Religion… What do you think?

Avatar image for flashfyr
#27101 Posted by FlashFyr (1371 posts) - - Show Bio

@just_sayin:

`> In Jewish as in Greco-Roman society, slavery was one of the consequences of imperialist politics. According to Josephus, Jewish enslavement of non- Jews seems to have occurred in the Hasmonaean and Herodian periods inconnection with various rulers’ attempts to expand their territories. The inhabitants of the conquered lands were partly enslaved. For example, after the capture of Sebaste, John Hyrcanus and his sons allegedly ‘reduced the inhabitants to slavery’ (Josephus,Jewish War 1.2.6–7,63–5). This pattern is mentioned several times in connection with other places and regions. Alexander Jannaeus seems especially to have either killed or enslaved warcaptives in conquered territories (cf.BJ 1.4.2–3,87–88).

K, thanks.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#27102 Posted by SpareHeadOne (7550 posts) - - Show Bio

We were God before the the world began.

Ephesians 1:4For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence. In love 5He predestined us for adoption as His sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will,

We will be God after the world ends.

Ephesians1:9And He has made known to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Christ 10as a plan for the fullness of time, to bring all things in heaven and on earth together in Christ. 11In Him we were also chosen as God’s own, having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything by the counsel of His will,

Avatar image for king_saturn
#27103 Posted by King Saturn (223226 posts) - - Show Bio

1. The version I commonly use reads like this (Isaiah 45:7 ESV)

I form light and create darkness;

I make well-being and create calamity;

I am the Lord, who does all these things.

Evil is not a thing - there is not concentrated Evil like in the movie Time Bandit (not a great theological source - but an OK flick). It does not have a physical body - it is a contrast to good, an ideal or if you prefer an anti-ideal. Evil denotes a rejection of the good (or God). So more accurately, God permits free choice, which can have as an outcome the rejection of the good (ie - God), resulting in evil. That is not the same thing as creating evil. There is no evil entity out there without the capacity for good, even Satan had a choice in his conduct. I am not contradicting myself. This idea has been communicated since before Milton wrote about it in Paradise Lost.

2 & 3. Would God still be just to not demand an accounting for sin? In this case that sin was rebellion - the reason they ate the fruit was in their thinking be as gods knowing good from evil. Could God have created a different world? Sure. Did He? No. You seem to associate pain and suffering with sin, and the Bible does say some pain and suffering come from sin - but wasn't the point of Job to dispel the notion that all pain and suffering are because of sin. Even in the New Testament Jesus is asked about a tower that collapsed and whose sin caused it and he says no ones, and he is also asked about a blind man and the people want to know whose sin made the man blind - his own or his parents. Jesus dispels the notion that pain and suffering are necessarily linked to sin.

How is God evil if you choose to do wrong? Doesn't that make you the one who is "evil" and not God? Does the fact he gave you "choice" to reject him indicate that He is immoral? I'm having a hard time following you. So, if you were not allowed free will and forced to do everything God wants without the ability to resist him, then God would be good in your eyes???!!!! Now God could have created a world without "evil" but it would have to be a world without "choice", a world without "love", a world without "compassion", without "forgiveness", without "hope" - for all of these are dependent upon the ability to choose. Is love really love if it is not freely given? If it can not be freely given, then is it really love? Also, if there is free will, there is pain - that is the consequence of free will. If someone chooses not to love you - there is emotional pain. If someone chooses to kill you - there is physical pain. Some pain is a consequence of free choice.

A constant hypocritical position I see atheists on this thread take is they want the moral structure that a God ruled world provides - but no god to underpin those positions. You can't have both.

The only world where evil doesn't exist is one where God does not exist (the atheists world). If evil exists - then God does. Evil actually proves God's existence. Evil can only exist in the presence of an eternal lawgiver. Without a law giver - there is no evil - just natural consequences and reactions - and it would be wrong to call those "evil". Without a cosmic lawgiver - evil is determined by the individual or group. If a psychopath thinks it is "good" to kill you, but you think it is evil, well then he is right - it was "good" to kill you. He prevailed so your idea of "evil" must have been wrong. If a group joins together and determines its laws are good and it decides to kill your group. Then by atheist rules they are right - it was good to kill you and your whole group. It is only when you admit that some things are truly evil no matter what - that you recognize that truth and good must be transcendent. If god does not exist - then evil does not exist.

1. Ah, using another translation of the Bible instead of the King James Version. I figured that might happen. Okay, even so GOD specifically in Isaiah 45:7 is showing that he does both the contrasts of certain elements of Reality. GOD says he forms Light and creates Darkness then GOD says, He makes Peace and creates Evil in the KJV. Even if we used Calamity as the ESV says, what is the opposite of someone who makes Peace ? It's someone who causes or makes Evil as to make Peace is considered Good and the contrast to make Calamity is to do Evil or something Bad. Hence, why at the very end of the passage, it says I the Lord do all these things. Telling you all things come from him whether it be Good or Evil.

2. The Bible specifically says that GOD does Evil or as you call it create Calamity in Isaiah 45:7 so how can it not be a Thing of sorts ? In 2 Samuel 24, GOD killed 70,000 Israelites because David had taken a Census. How is that not Evil ? The Israelites had done nothing wrong, it was David whom had Sinned by numbering the people. Go read it for yourself, GOD gave none of those Israelites a way out or way to be forgiven for David's census. It was so Bad that at the end of the Chapter, you had David crying out to GOD asking why did he kill all of those people when it was he who sinned.

