Author Topic: God's "all-loving" nature  (Read 8443 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Samuelxcs

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
  • Darwins +6/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • The oldest and strongest emotion of humans is fear
    • Fallen Angels
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #58 on: September 21, 2011, 05:44:55 AM »
If we should all be loving like 'God' is, we should all kill each other. *points gun at random person* "I love you! *pulls trigger and sees blood everywhere*
"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naïve forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget."
-Thomas Szasz

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #59 on: September 21, 2011, 09:08:38 AM »
[Only I did not declare anything to be biblically advocated. I said that the concept, original sin, was NOT biblically advocated and was in fact a concept that was foreign to the scriptural texts. As it pertains to this discussion, there is no "made up whim" that I have attempted to insert.

TOT, what of the verses I mentioned

Quote
We then have Paul claiming that JC was the answer for Adam’s fall.  Romans 3, Romans 5.   Ephesians 2.

I'll add another 1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.


*if* JC is the answer for Adam's fall, e.g. this fall is what *required* God to send JC to save everyone/or those who he allows to beleive, then we have original sin.    Do you agree that original sin can be safely defined as the inherited state of sin resulting from the consumption of the "apple" in the Garden of Eden? 

If you don't think these verses support original sin, what do they mean? 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #60 on: September 21, 2011, 10:53:58 AM »
Mrs. V, just so we're clear and all cards are on the table let me ask you this:

Are you advocating that the Bible teaches the concept of original sin?

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #61 on: September 21, 2011, 10:57:19 AM »
Mrs. V, just so we're clear and all cards are on the table let me ask you this:

Are you advocating that the Bible teaches the concept of original sin?

No more then what you're claims of what the biblical 'teachings' teach.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #62 on: September 21, 2011, 11:23:27 AM »
Mrs. V, just so we're clear and all cards are on the table let me ask you this:

Are you advocating that the Bible teaches the concept of original sin?

I am asking you how these verses are to be interpreted if you don't think the bible teaches original sin.

and "mrs. v"????? ;D
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #63 on: September 21, 2011, 11:33:24 AM »
He doesn't want to admit that his claims of biblical teachings are no different from the claims of biblical teachings that other christian belief systems interpret as original sin.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline JL

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Jin Jing ??...You are beautiful :)
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #64 on: September 21, 2011, 11:39:45 AM »
If they do in fact exist, i would certainly like to think so.  :laugh:
Of course they exist.  I see these guys everywhere, don't you?


Fella's face seem to be suffering from constipation and piles  :o

Ok back to topic :)
"Religion is regarded by the common man as true, the wise man as false, and the rulers as useful"

Now listening to--> Linda Chung 'My Love Story Album'

For Jazz :Exotica by Paul Taylor + The Dream by David Sanborn and Latin Quarter by Marc Antoine

Offline violatedsmurf80

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 392
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #65 on: September 21, 2011, 11:40:34 AM »
If there was a concept of original sin the bible would tell Christians to baptize the new born babies. The concept of infant “baptism” is totally foreign to the Holy Scriptures. This practice stems from the erroneous teaching of “original sin.” The Bible does not give one single example or command of any baby being baptized anywhere.
When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”--- Sinclair Lewis

I believe there is something out there watching over us. Unfortunately, it's the government.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #66 on: September 21, 2011, 12:16:07 PM »
Quote
One is punished if one is found guilty. Or one is punished even if one is not guilty. those two claims, in your bible contradict each other. You yourself said “how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?”  If they aren’t guilty of it why are they being punished?


Your implication is that if one is punished they are being punished due to their guilt. That idea is not necessarily true as parties that are not guilty can often suffer for the actions of an associated party.
The passages we went over that speak of guilt illustrate to the reader that each individual's GUILT will be on that individual and that individual alone. When we consider the punishment aspect mentioned in the passages we can see that the punishment for the actions of the guilty party would in fact affect others who may not have born any guilt.
What you are calling a contradiction, does not appear to be one at all as guilt and punishment are two distinctly different things. What I will say though is that the idea of fairness seems to be thrown out of the window as those not responsible for the ship sinking are being forced to go down with it.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #67 on: September 21, 2011, 12:23:59 PM »
Quote
One is punished if one is found guilty. Or one is punished even if one is not guilty. those two claims, in your bible contradict each other. You yourself said “how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?”  If they aren’t guilty of it why are they being punished?


Your implication is that if one is punished they are being punished due to their guilt. That idea is not necessarily true

The burden is yours to demonstrate.

