The problem of evil

[Loudmouth]

The point of offering the citation was to show I've known that for quite some time.

"Really? You have evidence that I was aware of the Egyptian source when I was learning the Golden Rule? Funny. The way I remember it, I didn't know of it at that time. When you only know of one source, I don't see how its arbitrary to follow it."--Resha Caner, post 519

In one post, you claim that you only know the Golden Rule from your reading of the Bible, which is why you called it biblical. Are you changing this story?

You don't seem to be listening.

How could it be interpreted in any other manner? You stated CLEARLY that WE had to use YOUR interpretation. You said that I had to use your interpretation, being that I am part of we.

I didn't intend that, which is why I clarified. The #1 & #2 were meant to be two separate cases. We would run two cases in parallel - one using my interpretation and one using yours ... interpretation of the story - I already gave a preview of what mine would look like for the first case. I'm offering to submit myself to your interpretation for the second case. And you're right, it can't smell of "agree with me before this even starts". If you can't work within those parameters, then yeah, it's not a good idea to proceed.

I already offered the example with my interpretation, so I don't see what you are waiting for. God ordered the Hebrew people to commit genocide, including the slaughter of children who had nothing to do with the previous wrongs done to the Hebrew people. That is immoral. You don't kill children for what their parents and grandparents have done or are doing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh we'd all like to have Heavenly health coverage. No sickness, no disease, no cancer.
You only get that in Heaven. That's what those children have now.

So God could have prevented the whole suffering part altogether?

 

[Resha Caner]

"Really? You have evidence that I was aware of the Egyptian source when I was learning the Golden Rule? Funny. The way I remember it, I didn't know of it at that time. When you only know of one source, I don't see how its arbitrary to follow it."--Resha Caner, post 519

In one post, you claim that you only know the Golden Rule from your reading of the Bible, which is why you called it biblical. Are you changing this story?

I underlined the key phrases for you: "when I was learning the Golden Rule". I was probably 5 when I learned the Golden Rule. I'm not 5 now, I'm in my 50s. So the phrase refers to what I knew "at that time".

Any other misunderstandings of yours that I need to clear up?

How could it be interpreted in any other manner? You stated CLEARLY that WE had to use YOUR interpretation. You said that I had to use your interpretation, being that I am part of we.

Your reply doesn't even match the context of the statement you quoted.

I already offered the example with my interpretation, so I don't see what you are waiting for. God ordered the Hebrew people to commit genocide, including the slaughter of children who had nothing to do with the previous wrongs done to the Hebrew people. That is immoral. You don't kill children for what their parents and grandparents have done or are doing.

Case L: OK, if this is your opening statement, let me ask my first question. How does your system balance pain? If preventing the pain of another causes me pain, what decision do I make?

Oh, and it's very likely we'll be coming back to questions I asked that were unanswered earlier.

- - -

Case C: My opening statement -

God (an existing person to whom Saul had sworn allegiance) commanded Saul to wipe out the entire Amalekite nation. This command occurred in a context where Saul's advisor (Samuel) was familiar with the books of Moses. Saul was a weak, greedy, and disobedient king. Further, the Amalekites had a long history of preying on Israel, which had stirred up great hatred for the Amalekites among the Israelites. Finally, most Israelites were involved in subsistence living.

God created the universe, and has an eternal purpose for it. Achieving that purpose means overcoming the mistakes that created persons make. The means for overcoming those mistakes is the incarnated Christ, and God chose Israel to be the people through whom that would be fulfilled. From God's perspective, achieving his intended purpose for creation will result in the highest possible good.

 

[Dan Bert]

Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find and knock and it shall be opened. Fulfill the conditions of the promises and God does not fail any one who fulfill the conditions of any promises that He gave us. We are living in the days that is written in the prophets ....That they shall all be taught of God, every one therefore that has heard and learned of the Father Cometh unto me (WOJ ) John 6:45. Those that require to be taught of men are children in the gospel. The word "all" in the verse stands for the righteous, the just and the Elect.

dan

And you know all this, how exactly?

 

[SkyWriting]

So, why not just give that to them to begin with, rather than having them endure a tortured and miserable experience on earth first?That doesn't sound like a very moral setup.

We are God's little Children.

If your child crawls out the front door and across the city...
the world happens. Lucky if they get down the front step
without bloodshed. Man chose to leave God's fellowship.
How many do you see flocking back to God?