3. My point was and still is that GOD could have created a Reality where Pain and Suffering is not a Penalty of Sin at all but since GOD did create this Reality the way it is and from a Christian perspective had to send his Son or technically Himself to die and suffer for Humans when he himself lived a Sinless Life on Earth it seems like GOD is a bit of a Cruel Character because who creates a Reality where Pain and Suffering exist the way it does in this world if you don't really have to ? Why not create a Reality where everyone Freely follows GOD, if anything is possible with GOD and GOD wishes none to perish or be destroyed, then why make such a world where so many do perish and suffer ?

4. I am kind of lost on your last point, this seems like a rant against Atheists about GOD existing due to the fact Evil exists ? In any case, GOD can create a world or reality where Evil does not exist or is not permitted. That place would be called Heaven. Also, there is no Pain and Suffering in Heaven right ? So again, we have GOD creating a place before even Earth where Pain and Suffering exists not.

BTW - I am a Deist

Avatar image for just_sayin
#27104 Edited by just_sayin (3891 posts) - - Show Bio

I wrote this early this morning but I couldn't post it then.

@king_saturn said:

@just_sayin said:

1. Ah, using another translation of the Bible instead of the King James Version. I figured that might happen. Okay, even so GOD specifically in Isaiah 45:7 is showing that he does both the contrasts of certain elements of Reality. GOD says he forms Light and creates Darkness then GOD says, He makes Peace and creates Evil in the KJV. Even if we used Calamity as the ESV says, what is the opposite of someone who makes Peace ? It's someone who causes or makes Evil as to make Peace is considered Good and the contrast to make Calamity is to do Evil or something Bad. Hence, why at the very end of the passage, it says I the Lord do all these things. Telling you all things come from him whether it be Good or Evil.

2. The Bible specifically says that GOD does Evil or as you call it create Calamity in Isaiah 45:7 so how can it not be a Thing of sorts ? In 2 Samuel 24, GOD killed 70,000 Israelites because David had taken a Census. How is that not Evil ? The Israelites had done nothing wrong, it was David whom had Sinned by numbering the people. Go read it for yourself, GOD gave none of those Israelites a way out or way to be forgiven for David's census. It was so Bad that at the end of the Chapter, you had David crying out to GOD asking why did he kill all of those people when it was he who sinned.

3. My point was and still is that GOD could have created a Reality where Pain and Suffering is not a Penalty of Sin at all but since GOD did create this Reality the way it is and from a Christian perspective had to send his Son or technically Himself to die and suffer for Humans when he himself lived a Sinless Life on Earth it seems like GOD is a bit of a Cruel Character because who creates a Reality where Pain and Suffering exist the way it does in this world if you don't really have to ? Why not create a Reality where everyone Freely follows GOD, if anything is possible with GOD and GOD wishes none to perish or be destroyed, then why make such a world where so many do perish and suffer ?

4. I am kind of lost on your last point, this seems like a rant against Atheists about GOD existing due to the fact Evil exists ? In any case, GOD can create a world or reality where Evil does not exist or is not permitted. That place would be called Heaven. Also, there is no Pain and Suffering in Heaven right ? So again, we have GOD creating a place before even Earth where Pain and Suffering exists not.

BTW - I am a Deist

1&2. Evil is an intangible idea - an ideal. You can't put it in a jar. It is not a literal entity unto itself. The Old Testament never accepts the duality thing where Good comes from God and evil from the Devil, all things ultimately occur because of either God's direct or passive allowance. Or since you are a KJV guy "Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2:10). Just so we understand. Is your question why does God allow evil to happen? Or are you suggesting that God himself committed evil? Those are two different assertions. Can God be good in a world that is evil? Can God choose love when his creation chooses hate? I believe he can.

3 & 4. What I pointed out is that God could have created a world without pain and suffering and evil. But that would have meant that you would not be fundamentally you any longer. Your free will would need to be removed. If love is the highest expression - then love must have an environment where free will exists. Love, not freely given is not love at all. If free will exists - then evil is possible - it is one of the choices available. If evil is not possible, then love is not possible either. Both are choices. So, God could have made you an automaton, but he did not. God put you in a world where you can experience love, joy, and happiness. The trade off is you are in a world where hate, sorrow, sadness, pain, suffering, and evil exist too.

If in this reality, I want God to create everyone to freely follow God, then doesn't that mean that they can freely disobey Him too? Doesn't "Freely" imply choice? I'd make a technical distinction regarding the "all things are possible" argument. All non-contradictory things are possible. For instance, God can't make a square sphere. That's contradictory. The definitions of each preclude the creation of such. Can God make chicken noodle soup without chicken, noodles, or soup? The answer is no, the terms are contradictory. Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it? No - the question contains contradictions - something that is omnipotent can't be not omnipotent.

For a Christian, the idea of perishing and suffering is of a short duration, while the existence of the soul is eternal. Death is but a transitional stage for a Christian and is therefore viewed in that light. So, with that in mind, let me make two quick points about the 74,000 people killed. I see a distinction between individual responsibility and corporate responsibility. People can suffer from corporate responsibility ( though not eternal damnation) for decisions made by the group or the leader. We see that today - if not why do Democrats fear what Trump may do. They do so because they know his decisions have far reaching consequences to them. They "suffer" though individually they may not be guilty. No one is "eternally damned" for the sins of others. We each must give an account of our own conduct in that regard. However, a child can suffer because his father is an alcoholic, through no fault of his own.

