Observed morality of god allowing the torture of children

[King Flevance]

If God wished to do with us whatever he wanted to, such as kill us, that'd make him a bad God, according human moral, correct?

Not as it stands, he can kill us because we have defied He who is righteous, thus we are evil. His decision to exterminate us is up to him. It would make him a bad God if he killed us before we ever defied him.

Even if we agree that God gave us moral, from the moment he doesn't stand up to his ideas, what respect should we have for Him?

How has he not?

A "Father" that can't take critic, is an unworthy father and unable to understand what their children want and how they feel.

You forget that in the scenario you are an evil being who looks after their own interests above all others. What His children want is an easy way out now that they bit off more than they can chew. We took on the world and can't get it under control. He knows many people are suffering, Jesus weeps for those who are oppressed but it was by our own selfishness that we have caused it. We believe we know what is best for us when clearly we do not.

With that kind of logic, the descendants of all those who killed massively or not, should be cursed forever for actions they didn't commit. It'd be interesting if you'd be willing to pay for a crime your grand-grand-grand-grand-grand father had commited, 200 years back.

I just stated I am paying for the sins of my oldest Grandparents Adam and Eve already. We all are. If not for Jesus, I would be unable to pay back for them.

It's unthinkable that innocent people who haven't had the opportunity to grow up and consciously start judging their actions, to pay for things done not by them. If God thinks and supports that way, then I'm sorry to say it but he doesn't deserve to even be mentioned by humans.

Yeah, they were robbed of a world of death and hardship. Granted there are many wonders that are great in life but "All things in heaven will be as they are on Earth" or something close to that. They will not be robbed of experiencing life.

That's the whole point: one shouldn't expect a reward for helping the weak when he can or sees them. We should support-help our felow humans when they're in need. --- Out of MANY reasons to do that, the fact that we belong to the same specie that has consciousness is enough.

It makes sense although alot of the world does not see this the same way you do. Anyone who preys on the weak or unexpecting, anyone who commits aweful crimes against another human of any nature, needless to say this is a good amount of people in the world. Also, the ones in control of the overall picture. These are tactics in polotics, war, domestic crimes, business, and many others.

 

[Homie]

Why does god not intervene and stop the painful sufferings of infant children with birth-defects and no hope of survival?

Why does he allow such births to happen in the first place?

By following that same reasoning, you eventually end up with a perfect world. Why doesn't God stop this, and this, diseases, birth defects, ugly people, poverty,war, natural disasters etc...
So imagine all those bad things are gone, well there is such a place in Christian doctrine: it is called heaven. But now we are on earth, the earth filled with the free will of man and consequent sin, and also filled with natural disasters and subsequent death.

A perfect world without free will defeats the purpose of our creation. We were not created for our own benefit, but for His.

Secondly, even if you consider my above points rubbish, consider this:
Do you care about the welfare of an ant? How about a bacteria?
We are smaller in value and significance than a bacteria in comparison to God. He is not obliged to cater to our wishes. Yet out of His loving character, He would die for us insignificant beings.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

By following that same reasoning, you eventually end up with a perfect world. Why doesn't God stop this, and this, diseases, birth defects, ugly people, poverty,war, natural disasters etc...
So imagine all those bad things are gone, well there is such a place in Christian doctrine: it is called heaven. But now we are on earth, the earth filled with the free will of man and consequent sin, and also filled with natural disasters and subsequent death.

A perfect world without free will defeats the purpose of our creation. We were not created for our own benefit, but for His.

Secondly, even if you consider my above points rubbish, consider this:
Do you care about the welfare of an ant? How about a bacteria?
We are smaller in value and significance than a bacteria in comparison to God. He is not obliged to cater to our wishes. Yet out of His loving character, He would die for us insignificant beings.

I disagree because there is a huge difference between letting adults chose their own path and then punishing those that chose poorly and punishing innocent infant children that have done absolutely nothing wrong. This need not lead to a perfect world and the abolishment of all sin on earth. Adult humans can sin - god should not.

There can still be a world of sin without allowing the births of innocent birth-defect children with no hope of survival and only a year or two of extreme physical suffering before their inevitable, unstoppable and painful deaths.

Why would I want to worship any being that condones the suffering of innocents? Punish the guilty as necessary, but not the innocent. If I don't see god following his own morality he set out for us then why would I trust him to be telling the truth about the afterlife? I am a big supporter of actions speaking louder than words and I don't see god's actions as being consistent with his own words.

I don't care about the welfare of an ant or a bacteria, but I neither ask for nor am vain enough to claim to be worthy of their worship either.

 

[Sidhe]

Good and Evil Suffering and bliss.

