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

[1robin]

This is wrong and you know it.

Not only could they own these slaves forever, they could also own concubines (sex slaves) forever, and they could own war booty slaves forever, and we know from the Bible they warred constantly.



*

I still don't think you get it. I am talking about surviving evidence for actually specific instances of slavery. Every one I have ever seen were documents on debt slavery. I have not and am not denying that other forms of slavery could have occurred biblically, I am suggesting I can find no trace of the principles being acted upon though I am sure they were occasionally. Do you get what I am stating?

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

This is wrong and you know it.

Not only could they own these slaves forever, they could also own concubines (sex slaves) forever, and they could own war booty slaves forever, and we know from the Bible they warred constantly.



*

What I find highly comical, is that Christianity always has viewed Rome (Empire & Republic) as the epitome of moral decadence yet after the Third Servile War ( Spartacus) most Roman slave-owners granted freedom to their slaves after a life-time of faithful service with a stipend. And this was over 2000 years ago these "heathens" had this moral etiquette and Christians did not cease slavery until 150 years ago.

So much for where objective morality comes from.

 

[1robin]

What I find highly comical, is that Christianity always has viewed Rome (Empire & Republic) as the epitome of moral decadence yet after the Third Servile War ( Spartacus) most Roman slave-owners granted freedom to their slaves after a life-time of faithful service with a stipend. And this was over 2000 years ago these "heathens" had this moral etiquette and Christians did not cease slavery until 150 years ago.

Wow, talk about changing subjects.

1. This is probably true of the time when it was written at least in the writers experience.
2. It is not a biblical or God issue but one about a time bound opinion you merely declare was true. How do you know this anyway?
3. No example of biblical chattel slavery has even been discovered (that I am aware of).
4. Every example known was of voluntary debt slavery. They not only had their debt paid off, but had housing, property rights, could run away anytime and to report them was unlawful, and could settle in any region of Israel which not even the Hebrews could do.
5. The biblical servitude laws were the most lenient in the entire ANE.
6. Slavery nor divorce was God's will. It was reluctantly allowed because of our sin.
7. Slavery comes with a lot of 19th century baggage that has almost no relevance to the bible.
8. I have written on it in detail and exhaustively if you want to search for it.
9. Slavery in the US was not biblical and it was a Christian who had more to do with it's termination than anyone on earth and several hundred thousand Christians died to free slaves they never met. How many times has that occurred in an atheist utopia.
10. US slavery is the only significant case of slavery being terminated by it's host nation.
11. This is also the same tired old false optimality claim that never works. God is perfect, Christians are not. I find exactly what I expect if the bible is true.

So much for where objective morality comes from.

Nothing you said was relevant to objective moralitie's existence or source and is again a whole other issue.

 

[CG Didymus]

...God allowed nature to operate unsupervised after we rebelled in almost all cases. WE told him we had this and did not need him. He withdrew and chaos ensued to show us we were wrong.

First of all, Do you think the Adam and Eve story is a historical event? If not, who cares. If so, then why do you use the word "rebelled"? They were tricked weren't they? And then you say that we "told" him we had this? When did we say that? Please show me which verses you are using to support these ideas of yours.

They most certainly did believe in resurrection, salvation, and heaven. But as their entire history suggests they misunderstood the particulars in most cases. The entire OT is failure by the Jews to get doctrine properly understood in general but a remnant getting it right.

They, the Jews, believed in the resurrection, salvation, and heaven? Tell me how they defined those things and what they believed about them. Every time I look up what the Jews believe it comes up totally different than what Christians believe.

...They have truth but it is not divinely revealed truth about salvation. Mostly it's human guesses at divine truth. Occasionally it's true but the whole is not the revelation intended by God.
...Most other faiths have incoherent doctrines and historical absurdities but some truth. Most of them can't possibly be from a God worth believing in. They are logically invalid.

But Christianity, again which version of Christianity, has the real truth? It is coherent? It is not "human guesses"? That's why this thread is still going. The Bible doesn't make sense. The Jewish part is one thing. It has God ordering people killed. I just read Numbers 31, gross. He has Midianite woman and boys killed and the virgin girls spared. Then we have the "good news"? We can all be saved? Do you really think we'd be arguing this much if it made sense? It doesn't. It sounds just as "incoherent" as any other religion's ideas about God and truth. It sounds like a bunch of "human guesses" at what is going on. Christians don't take the whole of the Jewish Scripture. They chop it up and take a few pieces and adapt it to their world view. Heaven is different. Hell is different. The Satan is different. The Messiah is different. The meaning of salvation is different.

