Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 2:08:17 GMT
Isapop God didn't decide that. Adam did. Adam made the choice to endanger himself and his family at the expense of a monetary thing. That is absolutely saneless. God created Adam, created the reality, situation, motivation, and evil for the game to play out exactly as god had planned and intended.Ironically, it's usually those like you that state we shouldn't take the Old Testament literally. Stop making up your own rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 12, 2017 5:51:01 GMT
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. The United States of America was founded on principles that allow people to rise above the station in life of their parents. The privileges of nobility were removed. The education system strives to give every student an equal opportunity at the top rung of success. However possible it is to advance, it might never be that children whose parents have no skills and are in prison will have an "equal" chance at success as children whose parents are top rung professionals. It is not as though you can prevent successful parents from helping their own children learn their trade or some of life's more difficult secrets. Lately in political ads you can see people in higher and higher positions of government whose parents had minimum wage sorts of work. So the system is working at least a bit. Government work is an exception though. In many cases it can take several generations to advance to top even in government work. God could have allowed Adam's children to be born sinless with the same chance as Adam, How would you know? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 12, 2017 9:01:33 GMT
God could have allowed Adam's children to be born sinless with the same chance as Adam, How would you know?[/quote] Because God can supposedly do anything, except change His own nature. See how this works? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 12, 2017 10:02:17 GMT
God could have allowed Adam's children to be born sinless with the same chance as Adam, How would you know? Because God can supposedly do anything, except change His own nature. See how this works? "Anything," you say? Then God could give us a million dollars every time we make the sign of a cross on patio furniture? Who told you God could do that? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 12, 2017 10:04:20 GMT
tpfkar Because God can supposedly do anything, except change His own nature. See how this works? "Anything," you say? Then God could give us a million dollars every time we make the sign of a cross on patio furniture? Who told you God could do that? So you're saying he's unable?
People of God did not have to kill them either because God killed them for us. The point remains that homosexuals are dumb, senseless animals that might need to be killed. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 12, 2017 10:18:31 GMT
Because God can supposedly do anything, except change His own nature. See how this works? "Anything," you say? Then God could give us a million dollars every time we make the sign of a cross on patio furniture? Who told you God could do that? What Cupcake says.
You are getting hung up again on the difference between asking why God does not do something and the arrogance of telling Him what He to do. Jesus for instance asked why his deity had forsaken him, and didn't demand to be magicked down off the cross.
However one can see how being disingenuous like this serves a purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 12, 2017 10:29:53 GMT
tpfkar "Anything," you say? Then God could give us a million dollars every time we make the sign of a cross on patio furniture? Who told you God could do that? So you're saying he's unable?
People of God did not have to kill them either because God killed them for us. The point remains that homosexuals are dumb, senseless animals that might need to be killed. Which? The million dollars or guilt free offspring? I'll discuss both. If god gave us a million dollars every time we made the sign of a cross on patio furniture then criminals would have life too easy just from the overflow. The reason children must suffer from the mistakes their parents make is a bit more difficult to explain. I did explain it somewhat in addressing the ideals in the foundation of the United States. I also addressed some time ago on this board the problems inherent in concepts like "infinity" and "omnipotence." Infinity and algebra don't mix. The whole algebraic manipulation of things goes out the window when you try to put infinity on either side any equations. Similarly omnipotence, at least some people's concept of it, does not mix with an orderly universe. All order goes out the window too. I don't try (much) to set rules a god must follow. I am not a god. Maybe they can give us a million dollars every time we make the sign of a cross on patio furniture. Maybe they can make the offspring of criminals like gods. I can't say. I can say that the universe where they don't do such things appears more orderly and somewhat predictable. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 12, 2017 10:56:13 GMT
I can say that the universe where they don't do such things appears more orderly and somewhat predictable. Atheists everywhere thank you for this insight. But you didn't answer Cupcake's question with a plain 'yes' or 'no'. Is there a problem? |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 12, 2017 11:39:25 GMT
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. The United States of America was founded on principles that allow people to rise above the station in life of their parents. The privileges of nobility were removed. The education system strives to give every student an equal opportunity at the top rung of success. However possible it is to advance, it might never be that children whose parents have no skills and are in prison will have an "equal" chance at success as children whose parents are top rung professionals. It is not as though you can prevent successful parents from helping their own children learn their trade or some of life's more difficult secrets. Lately in political ads you can see people in higher and higher positions of government whose parents had minimum wage sorts of work. So the system is working at least a bit. Government work is an exception though. In many cases it can take several generations to advance to top even in government work. God could have allowed Adam's children to be born sinless with the same chance as Adam, How would you know? Since your treatise is irrelevant to what I said, did you accidently post it on the wrong thread?
