The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
More than zero, which means it's not against your god's nature to do so.

I never claimed it was.

I would know that was not God because Christ has commanded that we love our children and to take care of them and to raise them up in the way that they should go.

You'd know that a command to kill your child wasn't from god because it has told us to love our children but at the same time admit that it is part of your god's nature to command his followers to kill their children. Great that you get to pick and choose which parts of your god's nature to accept or reject depending on the situation - sounds like subjective morality to me.
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
You'd know that a command to kill your child wasn't from god because it has told us to love our children but at the same time admit that it is part of your god's nature to command his followers to kill their children. Great that you get to pick and choose which parts of your god's nature to accept or reject depending on the situation - sounds like subjective morality to me.

You seem to act like God is just running around commanding people to kill their children.

You seem to act like that is something that I have to explain or come to terms with. But it is not.

You seem to think that God could not have a reason for telling Abraham to sacrifice his only son and then stop him before he did it. God never intended for Abraham to kill his son, the Genesis account makes this clear, undoubtedly clear.

So this whole idea of God commanding people to kill their children as if that is something that a follower of Christ has to even be concerned with is simply an instance of quote-mining that atheists here have been so adamant in saying should not be done.

Why are you all doing it then?

Out of the thousands of instances in which God deals with man, you want to zoom in on the ONE time God told someone to sacrifice their child and even then, the account is not what you portray it to be.

This is quote mining at its best.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well, in order for you not to be guilty of quote-mining, you need to look at the context.

Remember how you adamantly charge me with quote mining? I hope you do the same thing you say I should do.

Provide us with the context and let us look at it.

I'm well aware of the context. God did not intend for Abraham to kill his child, that is why he stopped him. Yet that isn't germane to the question. You are being asked whether you would sacrifice your own child if God commanded it. You may suspect that God will stop you in the final moment, but the question is simply would you obey the command?

Suppose you were part of an army, and you receive an order, ostensibly from the divine, that the inhabitants of a certain city or village are to be slaughtered, down to the last child. Would you obey this command?
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
I'm well aware of the context. God did not intend for Abraham to kill his child, that is why he stopped him. Yet that isn't germane to the question. You are being asked whether you would sacrifice your own child if God commanded it. You may suspect that God will stop you in the final moment, but the question is simply would you obey the command?

Suppose you were part of an army, and you receive an order, ostensibly from the divine, that the inhabitants of a certain city or village are to be slaughtered, down to the last child. Would you obey this command?

If you can demonstrate to me that this is something Christ would command His followers to do today, then I will answer your question.

You are assuming that it is something that He would command His followers to do today.

What reason do you have to assume that that is something He would do? Are you arguing that because God commanded the Nation of Israel which was a theocracy at the time to overthrow certain idolatrous cities in its formative years as a means of procuring the land God had promised to Abraham that his descendants would possess, and because it was a means of judging the wickedness of the cities to be overthrown that that is something He would do today?

You assume that just because God acted a certain way in the past that He will always act that way. This is an assumption that you have yet to demonstrate is even tenable.

You fail to take into account the fact that God had specifically called out a nation of people unto Himself to accomplish His will in the earth at a specific time in in history in a specific geographic location.

If you are going to use scripture to try and portray the Christian to be in a moral plight, then let us look at all of scripture, not just pieces here and there.

Take the OT, the NT, and look at them both. Do not separate the two and make it seem like the OT overrides the NT. Revelation is progressive and cumulative, not regressive and disjointed. Look at Christ's teachings and interpret the OT in light of them, not vice versa. Christ on several occasions gave us a correct interpretation of the OT principles, this is seen in His statements: "You have heard it was said by them of old that such and such..." ....."But I say unto you....."

The "But I say unto you" is Christ giving us the true mind of God regarding said precepts.

In this dispensation of grace, God no longer acts through one nation of people. There is no theocracy in the earth as it was in the days of Israel's power. Christ never commanded His disciples to go out and overthrow cities and kill people. He never commanded His disciples to sacrifice their children as burnt offerings. Christ taught that we are to love God with all our MIND, HEART, and STRENGTH, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. If I fulfill the commandment of Christ, I assure you my friend, I am not going to be concerned about Christ ordering me to kill my children or overthrow cities down to the last man. That is not something He would even do.

So I think you are just all confused about how God works in this present age. Christ said that the world would know that we are His disciples by the LOVE that we have for ONE ANOTHER, not by our overthrowing cities and killing our children.

So until you can give me some reason to think that Christ would indeed order me to kill my children or overthrow cities down to the last man, your question will be ignored.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If you can demonstrate to me that this is something Christ would command His followers to do today, then I will answer your question.