Quote
as parties that are not guilty can often suffer for the actions of an associated party.

This has absolutely nothing to do with her statement or the questions that followed her statements, that you selectively omit.


And again, you decided that you need to assume something to make sense of your bible.  How not suprising.  It’s not they have to deal with the ramifications of what the guilty did, God actively punishes them for something they never did.  Why kill David’s son if he did nothing?  Can’t God *not* kill someone for once?   

Now, for those verses that you didn’t bother actually addressing.  We have original sin supported again and again in the NT. we have verses indicating a believe that all are less than pure from “birth” in the OT.  Can you show that the NT and OT don’t “really mean” those things? 


Quote
he passages we went over that speak of guilt illustrate

They do? Where did you show that it 'illustrate to the reader'?

Velkyn is talking about being guilty for something they did not do, your babbling off into a red herring.  Virtually nothing you posted has anything to do with any of the previous questions and challenges, plus you've fallen back to your normal dishonest arguments from authority.. literally making shit up with little to no explanation.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • Darwins +70/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #68 on: September 21, 2011, 12:58:23 PM »
If there was a concept of original sin the bible would tell Christians to baptize the new born babies. The concept of infant “baptism” is totally foreign to the Holy Scriptures. This practice stems from the erroneous teaching of “original sin.” The Bible does not give one single example or command of any baby being baptized anywhere.

Oh ye of little faith.  The bible mentions somewhere about a whole family being baptized so you can safely pretend babies were naturally in that home.  And besides, the same (RCC) counsels that gave you the bible, the same counsels that gave you 100% man 100% god, the same counsels that gave you the Truine God, gave you Original Sin.  Surely god wasn't faking that time.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #69 on: September 21, 2011, 01:00:56 PM »
Quote
And again, you decided that you need to assume something to make sense of your bible.  How not suprising.  It’s not they have to deal with the ramifications of what the guilty did, God actively punishes them for something they never did.  Why kill David’s son if he did nothing?  Can’t God *not* kill someone for once?   

Now, for those verses that you didn’t bother actually addressing.  We have original sin supported again and again in the NT. we have verses indicating a believe that all are less than pure from “birth” in the OT.  Can you show that the NT and OT don’t “really mean” those things?


Omen
Quote
The burden is yours to demonstrate.

Let's get some things straight. There is no need or attempt being made of making sense of "my" Bible as it relates to this issue. I do not believe that "my" Bible speaks about original sin as a concept that even exists. My "opponent" is making the argument that "my" Bible does speak of original sin in X, Y, and Z locations, yet the burden of prove is not me to disprove that allogation? Interesting..........
So, here's the situation. You have a person saying that it (original sin) is in there and you have another person saying that it is not in there. Logically, which party bears the burden of proof if their case is to be made? All the "no it's not" party is obligated to do is cross-examine the evidence the "it's in there" party presented so that the jury (the thread viewing public) can determine if the person making the claim about it being in there has the adequate evidence to prove their claim (case).

----
I wasn't gonna do this, but what the heck.
If the above is wrong then I am free to make the following allogation:

Omen behaves like an rude, arrogant, condescending asshole on this forum.

And after having made such an allegation I can DEMAND that Omen provide proof to the contrary and obsolve myself from bearing the burden of proof.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2011, 01:02:28 PM by Truth OT »

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #70 on: September 21, 2011, 01:13:04 PM »
Let's get some things straight. There is no need or attempt being made of making sense of "my" Bible as it relates to this issue.

It is if you are going to assert anything as if it is to be known or understood.  The opposite of not doing this, is literally making up everything purely at whim.  Hence, you hypocritically trying to argue that 'original sin' has no biblical support, while ignoring that your own assertions carry no more supportive explanation than theirs.

Unless you're now going to say that those christians who claim original sin have no need to make sense of "their" bible as it relates to an issue.

Quote
"my" Bible

"YOUR" bible, is irrelevant.  Its a qualification that is in and of itself meaningless, it is subject to fallacy laced responses which you typically fall back on and are precisely what is WRONG with your behavior and post on this forum.  Hence, why your claims are subject to the fallacy of pleading and the fallacies of argument from authority.

You don't get to plead new qualifications without explanation and you are not an established authority on an epistemological system of knowing.  In fact, offering no explanation while at the same time just randomly babbling nonsense, guarantees that you will never be taken seriously and that all of your 'responses' are not answers worth our consideration.

