Does God Want Children To Be Abused?

[Dr. Bob]

Mr T advice for ALL posts/threads started by "Dr" A - (you know what it is)

Ignoring a fool is the right of any on the BB. His hatred for a sovereign God in control of all things (whether we, in our depraved mind, think them "good" or "bad") sickens me.

 

[Winman]

Let's see how many people will be honest and consistent with their theology.

Simple question, does God WANT children and women to be physically abused, raped and molested?

Prove your answers yes or no with Scripture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHMH-R6g4vs&list=PLxgUkHTvXNoYSV9JR0UdjV-YEYaHVYssQ

No, God does not want children, women, or anyone else to be physically abused, raped, or molested, God hates all sin.

Psa 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Psa 5:4 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.
5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

Psa 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.
7 For the righteous LORD loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright.

The scriptures are clear that God loves righteousness and hates wickedness.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question. Your question assumes that God does want women and children to be abused, etc.

No it doesn't. Now...it's "loaded" in that, he is fully aware that your answer will force that conclusion....but it isn't "question begging".

Logical Fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Your question assumes that abuse to women and children occurs precisely because God desires it to be so.

That is not what a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this therefore because of this) is.....a "Post hoc..." argument is a fallacy of causation vs. correlation.
i.e.:
1.) We bought Johnny a Corvette for his birthday 2 months ago
2.) Johnny's grades have slipped from an "A" average to a "C" average.
3.) Therefore: The Corvette has caused Johnny's grades to slip.

(The fallacy ignores the fact that [ironically to impress his parents] Johnny has signed up for exclusively "honors" an "Advanced Placement" classes as opposed to the less challenging ones in order to demonstrate to Mum and Dad that the corvette will NOT negatively effect his grades)

That is in no way a fallacy committed by Dr. J's question in the O.P. In order for a "post hoc" to have been committed, Dr. J. would have to have made an INFERENCE from his O.P.....he didn't do so. Therefore, a "post-hoc" is impossible. They do not exist without an inference having been made.

And the list could go on.

It could "go on" but, it's 0-for 2 in actual fallacies.

You ask the question in such a way that no answer will suffice.

No...plenty of answers will "suffice".....I'll give you one that will right here:
"NO"...he doesn't want it.
But he knows that you can't answer it that way because that would force a Calvinist into an area of further questioning that you would prefer not to engage....sorry, but that's how it works.

Therefore, you create a strawman (yet another logical fallacy)

In order to even have the tools with which to create a "Straw-man" he would HAVE to have suggested what your response might have been. But, he VERY INTENTIONALLY has not. He has not answered his own question on purpose, and the reason for it, is so as to NOT be even POSSIBLY guilty of a "Straw-man".

Sorry Archangel, but you are now 0-for-3

Then, when we point this out, you say that we won't answer the question straight.

Just answer a question about what God "wants" instead of what is "just" and you'll be fine.

Your hatred of the Calvinists is truly ridiculous.

He doesn't hate Calvinists...he does despise "Calvinism". That is not a crime.

And, no, this post is not an example of the ad hominem fallacy.

No it is not!!! :applause::thumbsup: You were absolutely correct on that point. You did not commit that fallacy here.

You are obviously a better and more talented linguist than most of us on B.B.....but you can't mis-identify common informal logical fallacies on us all day, and expect to be "speaking Greek" to us. You can only be "speaking Greek" to us, when you're actually "speaking Greek", Archangel. Some of us know full well when a common informal fallacy is being made. :tongue3:

 

[DrJamesAch]

Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question. Your question assumes that God does want women and children to be abused, etc.

Logical Fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Your question assumes that abuse to women and children occurs precisely because God desires it to be so.

And the list could go on.

You ask the question in such a way that no answer will suffice. Therefore, you create a strawman (yet another logical fallacy) rather than dealing with a similar question in a more proper way. Then, when we point this out, you say that we won't answer the question straight.

Your hatred of the Calvinists is truly ridiculous. In the past week or so you've posted or implied in your writings that Calvinists: 1.) are all anti-Semites; 2.) are all racists responsible for Apartheid; 3.) Satan worshipers; 4.) Buddhists at heart; and 5.) approving of violence against children and women. And, what is more, after we call you on such things, you play the Pariah and Martyr implying that it's "our" fault you do what you do.