Logically? If Christianity made any more sense then any other religion, I'd believe. It doesn't. The main thing being, how you describe God... God is defined as a spirit that has no physical body, right? But, Jesus had a physical body, therefore how can he be God. Besides, in Judaism the Messiah is not God. But in Pagan religions God/men are common. So where did this idea of Jesus being God come from? Regardless, I do agree that Christianity makes the most sense if Jesus is God, in a nonsensical way. But then, it has to add a third part to God, The Holy Spirit? Supposedly, all three co-existed? All three had no beginning and have no end? They are eternally the same, never changing? Except that one part, the Son, did change. He got born into a human body? And now lives on in a resurrected body? This only makes sense to Trinitarians. For everybody else it is incoherent, illogical, and is most likely only the human guesses of the early Christians as to who Jesus was.

And really, why all the confusion in the Bible as to who and what God is? Would it have been that difficult for Moses and the Hebrews to understand if the burning bush would have said, "We are who we are. We are the one true Godhead. We are the mighty Three in one God. I am the Father. This is my Son. And, this is my Spirit of Truth. We rule all of creation. Listen to us. Accept no substitutes." But no, the Bible hint at there being one and only one God. Then hints at there being more than one by saying things like "our image" and using a word that suggest the possibility of a composite being. But then, the was all written by men. Was it really God speaking? Or were words merely humans guessing at what God is?

 

[CG Didymus]

...This is also the same tired old false optimality claim that never works. God is perfect, Christians are not. I find exactly what I expect if the bible is true.

Of course we all know that there are several verses that say things like "be perfect", but we all know that the Bible doesn't really mean that. Which is what we'd expect if it is only a book about trying to be good and not really being able to be good. Unfortunately, it is used as an excuse for Christians to continue to do their favorite sins. But what does the Bible say about those Christians that continue doing the same sins? Are they not being truthful when they say they will repent of that sin? Or, is the temptation to great for them to over come that sin? Is that kind of like rebelling against God and not wanting to believe he can deliver them from that sin?

 

[1robin]

First of all, Do you think the Adam and Eve story is a historical event? If not, who cares. If so, then why do you use the word "rebelled"? They were tricked weren't they? And then you say that we "told" him we had this? When did we say that? Please show me which verses you are using to support these ideas of yours.

I do not know but I think it is relevant even if it is an analogy of some kind. ANE oral tradition was preserving intent over detail. You can't read it like a history of the civil war.

They, the Jews, believed in the resurrection, salvation, and heaven? Tell me how they defined those things and what they believed about them. Every time I look up what the Jews believe it comes up totally different than what Christians believe.

They might not agree but it seems they only had a shadow of most concepts. It was enough but they became illuminated and amplified when Christ came. It is called progressive revelation. Christ literally quoted OT scripture then added to it. He did not change or deny it he amplified it. That among his most primarily purposes.

But Christianity, again which version of Christianity, has the real truth? It is coherent? It is not "human guesses"? That's why this thread is still going. The Bible doesn't make sense. The Jewish part is one thing. It has God ordering people killed. I just read Numbers 31, gross. He has Midianite woman and boys killed and the virgin girls spared. Then we have the "good news"? We can all be saved? Do you really think we'd be arguing this much if it made sense? It doesn't. It sounds just as "incoherent" as any other religion's ideas about God and truth. It sounds like a bunch of "human guesses" at what is going on. Christians don't take the whole of the Jewish Scripture. They chop it up and take a few pieces and adapt it to their world view. Heaven is different. Hell is different. The Satan is different. The Messiah is different. The meaning of salvation is different.

For this discussion I will be happy to defend the most attested interpretation since my views are almost identical to orthodox Protestantism and very close to most orthodox Catholicism with one major difference. IOW words I think I will defend the average belief of Christianity since I can't take every claim and consider it with 200 creedal statements with minor differences. Orthodox is not only coherent it is the only salvation model that is. I do not think it is a guess for many many very good reasons but I do not fault anyone for asking the question. Pick your OT horrific event and we can dig far enough to get some resolution. Yes I think we would argue this much. Aids is bad and yet there hundred of thousand son both sides arguing whether to do what spreads it more than any other cause combined. Humans can be brilliant but most are not. You ask a series of question then after I answer them you do so your self instead. You can be a sincere and challenging debater but not by using these methods. As soon as I get to thinking you sincerely are looking for answers you erode that assumption all away.

Logically? If Christianity made any more sense then any other religion

This is simply mass over simplification. Can you name any truth that is not under attack by some group or another. Heck this entire nation is divided into two camps and those camps are further divided, nationals are divided against each other over the most simplistic things ever considered. There are cultural proclivities, the fact that Satan is doing his best to produce these misconceptions and over simplification, he wants the clear to be murky and the murky to seem clear, you have to work to beat him and you can't do it alone. There are issue with the time lag of information over the years. Issues with ideological prohibitions against any faith at all. Politics. The truth can be found and actually known but it take a lot of effort and especially a wiling mind. Anyone asking this many questions I doubt is looking for any deep answers but is complaining in question form.

