A caring and loving god?

Soul Winner

liamw wrote: »

Any reasonable persons standards I would have thought. Do you think it's OK to punish a descendent for something their ancestor did?

God's ways are not our ways, but why blame God anyway? Blame Adam. He shouldn't have ate of the damn tree.

liamw wrote: »

'by default', there's a default setting for inheriting curses? The rest has nothing to do with my question.

Not sure what you mean.

liamw wrote: »

It does contradict it becuase if you go back up enough common ancestors, say back to the very first replicator, then you are saying we can call this replicator 'Adam'?

You've lost me. Replicator?

liamw wrote: »

Also, why are humans the only species inheriting this 'sin'?

Because it started with humans? God also cursed the ground because of Adam's sin.

antiskeptic

Soul Winner wrote: »

"(1) Thumos, "wrath" (not translated "anger"), is to be distinguished from orge, in this respect, that thumos indicates a more agitated condition of the feelings, an outburst of wrath from inward indignation, while orge suggests a more settled or abiding condition of mind, frequently with a view to taking revenge. Orge is less sudden in its rise than thumos, but more lasting in its nature. Thumos expresses more the inward feeling, orge the more active emotion. Thumos may issue in revenge, though it does not necessarily include it. It is characteristic that it quickly blazes up and quickly subsides, though that is not necessarily implied in each case."

I don't see anything there that precludes the wrath of God expressing via Tsunami. The ongoing nature of God's wrath indicated in Romans 1 (being revealed) aligns with the "more lasting in nature" sense of wrath indicated above. That the Tsunami was sudden and explosive doesn't imply the wrath behind it (if that's what it was) had that characteristic. A measured, abiding wrath would see ongoing calamity befall man. Which is, of course, the case.

Read the link I gave you and you'll see it, also those two books I mentioned. God's wrath is revealed in the constelation names and the names of the stars that they contain.

This seems to be the relevant bit (from a quick scan)

Didn't God have Paul tells us to look at the stars to see how the "wrath of God" is revealed in the heavens?

But there is no mention of star-gazing in the relevant verse in Romans 1. That verse goes: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness.." Besides "heaven" not being the same as "the heavens" (which eg: declare the glory of God), the connection between God's wrath revealed and God's wrath experienced is indicated in the Romans 1 passage: man ignores God and creates idols and God responds wrathfully by handing man over to his sin.

There is no basis in this passage for supposing God's wrath revealed in the heavens.

Well I could ask the same question. Why do you see these people as being more worthy of death than others? Why single out these folks?

As mentioned, God can accompish all sorts in this act: discipline of the saved, taking the saved to be with him, sparing someone a painful death through cancer, punishment of the wicked, taking those for whom the opportunity of salvation has passed out of the game, bringing people to their knees in their final moments..

The wrath aspect need not be the only aspect. Wrath to whom wrath is due - by Tsunami perhaps.

Luke 6:20 omits in spirit rendering it poor in general. Maybe its' both?

The context of that verse/section has to do with believers. Not the poor in general. The poor in general are as lost and sinful as much under the wrath of God and in need of salvation as anyone else - there being no doctrine which sees them in any other way that I'm aware of.

Well yes, but that does not mean that He actually did in this case.

I agree. But I see nothing much precluding that as an option. There was another option given in the original post you took issue with (fallen nature). I just presented what I thought where the possible two without suggesting it need be one or the other.

antiskeptic

liamw wrote: »

Any reasonable persons standards I would have thought. Do you think it's OK to punish a descendent for something their ancestor did?

Perhaps it's not so much punishment as consequence?

If a person infects themselves with HIV via a dirty needle (for example), the infection is passed down the line to children as a consequence of the parents action. It's not a question of whether the consequence is fair or not - it's simply a consequence. And we don't really look at these cases in the sense of fairness.

Adam made a consequential (as opposed to moral) choice. And God was bound to deliver on the promised consequences attaching to that choice. That all men suffer as a result is just the way consequence works. Fairness (or okay-ness) doesn't really come into it.

MrPudding

MooseJam wrote: »

I would happily die for my family and those I love, if I knew I would rise again I'd die for my cat.

