What if you seek and don't find?

[Oncedeceived]

This makes sense to me my understanding is that knowledge is a subset of belief. Specifically knowledge is a justified true belief. You and I will disagree about whether your current belief in God counts as knowledge because I don't see it as true or justified, whereas you do see it as justified and true... Fair enough.

I agree, fair enought.

I find this interesting when considered in the historical context of the Bible. You are saying that in your experience God is good. Let's say (here we go with analogies again! ) that one of you children has a significant other. They tell you all the awesome things about this person, how good and kind this person is to them etc. When you meet this person you find out that while all of those things are true, they treat your child with goodness and respect, they also have a few people locked up in chains in their basement and they punish them constantly. Does the personal experience of your child, that this significant other is a good person, trump the other actions that this person has done and is continuing to do?
I know the Bible says God is good, and so does your experience of this being. But when we look at the actions of this being past and future it seems to me that we might have reason to be doubtful about this claim to goodness. What do you think?

Bottom line here is you are questioning how I can reconcile this loving and good God with the stories in the Bible that you feel show Him as less than good or loving? Right? Let's talk specifics. You pick something from the Bible that you feel creates this irreconcilable issues of goodness and I'll try to give you my take on it.

OK well if we change the scenario as you suggest, let's say that they are legal age and have chosen to continue this life path but I do still somehow (not under the law but by other means) have the ability to have them go to rehab regardless. In this new scenario what would you as a parent who loves them do? Leave them to their decision knowing it will lead to a short brutish life. Or curtail their free will to have them go through rehab?

By other means? What other means?

Why would a loving parent wait for them to ask for help? If your child was drowning and didn't even realize it, would you wait for them to ask for help (knowing ahead of time that they never would) and let them drown, or would you reach in and help them out?

Of course we would but this is the problem with human analogies. They are very limited. God is more worried with eternity than for the moment at hand and so many different elements come into effect that this is seriously not something that equates to God really.

OK. Do you think there will be free will for the humans who end up in heaven for eternity and if so the follow up question is do you believe that there will be sin in heaven?

I believe there will be free will in heaven for an eternity and I feel there will be no sin in heaven. I understand that here on earth when we have the Holy Spirit within us we change but we still have the nature of our physical being at war with the divine. When we are saved, our physical bodies are no longer needed and the sin nature that was part of this life and this nature will die away as well. Sin will not be present.

So there are times when God will override our free will to accomplish his purpose. Meaning that at any time, as long as it suits his plans, he can take away our free will.

I don't think that is how it works. I think that the events that He instigates provides the environment for one to decide to do something that fits into His plan. That person still has free will but God knew prior to His making up his will what that would be. For instance, you married your wife. God didn't make you marry your wife but He knew you would before you did. Knowing something in advance doesn't preclude free will. I know that looking back my mom and dad met and got married and had two children...knowing that doesn't preclude them from having free will in meeting and marrying and having two children. Knowing that doesn't make me an instrument in their decision making. I just know it because I look back in time. God has that ability. He can know what someone will do in the circumstances not by making them do it but because He is outside of time and has the ability to look at the beginning or the end and everything in between. That doesn't mean He "makes" us do anything. Does this make sense? I don't know how to explain it any better.

In what sense then do we really even have free will. It seems to me that we are free to go along with his plan but of we go off script God can and has forced us to get back on track.

See above.

Seems to me that these are different questions. No I don't believe in good and evil as an objective binary pair,simply because of the ideological baggage that accompanies the terms used that way.

Now this sounds like to me and of course I might be wrong but it sounds like...well I am not going to think of good and evil as an objective binary pair because of what the terms might mean so I'll make up my own? You may not have intended to sound that way but that is how it comes off.

I do believe in good and harm though if that helps.

So good is ok but evil is not but harm is ok? So you don't feel evil is an actual objective thing? You don't think that raping, mutilating and killing a child for fun is not evil, it is just harm? What distinguishes harm from evil?

As for knowing what love is by knowing what it is not... Hmmm if I am trying to describe a cow to you and I tell you that a cow is not a non-cow, what have I added to your understanding of cow?

Apples to oranges here.

Fair enough. This might again depend on your view of the afterlife. If I believe in eternal conscious torment, I would rather skip the life on earth bit. If I believe in annihilation maybe I would choose life on earth, maybe not.

Tough question isn't it?

Cool Of you could do it all over again but beginning as a strong Christian as you are today and never wavering from that do you think you would want to encourage them to believe in Jesus or would you try not to influence them one way or the other?

I believe I had something to do with my mother's change of heart but I didn't really discuss God with my dad unfortunately. I talked to my brother about God and it and other things caused a rift between us and he died of cancer last year still an atheist.

Fair enough

Ok then.

Maybe but I think you could too If I were writing the Bible I would have added a few things, for example "you shall not own other humans as property" and just like that the Bible is a better book. What would you change or add?

Where does the Bible claim we should own other humans as property?

Wasn't trying to be snarky at all.

Good, glad to hear it.

You were saying that the way we reproduce allows the possibility of us getting cancer and then linked that though with us seeing god's mercy and justice. I didn't see how that made sense and so I threw a question mark at the end so you cod help me see what you meant by putting those two ideas together.

Oh ok.

I thought you were specifically talking about the states... Are you saying you believe or that you know that the increase in natural disasters in the u item states is part of a global trend that parallels the decline of Christian belief worldwide?

This is a good question. I understand that prophecy foretells more natural disasters becoming more destructive and closer together as the time of Christ's return nears. If this is due to growing unbelief or coming against Israel or both or even more reasons I'm not aware of I don't know.

We were talking about God's justice and you said that the judgement sometimes has to fall on the entire nation. I am asking you if you think it is just that for the sins of a few, the entire country deserves a natural disaster that kills men, women, children, infants and embryos?

God clearly has said that a nation that allows its children to be killed will suffer His judgement. This nation kills hundreds of thousands of babies a year, the nation deserves His judgement accordingly. I don't know when that will happen. Our birth rates are very very low and are decreasing. Do you think it plausible that God would decrease the number of children prior to His judgement? I think it might be.

Because it is actually possible that I am wrong, that an invisible, transcendent being exists, who has set things up to look exactly like it doesn't but has chosen to reveal themselves in the hearts of certain chosen people of which I am not one. This is absolutely possible if God does indeed exist and has all possible knowledge and power. I just think this is unlikely but again not impossible.

Fair enough. I don't agree that He has set it up like He doesn't exist however.

That does seem to be the question we are exploring. So far I have really enjoyed engaging with your thinking on the subject and am hoping we can continue to flesh out our beliefs

All right then.