Secondly, let's expand the 70,000 example and replace it with the deaths of 1 million beautiful newborn babies (increase the number if you like). Every day a newborn, somewhere on the planet, dies, and God is responsible, either directly or indirectly - nothing occurs without his permission. So tell me how is God evil for "killing" babies, or soldiers for that matter, or entire villages from floods or any other means? Who did the creator all things sin against? Himself? Did he not have the right to take the life that He gave? I know that sounds cold - but give me your logical answer for why God owes you a painless, happy life.

Avatar image for flashfyr
#27105 Edited by FlashFyr (1371 posts) - - Show Bio

> Secondly, let's expand the 70,000 example and replace it with the deaths of 1 million beautiful newborn babies (increase the number if you like). Every day a newborn, somewhere on the planet, dies, and God is responsible, either directly or indirectly - nothing occurs without his permission. So tell me how is God evil for "killing" babies, or soldiers for that matter, or entire villages from floods or any other means? Who did the creator all things sin against? Himself? Did he not have the right to take the life that He gave?

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for spareheadone
#27106 Posted by SpareHeadOne (7550 posts) - - Show Bio

God is the new born babies.

God is the soldiers.

He isn't taking anything or giving anything He is everything.

God can't do anything different than he did.

God is one.

God is a slave to his own nature.

There are no alternative possible creations.

Avatar image for flashfyr
#27107 Posted by FlashFyr (1371 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for spareheadone
#27108 Posted by SpareHeadOne (7550 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for flashfyr
#27109 Posted by FlashFyr (1371 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for spareheadone
#27110 Posted by SpareHeadOne (7550 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for king_majestros
#27111 Posted by King_Majestros (2170 posts) - - Show Bio

Religion is retarded.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#27112 Posted by SpareHeadOne (7550 posts) - - Show Bio

tat tvam asi

Avatar image for king_majestros
#27113 Posted by King_Majestros (2170 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for dshipp17
#27114 Posted by dshipp17 (5805 posts) - - Show Bio

Matthew 18:23-35:

Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.

32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Loading Video...
Loading Video...

Avatar image for spareheadone
#27115 Posted by SpareHeadOne (7550 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for flashfyr
#27116 Posted by FlashFyr (1371 posts) - - Show Bio

@flashfyr said:

> Bring the bull to the front of the tent of meeting, and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands on its head. 11 Slaughter it in the Lord’s presence at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 12 Take some of the bull’s blood and put it on the horns of the altar with your finger, and pour out the rest of it at the base of the altar. 13 Then take all the fat on the internal organs, the long lobe of the liver, and both kidneys with the fat on them, and burn them on the altar. 14 But burn the bull’s flesh and its hide and its intestines outside the camp.

> 15 “Take one of the rams, and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands on its head.16 Slaughter it and take the blood and splash it against the sides of the altar. 17 Cut the ram into pieces and wash the internal organs and the legs, putting them with the head and the other pieces. 18 Then burn the entire ram on the altar. It is a burnt offering to the Lord, a pleasing aroma, a food offering presented to the Lord.

- Exodus 29

Mmmmm, blood-splashed altars filled with animal organs and decapitated heads. It really invokes the holy image of God, eh? In truth, he's not that different from the other "barbaric" gods. This is the ceremony for consecrating PRIESTS, by the way.

Loading Video...
Loading Video...

Avatar image for spareheadone
#27117 Posted by SpareHeadOne (7550 posts) - - Show Bio

God is the bull and the ram.

God is the priest and the alter.

God is all the barbaric gods.

God is Dshipp and FlashFyr

Avatar image for flashfyr
#27118 Edited by FlashFyr (1371 posts) - - Show Bio

When God sacrifices Himself to Himself so he can save humanity from Himself.

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for spareheadone
#27119 Posted by SpareHeadOne (7550 posts) - - Show Bio

@flashfyr:

"I know that I hung on the windswept tree all nine nights

With spear I was wounded and given to Odin

Myself to me

On that tree which no one knows from which roots it grows."

- The saying of the high One

The sacrifice that is spread out with threads on all sides...The Man stretches the warp and draws the weft; the Man has spread it out upon this dome of the sky...when all the gods sacrificed the god

Thus they set the worlds in order. There were seven enclosing sticks for him, and thrice seven fuel sticks, when the gods spreading the sacrifice bound the Man as the sacrificial beast.

With the sacrifice the gods sacrificed to the sacrifice.

These were the first ritual laws. These very powers reached the dome of the sky where dwell those who are yet to be fulfilled, the ancient gods.

O All-Maker help your friend recognize them in oblation. You who follow your own laws, sacrifice your body yourself, making it grow great. All-Maker grown great through the oblation, sacrifice the earth and sky, yourself.

-Rig Veda

Avatar image for flashfyr
#27120 Posted by FlashFyr (1371 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for spareheadone
#27121 Posted by SpareHeadOne (7550 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for lord_tenebrous
#27122 Edited by Lord_Tenebrous (2627 posts) - - Show Bio

@king_saturn:

A) The Hebrew word used for "evil" in that verse does not actually definitely refer to a moral evil, but can also be translated as adversity, affliction, etc. That is why other translations use words such as "calamity" which is an equally probable definition. The general context of that chapter is God punishing those (Israel, specifically) who rebel against Him and rewarding those who obey His flawless will. In short, to go with the definition of moral evil simply does not fit the context and contradicts the entirety of other scripture.

