Several questions concerning the fall and evil

[MAGSolo]

jlay Id like to draw your attention back to the post I made on page 11. There was one specific point I made that I asked you to respond to and you either missed it or purposely chose to ignore it but Ill point it out for you and Id really like to hear what you have to say about it. It seems you did precisely what I predicted you would but I guess there is always the possibility you were in a rush and simply didnt have time to read the entire post. Anyone else feel free to chime in if you want.

So, perhaps we are all deluded into believing there is a God, and that right and wrong objectivley matter. But in your world, this doesn't matter either, since nothing is inherently right or wrong. Yet, here you are saying it does. Does that seem reasonable to you??
I agree that this is a bit of an issue. The problem is that I dont think the Bible or God are good barometers of what is objectively right or wrong, good and evil. There are numerous things in the bible that God decreed that I dont think are good or right, so I think there is an issue with using God as the measuring stick for what is right and wrong. Remember the story of Uzzah in 2 Samuel; how God commanded that no one touch the ark, and as the men were traveling the ox started to cause the ark to tip over and Uzzah reached out his hand to steady it and God became angry and struck him dead on the spot? No malicious intent at all, just seeking to prevent the ark from falling over but because God commanded it not to be touched and he touched it, he struck him dead instantly. I wonder how God expected them to get the ark back up without touching it if it had tipped over. Now I imagine you will gloss over this, claim thats not what the text meant or bow out outright as Neo did when I showed him the numerous passages of God commanding that children be killed. But let me be clear that I think this clearly shows that neither the bible or God are good objective measuring sticks for what is good and what is not. If you you dont answer anything else in this post I would like to see your response to this specific thing.

Yes, I missed this. However, we'vre really already covered this. You keep saying things like "I don't think the bible is a GOOD barometer...." That is just a statement, not an argument. Unless you think that you are the standard. Otherwise I would say, 'good compared to.....??' You see, you continue to smuggle in objective morality. OK, account for it. For morality to be objective, can man be its source? No. So either morality is objective and there is a moral law giver. Or, morality isn't objective, yet for some reason you live like it is. Since you keep envoking a standard by which you judge the god of the bible. If it is good according to you, then I say, "so what?" If it is a group of people, again, "so what?" Why is one groups opinion "better" than another? So far, all you've said is you don't like God. Well, I don't like president Obama, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

-The issue with Uzzah has already been covered. Now, I admit, it is hard thing for us to understand. But let me give you an example. Would you consider prison a just punishment for refusing to make your bed? You would say, no. But what if the context was that you were a private in the military, and you were refusing to obey a direct order from a superior? Prison is a just punishment in this context given the insubordination. Now, an Ark may mean nothing to you, but, unless you are the standard of good, you've yet to offer anything to show this as an example that God isn't good. It may be of no concern to you if a soldier refuses to make his bed. But, there is a higher standard in the military and by gollly, it matters to them. You might not agree. You might even be offended. But your failure to understand the military standard doesn't invalidate it as right.

Also, we must acknowledge the context of the writing. It isn't as if God saw Uzzah do this, then became upset, and then struck him down. (that is not in the text) Uzzah was dead the moment he touched the Ark. Just as if I touched a high voltage power line, my fate is sealed. You might even say electricities anger struck me dead. I violated a boundary and zap. It's like staring into the sun. The sun, by its nature is a massive, raging ball of fire. If I stare into it, it will strike me blind, it's raging power burning against me. The sun was simply being what it is. My actions, whether intentional or not, have a consequence.

When they came to the threshing floor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God

[B. W.]

Magsolo and others,

Remember when one comes out swinging on this Forum, others do not duck.

I would recommend trying to stay on topic for example Magsolo opened the page thus:

I have several questions revolving around my doubt that the biblical Christian God is reconcilable with an evil world. My first question is what exactly was the fall? Its seem in the bible that it was a curse so what exactly did this curse do? My next question is how was the curse of the fall a reasonable and just punishment for what Adam and Eve did? It is often described as a rebellion against God but it seems from the bible that what happened was Satan allegedly tricked Eve into eating the fruit and then she talked Adam into eating the fruit basically telling him it wasnt that bad. Why was allowing death and suffering against all further humans (and even animals) a reasonable and just punishment for two people eating a piece of fruit they were told not to? This essentially means that every day people are murdered, raped, children are abused and etc. because two people ate a piece of fruit they were not supposed to. Millions of Jews during the Holocaust were wiped out because two people ate a piece of fruit thousands of years ago. Millions of slaves throughout human history toiled from dawn till dusk their entire lives and were often mistreated, abused, raped, and outright killed because two people ate a piece of fruit thousands of years ago. Not to mention all of those who suffer and die from disease, the many innocent children that go hungry and often starve and countless other atrocities that occur every day and have occurred every day throughout history. Why did God look at Adam and Eve eating the fruit he told them not to and decide that allowing all manner of suffering on all the rest of humanity from that day forward was a reasonable punishment. And its not even like they schemed to eat the fruit, but it seems they were content not to even be bothered with it until the devil (allegedly) approached them and tempted them. Eve even told satan (allegedly) that God said they were not to eat the fruit lest they die and Satan told them this was not the case. So God decided to punish all of humanity because Eve was tricked into eating some fruit and then gave it to Adam. Doesnt seem very reasonable at all. What reasonable father or mother would punish all of his children because one of them got caught eating cookies before dinner when they had been told not to? Furthermore what reasonable mother or father would punish all of their children in an extremely severe way for the transgressions of one child?

