03 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrSo I should not pay a penalty for stealing your wallet? Perhaps the passage of time has smoothed over the perseption of my transgression against you? As I said before, when one acts to "correct" a violation of anothers free will, there is a moral way to handle the situation and an immoral way and such morality should be determaned by a higher authority. That is why we have courts of law to decide such matters. One must take into consideration intent/motive to help determain if your actions to correct my actions were "justifiable". For example, the court would determain if your son coming to beat the @##$$# out of me was just or not. Under our current laws I would gather that it would not go over with the judge that well. You see, what really matters is the authority that we live under and the laws they have placed over us in terms of whether your actions will be judged "moral" or not when we get our day in court.
Suppose you steal my wallet. Suppose, 50 years later I track down your grandson and beat the hell out of him because you stole my wallet. Have I acted justly? No. If it is not just for me to visit "the sins of the father..." to future generations, then it is not just for God to do it either.
03 Jun 07
Originally posted by whodeyWhat the hell are you talking about? Of course you should pay a penalty, the claim was that it would be unjust for me to punish your grandson because of something you did.
So I should not pay a penalty for stealing your wallet? Perhaps the passage of time has smoothed over the perseption of my transgression against you? As I said before, when one acts to "correct" a violation of anothers free will, there is a moral way to handle the situation and an immoral way and such morality should be determaned by a higher authority. Th ...[text shortened]... terms of whether your actions will be judged "moral" or not when we get our day in court.
03 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrSorry, I did not read your post correctly. 😳
What the hell are you talking about? Of course you should pay a penalty, the claim was that it would be unjust for me to punish your grandson because of something you did.
Ok, so you send your someone after my grandson instead of me. Just as it would not be a good idea to beat me up for taking it due to legal concerns, it would also not be a good idea for you to do that to my grandson. Now if my grandson knew it was stolen and decided not to return it then I think he would have to share some guilt in the matter. Also, if my grandson did not wish to return what he knew was stolen then would you beat him up? I say beating either him or me for the stolen wallet is not a very wise choice considering the legal problems that may insue. If, however, my grandson did not know it was stolen and was OK with returning it to its rightful owner then no he should not have to share the sin of his father. To be honest, however, such entanglements are unavoidable due to the sins of the father. Whether it be fair or unfair, the offspring of the parents are often caught in the middle in such scenerios as this.
03 Jun 07
Originally posted by whodeyLook, the point I was making is simple: If you do something wrong, it may be just to punish you for it. But if you do something wrong, then it is unjust to hold you children and grandchildren responsible purely for something that you did.
Sorry, I did not read your post correctly. 😳
Ok, so you send your someone after my grandson instead of me. Just as it would not be a good idea to beat me up for taking it due to legal concerns, it would also not be a good idea for you to do that to my grandson. Now if my grandson knew it was stolen and decided not to return it then I think he would hav ...[text shortened]... r unfair, the offspring of the parents are often caught in the middle in such scenerios as this.
03 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrBut the point I was making is eqaually as simple. In a way, the children are an extension of the parents in that they share similiar genetics, morals, etc. Also, the children either benefit or suffer as a result of thier parents choices. Is it fair for the children? No, but it is the parents who will be accountable in the end for how they raise and influence their children which will determane how the children will reap from what their parents have sown, so to speak. The scenerio you gave is just an example. Perhaps the grandson would not suffer legal or physical consequences for having the stolen wallet, however, what then is the perception of himself knowing his father was a thief?
Look, the point I was making is simple: If you do something wrong, it may be just to punish you for it. But if you do something wrong, then it is unjust to hold you children and grandchildren responsible purely for something that you did.
03 Jun 07
Originally posted by whodeyO.K., one more time: Do you think it is just to punish children for what their parents do?
But the point I was making is eqaually as simple. In a way, the children are an extension of the parents in that they share similiar genetics, morals, etc. Also, the children either benefit or suffer as a result of thier parents choices. Is it fair for the children? No, but it is the parents who will be accountable in the end for how they raise and influe ...[text shortened]... e stolen wallet, however, what then is the perception of himself knowing his father was a thief?
03 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrThe children will be punished for what their parents do. There is no way around it. However, in your example of your son coming after my grandson for the stolen wallet, as I said I think the moral thing is not to punish my grandson.....that is ONLY if he did not know it was stolen and/or he did not wish to give it back. You see, the children can be a continuation of the parents transgressions while at the same time inheriting the consequences of their actions.
O.K., one more time: Do you think it is just to punish children for what their parents do?
03 Jun 07
Originally posted by whodeyThat children will be punished is irrelevant. I'm asking whether such punishment is compatible with justice, not whether such punishment occurs. If I ask you whether murder is just, and you respond "well, murder happens", can you see how you would have failed to respond to my question?
The children will be punished for what their parents do. There is no way around it. However, in your example of your son coming after my grandson for the stolen wallet, as I said I think the moral thing is not to punish my grandson.....that is ONLY if he did not know it was stolen and/or he did not wish to give it back. You see, the children can be a continuation of the parents transgressions.
Anyway, I'm glad you admit that it would be a moral failure to punish your offspring for your moral errors. Can you see, then, why it seems bizarre to us secular folk when you theists claim that the existence of natural evils are consistent with God's goodness because they ultimately result from our ancestor's (i.e., Adam and Eve's) failure to obey God?
03 Jun 07
4 edits
Originally posted by bbarrYou assume, however, that God is in control of actively killing these people with "natural disasters". Could it be that God simply withdraws himself from those whom withdraw themselves from him? A good example of this is Job. Does God actively seek to harm Job? No, in fact, he simply withdraws his protective shield that he had placed around him. Since Job did not withdraw himself from his God, God did not allow his life to be taken and, in fact, demanded that Satan restore more than he started with because Job never forsook his God.
Anyway, I'm glad you admit that it would be a moral failure to punish your offspring for your moral errors. Can you see, then, why it seems bizarre to us secular folk when you theists claim that the existence of natural evils are consistent with God's goodness because they ultimately result from our ancestor's (i.e., Adam and Eve's) failure to obey God?[/b]
In reality God could have killed off the human race once Adam and Eve had fallen by killing them off. After all, God warned them that if they sin they die. That is if God truly wanted to kill us all off. It seems to me that us being here is nothing short of an example of his grace. In fact, any person that is slayed by God is potentially the father millions upon millions of offspring that simply have not come to be as of yet. So as you can see, those potential lives are then penalized because of that one person.
03 Jun 07
Originally posted by whodeyJob didn't withdraw himself from God, God visited disaster on Job despite Job's faithfulness. Further, even devout and sincere Christians have natural disasters visited upon them. Further, infants (who don't withdraw from God at all, since they don't have the capacity, and are thus innocent even by your own lights) have all sorts of natural evils visited upon them. Finally, if God is supposed to love us like a father, then it stands to reason that he would prevent things like tsunamis that kill a quarter-million people.
You assume, however, that God is in control of actively killing these people with "natural disasters". Could it be that God simply withdraws himself from those whom withdraw themselves from him? A good example of this is Job. Does God actively seek to harm Job? No, in fact, he simply withdraws his protective shield that he had placed around him. Since Jo ...[text shortened]... yet. So as you can see, those potential lives are then penalized because of that one person.
03 Jun 07
Originally posted by whodeyThen I don't understand your reasoning. "God is love"? What is that supposed to mean? Anyway, I wasn't asking about the existence of free will itself. I was asking about the purported goodness of free will. You say free will is good, and you also say that God's morality is a "morality of free will". Now I am asking you the following: Does God champion free will because it is good, or is free will good because God champions it? Which do you think holds? Before, you claimed that both hold, but doesn't that lead to contradiction?
Here is my reasoning once again. God is love. A loving relationship demands free will thus we have free will. So using such reasoning is free will existing independently of God? I don't think so.
03 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyYou basically say that natural evils are God's way of bringing suffering on us for sin, right? But why does your God bring suffering on entities that are not even capable of denying Him? These would include young children or members of other biological species, for example.
A better question is, is it fair that God allows sinners to continue to sin thus ensuring that innocent people will suffer in some form or another?
04 Jun 07
I believe many people have agonized over this for centuries. I remember King Arthur thinking long and hard on this. Does Might make Right? King Arthur said " Why can't we harness might so that it works for right? I know it sounds nonsense, but, I mean, you can't just say there is no such thing. The might is there, in the bad half of the people and you can't neglect it. You can't cut it out, but you might be able to direct it, if you see what I mean so that it is useful instead of bad."
But history is written by the victors.
04 Jun 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat does it mean to say that God is love? Well, I guess it would depend upon what one calls love and most people appear to be clueless about love. Biblically speaking love is caring about another and looking after their best interests instead of simply focusing on your own interests. LOve is also relational in nature. One must be free to exhibit love as the other either free to reject or recipricate their interest in you. Therefore, when I say that free will is good I might as well say that love is good because a loving relationship requires free will. This is the purpose for free will. Your quesiton regarding free will could then be asked in the following manner. Does God champion love because it is good, or is love good because God champions it? Well lets see, God does champion love because it is good in his sight. Also, by God's might he created us and instilled in us the desire for love and, in fact, our lives have absolutly no meaning whatsoever without it. Therefore, by his might in creating us with this desire for love we consider loving others to be "moral" in general. I think you will find, as most people do, that God appears to be full of contradictions. However, appearances can be decieving. If there be a God how could such a complicated being not appear to be contradictory at times?
Then I don't understand your reasoning. "God is love"? What is that supposed to mean? Anyway, I wasn't asking about the existence of free will itself. I was asking about the purported goodness of free will. You say free will is good, and you also say that God's morality is a "morality of free will". Now I am asking you the following: Does God champi ...[text shortened]... hink holds? Before, you claimed that both hold, but doesn't that lead to contradiction?
04 Jun 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo. What I am saying is that man chose to go his own way and God then stepped aside, so to speak. Man was then allowed to then find his own way in the world via his initiating such a desire to do things apart from God. Man then suffered because he rejected the God who would have continued to protect him and sustain him in a paridise-like enviornment. Despite this, however, God continued to reach out to mankind and offers a way back to that paridise. Man chose to walk away and now man must choose to walk back again.
You basically say that natural evils are God's way of bringing suffering on us for sin, right? But why does your God bring suffering on entities that are not even capable of denying Him? These would include young children or members of other biological species, for example.
Suffering is merely a result of sin that has entered the world and effects both the guilty and "innocent". Therefore, ALL experience suffering to some degree whether they be human or otherwise. Temperal suffering is not the real issue at hand, rather, eternal suffering is the real problem to be avoided. God even came in the flesh and was "innocent" and was persecuted and killed. So either God enjoys watching other people suffer as well as suffering himself or God simply allows suffering to continue so as not to destroy all sin from the world all at once. After all, if one destroys all sin from the world instantaniously, that would entail destroying the sinners in the world would it not? God puts up with the temperal suffering in this temperal world so as to help relieve eternal suffering for those that may choose to escape such eternal suffering via the cross.