ISIS and God

[DogmaHunter]

Some people seem to be under the impression that to acknowledge the religious aspects of ISIS is to claim that, as a matter of necessity, all Muslims subscribe to ISIS' radical ideology. I would think that it goes without saying that the brand of Islam practiced by ISIS is not the same as that practiced by the majority of the world's Muslims. We can discuss ISIS' religious motivations without implying that the entire world's Muslim population is somehow complicit in its despicable activities.

Honestly, I think it's more a case of self-defense.

They realise that whatever can be said about muslims as pertaining to their religion, can pretty much also be said about them.

As Sam Harris once said to William Lame Craig (paraphrasing...): "the only argument you can make based on your 'divine command theory' to critisize islamic terrorists... is by saying that they have the wrong god... if they had the right god, what they are doing would be morally okay, as far as you are concerned"

WLC couldn't form an actual valid argument against these terrorists in that debate, because if would have done so - he would have contradicted his very own defence of his "divine command theory" to explain morality. The valid arguments dealing with islamic terrorists, kind of tears his own moral theory to shreds.

They realise that every critisizing argument against IS that touches their religion, can be easily turned around to be used against them with minimal (if any) changes.

They can't exactly blame them for having such strong faith in a bronze-age religion, without admitting that having such faith is a bad thing.

So, in my experience, christians will do their best to use arguments that aren't related to religious things when it comes to islamic terrorism.

I've noticed this many a time.

 

[bhsmte]

Honestly, I think it's more a case of self-defense.

They realise that whatever can be said about muslims as pertaining to their religion, can pretty much also be said about them.

As Sam Harris once said to William Lame Craig (paraphrasing...): "the only argument you can make based on your 'divine command theory' to critisize islamic terrorists... is by saying that they have the wrong god... if they had the right god, what they are doing would be morally okay, as far as you are concerned"

WLC couldn't form an actual valid argument against these terrorists in that debate, because if would have done so - he would have contradicted his very own defence of his "divine command theory" to explain morality. The valid arguments dealing with islamic terrorists, kind of tears his own moral theory to shreds.

They realise that every critisizing argument against IS that touches their religion, can be easily turned around to be used against them with minimal (if any) changes.

They can't exactly blame them for having such strong faith in a bronze-age religion, without admitting that having such faith is a bad thing.

So, in my experience, christians will do their best to use arguments that aren't related to religious things when it comes to islamic terrorism.

I've noticed this many a time.

Indeed.

Willy didn't have much of a response to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HthQ6a7FZeA

 

[Achilles6129]

Honestly, I think it's more a case of self-defense.

They realise that whatever can be said about muslims as pertaining to their religion, can pretty much also be said about them.

As Sam Harris once said to William Lame Craig (paraphrasing...): "the only argument you can make based on your 'divine command theory' to critisize islamic terrorists... is by saying that they have the wrong god... if they had the right god, what they are doing would be morally okay, as far as you are concerned"

WLC couldn't form an actual valid argument against these terrorists in that debate, because if would have done so - he would have contradicted his very own defence of his "divine command theory" to explain morality. The valid arguments dealing with islamic terrorists, kind of tears his own moral theory to shreds.

It's not quite that simple. We're not dealing with a human being here, we're dealing with God, the Creator of the entire universe - time, space, matter, energy, everything. By very definition, God is the most intelligent being that there is, so obviously we should trust his understanding of good/evil above everyone else's. God, therefore, has the correct understanding of good/evil, and everyone else does not. So the point is that God's understanding of good/evil could drastically conflict (and often does) with someone else's understanding of good/evil, but God's understanding of good/evil is the correct one.

So it depends on if the commands really come from God, or if they don't, but are rather imagined to come from God. In the case of ISIS terrorists, we would say that the commands are imagined to come from God but really don't. In the case of the OT/NT, we would say that the commands in fact do come from God.

 

[RDKirk]

Hello all,

It seems that every day we read of some new shocking brutality that ISIS has committed against one of their victims. If the reports are true, they engage in torture, murderous executions, the sexual slavery of women and children, and many other awful brutalities. My question, however, revolves around ISIS and an understanding of theology. Does the existence of a group like ISIS cause you to doubt/question God or does/did it even drive you to outright atheism? We could consider the following points:

1) Obviously, God has refused to intervene to stop ISIS
2) God created all the ISIS members (genetically speaking) and knew what they would do prior them even being born
3) And, of course, God could easily rescue the ISIS' victims of murder/sexual slavery and has not done so
4) When we come to Christian theology, Jesus Christ died on the cross for everyone (this would include ISIS members) and offers them forgiveness if they obey his commands - is this justified?

