|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 11, 2017 13:47:14 GMT
...saying to Adam & Eve's offspring, "You'll be starting out sinless, just as your parents did. They were disobedient, and you will see for yourself the penalty they'll pay for sinning. I'm giving you the same chance I gave them. Be smart and don't make the same mistake they did." But that's just Bible fan fiction. For we know that Adam's offspring and all ensuing generations inherited sin from him. This is foundational doctrine in Christianity (Original Sin): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
As Bible.org puts it: "The point is, after Adam sinned, he and his descendants could only beget sinners, so all men are under the sentence of death, the penalty of sin." The overwhelming majority of Christian churches worldwide subscribe to this. But I have never seen any defense of the wisdom in God's decision that sinfulness shall be an inherited trait, like eye color.
Such a defense is called for because the notion of passing a sentence upon children for the offense of a parent is normally regarded as irrationally vicious. God could have allowed Adam's children to be born sinless with the same chance as Adam, but instead decided that sin and its penalty shall be a trait that is passed on to every generation. (Romans 5:12).
Is there any substantive defense of such a decision? Or is it OK just because God says so? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 11, 2017 14:04:15 GMT
I'm not sure if this is one of those threads that isn't actually interested in an answer as much as it is to convey an opinion, but I'll give it a shot since I'm nice.
I think there has always been willful ignorance between the differences of sin based on behavior vs. inherited sin which could be something as simple as biology.
As an aside, it's not really a foundational doctrine. Otherwise, Christianity would end once perfection was achieved. It certainly explains a lot, but sin is not the big deal theophobiacs make it out to be. It happens and the goal is to get to the point of it not happening if we so choose.
It may be a foundational reason for salvation though which can happen with or without death involved. Now salvation is a foundation of Christine Doctrine.
The notion of sin as a death dealing matter is no different than any other disease. Heck, Adam & Eve weren't even mandated to have kids after they sinned
Why would God be obligated to erase the stain Adam & Eve caused?
It wasn't a death sentence for future sins, but rather it was a result of the original one and it has a pretty easy cure unless death is preferred.
There's no need for a defense because there is no offense in the first place, only a solution to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2017 14:24:32 GMT
...saying to Adam & Eve's offspring, "You'll be starting out sinless, just as your parents did. They were disobedient, and you will see for yourself the penalty they'll pay for sinning. I'm giving you the same chance I gave them. Be smart and don't make the same mistake they did." But that's just Bible fan fiction. For we know that Adam's offspring and all ensuing generations inherited sin from him. Fantastic. God can suck it if he's gonna plant sin in my ass from the gitgo... sin he created and implemented... then had the audacity to blame a woman for. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Sept 11, 2017 14:52:38 GMT
...saying to Adam & Eve's offspring, "You'll be starting out sinless, just as your parents did. They were disobedient, and you will see for yourself the penalty they'll pay for sinning. I'm giving you the same chance I gave them. Be smart and don't make the same mistake they did." But that's just Bible fan fiction. For we know that Adam's offspring and all ensuing generations inherited sin from him. This is foundational doctrine in Christianity (Original Sin): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
As Bible.org puts it: "The point is, after Adam sinned, he and his descendants could only beget sinners, so all men are under the sentence of death, the penalty of sin." The overwhelming majority of Christian churches worldwide subscribe to this. But I have never seen any defense of the wisdom in God's decision that sinfulness shall be an inherited trait, like eye color.
Such a defense is called for because the notion of passing a sentence upon children for the offense of a parent is normally regarded as irrationally vicious. God could have allowed Adam's children to be born sinless with the same chance as Adam, but instead decided that sin and its penalty shall be a trait that is passed on to every generation. (Romans 5:12).
Is there any substantive defense of such a decision? Or is OK just because God says so? The defense would be: It's a perfect marketing set-up for a Snake Oil vendor. Like: You are born with Original Sin. There's nothing you can do about it. BUT: We have the Snake Oil that will wash away that sin. It's from the son of the guy who declared that you have Original Sin; and the profit from the Snake Oil sales will go directly to his company, so he won't persecute you further. And the Snake Oil vendors could then even make up stories about how the son in question even took upon him the punishment for Original Sin, by dying, but managed to resurrect after using the Snake Oil. And that's sooo miraculous, it's proof that the Snake Oil works. And lots of people would fall for it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this scheme has been running for almost 2.000 years. |
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Sept 11, 2017 15:04:21 GMT
...Why would God be obligated to erase the stain Adam & Eve caused? ... No reasonable person would punish their grand children, great-grandchildren, etc. for the actions committed by their child. The story of Adam and Eve was not thought out very well. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 11, 2017 15:15:28 GMT
...Why would God be obligated to erase the stain Adam & Eve caused? ... No reasonable person would punish their grand children, great-grandchildren, etc. for the actions committed by their child. The story of Adam and Eve was not thought out very well. No reasonable person could think they could stop something that is inherited.
