07 Nov 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell sorry it doesn't make sence either.Life on this planet is not some blindless thing that would happen with or without a God. It would be impossible without a God.
That's absurd. Surely there are possible worlds wherein there exists life but no god. (I'm construing possibility here in the usual sense of logical possibility.)
[quote]And if hypothetically I could create ...[text shortened]...
So, I am afraid your position just doesn't make any sense to me. Could you clarify please?
And how does one make one believe in a God and his works and the wisdom behind them if that person probably does not want to? Do you just not want to believe in a God or is there more to it?
07 Nov 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell ok but first you have to give me an example of when God did as you say as I'm not aware he's ever done that?To even start to understand this you would have to be God. What I mean is with the way the Bible describes him and what he has allowed us to know by those many descriptions, actions, laws, commands, judgements to us on many things, he has wisdom that we will never completely know.
How unfortunate that your position commits you to such a ...[text shortened]... lling the difference between blameworthy genocidal behaviors and praiseworthy ones, for example?
07 Nov 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat is S and X?
Also, the question of "who would he answer to" is off topic. There is a very big difference between saying that S has a right to do X and simply saying that there is insufficient power to stop S from doing X if S wishes to do X. Relatedly, a right and the power to police a right are two different things.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
07 Nov 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloFirst let's define right...
Huh? I don't think "God needs rights". Let's try this again. You explicitly stated that God has the right to do whatever He pleases. Now, I'm asking you if you have any reasons why I should think that statement is correct. For instance, do you some argument that purports to show it is correct? If so, what is it? If not, then please just say so.
1.in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
2.
in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer.
3.
correct in judgment, opinion, or action.
4.
fitting or appropriate; suitable: to say the right thing at the right time.
from Dictionary.com
Just from the very definition it should be self explanatory.
When God ends a life he is doing what is right, good, the right solution, correct in judgement, etc.
Who are you to argue with him? Truth, purity, righteousness, all come from God. So as I said, he has the right to do as he pleases, even if it is beyond yours and my understanding.
Originally posted by galveston75Well, it appears that the only justification given is that God can do whatever he wants.
Well ok but first you have to give me an example of when God did as you say as I'm not aware he's ever done that?
Here, however, is an extract from a website called ‘CreationScience4Kids’ (sonhouse might need to sit down before looking at it).
Anyway here is one poster’s comments (http://creationscience4kids.com/2012/09/11/god-is-mean-part-2/) on the issue, with my comments attached:
One of the more popular things that the New Atheists are using to shake our love for the Creator God is to show how awful God can be to people He isn’t happy with.
Exactly who are the New Atheists (an 80’s pop band)? Note the disingenuous technique of using capital letters to suggest that this is a group of people united in a common agenda, rather than a disparate group of people who simply don’t believe in God.
using to shake our belief in a Creator God
Nice to see you acknowledging that it is shaking your belief in a Creator God, that will encourage them.
is to show how awful God can be
I am glad you acknowledge that your God does act awfully at times. That is refreshingly honest for a creationist website.
Of course, they aren’t likely to use the Flood as an example since they don’t want to admit it did kill every breathing thing on land.
Well, that’s a load of rubbish. Of course they can use the Flood as an example, and they do. All they need to do is say that if, hypothetically, a loving God exists, how do you reconcile this view with the Flood myth which killed innocent babies?
Here’s what they don’t want to admit. God brought us into the world, He has every right to take us out again.
Yes, you Christians have a tendency to say this quite a bit. You just haven’t said why creating a living, sentient being gives you the right to arbitrarily destroy it.
I’ve heard Bill Cosby say that, but do parents actually bring a child into the world?
Err, yes.
Being a mother I know better than that.
Do you now?
They were already weeks old before I even knew they existed and the whole time they were growing inside me my only job was to eat, sleep and take care of myself so my body and the baby could do what they were already programmed to do.
No, I didn’t think you did. Why does being ignorant of your pregnancy have any bearing on the fact that you initiated the process and will indeed ‘bring a child into the world’?
But God does have every right to require our lives back when He decides it’s time.
Yes, you said that. You just didn’t say why.
