Why does God hate babies who have not sinned?

[Reasonable_Jeff]

You're now Fallacious_Jeff to me:

Touché

Here's the Biblical address to argument 1..."why doesn't God give faith to all?"

Rom 9:19-23
19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-

God is Holy and just. He would be completely just if he sent all people to hell because all have sinned and are born in sin.

God is merciful so he chooses to save some instead of leaving all to hell.

Why does he leave a lot for hell? To display his justice and holiness. To make mercy more wonderful or the elect and display his glory

[Faith No More]

Not really, but if someone felt convicted by the Holy Spirit after reading that I would be glad =D

(Emphasis mine)

Freudian slip?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"

Um, yes, I will. It's a perfectly legitimately question.

21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

This is a false analogy. You cannot make clay into feeling, conscious, self aware beings with thoughts and desires.

22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

Then God is a narcissistic jerk. Why does he need to show his power? I thought he was self-sufficient? He doesn't have needs.

If he couldn't figure out a way to "make known his power" without having to make nonbelievers, then he shouldn't have made anyone. How would you like it if the only reason God brought you into existence was to suffer in eternal torment so the elect could somehow appreciate God better? This breaks the golden rule. Nobody would want to not be elect and suffer in torment. Everybody would want to be elect.

God is Holy and just. He would be completely just if he sent all people to hell because all have sinned and are born in sin.

Firstly, people can't help if they're born in sin since the sin nature is inherited. And he wouldn't be just if he sent everyone to hell if he could either (1) make everyone elect or (2) not make those who wouldn't believe, or (3) not make anyone. I'd prefer the 3rd option if Christianity were true.

Why does he leave a lot for hell? To display his justice and holiness. To make mercy more wonderful or the elect and display his glory

Can't you see how sick and disgusting that is?

[Reasonable_Jeff]

Not really, but if someone felt convicted by the Holy Spirit after reading that I would be glad =D

(Emphasis mine)

Freudian slip?

I understand what a Freudian slip is....but I don't get why you feel convicted is an inappropriate word in that sentence?

The Bible describes the Holy Spirits work as such

John 16:7–8 (NASB95) — 7 “But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8 “And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;

I was saying that if the Holy Spirit worked through my testimony, I would be glad =D

---

This is a false analogy. You cannot make clay into feeling, conscious, self aware beings with thoughts and desires.

Analogies alway break down at some point...it doesn't mean that the point their trying to illustrate is false.

Like saying to a co-worker who's been out of the business for a few years who is nervous about being reintegrated into the workforce. "Don't worry man, it's like riding a bike."

The point is you'll remember and be just fine. It wouldn't be appropriate for the person to respond, "this job doesn't consist of me keeping my balance so I don't see how it follows that this is like riding a bike."

If he couldn't figure out a way to "make known his power" without having to make nonbelievers, then he shouldn't have made anyone. How would you like it if the only reason God brought you into existence was to suffer in eternal torment so the elect could somehow appreciate God better? This breaks the golden rule.

Golden rule? If atheism is true, if there isn't a God, the golden rule is a fabrication, a subjective opinion. It wouldn't matter whether or not someone else adhered to it......it's subjective and not binding.

I don't think that as an atheist/agnostic you can evaluate the character/existence of God by whether or not He passes a subjective rule or not.

Nobody would want to not be elect and suffer in torment. Everybody would want to be elect.

Actually by nature no one wants God, people want to be gods of their own lives and not give Him glory.

Romans 3:10–12 (ESV) — 10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

Genesis 6:5 (ESV) — 5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Jeremiah 17:9 (ESV) — 9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

But God in his great mercy steps in and saves some of us....even while we are enemies of the cross.

Romans 5:8–10 (ESV) — 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

Bottom line, God is creator of all. As creator, He has the right to do with His creation as He pleases. I thank Him that He has saved me, and I pray for those that do not have a relationship with Him that He may grant them eyes to see His glory and their need for a Savior.

Psalm 115:3 (ESV) — 3 Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.

Daniel 4:34–35 (ESV) — 34 At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; 35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”

Isaiah 48:9 (ESV) — 9 “For my name’s sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off.

Isaiah 48:11 (ESV) — 11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.