Russel's Teapot FTW:

http://russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/martyr-con-07.html

Soul Winner wrote: »

We are all descended from Adam. When God cursed Adam with death because of his sin that curse included all of us in it because we all come from Adam.

And this gets back to that old chestnut that keeps coming up. God knew what was going to happen and let it happen. He knew when he created Adam exactly what would happen, yet he continued. He continued and allowed Adam to eat the fruit, and then allowed the sin to taint billions of descendent. How can you possibly think that makes sense?

Soul Winner wrote: »

"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many" Romans 5:15

Because of Adam God sees us all as sinners and as such we are born in sin separated from God's presence which is the source of life. We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. We are born sinners, born out of fellowship with the source of life and such death will be our portion.

In that case it is because of god that we are sinners. Your god created Adam knowing he would sin. You god decided that this sin would be passed to all his descendants. Why? He had no need to do that.

Soul Winner wrote: »

ut because of what Christ did for us on the cross i.e. taking the curse that was coming to us - death - on Himself, God can now grant life to those who believe in Him.

Or, he could have just punished Adam and not bothered passing the sin onto everyone else. Everyone happy and no one has to get nailed to a tree. Or, even better, he could have created man properly and without flaws.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Christ - the second Adam as Paul calls Him - opened the door that was shut because of Adam's sin and to walk through that door you must first accept the following:

God shut the door. Adam was merely a weak excuse. How could Adam. a mere human, shut a door opened by a god. How could he mess with god's plan? Or was it part of god's plan all along? Was it's god's plan that Adam would sin, the sin would be passed on and billions of people would suffer eternal hell, a large number of which would first suffer hell on earth before they died? Nice plan for a loving and caring god.

Soul Winner wrote: »

1) You are a sinner and in need of God's grace and forgiveness

You are a sinner because god has decided you inherit the sin of a bloke that lived thousands of years ago, but don't worry, even though he is responsible for your sin he has the cure...?

Soul Winner wrote: »

2) That Christ provided these through His death

Temporary death. More like a short coma really.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you cannot accept either of these then the message of the Gospel is not for you. That is he basic foundational message of Christianity, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

Why punish people for a cocked world that he created?

Soul Winner wrote: »

By who's standards?

Any decent person.

Soul Winner wrote: »

No. But when Adam sinned and God cursed him we by default inherited the curse.

Why? Why must we be punished for your god's failing? Why did he put the tree there? He knew what would happen but did it anyway.

Soul Winner wrote: »

God cannot allow sin in His presence, it must be dealt with and put away.

Fine. So create beings that can't sin. How hard would that be for an all powerful being? If he can create a universe on the scale of the one we are in and have it tweaked so that it supports our life surely he could create humans that had no ability to sin? This is not a limit to our freewill anymore that by inability to breath under water is a limit to it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Although God barred Adam from the source of life, He didn't totally cast him out.

How very understanding of him. Create a creature that you know is going to fall, then put him in a situation where you know he will fall, and then punish him and everyone that follows him for falling, but don't cast him out completely? Yeah, stand up guy.

Soul Winner wrote: »

He left a place of meeting back to Him. That is the place were Cain and Able gave the offerings to God. There was a designated time and place to offer it, which is why they were together when God accepted Able's and rejected Cain's.

I am not really a bible scholar, so forgive me if I get this wrong, Able kept sheep and offered some to god and he was happy. Cain's was a farmer and offered some of his harvest. God like the sheep but not the harvest? Why was that now?

MrP

MrPudding

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps it's not so much punishment as consequence?

But why did it have to be a consequence? Who decided that?

antiskeptic wrote: »

If a person infects themselves with HIV via a dirty needle (for example), the infection is passed down the line to children as a consequence of the parents action. It's not a question of whether the consequence is fair or not - it's simply a consequence. And we don't really look at these cases in the sense of fairness.

So you are comparing god to a drug addict?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Adam made a consequential (as opposed to moral) choice. And God was bound to deliver on the promised consequences attaching to that choice.