Lastly, why did God not simply forgive Adam and Eve for their transgression and tell them not to do it again. The importance of forgiveness is repeated again and again in the new testament and Jesus himself asked God to forgive those who had beaten and crucified him because they didnt know what they were doing? So Jesus (who is supposed to be God) could find it in his heart to outright forgive those who were killing him but yet God decided that a curse of death and suffering was a reasonable response to Adam and Eve being tricked into eating fruit he told them not to? Again this does not make sense. My point is that this to me is very damning evidence that the biblical God does not exist. It is hard enough to imagine an all powerful, good, loving creator that would just sit by while any sort of evil was visited upon innocent people from the lone helpless child that endures abuse to the systematic extermination of thousands to millions of people at a time. That notion itself is pretty ridiculous but the fact that God thinks this is reasonable because "Adam and Eve ate that fruit all those years back" is absolutely ridiculous. If anything one could very easily argue that humanity has suffered more than Adam and Eve ever had to and they were the ones who allegedly committed the original sin. In what way is that reasonable, just, or fair.

From this onset this thread developed into other things not about the topic. Therefore, if one wants to move into another direction, please feel free to open another thread on that subject. Also, avoid coming out swinging spoiling for a fight.

Please also try to avoid statement made above - My point is that this to me is very damning evidence that the biblical God does not exist, wording in post.

A better way would rephrase it would to have been stated as… My point is that all this to me is all evidence that the biblical God does not exist.

Next, there are way too many questions in one opening post. Let us all learn to break these down to a few and make new Subjects on another new Thread.

One common grief people have against Christian’s is that they are too pushy, yet, we Christians find that pushiness comes from the-hostile-to-the-faith-to-begin-with-agnostics-and-atheists, who frequent this website and forum. If a person desires an intelligent discussion, even a bit heated at times, let us all learn to avoid coming out swinging spoiling for a fight.

Amen

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

MAGsolo, I have already explained the Uzzah incident but you seem to have missed it:

The answer to your question about Uzzah is simple: in Numbers 4:4-5-6, God gave clear instructions on how the Ark was to be moved. Further information on the proper moving of the Ark can be found in Num 7:9 which explicitly says that the holy things are to be carried on the shoulders of the priests of the Kohathite tribe. David must have known of this because he had sufficient priests around him to remind him. Unfortunately, David deliberately chose to ignore God's instructions and went with the method used by the uncircumcized Phillistines: a new cart. Thus David's exuberance caused him to sin against God, and Uzzah was just as guilty because as a member of the Kohathite tribe he would have known that one must never touch the Ark. (Num 4:15)

Uzzah sinned gravely, and paid with his life. Now you know.

FL

[MAGSolo]

Here you go again muddying the waters. This is not about what I believe. How can you bear witness without providing an argument for why the bible has any authority? I would think anyones first question when being told about Jesus or God should be, "why should that book mean anything special to me?" But to answer your question, I feel that way because nobody has presented a compelling argument, nobody has presented any evidence for why I should feel otherwise. Do you think that belief in spectacular claims should be the default position? Do you believe the Book of Mormon is a sacred and divine text because Mormons claim it is? Would you require evidence for such a claim or just believe it because they claimed it to be so? I dont understand why you needlessly complicate these things. Is it so hard to just admit that you dont have a compelling argument for why the bible has any authority. Obviously if you had one you would have given it by now, so why cant you just say you dont have one?

Yes it matter what you believe so please you stop muddying the waters - you don't believe is what you believe…

We do have compelling evidence… Bible prophecy is pretty clear and plain regarding Isaiah 11:11, 12. The Jewish people returned to their homeland twice so far. You can deny it, but the facts are the facts. Who lives in Israel now, and next, why do these ancient people still exist as a people when the other ancient nations do not exist as the same people?
A good argument, but as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Why do you think they still exist as a people; particularly considering the fact that they outright deny any notion of Jesus being the son of God or the Messiah? Do you think God has blessed them even though they have outright rejected his son and doing so rejected him?

Nothing will convince you the Holy Bible is inspired by God as you are dead set in your belief system and are closed minded. The issue is your belief system, not ours, it is yours.
I certainly wouldnt say that nothing would convince me. Its just that I find it to be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. Let me ask you this; what do you think of the Book of Mormon? Mormons believe it to be inspired scripture. Do you agree with them? If you dont, why?

Pretty much like demanding a historian to prove that Julius Caesar existed but denying the historian the use of any documents from history to prove Caesar did live.
I dont necessarily find the idea of a man named Jesus having existed to be problematic. I think it would be unreasonable for anyone to ask for proof that Jesus existed. But I do think that claiming the the bible was written under divine inspiration and should be viewed as divine and holy is a spectacular claim that should not just be taken at face value.

Like I said before, please purchase Lee Strobel’s book, Case for Faith as it address your question. Also it is you who need to stay on topic.

If you are one person or several using the same name on this account, we’ll check on this, as we can trace the IP addresses. You sound like several people using the same account in an attempt to barrage the forum as it is difficult to believe that you can stay up 24/7 and respond as fast as you do as soon as you do at all times of day and night. If you are several people using this account, please be brave enough to enter individually.

If you are really one sincere person, then let the bible defend itself, be opened minded enough to actually reason, not dictate, to us your terms. You may accuse Christians of forcing there views upon others – but look in the mirror.
Its a subject I take a great deal of interest in so on days when I have nothing else to do, Im likely to devote the vast majority of my time discussing it.

It is your belief system on trial here – you prove that the bible was not inspired by God….
This is not how it works. If you claim the bible has authority ordained by God, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that. Do you really believe that anyone can make a spectacular claim and that people should just believe them unless they can disprove that claim? If I told you that humans evolved from apes and the burden of proof lies with you to prove that they didnt, I doubt you would agree that it was your responsibility to disprove my affirmative claim.