Quote
My "opponent" is making the argument that "my" Bible does speak of original sin in X, Y, and Z locations

And it does to a different theological context, that engages in the same type of dishonest and fallacy laced nonsense that you engage in when you make assertions about the bible.  Saying its "my bible" is meaningless.  It explains nothing.  Which is precisely the problem with special pleading fallacies.

Quote
yet the burden of prove is not me to disprove that allogation

Christian A claims X, Christian B claims Y, both christians claim X and Y using similar fallacies.  Christian A is not proven wrong because christian B claims something different.  Both Christian A and B are wrong because their beliefs are not rational, they are not derived beyond arbitrary whims to presupposed notions of belief.

This is what you don't want to admit too.


Quote
I wasn't gonna do this, but what the heck.
If the above is wrong then I am free to make the following allogation:

Omen behaves like an rude, arrogant, condescending asshole on this forum.

And after having made such an allegation I can DEMAND that Omen provide proof to the contrary and obsolve myself from bearing the burden of proof.

Strawman.

You are not an authority in determining Christian A is wrong because the bible doesn't support their position.  Why? Because the bible doesn't support your position.

If you accept the condition that the lack of support in the bible for christian A's claims render them invalid then YOUR positions on the bible are rendered invalid.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline violatedsmurf80

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 392
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #71 on: September 21, 2011, 04:09:23 PM »
If there was a concept of original sin the bible would tell Christians to baptize the new born babies. The concept of infant “baptism” is totally foreign to the Holy Scriptures. This practice stems from the erroneous teaching of “original sin.” The Bible does not give one single example or command of any baby being baptized anywhere.

Oh ye of little faith.  The bible mentions somewhere about a whole family being baptized so you can safely pretend babies were naturally in that home.  And besides, the same (RCC) counsels that gave you the bible, the same counsels that gave you 100% man 100% god, the same counsels that gave you the Truine God, gave you Original Sin.  Surely god wasn't faking that time.



No were in the bible does it say that we are born into sin because if we were born into sin then, Allow the little children, and don't forbid them to come to me; for to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven. Matthew 19:14 jesus would not of said this and instead would of said the opposite. Man sin, therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—Romans 5:12 Notice this does not say men were born into sin. It says death comes because we all sin. Therefore how can there be an Original Sin, unless the bible contradicts it self and we all know that it doesn't ;).

Edit to add: The word “sinned” is an active verb. This means we have an active hand in our own demise
« Last Edit: September 21, 2011, 04:19:18 PM by violatedsmurf80 »
When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”--- Sinclair Lewis

I believe there is something out there watching over us. Unfortunately, it's the government.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #72 on: September 21, 2011, 04:32:55 PM »
Christian A claims X, Christian B claims Y, both christians claim X and Y using similar fallacies.  Christian A is not proven wrong because christian B claims something different.  Both Christian A and B are wrong because their beliefs are not rational, they are not derived beyond arbitrary whims to presupposed notions of belief.

This is what you don't want to admit too.

You are not an authority in determining Christian A is wrong because the bible doesn't support their position.  Why? Because the bible doesn't support your position.

If you accept the condition that the lack of support in the bible for christian A's claims render them invalid then YOUR positions on the bible are rendered invalid.

Are there any claims about the content of the Bible writings that you believe can be made without employing fallacies?

I ask this because in a previous post that caused me to hold my head, you actually stated the exact sentiment I had been arguing for. I suspect that our reasoning for coming to that common conclusion is what you are taking issue with since you cannot reasonably take issue with my conclusion being that you voiced the same one.
So my method, which is what appears to be under attack is what needs to be defended and therefore explained. My method does NOT involve the need for one to believe that the things written are anymore true and historical than what is written of Jhaixus in Petey North's Transformers 2.0 (great, and I do mean great read for anyone into the mythos BTW http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-fan-fiction/86313-transformers-version-2-0-a.html). What it does involve is looking at the texts and as much as the texts allow, being able to relate what the texts does and does not say. Somethings will be unclear and thus force those that wish to find meaning that may or may not be there to speculate while other ideas, themes, and messages will be adbundantly clear and will require no mental gymnastics to understand.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #73 on: September 21, 2011, 04:42:53 PM »
Are there any claims about the content of the Bible writings that you believe can be made without employing fallacies?

Of course.

I believe the bible claims X, because of Y and it is true because of Z.

Quote
I ask..

No need to qualify it.  If claims have reasonable support to be believed as true, then they should be logically self evident to a degree that you can coherently argue for them.  However, if at any point you require us to suspend rational inquiry and analytical thinking, then you either need to start again or admit your fault.  This doesn't mean that it can't have metaphors, but those metaphors have to at least be reasonable in their explanation and account for where they are contradicted elsewhere.  This also requires you to actively participate in an open, sincere, and honest manner.