Why was god bound? And even if he was bound, why did he bind himself like that in the first place? I presume he bound himself? Who else would have the power to bind a god? Why would be kind himself in this way knowing what the consequence would be?

antiskeptic wrote: »

That all men suffer as a result is just the way consequence works. Fairness (or okay-ness) doesn't really come into it.

And who created the rule of consequence?

MrP

Turtwig

antiskeptic wrote: »

If a person infects themselves with HIV via a dirty needle (for example), the infection is passed down the line to children as a consequence of the parents action.

A hereditary virus? That would be a world's first.
Maybe if the mother was pregnant, but I think any mother who has contracted HIV and get's pregnant is about as reckless as the mother who takes alcohol while pregnant. I don't look too kindly at pregnant women who drink alcohol or smoke so I don't think your analogy is holding up.

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

So you are comparing god to a drug addict?

No, he's using the drug addict illustration with respect to Adam, not God.

Soul Winner

MrPudding wrote: »

And this gets back to that old chestnut that keeps coming up. God knew what was going to happen and let it happen. He knew when he created Adam exactly what would happen, yet he continued. He continued and allowed Adam to eat the fruit, and then allowed the sin to taint billions of descendent. How can you possibly think that makes sense?

The important thing is not that God knew, is that Adam knew. Even if God did know, Adam did not know that He knew. Adam actually tried to blame God on it when God asked him why he ate of the tree. Adam said: The woman that YOU gave me made me to eat. And when God questioned the women, she said: the serpent beguiled me. Adam blamed God for the woman and the woman blamed the serpent. How about taking some responsibility here?

MrPudding wrote: »

In that case it is because of god that we are sinners. Your god created Adam knowing he would sin. You god decided that this sin would be passed to all his descendants. Why? He had no need to do that.

Adam sinned, not God. How do you know God knew Adam would actually sin? The fail safe plan was there should Adam sin but that does not mean that God actually knew that Adam would actually sin. He just had the safety net ready regardless. But Adam did sin and God straight way enacted the redemption plan. Adam didn't have to sin though. Who knows what way things would be now if Adam had not sinned? I don't even think that God knew that Adam would actually sin. He just knew the potential for sin was there.

MrPudding wrote: »

Or, he could have just punished Adam and not bothered passing the sin onto everyone else. Everyone happy and no one has to get nailed to a tree. Or, even better, he could have created man properly and without flaws.

When you become God you can do it that way.

MrPudding wrote: »

God shut the door. Adam was merely a weak excuse. How could Adam. a mere human, shut a door opened by a god. How could he mess with god's plan? Or was it part of god's plan all along? Was it's god's plan that Adam would sin, the sin would be passed on and billions of people would suffer eternal hell, a large number of which would first suffer hell on earth before they died? Nice plan for a loving and caring god.

Nobody need suffer hell. The way out is provided, you need only walk through the door that has been re-opened by God. That you don't, for whatever reasson, is your choice, not His.

MrPudding wrote: »

You are a sinner because god has decided you inherit the sin of a bloke that lived thousands of years ago, but don't worry, even though he is responsible for your sin he has the cure...?
Temporary death. More like a short coma really.

Hmmm?? Well, be that as it may, He still took it on Himself and paid the price. He didn't have to.

MrPudding wrote: »

Why punish people for a cocked world that he created?

He's not punishing people for a cocked up world that He created. He is trying to save people out of the mess that they have made of the world that He created.

MrPudding wrote: »

Any decent person.

Like who?

MrPudding wrote: »

Why? Why must we be punished for your god's failing? Why did he put the tree there? He knew what would happen but did it anyway.

Does a parent not have the right to have furniture in their house that they will not allow their kids to jump all over whenever the urge takes them?

MrPudding wrote: »

Fine. So create beings that can't sin. How hard would that be for an all powerful being? If he can create a universe on the scale of the one we are in and have it tweaked so that it supports our life surely he could create humans that had no ability to sin? This is not a limit to our freewill anymore that by inability to breath under water is a limit to it.

If He created beings that cannot sin then He has just created robots that do His will without any freedom to choose otherwise. Is that the kind of God you want?

