Freethought & Rationalism Archive

agnawstick · 06-22-2003, 05:01 PM

One question: If you order a baby to not to stick his finger in the electrical socket, then you leave him alone in the house for ten days, find out he did it, and then punish him for it, whose fault is it exactly?

The big contradiction to me seems to be is that Adam & Eve were basically supposed to be walking morons. What tree did they eat from again? They are ignorant of pretty much everything. They had no knowledge whatsover if ya are a literalist. So God makes a garden, puts a tree there, right next to them, instead of half way across the earth, lies to them that they will die instantly from it, then allows (remember, he is all powerful), an evil creation of his, to trick the morons into eating the tree that he put there by telling them the truth that God was lying to them and they aren't going to die, even if they actually had a concept of death, which is unlikely because of their ignorant state.

This is obviously their fault. God gave them knowledge and wisdom to obey his orders properly... oh no, he didn't. They didn't even learn what sin meant until they ate the fruit that God's creation gave to them.

No knowledge, no guilt. God is being brought up on child endangerment charges as we speak. I would love for a christian to do the God defense. Toss your innocent child in a garden, and just warn them not to eat the aloe vera or you will die... oh, and here is a snake to play with while I am away for a while.

I would love for them to say, if it's good enough for God, it's good enough for me!

Jobar · 06-22-2003, 09:27 PM

Folks, this has become a discussion of Christian apologetics, and not one about the existence of god(s). I think I will move it to the BC&H forum, and let our Biblical experts treat this carbuncle. (I'm sure a shot of antitheotic will work wonders!)

B. H. Manners · 06-22-2003, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cutter
So do psychopaths like Dahmer, etc. (And a quick browse of the OT only helps reinforce the psychopath analogy ).

Just a bit of info about Dahmer for the ex-Church Of Christ people here. Dahmer is you spiritual brother, if you ever return to the fold. The Church of Christ baptized him before he died.

Toto · 06-22-2003, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carbuncle
Incorrect. The Gospels actually agree on what happened after Christ's death, just written using different words and in different styles. In fact, many historians are now regarding the post-crucifixion narratives as quite accurate. Now, if they were all exactly the same, then according to modern historic reviews, that would cast much more doubt on the gospels.

Besides, that argument could have been used against evolution, if you think about it.

See ya! ^_^

The Gospels actually do not agree on what happened after Jesus' death. E.g., did Jesus show up in Galilee or in Jerusalem?

Could you name these "historians" who think that the post-crucifixion narratives are "quite accurate"? If they do, they are moonlighting as apologists. There is no way of showing that the gospels contain any historical facts.

I can't think how this argument would relate to evolution.

Toto · 06-22-2003, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carbuncle
Wrong. Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 19 all point out that Jesus was taken off the cross and put in the tomb. That pretty much covers the four gospels.

Besides, here's another point: All four of the Gospels say that a certain Joseph of Arimathea requested and then took Jesus' body and placed it in a tomb. Now, if you were going to make up the story of Jesus being placed in a tomb, would you tell the name of the person who supposidly did so so blantantly? Keep in mind that many historians and archeologists believe that the earliest Gospel was written less a generation from Christ's death. That would be like inviting the readers to ask this Joseph of Arimathea whether that happened or not. And I have yet to find evidence saying that the people who asked him found that to be false.

The only logical conclusion that I could see is that the Gospels were indeed correct.

See ya! I must be going now, but may we continue this sometime in the future! ^_^

This Carbuncle is too much.

Archeologists have nothing to say about when the gospels were written.

Historians say that the first gospel was written sometime between 66 CE and 140 CE, probably after the Temple in Jerusalem had been leveld by the Romans, and things were too chaotic to ask around for Joseph of Arimathea.

Not to mention that no one knows where Arimathea was, if it in fact existed.

There is no evidence of 1st century skeptics asking around for Joseph of Arimathea and verifying the account in the gospels. This would explain why there is no evidence that their examination showed the tale to be false - there was no examination, and no Arimathea, and no Joseph and no tomb. . .

Toto · 06-22-2003, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carbuncle
Well now, first off, many scholars today are starting to have reservations about the idea that Matthew copied directly off of Mark.

Name even one. Yuri Kachinsky doesn't count.

Quote:

. . . . If not read with a theological perspective as well as a historical perspective, it's too easy to fall into the trap that the Gospels disagree with one another. Being written by different authors with different perspectives and purposes, it's no surprise that they are different. But I have yet to see you guys give one example about a core detail (as opposed to a secondary detail) that they disagree on.

How can all of their purposes be different? And how do you know?

Quote:

First of all, you can't take everything written in the Bible and apply it using your own experiences and worldy views. A theological approach is also necessary. Without theology, Christianity would mean nothing. Without theology, the Bible would be just another boring book.

