I still don't agree it is just to condemn someone for something they have not done yet - even if it inevitable that they will do it.
Take it up with god, because what he's doing is actually a step further: he's setting up a circumstance in which you can only make one choice, the sinful one (because it's his plan and we can't depart from it, can we?), and then condemning you for doing so. I don't know why you don't see it, it's pretty clear.
Three magic words - are you you serious? It is like you have no clue about the seriousness nature of sin.
Maybe I wasn't clear. The three magic words scenario was for YOU, as a person, not god. With this in mind, would you say the magic words to keep your child from becoming a monster, or would you bear at hte very least partial responsibility for having foreknowledge of what would happen, and the ability to change it, and eschewing that action? Very simple. Also, there is no difference between traditional ideas of "magic" (not dtreet magicians but magic as represented in books about sorcerers and the like) and god's powers.
I think the notion that God just says the word and evil people just never exist is a fantasy.
So preventing evil is totally beyond an all powerful god's ability? Weird limitation there for an all powerful entity.
It is an abomination God says, to condemn an innocent man.
And yet none are innocent, even babies, because as you say in the OP, he drowned them too. Isn't god convicting these babies of sins they haven't committed yet by doing so? If not, what IS he doing?
Respectfully, you just demonstrate you do not understand original sin.
Agree. I don't understand, it because the concept is stupid: it convicts you at birth of something someone you're distantly related to (in your ideology I mean) did, that god planned for him to do. THe concept is idiotic and in no way just or moral.
Well actually it is not hand waving. It is the same logic that governments around the world use to justify taxes. And similarly to stop people refusing to pay taxes for services they dislike. Tax payers pay tax into a consolidated tax account. Governments then use this tax to pay for different services in the community - some of these services which pay for abortions and others which pay for defence forces. Whenever a tax payer says to the government - I refuse to pay taxes to support murder - meaning abortion - the courts say - well you are not doing that. You see the - courts distinguish between first and second causes. It is actually part and parcel of our legal system and of the way we do things. You can dismiss it all you like. But you would be wrong.
This makes no sense in context. Is there another example you can use? First cause, second cause, all that's just distraction. if I build a maze that only has one escape route, and put you in it, knowing you will eventually escape the maze, and I will kill you when you do, and you escape the maze, and I kill you, who's at fault? You? The maze? or me? I am the first cause, I built the maze! But YOU are the problem, you escaped? It's inane.
A faith that reveals that God is the one who providentially brings all things to pass - but also is not the author of sin.
This is a believer trying to have it bothways, when it can't logically be so: he's either the author of all things or he's not. It's the law of identity. A = A.
Yes, you use the cute language of saying that GOD KNOWS what will happen. But you cannot even see the contradiction in your own language. If God knows they will do something - and then condemns them before they actually do this crime - for what were they punished? IF they never commit the crime, they never commit the crime and even an all knowing God would know that they have never actually committed the crime and therefore unfairly and unjustly punished them. It is wrong. You are asking God to become unfair and unjust in his judgement to satisfy your own responsibility.
Are you saying god can be WRONG? God doesn't just know they will. He PLANS for it. Right? it's all his plan, his will, his hidden will, he's the author of all things, including, therefore, Hitler's actions. "If" doesn't apply to god according to the book, at all. So it's not "if" they will commit the crime. It's that they definitely WILL commit the crime and god's the real reason they did (his plan). Who gets punished when it happens as god planned it to happen, and why are they liable? That's fair how? See my maze analogy. The problem is god has a solution to make himself as super happy as he wants to (create people the way he wants them to be), and if his plan is immutable, and we can't depart fromit, then ultimately, he's making people to be sinners knowing that they won't repent just so he can punish them.
I get it, believers like you stick their fingers in their ears ans say LALALALALA GOD LOVES ME HE'S AWESOME AND PERFECT AND JUST. I don't give a fig about sin, I don't believe in any such thing, and only I bear responsibility for the transgressions both moral and legal I commit over the course of my life. In no way do I eschew that responsibility, I just have to make my decisions on how to act based on factors that aren't "do I get to go to some ghost house in the sky or a lake of fire." It's about real world impact. And I don't always make the right choice.