MrPudding wrote: »

How very understanding of him. Create a creature that you know is going to fall, then put him in a situation where you know he will fall, and then punish him and everyone that follows him for falling, but don't cast him out completely? Yeah, stand up guy.

As above, how do you know that God actually knew that Adam would actually fall? I don't think He did. I beleive He knew Adam could fall but didn't know for sure that Adam actually would fall. In Adam He created a being the destiny of whom God Himself pushed out of His own sight to see.

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not really a bible scholar, so forgive me if I get this wrong, Able kept sheep and offered some to god and he was happy. Cain's was a farmer and offered some of his harvest. God like the sheep but not the harvest? Why was that now?

No. God gave them a specific time, place and offering type in which to offer to Him. Cain got the idea into his head that he would improve on God's idea of a good offering by offering things that came form the very ground that God cursed through Adam. That's why God didn't accept Cain's offering and accepted Able's offering instead. Able did it God's way, and Cain didn't.

Hope you learned something.

opinion guy

Soul Winner wrote: »

Man can cause earthquakes as well you know, how do you know for sure that it wasn't man made?

Soul Winner wrote: »

We screwed this planet up and we are capable of causing many disasters including earthquakes, we can even manipulate the weather for crying out loud.

Errr what ?
How can man cause earthquakes ? Where are you getting this information from? When has this happened ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps it's not so much punishment as consequence?

If a person infects themselves with HIV via a dirty needle (for example), the infection is passed down the line to children as a consequence of the parents action. It's not a question of whether the consequence is fair or not - it's simply a consequence. And we don't really look at these cases in the sense of fairness.

I find this a distasteful and inappropriate comparison. One can catch HIV thru no fault of your own - via blood transfusion or as an occupationl hazard for health care staff. To compare HIV passing down to a child to the concept of original sin seems ignorant to me and to be perfectly honest makes me wonder if you judge HIV sufferers.

A hereditary virus? That would be a world's first.
Maybe if the mother was pregnant, but I think any mother who has contracted HIV and get's pregnant is about as reckless as the mother who takes alcohol while pregnant. I don't look too kindly at pregnant women who drink alcohol or smoke so I don't think your analogy is holding up.

Equally, I find this a dispicable and ignorant statement. HIV +ve women can get pregnant and deliver healthy HIV NEGATIVE babies under the direction of Infectious Disease experts. Indeed some Doctors will even encourage them to do so whilst their disease is under control. Again this seems a highly judgemental statement.

I have no idea if you people are religious or not. But you might want to educate yourselves on things such as HIV beofer adopting such bigotted opinions on the subject.

Soul Winner

opinion guy wrote: »

Errr what ?
How can man cause earthquakes ? Where are you getting this information from? When has this happened ?

From Newdawnmagazine.com

Artificially-Induced Earthquakes

Officially, there is an area of research devoted to man-made earthquakes. Geologists and seismologists agree earthquakes can be induced in five major ways: fluid injection into the Earth, fluid extraction from the Earth, mining or quarrying, nuclear testing and through the construction of dams and reservoirs.

In fact, there are officially recorded instances of earthquakes caused by human activity.

Geologists discovered that disposal of waste fluids by means of injecting them deep into the Earth could trigger earthquakes after a series of quakes in the Denver area occurred from 1962-1965; the periods and amounts of injected waste coincided with the frequency and magnitude of quakes in the Denver area. The earthquakes were triggered because the liquid, which was injected under very high pressure, released stored strain energy in the rocks.

Man-made earthquakes may seem like something out of the X-Files, and it’s probably only a matter of time before the idea is picked up by Hollywood.

The plotline of Hammer of Eden, written by best-selling author Ken Follett, revolves around a terrorist group threatening to level San Francisco with a man-made earthquake. When asked by Salon magazine how real is the idea of a man-made earthquake, Follett replied that, “Some of the seismologists told me, ‘There’s no way this could happen.’ But others gave sad little shrugs and said, ‘It’s hard to say. Who knows? Maybe. It’s within the realm of possibly.’

More here...

homer911

Man-made earthquakes may seem like something out of the X-Files, and it’s probably only a matter of time before the idea is picked up by Hollywood.