B) In those times, one did not number something unless it was HIS possession. David taking a census of Israel was directly claiming it as his own and not God's, an obviously grievous offense. David's subordinates, and civilians who willingly participated would all be culpable. Especially given that setting aside the aforementioned implications, God quite explicitly told them in Exodus 30 not to take a census without following certain procedures. He even told them the consequences if they did do it(verse 12, a plague). As for God's punishment, He only punished those who actually partook in the census(males above the age of 20, men). It is easy to cherry pick instances in the Bible that seemingly prove that God is evil, but upon further examination, they all fall flat on their face.

Avatar image for flashfyr
#27123 Posted by FlashFyr (1371 posts) - - Show Bio

Religion is literally the only thing I've seen that's made people justify genocide over a state-run census.

Avatar image for lord_tenebrous
#27124 Edited by Lord_Tenebrous (2627 posts) - - Show Bio

@flashfyr:

Why is genocide wrong? Why does it need to be justified?

Reality is you're using God's own law to say genocide is wrong, but by His law the penalty of all sin is death. Those people directly sinned and God chose to punish them according to their sin.

Avatar image for flashfyr
#27125 Posted by FlashFyr (1371 posts) - - Show Bio

@lord_tenebrous: Kk, prove God exists before you start making claims that reality is run by God and it's okay if he commits genocide.

Avatar image for lord_tenebrous
#27126 Posted by Lord_Tenebrous (2627 posts) - - Show Bio

@flashfyr:

And now you're switching gears. We're not talking about whether God exists, not yet anyway. We're talking about whether His actions (fictional or not) make His character (fictional or not) evil. I don't need to prove that God exists. You need to prove to me why genocide is evil.

I'll wait.

Avatar image for flashfyr
#27127 Edited by FlashFyr (1371 posts) - - Show Bio

@lord_tenebrous: I was talking about how religion is the only thing that can make people justify genocide in this world. Y'know, the one where no one's proven God exists. I didn't say anything about your unproven biblical world, "fictional or not." You came into my arena and told me that I'm using God's laws to judge God, which presupposes his existence in this reality where I live and no one's proven it. All I said in my response is that you should prove your claim before sticking God into my world. Now you're saying I'm the one switching tracks.

Get outta here.

Avatar image for jagernutt
#27128 Posted by jagernutt (17842 posts) - - Show Bio

Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life.

Avatar image for king_saturn
#27129 Posted by King Saturn (223226 posts) - - Show Bio

I wrote this early this morning but I couldn't post it then.

@king_saturn said:


1&2. Evil is an intangible idea - an ideal. You can't put it in a jar. It is not a literal entity unto itself. The Old Testament never accepts the duality thing where Good comes from God and evil from the Devil, all things ultimately occur because of either God's direct or passive allowance. Or since you are a KJV guy "Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2:10). Just so we understand. Is your question why does God allow evil to happen? Or are you suggesting that God himself committed evil? Those are two different assertions. Can God be good in a world that is evil? Can God choose love when his creation chooses hate? I believe he can.

3 & 4. What I pointed out is that God could have created a world without pain and suffering and evil. But that would have meant that you would not be fundamentally you any longer. Your free will would need to be removed. If love is the highest expression - then love must have an environment where free will exists. Love, not freely given is not love at all. If free will exists - then evil is possible - it is one of the choices available. If evil is not possible, then love is not possible either. Both are choices. So, God could have made you an automaton, but he did not. God put you in a world where you can experience love, joy, and happiness. The trade off is you are in a world where hate, sorrow, sadness, pain, suffering, and evil exist too.

If in this reality, I want God to create everyone to freely follow God, then doesn't that mean that they can freely disobey Him too? Doesn't "Freely" imply choice? I'd make a technical distinction regarding the "all things are possible" argument. All non-contradictory things are possible. For instance, God can't make a square sphere. That's contradictory. The definitions of each preclude the creation of such. Can God make chicken noodle soup without chicken, noodles, or soup? The answer is no, the terms are contradictory. Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it? No - the question contains contradictions - something that is omnipotent can't be not omnipotent.

For a Christian, the idea of perishing and suffering is of a short duration, while the existence of the soul is eternal. Death is but a transitional stage for a Christian and is therefore viewed in that light. So, with that in mind, let me make two quick points about the 74,000 people killed. I see a distinction between individual responsibility and corporate responsibility. People can suffer from corporate responsibility ( though not eternal damnation) for decisions made by the group or the leader. We see that today - if not why do Democrats fear what Trump may do. They do so because they know his decisions have far reaching consequences to them. They "suffer" though individually they may not be guilty. No one is "eternally damned" for the sins of others. We each must give an account of our own conduct in that regard. However, a child can suffer because his father is an alcoholic, through no fault of his own.

Secondly, let's expand the 70,000 example and replace it with the deaths of 1 million beautiful newborn babies (increase the number if you like). Every day a newborn, somewhere on the planet, dies, and God is responsible, either directly or indirectly - nothing occurs without his permission. So tell me how is God evil for "killing" babies, or soldiers for that matter, or entire villages from floods or any other means? Who did the creator all things sin against? Himself? Did he not have the right to take the life that He gave? I know that sounds cold - but give me your logical answer for why God owes you a painless, happy life.

