-DM-

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, too, but through experience I have found that many apologists (including such well-known names as Josh McDowell) are either ignorant of the facts or else they selectively choose what they will reveal in the way of facts. Either way, such people make themselves untrustworthy.

-Don-

Biff the unclean

So was the free will of the naughty children who were gobbled up by bears honored by God? I'm told that free will is a big thing with God.

Dargo

It's been big thing with god since all the miracles stopped happening, but apparently he didn't practice it with the ancient Israelites. That's probably why he gave them a bunch of silly, oppressive rules to follow and punished them severely every time they sneezed wrong.

Jim Meritt

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike(ATL)
(which is more than I can say for Merritt)

Irrelevant insult coupled with misspelling. Anybody see why trying to use reason with someone like this would be a waste of time?

Petty. But very consistent. I recommend that you grow up.

Mike(ATL)

I don't recall saying that, where did I say that? I said to talk about the Bible, you've got to look at the Bible. But whatever, to say that I assume there were other things at play there because it doesn't agree with what I want is unfair. It doesn't agree with the rest of the bible to say that God kills kids for no reason and is therefore very suspect. Instead of taking one very unclear instance and saying God must be a monster, doesn't it make more sense to look at the things that are detailed?

I believe I've already made my point but maybe this will be more clear. You've probably heard this allegory before but I think it makes a point so I'll give it again. An animal is wounded and his leg is caught in a trap. A woodsman comes by and tries to free the animal. But the animal doesn't know what's going on, he thinks the woodsman is there to hurt him and fights back. The woodsman has to subdue the animal before he can help free his leg. The woodsman did what was in the long term best interests of the animal even though the animal fought him the whole time. It wasn't until the animal was free that he was able to see the good intentions of the woodsman. The animal is humanity and the woodsman is God. We, like the animal, do not have the perspective of God. So in answer to your point, no, we can't necessarily tell ultimate right from wrong.

I find this viewpoint quite interesting. Those arguing for the Bible are somehow indicted for looking at the overall message of the Bible. I'll let you in on a (poorly kept) secret, whenever I see scripture quoted that goes against the overall message of the Bible all I ever have to do is look at the surrounding text and sometimes look at the definition of the word(s) in question. It's as simple as that, you can do the very same thing. I am not an expert apologist, I'm a 21 year old computer science major.

I kind of passed over this passage since the rest of the passages you gave where so obviously misinterpreted. Let me give a better explanation after reading the whole chapter
Explanation: You can see from the context that the prophet here is again a false prophet and is also relating with idolaters. By speaking to idolaters the false prophet is sinning against God. In this particular instance God is giving a "deceiving message" to the prophet which has spoken to the idolater. The prophet and the idolater have already sinned and are being banished from the community for what they've done. God has no problem in certain cases involving false prophets to mislead those who are already misleading. From the rest of the Bible's accounts of false prophets we can see that the false prophet holds a special status with God since they are misrepresenting Him in His name usually for their own purposes. God didn't lie to anyone here, He's misleading false prophets to show them for what they are.

From the examples you gave, God did not outright "deceive" anyone. When you look at the circumstances, He was influencing false prophets to mess up their plans that were not the plans of God, simply read the context.

That is not a basic principle of the Bible, I assume you're referring to places like Deut 4:2 where we're commanded to neither add nor take away from the word. The principle is that we're not to present the actual word of God with our own changes as the word of God. That would misrepresent God and is a big no-no. We're certainly allowed to analyze and talk about the word as long as we don't present our findings as the actual word of God.
If, as you claim, you were once a Christian and this is how you investigated the Bible no wonder you're no longer a believer. This is a terrible way to read scripture. Take each word at face value? That's called reading out of context. You must look at the context to understand what's going on.

I know I said I'd get back to the issue of suffering but I got caught up on some other threads such as this one. Sorry, I do hope to get to that in the future.

