Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
35 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Stile, vimesey (4 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,010 Year: 22,046/19,786 Month: 609/1,834 Week: 109/500 Day: 6/61 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is sin heritable?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 76 of 139 (564021)
06-07-2010 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Modulous
06-07-2010 7:39 PM


Re: How's my apologetics?
Even with someone basically pointing a gun at them and their family, man still chooses disobedience.

Yeah, what gives?

I would have thought "Do what I say or what you're told that I have said immediately and without question, or I'll fucking set you and your family on fire" would have gotten better results. But for some reason no matter how many times I threaten to immolate my kids, they still won't shut up in a movie theater...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Modulous, posted 06-07-2010 7:39 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Modulous, posted 06-07-2010 9:44 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 139 (564022)
06-07-2010 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Modulous
06-07-2010 7:39 PM


Re: How's my apologetics?
Modulous writes:

If miracles are logically impossible, Yahweh did nothing, and is thus morally responsible for nothing. Pick a position.

You seem to be equating logical possibility with God doing or not doing something. I am simply pointing out that we have not established those as necessarily equivalent.

Modulous writes:

The thing you are trusting and what you are trusting it to do is kind of important too.

Why? Its still the same level of trust; if anything, the jumper has more.

Because unless your answer is 'those things are worse than being alive' I think we have concluded the punishment was more lenient that immediate execution.

No, what I was getting at is that God punished a lot more people than he promised in the first place. He specifically said Adam would die. He may or may not have included Eve also. But he certainly didn't include you or me in that deal, and yet theologically here we are.

Modulous writes:

I have no idea. But I was talking about Adam - who seems to understand Yahweh well enough in the text.

He understands God because the author was writing a fiction.

Modulous writes:

Jesus seemed to be suggesting that prevention is better than cure, since trying to simply resist lust is more difficult that not becoming lustful.

Resisting lust being difficult is irrelevant; *having* lust is punishable according to the text.

Modulous writes:

But it doesn't matter since I am arguing about the Yahweh Paul was talking about in Romans.

Its not the same one?

Modulous writes:

Those children will have their own sins to wrestle with.

As well as the sins of the father. Thats what the quote says, literally in those words.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Modulous, posted 06-07-2010 7:39 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 06-07-2010 9:43 PM Phage0070 has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 78 of 139 (564029)
06-07-2010 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Larni
06-07-2010 8:05 AM


Larni writes:

Peg, I'm really sorry to sound like a broken record but the point is that YHWH could remove our sin without having to create Jesus with the express intention of killing him.

None of that was necessary. YHWH did not need to make sin heritable.

Was there anything limiting YHWH's ability to remove sin with a wave of his hand?

I appreciate what you are saying there, and you are right...God could have bypassed his own laws to rectify the situation immediately

However, if he did do this then he would be showing himself to be violating his own laws and that is a trait of hypocrisy... an imperfect trait. All of Gods traits are perfect and he always acts in perfect harmony with the standards he sets...not only does he expect us to live by his standards, but he himself lives by his standards.

He had to allow justice to run its course, he had to allow Adam and Eve to die, he had to allow them to bring forth children becaues that was their mandate and he had to allow the full consequences of Adams sin and Satans rebellion run its course in order to completely settle the issues that it raised.

Was he happy about it, no of course not. could he have killed Satan, Adam and Eve and start again, yes of course he could have. But that would have left the question mark as to whether Satan was right or not. Gods heavenly family of Angels, including his firstborn son Jesus Christ, were all eyewitnesses to the events in Eden. They knew of the challenge made by Satan and they deserved the right to know if Satan was telling the truth about God or not.

Gods perfect sense of Justice required that Satans challenge be permitted to trial basically. This is why he did not kill them back then and start again. God trusted his human creation and he knew that mankind could remain loyal and obedient to him so he allowed Adam and Eve to bring forth their children and he provided those children with a way out of their fallen condition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Larni, posted 06-07-2010 8:05 AM Larni has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2010 11:13 AM Peg has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 444 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 79 of 139 (564032)
06-07-2010 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Hyroglyphx
06-07-2010 2:57 PM


Re: omni-God versus Yahweh
Please provide support that Adam did not understand what Yahweh meant by "Do this and die"?

I already did, here it is again:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned -- Romans 5:12

We agree that death came to all men courtesy of Adam. What you haven't established is Adam did not understand that he would die after Yahweh told him he would.

You have tried to imagine the situation, no doubt, and concluded that a person who has never seen death must be incapable of understanding it enough for it to be a sufficient deterrent.

So you need to demonstrate that your imagination must necessarily be true. And then explain why the author left out that significantly important detail (ie., you must demonstrate that what comes to your imagination was likely to in agreement with what the author imagined (and thus decided it wasn't worth mentioning)).