Sad.

The Archangel

And, no, this post is not an example of the ad hominem fallacy.

Really! This post mentioned NOTHING about Calvinism. NOTHING. You all complain that it's all I talk about, then I start a thread that DOES NOT mention it, and the assumptions go flying.

Now on to your absurd wikipedia theology and philosophy assertions.

1. My question begs nothing but a straight forward answer which you are too scared to give. It doesn't assume anything YET. I for one do not believe that God wants women and children to be abused so you can bootstrap erroneous fallacy assumptions all you wish because you clearly have no clue as to how they apply as I've already demonstrated that you did with Van.

2. Again, making assumptions that I didn't make. There is no fallacy in asking if that is what someone truly believes. It's not a rhetorical question.

I'm going to take the high road and not even respond to the rest of your drivel.

 

[The Biblicist]

Mr T advice for ALL posts/threads started by "Dr" A - (you know what it is)

Ignoring a fool is the right of any on the BB. His hatred for a sovereign God in control of all things (whether we, in our depraved mind, think them "good" or "bad") sickens me.

Good advice, but it is hard to follow when he spreads such devious nonsense left unrebuked.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Mr T advice for ALL posts/threads started by "Dr" A - (you know what it is)

Ignoring a fool is the right of any on the BB. His hatred for a sovereign God in control of all things (whether we, in our depraved mind, think them "good" or "bad") sickens me.

Thank you for your kind words.

Now would you care to defend your position that God controls all things, and determined all things, or just be content with the occasional drive-by accusations that I "hate the sovereignty of God" and am a "fool"? That response is just as unChristian as any of the others on this forum (some of mine included).

 

[Inspector Javert]

Mr T advice for ALL posts/threads started by "Dr" A - (you know what it is)

Ignoring a fool is the right of any on the BB. His hatred for a sovereign God in control of all things (whether we, in our depraved mind, think them "good" or "bad") sickens me.

Cute....Dr. J. "HATES" a "Sovereign" God???...:laugh:

No...he's asked what is (or should be) a VERY SIMPLE question, about what God would "WANT". "Sovereignty" has nothing at all to do with it.....
Just in case you would have gone there...neither does "Justice" either.

You see folks:
There are a plethora of differing words in the English Language (until the liberals have their way, and all force us to use "Newspeak")....and they all mean differing things. A few (totally random) examples might include these words:

1.) Want
2.) Ordain
3.) Decree
4.) Sovereign
5.) Omniscient
6.) Omnipotent
7.) Justice
8.) Fairness
9.) Will
10.) Fool

And Dr. Bob has just called Dr. J. a "fool"....who "hates" a "Sovereign" God.....nice!! :thumbsup: :tongue3:

Congratulations Dr. J........even the moderators officially accuse you of "hating" a "Sovereign God".....You've finally arrived.

Do people who "hate" God go to heaven????
I don't think so:
So, you're probably damned Dr. J....since you "hate" God and what-not....
You've been consigned to hell.
I could have told you that after the first week you were on B.B.

 

[DrJamesAch]

No it doesn't. Now...it's "loaded" in that, he is fully aware that your answer will force that conclusion....but it isn't "question begging".

That is not what a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this therefore because of this) is.....a "Post hoc..." argument is a fallacy of causation vs. correlation.
i.e.:
1.) We bought Johnny a Corvette for his birthday 2 months ago
2.) Johnny's grades have slipped from an "A" average to a "C" average.
3.) Therefore: The Corvette has caused Johnny's grades to slip.

(The fallacy ignores the fact that [ironically to impress his parents] Johnny has signed up for exclusively "honors" an "Advanced Placement" classes as opposed to the less challenging ones in order to demonstrate to Mum and Dad that the corvette will NOT negatively effect his grades)

That is in no way a fallacy committed by Dr. J's question in the O.P. In order for a "post hoc" to have been committed, Dr. J. would have to have made an INFERENCE from his O.P.....he didn't do so. Therefore, a "post-hoc" is impossible. They do not exist without an inference having been made.

It could "go on" but, it's 0-for 2 in actual fallacies.

