Moral Absolute?

[Spyr]

This is in the light that God is Perfect in His ability to determine what is what and that He is Perfect in His judgment. If you do not accept that, then of course you will have problems understanding the rest.

Then I beleive this is the root of our problem understanding one another. You're assuming god is perfect in his judgment when this thread in essence started out doubting god's perfection. Your analogy would be correct if we both agreed that children were also weeds if their parents were weeds (certainly not the best way to say that but there you have it).

What I would submit is that if a father sins against god the child should have a chance to prove themselves better before being condemned in advance. They should have the benefit of the doubt.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Then I beleive this is the root of our problem understanding one another. You're assuming god is perfect in his judgment when this thread in essence started out doubting god's perfection. Your analogy would be correct if we both agreed that children were also weeds if their parents were weeds (certainly not the best way to say that but there you have it).

What I would submit is that if a father sins against god the child should have a chance to prove themselves better before being condemned in advance. They should have the benefit of the doubt.

Your statement is your opinion based on contrary to what I have plainly stated - I am not 'assuming'. I have stated that I have reflected and came to conclusion regarding myself and God. You now practice in fallacy by ignoring that or making unfounded assertions.

Asked and answered. If you wish to continue re-asserting the same unsupported and limited thing rather than proving out the logic without error, then it is no longer worth me assisting and I leave you to discussing it with yourself. Thus, each of our free will is again demonstrated and end in a condition - ironic.

 

[California Tim]

Then how would you justify god punishing children for their father's mistakes? What logic is there in that? What right? Please be assured I'm not attacking you personally, I just find the whole concept of religion, christianity in general to be so frustrating and contradicting.

The verses used to uphold this argument are not being duly examined in context. First of all God is speaking to his chosen nation (Israel) with whom He made a covenant relationship. When a father broke this covenant with God and led his family down a path in opposition to God, the effect would often last for several generations. This whole concept is not so much an issue of "punishment" as it is in enduring consequences for unrighteousness.

Today we use that same argument warning of the consequences levied on our future generations when it comes to matters like environmental protection, social security and out of control governemental deficit spending. In these verses God is simply warning the Jewish fathers (community and family leaders) that breaking the covenant relationship established between them would have enduring negative consequences on the nation and families that should be considered very carefully. If you need more assurance of this then consider the following verses offered to the same generation:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16)

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezek. 18:20)​

 

[Spyr]

Your statement is your opinion based on contrary to what I have plainly stated - I am not 'assuming'. I have stated that I have reflected and came to conclusion regarding myself and God. You now practice in fallacy by ignoring that or making unfounded assertions.

Forgive me for contradicting you but you are assuming. Simply because you have reflected upon the subject and come to a certain conclusion does not make your belief a fact. No fallacy, no unfounded assertions.

Asked and answered. If you wish to continue re-asserting the same unsupported and limited thing rather than proving out the logic without error, then it is no longer worth me assisting and I leave you to discussing it with yourself. Thus, each of our free will is again demonstrated and end in a condition - ironic.

I should like to add that I find it unfortunate that you should have such limited patience. If I make a mistake please show me the error of my ways instead of shutting me out as many a true beleiver would and has.

 

[Spyr]

The verses used to uphold this argument are not being duly examined in context. First of all God is speaking to his chosen nation (Israel) with whom He made a covenant relationship. When a father broke this covenant with God and led his family down a path in opposition to God, the effect would often last for several generations. This whole concept is not so much an issue of "punishment" as it is in enduring consequences for unrighteousness.



Today we use that same argument warning of the consequences levied on our future generations when it comes to matters like environmental protection, social security and out of control governemental deficit spending. In these verses God is simply warning the Jewish fathers (community and family leaders) that breaking the covenant relationship established between them would have enduring negative consequences on the nation and families that should be considered very carefully. If you need more assurance of this then consider the following verses offered to the same generation:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16)


The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezek. 18:20)
​

I thank you very much for clearing up the misunderstanding. I see now what is meant.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Forgive me for contradicting you but you are assuming. Simply because you have reflected upon the subject and come to a certain conclusion does not make your belief a fact. No fallacy, no unfounded assertions.

The fact that you are not omniscient and do not know what I have or have not done and yet make this assertion based on your opinion only absent of any facts and then presume to lecture how it is me that is making assumptions is... well, what it is.
If you wish to disbelieve what I do and don't know, that is up to you. But please do me the favor of keeping the unfounded opinions of such to yourself, so as to not bring about the same fallacy of 'speaking for another'. Thank you - that is simple courtesy where I come from.

