppose is what you may be getting at with the word "authority". Executions are deaths that are legally sanctioned because of some guilt that warrants the death. Again, this is a strange use of the word "execute" in this case, but whatever.

Thanks for defining your terms.

God obviously tortured and executed the infant. If you can't own up to that then we can't have a conversation. Also you should think twice about trying to contradict the deity you worship seeing as how he proudly proclaims that he tortured the infant. If you fear God, maybe just admit that God is sovereign and not just.

For the sake of argument I'll admit that God "executed" and "tortured" the child (it's not clear that this child was an infant). Yet I wouldn't use these terms because of the connotations associated with them that are clearly not appropriate in this scenario.

Still...

There is nothing unjust about God taking life. God created and sustains life as a free grace. No one is entitled to life. To suggest that God is unjust in taking life would be to suggest that God owes our lives to us, which he does not. The same is true with pain and comfort. There's nothing unjust about God inflicting pain. He does not owe us the blessing of comfort. Any comfort or health that we have is a free gift from his hand.

On top of this David grievously sinned against God. David murdered Bathsheba's former husband, stole his wife, and sought to cover it up. God owed to David only wrath.

Furthermore...

Just because God is justified in a certain action does not mean that we, his creatures, are justified in the same action. God is justified in ending life that he created. It does not, therefore, follow that we are justified in ending life that God created.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The text tells us that the child was "afflicted", "sick", and died within a week. I'm not sure that this amounts to "severe and prolonged pain" in the sense that we normally think of torture. So it is a strange use of the word. But whatever.

Every time I've been so ill that it lasted a week, I was quite miserable. However, I survived every time. I can only assume that a fatal illness is much worse.

Usually execution has some legal angle which I suppose is what you may be getting at with the word "authority". Executions are deaths that are legally sanctioned because of some guilt that warrants the death. Again, this is a strange use of the word "execute" in this case, but whatever.

There was guilt, although it belonged to David. Despite God's command that the son not be put to death for the sins of the father, God put someone to death for the sins of the father. In any case, the son was put to death as a form of punishment - that is an execution. I don't understand your reluctance to accept this.

Thanks for defining your terms.

I didn't. I'm appealing to the common definitions that everyone uses. I had no idea they were up for debate.

For the sake of argument I'll admit that God "executed" and "tortured" the child

That's not good enough. The issue is not up for debate, so you don't have to act like you're doing me any favors here.

(it's not clear that this child was an infant).

Would it be any less disgusting if it was an old man who was tortured and executed? Also, why would it not be an infant? Are you suggesting that God watched the child grow up and then acted years later?

Yet I wouldn't use these terms because of the connotations associated with them that are clearly not appropriate in this scenario.

The definition of a word does not change merely because you do not like it. The negative connotations here only suggest to me that you have empathy and are not a psychopath.

Still...

There is nothing unjust about God taking life. God created and sustains life as a free grace. No one is entitled to life. To suggest that God is unjust in taking life would be to suggest that God owes our lives to us, which he does not.

Why is God free to take life from us? If I give you something, it's no longer mine so I have no right to take it back. If God has the right to take our lives, it's only because he's given us nothing to begin with. In that case, why would he be my god?

The same is true with pain and comfort. There's nothing unjust about God inflicting pain.

Then why are you doing cartwheels trying to dodge the obvious when I say that God tortured an infant?

He does not owe us the blessing of comfort. Any comfort or health that we have is a free gift from his hand.

Please clarify: do you believe that God is omnibenevolent? If so, it doesn't matter whether he owes us or not - he will do good for us. However, that description of God is inconsistent with both reality and the Bible. If you reject the idea of burdening God with that property, then I am again puzzled as to why you are so opposed to the words "torture" and "execution" here.

On top of this David grievously sinned against God. David murdered Bathsheba's former husband, stole his wife, and sought to cover it up. God owed to David only wrath.

Irrelevant. See Deuteronomy 24:16.

Furthermore...

Just because God is justified in a certain action does not mean that we, his creatures, are justified in the same action. God is justified in ending life that he created. It does not, therefore, follow that we are justified in ending life that God created.

Then the word "justice" is meaningless when discussing God and his ethics, as are many other terms.

 

[dcalling]

If the president of some country is forced to shoot down an air plane full of passengers due to some reason (i.e. bad guys hijack the plane to kill more), do you consider that torture?

Same here, God creates, and God knows what's best, he might have to take back the infant son as a way to educate the rest of us, i.e. form the greater good. Only God has the wisdom to do that, we only follow his message.

Every time I've been so ill that it lasted a week, I was quite miserable. However, I survived every time. I can only assume that a fatal illness is much worse.




There was guilt, although it belonged to David. Despite God's command that the son not be put to death for the sins of the father, God put someone to death for the sins of the father. In any case, the son was put to death as a form of punishment - that is an execution. I don't understand your reluctance to accept this.



I didn't. I'm appealing to the common definitions that everyone uses. I had no idea they were up for debate.



