L4T writes..

I understand your point. If so, then God can’t logically puinish that act alone (eating from the tree). Unless I’m missing something about accountability prior to knowledge of right/wrong.
Even if so, God would still have the right to punish once the “learned ones� transgress. Who can say they haven’t?

Much like the pretense of why we went into Iraq, whether they fucked up after eating the Apple isn’t the reason stated as to why they, and everyone after them, are considered to have fallen. Eating the Apple WAS the sin that started all the trouble and it was SO grievous that it taints all of Adam’s descendants from the moment it occurred.

If they couldn’t possibly have understood prior to eating the apple how wrong it was or how badly it would fuck things up in terms of being kicked out of the garden and forced to produce billions of flawed offspring, then how is it Just for God to hold them accountable for their actions? It’s not. It’s grossly unfair.

You may be right. That is, He may have allowed His creations choice, knowing all would fall short of the mark. Now we have to bring in the concept of voluntary love. Could anyone choose to love God without the choice not to? Could God demonstrate the abundance of His grace without something to apply that grace to?

This line of reasoning makes no sense at all. Are you suggesting that God may have made Adam and Eve intentionally flawed knowing that they’d disobey simply because he didn’t think they could voluntarily love him if they didn’t sin against him and risk an eternity in Hell? The Bible doesn’t state that Adam and Eve lacked emotions, just knowledge of Good and Evil. Presumably this means they could love God voluntarily without having to sin first.

Furthermore the suggestion that God intentionally set things up so man would fall and be at risk of an eternity of torture just so God could have a way of demonstrating his endless grace is morally repugnant and only bolsters my argument that the Biblical God is vain, self-centered, and needy of external validation. That’d be like a professional fireman going around starting fires so he could show the world what a great firefighter he is!

But by your reasoning, it’s all God’s sandbox so you’re OK if he does stuff you’d probably kill a fellow human for doing. Not only is it OK, by your judgment, but you think it makes him worthy of being worshiped.

I realize this pre-supposes an acceptance of God’s ultimate mission to demonstrate and share His glory. Also, the plan does involve pain and suffering for His creatures while on Earth. I would imagine that, after a couple billion years in eternal bliss, I’ll come to see the logic of His ways. Just like the serial-killer’s victim’s family members will ultimately look at God’s grace rather than harbor a grudge for long-ago earthly matters. Besides that, the serial-killer will be perfected in heaven, so the said family members are not sharing eternity with the likes of his character on Earth.

So the fact that God rigged the game from the beginning to be unfair and unjust to the creation he supposedly has endless love and grace for is perfectly OK for you so long as you get an eternity of bliss for playing along?

How does the fact that the serial-killer is perfected in the afterlife in any way make up for the injustice said killer visited upon other during his life time?

God: Oh sure, he was a right wanker when he was a mortal on Earth. Killed some thirty people or so in a most vicious and cruel, if very imaginative, manner. Brought endless torment and grief to hundreds of people for a good portion of their lives, but at least he found Jesus before he died! As a result I’ve made him perfect so he’ll never kill anyone again! Ain’t that great?

I’m sorry, what’s that? Why didn’t I make him perfect in the first place? Well what’d be the fun in all of that?

To me, that implies that one’s salvation is not dependent on understanding every “jot and tittle,� but that there are clear rewards for persisting in one’s deeper understanding.

For crying out loud, we’re not even into the nitty gritty yet. We’re talking some very basic concepts here.

If you can’t even answer satisfactorily the exceedingly simple question of how two people with no concept of right and wrong can be justly held accountable for their sin by a supposedly all-knowing and loving God then there’s no point in even going into the nitty gritty. I’d hate to see the convoluted twists of logic you’d have to engage in for the really hard questions.

What Les said.

L4T: Even if so, God would still have the right to punish once the “learned ones� transgress. Who can say they haven’t?

Having the right to do something presupposes a right giver. Who gave the Christian god rights? If they are self-granted, that deity would fit the dictionary definition of a tyrant.

(Following that line of reasoning, it’s arguable whether “human rights” exist, but that’s another thread.)

And again, there’s the ethical problem of punishing somebody (and a few billion of their offspring, but who’s counting) who did not yet have the facility to understand the ramifications of their actions and who were designed with full foreknowledge that the transgression would come to pass.

All of this leads to a profound problem of evangelists/proselytizers: Even if they can convince their marks that the Christian deity exists, worshipping it is far from a foregone conclusion.

He could not have created creatures with free will without allowing the possibility of sin.

Why the hell not? Are you saying there are things God cannot do now?

It may not be writing in the sky that says: “Hey Julian - here’s your proof!� but instead an inner conviction that the word is true. What constitutes adequate “proof� is a matter long debated amongst theologians and laymen alike.

I dont trust “inner convictions”. Its unscientific and proves nothing .I have a list of 7 things god(s) go do to prove they exist. Theres no need for debate. He should already know what constitutes adequate proof for each person and should be capable of proving himself to each.