. . .Now, let's look at 1 Timothy 6:16. Verses 14-16 talks about the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. the second coming). He is described in his compete glory ("dwells in unapproachable light). So it is not refering to just seeing God, but seeing Him in an "unapproachable light". In other words, in all His holiness. And this makes sense, since humans are sinful beings, who cannot look upon His holiness. God knows this too. When He reveals Himself to humans, He does not appear in His full glory. When He appeared to Moses first, He spoke through the form of a burning bush, so as to not reveal His complete glory. He does not reveal Himself entirely, so that those who see Him are not consumed. See, theology does help, eh? . . .

Theology does not explain why we should take any of this seriously.

I can understand why humans do not intuitively comprehend quantum mechanics or string theory. We evolved in a world where we only needed a grasp of Newtonian physics and three dimensions to avoid falling rocks and approaching tigers.

But I cannot understand why a perfect god made sinful imperfect creatures who are inherently unable to understand his divine nature, but will be punished for all eternity if they do not accept his divine will - but the only clues to his divine will were revealed to a few epileptics and goat herders in a minor outpost of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago, and later to blow-dried televangelists from the losing side of the American civil war.

pariah · 06-22-2003, 11:16 PM

So carbuncle...you say that god is benevolent because he KNOWINGLY creates something destined to fuck itself over and every once in a while decides to spare it?

And even though he created us with the nature to want to fuck ourselves over ( be sinful ), its not his fault?

What if I have a dog, and I train it to attack anything it sees moving viciously. Then I let it go in the street. It kills an old woman walking down the street, maims a guy and a small child, and finally kills a policeman before his parter blows it away with his 9mm Heckler and Koch USP LEM. Now, whos fault is it? Is it the dogs, because its his nature, or is it mine, because I made him have that nature. I assure you, I would be incarcerated.

Soul Invictus · 06-22-2003, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carbuncle
And I suppose, according to your logic, that God shouldn't be angry at you for saying that.

Ah! Time to go a bit more into theology!

You say that God made Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of the tree. Well, how did He? Did He send the serpent to tempt them? Nope. In fact, he explicitly commanded them not to eat of the fruit of the tree. Now, did He then force them to do so? Wow . . . how illogical. If God does exist, I doubt He'd be so illogical.

In fact, it is God's will that that would happen. However, you couldn't say that God caused it to happen. Now, I could say that it is my will that it will rain tomorrow, and let's say it did. Did I really cause that to happen then? But actually, God does have control over all things. But why shouldn't He? Didn't He create Adam and Eve? Could the creator not do what He pleases?

Okay, I'm digressing a bit, so let me get back on track. Theologically speaking, Adam and Eve did not yet have a spirit of God (i.e. the Holy Spirit). They were still very much capable of sin, even though they have yet to eat of the fruit. For eating the fruit itself is already a sin (sin = disobedience to God). Now, what would be the point of sending Christ to earth to die for our sins if we didn't have sin to start with? And how could we recieve the Holy Spirit without knowing Christ? Sure, you could argue that God could have started by giving them the Holy Spirit, but they would still not be able to comprehend WHY they recieved it, since they have yet to sin. And we can only recognize God's holiness and mercy through first seeing how sinful we are.

All things happen to His will. You could say that He forces us to commit sin, but that's not accurate. If we already have a sin nature, then we'd sin anyway. It's not a matter of Him making us; it's a matter of Him stopping us. And there really is no reason for Him to do so. I mean, why should God even care about finite, sinful beings in the first place?

Sure, you could argue that He caused Adam and Eve to sin, but they were capable if sin long before that. Sure, you could have argued that they could have been made perfect and incapable of sin, but then they would not recongize the holiness and majesty of God. Sure, you could even go so far as to say they should have been created with the ability to recognize that, but God decided not to. He wants actual thinking beings, not mindless robots.

You think of God and see that He is unjust. I think of God and see that He is compassionate. We're just that different.

"'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'" - Romans 9:15

"You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?" - Romans 9:19-20

Keep in mind that God didn't really have to send Jesus to die for our sins . . .

Thank you for reading this. Have a nice day! ^_^

Carbuncle....

I'm reading your posts yet I'm still not quite clear on what your rebuts are trying to say. You've admitted that God has control over all things and that everything happens according to God's plan.

God may not force us to sin, however since God's plan requires us to sin, than God doesn't have to force us to sin....we do it via his control or as you stated by God creating us with a sinful nature. We sin because there is no other alternative...it's in God's plan.

Even if Adam and Eve wanted to obey they cannot because:

1) God's will was for man to sin, to allow for Jesus to atone for our sins ( God's divine plan coming to fruition, thus we are powerless to stop it from occurring)

2) We are powerless to sin ( it is God's will that we have a sinful nature) he doesn't want mindless robots...remember?

I don't know if I buy your analysis of making us perfect. You stated that if he made us perfect we would not be able to recognize his majesty or holiness. This is problematic for me because that would challenge the notion that only God would be perfect, or flawless, and if he couldn't make anyone his equal then so much for omnipotence. At best, I would think God could make us as near perfect as he could with the nature that of angels, which only serve to praise him. (And we know via Lucifer, that angels are not omitted from being 'rebellious')

About explictly disobeying God, how did they disobey God when Gen 1:29 states "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. "?