Next, your topic concerned the existence of evil, the bible addresses this, but your dogmatic belief system(s) can’t allow the use of the bible to even answer this.
I would allow the bible to answer if you could convince me that there is any reason I should believe what the bible says. You claim the bible is divinely inspired, ordained by God himself to be authoritative. That is certainly an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. Could you explain why you would disagree?

If you are several people using one account, we will ban your account and kindly ask you all to enter individually and continue posting. We do have Forum Guidelines/rules that we do enforce.
-
-
-

[MAGSolo]

MAGsolo, I have already explained the Uzzah incident but you seem to have missed it:

The answer to your question about Uzzah is simple: in Numbers 4:4-5-6, God gave clear instructions on how the Ark was to be moved. Further information on the proper moving of the Ark can be found in Num 7:9 which explicitly says that the holy things are to be carried on the shoulders of the priests of the Kohathite tribe. David must have known of this because he had sufficient priests around him to remind him. Unfortunately, David deliberately chose to ignore God's instructions and went with the method used by the uncircumcized Phillistines: a new cart. Thus David's exuberance caused him to sin against God, and Uzzah was just as guilty because as a member of the Kohathite tribe he would have known that one must never touch the Ark. (Num 4:15)

Uzzah sinned gravely, and paid with his life. Now you know.

FL

I was responding to a specific claim made by jlay. Can you not see that I highlighted his specific claim and then showed what the text actually said to show him why his specific claim was wrong? Do you see that yes or no? In case you dont see it, here is what he said: Also, we must acknowledge the context of the writing. It isn't as if God saw Uzzah do this, then became upset, and then struck him down. (that is not in the text) Uzzah was dead the moment he touched the Ark. so I posted the actual verse to show that he was mistaken. Now in response to you. To claim that Uzzah "sinned gravely" by touching the ark simply to prevent it from falling only further demonstrates my point with the problem in using the bible as a moral compass. Let me ask you a very specific question: Do you believe that women who arent virgins on their wedding night and homosexuals should be stoned to death?

[MAGSolo]

You made an initial attempt and then when I addressed every last one of your attempts and you saw he could no longer defend your position, you backed out of the discussion

I disagree, an argument is not a one way road. If I am to account for my logic then you are to account for yours. If I see a problem, I stop and try to solve it out in the beginning, lest it gets in the way when we go on a higher plane of logic. Your only problem is that I called a spade, a spade. I'm going to breakdown one point as may be it was too thick for you.

Red is you
Blue is me
i.e

It could be any number of factors. Environment one was raised in, mental health, overall health, education, any number of factors could come into to play in determining why some people are good and some are not.

So good or bad are simply results of factors and actions and are not grounded realities. You see, this is the exact reason why I do not find subjective morals very impressing. Because in the end they boil down to your own preferences. And at the end of the day what you think about animals and humans and how their actions are equal to be carried out in a comparison as to draw results, is just your opinion, nothing more.
Okay. I dont really get what your point is?

The point is simple, subjectivity can not account for goodness or evil, right or wrong and consequently your opinion is flawed because it is presuming on subjective factors. By nature subjective factors have the tendency to be different on a case to case basis. Therefore to base an argument on this and then ask for an objective answer (which you are doing), is futile. Its a moving goal post argument.
Okay so what accounts for good and evil then
lets assume

A kills B, because A observes B in doing something which A regards as evil.
B is killed but according to B, the attack was totally uncalled for, B was only doing what he thought was right.

The problem is obvious enough, A and B have different definitions of the word "right" and "evil".

Can this problem be solved with a subjective perspective, No. Because logically, A is entitled to his opinion and he therefore is deciding force to declare his own doing, right or evil. As is B is entitled to his opinion about right or wrong.

But A and B can not both be right at the same time. This violates the first rule of Logic, two opposite things can not be true at the same time. Because if both are right at the same time, then you have to concede that goodness and evil are mere perspectives at best. That is precisely why I mentioned Hitler. If he believed he was in the right, that his actions were good, then how can we contest him in a subjective worldview? More so how do we prove that he is wrong in his mind. That his actions are not good but truly evil. By subjectivity we can not; we are trying to force an objectivity in the situation "Murdering is always wrong", if murder is only wrong at a certain situation and not others than we will have to admit that there is indeed a situation when murder is right too. And the problem kicks in again, "right" and "wrong", in a subjective worldview are arbitrary factors, this means that any person can subjectively decide if murder is indeed right for him to commit or not - that is if murder fits his criteria of "right" than we can not say he was wrong.

Only if there is a standard outside of the nature of A and B (or outside of mankind's nature), is when we can truly say that murder is wrong. As I said before if our right and wrong are simply the product of our nature than we are left with subjectivity and nothing else. In that same scenario if you do not believe that Objectivity exists outside of our nature than you have forced yourself into the corner, if now you say that Murder is always wrong than it is plain illogical. Murder is always wrong, according to you. Someone may not share your opinion. In a subjective worldview, you cannot say he is wrong and you are right, because your claim has its roots in the same human nature and understanding as his.
So what do you think is the solution to this problem? Where should we as humans turn for our objective notions of right and wrong, good and evil?

But the absurdity of the argument comes up when you say God allows evil....okay...if its a subjective world view is what you conform too, then I might very well
say that since its subjective, your view of evil is different than God's and so what you think as evil, is considered good by God. By logic you can not contest this because you have already denied that objectivity exists in God. So God is only doing good because to him that is his nature and is to him, therefore good. You think its not good but in a subjective world view, good and bad are not universal, they are perspectives as they rely on the subjective self as to how it perceives these terms.
So whats the solution then?

Consequently, you can not deny objectivity, affirm subjectivity then introduce an objective statement, ask for an objective answer and cry foul on a subjective basis. The argument is flawed to begin with. I backed out for a good reason. Continuing down the road with these arguments with out ironing out the problems is a waste of time.