Again, why would there be an expectation for God to cure a disease without that cure?
It's a not a punishment anymore than a kid with leukemia is being punished by their parents for having him.
Being imperfect just is and you deal with it and take the cure or antidote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 11, 2017 15:17:43 GMT
Posted by CoolJGS☺
"I think there has always been willful ignorance between the differences of sin based on behavior vs. inherited sin which could be something as simple as biology."
But there's the point: that sin is not based only on behavior, but that God decided that there would be such a thing as inherited sin based on biology (like, as you say, disease).
"It wasn't a death sentence for future sins, but rather it was a result of the original one."
Again, the whole point: God decides there shall be a death sentence on children for the original sin of Adam.
"Why would God be obligated to erase the stain Adam & Eve caused?"
I'm not saying God must erase A&E's stain. I question His decision to make it a stain that shall spread to future generations rather than a stain that is contained to the pair that is to blame.
"There's no need for a defense because there is no offense in the first place."
I have already described the offense (sentencing children and the future unborn for the misdeeds of a parent). You feel no need to defend such a decision. And so you offer none. But you're not alone. I know of no defense ever having been made.
(And as an aside, the idea of inherited sin IS foundational to Christianity. If men were not BORN into sin there would be no need of a Christ to redeem that sin. Men would just be rightly punished for the sin they COMMIT.) |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 11, 2017 15:18:13 GMT
I've always thought that it was odd that God created an imperfect world deliberately (He looked at his new creation and only saw it "very good") as it included evil, then blames mankind for perpetuating it. Why not just create a perfect world with perfect beings, still with free will, and save us and Him all the trouble and necessary sacrifices that ensued? As a perfectly good, omniscient and omnipotent God this would not have been hard. He may have decided not to know the exact travails of Man which would happen but it is surely obvious that anything which includes evil will eventually manifest it, with all good intentions.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 11, 2017 15:26:54 GMT
I've always thought that it was odd that God created an imperfect world deliberately (He looked at his new creation and only saw it "very good") as it included evil, then blames mankind for perpetuating it. Why not just create a perfect world with perfect beings, still with free will, and save us and Him all the trouble and necessary sacrifices that ensued? As a perfectly good, omniscient and omnipotent God this would not have been hard. The world is pretty perfect. In all of the vast universe, there is nothing to compare it to that we are aware of. Maybe I'm taking the statement too literal...
Evil is merely a standard against what is considered good.
If there is a rule in place at all, then there is a potential for evil to disrupt that, making the argument moot unless one thinks that anarchy or removal of free will are the only good.
It might be that some people look at creation as magic despite the obvious fact that our existence without aid or assistance from God contradicts that.
Perfect beings aren't just created as they still have to reflect particular behaviors and with free will, these behaviors have to be both voluntary and capable of keeping them at the standards God would expect and deserve as creator.
It is impossible until shown otherwise to have perfection and free will without standards. Otherwise perfection does not exist and the only thing to whine about is the lack of salvation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 11, 2017 15:36:35 GMT
Also from CooJGS:
"No reasonable person could think they could stop something that is inherited."
Again, missing the point. Sin is inherited only because God DECIDED that it shall be. But can anyone justify that decision that inflicts the blameless unborn? (CoolJGS says that no defense is needed.)
