The problem of evil

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Under what circumstance is it moral or ethical to punish someone for the crimes of their ancestors?

Is God doing it or not.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Ellis]

Is God doing it or not.

I just said, any person who is not god, which you bolded in your reply to me.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So do you believe an omnipotent god could have created humans with the ability to choose anything that god deems evil, but without the inclination to ever choose them? Or do you believe that's beyond your god's power?

Or can God make a rock so big he can't move it? Seriously?

I'm honestly not trying to come off as condescending but I was hoping to come back here and find something a little more thought provoking.

Anyway, I guess the question to the answer would be, would it be wise for him to do so?

That's the part I give serious consideration too and you seem to be skipping altogether because it seems a wise choice to you. And that's fine, it makes perfect sense you would do that having no faith in God or any God at all. I do have faith so I assume his choice to do it the way he did was a good and wise one.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I just said, any person who is not god, which you bolded in your reply to me.

Seems to me that, at this point, an answer isn't really necessary; your point is made by the lack of an answer.

If acts that are good for God are not necessarily good for man, where does that leave God as the definition of good and moral exemplar for man? Is there a double standard, a 'do as I say, not as I do'?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm honestly not trying to come off as condescending but I was hoping to come back here and find something a little more thought provoking.

Lol. Given the content of your posts so far I doubt that I'm going to be insulted by any comment you could possibly make to me...

Anyway, I guess the question to the answer would be, would it be wise for him to do so?

Actually, the answer to a yes or no question is "yes" or "no". Or "I don't know".

So once again:

Do you believe an omnipotent god could have created humans with the ability to choose anything that god deems evil, but without the inclination to ever choose them?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Seems to me that, at this point, an answer isn't really necessary; your point is made by the lack of an answer.

If acts that are good for God are not necessarily good for man, where does that leave God as the definition of good and moral exemplar for man? Is there a double standard, a 'do as I say, not as I do'?

That's exactly the corner I'm trying to back him into. He's clearly arguing from a double standard. But, if that double standard exists, then god can not hold the same morality that we do.

What does morality even mean at that point?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I just said, any person who is not god, which you bolded in your reply to me.

Now I will have to apologize. I see where the confusion is. I honestly didn't mean to answer "Yes" on #858. That was my mistake because I was rather busy running errands as I was answering.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Lol. Given the content of your posts so far I doubt that I'm going to be insulted by any comment you could possibly make to me...



Actually, the answer to a yes or no question is "yes" or "no". Or "I don't know".

So once again:

Do you believe an omnipotent god could have created humans with the ability to choose anything that god deems evil, but without the inclination to ever choose them?

Let me answer a question with a question. Why do most people consider it wrong to be a vigilante?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Kenny'sID]

Actually, the answer to a yes or no question is "yes" or "no". Or "I don't know".

Though a convenient expectation if you can pull it off, you aren't gong to be able to make the rules here. Firstly telling anyone how they have to answer a question should send up red flags galore, and secondly, I realized a long time ago, as many of us have, a yes or no might get the questioner what they want but it by no means always or fully answers a question. I've seen that before, how the Atheist wants to make up and dictate the rules of engagement...guess they figure they need the extra edge, or something like that.

Watch any Atheist ask me if God created, and is the fair and good ruler of the universe, and once I answer "yes" see how far that gets me. though I answered the yes or no question, I would be bombarded to go further. I guess the Atheist needs the edge a double standard can provide as well as the leeway to make up rules as they go.

That said, and considering how things are flowing now, I think you're pretty much just dieseling at this point.

 

[bhsmte]

Though a convenient expectation if you can pull it off, you aren't gong to be able to make the rules here. Firstly telling anyone how they have to answer a question should send up red flags galore, and secondly, I realized a long time ago, as many of us have, a yes or no might get the questioner what they want but it by no means always or fully answers a question. I've seen that before, how the Atheist wants to make up and dictate the rules of engagement...guess they figure they need the extra edge, or something like that.

Watch any Atheist ask me if God created, and is the fair and good ruler of the universe, and once I answer "yes" see how far that gets me. though I answered the yes or no question, I would be bombarded to go further. I guess the Atheist needs the edge a double standard can provide as well as the leeway to make up rules as they go.

That said, and considering how things are flowing now, I think you're pretty much just dieseling at this point.

Does this mean you cant answer the question?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Does this mean you cant answer the question?

OK, yes or no question...your rules....

No.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Though a convenient expectation if you can pull it off, you aren't gong to be able to make the rules here. Firstly telling anyone how they have to answer a question should send up red flags galore, and secondly, I realized a long time ago, as many of us have, a yes or no might get the questioner what they want but it by no means always or fully answers a question. I've seen that before, how the Atheist wants to make up and dictate the rules of engagement...guess they figure they need the extra edge, or something like that.

Watch any Atheist ask me if God created, and is the fair and good ruler of the universe, and once I answer "yes" see how far that gets me. though I answered the yes or no question, I would be bombarded to go further. I guess the Atheist needs the edge a double standard can provide as well as the leeway to make up rules as they go.

That said, and considering how things are flowing now, I think you're pretty much just dieseling at this point.