Pick something and lets see if we can resolve it. You must have given a hundred choices to pick from.

I'd believe. It doesn't. The main thing being, how you describe God... God is defined as a spirit that has no physical body, right?

This Sunday school stuff. I know children that can answer this with prose and verve. His body was not divine but was mortal, his spirit or/and soul was divine. You cannot have it any other way and it work. I actually have to go get a prescription but have a good weekend and get focused on more challenging issues. If you still want the rest answered I will try and get to it Monday.

 

[CG Didymus]

Originally Posted by 1robin
...God allowed nature to operate unsupervised after we rebelled in almost all cases. WE told him we had this and did not need him. He withdrew and chaos ensued to show us we were wrong.

My question was:

The most important supposed event was Adam and Eve. They didn't rebel. They were tricked. And then you said that we "told" God we had this? When did we say that? Did Adam say that? That would be idiotic. If God made us and made the world, I trust he knows how to run things. But then again, because the world is in such a mess, maybe you're right. God has left the world unsupervised. Almost, as if he doesn't exist or doesn't care. But really, is that the best way to show us we're wrong? But wait a minute, I almost forgot, where was his "supervision" when the serpent tempted Eve? They hadn't "rebelled" yet.

 

[CG Didymus]

Orthodox is not only coherent it is the only salvation model that is.

Please explain what this "coherent" model is. And then we can break it down piece by piece. If it starts with we all inherited a sin nature from Adam, then right there, we already have a problem. Where in all of the Hebrew Scriptures does God say that? Let's hear what verses you are using and let's tear them apart one by one.

 

[1robin]

My question was:The most important supposed event was Adam and Eve. They didn't rebel. They were tricked. And then you said that we "told" God we had this? When did we say that? Did Adam say that? That would be idiotic. If God made us and made the world, I trust he knows how to run things. But then again, because the world is in such a mess, maybe you're right. God has left the world unsupervised. Almost, as if he doesn't exist or doesn't care. But really, is that the best way to show us we're wrong? But wait a minute, I almost forgot, where was his "supervision" when the serpent tempted Eve? They hadn't "rebelled" yet.

If I tell my son to not ever touch drugs and he instead befriends some thug at the play ground and takes drugs how is that not rebellion? It would only not have been rebellion if they were unaware that what their doing was against God's expectations. However he told them point blank not to do it and even the consequences of it. They did it anyway. BTW freewill is still present and the final arbiter even if another influence exists.

My words were a paraphrase of bot the fall and the way humans have acted for thousands of years. Heck even most Christians do this in part, we try and be the God's of our own lives. Looking around what is it you see that even hints that man is obedient to God. Were we depending on him when we invented thermonuclear devices, instituted abortion on an industrial scale, or have demanded the practice by which 4% of the US population has spread 60% of the aids cases be a sacred right? In 5000 years we have had 300 of peace. I do not think it is God we are following and placing our confidence in, it is us, and what a pathetic substitute.

Your last statement was about where God was when they ate the apple, apricot, watermelon or whatever it was. The answer is watching them with regret. If I was tell an employee they could do anything in my company except take the missiles we built home, or I would have to fire them. What more is required? Anything additional is redundant and unnecessary. What confusion is there with one simplistic rule?

You basically making a false optimality claim that if freewill is ever used incorrectly God is missing or evil. Only if freewill can be misused is it free. What more can you do that to caution, predict, and provide everything necessary? God can do anything that is logically coherent. Granting freewill that is prevented from ever being misused is not logically coherent nor free.

Long before he became a Christian G.K. Chesterton said he had to abandon Atheism because it's claims were self contradictory and that is exactly what I see.

If he interferes he is wrong, if he does not he is wrong. If he demands he is wrong, if he acts passively he is wrong. If he restricts freewill he is wrong, if he allows it to be misused he is wrong. If he judges he is wrong, if he fails to he is wrong. Chesterton said whatever God is he can't be both a white mask on a black world and a black mask on a white world. It is a tails you win, heads God looses attitude.

 

[1robin]

Please explain what this "coherent" model is. And then we can break it down piece by piece. If it starts with we all inherited a sin nature from Adam, then right there, we already have a problem. Where in all of the Hebrew Scriptures does God say that? Let's hear what verses you are using and let's tear them apart one by one.

Look up substitutionary atonement. I will give some aspects of it but it is too large to post.

