Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[JM2C]

Of course He allowed Adam to sin.

You mean God allowed Adam to eat the forbidden fruit? I thought God prevented Adam from doing it in Genesis 2:16-17.
Allowed and prevented both have two different meanings. Allowing is giving someone permission to do something while preventing is to stop someone from doing it.

If a judge/lawmaker prevents you from parking on a no-parking zone but allowed you to park there anyway, how then can he judge you? He cannot because he does not have any basis to penalize you. IOW, the judge broke his own law or principle by allowing you to park on a no-parking zone. Therefore, you are justified and should not be penalize even though you broke the law. Why give the law in the first place if the law giver is the first violator of this law?

God did not violate His own law, Adam did.

You said it yourself.

Because Adam did, indeed, sin, and I wonder how an omnipotent being cannot prevent something as simple as that unless He closed an eye, so to speak.

God prevented this from happening by giving Adam a commandment in Genesis 2:16-17.

 

[1robin]

In order to exercise morality, one has to be aware of the difference between "good" (right) or "bad" (wrong) behavior. Since a baby is incapable of doing this (we know their brains aren't as fully developed as an adult's brain is), I'd say babies are amoral which I see as quite a different thing than being immoral, which I think you actually agree with, judging from what you've said above.

What is with this baby obsession?

1. It is not required to know all moral standards to be guilty of violating them. Heck even our own legal system does not state that.
2. What is relevant to knowledge is accountability. It would be borderline unjust to hold a persona accountable to a law they are not aware of and God does not do so. He judges according to the revelation we have. I am technically guilty of breaking laws I do not know and am imperfect but I am not judged accountable to those laws.

Again no harm no foul. This entire discussion is only relevant in a theological context. God's standard is absolute perfect obedience to every law. Now if a baby knows not the law then he does not even have the potential to get it perfectly right. He is technically guilty but not accountable by virtue of ignorance and God's grace. There no relevance here.

But, if you say (as I think you have) that god instills us all with his objective morality, then you do not actually agree with me because you'd then have to believe that babies do know the difference between right and wrong behaviors and in being as selfish as you say they are, would intentionally be acting immorally. Knowledge of "moral facts" is not irrelevant to this discussion at all.

That is a separate issue. It is an epistemological one. As I have said many times, no matter how many times you explain it, predict it, even discourage a theist will always get an epistemological response to an ontological question.

1. The ontological issue is that babies do not perfectly obey objective moral law. They violate it.
2. The epistemological issue is that since babies are not sufficiently aware of moral law they are not accountable.

It is a perfectly just system with no wrong done to anyone and no philosophical inconsistency. It's only merit is an appeal to emotion by pointing out I think babies are bad. Which is not accurate or relevant. It is only a tactic.

And again, as I and others have repeatedly stated, I don't see this discussion as irrelevant at all given that our beliefs affect our actions in this world we live in, and if we view newborn babies as immoral little wretches, we may just treat them accordingly, despite any observational evidence to the contrary.

It is regardless. What is at stake here? What would change regardless for what the truth is? What laws need amending? What scripture is therefor wrong? What God is guilty of injustice? Who actually knows the factuality of this issue or ever could? Who cares?

 

[viole]

You mean God allowed Adam to eat the forbidden fruit? I thought God prevented Adam from doing it in Genesis 2:16-17.
Allowed and prevented both have two different meanings. Allowing is giving someone permission to do something while preventing is to stop someone from doing it.

If a judge/lawmaker prevents you from parking on a no-parking zone but allowed you to park there anyway, how then can he judge you? He cannot because he does not have any basis to penalize you. IOW, the judge broke his own law or principle by allowing you to park on a no-parking zone. Therefore, you are justified and should not be penalize even though you broke the law. Why give the law in the first place if the law giver is the first violator of this law?

God did not violate His own law, Adam did.


You said it yourself.

God prevented this from happening by giving Adam a commandment in Genesis 2:16-17.

I don't think so. English is not my mother tongue, but I am pretty sure that "preventing" is not the contrary of "allowing". I would say something like "forbidding" is the contrary of "allowing".