Ezekiel 20:44 (ESV) — 44 And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I deal with you for my name’s sake, not according to your evil ways, nor according to your corrupt deeds, O house of Israel, declares the Lord GOD.”

Ezekiel 36:22 (ESV) — 22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here's the Biblical address to argument 1..."why doesn't God give faith to all?"

Rom 9:19-23
19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-

God is Holy and just. He would be completely just if he sent all people to hell because all have sinned and are born in sin.

God is merciful so he chooses to save some instead of leaving all to hell.

Why does he leave a lot for hell? To display his justice and holiness. To make mercy more wonderful or the elect and display his glory

So, long story short, makes makes right, shut your face and know your place...with a touch of justice and mercy -for some- destruction for the rest, eh?

Am I reading this last bit correctly, are you proposing that god does the whole hell bit so that those whom he chooses to gift with his "justice" and "holiness" and "mercy" feel really good about it? Tell you what I'm going to do this Christmas. I'm going to buy my son a new bicycle. On christmas morning I'm going to wake him up, lead him into the living room, and show him his brand new Radio Flyer trike....and just to make this "more wonderful for him"...I'm going to mercilessly beat both of his sisters, hospitalize them, and permanently injure both of them. Imagine how much of my fatherly glory I'll be able to display in such a manner.

[Darkstar]

This is a false analogy. You cannot make clay into feeling, conscious, self aware beings with thoughts and desires.

Analogies alway break down at some point...it doesn't mean that the point their trying to illustrate is false.

But it doesn't make it true, either.

If he couldn't figure out a way to "make known his power" without having to make nonbelievers, then he shouldn't have made anyone. How would you like it if the only reason God brought you into existence was to suffer in eternal torment so the elect could somehow appreciate God better? This breaks the golden rule.

Golden rule? If atheism is true, if there isn't a God, the golden rule is a fabrication, a subjective opinion. It wouldn't matter whether or not someone else adhered to it......it's subjective and not binding.

The golden rule has nothing to do with religion. It is binding because if you wrong someone else, you can be wronged back, and it is preferable to have peace than to ruin yourself and your enemy/victim.

I don't think that as an atheist/agnostic you can evaluate the character/existence of God by whether or not He passes a subjective rule or not.

If this is subjective, there is no objective morality. God issues commands at different times that contradict each other morally, so they were 'right at the time' and therefore subjective, even if god said them. http://atheistforums.org/thread-15262-po...#pid348660

Nobody would want to not be elect and suffer in torment. Everybody would want to be elect.

Actually by nature no one wants God, people want to be gods of their own lives and not give Him glory.

Evidence? You sure seem to want to give him glory.

Bottom line, God is creator of all. As creator, He has the right to do with His creation as He pleases. I thank Him that He has saved me, and I pray for those that do not have a relationship with Him that He may grant them eyes to see His glory and their need for a Savior.

Yep, we're just his playthings. Most burn, some don't; all for his amusement.

[Reasonable_Jeff]

Am I reading this last bit correctly, are you proposing that god does the whole hell bit so that those whom he chooses to gift with his "justice" and "holiness" and "mercy" feel really good about it?

Romans 9:22–23 (ESV) — 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

---

But it doesn't make it true, either.

Agreed

The golden rule has nothing to do with religion. It is binding because if you wrong someone else, you can be wronged back, and it is preferable to have peace than to ruin yourself and your enemy/victim.

I'm saying that morality itself (if God does not exist) is an illusion. There is no way that you would be obligated to behave a certain way.


"The position of the modern evolutionist … is that humans have an awareness of morality … because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. …Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. … Nevertheless, … such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, … and any deeper meaning is illusory …"

Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262, 268-9.

Given atheism, if evolution were to have unfolded a slightly different way...

"If … men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering."

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd edition (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1909), p. 100.

It seems to me that you can't have it both ways. You can't say there is no God but there are objective morals.

If this is subjective, there is no objective morality. God issues commands at different times that contradict each other morally, so they were 'right at the time' and therefore subjective, even if god said them.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. Are you saying that some of God's commands seem to contradict His other commands....therefore God can't exist?

This seems to me to be the same problem before. You (presumably an atheist) are judging God by your own subjective moral standard.