Not in the least is it a lot of work to point out the inconsistencies. The only valid question is whether or not it is on topic.

I wasn't asking you to point them out. You asserted Yahweh should have known something, and your interpretation has him not knowing it. Either this is an error in the story or your interpretation. Therein lies the work, to separate the two.

Why would Yahweh explain something to someone who couldn't understand him? Is it because the author thought Yahweh was an idiot. Or did the author believe Adam did understand it?

I'm fairly sure the author(s) of Genesis thought Yahweh was a pretty smart guy. So why would they have him effectively explaining quantum mechanics to a lamp post? What narrative purpose does including this trivial and pointless scene serve?

No, death is the ceasing of the state of living. Adam was in a state of living. He knew that was on the line.

If you can explain how that is possible, I'm open to listening.

Sure. Adam knew that Yahweh created him. And that Yahweh created Eve. Adam knew that he had not existed forever. Adam knew that Yahweh, having the power give life to clay, had the power to remove it and turn it back to clay. And no more Adam chilling out with his girl.

Adam wasn't stupid.

Now - provide empirical support for your empirical claim that a person never exposed to death, but who is capable of understanding language is incapable of understanding the the threat behind "Put your hands above your head or I will kill you."

And again you forget that the choices are so limited so as to make them void.

Question: Do you have the literal choice not to eat?

Answer: Technically, yes, but you will eventually die if you don't.

Observation: Not much of a choice now is it?

It's not a swell choice, for sure. As long as one wants to live, one is obligated to eat.

If all of mankind cannot abstain from sin, then that nullifies the choice, no?

Mankind can. It just doesn't.

It's a statistical destiny based on man's desires which were most definitely imparted by God, for nothing can come in to existence without God's hand, no?

It seems there are things out of Yahweh's hands. I can't speak for whatever God God is. But it is there as the reason why people do bad things, and why we die. I'm not here to say it is an empirically sound theory.

That's the logical and inescapable conclusion, Mod, EVEN from the perspective a story. Even supposing we're just dealing with a literary work,

Only if you assume you are right first.

If we assume the Bible authors world is true, then it necessarily follows that mankind chooses to sin, and it is not an inescapable destiny. There are so many wonderful sins to choose from that we'll find one we want to do. Not because of our biology, or our brain or our instincts. Completely freely of our own volition.

And that's A & E's fault for giving mankind the knowledge in the first place.

Predestination and omnipresence:

Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. -- Matthew 10:29-30

Again - I'm talking about Paul's account. If you want my opinion on Matthew's understanding of the inheritance of sin we can move on to that if you'd like. I'm not a Christian and I feel no obligation to make the bible some kind of self-agreeing document. Matthew came after Paul. Matthew seemed to be all about the Jews, unlike Paul. I know Matthew plunders the jewish text, and maybe even does a disservice to it, so maybe we can look and see?

However, you mention that sparrows die only at the command of Yahweh. That's fine, but what about us? Aren't we of more value than sparrows?

Matthew, quoting Jesus writes:

Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

Oh thank You for that!

Can we stop being vague now? Okay, God is not YHWH, YHWH is not God. What precisely is the significance?

When people say God, they often mean the god they think of when they think of god.

To avoid that confusion, I refer to Yahweh, a useful name to refer to a specific entity (or group thereof at least). I don't always do it, but I thought you were describing the characteristics of a different god in question so I pointed it out.

Because they cannot control their sin nature, which was created none other than YHWH. I'm saying that giving them the choice for something beyond their control is like telling someone they have the choice not to take a piss.

And I'm saying that isn't in the text so far under discussion. It just seemed to Yahweh that once the flood gates are opened, we end up sinning - no matter what he does to stop this. We're drowning in sin thanks to Adam - Yahweh has tried to get us to swim out of the water, but we won't do what he says. So he uses the Christ loophole.

IF you want to refer to some other passage by Paul or in Genesis which supports the notion that humans do not have any real choice, I'd be keen to discuss that.

For all we know, some people lived without succumbing to sin but were killed by an accident or some other sinner. But that is definitely not the pattern then authors are addressing.

I'm trying to make sense of why an avowed atheist is suddenly taking the road less traveled. Are you playing the devil's advocate? Are you trolling because you are bored? Are you challenging yourself by trying to defend and indefensible position?

I am just trying to get an understanding of your motivation for doing so.

It was claimed that in Romans, Paul suggests that we inherit sin. I thought that was an inaccurate portrayal of Paul's position. I have argued that Paul was not suggesting we inherit sin.

A lot of other issues have been raised, possibly as a means of proving 'me' wrong, or rather showing that Paul is not consistent with other authors. I have addressed them if I don't think there is an inconsistency, and conceded that other authors disagree with Paul and with Genesis.