I can forbid you to park there, by threatening you with a fine if you do. But I can prevent you from parking there by placing a big truck on the spot and no fine will ever be issued.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Well, if fear of being drilled by some bullet is what turns unbelievers into Christians, then Christianity rests on a pretty poor metaphysical base. It is not essentially different then acquiring faith in a witch doctor when you get a very bad disease and normal doctors gave up. It just provides further evidence that faith is a product of human fear of dying.

However, I actually think that it is true Christianity that is missing in foxholes. For, if God has a plan for you and you think you are fighting for a just cause and He will protect you or you will go to Heaven, why on earth are you guys hiding in that stinking hole?

Ciao

- viole

It isn't, or actually maybe it can be at times. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. What fear can't do is actually produce a result. If nothing existed at the end of the inquiry the apostles would not have gone from cowards to lions over night. That is a genetic fallacy. Regardless fear is not the only motivator but it is something that compels us to think beyond ourselves and about eternal issues. We mostly waste our time worrying about what is going on at the club, the white house, or on TV. Fear and war are great scourges but they have a way or prioritizing and clarifying things.

Faith is not a perfect knowledge. It can be at times and countless men have faced death with perfect contentment. Christianity and Judaism boast the greatest examples of passive martyrdom in history. Most can risk death for vengeance, few can passively and calmly accept death. There is a letter I read from Pilates successor. Caesar had decreed everyone swear to his being divine and receive a paper witnessing to it. He wrote that a policy change was necessary or there would be no Hebrews to govern because they accepted death in mass instead of agreeing.

Anyway back to foxholes. It is possible to have assurance at all times and I have known men who did. However it is more common to have occasional assurance that is at times overcome by factors beyond our control. Christianity is hope even in fear not always proof against it. Anyway you get it all. You want absolute fearlessness as a result of faith you will never reach the end of Christian examples. You want faith even in the presence of fear you can find it in abundance. You will find fear. love, reason, evidence, pure revelation, and history as motivations for faith. You can't lock it into one box then condemn boxes in general.

 

[JM2C]

I don't think so. English is not my mother tongue, but I am pretty sure that "preventing" is not the contrary of "allowing". I would say something like "forbidding" is the contrary of "allowing".

I can forbid you to park there, by threatening you with a fine if you do. But I can prevent you from parking there by placing a big truck on the spot and no fine will ever be issued.

Ciao

- viole

Was a No-Parking sign not a prevention?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Was a No-Parking sign not a prevention?

If a no parking sign was a "prevention", there would be no such thing as parking tickets.

 

[CG Didymus]

If a no parking sign was a "prevention", there would be no such thing as parking tickets.

First of all, as if the event ever happened, but why would God put "forbidden" fruit trees in the garden? Sure, he told Adam face to face. But wait, I thought nobody has seen God because he is spirit? But let's pretend he did. Adam spoke directly with the Almighty God that had just created him and told him, personally not to eat from the tree. You'd think God wouldn't have to paint the curb around the tree red or put a "no eating of the fruit" sign on the tree. One rule, easy, how could Adam mess that up?

But God, for some reason, didn't tell Adam that the devil, whom he already had a problem with in heaven and had cast out of heaven and sent to Earth, disguised himself as a walking, talking serpent and tricked Adam's wife, Eve, or whatever her real name was, into eating the fruit. The woman, that God gave Adam, tricked Adam into eating it also. And then, the all-knowing God pretends that he didn't know what happened. He pretends he can't find Adam. And, then he curses them and the serpent? But, why all serpents? What did they do? And why did God curse all the other animals and plants and the whole Earth? Why? What did they do? Nothing. God just wanted to get back at Adam for not listening? And now, because Adam didn't listen, babies are born depraved and morally evil. All tainted with Adam's horrible sin.