As for how I would know that God could have allowed Adam's children to be born sinless, any Bible believing Christian knows that for a god who created life and the laws that govern it, who decides what traits shall be heritable and what traits not heritable, who allowed Jesus, born from a human, to be born without inherited sin, and (if one is a Catholic) who allowed Mary, born from a human, to be born without inherited sin...then such a thing is well within the power of such a god.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 12, 2017 15:39:21 GMT
I never quite understood why people think God can easily change his standards.
If his standards have never changed then why exactly would that be an indication that he can change them?
What's the logic behind that?
Do people think he's a genie that simply can grant more than 3 wishes?
It's exactly the same thing as saying God is allowed to be wrong about what his standards.
But if theophobiacs think God knows everything across all time and space, then why would they all of a sudden think that God hasn't already forseen that the choice he made was the best one?
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 12, 2017 17:00:10 GMT
I never quite understood why people think God can easily change his standards. If his standards have never changed then why exactly would that be an indication that he can change them? What's the logic behind that? Do people think he's a genie that simply can grant more than 3 wishes? It's exactly the same thing as saying God is allowed to be wrong about what his standards. But if theophobiacs think God knows everything across all time and space, then why would they all of a sudden think that God hasn't already forseen that the choice he made was the best one? To whatever way your post might apply to my OP, I'll say this: My OP in no way suggested that God ought to change his standards. If anything, my "fan fiction" scenario is about God sticking to his original standards - letting people (A&E's offspring) start out sinless and giving them the chance to stay that way by obedience to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 12, 2017 17:58:07 GMT
I never quite understood why people think God can easily change his standards. If his standards have never changed then why exactly would that be an indication that he can change them? What's the logic behind that? Do people think he's a genie that simply can grant more than 3 wishes? It's exactly the same thing as saying God is allowed to be wrong about what his standards. But if theophobiacs think God knows everything across all time and space, then why would they all of a sudden think that God hasn't already forseen that the choice he made was the best one? To whatever way your post might apply to my OP, I'll say this: My OP in no way suggested that God ought to change his standards. If anything, my "fan fiction" scenario is about God sticking to his original standards - letting people (A&E's offspring) start out sinless and giving them the chance to stay that way by obedience to him.
He did. Everyone who has ever lived had the chance to be sinless based on God's original standards that in no way changed.
You have yet to say anything that would suggest that God ever said that kids don't inherit what their parents give them. You just reiterate your original post without actually addressing the correctness of mine.
The last comment was not about your OP since I moved on from that the moment you refused to listen to other options.
I instead moved toward the notion that an omniscient, as defined by the theophobiacs at least, God would have been able to change the results or as you try to say, keep them the same.
It would seem to me that he would have already considered an infinite number of paths and this is the best and most logical one.
All you're doing is, once again, simply saying what God should do based on what you think he should do which is pretty irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 12, 2017 18:10:34 GMT
tpfkar I never quite understood why people think God can easily change his standards. If his standards have never changed then why exactly would that be an indication that he can change them? What's the logic behind that? Do people think he's a genie that simply can grant more than 3 wishes? It's exactly the same thing as saying God is allowed to be wrong about what his standards. But if theophobiacs think God knows everything across all time and space, then why would they all of a sudden think that God hasn't already forseen that the choice he made was the best one?  Poor poor baby. What's funny is how badly you want to avoid the question of could he if he was so motivated. Are you saying that he could not grant anybody 3 wishes if he wanted to?
Disowning for having a different belief would be silly although being a hateful, lowdown dirty, resenful atheist livng in my house could get you the boot at 18. It's best not to bite the hand that feeds you. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 12, 2017 18:37:17 GMT
CoolJGS: "You have yet to say anything that would suggest that God ever said that kids don't inherit what their parents give them."
