Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
So we are done with "ask d-usa what he believes and why he believes it" and have entered the "demand that he prove why I should believe the same thing that he does and why his belief is the truth or make him admit that he is wrong" stage.

My interpretation of the Bible has absolutely zero effect on you, so I'm just confused as to why my belief is so important to you.

Because religion is (often) negative in effect, of course.
You write off the human-scale evils of religion by saying "God commands it therefore it's not evil" / "don't judge God by human standards".
If you're going to say that, you either need to back up your assertion (that superior standards to human standards exist), or rescind your support for God-policies that have obvious negative effects in the world.

You can't just say "God told me to beat my children to death" and expect to be above human judgement.
You can't just say "AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse" and expect to be above human judgement.

If your mystical assertion has real world negative implications, you need to back it up.
.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Why?

Well, if you are basing your world view on there being some being in charge of the universe who watches over us/judges us/etc, it would be nice to have some observable evidence to support this. Over the years as science has advanced our knowledge, the goalposts keep on moving to be "just outside what science can currently do", to the extent now that god exists now entirely outside the observable universe.

And I did not mean by my statement that you personally, or indeed anyone, should provide proof of gods existance, I meant more that the fundamental problem facing my, and many other people's acceptance of any religious argument rests upon the inability of anyone to provide any tangible evidence for, let alone proof of, gods existance.

I bring back my unicorn and space dust entity from earlier in this thread... it is not "your" job to disprove its existance, but "mine" to prove it.

I don't know if we will ever have any actual proof that God exists in a scientific way. I don't mean to move goal posts there, and I also don't think that God intentionally hides himself to have some magic faith test that only some will pass. I don't think that it would be Gods intent to trick some people into not believing that he is real and then suffer because of it.

I personally know that He is real based on my own experiences. But I also realize that this is not any kind of concrete evidence that I can share with others and me going "I know it" does nothing to provide any kind of proof to you.

Are we done talking about "tell me what you believe" ?

No - I am still interested in comparing and contrasting what people believe. Again, I did not mean to try and cut that line of conversation off.

That's allright, I did come across as a bit snappy there. Sorry about that.

I don't mind to continue sharing what I believe or why I believe it. But I know that I will not be able to provide you with any sort of concrete proof to settle the question of "can you prove that any of this is real". It is real to me, and other than trying to live my life in accordance with it there is nothing I can do to provide any outward evidence of what I find to be true. I am a very scientific person, so I know how frustrating that can be.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Well, if you are basing your world view on there being some being in charge of the universe who watches over us/judges us/etc, it would be nice to have some observable evidence to support this. Over the years as science has advanced our knowledge, the goalposts keep on moving to be "just outside what science can currently do", to the extent now that god exists now entirely outside the observable universe.

Agreed, the more we learn, the less God stakes his claim over. It's noticeable that the main Gods that survive the ages are those that make the weakest claims - those that make strong claims like "we live on Mount Olympus" disappear the moment the first explorer climbs the mountain.

And I did not mean by my statement that you personally, or indeed anyone, should provide proof of gods existance, I meant more that the fundamental problem facing my, and many other people's acceptance of any religious argument rests upon the inability of anyone to provide any tangible evidence for, let alone proof of, gods existance.

Indeed, if I was presented with reasonable proof that a superior moral entity exists, I wouldn't have such a hard time coming to terms with His acolytes committing net-negative acts here on earth, because it would all be part of some grand plan that I need not understand, only meekly accept.

But there is no proof, and the moral commandments of the supposedly superior moral entities are so parochial ("I'm an eternal being of infinite wisdom and scope, and I really care about who you as an individual choose to go to bed with") and have obvious negative effects here on earth, it's not plausible to me to trust such an alleged moral entity when those are his commands.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So we are done with "ask d-usa what he believes and why he believes it" and have entered the "demand that he prove why I should believe the same thing that he does and why his belief is the truth or make him admit that he is wrong" stage.

My interpretation of the Bible has absolutely zero effect on you, so I'm just confused as to why my belief is so important to you.

Because religion is (often) negative in effect, of course.
You write off the human-scale evils of religion by saying "God commands it therefore it's not evil" / "don't judge God by human standards".
If you're going to say that, you either need to back up your assertion (that superior standards to human standards exist), or rescind your support for God-policies that have obvious negative effects in the world.