No...plenty of answers will "suffice".....I'll give you one that will right here:
"NO"...he doesn't want it.
But he knows that you can't answer it that way because that would force a Calvinist into an area of further questioning that you would prefer not to engage....sorry, but that's how it works.

In order to even have the tools with which to create a "Straw-man" he would HAVE to have suggested what your response might have been. But, he VERY INTENTIONALLY has not. He has not answered his own question on purpose, and the reason for it, is so as to NOT be even POSSIBLY guilty of a "Straw-man".

Sorry Archangel, but you are now 0-for-3

Just answer a question about what God "wants" instead of what is "just" and you'll be fine.

He doesn't hate Calvinists...he does despise "Calvinism". That is not a crime.

No it is not!!! :applause::thumbsup: You were absolutely correct on that point. You did not commit that fallacy here.

You are obviously a better and more talented linguist than most of us on B.B.....but you can't mis-identify common informal logical fallacies on us all day, and expect to be "speaking Greek" to us. You can only be "speaking Greek" to us, when you're actually "speaking Greek", Archangel. Some of us know full well when a common informal fallacy is being made. :tongue3:

Actually, yes he did commit the ad hominem fallacy. He said that I claim ALL Calvinists are anti Semitic. That's not true. I have specifically named the three that have attacked me on those grounds on a regular basis.

On my website there is a link to the IBCD, a branch of the Jay Adams Biblical Counseling Institute. He's Calvinist. My website also contains a WILL KINNEY KJV INDEX that I spent a week on organizing all of his articles in alphabetical order, by verse, by author, and by subject. WILL is a known die-hard Calvinist and a great friend of mine. I don't hate Calvinists.

And Archangel is not as well versed in Greek as he thinks he is. I've called him out on quite a few mistakes he's made and did so politely until he started attacking me personally.

Anyone that has seen my first posts on this board can clearly see that I was attacked first on this forum before I had the attitude I have now. You draw blood, you get it right back.

 

[The Biblicist]

Look, nobody is stupid enough to miss your intent as you plainly state it in these words "Let's see how many people will be honest and consistent with their theology." So it is designed to be a "gotcha" question.

Second, your question says nothing about BEFORE CREATION.

Third, there was no rape, molestation, abuse BEFORE CREATION, all of these are POST-fall events due to sin.

Did God allow, permit, sin - yes because he could have prevented it several different ways. He could have created people in a sustained sinless condition. He could have never given a test. He could have destroyed Adam and Eve Instantly.

No, we do not attribute sin to God BEFORE CREATION in regard to His good pleasure but we do attribute sin to God according to both His foreknowledge and His permission and thus by His design and consistent with His eternal purpose or else He could have prevented it a number of differnent ways.

The creation of moral choice in an unfallen state necessitated the option of sin. HOWEVER DON'T CONFUSE MORAL CHOICE IN AN UNFALLEN CONDITION WITH CHOICE IN A FALLEN CONDITION AS THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

Bottom line, God permits rape, murder, molestation, etc. every single day and it is consistent with His eternal purpose in regard to the fall and sin and is consistent with his Justice OR ELSE HE WOULD PREVENT IT as that is precisely what Psa. 76:10 states explicitly.

Still waiting for a response??? Come on James where are you?

 

[The Biblicist]

No, God does not want children, women, or anyone else to be physically abused, raped, or molested, God hates all sin.

Psa 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Psa 5:4 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.
5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

Psa 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.
7 For the righteous LORD loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright.

The scriptures are clear that God loves righteousness and hates wickedness.

The Scriptures are equally clear that God loves justice and the consequences of sin is justice. God love for righteousness does not invalidate his love for Justice as justice is righteousness and the JUST wages of sin is death - everything consequential to spiritual death unto Second death falls under the JUST conequences of sin.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Cute....Dr. J. "HATES" a "Sovereign" God???...:laugh:

No...he's asked what is (or should be) a VERY SIMPLE question, about what God would "WANT". "Sovereignty" has nothing at all to do with it.....
Just in case you would have gone there...neither does "Justice" either.