Must I really point out that parents pass down SOME things of theirs (like eye color) and not others (like memories). And since God decided that sin, with its penalty, would be on the list of the heritable traits rather than the non-heritable, then someone might want to offer a justification for this decision that has the effect of punishing the unborn for the offense of the parent.
But you've already said that you see nothing offensive in that, and that no such defense is needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 12, 2017 18:50:31 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? Wrong way around. The observable facts are that we (as humans) tend to fall shy of the potential we have within ourselves and we do things that are detrimental to both ourselves and others. There is also the spiritual observation that we have separated ourselves from a kind of harmony with the universe (I know that sounds like hippy clap-trap but I am sure you can figure out my word salad). Having observed this state of affairs, early man and early religious writers/thinkers had an onus to come up with a rationale for their God to have made this the state of affairs, thusly we have the explanation of "you are inherently sinful". |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 12, 2017 18:54:31 GMT
tpfkar So you're saying he's unable?
People of God did not have to kill them either because God killed them for us. The point remains that homosexuals are dumb, senseless animals that might need to be killed. Which? The million dollars or guilt free offspring? I'll discuss both. If god gave us a million dollars every time we made the sign of a cross on patio furniture then criminals would have life too easy just from the overflow. The reason children must suffer from the mistakes their parents make is a bit more difficult to explain. I did explain it somewhat in addressing the ideals in the foundation of the United States. I also addressed some time ago on this board the problems inherent in concepts like "infinity" and "omnipotence." Infinity and algebra don't mix. The whole algebraic manipulation of things goes out the window when you try to put infinity on either side any equations. Similarly omnipotence, at least some people's concept of it, does not mix with an orderly universe. All order goes out the window too. I don't try (much) to set rules a god must follow. I am not a god. Maybe they can give us a million dollars every time we make the sign of a cross on patio furniture. Maybe they can make the offspring of criminals like gods. I can't say. I can say that the universe where they don't do such things appears more orderly and somewhat predictable. Oodabbadabbay! So you're saying he's unable?
I can diagram sentences. It's not like I can't. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 12, 2017 21:00:20 GMT
tpfkar I never quite understood why people think God can easily change his standards. If his standards have never changed then why exactly would that be an indication that he can change them? What's the logic behind that? Do people think he's a genie that simply can grant more than 3 wishes? It's exactly the same thing as saying God is allowed to be wrong about what his standards. But if theophobiacs think God knows everything across all time and space, then why would they all of a sudden think that God hasn't already forseen that the choice he made was the best one? Poor poor baby. What's funny is how badly you want to avoid the question of could he if he was so motivated. Are you saying that he could not grant anybody 3 wishes if he wanted to?
Disowning for having a different belief would be silly although being a hateful, lowdown dirty, resenful atheist livng in my house could get you the boot at 18. It's best not to bite the hand that feeds you.I've answered the question repeatedly. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 12, 2017 21:08:12 GMT
tpfkar Poor poor baby. What's funny is how badly you want to avoid the question of could he if he was so motivated. Are you saying that he could not grant anybody 3 wishes if he wanted to?
Disowning for having a different belief would be silly although being a hateful, lowdown dirty, resenful atheist livng in my house could get you the boot at 18. It's best not to bite the hand that feeds you.I've answered the question repeatedly. Sure, in CoolG rankled avoidance speak.
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 12, 2017 21:21:22 GMT
IsapopYou're acting like the traits that are passed down are arbitrary instead of being pretty consistent and understandable. Why would you assume he has a list? Why not assume that corruption is simply an inheritable trait like eye color? Do you think eye color is heredity is magical?That isn't correct. You can be offended by whatever you wish. I'm saying that what offends you is simply a natural occurrence and that God has no reason to defend himself on the basis of that offense and especially when the solution is provided. If people don't like the standard, then work to change it since God has no reason to...At least no that you have mentioned except that it offends you. That's not a big deal. Of course, none of this really addresses the omniscience issue, but that wasn't really about you so no need to respond on it...
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 12, 2017 21:21:52 GMT
I've answered the question repeatedly. Sure, in CoolG rankled avoidance speak.
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.So you just don't like the way I answered?
I can live with that.
|
|