You can't just say "God told me to beat my children to death" and expect to be above human judgement.
You can't just say "AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse" and expect to be above human judgement.

If your mystical assertion has real world negative implications, you need to back it up.
.

If you want me to explain what I believe and why I do things that I do, then that is what I have done.

I have not given my support for "God-policies" that you mention and I really don't feel any kind of obligatoin to defent this random "God instructed child murderer" because it has nothing to do with me. You have problem with the position of the Catholic Church on Condoms, then take it up with the particular members of the Catholic Church that support that position. If you want me to defend their actions then you are talking to the wrong person.

I don't think that it would be Gods intent to trick some people into not believing that he is real and then suffer because of it.

This is interesting - does this mean you split with the Church's view that the only way to get into Heaven is to believe in Jesus?

Being a good person in life is supposedly irrelevant to God - Belief in Jesus and repentance for sins are the only qualifications according to Catholic lore.

You have problem with the position of the Catholic Church on Condoms, then take it up with the particular members of the Catholic Church that support that position. If you want me to defend their actions then you are talking to the wrong person.

So you call yourself a Catholic, but you don't seem to hold many Catholic dogmatic positions which Catholicism holds are fundamental to the faith, which according to Catholic dogma means you're at least partially apostate?

I have not given my support for "God-policies" that you mention...

You have however said "don't judge god by man's law", or words to that effect.
What did you mean by that, if not to defend (some of) the Church's effects here on earth?
Do you mean that I shouldn't judge God to be evil, if he gives a baby eye cancer?
.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I don't think that it would be Gods intent to trick some people into not believing that he is real and then suffer because of it.

This is interesting - does this mean you split with the Church's view that the only way to get into Heaven is to believe in Jesus? (

Being a good person in life is supposedly irrelevant to God - Belief in Jesus and repentance for sins are the only qualifications according to Catholic lore.

You have problem with the position of the Catholic Church on Condoms, then take it up with the particular members of the Catholic Church that support that position. If you want me to defend their actions then you are talking to the wrong person.

So you call yourself a Catholic, but you don't seem to hold many Catholic dogmatic positions which Catholicism holds are fundamental to the faith, which according to Catholic dogma means you're at least partially apostate?

I've never called myself a Catholic. In fact I tried a couple of times to make it clear that I am not answering for Manchu (aka: The Catholic Answer) and that my answers might easily conflict with what he might say because of theological differences. I'm pretty non-denominational other than "protestant"

I believe in Justification by Faith. God tricking people into not believing in him does nothing to promote people into believing in him.

I have not given my support for "God-policies" that you mention...

You have however said "don't judge god by man's law", or words to that effect.
What did you mean by that, if not to defend (some of) the Church's effects here on earth?
.

I don't judge God my the standards of man. That doesn't mean that I defend everything every done in the name of God.

I've never called myself a Catholic.

Aha, my mistake, sorry. I took your message to Manchu as implying that you were also Catholic, and were offering a slightly differing Catholic view.

I don't judge God my the standards of man.

You may note I edited my post above.
If you claim God is real, and I take your claim seriously, then I'm going to judge your God by what you claim he does.

Well, if your God is real, then he gives eye cancer to babies. He kills 20% of human fetuses before they ever draw a breath (20% of all pregnancies end in a natural miscarriage in western nations, the percentage is higher elsewhere) - I'm going to judge him for doing that kind of thing to innocent babies. I can't consider hurting babies as "cosmically moral".
.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't mind to continue sharing what I believe or why I believe it. But I know that I will not be able to provide you with any sort of concrete proof to settle the question of "can you prove that any of this is real". It is real to me, and other than trying to live my life in accordance with it there is nothing I can do to provide any outward evidence of what I find to be true. I am a very scientific person, so I know how frustrating that can be.

I guess what I understand least is how people reconsile the belief in god and the need for proof and evidence... was there any particular event that made you a believer, or was it more of a grandual conversion? And how do you tie the two together, or is it more of a case of "just putting up with it"?

I guess what I understand least is how people reconsile the belief in god and the need for proof and evidence.

When I was a kid, I believed in God basically because of peer pressure.
I considered my parents and family as the most responsible and sane people in the world. How could I consider my mum and dad to be deluded people who believed in non-existent things, like a crazy person?

