Ed

As I stated above and according to Deut. 24:16 NO government has a right to punish the children of the fathers. This is God's prerogative only. And as I stated earlier all humans deserve to die and God has sometimes used the timing of their death as a punishment of their fathers NOT as a punishment of the children.
When the children die their death is a punishment of their fathers, it is not usually their punishment for what their fathers did unless they partook in it in some way like the descendants of the Amelakites probably did.

Quote:

jtb: Does this only apply to the Fall, or is it generally applicable? If a man commits a crime, and then has kids, is it OK to punish them because of their bad "spiritual DNA"?

No, see above about governments.

Quote:

jtb: What if the kids had already been born when he committed the crime? Can it be transferred into existing kids, unlike normal DNA?

All human beings because of Adam's sin are born with a sinful nature, i.e. an inclination toward rebellion against God.

Quote:

jtb: If it works more like mormal DNA, then what about dominant and recessive genes? What are the rules regarding inheritance of the characteristic? If a particular kid has a 50% chance of inheriting bad spiritual DNA: should they receive 50% of the punishment, or should the judge flip a coin and let chance or God decide? And presumably God designed this stuff, and it works as God intended. So why does he need it as an excuse? Why is the arbitrary punishment of descendants not OK without it, but OK with it? If it causes injustice, why doesn't God get rid of it, or eliminate the bad spiritual gene?

Actually he CAN gradually eliminate your sinful nature with your help of course, all you have to do is repent of your sins, accept the gift of the holy spirit thru Christ, and ask Him to take it away. He is doing it with me.

Quote:

jtb: I have already pointed out that it would be unjust for God to punish us for inheriting a genetic disorder. This would also apply to "spiritual DNA".

No, we are only punished for ACTING on that inclination to rebel against God. We have free will not to act on it.

NOGO

Easy.

Our bodies produce sperms from impersonal matter.
Our bodies produce ovums from impersonal matter.
When we mate the two elements coming together were both produced from impersonal matter and a child is the result.

It happens every day.

It happens with man as with apes ...
as with cows ...
as with flies ...
etc.

The basic function at work here is not magical but chemical.

Ed

No, our judeo-christian based republic with its checks and balances which were developed because our founders knowledge of the sinful nature of Man will stop them. That is why our country is not a pure democracy. The majority does not rule. We are ruled by chosen representatives that legislate within the framework of certain core unchanging laws, i.e. the Constitution (which can be amended but only with difficulty), the
DOI(which cannot be amended), and a judicial system based on principles gleaned from the ten commandments.

Quote:

ng: Founding fathers may have been Christians but they had a clear vision on NOT making the US republic a religious one.

You are partially correct, they did not want a religious government in that there was a church state, but they did want a government that recognized the judeo-christian creator and his core unchanging laws, especially his laws
relating to human rights, ie the ten commandments.

Quote:

ng: A republic is not just "government by law". Every country on earth has government by law. The question is who makes these laws? In a republic they are made by the representatives of the people. In a Kingdom it is they King who makes the laws In a dictatorship is it the dictator. In a theocracy the claim is that it comes from God. Only in a theocracy are the laws immutable. Nations such as Iran and Saudie Arabia are theocracies. Ancient Israel was a theocracy. Throughout the middles ages the Kings were crowned by the Pope or other high priest as it was in ancient Israel. Just like the Romans and Greeks, today we elect people to govern and change the laws that we live by. This is what a republic is about. ... very far from judeo-christian principles.

Yes but our government is a Constitutional Republic, see above. A
Constitutional Republic has a core of unchanging laws by which legislation is framed. Your description sounds more like a pure democracy. Our country was not founded as a pure democracy, though at present it seems to be headed that way.

Jack the Bodiless

Here is the scientific evidence for your position:

{ }

And here is your reasoning:

{ }

Ed, the ONLY reason you won't accept evolution is because it contradicts the primitive beliefs of Hebrew goat-herders. Stop pretending that you're giving an answer that has anything to do with any form of SCIENCE.
Even when the fathers are long dead?

