I posted before you Bob while you were posting your last post. I’ve answered you in the post right above your previous post. Scroll up and see the post above yours.
Hollytree,
I apologize that I am not seeing how this answers the contention of my last post, and I’m lost on how you think this “showed” killing the innocent is sometimes moral.
Indeed, I would not assume that killing an innocent 13 year old could be righteous even if it was not done for fun, or wasn’t done in a drive by. E.g. I’d assume that murdering her by any means, say because one saw it as the righteous consequence that her wicked parent deserved, wouldn’t baptize the evil of inflicting such a penalty on the innocent. ISTM that what your case actually calls for is showing how sometimes murdering the 13 year would be recognized as the righteous thing to do. And I find that more challenging.
“Killing the innocent is wrong” isn’t a necessary moral truth because there is a possible world where it would be justified to kill the innocent. - Namely, saving the whole world. I gave the argument for necessary moral truths and a few examples. There are many others. You haven’t proven that “killing the innocent is wrong” holds in all possible worlds. Indeed, I showed you it doesn’t.
You don’t know that. Logical explanations are infinite in number. Especially when we are dealing with a being who is infinite in wisdom and knowledge.
It doesn’t say it’s the only reason. The Bible also says that the hidden things belong to the Lord. Job had no idea why he suffered.
My friend, as far as I can see, you have not at all engaged my lengthy response to your contention about moral claims being "proven, nor my detailed explanation of why your repeated claim that you have done that and “showed” that killing innocents is righteous is completely unsupported. You appear to think that you can overcome others’ deepest sense of morality by simply repeating your sheer assertions. Sorry, claiming there IS a world that requires killing innocent people to ‘save’ all of it is just bald hypothetical assertion, as I detailed at length. I see no believable argument presented for it, and even find the notion weird and appalling.
Sorry Bob. You haven’t dealt with the argument.
What argument? You don’t have to be satisfied. But I’ve responded in detail to everything you’ve said. And you have offered no rebuttal at all. If you want someone to disown their sense of morality, you have to offer something of substance.
2 Likes
Could you agree that God has possibly changed and his view of the creation has evolved?
I understand our own conscience and that beliefs are set in stone to some degree by the scripture we have, but hey, can we think out of the box here a bit? 
Jesus taught that the Most High God is kind to unthankful people and to evil people:
“But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. (Luke 6:35)
According to Malachi, Yahweh, the God of Israel, the only true God, does not change.
I am Yahweh, I do not change,(Malachi 3:6)
It follows that if God does not kill his enemies now, but is kind to them, neither did He kill them in the days of ancient Israel. But when I say this, I am accused of “not believing God’s word, the Bible.” So be it. I would rather affirm that parts of the Bible are false, than to falsely describe God’s character, ascribing to Him, the killing evil people and harming them in other ways, rather than being kind to them as Jesus affirmed. If anyone was ever aware of the true character of God, it was Jesus God’s only begotten Son.
Yes Don, it is the crux, and I am in your camp. But the fact is that there was a certain part of history (called the Old Testament) where we as folks who study the bible, in our 21s century, need to realize that we are divorced from much of the language of the ‘Bibles’ New Testament was a extension of what that very ‘Old Testament’ was about.
Good luck on that
I imagine that depends on how one decides any notion is “possible.” I cannot prove that there could not be a creative being who evolves.
But the Christian tradition has defined God as a perfect and omniscient being that is not like those created who needs to grow, develop and evolve, and thus would not use the term, “God” for any creature that goes through such changes. I can only say, that if there is a Deity that created everything, that traditional conception of God is the one that make more viable sense to me.
True, but what if we could somehow say there was a God that created something so special that the God who created it needed to re evaluate what was done. Or maybe say that the God that created us may well be working with us.
So the God that created humanity figured He needed to adopt Israel. He was making a statement.
Israel became God’s chosen people within the context of history, He worked with them and chastised them and He had a view for all of humanity, through them…
Now we much later can somehow realize an understanding we are different and not the same as first century Israelites.
So there you go.
In what ways exactly, MM?
Sorry, not sure of you meaning. Pleas expound on my comment on first century Israelites?
Simple. What do you mean by that sentence? What are you talking about? Please explain, you’ve lost me.
Quite simple, do you eat pork? Do you honor the Jewish rituals? Do you have regards to the kind of clothes you wear, In my take, these were possibly the very things Paul was dealing with in the first Century Church.
Dave, I was talking to Bob, and was trying to get to a point of understanding…
I’ll butt out.
MM: “What if we could somehow say there was a God that created something so special that the God who created it needed to re-evaluate…?”
Bob: You’re welcome to imagine that the Creator of all existence gradually figures out what’s going on! 
Process theologians at Claremont School of Theology near me urge that God is an influence that does the best it can, but is clueless as to how it will all turn out, because God is not classic monotheism’s infinite Being. I respect them and that such a theory can avoid the classic problem of evil (while posing other problems).
There is of course the Nephilim subnarrative