My 'problem' with you, is that you are completely and totally separated from any intellectual discourse to validate your claims.  As well as willfully working to be as obscure and dishonest about your position and your ability to justify it as possible.  You avoid questions, you talk around important relevant issues, you omit from other peoples post that which is convenient to your next attempt at another red herring, you make up qualifications as to avoid answering problems but never return to those issues that are so blatantly at odds with logic, and you do everything that makes it impossible to believe or to suggest that you do not or may not do this on purpose.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline rickymooston

Re: Original Sin Issue
« Reply #74 on: September 21, 2011, 05:29:50 PM »
The fact of the matter is that there are only 2 possibilities here, either original sin exists or it does not.
There's no magical 3rd or 4th option, these are the only 2.

Hi Truth

Your statement in bold is quite wrong. Here are some possibilities that come to mind:
1) Original sin is a correct doctrine. That is, we are born in sin and blamed already
2) Original sin is an incorrect doctrine
3) The bible is inconsistent. In one place, genesis, it suggests the doctrine of original sin whereas in the other, Issaih, it doesn't
4) Your explanation/understanding of original sin is incorrect. Perhaps original sin doesn't refer to "blame" as much as it does to explaining our inner nature.

I'm sure many other possibilities exist. The question is whether you have the imagination to come up with them.
"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #75 on: September 22, 2011, 10:29:18 AM »
Quote
One is punished if one is found guilty. Or one is punished even if one is not guilty. those two claims, in your bible contradict each other. You yourself said “how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?”  If they aren’t guilty of it why are they being punished?


Your implication is that if one is punished they are being punished due to their guilt. That idea is not necessarily true as parties that are not guilty can often suffer for the actions of an associated party.

The passages we went over that speak of guilt illustrate to the reader that each individual's GUILT will be on that individual and that individual alone. When we consider the punishment aspect mentioned in the passages we can see that the punishment for the actions of the guilty party would in fact affect others who may not have born any guilt.

What you are calling a contradiction, does not appear to be one at all as guilt and punishment are two distinctly different things. What I will say though is that the idea of fairness seems to be thrown out of the window as those not responsible for the ship sinking are being forced to go down with it.
Omen did a good job of commenting on these claims of yours.  I am amused that you claim I make implications when I do not.  I state the facts.  You add on your own claims of implications to try to support your presuppositions. 

My original post is here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg443506.html#msg443506 .  I show how your god changes its mind constantly on who gets punished for what reason.  That is the contradiction.  Your god can't make up its mind what it wants to do, are only the guilty punished?  is anyone punished for just shits and giggles?  You are trying your best to ignore this and it's rather a pity since this is a written medium and no playing make believe will make my posts disappear.   


 I'm still waiting for your comments on the verses I posted.  You have made claims.  Now support them and show how I am wrong.  I have shown exactly where the bible supports original sin and how it does this, so your whines about how no one has given you evidence are false and indeed a complete intentional lie from what I can see.  You simply have ignored it and simply say “no it doesn’t” with no evidence of this position.  That’s just gainsaying me and evidently hoping no one will notice you have nothing to rebut my position with.   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Original Sin Issue
« Reply #76 on: September 22, 2011, 12:00:25 PM »
I am saying and supporting that the bible contradicts it self since you can support the idea of original sin and attack it.  You have presented a false dichotomy in order to protect your bible’s supposed coherence.

Quote
According to Ezekiel 18, the soul that is sinning will die! 'So, the son will not be blamed, for his father's unrighteous ways, and the father will not be blamed, for his son's unrighteous ways. Each one's righteous ways will be upon him, and the lawlessness of each are upon their own selves.


Yep, right here we have that only the guilty will be punished, not the innocent.

You have claimed that the text in Ezekiel 18 supports the notion that only the guilty will be punished. Is that what the text says though Mrs. V? It says that the son will not be blamed, for his father's unrighteous ways, and the father will not be blamed, for his son's unrighteous ways. It is discussing culpability (blame), not punishment, yet you, according to you own words above are reading punishment into the text; Why?
I would venture to say that this text you are using to support the position you put forth does not such thing.

Quote
Deut 5: 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
 

And again here we have the guilty punished, and the innocent as well.

Since this passage basically repeats what was written in Exodus 34, I will just reply to this posting by saying that it appears that you are correct. Both the guilty party and the anccestors of that party who may in fact not be guilty get punished. Thus far, no contradiction........

