The ultimate proof of Biblical creation and God

[ollkiller]

Good day ollkiller,

Sorry have to ask, are you saying if god kills kids then he obviously has a good reason that us mere mortals can't comprehend.

Well, I'm not saying that mortals can never understand what God is doing. However, setting up rules for the eternal ruler will certainly lead us to nowhere. We are mere creation, God is creator.

“Woe to him who strives with him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ or ‘Your work has no handles’?[...]" (Isa 45:9)

I get what your saying, we can't comprehend it. We'll only find out when we die, so either we get the answer or we never wake up where we don't get the answer but aren't bothered about getting the answer anyway.

On a side note is there any other option in the side for non believer and believer. How about doubter, of everything.

Why are you doubting? Is there anything wrong? In my opinion, there is no sideway to heaven. Jesus is the way. We should trust him - he does the right things, everytimes, even without our understanding.

Have a good day,

Thomas

Why am i doubting. I doubt everything. Until i am convinced otherwise. From tv ads with best deal ever to religion. Now don't get me wrong. Is Jesus a good role model. No doubt. Better than the old testement that's for sure. My doubt comes in where the only reason people in my country follow Jesus is because of where they were born in the world and of a certain roman emperor adopting christianity to control the populas, without which i doubt any of ye would have heard about Jesus. Might have been a good thing, we could be following someone way worse.

Just a quick question, how would you cope with god's killing of children if it was your child that was killed because of some persecution that your race or countrymen had visited on another race or country.

[slowpoke55]

When one claims a deity as the ultimate authority of everything, then it's fruitless to expect valid logic to apply it, let alone absolutes.

In your world who is the "ultimate authority of everything"?

For me, there is no ultimate authority on everything.

Are you a law unto yourself?

Does this mean that you concede that we can make decisions in our lives without consulting an "ultimate authority of everything"

Now, what do you mean by "law unto yourself"?

[MorningGlory]

It's not about who the lawgiver is, but what the law is and what God is doing.

It’s all about God as lawgiver. Man’s moral duties are determined by what God commands. The Amalkalites were to be destroyed for a specific reason---“that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20). The sovereignty of God, including His righteous judgment made it lawful for Him to destroy the Amalkalites as He saw fit - and He did.

So, according to this the amalkalites were destroyed and their women and children because of an act of revenge. Correct me if i'm wrong. So my question is these children and babies, did they go to heaven or hell. Also, and i'm going to get dog's abuse for this, i know, how, and i really mean that, how can you justify the killing of children, oh it's god's judgement so ya know, of course it's right. Guess what it's never right. Ever.

I don't think you should suffer abuse for your opinion but you're so very wrong, ollkiller; God owns everything, including you and I. He is not subject to the laws or the judgment of man. As He decides, so the world goes.

[ollkiller]

So, according to this the amalkalites were destroyed and their women and children because of an act of revenge. Correct me if i'm wrong. So my question is these children and babies, did they go to heaven or hell.

You haven’t been paying attention - God can and does lawfully execute righteous judgment upon whomever He chooses, the Amalekites were “exceedingly wicked” and they were the enemies of God's people and infants who die go to be with God. Consider yourself corrected.

Question answered, the kids go to bo with god. Well that takes out persecution of the wicked then. I was paying attention btw.

[ollkiller]

It's not about who the lawgiver is, but what the law is and what God is doing.

It’s all about God as lawgiver. Man’s moral duties are determined by what God commands. The Amalkalites were to be destroyed for a specific reason---“that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20). The sovereignty of God, including His righteous judgment made it lawful for Him to destroy the Amalkalites as He saw fit - and He did.

So, according to this the amalkalites were destroyed and their women and children because of an act of revenge. Correct me if i'm wrong. So my question is these children and babies, did they go to heaven or hell. Also, and i'm going to get dog's abuse for this, i know, how, and i really mean that, how can you justify the killing of children, oh it's god's judgement so ya know, of course it's right. Guess what it's never right. Ever.