Actually I am... I don't think it is likely that I will suddenly convert back to Christianity but I am open to the idea that my thinking on these subjects is incomplete. I am certain that I will come away from our conversation having modified some of my previously held beliefs, maybe about faith or about Christians in general. I am always open to new perspectives even though I recognize that that idea of weight that we discussed earlier is at play along with confirmation bias. I can't do anything abkut the fact that confirmation bias is a part of human thinking and therefore present in my thinking as well. What I can do is aknowledge it and do my best to seek out sources and people who disagree with me and interact with them in a serious, respectful way. My thought life would get pretty boring if I never interacted with people who see the world differently!

It would wouldn't it.

I was supposed to remind you to answer a question after your follow up question
I am sure you are super busy but again if you do decide to post some of what you find compelling I would love to read it!

I think there are souls that might have such a strong desire to be an inspiration to others and to show love and strength to others that they may chose to do so. Obviously, I can't know that or even if my scenario has any likelihood of actuality.

 

[Athée]

. You pick something from the Bible that you feel creates this irreconcilable issues of goodness and I'll try to give you my take on it.

I will absolutely but before I do that it would be helpful to know what your view is on hell. I don't want to tilt away at windmills!

By other means? What other means?

I am not sure why the specific means is important. Let's say it was within my power to structure the events of their lives so that they would ha e no choice but to enter rehab, effectively removing their free will to make that decision. Should I violate their free will momentarily to save their lives, giving them a future in which to make free will decisions.

Of course we would but this is the problem with human analogies. They are very limited. God is more worried with eternity than for the moment at hand and so many different elements come into effect that this is seriously not something that equates to God really.

The fact that there is possibly an eternity at stake is exactly where the force of my argument comes from. If you as a human parent would save a loved child from suffering in this limited life (on your worldview) does it seem good to you that a God who loves his creations would not intervene when a literal eternity of consequence is at stake?

I believe there will be free will in heaven for an eternity and I feel there will be no sin in heaven

So on your understanding there is a place that God has created where we can both have free will and not sin. So why not create it like that to begin with? From what you have said God could have had all his children in heaven with him by simply creating them with the free will and nature's they will have in heaven. Instead he creates a system that he knows ahead of time will send the majority of his potential children to eternal torment. How is this a being worthy of the label "good"?

I don't think that is how it works. I think that the events that He instigates provides the environment for one to decide to do something that fits into His plan. That person still has free will but God knew prior to His making up his will what that would be.

So when he hardened the Pharaoh's heart, when the pharaoh had decided by free will to let the people go, he overrode the free will decision of a human to accomplish his plan. If he can do this whenever it suits him, do we really have free will?
Moreover, if as you say, God has the ability to set things up such that our free will decision will be the right one, then he is really the one in control, the one forcing the decision. Unless you are saying that God has no free will himself I guess. I guess I keep coming back to the ideas that God, in your world view, seems to want people to go to hell. If he k own ahead of time that given the circumstances he is setting up, that you will absolutely not choose to love him, and if he has the free will,the power and the desire to set things up different so that you would choose him, what other conclusion is there but that God's plan has always been that most people go to hell. And again I ask how is this being "good"?

I am not going to think of good and evil as an objective binary pair because of what the terms might mean so I'll make up my own?

Fair enough. What I am saying is that the word evil, implies wrongness against a spiritual standard. I don't believe that any supernatural things exist so I don't think that word is a useful one.

So good is ok but evil is not but harm is ok? So you don't feel evil is an actual objective thing? You don't think that raping, mutilating and killing a child for fun is not evil, it is just harm? What distinguishes harm from evil?

Yes that is what I believe. Harm means something that is counter to the well being and flourishing of, in this case, humans. Evil, is an act that stands in opposition to the objective good as defined by a supernatural being, which I am not convinced exist and hence why I don't use the word evil. I would say if you start from the principle of harm and apply situational ethics I think you can make objective statement about whether something is harmful or not. But it is objective in relation to the principle of harm to a human and not to some supernatural rule set.

I talked to my brother about God and it and other things caused a rift between us

I am honestly sorry that you experienced this

Where does the Bible claim we should own other humans as property?

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.
Leviticus 25:44-46 ESV

This is a good question. I understand that prophecy foretells more natural disasters becoming more destructive and closer together as the time of Christ's return nears. If this is due to growing unbelief or coming against Israel or both or even more reasons I'm not aware of I don't know.

Fair enough on your world view

God clearly has said that a nation that allows its children to be killed will suffer His judgement. This nation kills hundreds of thousands of babies a year, the nation deserves His judgement accordingly. I don't know when that will happen. Our birth rates are very very low and are decreasing. Do you think it plausible that God would decrease the number of children prior to His judgement? I think it might be.

For the record while I am against making a law that categorically bans abortions full stop (happy to explain why if you are interested) I very strongly believe that abortion should only be a last resort in the most extenuating of circumstances, and even then should be considered long and hard.
That said, believing as you seem to that God is against the killing of children how to you make sense of the global flood (surely there were some children alive at the time and pregnant women too), the passover story where God kills all the firstborn, God's commands to kill the Amalchites men women and children or perhaps most disturbingly graphic Hosea 13:16 which I won't copy and paste in case children read this site.

Not sure what the end of your last message was referring to. Help me out?

 

[Davian]

...
I think that there is a deep seated need for justice in us all. We down deep know if someone does an objectively wrong action

Such as?

that it deserves justice, whatever that justice is might depend on our own view of life and the after life.

In your view, what action might preclude one from entering your version of "Heaven"?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I will absolutely but before I do that it would be helpful to know what your view is on hell. I don't want to tilt away at windmills!

I'm not certain. It seems that there is a place called Hades and I am not sure if Hades is considered hell or not. I know that the Bible claims that those who find themselves in death and Hades are brought together before Jesus for Judgement for their lives (the second death) and are then thrown in the lake of fire where soul and body are destroyed.

I am not sure why the specific means is important. Let's say it was within my power to structure the events of their lives so that they would ha e no choice but to enter rehab, effectively removing their free will to make that decision. Should I violate their free will momentarily to save their lives, giving them a future in which to make free will decisions.

Do you know that if you do this they won't take their own lives? Do you know that they will actually be rehabilitated or will they go on and be as bad or worse that what you planned? You can't see into the future but God can.

The fact that there is possibly an eternity at stake is exactly where the force of my argument comes from. If you as a human parent would save a loved child from suffering in this limited life (on your worldview) does it seem good to you that a God who loves his creations would not intervene when a literal eternity of consequence is at stake?

Lets take your rehab example. Your child would not see rehab as something good. He/she would think of it as something really bad. Why would their father put them through all this pain (there is pain I am told) and suffering (withdrawal) is suffering I am told...why they think would you do this horrible thing to them? You do it out of love and eventually they will understand that if it all goes well but they could turn away from you and never return for what you put them through.

So on your understanding there is a place that God has created where we can both have free will and not sin. So why not create it like that to begin with? From what you have said God could have had all his children in heaven with him by simply creating them with the free will and nature's they will have in heaven. Instead he creates a system that he knows ahead of time will send the majority of his potential children to eternal torment. How is this a being worthy of the label "good"?

