And the definition of exists depends on the definition of reality, so the combination is circular.Real is defined as: actually existing as a thing. Existence is defined as: The state of having objective reality. So the definition of real depends on the definition of existence. — MoK
Death can mean various things. (1) When a person stops breathing and the heart stops beating and soon the body begins to decay, people say "he is dead," without necessarily understanding what death is, i.e., its essence. (2) Traditionally, death is understood as the separation of the soul from the body. This is called the First Death in Christian theology. (3) There is also the Second Death, when the soul is separated eternally from God (goes to hell). (4) In 1968, the Harvard Medical School promoted the concept of "brain death", allowing organs to be harvested for transplant while they are still fresh because the patient's (donor's) heart and lungs are still functioning. (See David S. Oderberg, Applied Ethics: A Non-Consequentialist Approach, sec. 2.7.) And there may be others. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Mathematicians can define their terms as they like, but in an ethical discussion about murder, we must understand death in the right sense. GregW thinks (3) is the appropriate sense of death for murder. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
But this cannot be correct, for it is beyond the power of any human being to put another to death in sense (3). How, then, did Cain kill his brother (Genesis 4:8)? How did Lamech slay one or two men (4:23)? How did Moses kill the Egyptian (Exodus 2:12)? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Why is there a commandment against murder (Gen. 9:5-7, Ex. 20:13)? It is pointless to prohibit what cannot be done. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Correct. So, I need to provide an example to illustrate what I mean by "exist". When something, such as a human, exists, it is a part of reality. By reality, I mean the set of all objects, whether mental or non-mental. Mental objects, such as experiencing the red color of a rose, and non-mental objects, such as a cup of tea. So, something can be unreal yet still exist, such as an experience. In the same manner, something can be real and exist, such as matter. Something that does not exist cannot be real. And eventually, nothing is defined as something that does not exist and is not real. I have to say, making the distinction between existence and real started from a post by me that from which Bob agreed that evil exists, but it is not real. The story is long, so please read the discussion if you are interested.And the definition of exists depends on the definition of reality, so the combination is circular. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Yes, that is a part of the discussion.Is the distinction you're trying to make here between objective reality and merely subjective experience? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
I don't understand how this example is proper to what you said before? Do you mind elaborating?For example, I seem to be seeing a bear in the woods, but it is only a tree stump, or I am imagining a unicorn, both merely subjective; versus there really being a bear in the woods? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Interpret the text to be talking about indirect intention, and adjust one's interpretive hermeneutic (to deviate from the literal meaning).
Hold that life and death are in God's hands, that for God to kill is not murder, and that God can temporarily delegate this power.
Hold that the Amalekites were demons and demons can be justly killed (see Hanover's post).
Hold to some form of group morality rather than a strict individual morality.
Hold to a pedagogical approach on the part of God. — Leontiskos
But that is my point. By this means I am making clear the sense in which perspective is essential for any judgement about what exists — — Wayfarer
There is only one emergency exit—to make sense of this suffering and make it bearable, the Jew must believe that his fate has within it a particular purpose: “God disciplines those he loves.” — Theodore Lessing, in Jewish Self-Hate.
On the other hand, imagine the "enemy" as the resentful man conceives him—and it is here exactly that we see his work, his creativeness; he has conceived "the evil enemy," the "evil one," and indeed that is the root idea from which he now evolves as a contrasting and corresponding figure a "good one," himself—his very self!