1. We have sinned. All of us.
2. Heaven is a realm of perfection which sin separates us from.
3. God is a God of Justice. Sin must be punished in accordance with what HIS (not your) sense of justice requires.
4. I cannot go to heaven if my sin has not been dealt with.
5. I have nothing to offer to mitigate my sin. There is not even a potential for me to have any.
6. God had to provide the method and solution to our sin problem.
7. Jesus is that provision. My sins were placed on him and punished on the cross, his perfection was accredited to my account when I am born again.
This is what inspires all those "putting on Christ", "it is no longer I but Christ who lives", "we must be buried and raised with Christ" kind of verses. They have no meaning outside this context nor does his death. He does not need to die to tell me what rules I should follow. He needed to die because I won't follow them perfectly and thereby disqualify my self for eternal perfection.
8. Once it is applied it cannot be lost. To suggest that what I gained by grace must be maintained by merit is absurd. To suggest I can gain infinite perfection by partial obedience is just as absurd. It is grace A - Z or nothing.


The argument here ins not whether you like this system, nor is God in any way bound to act as you would have if you were him. This issue is about two things. 1. The theological consistency of the methods. 2. The biblical justification for them. It must satisfy God's demands in a logical manner and be scriptural.


Tell me which one of those claim is theologically incoherent or which is unbiblical and I will tear your argument apart with verses or theological philosophy.

 

[1robin]

Of course we all know that there are several verses that say things like "be perfect", but we all know that the Bible doesn't really mean that. Which is what we'd expect if it is only a book about trying to be good and not really being able to be good. Unfortunately, it is used as an excuse for Christians to continue to do their favorite sins. But what does the Bible say about those Christians that continue doing the same sins? Are they not being truthful when they say they will repent of that sin? Or, is the temptation to great for them to over come that sin? Is that kind of like rebelling against God and not wanting to believe he can deliver them from that sin?

It says to be perfect as a goal not a destination. Non-theists have the horrible habit of treating every verse as if it was the only one. The overall narrative is what indicates what verses mean.


I have told you so many times that this will be the last attempt. Salvation is an act of God and does not depend on my pathetic efforts. However my sins effect me in every other way even to physical death. I have every incentive possible to act morally. Sins come with horrific costs even if heaven is not one of them. Just because I am saved does not mean I want to lose my job, my insurance, my spouse, my house, my health, and everything else alcohol costs a human being when abused. So the ridiculous argument that Salvation somehow takes away the abysmal suffering in this, life that sin cause and somehow leads to immorality is insane. Also it isn't true. The most conservative stats show Christians a slightly more moral than the average and plenty of studies not so restrictive show them to be more moral in countless categories. The one thing no stats show is that salvation and a book that teaches us not to sin is increasing our committing them. That is not a question or even an argument, it is a tactic and I will not explain this again.

 

[CG Didymus]

Your last statement was about where God was when they ate the apple, apricot, watermelon or whatever it was. The answer is watching them with regret. If I was tell an employee they could do anything in my company except take the missiles we built home, or I would have to fire them. What more is required? Anything additional is redundant and unnecessary. What confusion is there with one simplistic rule?

We all argue as if that event actually happened. I don't think it did. I don't think a lot in Genesis really happened. All people had their creation stories. They are all fascinating, but no one believes any of them to be true... except a few people that believe the Jewish one. And then, the main people claiming it is absolutely literal, historical and true are a few Christians. And they interpret it different than the Jews to make the serpent the devil and the results of Adam eating the fruit, that sin and death entered the world, and we all inherit that sin nature from him.

Christians need it that way to make the whole Jesus story work. Jews don't need that interpretation. The ones I talk to don't believe in the Christian concepts of "personal" salvation, heaven and hell and the devil, that the Messiah was or needs to be virgin born, that the Messiah is "God". There's so many places where the Christian interpretation breaks down. Like... when did people decide that Jesus was God? When did people decide what it meant to be "saved"? When did The Satan fall? Christians have had to come up with answers. None of it is clear in the Bible. The age of "accountability"? When did that get invented?

But you don't have to answer any of those questions. Let's look at Adam's "rebellion". So you tell your kid, "Don't do drugs." Do you take some precautions to make sure that your kid is not around other kids that will tempt your kid? God put the temptation in front of Adam and put the tempter and didn't intervene. When your co-worker tries to take a missile home do a few alarms go off? I would hope so. I don't think just because you told him not to that you didn't have some armed guards, security cameras and other things in place to prevent him from stealing the missile. What did God have? Nothing. He trusted Adam? No. God knew Adam would fail.

Does it matter? No. Because the story isn't real. It's a made up story to try and explain why the world is like it is. Gods intervened with all people in the ancient times, yet you don't believe in those gods. This God, if real, could have done things different. But, since he didn't do things different, he is probably not real. Or, isn't who Christians say he is. Christians invented the trinity. They created their version of the devil to give their God an enemy? In the world you've created, it all does make sense... to you. It is "coherent", to you. But what a horrible world and a horrible God running it. He let Satan rebel? He lets Satan continue to exist? He created him in the first place? Again, knowing that Satan would rebel? And we are supposed to believe God is in control? In control of what?