God wanted beings who could make the choice and learn to love Him rather than creating a being that had no choice in the matter.

I am not sure if eternal punishment is eternal torment. The fire is eternal but the passages that talk about going to hell and Hades talk about total destruction of the body and the soul, a complete separation from God. So the first death finds you in death and Hades if you are an unbeliever and you stay there until Judgement day. Could be a very long time especially if you died thousands of years ago. Then on Judgement Day you stand and bow before Christ and you are then put into this eternal lake of fire or burning sulfur which is the second death. It sounds like this destroys not only the body but the soul. I say you but there is support to the once saved always saved theology which I think is the case, which in your case would mean you might still go to heaven but you are against Christ and trying to make a case to others that it is all false. Yet, if it is true and you convince someone that it is false you might be instrumental in their going to hell. Does this sound like you are doing a good thing?

Now on the label of good, is God good to create beings that do not accept His free gift of salvation and face the above? The reason one faces the above scenario is not that they don't understand the concept of salvation, redemption, death, reward, justice or mercy. We learn all these concepts in our lives here on earth. We use our moral compass to determine right and wrong and we punish those that we feel have done wrong and considering how wrong we punish in accordance. We know rewarding what we morally see as good. We know what mercy is... we know that sometimes people do things that we don't feel are good but we give them second chances. We are intelligent beings, we use our logic and intelligence for everything we do here on earth. Now knowing that none of this is alien to us and having heard the Gospel and knowing full well we have been warned if we do not accept the gift that Christ provided on the Cross (He paid for all our sins against God) we sometimes feel we know better than God does. We are more moral, we are more wise, we are more "good" than God. We claim there is no real evidence for God, we claim that there are too many options of gods out there so how are we suppose to know the Christian God is the real God. But God says HE has given us evidence of His existence and we all see it in the universe that He created but now that evidence is used against Him. He gave us an intellect to discover the ways He made this universe and how the earth holds a special place where we exist in this vast universe. But mankind worships the created rather than the Creator. Now the design we see in the created is just an illusion. The free will we use to decide on things is an illusion. Even objective good and evil is just what "we" call good and evil as it is a subjective determination. So our conscience too is an illusion. So is God not "good" if He warns everyone of the consequences of denying Him and rejecting His redemption and mercy? If I tell you that if you go out and rape, mutilate and kill a child for fun that you will be punished and you go out and do it, is it not good to punish you?

So when he hardened the Pharaoh's heart, when the pharaoh had decided by free will to let the people go, he overrode the free will decision of a human to accomplish his plan.

Did he? Did he not use Pharaoh's own pride against Him? Did He not use His own power against Him? He could have literally hardened his heart, He had the power but that would override his will. Instead, He gave warnings that in Pharaoh's mind were weak and provided support to Pharaoh that God couldn't win. With each warning and with each consequence that Pharaoh rode out, Pharaoh grew more confident that God wasn't who God said He was. He used Pharaoh's will against him but He didn't override it.

If he can do this whenever it suits him, do we really have free will?

Do we have free will in your worldview? Just curious whether you think it is an illusion or real.

Moreover, if as you say, God has the ability to set things up such that our free will decision will be the right one, then he is really the one in control, the one forcing the decision. Unless you are saying that God has no free will himself I guess. I guess I keep coming back to the ideas that God, in your world view, seems to want people to go to hell.

No, in your worldview it seems that God wants people to go to hell. I see God allowing our free will and using it for His purposes. If someone decides that they want fried chicken for dinner that is their choice, so I decide that due to that choice I will add mashed potatoes because that is what I wanted for dinner. Now did I force the person to want fried chicken? No, but I used their decision to implement what I wanted by taking their free will decision and getting what I wanted from it. This is somewhat simplistic but I think it shows what I mean.

If he k own ahead of time that given the circumstances he is setting up, that you will absolutely not choose to love him, and if he has the free will,the power and the desire to set things up different so that you would choose him, what other conclusion is there but that God's plan has always been that most people go to hell. And again I ask how is this being "good"?

He wants a true choice. He doesn't want to make us love him. Would making your wife love you satisfy you? Wouldn't you want her to come to you freely with real love in her heart rather than making up circumstances that you know in advance are what she wants in a man? Say she only would go out with Christians and would not consider anyone but a Christian so you "pretend" to be a Christian just so she will give you a go. Then she loves kids but you don't, yet you tell her you want kids so you know that she will only consider to marry someone that loves kids. Now she marries you, you got her and her love but you did it dishonestly. You knew in advance what it would take to make her love you and did it so she would. Is that a loving thing to do? It doesn't go against her free will but circumstances know in advance were used to gain that. You could do it if you know what she in advance these things about her but should you do it? She loves someone who she thinks wants the same things but they were used against her to get her. Again, simplistic but I hope it gives you the idea.

Fair enough. What I am saying is that the word evil, implies wrongness against a spiritual standard. I don't believe that any supernatural things exist so I don't think that word is a useful one.

Ok, so are you saying then that there is no objective standard of good or evil? If our moral standard is not a spiritual standard what do you feel is our standard for morality is? You said something about harm. Could you give me your take on how our morals are established, who establishes them.

Yes that is what I believe. Harm means something that is counter to the well being and flourishing of, in this case, humans. Evil, is an act that stands in opposition to the objective good as defined by a supernatural being, which I am not convinced exist and hence why I don't use the word evil. I would say if you start from the principle of harm and apply situational ethics I think you can make objective statement about whether something is harmful or not. But it is objective in relation to the principle of harm to a human and not to some supernatural rule set.

You make a distinction of humans rather than other animals. Is this the case? Do you think that humans should be viewed differently than other animals and if so why, if not why?

I am honestly sorry that you experienced this

Well I honestly thank you and I want to take a moment here to say that I appreciate the respect you have shown during our conversations. I've been on this forum and others as well for a long time and in years past respect and kindness were more common than not and I grew to care deeply for some of the atheists that I debated with. I still love them and miss talking to them so much. So thank you for being old school and still showing respect for others even if they disagree with you.

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.
Leviticus 25:44-46 ESV

Ah, yes I did forget that one. What does slavery mean to us in this age? We look at the horrible slavery of the African people and think that this is what slavery meant in the age of the Bible. As you can see in the verse that they were allowed to buy male and female slaves from nations around them. It was a commandment from God that slaves could not be kidnapped and put into slavery. Which of course is what happened with the African people. In Bible times slavery was very much a way of life for all the nations around Israel and those slaves were treated horribly more times than not. Israel had rules that they were treat slaves well. In many cases people who were slaves were slaves of their own accord. There was no welfare or churches at this time to take care of those who couldn't provide for their families and slavery was customary and temporary. However, of the nations around that was not the case and these nations would then sell their slaves to Israel. This is what is being discussed in the verse above. Knowing that the nations around Israel were being horrible to their slaves or servants (the word in Hebrew could mean either)it would be a great improvement for their lives to go to Israel where they were to not abuse their slaves/servants. Is it wrong to tell the Jews they could buy them to provide better situations for them and to maybe even save their lives?