 

[Loudmouth]

I underlined the key phrases for you: "when I was learning the Golden Rule". I was probably 5 when I learned the Golden Rule. I'm not 5 now, I'm in my 50s. So the phrase refers to what I knew "at that time".

You weren't 5 years old when you labeled the Golden Rule as biblical in this thread. My comment still stands. Why would you call it biblical when it is a part of so many different religious texts and cultures?

Your reply doesn't even match the context of the statement you quoted.

Let's look at the context.

Loudmouth: It is the example I want to use to test biblical morality. According to you, God could not order an immoral act. Therefore, you would classify the slaughter of children on the orders of God as being moral. Do you stand by this biblical morality or not?

Resha: I'll agree to do that on 2 conditions. 1) That if we're going to use this example to judge Biblical morality, we judge it based on my interpretations.
​

I don't know how else to interpret that. You are saying that we discuss this example that we (i.e. you and I) have to use your interpretation.

Case L: OK, if this is your opening statement, let me ask my first question. How does your system balance pain? If preventing the pain of another causes me pain, what decision do I make?

How does not killing an innocent child cause you pain?

Case C: My opening statement -

God (an existing person to whom Saul had sworn allegiance) commanded Saul to wipe out the entire Amalekite nation. This command occurred in a context where Saul's advisor (Samuel) was familiar with the books of Moses. Saul was a weak, greedy, and disobedient king. Further, the Amalekites had a long history of preying on Israel, which had stirred up great hatred for the Amalekites among the Israelites. Finally, most Israelites were involved in subsistence living.

God created the universe, and has an eternal purpose for it. Achieving that purpose means overcoming the mistakes that created persons make. The means for overcoming those mistakes is the incarnated Christ, and God chose Israel to be the people through whom that would be fulfilled. From God's perspective, achieving his intended purpose for creation will result in the highest possible good.

Having an eternal purpose does not make that purpose moral. Asserting that God is trying to create the highest possible good does not make it true. You are just assuming that the purpose is both moral and results in the highest possible good.

 

[Loudmouth]

We are God's little Children.

If your child crawls out the front door and across the city...
the world happens. Lucky if they get down the front step
without bloodshed. Man chose to leave God's fellowship.
How many do you see flocking back to God?

Does a parent watch and do nothing as their child wanders onto a busy highway? Would it be moral to just let a child walk past you into speeding traffic?

 

[Dan Bert]

Here on the earth men have the possibility to bring down heaven on the Earth...like Enoch did with the city of Zion before the flood and Melchizedek did with Salem after the flood. Or raise Hell on it. The majority have chosen to do things their way and it resulted in raising hell on it. I tell you the truth, if Africans lived the Gospel they would become the most prosperous, the most freest and the most happiest people on the earth.

It was not an accident that the bible believing nations who actually lived the law became the most prosperous, freest and happiest people on the earth. We are losing all the gifts of God because the people have left God. For this to have happened to us the majority of the people who call themselves after God would have to leave Him. Today Real repentance is not taught, grace and mercy and love which belong in the gospel of perfection are taught to them who still need the gospel of repentance in their lives. We are called a wicked and adulterous generation...that does not only mean adultery in the flesh it means to take things from the gospel of perfection and apply it in the gospel of repentance. This is diluting (to adulterate) both gospels.

Ask yourself why Jesus did not end hunger, heal all the sick, kicked the Romans out of Israel. He came to deliver us spiritually and teach us how to be Gods ourselves. Israel could have cast out the Romans anytime they wanted. They just had to live the teachings of Jesus. The works the prophets did are men doing the works of God. That made them Gods. Elijah commanded the jars of the Syrian widow to never empty as long as the drought lasted. Men do not have to die and taste death. Elijah was taken to heaven without dying going thru the change as Paul said in the twinkling of an eye. The healing the prophets did in the past there is no reason why the gifts are not given to every Father/Husband of each family today. God is no respecter of persons if people live the correct teachings they will receive.

dan

So God could have prevented the whole suffering part altogether?

 

[Loudmouth]

Here on the earth men have the possibility to bring down heaven on the Earth...like Enoch did with the city of Zion before the flood and Melchizedek did with Salem after the flood. Or raise Hell on it. The majority have chosen to do things their way and it resulted in raising hell on it. I tell you the truth, if Africans lived the Gospel they would become the most prosperous, the most freest and the most happiest people on the earth.