11
The method of this man is quite contrary to that of the aristocratic man, who conceives the root idea "good" spontaneously and straight away, that is to say, out of himself, and from that material then creates for himself a concept of "bad"! This "bad" of aristocratic origin and that "evil" out of the cauldron of unsatisfied hatred—the former an imitation, an "extra," an additional nuance; the latter, on the other hand, the original, the beginning, the essential act in the conception of a slave-morality—these two words "bad" and "evil," how great a difference do they mark, in spite of the fact that they have an identical contrary in the idea "good." But the idea "good" is not the same: much rather let the question be asked, "Who is really evil according to the meaning of the morality of resentment?" In all sternness let it be answered thus:—just the good man of the other morality, just the aristocrat, the powerful one, the one who rules, but who is distorted by the venomous eye of resentfulness, into a new colour, a new signification, a new appearance. — Genealogy of Morals 10/11
I take it that your objection to (a) is because (a) positively mentions exceptions for rape and incest, but you do not similarly object to (a') because it does not positively mention an "exception" for before 6 weeks, although it implicitly allows it because it only prohibits after 6 weeks? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Similarly, then, your objection to the legislation concerning slavery is that even if it greatly ameliorates the evils of how slavery is practiced, it still recognizes a right of masters to own slaves? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
And where exactly does it say this? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
-- Exodus 21:20-21.20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
Leviticus 25:44-4644 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
No, I was thinking of offering a reductio ad absurdum against the argument, but it looks as though you agree that killing with indirect intention is not necessarily unjust.
…
Okay, I think you are reasoning well in this. :up:
What would you have decreed if you were instructing the Israelites?
The reason I don't personally find the critique overwhelming is because, faced with that situation, I have no clear alternative.* I guess I could say, "Assuming the children are not demonic, make sure to only intend to kill them indirectly." Yet such an approach would be incongruous in an ancient text and an ancient paradigm, and it would also somewhat undermine the whole "remove evil at its root" meaning of the text. I think the nub for you is that the text presupposes that a child can be deserving of death, and this is seen as incredible.
Interpret the text to be talking about indirect intention, and adjust one's interpretive hermeneutic (to deviate from the literal meaning).
Hold that life and death are in God's hands, that for God to kill is not murder, and that God can temporarily delegate this power.
Hold that the Amalekites were demons and demons can be justly killed
Hold to some form of group morality rather than a strict individual morality.
Hold to a pedagogical approach on the part of God.
Perhaps, taken singly, none of those are satisfactory. It is worth noting that the last option, which
↪Hanover
alluded to, seems to be supported by later texts such as Ezekiel 18:20. This goes to the fact that, read literally, the Bible does contradict itself. For example, if God does not change, God killed the Amalekite children for the wickedness of their parents, the Amalekite children were human, and Ezekiel 18:20 holds, then we have a contradiction. Indeed the literary genres found in the Bible are not really meant to support that level of scrutiny. This does not dissolve the problem, but it does complicate it.
* Also, I am not willing to abandon Christianity on this basis. I would need a foundational alternative to Christianity to which to turn before I would be more comfortable with such a move
In any case, the words we have in the Book of Samuel are Samuel conveying the divine will, and that ambiguity runs through the text (i.e. whether it is God or Samuel making the commands... or both). If I had to judge, I'd say it's a mix of both. — BitconnectCarlos
Would you make a car that you are sure will not take you to the end of a long journey
Perfect God can only create perfect things
In my dictionary, which present my word view, good is related to pleasure and evil is related to pai
there are evil creatures who prefer evil too, like masochists.
I think that, in answer to my question, "wouldn't you also have to say that (a') is condoning abortion during the first six weeks?", your "Yes" meant "No", because you went on to say "a' does not."
I take it that your objection to (a) is because (a) positively mentions exceptions for rape and incest, but you do not similarly object to (a') because it does not positively mention an "exception" for before 6 weeks, although it implicitly allows it because it only prohibits after 6 weeks?
Similarly, then, your objection to the legislation concerning slavery is that even if it greatly ameliorates the evils of how slavery is practiced, it still recognizes a right of masters to own slaves? And where exactly does it say this?
Death can mean various things. (1) When a person stops breathing and the heart stops beating and soon the body begins to decay, people say "he is dead," without necessarily understanding what death is, i.e., its essence. (2) Traditionally, death is understood as the separation of the soul from the body. This is called the First Death in Christian theology. (3) There is also the Second Death, when the soul is separated eternally from God (goes to hell). (4) In 1968, the Harvard Medical School promoted the concept of "brain death", ....
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
I'd like to add another description of death to your list:
(5) When a person is dead to God. When a person ceased to exist to God. — GregW
... but in an ethical discussion about murder, we must understand death in the right sense. GregW thinks (3) is the appropriate sense of death for murder.