Fair enough on your world view

Ok then.

For the record while I am against making a law that categorically bans abortions full stop (happy to explain why if you are interested) I very strongly believe that abortion should only be a last resort in the most extenuating of circumstances, and even then should be considered long and hard.

Ok. So do you think that those who believe that abortion is the mother's right and that it is not immoral are immoral for their belief?

That said, believing as you seem to that God is against the killing of children how to you make sense of the global flood (surely there were some children alive at the time and pregnant women too), the passover story where God kills all the firstborn, God's commands to kill the Amalchites men women and children or perhaps most disturbingly graphic Hosea 13:16 which I won't copy and paste in case children read this site.

How do we make sense of abortion? Who decides if abortion is moral or immoral?

I make sense in the above instances this way, God knew that people were going to be going against Him and doing really bad and horrible things and so I believe just as we are seeing here that the birth rate might have been really really low. In fact, homosexuality was very prominent in the culture at the time and that could have made a very big dent in the birth rate as well. I also know that I and God think of death in a completely different way, we know that this is not all there is. Death is not a bad thing for children because it will be just like walking through a door from this world to the next. They lived with parents that sacrificed them to their false gods. They may have been doing the same later in their own lives. Like I've said, I know in my life how loving and good God is and I have no reason to believe that He didn't in some way make it where the little ones didn't suffer at all. Maybe He took their souls seconds before they would drown or something equally good that we don't know.

Not sure what the end of your last message was referring to. Help me out?

Answering the earlier question?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Such as?

Well for instance my example used before, when someone rapes, mutilates and kills a child for fun.

In your view, what action might preclude one from entering your version of "Heaven"?

In my view, the only action that precludes one from entering heaven is not being covered by Jesus Christ's gift of salvation.

 

[com7fy8]

Back a few pages >

It took me about three years to go from Bible believing, born again Christian to the atheist I am today. I didn't want that to be the case and there were some pretty strong repercussions in my life for accepting the truth that there just wasn't anything there.

and @nightflight Well, there is what I call "Christian culture" which can be copy-cat social in-crowd stuff. So, if you were with people who were not for real, it is good you were able to see that. Or, it could be you did not have ability to appreciate who they are, because of how you were. I have done this, myself; but after getting with Jesus I became able to appreciate people I once even despised. The gentle and humble and quiet ones might not be exciting enough, stimulating enough; but God's grace makes us able to be deeply sober and quiet and content though we are not entertaining ourselves with pleasures and excitements and causes.

But > God can use what you have done, how you have already invested; with God, you can use your experience to help you see things which do not work, while other things could "add up" to help you in the long run. In case you have done investment and research, you know how there can be something which for the time is useless . . . but helpful once it has the things it is meant to fit with. One thing which can help you is seeing what does not work to bring us into perfect peace with God.

I also would say that now that I have become a Christian, the seeking does not stop. It is like how a plant seeks light > first, the light effects the plant so the plant turns and grows toward the light, but then the plant needs to keep on seeking the light by growing and maturing in it.

Which way does God take us in His peace? This is part of the adventure, always discovering, not hovering anywhere! It is not only about what thinking and behavior to accept, but deeply be still and sense for God and how He rules us in His peace > Colossians 3:15, and discover how He has us relating in love > Ephesians 4:2. So, we do not do this on our lonesome, but God has others to share with us and help us.

 

[Davian]

Well for instance my example used before, when someone rapes, mutilates and kills a child for fun.

In my view, the only action that precludes one from entering heaven is not being covered by Jesus Christ's gift of salvation.

You appear to be contradicting yourself. I do not know what you mean by "wrong" in this context. What's objectively wrong with raping, mutilating, and killing a child for fun, if you can still go to heaven?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You appear to be contradicting yourself. What's wrong with raping, mutilating, and killing a child for fun, if you can still go to heaven?

What allows someone who rapes, mutilates and kills a child for fun to go to heaven?

 

[com7fy8]

In your view, what action might preclude one from entering your version of "Heaven"?

In my view, the only action that precludes one from entering heaven is not being covered by Jesus Christ's gift of salvation.

You appear to be contradicting yourself. What's wrong with raping, mutilating, and killing a child for fun, if you can still go to heaven?

The Bible clearly says murderers have no part in God's kingdom. But their being murderers can be because they have not trusted in Jesus for salvation.

"Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." (1 John 4:15)

If we are in Jesus we already have His eternal life in us - - - the life of how He has us loving. And this keeps us from hating, and from doing what you are asking about, in your above question, Davian. So, the murder of children would be connected with not having Jesus Christ's salvation. The evil actions themselves would not keep a person out, but the evil nature of the murderer is out . . . not in God's kingdom which Christians are already in now > in His love in us (Romans 5:5), we are already sampling Heaven by having Jesus Christ's eternal love-life

 

[Davian]

What allows someone who rapes, mutilates and kills a child for fun to go to heaven?

You: "In my view, the only action that precludes one from entering heaven is not being covered by Jesus Christ's gift of salvation."

I do not see in your list of actions anything about raping, mutilating, or killing a child for fun. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "objectively wrong". In your view, should there be repercussions for doing something "objectively wrong"?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You: "In my view, the only action that precludes one from entering heaven is not being covered by Jesus Christ's gift of salvation."

I do not see in your list of actions anything about raping, mutilating, or killing a child for fun. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "objectively wrong". In your view, should there be repercussions for doing something "objectively wrong"?

Did I say anything about "objectively wrong"?

 

[Davian]

Did I say anything about "objectively wrong"?

You: "Well for instance my example used before, when someone rapes, mutilates and kills a child for fun."

Did you not claim this as an example of "objectively wrong". Assuming that for the moment: In your view, should there be repercussions for doing something "objectively wrong"?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You: "Well for instance my example used before, when someone rapes, mutilates and kills a child for fun."

Did you not claim this as an example of "objectively wrong". Assuming that for the moment: In your view, should there be repercussions for doing something "objectively wrong"?

I didn't use the term objectively wrong, I feel that it is but I didn't say that. Should there be repercussions for doing something objectively wrong...yes.

 

[Athée]

I know that the Bible claims that those who find themselves in death and Hades are brought together before Jesus for Judgement for their lives (the second death) and are then thrown in the lake of fire where soul and body are destroyed

Sounds like the abolitionist view. Good scriptural support for this according to some. So it sounds like you don't believe in eternal torment?

Do you know that if you do this they won't take their own lives? Do you know that they will actually be rehabilitated or will they go on and be as bad or worse that what you planned? You can't see into the future but God can.

In this scenario, yes we know that they will not take their own lives and that they will actually be rehabilitated. In this analogy we are like God, who sees ahead and knows the outcome. The addiction could be sin or any number of things, the rehab is whatever it takes to be reconciled to God (generally expressed as accepting Jesus) and the rehabilitation is coming to a saving faith and spending eternity in heaven. My point is exactly that, if God exists, God can see into the future and knows that by overriding free will for an instant, can save the eternal souls of his beloved creations. Should he do so? We have both said that as the parents in this analogous situation that we would do what we had to to save our child from the life of addiction suffering and death. Why would God choose not to?

You do it out of love and eventually they will understand that if it all goes well but they could turn away from you and never return for what you put them through.

They could for sure but wouldn't you do it anyway, out of love for them? I would loose the relationship with my daughters to save their lives. Moreover, in the analogy there is the possibility of that relationship being broken as you suggest but in the "real" situation we are trying to investigate, the act of God intervening, would secure the relationship for eternity.

God wanted beings who could make the choice and learn to love Him rather than creating a being that had no choice in the matter.

I'm sure that is in the Bible somewhere but I can't for the life of me think of where. Do you happen to know?

Yet, if it is true and you convince someone that it is false you might be instrumental in their going to hell. Does this sound like you are doing a good thing?

If it is true that God exists as described in the Bible then very clearly my passing my doubts to others is a bad thing. On the other hand if God does not exist then encouraging people to doubt ideologies that have can cause such harm is a worthwhile project.

we sometimes feel we know better than God does. We are more moral, we are more wise, we are more "good" than God.

Just a nuance to add here. I don't think that I am more knowledgeable than God, or more wise etc. But I do think I am more knowledgeable (in some respects) than that bronze age tribe that put these ideas down. I think I have a better understanding of morality than they did as a result of the advance of knowledge. I also think that in 2000 years, humanity will circulate sider my current beliefs barbaric is some cases.

But God says HE has given us evidence of His existence and we all see it in the universe that He created

How does the universe point specifically to the Christian God?

If I tell you that if you go out and rape, mutilate and kill a child for fun that you will be punished and you go out and do it, is it not good to punish you?

It would be good to punishe because the punishment would make it less likely that such harm would occur in the future.

Did he? Did he not use Pharaoh's own pride against Him? Did He not use His own power against Him? He could have literally hardened his heart, He had the power but that would override his will.

Pharaoh quickly summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “I have sinned against the Lord your God and against you. Now forgive my sin once more and pray to the Lord your God to take this deadly plague away from me.”... But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.
Exodus 10:16-17, 20 NIV
http://bible.com/111/exo.10.16-20.NIV

Do we have free will in your worldview? Just curious whether you think it is an illusion or real.

Great question. I am not sure. I feel like I have free will and I act as if I do. I hold beliefs about morals as if beings make free will choices that have consequences. In truth I am just not sure. It may be that free will is an illusion, but I just don't know so I will go on living as if we do in the same way that I will just keep on assuming induction will hold

No, in your worldview it seems that God wants people to go to hell

Yes and no. It seems to me that the Bible teaches the purpose of our existence is to give glory to God. It also seems that in the Bible part of God's plan for showing off his glory in the maximal way is sending most of his creation to hell (whatever you believe that to be). Again I have to ask does this sound like a good being? If it were you would you be willing to trade some level of expression of your glory, in exchange for being in eternal perfect and loving relationship with all that you created?

Now did I force the person to want fried chicken? No, but I used their decision to implement what I wanted by taking their free will decision and getting what I wanted from it. This is somewhat simplistic but I think it shows what I mean.

Analogy time! So let's say you are the cook and the purpose of the night is to show how amazing you are (see above on glory) you know that in order for your glory to be clear to all, the dinners need to have steak (for whatever reason... Dang, now I want a steak ). So you make up a menu that only offers steak. Now they can have it rare, medium/rare etc (but not well done becaue that is just a waste!) and they can have it seasoned in a variety of ways. They order their preferred version of the steak and the meal is a hit and everyone agrees about how awesome you are. So in one sense you limited their free will. There was no chicken on the menu but they absolutely made a free will decision about their meal.
In my mind there is no contradiction between saying that God wants us to have free will and God arranging it so that we will choose him of our own free will. Think of it as the cook and seasoning in the analogy. It seems that God could have made a salvation belief the only choice but we could choose of our own free will to what extent we were going to accept it, how we would love it out, how deep our relationship would be or whatever other variable God could imagine.

He wants a true choice. He doesn't want to make us love him. Would making your wife love you satisfy you? Wouldn't you want her to come to you freely with real love in her heart rather than making up circumstances that you know in advance are what she wants in a man?

See above. In your example I am practising deciet to get her to choose based on false premises. I don't think God would be restricted to trickery and falsehood if he exists.

Ok, so are you saying then that there is no objective standard of good or evil? If our moral standard is not a spiritual standard what do you feel is our standard for morality is? You said something about harm. Could you give me your take on how our morals are established, who establishes them.

Oh good finally an easy one! Joking. This is a big question as well. Generally I think our morals are a product of our being a social species with a specific evolutionary history. That said I think enlightened morality should be based on the principle of not doing harm to other humans. We establish them collectively and this discussion is informed by our growing scientific understanding of the world around us. That's it in a nutshell but feel free to probe that with questions like usual

You make a distinction of humans rather than other animals. Is this the case? Do you think that humans should be viewed differently than other animals and if so why, if not why?

I do make that distinction, probably because I am a human myself. I also recognize moral considerations of non humans a well, but I do put a primacy on humanity. I think it will be interesting 2000 years from now to see where they see my concept of morality barbaric. Had I been living back when the current science showed that African American people were more like animals than humans, I would have not felt the same moral obligation to them. I am thankful that science has shown us the error of that position, that they are human and should be treated accordingly. The advance in knowledge has changed our views on slavery, women voting, sexual orientation and more. I wonder what we will learn in the next decade that will change our views of morality yet again.

I want to take a moment here to say that I appreciate the respect you have shown during our conversations.

Thank you... And likewise

As you can see in the verse that they were allowed to buy male and female slaves from nations around them. It was a commandment from God that slaves could not be kidnapped and put into slavery.

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 NIV
http://bible.com/111/deu.20.10-14.NIV

Here we see the taking of forced labourers, subject to the rules I will shortly cite from exodus. I would call them slaves. We also see a disturbing tacit endorsement of sexual slavery as the women (and children) can be enjoyed as plunder. We also see a similar idea in Numbers.

“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord ’s people. but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Numbers 31:15-16, 18 NIV
http://bible.com/111/num.31.15-18.NIV

So here Moses, speaking for God, specifically says that the men should keep these young girls and take them to wife. Yes it spares their lives, yes they are technically a wife, but look at the reality of that situation from the girl's perspective. Men come and kill their friend, brothers and parents, abduct them, marry them without their consent, then rape them repeatedly under the guise of marital relations. What is the difference between this kind of "wife" and a sex slave?