I should like to add that I find it unfortunate that you should have such limited patience. If I make a mistake please show me the error of my ways instead of shutting me out as many a true beleiver would and has.

See above as to the source of the frustration. I did not claim to have unlimited patience and in light of there being insincere or disingenuous posters, I find it unrealistic for others to expect their questions being catered to by some regardless of conditions. There are, of course, other Christians on this board that may address your question. It is not necessary for my exclusive assistance - true?

 

[Spyr]

The fact that you are not omniscient and do not know what I have or have not done and yet make this assertion based on your opinion only absent of any facts and then presume to lecture how it is me that is making assumptions is... well, what it is.

I have not lectured at all and it isn't my opinion that you're assuming because you did. However it is tedious beating a dead horse so what say we agree to disagree.

See above as to the source of the frustration. I did not claim to have unlimited patience and in light of there being insincere or disingenuous posters, I find it unrealistic for others to expect their questions being catered to by some regardless of conditions. There are, of course, other Christians on this board that may address your question. It is not necessary for my exclusive assistance - true?

I did not claim you had or should have unlimited patience and wether you find it unrealistic for others to expect their questions to be catered is gladly not my problem. You're absolutely right that it is unnecessary for your exclusive assistance so when your limited patience runs out you might consider just not responding at all - true?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I have not lectured at all and it isn't my opinion that you're assuming because you did. However it is tedious beating a dead horse so what say we agree to disagree.




I did not claim you had or should have unlimited patience and wether you find it unrealistic for others to expect their questions to be catered is gladly not my problem. You're absolutely right that it is unnecessary for your exclusive assistance so when your limited patience runs out you might consider just not responding at all - true?

If your logic followed function... one would not be able to respond to this question.
Have a good day.

 

[Shane Roach]

I have not lectured at all and it isn't my opinion that you're assuming because you did. However it is tedious beating a dead horse so what say we agree to disagree.




I did not claim you had or should have unlimited patience and wether you find it unrealistic for others to expect their questions to be catered is gladly not my problem. You're absolutely right that it is unnecessary for your exclusive assistance so when your limited patience runs out you might consider just not responding at all - true?

I'm sorry, but I read the thread and you did accuse Centurian of assuming things when there was no real reason for it.

Apparently someone else came along and answered your question, but when you provoke someone with what appears to be purposefull questioning of their integrity by insisting they are making assumptions, etc, then it's not entirely their fault that they get frustrated, and certainly not your place to tell them to not post.

If you do not like confrontational posts, please don't post confrontationaly.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I'm sorry, but I read the thread and you did accuse Centurian of assuming things when there was no real reason for it.

Apparently someone else came along and answered your question, but when you provoke someone with what appears to be purposefull questioning of their integrity by insisting they are making assumptions, etc, then it's not entirely their fault that they get frustrated, and certainly not your place to tell them to not post.

If you do not like confrontational posts, please don't post confrontationaly.

Thanks Shane Roach, I do appreciate your eager defense, but I can go the extra step and concede to his objections.
I could have shown more patience, but didn't. I suppose that makes me... human.

 

[CSMR]

So if god is perfect and he wants us to be perfect, though to be perfect we shouldn’t use all of god attributes as a guideline for our perfection because what makes god perfect doesn’t make us perfect according to god.
Okay now I am really confused.

This is a confusing question to some. The answer comes from ceasing to think of God in anthropomorphic terms. More precisely, from recognising that God is said to be (morally) good in defining for us what is good, not in satisfying the conditions that he defines for us.
That is to say God shows us what it means for us to be good. That is to say, He commands us. Because He is the one commanding us to be good, we call Him good, not because he obeys the commandments he gives us, which is nonsense. The word good has a different sense when applied to God. That the word good cannot be applied to God in the same sense as it can to us is because God is the giver and not the receiver of the law.

 

[Spyr]

This is a confusing question to some. The answer comes from ceasing to think of God in anthropomorphic terms. More precisely, from recognising that God is said to be (morally) good in defining for us what is good, not in satisfying the conditions that he defines for us.
That is to say God shows us what it means for us to be good. That is to say, He commands us. Because He is the one commanding us to be good, we call Him good, not because he obeys the commandments he gives us, which is nonsense. The word good has a different sense when applied to God. That the word good cannot be applied to God in the same sense as it can to us is because God is the giver and not the receiver of the law.

Well said.