Yet that is what shrugging off religion and becoming an existentialist requires. I think that must be a factor for a lot of people (consciously or not) - the single biggest predictor of an adult's religion worldwide, with a 99% accuracy, is the religious affiliation of their parents.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't mind to continue sharing what I believe or why I believe it. But I know that I will not be able to provide you with any sort of concrete proof to settle the question of "can you prove that any of this is real". It is real to me, and other than trying to live my life in accordance with it there is nothing I can do to provide any outward evidence of what I find to be true. I am a very scientific person, so I know how frustrating that can be.

I guess what I understand least is how people reconsile the belief in god and the need for proof and evidence...

For me it's mostly the whole "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" thing. I would have a harder time with it if there was any concrete evidence that God doesn't exist, but I can handle a lack of evidence either way though. For me there is evidence, but its pretty much stuff of the of the "emotional and spiritiual evidence" kind and not any kind of "stuff I can measure and show to others".

was there any particular event that made you a believer, or was it more of a grandual conversion? And how do you tie the two together, or is it more of a case of "just putting up with it"?

It was gradual. Grew up in the Lutheran Church but wasn't religious. Drifted away from any kind of religion and was atheist for a while before returning to Christianity and actually exploring things for myself.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

Well, if your God is real, then he gives eye cancer to babies. He kills 20% of human fetuses before they ever draw a breath (20% of all pregnancies end in a natural miscarriage in western nations, the percentage is higher elsewhere) - I'm going to judge him for doing that kind of thing to innocent babies. I can't consider hurting babies as "cosmically moral".
.

By that rationale, He also cures babies of said eye cancer and he saves 80% of human foetuses...

I'm not making claims, I just really don't like that specific line of argument. If god is responsible for everything thats bad in the world, then he is also responsible for all the good in the world.

PredaKhaine wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

Well, if your God is real, then he gives eye cancer to babies. He kills 20% of human fetuses before they ever draw a breath (20% of all pregnancies end in a natural miscarriage in western nations, the percentage is higher elsewhere) - I'm going to judge him for doing that kind of thing to innocent babies. I can't consider hurting babies as "cosmically moral".
.

By that rationale, He also cures babies of said eye cancer and he saves 80% of human foetuses...

I'm not making claims, I just really don't like that specific line of argument. If god is responsible for everything thats bad in the world, then he is also responsible for all the good in the world.

Being responsible for a lot of good doesn't absolve someone from culpability in murdering babies. If I were a doctor and I murdered 20% of the fetuses I came into contact, I'd be a monster.

Yet God is absolved of this crime. When a tornado strikes, and kills 90% of the village, the 10% pray in thanks to God for sparing them. They don't ask why God decided to kill 90% of the village (including some babies). That makes no sense to me - that's not the act of a loving God, that's the act of a God who inflicts random violence on innocents, and doesn't ever attempt to explain why he's doing it.

So God actively kills everyone who dies and will eventually destroy everything - I'm glad we've resolved that

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't mind to continue sharing what I believe or why I believe it. But I know that I will not be able to provide you with any sort of concrete proof to settle the question of "can you prove that any of this is real". It is real to me, and other than trying to live my life in accordance with it there is nothing I can do to provide any outward evidence of what I find to be true. I am a very scientific person, so I know how frustrating that can be.

I guess what I understand least is how people reconsile the belief in god and the need for proof and evidence...

I would have a harder time with it if there was any concrete evidence that God doesn't exist

Interesting, I would say that we've seen plenty of evidence in this thread that the God as described by Jesus in particular doesn't exist (his actions on earth are incompatible with Jesus' description of him).
Whist you cannot disprove the existence of a Deistic God, I would say that you can disprove the existence of a Theistic God, by disproving specific testable claims as to his nature.

For example scientific trials have concluded that prayers have no effect on the recovery of ill people - in fact in some cases the prayed-for people suffered greater mortality, because they refused treatment! - that trial disproves a specific element of the Theistic truth claims made by many religion, no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PredaKhaine wrote:
So God actively kills everyone who dies and will eventually destroy everything - I'm glad we've resolved that

If your God is omnipotent, like Jesus/God or Allah, then yes everything that happens is according to his Will.
He knows everything and has the power to change every element of reality according to his Will.
If a tornado strikes a village, then that tornado was destined to strike that village from the first moment of the universe's existence, and God knew when and where that tornado would strike for 13.4 billion years and warned no one.
In creating the universe, he created the day the tornado hit the village (he is all-powerful and all-knowing). He is responsible because he created the tornado.