You are assuming that it is something that He would command His followers to do today.

I'm merely assuming that God is changeless. As I understand it, this is not an uncommon assumption among theologians.

What reason do you have to assume that that is something He would do? Are you arguing that because God commanded the Nation of Israel which was a theocracy at the time to overthrow certain idolatrous cities in its formative years as a means of procuring the land God had promised to Abraham that his descendants would possess, and because it was a means of judging the wickedness of the cities to be overthrown that that is something He would do today?

You assume that just because God acted a certain way in the past that He will always act that way. This is an assumption that you have yet to demonstrate is even tenable.

So God has changed in his attitude toward cities with purportedly wicked inhabitants?

You fail to take into account the fact that God had specifically called out a nation of people unto Himself to accomplish His will in the earth at a specific time in in history in a specific geographic location.

If you are going to use scripture to try and portray the Christian to be in a moral plight, then let us look at all of scripture, not just pieces here and there.

Take the OT, the NT, and look at them both. Do not separate the two and make it seem like the OT overrides the NT. Revelation is progressive and cumulative, not regressive and disjointed. Look at Christ's teachings and interpret the OT in light of them, not vice versa. Christ on several occasions gave us a correct interpretation of the OT principles, this is seen in His statements: "You have heard it was said by them of old that such and such..." ....."But I say unto you....."

The "But I say unto you" is Christ giving us the true mind of God regarding said precepts.

In this dispensation of grace, God no longer acts through one nation of people. There is no theocracy in the earth as it was in the days of Israel's power. Christ never commanded His disciples to go out and overthrow cities and kill people. He never commanded His disciples to sacrifice their children as burnt offerings. Christ taught that we are to love God with all our MIND, HEART, and STRENGTH, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. If I fulfill the commandment of Christ, I assure you my friend, I am not going to be concerned about Christ ordering me to kill my children or overthrow cities down to the last man. That is not something He would even do.

Apparently, it is something that he has already done. If he has made such commands in the past, then it is not outside the realm of possibility that he could make such commands in the future. This "age of grace" may be followed by one of wrath, in which you are commanded to burn cities to the ground.

Even so, suppose that you were born before this age of grace, in a different time and a different place. What would your answer be then?
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
I'm merely assuming that God is changeless. As I understand it, this is not an uncommon assumption among theologians.

God is changeless. It is called "immutable" and has nothing to do with God's acting in the world in a static or unchanging way. It is always understood to refer to God's "nature", never as a description of How God acts in the world. It simply means that God cannot be other than what He is. He cannot go from better to worse or worse to better. This is a "qualitative" descriptor.

So God has changed in his attitude toward cities with purportedly wicked inhabitants?

God's attitude towards wickedness never changes. He by nature is Holy and Just and Righteous. These cities will be judged for their wickedness if they do not repent as the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were for example. The means by which He judges them can be wide and varying. No one claims that God is static with regards to "how" He judges. In the past He overthrew cities by sulfur, brimstone, and fire. Today, He may overthrow cities by means of another nation i.e wicked Nazi Germany was overthrown by the allied nations.



Apparently, it is something that he has already done. If he has made such commands in the past, then it is not outside the realm of possibility that he could make such commands in the future. This "age of grace" may be followed by one of wrath, in which you are commanded to burn cities to the ground.

So what? What is your point?

We see in Revelation, the wicked nations coming up against God and His anointed one's and God Himself destroys them with the Word of His mouth.

The question we need to be dealing with is:

Is Jesus Christ who He said He was? If so, then the wicked can expect to be judged and that will be by whatever means God decides.



Even so, suppose that you were born before this age of grace, in a different time and a different place. What would your answer be then?

But I was not. Nor do you need to have my answer to know what a man of God would do. You have it recorded in scripture. What does it say?
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
God is changeless. It is called "immutable" and has nothing to do with God's acting in the world in a static or unchanging way. It is always understood to refer to God's "nature", never as a description of How God acts in the world. It simply means that God cannot be other than what He is. He cannot go from better to worse or worse to better. This is a "qualitative" descriptor.

Yet it is apparent that he can act contrary to his so-called nature. The Biblical God is ostensibly all-good by nature, yet his actions speak otherwise.

God's attitude towards wickedness never changes. He by nature is Holy and Just and Righteous. These cities will be judged for their wickedness if they do not repent as the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were for example. The means by which He judges them can be wide and varying. No one claims that God is static with regards to "how" He judges. In the past He overthrew cities by sulfur, brimstone, and fire. Today, He may overthrow cities by means of another nation i.e wicked Nazi Germany was overthrown by the allied nations.