You stated that human beings don't have instincts, period, independent of anything else. But are corporeal functions, like hunger or the desire to mate, just functions of an intangible soul?

No you are quite right - I was referring to the instincts you were referring to, I later said it more precisely as 'moral instincts' to be clear. Sorry about that.
As for the rest, I don't know - I think the Bible might be silent on the issue.

Moving from A to B, we can further conclude in the Bible that YHWH is responsible for all things coming in to existence, for He is the only eternal lifeform.

That is a non sequitur. An eternal life form that cannot create cannot be held responsible for the creations of a temporal life form.

Yahweh is responsible for his actions, but he is accountable to nobody so you're fucked unless you trust that he's got your back.

Mankind learned what morality was by eating the apple

At no point was an apple mentioned in the story. That's a later interpretation from dogma.

Indeed - a latin pun on 'mal' and 'malus' (meaning evil and apple respectively) if memory serves.

and learned lots of new ways to be shitty to each other. And they each individually chose to do some of them.

Shitty thing like, what? Give me specifics.

Murder, rape, theft. I'm sure I don't really need to explicitly list all the sundry ways you can make someone's day considerably worse.

Which needs to be paid off through death.

Does YHWH have to follow his own rules?

I have no idea to what rules you are referring to. The rule that the wages of sin need to paid through death seem to be out of Yahweh's hands. They are a simply asserted as if it were logically necessary. But I might be wrong, maybe somewhere someone says "As Yahweh decreed: the wages of sin..." or something.

He doesn't have to follow his commandments, since they are terms and conditions upon which promised to give nice things to the Israelites as a form of formal Treaty (technically a Suzerainty Covenant) and he apparently kept his promise.

So 'rules' is a bit vague I'm afraid.

In order to bring it in to the world, one needs to understand the concept, yes?

In a nutshell. And if true it would mean Adam could understand the concept before being exposed to it by experience.

Whether or not it is acceptable is up to Yahweh. He does give latitude on the issue.

That's a matter of interpretation - whether or not God's law is absolute or relative. How do you interpret it?

The Law is absolute, but Yahweh is not obligated to punish transgressors. He can be merciful and let them off, or give them probation.

All one has to do is use logic and know how to read. The conclusion gives itself away.

literary perspective, there is a "moral of the story." We agree upon that, but the conclusion is faulty when juxtaposing that with the real world.

Yes, that is all one needs. And one also needs to know how to abstain from reading something into the text that isn't there but they thought was.

And I end again: The hypothesis in Genesis for how we can have free will and moral responsibility is not supported by the evidence. The idea that Paul was saying that sin was inherited is not true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-07-2010 2:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 80 of 139 (564038)
06-07-2010 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Pauline
06-07-2010 9:57 AM


Re: whats inheritable and whats not...where do you draw the line?
Dr.Sing writes:

Animals are also souls like us then?

Yes they are. A soul is a living creature according to the OT. Look up the original hebrew word ne′phesh....it literally means a 'breather'

that is, a breathing creature. When God blew breath into the man, he became a living soul....a nephesh. The animals were also called by the same word 'nephesh'

Dr.Sing writes:

People don't inherit souls. Like Dr A said, this is spiritual Lamarckism...weird.

its only weird because the church's changed the meaning of the original word nephesh (pshyche in greek) to mean a magical part of the person that lives eternally...something they borrowed from greek philosophy to make christianity more pleasing to the natives.

Dr.Sing writes:

So you're arguing for Adam's imperfection before the fall? Hence your use of the word prevented/kept/reject this many times...

perfection meant that he had not bad traits...so no, what i'm saying is that before he sinned he was perfect. He made the choice to go contrary to what he knew to be right....he had free will therefore he could choose to go either way. As soon as he chose to go against God, he became a sinner meaning one who falls below Gods standards and it was because of this that his personality was forever changed.

Dr.Sing writes:

No one denies that. However, sin is not carried on genes, is it?


sin isnt a 'thing' its completely intangible so its not going to show up on our genes. But it affects the way we think and reason and act. The way a culture thinks & reasons is most certainly passed on from generation to generation. It is possible to change our mentality so that we think differently to how we've been brought up but that takes a lot of effort.

The only tangible part of sin is the cause of death...I beleive they are pretty close to finding it, they've already discovered what causes a cell to die after a certain length of time so perhaps they've already found it. (im talking about the telomeres at the end of the chromosomes)

Dr.Sing writes:

Ok--how does/did Adam think? If I think a certain way, is it 100% probable that my daughter will think the same exact way I do? Abel is a good case in point here...he certainly "thought differently" from Adam, yes? Enoch? Noah? Righteous people born of a unrighteous man these are...

There has got to be more than "we think like Adam because we're his children" to the answer.

one simple example of how we are all affected by the way Adam began to think is that of wearing clothing. With a few exceptions, the human race are ashamed of their nakedness. This was passed onto us from Adam.