1. The passage itself in Isaiah 45:7 says that causes both Peace and Evil to happen. So technically he could do it both ways in GOD can allow Evil to happen and actually commit it himself. The point is still that both Pain and Suffering come from GOD and GOD did not have to have it this way if he controls Reality.

2. Not really, I mean if GOD can do anything he can create a Reality where people Freely are choosing to following him without Pain and Suffering. That's the whole point of him being Omnipotent. It's not like we are saying GOD can make a Square Circle or something. You make some interesting statements like if Evil is not possible then neither is Love. How do you know that considering if GOD can create and control Reality he could make it so that only Love and Silly Behavior is possible. Goes directly back to GOD being Omnipotent.

3. Sure, but GOD can make a Reality where everyone Freely follows him regardless of whether the Choice Not to Follow him is even Possible. That's why he supposedly is Omnipotent. It's not Contradictory at all especially when you consider that GOD is Omniscient and even knows whom will follow him even before he creates them.

4. The idea of Perishing and Suffering does not have to be any Duration, the fact that you have a Deity who deems it to be so as a means of punishing Humans is kind of messed up when he does not have to. You are comparing two different things. GOD has the power to punish only David for his Sin with the Israelites in numbering them, why punish 70,000 people for the Sins of 1 Person IF YOU DONT HAVE TO. Why do we call GOD just if he does that which is Unjust ? It's a call to GOD's character if GOD is Just and Righteous how does this example actually show that ?

Avatar image for king_saturn
#27130 Edited by King Saturn (223226 posts) - - Show Bio

@lord_tenebrous said:

@king_saturn:

A) The Hebrew word used for "evil" in that verse does not actually definitely refer to a moral evil, but can also be translated as adversity, affliction, etc. That is why other translations use words such as "calamity" which is an equally probable definition. The general context of that chapter is God punishing those (Israel, specifically) who rebel against Him and rewarding those who obey His flawless will. In short, to go with the definition of moral evil simply does not fit the context and contradicts the entirety of other scripture.

B) In those times, one did not number something unless it was HIS possession. David taking a census of Israel was directly claiming it as his own and not God's, an obviously grievous offense. David's subordinates, and civilians who willingly participated would all be culpable. Especially given that setting aside the aforementioned implications, God quite explicitly told them in Exodus 30 not to take a census without following certain procedures. He even told them the consequences if they did do it(verse 12, a plague). As for God's punishment, He only punished those who actually partook in the census(males above the age of 20, men). It is easy to cherry pick instances in the Bible that seemingly prove that God is evil, but upon further examination, they all fall flat on their face.

1. The passage in Isaiah 45:7 shows the contrasts that GOD does all things. That why it includes how GOD says he forms Light and creates Darkness as contrasts. If someone makes Peace, then the contrast is someone doing something Bad as described by the passage, even use the word Calamity. If someone creates Calamity or Disaster. Someone who is creating these things are considered doing Bad Things or Evil Things. No contradiction, you are just trying to butter up the passage to make it seem that GOD does not do what it says he does do.

2. Here is the problem with what you are saying. David committed the Sin of taking the Census not the Israelites themselves. GOD punished Thousands of People because of something that David did. That is why it is Evil, because it's punishing Thousands for the Sin of 1 Man. If David does not take the Census then 70,000 People would be alive. This did not fall flat on it's face, you basically tried to justify GOD killing Thousands of People for the Sin of 1 Man by saying there was a Law established in Exodus against it. It's still wrong. I guess if there was a passage in the Exodus or Leviticus establishing penalties of death for playing Ping Pong you would try and defend that too.

Edit : Oh Yeah, and one more thing.

In 2 Samuel 24:17, David said unto GOD after GOD had those 70,000 Israelites destroyed - I ( David ) had Sinned and I ( David ) had done wickedly : but these Sheep ( Israelites ) What Have They Done ?

Now, David knew the Law right ? So why is it here that even David sees the Unfairness of GOD for what was done here as shown in the Passage ?

Avatar image for just_sayin
#27131 Posted by just_sayin (3891 posts) - - Show Bio

1. The passage itself in Isaiah 45:7 says that causes both Peace and Evil to happen. So technically he could do it both ways in GOD can allow Evil to happen and actually commit it himself. The point is still that both Pain and Suffering come from GOD and GOD did not have to have it this way if he controls Reality.

For the record, my church involvement extends to being a "bouncer" for our church's elementary kids church program. I'm not a theologian by any means.

Evil is the breaking of some law. You can't have evil without some standard. God is the ultimate lawgiver. There is no law over him. He sits in judgement of all. He makes and shapes the laws. Technically it would be impossible for him to be evil. That argument has no validity. You might argue that His laws are "inconsistent" but you would have to show that God has no reason for them or the way He acts.

2. Not really, I mean if GOD can do anything he can create a Reality where people Freely are choosing to following him without Pain and Suffering. That's the whole point of him being Omnipotent. It's not like we are saying GOD can make a Square Circle or something. You make some interesting statements like if Evil is not possible then neither is Love. How do you know that considering if GOD can create and control Reality he could make it so that only Love and Silly Behavior is possible. Goes directly back to GOD being Omnipotent.

Again, God could do anything that is not self-contradictory. For love to be real love and not just some programmed expression, choice must exist. Compelled love isn't real love, it is more like rape. If true love exists then hate must be a possibility; along with the possibility of rejection, disappointment, pain and suffering.