Wasnt there a James Bond movie based around creating a man made earthquake in silicon valley?

(That awful one with Roger Moore and Grace Jones)

PDN

opinion guy wrote: »

Errr what ?
How can man cause earthquakes ? Where are you getting this information from? When has this happened ?




I find this a distasteful and inappropriate comparison. One can catch HIV thru no fault of your own - via blood transfusion or as an occupationl hazard for health care staff. To compare HIV passing down to a child to the concept of original sin seems ignorant to me and to be perfectly honest makes me wonder if you judge HIV sufferers.



Equally, I find this a dispicable and ignorant statement. HIV +ve women can get pregnant and deliver healthy HIV NEGATIVE babies under the direction of Infectious Disease experts. Indeed some Doctors will even encourage them to do so whilst their disease is under control. Again this seems a highly judgemental statement.

I have no idea if you people are religious or not. But you might want to educate yourselves on things such as HIV beofer adopting such bigotted opinions on the subject.

Do you understand the concept of an illustration, or analogy?

The point the poster made was that actions have consequences. Our children can be affected by our choices, and we can pass stuff on to them.

No-one was passing judgement on anyone with AIDS.

liamw

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps it's not so much punishment as consequence?

If a person infects themselves with HIV via a dirty needle (for example), the infection is passed down the line to children as a consequence of the parents action. It's not a question of whether the consequence is fair or not - it's simply a consequence. And we don't really look at these cases in the sense of fairness.

Adam made a consequential (as opposed to moral) choice. And God was bound to deliver on the promised consequences attaching to that choice. That all men suffer as a result is just the way consequence works. Fairness (or okay-ness) doesn't really come into it.

Even though this is a poor analogy, I'm not going to get pedantic about it becuase I can see your general point. But your point is flawed because a consequence cannot be controlled. It still doesn't mean descendents deserve to inherit it. In Adam's case, God could have limited the punishment just to Adam. God purposefully ensured that all of Adam's descendents inherited the sin and would be punished.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Adam sinned, not God. How do you know God knew Adam would actually sin? The fail safe plan was there should Adam sin but that does not mean that God actually knew that Adam would actually sin. He just had the safety net ready regardless. But Adam did sin and God straight way enacted the redemption plan. Adam didn't have to sin though. Who knows what way things would be now if Adam had not sinned? I don't even think that God knew that Adam would actually sin. He just knew the potential for sin was there.

Isn't God omniscient?

PDN

liamw wrote: »

God purposefully ensured that all of Adam's descendents inherited the sin and would be punished.

No, that isn't what Christians believe at all. We believe that God allowed Adam's descendants to inherit a sinful nature.

God certainly did not ensure that all of Adam's descendants would be punished. He provided ways for them to receive forgiveness for their choices and so not to be punished.

(Liam, do you object to the principle of a child being affected by the choices their parents made? For example, do you think it is immoral for you to inherit a piece of property from your parents?)

Isn't God omniscient?

It depends how you define omniscience. Many, but not all, Christians believe that God's omniscience means He can see all the possible consequences of our actions, but not that He forsees what choices we will make. The idea is similar to a computer being able to foresee all the possible outcomes of any move in a chess game, but not predicting the move a player will make at any given point.

liamw

PDN wrote: »

No, that isn't what Christians believe at all. We believe that God allowed Adam's descendants to inherit a sinful nature.

Semantics really, if he allowed it, it means he didn't even try to stop it. Also, he would have made the rule in the first place.

God certainly did not ensure that all of Adam's descendants would be punished. He provided ways for them to receive forgiveness for their choices and so not to be punished.

It wasn't 'their choices' though. That's the point. They didn't do anything wrong, their ancestor/s did.

(Liam, do you object to the principle of a child being affected by the choices their parents made? For example, do you think it is immoral for you to inherit a piece of property from your parents?)

No, becuase who would be performing the immoral act? Nobody, it's just biology. If my father had a genetically induced 'defect' and I inherited it, I can't blame anyone. But the difference is that God is supposed to be a perfectly moral being, and yet allows this to happen. Your the one that believes this, not me.

It depends how you define omniscience. Many, but not all, Christians believe that God's omniscience means He can see all the possible consequences of our actions, but not that He forsees what choices we will make. The idea is similar to a computer being able to foresee all the possible outcomes of any move in a chess game, but not predicting the move a player will make at any given point.

Omniscience is all-knowing, so God would know what choice you are going to make. Any other skewed definition is just wrong. It's playing with the definition to suit yourself.

Turtwig

opinion guy wrote: »

Equally, I find this a dispicable and ignorant statement. HIV +ve women can get pregnant and deliver healthy HIV NEGATIVE babies under the direction of Infectious Disease experts. Indeed some Doctors will even encourage them to do so whilst their disease is under control. Again this seems a highly judgemental statement.

My apologies,

I always was under the impression that it was a risky proposition, but seeing, as you say, doctors encourage it then it really can't be that bad can it.Quick google makes me feel a bit stupid right about now.(2% risk of contraction is pretty dam good) It was a statement from ignorance, so thanks very much for correcting it.

PDN

liamw wrote: »

Semantics really, if he allowed it, it means he didn't even try to stop it. Also, he would have made the rule in the first place.

If you wish to engage in discussions with Christians then I suggest you listen to what Christians actually believe, particularly when they clarify their position and point out any misaconceptions you are holding about their beliefs.

If you want to build strawmen then this is the wrong forum. There are other forums that will happily let you build such strawmen and where the builders of strawmen can slap one another on the back.

Dismissing my clarification as 'semantics' gives a strong impression that you are not interested in discovering what we actually believe.

It wasn't 'their choices' though. That's the point. They didn't do anything wrong, their ancestor/s did.

It was their choices. All of us have an inherent bias towards sin, but we make our own choices and need to be man enough to accept the consequences of our own actions.

No, becuase who would be performing the immoral act? Nobody, it's just biology. If my father had a genetically induced 'defect' and I inherited it, I can't blame anyone. But the difference is that God is supposed to be a perfectly moral being, and yet allows this to happen. Your the one that believes this, not me.

I don't think it's biology to inherit a piece of property from your parents. But, leaving that peculiar notion on one side, the choices we make affect the lives of our children, both for good and for evil. That's part of the responsibility of being a parent. I don't see anything morally wrong in that general concept.

Omniscience is all-knowing, so God would know what choice you are going to make. Any other skewed definition is just wrong. It's playing with the definition to suit yourself.

No, if you are debating with Soulwinner then his definition of 'omniscience' is the one that matters, since you seem to want to argue with his beliefs. Otherwise you are just strawmanning again.

opinion guy

@SoulWinner - interesting post. News to me! I would say thou - the Tsunami triggering Earthquake is known to be caused by natural processes - middle of the ocean and all of that.

homer911 wrote: »

Wasnt there a James Bond movie based around creating a man made earthquake in silicon valley?

(That awful one with Roger Moore and Grace Jones)[/left]

There was also Superman something where Lex Luthor wanted to nuke the San Andreas fault.

PDN wrote: »

Do you understand the concept of an illustration, or analogy?

The point the poster made was that actions have consequences. Our children can be affected by our choices, and we can pass stuff on to them.

No-one was passing judgement on anyone with AIDS.

And my point was that it was a poor analogy - for various reasons. I don't think anyone was blatantly passing judement on AIDs victims, but it could be interpreted that way. There are good analogies and bad analogies - this was a bad one.

PDN

opinion guy wrote: »

And my point was that it was a poor analogy - for various reasons. I don't think anyone was blatantly passing judement on AIDs victims, but it could be interpreted that way. There are good analogies and bad analogies - this was a bad one.

I think it could only be interpreted that way by someone with a poor understanding of English or someone who thinks in a rather muddled way. The analogy made a straightforward point, and IMHO did so rather well.

liamw

PDN wrote: »

If you wish to engage in discussions with Christians then I suggest you listen to what Christians actually believe, particularly when they clarify their position and point out any misaconceptions you are holding about their beliefs.

If you want to build strawmen then this is the wrong forum. There are other forums that will happily let you build such strawmen and where the builders of strawmen can slap one another on the back.