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 11, 2017 15:40:51 GMT
IsapopGod didn't decide that. Adam did. Adam made the choice to endanger himself and his family at the expense of a monetary thing. There is absolutely no reason for God to adjust his standards on the basis of a mistake his creation made that exposed them to corruption and thus endanger their children. It's just a good thing that God came up with a solution to man's stupidity. It wasn't his decision. Imperfect parents do not have the ability to beget perfect kids. That's science. He didn't make the stain. Adam did. It's not his responsibility except that now he decided to clean it up despite the objections from his creation to do so. Well, I have already described some things to that dismiss the notion that our deaths are his fault in the first place which I would consider a defense of some sort. But, I also said this was likely a ploy to share an opinion rather than to seek some understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 11, 2017 15:44:34 GMT
I've always thought that it was odd that God created an imperfect world deliberately (He looked at his new creation and only saw it "very good") as it included evil, then blames mankind for perpetuating it. Why not just create a perfect world with perfect beings, still with free will, and save us and Him all the trouble and necessary sacrifices that ensued? As a perfectly good, omniscient and omnipotent God this would not have been hard. The world is pretty perfect. Perfect like God. Created and deployed by God. People who make it to heaven have free will. God just needs to make them all with those traits and inclinations and forging instead of creating so many culls, if he is able. More just pulled out of the ass. Lots of stuff with evidence are kind of mind-blowing. God made 'em, he could make them all with the strength and disposition and empathy of a Mother Theresa. Wait, probably not the right example. She's likely in hell now being "treated" by some of her less savory former charges. Easy enough to have the "perfection" of this world. :;giveup:: And it's pretty easy to see the posts with the snappy "whine".
So you are a heathen. It doesn;t matter if I use it to insult you or just as the accurate term to describe you. Deal with it. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 11, 2017 15:44:56 GMT
Also from CooJGS: "No reasonable person could think they could stop something that is inherited."Again, missing the point. Sin is inherited only because God DECIDED that it shall be. But can anyone justify that decision that inflicts the blameless unborn? (CoolJGS says that no defense is needed.) Not true,
Sin being inherited is merely biology and easily curable for those who want the cure.
Granted, it is God's decision to not lower his standards for the sake of people whining that he should (Even Adam & Eve didn't do that...), but then those who complain still wouldn't take him too seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 11, 2017 15:50:14 GMT
The world is pretty perfect. In all of the vast universe, there is nothing to compare it to that we are aware of. Maybe I'm taking the statement too literal... Well first of all, just because we are not aware other things that does not necessarily mean that they do not/can not exist. The number of earth-like planets currently known for instance is in the hundreds and is increasing all the time. Secondly if you are suggesting that earth is 'pretty perfect' for mankind, then science would probably argue that humans are evolved to be most successful at surviving on earth. There is no evidence that the planet is designed for us, more that we - and everything else evolved to fit in best (or go extinct along with the vast majority of all other species which once existed). It would be more common to assert that good is the standard against which things ought to be measured, not vice versa. For instance John Stuart Mill's idea of the greatest good for the greatest number. I am not sure what you mean here. From a Biblical perspective at least the only 'rule' is that God's will be done. And the creation of earth was clearly not an accident. Evil only gains its potential since the Creator has allowed it, either by direct creation or inaction. Indeed, although some 'facts' are less provable and convincing to some people that others .... Some have taken 'god' to just mean other than the deliberate supernatural for instance, just an over-arching structure to all things which dictates why things can be, or the range of things they might become given the 'brute fact' of the rules of different working realities . There is no reason why a perfect being cannot have free will. The purported Xian God for instance, who presumably always knows His own mind. Whatever standards are required then it reasonable to assume that a perfect being would meet them perfectly. God after all, the best example of a purported perfect being, (for the faithful at least) never deviates from succeeding and justifying His own nature. |
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Sept 11, 2017 15:53:05 GMT
No reasonable person would punish their grand children, great-grandchildren, etc. for the actions committed by their child. The story of Adam and Eve was not thought out very well. No reasonable person could think they could stop something that is inherited.
Again, why would there be an expectation for God to cure a disease without that cure?
It's a not a punishment anymore than a kid with leukemia is being punished by their parents for having him.
Being imperfect just is and you deal with it and take the cure or antidote.
False equivalency....and I think you already know that! Your example has nothing to do with the Adam and Eve story. A child inheriting a disease from their parents is one thing. However, if a child gets punished because his/her parents decided to eat some cookies (30 years ago), from a plate that was well within reach, is completely different. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 11, 2017 15:57:18 GMT
"God didn't decide that. Adam did."
Flat wrong. Adam decided to sin. But it was God who decided that sin will be not just an action, but also an inheritable trait that is passed on to the unborn. (And punishing Adam's children was, by the way, something that God did not warn Adam about in advance of Adam's sin.)
"Sin being inherited is merely biology"
And who decreed the laws of biology if not God?
