What say you learned friends?

[pladecalvo]

Ebon Musings: That Fateful Apple

 

[Andre]

I found the section that was tacked on to the end wholly unnecessary, but the page contains some solid questions.

They are are nicely summarised by the author in the following paragraph:

This puzzle, like so many others, remains unsolved, a glaring flaw in the logical framework of Christian theism. Why did initially perfect human beings commit the first sin? Why did God not create us as free-willed beings who would freely choose only the good? Why are we held responsible for the actions of others and punished for acting just as we were created to act? Why did he create us knowing he would have to punish us thus? Unless all these questions can be satisfactorily reconciled, and I have yet to see an apologetics source that even tries to do this, much less accomplishes it, Christianity must be considered to fail the test of basic logical coherence.

(emphasis added)

 

[Minor Axis]

They are are nicely summarised by the author in the following paragraph:

Excellent quote.

 

[IntruderLS1]

I found the section that was tacked on to the end wholly unnecessary, but the page contains some solid questions.

They are are nicely summarised by the author in the following paragraph:

This puzzle, like so many others, remains unsolved, a glaring flaw in the logical framework of Christian theism. Why did initially perfect human beings commit the first sin? Why did God not create us as free-willed beings who would freely choose only the good? Why are we held responsible for the actions of others and punished for acting just as we were created to act? Why did he create us knowing he would have to punish us thus? Unless all these questions can be satisfactorily reconciled, and I have yet to see an apologetics source that even tries to do this, much less accomplishes it, Christianity must be considered to fail the test of basic logical coherence.

(emphasis added)

Call me blind, but I'm not seeing the strength in the argument. We were created with free will. A powerful gift. If God wanted robots, He would have made robots. We are not held responsible for the actions of others in the way this article would like to suggest.

If you get a girl pregnant out of wedlock, and bring up a kid around drugs, violence, poverty, and give that child no social structure that will benefit him, he will live a life of crime, poverty, and unhappiness (likely). He isn't living that life because he is being punished by God for his parents actions, he is living that life as a consequence of his parents actions. If he pulls out of it (likely with a Church), he will be giving his children a chance at a better life.

It isn't mysticism, it's common sense.

People have children every day. Children that are going to lie, steal, cheat, break bones, cry at night with broken hearts, age, cripple, and die. Is this a good reason to not have children? Do these facts invalidate parental love?

I vote "no." This article is a great example of taking a reader down a road they want to travel.

 

[Andre]

We are not held responsible for the actions of others in the way this article would like to suggest.

That is a matter of dispute, and the concept of original sin is what is being discussed here - a Christian doctrine.

The article did not clash noticeably with my understanding of the doctrine. What is your take on original sin?

Can you point out errors from the article please?

 

[pladecalvo]

We were created with free will. A powerful gift. If God wanted robots, He would have made robots. We are not held responsible for the actions of others in the way this article would like to suggest.

I don't see how "free will" can co-exist if you believe in an omniscient deity....but that's another argument.

What is in question is why this allegedly omniscient, loving, compassionate, merciful deity who knew how it would all turn out....continued with his creation when he knew that the result would be intolerable misery for those that he is alleged to love more than his own son.

 

[IntruderLS1]

That is a matter of dispute, and the concept of original sin is what is being discussed here - a Christian doctrine.

The article did not clash noticeably with my understanding of the doctrine. What is your take on original sin?

Can you point out errors from the article please?

I'm not sure where the dispute is. No Christian that I know, and no preacher I've sat through sermons with would suggest that a person is being directly punished for the actions of those before them. The way we live our lives, and the choices we make while raising children have consequences. I would be surprised to hear anybody suggest otherwise?

My take on the original sin is very simple. It was the first time humans chose to directly disobey the Creator. I'm sure they made millions of choices before that one, but when they deliberately chose to walk away from the Lord, they stepped from permanent joy to temporary joy.

Christian doctrine 101: God is purity, and chooses not to associate with non-purity. When humans chose to sin, that separation had drastic and far reaching consequences. You can liken it to giving up your birthright and citizenship and choosing to become a citizen of a destitute, dangerous place. It's not as good as it was, and you can't come back but through a lot of paperwork. Your children growing up in the new place aren't going to have it as good as you did, but not because they are being punished, but because that is the situation they were born into via the decisions of the parents.

We made a terrible choice, and as a loving father figure God sent us a way to get back. There is no way to permanently rid ourselves of our sinful nature, but through the covering of a pure sacrifice (Jesus), we are able to once again communicate with God, and move back into grace.

If you have any questions about it, or would like to use the article as a jumping off point, I am happy to discuss it at length. It is important to understand when reading material with an agenda, that truth can be looked at in very inventive light to make an argument. From what was posted of this one, the author does a lot of creative interpretation.

I don't see how "free will" can co-exist if you believe in an omniscient deity....but that's another argument.

What is in question is why this allegedly omniscient, loving, compassionate, merciful deity who knew how it would all turn out....continued with his creation when he knew that the result would be intolerable misery for those that he is alleged to love more than his own son.

Would you say that your life is an intollerable misery?

Did you catch my earlier comment of:
"People have children every day. Children that are going to lie, steal, cheat, break bones, cry at night with broken hearts, age, cripple, and die. Is this a good reason to not have children? Do these facts invalidate parental love?"

 

[pladecalvo]

Would you say that your life is an intollerable misery?

I think you understand the point I was making friend.

Did you catch my earlier comment of:
"People have children every day. Children that are going to lie, steal, cheat, break bones, cry at night with broken hearts, age, cripple, and die. Is this a good reason to not have children? Do these facts invalidate parental love?"

Yes I did and it wasn't a good one. Christians are forever equating their god to parents when they talk about the relationship between parents and children. They forget one important factor. The Christian god is allegedly omnimax and we are not. A better analogy would be- If we as parents knew that our children would definably turn out to be murderer, robbers, rapists, thieves etc and that we would have to punish them by killing them (as Bible god does in the OT) and send them to a place of eternal torture because they disobeyed us.....would we still have them?

If you're hoping to present an analogy to illustrate your god's behaviour as claimed in the Bible, you need to kill your kids to show them love.

The question in the OP remains. Why would your god continue when he knew what the outcome would be?

 

[Andre]

Thank you for joining the thread IntruderLS1, and I can assure you I will not be treating this matter in a persnickety fashion. The question I highlighted in my original post is important to me, and has been for many years, and I have yet to see a satisfactory answer.

I would still be interested to know what precisely is wrong with the original article if that's possible. If we can identify errors of fact or reasoning then it can be put aside.

We are not held responsible for the actions of others in the way this article would like to suggest.

Here is a verse that supports your view:

"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him." - Ezekiel 18:20 (NIV)

Here is a verse that contradicts your view:

"... I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me..." - Exodus 20:5 (NIV)



Considering that God is supposedly sufficient unto himself, creation was not a NECESSARY act. If He went ahead with it in full knowledge of the fact that perhaps billions of souls were going to suffer in eternal torment as a result of it, creation begins to resemble a crime of some sort, which is against His nature according to Christianity.

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm not sure where the dispute is. No Christian that I know, and no preacher I've sat through sermons with would suggest that a person is being directly punished for the actions of those before them.

As I understand the story of Adam and Eve, all of mankind was punished for their failures.