Do you think that torturing a baby is ever justified?

[Gnostic Bishop]

Do you think that torturing a baby is ever justified?

Have you seen this rather well done movie?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

They end asking about a God who tortures babies as God did to King David’s baby.
God also killed many innocent babies in his great flood as well as the innocent first born of Egypt.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.ca/ ... -baby.html

Do you think that torturing a baby is ever justified?

Regards
DL

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No.

Sorry to give a one word answer, but it's a one word answer.

[Gnostic Bishop]

No.

Sorry to give a one word answer, but it's a one word answer.

Good enough.

Way too many Christians say yes.

Regards
DL

[JLime]

There can be no justification for any of us to torture babies, but we cannot question what He does - 'God … made Jesus perfect by suffering' Hebrews 2:10 CEV

[Gnostic Bishop]

There can be no justification for any of us to torture babies, but we cannot question what He does - 'God … made Jesus perfect by suffering' Hebrews 2:10 CEV

Only those with their heads very far up God's ass will not question or test what he does.

I prefer to follow scriptures on this one.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Hitler and Satan like your attitude though.

Regards
DL

[Hacktivista]

I think most of us do wrong on trying to justify God's actions, as in Job's book.

What we are commanded to do under Jesus is to love your neighbor as yourself, so you shouldnt do anything that looks griveous for others.

What makes us right towards God is first at all Jesus sacrifice, and second a good conscience towards him (which is possible by the first thing, concerning to the new covenant), that includes being sincere respect to your doubts (and overcoming).

Also Ive found that is not smart insuting God nor angels nor demons inclusive, as you don't know really with which things you are playing. We see Michael (an archangel really close to God's will) not insulting Satan, but asking for God's rebuke over his actions.

I think it's easy to know God's will on this time, as Jesus shown it and almost all of us knows just by mainstream's good conscience.

So no, is not right to torture babies, nor insulting God for what you dont understand.

I know it's difficult sometimes (for me it is), but remember Jesus's attitude, he turned the other cheek when was needed, also he did what's supposed to be done when needed (I think on the expulsion of the thieves on the temple).

As Paul said: Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.

[Gnostic Bishop]

I think most of us do wrong on trying to justify God's actions, as in Job's book.

What we are commanded to do under Jesus is to love your neighbor as yourself, so you shouldnt do anything that looks griveous for others.

What makes us right towards God is first at all Jesus sacrifice, and second a good conscience towards him (which is possible by the first thing, concerning to the new covenant), that includes being sincere respect to your doubts (and overcoming).

Also Ive found that is not smart insuting God nor angels nor demons inclusive, as you don't know really with which things you are playing. We see Michael (an archangel really close to God's will) not insulting Satan, but asking for God's rebuke over his actions.

I think it's easy to know God's will on this time, as Jesus shown it and almost all of us knows just by mainstream's good conscience.

So no, is not right to torture babies, nor insulting God for what you dont understand.

I know it's difficult sometimes (for me it is), but remember Jesus's attitude, he turned the other cheek when was needed, also he did what's supposed to be done when needed (I think on the expulsion of the thieves on the temple).

As Paul said: Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.

Wow. You are really willing to accept immoral tenets out of your fear to face reality.

Bur let me try to change your poor morals.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

---------------

Human sacrifice is evil and your God demanding one and accepting one is evil.

You trying to profit from that evil is evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL

[Hacktivista]

My BBCode is off, so I can't make my response neater, but here it goes:

"Wow. You are really willing to accept immoral tenets out of your fear to face reality."
I did say: I think most of us do wrong on trying to justify God's actions, as in Job's book. Is that inmoral?

"Bur let me try to change your poor morals."
I did say: So no, is not right to torture babies, nor insulting God for what you dont understand. Is that inmoral?

"1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good."
I do completely agree with this

"Human sacrifice is evil and your God demanding one and accepting one is evil."
I think you have a misconception on what Jesus did on the Cross, he never gave his life towards God, but towards sin, some bible quotes here:

John 10:18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father..
John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.
John:30-31 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me. But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do. Arise, let us go from here.

And here is your confusion explained:
Isaiah 53:4-5 Surely He has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.

So you can clearly see how he was wounded FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS, not for God Sin and temptation is what grieves us, not God. In fact he is what makes good on us, right before Jesus were wounded by the sins of humanity he said: "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Yes, he was "missing out".

"You trying to profit from that evil is evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree."
I do agree that profit from evil is evil, but I don't agree that I'm doing that, on the contrary, I agree with that humility is what makes us accept the sacrifice of Christ, accepting his righteousness over my own, is that evil?

"Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change. Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?"
That does not even make any sense.

"In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children."
God didn't do that

"Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?"
Again

"For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc."
Well, you are a gnostic, don't you? I think you actually know that things

"Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral."
Not if he offered it to me, as seen that I have no other option, since I'm not immortal nor perfect without him.

"Do you agree?"
It is immoral when it is done without consent.
Being that said, if you could save your loved ones from death, wouldn't you do this? Would be immoral?

"If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice."
If I had other choice I surely would have taken it. Since Jesus already did it, how could I say him that he have made a mistake trying to save me? Would I say him that I just want to cease my existence knowing that he did everything to save me? Wouldn't that be evil and unrighteous?

---

I think in fact I think you are not "wrong" on your own speech, but on the truth about God's message. Yes, it's hard for me and for a lot of people to understand some acts attributed to God on some passages of the Old Testament for example, but in fact according to the gospel of Jesus Christ, that is not what saves you, but believing in His Word.

I believe that virtue is all that dignifies man, not seek justification for the unjustifiable. God will give us knowledge of the truth in due course.

Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

[Gnostic Bishop]

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

Can anyone take your responsibility for your sins?

Regards
DL

[Hacktivista]

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

Can anyone take your responsibility for your sins?

Regards
DL

If all parties freely agree, of course.

Can a parent be bound to pay the debt of his (adult) jailed son?

Can a loving parent freely pay the debt of his jailed son?

Is it moral to just ask ignoring the questions?