And in Deut 24, we have this
Quote
16 Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.



Duet 24 is a part of a long litany of rules that were mentioned beginning in Duet chapter 12. Why is this info relevant? The answer lies in chapter 12, verse 1 which reads: 'Now, these are the rules and decisions that you must be sure to follow in the land that Jehovah the God of your ancestors is giving you as your inheritance, and during the entire time that you will live in the land:
Part of the law of the land that was given to the Children of Israel was this rule that prohibited the people from punishing an innocent party in place of the guilty party. Having let the text establish that, I ask you: Where is the contradiction?

One is punished if one is found guilty.  Or  one is punished even if one is not guilty. those two claims, in your bible contradict each other.
   

The sentence above sums up what you have claimed in reference to this issue, however, your claim that the Bible has made contradictory declarations is something you have failed to give objective evidence and support for.

Psalm 51. Job 25. As you say, how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it? 
Psalm 51 is believed to be a prayer of David where he expresses his sorrow for the wrongs he had done to Uriah and with Bathsheba and petitions God for mercy. How is it at all related to what we are discussing?
 It's interesting that Job 25 is employed as a "proof text" for original sin when in fact the concept of being born in sin and thus blamed already is not mentioned. It reads: 
Then Baldad the Shuhite said,  'What kind of insight and fear does he have… this one who makes it sound so important?  Let us never assume, that we'll be saved from the robbers, and that we'll never be ambushed. 'For, how can a man claim he's righteous to God; how can a man born of woman, try to make himself clean? For, He orders the moon and it doesn't shine, and even stars are impure before Him. But all of mankind is rotten, and the sons of men are just worms.'
Additionally, what is left out is that this passage is in the midst of a broader scriptural text where Job and his boys are in effect having a back and forth discussion and expressing disagreement with each other. What the entire chapter is is nothing more than Baldad's response to what was said by Job in the previous chapters.

We then have Paul claiming that JC was the answer for Adam’s fall.  Romans 3, Romans 5.   Ephesians 2.

Okay, now this is a new argument as the issue of original sin is not addressed here but rather the idea that one person's righteousness can be used as "credit" for others. Back to Ezekiel we go:

'So, the son will not be blamed, for his father's unrighteous ways, and the father will not be blamed, for his son's unrighteous ways. Each one's righteous ways will be upon him, and the lawlessness of each are upon their own selves. 21 But, if the lawless one should turn from wicked ways, and start to keep My Commandments, and become righteous, merciful, and just, he will be granted life… he will live and not die. 22 For, all his sins will then be forgotten (as many as he might have done)… for the righteous things that he did, he will live!
Correct me if I have jumped the gun, but I am assuming that you are insinuating that the words of Paul in Romans contradicts what the above passage in Ezekiel declared. Let's see if that's the case. To Romans 3 we go:

9 So, is there anything that makes us [Jews] better than [gentiles]? Not at all; for we have proven to you that both Jews and Greeks are sinners! 10 Why, it's written:
'No one is righteous… not one!.........
19 Now, we know that everything the Law says was meant for those who were under the Law… it stopped every mouth and made the whole world deserving of God's punishment. 20 But no flesh will be called righteous before Him by obeying the Law, since the Law is just the understanding of sin. 21 But now, the righteousness of God can be seen in the absence of the Law, and the Law and the Prophets are witnesses to this. For, the Law and the Prophets testified 22 that God's righteousness would come to all those who believe and show their faith in Jesus the Anointed One… so there's really no difference between us, 23 because we all sin and fall short of God's glory! 24 Thus, being called righteous is a gift that He kindly gives through the ransom that was paid by the Anointed Jesus. 25 For, God sent him here as a gift, so that when we have faith in his blood, we can be forgiven for the sins we've committed in the past… 26 back when God was just tolerating us. And this is what allows us to look into His righteous ways today. Yes, He proves Himself righteous by calling [all] those who have faith in Jesus righteous! 27 So, where is our reason for boasting? It's gone! Does it come from our doing what the Law tells us to do? No, it comes through the Law of Faith, 28 because we believe that a man is called righteous due to his faith, so he doesn't have to follow the Law. 29 [Do you think that He] is only the God of the Jews… isn't He also [the God of] of people of all nations? Yes! [He's the God] of people of the nations also! 30 So, God is really the One who calls both the circumcised and the uncircumcised righteous because of their faith.


« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 12:04:11 PM by Truth OT »

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #77 on: September 23, 2011, 08:39:24 AM »
TOT,

It says various places that *only* the guilty are punished and then it contradicts that by saying that the innocent are punished too for being the children, etc.  You can’t have it both ways.  It’s like me saying that “only those who have red hair will be given kittens today” and then saying somewhere else “everyone will be given kittens today”.  Which can be taken as the true statement, TOT since both can’t happen at the same time?  And this contradiction is coming supposedly from a being that omnipotent, omniscient, and unchanging. 
   
And yes, TOT, I am quite comfortable in saying that’s what the text from Ezekiel says in the context of the chapter.  Why? Because the chapter talks about sinning, blame *and* punishment.  Let me share with you the verses right around the one you picked. 
Quote
Ezekiel 18:17 He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
 19 “Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.[/b]
 21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
 24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die. - NIV

We have God discussing the sin, the blame and who gets punished and why.  It is not only talking about blame.  If you do the crime, then you are punished e.g. you die.  If you do not do the crime, you are not punished. 

Now, in Deuteronomy, it says the opposite.  You don’t do the crime, you are punished *and* if you do the crime you are punished.   There is a contradiction since in Ezekiel, it says that *only* those who do the crime are punished.  You are then wrong when you claim there is no contradiction.  Again, for an analogy,  if I say that “only those people who first names start with “A” will be killed” does this mean the same as “everyone will be killed”?  It’s that simple, TOT.  Does it mean the same thing or not? 

I agree, Deut 24 is still going on with the list that starts in Deut 12. Yep, God sure does say follow those rules.  And we have your god punishing the children of a sinner for sins they never did in Deut 5.  We have in Ezekiel that God says that this is never to be done by him, that he would *not* punish someone for a crime they didn’t do.  Again we have in Deut 24 again that it should not be done.  But God says he does it anyway in Deut 5.  So which does God do, TOT?  Does he do as he says in Ezekiel 18 or Deuteronomy 5?  I’ll even keep the verses in and repeat those from Ezekiel to contrast them.

Quote
Deut 5: 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
 

Quote
20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

And again you claim that I haven’t given any objective evidence and support for.  Well, just look above and you’ll see as good as I can make it from a human being, assuming you mean objective to be “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations”.  I find this an accurate depiction of what the Bible is intending making an effort to only consider what the Bible directly says.  I am wondering if you think your interpretation is better than mine and for what reasons. 

And now about Psalm 51.  If you would look back at the post, this was in response to your request “As far as the Bible writings advocating original sin, please, do tell why you feel this way.”  I’m sorry if it was confusing but my response was meant to be to your claims that the bible does not say that the sins are put on the children and this was going back to the idea of original sin.  Original sin is based on passing down of guilt and punishment to those who did nothing, very much like in Deut 5.  In Psalm 51 it says “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”  How would this work if there is no sin passed from Adam?  How do zygotes sin? 

As for Job 25, it can also be written like this “How then can a mortal be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure? If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in his eyes, 6 how much less a mortal, who is but a maggot—  a human being, who is only a worm!”  Now is Balad wrong (in the context of the bible of course)?

But let’s say you’re right.  Balad was just talking.  However, in Job 32 we have his friends ending the conversation since Job was “because he was righteous in his own eyes.”  Then we have Elihu who says again that Job is wrong to claim to be pure and sinless. Elihu claims he has perfect knowledge.  However, we see at the beginning of the story, Job is just the best thing out there.  Then we have God himself talking, repeating the same thing Elihu has said.  “Job 40:8 Would you discredit my justice?  Would you condemn me to justify yourself?”   God is okay with what Elihu has said about him: “He repays everyone for what they have done; he brings on them what their conduct deserves. 12 It is unthinkable that God would do wrong,    that the Almighty would pervert justice.”  But as we can see from the very beginning “This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.”  that God is indeed perverting justice by allowing Job to be tormented on a bet and for allowing Job’s family to be murdered.  Again, where is this god that doesn’t punish others for someone else’s sin?  Where is the god that doesn’t punish people on a bet? 

I find it hilarious that you now want to say that the verses from Paul are only about using JC’s righteousness as a “credit” against the sin of others.  The problem with this is that why does this righteousness of JC’s need to be used as a credit against what sin? Oh yes, the sin that came from the fall of Adam.  You can re-cite Ezekiel as much as you’d like but that doesn’t change the fact that there are contradictions.  Yes, Ezekiel says that God doesn’t blame or punish people for someone else’s sins, but Deut says he does.  You ignore one in favor of the other and I have yet to see why one version is the only “right” one.   