Israel had rules that they were treat slaves well.

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
Exodus 21:7-11 ESV
http://bible.com/59/exo.21.7-11.ESV

So here is an example of some of these rules to treat slaves well. Here, if you are a sex slave you have certain protections. Does God say that sex slavery is wrong... Nope... he just wants you to behave honourably towards this young girl that you are raping or that you gave to your son for the same purpose.

“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
Exodus 21:7-11, 20-21 ESV
http://bible.com/59/exo.21.7-21.ESV

So again we have some protection, if you beat you slave to death, or so badly that the slave dies within a couple days then you will be punished (in theory). If however you only beat them to near death then it is no problem because the slave is after all just property.

So again God is condoning actual horrific slavery here. Are there few protections, yes, but clearly this is an immoral practice and God is on board.

There was no welfare or churches at this time to take care of those who couldn't provide for their families and slavery was customary and temporary.

You might be thinking of the indentured servitude of the new testament. I think the verses above make it pretty clear that actual slavery is also in the Bible.

Knowing that the nations around Israel were being horrible to their slaves or servants (the word in Hebrew could mean either)it would be a great improvement for their lives to go to Israel where they were to not abuse their slaves/servants. Is it wrong to tell the Jews they could buy them to provide better situations for them and to maybe even save their lives?

I am not an ANE expert so you could be correct or not that slaves were in fact treated better in Israel. However, I think it is clear that even if it was slightly better, it certainly doesn't fall in the realm of moral behaviour.

Ok. So do you think that those who believe that abortion is the mother's right and that it is not immoral are immoral for their belief?

I don't think they are immoral for holding that belief but I think they are mistaken.

How do we make sense of abortion? Who decides if abortion is moral or immoral?

Same as morality above. It is a cultural decision informed by the science.

I believe just as we are seeing here that the birth rate might have been really really low. In fact, homosexuality was very prominent in the culture at the time and that could have made a very big dent in the birth rate as well.

Would it make it better in your mind if God only killed 1 million children rather than 10 million?

I also know that I and God think of death in a completely different way, we know that this is not all there is. Death is not a bad thing for children because it will be just like walking through a door from this world to the next.

I think this is a speculative rationalization with no evidence supporting it. However, even if it were true death is not like stepping through a door. These children were drowned (one of the most painful ways to die), smashed on rocks (watched siblings get smashed on rocks) cut apart by swords) after watching their parents cut apart by swords, or raped first in some cases. These acts were commanded by the being you call good. What would God have to do for you to considwr him not good. Why does your inner experience of God, trump the actions he proudly proclaims in his word?

I know in my life how loving and good God is and I have no reason to believe that He didn't in some way make it where the little ones didn't suffer at all. Maybe He took their souls seconds before they would drown or something equally good that we don't know.

Maybe, but again there is no evidence of this... So my question above still stands.

 

[Athée]

Back a few pages >and @nightflight Well, there is what I call "Christian culture" which can be copy-cat social in-crowd stuff. So, if you were with people who were not for real, it is good you were able to see that. Or, it could be you did not have ability to appreciate who they are, because of how you were. I have done this, myself; but after getting with Jesus I became able to appreciate people I once even despised. The gentle and humble and quiet ones might not be exciting enough, stimulating enough; but God's grace makes us able to be deeply sober and quiet and content though we are not entertaining ourselves with pleasures and excitements and causes.

But > God can use what you have done, how you have already invested; with God, you can use your experience to help you see things which do not work, while other things could "add up" to help you in the long run. In case you have done investment and research, you know how there can be something which for the time is useless . . . but helpful once it has the things it is meant to fit with. One thing which can help you is seeing what does not work to bring us into perfect peace with God.

I also would say that now that I have become a Christian, the seeking does not stop. It is like how a plant seeks light > first, the light effects the plant so the plant turns and grows toward the light, but then the plant needs to keep on seeking the light by growing and maturing in it.

Which way does God take us in His peace? This is part of the adventure, always discovering, not hovering anywhere! It is not only about what thinking and behavior to accept, but deeply be still and sense for God and how He rules us in His peace > Colossians 3:15, and discover how He has us relating in love > Ephesians 4:2. So, we do not do this on our lonesome, but God has others to share with us and help us.

This was beautifully expressed. Thanks for sharing your experiences and your thoughts.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sounds like the abolitionist view. Good scriptural support for this according to some. So it sounds like you don't believe in eternal torment?

I don't know. I am providing what the Bible says about it.

In this scenario, yes we know that they will not take their own lives and that they will actually be rehabilitated. In this analogy we are like God, who sees ahead and knows the outcome. The addiction could be sin or any number of things, the rehab is whatever it takes to be reconciled to God (generally expressed as accepting Jesus) and the rehabilitation is coming to a saving faith and spending eternity in heaven. My point is exactly that, if God exists, God can see into the future and knows that by overriding free will for an instant, can save the eternal souls of his beloved creations. Should he do so? We have both said that as the parents in this analogous situation that we would do what we had to to save our child from the life of addiction suffering and death. Why would God choose not to?

Yet, we are not God and we do not know the future. Free will seems to be of great import to God. It may well be that God has put a limitation on the amount and the ways that He will interfere with a person's free will. Now you and I love and cherish our children and I know that I have forced them to comply with my dictates, for their own good. I can see you do the same. I also know that there are parents out there that don't love and cherish their children. It seems in fact, that more and more parents are harming their own children right up to death and even children are killing their parents. Now in the Bible is says that: 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

They could for sure but wouldn't you do it anyway, out of love for them? I would loose the relationship with my daughters to save their lives. Moreover, in the analogy there is the possibility of that relationship being broken as you suggest but in the "real" situation we are trying to investigate, the act of God intervening, would secure the relationship for eternity.

I would too. Yet: For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. And: I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me. And: This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I'm sure that is in the Bible somewhere but I can't for the life of me think of where. Do you happen to know?

It doesn't come to mind. It may be a concept built by various passages.

If it is true that God exists as described in the Bible then very clearly my passing my doubts to others is a bad thing. On the other hand if God does not exist then encouraging people to doubt ideologies that have can cause such harm is a worthwhile project.

How does Christianity harm?

Just a nuance to add here. I don't think that I am more knowledgeable than God, or more wise etc. But I do think I am more knowledgeable (in some respects) than that bronze age tribe that put these ideas down. I think I have a better understanding of morality than they did as a result of the advance of knowledge. I also think that in 2000 years, humanity will circulate sider my current beliefs barbaric is some cases.

Considering you don't think that God exists, I doubt that you don't think you are wiser than the God depicted in the Bible...am I wrong? When the Bible was written do you think these Bronze Age tribesmen knew anything at all about the way life came into being? Did they know that life started in the seas for instance? I doubt that Bronze Age tribesmen would have any idea that life began in the seas and followed a certain sequence into existence but that is what they recorded in the Bible. Did Bronze Age tribesmen have any knowledge that time, matter, energy and space at one time didn't exist? Yet that is what they recorded in the Bible. It seems to me, that these men had knowledge that was not available to them at the time they put these "ideas" down.

