To What Extent

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is like Christ allowing Himself to be crucified in hopes of saving our souls or God giving his only begotten Son to be tortured on the cross for the same reason.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Yes that is exactly like raising a child. Not.

Originally posted by JS357
Yes that is exactly like raising a child. Not.

Yes that is exactly like raising a child. Not.

But thanks, now it is up to freaky to deny that's where he was going.

You may be a decent witness after all.

Originally posted by JS357
I suggest that people who reply indicate whether they have raised any children, and use actual, not hypothetical examples.

I am raising a child. However I have never had to go to the extents that an honest answer to the OP would require. I have in the past used various types of punishment and over time have come to the conclusion that punishment in general is the lazy way out and not the best thing for the child.
I am not sure however whether the OP is about punishment. My guess is its is an attempt to deal with the problem of evil or with the absence of help from God when we suffer.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am raising a child. However I have never had to go to the extents that an honest answer to the OP would require. I have in the past used various types of punishment and over time have come to the conclusion that punishment in general is the lazy way out and not the best thing for the child.
I am not sure however whether the OP is about punishment. My ...[text shortened]... an attempt to deal with the problem of evil or with the absence of help from God when we suffer.

"Punishment" can take many forms. Consequences that we can foresee, but our child cannot, may have to be substituted for by consequences that we impose, that say to your child, don't do that, or this will happen. That, I suppose, is punishment, but it does teach consequentialism as a stage of moral development.

You don't need it but I refer generally to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

Originally posted by JS357
....but it does teach consequentialism as a stage of moral development.

What it tends to teach is a not very useful form of consequentialism. ie the child knows they will be punished but doesn't understand why. This leads to the rather warped sense of justice that many theists exhibit.
It is better when possible to get the child to do the right thing for the right reasons. It is not always easy - hence my conclusion that punishment is the lazy way out (and I am lazy more often than not).

Originally posted by twhitehead
What it tends to teach is a not very useful form of consequentialism. ie the child knows they will be punished but doesn't understand why. This leads to the rather warped sense of justice that many theists exhibit.
It is better when possible to get the child to do the right thing for the right reasons. It is not always easy - hence my conclusion that punishment is the lazy way out (and I am lazy more often than not).

We are like children to God. We want to do things our way and ignore the ways of God, as father. We deserve punishment for our disobedience. However, God does not really want to give us the punishment we deserve, but wants us to be sorry and change our ways. We have become estranged from Him and so He has an only begotten Son, who is sent to us to teach us what is wrong and how we can make things right with God. The Son agrees to take our punishment in hopes that we will have empathy for His sufferings and repent and turn back to God. Did He do enough or do we even care?

Originally posted by Agerg
call me cynical but I suspect that this thread is a strategy on Freaky's part to drive forward the virtue of accepting Christ given (from his perspective) destruction is assured if we don't. In that case hypotheticals are fine


might be wrong though :/

Then should'nt it be more a case of 'if your child partakes of sa certain activity should you destroy them for disobeying you'

Sounds like that schizoid psycho god is about to kick off again.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We deserve punishment for our disobedience.

This is the 'warped sense of justice' I was referring to. I do not believe that punishment is ever 'deserved'. I do not believe that 'an eye for an eye' is a natural law of the universe.

The Son agrees to take our punishment ....
Even more warped justice where the punishment can now even be taken by someone else.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Then should'nt it be more a case of 'if your child partakes of sa certain activity should you destroy them for disobeying you'

Sounds like that schizoid psycho god is about to kick off again.

God never made an attempt to destroy mankind just for disobedience. You do not understand what the Holy Bible says. Maybe, you should read it again. God's effort has always been to save mankind inspite of his disobedience. Destroying those that have been become so corrupted that their thoughts were evil continually, in order to save mankind, makes good sense. It is something like you removing the good apples from a barrel containing many bad apples to save the good apples. It is a small thing if you have to loose an eye, or an arm, or a leg, if you can save your life.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is the 'warped sense of justice' I was referring to. I do not believe that punishment is ever 'deserved'. I do not believe that 'an eye for an eye' is a natural law of the universe.

[b]The Son agrees to take our punishment ....
Even more warped justice where the punishment can now even be taken by someone else.[/b]

So you believe mankind should be allowed to do all the evil they want with no fear of punishment. I am certainly glad God does not think like that. You certainly do not seem to show any empathy for the suffering of the innocent.

Originally posted by RJHinds
God never made an attempt to destroy mankind just for disobedience. You do not understand what the Holy Bible says. Maybe, you should read it again. God's effort has always been to save mankind inspite of his disobedience. Destroying those that have been become so corrupted that their thoughts were evil continually, in order to save mankind, makes good ...[text shortened]... t is a small thing if you have to loose an eye, or an arm, or a leg, if you can save your life.

No RJ you do not understand the premise of the op. it assumes that god is in the same relationship with mankind as a parent who has no control over the 'event' that will hurt/destroy their errant child.

If god is omnipotent then he is the 'event', it is analogous to the psycho parent who kills their child to save them from potential harm by the psycho parent.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
No RJ you do not understand the premise of the op. it assumes that god is in the same relationship with mankind as a parent who has no control over the 'event' that will hurt/destroy their errant child.

If god is omnipotent then he is the 'event', it is analogous to the psycho parent who kills their child to save them from potential harm by the psycho parent.

This is what the OP says:

Assume the inevitability of destruction destined for your child were they given to a certain unnamed activity.

To what extent would you go to assure they abstained from this activity? What tactics would you employ to adequately hedge them from assured destruction?

I do not see anything written there that says or implies the parent can not exercise some type of control.

If the child is hanging out with a bad crowd (bad apples), he is very likely to turn out corrupted by that crowd of bad apples. So I see the question as asking what tactics would you employ to prevent this from happening and to what extent would you go. Would you endanger your own life to save your child or take someone elses life or even give your life to save him?

This is how I am relating what God is willing to do to save us (his children) from the inevitability of destruction.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So you believe mankind should be allowed to do all the evil they want with no fear of punishment.

So do you believe that the punishment you mentioned is purely to provide a deterrent? If so, there is no reason to punish someone like me that is not aware of (and therefore not afraid of) said punishment.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is what the OP says:

[b]Assume the inevitability of destruction destined for your child were they given to a certain unnamed activity.

To what extent would you go to assure they abstained from this activity? What tactics would you employ to adequately hedge them from assured destruction?

I do not see anything written there that says or imp ...[text shortened]... ating what God is willing to do to save us (his children) from the inevitability of destruction.[/b]

But God is not analogous with a parent because god is omnipotent so he created the bad apples and errant behavior patterns, behavior is bad because god decides it is bad, if it leads to destruction it is a destruction that god brought into being.

So when you use that analogy, you have to assume a parent who is trying to save the child from the parent and it gets really weird.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So do you believe that the punishment you mentioned is purely to provide a deterrent? If so, there is no reason to punish someone like me that is not aware of (and therefore not afraid of) said punishment.

Of course not. Even our system of laws and justice provides punishment for seversl reasons. The ulimate punishment in our system is the death penalty, when the individual is considered not rehabilitatable and no longer useful to society. The ultimate punishment in God's system is to be thrown in the lake of fire, where the soul experiences the second death.