Funny how those events only exist in stories.

It was not an accident that the bible believing nations who actually lived the law became the most prosperous, freest and happiest people on the earth. We are losing all the gifts of God because the people have left God. For this to have happened to us the majority of the people who call themselves after God would have to leave Him. Today Real repentance is not taught, grace and mercy and love which belong in the gospel of perfection are taught to them who still need the gospel of repentance in their lives. We are called a wicked and adulterous generation...that does not only mean adultery in the flesh it means to take things from the gospel of perfection and apply it in the gospel of repentance. This is diluting (to adulterate) both gospels.

How were they more prosperous, freer, or happier than we are now?

Ask yourself why Jesus did not end hunger, heal all the sick, kicked the Romans out of Israel.

Because people can actually check to see if those things happened. When you are writing a fictional story, the last thing you want to do is make claims that people can actually check.

 

[Resha Caner]

You weren't 5 years old when you labeled the Golden Rule as biblical in this thread. My comment still stands. Why would you call it biblical when it is a part of so many different religious texts and cultures?

So there are more misunderstandings? You see, I already answered that:

Oh, please. I call it Biblical because its a principle espoused by the Bible. I didn't learn it from ancient Egyptian texts.
Was Euclid the first to discuss planar geometry? No. Then maybe we shouldn't call it Euclidean geometry.

Let's look at the context.

You quoted a comment I made about our discussion of the Golden Rule and applied it to our discussion about the Amalekites.

How does not killing an innocent child cause you pain?

Watching the child starve because it no longer has parents to care for it would cause me emotional pain. Now will you answer my question?

Having an eternal purpose does not make that purpose moral.

Yeah, I get that you think it's immoral - and I've understood that for quite some time.

I would say empathy, logic, and reason don't make someone moral. There are quite a few criminals who have proven themselves very intelligent and anecdotal empathy leaves one unable to assess what pain is actually being felt by those with whom you share no experience.

Asserting that God is trying to create the highest possible good does not make it true.

Track record.

 

[Dan Bert]

Proverbs 3:1-2 - MY son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.

This is justice. Wickedness shorten the days of the wicked. And Righteousness add days, even years as gifts from God to them that keep my commandments.

For you I will give more....By Righteousness a man can save his soul when desolation comes. A righteous man cannot save his wife or son or daughter or father and mother...but his soul only if he ask for deliverance.

Ezekiel 14:20 - Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, [great desolation (last days tribulation) as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.

Jeremiah said of our days...that God will bring to Zion one of a city two of a family. (out of Babylon)

dan

Say what?

 

[Loudmouth]

So there are more misunderstandings? You see, I already answered that:

It doesn't matter where you learned it from. If it is found in many different cultures and in many different religious texts then it isn't biblical.

You quoted a comment I made about our discussion of the Golden Rule and applied it to our discussion about the Amalekites.

Go read post 518 yourself.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-problem-of-evil.7941580/page-26#post-69642077

You will see that you were clearly talking about the Amalekites.

Watching the child starve because it no longer has parents to care for it would cause me emotional pain.

God can't rain down manna to feed the child?

You can't feed the child?

Are you saying that if a child's parents die, we should kill that child?

Yeah, I get that you think it's immoral - and I've understood that for quite some time.

You aren't listening to me. Having a purpose does not automatically make that purpose moral. Hitler had a plan. He called it the Final Solution. Just because Hitler had a plan did not make his plan moral. Do you not understand this rather simple concept?

I would say empathy, logic, and reason don't make someone moral. There are quite a few criminals who have proven themselves very intelligent and anecdotal empathy leaves one unable to assess what pain is actually being felt by those with whom you share no experience.

I didn't say it would automatically make someone moral. I said that is how we determine what is moral. Knowing what is moral does not guarantee that you will act morally.

Track record.

It is the track record that we are questioning, in case you didn't notice. If the track record includes immoral acts, then how can you claim that we can use that track record?

 

[Resha Caner]

It doesn't matter where you learned it from. If it is found in many different cultures and in many different religious texts then it isn't biblical.

My phrase - my definition of the word's usage. And not an uncommon usage for such terms as I showed with the example of "Euclidean".

