Need help with this one - debate with Athiest

[NolePaul2009]

"“They knew it was wrong because God commanded them not to.”

So they had knowledge of right and wrong before they ate the fruit? The Bible will disagree with you on that one, read it again.

“Genesis does goe on to tell how the punishment was passed on. Statements like this make me wonder if you have read the Bible.”

It doesn’t explain how its moral, though. Actually it speaks against what is said in Ezekiel 18:20. Please explain to me, how its moral for you to punish your grandchildren for a mistake your children made.

“My point was to logically point out a higher creator which seems to be the issue here.”

Technically, no. You spelt god with a captial g, meaning your specific God. You asked me if I could prove that your God wasn’t behind earthquakes. Which is just plain silly.

His points are in red. Any guidence?

 

[DavidFilmer]

So they had knowledge of right and wrong before they ate the fruit?

Right and wrong are moral concepts and require moral understanding. But you don’t need moral understanding to obey a rule. A dog can obey a rule, but it has no concept of right or wrong.

Please explain to me, how its moral for you to punish your grandchildren for a mistake your children made.

I could move to Sudan and raise my children there. Sudan is a hard place to live these days, and surely is not as beautiful and comfortable as the Pacific Northwest. But it is not “immoral” for me to raise my family in Sudan.

Technically, no. You spelt god with a captial g, meaning your specific God. You asked me if I could prove that your God wasn’t behind earthquakes. Which is just plain silly.

I don’t have the foggiest notion of what he’s talking about.

 

[sinnegam]

Debating with an athiest is like having a terrier dog with it’s teeth gripped to the leg of your pants. No matter what you throw at him he’'ll come right back at you with a cherry picked Biblical quotation to suit him…the fact that he has a reasonable knowledge of The Bible tells us that he is interested in something higher because he debates and argues with us.His brain doesn’t accept that Our God is pure spirit and well beyond human comprehension ( including his )… we accept it and we call it Faith…God is pure love for all mankind including athiest dude…but he cracks up when he reads this stuff…so pray for him and love him…our prayer will help him in his quest for whatever it is he searches for… if he persists in puerile tit for tat Bible quoting direct him to a Jesuit priest and athiest will definitely need to know his Bible!!!

 

[authenticity]

“Genesis does goe on to tell how the punishment was passed on. Statements like this make me wonder if you have read the Bible.”

It doesn’t explain how its moral, though. Actually it speaks against what is said in Ezekiel 18:20. Please explain to me, how its moral for you to punish your grandchildren for a mistake your children made.

From the position of morality, the creation story is allegorical not historical. In other words, every man is Adam and every woman is Eve. We each are tempted with the idea of being gods through some technology. The fruit is metaphor for seeking salvation by our own device.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So they had knowledge of right and wrong before they ate the fruit? The Bible will disagree with you on that one, read it again.

It would appear they did have knowledge of good and evil. Eve, prior to eating the fruit, says she did not want to eat the fruit because God told her not to, and it would cause death, which to her was an evil thing. She recognized that a certain course of action bore with it bad consequence.

Remember, it is the devil who said to her if she ate the apple she would “know good and evil like a god.” Prior to her eating the apple in Gn 3:6, Eve recognizes the apple as “good for food” for instance. She also at that time believed the devil’s lie because she believed that she could “know good and evil” specifically in the way that “a god” would know good and evil. Theologically speaking, that could mean determining good and evil, or knowledge of the consequences of either.

Many commentaries suggest the knowledge of good and evil acquired by Adam and Eve after the Fall is that they learned the consequences of evil. They had the shame. They knew they were “naked”, i.e. exposed, and thus tried to “cover” their sin. Adam literally “hides” in verse 10. The analogous language in here is striking.

And we can look at it from another angle. Ironically, Adam and Eve had a better grasp of good and evil before eating the apple, because prior to that they obeyed God, and after that they served the devil instead. They trusted the devil instead of God. The result: an incorrect recognition of what is good and evil!

 

[NolePaul2009]

David,

On the second point, he was arguing how can a loving God punish the following generations and the third point was from a point I made to him about creation being complex that things like that can’t be random. He was arguing how can a loving God allow earthquakes and many to be killed from such event.

 

[MarcoPolo]

It doesn’t explain how its moral, though. Actually it speaks against what is said in Ezekiel 18:20. Please explain to me, how its moral for you to punish your grandchildren for a mistake your children made.

If you read Ezekiel 18 in context, the sin referred to that the son does not inherit is “actual sin”, not “original sin.” Ezekiel describes the sins avoided by the son as defiling his neighbor’s wife, robbery, etc. *Catechism #405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.*There is no contradiction as your friend asserts.

 

[DavidFilmer]

On the second point, he was arguing how can a loving God punish the following generations

My point is, it’s not a punishment. It was the just consequence of Adam and Eve’s actions.

Let’s consider an example: A landlord agrees to allow a couple to live, rent free, in a fine palace, with everything provided. He only makes one condition: stay out of his liquor cabinet. But the couple raid the booze anyway.

So he kicks them out of the palace, and makes them live in one of his shabby rental homes and makes them work to pay for room and board.

Then the couple conceive and bear children. The children share their parents’ meager and difficult lifestyle.

Does the landlord have any moral obligation to allow the children of the couple (and their children, etc) back into the palace? Could anyone claim that the landlord had “cheated” the children?

Is the landlord unjust to kick the couple out of the palace? Is he unjust to not allow the children of the couple back in? Nobody could argue that he was unjust in any way.

Adam and Eve understood the rule (because that requires only intelligence, not moral understanding. Any intelligent creature can learn rules. We can teach rats that one button gives them a food pellet and another gives them a mild electric shock. They understand the rule and the consequence of their action).

He was arguing how can a loving God allow earthquakes and many to be killed from such event.

Oh, that one again.

Search the forum for “problem of evil”