So what is the solution to the problems?

[MAGSolo]

Mag, let again illustrate what I am saying

I said I would kill everyone who sought to do harm to another human. Under no circumstances would I ever kill a child. I dont have a problem at all with Israel going to war with its enemies and killing enemy combatants and even people caught in the act of doing terrible things. I do not think indiscriminately killing every man woman and child, just because they belong to a nation you are at war with is justified.

What if the child was a murderer? In African nations an 8 year old kid carries a AK-47, not only to protect but to use it as a weapon when they attack some other tribe. Or lets say that the child was Graham Young http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/seri ... index.html or the Ten year old Mary bell http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/noto ... dex_1.html.

If they were killed at their first murder, would not that save many more lives? would you agree?
I would say that I dont really find children accountable for their actions. I know that I personally did things as a child that I would never do now. Nothing terrible like murder or rape or anything but I remember a time when I was in high school and I literally cursed the mother of a boy that I was playing basketball with. The boy was somewhat of a brat, I told him he was going into highschool and I told him he would get his behind kicked at the school he was going to because of the way he was. His mother came out to chastise me for this and in my frustration I cursed at her several times. This is something I sorely regret to this day and I often wonder what possessed me to do such a thing but I realize I was just young and immature at that time. Kids bully other kids all the time for the simple reason that kids simply dont always realize the weight and severity of their actions. My brother once told our Aunt that she was fat in the middle of Thanksgiving dinner in front of the entire family. He was a small child and simply didnt realize why what he said was inappropriate and hurtful. I would say that even for something like murder I would absolutely not condone the killing of a child because children very often lack the capacity to realize the gravity of what it is they do.

Actually the Biblical writings show that their women were also part of those rituals of human sacrifices and child burnings etc etc, then even tried to seduce the Israel men at one point in time as to convert them to their savage practices. Speaking as a theist, God finally decided that he had given these nations too much time (400 years) to correct themselves and therefore he announced his judgment.
I guess the problem is the matter of worldviews. From my worldview we judge people individually for their actions. Even in the most depraved of societies today you would be extremely hard-pressed to argue that every single man and woman in that society is evil and beyond redemption. It would be like saying that all Germans were Nazis or that every single white person in the American South during the 1800s was a racist slave owner. It would be like us going and killing every human being in Iran or Afghanistan because they have a culture that happens to breed terrorists. Just because a lot of terrorists are muslims doesnt mean that all Muslims are terrorist or bad people at all. So while we can rest assured that a lot of Germans were Nazi sympathizers, that lots of Southern whites advocated and believed in violent, racists slave policies, that there are lots of muslims that sympathize with and support terrorist organizations; you would be hard pressed to convince anyone that these societies all needed to be wiped out down to the last man, woman, child, and infant. Even in the most depraved of societies it is basically impossible to claim that there are literally no "good" people worthy of saving.

Okay now we come to the children's part, it seems very harsh, but I have come at a conclusion that perhaps it was the only way to end the corruption present in that land. Some times children are indoctrinated at a very young age. I mean look at Pakistan, a lot of fundamental Islam is present here. When I was in school, our text books had lines that would make you think what in the world are we coming too. In first grade these lines was actually taught
So its okay to kill children if they were taught bad things from a young age? Im almost at a loss for words here, but I could it was you at the beginning of this discussion talking about how people deserve a chance at redemption and mercy and so forth. Here is a specific quote from you: "

And Should not God use more wisdom than this if he created all life? The fallen humanity deserves a chance. There are those who abuse this grace of God and kill, torture others. If God merely wipes out everyone to get rid of these few, would it be a fair judgement? I do not think so, regardless of what you say. It won't be just. God must be just as he must be loving.

" So how do we go from fallen humanity deserving a chance to the only way to end corruption in that land being to all of the children along with everyone else? I would love to here how you mesh these two widely disparate claims.


"No Christian or Jew can ever be a friend of Muslims."

"Christians and Jews are cursed offspring of pigs and monkeys."

Tell me, what do you think a Muslim child in first grade is going to do about it when he grows up? This is a level of degradation which is appalling.

Most likely they will grow up believing what they were taught, but I fail to see how that justifies killing children especially in light of your earlier comments about fallen humanity deserving a chance. How can you claim that fallen humanity deserves a chance on one hand and then on the other claim that children to young to really think or decide for themselves? You have done basically a complete 180 from your arguments from the start of this discussion. But heres a crazy idea, instead of the Israelites killing all of the children, they could have taken them in and shown them that there are other ways to live and brought them to the Lord. What a crazy idea huh? The funny thing is that this probably would have seemed like a crazy idea to the Israelites. It probably made more sense to them to kill the children of their enemies then to allow them to live, provide for them and show them the ways of the Lord.

I have come to conclude that the nations God commanded to kill were so fallen (and had not corrected themselves in 400 years) that God wanted them finished and no one remaining to carry on their hideous cannibalistic and human sacrificing rituals.
This is a very different tone from your earlier claims of God not destroying evil people because fallen humanity deserves a chance. You have gone from that to now basically claiming that it was better to kill children rather than take them in and at least attempt to show them another way.

I also think that physical death is best a temporary thing. We do know that new born babies who die go to heaven, they are indeed not corrupted by the world. Because if they had grown up in the wicked environment that existed in Canaan, then they themselves would most likely have done evil as well, and as a result be lost eternally.

Though I would strongly say that even though God commanded it, Israel never fully carried out this. Also, there only a but a handful of these cases, very rare IMO. I think these were unique cases. For Instance take the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asked God if He will destroy the righteous along with the wicked? God went along with him even as far as to say that if he finds 10 good people in there, God will spare the entire towns. So I do think it matters to God, I do not think that God rejoices when a sinner dies. I think God is deeply troubled at our corruption, because in the larger scope he loves us.

I also think you have misread me when I said humanity deserved a second chance, I was pointing to Christ's atonement and his grace through him Man has a chance to redemption and finally recover from the fallen state.
Thats not how it reads at all. I said I would kill all those who sought to harm other humans and you said that God should use more wisdom than that because fallen humanity deserves a chance. You specifically said it would not be just if God wiped out everyone to get rid of a few:

And Should not God use more wisdom than this if he created all life? The fallen humanity deserves a chance. There are those who abuse this grace of God and kill, torture others. If God merely wipes out everyone to get rid of these few, would it be a fair judgement? I do not think so, regardless of what you say. It won't be just. God must be just as he must be loving.

You then went on to say that my solution was no different then Hitlers in his final solution:

In fact, if you look at it, your solution is no more different than Hitler's, its only a derivation at best. You consider evil and suffering to be a problem, you like wise suggest that God could have never made us or he should wipe all out to end evil. Hitler considered Jews to be the problem of that was wrong with Germany so he came up with the "the final solution of the Jews" and therefore decided to eliminate everyone to get rid of the problem.

So earlier you argued that it wasnt right to eliminate everyone to get rid of a problem but now that Ive shown that this is exactly what God often required of the Israelites, you have been forced to readjust your position to the point of finding justification for killing children. Defending God and the bible is a tricky thing isnt it?


Just to clarify, by a social standard I do think that sometimes, killing is justified, as in the case of Hitler, if he was to be killed in 1942, a lot if it had not even happened. I also believe that as Christians we should not kill, not even Hitler, and even if we do, I am sure it is still killing, no less a sin. And we all sin, so I think we should leave judgement to God. What will become of Hitler? he will be answerable to God, I think if he deserves due punishment then he will be punished eternally for his sins. This is a separate topic but kind of off-shoots here, anyway no need to go in this at the moment.
Well Everyone will be judged by God anyway (presupposing his existence). I dont have an issue with people being tried and sentenced to death providing their is absolutely no question as to their guilt.

Going back, I would just like to point out that in a subjective world view, it is impossible to claim truly good and evil notions. In this case, your view of justified killing again, is in question here. Objectivity does not exist in human society and nature. Without God we are left with subjectivity alone, so how do you think you can call someones else action as false when you can not even account for your own, which is indeed not very different than the person you are blaming. You are both appealing to your sense and interpretation of what is right and wrong, that I pointed out earlier, fails on logical grounds. This is the problem you have yet to explain, you haven't done it since I asked you this question and even pointed out these problems in the very first posts I made to you. Your turn!
Well I think the problem remains even when using God as that objective measure. According to God it is okay to kill witches, false prophets, women who arent virgins on their wedding night, a man who sleeps with another mans wife, a priests daughter who has sex when she isnt married, homosexuals, people who work on the Sabbath, people who follow other religions and so forth. So say we say the bible is the objective measure of right and wrong, are you okay with killing people guilty of these things. Lets say I concede and agree that my personal subjective opinion of right and wrong is merely that, a subjective opinion that carries no more weight than the next persons subjective opinion. Suppose I concede that, so now I ask where do I turn for an objective measuring stick of what is right and what is wrong?

Why I did not write, what I am writing now, because I think these kind of explanations can not afford to be vague, not to mention that the faulty logic you employed did not even merit the answer until it was corrected.
So I now concede for the sake of argument that my logic was faulty in that any one individuals subjective opinion of what is right and wrong does not carry much weight. What is your solution?

A lot of what you have written begs questions, which should be first clarified. Your ignorance of these problems is precisely why I said "You are incompetent to back up your arguments", I did not meant it as an insult, simply a fact, because I do not think you have thought this through. If you had, you certainly failed to express it.

P.S EDIT* : Lol...I still do not know why I wrote all the above, I guess I am giving you a benefit of doubt again. In humbleness I ask that if you really wanna understand, keep an open mind and study both sides of the argument before you ram your head into the matter without thinking, and jumping from point to point, not explaining questions made to you etc. The issues you are bringing here have been dealt a good many times by great minds in the past and the present. Do not just assume, we are stupid (since we believe in an invisible guy), that you got a silver bullet to knock down theology, we understand the problem and I do believe it is only an apparent problem. Rather than asking poor questions out of ignorance, do some homework if you wanna know more. Classical theism has a lot to offer in this regard, if only you would want to learn.

[Zionist]

@ Mag
first off i will not sit here and provide you with links and proof when you can do the research on your own. If you can sit here provide whatever so called evidence against God or take the time to interpret scripture to you liking then you can take the time do the research yourself. i wont provide because you seem to already have a closed mind anyways so i see no point in all honesty. Matthew 7:7-8 i will keep pointing you to this piece of scripture. choice is yours my friend.

[jlay]

Mag, what's your point?

When they came to the threshing floor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God

I assure i read the verse in its context before my reply. So what is your disagreement?

[neo-x]

If they were killed at their first murder, would not that save many more lives? would you agree?
I would say that I dont really find children accountable for their actions. I know that I personally did things as a child that I would never do now. Nothing terrible like murder or rape or anything but I remember a time when I was in high school and I literally cursed the mother of a boy that I was playing basketball with. The boy was somewhat of a brat, I told him he was going into highschool and I told him he would get his behind kicked at the school he was going to because of the way he was. His mother came out to chastise me for this and in my frustration I cursed at her several times. This is something I sorely regret to this day and I often wonder what possessed me to do such a thing but I realize I was just young and immature at that time. Kids bully other kids all the time for the simple reason that kids simply dont always realize the weight and severity of their actions. My brother once told our Aunt that she was fat in the middle of Thanksgiving dinner in front of the entire family. He was a small child and simply didnt realize why what he said was inappropriate and hurtful. I would say that even for something like murder I would absolutely not condone the killing of a child because children very often lack the capacity to realize the gravity of what it is they do.