When that tornado finally strikes, and kills some babies, God is responsible. He has been responsible for 13.4 billion years, and he will be responsible for as long as the universe lasts.
That is what you get, if you have a god who knows-all, can pay attention to tiny events (like mind-reading every human at the same time, at all times), and can do anything.

This is an even bigger issue for Islam than Christianity as most Islamic theology says that in addition to God being all-powerful, Human free will doesn't exist either.

 d-usa wrote:
For me it's mostly the whole "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" thing. I would have a harder time with it if there was any concrete evidence that God doesn't exist, but I can handle a lack of evidence either way though.

See, for myself I would have to have more

I think the closest I can come to "believing in something without proof" would be believing that life exists outside of our planet. But even then it is based upon looking at the extent of life on our planet and the likely conditions elsewhere in the universe and coming up with the thought that life is pretty hardy and relatively easy to get going (at least as far as we understand it) that it would be staggeringly unlikely for life not to exist elsewhere.

Having done work on cell and tissue engineering, I have personally frozen and revived cells, put them through various changes of environment, changes in genetic makeup, etc... they can be pretty hard to kill

For me there is evidence, but its pretty much stuff of the of the "emotional and spiritiual evidence" kind and not any kind of "stuff I can measure and show to others".

Yeah, that is pretty much what I hear from most people

It was gradual. Grew up in the Lutheran Church but wasn't religious. Drifted away from any kind of religion and was atheist for a while before returning to Christianity and actually exploring things for myself.

I grew up in a pretty non-religious/atheist household (though lived in a couple of islamic countries from birth to about 3-4 years old). Religion and god were just not talked about at all (as far as I can remember) as a child. It was only when I went to primary school (Church of England as most school are) that I encountered god... but only through singing hymms and the lord's prayer in morning assembly - it was just something you did. God didn't really come into anything until later on. Even the three yearly church attendances (Easter, harvest, Christmas) were not particularly explained in terms of religion; again they were just something the school did.

Even by the end of Primary school I had stopped singing and saying the prayer.

It was only when I was older that I remember my parents speaking about anything to do with religion, mostly when it came up in the news, or regards their experiences in the middle and far east, etc. Mostly it was negative, though they never made any move on asking what my views were or attempting to change them to be in line with their own.

Though high school (again nominally Christian) I mostly tuned out during RE lessons and dropped it as soon as I could (year 9... I think that is about 13/14 years old?) because I thought it was kind of pointless. Mostly it seemed to be colouring in

I will say we had an awesome school chaplin - he landed as a chaplin on D-Day and was a really nice and energetic (if very old) guy. He was great and not pushy about anything religious from what I remember and my limited interactions with him.

The only ever after school detention I ever got was for playing noughts and crosses in a Christmas church service though

Evil & Chaos wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't mind to continue sharing what I believe or why I believe it. But I know that I will not be able to provide you with any sort of concrete proof to settle the question of "can you prove that any of this is real". It is real to me, and other than trying to live my life in accordance with it there is nothing I can do to provide any outward evidence of what I find to be true. I am a very scientific person, so I know how frustrating that can be.

I guess what I understand least is how people reconsile the belief in god and the need for proof and evidence...

I would have a harder time with it if there was any concrete evidence that God doesn't exist

Interesting, I would say that we've seen plenty of evidence in this thread that the God as described by Jesus in particular doesn't exist (his actions on earth are incompatible with Jesus' description of him).
Whist you cannot disprove the existence of a Deistic God, I would say that you can disprove the existence of a Theistic God, by disproving specific testable claims as to his nature.

For example scientific trials have concluded that prayers have no effect on the recovery of ill people - in fact in some cases the prayed-for people suffered greater mortality, because they refused treatment! - that trial disproves a specific element of the Theistic truth claims made by many religion, no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PredaKhaine wrote:
So God actively kills everyone who dies and will eventually destroy everything - I'm glad we've resolved that

If your God is omnipotent, like Jesus/God or Allah, then yes everything that happens is according to his Will.
He knows everything and has the power to change every element of reality according to his Will.
If a tornado strikes a village, then that tornado was destined to strike that village from the first moment of the universe's existence, and God knew when and where that tornado would strike for 13.4 billion years and warned no one.
In creating the universe, he created the day the tornado hit the village (he is all-powerful and all-knowing). He is responsible because he created the tornado.