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
No. I do not think that (3) and (5) are the appropriate sense of death for murder. Murder can only be committed by people, not God. The death described in sense (3) and (5) are the prerogatives only of God, it is not murder.
But this cannot be correct, for it is beyond the power of any human being to put another to death in sense (3). How, then, did Cain kill his brother (Genesis 4:8)? How did Lamech slay one or two men (4:23)? How did Moses kill the Egyptian (Exodus 2:12)?
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Yes, it is beyond the power of any human being to put another to death in sense (3), but Cain, Lamech, and Moses did murder, kill, and cause death in sense (1), (2) and (4).
Why is there a commandment against murder (Gen. 9:5-7, Ex. 20:13)? It is pointless to prohibit what cannot be done.
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
There is a commandment against murder because God did not want us to murder, kill, and cause death without His sanction. It is not pointless for God to prohibit murder as described by (1), (2), and (4).
Okay, thanks for clarifying. "Is Real" = exists objectively. "Exists" may be subjective or objective.And the definition of exists depends on the definition of reality, so the combination is circular.
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Correct. So, I need to provide an example to illustrate what I mean by "exist". When something, such as a human, exists, it is a part of reality. By reality, I mean the set of all objects, whether mental or non-mental. Mental objects, such as experiencing the red color of a rose, and non-mental objects, such as a cup of tea. So, something can be unreal yet still exist, such as an experience. In the same manner, something can be real and exist, such as matter. Something that does not exist cannot be real. And eventually, nothing is defined as something that does not exist and is not real. I have to say, making the distinction between existence and real started from a post by me that from which Bob agreed that evil exists, but it is not real. The story is long, so please read the discussion if you are interested. — MoK
For example, I seem to be seeing a bear in the woods, but it is only a tree stump, or I am imagining a unicorn, both merely subjective; versus there really being a bear in the woods?
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
I don't understand how this example is proper to what you said before? Do you mind elaborating?
So far we have five senses of death:
Death can mean various things. (1) When a person stops breathing and the heart stops beating and soon the body begins to decay, people say "he is dead," without necessarily understanding what death is, i.e., its essence. (2) Traditionally, death is understood as the separation of the soul from the body. This is called the First Death in Christian theology. (3) There is also the Second Death, when the soul is separated eternally from God (goes to hell). (4) In 1968, the Harvard Medical School promoted the concept of "brain death", ....
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
I'd like to add another description of death to your list:
(5) When a person is dead to God. When a person ceased to exist to God.
— GregW
It is not clear to me how (5) is different from (3), unless maybe you believe that God destroys, i.e. literally annihilates the soul in (5)? To my understanding, "separated eternally from God" and "dead to God" are the same thing. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
... but in an ethical discussion about murder, we must understand death in the right sense. GregW thinks (3) is the appropriate sense of death for murder.
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
No. I do not think that (3) and (5) are the appropriate sense of death for murder. Murder can only be committed by people, not God. The death described in sense (3) and (5) are the prerogatives only of God, it is not murder.
But this cannot be correct, for it is beyond the power of any human being to put another to death in sense (3). How, then, did Cain kill his brother (Genesis 4:8)? How did Lamech slay one or two men (4:23)? How did Moses kill the Egyptian (Exodus 2:12)?
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Yes, it is beyond the power of any human being to put another to death in sense (3), but Cain, Lamech, and Moses did murder, kill, and cause death in sense (1), (2) and (4).
Okay, we agree that human beings commit murder by causing death in senses 1, 2, 4 (except I would not include 4 because it is not true death). However, I was under the impression that elsewhere you were saying God did not commit murder when He put someone to death in sense 1, 2, or 4, but only if He killed someone in sense 3 or 5. Maybe I misunderstood, but if that was what you meant, is that not an equivocation? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Why is there a commandment against murder (Gen. 9:5-7, Ex. 20:13)? It is pointless to prohibit what cannot be done.
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
There is a commandment against murder because God did not want us to murder, kill, and cause death without His sanction. It is not pointless for God to prohibit murder as described by (1), (2), and (4).