I don't think you should suffer abuse for your opinion but you're so very wrong, ollkiller; God owns everything, including you and I. He is not subject to the laws or the judgment of man. As He decides, so the world goes.

Hello morning, long time. I totally get from a christian point i am very wrong. Still don't agree with the killing of children but we'll agree to disagree.

On a side note since i've seen your romney/ryan recommendation, watched the first debate with a few mates the last day. Talk about the biggest sanitised, boring event this year. Both sides too afraid of making a mistake where if either of them went on the attack there's plenty of ammunition to have a stormer of a debate. Sorry for the off topic point.

[MorningGlory]

It's not about who the lawgiver is, but what the law is and what God is doing.

It’s all about God as lawgiver. Man’s moral duties are determined by what God commands. The Amalkalites were to be destroyed for a specific reason---“that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20). The sovereignty of God, including His righteous judgment made it lawful for Him to destroy the Amalkalites as He saw fit - and He did.

So, according to this the amalkalites were destroyed and their women and children because of an act of revenge. Correct me if i'm wrong. So my question is these children and babies, did they go to heaven or hell. Also, and i'm going to get dog's abuse for this, i know, how, and i really mean that, how can you justify the killing of children, oh it's god's judgement so ya know, of course it's right. Guess what it's never right. Ever.

I don't think you should suffer abuse for your opinion but you're so very wrong, ollkiller; God owns everything, including you and I. He is not subject to the laws or the judgment of man. As He decides, so the world goes.

Hello morning, long time. I totally get from a christian point i am very wrong. Still don't agree with the killing of children but we'll agree to disagree.

On a side note since i've seen your romney/ryan recommendation, watched the first debate with a few mates the last day. Talk about the biggest sanitised, boring event this year. Both sides too afraid of making a mistake where if either of them went on the attack there's plenty of ammunition to have a stormer of a debate. Sorry for the off topic point.

It HAS been a long time, ollkiller; good to see you back. I thought the debate was pretty good really; I'm thinking that the gloves will come off for the next two.

Back on topic; I know it's difficult for a nonbeliever to understand but God's autonomy is what holds the universe together. Wouldn't wanna go spinning off in a trillion directions, would we?

[slowpoke55]

Does this mean that you concede that we can make decisions in our lives without consulting an "ultimate authority of everything"

God has given man freewill to choose to do right or choose to do wrong—be careful how you choose. Eternal separation from God is a long time...

There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

Now, what do you mean by "law unto yourself"?

Self-explanatory.

Good to know that you agree that people don't need to consult an "ultimate authority on everything" to make decisions in our everyday life.

I'm asking for clarification because "law unto yourself" is too general. Please explain what you mean and put it in a context.

[thomas t]

Why am i doubting. I doubt everything. Until i am convinced otherwise. From tv ads with best deal ever to religion. Now don't get me wrong. Is Jesus a good role model. No doubt. Better than the old testement that's for sure. My doubt comes in where the only reason people in my country follow Jesus is because of where they were born in the world and of a certain roman emperor adopting christianity to control the populas, without which i doubt any of ye would have heard about Jesus. Might have been a good thing, we could be following someone way worse.

well, I think Christianity has been already widespread within the Roman Empire. I suggest that it woulnd't have made great difference for the spread of the Gospel, if Constantine would have decided otherwise. Christian missionaries were making a good job.

However, I think it makes a big difference to people if there is religious freedom in their country or not. Of course, governments can do harm to their population, that's definitely true.

Just a quick question, how would you cope with god's killing of children if it was your child that was killed because of some persecution that your race or countrymen had visited on another race or country.

Paul discouraged Christians to marry in a state of suffering persecution (1.Corinthians7:7). What about those who were already having children when Paul gave his advice?

Well, that's a good question.

Have a good day

Thomas

[thomas t]

It’s all about God as lawgiver. Man’s moral duties are determined by what God commands. The Amalkalites were to be destroyed for a specific reason---“that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20). The sovereignty of God, including His righteous judgment made it lawful for Him to destroy the Amalkalites as He saw fit - and He did.