When that tornado finally strikes, and kills some babies, God is responsible. He has been responsible for 13.4 billion years, and he will be responsible for as long as the universe lasts.
That is what you get, if you have a god who knows-all, can pay attention to tiny events (like mind-reading every human at the same time, at all times), and can do anything.

This is an even bigger issue for Islam than Christianity as most Islamic theology says that in addition to God being all-powerful, Human free will doesn't exist either.

I do think you are confusing somebody who is actively doing things with somebody that doesn't stop things and lets things happen.

Probably not a difference in your mind, but it's there.

Jesus never claimed that bad things wouldn't happen.

I do think you are confusing somebody who is actively doing things with somebody that doesn't stop things and lets things happen.

I think you're ignoring that God created the tornado.

If God is all-knowing, then that means God knows, from the moment he creates the universe, the day the tornado will strike the village and kill some babies.

If he's not all-knowing, then he's not responsible. He just set things in motion and didn't know what would happen to the village 13.4 billion years later.
But we're repeatedly told that (your) God is all-knowing.

So he created the universe, he created the tornado, he created humans knowing that they'd one day build a village just so. And he, in his infinite wisdom, made the tornado that 13.4 billion years after he created it, killed the babies.


And honestly, if the best you can do is that "god doesn't care about babies being killed by a tornado he created, or at least not enough to intervene to send the tornado the other way around the mountain, an act that would be trivially easy for him and require literally zero effort", then we're back to a previous point - your god (as described) is not loving, he's at best indifferent, at worst intentionally sadistic.

I do not understand how such a God, as described, is a loving God. Causing the painful death of babies is a red line for me.
.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I do not understand how such a God, as described, is a loving God. Causing the painful death of babies is a red line for me.

If he isn't real, which you are certain off, then why does it matter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I do think you are confusing somebody who is actively doing things with somebody that doesn't stop things and lets things happen.

I think you're ignoring that God created the tornado..

Like I thought.

 d-usa wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I do not understand how such a God, as described, is a loving God. Causing the painful death of babies is a red line for me.

If he isn't real, which you are certain off, then why does it matter?

I'm not certain, I'm 99.999999% certain. I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Anyone who says they're 100% certain about something that can't technically be disproved (or proved) is a fool.

And like I said above, I agree that one can't disprove the existence of a Deistic God, but you can disprove the existence of specific Theistic Gods by analyzing truth-claims made about them and looking for contradictions that expose incompatibilities between claims and reality (for example, Zeus lives on top of Mount Olympus - you examine that by climbing Mount Olympus), or mutually incompatible claims (for example, God is loving, but also all-knowing & all-powerful so is therefore responsible for quite a bit of baby-murder which is not a loving action).
.

Like I thought.

Do me the favour of answering my conundrum. Saying "God stands by and watches it and does nothing" and "God is a loving God" are not compatible claims - unless you can explain how they are.

Dude, can we have a post without babies?

If someone kill 100 people or 100 babies - its equally as bad.
Mentioning them in every post makes your points seem needlessly hyperbolic.
Its like reading the guardian...

PredaKhaine wrote:
Dude, can we have a post without babies?

If someone kill 100 people or 100 babies - its equally as bad.
Mentioning them in every post makes your points seem needlessly hyperbolic.
Its like reading the guardian...

Babies are the best examples for Christians because they're supposedly born without sin... one can argue (as a Christian) that adults deserve God's wrath sometimes. But I don't see how you can argue that an infant deserves a painful death (you can perhaps argue that a temporally eternal deity could know that all 100 babies in the village would grow up to be Hitler Mk2-through-101, and decide they all need to die - but why a painful death?).

It's a knowingly emotive example and (as a parent) I don't use the example lightly, but to make a point as to the incompatibility (to my mind) between an all-powerful, all-knowing "God of Love" and what actually happens in the real world.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

PredaKhaine wrote:
Dude, can we have a post without babies?

If someone kill 100 people or 100 babies - its equally as bad.
Mentioning them in every post makes your points seem needlessly hyperbolic.
Its like reading the guardian...