The Jews didn't believe in an afterlife. The ancestors of the slain Amalekites were unable to know or care what happened to their descendants: even God could not punish them.

If you prefer to believe that the Jews were wrong and there IS an afterlife: then you're faced with a scenario in which God needs to kill innocents in THIS world to punish people who are already in Hell.

But you're still missing the point that the punishment of children for the crimes of their parents is immoral and unjust even if God does it. Therefore God is immoral and unjust.
This has nothing to do with "governments".

The issue here is simple, Ed. YOU have claimed that there is an absolute, objective standard of morality.

Therefore, according to YOU, an action is either morally RIGHT or morally WRONG. No ifs, no buts, no excuses.

It is either morally RIGHT to kill children for the crimes of their parents, or morally WRONG to do so.

This standard applies to individuals, governments, and God. It is an absolute moral standard.

Isn't it time you admitted that you do NOT believe such a standard exists?
Translation: "I refuse to answer this question".

Reciting random sentences of Christian dogma is no substitute for thinking, Ed.
But, according to Christians, the sin is itself PREVENTING many people from asking God to take it away!

If it's causing suffering and injustice, God should just get rid of it. ALL of it. NOW.

...Why doesn't he do this?

Because he CAN'T.
They specifically legislated against the FIRST commandment, Ed.

And you are contradicting yourself AGAIN. According to you, we don't have any human rights. We are all sinners deserving of death, remember?

tommyc

Ed, thanks for the helping hand, but i didn't really see any science in your response. I would be interested to your reply to this one from NOGO:

winstonjen

Ed, after reading your 'arguments' and the responses of others, I feel
that I must ask - are you really a bot that has been programmed?
And if so, who did it? A priest, bishop or cardinal?
(The pope seems too senile to me to be able to do so)

If this is the case, please tell me your binary code. It would be
intriguing to see.

Ed

No, the assertion about celebrating is a rational assumption given knowledge of the Christian God and human nature. If people celebrate the killing of direct representatives of the king of the universe then they are in rebellion and according to the king the penalty for rebellion is death especially when dealing with his designated representatives. That is similar to killing the King himself.

It does have some relationship, because your evil actions could later be endorsed by your children and grandchildren, this could result in serious consequences for them depending on the seriousness of the actions. And killing God's representatives on earth is one of the most serious and evil things you can do.

No go. Read Matt. 23:1-35. Jesus gives a litany of all the evil things that the Pharisees had done. Then He prophesizes that they will become guilty of the very thing that they deny and the very thing that their fathers did. That is what he means by the above verse. They already are filling up with guilt but they will become full after they have done the very thing their fathers did that they condemned.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build the tombs of
the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,

[30] saying, `If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have
taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
[31] Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who
murdered the prophets.
[32] Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.
[33] You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being
sentenced to hell?
[34] Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom
you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and
persecute from town to town,
[35] that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the
blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari'ah the son of Barachi'ah,
whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
[36] Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation.

No, Deut. 24:16 refers to the government of Israel and by extension, all human governments unless specifically commanded by God to do so and this was only done during the Hebrew theocracy.

Because only God knows all the circumstances surrounding the situation both physically and spiritually. But only God can do this, no human government can do such a thing as stated in Dt. 24:16.

No, see above.

The original people did not escape ultimate punishment,ie hell. He let them live in this life in order to give them and their descendents a chance to repent, he was being gracious and kind to them. But they did not repent and the time of accounting had come.

Hardly. See above about why he waited. Actually many Israelites did believe in an afterlife read Job, Daniel, and about what King David said concerning his infant son who died. But even if they didn't believe in an afterlife, that is irrelevant, because the fact is there is an afterlife. Someones belief about the existence of a thing does not effect the reality of the thing's existence.