The Earths a continuum if God molly coddled us it would be an awfully boring place it is only through the ability to commit evil we see what is truly good and it is only through suffering that we get to experience what it is to be happy. Remove suffering from the world in even a few cases and you unbalance things. Genetic mutation removed, no more kids who die in agony before there first birthday, but then not much evolution either.

Of course the real answer is staring you in the face, perhaps everyone ones to PC to make the assertion. God does not exist, quite simple

Why do you say he condones it? These innocents do get a place in heaven guaranteed, eternal salvation is not punishing kids is it?

 

[classical_hero]

But infant children have not sinned, so why does god allow them to suffer?

And not just suffer a little bit - but be born with soon-to-be-fatal birth defects that cause huge suffering, pain and misery for a year or two until they finally succumb to their defects. Doesn't this seem cruel for god to allow this to happen to someone innocent and without sin?

Everyone is a sinner whether they personall commited sin because we were born into sin.
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Notice how the last verse does not say that for those who aren't children have sinned, it includes everyone. Anyone one who is the product of a Father and a Mother is asinner. This is a result of Adam's sin. You are blaming the wrong person for all this suffering that you see. It is a result of Adam's disobedience and not God.

Romans 5:12-21 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Sidhe]

Since God placed the temptation there knowing full well the Devil would lead them to Sin it was to me an act of forced sin, why leave the forbidden fruit there at all, it's like saying to a child dont eat my chocolates then leaving the box open and wandering off. Free will my arse? Sounds ot me like a machination to introduce the illusion, God's been toying with man since day one and no one can do anything outside of his plans, not as you see God anyway your a robot driven by God the sad thing is though you can't see it or wont, but never mind.

As for original sin, I believe there are plenty of passages that don't deny heaven to those without stain, it also says to enter the kingdom of heaven you must become like a child again which in the context is to become again stainless and purged of sin, its somehwere near the ten commandments I forget where exactly, incidently if you lose a limb you can't enter the kingdom of heaven as you have to be whole, which I always thought was ludicrous, but maybe it was meant metaphorically since the body doesn't enter the kingdom of heaven only the soul.

The only answer to this question that really makes sense is in the previous post, but no one wants to say that

 

[Erik Mesoy]

The only way the OP's question could be more loaded would be if it said "Why is God such a big meanie?"

So let me overload it the other way. If I go out and hit the first person I see on the street, why doesn't God intervene and stop this innocent person from receiving a hurt he doesn't deserve?

And who are you to draw an arbitrary line somewhere between these cases?

 

[classical_hero]

The test was a simple one, it could not be easier. Just do not from the fruit of one tree. I mean how hard was that? There would have been plenty of ther trees to eat from but it was only after Satan put doubt into their minds that they sinned. It was a simple test that they failed and now we are suffering from the results of their disobedience.

 

[classical_hero]

The only way the OP's question could be more loaded would be if it said "Why is God such a big meanie?"

So let me overload it the other way. If I go out and hit the first person I see on the street, why doesn't God intervene and stop this innocent person from receiving a hurt he doesn't deserve?

And who are you to draw an arbitrary line somewhere between these cases?

Also the title is very loaded. I mean God goes down to earth and tortures little Children for his pleasure. Surely he is Simon Darkshade in disguise.

 

[Sidhe]

The test was a simple one, it could not be easier. Just do not from the fruit of one tree. I mean how hard was that? There would have been plenty of ther trees to eat from but it was only after Satan put doubt into their minds that they sinned. It was a simple test that they failed and now we are suffering from the results of their disobedience.

How can it be a test? God already knew they would fail? That's not a test it's being pedantic.

Same with the floods, the fact is God was not omniscient in the Old Testament, he merely became so later on. Humanity has no ability whatsoever to define God, even if he does exist the bible is not any indication of him. Only the Words of Jesus himself have any real insight, everything else is interpritation and therefore open to error despite what the church says. I like what Jesus said about scripture.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Also the title is very loaded. I mean God goes down to earth and tortures little Children for his pleasure. Surely he is Simon Darkshade in disguise.

Or silver 2039.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

@ classical_hero -

I have a huge problem with any god that punishes one person for another persons actions. Even if Adam sinned I can't see that as justification to punish infant children.

The only way the OP's question could be more loaded would be if it said "Why is God such a big meanie?"

So let me overload it the other way. If I go out and hit the first person I see on the street, why doesn't God intervene and stop this innocent person from receiving a hurt he doesn't deserve?

And who are you to draw an arbitrary line somewhere between these cases?

Sorry if my question offended you but innocent children really are born badly deformed and in terrible agony only to live short, painful and hopeless lives filled only with suffering and misery. I didn't design the system, I'm only pointing out the facts.

