Wouldn't the death of three suffice? (page 4)

thetrueone

God has left the building

Yep that what I think he was around for awhile but after he realized he screwed up on what he created here on earth

he got out of Dodge.

Mythbuster

This has been a particular problem for the JW I am talking to. My point is this:

The bible clearly says that children shall not be put to death for the sin of the father, so why am I being punished for Adam's sin?

Deuteronomy 24:16
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2 Kings 14:6
But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Jeremiah 31:29-30
In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity.

Ezekiel18:20The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Sapphy

I never understood how one perfect life, Jesus, is equal to two perfect lives, Adam & Eve .

Also, I never understood why, if the ransom was paid, there had to be another 2000 years of suffering and death.

cameo-d

Lars: "The pain is worth the gain. Better suffer now and have life later. If God had started all over with a new Adam and Eve then YOU and ME wouldn't have this chance. So he let all the suffering take place so we could have life. It's a high price to pay.

But given the choice for your child to be in pain for a while so she could live forever?"

That is some of the most stupid insensitive reasoning I have ever heard.

If you had ever known real pain that's bone deep, you would know it totally destroys your will to live in this life or the next.

A cupcake tomorrow doesn't ever make up for the devastation and heartache we suffer today.

Sorrow is the soul taker.

AK - Jeff

Anyone familiar with Gnostic belief would probably agree with OTWO's summation regarding God as 'a SOB'. To the Gnostics [as I understand it, and I am not claiming to be an expert here, having spent only a week or so reading a book and doing some research one time], the OT God is evil, bloodthirsty, and more Satanlike than Godlike.

As far as the Christian/Jw perspective 'that the suffering is worth the endgame', I cannot agree. Even if the 'scales of justice' had to be balanced - and I believe that to be theological jibberish - then why not balance them immediately? What purpose was served in allowing 4000 years to pass before the 'ransomer' appears? What purpose was served after the 'ransomer' appears to continue to allow the same wickedness to fester for another 2000? Even if some 'time was needed' to show that Satan was a terrible leader of the planet, how long does that take? If Satan is in charge [another theological conundrum], then it would not take too long to tell it wasn't working. Hell, I could tell you that there are ungodly problems all over the planet in about 5 minutes of investigation. Why does it take God 6000 years [so far]?

Other than thumping your Bibles with memorized text in support of this silly idea of God vs Satan - how can you explain this problem? If God is good, why does he allow evil in excess for so long? TO turn it back to the illustration of a family that Lars employed - if your kids were destroying the house, not for ten minutes, but for endless amount of time, then how long does it take to see that you need to take control and stop the unruly actions? Do you let it go generations? Come on.

Jeff

PSacramento

Myyhbuster has stated the correct.

Some of the scribes of the OT were not that in touch with what God it seems.

The case of David's son from Bethsheba as mentioned in another thread, is another example.

The case of Lot's incestious daughters is another one.

It seems some scribes had an interesting view of God and what he was "ok" with and who got punished.

Of course, God also though Prawns were an abomination !!

;)

Chalam

Hi AKJ,

Happy Christmas :)

It isn't literal, you know. The Genesis thingy.

I disagree with BTS but I don't think it matters too much.

Anyhow, let's assume Adam and Eve never made a mess of things and we had the same choice as them. I am sure I would have gone for the fruit. How about you Jeff?

Blessings,

Stephen

jookbeard

I still have problems getting my head around the command " do not eat the forbidden fruit" they were destined to fail, they had no concept of the consequences being in their perfect state, if the Bible record of the account is be taken literally, it is a stupid dumb ass command, it's "odds on" they would fail, a banker, nailed on dead cert, the often quoted example of leaving a bag of candy in the middle of a room and telling your kids not to eat from it is a perfect example, your kids will help themselves to the candy all day long, you could tell them a thousand times they will disobey you. It's a frustrating conundrum that still rattles me.

PSacramento

Youk now that the forbidden fruit is a metaphor for the punany right?

;)

On a serious note, we really can't take Genesis literally, there is no basis to take it literally is there?A

It was a story of consequences and the responsibility of consequences and how one act can have "everlasting effects".

Soemthing most of us know.

Deputy Dog

I need to get this framed.

Romans 9:20

...O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it , Why have you made me this way?

Wouldn't the death of three suffice?

Share this