Arrogancy

His original purpose was that perfect humans fill the earth and take care of it. This never changed, throughout the entire Bible. What do you mean?

I don't believe in an objective "justice," however, I am of the thought that God's by default, higher wisdom would lead to a much more developed sense of justice than the insignificant (in comparsion) people who question it. So while still "subjective," it would by default, be the highest or most developed sense of justice that exists.

I find the argument of "is God just" to be silly in general because - supposing for the sake of argument that the Bible that the God of the Bible existed as he is stated in there, then we don't have the mental capacity or perspective to understand his sense of justice. It's like little kids complaining because their parents don't want them to eat too much candy, because they don't have the perspective of having to deal with a cavity.

Jack the Bodiless

And the same applies if you take it back to the birth of Jesus, or 10,000 years ago, or 10 million years ago.

However, as we know that the rate of population increase HAS dramatically increased with the spread of modern agricultural and medical technology, the point is moot.
You only have TEN genes in the pool for each position in the genome: those carried by five individuals (Noah, his wife, and the wives of Noah's sons). Noah's sons, of course, don't count (they got their genes from their parents).

Geneticists have estimated that the human race passed through a relatively small evolutionary bottleneck maybe 75,000 years ago. This is obviously incompatible with a five-person bottleneck little more than 4,000 years ago.
Original sin is clearly nonsense in a discussion of Biblical justice. I am entirely innocent of the sin of Adam and Eve: I did not take the fruit. Furthermore, if the argument is that their action somehow "corrupted" the human race, then God should have fixed the problem.

As you apparently don't believe in the "omnimax" God, you are in a slightly stronger position than many apologists: you can argue that God is incapable of fixing this mysterious "problem". But this seems somewhat farfetched if God created Adam and Eve in the first place. He could simply have erased them and started over.
The massacre of the Egyptian firstborn. Many would have been too young to even comprehend the crime committed, and the crime occurred only because God "hardened the heart" of Pharaoh, who wanted to let the Israelites go.

Another example: punishments "unto the third generation".

Another: killing the child of David and Bathsheba to punish David.

Another: the massacre of the Amalekites in revenge for killing of Israelites 400 years previously. Are you arguing that the actual killers didn't deserve this fate, and neither did any of their descendants for the next 400 years?

Arrogancy

Re: Population spread/genomes

As I stated before you tried to get the "last word" on the subject, I have counter evidence, but let's keep this thread on track. I'd be happy to argue that with you later - in a seperate thread when I have the time.

Wait, did you forget about the issue that was raised by Satan/Adam/Eve rebelling? The whole "who is right to rule" thing - the entier theme of the Bible? "Erasing and starting over" doesn't answer the question. Your solution raises doubt in billions of angels' minds and causes the potential of more rebellion that could possibly have deeper ramifications. Now, you might end up having to wipe out all of heaven and earth and start over as opposed to just weeding out the bad.

Original sin is very much an issue in discussion of Biblical justice because that is the whole point OF Biblical justice. God's justice allows Satan/Adam enough time to present and test their cases. That's the whole point OF the Bible.

Firstly Pharoah hardened his own heart - the plagues that occured only came after plenty of warning to him and the Egyptians. Secondly, to be absolved of the firstborn death, the parents just had to follow the instructions given, it didn't matter if they were Egyptian or Hebrew. He only killed those in the households that didn't obey. The Bible has always held that parents are responsible for the well being of minors, and that holds true today - this only extended in the Bible to morals as well. Thirdly, the firstborn plague was not a revenge killing - each plague had the double meaning of exposing Yaweh as more powerful than specific gods of Israel and were tailored to fit that. Ra was specifically targeted in the tenth, especially the death of Pharoah's son, since in Egyptian mythology, that was basically the death of a god.

Refresh my memory, what punishments were held to the "third generation?" I remember segregation of the camp based on adultery having to do with generations, but I don't remember any specific punishments offhand.

You're missing the issue with the Amalekites. Israel was a theocracy - God's nation, that allowed other people not by birth to become a part of it. The Amalekites attacked Israel unprovoked once - God said that he would wipe them out because of it. Like the God of the Bible consistently does, he warns, allows time to repent (which some places, like Ninevah, did do), and then takes action. The Amalekites had plenty of years to repent - but instead, they kept attacking Israel. They were a continuous thorn in Israel's side throughout the judge period, constantly attacking, so God attacked back, using Saul. The people as a whole could repent, or specific households and families could join Israel, which some did. There was no excuse by the time he attacked them.

So basically, you just have a problem with parents being held responsible for minor children? I don't, personally. That's how things work with everything else, after all.

I'm going to go eat and head out now. I'll return eventually when I have the time.