The difference between you hitting a random person on the street and god punishing innocent children through his inaction is huge.

You are not god and hopefully don't claim to be perfect. If a being claims to be all-powerful and perfect and then grants souls to horribly deformed birth-defect children doomed to short lives filled only with misery and pain it is reasonable to question such a entity as to why it allows such occurrences. God designed the very system that allows such horrors to exist on infant children that have done no wrong. God asks us to worship but then won't even give infants a chance at a life of their own?


Both of you - Of course the title is loaded - The truth hurts.

If your doctor told you your child was badly deformed and doomed to die in a year or two after a short and pain-filled life, and then said he could easily heal your child, but just chose not to, how would you feel about your doctor? God has the doctor's choice and chooses to ignore your child's sufferings and you're O.K. with this? This is the being you worship and respect? Why?

If you are willing to worship him why can't you accept criticism of his inactions? Doesn't god tell you to spread the word of his love? Lets hear of his love of infant children then...

Instead of mocking the question how about providing an answer.

 

[The Last Conformist]

So let me overload it the other way. If I go out and hit the first person I see on the street, why doesn't God intervene and stop this innocent person from receiving a hurt he doesn't deserve?

That's actually a good question. Why would a loving god allow you to go around inflicting undeserved pain on innocents?

 

[classical_hero]

Innocent people suffer at the hands of evil peoiple every day. God is not going to get rid of symptoms without getting rid of the cause of those symptoms. The problem here is that people want to get rid of the symptoms without getting rid of the cause of the symptoms. It is like taking an aspirin for a knife in the back becuse it will temporarily get rid of the pain but eventully the pain will return until get rid of the cause of the pain. The only way to get rid of the cause of suffering is to trust In Christ, but I know that many people get angry at the thought of that. But if you want to get rid of suffering then this is the only way to do so.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Innocent people suffer at the hands of evil peoiple every day. God is not going to get rid of symptoms without getting rid of the cause of those symptoms. The problem here is that people want to get rid of the symptoms without getting rid of the cause of the symptoms. It is like taking an aspirin for a knife in the back becuse it will temporarily get rid of the pain but eventully the pain will return until get rid of the cause of the pain. The only way to get rid of the cause of suffering is to trust In Christ, but I know that many people get angry at the thought of that. But if you want to get rid of suffering then this is the only way to do so.

Bold by me.

So the tortured infant that lies slowly dieing while in extreme pain can just "trust In Christ" to rid itself of the cause of its suffering? Infants are of course too young for such concepts.

Innocent people suffering at the hands of evil people is different from innocent infants suffering due to the inactions of a supposedly good, loving and perfect god.

Comparing man's actions to those of god as it doesn't really explain anything.

I'm not asking god to remove sin from the world. I am saying that he give us all the same chance to decide our lives for ourselves, and if we choose poorly to then punish us for our own actions, not the actions of others. If god was just and fair then a fair chance for everyone isn't unreasonable and allowing the painful suffering of infants is totally unfair.

Remember, he asks us to worship him. His actions should justify his request.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Sorry if my question offended you but innocent children really are born badly deformed and in terrible agony only to live short, painful and hopeless lives filled only with suffering and misery. I didn't design the system, I'm only pointing out the facts.

The difference between you hitting a random person on the street and god punishing innocent children through his inaction is huge.

Well, then what is it? The random person on the street is also innocent (well, innocent of any reason for me to hit him) and God let him be hurt through inaction too.
How short, how painful, does a life have to be before you demand that God play euthanist? And why is your line not arbitrary?

Both of you - Of course the title is loaded - The truth hurts.
Instead of mocking the question how about providing an answer.

Because your question is mocking.

That's actually a good question. Why would a loving god allow you to go around inflicting undeserved pain on innocents?

I believe the usual answer is "so that free will can truly exist", but don't quote me on that. However, God not interfering in such situations is more palatable for some reason.

 

[Sidhe]

Of course that's the answer: God made a decision to no longer directly take part in the affairs of men and to let free will reign, the problem is of course it doesn't and never has existed according to Christian ideology anyway, those who think it does are just deluding themselves.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Well, then what is it? The random person on the street is also innocent (well, innocent of any reason for me to hit him) and God let him be hurt through inaction too.
How short, how painful, does a life have to be before you demand that God play euthanist? And why is your line not arbitrary?

My line is arbitrary but is still clear. An adult can understand and choose right from wrong and good from evil. An infant child can not. To punish an infant child for not choosing or choosing wrong is silly as they don't even understand the question yet let alone the consequences.

