Does might make right?

Originally posted by whodey
I covered this in the previous post.

No, you didn't. You have never answered LJ's very reasonable question about the particular case of the neonate with an intestinal obstruction.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, you didn't. You have never answered LJ's very reasonable question about the particular case of the neonate with an intestinal obstruction.

Read my last post to twhitehead. I believe I answered this question.

Originally posted by whodey
Murderous, aldulterous, lying etc. Unfortunatly, not much is devulged in regards to the wickedness of the men and women of Noah's day, other than to convey the fact that their minds were fixed upon wickedness continually. Also, they mocked Noah to scorn for building the ark. Other than that, much is left to the imagination. Yet we stand in judgement over ...[text shortened]... men of Sodom in order to gang rape them that the judgement against Sodom was renedered by God.

The men of Sodom, however, are better understood. It was soon after the strangers that entered the city to visit Lot were followed to Lots house by the men of Sodom in order to gang rape them that the judgment against Sodom was rendered by God.

The men of Sodom? What about the women of Sodom? Were they spared? Were they part of the gang-rape plot?

What about the children of Sodom? Were they spared? Were they part of the gang-rape plot?

Were there any babies in Sodom? Were they spared? Were they part of the gang-rape plot? Does it matter to you at all?

Why don’t you just abrogate all moral responsibility for yourself and say that whatever the Book says God does is OK by you? Then you don’t need to (nor, in fact do you have any standing to) make any moral judgment whatsoever?

Divine command is divine command because it’s divine command—no need to consider the messiness of moral questions at all: just submit. You will, of course, cease to be yourself any kind of moral person; you will no longer have any standing to speak to morality at all. You will have no more moral standing than this computer obeying my keystrokes.

Isn’t that what you really want? To escape from all moral dilemma by simply submitting? To the “God of the Bible”?

Don’t you just see the rest of us—who insist on bloodying our hands and muddying our consciences wrestling with moral issues—don’t you just see us as blind fools who could just submit and get it over with? (Rather like K in Kafka’s The Trial?)

Go ahead. Just give in to God—and you never have to defend the morality of God’s killing children again. And you never have to risk standing up to God even as much as Abraham did.

Just submit. That’s all.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]The men of Sodom, however, are better understood. It was soon after the strangers that entered the city to visit Lot were followed to Lots house by the men of Sodom in order to gang rape them that the judgment against Sodom was rendered by God.

The men of Sodom? What about the women of Sodom? Were they spared? Were they part of the ...[text shortened]... never have to risk standing up to God even as much as Abraham did.

Just submit. That’s all.[/b]

I would not say that I would not object as Abraham did, did I? In fact, if I recall, Moses did the same interceeding for the Israelite people in the wilderness when God had had all he could take from them. These objections were not considered sinful or out of order in any way in terms of Biblical commentary. As a result, I see them rather as man attempting to understand the mind of God and I see nothing wrong with it. This is all that I am doing. However, in a sense, it is an act in futility considering that I can never know the mind of God in its entirety but it does not stop us from trying just like it did not stop Abraham or Moses from trying. This is one of the reasons that I am troubled when people judge the God of the Bible as they do. I simply want to show that there may be explanations that they had not considered or evidence that they did not know about that might explain his seemingly monsterous behavior. I think as with most things, perspective is key. What then seems more monsterous? Is it our sin or God's judgement? Is one monsterous enough to warrant the other response? Are the consequences for not acting in a seemingly monsterous fashion worse than if one did not proceed with such judgements? I say who could really know except God?

Really this is the question from what I can see. I can tell by your post that you see no ability to come to terms with the God of the Bible as being "righteous" or "holy" because of such alleged monsterous acts. Then so be it. Perhaps you are on the other side of the spectrum from where I am standing in that I am willing to bet the house that his actions are defendable and righteous because he alone has the answers and we do not and you are willing to bet the house that NO such possibility exists..

Originally posted by whodey
Read my last post to twhitehead. I believe I answered this question.

No, you didn't. LJ never claimed that children should be immune from suffering, and he was specifically talking about cases where suffering is brought about by natural forces, not moral failings (which is why your drunk driving example is irrelevant). You seem to think that because Adam and Eve failed to obey God, that this makes it just or reasonable for God to fail to alleviate perfectly unnecessary suffering when it occurs in newborn babies. This despite the fact that newborns have not sinned, have never disobeyed God, and that inflictions of the sort LJ mentions make it impossible for these newborns ever to get to know God in life ('cause they die soon after birth in many cases). So, since God knows about such suffering, could prevent it, and presumably would prefer newborns not to horribly suffer, then why exactly doesn't he prevent these sorts of intestinal obstructions?

Originally posted by whodey
I would not say that I would not object as Abraham did, did I? In fact, if I recall, Moses did the same interceeding for the Israelite people in the wilderness when God had had all he could take from them. These objections were not considered sinful or out of order in any way in terms of Biblical commentary. As a result, I see them rather as man attempting nswers and we do not and you are willing to bet the house that NO such possibility exists..

Deleted.

Originally posted by bbarr
....and he was specifically talking about cases where suffering is brought about by natural forces, not moral failings .....

I believe that whodey claims that all suffering is a direct result of sin. That even natural forces that cause suffering are a direct result of sin. Either your sin, some ancestors sin or even somebody in some other countries sin. He claims that allowing it to continue helps to teach you not to sin anymore.
He doesn't however explain how a baby will learn that lesson or infact how anyone who dies from the suffering will learn the lesson.
It also doesn't make sense that I should somehow learn not to sin based on suffering I receive as the result of somebody elses sin especially considering that I have no idea whos sin it is I am paying for nor what sin they committed and most importantly of all if I don't realize that my suffering is a result of sin at all.

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]No, you didn't. LJ never claimed that children should be immune from suffering, and he was specifically talking about cases where suffering is brought about by natural forces, not moral failings (which is why your drunk driving example is irrelevant).

Not true. Suffering is still caused by "moral failings" even though the newborn had no part other than being a product of those who have "moral failings". I think your real objection is the notion of having our "sin nature" passed down from generation to generation. Why is it that we must suffer because of the actions of those who have gone before us? Then again, are we not simply a combination of what are parents were? Are we to inherit their blue eyes and brown hair but somehow magically avoid thier pesky sin nature? Not only that, are we expected to coexist with a "sinful" world and not suffer even though we may be without a sin nature entirely as was Christ?

Originally posted by whodey
I think the loving thing to do is to allow suffering so that one is shown the errors of their ways.

Suffering is still caused by "moral failings" even though the newborn had no part other than being a product of those who have "moral failings".

So to summarize, you believe that a sick and dying new born baby is left to suffer in order to be shown the error of its ancestors ways.
Your God is a monster. Why don't you either admit it or admit that you do not actually have a reasonable explanation for his actions. Your attempts to explain his actions (or lack thereof) are merely confirming that he is a monster.

Originally posted by whodey
Not true. Suffering is still caused by "moral failings" even though the newborn had no part other than being a product of those who have "moral failings". I think your real objection is the notion of having our "sin nature" passed down from generation to generation. Why is it that we must suffer because of the actions of those who have gone before us? The ...[text shortened]... world and not suffer even though we may be without a sin nature entirely as was Christ?

Not the tiresome "sin gene" defense again.

If you believe that the newborns are 'sinners' by default, and they die due to, say, complications in childbirth, then they'd probably go to hell, right? After all, they were never 'saved'.

Not that I expect this sort of question to bother you that much.

Originally posted by whodey
Not true. Suffering is still caused by "moral failings" even though the newborn had no part other than being a product of those who have "moral failings". I think your real objection is the notion of having our "sin nature" passed down from generation to generation. Why is it that we must suffer because of the actions of those who have gone before us? The ...[text shortened]... world and not suffer even though we may be without a sin nature entirely as was Christ?

Wow, so you really do think it is just for God to bring suffering and punishment on one for the sins of those who have gone before. You believe it is just for God to bring this suffering on humans that have never even been capable of sinning. And I suppose the suffering that is brought through natural evils on other biological species is also somehow the result of human sin, as well? So it is just for God to bring suffering on all the "creeping things that creepeth upon the earth" because Adam and Eve disobeyed? And I can't believe there is another who actually entertains the notion of sin being passed on genetically. Reminds me of the days of FreakyKBH claiming that sin simply resides in cell structure, particularly sperm cells.

It's really unbelievable how you have chucked all common sense out the window. Morality under your view is truly arbitrary: you already granted that if God willed hatred vice love, then hatred would be the stuff of morals. You are willing to stand by His actions even when His displays are nothing but angry, hateful, jealous, bigoted, genocidal.

I simply want to show that there may be explanations that they had not considered or evidence that they did not know about that might explain his seemingly monsterous behavior.

So, go ahead and show us. Show, for example, how genocide can be righteous.

Originally posted by LemonJello
So, go ahead and show us. Show, for example, how genocide can be righteous.

It's the work of an imperial dictator. No room for sentiment.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So to summarize, you believe that a sick and dying new born baby is left to suffer in order to be shown the error of its ancestors ways.
Your God is a monster. Why don't you either admit it or admit that you do not actually have a reasonable explanation for his actions. Your attempts to explain his actions (or lack thereof) are merely confirming that he is a monster.

No. I don't believe that God is allowing the child to suffer simply to give us a lesson. I am simply restating the fact that we live in a world of sin and that suffering is a result of sin. Hopefully mankind will learn a lesson from such suffering, however, it is increasingly apparant that many do not make such connections.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Not the tiresome "sin gene" defense again.

If you believe that the newborns are 'sinners' by default, and they die due to, say, complications in childbirth, then they'd probably go to hell, right? After all, they were never 'saved'.

Not that I expect this sort of question to bother you that much.

You misunderstand. I am not saying necessarily that the sin nature comes from our genes. In all honesty, I have no idea where it comes from. All I know is that it is a result of the product of two sinners making a child.

In terms of the child going to hell, I know of NO person of faith that believes such a thing. I believe, as most other people of faith that I know, one must reach an age of accountability in order to recieve such a judgement. In other words, one must have the developmental capacity to know good from evil and choose good verses evil. I even believe that age is not necessarily a factor in meeting such criterea. Some never have the mental capacity for such criterea.

Originally posted by LemonJello

So, go ahead and show us. Show, for example, how genocide can be righteous.[/b]

1. Judgements such as Sodom and the Great flood are judgements against wickedness. Such wickedness is the intended target.
2. All flesh and, in fact, all creation are made by God. He gives and he takes away. Therefore, who is to say he has no right to do so?
3. The assumption is that God should leave the women and children, so to speak, alone and only kill those who we may agree are wicked. However, God knows the future. God knows how those "innocent" people will turn out if left to live. Only God knows this, not you or I.
4. God's motive is to continue to ensure that free will abides on earth to either choose or reject him. The increase in wickedness on earth is directly proportionate the deterioration of our free will. One might even argue that if wickedness goes unchecked for to long, our free might even disappear entirely.
5. Spiritual death is the worst fate imaginable and not our imminent physical demise. Therefore, one must see to it that this is addressed first and foremost. If free will disappears from the earth or is severly impaired because of unchecked wickedness, then spiritual death is almost garaunteed to one and all.

How's that for starters?