Maybe God will give you a chance to share with Him - your creator - a better, more just set of rules. You might want to read the book of Job first, if for no other reason than to find that you’re not the first to question God’s methods. If you’d care to humor me, I’d love to hear your better plan before you present it to Him.

Since I dont think he exists I have not put any effort into making a plan. Just off the top of my head how about a plan where people are born directly into heaven in the same state as they would be if they had died and gone there. And then after seeing heaven and Hell given a free will consious descision to choose one. Anyway God should be able to come up with a better plan as he is allegedly much more intelligent than I. And dont assume that I’ve not read the book of Job. I’m probably more familiar with the bible than you.

Is 90% the accepted ratio? I’m not disagreeing with you, just admitting that I’m not sure what the ratio of saved/unsaved is. You may be right.

I used 90% as a lower limit. According to most fundies it will be more than 99%. Some interpretations of Revelation would give the number of saved people as 144,000. Personally I think even 5% is to high a number for any omnipotent god to loose.

As far as coming up with something better: Could He have done so without negating free will?

Why not? He’s God isn’t he?

The Bible repeatedly says that God desires all to be saved, but refuses to force Himself on anybody. Interestingly enough, He has relinquished control of the final # that will accept His grace. This does not mean He would not have been capable of setting it up in a less voluntary way.

Here’s the point you’re failing to comprehend. If he is truly god, then he should be capable of setting it up so that 100% are saved without compromising free will.

L4t: Christians would only be suspending their faculties of reason IF Christianity was a myth. Obviously, we don’t think it is. Looked at this way, we are quite sane within our belief system.

If, by “sane”, you mean that you’ve cobbled together a worldview, and rationalizations to fit this worldview to the real world, at least well enough to get on day to day, I’ll agree.  That’s what we all do, one way or another.  But to fit the Bible to the real world nowadays requires rationalizations so illogical and twisted, and so much wishful thinking, that it can only attract those willing to suspend reason, or those who haven’t taken a close look at the world outside their Book.

Les: Are you suggesting that God may have made Adam and Eve intentionally flawed knowing that they’d disobey simply because he didn’t think they could voluntarily love him if they didn’t sin against him and risk an eternity in Hell?

Of course, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, there’s no risk at all, any more than there’s a risk that Neo will chicken out and not go through the door of light, after the Matrix trilogy is finished and in the can: God knows who will be in Heaven, and who in Hell, and He planned for them to make the “choices” they did, just as filmakers write the dialogues for their actors, but with even more control.  By the way, it seems that Adam is in Hell, and Eve in Heaven.  Which one do you want to spend eternity with?  “Choose” carefully…

it can only attract those willing to suspend reason

Or stick with those indoctrinated from early childhood.

L4T:  I think (correct me if I’m wrong) that you’re expressing discontent with those in authority that go beyond the administration of fair justice, and start using their positions for their own personal gain/agenda. If so, I’m with you all the way in your uneasiness.

More particularly, I’m expressing RAGE that “those in authority” are using their positions to “glorify God and bring souls to Jesus” by crafting legislation based on biblical text; and that millions of Christian sheeple will support them based solely on the fact that said authority figures are members of the Jesus Fan Club.  To Hell (literally and figuratively) with everyone who ISN’T a member… it’s just our tough luck to be in the minority, and according to Christians, we should suck it up and live by laws based upon the oral traditions of ancient nomadic goatherders.

Christians would only be suspending their faculties of reason IF Christianity was a myth. Obviously, we don’t think it is. Looked at this way, we are quite sane within our belief system.

The same could be said of NAMBLA, Al-Q’aeda, or Westboro Baptist Church.  Should we give them a pass too, because their beliefs are sincere?  Just as mainstream or “moderate” Christians are likely to hold that the ideas/beliefs of those groups are “extreme” or “batshit insane,” non-Christians see your beliefs as just as nuts, regardless of their not being quite so extreme.

Regarding the civics discourse: I’ll get worried once the government tells you what to believe. For now, it’s a matter of defining law, and how well our laws fit/stray from the principles this country was founded on (be they religious or secular).

What then, exactly, would you call the addition (by force of LAW) of “under God” to the Pledge in 1954, or the changing (by LAW) of the Motto to “In God We Trust” in 1956?  In doing so, my government is telling me that due to my disbelief in this God character, I cannot truly be a citizen of America: the “one nation” to whom I would swear a patriotic oath; the “we” in the national Motto.

Perhaps you’ll understand my position more clearly in words written by someone like yourself. I blogged about a Letter of the Week at WND that I found while discussing the Pledge issue on another forum.  I wish every Christian would have an experience like that of the letter’s author, just so they would get a tiny glimpse of what it’s like to be in the shoes of non-believers in a culture where believers are unfairly favored and are given official endorsement, in violation of the equal rights of non-believers, by the powers that be.

There can be no mistake that the principles upon which this country was founded were based entirely in SECULARISM and on REASON; reading the documents written by the founders during that time makes it perfectly clear to anyone who studies them without the bias of revisionism/reconstructionism peddled by Christians desperate to “prove” that the founders were on their team.

