1. For one, ordering slaughtering of infants is evil. I don't think it's that hard to understand.
You still cannot give a straight answer. Here is the question again:
I asked you to define good and evil, the nature of good and evil, and your response was completely inadequate. Answer now without dodging or shaming.
If you want to come out and say God is evil for ordering the killing of infants then do so. If that is your belief just say so and stop wasting my time.
2. In some way yes. With out evil, we won't know what good is. However another view is no, it doesn't need evil. Since God himself is good and evil is just the absence of good. It's a philosophical view that has two answers.
The second answer is right and the first answer is wrong; there is no middle ground or subjectivity. Your response shows exactly why you are having such a hard time reconciling this supposed issue and that is because you are stuck in a humanistic worldview.
Good is eternal because it is part of God's eternal nature and is defined by God. Man's perspective is entirely irrelevant. Stop looking at this issue from a human point of view, realize you have no authority or say in what is right or wrong, and the logical conclusion is easily discerned. Everything God does or commands is good no matter what it is.
Right. I am glad you will admit as much.
4. If he is a Deistic god, then no.
The correct answer is simply no. One does not have to subscribe to deism to believe God is not subject to laws He gives humanity. I have no idea where you get this idea from.
If you do believe God is subject to the laws He gives humanity then you must condemn Him as evil whenever a person dies as God killed them, which you already admitted when you agreed that God gives and takes all life. Be consistent. As I said in an earlier post, you cannot condemn God for commanding killing and at the same time not condemn Him for killing. You cannot eat your cake and have it to.
Lets go back to the ruler you brought up and then took away.
I never took the king analogy away. You simply did not understand it or you tried to twist it. Let me state yet again that the analogies purpose was to show that kings are not subject to the laws they place on their subjects and likewise God is not subject to the laws He gives us. This is a completely factual analogy and you only make yourself look foolish by opposing it.
Regardless of a ruler setting laws, it doesn't change the fact that his acts are legal.
What? Obviously law changes can make things legal that were not before! What are you even arguing at this point?
Also I think you are missing the point. My analogy shows that the king, and thus God, is not subject to the laws given to their subjects. Are you claiming God needs to make laws to allow Himself to kill or command killing?
Just because somethings are legalized doesn't change it's morality.
And now we are back to the question of whether there is a law of morality superior to God. Answer now, is God the giver, definer and embodiment of morality, or is God a subject to some moral law? If God is subject to a higher law then, pray tell, what is this law? The law of your own subjective and biased ideas of right and wrong based on secular humanism?
There are circumstances that can though, and that is what we (or atleast I) am I trying to find in regards to these OT stories: What are the circumstances that God had to order this (given that he really did)?
Of course there were circumstances for these commands but that they are entirely irrelevant. Say for example you are debating an atheist and you tell him that God ordered the infants to be killed because, as some have claimed in this thread, the babies were corrupted by nephilim genes. This accomplishes nothing. The atheist can simply say that it isn't a good enough reason, that nephilim should be allowed to live, etc, and you will have no reasonable argument against him because you will have made God's authority subjective and therefore meaningless.
Ultimately it all goes back to the fundamental question of whether God is the ultimate authority and morality is defined by and rooted in Him. If you believe this then you must also believe that God can command and do anything He wants whenever He wants for whatever reason He wants and that He is always completely good, right and justified in doing so.
Also, what do you mean by "given that he really did"? Are you denying the God-breathed inerrant nature of all Scripture? Would you dare to blaspheme God's word and His authority? If so, you have done away with divine truth, you have made the Scriptures of non effect and live a completely subjective existence.
You see, your argument is "he is God, so whatever he says he can do and it's not evil because he said so".
Exactly. If you deny this you deny God's authority and His nature as good and definer of morality, which is heretical.
The questions you've ignored is in regards to this logic: What makes you different from the Jihadists, Salem Witch Trials, or the Catholic Church during the dark ages? If you "well my god is real, so it's now good". Then what if you are wrong, and the Allah is real, does this mean that all the murders the Jihadists did is now holy?
I did not ignore this, in fact I have definitively responded to this inane argument several times already and have always given the exact same answer. Let me copy/paste what I already said:
Responses to your Argument that Terrorists have similar views to my own:
"And yes, in their worldview they are justified, but that does not matter as there is absolute good and absolute evil and both are defined by God. The Israelites when conquering Canaan had much the same justification in their beliefs as Muslims who seek to take Jerusalem have in theirs, but only one was truly justified by God and therein lies the difference."
"When a Jihadist kills in the name of Allah he may have much the same reason for feeling justified as Joshua did when he slaughtered the inhabitants of Ai, but only one is truly acting under the command of God and therein is the difference."
"Yes, i am. Are you aware that you have already asked this question several times and each time i gave you the same answer and told you that it was an inane argument? Again, a terrorist may feel he is justified in the same way Joshua was justified, but only one is actually obeying God and that is the difference."
In Response to you Questioning whether Jihadists would be right to kill if their God was the True God:
"Yes, of course it does, and I already said this so I do not see why you are repeating the question. Absolute right and wrong is based entirely on and in the person and authority of God. If you say otherwise you have set yourself up above God and are committing a grievous sin, not to mention being illogical."
"So to answer your question, if i lived in this alternate reality and this God, who i am assuming you mean to be the supreme omnipotent creator of this reality, commanded me to do the above actions would i do them? Yes, obviously. In this reality such actions would be good as good is defined by God."
Now please, stop insulting my intelligence by repeating the same questions over and over again as if they are some mic-drop argument when I have already responded to them and shown them to be foolish ad infinitum. In fact, if you are going to respond to this post please go back and read all of my previous posts to you in this thread which I linked higher up on this page.
Your views are highly scary, it is supporting a god who commits barbarianism and you are like "well, if we do it with out his command its barbaric but if he wants to do it, it's not anymore".
You are judging God like He is a human, calling Him evil and barbaric as if you had some significance and authority in creation. You are nothing. You are dust. You have no significance except that which God gives you. Repent of your blasphemies.
What makes you different from the Jihadists, Salem Witch Trials, or the Catholic Church during the dark ages?
Again, how are you Roman Catholic? Believes human reasoning trumps God's authority, doesn't like crusades or inquisitions, thus from the above it can be assumed you do not hold your church or pope to be infallible or to have more authority than your own reasoning... hmm... yes...