The last question I would pose that to according to the story, Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Generally speaking, punishments are meted out for failures to adhere to rules and regulations, with the element of being aware of those statutes being fundamental to the system. Although ignorance of a going statute doesn't absolve you of culpability, it does afford you a grievance for leniency because you did not willingly fail to comply. An example I could give is when I was parked in an unfamilar park after hours and past the deadline. The police officer informed me of the policy, and once in the knowledge of appropriate behavior, I accordingly dispersed. Did I disobey or violate a rule? - yes. Could I have been given a citation? - yes Would eternal jail time have been approprate according to the infraction? - clearly no.
In the balance of the law there is an element of approprate justice, or the punishment fitting the crime. Now with the set of information we're given regarding Adam and Eve, there wasn't any development or learning what it would be to disobey God, much less to know that it was wrong.Prior to eating the fruit they had no concept of sin, of doing wrong, deviating from proper behavior, etc. because up to this point there had been no sin, so they could not have willingly or knowingly disobeyed God. To follow, would their punishment, and/or the punishment for the future races of man because of their actions (which is a totally unjust concept as well...having these two people act on behalf of everyone else) is proper,fair,just, or appropriate for the action given the circumstances?

Regards,

Invictus

:edited to remove surplus text

winstonjen · 06-23-2003, 03:13 AM

What I find most disturbing about the 'mysterious ways' argument is that they tend to use the 'they're in heaven, all's well' as though that 'fact' justifies any horrific thing. :boohoo:

Darth Dane · 06-23-2003, 03:19 AM

Ask them if they themselves work in mysterious ways.

Do they know their own inner workings? If not then they too work in mysterious ways.

Do they know how their mind works? If not they too work in mysterious ways.

If God works in mysterious ways, and they(as well as yourself!) work in mysterious ways, you share a common denominator with God/universe/energy/light, that you are all very mysterious.

DD - Love Spliff

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-22-2003, 05:01 PM	#31
agnawstick Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: arcadia California Posts: 65	One question: If you order a baby to not to stick his finger in the electrical socket, then you leave him alone in the house for ten days, find out he did it, and then punish him for it, whose fault is it exactly? The big contradiction to me seems to be is that Adam & Eve were basically supposed to be walking morons. What tree did they eat from again? They are ignorant of pretty much everything. They had no knowledge whatsover if ya are a literalist. So God makes a garden, puts a tree there, right next to them, instead of half way across the earth, lies to them that they will die instantly from it, then allows (remember, he is all powerful), an evil creation of his, to trick the morons into eating the tree that he put there by telling them the truth that God was lying to them and they aren't going to die, even if they actually had a concept of death, which is unlikely because of their ignorant state. This is obviously their fault. God gave them knowledge and wisdom to obey his orders properly... oh no, he didn't. They didn't even learn what sin meant until they ate the fruit that God's creation gave to them. No knowledge, no guilt. God is being brought up on child endangerment charges as we speak. I would love for a christian to do the God defense. Toss your innocent child in a garden, and just warn them not to eat the aloe vera or you will die... oh, and here is a snake to play with while I am away for a while. I would love for them to say, if it's good enough for God, it's good enough for me!

06-22-2003, 09:27 PM	#32
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Folks, this has become a discussion of Christian apologetics, and not one about the existence of god(s). I think I will move it to the BC&H forum, and let our Biblical experts treat this carbuncle. (I'm sure a shot of antitheotic will work wonders!)

06-22-2003, 11:16 PM	#37
pariah Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: الرياض Posts: 6,456	So carbuncle...you say that god is benevolent because he KNOWINGLY creates something destined to fuck itself over and every once in a while decides to spare it? And even though he created us with the nature to want to fuck ourselves over ( be sinful ), its not his fault? What if I have a dog, and I train it to attack anything it sees moving viciously. Then I let it go in the street. It kills an old woman walking down the street, maims a guy and a small child, and finally kills a policeman before his parter blows it away with his 9mm Heckler and Koch USP LEM. Now, whos fault is it? Is it the dogs, because its his nature, or is it mine, because I made him have that nature. I assure you, I would be incarcerated.

06-23-2003, 03:13 AM	#39
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	What I find most disturbing about the 'mysterious ways' argument is that they tend to use the 'they're in heaven, all's well' as though that 'fact' justifies any horrific thing. :boohoo:

06-23-2003, 03:19 AM	#40
Darth Dane Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Required Posts: 2,349	Ask them if they themselves work in mysterious ways. Do they know their own inner workings? If not then they too work in mysterious ways. Do they know how their mind works? If not they too work in mysterious ways. If God works in mysterious ways, and they(as well as yourself!) work in mysterious ways, you share a common denominator with God/universe/energy/light, that you are all very mysterious. DD - Love Spliff

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.