And then we come to the Bible stories... God orders killings of women and children? I don't think so. For me, it's more likely people killing people and using their religious beliefs and their gods to justify it. You... have to justify your God for doing it. If you can live with those explanations, then fine. But, they don't work for me. I believe in a spiritual reality, but it's not like yours.

 

[adi2d]

If I tell my son to not ever touch drugs and he instead befriends some thug at the play ground and takes drugs how is that not rebellion? It would only not have been rebellion if they were unaware that what their doing was against God's expectations. However he told them point blank not to do it and even the consequences of it. They did it anyway. BTW freewill is still present and the final arbiter even if another influence exists..

You left out some of the details that are in the A and E story
You put the drugs in a place where your son could find them
You allowed the thug to be around but didn't talk to your son about him
When your son took the drugs you put an armed guard around the antidote so he would die

With these details added to the story it does look like at least a share of the blame is yours


Like I said it doesn't make sense

 

[CG Didymus]

It says to be perfect as a goal not a destination. Non-theists have the horrible habit of treating every verse as if it was the only one. The overall narrative is what indicates what verses mean.


I have told you so many times that this will be the last attempt. Salvation is an act of God

Where are the verses that "prove" there is an age of accountability? That prove we are born "morally depraved"? That prove Jesus is God? That even prove that he is the real Messiah? Everything Christians claim as true that is based on the Hebrew Scriptures has a few sporadic verses. Get real.

Salvation as preached by Christians had to be formulated by using several verses that when put together made all of humanity guilty of Adam's mistake. That make even children born with a sin penalty that God requires to be paid. So not only do you have to substantiate your Christian interpretation, but you have to show that the NT is true and reliable, that the "OT" is the true Word of God, but that the Jewish interpretation of the "OT" is wrong and that their "Oral Torah" is not the Word of God even though some Jews say it is.

Christians can say they believe in Jesus all they want and believe they are going to heaven, but when it comes to following Jesus' commandments how many actually try to live like Jesus told them to? How many even know what his commands were? So it is does not seem real. It appears to be imaginary. Where is God? In his creation? His creation looks like a free for all. Stars exploding. Animals eating each other. And, people fighting and arguing which religion is right. He could clear it up and tell us, but no. God hasn't spoken. Jesus hasn't spoken.

The Book clears nothing up. It leaves too many things unanswered. And things it does answer don't make sense all of the time. Prophecies are vague and can be interpreted anyway you want. If they are spot on, they were probably written after the fact. Since where in the Bible is Islam mentioned? Did it talk about the plague? Where is the British Empire? Did it talk about the great and mighty universal Christian Church?

But, you know what, Christianity isn't the only one, all religions are this way. God spoke way back when, but not now. A prophet came centuries ago. But now, we must trust what they said? Those "other" religions are real, supposedly. They all have their myths and prophecies and teachings. They're all believed by their followers. But, since you don't believe in those religions, what are they? Just a figment living inside the heads of the followers of that religion? They believe it. It feels real to them. They try and live by the precepts of their religion. But it could very well be nothing but a bunch of made up religious stories to get people to believe enough to get them to try and be good people.

The promise of an afterlife in heaven is a great way to get people to believe. The simple requirement of just believing in Jesus makes it very easy for people to "say" they believe. How real is it? In way most Christians act, it isn't very real. In their heads and hearts, sure, it's very real. On Sunday, sure, very real. To me, no. And one of the main reasons is because the Bible says God killed people and ordered others to kill for him, including women and children. That's not real. The only acceptable answer for me is that was ancient warriors doing nasty things and justifying their actions by saying their God told them to.

 

[Ingledsva]

This is wrong and you know it.

Not only could they own these slaves forever, they could also own concubines (sex slaves) forever, and they could own war booty slaves forever, and we know from the Bible they warred constantly.

I still don't think you get it. I am talking about surviving evidence for actually specific instances of slavery. Every one I have ever seen were documents on debt slavery. I have not and am not denying that other forms of slavery could have occurred biblically, I am suggesting I can find no trace of the principles being acted upon though I am sure they were occasionally. Do you get what I am stating?

Again - This is BULL and you know it!


They did not write these laws into their Sacred Books so they could just sit around and admire them!


The wrote them in so they could do the nasty deeds!


As for what you have read, - you know perfectly well, - the majority of such writings are Christian and Jewish, and they are trying to hide their evil past, by fudging texts and meanings.