As for Romans 3 and 5 and Ephesians and 1 Corinthians, this is in response to your claims that original sin is not in the Bible.  It does not address the idea of what God does about sinners and punishment, although they can be related issues.  I suppose we should have discussed these separately and it would have been much clearer.

We have Romans 3, which says as you quoted, that no one is righteous.  To me this seems to reinforce the idea that we see through the bible that everyone is impure, not righteous, etc from conception (as what Psalm 51 says).  We have Paul saying that only believe in JC will save a damned soul and that indeed all are damned. 

We have Romans 5 which says
Quote
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—  13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.  15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! 
Again, this seems to state clearly that through Adam’s fall, all of humanity is punished for one man’s crime.  This is how original sin is defined (and it does go back to does God revenge himself only on the sinner or on whomever else he feels like?) 

The verses in Ephesians also seem to support this
Quote
3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
We deserve God’s wrath by our nature.  Who created that nature and by what events?  God and then the fall.

Then we have 1 Corinthians 15
Quote
  20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

TOT, I’ve given you verses and the context behind them and how I see them working.   Is this objective evidence? Well, it’s the verses of your holy book, and the context they are in and the reasons I have come to these conclusions.  In that we can’t read the minds of the authors, this seems to be all we have to work with, we know this is a body of works that often doesn’t make any sense since they were put together piecemeal across a great span of time and through many variations in belief.  That’s my position. 

If one works from the idea that there should be some coherence to these stories because of some magical influence, then there should be no contradictions and no presuppositions required to start from.  One should be able to work from beginning to end and have one and only one story with a god that acts in a dependable way, if this god is to be the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, just, unchanging being that Christians do seem to mostly agree upon. We don’t see that.     
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #78 on: October 21, 2011, 10:08:25 AM »
They would interpret that (with their magic decoder rings) as going straight to heaven after they die (just with their souls, but their bodies will rise upon Christ's return as stated in 1 Thessalonians).
So, you die at age 98, and your soul goes off to heaven. Later, Jesus returns, and your body rises up. So, there you are, back in your 98 year old decrepit
body, for all eternity.
Meanwhile, your cousin, who died at 18 in a car accident, gets back his hunky, at the peak of life body, to keep for eternity.

Hmmm....does this sound fair?
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #79 on: October 21, 2011, 01:27:57 PM »
They would interpret that (with their magic decoder rings) as going straight to heaven after they die (just with their souls, but their bodies will rise upon Christ's return as stated in 1 Thessalonians).
So, you die at age 98, and your soul goes off to heaven. Later, Jesus returns, and your body rises up. So, there you are, back in your 98 year old decrepit
body, for all eternity.
Meanwhile, your cousin, who died at 18 in a car accident, gets back his hunky, at the peak of life body, to keep for eternity.

Hmmm....does this sound fair?

LOL I know, right?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #80 on: October 21, 2011, 02:24:06 PM »
Raymond (#33):
Quote
One of my first real eye-openers to the vile nature of the Christian god was back when I was about 15... Sat in on a buddy of mine's after-school youth group (hey, they had free pizza. Cut me some slack!)...

The slaughter of Egypt's first born. Fucking IN.EX.CUSE.AB.LE.

Because Yahweh *MADE* Pharoah (just one guy, mind you), *MADE* him be a dick to Moses (so much for free will!), he then straight-up MURDERS THE FIRST BORN CHILDREN OF AN ENTIRE NATION.

No, but I'm sure Yahweh really wuved all those widdle babies and toddlers to pieces. Really.

Little bite sized chopped up dog kibbly pieces.
(I admit this is pedantic, but I'm feeling pedantic, so sue me).

I always thought that this slaughter concerned killing children, but I realized recently that it doesn't:

29And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

So the people killed were of any age; adults of 60 or 70 would die, if they were the first-born. Only a small proportion would be children.

If we assume that each couple in Egypt had two children on average, then half the entire population were killed.

Sorry. Do carry on.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2011, 02:27:16 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1242
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #81 on: October 21, 2011, 02:50:49 PM »
Yes GNU, god just happened to value the first born in the bronze age, just like ancient man did, I mean what are the odds of that! 100 trillion to one I'd bet!
Damn those 2cd born, Damn those 3rd born, damn those women! Of course what would hurt the Pharaoh's Egypt the most would be the precious first born. Though out the bible their is preference to the first born .. Why would a god give preferential treatment to the first borne?

