Amaleq13

You are correct, sir! I believe I was arguing against the suggestion that God chose to murder infants in order to teach a lesson.

I see a "1)" but no other numbers. Did you forget to include a point?

As I review the thread, it seems to me that "killing infants is bad, but god may have had a good reason for it. Therefore, it doesn't constitute a contradiction in God's character to kill infants and be morally perfect." from the OP was the issue. The idea that "murdering infants is evil (bad)" seems to be assumed in the subsequent arguments by both Christians defending God and their opponents.

If you still want to argue this assumption, we would first need to agree upon a definition of "evil" before we can argue whether murdering infants qualifies. I don't think the dictionary will help your cause.

How can the "possibility" of predestination force any conclusion? I think you have to either assume or establish that predestination is a reality in order to require any particular conclusion. I believe Vinnie responded to the idea of predestination in his post very early in the discussion.

You seem to be suggesting that predestination assumes that God's free will is also negated. That, in and of itself, seems like an interesting topic (i.e. Does God have free will?) but this actually doesn't provide a solution. It really only backs it up one step from the choice to murder infants to the choice to limit the number of possible options to only that option. If God limited God's options to one, God could have chosen to limit the option to something other than murdering infants.

Not, I think, if omnibenevolence is another attribute. God's omnipotence, as I understand it, is limited only by logical impossibilities (i.e. square circle, married bachelor) and contradictions of other attributes. It was the latter that my "God has other options" was alleged to violate but I showed this to be an untrue assumption.

There are many contradictions inherent in the Christian conception of God. This is largely due, IMHO, to the infinite nature of God's attributes. Those tend to clash when considered seriously. Faith that God "somehow" avoids the problems is usually the final recourse for the believer. As you correctly point out, the one that can be seen as often violated is the notion of God as eternally unchanging.

Actually, as I think I pointed out in one of my posts, my argument doesn't really require omnipotence on the part of God since even my slightly-less-than-omnipotent mind was able to conceive of a couple different options that would seem just as likely to accomplish the same goal of teaching a lesson but without killing any infants. God just needs to have a fairly functional imagination to avoid having to kill infants. Is that so much to ask from the Supreme Being?

I will just as soon as you start a new thread on this tangential issue.

First, my comment was specific to God but your hypothetical is addressed to me (or any human, I guess) so it isn't relevant to this thread. Consistent with the point under discussion, God would not be limited to the options in the hypothetical because God could simply will the disease away. Your hypothetical would not force God to kill the infant. Second, if and when you create the new thread, I intend to argue that, even though it would appear to be the most logical choice, the murder of the infant still cannot be considered "the only moral option".

raccoon

Dude, get this, I am not asserting that the Bible is true or that "God" exists, I am asserting that you have to know what the Bible says before you critique the (in)consistency in it. I also reject the entire idea of original sin and omnipotence/omniscience/omnipresence/omnibenevolent G-d. But if you are going to make a philosophical argument about the Christian G-d, at least get the doctrines right.

-raccoon

Amaleq13

I am quite familiar with the Bible, my friend. Often, more familiar than the Christians with whom I debate I'm sad to say. If you want me to take your "advice" seriously, please provide specific examples of where I have shown a lack of knowledge about "what the Bible says". Have you bothered to read through the thread yet? What exactly have I stated that indicates I am not familiar with the details of the story?

I don't know the basis for your rejection of the idea of "original sin" but I offered mine earlier. It is based on a fable and there does not appear to be any rational reason to assume it is true. Do you consider that a logically valid defense of God murdering infants? Please explain. Again, to lift this comment from a waste of bandwidth to potentially helpful advice, you need to be specific. Also, you won't waste so much bandwidth if you avoid reprinting entire posts for no apparent reason. Dude.

raccoon

Mister, I believe there is some misunderstanding. For one, I never asserted that you made those pointed I contested. My original post was made to point out a few invalid arguments in this thread. I never named anyone, so I don't know why you feel attacked.

You wanted quote:

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55 Keeping the infants from growing up and spending a eternity in Hell because they would have inevitably turned evil and required punishment sounds like a good circumstance to me.

The author argues that infanticide can be merciful because it bypass the risk of hell. I offered that this argument is invalid based on Christian doctrines of original sin.

Quote:

Originally posted by the fonz After looking into stuff on the OT God killing the infants and just bad things in general (I really don't want to get off on specific instances)... Like the usual Christian apologist will claim that yes, killing infants is bad, but god may have had a good reason for it.

The author argues that "infant-murder is particularly bad", I offered that this is an absurd argument, because if you accept Christian doctrine of an omnipotent creator, then this G-d is also responsible for ALL killing, and not just that of infants.

Quote:

What exactly have I stated that indicates I am not familiar with the details of the story?

Again, I never named anyone. I merely argued that one cannot argue "Hell-avoidance" justifies infanticide unless s/he also accepts other biblical concepts, such as original sin. I don't know why you felt it was directed at you, and I have no idea where those hostility comes from.

Quote:

I don't know the basis for your rejection of the idea of "original sin" but I offered mine earlier. It is based on a fable and there does not appear to be any rational reason to assume it is true. Do you consider that a logically valid defense of God murdering infants? Please explain.

I reject original sin for the same reason I reject all Christianity doctrines that contradict observable reality. If you want to know why I reject Christianity, we might want to start a new thread.

To justify G-d's murder of infants is (at least to me) a philosophical argument: "let's pretend Christian G-d exists and mainline Christianity doctrine reflects what this G-d is". If such is the case, then we must accept ALL doctrines: you cannot accept hell but reject original sin and salvation of Jesus Christ.

Therefore I reject "Hell avoidance" as valid excuse to infanticide. Infants who die without knowledge of Jesus are guilty of original sin, therefore they must burn in hell eternally - hardly a merciful act.

Quote:

Again, to lift this comment from a waste of bandwidth to potentially helpful advice, you need to be specific. Also, you won't waste so much bandwidth if you avoid reprinting entire posts for no apparent reason. Dude.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

-raccoon

Amaleq13

I apologize if I misunderstood your post but the "clues" you offered certainly seem to suggest your comments were directed at me.

For example, the generic "Dude" suggested a single individual. The subsequent reprinting of only my post seemed to indicate I was the "Dude" in question.

This recent post is much more clear in identifying the specific arguments and authors against whom you are arguing.

Every post takes up "space" in the form of actual hard drive space on whatever server stores it and in the form of bandwidth that provides shared access to the information. Neither is infinite in capacity though the latter certainly gives that illusion.

BDS

Your scond point was: "I can't imagine any circumstance where murdering infants constitutes the only moral option." That's the one my hypothetical speaks to.

Amaleq13

Correct and as I already pointed out, this comment was clearly given in a context referring to God as the following sentence was intended to indicate:

I can't imagine any circumstance where murdering infants constitutes the only moral option. Certainly not if I was omniscient and omnipotent.

Like I said, if you want to start a different thread, I would be happy to argue the point.

To be relevant to this thread, the hypothetical has to apply to God and I have already suggested why I don't think it could. I don't think your hypothetical creates a situation where murdering an infant constitutes the only moral option. At best, it constitutes the "least immoral" option.