Evidence? You sure seem to want to give him glory.

I've never proposed that my conversion to Christianity was based on a fact-finding mission. Rather, it was based on an experience of God. Not that there aren't facts to back up Christianity...there are plenty....I'm just saying that that isn't how it went down in my conversion.

My desire to give Him glory is because He has Sovereignly intervened in my life and given me new desires that I might see Him as He is...glorious, merciful, awesome.

Ezekiel 36:26 (ESV) — 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

---

Tell you what I'm going to do this Christmas. I'm going to buy my son a new bicycle. On christmas morning I'm going to wake him up, lead him into the living room, and show him his brand new Radio Flyer trike....and just to make this "more wonderful for him"...I'm going to mercilessly beat both of his sisters, hospitalize them, and permanently injure both of them. Imagine how much of my fatherly glory I'll be able to display in such a manner.

Here is a more accurate analogy. In your analogy the children are innocent. We are not innocent.


Matthew 21:33–41 (ESV) — 33 “Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. 34 When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit. 35 And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. 37 Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ 39 And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40 When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” 41 They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.”


Now God is Just and Merciful.....so He executes judgement on unrepentant sinners and saves those who believe in His Son because in Jesus there in no condemnation.

John 3:18 (ESV) — 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

John 3:36 (ESV) — 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

God is merciful to offer any way at all to be saved, let alone one in which is so glorious.

Romans 8:15–17 (NLT) — 15 So you have not received a spirit that makes you fearful slaves. Instead, you received God’s Spirit when he adopted you as his own children. Now we call him, “Abba, Father.” 16 For his Spirit joins with our spirit to affirm that we are God’s children. 17 And since we are his children, we are his heirs. In fact, together with Christ we are heirs of God’s glory. But if we are to share his glory, we must also share his suffering.

[Darkstar]

Am I reading this last bit correctly, are you proposing that god does the whole hell bit so that those whom he chooses to gift with his "justice" and "holiness" and "mercy" feel really good about it?

Romans 9:22–23 (ESV) — 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

"then he is malevolent"

The golden rule has nothing to do with religion. It is binding because if you wrong someone else, you can be wronged back, and it is preferable to have peace than to ruin yourself and your enemy/victim.

I'm saying that morality itself (if God does not exist) is an illusion. There is no way that you would be obligated to behave a certain way.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/20...teria.html

Why did god give bacteria morals, exactly?

It seems to me that you can't have it both ways. You can't say there is no God but there are objective morals.

Maybe on a species by species basis. It's evolutionarily advantageous for them, but not for us.

If this is subjective, there is no objective morality. God issues commands at different times that contradict each other morally, so they were 'right at the time' and therefore subjective, even if god said them.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. Are you saying that some of God's commands seem to contradict His other commands....therefore God can't exist?

This seems to me to be the same problem before. You (presumably an atheist) are judging God by your own subjective moral standard.

I'm not saying he can't exist because some commands morally contradict others, I'm just saying that he either lied to us or morality is subjective to his whim. Jesus explicitly contradicts god.

Tell you what I'm going to do this Christmas. I'm going to buy my son a new bicycle. On christmas morning I'm going to wake him up, lead him into the living room, and show him his brand new Radio Flyer trike....and just to make this "more wonderful for him"...I'm going to mercilessly beat both of his sisters, hospitalize them, and permanently injure both of them. Imagine how much of my fatherly glory I'll be able to display in such a manner.

Here is a more accurate analogy. In your analogy the children are innocent. We are not innocent.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-15223-po...#pid348583
Who is more innocent than a baby? You said this yourself!

[Reasonable_Jeff]

Why did god give bacteria morals, exactly?

I don't understand the logic. I'm talking about moral ontology and you're referencing a sort of herd behavior amongst bacteria?

To answer you question directly, I would guess God gave them that behavior to reflect his glory.

Romans 1:18–25 (ESV) — 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Maybe on a species by species basis. It's evolutionarily advantageous for them, but not for us.

If morals are on a species by species basis that would make them subjective.