Well, other than the obvious fact that he was made up by superstitious goat herders..
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #82 on: October 24, 2011, 02:47:26 PM »
Raymond (#33):
Quote
One of my first real eye-openers to the vile nature of the Christian god was back when I was about 15... Sat in on a buddy of mine's after-school youth group (hey, they had free pizza. Cut me some slack!)...


You sold your soul for a PIZZA?? Oh my Gawd!  ;D
« Last Edit: October 24, 2011, 02:49:21 PM by ungod »
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline Samuelxcs

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
  • Darwins +6/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • The oldest and strongest emotion of humans is fear
    • Fallen Angels
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #83 on: October 26, 2011, 08:50:27 AM »
Quote
One of my first real eye-openers to the vile nature of the Christian god was back when I was about 15... Sat in on a buddy of mine's after-school youth group (hey, they had free pizza. Cut me some slack!)...

Quote
You sold your soul for a PIZZA?? Oh my Gawd!  ;D

Someone has sold there soul....for a PIZZA?! o.O
"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naïve forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget."
-Thomas Szasz

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10540
  • Darwins +263/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #84 on: October 26, 2011, 11:11:28 AM »
Quote
One of my first real eye-openers to the vile nature of the Christian god was back when I was about 15... Sat in on a buddy of mine's after-school youth group (hey, they had free pizza. Cut me some slack!)...

Quote
You sold your soul for a PIZZA?? Oh my Gawd!  ;D

Someone has sold there their soul....for a PIZZA?! o.O

You wouldn't believe the offers I get sometimes.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #85 on: October 27, 2011, 01:51:56 AM »
Quote
One is punished if one is found guilty. Or one is punished even if one is not guilty. those two claims, in your bible contradict each other. You yourself said “how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?”  If they aren’t guilty of it why are they being punished?


Your implication is that if one is punished they are being punished due to their guilt. That idea is not necessarily true as parties that are not guilty can often suffer for the actions of an associated party.
The passages we went over that speak of guilt illustrate to the reader that each individual's GUILT will be on that individual and that individual alone. When we consider the punishment aspect mentioned in the passages we can see that the punishment for the actions of the guilty party would in fact affect others who may not have born any guilt.
What you are calling a contradiction, does not appear to be one at all as guilt and punishment are two distinctly different things. What I will say though is that the idea of fairness seems to be thrown out of the window as those not responsible for the ship sinking are being forced to go down with it.
Poor Jesus, punished for the sins of mankind! And this injustice was planned by God! But wait - Jesus IS God, so God was really punishing hisself! But, God's all-powerful, so He wouldn't feel the punishment anyway, unless He wanted to.
Of course, this all happened according to God's plan. Why would a perfect, infallible God plan to punish Hisself for the sins committed by His creation according to His plan?

My head hurts.
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #86 on: October 27, 2011, 11:01:17 AM »
Poor Jesus, punished for the sins of mankind! And this injustice was planned by God! But wait - Jesus IS God, so God was really punishing hisself! But, God's all-powerful, so He wouldn't feel the punishment anyway, unless He wanted to.
Of course, this all happened according to God's plan. Why would a perfect, infallible God plan to punish Hisself for the sins committed by His creation according to His plan?

My head hurts.

On guard Ungod! Seeing as to the fact that you quoted me, then posted as you did, I get the feeling you're trying to start something with me over the issue of Jesus' supposed deity and how that concept makes God and God's supposed plan look silly. Am I correct in gauging your intent?

If not, then ignore the remainder, but if so, here goes:

A. Take an Advil and get some rest

B. The concept that Jesus was God is terribly flawed

C. Most likely, Jesus was a man that was beleived by many to fit the bill of God's Anointed One for Israel that was supposed to come on the scene in the early to mid 1st century as per their prophets. Jesus believed this as well and was willing to die becuase he believed that his obedience unto death would be the catalyst that would prompt not only his resurrection from the dead by God, but also his ascension to the age lasting possition of king of kings and lord of lords.

D. After the life, death, and reported resurrection and ascension of Jesus, various believers in him began to deify him in memory.

E. In the end, the living Jesus will have to hand over the kingdom he's been made king over to God and everything that is will be consumed by and become one with God per it's plan. Which ultimately means that God's plan was to eventually become a part of reality so that He can exist within space and time and not be resigned to the spiritual or imperceivable realm. God's plan was to become all but needed a process by which He could insure that only the qualities He desired for Himself and nothing He despised would be available when He becomes all in all.

F. You must understand that when I get this script to the studios that I am gonna enlist the services of Michael Bay, George Lucus, and Stephen Spielberg and ima be rich BITCH!!!