3. Sure, but GOD can make a Reality where everyone Freely follows him regardless of whether the Choice Not to Follow him is even Possible. That's why he supposedly is Omnipotent. It's not Contradictory at all especially when you consider that GOD is Omniscient and even knows whom will follow him even before he creates them.

I think the idea that someone can "Freely" follow him regardless of whether he has no choice but to follow him is indeed contradictory. For me, the idea of "freely" suggests that I am free to make my own choice. So the work around that you suggest is that God prevents anyone from being born who would not love Him? Why would God fear making someone who did not love Him? Why would God feel it a necessity to "Stepford Wives" humanity? And more importantly would the love be as real and deep if there were no other option? If you knew the other person couldn't reject you, would you see their expression of "love" as deeply?

4. The idea of Perishing and Suffering does not have to be any Duration, the fact that you have a Deity who deems it to be so as a means of punishing Humans is kind of messed up when he does not have to. You are comparing two different things. GOD has the power to punish only David for his Sin with the Israelites in numbering them, why punish 70,000 people for the Sins of 1 Person IF YOU DONT HAVE TO. Why do we call GOD just if he does that which is Unjust ? It's a call to GOD's character if GOD is Just and Righteous how does this example actually show that ?

Again, how would God be "unjust"? If a programmer erases his program or if a painter destroys his painting or if a potter breaks his pottery, how is that unjust? In each instance, what they created was theirs and they had the right to do with it as the wished. Is God the creator of all? Does He not have the power of live and death over what he created? So I don't get, how God could be unjust towards His creation unless he specifically said "I don't have the right to do that to you" - whether a) he wipes out the whole world with a flood (including babies), b) lets a child die of cancer, c) sends angels into bedrooms to kill the firstborn, or 5) lets his people become slaves for 400 years, or 6) sends soldiers into battle, etc.

In Jewish tradition there are two domains of responsibility - "body" and private. God sometimes punishes the "body" or group,, even though some in the group may be innocent - the most notable examples would be the destruction of Israel itself (both Northern and Southern kingdoms). The prophets at the time surely were not guilty and following God, yet they suffered too. But they do not blame God for wrongly applying justice, but for the group as a whole for not following God.

The converse is also true, he may reward the group for the actions of 1 (Jesus resurrection comes to mind and promises to bless one's descendants for what you did). It seems contradictory that we would gladly accept "favor" or grace from God that we did not deserve - but rage when the "body" is punished. I guess, if you insist that people only get what they deserve, then we all get death and destruction.

That said let me go to David himself about the 70,000. When David sees the angel striking down people after David himself had decided which method God would punish him, he asks God "Why are you punishing others for my sin?" (2 Samuel 24:17). That's what you seem to be asking. Part of the answer, David has already answered. Earlier he said “Let us fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into human hands,” (2 Samuel 24:14). God gave him the option of fleeing from his enemies - that would have only affected him and his soldiers. But David choose the plague because He felt God's grace was greater than his enemies. Another important point is that it was not just David's sin - but Israel's also (2 Samuel 24:1). Further, God had already told the people what he required from a census and what the potential punishment for a census would be:

"When you take the census of the children of Israel for their number, then every man shall give a [offering] for himself to the Lord, when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them." - Exodus 20:12-13.

Avatar image for lord_tenebrous
#27132 Edited by Lord_Tenebrous (2627 posts) - - Show Bio

@king_saturn:

"The passage in Isaiah 45:7 shows the contrasts that GOD does all things. That why it includes how GOD says he forms Light and creates Darkness as contrasts. If someone makes Peace, then the contrast is someone doing something Bad as described by the passage, even use the word Calamity. If someone creates Calamity or Disaster. Someone who is creating these things are considered doing Bad Things or Evil Things. No contradiction, you are just trying to butter up the passage to make it seem that GOD does not do what it says he does do." 

The overall context of the passage as a whole, leading up to and following verse 7, is God punishing those who rise against Him, and rewarding those who follow Him. Your interpretation of an ambiguous word does not fit in the context, and makes no sense when compared to the rest of scripture. Even running within the frame you're setting up in this verse, it still makes no sense. Evil is not the direct opposite of peace. Disaster, conflict, distress, calamity, these are the proper contrasting words. God saying He creates peace and calamity does not do anything to indicate that He is evil. God rewards and punishes with such things, as is the message of the chapter. 

"Here is the problem with what you are saying. David committed the Sin of taking the Census not the Israelites themselves. GOD punished Thousands of People because of something that David did. That is why it is Evil, because it's punishing Thousands for the Sin of 1 Man. If David does not take the Census then 70,000 People would be alive. This did not fall flat on it's face, you basically tried to justify GOD killing Thousands of People for the Sin of 1 Man by saying there was a Law established in Exodus against it." 

It wasn't though... as I detailed before, an Israelite census took count of only battle-able men, specifically above the age of twenty. Anyone who willingly participated in the census was just as guilty as David was, and we know that the punishing plague only killed people of that specific group, men. God's punishment affected only those who were guilty. Moreover, no one is innocent, for all have sinned.  

"It's still wrong. I guess if there was a passage in the Exodus or Leviticus establishing penalties of death for playing Ping Pong you would try and defend that too."