And why would that commandment not apply to God himself in senses 1, 2, 4? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Are you referring to the story of Adam and Eve? This story is nonsense! The God you are defending is out of discussion since He is less than you. Adam and Eve were put in a sinful situation in which God knew in advance that they would sin! They were also lied to by the snake/Satan! And people are here, part of them suffering for no rational reason. What are their faults? Why should they be held here for the sin that the Parents did? Does any of these make any sense to you?This is disanalogous to allowing evil. An analogous version of your example would be: “Would you make a car that works fine but you knew someone else could come and mess it up?”. — Bob Ross
Yes, but in a perfect creation, all changes are perfect as well. So there could be a creation in which wrongdoing/sin does not exist within. Our universe is not perfect. A perfect God does not make such a thing.Yes, but this doesn’t mean that those things are not subject to change. — Bob Ross
Yes, perfection is not about goodness or evilness. It is about doing things always right, whether good, evil, or neutral.But this makes your argument weaker; because then perfection isn’t about goodness necessarily, since God could create being without pain or pleasure—e.g., a rock. — Bob Ross
No, they just like pain in a certain part of their body. And, they don't misunderstand the good.A masochist doesn’t prefer evil; they does mis-hierarchize or misunderstand the goods. — Bob Ross
A masochist is not a perfect evil creature.Specifically, they will in accord with getting a euphoric high where pain is the means and not the end. To truly prefer evil, is to will it as an end. — Bob Ross
The first part is concise. I think the second part should be "Exists" = is either subjective or objective, unless you clarify why you used "may".Okay, thanks for clarifying. "Is Real" = exists objectively. "Exists" may be subjective or objective. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Ok, I hope we are on the same page right now, regarding the definitions.Yes, I knew you were having that discussion with Bob Ross, and it was confusing me because I didn't understand your terms. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
The confusion is real in the sense that it affects you somehow. But I distinguish between this real and the real in my first comment. All our experiences are real in this sense.Appearance of bear when there is no bear: subjective. In your terms: exists, but not real. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Imagining a unicorn is another activity.Imagining a unicorn: ditto — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Yes, the bear exists and is real, given the definition of "exists" and "is real" in my first comment.Seeing the bear which is really in the woods: objective. In your terms: exists, and is real. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Please let me know if you are happy with what I said. Otherwise, let me know.I hope I've got that straight! — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
One of the things I am asking you is this: What would you have decreed if you were instructing the Israelites? — Leontiskos
The difficulty in this question is that:
1. It shifts the discussion from what a perfect being would do to what a nuanced, particular human would do; and
2. We don’t have to have knowledge of what the best choice is to know some of the bad choices. I can say that a pizza-lover does not throwaway a perfectly good pizza without speaking to what a pizza-lover’s best choice is in terms of what to do with it. — Bob Ross
If I had to answer, I would say that I would have told the Israelites to focus on themselves and ignore the immoralities of the Amalekites: they don’t have a duty to sacrifice their own people in just wars against abominable nations. I think it is a, e.g., just war to conquer North Korean but I wouldn’t advocate for the US to start WWIII over it. — Bob Ross
If I had to decree the just war, then I would say to:
1. Eliminate the enemy combatants while limiting innocent and non-combatant civilians;
2. Assimilate any of the people that they can without assuming significant risk to their own sovereignty and stability;
3. Segregate those who cannot be assimilated into their own areas and give them the freedom to leave (and go somewhere else) if they want;
4. Give as much aid as feasible to those segregated.
I would hold a significant weight to the in-group over the out-group; so I wouldn’t probably decree any commandments to sacrifice one’s own people to free another people.