The Pledge and Motto issues are the most high-profile illustrations of codifying Christian principles into the laws of the land.  I can think of numerous others right off the top of my head that show how Christians seek to align public policy according to their own religious opinion. Abortion and gay marriage are two other biggies. 

Then there are the thousands of lesser known policies, either currently on the books or proposed by legislators, based in “Traditional (read: Christian) values"… Alabama’s ban on dildos and vibrators; the Children’s Safety Act of 2005; taxing internet porn; or public health issues such as making Plan B available over the counter, or a program to distribute an HPV vaccine to preteen girls in order to protect them from cancer later in life; or the failure to provide public school children with comprehensive sex education so as not to offend people who believe the fear of God for violating His law should be enough to keep kids from fucking and sucking their way into unwanted pregnancies, STDs and all sorts of other troubles born of their state-sanctioned ignorance.

Sorry, but I prefer the laws under which I must live to be based in 21st century REALITIES, not ancient myths.  And that YOUR myth is swallowed whole by a vocal minority of people who consider themselves to be morally superior simply by virtue of their chosen worldview, and elect similarly delusional government officials is in no way justification for the restriction of MY liberties and my right to equal protection under the law.

P4Y: I would think this question is irrelevant for those who don’t believe.

And then she left ... without even saying ‘goodbye’.

Nah, just lurking every once in awhile. I’m not a she btw.
Hope you’re all doing well. I thought I’d take a break from SEB and do some reading, as inspired by some of your challenging questions. Here’s the latest on my bookshelf, for what it’s worth:
1) The Fingerprint of God - by Hugh Ross (on Cosmology). Which reminds me, is Cosmeticology the study of where mascara came from?
2) Biology Through the Eyes of Faith - Richard T. Wright
3) Can Man Live Without God - Ravi Zacharias

#3 might be worth your time if you’re given to reading the occasional apologetic book. I wouldn’t even bother mentioning it, but read here that Les has read some of the more popular apologetic works.
Then again, a quote from the Zacharias book was largely responsible for my absence here:
Pg. 183 (hardback): “George Mcdonald rightly argued that ‘to explain truth to him who loves it not is to give more plentiful material for misinterpretation.’”
Y’all got my email should you want to discuss the One True God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Back to praying that God spares “boatloads” in this current Middle East situation, amongst my other prayers.
Truth Be Known,
Tom

Oops, went and posted my name instead of Looking4Truth (or my original moniker - Praying4U). Oh well, I’ll just have to believe that atheists are no more prone to use info for immoral purposes as anyone.

Oops, went and posted my name instead of Looking4Truth

For what little it’s worth, I fixed that for you.

Thanks elwedriddsche.

Tom: Nah, just lurking every once in awhile. I’m not a she btw.

I knew that - it’s a thing some of us Ozzies do when we’re talking about someone ... we usually don’t hate (I just processed it thru what’s left of my brain - ... I coulda said NEVER, but I don’t like absolutes)
I’ve often refer to my mate Jim as a her to a 3rd party - I know - it makes no sense. I probably slot her into the ‘she’s just a woman’ category. It’s totally illogical when attempting to explain, coz on the one hand I know women are smarter than we mere males but ... on the other hand it can refer to a dickhead.
Glad you came back. I just baited a line and ...
Not often we interact with a xian with a slightly open mind.

Tom: Back to praying that God spares “boatloads� in this current Middle East situation

She will or she won’t.
I’m sure she listens to some prayers - they just may not be ours. 

Tom or L4T or whatever you want to call yourself, I wouldn’t worry too much about using your real name here. Most of us already know it from visiting your website and SEB doesn’t seem to attract the sort of crowd that feels it necessary to call people up in the middle of the night to harass them for having a different point of view.

#3 might be worth your time if you’re given to reading the occasional apologetic book. I wouldn’t even bother mentioning it, but read here that Les has read some of the more popular apologetic works.

I’ll see if the local library has a copy of Can Man Live Without God if only to see what sort of argument the author’s putting forth. The other two books don’t sound too interesting.

As long as we’re suggesting books I’d like to suggest you pick up a copy of Sam Harris’ The End of Faith and give it a read if you really want to challenge yourself. I’m working through it right now and it’s been a pretty good read, though I understand it gets into a bit of woo-woo territory near the end. If nothing else it’ll help you understand a bit more on how many atheists view the claims made by all believers, Christian or otherwise.

Then again, a quote from the Zacharias book was largely responsible for my absence here:
Pg. 183 (hardback): “George Mcdonald rightly argued that ‘to explain truth to him who loves it not is to give more plentiful material for misinterpretation.’�

That statement is full of presumptions such as A) your interpretation of what constitutes the “truth” is correct and B) that those of us who disagree do so because we’ve misinterpreted the source material. It doesn’t take into account the possibility that you could be wrong about the truth or that those of us who disagree might actually be interpreting the source material just fine. Most atheists at least admit the possibility that are arguments could be wrong.