This act takes place in the continuity of the Bible wherein the wages of ALL sin is death: death in the Bible is defined as separation, the first death is separation from our physical bodies, and the second is eternal separation from God Himself who we voluntarily rejected. It is directly because of our sin that everyone will eventually experience the first death, and God has foreknowledge of everything, knows what we would have done and what we're going to do. His ways are infinitely higher than ours. According to scripture, God is willing to go to great lengths to spare any repentant heart, especially in the Old Testament, and is not willing that ANY should perish. So it logically follows that God making the first death happen more quickly to an unrepentant heart is not in any way wrong within the world of the Bible. The fact of the matter is that you can't actually condemn God for any actions when He knows everything and we don't, and we know that God will spare anyone who will repent. If any of those people were repentant, according to scripture He would not have killed them. 

You view this through the lense of the outside, secular world where death is perceived as solely biologically inevitable and has nothing to do with our acts of morality or immorality. Where our mortal life is the only one and people are loathe to execute even serial rapists or murderers. In the context of the Bible, such seemingly drastic punishment is objectively not in any way wrong.

EDIT: Pardon, I did not see your edit until now.

"In 2 Samuel 24:17, David said unto GOD after GOD had those 70,000 Israelites destroyed - I ( David ) had Sinned and I ( David ) had done wickedly : but these Sheep ( Israelites ) What Have They Done ? Now, David knew the Law right ? So why is it here that even David sees the Unfairness of GOD for what was done here as shown in the Passage ?"

This is more than likely David trying to claim the whole responsibility for the census which he did, after all, order. Shifting the entire weight onto his shoulders. It doesn't change the fact that those who partook would also be guilty and that specific group of people were the only ones being affected by the punishment.

Avatar image for lord_tenebrous
#27133 Posted by Lord_Tenebrous (2627 posts) - - Show Bio

@flashfyr:

"I was talking about how religion is the only thing that can make people justify genocide in this world. Y'know, the one where no one's proven God exists. I didn't say anything about your unproven biblical world, 'fictional or not'." 

Ignoring the shameless bait, either you've somehow managed to forget the content of your original post, or you're simply lying for some reason despite anyone and everyone being able to read said post which is public. You specifically cited the census David took as the incident of genocide that religion was justifying. Y'know, the one that took place in a world where God exists. 

So as I said before, I don't need to prove that God exists, because we aren't talking about that. We're talking about whether His actions in that area of the Bible are immoral. Fictional, or not. 

"You came into my arena and told me that I'm using God's laws to judge God, which presupposes his existence in this reality where I live and no one's proven it. All I said in my response is that you should prove your claim before sticking God into my world. Now you're saying I'm the one switching tracks."

I entered no one's arena, and replied to a comment so obviously directed towards my reply to Saturn but didn't have the courage of tagging me. You are saying justifying God's act of genocide is wrong, I ask why is genocide wrong(and state the overall point of what would be the ensuing debate, that you're using God's law to judge Him), and you tell me to prove God's existence. Yes, you are the one switching gears, whether you are going to openly admit it or not. 

And I'm still waiting.

Avatar image for jonjizz
#27134 Edited by jonjizz (1622 posts) - - Show Bio

@just_sayin: @lord_tenebrous: i ask again, can either of you give me your personal definition of logic? (in your opinion, so don't look it up first)

Avatar image for lord_tenebrous
#27135 Posted by Lord_Tenebrous (2627 posts) - - Show Bio

@jonjizz:

I do not really have a personal definition, any more than I have a personal definition of other words. As it is defined in the dictionary, so likely is my definition.

Avatar image for jonjizz
#27136 Edited by jonjizz (1622 posts) - - Show Bio

@lord_tenebrous: i see, so if i asked you "what is logic?" you wouldn't be able to answer me in your own words? or you would? what would you say

Avatar image for lord_tenebrous
#27137 Posted by Lord_Tenebrous (2627 posts) - - Show Bio

@jonjizz:

You asked for a personal definition aside from the official one. I do not have one: what the official definition is, that is my answer. I can cite that if you like, but I can provide no personal meaning.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#27138 Posted by SpareHeadOne (7550 posts) - - Show Bio

Mutations are not random and are the cell's way of adapting to its environment. Mutations are pre-programmed contingencies.

Hearts and legs and eyes and brains and mouths and anuses all appear suddenly at the bottom of the fossil record with no ancestors below them.

Life always comes from Life.

Avatar image for jonjizz
#27139 Edited by jonjizz (1622 posts) - - Show Bio

@lord_tenebrous: look, i simply asked you to define logic without the help of a dictionary

don't be scared to get it wrong, just say what you think it is! and if you still don't want to i promise i'll drop it, but... i think you should at least make an effort to try and define it by yourself

Avatar image for spareheadone
#27140 Posted by SpareHeadOne (7550 posts) - - Show Bio

@lord_tenebrous:

Don't become a part of a terrible philosophy that is designed to make you look stupid.

Avatar image for flashfyr
#27141 Edited by FlashFyr (1371 posts) - - Show Bio

@lord_tenebrous: Yeah, I'm pointing out how people in this world justify genocide over a census that supposedly happened in an unproven reality and they're carrying that type of thinking into the world where I live. In case you couldn't actually read the content of my original post, I was talking about real people and what they would make excuses for. What the effects of religion are on real people. I said nothing about God's morality. The fact that I observed real-world effects from your discussion does not mean I'm jumping into your debate topic.

You sure as shit do have to prove God exists if you're going to impose your "fictional or not" morals over this reality and the people living with you.