Where to draw the line? How about at birth? Is it too much to ask god to at least start a life fairly? People praise god for healthy births but don't hold him accountable for the unhealthy ones. Why?

If you hit a man on the street you should be held accountable for your action. If you stand by with a fire extinguisher while your friend burns to death you should be held accountable for your inaction. And you're just an imperfect human. If a perfect, loving and all-powerful god allows the tortured birth of a deformed child doomed to a short and misery filled life of pain, he should also be held accountable for his actions or inactions.

Because your question is mocking.

What part of my statement is mocking? I do observe morality and god does allow the torture of children that he could easily prevent but chooses not to from his inaction. Once again, sorry if that offends you but the world your god created can be a cold and terrible place.

I believe the usual answer is "so that free will can truly exist", but don't quote me on that. However, God not interfering in such situations is more palatable for some reason.

How can a child born in pain that dies after a year or two of horrible suffering be expected to have exercised any free will? God allowing infants to be born deformed and doomed to painful and short lives is palatable? May I ask for what reason you have no problem with this behavior?

 

[MrCynical]

I quite some time ago came to the conclusion that if God exists, he either does not interfere at all with the running of the universe, or is not omnipotent/omniscent, or is evil.

To take the OP's example of doomed children: Either God is capable of saving them or he is not. Religions are very firm on the subject of God's omnipotence (and indeed this is essential if he is to provide ultimate judgement in the future). If therefore he is capable of saving them, he either chooses to, or does not. To allow someone to die when you can save them is a despicable act, so if God chooses this course, he is evil in nature.

The only get out option I can see is if the universe is complete, and God no longer has any power to interfere, for good or ill (strongly against the teaching of most religions), and is merely omnipotent with respect to judgement and the afterlife. This would just about be morally acceptable to me, though I would require justification of why God is restricted in such a manner.

For similar reasons I am baffled by religious people who cite, and indeed look for the existence of miracles to prove the existence of God. While a genuine miracle would prove the existance of God, it would also prove that God is either of extremely poor moral fibre, or not omnipotent. If one person out of a thousand pilgrims is miraculouly cured of a crippled leg or something, why has this person been selected as superior to all the others? Either God is incapable of curing the others, or chooses not to, which I do not regard as morally acceptable. Odd though it may sound I would be very sad if it were proven that one of this type of miracle was genuine. In God's favour though, I have never seen such proof.

The test was a simple one, it could not be easier. Just do not from the fruit of one tree. I mean how hard was that? There would have been plenty of ther trees to eat from but it was only after Satan put doubt into their minds that they sinned. It was a simple test that they failed and now we are suffering from the results of their disobedience.

I have seen this line trotted out innumerable times by Christians, but if God is genuinely punishing for the actions of Adam and Eve (even assuming they exist) the world is an unbelieveably sick place. No one is responsible for actions committed by their ancestors, unless they knowingly took part in them. Consider an example; while Hitler's children did not survive, if they had, should we have stuck them on trial at Nuremberg and executed them? No one is responsible for any but their own actions.

In any case I regard most of the Old Testament as meaningless in reference to God. The "god" described in it is petty, childish, spiteful and hypocritical. It could learn morality from the average five year old. It is also very clearly neither omniscent nor omnipotent.

You're assuming that the suffering people you witness are actually people, and not automatons placed there by God to give you a moral conundrum.

Really, you THINK there is a suffering person, and you're morally obligated to act. You can choose to, or choose not to. Your choice. And you'll be judged on your choice.

But you think God would ACTUALLY allow unnecessary suffering? Not when he could just put a Turing-capable automaton there to make you THINK there is suffering.

The suggestion that the world exists purely for one individual's benefit and is otherwise populated by soulless automatons is an interesting one, El Machinae. However, surely God would then require us to know that fact? Otherwise he merely creates the impression that it is acceptable for him to murder, torture, and neglect huge suffering, and so would erroneously impy it was acceptable for us.

To allow the torturing of infants is wrong


Even for a Greater Good?

For humans with their limited power, possibly, and within reason, such as the very mild examples you suggest. For an omnipotent being, no. By definition he can find a solution with all the benefits and none of the downsides, and knows it as he is omniscent.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Of course that's the answer: God made a decision to no longer directly take part in the affairs of men and to let free will reign, the problem is of course it doesn't and never has existed according to Christian ideology anyway, those who think it does are just deluding themselves.

If god no longer takes part in the affairs of men they why do so many people pray to him and ask his intervention?

Do christians believe god no longer intervenes or not? If he does intervene then again back to the OT question of why he won't intervene on behalf of the most innocent and vulnerable of people - newborn infants.