I would do the same, I do not think children often realize what they do, but here is something to ponder upon, most of the times adults lack this realization as well. wouldn't you agree. However my asking of this question was just to get your view, nothing else. It is a good excuse sometimes "I didn't realize what I was doing", sometimes this excuse is abused and people intentionally do stuff as well.

Okay now we come to the children's part, it seems very harsh, but I have come at a conclusion that perhaps it was the only way to end the corruption present in that land. Some times children are indoctrinated at a very young age. I mean look at Pakistan, a lot of fundamental Islam is present here. When I was in school, our text books had lines that would make you think what in the world are we coming too. In first grade these lines was actually taught
So its okay to kill children if they were taught bad things from a young age? Im almost at a loss for words here, but I could it was you at the beginning of this discussion talking about how people deserve a chance at redemption and mercy and so forth. Here is a specific quote from you: "
And Should not God use more wisdom than this if he created all life? The fallen humanity deserves a chance. There are those who abuse this grace of God and kill, torture others. If God merely wipes out everyone to get rid of these few, would it be a fair judgement? I do not think so, regardless of what you say. It won't be just. God must be just as he must be loving.
" So how do we go from fallen humanity deserving a chance to the only way to end corruption in that land being to all of the children along with everyone else? I would love to here how you mesh these two widely disparate claims.

I am not saying that its okay to kill children because they have been taught bad things, but I do think it is a good point to consider that militancy broods militancy. I do believe people deserve a chance at redemption even the most militant. My point in mentioning this was that if kids are indoctrinated at a very early age there is a very high chance that they will grow up and follow what they were told. This goes back to what I was saying, the Canaanite and the six others that were ordered by God to be killed, was because God did not want any of those nations and their rituals to be carried forward. Because you will agree with me, that killing and sacrificing humans and throwing and slaughtering your children is also an abomination. I also mentioned, perhaps you failed to realize that this was a necessary step, not a favoured one. God does not rejoice when sinners die. He is in fact grieved because his creation has turned too much corrupt. I know of a mother who killed her son, because he was going to kill his wife. I do not think this is justified either but the alternate is no better, would you agree?

Most likely they will grow up believing what they were taught, but I fail to see how that justifies killing children especially in light of your earlier comments about fallen humanity deserving a chance. How can you claim that fallen humanity deserves a chance on one hand and then on the other claim that children to young to really think or decide for themselves? You have done basically a complete 180 from your arguments from the start of this discussion. But heres a crazy idea, instead of the Israelites killing all of the children, they could have taken them in and shown them that there are other ways to live and brought them to the Lord. What a crazy idea huh? The funny thing is that this probably would have seemed like a crazy idea to the Israelites. It probably made more sense to them to kill the children of their enemies then to allow them to live, provide for them and show them the ways of the Lord.

This is again an appeal to emotion. Yes in 20th century this seems almost the most right way. I am sure it is to some extent as well. But back in the day, it was not the norm. Lets try your view that God only ordered to kill the men and women and not the children, and the isrealites bring the children with them back and try to teach them. What do you think the children would grow up to be? They would have seen what the Israelites did and at heart they may never be one with them so it is very difficult to imagine that would endorse the view their captors.

If you one day found out that the couple you thought as your parents are actually the people who killed your biological parents, would you not hate them and be the exact opposite of what they taught you?
What are your thoughts on this?

This is of course my rationalization of the matter, there could be more to it that we are simply not aware of.

But this all ended when Christ came, I do not know, if you read between my lines or not, but I do think I mentioned that humanity's second chance is Christ alone, nothing else. By second chance I do not mean that you free the next serial rapist, but that people should have a chance before God to redeem themselves. I mean we are all gonna die one day. i do not think any death is something that anywould ever like. But its a reality nonetheless.

This is a very different tone from your earlier claims of God not destroying evil people because fallen humanity deserves a chance. You have gone from that to now basically claiming that it was better to kill children rather than take them in and at least attempt to show them another way.

See the above for the answer to this. Also my tone has nothing to do with the argument. If you wanna attack, attack the argument, not me, that would be a waste of time. I can very well blame the ancients for not having safety belts on their camels too, you know and knowing our latest standards I would be right to blame them. The context of ancient warfare is vital to be understood. I mean ancient tribal warfare is very very different from the warfare, you have grown up to see. Back then, its a matter of family, no outsiders allowed. You are simply ignoring a lot of factors which might have prompted the Israelites to not take away the children as their own. But again, apart from these problems, I think the answer is simple, God did not want those rituals to carried forward, so therefore he ordered such a harsh commandment.

For example, lets assume that if by sparing the children, all of them turned good but only one remained which actually turned back to his tribal rituals, and he marries and settles an area and after 10 generations, he has a small tribe, and they are continuing their blood bathing rituals, would that not be a severe loss of life as well? More innocent children would die.

Again this is a lack of knowledge perhaps but, you do understand that the old testament is different from the new testament. Please tell me what is your understanding of it? cuz I do not think you are fully aware of the difference. Do you understand the difference between law and grace. Th old testament is law, if you sin you die. Hell, God didn't even forgive Israelites on their mistakes, he was still just. Not unfair. There is no grace in that period, grace came through Christ. So I really do not know what you intend to prove here. If you know the difference you would know why the in the new testament, Christ saved the women from stoning and why it is grace, Christ atoned for us so that we can are free from the law.

Thats not how it reads at all. I said I would kill all those who sought to harm other humans and you said that God should use more wisdom than that because fallen humanity deserves a chance. You specifically said it would not be just if God wiped out everyone to get rid of a few:

Don't quote me out of context. Actually it was because you said that God should wipe out all humanity just to get rid of evil, that was actually a very dramatic statement of yours. That is why I said that wiping out evil does by just bulldozing everyone is simply wrong by God. He is just and fair. And he did not wipe out everyone, only the guilty parties and that so also in the old testament alone. influential as well. Because wiping out everyone doesn't get them to chance to be fixed only terminated. God loves his creation. And that chance is Christ only, before Christ God is using the law and after Christ we have grace.

Infact I am beginning to doubt as if you have read your bible and understood it (whenever you were Christian), else you would have seen the difference.

So earlier you argued that it wasnt right to eliminate everyone to get rid of a problem but now that Ive shown that this is exactly what God often required of the Israelites, you have been forced to readjust your position to the point of finding justification for killing children. Defending God and the bible is a tricky thing isnt it?

I only argued that wiping all humanity is wrong. God did not required Israel to eliminate all humanity, just six tribal nations, who were too far corrupt and had gone evil. I am not readjusting my position at all. If you would only not mis-match my quotes, you would save us both, time. You could very well keep on insisting that what was done was right for men but not for children. But where do you draw the line, when do you think a child is a child, what age, 10, 9, 8, 12. Can you tell me what exactly in your opinion a child is, by age?

Do you know that in many tribes 10 years children are wed, 12 years old have kids. This is however not my argument, I am only pointing out that under "what about the children" you can go into too far emotionalism and miss important factors that might have genuine cause (ALSO SEE THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_The_Ch ... (politics)).
I told the cause, I told you the reason. You may not agree its the best solution, I never said it was the best, only it was a necessary one, one that was not given out of pride but in sadness. That is the long and short of it, you may disagree but I do think you should have a fair assessment, rather than looking through the secular shoes cuz you have been enlightened by this view.

Also did you happen to read the two papers Jac mentioned to you on the "Is God good" thread, on goodness? What is your take of it?

You have alternate standards today. Though I pretty much doubt, 3000 years ago you would have been any different.

P.S: Just a bottom line to sum things up, as I don't want the main point to be lost in various spin-offs. Regardless of everything please do remember one thing in all of this, God is just and loving at the same time. He gave those people ample time to change their ways but they didn't and in the end God while loving and being just as well, gave out his judgement. Just so that we are clear on this.

I would also like you to tell me, the following, as I think this would make talking to each other much easier.

1. Do you understand the doctrine of sin, according to the biblical perspective?
2. Do you know the punishment of sin, in its entirety (being a former Christian I dont think this should be any trouble for you)
3. The question you should have asked cuz that would have made things easier for you to understand, is "What is physical death through Godly perspective?" Paulsacromento actually pointed this out in one of his recent posts. I think it is an important point.

Do let me know what do you know of these (not what you think of these) but what you know of these? as these are doctrines in Christianity which are vital to understand the issue you are trying to understand.

[MAGSolo]

Mag, what's your point?

When they came to the threshing floor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God

I assure i read the verse in its context before my reply. So what is your disagreement?

My point is that you seemed to be confused about what the text actually said. Ill break it down in bits so you can understand
Blue is you
Red is me
Green is the bible

It isn't as if God saw Uzzah do this, then became upset, and then struck him down. (that is not in the text) Uzzah was dead the moment he touched the Ark
It isn't as if God saw Uzzah do this, then became upset and then struck him down The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God
Here we see that it is the case that God saw Uzzah touch the ark and became upset with him, and killed him, contrary to your very specific claim that this is not what happened or what the text said
(that is not in the text)
We see very clearly that it is in the text. This is my point and my disagreement.

[MAGSolo]

@ Mag
first off i will not sit here and provide you with links and proof when you can do the research on your own. If you can sit here provide whatever so called evidence against God or take the time to interpret scripture to you liking then you can take the time do the research yourself. i wont provide because you seem to already have a closed mind anyways so i see no point in all honesty. Matthew 7:7-8 i will keep pointing you to this piece of scripture. choice is yours my friend.

What are you talking about? Many subjects have been broached here so you will have to clarify what you are talking about. If you are talking about the bible having divine inspiration, I think Im going to start a separate topic for that.

[PaulSacramento]

Re: Uzzah.
Uzzah was killed because he did something he KNEW He shouldn't have and KNEW what the consequences were if He did.
Regardless of how the writer worded the event, Uzzah did something that he knew was equivalent of one of us trying to catch a Urn of molten Lava because we THINK it might fall KNOWING we are gonna get covered in it.

[jlay]

Perhaps you are misundestanding what I am saying.
Where is the word "saw" in the text?
Hint, it isn't there. You are reading your assumptions into the text. Now, I don't mean to say that God didn't see. What I am speaking of here is how people wrote at that time.
You are reducing God down to your understanding. In other words, how you would act in the situation. Your reading presumes that God didn't know if Uzzah would or wouldn't touch the Ark, which isn't the case. And, it presumes that God's anger is reactionary. The Bible actually says that God is angry with the wicked all the time. You see anger, love, and such as emotive responses that are reactions to what someone has done. And so, you assume that when the Bible uses the word anger in regards to God, that it is the same as you experience anger. But again, that is obviously you reading your presuppositions into the text.

This is how you see it..... (If I'm wrong please feel welcome to correct) God was not angry, He sees Uzzah do something and then becomes angry at that moment in time, has an emotional outburst, and strikes Uzzah down. That is simply incorrect, and no, it's not in the text. It is in your thinking.

