You're wrong on every count.

> The fact is, when you admit that you think God won't stop a murderer/rapist/etc, and any moral person would, you've abandoned your morality.

As I said, it is well established that it's not necessary for God to stop evil for him to still be all-powerful and all good. An oncologist uses chemotherapy and radiation to bring people to the edge of death, causing them great suffering in the process, and yet we regard him as moral. A surgeon slices people open, amputates limbs, and even extracts body parts, but we regard him as moral because he pursues a greater good. In this case (as in many), the ends do justify the means.

If God were to stop all evil, he would have to take total control of our bodies so that no harm ever came to us. Which means he would have to take control of the total environment so that no building ever collapsed, no two cars ever collided, no tornado ever touched down, or no wave ever swarmed over a child. We would become meaningless robots, and our world would have no sense of cause and effect. There would be no such thing as science. In addition to that, we live in a dynamic environment where chaotic processes actually accomplish good, such as our brains rewiring circuits or our hearts building new blood vessels. Without a dynamic environment, we wouldn't even be able to reason. If we lived in a static environment, as you are proposing (God stops it all!) life as we know it would cease. I haven't abandoned morality in the least to contend that God doesn't have to stop all immorality to be a moral being.

> God ordered murder a ton in the Bible. So this is outright false.

You are failing to make the primary distinction between murder and judgment. When a judge orders execution, that's not considered murder, but justice. When a person defends themselves, it's not considered murder, but justifiable self-defense. When armies engage an enemy to stop the perpetuation of evil (as right now there is a military effort to stop Joseph Kony), it is considered just war, not murder. Just because God orders killing in judgment doesn't mean he is immoral.

> They are vulnerable to Hell if they aren't killed. Ending their mortal life slightly sooner is literally protecting them from the worst imaginable fate.

You need to scroll back to earlier posts that dealt with this objection. The theology of hell is not necessarily the caricature you are assuming and holding up as a straw man.

The fact is, when you admit that you think God won't stop a murderer/rapist/etc, and any moral person would, you've abandoned your morality.

It's a fact of your reality that killing a fetus is the most effective way of ensuring it gets into heaven. Just saying "murder is wrong" isn't a way out.

> Humans are made in the image of God, and the shedding of blood by murder is an offense to God because it is a desecration of that image

God ordered murder a ton in the Bible. So this is outright false.

> Because humans are made in the image of God they are endowed with a certain dignity that deserves honor, not abuse.

Non sequitur.

> Because children (especially unborn children) are some of the most vulnerable classes of humanity, to use one's power to perpetrate violence on them is wrong. They need protection from society, not the turning of a blind eye to their destruction.

They are vulnerable to Hell if they aren't killed. Ending their mortal life slightly sooner is literally protecting them from the worst imaginable fate.

> Because the taking of all life by murder is immoral, and because even unborn children are indisputably alive, then the murder of unborn children by abortion is murder in the first degree.

It wouldn't be immoral if it was in their best interest, which it is...

> Because the end doesn't automatically justify the means, perpetrating a wrong to achieve a supposed right is still perpetrating a wrong.

In this case it does...

> Are you seriously asking for substantiation?

Yes, and I still am. You didn't give me substantiation for your position.

> The guy who claimed that all the innocent people who died were automatically better off? Where's your substantiation for that?

Sure. Romans 5.13 says that those who didn't have the law won't be held accountable as if they were under the law. Therefore babies, who have no knowledge of any theology, are innocent in that sense and not subject to judgment.

Dt. 1.37-40: God's people are being judged for their rebellion, but the young ones who didn't have the mental capacity to make a reasoned and moral decision like that don't get judged.

Number 14.29 speaks of a kind of "age of accountability," just as Dt. 1.37-40 did.

Isa. 7.15. People can be too young mentally to know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.

he Scripture obviously teaches that anyone who is not capable of making a deliberate, reasoned decision is not held accountable like other people.

> Death is 100% a result of sin according to the Bible.

The death spoken of in Genesis 2.17 is a break of fellowship with God. it obviously wasn't physical death (they didn't die that day, but instead were doomed to physical death later because of their break of fellowship with God). The phrase in Gn. 2.17 is literally "dying you shall die," meaning they will be doomed to death. Death didn't result in the instance of their disobedience, but became their inevitable destiny as humans.

Physical death had to have been in the system prior to the Fall. If plants could serve as food, plants died. Since death was in the system, there is no reason to draw a false line and say that insects and animals did not. Through sin came the inevitability of death for people. Because of sin people lost access to the tree of life and become fully susceptible to death.

> Right, that's my point, we learn something (don't piss god off?) at the expense of innocent lives.

You are so quick to condemn God. I'm glad He's more patient with us than you see to be as an individual. What I am talking about in the death of innocents is things like animals who get caught in a forest fire, or children of die of starvation in foreign countries. Those have nothing to do with upsetting God. Back down a little.

> Since we're talking about proof, your entire last paragraph is just some guys opinion. Can you back any of that up?

Of course it is, and I told you it is. I also told you I was struggling with what he said, but I found it intriguing. Please try not to be so judgmental. It's true that the issues in the ancient world were those of order, disorder, and non-order. These are well established in ancient literature, and so there is no reason for us to think they are not part of the ancient biblical worldview. Dr. Walton is coming out with a book on the Flood this November, and I'm anxious to read it to further evaluate what he's saying.

> Hmm. I'm going to ask you to substantiate this with references.