You see folks:
There are a plethora of differing words in the English Language (until the liberals have their way, and all force us to use "Newspeak")....and they all mean differing things. A few (totally random) examples might include these words:

1.) Want
2.) Ordain
3.) Decree
4.) Sovereign
5.) Omniscient
6.) Omnipotent
7.) Justice
8.) Fairness
9.) Will
10.) Fool

And Dr. Bob has just called Dr. J. a "fool"....who "hates" a "Sovereign" God.....nice!! :thumbsup: :tongue3:

Congratulations Dr. J........even the moderators officially accuse you of "hating" a "Sovereign God".....You've finally arrived.

Do people who "hate" God go to heaven????
I don't think so:
So, you're probably damned Dr. J....since you "hate" God and what-not....
You've been consigned to hell.
I could have told you that after the first week you were on B.B.

LOL, and made it on the James White Dividing Line, all in one week. :laugh:

 

[InTheLight]

Still waiting for a response??? Come on James where are you?

I'm not James but his question was not "Does God permit evil?" It was, "Does God want women and children to be raped, abused, and molested?" IMO, you have not answered his question. JDF came closest, but not quite.

 

[DrJamesAch]

The Scriptures are equally clear that God loves justice and the consequences of sin is justice. God love for righteousness does not invalidate his love for Justice as justice is righteousness and the JUST wages of sin is death - everything consequential to spiritual death unto Second death falls under the JUST conequences of sin.

Yes, God meet out justice, and judgment. We don't deny that. God absolutely punishes sin. We don't deny that. I have debated Jehovah's Witness extensively on the doctrine of hell, and have an article on my website about liberals that all they want is a lovey-dovey God who never judges sin. You are making a fallacy accusation without knowing what your opponent believes about judgment and sin.


HELL: Would a Loving God Send Anyone There?

So now that I've answered your derailing argument will you answer mine?

 

[DrJamesAch]

Still waiting for a response??? Come on James where are you?

You introduced something outside of the original question, so that forces me to introduce new arguments. Even though I get that it is a deliberate attempt to avoid the question, I answered your argument anyway, and you still have not answered it directly.

You claim that my question should have been (as if you have that right) about God's justice. In order for there to be justice, there has to be something to demonstrate justice. There was no justice before there was a creation and fallen world. However, God did have desires before the world began, and God also had love before He was sovereign over creation.

You merely want to focus on justice, when the question in the OP is about something that existed with God (desire) before the universe began. I have obliged answering your questions even though it was a thread that I STARTED, so therefore, I'm not going to answer your questions since you have not shown me the same courtesy.

IT'S NOT COMPLICATED, but somehow I knew it would be for many.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, God meet out justice, and judgment. We don't deny that. God absolutely punishes sin. We don't deny that. I have debated Jehovah's Witness extensively on the doctrine of hell, and have an article on my website about liberals that all they want is a lovey-dovey God who never judges sin. You are making a fallacy accusation without knowing what your opponent believes about judgment and sin.


HELL: Would a Loving God Send Anyone There?

You are skirting the issue! Rape, molestation, etc. are consequences of JUSTICE due to sin. Your question had no reference to PRE-CREATION or PRE-FALL conditions but fallen conditions and fallen conditions are by necessity JUST CONSEQUNCES by a JUST and HOLY God.

So now that I've answered your derailing argument will you answer mine?

I have answered you and posted that answer twice now! Do I have to post it again? Just look at my post previous to the one you chose to respond to.

 

[The Biblicist]

Look, nobody is stupid enough to miss your intent as you plainly state it in these words "Let's see how many people will be honest and consistent with their theology." So it is designed to be a "gotcha" question.

Second, your question says nothing about BEFORE CREATION.

Third, there was no rape, molestation, abuse BEFORE CREATION, all of these are POST-fall events due to sin.

Did God allow, permit, sin - yes because he could have prevented it several different ways. He could have created people in a sustained sinless condition. He could have never given a test. He could have destroyed Adam and Eve Instantly.

No, we do not attribute sin to God BEFORE CREATION in regard to His good pleasure but we do attribute sin to God according to both His foreknowledge and His permission and thus by His design and consistent with His eternal purpose or else He could have prevented it a number of differnent ways.

The creation of moral choice in an unfallen state necessitated the option of sin. HOWEVER DON'T CONFUSE MORAL CHOICE IN AN UNFALLEN CONDITION WITH CHOICE IN A FALLEN CONDITION AS THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

Bottom line, God permits rape, murder, molestation, etc. every single day and it is consistent with His eternal purpose in regard to the fall and sin and is consistent with his Justice OR ELSE HE WOULD PREVENT IT as that is precisely what Psa. 76:10 states explicitly.