But God's not done. Then he made the Hebrews slaves. That way, he could free them and give them strict codes to live by... knowing all the time they couldn't. Then, after several centuries of futility, breaking all those rules, he tells them that the rules were only meant to show them how wicked they really are. That, they, and all people, are born depraved and are hopelessly wicked and eternally lost, unless.... they do one thing. One thing? That should be easy right? How could we possibly screw that up? Sure God what is it? Believe in your only son and be saved? That's a cinch. Oh, except one problem, knowing how you play the game, God, what's the catch?

Really, no catch? Right, and I believe you. Let me ask you this, God. Why didn't you just paint the curb around your stupid tree red and put a sign around it? And, you could have put a cop or security guard to watch it. And don't tell me you didn't have someone available, because, later, you did have some guy with a flaming sword watching over the whole garden? Why didn't you have him watch the dang tree? He had a flaming freaking sword? Now that would have been a prevention.

And the snake? Oh, I mean the devil in disguise? You're going to have Michael kick his butt later, why wait? Why not back then? In the beginning? No tempter, no temptation, no forbidden fruit eaten. No harm, no foul. But you didn't. Why? You knew all this was going to happen. You knew how right out of the womb how terrible we'd all be. You finally told Calvin how totally depraved we were and that some of us were "chosen" to believe and the rest of us were totally useless, meant for the fire pieces of do-do. You knew all this from the beginning, and failed to mention it?

Or, maybe, this is all a glorious religious myth of how we got in the mess we're in. Along with all the other religious "theories" of what is "truth" and who is "God" and what "objective" morals he wants us to live by. But wait, even if he has a defined set of objective morals, what good would that do? We can't follow them, we're too evil.

 

[viole]

Was a No-Parking sign not a prevention?

Nope.

Where do you live? There are countries where nobody would care about a sign.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are only two interpretations that make sense if we're going to take the Garden of Eden story literally:

- God tried to stop Adam and Eve from eating the fruit, but either didn't realize that they would or wasn't able to stop them.

- God wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit.

 

[1robin]

There are only two interpretations that make sense if we're going to take the Garden of Eden story literally:

- God tried to stop Adam and Eve from eating the fruit, but either didn't realize that they would or wasn't able to stop them.

- God wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit.

Or God allowed them perfect freewill after warning them sufficiently. Why is the only "possibility" not on your list the one that is part of the story's context. I do not know about literal fruit but it seems choice is the issue, as the great Neo once realized. So concordantly, visa a vise, ergo there is no need and little merit in your options.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Or God allowed them perfect freewill after warning them sufficiently. Why is the only "possibility" not on your list the one that is part of the story's context. I do not know about literal fruit but it seems choice is the issue, as the great Neo once realized. So concordantly, visa a vise, ergo there is no need and little merit in your options.

What you describe isn't a separate option. It can be overlaid on either option I described:

- God warned them, hoping this would be enough to deter them, but he was mistaken.

- God warned them, knowing the warnings wouldn't be enough to deter them, but chose not to take additional steps to actually stop them.

BTW: in what sense do you mean God's warnings were "sufficient"? According to the story, they weren't sufficient to stop them; do you mean that the warnings were sufficient to make Adam and Eve culpable? Do you mean something else?

 

[viole]

It isn't, or actually maybe it can be at times. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. What fear can't do is actually produce a result. If nothing existed at the end of the inquiry the apostles would not have gone from cowards to lions over night. That is a genetic fallacy. Regardless fear is not the only motivator but it is something that compels us to think beyond ourselves and about eternal issues. We mostly waste our time worrying about what is going on at the club, the white house, or on TV. Fear and war are great scourges but they have a way or prioritizing and clarifying things.

Well, I was not addressing fear of the Lord, but fear of dying. For I am pretty sure that the equivalent of foxholes in ancient Rome, for instance, were not inhabited by Christians, either. And, if your theory is correct, all atheists at that time must have turned into Jupiter believers when under fire (or arrows). Would you say that fear in Jupiter is the beginning of knowledge as well? Would you say that their immediate conversion, when scared and facing possible imminent death, carries any weight towards the plausibility of Jupiter?

