Four questions for Christians

[Ryantology]

1. In a circumstance of an all knowing being able to judge that this was fair.

Omnipotence does not necessitate fairness. You can know everything and still be unfair (and still call it fairness and have people just shrug and say 'yas lawd' like robots because you said you were fair and that must mean it's true).

2. No

Then, the slaughter of Amalakites who had nothing to do with crime God cited as his reason for killing them is unjust?

3. In a scenario where you have an immortal soul

Why even allow that person to be born in the first place, then?

4. No

Then, is God not all-powerful, or is he unjust?

After having been made to watch all of them for a few hours.

Oh, you.

We are all guilty of one sin or another, and even the smallest sin requires death. Thankfully Christ died for those sins so we do not have to.

What sins are infants and small children capable of that made them deserve their deaths?

Free will comes in the way of being able to select the attonement offered by Christ. For your right in that we have no choice but to sin. The choice is in desision to seek forgiveness for said sin.

a: I'm referencing the slaughter of the Amalekites in 1 Samuel, so Christ's atonement wasn't in effect at this point.

b: Why should I seek forgiveness for something I can't choose not to do?

Why are we killing people to begin with? If out of anger and frustration of having been to watch every inner city kid in a given area, then know logic and reason are not in the mix any longer.

In reference to the Amalekites, we have an entire population killed because soldiers of their territory attacked the Jews in the Exodus.

Considering Hiroshima and Nagasaki, why do you limit the question to Christians?

Because the people who ordered those attacks were not omnipotent, omniscient gods who claimed to be incapable of evil.

First of all, Egypt had supposedly killed many more Hebrew boys than God killed Egyptians. He killed ALL males in Hebrew households, or at least most of them. He did this for a span of about 80 YEARS. It could have for been a single day, and the tally would STILL be higher. Actions are reciprocated back on the offender under God's 'eye for an eye' and 'tooth for a tooth' policy. This policy could be found in Confucianism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Greco-Roman and, yes, Egyptian literature. "The Teaching of Ankhsheshonqy".
Pharaoh caused all ten of the Plagues by refusing to let Israel go. He had firsthand knowledge of all the Plagues beforehand, and consented to their execution. Now we come upon the issue of 'God hardened his heart'.

I would not say that there were no guilty Egyptians in this scenario, but why not punish only those who were guilty of these atrocities? Why, instead, punish millions of people whose only crime was to be born in Egypt? Why punish so many people who did not commit that sin, while leaving alive every killer who had the good sense to not be their parents' firstborn child?

God didn't harden Pharaoh's heart: the words of his servant, Moses, did.

Why not just punish Pharaoh, then?

So we can say that Pharaoh willingfully caused the Ten Plagues to ravage his people. But, apparently, the Egyptians weren't so innocent either. Exodus 10:1, 14:17, and 1 Samuel 6:6 state that the Egyptians were just as bad as their Pharaoh. So that removes the innocence of pretty much everyone, except the kids.

A biased source, for one thing. A blanket generalization, for another.

If Pharaoh is guilty for not preventing the Ten Plagues (as he had the power to do so), why is God not guilty when he allows atrocities to take place, when he has the power to do so?

In ancient society, in Egypt as well as Babylonia and Israel, children were punished for the sins of their parents. This punishment has nothing to do with sin being 'transferred' to other people. The firstborn son of a parent was an essential family member. First-born males recieved inheritance, could protect aging parents, and could perpetuate the family name, like last names allow them to do today. The loss was a judgement on the parents, and not God getting revenge on kids.

1. Unless God was incapable of punishing the parents without killing their children, then it was absolutely taking revenge on children. It literally cannot be anything else.

2. Regardless, every parent in Egypt was a victim of this, regardless of whether or not they were responsible for whatever crimes God saw fit to charge the Pharaoh with.

3. Does it not strike you as odd that God's sense of justice is no different than any jumped-up warlord of that time period?

Also, there is an age of accountability at around 7-9. So, if we have firstborn males of hardened hearts dying after that age, they would have been accountable for their sins. Anyone who died before it would have gone to heaven, or, as the Catholics like to call it, 'limbo'. So we are left with the kids who died before their 8th birthday.

1. God's punishment was for a specific offense. If God wanted to kill all those other people for their sins, why did he not do so?

2. Why was God's attitude regarding mass slaughter for sin inconsistent? The vast majority of sinners, then and now, do not meet such horribly violent ends. How is it justice without consistency?

These particular kids were not punished, because that was not the intention. All that was needed from them was that their souls be absent from their bodies to produce the desired effect. Also, who's to say that their souls were not simply taken from their bodies during sleep? It was midnight, and I don't think that spiritual beings can walk around with bronze swords to hack the heads off about 69,000 kids in 8 hours.

Not that I believe in spiritual beings, but assuming they do exist, who is to say what they are capable of, especially when acting under the orders of a being capable of doing anything?

Regardless of how gentle their slaughter was, they were still slaughtered.

Note that God isn't simply siding with the Israelites. The entire Book of Judges is about God letting in foreign nations to conquer his own people. But God is only partial in the sense that he sides with the oppressed and works with them against the powerful. God isn't getting back at people, but judging them for their offenses and punishing them justly, despite what he feels for either side. Luke 19:41-43.

In other words, he is playing both ends against the middle, and for what reason if not for enjoyment? What purpose could such senseless misery serve that could not be accomplished without senseless misery?

If God were still engaging in direct revelation (which He is not, revelation is closed), and He directly commanded it.

Though that is a horrifyingly psychopathic response, I appreciate you being honest about it.

If God commands it, we know it is just.

How?

I reject the notion of free will, but nobody is judged for sins prior to committing them. We all enter this world sinners deserving of death and punishment, anything we receive other than that is purely God’s grace. God withholding His grace is not unjust because grace is freely given and taken away by only God.

If merely existing is a crime worthy of death, why let any person be born at all? And, if there is no free will, how can anybody actually deserve to die for any reason? They are doing nothing more than what God explicitly makes every one of them do. There can be no sin without free will.

There you go, I didn’t pull any punches, I hope you appreciate that.

I did. Now, you need to go seek mental help like yesterday. People who think like you do are a threat to society.

Only if your name is Planned Parenthood.

Unless Planned Parenthood is an organization run by omnipotent, omniscient gods, then this is false equivocation.