A
Arkansan
Guest
Atheists sure are an angry bunch.
- Status
W
wkj_123
Guest
Not angry at all.
G
guanophore
Guest
It is good that you can see causality by the way the ancient people did some 3000 years ago. Like us, they believed that God could allow or prevent all things.
What is different is that you are ascribing vicious motives to God, which really seems like a projection of your own soul.
People, animals, plants, etc. become sick. It is not God’s perfect will that this happens. It is the consequence of the Fall.
David suffered the consequence of his sins. That the child died was part of God’s mercy.
I can see that you grasp it that way, perhaps because you bear some hostility toward the Christian God, and project that hostility onto what you are reading.
Death is not a punishment either, but a mercy. God did not want humankind to live eternally in separation from Him.
This particular reader seems quite eager to impose a certain framework upon the text.
Who despaired of his life?
The child was permitted to become sick, and die. But the fault belonged to David.
People die, whether it is caused by a sin or not. Death is a consequence of the Fall.
God can prevent illness and death, but chooses not to do so, because there is a greater plan.
This is a prefigurement of Jesus dying, due to the sins of the world.
No. There is no amount of verses from the inspired book that will cause the faithful to adopt your cynical and concrete mindset.
Not all of them are.
Somehow it is impossible to hide your sentiment from your posts.
W
wkj_123
Guest
You keep sidestepping. Did the baby die because David sinned? It’s a very simple question.
W
wkj_123
Guest
That we will definitely agree on lol
D
Dorothy
Guest
God never does anything terrible.
That baby is with God in an ecstasy of God’s Love for all eternity.
That baby is with God in an ecstasy of God’s Love for all eternity.
A
angel12
Guest
Most aren’t. But it seems the ones that are have to come to CAF to show us the errors of our ways.
G
Gorgias
Guest
The author of 2 Samuel believed it to be true.
(However, you have to ask yourself, “does this accurately describe how God operates?” Augustine pointed out this approach. And, he says, when it does not line up with our understanding of God as a loving Father, then we have to find an allegorical approach that helps us understand what’s really going on here.)
Of course, you can just do a superficial reading on the surface of the text, and decide that God’s a big old bum. That’s up to you. Just don’t expect anyone to be convinced of your Scriptural eisegesis…
A
Arkansan
Guest
The tendency to try to explain away uncomfortable parts of the Bible, so as to make it more palatable to atheists, is a bad one.
God did cause the death of David’s child, and was perfectly justified in doing so, since He is the author of human life and has the right to take it at any time.
God did cause the death of David’s child, and was perfectly justified in doing so, since He is the author of human life and has the right to take it at any time.
G
Gorgias
Guest
“Palatable to atheists”? Are you kidding? This isn’t a question of making God look better to an unbeliever! If you think that God kills innocent children, based on the actions of their parents, then what you think I’m doing is putting lipstick on a pig!
To have the right to do something is different than to be just in doing so. It is in God’s nature to be just… not just powerful.
A
Arkansan
Guest
Those are literally the same thing by definition.
G
Gorgias
Guest
One speaks to ‘power’ or ‘ability’; the other to ‘morality’ and ‘justice’.
I hear what you’re saying, though.
Last edited:
D
deMontfort
Guest
Do an internet search: The so-called “New Atheists” are known for being complete jerks (to use a forum friendly word), even amongst their fellow atheists who tend to be embarrassed by them.
W
wkj_123
Guest
Ah yes anyone who has arguments that hurt your religion are now “complete jerks” and should just be quiet. If you can’t win the argument, then name call and ask the other side to shut up.
K
kainosktisis
Guest
Let us please not derail the discussion from respectful dialogue.
Even if God were guilty as claimed, Job’s words come to mind:
Job 13:15:
Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him; I will surely defend my ways to his face.
Even if God were guilty as claimed, Job’s words come to mind:
Job 13:15:
Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him; I will surely defend my ways to his face.
A
angel12
Guest
Nobody said “anyone.” It’s a particular sub-group, deMontfort was quite clear about that.
W
wkj_123
Guest
I’m honestly a little let down. The level of debate is usually much better than this. It just slumped into “he is a meanie, he should be quiet” type argument. I guess it’s hard to defend a lot of what God did in the Bible. I don’t envy having to defend it, I really dont
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
The thing is, it’s not always a “defense of God”, it’s often a “defense of the people who are reporting the events.” We have no problem saying “yeah, humans are sinners; we mess up all the time.”
It’s the other side – the ones who are implicitly choosing a fundamentalist interpretative stance (albeit implicitly and unknowingly!) – that have to make the case that it’s God who’s the real bum! And, I haven’t really seen you make the case for that yet (other than to say “well… it’s what’s on the page!”)…!
A
angel12
Guest
Nobody said that, either. You must be responding on the wrong thread. Surely you wouldn’t just make this stuff up.
- Status