Faith is not a perfect knowledge. It can be at times and countless men have faced death with perfect contentment. Christianity and Judaism boast the greatest examples of passive martyrdom in history. Most can risk death for vengeance, few can passively and calmly accept death. There is a letter I read from Pilates successor. Caesar had decreed everyone swear to his being divine and receive a paper witnessing to it. He wrote that a policy change was necessary or there would be no Hebrews to govern because they accepted death in mass instead of agreeing.

Well, I am sure that Christianity and Judaism boast the greatest examples of passive martyrdom. I am not sure we can confirm that by observing those holes overcrowded with Christians (and Jews), though. But I wonder why you include Jews. I am pretty sure that they will not die to defend Jesus, for obvious reasons. Actually, if I were a Jew, I would take offense for being mixed up with believers of the false Messiah who have been slaughtering Jews for millennia in Europe.

BTW, nice touch yo use the word "passive", so that you do not get mixed up with amateur aviators flying into skyscrapers for their God (and complimentary supply of virgins).

Anyway back to foxholes. It is possible to have assurance at all times and I have known men who did. However it is more common to have occasional assurance that is at times overcome by factors beyond our control. Christianity is hope even in fear not always proof against it. Anyway you get it all. You want absolute fearlessness as a result of faith you will never reach the end of Christian examples. You want faith even in the presence of fear you can find it in abundance. You will find fear. love, reason, evidence, pure revelation, and history as motivations for faith. You can't lock it into one box then condemn boxes in general.

I have no idea what you are talking about. This looks like unintelligible smoke.

I guess you have to tell me what you really mean with "there are no atheists in foxholes". I can only think of four explanations:

1) There are no atheists who face death without falling back into their cultural theistic beliefs (including Islam, Paganism, etc.)
2) They are fighting, while theists save their hide
3) They manage not to get into dangerous situations, e.g foxholes
4) A combination of 2) and 3)

So, which one is more plausible, in your opinion? And which one can tell us something about the veracity of the beliefs held by the inhabitants of foxholes?

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Speaking for myself, I remember what went through my head on the few occasions when my life was in danger: trying to avoid dying. It didn't even occur to me to use that time to reconsider my opinions on religion. In my moments of need, gods were irrelevant.

 

[1robin]

What you describe isn't a separate option. It can be overlaid on either option I described:

- God warned them, hoping this would be enough to deter them, but he was mistaken.

- God warned them, knowing the warnings wouldn't be enough to deter them, but chose not to take additional steps to actually stop them.

BTW: in what sense do you mean God's warnings were "sufficient"? According to the story, they weren't sufficient to stop them; do you mean that the warnings were sufficient to make Adam and Eve culpable? Do you mean something else?

Understanding the intent of the story is only harmed by overlaying it on your templates. I do not even think it would be valid to do so as your templates do not reflect anything theologically valid.

Freewill is hard to understand and knowing what knowing the future is, is impossible. I will take a stab at the former but not the latter except to say knowing what will occur has no bearing on the choices that produce it. Freewill is the ability to chose anything that is rationally possible without any external force that mandates it. Adam and Eve could have chosen correctly, they were not mandated to fail. Even if you view God as knowing they would that has no effect on their freedom to chose it. It may be a necessity of purpose to have choice, no choice can exist if only good choices are made. I do not claim to be enlightened enough to explain this but I can say that your initial two options do not reflect it. You must grant choice to be what it is. Free.

I did mean that enough knowledge existed to make them responsible or accountable. You would only have 4 hypothetical options here.

1. No creation. No love.
2. Compelled to always choose right. No genuine love or choice.
3. No choice at all. Utter slavery. No love.
4. Actual free choice which is not mandated from any outside influence. True choice and true love. Now keep in mind on rare occasions and very briefly God may mandate choice but the other 99.9999999999% of the time what I said would be the case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Understanding the intent of the story is only harmed by overlaying it on your templates. I do not even think it would be valid to do so as your templates do not reflect anything theologically valid.

Of course they're valid; it just depends which sort of God you assume: omniscient or not.

Freewill is hard to understand and knowing what knowing the future is, is impossible.

So God couldn't anticipate Adam & Eve's actions?