He was referring to not forget that they need to be punished. Depends on your definition of revenge, if it is justified then there is nothing wrong with it.

He meant that the memories of Amalek will not be positive, as they had been for 400 years to the surrounding nations and Amalekites themselves. Not even Egypt was able to do what they did to Israel.

No, see above. It is not murder because they were being punished for their sins that Judge of the Universe knew about, ie probable endorsement of one the most serious sins you can commit. It was capital punishment. Again Deut. 24:16 refers to
the government of Israel when not explicitly commanded by God to do otherwise.

Ed

He WAS punished, her brother killed him.


No, the punishment for rape was the same as for adultery, because the understanding of the commandment against adultery was that ANY sex outside marriage was considered a breach of this commandment. But Tamar apparently was willing to forgive the rape and marry him as many women at the time were willing to do because of the dangerous situation for single women. You are partially right however, in that rape was probably not considered as serious a crime in ancient times as we do today because of the influence of Christian morality on our society and since just surviving was the main concern of the ancients and unmarried women were not as likely to survive as a married woman. There was no organized police force in ancient Palestine.

winstonjen

Too bad they did not get rid of god. Then no one could punish them. If that happened, I seriously doubt they would worship such a wimp.

Jack the Bodiless

But none of the INTERVENING generations was punished!

You are still treating "the Amalekites" as a single immortal entity, just as the Israelites did, rather than what they actually were: a large number of individuals who happened to inhabit the same geoographical region over a period of centuries.

The Amalekites who actually killed the Israelites were NOT punished (not in this life, anyhow). Nor was anyone else, for 400 years. So now you're arguing that they suddenly decided to start celebrating, and this celebration of the killing was WORSE than the actual killing?

But of course you're abandoning the Bible and contradicting yourself again. The Bible states, and you have agreed, that the primary reason for punishment of the Amalekites was the massacre 400 years earlier. NOT the wholly fictional "celebration" of it that you have invented.
See above. The Bible talks repeatedly of punishing innocents for the crimes of their ancestors. Are you now going to invent a bogus claim that the word "celebrating" was omitted by translators, just as you earlier invented the bogus claim that the word "significant" was omitted?

Do you believe that God has commaded you to lie for him?

And killing God's representatives on Earth is apparently NOT a serious crime at all. In the Bible, hardly anyone gets punished for that.
In other words: when God commands them to do so, it is perfectly OK to put children to death for the sins of their fathers, and NOT for "celebration".

THANK YOU for finally admitting that God is evil and unjust!
If the original generation was punished in Hell, then no further "accounting" is due. If subsequent generations went to Hell, then no further accounting is due.

Therefore the "time of accounting" for the Amalekites as a whole will never come. It was NOT due.
Evidence for this "fact":

{ }

Biblical evidence AGAINST this "fact" is clear from the FACT that God was unable to adequately punish the Amalekites in Hell (because God and Hell do not actually exist).
Nope. According to you, I can freely celebrate the massacre of God's chosen people with negligible risk of capital punishment. According to you, the omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, who supposedly has the power to act at will, won't get off his lazy butt to actually kill anybody for this, except maybe once every few centuries.
Evidence that this was specifically and exclusively directed at the government of Israel:

{ }

Evidence of the "specifically commanded by God to do otherwise" exception clause:

{ }

Let me guess: this clause was present in the original Hebrew but omitted by those incompetent translators, right?
Let me repeat the key phrase here, with bolding to help you overcome your reading comprehension problem:
The rapist was NOT punished by the law. He was murdered two years later by the victim's brother.

The rape was NOT a crime.
David had 100 concubines. God didn't mind.
...dangerous in a society where rape was legal.
Unmarried women should have been able to survive just as well as married ones.

But, yes, modern society is far more civilized that that of these "morally superior" barbarians. And so were most other barbarian societies. The Celts had female warriors: they would not tolerate the rape of unmarried Celtic women.