It seems you are taking the 'morality is subjective to God's mind' approach, or that which is moral is moral because God says so. That was not my personal choice when I was mentally forced to make the decision, I myself decided that that which is moral is moral because it is innately moral. Either way...

God certainly demanded the destruction of these people, and by your post you obviously view it as moral, therefore it is not always immoral to actively kill children or infants. Could we then say that it is not an objective moral truth that we should never actively kill children?

As an aside, both 1 Samuel 15 and Deuteronomy 25 note that the destruction of the Amalekites was for revenge for what they did to Israel during the Egyptian exodus. I could not find any mention of the Amalekites in Deuteronomy 20. They speak of the Amorites, but I'm pretty sure they are two separate groups that live in separate regions.

I think you have a point. This is basic logic, really.

If something is objective and absolute then it is... objective and absolute. For instance, 2+2=4 is objective and absolute and outside the control of anyone, including deities. That something cannot be a circle and a square at the same time is also objective and absolute. That pi is bigger then 3 is also objective and absolute, ... , well, maybe a bad example

So, if X=" kill children" is requested by anybody, including deities, we have two alternatives:

1) the request is, in at least one case, OK; then X is not objectively and absolutely wrong. Unless, we have different categories of absolutes, the ones that can be changed by a deity and the ones which cannot

2) the request is, at all times, not OK. In this case, X could be objectively and absolutely wrong, but then the requestor demands something wrong.

Ciao

- viole

Hello Viole,

it offen so happens that atheists try to subject God to the same laws as man. I find this silly.

Take an example:

A man robs somebody of his TV set. He cannot watch movies anymore..

God takes away his TV set. He cannot watch movies anymore, either..

At this point, atheists usually forget that God is the owner af all things, including TV sets. He can give and take away whenever he likes.

Some atheists conclude as well that for the person, the result stays the same, whether a thief or God took the set. However, God might have wanted him to let down the movies who tempted him all the time... a thief, in contrast, does not think in this kind of spheres.

God sees the surrounding context of his actions. That is the difference between his actions and man's.

Hence, God and man should not be subjected to the same laws.

Have a good day

Thomas

Hello Thomas,

I am not sure that "owning" something or someone gives you a moral free pass to inflict pain or death on what you own. If you think this is OK, then you just proved once again that objective moral values are not existing, since for me it is not OK, and you cannot resolve the issue without begging the question. But the main question we should ask ourselves is: what is more likely, that God ordered the complete destruction of a whole population, including women and children, or that a local conqueror wanted to get some Lebensraum and self declared himself a carrier of God's orders? A little check on any human history book should provide the easy answer.

However, the moral argument, i.e. the existence of objective moral values deriving from a moral giver, is usually raised by theists, not atheists, for obvious reasons. You seem to indicate that the moral values we received are different from the ones of the giver. But how do I know, then, what is OK for God but not OK for me if I had never read a Bible before?

More importantly: what does it mean objective if it applies differently depending on which side of the relationship "owning - owned" you are?

Ciao

- viole

Hello Viole,

everything we possess, God owns. We as humans never own things on our own (am I making an intelligent wordplay? Ok, I can't estimate how many language mistakes I'm making.).

Hence, whenever we "own" something, we should never play God, no matter how intensively this is recommended to us...

But how do I know, then, what is OK for God [...]

we don't have to know that. God knows.

Have a good evening,

Thomas

[thomas t]

So, if God knows and I do not need to know, am I still accountable for the things I don't know that are not OK? Ignorance is not an excuse in modern societies, but that is because there is a clearly written law and everybody has the duty to know it. But if I do not possess any written law and I don't know that, say, something in the Bible is a sin, will I still be held accountable?

Ciao

- viole

Hello Viole,

"but if I do not know that [...]" .... but you do know, Viole. I really hope you won't mind if I choose to not answer this. Btw., may I ask you, what is your motivation of asking a 100% hypothetic question about a situation that will never occur in your reality anymore?

This question has been discussed on other threads, if I remember well.

Have a good evening,

Thomas