I'm in the profession of predicting the future actions of beings with free will: I do transportation demand forecasting. The fact that most of the people in the developed world can get home after work in a reasonable amount of time is thanks to people like me.

Now... I certainly can't predict the future perfectly, but it's not completely unpredictable to me, either. Surely any god worth his salt would be at least as good at predicting the future as I am, wouldn't he?

I will take a stab at the former but not the latter except to say knowing what will occur has no bearing on the choices that produce it.

So foreseeable consequences don't have any bearing on the morality of one's actions? Since when?

Freewill is the ability to chose anything that is rationally possible without any external force that mandates it. Adam and Eve could have chosen correctly, they were not mandated to fail. Even if you view God as knowing they would that has no effect on their freedom to chose it. It may be a necessity of purpose to have choice, no choice can exist if only good choices are made. I do not claim to be enlightened enough to explain this but I can say that your initial two options do not reflect it. You must grant choice to be what it is. Free.

I did mean that enough knowledge existed to make them responsible or accountable. You would only have 4 hypothetical options here.

1. No creation. No love.
2. Compelled to always choose right. No genuine love or choice.
3. No choice at all. Utter slavery. No love.
4. Actual free choice which is not mandated from any outside influence. True choice and true love. Now keep in mind on rare occasions and very briefly God may mandate choice but the other 99.9999999999% of the time what I said would be the case.

Is there free will in Heaven?

 

[1robin]

Well, I was not addressing fear of the Lord, but fear of dying. For I am pretty sure that the equivalent of foxholes in ancient Rome, for instance, were not inhabited by Christians, either. And, if your theory is correct, all atheists at that time must have turned into Jupiter believers when under fire (or arrows). Would you say that fear in Jupiter is the beginning of knowledge as well? Would you say that their immediate de-conversion, when scared and facing possible imminent death, carries any weight towards the plausibility of Jupiter?

Well in this context they have overlapping magisterium. Fear of God is fear of death and judgment in some sense. Why fear anything I am unaccountable to. I am sure many Roman foxholes were full of Christians but that is not exactly the point. The point is hat when in those situations people are compelled to contemplate the weightier issues of life and find a relationship with Christ. If you mean only a convenient wish fulfillment then Christianity is of no more value than any other. That is not what I was saying. All men in foxholes look for the transcendent but only Christians in large numbers make claims to finding it personally through experience.

I have never really understood that verse about fear as knowledge. I just thought it appropriate. So I will compare it to fear of Jupiter. I have never gained a firm interpretation of it.

Well, I am sure that Christianity and Judaism boast the greatest examples of passive martyrdom. I am not sure we can confirm that by observing those holes overcrowded with Christians (and Jews), though. But I wonder why you include Jews. I am pretty sure that they will not die to defend Jesus, for obvious reasons. Actually, if I were a Jew, I would take offense for being mixed up with believers of the false Messiah who have been slaughtering Jews for millennia in Europe.

The Jews are connected to the same God I am in different ways. They are not born again but are part of a covenant. I used them because their courage comes from the same God I believe in. It would primarily only be a difference in mechanism not agency between us. Everyone slaughters the Jews. Europeans are not special. It is really irrelevant what the Jews think of my claim anyway. It is historical, not a campaign ad.

BTW, nice touch yo use the word "passive", so that you do not get mixed up with amateur aviators flying into skyscrapers for their God (and complimentary supply of virgins).

I wondered about this for years. Why would the Muslims be so convicted and yet be wrong? I can get into great detail about this but the most obvious fact is that history has no shortage of those who will risk death to kill others. Hate knows little fear. What it sorely lacks is contentment in death and those who rise above vengeance, and Christianity has more examples than any other group. Muhammad either paid back anyone who wronged him or killed for any excuse and commanded others to do so. One time he even prayed those he killed would come back to life so he could kill them again. That is pathetically human. Christ not only did not return vengeance for sin he prayed for his tormentors to be forgiven. Contrast do not get any larger.

I have no idea what you are talking about. This looks like unintelligible smoke.

Most smoke is unintelligible.