How does the universe point specifically to the Christian God?

Read above.

It would be good to punishe because the punishment would make it less likely that such harm would occur in the future.

So prevention is the only reason to punish in your view?

Pharaoh quickly summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “I have sinned against the Lord your God and against you. Now forgive my sin once more and pray to the Lord your God to take this deadly plague away from me.”... But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.
Exodus 10:16-17, 20 NIV
http://bible.com/111/exo.10.16-20.NIV

Right?

Great question. I am not sure. I feel like I have free will and I act as if I do. I hold beliefs about morals as if beings make free will choices that have consequences. In truth I am just not sure. It may be that free will is an illusion, but I just don't know so I will go on living as if we do in the same way that I will just keep on assuming induction will hold

Personal confirmation would allow you to believe you do, as I believe personal confirmation allows me to believe I do.

Yes and no. It seems to me that the Bible teaches the purpose of our existence is to give glory to God. It also seems that in the Bible part of God's plan for showing off his glory in the maximal way is sending most of his creation to hell (whatever you believe that to be). Again I have to ask does this sound like a good being? If it were you would you be willing to trade some level of expression of your glory, in exchange for being in eternal perfect and loving relationship with all that you created?

The purpose of our existence is for God's pleasure and as you say for His glory. I think it is pretty glorious to create a universe and intelligent beings to inhabit it. Yet, it is also His pleasure that everyone come to Him. So your assumption that He made creation with most of His creation going to hell, doesn't quite fit with that to well.

Analogy time! So let's say you are the cook and the purpose of the night is to show how amazing you are (see above on glory) you know that in order for your glory to be clear to all, the dinners need to have steak (for whatever reason... Dang, now I want a steak ). So you make up a menu that only offers steak. Now they can have it rare, medium/rare etc (but not well done becaue that is just a waste!) and they can have it seasoned in a variety of ways. They order their preferred version of the steak and the meal is a hit and everyone agrees about how awesome you are. So in one sense you limited their free will. There was no chicken on the menu but they absolutely made a free will decision about their meal.
In my mind there is no contradiction between saying that God wants us to have free will and God arranging it so that we will choose him of our own free will. Think of it as the cook and seasoning in the analogy. It seems that God could have made a salvation belief the only choice but we could choose of our own free will to what extent we were going to accept it, how we would love it out, how deep our relationship would be or whatever other variable God could imagine.

Do you know that He could do this and still allow us free will? Would only limiting our options also limit equally important elements in all of existence?



[QuoteSee above. In your example I am practising deciet to get her to choose based on false premises. I don't think God would be restricted to trickery and falsehood if he exists.[/Quote]How would it it not deceitful? How would it not be trickery?

Oh good finally an easy one! Joking. This is a big question as well. Generally I think our morals are a product of our being a social species with a specific evolutionary history. That said I think enlightened morality should be based on the principle of not doing harm to other humans. We establish them collectively and this discussion is informed by our growing scientific understanding of the world around us. That's it in a nutshell but feel free to probe that with questions like usual

Right, and so morality is not really anything more than what our past history says it is and if that history is not the same for someone that means that morality is not their's to have. But then if this is true is any action really immoral or moral for that matter?

I do make that distinction, probably because I am a human myself. I also recognize moral considerations of non humans a well, but I do put a primacy on humanity. I think it will be interesting 2000 years from now to see where they see my concept of morality barbaric. Had I been living back when the current science showed that African American people were more like animals than humans, I would have not felt the same moral obligation to them. I am thankful that science has shown us the error of that position, that they are human and should be treated accordingly. The advance in knowledge has changed our views on slavery, women voting, sexual orientation and more. I wonder what we will learn in the next decade that will change our views of morality yet again.

Does knowledge really make a difference if morality is really just something we have no control over? IF no real objective morality exists, nothing someone does can be called moral or immoral. If we can't condemn mankind for their own immorality how can we claim God is immoral? Now if a nation of people were very wicked and evil in our estimation, they took babies and dashed them against the rocks and took pregnant women and took their babies from their womb, and this was acceptable behavior in that day and age are they doing anything evil? Are they doing anything immoral? You claim that society makes that determination and in the society it was considered socially acceptable. How then do you call God evil if this is morally acceptable in your position?

Thank you... And likewise

And thank you.

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 NIV
http://bible.com/111/deu.20.10-14.NIV

Here is the KJV:
10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.

11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

Now what is a tributary in regards to the Old Testament:
TRIB'UTARY, a. from tribute. Paying tribute to another, either from compulsion, as an acknowledgment of submission, or to secure protection, or for the purpose of purchasing peace. The republic of Ragusa is tributary to the grand seignor. Many of the powers of Europe are tributary to the Barbary states.

1. Subject; subordinate.

He, to grace his tributary gods--

2. Paid in tribute.

No flatt'ry tunes these tributary lays.

3. Yielding supplies of any thing. The Ohio has many large tributary streams; and is itself tributary to the Mississippi.

TRIB'UTARY, n. One that pays tribute or a stated sum to a conquering power, for the purpose of securing peace and protection, or as an acknowledgment of submission, or for the purchase of security. What a reproach to nations that they should be the tributaries of Algiers!

http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/tributary.html

Here we see the taking of forced labourers, subject to the rules I will shortly cite from exodus. I would call them slaves. We also see a disturbing tacit endorsement of sexual slavery as the women (and children) can be enjoyed as plunder. We also see a similar idea in Numbers.

You are looking through the lens of our age. Enemies would and could do great harm to the Jews. That is why the men would need to be eliminated. Now if they eliminated the men, what would the women do? They couldn't own land, couldn't make a living if they didn't have somewhere to live. The most charitable action was to take them and make them wives. They didn't do like other nations and take them into slavery which would not protect them and the children but making them wives would protect them and honor them. I imagine some would force themselves on them but you don't know that they would. They might let them learn to care about them before having a wife/husband relationship. You assume the worst but you have no way of knowing that.

[/Quote]“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord ’s people. but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Numbers 31:15-16, 18 NIV
http://bible.com/111/num.31.15-18.NIV[/Quote]You do realize that women in those days had outward appearances for those who were married and who were unmarried. The unmarried were never alone with a man before marriage. So they didn't have to sleep with them to find out.

So here Moses, speaking for God, specifically says that the men should keep these young girls and take them to wife. Yes it spares their lives, yes they are technically a wife, but look at the reality of that situation from the girl's perspective. Men come and kill their friend, brothers and parents, abduct them, marry them without their consent, then rape them repeatedly under the guise of marital relations. What is the difference between this kind of "wife" and a sex slave?

See above.

