That’s fair — emotion alone isn’t an argument. But emotion doesn’t disqualify logic, either. What I gave wasn’t emotionalism — it was a moral standard applied across the board. So let’s go back to your question:

Sure — in that case, it might not be evil. But then I asked: What’s the proportional reason for killing infants? And your reply was: “They weren’t innocent.”

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 — saying every unborn child is sacred — but then also worship a God who ordered the deaths of countless children and infants in the Old Testament?

So if it’s yes, you’d have no issue against all those scenarios you brought up earlier, and so your issue wouldn’t be the metaphysical issue of evil but of understanding scripture

What I’d 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, you’d be able to explain how killing children aligns with divine love—without outsourcing it to debates or doctrine. This isn’t metaphysics—it’s asking why “sacred life” only matters when humans end it, but not when God does.

Not necessarily, because as I as earlier, I’m not knowledgeable

And I outsource to debates because they provide the best arguments under scrutiny

And concise explanations

And that’s what you’d want if you are wanting to understand

And that’s fair if you’re still working through it. But if the belief system demands total trust—eternal consequences and all—shouldn’t the answers be clear without needing a PhD or YouTube rabbit hole? I'm not asking for debate transcripts—just 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 trust—and says the stakes are eternal torment—then yeah, I think it’s fair to expect clarity on how divine love aligns with divine violence. If we’d question that in a human leader, why give God a pass?

What do you mean by the stakes are eternal torment?

If someone doesn’t believe in Jesus—or picks the wrong religion—they’re condemned to eternal separation from God, often described as hell or unending suffering. That’s the common teaching. If the consequence is infinite punishment, then yeah… I’d call that a high-stakes system.

Do you believe in Jesus?

I believe in asking hard questions—and that truth should hold up under them. Whether or not I believe in Jesus isn’t the issue here. The issue is how eternal punishment, genocide, and selective sacredness get defended under the label of “love.”

Well it kinda is because in Christianity the trust we need to have is in Jesus’ death and resurrection, without it, it’s null

And again if you want to understand how these issues are defended, you should watch debates

That’s the whole point of debates

I’ve watched plenty of debates—that’s part of why I’m here asking real people. If the truth of a belief can’t be explained clearly without professional apologists, that says a lot. I’m not expecting perfection—just consistency. And so far, I’ve gotten more redirection than resolution.

So you’re telling me you’ve watched all these debates and still don’t understand the answers to these questions you have?

Don’t have*

I understand the answers. I just don’t find them convincing—or consistent. Saying “God is love” 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 doctrine… maybe the doctrine needs rethinking.

So is what you find convincing or consistent the standard you hold?

Because not understand something doesn’t make it false, just means you don’t 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

That’s 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

Nah—what 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. That’s not clarity—that’s double standards disguised as faith.

See again your mind frame is your demise once again, because let’s 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

And research

If morality doesn’t apply to God, then stop calling Him good—call Him powerful. Goodness means something only if it's consistent across all beings. If “He can do it because He’s God” is the defense, then you’ve admitted it’s wrong… you just don’t hold Him accountable for it.

I never said or implied any of that, what I’m saying is you’ve built your argument around an incorrect worldview

That’s the thing—I’m not asking from my worldview. I’m using yours. If your God is loving, just, and perfect, then I’m asking how divine commands to kill babies, punish entire nations, and send people to eternal torment fit that definition. If that’s not a fair question, maybe the worldview is shielding something.

You’re just circling back to the first question again, also circle back to my first response too

Exactly—and the fact that we’ve come full circle without a clear answer kind of proves the point. If a belief can’t survive one hard question without circling, dodging, or outsourcing, maybe it’s not the question that’s broken—it’s the system trying to avoid it.

I already answered when you asked the first question, I’ll 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

I’m all for research—but I’m also for honesty. If a worldview requires endless reading just to justify killing children or eternal suffering, maybe the issue isn’t my heart—it’s 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

I wish you all the best

博客

我们使用cookies为你提供流畅的浏览体验。我们不展示任何广告，并保持你的体验是匿名的。