I guess you have to tell me what you really mean with "there are no atheists in foxholes". I can only think of four explanations:

For pity sake this Is one of the most common sayings with the most obvious meanings there is. First I hope we do not have to debate it's literalness. Everyone knows some foxholes have atheists in them.

1) There are no atheists who face death without falling back into their cultural theistic beliefs (including Islam, Paganism, etc.)

What? It means that when times get tough there is no hope nor help in atheism and so almost no one looks to it for it.

2) They are fighting, while theists save their hide

Save their souls maybe, that saying does not even hint anyone refused to fight.

3) They manage not to get into dangerous situations, e.g foxholes

That one was at least funny.

4) A combination of 2) and 3)

A majority of none.

So, which one is more plausible, in your opinion? And which one can tell us something about the veracity of the beliefs held by the inhabitants of foxholes?

Neither. The fact this represents is that atheism has no eternal answers, hope, or help. It is a novelty of the distracted. It is kind of a mystery to me. I went from rabid anti-theist to theist without a soft atheist phase.

 

[1robin]

Of course they're valid; it just depends which sort of God you assume: omniscient or not.

How in the world are we being extremely finite supposed to have a meaningful understanding of what omniscience means? Aquinas said we cannot even conceive of a positive attributes for God. Our terms only exclude other things like finite knowledge or not being material. How do material and finite beings adequately evaluate pure spirit and omniscience?

So God couldn't anticipate Adam & Eve's actions?

I do not think that is relevant. Their having actual free-freewill is all that is. If I know what soda you will get from the machine tomorrow would that have any bearing on your freely having chose it. I know little about what knowing the future means but that is part of it.

I'm in the profession of predicting the future actions of beings with free will: I do transportation demand forecasting. The fact that most of the people in the developed world can get home after work in a reasonable amount of time is thanks to people like me.

Thanks for the effort but that does not make you able to understand what omniscience means. In ways we all attempt to predict the future in our lupine of work. Sometimes we are right and sometimes wrong but our prediction did not force it to occur or not.

Now... I certainly can't predict the future perfectly, but it's not completely unpredictable to me, either. Surely any god worth his salt would be at least as good at predicting the future as I am, wouldn't he?

That is not the point. Only the fact the foreknowledge doe snot dictate action is relevant. This was a hazy issue for me for years but it has become clear as a bell in recent years.

So foreseeable consequences don't have any bearing on the morality of one's actions? Since when?

I have no idea what this Is meant for.
Are you saying God is guilty for creating creatures with freewill if they ever abuse it? Guilty of what? Judged by who?

Is there free will in Heaven?

I think I have answered this before. IMO there is freewill in heaven. Freewill is often defined as the ability to shoes that which you would will. I do not think in heaven I would ever will to rebel so my not choosing to is not a restriction. In heaven evil would be a logical impossibility. Freewill is not freedom of every possible choice but freedom within possible choices. I have no idea but some theologians have said that God's radiance alone will eradicate the existence of the desire to do evil the same way light extinguishes darkness. If being born again is just a foretaste I can agree with that sentiment even if I can't rationally explain it.

 

[viole]

Well in this context they have overlapping magisterium. Fear of God is fear of death and judgment in some sense. Why fear anything I am unaccountable to. I am sure many Roman foxholes were full of Christians but that is not exactly the point. The point is hat when in those situations people are compelled to contemplate the weightier issues of life and find a relationship with Christ. If you mean only a convenient wish fulfillment then Christianity is of no more value than any other. That is not what I was saying. All men in foxholes look for the transcendent but only Christians in large numbers make claims to finding it personally through experience.

Well, I am pretty positive that contemplating their relationship with Christ does not apply to Jews, Romans (before Jesus birth), ancient Greeks, Huns, Mongols, Persians, Egyptian, etc.

And I am not sure how you go from "All men in foxholes look for the transcendent but only Christians in large numbers make claims to finding it personally through experience. " to "there are no atheists in foxholes".

I have never really understood that verse about fear as knowledge. I just thought it appropriate. So I will compare it to fear of Jupiter. I have never gained a firm interpretation of it.