But since we’re on the topic, could you then refrain from calling it the ‘gift’ of life. If it can be taken back at any time, it is not a gift.
The truth is every one of us, from the youngest baby and most “innocent” special needs adult, to the worse criminal has sin in our heart.
Well, it is difficult for me to express how offensive that little sentence is. The whole idea of ‘original sin’ is pretty offensive, but even if it were true (indeed especially if it were true), it would not justify the arbitrary execution of young children. Indeed, I wonder what you think happens to babies who God kills before they can accept Jesus into their lives?
It is very sad when little children die because of the sinfulness of their culture, like we see in Joshua and I Samuel 15
Sad, huh? That’s not the first word that springs to my mind.
because of their sinfulness of their culture
So that’s it? God is killing these children because the people around them are sinful? And you think that is OK?
but think what would have happened if God had spared them
Well, if he had wiped their memories, transferred them to loving, decent people (whose memories were also adjusted, or even created new parents for them) they would presumably be leading normal happy lives. Piece of cake for a being that created the entire universe in 7 days.
These cultures were already so wicked it would make you ill if I told you what they were doing to their people. Left alone they would have continued on their disgusting path, growing worse and worse with each generation. It would be at least 1,000 years before Jesus died and opened the way for us to find new life in Him and the power of the Holy Spirit. They would have wiped themselves out long before then.
Yes, but God is omnipotent, so he could have let the truly sinful die and let the children off. But he chose not to. Why?
As a reminder here is the passage from I Samuel 15 that is being referred to:
Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’’
So, can anyone else explain why God was justified in the killing of infants in revenge for what their parents supposedly did? And why he did not choose one of the almost infinite other possibilities which could have punished the Amalekites without the need to kill children who were not responsible for this 'crime'?
07 Nov 13
Originally posted by Rank outsiderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
Well, it appears that the only justification given is that God can do whatever he wants.
Here, however, is an extract from a website called ‘CreationScience4Kids’ (sonhouse might need to sit down before looking at it).
Anyway here is one poster’s comments (http://creationscience4kids.com/2012/09/11/god-is-mean-part-2/) on the issue, with my comme ...[text shortened]... shed the Amalekites without the need to kill children who were not responsible for this 'crime'?
http://newatheists.org/
The Instructor
07 Nov 13
Originally posted by Rank outsiderWow a text wall that needs ropes and carabiners to climb, sonship style.
Well, it appears that the only justification given is that God can do whatever he wants.
Here, however, is an extract from a website called ‘CreationScience4Kids’ (sonhouse might need to sit down before looking at it).
Anyway here is one poster’s comments (http://creationscience4kids.com/2012/09/11/god-is-mean-part-2/) on the issue, with my comme ...[text shortened]... shed the Amalekites without the need to kill children who were not responsible for this 'crime'?
07 Nov 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloIn your question it sounds as if you believes He has to earn the right.
You're still just outright assuming that God has the right to do whatever with His creatures. Again, that's just question-begging. In virtue of what does He possess such a right to begin with? Like, give me some actual reasons to think He has such a right in the first place...otherwise, what reason do I have to take you seriously here?
Kelly
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
07 Nov 13
Originally posted by galveston75why does god even have killing as an option? if he has infinite power and wisdom, surely there are alternative methods other than killing to achieve the same goals. it makes no sense......unless he was invented in during barbaric times, by barbaric people who didnt have the brains to see the conflict between being a perfect being of love and also being a mass murderer.
This subject comes up from time to time with many comments about God taking life in the past of seemingly innocent ones.
I know some here express anger and even hatred to a God that would do this.
Any thoughts as to why he did this and could still possibly do it again?
07 Nov 13
Originally posted by stellspalfieHell?
why does god even have killing as an option? if he has infinite power and wisdom, surely there are alternative methods other than killing to achieve the same goals. it makes no sense......unless he was invented in during barbaric times, by barbaric people who didnt have the brains to see the conflict between being a perfect being of love and also being a mass murderer.
The Instructor
07 Nov 13
"Well ok but first you have to give me an example of when God did as you say as I'm not aware he's ever done that?"
I asked this of LJ but might as well as all here who believe god is cruel and evil with killing. Could you please post some specific examples as to when he did such an unjust thing?