That's not good enough. The issue is not up for debate, so you don't have to act like you're doing me any favors here.



Would it be any less disgusting if it was an old man who was tortured and executed? Also, why would it not be an infant? Are you suggesting that God watched the child grow up and then acted years later?



The definition of a word does not change merely because you do not like it. The negative connotations here only suggest to me that you have empathy and are not a psychopath.



Why is God free to take life from us? If I give you something, it's no longer mine so I have no right to take it back. If God has the right to take our lives, it's only because he's given us nothing to begin with. In that case, why would he be my god?



Then why are you doing cartwheels trying to dodge the obvious when I say that God tortured an infant?



Please clarify: do you believe that God is omnibenevolent? If so, it doesn't matter whether he owes us or not - he will do good for us. However, that description of God is inconsistent with both reality and the Bible. If you reject the idea of burdening God with that property, then I am again puzzled as to why you are so opposed to the words "torture" and "execution" here.



Irrelevant. See Deuteronomy 24:16.



Then the word "justice" is meaningless when discussing God and his ethics, as are many other terms.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If the president of some country is forced to shoot down an air plane full of passengers due to some reason (i.e. bad guys hijack the plane to kill more), do you consider that torture?

Nonsensical question unless we assume you meant execution instead of torture.

Same here, God creates, and God knows what's best, he might have to take back the infant son as a way to educate the rest of us, i.e. form the greater good. Only God has the wisdom to do that, we only follow his message.

The greater good? Hitler thought his actions were pursuant to the greater good and he thought he was doing God's will. How do we know he was not in communication with God? Because he lost? God's chosen people lost wars too. Because he committed genocide? God's chosen people committed genocide too.

 

[dcalling]

Nonsensical question unless we assume you meant execution instead of torture.



The greater good? Hitler thought his actions were pursuant to the greater good and he thought he was doing God's will. How do we know he was not in communication with God? Because he lost? God's chosen people lost wars too. Because he committed genocide? God's chosen people committed genocide too.

Who do you think knows more? God or Hitler? God knows what's best.

And the following should give you a better view of Hitler's relation to God:
Hitler emphasised that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on modern science. In a diary entry of 28 December 1939, Joseph Goebbels wrote that "the Fuhrer passionately rejects any thought of founding a religion. He has no intention of becoming a priest. His sole exclusive role is that of a politician." In Hitler's political relations dealing with religion he readily adopted a strategy "that suited his immediate political purposes."
Source: Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Who do you think knows more? God or Hitler? God knows what's best.

And the following should give you a better view of Hitler's relation to God:
Hitler emphasised that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on modern science. In a diary entry of 28 December 1939, Joseph Goebbels wrote that "the Fuhrer passionately rejects any thought of founding a religion. He has no intention of becoming a priest. His sole exclusive role is that of a politician." In Hitler's political relations dealing with religion he readily adopted a strategy "that suited his immediate political purposes."
Source: Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia

I never said he was trying to found a new religion. You aren't paying attention, as usual. I'm going to disengage conversation with you again.

 

[dcalling]

I never said he was trying to found a new religion. You aren't paying attention, as usual. I'm going to disengage conversation with you again.

I am responding to your question that Hilter might be communicate with God, and showing you that Hilter clearly is not a religious person. That notion alone is rather strange as Jesus' teachings is to Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself, so not even sure which god you think Hilter is communicate to.

 

[cloudyday2]

@Nihilist Virus , I think "torture

Skeptic: Was it morally right and fair for God to torture and execute David's infant son?

I think that you should not use "torture and execute" to characterize what was described in 2 Samuel 12 ( Bible Gateway passage: 2 Samuel 12 - New Century Version )

My summary is that David had impregnated Bathsheba while she was married to one of his military officers (Uriah). Initially David brought Uriah home from the war in hopes that he would have sex with Bathsheba and assume the child was his own. When that didn't work, David arranged to have Uriah killed in battle. God punished David in several ways, and the death of his infant through illness was only one of these.

One possible factor in the death of the infant is that God could not allow the future king of Israel to be born under such unlawful circumstances(?)

Another way of looking at this story is that the health of the infant to adulthood would have required God's blessings. If God had blessed the infant in that way, He would have been giving His seal of approval to David's actions. God was forced to withhold His blessings, and the result was illness and death (as happened to most infants in those days).

 

[Nihilist Virus]

@Nihilist Virus , I think "torture


I think that you should not use "torture and execute" to characterize what was described in 2 Samuel 12 ( Bible Gateway passage: 2 Samuel 12 - New Century Version )

My summary is that David had impregnated Bathsheba while she was married to one of his military officers (Uriah). Initially David brought Uriah home from the war in hopes that he would have sex with Bathsheba and assume the child was his own. When that didn't work, David arranged to have Uriah killed in battle. God punished David in several ways, and the death of his infant through illness was only one of these.

One possible factor in the death of the infant is that God could not allow the future king of Israel to be born under such unlawful circumstances(?)

