I’d like to hear some Christians chime in on this without dodging the question. Do you think it’s moral to punish the children for the parents’ sin, “to the third and fourth generation.” What about if the “sin” is simply rejection, something we don’t normally consider a “sin” in the context of human beings.
What if I were to act like god? I’m really nice to a girl and ask her to marry me but she declines so I wait till she gets married and start taking my anger out on her children for the crime of “rejecting.”
Face it, your god as described in the bible is either illogical or a sadist (probably both).
You’re posing these questions assuming your definition of moral similar to when you ask for the definition of God. If you assume God exists, he cannot be defined on human terms any more than we can explain the universe in simple and concise terms.
This makes no sense since sins by definition are transgressions against God.
Slightly different situation, in that you have no claim of ownership over the girl, whereas God does, in that he created her, her children and everyone else in existance.
While obviously this thread (or threads, I have no idea how many times you have discussed this) probably does nothing to persuade you of the existance of God, neither are you doing anything to disprove it, especially by trying to point out actions that are illogical from your point of view.
As an aside, I find this line of thinking very comical in a libertarian forum (both because of the reasoning and because it’s completely untrue). The Bible clearly states that torture, rape and murder are sins and they shouldn’t be done. The guidlines have been clearly laid out for anyone who cares to abide by them, but the choice is yours to accept it or not. Do you want freedom or someone forcing you to do exactly what you should at all times?
As for starvation… Matt 25:
31"But when (Y)the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then (Z)He will sit on His glorious throne.
32"All the nations will be (AA)gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, (AB)as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
33and He will put the sheep (AC)on His right, and the goats (AD)on the left.
34"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, (AE)inherit the kingdom prepared for you (AF)from the foundation of the world.
35'For (AG)I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; (AH)I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
36(AI)naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you (AJ)visited Me; (AK)I was in prison, and you came to Me.’
37"Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?
38'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?
39‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’
40"(AL)The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, (AM)to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’
Okay, so god can be a sadist with his children because he created them, but it is immoral for me to be a sadist to my children, unless you think child abuse is okay. I think most libertarians believe a son/daughter is within their rights to “reject” a parent but somehow this is different for god and it’s justifiable for god to act in aggression because of it.
Go ahead and believe god isn’t a sadist when he punishes people because he’s mystical, not possible to understand, whatever… but you should see that this is the same type of thinking that statists have.
What you’re saying in a nutshell is, god seems to act like a malicious sadist in the bible but he’s in a different category than humans so I’ll just brush it off.
Why not say that we can’t criticize the state because statist actions are only malicious from our point of view but make perfect sense if you’re a politician. Politicians are in a different category than the rest of us and from their point of view they are doing wonderful things.
Last but not least, you can’t prove a negative and the burden of proof is on you.
I’m not really arguing on it one way or another actually. If you believe God exists then this question is moot because God will do whatever he wants and you are powerless to do anything about it. If you believe God doesn’t exist then he obviously isn’t punishing people because someone who doesn’t exist can’t punish people.
The state is made up of individual people, no more knowing than you or I in determining the future. Assuming a God, He would know the result of every action, and unlike the state be aware of all future consequences resulting from them. And again, unlike the state, God doesn’t force you to do anything, it is entirely by choice.
I made clear that neither I nor anyone else can prove God’s existance, you know this, so why go through this again? If your goal is to win, you can say you’ve done it.
Assuming the Christian God, He is the absolute authority of morality, He created morality and so if He desires, anything He does is moral.
You cannot question the source of ethics on His ethics. He is the ethical, the supreme, and if He decides to separate Himself ethically from you, then there is, logically, nothing wrong.
On some level, I agree based on my Kierkegaardian background.
Then again, I do see proof of a spiritual claim and evidence that the spiritual claim falls in line with the Christian teachings.
There have been multiple Eucharist miracles that have defied scientific explanation. By definition, this is a spiritual/paranormal occurrence.
The Atheist claim is that there is no spirit, no divinity, and so the atheist is proven wrong by the existence of paranormal activity seen in the Eucharist miracles.
First, your avatar creeps me out. I’m really looking forward to that movie coming out this weekend though.
I’d like to see an explanation of the spiritual claim, as I’m not familiar with it. When I say prove, I meant prove it in a scientific type of way, with a repeatable and independently verifiable experiment.
Haha. Yeah, I’m going on Monday to the IMAX showing.
As for the proof of spiritual activity, I usually point to the Eucharist mircale in Lanciano, IT, where for 12 centuries a real Eucharist miracle has remained relatively fresh without a controlled environment and without preservatives.
It was tested in the 70’s and several conclusions were made from it. Even today, you can go to the Basilica and see the phenomena, it is very real and very paranormal.
To me, the paranormal is a proof of the spiritual, and though it is not a proof of the Christian God Himself, it is circumstantial evidence for His existence.
Definite evidence that the Christian God is icky. I mean, a human (Jesus’!) heart and blood?!? That, or it’s a message from the Aztec gods. You are supposed to eat and drink that stuff, after all. Fun guys, those Aztecs. Knew how to party with their bloodthirsty demonic deities.
Assuming that this is from the bible, could you please give the full verse that you are refering to?! The parents seem to be the agents of something that leads to negative effects on other. But that is just an idea.
I’m an atheist. I’m too lazy to call myself agnostic because I see so much evidence pointing in my direction, I don’t want to waste the time.
Isn’t funny that if someone sees flying purple elephants with Uzies, they are called crazy, but when someone sees god, it is completely fine and even defended as logical?
God is nothing but a made up fiction from man to give a life devoid of meaning, a meaning. God is a creation of man. If the fact that almost all gods look similar to man is not enough evidence, consider space aliens. They look very similar to us in all media, or they are lizards, another Earth creature. No one ever seen a space alien that looked like the monster from Alien the movie when they were “abducted”. Man is a very lonely creature with no one superior or on par with his intellectual capacity, so he created one, to live with hope of a “divine plan”, or “better Life”, instead of recognizing himself as no different than a fly. God was the first, and will be the last “anti- depressant” for man’s loneliness.
Indeed, he/she/it could have created us as his devout slaves so he/she/it would have to care for all our issues. Now that would be a great god of the free:-)
False. I’ve seen it WAY too many times. It always ends up with the theist implicitly denying that god knows everything or that god created everything. Why? Because that’s the only way to get free will with an omnimax god. Of course, if the god isn’t omnimax, or at least omniscient and created everything, it could be solved. But I’ve yet to come across any such claims.
Oh you’re not going to beg the question that there is existence apart from spacetime, are you? Please tell me you’re not going to use a fallacy. That would destroy your argument.
Which is precisely what causes there to not be free will with a minumim of an omniscient creator being.