I think it is simple. Most people afraid to die look for the divine. Even Jesus did that. And the divine is always the default belief of their culture. I think it is obvious that this cannot provide any hint about the veracity of those beliefs.

The Jews are connected to the same God I am in different ways. They are not born again but are part of a covenant. I used them because their courage comes from the same God I believe in. It would primarily only be a difference in mechanism not agency between us. Everyone slaughters the Jews. Europeans are not special. It is really irrelevant what the Jews think of my claim anyway. It is historical, not a campaign ad.

I don't think it is the same God you believe in. You believe, I presume, that Jesus is God. They don't. You believe, I presume, that God is a trinity including Jesus. They don't.

How can it possibly be the same God? You cannot be both right.

I wondered about this for years. Why would the Muslims be so convicted and yet be wrong? I can get into great detail about this but the most obvious fact is that history has no shortage of those who will risk death to kill others. Hate knows little fear. What it sorely lacks is contentment in death and those who rise above vengeance, and Christianity has more examples than any other group. Muhammad either paid back anyone who wronged him or killed for any excuse and commanded others to do so. One time he even prayed those he killed would come back to life so he could kill them again. That is pathetically human. Christ not only did not return vengeance for sin he prayed for his tormentors to be forgiven. Contrast do not get any larger.

And what makes you think that they are wrong? You use the moral framework and the Jesus stories of your belief to benchmark theirs, but you cannot possibly be sure that you are right and they are wrong unless you use some external, independent evidence, like evidence that God does not want you to fly yourself into skyscrapers and kills infidels.

And when you say that Christ did not return vengeance for sin, what Jesus do you have in mind? the meek one, or the avenger one?

Most smoke is unintelligible.

Not necessarily. It can be used to communicate.

For pity sake this Is one of the most common sayings with the most obvious meanings there is. First I hope we do not have to debate it's literalness. Everyone knows some foxholes have atheists in them.

OK. Next topic.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Clear]

1) REGARDING AGREEMENT WITH ROBIN’S THEORY THAT THERE WAS NO “ETERNAL TORTURE” IN CHRISTIANITY.

1ROBIN : I am pleased with your agreement.4620

I am also pleased that we agree on this point. I do NOT take any joy in our arguments. I hope you realize that I am simply wanting to "co-discover" errors that we both make in our theories. (mine as well).

However, you mentioned in 4620, “…when it says to fear the one that can destroy the soul it is because that is going to happen.” Can you give me the reference for “fearing the one that can destroy the soul” since this specific point as it differs from early tradition. Thanks.


2) REGARDING DISAGREEMENT WITH ROBINS THEORY THAT INFANTS “SIN CONSTANTLY” AND THEY DO NOT “OBEY” “MORAL LAW”

SkepticThinker explained : “In order to exercise morality, one has to be aware of the difference between "good" (right) or "bad" (wrong) behavior. Since a baby is incapable of doing this (we know their brains aren't as fully developed as an adult's brain is), I'd say babies are amoral which I see as quite a different thing than being immoral, …” post 4613 (Underlines are added by Clear for Clarity of reference)

1ROBIN countered “The ontological issue is that babies do not perfectly obey objective moral law. They violate it.”


1Robin, simply repeating your illogical, unreasonable theory without any supporting data is not helpful to your case.

The theory opposite of your theory is more supportable : “Newborns obey all objective moral laws they have been given as far as we can tell. Newborns do not violate a single moral law they are given" as far as we can tell..

If newborns do disobey a moral law, tell us which moral law they disobey.

For example, it is both logical and reasonable to assume they do not disobey any of the 10 commandments. They do not seem to lie, steal or envy a neighbors wife or his wealth or any other of these commandments, nor empirically have we any evidence that any newborn who has ever lived, done so.

1ROBIN - Which of the ten commandments do newborns disobey?

Whether you came up with this theory that infants “sin” on your own or whether you learned it from a minister or another person or your parents and simply assumed it was correct; Still, it is not as reasonable, nor as logical, nor as consistent with commons sense and common experience as the earliest Christian worldview that infants are innocent of committing any sin.