The Bible tells this in a sequence. But you are taking the sequence further than the text allows. Touching the Ark would result in death, period. God decreed it as so. God's anger in this case is much like the current running through a high voltage line. Example: Let's just say there is a museum with a sacred artifact. The museum detest theives, so it sets up a security system so that when activated, a high voltage current will shock whoever touches the artifact. The switch is flipped on, and the system is active. Your position would be akin to saying. "I touched the artifact, the museum saw me, and then sent a deadly current into my body."
It assumes that because a sequence happened, (in this case, touching the artifact) that the electric current itself is subject to the sequence. The current is not responding to the touch. You touched the line, it's power raged against you, therefore, you died. Just as if you looked into the sun. The sun is a raging fire, and it didn't start raging because you stared into it. You stared into it, it burned against you, therefore you are blind.

Again, this is simply a matter of understanding the context of how things were written at the time. If I said the Miami Heat are going to slaughter the Thunder, would you literally think that there was going to be genocide at the basketball game?

We don't really speak that way today, but if we did I might say........, Mag touched the artifiact, therefore the museum's anger burned against him, therefore he was electrocuted. Did the museum 'see' you per se? No. Did it lose its temper and then shock you? No. I have set the stage, so that even if no one is at the museum you will still experience the museums hatred of theives.

[neo-x]

MAGSolo » Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:12 pm

neo-x wrote:
You made an initial attempt and then when I addressed every last one of your attempts and you saw he could no longer defend your position, you backed out of the discussion


I disagree, an argument is not a one way road. If I am to account for my logic then you are to account for yours. If I see a problem, I stop and try to solve it out in the beginning, lest it gets in the way when we go on a higher plane of logic. Your only problem is that I called a spade, a spade. I'm going to breakdown one point as may be it was too thick for you.

Red is you
Blue is me
i.e
It could be any number of factors. Environment one was raised in, mental health, overall health, education, any number of factors could come into to play in determining why some people are good and some are not.

So good or bad are simply results of factors and actions and are not grounded realities. You see, this is the exact reason why I do not find subjective morals very impressing. Because in the end they boil down to your own preferences. And at the end of the day what you think about animals and humans and how their actions are equal to be carried out in a comparison as to draw results, is just your opinion, nothing more.
Okay. I dont really get what your point is?


The point is simple, subjectivity can not account for goodness or evil, right or wrong and consequently your opinion is flawed because it is presuming on subjective factors. By nature subjective factors have the tendency to be different on a case to case basis. Therefore to base an argument on this and then ask for an objective answer (which you are doing), is futile. Its a moving goal post argument.
Okay so what accounts for good and evil then
lets assume

A kills B, because A observes B in doing something which A regards as evil.
B is killed but according to B, the attack was totally uncalled for, B was only doing what he thought was right.

The problem is obvious enough, A and B have different definitions of the word "right" and "evil".

Can this problem be solved with a subjective perspective, No. Because logically, A is entitled to his opinion and he therefore is deciding force to declare his own doing, right or evil. As is B is entitled to his opinion about right or wrong.

But A and B can not both be right at the same time. This violates the first rule of Logic, two opposite things can not be true at the same time. Because if both are right at the same time, then you have to concede that goodness and evil are mere perspectives at best. That is precisely why I mentioned Hitler. If he believed he was in the right, that his actions were good, then how can we contest him in a subjective worldview? More so how do we prove that he is wrong in his mind. That his actions are not good but truly evil. By subjectivity we can not; we are trying to force an objectivity in the situation "Murdering is always wrong", if murder is only wrong at a certain situation and not others than we will have to admit that there is indeed a situation when murder is right too. And the problem kicks in again, "right" and "wrong", in a subjective worldview are arbitrary factors, this means that any person can subjectively decide if murder is indeed right for him to commit or not - that is if murder fits his criteria of "right" than we can not say he was wrong.

Only if there is a standard outside of the nature of A and B (or outside of mankind's nature), is when we can truly say that murder is wrong. As I said before if our right and wrong are simply the product of our nature than we are left with subjectivity and nothing else. In that same scenario if you do not believe that Objectivity exists outside of our nature than you have forced yourself into the corner, if now you say that Murder is always wrong than it is plain illogical. Murder is always wrong, according to you. Someone may not share your opinion. In a subjective worldview, you cannot say he is wrong and you are right, because your claim has its roots in the same human nature and understanding as his.
So what do you think is the solution to this problem? Where should we as humans turn for our objective notions of right and wrong, good and evil?

But the absurdity of the argument comes up when you say God allows evil....okay...if its a subjective world view is what you conform too, then I might very well
say that since its subjective, your view of evil is different than God's and so what you think as evil, is considered good by God. By logic you can not contest this because you have already denied that objectivity exists in God. So God is only doing good because to him that is his nature and is to him, therefore good. You think its not good but in a subjective world view, good and bad are not universal, they are perspectives as they rely on the subjective self as to how it perceives these terms.
So whats the solution then?

Consequently, you can not deny objectivity, affirm subjectivity then introduce an objective statement, ask for an objective answer and cry foul on a subjective basis. The argument is flawed to begin with. I backed out for a good reason. Continuing down the road with these arguments with out ironing out the problems is a waste of time.

So what is the solution to the problems?

You tell me, now that you appear to see the problem in subjectivity, tell me how do you reconcile this with what you are claiming? How do you reconcile objective value in a a subjective world-view. Do you think there is something wrong or have you just avoided the predicament this will lead too?

Also, please do not assume that you can turn theism on itself (by turning to bible pulling out a reference and then using it to prove your point, that would be foul. there are doctrines and rationalization of what we have, we may not know all but do know a much). It is a system that is very old indeed and tried as well and it offers and defends itself in a great way. The problem of evil is not new. As I said if you look up you can find plenty of good books on the subject. Of course you may disagree but at least do a fair analysis, do not assume the position you are attacking. To be fair, at least understand the position that you are attacking and how it tackles such issues in detail. That of course may require some hard work on your part, but I do believe its worth it.