Such as putting in "indentured servant" when we know it is a "SLAVE" that is going to be raped and kept forever.


Or writing the word "wife" for "female" to skew the meaning of that take home the enemy child, let her scream for 30 days, and you can RAPE her, text!



*

 

[CG Didymus]

You left out some of the details that are in the A and E story
You put the drugs in a place where your son could find them
You allowed the thug to be around but didn't talk to your son about him
When your son took the drugs you put an armed guard around the antidote so he would die

With these details added to the story it does look like at least a share of the blame is yours


Like I said it doesn't make sense

The story of Little Adam and the Thug:

Backstory- the expulsion of Thug from Father's house: Dad- "Get out of my house. You are evil and will never amount to anything. You are banished from my house, go live in the playground.

Dad- "Okay son, listen to me. These drugs are bad for you. They will ruin your life and, eventually, kill you. I'm putting them right here in the middle of the playground. I'm going away now. Have a good time."

Little innocent Adam- "Hi, Evie. Do you want to play?"

Evie- "Sure."

An hour later Little Adam takes a nap.

Thug- "Hey Evie, come over here. Do you want to get high?"

After some resistance, she gives in.

Evie- "Wow, this is far out. Look at all the pretty colors."

Little Adam- "Evie, what have you done? Drugs are bad for us. My Dad put them here in the middle of the playground and forbid me to use them."

Evie- "Don't be a lame-o. Try them and taste them and see that they are good."

Little Adam- "Okay."

Dad- "Oh Adam, where are you?" He sees Adam hiding. "Adam, get out here right now." He looks at Adam's bloodshot eyes. "I told you not to do drugs."

Little Adam- "Hey, the chick made me do it. What was I supposed to do? Look like a dweeb and not try them?"

Evie- "Hey, the Thug that you banished to the playground deceived me. But, wait a minute, all the other kids have their parents here watching them, where were you?"

Dad- "Aah? What? Don't you try a put the blame on me. I told Adam not to do it. That should have sufficed."

Thug- "Liar, you have a time machine and went to the future and saw what was going to happen. You choose to let me trick them. You wanted them to fail."

Dad- "Yes, so what... what are you going to do about it? Evie, stand on his head while I curse him." After cursing the Thug, Evie, and Little Adam the Dad says, "Hey, why don't you invite all you hoodlum, evil friends over next Saturday to a pool party where they can all drown... I mean swim."

Little Adam- "I thought you hated them all?" And isn't that kind of dangerous? None of my friends know how to swim. Won't they drown?"

Dad- "No, it'll be fine. Invite their parents too. And all their little brothers and sisters... and their pets."

 

[1robin]

We all argue as if that event actually happened. I don't think it did. I don't think a lot in Genesis really happened. All people had their creation stories. They are all fascinating, but no one believes any of them to be true... except a few people that believe the Jewish one. And then, the main people claiming it is absolutely literal, historical and true are a few Christians. And they interpret it different than the Jews to make the serpent the devil and the results of Adam eating the fruit, that sin and death entered the world, and we all inherit that sin nature from him.

You argument necessarily assumed it did happen. You can't condemn an event that never occurred. My view is I have no idea whether the story is literal or symbolic but it is logically coherent either way.

You need to decide if you want to condemn God given the story or condemn the story. They are two distinct arguments.

Christians need it that way to make the whole Jesus story work. Jews don't need that interpretation. The ones I talk to don't believe in the Christian concepts of "personal" salvation, heaven and hell and the devil, that the Messiah was or needs to be virgin born, that the Messiah is "God". There's so many places where the Christian interpretation breaks down. Like... when did people decide that Jesus was God? When did people decide what it meant to be "saved"? When did The Satan fall? Christians have had to come up with answers. None of it is clear in the Bible. The age of "accountability"? When did that get invented?

1. No we do not, not one aspect of Genesis is necessary for believing Christ existed, and died for our sins. The interpretations only give a consistent secondary linearity to the over all narrative but they are not necessary. IN fact you could disprove every sentence of the OT and my faith is plenty justified.
2. The ones of what or who that you talk to?
3. They decided Jesus was God in the Gospels and confirmed that view at the council of Nicaea. Out of 1800 bishops invited to settle the matter. Only 2 dissented. Jesus divinity goes back at least as far as Christianity, though there has always been some who disagreed.
4. Satan fall physically or spiritually?
5. The age of accountability comes directly from scriptures about only being judged by the revelation we have received, etc....

So far nothing broke down. I don't even see the possibility unless you contend with interpretations about number 5.

