You didnโt answer my question, and emotional appeals are not arguments
Thatโs fair โ emotion alone isnโt an argument. But emotion doesnโt disqualify logic, either.
What I gave wasnโt emotionalism โ it was a moral standard applied across the board.
So letโs go back to your question:
Sure โ in that case, it might not be evil.
But then I asked: Whatโs the proportional reason for killing infants?
And your reply was:
โThey werenโt innocent.โ
I never answered your question, I was asking you a question
lets turn this convo into a more reasonable approach
It might not be evil? Is that a yes or a no
for the original answer yes, but lets change it to this degree -
Why are so many Christians so passionately against abortion โ saying every unborn child is sacred โ
but then also worship a God who ordered the deaths of countless children and infants in the Old Testament?
So if itโs yes, youโd have no issue against all those scenarios you brought up earlier, and so your issue wouldnโt be the metaphysical issue of evil but of understanding scripture
What Iโd recommend is watching debates on the problem of evil
Preferably done by Christians that use ancient church theology to make their arguments
f my issue was just misunderstanding scripture, youโd be able to explain how killing children aligns with divine loveโwithout outsourcing it to debates or doctrine. This isnโt metaphysicsโitโs asking why โsacred lifeโ only matters when humans end it, but not when God does.
Not necessarily, because as I as earlier, Iโm not knowledgeable
And I outsource to debates because they provide the best arguments under scrutiny
And thatโs what youโd want if you are wanting to understand
And thatโs fair if youโre still working through it. But if the belief system demands total trustโeternal consequences and allโshouldnโt the answers be clear without needing a PhD or YouTube rabbit hole? I'm not asking for debate transcriptsโjust a simple explanation for why divine love ever includes killing children.
Are you assuming to have total trust you need to understand something fully?
Not everything, no. But when the system asks for total trustโand says the stakes are eternal tormentโthen yeah, I think itโs fair to expect clarity on how divine love aligns with divine violence. If weโd question that in a human leader, why give God a pass?
What do you mean by the stakes are eternal torment?
If someone doesnโt believe in Jesusโor picks the wrong religionโtheyโre condemned to eternal separation from God, often described as hell or unending suffering. Thatโs the common teaching. If the consequence is infinite punishment, then yeahโฆ Iโd call that a high-stakes system.
I believe in asking hard questionsโand that truth should hold up under them. Whether or not I believe in Jesus isnโt the issue here. The issue is how eternal punishment, genocide, and selective sacredness get defended under the label of โlove.โ
Well it kinda is because in Christianity the trust we need to have is in Jesusโ death and resurrection, without it, itโs null
And again if you want to understand how these issues are defended, you should watch debates
Thatโs the whole point of debates
Iโve watched plenty of debatesโthatโs part of why Iโm here asking real people. If the truth of a belief canโt be explained clearly without professional apologists, that says a lot. Iโm not expecting perfectionโjust consistency. And so far, Iโve gotten more redirection than resolution.
So youโre telling me youโve watched all these debates and still donโt understand the answers to these questions you have?
I understand the answers. I just donโt find them convincingโor consistent. Saying โGod is loveโ while defending genocide and eternal hell sounds more like moral gymnastics than divine truth. If the answers require me to redefine love, justice, and innocence just to protect the doctrineโฆ maybe the doctrine needs rethinking.
So is what you find convincing or consistent the standard you hold?
Because not understand something doesnโt make it false, just means you donโt understand it
And yeah maybe you might need to redefine your understandings of some things because they are wrong, if you look at something from the wrong mind frame of course you will struggle to ever understand it
Thatโs why I asked you earlier what your definition of evil was, and then it showed you do not actually have any issue with the things you said were evil
Nahโwhat it showed is that you're willing to call things evil when humans do them, but not when God does the same or worse. I stayed consistent with the definition. You changed the rules depending on who held the sword. Thatโs not clarityโthatโs double standards disguised as faith.
See again your mind frame is your demise once again, because letโs say that the general premise of your argument is correct, you are assuming that the Creator is on the same level as creation
So you have a lot of understanding to do
If morality doesnโt apply to God, then stop calling Him goodโcall Him powerful. Goodness means something only if it's consistent across all beings. If โHe can do it because Heโs Godโ is the defense, then youโve admitted itโs wrongโฆ you just donโt hold Him accountable for it.
I never said or implied any of that, what Iโm saying is youโve built your argument around an incorrect worldview
Thatโs the thingโIโm not asking from my worldview. Iโm using yours. If your God is loving, just, and perfect, then Iโm asking how divine commands to kill babies, punish entire nations, and send people to eternal torment fit that definition. If thatโs not a fair question, maybe the worldview is shielding something.
Youโre just circling back to the first question again, also circle back to my first response too
Exactlyโand the fact that weโve come full circle without a clear answer kind of proves the point. If a belief canโt survive one hard question without circling, dodging, or outsourcing, maybe itโs not the question thatโs brokenโitโs the system trying to avoid it.
I already answered when you asked the first question, Iโll simplify it for you again
You should do research so you can understand the historical context behind these events in the bible, and then do some more to understand the problem of evil
Hopefully your heart is sincere and you allow yourself to understand these things
Iโm all for researchโbut Iโm also for honesty. If a worldview requires endless reading just to justify killing children or eternal suffering, maybe the issue isnโt my heartโitโs the doctrine people keep excusing. I came with sincerity. The spin came later.
If you were really sincere why do you keep saying justifying, when earlier through your definition of evil there would be no need for it?
The issue is most definitely your heart
๋ ์ฝ๊ธฐ...
