Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
PLease re-read post 358, at the end of which, I asked you a very clear question:Well, you talk about this "child abuse" but I am uncertain that I comprehend who is doing the abusing and what the abuse entails.
If you could kindly detail what you are meaning, it would avoid any confusion in my reply.
OK, so, if I get your point or scenario correctly...PLease re-read post 358, at the end of which, I asked you a very clear question:
"That's like me finding a way to addict your children to cocaine. Tell me, would that be child abuse in your eyes? Or would you be A-okay with it?"
Nope. That was neither stated nor implied. That has never been one of my objections to traditional thinking because it's not the traditional position (although perhaps hyper-Calavinism might be accused of it). You're putting words in my mouth, creating a strawman easy to knock down.OK, so, if I get your point or scenario correctly...
God was responsible for Adam's sin.
So that wouldn't be child abuse? You would let me walk right into your house and get your kids addicted cocaine, HOPING that at some point they will say, "I'm addicted to cocaine and don't want to be anymore" (let's assume for a moment, to keep the analogy accurate, that confession would free them).In your scenario, with the child addicted to cocaine... It's not an issue for the child if they are never held accountable for things they cannot comprehend.. and when they are old enough to comprehend.. in the case of cocaine... if they just had to say "I'm addicted to cocaine and don't want to be anymore" and then they would be free of it.... then what is the issue?
Nope. That was neither stated nor implied.
What do you mean by "visits" Adam's sinful nature on others?My objection is that God, in traditional thinking, visits Adam's sinful nature on others (people who are not Adam).
So that wouldn't be child abuse?
Your question is flawed. It is set up to fail.THAT is the question.
Would it be child abuse, or not? As expected, you still haven't answered the question.
They didn't sin.@JacksBratt,
At post 357 I asked you this question and I don't seem to recall a clear answer:
"And all those fetuses who HAVE suffered disease and starvation. Tell me, exactly when did they sin?"
They didn't sin.
What gave you the idea that they did?
Are you saying that they had diseases as a result of their sin? Are you saying that people starve because of their sin?
God does not work that way.. All the people of all the earth will suffer... not because of their personal sins but due to the fact that sin is in the world.
It is an imperfect world. Bad things happen. Our bodies get sick. People are not punished with disease and starvation... for their sins.
Babies are born without sin.. but with the sin nature.... Do you understand this?
But who made this world? Why would a (supposedly) perfectly good God make a world where it is even possible for innocent fetuses to starve to death? How is that not parental neglect, child abuse, and irresponsible behavior?They didn't sin.
What gave you the idea that they did?
Are you saying that they had diseases as a result of their sin? Are you saying that people starve because of their sin?
God does not work that way.. All the people of all the earth will suffer... not because of their personal sins but due to the fact that sin is in the world.
It is an imperfect world. Bad things happen. Our bodies get sick. People are not punished with disease and starvation... for their sins.
Babies are born without sin.. but with the sin nature.... Do you understand this?
He allows it to propagate to innocent zygotes, instead of protecting them from it, according to your view.Very well then... Now you understand why I asked for clarity... life is simple when you take time to ask and communicate, no?
What do you mean by "visits" Adam's sinful nature on others?
I am a parent.. I also have enough intelligence to comprehend the concept of "child abuse"If you want to hear my solution, sorry I won't bother, as you can't seem to understand concepts like child abuse, parental neglect and so forth.
What kind of parent would neglect to do his utmost to protect innocent children and fetuses? You don't see any of this as child abuse? Not even as a lack of kindness? So if I kidnapped your kids and made them starve to death, or infected them with disease, you'd say, 'Well that's just a consequence of sin in the world, not my fault Jal is a sinner, it's not my responsibility to protect them.' Huh?
Because you are suggesting that God had no moral obligation to protect these fetuses from starvation, disease, violence, etc.
And I say, your version of God has behaved like a monster - even if He partially compensated later via the atonement.
Hmmm... why?But who made this world? Why would a (supposedly) perfectly good God make a world where it is even possible for innocent fetuses to starve to death? How is that not parental neglect, child abuse, and irresponsible behavior?
Well yes - that's what I said right? I'm the kidnapper. But you as the parent have no obligation to TRY TO PROTECT THEM FROM ME as the kidnapper? How many times do I have to repeat the objection? How many ways can I rephrase it? Are you saying that if I came to kidnap your kids (or harm them in any way) that you'd stand idly by and WATCH? You wouldn't due your utmost to protect.I am a parent.. I also have enough intelligence to comprehend the concept of "child abuse"
I am not arguing your scenario of "child abuse" I'm questioning the subject of who is to blame.
But..... usually when someone is not getting the proper responses to their questions.. They will sign out.. "I won't bother" due to X or Y.. that I don't like about your response.
That's OK... I don't think that your analogy is going where you want it to anyway.
I also don't think that you have a "solution" that is better than the cross. IMO.
HUH? is right.............WHO is abusing the kids...............................PLEASE TELL ME.
WHO are you, the kidnapper... the one starving the kids.? GOD? SATAN? ADAM?... WHO.
Look, JAL... I'm sure that you mean well and you are wrestling with making some concepts very complicated.. all the while they are very simple.He allows it to propagate to innocent zygotes, instead of protecting them from it, according to your view.
But if you're asking me HOW He propagates it, that's another logical contradiction in your position. It is logically impossible to propragate/transfer/transmit (etc) a sinful nature because sin, is by definition, a volitional act. You cannot just HAVE sin. You must choose to DO the sinful.
We're taking about fetuses starving to death. Permitted by a God supposedly of maximal kindness?What moral obligation does God have to make every fetus perfectly healthy?
What kind of question is that? You're seriously asking me how an omnipotent God could manage protect the innocent? You honestly have no idea how?Look, JAL... I'm sure that you mean well and you are wrestling with making some concepts very complicated.. all the while they are very simple.
How would God protect "innocent zygotes"?
For the 11 millionth time that is not my objection and has nothing to do with my objection. You keep creating this strawman because you don't have any valid counterpoints.God is a monster because He gave Adam and Eve free will and they disobeyed Him?
11-million-one.I guess God should have just created them as robots and not given them free will... Or.. given them freewill and never had them tested... Just create a bunch of creatures to love you... not knowing if they love you or love all the things they get from you.
Yes, this world fits perfectly well with MY version of God and MY version of Adam (see the OP). For example in my version, no one is innocent, not even a fetus. If you don't grasp why, re-read the OP please.Hmmm... why?
He made a perfect world... Remember? "And God saw that it was good"... Remember that?
11-million-two.However, "a life unexamined is not worth living".
If you created a bunch of little beings.. And your friend did the same.. And you never let them be put to the test... while your friend did..
So, now, you have 100% of these beings with you.. But your friend lost 90% of his who betrayed their creator...
You would say.."look, I have all my created beings.. He would say... Ah.. but how many are true?"
That is the rub.... God wanted only those worthy.. Those that were given a chance to make the choice and chose HIM. Then, He made the test so simple... Just to believe in Him....
I've had a long weekend and just came back to read over our conversation here.@JacksBratt,
I think I see the disconnect here. People like you have been so indoctrinated to believe in a parentally cruel and negligent God that they really can't imagine questioning it or conceiving anything wrong with that picture. How sad.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?