Dismissing my clarification as 'semantics' gives a strong impression that you are not interested in discovering what we actually believe.

I wasn't aware I was building strawmen. I'm simply making the point that whether God 'allowed' it or he 'forced' it is essentially the same difference because he is omnipotent.

Not my fault you aren't open to valid criticism.

It was their choices. All of us have an inherent bias towards sin, but we make our own choices and need to be man enough to accept the consequences of our own actions.

How was it their choices that their ancestor did something wrong?

I don't think it's biology to inherit a piece of property from your parents. But, leaving that peculiar notion on one side, the choices we make affect the lives of our children, both for good and for evil. That's part of the responsibility of being a parent. I don't see anything morally wrong in that general concept.

It depends what it is. If I made a choice that caused my children to burn for eternity in hell, then I think I have made a morally wrong choice.

No, if you are debating with Soulwinner then his definition of 'omniscience' is the one that matters, since you seem to want to argue with his beliefs. Otherwise you are just strawmanning again.

You love pulling out the strawmanning hat. I haven't strawmanned anything, I'm purely working off the definition of omniscnient. Don't use the damn word if you don't mean it.

I think Christians do mean the actual definition of the word until it suits to twist it's meaning (typically in the case where free will is involved).

opinion guy

PDN wrote: »

I think it could only be interpreted that way by someone with a poor understanding of English or someone who thinks in a rather muddled way. The analogy made a straightforward point, and IMHO did so rather well.

Apart from the fact that HIV isn't automatically passed on to a child. There are numerous factors at play. And human actions and interventions play a big role in whether its passed on or not. So actually really its a terrible analogy because it does not even contain the same traits (i.e unconditional inheritance) of original sin that the author was trying to describe. It in fact describes the very opposite case where human actions and interventions can prevent that inheritance. So really its a completely failed analogy now isn't it ?

PDN

liamw wrote: »

I wasn't aware I was building strawmen. I'm simply making the point that whether God 'allowed' it or he 'forced' it is essentially the same difference because he is omnipotent.

Not my fault you aren't open to valid criticism.

Except it isn't valid criticism, is it? Omnipotence means God is able to do anything - not that He does everything He is able to do.

So, am omnipotent God may, if He wishes, give us the free will to make our own choices without forcing us to do anything.

You seem to have a basic problem here. You use words that have derived their meanings primarily from Christian theology (eg omnipotence and omniscience) and then insist on ascribing your own definitions to them while ignoring their historic usage.

How was it their choices that their ancestor did something wrong?

It wasn't. No-one will be punished for anything their ancestors did wrong. We deserve punishment for the things we choose to do wrong.

It depends what it is. If I made a choice that caused my children to burn for eternity in hell, then I think I have made a morally wrong choice.

I have no doubt that you have made a morally wrong choice. But, thank God, you do not have the power to cause your children to burn for eternity in hell. The only person you can cause to burn for eternity in hell is your good self.

You love pulling out the strawmanning hat. I haven't strawmanned anything, I'm purely working off the definition of omniscnient. Don't use the damn word if you don't mean it.

I think Christians do mean the actual definition of the word until it suits to twist it's meaning (typically in the case where free will is involved).

You are strawmanning, and, as often happens in discussions with atheists, you don't like it when you get called out on it.

The word 'omniscient' has primarily derived its definition from its usage over the centuries in theological discussion. Your ignorance of that discussion is causing you to ascribe an arbitrary definition that distorts the meaning of the word.

Here, try reading up on what 'omniscient' actually means. Then come back and we can discuss it further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

PDN

opinion guy wrote: »

Apart from the fact that HIV isn't automatically passed on to a child. There are numerous factors at play. And human actions and interventions play a big role in whether its passed on or not. So actually really its a terrible analogy because it does not even contain the same traits (i.e unconditional inheritance) of original sin that the author was trying to describe. It in fact describes the very opposite case where human actions and interventions can prevent that inheritance. So really its a completely failed analogy now isn't it ?