Good Journey 1Robin

Clear
σετζειφυδρω

 

[1robin]

Well, I am pretty positive that contemplating their relationship with Christ does not apply to Jews, Romans (before Jesus birth), ancient Greeks, Huns, Mongols, Persians, Egyptian, etc.

I was all set up to agree but just couldn't do it. I do not have anything to refute you juts to add to this.

1. Over 90% of the population lived since Christ.
2. We are only judged for the revelation which we have had. I am certain many of those in foxholes met Christ without recognizing his name. I remember a story of a Hindu priest who was in a Ziggurat (or something equivalent) on an island off India's cost. A missionary went there but was soon run to the mainland. He was in a motel when a knock at the door came. He found the chief of the island there to tell him he knew the man who the missionary had described but cam to thank him for giving his name. The before and after pictures of the witch doctor are startling.
3. The claim was no atheists exist in fox holes. Every other "ist" is included technically.
4. The claim was always generalized and not really intended to validate Christianity specifically but to indicate the bankruptcy of atheism when it counts most.

And I am not sure how you go from "All men in foxholes look for the transcendent but only Christians in large numbers make claims to finding it personally through experience. " to "there are no atheists in foxholes".

The Christian claim is almost unique. It is one of experience not intellectual consent to a proposition. There are always exceptions but this is by far the general rule. IOW it is not wish fulfillment I am discussing but actual experience with the divine. Not only are most other faiths virtually devoid of the claim there is no doctrinal reason to expect that type of claim at all. Muslims' and Hindus do not claim to be born again in even fractional comparison. I can't for the life of me speak with a enlightened Hindu to save my life. I gave up the whole effort.

I think it is simple. Most people afraid to die look for the divine. Even Jesus did that. And the divine is always the default belief of their culture. I think it is obvious that this cannot provide any hint about the veracity of those beliefs.

I think the Jesus analogy is out of context but the principle is sound. Atheism is vacuous and is quickly discarded when weighty issues are in front of us. I can't think of a single primary question about life it can even help with. It is like evolution, can't build anything with it, can't find any hope in it, can't get confirmation of it's truth until it is too late to be of any use, can't ensure justice through it, neither is consistent with all of history, neither can even explain just human history alone, and both are heavily against the odds as stand alone explanations.

I don't think it is the same God you believe in. You believe, I presume, that Jesus is God. They don't. You believe, I presume, that God is a trinity including Jesus. They don't.

The God they believe in is exactly the same as what we call the father. I do not even know if the Trinity is true nor why it matters but the father and Yahweh are identical entities in personhood regardless.

How can it possibly be the same God? You cannot be both right.

That does not follow. If I say john is white and you say Asian that does not imply there are two Johns necessarily. In fact the entire concept of my God is dependent on continuity with the OT. We may disagree about what he did but few think these are two different beings.

And what makes you think that they are wrong? You use the moral framework and the Jesus stories of your belief to benchmark theirs, but you cannot possibly be sure that you are right and they are wrong unless you use some external, independent evidence, like evidence that God does not want you to fly yourself into skyscrapers and kills infidels.

I did not say martyrdom was proof of anything. This is that lack of certainty equal no value stuff again. Passive martyrdom is juts one line of evidence in thousands that all point to one conclusions. No one of them on their own are conclusive but the total package makes denial look like preference. Having faith in a true God should produce unique actions. Unique abilities or tendencies are evidence for that. Hate filled death in service of vengeance is not unique it is all too common and is not evidence for any benevolent God.

Not necessarily. It can be used to communicate.

I even allowed for that specifically and could not stop the counter comment. It is kind of frightening when you know exactly what the other person is going to say, calibrate for it, and get it anyway. Atheists are predictable if nothing else. I used the word "most" specifically to account for skywriting, etc...

OK. Next topic.

Ciao

- viole

Sasquatch. See, I bet you could not predict that, could you? You pick it. It is too late for me. I will respond tomorrow if there is no rapture, have a good one.