Babies are the best examples for Christians because they're supposedly born without sin... one can argue (as a Christian) that adults deserve God's wrath sometimes. But I don't see how you can argue that an infant deserves a painful death (you can perhaps argue that a temporally eternal deity could know that all 100 babies in the village would grow up to be Hitler Mk2-through-101, and decide they all need to die - but why a painful death?).

It's a knowingly emotive example and (as a parent) I don't use the example lightly, but to make a point as to the incompatibility (to my mind) between an all-powerful, all-knowing "God of Love" and what actually happens in the real world.

So let me try to summarize what you are arguing here.

You seem to be upset because I believe in a God that You believe kills babies because he is not loving IF he were real, which you believe he isn't.

Did I get the summary right?

You seem to be upset

I'm not upset. I'm intellectually curious how these two things (all knowing, all powerful god of love VS infants dying in pain) can be reconciled without cognitive dissonance.

I believe in a God that You believe kills babies because he is not loving IF he were real

I am applying God's basic attributes:

- He Loves
- He knows everything
- He can do anything

And comparing that against what we find in the real world:

- Sometimes, an orphanage gets destroyed by a tsunami, and all the infants there die. Except for one who grows up to be a murderer, perhaps. I'm sure I can find some specific examples if you don't want a theoretical situation.

, which you believe he isn't.

Irrelevant, I'm asking what you believe. I'm interested. What I (don't) believe is irrelevant to the question... if you want to question my beliefs, feel free, I'll answer.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

- He Loves
- He knows everything
- He can do anything

So beyond all your baby dying talk and walls of text it comes down to you making the argument that a loving God would not allow any suffering.

Did I get that correct?

 d-usa wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

- He Loves
- He knows everything
- He can do anything

So beyond all your baby dying talk and walls of text it comes down to you making the argument that a loving God would not allow any suffering.

Did I get that correct?

You did not.

Some types of inflicted suffering can be justified - imprisoning a criminal, or chastising a naughty child, for example. I'm asking about a very specific situation.

So:

Why does a loving God allow bad things to happen to good people?

In the meantime you seem to admit that loving people can let bad things happen. Or does chastising a naughty child (a bad thing) mean that their parents are not loving the child?

 d-usa wrote:
So:

Why does a loving God allow bad things to happen to good people?

No.
Once again, my question is how can you reconcile the following:

- He Loves
- He knows everything
- He can do anything

- He creates natural phenomena that painfully kill infants (indeed he knew he created every single specific mortal phenomena, ever, at the moment of the creation of the universe, because he knows *everything*).


A less specific "bad things happening to good people" I can conceptually understand - there can be educational lessons there for "good people" if those "good people" are adults, and survive the "bad things".

In the meantime you seem to admit that loving people can let bad things happen. Or does chastising a naughty child (a bad thing) mean that their parents are not loving the child?

Chastising a naughty child is an educational lesson. There can be no education if you stab an innocent infant and watch it bleed to death.
.

I can reconcile it by understanding that letting something happen is not the same as making something happen.

I can also reconcile it by understanding that he has a greater plan, born out of love, that include things happening that we don't think should happen.

I can reconcile it by understanding that the Bible never said "I love you and nothing horrible will ever happen to anybody".

I anticipate that no answer I give will be good enough for you.

 d-usa wrote:
I can reconcile it by understanding that letting something happen is not the same as making something happen.

Let's try this with a simple Q&A format. Yes/No answers, please. You can explain your Yes or No more fully afterwards, but I want a Yes or No first, please.

Did God create the universe?
Does he know everything?

I can also reconcile it by understanding that he has a greater plan, born out of love, that include things happening that we don't think should happen.

Can murdering infants painfully ever be justified?

Evil & Chaos wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I can reconcile it by understanding that letting something happen is not the same as making something happen.

Let's try this with a simple Q&A format.

Did God create the universe?
Does he know everything?

You believe that if God is real the way I believe he is, then in May of this year a tornado leveled a grade school in Oklahoma and killed multiple children because God decided that on this day these children will die. I get that.

I believe that God created a planet on which tornadoes are a possibility and he lets them happen. I don't believe that it means that God decided to kill these children on that day.

I can also reconcile it by understanding that he has a greater plan, born out of love, that include things happening that we don't think should happen.

Can murdering infants painfully ever be justified?

If you believe that God murders people, then that is a question that you have to workout.