No it isn't. The analogy has nothing to do with whether something is inevitable or not. The point is that our choices can cause consequences for the next generation. And that simple point is well made.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

It wasn't. No-one will be punished for anything their ancestors did wrong. We deserve punishment for the things we choose to do wrong.

A terribly important distinction that seems to have been largely missed or dismissed as "semantics"

mardybumbum

Im glad to see this thread has gathered so much interest.
I have been busy for the last few days travelling but I will reply once I get a chance to read through all the posts.
Happy new year folks.

mardybumbum

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't be inclined to rule it out. Although God could be expected to be killing a number of birds with one stone. We have the possibilities of

- taking believers to be with him without that involving discipline (everyone has to die someday - including believers)

- removing those who won't be saved from the scene (everyone has to die someday, including unbelievers).

Ok so the tsunami can be explained away by stating that the believers who died are now in heaven with god, so the tsunami wasn't such a bad thing at all for them.
Whereas the non believers were removed from the planet so thats good for God also.
Is that the jist of it?

It seemse to make a bit of sense at first.
But what about the relatives of those who died in the tsunami.
They did not seem to be comfortable with the fact that their dead relatives were in a better place.
Why would God want to put "his people" through that anguish?

And many of those that died in the tsunami were very young babies.
Why would God create those children only to take them away so soon?
Surely an omniscient diety would realise the sillyness of it all.

PDN wrote: »

He is stating what Christians have taught for centuries.

Perhaps you are right. I don't know what christians believe these days.
But this God that permeates nature, whose essence we can feel in the wind, in the heat from fire, from the pull of gravity, etc is not the one described in the OT is it?

Fanny Cradock

mardybumbum wrote: »

Perhaps you are right. I don't know what christians believe these days.
But this God that permeates nature, whose essence we can feel in the wind, in the heat from fire, from the pull of gravity, etc is not the one described in the OT is it?

Hoefully you understand a little better now.

Anyway, the second part of your post requires a bit of clarification. If you are saying that God is nature - tree, rocks wind and whatever else - then you are slipping into pantheism and rapidly moving away from orthodox Christianity. However, if you intend to use your words as metaphor that serves to promote wonder at God's creation, and yet hold that God is transcendent, then it's probably an orthodox - if not confusing - way of thinking about God. In other words, a Christian can be spiritually inspired by the beauty of nature, for example, but it shouldn't be confused with God.

FishFood

Just curious about the 'omniscience' description provided which I think PDN likened to a 'chess move' where the player/GOD isn't aware of the actual move but is aware of all the possible outcomes after the move?

Does this not present difficulties then for the whole 'It's God's will' when somebody dies or something happens then? Say in an accident and people attempt to make themselves feel better by saying that it was God's will and their time. But if the above version of God's omniscience is accurate, then surely God was not aware of their first move which say led to their death? How then can it be purely God's will that these things happen?

Or am I going to be shot down easily with the pesky 'free will' bullet?:p

Zaynzma

Soul Winner wrote: »

How do you know God knew Adam would actually sin? The fail safe plan was there should Adam sin but that does not mean that God actually knew that Adam would actually sin.

God created the universe, in which time exists according to the laws of physics

Therefore God is outside of time, He is not experiencing the passing of time as we are

Which is why He knows everything about everyone's future.

PDN

FishFood wrote: »

Just curious about the 'omniscience' description provided which I think PDN likened to a 'chess move' where the player/GOD isn't aware of the actual move but is aware of all the possible outcomes after the move?

Does this not present difficulties then for the whole 'It's God's will' when somebody dies or something happens then? Say in an accident and people attempt to make themselves feel better by saying that it was God's will and their time. But if the above version of God's omniscience is accurate, then surely God was not aware of their first move which say led to their death? How then can it be purely God's will that these things happen?

Or am I going to be shot down easily with the pesky 'free will' bullet?:p

The idea that everything that happens is the will of God is more of an Islamic concept than a Christian one. Most Christians (with the exception of Calvinists) believe that many things occur which are contrary to the will of God.

The whole idea of saying that someone's death is God's will is IMHO the same sort of unthinking folk-religionish nonsense as when people say that a dead baby has become an angel.