Another way of looking at this story is that the health of the infant to adulthood would have required God's blessings. If God had blessed the infant in that way, He would have been giving His seal of approval to David's actions. God was forced to withhold His blessings, and the result was illness and death (as happened to most infants in those days).

Nothing that you are saying is really relevant. God could have just struck the child dead if God did not want the child alive. The child's death involved unnecessary suffering that could have been avoided; that is torture. Also I fail to see how the child was not executed given your perspective. The child was appointed to die for the reasons you provided; actualization of that is execution.

 

[cloudyday2]

Nothing that you are saying is really relevant. God could have just struck the child dead if God did not want the child alive. The child's death involved unnecessary suffering that could have been avoided; that is torture. Also I fail to see how the child was not executed given your perspective. The child was appointed to die for the reasons you provided; actualization of that is execution.

Maybe "assassination" would be more appropriate than "execution"? In an execution, the victim has committed a crime. We could say that God has "tortured and assassinated" billions of humans by failing to keep the Earth free of germs.

EDIT: The key question for me is: did God insert the fatal germs into the infant child or did God simply observe the fatal germs and refuse to heal the infant because David's sins had made it necessary for God to temporarily withdraw His support from David?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Maybe "assassination" would be more appropriate than "execution"? In an execution, the victim has committed a crime.

False. Counter example: innocent hostages can be executed if demands aren't met. Perhaps that is roughly analogous to our situation here.

We could say that God has "tortured and assassinated" billions of humans by failing to keep the Earth free of germs.

Perhaps, but it is more appropriate here because God personally intervened in this case rather than sitting back and watching us suffer as he usually does.

EDIT: The key question for me is: did God insert the fatal germs into the infant child or did God simply observe the fatal germs and refuse to heal the infant because David's sins had made it necessary for God to temporarily withdraw His support from David?

Assuming that Nathan was not a false prophet, we can be certain that the infant was directly put to death by God in order to punish David. This removes the doubt that you propose here.

 

[Ophiolite]

Three points occur to me:

1.Nihilist Virus's use of "execute" and "torture" in the context of the thread seem unusual, to say the least. Execution, surely, requires an act of commission, rather than one of omission. On that basis I would reject the use of the word, unless he can demonstrate that God infected the child.
2. Torture, also, is generally used either to extract information, or to satisfy sadistic tendencies. Without establishing that one or other of these was the motive for the behaviour, it is inappropriate to use "torture".
3. In a discussion involving the application of logic one expects objective arguments, approach and vocabulary. "Torture" and "execution" seem unnecessarily emotive, provocative and hence out of place.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Three points occur to me:

1.Nihilist Virus's use of "execute" and "torture" in the context of the thread seem unusual, to say the least. Execution, surely, requires an act of commission, rather than one of omission. On that basis I would reject the use of the word, unless he can demonstrate that God infected the child.
2. Torture, also, is generally used either to extract information, or to satisfy sadistic tendencies. Without establishing that one or other of these was the motive for the behaviour, it is inappropriate to use "torture".
3. In a discussion involving the application of logic one expects objective arguments, approach and vocabulary. "Torture" and "execution" seem unnecessarily emotive, provocative and hence out of place.

If we want to be objective, we have to go with reals over feels. My definitions are accurate and I've explained why. My definitions are not invalidated because of your feelings.

 

[Ophiolite]

If we want to be objective, we have to go with reals over feels. My definitions are accurate and I've explained why. My definitions are not invalidated because of your feelings.

I am British. When I say "Nihilist Virus's use of "execute" and "torture" in the context of the thread seem unusual, to say the least," this is a polite, diplomatic way of saying "Nihilist Virus's use of "execute" and "torture" in the context of the thread is faulty. His justifications for his definitions are flawed and illogical. He is ignoring both informal and academic usage. This completely invalidates his line of argument."

In the context of this thread "torture" and "execute" are neither accurate, nor objective. The only feelings of mine that are at work here is that I dislike seeing the English language abused in order to generate rhetoric of poor quality.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I am British. When I say "Nihilist Virus's use of "execute" and "torture" in the context of the thread seem unusual, to say the least," this is a polite, diplomatic way of saying "Nihilist Virus's use of "execute" and "torture" in the context of the thread is faulty. His justifications for his definitions are flawed and illogical. He is ignoring both informal and academic usage. This completely invalidates his line of argument."

In the context of this thread "torture" and "execute" are neither accurate, nor objective. The only feelings of mine that are at work here is that I dislike seeing the English language abused in order to generate rhetoric of poor quality.

Saying that I am incorrect without offering a correction is a waste of time. If God inflicted prolonged suffering, then what word may I use? If God put someone to death as a form of arcane justice, what word may I use for that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Saying that I am incorrect without offering a correction is a waste of time. If God inflicted prolonged suffering, then what word may I use? If God put someone to death as a form of arcane justice, what word may I use for that?

MMMmmmm....... "Sovereignty"?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

MMMmmmm....... "Sovereignty"?

So then you disavow the claim of omnibenevolence?