There is also the difficult relationship that developed between Adam and his wife. His perception of her changed after he sinned, he no longer viewed her in the same way he did originally which was as his equal, his companion/parnter... This is why God warned her that her husband would now dominate her and thats what the history of mankind has been. Women are still very much dominated by men in many societies. Its inborn and we can even see it in young children and a boys treatment of his mother....he doesnt listen to his mother in the same way he does with his father.

The results to the woman was that she began to crave for her husband perhaps because she felt the change in their relationship. He had pulled away from her emotionally and she 'may' have used sex to try and entice him back to her....we see that sex is used by females in order to get or keep a man. Even young girls think that sex is what makes a man fall in love with you. We know that this isnt how a man falls in love with a woman, but why on earth does that belief continue to exist in our modern world??? Just look at music videos and we see women using sex to entice and lure men.

Another example is the way young children rebel against their parents. Sometimes kids will deliberately disobey and this is because even at a young age independence is showing itself. Adam was originally reliant on God but his actions made him independent...we are born with this trait of wanting independence, thinking that we know best and everyone else is wrong.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Pauline, posted 06-07-2010 9:57 AM Pauline has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 444 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 81 of 139 (564039)
06-07-2010 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Phage0070
06-07-2010 8:04 PM


Re: How's my apologetics?
You seem to be equating logical possibility with God doing or not doing something. I am simply pointing out that we have not established those as necessarily equivalent.

I agree with what you are pointing out - but it is not related to what I said. I am saying that something that has occurred is evidence that it is logically possible. If it were not logically possible it cannot occur.

It doesn't matter who does it or if it does it spontaneously. If it happened - it was possible.

If you want to hold Yahweh liable you need to accept that miracles are possible. If they are not possible, then Yahweh did not create humans out of clay and so is not responsible for their crimes.

Do you agree?

Why? Its still the same level of trust; if anything, the jumper has more.

Because trusting Yahweh powers the necessary miracle in giving you eternal life free from sin.

Why does it power the miracle? God knows, it's not in the text and I'm not a theo-cognitive researcher or meta-physicist.

No, what I was getting at is that God punished a lot more people than he promised in the first place. He specifically said Adam would die. He may or may not have included Eve also. But he certainly didn't include you or me in that deal, and yet theologically here we are.

Indeed, he got pissed off and had a tantrum. He would do it again a little while later.

But if he had kept his words, neither you or me would be here. So what's worse - having to work for a living and having agonising sometimes lethal child birth. Or not existing at all?

He understands God because the author was writing a fiction.

If you can support the notion that a person in that position would not understand I'm all ears.

Resisting lust being difficult is irrelevant; *having* lust is punishable according to the text.

Jesus is warning against sin. He says being angry at your brother is putting you 'in danger' that you should cut off offending body parts. That by lusting you have committed adultery in your heart (and should presumably cut it out). He doesn't say it is punishable under the Law. Quite the opposite.

Its not the same one?

Paul's Yahweh wanted to spread the word to Gentiles. Matthew's wanted it to be all about the Jews. I'm fairly certain there are disagreements between them. One might more diplomatically suggest that they are different -sometimes contradictory-conceptions of the same being.

As well as the sins of the father. Thats what the quote says, literally in those words.

No, it says the children will be punished for the sins of the father. Not that they inherit his sins. Yahweh feels it is unfair to punish us just for sin, which has its own consequences. In order to punish the people mentioned in the quote, Yahweh would need to have a Law. For without Law there are no transgressions. So he created a Law, and punished those that broke it. The Law is a list of sinful things and their punishment and he had the Israelites sign up to it by signing their foreskin on the rusty blade.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Phage0070, posted 06-07-2010 8:04 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Phage0070, posted 06-07-2010 10:36 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 444 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 82 of 139 (564040)
06-07-2010 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Rahvin
06-07-2010 7:54 PM


Re: How's my apologetics?
I would have thought "Do what I say or what you're told that I have said immediately and without question, or I'll fucking set you and your family on fire" would have gotten better results. But for some reason no matter how many times I threaten to immolate my kids, they still won't shut up in a movie theater...

They clearly don't trust you'll follow through with your threat. Set one of them on fire, see if you get better results from the remaining ones. That's Yahweh's old method.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Rahvin, posted 06-07-2010 7:54 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 139 (564048)
06-07-2010 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Modulous
06-07-2010 9:43 PM


Re: How's my apologetics?
Modulous writes:

If you want to hold Yahweh liable you need to accept that miracles are possible. If they are not possible, then Yahweh did not create humans out of clay and so is not responsible for their crimes.

Do you agree?

No.

Darth Vader is responsible for killing Obi-Wan Kenobi and cutting of his son Luke Skywalker's hand. However, I don't have to believe that Darth Vader ever existed or that the Force is real.