For instance, suppose an alien race (that is a product of Darwinian evolution elsewhere in the universe) invades our planet and according to their morals there's nothing wrong with raping and torturing other inferior life forms. We would have to say, "well, it seems like what they're doing is evil/wrong...but that's just there morals."

I'm not saying he can't exist because some commands morally contradict others, I'm just saying that he either lied to us or morality is subjective to his whim. Jesus explicitly contradicts god.

It doesn't seem to me that Jesus is contradicting the law, but rather shedding light into the spirit of the law. The spirit of the given in Exodus is fairness.

Think about how you would react if someone came and cut off your brothers hand...your natural inclination is to wound the other person so severely that they would never even think of messing with your family again. You would want to make an example of them by inflicting more damage than they did to your brother.

The law is saying only inflict equal amount, no more. Jesus comes along and says the spirit of that law is even more demanding than the letter, we should be willing to turn the other cheek.

This is exactly what he did with the other commandments.

Matthew 5:21–22 (ESV) — 21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Who is more innocent than a baby? You said this yourself!

The Bible teaches that babies are born in sin.

Psalm 51:5 (ESV) — 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Their (babies) natural inclination is not to honor God. If God saves any babies, it's because he has mercy on them and imputes Christ's righteousness to them like he would to someone who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 3:19–22 (ESV) — 19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:

[Darkstar]

Why did god give bacteria morals, exactly?

I don't understand the logic. I'm talking about moral ontology and you're referencing a sort of herd behavior amongst bacteria?

To answer you question directly, I would guess God gave them that behavior to reflect his glory.

...okay...

Romans 1:18–25 (ESV) — 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Wow...if that isn't the biggest cop out I've ever seen (it isn't yours personally). I could attribute that to manhole covers and you couldn't disprove me.

Maybe on a species by species basis. It's evolutionarily advantageous for them, but not for us.

If morals are on a species by species basis that would make them subjective.

In a way. I mean, god condones slavery in the bible and you say it is we who have a flawed inderstanding of morality. God slays or orders to be slain many peoples and what is the justification? If Hitler took over the world, I bet he would be using the same excuses theists do for god's actions.

For instance, suppose an alien race (that is a product of Darwinian evolution elsewhere in the universe) invades our planet and according to their morals there's nothing wrong with raping and torturing other inferior life forms. We would have to say, "well, it seems like what they're doing is evil/wrong...but that's just there morals."

Darwinian evolution only extends to the survival of the species, once a species has crossed the threshold between 'animal' and 'sentient', there is no telling what will happen. We are the only species on earth to do it; we have evolved mentally more in the past thousand years than the previous million. Why? Certainly not genetic evolution, but the passing on of knowledge and values.

I'm not saying he can't exist because some commands morally contradict others, I'm just saying that he either lied to us or morality is subjective to his whim. Jesus explicitly contradicts god.

It doesn't seem to me that Jesus is contradicting the law, but rather shedding light into the spirit of the law. The spirit of the given in Exodus is fairness.

Think about how you would react if someone came and cut off your brothers hand...your natural inclination is to wound the other person so severely that they would never even think of messing with your family again. You would want to make an example of them by inflicting more damage than they did to your brother.

The law is saying only inflict equal amount, no more. Jesus comes along and says the spirit of that law is even more demanding than the letter, we should be willing to turn the other cheek.

This is exactly what he did with the other commandments.

Exodus 23:21-25

---

But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

---

It says you shall, not you may. There doesn't appear to be an option. This is appointed as a penalty; Jesus is rendering the crime null and void.

Matthew 5:43-44

---

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

---

This one says 'hate your enemy'. It does not say you can hate your enemy, it says you must love your neighbor [i]and hate your enemy. Loving your neighbor isn't enough, you must also hate your enemy.

---

Who is more innocent than a baby? You said this yourself!

The Bible teaches that babies are born in sin.

Psalm 51:5 (ESV) — 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Their (babies) natural inclination is not to honor God. If God saves any babies, it's because he has mercy on them and imputes Christ's righteousness to them like he would to someone who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 3:19–22 (ESV) — 19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:

---

So, what about this:

Here is a more accurate analogy. In your analogy the children are innocent.

Do you still hold to this, and if so why?

And about the bolded...Of course babies don't honor god! They can't even grasp the concept!