But you don't have to answer any of those questions. Let's look at Adam's "rebellion". So you tell your kid, "Don't do drugs." Do you take some precautions to make sure that your kid is not around other kids that will tempt your kid? God put the temptation in front of Adam and put the tempter and didn't intervene. When your co-worker tries to take a missile home do a few alarms go off? I would hope so. I don't think just because you told him not to that you didn't have some armed guards, security cameras and other things in place to prevent him from stealing the missile. What did God have? Nothing. He trusted Adam? No. God knew Adam would fail.

1. I have no memory of being asked anything I had no answer for.
2. What I might do is not a commentary on what God must have done. God does as his nature demands. We really have no ability to judge right or wrong. At best we can judge constancy but that is it.
3. He didn't intervene? For crying out loud the highest moral authority in the universe said you can do anything but X and if you do X you will die. How is that not intervening. He even went on to provide the remedy for doing X anyway by dying in our place. That is about the most intervention possible with a free creature. It is also just another arbitrary false optimality argument.
4. I can walk out of here today with a 30mm chain gun and no one would ask anything. Lets make it a little more interesting. Instead lets use the plans for a missile. Stealing an actual missile is pretty hard without guards.
5. God had crystal clear instruction about what not to do and the costs of doing it. Anything further would have been coercion.
6. He did not trust Adam he empowered him with freewill knowing it would be abused at some point. I hate discussion about the future because they are all speculation. Only one point about it is certain. Knowing what a being will choose has no ability to deny the freedom to choose it.

Does it matter? No. Because the story isn't real. It's a made up story to try and explain why the world is like it is. Gods intervened with all people in the ancient times, yet you don't believe in those gods. This God, if real, could have done things different. But, since he didn't do things different, he is probably not real. Or, isn't who Christians say he is. Christians invented the trinity. They created their version of the devil to give their God an enemy? In the world you've created, it all does make sense... to you. It is "coherent", to you. But what a horrible world and a horrible God running it. He let Satan rebel? He lets Satan continue to exist? He created him in the first place? Again, knowing that Satan would rebel? And we are supposed to believe God is in control? In control of what?

Stop asking me a hundred questions about stories you deny historically. It is a meaningless demand on my time.

You demanding God do things your way or he can't exist is about the weakest argument possible.

And then we come to the Bible stories... God orders killings of women and children? I don't think so. For me, it's more likely people killing people and using their religious beliefs and their gods to justify it. You... have to justify your God for doing it. If you can live with those explanations, then fine. But, they don't work for me. I believe in a spiritual reality, but it's not like yours.

You have been talking about bible stories this whole post, we are not juts now getting to them.

More likely based on what? Those who were actually there all disagree with you. The same people who proved so historically accurate did not more likely go insane only about revelation. You do realize there are age old tests for reliability and the bible passes them all.

If God exists and the bible is at least generally reliable I find justification necessarily following. Because of disobedience you can actually see what he was trying to prevent occur in exactly the way he predicted. As usual the only question is does he exist, what follows from existence is virtually a given.

 

[1robin]

You left out some of the details that are in the A and E story
You put the drugs in a place where your son could find them
You allowed the thug to be around but didn't talk to your son about him
When your son took the drugs you put an armed guard around the antidote so he would die

With these details added to the story it does look like at least a share of the blame is yours


Like I said it doesn't make sense

This is a elementary philosophical mistake. An analogy is not an equality. It is not a 1 to 1 representation. You cannot derive lessons from secondary details and apply them.

But what the heck I will respond anyway.

1. The tree real or symbolic is the knowledge of the fallout from disobedience. That comes necessarily through freewill. It is like suggesting I should not have a son because it will entail the necessity of drugs having to be created that can be abused. Freewill requires the possibility of abuse.
2. I do not need to explain thugs to communicate the requirement you don't take drugs. Satan did not have the drugs anyway.
3. God put an armed guard around Eden not faith. He literally died to provide the antidote. Faith in a future antidote would have and could have healed Adam the same as faith in a past antidote heals us.


It makes more sense if you do not cherry pick inequalities from an analogy that have little application. Not that it making perfect sense to you is a requirement for anything. The bible says a lack of faith makes the human mind at enmity to God. It is not called being in the dark for no reason. How many things that did not make sense to you as a child turned out to be actually true. Hundreds, thousands, millions?

 

[1robin]

Where are the verses that "prove" there is an age of accountability?

None, how many times do I have to say faith precludes proof? There are verses that justify the belief.

That prove we are born "morally depraved"? That prove Jesus is God? That even prove that he is the real Messiah? Everything Christians claim as true that is based on the Hebrew Scriptures has a few sporadic verses. Get real.

Oh no you don't. This road leads inevitably to babies, babies, babies, forever, and I have had enough of that.