A third time is a charm I guess. Here is my unanswered post for a third time.

 

[DrJamesAch]

I'm not James but his question was not "Does God permit evil?" It was, "Does God want women and children to be raped, abused, and molested?" IMO, you have not answered his question. JDF came closest, but not quite.

It is a fairly simple question. If I have a teenage daughter that does what they want against my wishes, I may permit her to date that boy she has a crush on because she's old enough to make her own choices and I can't control everything she does (she can run away). I may permit my daughter to things that I don't prefer or desire. My permissive will has nothing to do with my desires and wants.

The question simply identifies what others believe about what God wants and desires. Any Bible believing Christian that claims to know God should want to know what God wants and desires, but yet so many have already struggled with answering that question which I believe is a tell-tale sign that the love of God is a foreign concept to many in my opinion.

 

[InTheLight]

A third time is a charm I guess. Here is my unanswered post for a third time.

The word "permit" is not the same as the word "want". FAIL X 3.

 

[DrJamesAch]

A third time is a charm I guess. Here is my unanswered post for a third time.

You HAVE NOT answered my post. It is simple as 5th grade recess. I didn't ask "Does God punish sin". I didn't ask "does God PERMIT evil". You are attempting to morph your own premise on to my question in an attempt to hijack the subject and turn it into something you don't have to answer. My free will buckles against your determination to change the subject. And I can CHOOSE to ignore your question because you have not given a straight answer. If you don't want to answer it, fine. Then we have nothing further to discuss as you have abandoned the debate.

If you choose to answer it. The question is does God WANT and DESIRE the abuse, rape and molestation of women and children. Now I hope you know the difference between what God PERMITS and what God WANTS and PREFERS. If you don't know the difference then you can't answer this question anyway.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Actually, yes he did commit the ad hominem fallacy. He said that I claim ALL Calvinists are anti Semitic. That's not true. I have specifically named the three that have attacked me on those grounds on a regular basis.

I don't actually think so:
Usually, one "Ad-hominems" in order to "Poison the Well" against the conclusions someone suggests by pointing out personal character flaws. i.e:
1.) Bill Clinton wants to raise taxes
2.) Bill Clinton committed adultery with Monica Lewinsky
3.) Why would you want to follow the tax policy of an adulterer

I don't think that's what Archangel is doing....
In general, I think he is an intelligent, well-meaning and intellectually honest man. I don't think he meant to imply an "ad-hominem" there.
He was critical of you yes...but that isn't an "ad-hominem"...

I nailed him on the others...but, I think he was correct there.

I think that he secretly believed that his mastery of languages (vs. most of us mono-linguists anyway) would create a default impression of respect for his identity as a logician....Thus creating a sort of "Fallacy of Authority"...

"He is smart and knows Greek, therefore, he is a master of informal logic"...that kinda thingy...So, he perhaps over-played his hand there, but I don't think that was strictly an "ad-hominem".

And Archangel is not as well versed in Greek as he thinks he is. I've called him out on quite a few mistakes he's made and did so politely until he started attacking me personally.

Maybe...but, I believe that if you are quite reasonable and scholarly and genuine with him....he will not default to nasty perjoratives and insanity. I think Archangel is someone with whom you might have some informative and fruitful conversation. He is not so very impossible as some Calvinists on B.B. might be. He's quite a sane and reasonable man I.M.O. I think you could have positive and fruitful and informative debates with him.......I think you could probably learn from him actually.

Anyone that has seen my first posts on this board can clearly see that I was attacked first on this forum before I had the attitude I have now. You draw blood, you get it right back.

Yes...I know. The problem on this board, isn't that you "disagree" with Calvinism...it's that you have an air of not being intimidated by them when they try to put you in your proper place as a newbie without seniority and what-not. You were supposed to disagree more "respectfully" while they insulted you and your Theology for a few months. THEN, and ONLY THEN...were you senior enough to fight back a little....

There's an un-named power-structure to the whole thing you have yet to grasp. :smilewinkgrin: