I almost choked to death on pizza!

[ratiocinator]

Perhaps I am wrong but it seems that you have assumed we shared moral sensibilities, while this may be true in one sense I don't think it should be assumed when discussing moral questions.

Well, okay, but these kind of bizarre ideas about morality seem to be much more prevalent amongst the religious (in my experience) than others, especially when the question connects to some aspect of their faith.

What is the basic human sense of right and wrong?

Among other things, being responsible for your own crimes but not other people's (doubly so, if they are long dead and you never even met them).

 

[Lain]

Well, okay, but these kind of bizarre ideas about morality seem to be much more prevalent amongst the religious (in my experience) than others, especially when the question connects to some aspect of their faith.

Among other things, being responsible for your own crimes but not other people's (doubly so, if they are long dead and you never even met them).

What makes them bizarre to you?

I agree with personal guilt for crimes. So does God (in my opinion): "the soul that sins shall die: and the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the iniquity of the transgressor shall be upon him."

I merely distinguish between personal guilt and a penalty or negative effects. Not all personally guilty of something escape a penalty, and it can be just or amoral in a sense. It's not really bizarre to me but it would be interesting to hear why someone thinks it is.

 

[ratiocinator]

What makes them bizarre to you?

The idea that somebody being punished for something they didn't do and had zero control over, could possibly be considered just or moral. You have given no hint as yet as to why to think that might be remotely acceptable, especially to a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god.

 

[Lain]

The idea that somebody being punished for something they didn't do and had zero control over, could possibly be considered just or moral. You have given no hint as yet as to why to think that might be remotely acceptable, especially to a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god.

I haven't given a hint because I was asking about the view of someone else, not discussing mine. As for why it is acceptable to me it's simple:

Original Sin is our fallen nature, we do not have personal guilt for what Adam and Eve did, but inherit the fallen nature for a fallen human or someone marred in their nature can only produce people who have a fallen nature also. It is not something really to do with just or unjust to me, but it very much like how your parents can have a genetic disease and so when you are born it affects you also or you also have it. It's just cause and effect to me.

 

[We Never Know]

Today, I nearly died by choking to death on a piece of stringy cheese pizza that became caught in my throat. I'd accidentally swallowed this food before it was chewed up. As soon as this piece of cheesy pizza became lodged in my throat, I attempted to clear my throat by swallowing as much as I could in order to down the food from my throat into my stomach. When this maneuver failed to dislodge the food caught in my throat, my last chance of survival was to dislodge the chocking hazard with a strong gag reaction. My reflex of gaging in order to clear my throat saved me from chocking to death on a piece of stringy cheesed pizza . I was shaken up because I could not breath during this ordeal. I wish people had a separate airway passage to their lungs than just the one that is also used to pass food from their mouths to their stomach. With just the throat as the only airway passage for respiration from the nose, mouth to the lungs, people are prone to death by getting their throat obstructed by food. In the United States, the odds of one dying from choking on food is around 1 in 2,535. Deaths by choking U.S. number 1945-2019 | Statista.

Because people's bodies are prone to being choked to death by food, I seriously doubt the human body is intelligently designed.

The Heimlich maneuver can be used to to save somebody from choking to death on food,

You have to be careful about things going down the wrong pipe. This person had a pea plant start growing in his lung.

"Doctors believe that Mr Sveden ate the pea at some point, but it "went down the wrong way" and sprouted."

US Man Discovers He Has Pea Plant Growing In His Lung

 

[Kenny]

So god deliberately designed the human body with a fatal flaw intended to weed out lazy, hurried or distracted people, and small children, with a pretty unpleasant death?
Sounds legit.

No.... LOL... like I said before... if you drive a car 150 mph on a sharp curve and you crash, it isn't a design problem

If you don't chew your food before you swallow, it isn't a design problem

 

[Kenny]

What would be so difficult in having two pipes?

Seems it would have been a no brainer - split the nasopharynx into a right and left part surrounding the oropharynx to allow for the passage of food/drink into the esophagus, have the bifid nasopharynx reform anterior to the esophagus to enter into the larynx. The split passageway could be lined by cartilaginous rings, just like the trachea) to prevent collapse.

hmmm... there is already two tubes with a cartilaginous flap to prevent problems.

 

[Firelight]

Yes - did you? If so, what did your question:

"Why didn’t humans keep the gills or holes in their necks?"

have to do with it?

Besides unwittingly admitting that you are clueless re: the development of the pharyngeal apparatus?

How would gills help that?

I thought organisms were supposed to have perfect Design via Jesus?

But it is pertinent to your implications, no?

If you are unable to make the connection, I’m not taking the time to explain it to you. Good day!

 

[Suave]

Evolution cheated you, too. Why didn’t humans keep the gills or holes in their necks?

That's an excellent question. I suppose gills or holes in my neck would be a nice safety outlet to save me from choking to death on my food. With just my one dual purpose throat hole for breathing and swallowing food, I will need to cautiously chew up my food before swallowing. I can at least take comfort in knowing pizza caught in my throat can be dislodged by me hacking up this insufficiently chewed food out of my throat.

I'm guessing evolution perhaps figured I'd be at a natural selection disadvantage with holes in my neck in comparison to the attractiveness of being somebody's mating partner without holes in his neck.

 

[Suave]

Because it takes energy to maintain structures. Critters that do not waste energy on gills do better on land than critters with both lungs and gills.

Not to mention a person who can take care to sufficiently chew and swallow his food would likely have a natural selection advantage as being a more attractive mate for sexual reproduction in comparison to how attractive of a breeding partner he'd be with holes in his neck for breathing when he can't breath from his mouth because of food caught in his throat.
Also, I seriously doubt a person with holes in his neck could speak with an attractive voice.

 

[ratiocinator]

Original Sin is our fallen nature, we do not have personal guilt for what Adam and Eve did, but inherit the fallen nature for a fallen human or someone marred in their nature can only produce people who have a fallen nature also. It is not something really to do with just or unjust to me, but it very much like how your parents can have a genetic disease and so when you are born it affects you also or you also have it. It's just cause and effect to me.

But this is something that (supposedly) god did to us quite deliberately as punishment for what one person did. That's vindictive and manifestly unjust.

 

[Koldo]

No.... LOL... like I said before... if you drive a car 150 mph on a sharp curve and you crash, it isn't a design problem

If you don't chew your food before you swallow, it isn't a design problem

If you crash and die at a speed the car was designed to be driven at it is a design problem. A perfect car would never let anyone get killed by merely crashing.

 

[Kenny]

If you crash and die at a speed the car was designed to be driven at it is a design problem. A perfect car would never let anyone get killed by merely crashing.

LOL... Only in your parallel world.

 

[Lain]

But this is something that (supposedly) god did to us quite deliberately as punishment for what one person did. That's vindictive and manifestly unjust.

It's not really an affliction like that, but truly is more cause and effect. The reason is it follows from the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, for the Fathers elucidate that mankind does not have power in itself to remain incorrupt, not to die, not to dissolve, not to change, etc, for they were made out of nothing and out being is constantly dependent on God (as are all things). We began in change (non-existence to existence) and so are subject to it, and dissolution again, unless God keeps us. The thing being that we have free will and can turn towards our "natural state of non-existence" (for evil is not but good is, and ultimately as the Lord Jesus said "there is none good but God") or turn towards Eternal Existence (which is what God is). It is rightly compared to how if you turn away from drinking water which you need to not die then you will die, or if you turn away from breathing air which you need to not die you will die (and I don't think anyone calls this "vindictive"). In the same way if you turn away from what is keeping you incorruptible you'll become corrupted and slowly begin to break apart and dissolve into nothing (and this is sickness, pain, forgetfulness, aging, death, and so on).