Salvation as preached by Christians had to be formulated by using several verses that when put together made all of humanity guilty of Adam's mistake. That make even children born with a sin penalty that God requires to be paid. So not only do you have to substantiate your Christian interpretation, but you have to show that the NT is true and reliable, that the "OT" is the true Word of God, but that the Jewish interpretation of the "OT" is wrong and that their "Oral Torah" is not the Word of God even though some Jews say it is.

This is called dead by a thousand paper cuts. You set up so many tests that practicality alone will not allow time to complete them. This is taking up far too much time and I see no actual desire for answers. Every answer I give just produces two more questions about something else plus here a request to explain the reliability of the entire NT. Please pick one - three claims and lets resolve them. This constant barrage of questions made without any desire for an answer is unjustifiable on my end.

Christians can say they believe in Jesus all they want and believe they are going to heaven, but when it comes to following Jesus' commandments how many actually try to live like Jesus told them to?

I have never met a single one who didn't try, nor a single one who perfectly succeeded.

How many even know what his commands were?

This is what I mean, this question has no possible way for any human to answer and you know it. How do I know what every Christian knows?

So it is does not seem real. It appears to be imaginary. Where is God? In his creation? His creation looks like a free for all. Stars exploding. Animals eating each other. And, people fighting and arguing which religion is right. He could clear it up and tell us, but no. God hasn't spoken. Jesus hasn't spoken.

Your conclusions not only do not follow from the premise/questions they have nothing to do with them at all.

The Book clears nothing up. It leaves too many things unanswered. And things it does answer don't make sense all of the time. Prophecies are vague and can be interpreted anyway you want. If they are spot on, they were probably written after the fact. Since where in the Bible is Islam mentioned? Did it talk about the plague? Where is the British Empire? Did it talk about the great and mighty universal Christian Church?

Billons thought it cleared it up enough to commit their lives to it. It does not nor it could answer every question anyone may have, what it does is provide a mountain of answers more than enough to justify faith in Christ. Why do you think asking random questions of a book with a specific purpose is a meaningful test. It is not a magic 8-ball or a history of everything.

But, you know what, Christianity isn't the only one, all religions are this way. God spoke way back when, but not now. A prophet came centuries ago. But now, we must trust what they said? Those "other" religions are real, supposedly. They all have their myths and prophecies and teachings. They're all believed by their followers. But, since you don't believe in those religions, what are they? Just a figment living inside the heads of the followers of that religion? They believe it. It feels real to them. They try and live by the precepts of their religion. But it could very well be nothing but a bunch of made up religious stories to get people to believe enough to get them to try and be good people.

The promise of an afterlife in heaven is a great way to get people to believe. The simple requirement of just believing in Jesus makes it very easy for people to "say" they believe. How real is it? In way most Christians act, it isn't very real. In their heads and hearts, sure, it's very real. On Sunday, sure, very real. To me, no. And one of the main reasons is because the Bible says God killed people and ordered others to kill for him, including women and children. That's not real. The only acceptable answer for me is that was ancient warriors doing nasty things and justifying their actions by saying their God told them to.

This is just ridiculous. Your mentioning of Churchill reminded me of something appropriate. After coming back from N Africa he said it was invigorating to be shot at to so little effect. I am not answering a thousand questions which no answer has any impact when given but to produce more questions. Either pick a few and stick with them until resolved or I can't justify this.

 

[1robin]

Again - This is BULL and you know it!


They did not write these laws into their Sacred Books so they could just sit around and admire them!


The wrote them in so they could do the nasty deeds!


As for what you have read, - you know perfectly well, - the majority of such writings are Christian and Jewish, and they are trying to hide their evil past, by fudging texts and meanings.


Such as putting in "indentured servant" when we know it is a "SLAVE" that is going to be raped and kept forever.


Or writing the word "wife" for "female" to skew the meaning of that take home the enemy child, let her scream for 30 days, and you can RAPE her, text!



*

This is absurd. Which claim is wrong or does not account for what you suggest?

1. Slavery of all types except chattel slavery in the OT.
2. My comments were about the frequency of the types actually practiced.
3. I said the only evidence we have is for voluntary debt servitude.
4. I then went on expecting you to get hung up and allow for it by stating I am sure the more virulent forms occurred but judging by the evidence they were far less frequent. What more can you possibly demand?

Such as putting in "indentured servant" when we know it is a "SLAVE" that is going to be raped and kept forever.

Using either word is inaccurate, as neither word existed. Servitude is better in some cases and slavery better in others but your using a word loaded with 19th century baggage where it has no place.

Or writing the word "wife" for "female" to skew the meaning of that take home the enemy child, let her scream for 30 days, and you can RAPE her, text!

I do not recall using "wife" or "female", mentioning screaming or rape in my posts on the issue. They have nothing to do with my comments. True or false.

Your sole point seems to be my comments did not contain enough terrible adjectives to satisfy you.