Mother Killed Sons With Rocks- God's Orders

truth
Most of us consider it good to talk to God, but crazy when He talks back. But I like Terry's rhetorical question: What's the difference?

Crazy = A finite, imperfect and limited being passing judgment upon the infinite, perfect and unlimited being.

Godly = The infinite, perfect and unlimited being loving this finite, imperfect and limited being anyway.

DEREVONS ARGUMENT

1) Science and human knowledge is based on underlying assumptions; like there is an objective reality.
2) I assume God
3) Therefore, God exists.

well, the jury thought she was a little more than a half bubble off plumb as they aquitted her. Just as the lion in the iron mask, er, make that man in the iron mask, she'll be locked away for some time.

Any parent that murders their own children cannot be in any wise sane. I agree with the psychiatrists and the jury in this case.

So what does all this make the shrub, who killed roughly 10000 people on the orders of god?

Er..what's the diffrerence between God telling a mother to kil her children, and God telling Bush to kill everyone?

er? I didn't know we had to pass judgement on Bush in every thread.

Now you know.

I don't think the woman was crazy. Probably just deaf. The real instructions must have been something like "Fill your children," as in, to feed them. Or maybe, "Hit you children with scones"--same translation. She seems to have just misheard.

Derevon, if we don't judge God, who will? How is it logically possible for a loving and perfect being to have created such an imperfect world and flawed beings?

Godly: obeying God no matter what he tells you to do

Crazy: obeying God when he orders you to kill your kids, even though there is historical precedent for doing so

A religion that has no ethical constraints on acts performed in God's name is dangerous. Its followers could be deluded into torturing and killing heretics, infidels, Jews, witches, homosexuals, children, or anyone else who did not believe exactly as they did.

My point is simply that we don't have nearly enough knowledge, wisdom, intelligence, perception etc, to see things from a perspective that will allow us to do such a thing in any remotely fair manner (not while still in the flesh atleast). I think we're best of not judging anyone, since fairly judging somebody would require omniscience.

Anyhow, consider the possibility that life in the flesh is a training ground for spiritual growth. Would not these points make sense? (Taken from the Urantia book):

"1. Is courage--strength of character--desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.

2. Is altruism--service of one's fellows--desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.

3. Is hope--the grandeur of trust--desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.

4. Is faith--the supreme assertion of human thought--desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.

5. Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.

6. Is idealism--the approaching concept of the divine--desirable? Then must man struggle in an environment of relative goodness and beauty, surroundings stimulative of the irrepressible reach for better things.

7. Is loyalty--devotion to highest duty--desirable? Then must man carry on amid the possibilities of betrayal and desertion. The valor of devotion to duty consists in the implied danger of default.

8. Is unselfishness--the spirit of self-forgetfulness--desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.

9. Is pleasure--the satisfaction of happiness--desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood of suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities."

Anyone who has experienced anything about God's love knows that God is love itself, incapable of evil. One realises that God, who looks from the infinite to the finite, in his infinity of wisdom always does that which is right, even though it for us, from our limited perspective, may be hard to fathom why things are so bad as they are.

Try not to pay so much attention to literal interpretations of the Old Testament. I'm pretty sure most of it are spiritual stories written as tales (tales adapted to suit the people who lived back then, thousands of years ago), and not historically accurate accounts. Their true meanings are very different from what one might gather from a literal interpretation. God would never have needed to test Abraham's faith by ordering him to kill his own child. God fully knows what our faith is, and what is in our heart, without resorting to such cruel acts.

God knows?
God knows everything. Does God keep track of every living being's thoughts and actions? Does God reward or punish living beings? Does God cause physical things to happen on this planet?

How can human beings know what God knows or does not know?

How can human beings know that God is love?

How can human beings know if the God that Muslims worship is the exact same God that the Jews or the Christians worship?
How can human beings know what God wants?

Who's side is God on as regards countries that are at war with each other?

Do the teachings of Jesus contradict the laws that God laid down in the Old Testament?

If God told GW Bush anything do the followers of God have believe GW and follow what GW said God told him?

The woman was Penecostal and they often speak in tongues, so I think that she believed the voice she heard inside...no surprise..

and I sing because I'm happy,
and I sing because I'm free,
and his eye is on the sparrow,
and I know he watches me.

Make of it what you will.

If we conclude that Mrs. Laney was indeed suffering from "severe mental illness" because we, as a society, have determined that God didn't tell her to kill the kids,

Could Moses also have been suffering a "severe mental illness" when God, as a Bush :wink: told him what to do?

If Moses was not nuts, then how do we justify castigating Mrs. Laney?

If Moses was nuts, then how do we justify the values and mores of our Abrahamic Society.

Deveron, These are simply a couple of examples of the contradictions that a reasonable person runs into when one tries to relate an imaginary or fantastic deity, and the interpretations of His word, with the world as we all can observe it.

It has been said, by persons more astute than I, that there are no easy answers, simply intelligent solutions. The introductions of fantastic beings and imaginary edicts into a problem is , IMO, unhelpful to say the least, and very often turns out to be counterproductive.

And I thought Prescott Bush was the first baddie in that tribe!

UH
It was Abraham that was requested to kill his son. He woulda done it down on Highway 61 but just as he was about to stab the son, god spoke up and told him to stop. God jus wanted proof that Abe would do whatever god asked him to do and he passed the test. I think that is a weird god, not quite the freedom loving, god of love the Pres. keeps shoving at us.