I disagree (obviously). The actions of anyone, whether God or whoever, are not examined on their own. You've got to look at who is responsible. We know a lot about God outside of what we see in (for example) the bears incident. If there were a bunch of other instances where God killed people for a seemingly very poor reason then you would have better reason to doubt his character. And don't start bringing up other instances where God was punishing people for sin, that is not a poor reason.

Sorry for misspelling your name but that is all I'm sorry for. You give more evidence of the point of my little comment there that your response was not well thought out. It's obvious there and obvious here that you don't even bother to look at what was said. Why should I respect you when you give none to me? There are things raised on this thread by myself and others that need answering if you want people to have any respect for your article. I love you brother but you're not making a very good case for yourself.

Doctor X

Mike(ALT):

It all boils down to this:

then you consider the ordered mass-slaughter of children and infants "just."

By definition, such is not, an ridiculous analogies to putting animals out of their misery does not salvage it.

Period.

--J.D.

Godless Wonder

Let's make this analogy a better fit to the situation. You neglected to mention that the alleged woodsman is invisible and undetectable as are his alleged actions, so the animal can never see the woodsman or his alleged good intentions. Nevertheless, the invisible, undetectable woodsman supposedly expects gratitude, worship, and general groveling of the wounded animal which he has allegedly helped (Ignoring that it was the woodsman who allegedly set the trap.) If the wounded animal fails to give this gratitude, the woodsman supposedly tortures the animal for eternity. Yeah, sounds pretty reasonable to me. Where do I sign up? (Oh, please.)

Godot

So God deceiving people and then condemning them for their acceptance of his deceit is acceptable since they weren't really God's people in the first place.

Tell us Mike, what kind of mental gymnastics were required for you to believe that intentionally misleading people isn't a lie?

beastmaster

I've never understood how this analogy is even relevant to an omni-max god.

God can make the trap disappear with a wave of his hand. He's not at all like the woodsman. He doesn't have to wrestle with the trapped animal, and hurt the animal for the sake of the animal's long-term benefit.

Seems to me that a just god would do the least harm within his powers. If his powers are infinite, that would entail *zero* harm.

Biff the unclean

… to say that I assume there were other things at play there because it doesn't agree with what I want is unfair.
To declare it fair because it's a standard apologetic tactic won't get many people agreeing with you here. You aren't going outside the Bible for anything else, plus you are advising others not to go outside it either

It doesn't agree with the rest of the bible to say that God kills kids for no reason and is therefore very suspect. Instead of taking one very unclear instance and saying God must be a monster, doesn't it make more sense to look at the things that are detailed?
More detailed than 2 Kings 2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
Can you get more detailed? 42 brats 2 bears, we even are told the sex of the bears.
God killing naughty children makes him a monster, but if you insist on looking at the Bible to see if God really means for the rude tots to die horrible then let's look at Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Dt 21:18-21 and Ex 21:15 repeat that injunction if you missed it. Gen 7:21 he drowns all the children in the world. Gen 19:24 he nukes all the toddlers and infants in Sodom and Gomorah. Ex 12:30 he does in all the first born babies in Egypt. Dt 20:16 & Jos 10:40 he has the Israelites kill all the kids in the cities they have invaded
Even Jesus complains that the Jews are no longer stoning disobedient children Mk 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

Your allegory of the wounded beast and the kindly woodsman is ridiculous. We are not dumb beasts, we are quite intelligent and are able to communicate just fine. You are like a slave who is whipped without a word as to why but assumes his master whipped him for all the best reasons. He whines that "we can't necessarily tell ultimate right from wrong."
But of course we can, because according to the same set of myths, we stole the magic fruit that gives the God like power of "The Knowledge of Good and Evil."
If you can read a story where some non human being attacks human children (using she bears as a weapon) and slaughters--rips to pieces is how bears do it--42 of them and then say "I'm sure that this non human had the very best of intentions" then there is something seriously wrong with your moral fiber.