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
Exodus 21:7-11 ESV
http://bible.com/59/exo.21.7-11.ESV

See above.

So here is an example of some of these rules to treat slaves well. Here, if you are a sex slave you have certain protections. Does God say that sex slavery is wrong... Nope... he just wants you to behave honourably towards this young girl that you are raping or that you gave to your son for the same purpose.

You don't know that they raped them. You assume that but that isn't written in the Bible. It never says rape the women. It says take them for your wife. If they did there were rituals that needed to take place and the same would be true for them as well.

“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
Exodus 21:7-11, 20-21 ESV
http://bible.com/59/exo.21.7-21.ESV

So again we have some protection, if you beat you slave to death, or so badly that the slave dies within a couple days then you will be punished (in theory). If however you only beat them to near death then it is no problem because the slave is after all just property.

I don't understand why this seems immoral to you. You have said that in your view all morality is due to evolutionary history. In that case there was nothing immoral in this situation...correct?

So again God is condoning actual horrific slavery here. Are there few protections, yes, but clearly this is an immoral practice and God is on board.

See above.

You might be thinking of the indentured servitude of the new testament. I think the verses above make it pretty clear that actual slavery is also in the Bible.

Yes.

I am not an ANE expert so you could be correct or not that slaves were in fact treated better in Israel. However, I think it is clear that even if it was slightly better, it certainly doesn't fall in the realm of moral behaviour.

That contradicts what you are claiming, you are claiming that morals are determined by the evolutionary history. This is history. This is considered moral in that society. If morals are determined by society then this is moral and your accusation that it is not in the realm of moral behavior contradicts what you are claiming.

I don't think they are immoral for holding that belief but I think they are mistaken.

So sucking and tearing a fetus from the womb has no immorality related to it, it is just an error of judgement according to you? Now how can you on one hand claim that taking a young girl and making her a wife to protect and care for her is immoral but sucking and tearing a fetus from the womb is not immoral? Can you explain that to me please. I really don't understand.

Same as morality above. It is a cultural decision informed by the science.

Science can inform us what is moral and what is not?

Would it make it better in your mind if God only killed 1 million children rather than 10 million?

Where do you get your numbers? Did you just pull that out of a hat or do you have something to present that shows how many children might have been alive at the time?

I think this is a speculative rationalization with no evidence supporting it. However, even if it were true death is not like stepping through a door. These children were drowned (one of the most painful ways to die), smashed on rocks (watched siblings get smashed on rocks) cut apart by swords) after watching their parents cut apart by swords, or raped first in some cases. These acts were commanded by the being you call good. What would God have to do for you to considwr him not good. Why does your inner experience of God, trump the actions he proudly proclaims in his word?

These were not commanded by God this was a prophecy and a warning to Israel. IN fact, this warning was given for 50 years.

Maybe, but again there is no evidence of this... So my question above still stands.

It seems to me that you are demanding a morality that you don't yourself use, you dismiss or are not aware of information about the events you cite as being immoral and then make claims as well that don't have evidence to support them. I mean I agree, there are other passages that counter what you are claiming about other passages in the Bible.

 

[Davian]

I didn't use the term objectively wrong, I feel that it is but I didn't say that.

#199, Once: "We down deep know if someone does an objectively wrong action that it deserves justice..."

#203, Davian: "Such as?"

#205, Once: "Well for instance my example used before, when someone rapes, mutilates and kills a child for fun."

So you did use the term. Did you wish to provide a different example?

Should there be repercussions for doing something objectively wrong...yes.

Assuming that there is such as thing as "objectively wrong", what should the repercussion(s) be, in your opnion?

 

[Davian]

The Bible clearly says murderers have no part in God's kingdom. But their being murderers can be because they have not trusted in Jesus for salvation.

It would seem that others' interpretations of the Bible of differ from yours.

"The FBI gave the standard profile of a serial killer, He is a person with few friends. He became much more religious just before he started murdering people. Almost all serial killers start quoting one verse after another from the Christian Bible.

Nearly all serial killers are very devout men who were raised by members of Pentecostal sects, fundamentalist Catholics or were 'hard-shell' Baptists and Methodists."

link

"Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." (1 John 4:15)

Luke 14:26: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple."

If we are in Jesus we already have His eternal life in us - - - the life of how He has us loving. And this keeps us from hating, and from doing what you are asking about, in your above question, Davian. So, the murder of children would be connected with not having Jesus Christ's salvation. The evil actions themselves would not keep a person out, but the evil nature of the murderer is out . . . not in God's kingdom which Christians are already in now > in His love in us (Romans 5:5), we are already sampling Heaven by having Jesus Christ's eternal love-life

Then you are contradicting Oncedeceived's post, where she implied that anything goes, as long as you believe.

 

[com7fy8]

Luke 14:26: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple."

I understand that what Jesus means by "hate" in this scripture is not what John means by hating, in 1 John 4:15. To me, it makes sense that Jesus who is about love does not mean for us to hate parents in the way John means hating.

However, there are people who seem to dictate what a word has to mean, then they use their own dictated meaning to see contradictions of words which do not even mean what these people dictate.

A same word can have various meanings, after all. To hate pickles is not the same as to hate a person. And Jesus can mean we put God first and stop having our parents as love idols > "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46) I think to hate can mean to despise, which can mean that we look down on anything or anyone who is not as beneficial to us as God is. It does not mean to dishonor or disrespect, but simply to consider someone or something to be so inferior to God.

you are contradicting Oncedeceived's post, where she implied that anything goes, as long as you believe.

Once Deceived can speak for herself about what she meant or implied. But yes there are people who think you can get saved, then do any sin, at all, and still go to Heaven, even if you have not repented of things like killing and eating babies. I don't buy that. I believe if God brings a person to Jesus, He finishes what He started; and a person who comes truly to Jesus gives up one's own free will and submits to God and becomes changed so he or she will not do things like that. 1 John 4:17 to me means God does not leave people in their own stupidity and evil so they can keep on doing evil things.

So, God's word can contradict how you understand a part of it, and can contradict what a number of Bible claiming people understand.

And if someone is seeking God by means of intellectual self-invented understanding of words, dictating what they have to mean, then surely this can keep them away from truly seeking God. They can boast how they have made such an intellectual effort, found all the contradictions which they have created and dictate to be contradictions, then wonder why this did not bring them to God; but we need to be humbled, not boasting what we can get ourselves to do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

#199, Once: "We down deep know if someone does an objectively wrong action that it deserves justice..."

#203, Davian: "Such as?"

#205, Once: "Well for instance my example used before, when someone rapes, mutilates and kills a child for fun."

I stand corrected. I should have went back and looked. I apologize.

So you did use the term. Did you wish to provide a different example?

It appears so. No, that example is fine, like I said, I believe it to be objectively wrong.

Assuming that there is such as thing as "objectively wrong", what should the repercussion(s) be, in your opnion?

I said I thought death would be the punishment deserved.