spurly

I did not vote because the question that started this thread is faulty. People who suffer today do not suffer for the sins of Adam and Eve. Everyone suffers for their own sin. I guess the only way you could say we suffer for other people's sins is that we live in a world that is affected by people who are living immoral lives.

Kevin

Mad Kally

Where did it mention Adam and Eve in the original question?

beyelzu

I personally try not to date christians or militant non smokers for pretty much the same reason. They cant seem to help themselves when it comes to trying to convert atheists and smokers respectively.


So, generally, I stick to smoking atheists/agnostics/deists, cuz they are more fun to be around.


I also dont date women that believe in santa claus or think that drinking is evil.

Dr Rick

Humans, evens billion of them, cannot limit omnipotence. If a being can be limited and not do something that is otherwise possible, it is not omnipotent.



The whole hypothetical question is beyond the experience of most humans; very few of us ever make this choice in real life. Under these circumstances, it doesn't make sense to limit our options to the actual capabilities of humans. The question in the poll, "Would you let billions of people suffer for the actions of two?" asks what you would do if you had a choice in the matter, when in fact most of us don't. The question was not, "Would you let billions of people suffer for the actions of two if you still had no choice in the matter?", nor is it, "Why do you let billions of people suffer for the actions of two?" It would not make any sense to ask either of those questions because in the former there is no choice, and in the latter it is assumed that we really do have the choice.

If you think questioning the morals of a putatively omnipotent god who allows evil, which is what this poll partially addresses, is a waste of time, then perhaps you shouldn't waste your time.

Are you saying that, "No, god did not do anything wrong because there is no god"? If so, I agree, but that's not relevant if we're exploring the morals of the god described by Christians. We're analyzing one of the tenets of Christianity, and in doing so we find an illogical contradiction in the description of him.

Good for you; it's irrelevant, but good for you, anyways.

That's an assertion begging substantiation, and one that appears contradictory in that it seems to place limits on limitless power. Could yoiu explain how an omnipotent being would be left with no choices except the one you assert?

Rick

spurly

It didn't. However any logical person would know that was what the original question was referring to.

Kevin

Mad Kally

Beyelzu,

I am the woman for you!

Oh sorry Ricky, didn't see you there..

Logical spurly?

The OP said this:
NOTE: I am not looking for any bible passages. If you reply with bible passages I will ignore your answer. Please also don't allude to the bible or refer to the bible, it is unimportant as to how YOU would answer the question. I am looking for YOUR thoughts, not thoughts that are in the bible.

ybnormal

Spurly: Thank you!

Kally:

Sapient: Congratulations!

Radorth

God's omniptence (or lack thereof) is not relevant here because he cannot well contradict himself. He cannot both allow free will and interfere with it, if he has integrity.

Of course there are limits on God's omnipotence, for otherwise he would be inconsistent, and I think we know which posters would complain about that the loudest.

And we can hardly call God immoral for not excercising omnipotence as we think he should. I suggest not one atheist here would accept God excercising his omnipotence on them.

And not a few would predictably whine that the big nasty God was abusing his power, or forcing them to behave. Right?

Rad

Dr Rick

Well, would you if you could do something about it?

It sounds a lot like Christianity. Would you let billions of people suffer for the actions of two if it was up to you? It's not of course, but if it was, would you?

What's wrong with questioning Christian morals? Can't they withstand scrutiny?

It's a question, not an example of reasoning. Why not just answer it?

We can expect a straight answer even to a hypothetical question. By the way, for many Christians, the scenario described in Genesis is to be interpreted literally, not metaphorically.

Rick

Sabine Grant

I cannot say it is obvious as I know several couples who are atheist/christian and they seem to not dwell on that "unequaly yoked". Rather they dwell on what they have in common... which is to enjoy life together. I guess another minority which challenges generalizations.