Modulous writes:

I am saying that something that has occurred is evidence that it is logically possible. If it were not logically possible it cannot occur.

If we are to strictly conform our ideas of what is logical to what occurs in reality, something occurring would of course cause it to become logical. However my point is that miracles are inherently a deviation from the natural behavior/order of reality, so I would tend not to adjust my idea of logic to include such special deviations. Therefore it would be logical to say that dead people don't come back to life, but that a miracle might achieve just that.

Modulous writes:

Why does it power the miracle? God knows, it's not in the text and I'm not a theo-cognitive researcher or meta-physicist.

As long as you are willing to acknowledge your special pleading I am comfortable with that claim.

Modulous writes:

But if he had kept his words, neither you or me would be here. So what's worse - having to work for a living and having agonising sometimes lethal child birth. Or not existing at all?

I just covered this with ICANT. If I was the child resulting from a rape pregnancy, I don't have to morally support the concept of rape or that specific instance. Frankly that you would such a moral maneuver disgusts me deeply.

That a particular immoral action results in benefit to me, even including my creation, does not make that action moral.

Modulous writes:

If you can support the notion that a person in that position would not understand I'm all ears.

Don't sprodoof, instead frooyle or I will grombulate you. Do you understand?

Of course you don't. You don't understand the distinction between sprodoof and and frooyle, in the same sense that Adam didn't understand the distinction between good and evil. You also have no experience what grombulation entails so the threat is impossible to assess.

In Christianity good and evil are tied firmly to obedience and disobedience to God respectively. Since Adam does not gain knowledge of good and evil until eating the fruit, he was unable to distinguish between obedience and disobedience to God before that point.

Modulous writes:

That by lusting you have committed adultery in your heart (and should presumably cut it out). He doesn't say it is punishable under the Law. Quite the opposite.

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
Galatians 5:19-21

las·civ·i·ous [luh-siv-ee-uhs]
–adjective
1. inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd

Modulous writes:

No, it says the children will be punished for the sins of the father. Not that they inherit his sins.

I don't care about if they have the metaphysical sins or not, I am concerned with the punishment. The OP also specifically points out the issue is with later generations being held responsible for the sin, not about some metaphysical concept of sin being passed on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 06-07-2010 9:43 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Modulous, posted 06-07-2010 11:10 PM Phage0070 has responded
 Message 85 by Peg, posted 06-07-2010 11:56 PM Phage0070 has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 444 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 84 of 139 (564051)
06-07-2010 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Phage0070
06-07-2010 10:36 PM


Re: How's my apologetics?
No.

Darth Vader is responsible for killing Obi-Wan Kenobi and cutting of his son Luke Skywalker's hand. However, I don't have to believe that Darth Vader ever existed or that the Force is real.

I'm not asking you to accept miracles as real.

I'm saying if you want to suggest that Obi-Wan Kenobi was responsible for Anakin's fall into the dark side you tacitly assume that the force is a given.

If we start from a realist position then we just say 'Obi Wan wasn't real so is not responsible QED'

but that's not an interesting discussion is it?

If we are to strictly conform our ideas of what is logical to what occurs in reality, something occurring would of course cause it to become logical. However my point is that miracles are inherently a deviation from the natural behavior/order of reality, so I would tend not to adjust my idea of logic to include such special deviations.

And I agreed that miracles are a deviation from the norm. I disagreed that Yahweh could do the 'logically impossible', by definition.

Therefore it would be logical to say that dead people don't come back to life, but that a miracle might achieve just that.

That's not logic, its a general empirically derived rule that is subject to falsification. ie., when someone does. In which case we change the derived rule to 'most dead people don't come back to life, unless a rare miracle occurs'.

As long as you are willing to acknowledge your special pleading I am comfortable with that claim.

As long as you are comfortable explaining what it is.

I just covered this with ICANT. If I was the child resulting from a rape pregnancy, I don't have to morally support the concept of rape or that specific instance. Frankly that you would such a moral maneuver disgusts me deeply.

If you ascribe something to someone that is out of character, maybe you got it wrong?

I'm not asking you to morally support your hypothetical father's actions.

I'm asking if you'd rather you and all your loved ones had never been
born that for them to have been born, suffered under a curse, and eventually die? Is there a reason you didn't answer and instead asked me about your hypothetical father and accused me of hypothetical moral crimes? Mine was a serious question that addresses the point you originally raised regarding leniency.

Don't sprodoof, instead frooyle or I will grombulate you. Do you understand?

Nope. You were not using words from the English language. Do you have evidence that Yahweh was using words that were not in the Hebrew language (Which it is implied inadvertently or otherwise, Adam understood)?

Of course you don't. You don't understand the distinction between sprodoof and and frooyle, in the same sense that Adam didn't understand the distinction between good and evil.