Adam and Eve were the only two human persons and they both became corrupt (so this was not done to "us" as if all of humans to exist were present then and some didn't become corrupt, if that was the case then not all of us would be born dying already, some would not have fallen), then after that they began to reproduce sexually in our mode (hilariously called in one ancient text "unclean rubbing"), so their children could not but also be like this, which is why I compared it to your parents having a genetic disease before and you can't help but have it just because you are their children.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's not really an affliction like that, but truly is more cause and effect. The reason is it follows from the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, for the Fathers elucidate that mankind does not have power in itself to remain incorrupt, not to die, not to dissolve, not to change, etc, for they were made out of nothing and out being is constantly dependent on God (as are all things). We began in change (non-existence to existence) and so are subject to it, and dissolution again, unless God keeps us. The thing being that we have free will and can turn towards our "natural state of non-existence" (for evil is not but good is, and ultimately as the Lord Jesus said "there is none good but God") or turn towards Eternal Existence (which is what God is). It is rightly compared to how if you turn away from drinking water which you need to not die then you will die, or if you turn away from breathing air which you need to not die you will die (and I don't think anyone calls this "vindictive"). In the same way if you turn away from what is keeping you incorruptible you'll become corrupted and slowly begin to break apart and dissolve into nothing (and this is sickness, pain, forgetfulness, aging, death, and so on).

Adam and Eve were the only two human persons and they both became corrupt (so this was not done to "us" as if all of humans to exist were present then and some didn't become corrupt, if that was the case then not all of us would be born dying already, some would not have fallen), then after that they began to reproduce sexually in our mode (hilariously called in one ancient text "unclean rubbing"), so their children could not but also be like this, which is why I compared it to your parents having a genetic disease before and you can't help but have it just because you are their children.

Leaving aside the fact that Adam and Eve obviously never existed, none of this changes the fact that, in the story, god had a hissy fit (Genesis 3) and decreed that things will be the way they are. If it wasn't all god's free choice, then what higher power forced it to make the world so unfair and unjust? Is your god not omnipotent? If so, it could have given us all the same opportunities and choice as the mythical Adam and Eve.

 

[Koldo]

LOL... Only in your parallel world.

Is a car with seat belts better or worse than a car without seat belts, everything else being equal?

 

[Lain]

none of this changes the fact that, in the story, god had a hissy fit (Genesis 3) and decreed that things will be the way they are. If it wasn't all god's free choice, then what higher power forced it to make the world so unfair and unjust? Is your god not omnipotent? If so, it could have given us all the same opportunities and choice as the mythical Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve immediately Fell upon their act, hence the hiding from God and knowing their nakedness (hence why I said it is cause and effect, so did nature to a degree). Then God pronounced additional curses on them. Moreover I affirm that God could've given us the same choice (for there has been one human since them made in perfection and preserved from Original Sin, the Lord Jesus' Mother).

 

[ratiocinator]

Adam and Eve immediately Fell upon their act, hence the hiding from God and knowing their nakedness (hence why I said it is cause and effect, so did nature to a degree).

Which would still be god's choice. Who else made the rules?

Then God pronounced additional curses on them.

Yes, and effectively punished every human who ever lived since for something two people did. That is simply unjust and unfair.

Moreover I affirm that God could've given us the same choice

So why wouldn't it? This is about the simplest moral question there can possibly be: Should we punish somebody for something somebody else did? No, we shouldn't.

 

[Lain]

Which would still be god's choice. Who else made the rules?

So why wouldn't it?

God made the rules of existence, although whether or not it could be otherwise in certain ways is questionable to me, it depends on what is against His nature or not. I am not sure if it is possible for anything created out of nothing that is endowed with a free will to be other than what I described above. That is beyond my knowledge right now.

As for why He does not make all as the Virgin is, evidently He considers this (I quoted this in the thread in a different context but it also applies here for it has several meanings) "for the creation [this includes those with Original Sin, those who have it removed but still have the wounds, nature in general, etc] has been subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of the one [God] who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its servility to decay [death, sickness, suffering, etc], into the glorious freedom of the children of God," than that.

Although I am not sure why one would be more "just" than the other to you, it's not like either would come from our merit, both are received, both are good it's just one has less goods than the other. It seems to me that justice is a matter of giving others what they are due, but neither are due to us so it can not be called an injustice.

 

[ratiocinator]

Although I am not sure why one would be more "just" than the other to you, it's not like either would come from our merit, both are received, both are good it's just one has less goods than the other. It seems to me that justice is a matter of giving others what they are due, but neither are due to us so it can not be called an injustice.

Absolutely not, punishing the whole of creation for the actions of two individuals is perverse and evil. If god made people who didn't merit basic justice, that's evil too. If god creates sentient beings it has a morel responsibility for their well-being and to treat them fairly.