Likewise, those who are not assimilated would not be citizens of Israel; so they would, in necessary, be left to themselves if Israel cannot afford to help them; and this could be all the way up to starvation, disease, and death. — Bob Ross
Yeah, but wouldn’t you agree it would be immoral what they did since it is directly intentional? I’m not saying they would have had this level of a sophistication in their ethics back then; but we know it to be immoral. — Bob Ross
This interpretation seems to superficially reinterpret the text though; given that it explicitly details directly intentionally killing children. Wouldn’t this interpretation jeopardize the entire Bible? If someone can reinterpret what is obviously meant one way as another, then why can’t I about anything therein? — Bob Ross
This is the most plausible out of them all, and is the one Aquinas and Craig takes. Again, though, the bullet here is that one has to hold that murder is either not the direct intentional killing of an innocent person or that murder is not always unjust. That is a necessary consequence of this view. — Bob Ross
This [idea of demons] is an interesting one I am admittedly not very familiar with: I’ll have to think about that one. — Bob Ross
This has to be immoral: it would conflate culpability and innocence with the individual and group. — Bob Ross
Yeah, that’s true. I am not sure how to interpret the texts. Maybe it is all spiritual lessons; but then what isn’t and what is the lesson? — Bob Ross
I am working on an alternative that I will share with you when it is ready to hear your thoughts. — Bob Ross
On one reading it would superficially reinterpret the text. On the reading that ↪BitconnectCarlos provided it would not. The sort of question here asks whether we are permitted to interpret these sorts of post-Pentateuch texts as including the perspective of a fallible author, such as Samuel. — Leontiskos
For example, there is a constant vacillation in the Bible between the idea that everything is according to God's will (and therefore even evil things are brought about by God), and the idea that God does not do or will evil. I think that's a natural vacillation that can't be overcome easily or quickly, and the sacred texts inevitably reflect this reality. — Leontiskos
Are you referring to the story of Adam and Eve? This story is nonsense!
Adam and Eve were put in a sinful situation in which God knew in advance that they would sin!
Yes, but in a perfect creation, all changes are perfect as well. So there could be a creation in which wrongdoing/sin does not exist within
I agree with (2), but I am not asking you what the best choice is. I am asking what you would do, and the implication is that you must be able to provide a better option than the one you are criticizing
For example, if the Amalekites and their children were not demonic then the act was immoral
God to pedagogically recommend that Israel carry out an act that is objectively but not subjectively immoral?
Many of the various known contradictions in the Bible (including those I mentioned in
↪response
to Carlos) have to do with the perspective of the speaker
For example, if there is an angel of death or a "grim reaper" who works at the behest of God, is the angel of death a murderer?
Well, even on a modern understanding there is commission, there is "aiding and abetting," there is failing to oppose someone in your midst who is involved in commission, etc. So the idea that groups rather than mere individuals are responsible for abominable, public acts is supportable
Over the years I have come to appreciate the complexity and ambiguity of the Bible, because it does mirror real life. How one is to resolve the difficult tensions and contradictions that arise in life is not obvious, and in the Bible we see people grappling with this same difficulty
Well, you believe in NT, and within it, Adam is cited.I am unsure how you got to there from what I said — Bob Ross
I am saying a perfect good God cannot create an imperfect good creation, wherein doing evil is possible. A perfect good God can only create a perfect good creation. So your God is imperfect since the creation is imperfect.I was saying that God can allow evil—that’s not the same as doing evil. — Bob Ross
No, under my definition, a perfect God can only do things right! He cannot do wrong. If God does wrong like imperfect creatures do, then He is like imperfect creatures. I also don't equate evil with wrong.Maybe under your view God cannot allow evil either, but allowing evil and doing evil are still different. — Bob Ross
So you don't believe in NT?I don’t think the Adam and Eve story is about historical events. — Bob Ross
I have a challenge for such a God. If one day, by chance, I meet your God in Heaven, while being allowed to wish only one thing, then the Forknwoeldge of God about what I am going to do would be my only wish. I do the opposite of whatever God says according to His foreknowledge then!Well, that’s true of all of us. God knows ahead of time whether we will sin or not as well as knows how it will end; this doesn’t mean that God is doing evil by allowing you to make your own choices. I think you are thinking of God as if He is in time like us. — Bob Ross
Evil cannot be transformed into good. Are you thinking that humans can live in Utopia one day without God's intervention?A being out of time knowing everything that will happen is very different. One of the beauties of absolute goodness—of God—is that He transforms, in the final result, our evil into good. He does not make us do evil, but when we do the totality of the result of His creation over time ends with good coming out of it so that it did not happen in vain. — Bob Ross
No, I am not denying the person. I am saying perfect creatures can only do right.Do you deny the existence of persons? Persons can cause evil in a perfect creation that originally had perfect changes! — Bob Ross
Is your position, then, that Samual lied about God commanding the slaughter of all the Amalekites? — Bob Ross
Yes, but then, again, you have to deny that murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person. You cannot have the cake here and eat it too.