[edit] Oh, and FYI the definition used here (def #1): http://www.dictionary.com/browse/biblical

Go read post 518 yourself.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-problem-of-evil.7941580/page-26#post-69642077

You will see that you were clearly talking about the Amalekites.

If only that were the relevant post. It is post #541 where you misquoted my statement from post #538 (shown below). The misquote is underlined, and the thing "I've known" was the Golden Rule.

The point of offering the citation was to show I've known that for quite some time. You don't seem to be listening.

You can't feed the child?

I could. Yet I can't feed the whole world. Eventually I'll reach the same point as the Israelite in that situation: a king who won't support doing so, a subsistence living that would require taking food from my own child. It would cause additional pain.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. I answered yours. Answer mine. How does your system balance pain like that?

You aren't listening to me. Having a purpose does not automatically make that purpose moral. Hitler had a plan. He called it the Final Solution. Just because Hitler had a plan did not make his plan moral. Do you not understand this rather simple concept?

I do. That's why a track record is important. Hitler's was rather poor, even before he took power. Many in Germany knew that and resisted. Unfortunately they lost.

I said that is how we determine what is moral.

I don't think it does. But, again, who is this "we"? Who is it that uses this method to justify confining people who don't conform?

 

[Dan Bert]

Possibly, yes.

Private interpretation of the scriptures caused divisions in denomination and cause everyone to walk after God according to their own conscience rather than be led by the Spirit which unify all into one faith.

dan

 

[bhsmte]

Private interpretation of the scriptures caused divisions in denomination and cause everyone to walk after God according to their own conscience rather than be led by the Spirit which unify all into one faith.

dan

I tend to think, most christians interpret scripture, in a manner that happens to align with their personal psychological needs.

 

[Resha Caner]

I tend to think, most christians interpret scripture, in a manner that happens to align with their personal psychological needs.

My course this summer should be very interesting. It's on "history and memory".

 

[Dan Bert]

Well for one they were not facing nuclear fire. Our enemies are beginning to have nuclear weapons and the capabilities to launch them at us. This has raised fears all over the world...And it is written in the Scriptures that fear and love cannot exist together in man. Droughts that is extending farther East every year. Drinking water becoming more scarce world wide. New diseases have been sent and the old ones are coming back immune to the drugs. And Countries have now the power to wage biological warfare. Which will happen. Except for the top 5% every one is an Economic slave today. No one is really happy today they are too busy worrying where their jobs which has not kept up with the Cost of Living. The events of those stories as you refer to them are about to become part of your life. Volcanoes all over the world are starting to wake up. Even the ones in Yellowstone Park in some places the road has melted. I have stories that people can check and they are not pretty ones. When the people who have known the blessings of God become wicked their end will much worse than Sodom and Gomorrah their suffering ended in a day...but not so for this people. As proof what I say is true....things will continue to get worse after each pause.

dan

Funny how those events only exist in stories.


How were they more prosperous, freer, or happier than we are now?



Because people can actually check to see if those things happened. When you are writing a fictional story, the last thing you want to do is make claims that people can actually check.

 

[Resha Caner]

I tend to think, most christians interpret scripture, in a manner that happens to align with their personal psychological needs.

I posted too quickly. I was going to add that if you're going to take this position, you need to say: most people interpret scripture in a manner that aligns with their personal psychological needs.

 

[Dan Bert]

I tend to think, most christians interpret scripture, in a manner that happens to align with their personal psychological needs.

That is private interpretation. But needs are not just psychological. We have basic needs that must be met. And stealing for example can be justified by a person that is desperate. Even killing. A man will kill if the conditions are met in his mind. Only the Spiritual man will act according to the will of the Spirit rather to than the needs of the Ego or the flesh.

p/s...I never include 100% of the people in all things. There are always exceptions.

dan

 

[bhsmte]

That is private interpretation. But needs are not just psychological. We have basic needs that must be met. And stealing for example can be justified by a person that is desperate. Even killing. A man will kill if the conditions are met in his mind. Only the Spiritual man will act according to the will of the Spirit rather to than the needs of the Ego or the flesh.

p/s...I never include 100% of the people in all things. There are always exceptions.

dan

Even basic needs are psychologically driven.

You mention private interpretation, what other interpretations are you referring to?