This is quite a strange way to look at things. You blame man for wickedness, yet you also take away the credit from man for bringing an end to wickedness and instead give the credit to God.

But I was not. Nor do you need to have my answer to know what a man of God would do. You have it recorded in scripture. What does it say?

So you are saying that, as a "man of God", you would part-take in the killing of men, women and children?
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
Yet it is apparent that he can act contrary to his so-called nature. The Biblical God is ostensibly all-good by nature, yet his actions speak otherwise.

How so? By bringing about circumstance where wicked people die because of their wickedness?

By bringing about circumstances where children die or are killed?

Do not make the mistake of taking God's omnibenevolence to be His only attribute. God is much more than that.



This is quite a strange way to look at things. You blame man for wickedness, yet you also take away the credit from man for bringing an end to wickedness and instead give the credit to God.

God can judge wickedness however He desires. He can use people, natural disasters, etc. etc. Man is wholly to blame for being wicked. God can use men to judge men. In fact, He ordains that those in positions of authority do not bear the sword in vain. Just because all men are sinners, does not mean that God cannot use a man to judge another man. If that were the case, there would be no men in positions of authority. Anarchy would reign.



So you are saying that, as a "man of God", you would part-take in the killing of men, women and children?

Once again, give me a reason to think that that is something I should be concerned with and I will answer your question. If you cannot then do not ask me the question.

For a person such as yourself, one of the greatest evidences for the existence of God would be the moral argument.

You over and over again appeal to acts such as killing children as really wrong. But you have no good grounds for holding that if God does not exist.

Your very arguments, just like C.S. Lewis had, actually demonstrate God exists.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
You seem to act like God is just running around commanding people to kill their children.

You seem to act like that is something that I have to explain or come to terms with. But it is not.

You seem to think that God could not have a reason for telling Abraham to sacrifice his only son and then stop him before he did it. God never intended for Abraham to kill his son, the Genesis account makes this clear, undoubtedly clear.

So this whole idea of God commanding people to kill their children as if that is something that a follower of Christ has to even be concerned with is simply an instance of quote-mining that atheists here have been so adamant in saying should not be done.

Why are you all doing it then?

Out of the thousands of instances in which God deals with man, you want to zoom in on the ONE time God told someone to sacrifice their child and even then, the account is not what you portray it to be.

This is quote mining at its best.
Nonsense - it's proof by counter-example.

You said it's never justified to disobey God (#813).

We posed the question, "Even if God says to kill your child?" (#815)

"Well", you replied, "I'd have to first determine whether God actually gave that command". (#817)

To which the obvious response is: "How does one do that? What if the command was to kill your child right now, precluding deliberation?" (#820)

"Ah", you responded, "I know such a command wouldn't be from God as God said to love our children" (#823) Exact text: "I would know [the voice] was not God because Christ has commanded that we love our children and to take care of them and to raise them up in the way that they should go."

To which the story of Abraham pops into mind - "So when Abraham was told to kill his son..." (#830)

"STOP CHERRY PICKING"

"..."

Quite obviously we're not cherry-picking. You said it's never justified to disobey God. To examine this, we pose a hypothetical: suppose you were commanded to do something one ordinarily would consider morally evil, such as killing a child - your child, even. If the command was from God, would you do it? You said no - God wouldn't issue such a command (#823). Yet, according to the Bible, God did issue such a command (Gen. 22:1-2). That would seem to be a discrepancy disproving your two premises:

  1. It is never justified to disobey God
  2. Any command to kill one's child is not from God
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
Nonsense - it's proof by counter-example.

You said it's never justified to disobey God (#813).

We posed the question, "Even if God says to kill your child?" (#815)

"Well", you replied, "I'd have to first determine whether God actually gave that command". (#817)

To which the obvious response is: "How does one do that? What if the command was to kill your child right now, precluding deliberation?" (#820)

"Ah", you responded, "I know such a command wouldn't be from God as God said to love our children" (#823) Exact text: "I would know [the voice] was not God because Christ has commanded that we love our children and to take care of them and to raise them up in the way that they should go."

To which the story of Abraham pops into mind - "So when Abraham was told to kill his son..." (#830)

"STOP CHERRY PICKING"

"..."

Quite obviously we're not cherry-picking. You said it's never justified to disobey God. To examine this, we pose a hypothetical: suppose you were commanded to do something one ordinarily would consider morally evil, such as killing a child - your child, even. If the command was from God, would you do it? You said no - God wouldn't issue such a command (#823). Yet, according to the Bible, God did issue such a command (Gen. 22:1-2). That would seem to be a discrepancy disproving your two premises:

  1. It is never justified to disobey God
  2. Any command to kill one's child is not from God

What reason do you give me to think that Jesus Christ would ask me to kill my children?

Answer that question and I will answer yours.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
What reason do you give me to think that Jesus Christ would ask me to kill my children?

Answer that question and I will answer yours.
I've been told that God's reasons may be beyond our understanding. who are you Tod judge God and His reasons based in your limited understanding?
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I've been told that God's reasons may be beyond our understanding. who are you Tod judge God and His reasons based in your limited understanding?

I recall once, when I was repulsed by the actions attributed to the ostensibly morally perfect Biblical God, that Elioenai26 responded with "Who are you, a mere man, to judge God?" Doesn't the same apply to believers who judge their God as morally praiseworthy and never blameworthy? Doesn't the same apply to Elioenai26 when he appraises (or guesses) what his God would or wouldn't command?
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
well, we also need to remember hat Eli is the one who defended the command to kill children in certain cases. Actually, it's him who needs to answer his question. None of us has claimed hat there may be good reasons to do that.
It's also him who introduced divine collateral da age for a justification.
So, following his own criteria, the fact hat Eli is a sinner and/or e.g. lives in the wrong town would be good enough a reason.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
What reason do you give me to think that Jesus Christ would ask me to kill my children?

Answer that question and I will answer yours.

  • To test your faith.
  • To see if you're worthy of greater and more demanding tasks.
  • To save humanity - he knows that your child will grow up, enter politics, and exterminate the human race.
  • Your child isn't really a human child, it's a demon made manifest, thus avoiding that whole niggle of free will.
  • Possibly other reasons, God works in mysterious ways, his wisdom makes ours look like foolishness, etc.
The reason is, of course, irrelevant - it is never justified to disobey God, and since he demonstrably has no problem asking parents to kill their children (qv. Gen. 22), the possibility exists that God may well command this of you.


So, if you heard a voice in your head say, "I am the Lord your God, and I command you to immediately kill your only child", would you do it? Is it still unjustified to disobey him? Bear in mind that a) he's given you no reason for the act, b) the act is morally questionable, c) it's uncertain whether the voice is even God. In this hypothetical, the voice is God's (unbeknownst to you), and he does have good reasons (unbeknownst to you). What would you do?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archaeopteryx
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
I recall once, when I was repulsed by the actions attributed to the ostensibly morally perfect Biblical God, that Elioenai26 responded with "Who are you, a mere man, to judge God?" Doesn't the same apply to believers who judge their God as morally praiseworthy and never blameworthy? Doesn't the same apply to Elioenai26 when he appraises (or guesses) what his God would or wouldn't command?

I find Elioenai's lack of faith disturbing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

well, we also need to remember hat Eli is the one who defended the command to kill children in certain cases. Actually, it's him who needs to answer his question. None of us has claimed hat there may be good reasons to do that.
It's also him who introduced divine collateral da age for a justification.
So, following his own criteria, the fact hat Eli is a sinner and/or e.g. lives in the wrong town would be good enough a reason.

  • To test your faith.
  • To see if you're worthy of greater and more demanding tasks.
  • To save humanity - he knows that your child will grow up, enter politics, and exterminate the human race.
  • Your child isn't really a human child, it's a demon made manifest, thus avoiding that whole niggle of free will.
  • Possibly other reasons, God works in mysterious ways, his wisdom makes ours look like foolishness, etc.
The reason is, of course, irrelevant - it is never justified to disobey God, and since he demonstrably has no problem asking parents to kill their children (qv. Gen. 22), the possibility exists that God may well command this of you.


So, if you heard a voice in your head say, "I am the Lord your God, and I command you to immediately kill your only child", would you do it? Is it still unjustified to disobey him? Bear in mind that a) he's given you no reason for the act, b) the act is morally questionable, c) it's uncertain whether the voice is even God. In this hypothetical, the voice is God's (unbeknownst to you), and he does have good reasons (unbeknownst to you). What would you do?

I am ecstatic to have you atheists talking about killing children as if you have a moral aversion to the killing of children....

So if you all will tell me.....if you are brave enough.....

Who here is a moral realist?
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I am ecstatic to have you atheists talking about killing children as if you have a moral aversion to the killing of children....

So if you all will tell me.....if you are brave enough.....

Who here is a moral realist?

Of course I have an aversion to killing children. To suggest otherwise is asinine.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
I am ecstatic to have you atheists talking about killing children as if you have a moral aversion to the killing of children....

So if you all will tell me.....if you are brave enough.....

Who here is a moral realist?
irrelevant for the points you try to dodge.
 
Upvote 0