Jack the Bodiless

I suggest discussing this in the Evolution/Creation forum. If you're a "Biblical" Christian, then this strongly implies that you're a Young-Earth Creationist: an untenable position!
But I am neither Satan nor Adam. Therefore original sin does not apply to ME at all.
God hardened the heart of Pharaoh. It says so in the Bible.

And there is no indication in the Bible that he only killed SOME of the firstborn of Egypt. And please explain how (for instance) a one-year-old can choose to obey or not.
Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:7, Deuteronomy 5:9, Numbers 14:18.
Except that God did NOT "eventually punish" the perpetrators. By the time God got off his lazy butt, the perpetrators were long dead. And their children, and their children's children...

Many generations of Amalekites lived full and happy lives and died peacefully of old age.
Parents are customarily held responsible for minor children because they are responsible for instilling discipline and controlling the unruly behavior of those children. But you are holding minor children responsible for their parents. This is a perversion. It is certainly not "justice".

philechat

Here, how do you define "higher wisdom"? Is it more power, more intelligence, more agreements with the doctrine, or other? I find such an argument to be ineffectual since there are many "higher wisdom" existed on this earth, including the (often mutually exclusive) thoughts of the philosophers. Which philosopher (some of whom we associated with "higher wisdom" than many of us) and his doctrine should we accept? Which of the "higher wisdoms" should we value as "closer to justice"? How do you compare the value of say one "higher wisdom" from another? Aren't we final in our judgment of each thought's values?

Arrogancy

I've got a moment, so I'll answer the "easy" ones right off the bat:

No, it doesn't - "Biblical study 101" tells you that 6 creative days are not literal days, in Hebrew word usage and by context. Those that try to force the creative days as being literal - "young earthers" and those that try to disprove the Bible by using "day" as literal, have their arguments ruined by the Paul in New Testament stating that the 7th creative day was still going on, nullifying them as being taken as literal 24 hour periods from any standpoint.

I'll head over there when I have more time to really get into this stuff.

You sin - it is hereditary. You are sentenced to death. It applies Biblically whether you like it or not.

No, the accurate translation is "he let his heart be hardened" as it was a stubborness based on what God was saying.

What do you mean there was no indication? God killed all the firstborn in the land who did not have lamb's blood sprinkled on their door - which was also a mockery of Egyptian gods. It didn't matter if you were Egyptian or Hebrew either way - it was showing that you trusted God more than Egypt was more important.

As I said before, the "1 year old" doesn't make the decision - the parent does. That's part of the responsibility of being a parent - keeping your child safe. If they wanted their child to be safe, they put the blood on the door. If they value whatever over their child's safety, dont whine when something happens to it.

I'll get to the rest later.

Biff the unclean

I'm sorry, I know that we shouldn't post bible quotes but this business of claiming that the Bible is correct and then claiming that it doesn't say what it says but what you want it to say is just too much.
God hardens Pharaoh's heart ten different times. Not just once, but again and again. Pharaoh doesn't let his heart be hardened. God does it and gloats over doing it.

Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt
7:13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
9:12 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.
10:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:
10:20 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.
10:27 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.
11:10 And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.
14:4 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honored upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD. And they did so.
14:8 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.

Philosoft

Hi-larious. Sin is hereditary??!! It's transmitted in genetic code?! And we're "sentenced to death" for inheriting it, even though we had no choice - even though its heritability is 100%? Your thinking is incredibly muddled - as if you're unable to separate religion and science at all.

Dr Rick

Not only is the story of the flood a geological impossibility, but the dimensions of the ark would only have allowed less than two cubic feet for each pair of animals and their 40-day food supply. Some of those animals such as penquins, aardvarks, and polar bears would have to travel across vast oceans, which by the way, would have become so diluted from the deluge that the flood would have destroyed most marine life. Others, such as kuala bears and panda bears, would have had to carry their food themselves to the ark because of their unique dietary requirements; Noah would not have had eucalyptis trees or bamboo on hand.

Rick

Jack the Bodiless

Then let's all thank the unGod for cognitive dissonance!

("Cognitive dissonance": the ability to hold mutually exclusive views as both true, or the ability to "believe in" a Biblical verse without actually "believing" it in a real-world context.)

If Christians really believed this, they would be compelled to act to correct a monstrous injustice: the legal system only punishes the perpetrators of crimes, not their descendants. We should expect massive Christian vigilante activity against all those who are descended from criminals.

Of course, this is baloney. And, even if it was "God's law", it would still be unjust, due to the mismatch between crime and punishment, as already pointed out. Unless you wish to argue that merely carrying the "sin gene" is a crime in itself?