Are you seriously asking for substantiation? The guy who claimed that all the innocent people who died were automatically better off? Where's your substantiation for that? The Bible is clear about the fall of man and how it brought pain and suffering and death into the world.

> I guess I need you to prove to me from Scripture that all suffering is the result of sin. I don't think that's correct.

Death is 100% a result of sin according to the Bible, but I don't think you get to ask for proof after some of the claims you have made.
It's not. The death of innocents is instructive to those who survive.

Right, that's my point, we learn something (don't piss god off?) at the expense of innocent lives. What kind of a system is that?

Since we're talking about proof, your entire last paragraph is just some guys opinion. Can you back any of that up?

Wow. Haven't you read about theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was part of a plot of assassinate Hitler? There's a vast and valid difference between the assassination of vile and evil person like Hitler and the murder of innocent babies in the womb.

It's hard to talk about morality with someone who wouldn't kill Hitler because the "end wouldn't justify the means." What a stupid way of thinking, Jesus.

> According to the bible it's not necessary, it is a result of sin.

Hmm. I'm going to ask you to substantiate this with references. For instance, Eve, as far as we can tell, would have experienced pain in childbirth before sin. What Genesis 3.16 says is that God would *increase* her pains. And are you contending that Adam, while working the ground before sin, could not have possibly hurt himself, even if he hit his thumb with a hammer? See, that's not what the curse of the ground was about. Did he ever stub his toe? I contend that he could have—that it was possible. Or tripped and sprained his ankle. I guess I need you to prove to me from Scripture that all suffering is the result of sin. I don't think that's correct.

> And how is it instructive to the people who died?

It's not. The death of innocents is instructive to those who survive.

> Also I wouldn't call drowning 'not a punishment'

Dr. John Walton, in his writings about the Flood, contends that Genesis never calls the flood a judgment. He says, "God brings death all the time in natural disasters and yet they are neither judgment nor moral issues. ... In the Flood, non-order and disorder have reached a state where they are out of balance, so God is going to restore order. It's a 'restore order act,' not a judgment of sin. It's kind of a reset button. The people who die are connected with disorder. That doesn't mean they were judged by sin. God killed them, but he was establishing order, which is his right to do. Morality is not the issue on the table." I'm still weighing that assertion, because it seems to me it is a judgment (Gn. 6.7, 13), but I get (at least a little bit) what he's saying about non-order and disorder.

>Suffering is a necessary part of the world and life, and it can be as productive as it is instructive.

According to the bible it's not necessary, it is a result of sin. And how is it instructive to the people who died? They are killed by god and either end up in heaven or hell.

> What happened to them is neither a punishment nor a detriment, but passage to a far better existence.

This assumes that they automatically went to heaven, but you don't have to believe in god to not be wicked. Also I wouldn't call drowning 'not a punishment'

> You have just defended killing a whole people because of the actions of their leaders, killing people because they follow a different religion, and killing people because of something their ancestors did.

I'm sorry to discover that you didn't read what I said. In these three examples, (1) no whole population was killed because of the actions of their leaders, (2) no people were killed because of something their ancestors did. I don't know where you even got these claims. What I said was that all of the Egyptians were complicit in crimes against humanity, and that the Amalekites leaders were killed because they were just as guilty as their ancestors. So both of those statements are false. As far as people being killed because they followed a different religion, yes. The lies of false religion have eternal consequences. This is not just a matter of he-said-she-said, or of the opinions of faith, but of objective truth with eternal consequences. The lies that ruin civilizations and destroy people should be stopped in their tracks. It's why the Allies went to war against Hitler, to name one.

> If you believe in an all-powerful god, then that god could have accomplished whatever it wanted without killing anybody.

You don't seem to have done your homework. First of all, most of the Conquest was defensive on the part of the Israelites, not offensive. When they entered the land they were attacked by a coalition from the south, and they defended themselves and won. Then they were attacked by a coalition from the north, and they defended themselves and won. After that, when the Israelites approached cities, they first asked the city to surrender, and if they city surrendered, that population would become part of Israel. If they wouldn't surrender, they were to be given time to vacate the city and peacefully leave the territory. It is God's repeated plan (expressed more than a dozen times), that the Canaanites be driven from the land, not that they be killed. War was only the final straw, when all efforts in other directions proved fruitless.

> And you admit that you believe that infanticide is a moral good.

I'm sorry that you're not reading me accurately. I did no such thing. Death in the Bible is not so much a judgment as a wage (Rom. 6.23a). People deserve death because of their own actions. If you've studied the problem of evil and the existence of God (which I'll have to assume you were responsible enough to do), you know that it has been solidly reasoned that God can be all-powerful and all good and that suffering, pain, and death still be realities. Death is a necessary state of affairs, and is perceived as a transition, not as an evil. God can even use suffering, pain, and death to accomplish his purposes without being personally unjust. Death is not the cessation of life (biblically, technically, there is no such thing); death is earned recompense. Death is the denial of God's created order. Sin is an imbalance that must be righted.

You have just defended killing a whole people because of the actions of their leaders, killing people because they follow a different religion, and killing people because of something their ancestors did. If you believe in an all-powerful god, then that god could have accomplished whatever it wanted without killing anybody.

>there's always collateral damage in such action, but since any righteous people (including babies) would have been ushered straight to heaven, this act of God was of benefit for them

And you admit that you believe that infanticide is a moral good. Heck, you admit that committing mass murder is a moral good. If the dead are evil, they deserve it. If they're good, then they go to Heaven.