In short, what theological conclusions can you draw from the existence of a group like ISIS?

Theological conclusion?

That ISIS represents a movement by a demonic principality (see Daniel 10) which has an ultimate aim of its own. I think that's why we see it enthralling pockets of susceptible people around the world.

My suspicion is that the aim is to draw the West in general and the US in particular into constant warfare in northern Iraq (which includes conflict with Iran) that will deplete the US of both blood and money so that the US becomes irrelevant elsewhere and in the long run. Those so enthralled includes Americans who are just as bent on blindly pushing the US into that "forever war."

But principalities don't move without permission from God according to His ultimate purposes. That's also why victory will not be achieved by material means, neither by giving poor Muslims jobs nor by shooting them on the battlefield.

It must also give pause, however. God is no respecter of nations. He uses nations for His purpose, then casts them aside when He's done with them...something for Christians in America to keep in mind. King Cyrus was "good" to the Jews, but the Jews had sense enough not to have tied themselves too closely to Persia when the principality of Persia clocked out and the principality of Greece clocked in.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's not quite that simple. We're not dealing with a human being here, we're dealing with God, the Creator of the entire universe - time, space, matter, energy, everything.

Errr... no. We ARE dealing with human beings. ISIS people. And christians. Which are also humans.

By very definition, God is the most intelligent being that there is

By very arbitrary definition. That's all theists have: definitions. Seemingly pulled out of thin air or from a book from the bronze age.
But okay.

so obviously we should trust his understanding of good/evil above everyone else's.

First, you'ld have to make sure that this god exists, that he indeed is as benevolent as he is arbitrarily defined, determine which god exactly we are dealing with (our of the thousands and thousands "known" to human kind) AND determine that the religious scriptures actually REALLY reflect the real opinions and attributes of this god.

Failing to do all that, results in just empty words that aren't worth a dime more then the words of ISIS dudes.

AND EVEN IF YOU SUCCEED IN THAT, I would still think it to be unwise and irrational to simply blindly accept anything this god says and commands.

God, therefore, has the correct understanding of good/evil, and everyone else does not. So the point is that God's understanding of good/evil could drastically conflict (and often does) with someone else's understanding of good/evil, but God's understanding of good/evil is the correct one.

Again, all merely according to arbitrary definition. This is merely what the doctrine of your particular religion says. I smell a circular argument.

So it depends on if the commands really come from God, or if they don't

Really now?????

So, you are saying that IF the commands DO come from god.... thn what ISIS does is morally justified???

Yep... see? This is exactly the point I made.
This is exactly what Harris accused WLC of... that WLC's ONLY argument against ISIS is that they have the wrong god. If it were the right god, then their barbaric behaviour would be GOOD.

Nice moral compass you have there...

In the case of ISIS terrorists, we would say that the commands are imagined to come from God but really don't

Why? Because it happens to conflict with your particular religion?
yep, just as stated above: your argument against ISIS behaviour consists only of "they worship the wrong god".

Can't you really not imagine a better argument for why ISIS people are immoral?

In the case of the OT/NT, we would say that the commands in fact do come from God.

Yep, just like WLC says. Which ends up in defending the mass killing of infants, genocide, etc.

Obvious moral bankrupcy is obvious.

 

[Achilles6129]

Errr... no. We ARE dealing with human beings. ISIS people. And christians. Which are also humans.

I'm talking about the source of the commands and Scriptures involved, obviously.

By very arbitrary definition. That's all theists have: definitions. Seemingly pulled out of thin air or from a book from the bronze age.
But okay.

If there's someone more intelligent than God, then he would be God. God is by definition the Supreme Being....wouldn't you agree?

First, you'ld have to make sure that this god exists, that he indeed is as benevolent as he is arbitrarily defined, determine which god exactly we are dealing with (our of the thousands and thousands "known" to human kind) AND determine that the religious scriptures actually REALLY reflect the real opinions and attributes of this god.

It's not something that would be determined by human beings at all, but rather by God himself. There has to be a literal and real divine intervention. This isn't done by human beings.

AND EVEN IF YOU SUCCEED IN THAT, I would still think it to be unwise and irrational to simply blindly accept anything this god says and commands.

Why would you think it's unwise/irrational to blindly accept anything the Creator of time, space, matter, anti-matter, black holes, speed of light, speed of sound, etc., says?

Really now?????

So, you are saying that IF the commands DO come from god.... thn what ISIS does is morally justified???

Yep... see? This is exactly the point I made.

Again, anything that comes from the Creator of the universe himself is morally justified. Obviously, if the commands are imagined to come from the Creator but in fact don't, then they're not morally justified. In the case of ISIS, as I have said before, the commands are imagined to come from God. How can we tell whether or not the commands are really from God or not? Because when the commands are really from God, there will be a real and literal divine intervention - something totally outside of human nature or the natural state of things - that occurs. Examples of this are all over Scripture.

This is exactly what Harris accused WLC of... that WLC's ONLY argument against ISIS is that they have the wrong god. If it were the right god, then their barbaric behaviour would be GOOD.

Correct in a sense, but I would argue that if they had the right God they wouldn't be behaving as they do.

Nice moral compass you have there...

It is, thanks. Again, please explain why we shouldn't obey the commands of the Creator of all that there is?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm talking about the source of the commands and Scriptures involved, obviously.

Which was written down by ....-drumroll-.... humans.
And then read and believed by ...-drumroll-.... humans.

If there's someone more intelligent than God, then he would be God. God is by definition the Supreme Being....wouldn't you agree?

By definition of YOUR religion.
YOUR religion defines god as the most intelligent. Other religions might not.

Other religions have other doctrines, other dogma's and other definitions.

It's not something that would be determined by human beings at all, but rather by God himself.

And how would humans know about it, if not by verification?

There has to be a literal and real divine intervention. This isn't done by human beings.

But it is "observed" and "interpreted" by human beings.
And human beings can be wrong.

Why would you think it's unwise/irrational to blindly accept anything the Creator of time, space, matter, anti-matter, black holes, speed of light, speed of sound, etc., says?

I think it's unwise and irrational to blindly accept anything at all.

It's a fallacy to simply accept anything simply because "X says so". There has to be more then that. An actual good reasoned argument, an actual reason,...

A super intelligence would be able to give such reasons and arguments and wouldn't expect anyone to simply blindly accept what is being said simply because it is being said.

A super intelligence would understand that gullibility is not a good trait, even if what you happen to buy into happens to be correct.

A super intelligence would value the importance of logical reasoning, understanding and intellectual honesty.

Again, anything that comes from the Creator of the universe himself is morally justified.

That's a morally bankrupt statement.

Obviously, if the commands are imagined to come from the Creator but in fact don't, then they're not morally justified.

Again, this is not a moral compass. This is simply obedience to a perceived authority.

In the case of ISIS, as I have said before, the commands are imagined to come from God. How can we tell whether or not the commands are really from God or not? Because when the commands are really from God, there will be a real and literal divine intervention - something totally outside of human nature or the natural state of things - that occurs.

You mean, like an angel that appears to a guy in a cave and dictates the laws of the god Allah to him?

See, this is exactly the problem.
There isn't a single way for you to determine which claims of this "divine intervention" are true or not. You have no way to differentiate between the claims of "divine intervention" of islam vs your own religion.

All you ever do, is start from the assumption that your particular religion is correct and everything else is wrong.

Ironically, that's exactly what ISIS guys do.

You haven't given me a single argument against these ISIS types that doesn't apply to yourself. Literally without changing a single part of the arguments.

Examples of this are all over Scripture.

Just like there are examples of this in the Quran. And plenty of other mutually exclusive religious mythologies.

Correct in a sense, but I would argue that if they had the right God they wouldn't be behaving as they do.

By "right god", you, off course, simply mean the god YOU happen to believe in.

They could literally say the exact same thing to you. And it would be just as valid.

It is, thanks. Again, please explain why we shouldn't obey the commands of the Creator of all that there is?

Because:

1. there is no reason to believe such an entity exists
2. if a god exists, there is no reason to believe that your particular religion is a correct reflection of this god
3. because the commandments aren't moral at all
4. because "obedience to a perceived authority" is not morality, it's just obedience.

I could go on and get into more detail, but those 4 is more then enough.

 

[Achilles6129]

Which was written down by ....-drumroll-.... humans.
And then read and believed by ...-drumroll-.... humans.

Right, but divinely inspired by God.

By definition of YOUR religion.
YOUR religion defines god as the most intelligent. Other religions might not.

Other religions have other doctrines, other dogma's and other definitions.

In that case we wouldn't really be talking about God:

God | Definition of god by Merriam-Webster

But it is "observed" and "interpreted" by human beings.
And human beings can be wrong.

Sure, but God can't. And we're talking about God himself literally intervening here.

I think it's unwise and irrational to blindly accept anything at all.

It's a fallacy to simply accept anything simply because "X says so". There has to be more then that. An actual good reasoned argument, an actual reason,...

If it comes from the Creator of the universe then the reason would be that he obviously knows a lot of things that you don't.

A super intelligence would be able to give such reasons and arguments and wouldn't expect anyone to simply blindly accept what is being said simply because it is being said.

It's quite possible that you wouldn't initially be able to understand the reasons and arguments that the super intelligence gave, because it's far outside of your nature.

That's a morally bankrupt statement.

I just don't agree.

You mean, like an angel that appears to a guy in a cave and dictates the laws of the god Allah to him?

No, we're not talking about claimed personal revelation here, but rather supernatural wonders that are displayed openly.

See, this is exactly the problem.
There isn't a single way for you to determine which claims of this "divine intervention" are true or not. You have no way to differentiate between the claims of "divine intervention" of islam vs your own religion.

Sure I do, easily. NT Christianity is based off of experiential knowledge. It has nothing to do with "faith" as usually defined.

You haven't given me a single argument against these ISIS types that doesn't apply to yourself. Literally without changing a single part of the arguments.

Sure I have. If you can't see it then we'll just have to disagree and move on.

Because:

1. there is no reason to believe such an entity exists
2. if a god exists, there is no reason to believe that your particular religion is a correct reflection of this god
3. because the commandments aren't moral at all
4. because "obedience to a perceived authority" is not morality, it's just obedience.

I could go on and get into more detail, but those 4 is more then enough.

Already answered earlier. Agree to disagree.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Right, but divinely inspired by God.

Only "inspired"? The Quran was apparantly literally dictated.

In that case we wouldn't really be talking about God:

God | Definition of god by Merriam-Webster

A dictionary can't pinpoint a definition for a term that means so many different things to so many different people.

If you are going to argue against the idea that different religions have different gods, doctrines and dogma's....

Sure, but God can't.

1. in your opinion / according to your religion
2. it doesn't matter, since we aren't depending on this god to get the information. we are depending on the HUMANS that CLAIMED to be inspired by this god (or many other gods).

There is no direct line here. Your book was written by humans and interpreted by humans. It doesn't matter what their supposed sources were, since we have no way of verifying that.

And we're talking about God himself literally intervening here.

Muslims talk about that too.

If it comes from the Creator of the universe then the reason would be that he obviously knows a lot of things that you don't.

Simply because someone might know more then you is still no good reason to blindly accept whatever that person says.

It's quite possible that you wouldn't initially be able to understand the reasons and arguments that the super intelligence gave, because it's far outside of your nature.

If the "super intelligence" is as super as he is intelligent, he'll know exactly what to say to make me understand it.

We are talking about pretty mundane things here.... like why it's not okay to punch your neighbour in the face.

There's an actual REASON why it's not okay to do that. And that actual REASON is NOT "god said you can't".

I just don't agree.

I know you don't, which is exactly the problem.

Being obedient is not the same as being moral.

No, we're not talking about claimed personal revelation here, but rather supernatural wonders that are displayed openly.

And you are absolutely certain that Islam doesn't have such things?

Sure I do, easily. NT Christianity is based off of experiential knowledge. It has nothing to do with "faith" as usually defined.

First, this puts you at odds with... well... almost every other christian.
Seconldy, please give an example.

Sure I have. If you can't see it then we'll just have to disagree and move on.

No, you haven't. All you said was basically, much like WLC, that they worship "the wrong god".

You even admitted that technically, if they had the RIGHT god, then what they are doing would be MORALLY OKAY.

 

[Achilles6129]

1. in your opinion / according to your religion
2. it doesn't matter, since we aren't depending on this god to get the information. we are depending on the HUMANS that CLAIMED to be inspired by this god (or many other gods).

There is no direct line here. Your book was written by humans and interpreted by humans. It doesn't matter what their supposed sources were, since we have no way of verifying that.

You have a perfectly good way of verifying. You can look at fulfilled prophecy within the Bible and also verify based on experiential knowledge. I see you asked about this down below, so I'll post that part there.

Muslims talk about that too.

Hmm...then where's God at doing the intervening? Looks to me like humans are doing everything.

Simply because someone might know more then you is still no good reason to blindly accept whatever that person says.

In this case, it's more than just knowing more than you - it's about knowing everything.

If the "super intelligence" is as super as he is intelligent, he'll know exactly what to say to make me understand it.

For starters, there might be no way to make you understand it because it might be completely beyond your natural comprehension like, for example, this:

"7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God." Rom. 8:7-8 (NASB)

Second, it may be that "saying exactly what's needed to make you understand it" still wouldn't matter because you'd disagree, rebel, or it's possible that somehow your free choices would be violated. Either way, if an all-knowing being told you to do something, it would make the most sense to do it.

And you are absolutely certain that Islam doesn't have such things?

Certainly nothing that I've seen or, apparently, that anyone else has seen. It's not that supernatural wonders automatically guarantee that God is the author, but they do go a long way toward suggesting so. One of the signs of God being involved is indeed supernatural wonders.

First, this puts you at odds with... well... almost every other christian.

Then that puts them at odds with the New Testament.

Seconldy, please give an example.

Gladly. I should mention that this is not an Apologetics Forum, and threads that veer into such discussions usually get taken down. For that reason I have avoided quoting Scripture in these discussions. Anyways, here's but one passage of many:

"16 So Jesus answered them and said, “My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself." Jn. 7:16-17 (NASB)

 

[DogmaHunter]

You have a perfectly good way of verifying. You can look at fulfilled prophecy within the Bible and also verify based on experiential knowledge.

You really are not the one to start making claims about prophecy, nore are such claims exclusive to christianity. Most, if not all, religions have "prophecies". And most, if not all, of the followers of those religions will agree that their particular prophecy is the "one true" prophecy that was fulfilled.


And all of them fail to convince me.
All of them, except the ones from the religion you happen to be part of as well, also fail to convince you.

And we are back to square one....

Hmm...then where's God at doing the intervening? Looks to me like humans are doing everything.

Yes, indeed. That's what it looks like to you when it comes to Islam.
It's also exactly what it looks like to me when it comes to your claims of divine intervention.

Are we seeing the pattern here?

Let's recap:

- muslims make claims of divine intervention
- yet all that you and I see, is humans doing things

- you make claims of divine intervention
- yet all that I see, is humans doing things

See?

From my perspective (ie: not bound to any dogmatic a priori religious beliefs), there is no way to differentiate between your religion and their religion.

In this case, it's more than just knowing more than you - it's about knowing everything.

That doesn't change my opinion.
Knowing everything doesn't exclude you from lying, being manipulative, malicious, deceiving,...

Also, how would I know this entity really knows everything?
We can make up definitions and assertions till the cows come home, but how would we verify it?

We couldn't. It again comes down to requiring "faith" and "simply believe it".

Well, sorry, but no.

For starters, there might be no way to make you understand it because it might be completely beyond your natural comprehension like, for example, this:

"7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God." Rom. 8:7-8 (NASB)

The hole you were digging just became a little deeper...
If there is "no way" for me to understand the implications and the big picture which leads to making the "correct" moral decisions..........

Then it cannot be held against me that I make the wrong decisions.

Therefor, to then punish me for making the wrong decisions is as immoral as it gets. This is not a just system. This is an immoral system.

Which would contradict the arbitrary definition that god is "the most just". Which in turn turns it into not only an immoral system, but also a non-sensical one.

Second, it may be that "saying exactly what's needed to make you understand it" still wouldn't matter because you'd disagree, rebel, or it's possible that somehow your free choices would be violated.

LOL!!!

Explaining something to me in a way that I would understand it is.... "violating my freedom of choice"???
Are you kidding me???

Either way, if an all-knowing being told you to do something, it would make the most sense to do it.

Aha, there we go... the core of the issue!

"Might makes right!"

That's a slogan written on the wall of Kim Jung Un, dictator of North Korea.

Certainly nothing that I've seen or, apparently, that anyone else has seen. It's not that supernatural wonders automatically guarantee that God is the author, but they do go a long way toward suggesting so. One of the signs of God being involved is indeed supernatural wonders.

Wauw. I'ld advice you to read up a bit about Islamic history, culture and history of the religion.

You might be in for a big surprise.

Then that puts them at odds with the New Testament.

And now the game begins of "that's not a real christian and my version is the correct version"... So cliché.

Gladly. I should mention that this is not an Apologetics Forum, and threads that veer into such discussions usually get taken down. For that reason I have avoided quoting Scripture in these discussions. Anyways, here's but one passage of many:

"16 So Jesus answered them and said, “My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself." Jn. 7:16-17 (NASB)

How does that remove the need for faith?
I don't see how this answers my question. At all.