Sooooo... do you believe an omnipotent god could have created humans with the ability to choose anything that god deems evil, but without the inclination to ever choose them?

If you're scared to answer I completely understand, but at least be honest and just say that...

 

[Dave Ellis]

Now I will have to apologize. I see where the confusion is. I honestly didn't mean to answer "Yes" on #858. That was my mistake because I was rather busy running errands as I was answering.

No problem.

Well, in that case did you mean it's not ok for anyone else to punish anyone else for the crimes of their ancestors?

If so, why is it ok for god to do that?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

No problem.



If so, why is it ok for god to do that?

Yes, because there is no laws (that I know of anyway) that gives us the authority to do so. Which is why I brought up vigilantes. You see, some believe vigilantes to be wrong because they are taking justice into their own hands and executing punishments outside their authority to do so.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If you're scared to answer I completely understand, but at least be honest and just say that...

Scared? I'm surprised people still try those tactics.

Yeah man, I'm scared to answer someone that's not on the ball enough to even see their question was answered and I assume expect others to lose track of that fact as well..

Then because they didn't like the answer they insist on trying again and again until they get something/anything that allows them to walk away from the conversation feeling like the have won and so desperately, even a non answer to something that has already been answered will do that for them. So if they can't get their adversary to answer again and again which would be silly, they win, and their reasoning then tells them the questioned is now scared to answer because they themselves must be right, while they pretend to forget the fact they already got the answer.

In truth their desperate tactics to reach their goal, as well as the goal itself is completely ridiculous.

On second thought, I'm terrified...lol

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Scared? I'm surprised people still try those tactics.

Yeah man, I'm scared to answer someone that's not on the ball enough to even see their question was answered and I assume expect others to lose track of that fact as well..

Then because they didn't like the answer they insist on trying again and again until they get something/anything that allows them to walk away from the conversation feeling like the have won and so desperately, even a non answer to something that has already been answered will do that for them. So if they can't get their adversary to answer again and again which would be silly, they win, and their reasoning then tells them the questioned is now scared to answer because they themselves must be right, while they pretend to forget the fact they already got the answer.

In truth their desperate tactics to reach their goal, as well as the goal itself is completely ridiculous.

On second thought, I'm terrified...lol

You realize that everyone here sees that you really haven't answered the question, right? It's not just me.

I'll just concede that you won't answer the question because the conclusion is disturbing to you. But I'm willing to change that opinion. Just answer the question.

On second thought, perhaps you're non answering of questions might mean you're training to be a politician. They're experts at things like that...

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes, because there is no laws (that I know of anyway) that gives us the authority to do so. Which is why I brought up vigilantes. You see, some believe vigilantes to be wrong because they are taking justice into their own hands and executing punishments outside their authority to do so.

That doesn't really address why god is morally justified in punishing people for crimes their ancestors committed, while it's not morally justifiable for us.

Explain how that one works.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You realize that everyone here sees that you really haven't answered the question, right? It's not just me.

You can have the last word, but that little world you live in, as in only seeing what you want in spite of what's really there...might want to take a second look at the attic and see if you can clean that up.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You can have the last word, but that little world you live in, as in only seeing what you want in spite of what's really there...might want to take a second look at the attic and see if you can clean that up.

Why do you refuse to answer his question? That's not honest behaviour.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

That doesn't really address why god is morally justified in punishing people for crimes their ancestors committed, while it's not morally justifiable for us.

Explain how that one works.

I believe what you are talking about is "generational curses". The Bible mentions “generational curses” in several places (Exodus 20:5; 34:7; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 5:9). God warns that He is “a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.”

It sounds unfair for God to punish children for the sins of their fathers. However, there is more to it than that. The effects of sin are naturally passed down from one generation to the next. When a father has a sinful lifestyle, his children are likely to practice the same sinful lifestyle. Implied in the warning of Exodus 20:5 is the fact that the children will choose to repeat the sins of their fathers. A Jewish Targum specifies that this passage refers to “ungodly fathers” and “rebellious children.” So, it is not unjust for God to punish sin to the third or fourth generation – those generations are committing the same sins their ancestors did.

There is a trend in the church today to try to blame every sin and problem on some sort of generational curse. This is not biblical. God’s warning to visit iniquity on future generations is part of the Old Testament Law. A generational curse was a consequence for a specific nation (Israel) for a specific sin (idolatry). The history books of the Old Testament (especially Judges) contain the record of this divine punishment meted out.

The cure for a generational curse has always been repentance. When Israel turned from idols to serve the living God, the “curse” was broken and God saved them (Judges 3:9, 15; 1 Samuel 12:10-11). Yes, God promised to visit Israel’s sin upon the third and fourth generations, but in the very next verse He promised that He would show “love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Exodus 20:6). In other words, God’s grace lasts a thousand times longer than His wrath.

For the Christian who is worried about a generational curse, the answer is salvation through Jesus Christ. A Christian is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). How can a child of God still be under God’s curse (Romans 8:1)? The cure for a “generational curse” is repentance of the sin in question, faith in Christ, and a life consecrated to the Lord (Romans 12:1-2).


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk