I almost choked to death on pizza!

[Lain]

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.

I am saying that a creature has their every good (and note that existence is the first and primary one) from God not because they are owed it but because He gave it. Due to the entirely one-sided nature of this I am not sure what threshold one would have over God for what they are owed, considering they did not merit their own existence but was given it as a free gift. But perhaps this related idea should be explained: the Christian scale (in my opinion, let all said above and below be my opinion) of evil-to-good is not:

Pain---Pleasure, with the first being "bad" in some absolute sense, but it is:

Nothingness---Pain/Pleasure, with the very first being bad ("evil is not but good is," as St. Athanasius said), then the last two being on a spectrum of "good" to "gooder," for pain (and I mean this as a stand-in for any sort of suffering) is just a lack felt, but what is "really there" is good.

So that it is clearly seen a thing can not be held over Him in this matter as "injustice" or "unfair."

 

[ratiocinator]

So that it is clearly seen a thing can not be held over Him in this matter as "injustice" or "unfair."

Nothing you've said changes the simple morality of not punishing people for things other people did. It's just wrong. God creating us and giving us life cannot morally excuse treating people unfairly.

As I said, this really is one of the simplest moral issues there is. The fact that some religious people can even try to undermine it, is frightening. I'm sure most of them are perfectly decent people who wouldn't extend this sort of thing to their own treatment of others, but it's a first step along the road towards things like religious terrorism, the inquisition, burning 'witches', and so on. The whole idea that religion can excuse obvious injustice like this, is dangerous.

 

[Lain]

Nothing you've said changes the simple morality of not punishing people for things other people did. It's just wrong. God creating us and giving us life cannot morally excuse treating people unfairly.

I must have not communicated the point on fairness or justice clearly. Either way, I see that there seems to be an unpronounceable difference in the conception of justice. Me saying it is not an injustice to permit parents to give ill to their children by way of nature/propagation and not malice, and you saying it is. I also realize that a parent who has a nature giving birth to a child who has the same nature is an essential thing to reality, as the Father produced the Son who has the same nature, so Adam produced Seth who had the same nature.

You say this all is obvious but it is not obvious to me (and this has been repeatedly said without proof, unless some was given and I missed it). Although I agree with you that the personal guilt of one should not be given to another or a person be punished by it. The connection between man and the rest of nature is yet unexplored to me, although it is beyond my knowledge and AFAIK even the Fathers did not go into it in depth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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).

You just threw God under the bus.

 

[ratiocinator]

Me saying it is not an injustice to permit parents to give ill to their children by way of nature/propagation and not malice, and you saying it is.

This is not blind nature we're talking about, it's a god doing it deliberately.

Although I agree with you that the personal guilt of one should not be given to another or a person be punished by it.

So why can't you see the immorality of original sin, which is exactly that?

 

[Koldo]

I am saying that a creature has their every good (and note that existence is the first and primary one) from God not because they are owed it but because He gave it. Due to the entirely one-sided nature of this I am not sure what threshold one would have over God for what they are owed, considering they did not merit their own existence but was given it as a free gift. But perhaps this related idea should be explained: the Christian scale (in my opinion, let all said above and below be my opinion) of evil-to-good is not:

Pain---Pleasure, with the first being "bad" in some absolute sense, but it is:

Nothingness---Pain/Pleasure, with the very first being bad ("evil is not but good is," as St. Athanasius said), then the last two being on a spectrum of "good" to "gooder," for pain (and I mean this as a stand-in for any sort of suffering) is just a lack felt, but what is "really there" is good.

So that it is clearly seen a thing can not be held over Him in this matter as "injustice" or "unfair."

Hmm...
By this rationale, going through rape would be good. It is pain, not nothingness after all.

 

[Lain]

You just threw God under the bus.

How so?

 

[Lain]

This is not blind nature we're talking about, it's a god doing it deliberately.


So why can't you see the immorality of original sin, which is exactly that?

What do you mean by doing it deliberately? Like actively causing this in people by a positive willing?

Original Sin by definition (if you have ever seen the doctrine written out) is not imputing personal guilt to other persons. Do you remember the person/nature distinction that I mentioned earlier?

 

[ratiocinator]

What do you mean by doing it deliberately? Like actively causing this in people by a positive willing?

It could not be otherwise, if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient creator god. Even if it's "cause and effect", it would still have been god that deliberately set things up like that.

Original Sin by definition (if you have ever seen the doctrine written out) is not imputing personal guilt to other persons.

So it's just vindictive punishment for no reason? You're not making this better.

 

[Lain]

It could not be otherwise, if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient creator god. Even if it's "cause and effect", it would still have been god that deliberately set things up like that.

So it's just vindictive punishment for no reason? You're not making this better.

Yes God freely made all things and was not coerced, although the free will to make and what can possibly be made are two different things.

Like I said, it is an inherited corrupt nature. That is not "no reason" but is the same reason a chicken lays chicken eggs: a being with a nature begets a being with that same nature.

Although on "making this better," I do want to be clear I am not "justifying God" as if I am His criminal defense attorney, I am merely explaining to you my own mind on why I find the state of things to be acceptable. As seen in Job and otherwise in the Scriptures, God is perfectly capable of defending His own actions. We are in the mind of Lain not the mind of God. I just want to make that clear for I may very well be wrong, perhaps God entirely disagrees with me on this and would tell you something else.

 

[ratiocinator]

Like I said, it is an inherited corrupt nature. That is not "no reason" but is the same reason a chicken lays chicken eggs: a being with a nature begets a being with that same nature.

Except it isn't, it's about a 'fallen nature' that leads to everybody being sinners (Romans 3:23) and it was visited on us because of the actions of two people (leaving aside that they obviously never literally existed).

...I am merely explaining to you my own mind on why I find the state of things to be acceptable.

Which is what I find so horrifying about some religious people - they will excuse even the most blatant injustice and evil, so long as they think their god did it or command it.

 

[Lain]

Except it isn't, it's about a 'fallen nature' that leads to everybody being sinners (Romans 3:23) and it was visited on us because of the actions of two people (leaving aside that they obviously never literally existed).

Well not all people with Original Sin commit personal sins. I honestly do not understand the injustice I am meant to see here. This is similar to me to being upset that one was born a human because their parents are human.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well not all people with Original Sin commit personal sins.

So you disagree with the bible?

I honestly do not understand the injustice I am meant to see here. This is similar to me to being upset that one was born a human because their parents are human.

Except that (according to the myth) we are only fallen humans, as opposed to being like Adam and Eve before the fall, because god made us all suffer for what two people did. I don't believe any of this, but if it was true, it would make your god into a monster, for all the reasons I've explained multiple times now.

 

[Lain]

So you disagree with the bible?

I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How so?

You pointed out how your version of God was evil once again. How did Adam and Eve know that they were naked?

 

[Lain]

You pointed out how your version of God was evil once again. How did Adam and Eve know that they were naked?

Is this about your own interpretation of Genesis or something? I had already told you that I did not respond to it for it did not seem necessary, but now that you have asked:

The eyes of their heart were opened and they beheld their own corruption and insufficiency after having severed their indwelling relationship with God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is this about your own interpretation of Genesis or something? I had already told you that I did not respond to it for it did not seem necessary, but now that you have asked:

The eyes of their heart were opened and they beheld their own corruption and insufficiency after having severed their indwelling relationship with God.

It is about the honest interpretation of Genesis. It seems that you think that your God is very weak. Now you are adding claims to the story that you cannot justify.

You should be thankful that we know this story to be a myth. That frees you from making up stories to defend an evil God.

 

[Lain]

It is about the honest interpretation of Genesis. It seems that you think that your God is very weak. Now you are adding claims to the story that you cannot justify.

You should be thankful that we know this story to be a myth. That frees you from making up stories to defend an evil God.

Why do you assume I can't justify them? What makes your interpretation "honest" and not mine? What did I say that makes you think God is weak?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you assume I can't justify them? What makes your interpretation "honest" and not mine? What did I say that makes you think God is weak?

Apologists never can. And my interpretation is not based on trying to resolve the contradictions in a faulty faith.

Far too often apologists are merely "liars for Jesus". I have not seen one professional one that was not. You are probably not lying on purpose, but you have fallen for those lies.

Once again you should be trying to learn how we know that the Fall story is a myth.

 

[Lain]

Apologists never can. And my interpretation is not based on trying to resolve the contradictions in a faulty faith.

Far too often apologists are merely "liars for Jesus". I have not seen one professional one that was not. You are probably not lying on purpose, but you have fallen for those lies.

Once again you should be trying to learn how we know that the Fall story is a myth.

I don't like apologists and I am aware of the many lies they tell, which is why I avoid them (general statement about modern apologists). What lie have I fallen for? What is your interpretation based on?

It is not particularly useful to say "2x5 is not 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9, or 11, or 12..." and so on without just saying that it is 10 (and it's much faster just to say). So what is the lie specifically, what is your interpretation based on specifically, who is this "we" that you cite in "we know" and how does this "we" know specifically? For I do not want to be entrapped by any lies but perhaps I am not worth enlightening, but that is fine too, even an atheist can apply the Lord's word to "not give what is holy to the dogs."