If you do deny that definition, then I would like to hear your definition that is consistent with this view that God does not murder when killing innocent people. — Bob Ross
Death can mean various things. (1) When a person stops breathing and the heart stops beating and soon the body begins to decay, people say "he is dead," without necessarily understanding what death is, i.e., its essence. (2) Traditionally, death is understood as the separation of the soul from the body. This is called the First Death in Christian theology. (3) There is also the Second Death, when the soul is separated eternally from God (goes to hell). (4) In 1968, the Harvard Medical School promoted the concept of "brain death", .... — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
In (1), (2), (4), you are dead to the world, but you are not dead to God, even if God appeared to have murdered, killed, and made you dead. If you are not dead to God, then you have not been murdered, killed, or made dead by God. — GregW
The commandment against murder does not apply to God because God does not commit murder. Even in (5) when God killed you and you are dead to God, you have been judged and given due process by God, you were not murdered. — GregW
I think it would be a mistake and a superficial reading to decontextualize the command to kill the Amalekites and use that as an injunction against God. The command is given by Samuel, speaking on behalf of God. — BitconnectCarlos
Martin Buber argues that Samuel mistakes his own will for God's, which I imagine would be easy to do for a man who selects kings and possesses a special relationship with the divine. The divine voice in this book is more removed than in earlier books.
In Torah, you'll hear, e.g., "And God said to Abraham...." In the book of Samuel, this doesn't happen, and instead, it's Samuel telling Saul to put Amalek under the ban. The key here is Samuel. He could be correctly and perfectly conveying God's will, or he could be mistaken, or he could be deceiving. The clarity of Torah, where we see God's words openly dictated, is no longer present in Samuel. — BitconnectCarlos
Yes. I suspect the former idea is earlier, the latter idea (seen in Chronicles) is later. Biblical authors struggle to deal with this. Each view has its strengths and weaknesses. I find the notion that God allows evil to fester and build until it's ripe for destruction to be a fascinating and non-modern one. My favorite theodicy is Job. We can engage in apologetics, but ultimately, I believe the existence of evil and suffering in this world is beyond human comprehension. — BitconnectCarlos
That’s fair. I think letting them starve, all else being equal, is better than murdering them. — Bob Ross
But couldn’t God just drive them out? Why would God murder a child when He could just command the demon to leave the child’s body? Jesus drives out demons all the time in the NT. — Bob Ross
I would say no; for example, a judge that knows it is wrong to steal cannot advise to a citizen to steal irregardless if the citizen themselves understand it is a crime. (We are assuming here) God knows it is immoral; so He cannot command it. — Bob Ross
That’s interesting, I will have to take a deeper look into that. — Bob Ross
Yes, but then, again, you have to deny that murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person. You cannot have the cake here and eat it too.
If you do deny that definition, then I would like to hear your definition that is consistent with this view that God does not murder when killing innocent people. — Bob Ross
Those examples you gave are relative to the individual so they are not examples that support group culpability. E.g., a person or group that aids or abets are culpable because they themselves did something that is involved with that practice—an innocent person who did not aid or abet but happens to be a part of the group would not get charged unless they demonstrate they themselves did aid and abet. — Bob Ross
Well, you believe in NT, and within it, Adam is cited.
I am saying a perfect good God cannot create an imperfect good creatio
…
No, under my definition, a perfect God can only do things right!
I have a challenge for such a God
Evil cannot be transformed into good.
Bob, your definition of murder, the direct intentional killing of an innocent person applies only to you, to me, and to other people. It does not apply to God
(5) When a person is dead to God. When a person ceased to exist to God.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.