Right - but Yahweh didn't say "Adam, make some distinction between good and evil."
he said "Obey this command or you will die."

The word was muwth. Assuming this was the language spoken, what is your evidence that Adam couldn't understand it, and why would the author have Yahweh talking to a lamp post?

In Christianity good and evil are tied firmly to obedience and disobedience to God respectively.

That's right. And Adam didn't know that. He just knew the command to be obedient. He didn't know why. He knew the consequences for disobedience.

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
Galatians 5:19-21
las·civ·i·ous [luh-siv-ee-uhs]
–adjective
1. inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd

Indeed. And Paul highlights the choice: We can be lead by the sprirt so that we no longer tempted by the sins he listed. Paul was referring to aselgeia which isn't an exact translation for lascivious. But the lewdness and the wanton aspects seem to capture it. Try all of the above.

This is different than Matthew who used epithymeō which is desire (in the case of Matthew the desire to be adulterous, but could possibly apply to licentiousness as well).

But good find!

I don't care about if they have the metaphysical sins or not, I am concerned with the punishment. The OP also specifically points out the issue is with later generations being held responsible for the sin, not about some metaphysical concept of sin being passed on.

You are conflating issues.

The children are punished, but they are not held responsible.

I appreciate this seems abhorent, but there you are. I've referenced possible justifications for group punishment and cross-generational punishment - but Yahweh doesn't say. We just have to trust him that his reasons are ultimately just.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Phage0070, posted 06-07-2010 10:36 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Phage0070, posted 06-08-2010 12:00 AM Modulous has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 85 of 139 (564055)
06-07-2010 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Phage0070
06-07-2010 10:36 PM


Re: How's my apologetics?
Phage0070 writes:

I don't care about if they have the metaphysical sins or not, I am concerned with the punishment. The OP also specifically points out the issue is with later generations being held responsible for the sin

the bible doesnt agree that the children of Adam and Eve were held responsible for Adams sin.

The bible speaks of mankind as being 'subjected' to it rather then 'responsible' for it.

Romans 8:18-22 "...For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will but through him (Adam) that subjected it,
on the basis of hope that the creation itself also will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God. For we know that all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now.”

We know this is speaking about Adam as the one who subjected all mankind to 'futility' or sin because if it was God, then why is God the one who is providing the basis of hope that it will be removed?

If God subjected us to sin, then it would make no sense that he provides a means to be free of sin as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Phage0070, posted 06-07-2010 10:36 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Phage0070, posted 06-08-2010 12:09 AM Peg has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 139 (564056)
06-08-2010 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Modulous
06-07-2010 11:10 PM


Re: How's my apologetics?
Modulous writes:

I'm not asking you to accept miracles as real.

Then if you are asking in the context of the story if miracles can happen, I would agree that they can. I have already explained that I think their importance is tied up in the concept of them being impossible though.

Modulous writes:

I disagreed that Yahweh could do the 'logically impossible', by definition.

I am familiar with the claim that gods cannot do logically impossible things, but I think it hinges on concepts that have not been established. It requires that God would necessarily need to work within the framework of his own creation, or that our ability to understand its actions places limits on God's power. I don't think such things fit with the concept of an omnipotent god.

Modulous writes:

As long as you are comfortable explaining what it is.

That you consider some trust powers miracles and some does not, but that you have no explanation for exactly how or why it would occur or not occur.

Modulous writes:

I'm asking if you'd rather you and all your loved ones had never been born that for them to have been born, suffered under a curse, and eventually die?

Obviously I would prefer that I be born. This does not imply advocation of either rape or God's actions against Adam. I also don't accept the false dichotomy you are trying to establish; God could have cursed Adam for a period until he could reproduce and then killed him, but not extended that curse or inevitable death to his offspring. Or he could have simply made new humans from scratch.

Modulous writes:

Do you have evidence that Yahweh was using words that were not in the Hebrew language (Which it is implied inadvertently or otherwise, Adam understood)?

Yes. Not that he wasn't using words present in that language, but rather that Adam didn't understand them.

This evidence would be the text specifically pointing out the time in which Adam gains knowledge of the concepts these words represent, and that time being after both the instruction and the violation of said instruction.

Modulous writes:

Assuming this was the language spoken, what is your evidence that Adam couldn't understand it, and why would the author have Yahweh talking to a lamp post?

Romans 5:12 and because the authors were dumbasses, respectively. We have covered this.

Modulous writes:

And Paul highlights the choice: We can be lead by the sprirt so that we no longer tempted by the sins he listed.

The talk of a later remedy is simply avoiding the point that God is willing to punish for simply experiencing a desire.

Modulous writes:

We just have to trust him that his reasons are ultimately just.

No. No, we don't.