If you actually think I'm scared of you, you're deluding yourself. In this reality, genocide is wrong because it goes against human wellbeing, irregardless of who does it. The people who would try convincing others that there are special cases where you're allowed to take human life on a mass scale because you started it should go live on an island by themselves. I'm not stepping into your biblical worldview because it's hogwash where you just define God as morality itself, and a discussion like that is about as productive as me defining morality as a flying purple elephant you just can't see.

I'm talking about real people and their real conscience, not the morality of an unseeable character in a Tolkien-esque world with witches and nephilim.

Deal with it and stop telling me what I'm trying to argue, otherwise stop talking.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#27142 Posted by SpareHeadOne (7550 posts) - - Show Bio

@flashfyr:

Dear FlashFyr

Please forgive me for the bad things I have done. I hope you can tell that I am slowly learning and waking up.

I love you.

- God.

Avatar image for just_sayin
#27143 Posted by just_sayin (3891 posts) - - Show Bio

@jonjizz said:

@just_sayin: @lord_tenebrous: i ask again, can either of you give me your personal definition of logic? (in your opinion, so don't look it up first)

I don't think I have a unique definition of logic. Sorry, I did look it up though - a particular method of reasoning or argumentation. I'm OK with that. And you?

Avatar image for flashfyr
#27144 Posted by FlashFyr (1371 posts) - - Show Bio

@spareheadone: Appear in front me right now as someone I can feel and touch, apologize, then vanish into thin air while I'm staring and I'll accept your apology.

Avatar image for lord_tenebrous
#27145 Posted by Lord_Tenebrous (2627 posts) - - Show Bio

@jonjizz:

You seem to be somewhat mistaken in interpreting what I am saying. You're asking something impossible by the guidelines you've set up: I'm already intimately familiar with the official definitions of logic, so I can't offer a "personal" definition or one in my own words because that would be a knowing deviation from what I know to be the official definition of the word.

Avatar image for jonjizz
#27146 Edited by jonjizz (1622 posts) - - Show Bio

@just_sayin: but that defeats the purpose of my experiment, i wanted to see how you would define it by yourself, without any external help

so since you needed help to describe its meaning, this kind of suggests you don't really understand it, or know what logic is supposed to be by heart at least... also saying it's a "particular method of reasoning" is way too generic as that could mean many different things, not really logic, so you cheated but didn't even give a proper answer therefore you get an F lol

Avatar image for just_sayin
#27147 Edited by just_sayin (3891 posts) - - Show Bio

@flashfyr said:

@lord_tenebrous: Yeah, I'm pointing out how people in this world justify genocide over a census that supposedly happened in an unproven reality and they're carrying that type of thinking into the world where I live. In case you couldn't actually read the content of my original post, I was talking about real people and what they would make excuses for. What the effects of religion are on real people. I said nothing about God's morality. The fact that I observed real-world effects from your discussion does not mean I'm jumping into your debate topic.

You sure as shit do have to prove God exists if you're going to impose your "fictional or not" morals over this reality and the people living with you.

If you actually think I'm scared of you, you're deluding yourself. In this reality, genocide is wrong because it goes against human wellbeing, irregardless of who does it. The people who would try convincing others that there are special cases where you're allowed to take human life on a mass scale because you started it should go live on an island by themselves. I'm not stepping into your biblical worldview because it's hogwash where you just define God as morality itself, and a discussion like that is about as productive as me defining morality as a flying purple elephant you just can't see.

I'm talking about real people and their real conscience, not the morality of an unseeable character in a Tolkien-esque world with witches and nephilim.

Deal with it and stop telling me what I'm trying to argue, otherwise stop talking.

Mythical Tolkienesque world??!! David was real king in Jerusalem.

Well, if I have to "prove" God, then I'm going to demand you "prove" He's not there. I believe it is more likely than not God exists. Here is my reasoned argument (well, the Kalam cosmological argument):

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
  2. The universe began to exist;
    Therefore:
  3. The universe has a cause.

Given the conclusion:

  1. The universe has a cause;
  2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
    Therefore,
  3. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful.

Avatar image for just_sayin
#27148 Posted by just_sayin (3891 posts) - - Show Bio

@jonjizz said:

@just_sayin: but that defeats the purpose of my experiment, i wanted to see how you would define it by yourself, without any external help

so since you needed help to describe its meaning, this kind of suggests you don't really understand it, or know what logic is supposed to be by heart at least... also saying it's a "particular method of reasoning" is way too generic as that could mean many different things, not really logic, so you cheated but didn't even give a proper answer therefore you get an F lol

I quoted verbatim from a dictionary.

I got an "F"? Man, I didn't know I was even enrolled in a class!!!!

Avatar image for jonjizz
#27149 Posted by jonjizz (1622 posts) - - Show Bio

@lord_tenebrous: i didn't ask you to give me a different definition from the dictionary, did i? i only asked you to define logic without the help of a dictionary... so whatever you know about logic, that's what i wanted to hear.

but ok, as promised i won't insist, you failed the test though

Avatar image for flashfyr
#27150 Edited by FlashFyr (1371 posts) - - Show Bio

@just_sayin: One actual person means the world with giants and demonspawn and 700-year-old men doesn't sound Tolkien-esque? If you say so. Abraham Lincoln existed but that doesn't mean the world where he was a vampire slayer doesn't sound fantastic.

How do you know the universe needed a cause and it doesn't just exist since nothingness would violate the law of noncontradiction?

Even if it did need a cause, how do you know that cause is sentient and is your god with all his biblical morals and desires attached?

> beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful.

None of these qualities are technically necessary to create a local universe.