 

[talquin]

Hello all,

It seems that every day we read of some new shocking brutality that ISIS has committed against one of their victims. If the reports are true, they engage in torture, murderous executions, the sexual slavery of women and children, and many other awful brutalities. My question, however, revolves around ISIS and an understanding of theology. Does the existence of a group like ISIS cause you to doubt/question God or does/did it even drive you to outright atheism? We could consider the following points:

1) Obviously, God has refused to intervene to stop ISIS
2) God created all the ISIS members (genetically speaking) and knew what they would do prior them even being born
3) And, of course, God could easily rescue the ISIS' victims of murder/sexual slavery and has not done so
4) When we come to Christian theology, Jesus Christ died on the cross for everyone (this would include ISIS members) and offers them forgiveness if they obey his commands - is this justified?

In short, what theological conclusions can you draw from the existence of a group like ISIS?

The type of atrocities described in your post clearly prove that an all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing god does not exist.

 

[talquin]

If the existence of evil in the world drove one to atheism one would not need to wait for ISIS to arrive to be driven there.



I do not recall that He has made any refusal but He has not stopped ISIS from doing what they have done.



Same is true of me and you. Are we innocents?



That would be the norm rather than the exception to the norm for Him.



It is theologically inaccurate. He offers them forgiveness whether they obey his commands or not. Should they accept that offer and repent they would be justified and sanctified. Grace does not require prior obedience. I think though that you are asking something different here more like "is it justifiable for God to offer forgiveness". I, for one, am not in a position to judge God's actions as I am not his equal.



I would draw the conclusion that humans are flawed and not perfect and the more they believe in their own righteousness the more harm they will do. Humility rather than self righteousness is to be encouraged as the humble tend to do much less harm than the self righteous.

If you were an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving being, would you stop the ISIS terrorists? Or would you sit there and do nothing while they rape, murder and torture others?

 

[talquin]

The story of Noah is a very good answer to the question "why doesn't God just intervene and deal with evil people?"

If you were an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving being, would you stop the ISIS terrorists? Or would you sit there and do nothing while they rape, murder and torture others?

 

[talquin]

God allows extreme expressions of evil for a great variety of reasons in scripture. But these do not last as the collapse of the evil empire of atheistic communism in the old USSR demonstrated so clearly. When they are broken and the dust blows through the ruins of their once mighty cities then people proclaim the glory and goodness of the God that led them to judgment.

The existence of such evil is to me a proof for the existence of God. Since evil can only destroy and seems in this case to do so in a systematic and "intelligent" manner we can surmise there must be a greater creative intelligence that created the things and people this evil seeks to wipe out of existence.

I suppose Westerners are especially offended by the apparent contempt for human life and choices of this group and are thereby blinded to their theological motivations and passion. We shall all die the only question is how and when we will face our deaths. ISIS have telescoped this into such a short time frame and forced the question uncomfortably on those who expected to live long boring lives and die doped up and alone in some hospital.

Their "Divine madness" when it comes to the killing of others is actually demonic in my view as the dignity of every human being is clear in Christian theology. They kill on the basis of a false world view and they violate the dignity and choices of others with contempt because they see nothing of the divine in people who do not know God as they think he is. But actually atheistic regimes like Communism in the USSR and China were far worse in terms of body count.

The existence of the type of evil described in the OP is proof that an all-powerful, all-loving & all-knowing god does not exist. Perhaps you should ask if you were an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving being, would you stop the ISIS terrorists? Or would you sit there and do nothing while they rape, murder and torture others?

 

[talquin]

It gives us a narrative answer to the question.

It tells us that God doesn't care if there is human suffering and casualties on a large scale. This in turn tells us that he doesn't love us. So why worship a god who sits there and does nothing when ISIS is murdering, torturing and raping people when people like you or me would put a halt to this ISIS nonsense if given the power a god allegedly has.

 

[talquin]

Eh?

I am suggesting that, if read as such, the Noah story gives a very clear narrative answer to the question "why doesn't God just wipe out evil".

I suspect your problem is that you don't want a narrative answer. You want a propositional answer, or at least a narrative that can be translated into a propositional answer as though narrative were second best. I suggest that narrative is, in fact, the better form for addressing such questions, as most human cultures have thought, and that translating them makes about as much sense as trying to turn the instructions for safely running a nuclear power-station into fairy-tale.

He probably thinks you're evading the question by not answering it and instead referring to a narrative. Why not give your best answer and offer the narrative for additional information. Avoiding the question suggests that an honest answer on your part would hurt your position.