This is the root of the issue. If your god appears to be unjust you don't have to trust that he is actually better than he appears. You can simply conclude that the god described is unjust. If the god actually exists you should be open to the possibility that it is truly an evil god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Modulous, posted 06-07-2010 11:10 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Modulous, posted 06-08-2010 6:46 AM Phage0070 has responded
 Message 91 by AdminPD, posted 06-08-2010 6:48 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 139 (564058)
06-08-2010 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Peg
06-07-2010 11:56 PM


Re: How's my apologetics?
Peg writes:

If God subjected us to sin, then it would make no sense that he provides a means to be free of sin as well.

"And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.""
Genesis 3:22

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16

If God subjected us to death it would make no sense that he provides us a means to be free of death as well.

Or maybe Peg needs to (wince) read his/her bible more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Peg, posted 06-07-2010 11:56 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Peg, posted 06-08-2010 12:50 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 88 of 139 (564062)
06-08-2010 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Phage0070
06-08-2010 12:09 AM


Re: How's my apologetics?
Phage0070 writes:

If God subjected us to death it would make no sense that he provides us a means to be free of death as well.

Or maybe Peg needs to (wince) read his/her bible more.

you are simply meshing up scriptures to suit your theory

The first one is talking about Adam, the second one is talking about Adams children

The first man was condemned to death for his disobedience, the rest of us are offered salvation which proves that God does not hold us accountable for Adams sin.

Adam was given no such offer of salvation, we were.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Phage0070, posted 06-08-2010 12:09 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Larni, posted 06-11-2010 4:47 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1797 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 89 of 139 (564078)
06-08-2010 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by ICANT
06-07-2010 5:58 PM


Re: Perfect Man
quote:
I am using it as a man without the guilt of sin or under the penalty of sin.
But it isn't part of the story. He still had the potential to sin.

quote:
Then mankind would not have freewill to choose.
They would still have the ability to make decisions. The Tree of Knowlege of Good and Evil (TKGE) just wouldn't have been a choice put before them. The TKGE didn't give them the ability to make choices. They could eat from any tree in the garden. They made choices daily on which tree to eat from on any specific day.

If Adam hadn't eaten, there would only be two people for God to contend with.
If God hadn't put the TKGE in the middle of the garden, there would only be two people for God to contend with.

As I said, same result.

quote:
It tells us God wanted mankind to have a choice.
I agree that by not destroying Noah and his family that God still wanted mankind to have the ability to choose between good and evil.

quote:
Mankind can choose to believe God is a lie and does not exist and he will spend eternity in the lake of fire.
Only if one chooses wickedness, IOW to sin.

Sin is not inherited. The ability to choose sin is in all of us, although in reality I feel there are cases where people really don't have a choice. An anomaly in their genetic or physical makeup. Some of those anomalies can be inherited.


Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motion—for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in “The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by ICANT, posted 06-07-2010 5:58 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by ICANT, posted 06-08-2010 3:37 PM purpledawn has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 444 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 90 of 139 (564080)
06-08-2010 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Phage0070
06-08-2010 12:00 AM


Phage'e dilemma(s)?
Then if you are asking in the context of the story if miracles can happen, I would agree that they can. I have already explained that I think their importance is tied up in the concept of them being impossible though.

So you agree that in the context of the story miracles are possible, but it is is important to the story that they are not possible?

Perhaps you mean to say 'possible ONLY through some divine act which is not the common fashion in which these things generally occur'? Which is different from 'impossible', no?

I am familiar with the claim that gods cannot do logically impossible things, but I think it hinges on concepts that have not been established.

I am arguing that the logically impossible is (logically) impossible. And something which is impossible has no possibility whatsoever of occurring.

Not 'no possibility according to physicists'. Just straight up not possible. And since you agree they occurred - for the sake of having this argument in the first place - you have proven yourself wrong.

Miracles don't occur without Yahweh.
Without Yahweh, they would be impossible.
With Yahweh they are possible.

Since we are accepting Yahweh as a given in order to analyse his actions...we are assuming that miracles are not in fact, impossible, according to world we are criticising

I don't think such things fit with the concept of an omnipotent god.

Fine. I'm talking about Yahweh who doesn't seem to be literally impossibly powerful in the story since he makes mistakes, and can't take them back.

That you consider some trust powers miracles and some does not, but that you have no explanation for exactly how or why it would occur or not occur.

Not at all. Trust powers aren't miracles. We are all capable of trusting Yahweh. That's the point. That's a lot easier that resisting all of sin.

I have no idea why they thought that this kind of faith 'could move mountains', or how that functions. So I'm not special pleading. The whole point of the stories is about man's relationship with Yahweh. Yahweh has faith in man (who let's him down) and man must have faith in Yahweh (that he won't). It's a central theme of many of the books - don't have a go at me if they don't explain the mechanics.