You cannot defend God's decision (and, so far, no other Christian on the board is attempting to), and so you try to lamely claim that sin being a biologically inheritable trait was not God's decision anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Sept 11, 2017 16:48:01 GMT
yet another multi-generational mind fuck
regurgitating
tens of millions of hours of useless rhetoric
pointing fingers
at
the original train wreck
that religion is
is about as productive as
telling little timmy
he
can't get a boner
because of what his great grand daddy did
to that herd of sheep
he hid
under the trap door in the barn
where
his grand mother bid
all those things to those farm hands
he's been
jerking off to in the first place.
sjw 09/11/17 inspired at this very moment in time by a tisket a tasket that plowman has got one hell of a basket.
from the 'boner series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 11, 2017 16:59:53 GMT
CoolJGS wrote:
Yes, you've done that many times. It's admirable, in a way that's somewhat difficult to explain.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 11, 2017 18:19:48 GMT
tpfkar No reasonable person would punish their grand children, great-grandchildren, etc. for the actions committed by their child. The story of Adam and Eve was not thought out very well. No reasonable person could think they could stop something that is inherited.
Again, why would there be an expectation for God to cure a disease without that cure?
It's a not a punishment anymore than a kid with leukemia is being punished by their parents for having him.
Being imperfect just is and you deal with it and take the cure or antidote.
God couldn't? Why would there be an expectation that God would create leukemia in the first place (in children no less), unless of course he was a monster. "What is" is only what God created / inflicted.
I would say that God wouldn't care one way or another as long as they are treated fairly...which is why there is instruction on it to begin with. The fact is that a slave could be an overseer in the congregation his master goes to because Scripture makes pretty clear that everyone has equal rights within the church if not in society. |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Sept 12, 2017 0:26:36 GMT
The fundamental view is doomed, of course, since it relies on God being another Devil.
However, there are two major views, one Gnostic, the other perhaps Gnostic, that are the most obvious ones. However, they also mean that the views can never be successful in a world where Satan is the maker of rules, and decides things.
Both views admit God is passive. If he isn't passive, then he is truly as evil as Satan. But why is he passive?
30 years ago, the debate of the active and passive God was more prevalent. Today, it should be the major debating point, but it isn't.
In one view, the complete Gnostic view, the "fall of Adam and Eve" put them into Satan's box. It's as if they were on God's Monopoly board, and then accepted Satan's dice to put them into a 41st square which was his box.
This makes logic out of the illogic of the Genesis saga about Adam and Eve. If God warned them not to take Satan's dice and wind up on the 41st square, then it was because it would put them into Satan's hateful game board, with no winners.
Therefore, God was out of that box. A tiny box to God, over which Satan ruled. Obviously, then, when Adam and Eve hid from God, they were in a state of "confusion", not knowledge, and then the interpretation of the tree was confused, due to Satan's abuse of power over their new found brains.
So, obviously, the character who came to them afterwards, to condemn them, wasn't God, but Satan. This is the obvious "Sherlock Holmes" conclusion in logic, be it correct or not. The good God wouldn't have condemned them for what Satan did. Adam and Eve acted out of ignorance, not knowledge.
The second logical scenario is that if Adam and Eve agreed to eat of the tree of "confusion", as it can't be denied the tree of knowledge was actually a tree of confusion, then their offspring were really "sons of Satan", and we are all born sons of Satan, in which case God and Jesus are even more heroic in entering Satan's box to save us than any fundamentalist ever believed.
Either way, the end result is the same. Jesus came to redeem and bring us out of "being under Satan's thumb", beating Satan at his own rules, rules that were not based on strategy or inspiration, because the Devil has neither, but based on simple abuse of power, like a kid on a video game who buys all the right stuff to wipe out all the other kids. He'll claim it's strategy, but there is no strategy required. It's simple abuse of power and resources. A stacked deck. If you can stack all the decks, and no one has eyes to see it, there is no strategy.
Still, both cases mean that the good God is passive because this world, maybe this Universe, is indeed just Satan's box, or certainly that which we perceive by our five senses (if one counts taste and smell as different).
Once the brain melts away, these five senses are probably melted away, too, and the spirit is no longer under the thumb of Satan. That's the method of release, if Jesus did indeed release those who decide this "world of five senses" is inferior, which it is inferior to the wonder of the many senses we'll have with the Holy Ghost. |
|