It's not special pleading to not know how magic powers of the witches in Macbeth works. And if you point at a prophecy someone gave you that you didn't self-fulfil out of some character flaw the prophet exploited...and ask me why it didn't happen. I don't know. I don't know how self-fulfilling prophecy magic works. Shakespeare doesn't tell us. What do you want me to do, make up some bullshit? Lie? Dedicate my life to uncovering a system I think is actually fictional just to satisfy your desires?

Midichlorians: Sometimes explaining a mystery makes it suck.

Obviously I would prefer that I be born. This does not imply advocation of either rape or God's actions against Adam.

And I have never suggested it implies that, have you tried not reading things into a text for a change? Just reading what's actually there? To be explicit - I do not believe that accepting 'hard labour for all your offspring' is less harsh than 'dead/offspring are never born' implies that either you think raping somebody is OK or that you think the curse was justifiable.

So given you ACTUALLY prefer having been born. That means that of the two following options:

1. Yahweh allows Adam to die (on that very day) and moves onto some new project (Yahweh doesn't specify that he will execute Adam, just that Adam will die the day he eats the fruit). You are never born. Your family is never born.

2. Yahweh does not kill Adam. Sticks with the project. You are born, but you have to work for a living and your mother went through pain.

Since you prefer the latter, and Yahweh promised the former. Do you not agree that I have demonstrated that Yahweh's actual punishment is a better state of affairs for all of us than the stated consequences?

Drop the rape nonsense. You must be getting me confused with someone else.

I also don't accept the false dichotomy you are trying to establish; God could have cursed Adam for a period until he could reproduce and then killed him, but not extended that curse or inevitable death to his offspring. Or he could have simply made new humans from scratch.

Yep. He could have done lots of things. He threatened one thing. And did another, lesser thing. I'm not suggesting you like the lesser thing or whether you think it was best possible thing, I'm suggesting you prefer it to the thing he said he was going to happen. Which you seem to agree with.

It's not a dichotomy of mine, just a dilemma of your own creation. We have the threat of consequences, and the consequences that actually occurred. We are comparing them to see which is worse:

Mod writes:

Phage writes:

Mod writes:

And the punishment he gave was less than the punishment he threatened.


Oh really? He said that Adam would surely die. He then turned around to not only fate Adam to die, but to labor in working the earth and to eat dirt for the remainder of his life. Furthermore, he also fated all of Adam's offspring to the same fate.

He warned of immediate death. He intervened and gave them a stay of execution and hard labour instead. If you think that labouring for a finite amount of time and then dying is worse than never existing (which would have been the case if Adam was killed right then), you should probably kill yourself now and save yourself any further bother.

Romans 5:12 and because the authors were dumbasses, respectively. We have covered this.

5:12 we agree on. Adam brought death into the world. "The authors were dumbasses" is a pathetically stupid argument of a dumbass and requires no further rebuttal beyond: How can you make any claim about the morality of Yahweh if we assume his documenters are so dense? What else did they miss out? What else did they simply get wrong? Maybe Yahweh never cursed us at all.

The talk of a later remedy is simply avoiding the point that God is willing to punish for simply experiencing a desire.

Except, as I explained, he isn't. He will punish the result of desire: Wanton lewdness and adultery. The implication is that you can't resist desire forever, if you let it build up you'll give in. So follow the spirit and you'll be free of that problem.

We just have to trust him that his reasons are ultimately just.

No. No, we don't.

We aren't fated to trust him. The point is, it comes down to taking his word for it. There is no evidence upon which to base a judgement. So either we fill in the blanks in a kangaroo court fashion and find him guilty, or we trust that's trying to save us from sin.

If your god appears to be unjust you don't have to trust that he is actually better than he appears. You can simply conclude that the god described is unjust.

Absolutely you can. But since you don't have all the facts at your disposal you can't judge the case against Yahweh. I'm not sure how you are going to build a fair case. On the other hand, whether you think action x was just or not, if you trust he'll keep his end of any covenant - he will.

Your choice, essentially.

If the god actually exists you should be open to the possibility that it is truly an evil god.

Yup. I'm not closed to that, just explaining what the text says about him and the system as it seems to me is described, not as you are imagining it based on reading stuff into the text and starting working with the assumption that authors didn't even understand their own intentions.

Call me crazy if you like. Why don't you find actual Biblical scholars - the people that spend their life researching these texts, trying to uncover the types of people behind them and so on. See if you can find any that conclude 'The authors were dumbasses.'. Or maybe you can claim you know better than any so called 'scholar'. In which case, I will await your 'conspiracy of the intellectual elite' theories which tend to follow on from this line of thinking.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Phage0070, posted 06-08-2010 12:00 AM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Phage0070, posted 06-08-2010 11:21 AM Modulous has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019