Hopefully before too lomg the sins of the original shall be visited upon the sockpuppets.

Last night Red, on another thread, SomeGal and I noted that someone by the name of Kodiak was back. Of course he was SB. This morning they were gone, so was the thread..

I have the flu and thought I was hallucinating or got bad drugs. How many times can a guy sneak back in?

Hi redbaron338,

I could be mistaken.

All the same I do not think that poguru is stephenb2012.

While Stephen has been creating aliases left right and centre to try and get back in I hesitate to use the word "sneak."  If only for the reason that he pops right back into threads and doesn't play the "I'm new here!" game that we have seen employed here in the past.

Recently, I had a flurry of e-mails from a new Stephenbooth identity and I had responded to a thread started by that same identity which was later pulled.

If he seriously wants discussion finding a new alias and wondermailing others would probably be the safest way for him to stay out of Admin's sight.  Of course the minute he browned off his private correspondence partners he might have his cover blown.

Poguru doesn't have any of stephen booth's tell-tale signs and has yet to wade into any of stephen booth's conversations with others here.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I agree with RevJohn. This does not read like a stephenbooth, nor do any of Poguru's other posts. The fact that Poguru did immediately respond in one of the Kodiak threads last night made me a bit suspicious but the presence of two actual booth socks in the same thread made me decide poguru was legit. 

Poguru, welcome to WC. You've walked into a bit of a minefield here so I hope that you're not too offended by this discussion. I'm interested to here more on your take of how the sins of the father being visited on the sons is just.

Mendalla

Poguru,

this is how I've figgered it out so far:

1.  Actions do not cease having effects, even after the actor is gone.

2.  There is no such thing as an action that totally acts by itself; actions are influenced by previous actions.

3.  All actions have beneficial effects, neutral effects and baneful effects.

4.  Identity isn't an essence but it is a system or a series of relationships.  What is is what it relates to; 'sameness' is an abstract concept when, experientially, everything is different, even you over time.

5.  Justice isn't a substance or a thing, it is a process that we have to have faith in (and practice) for it to exist.

Or something like that :3

""How is it just that the sons should be punished for the misdeeds of their fathers?""

There is a big difference betweensuffering the consequences of, and being punished for.

Suffereing the consequences for is a passive action. I can suffere the consequences of something you do, without it being your fault, or without anyone directing that suffereing.

Being punished for is a active. The scriptures you quote indicate that God will take an active role on meteing out punishment to the offspring of those who "sin".

Trying to whitewash those scriptures that say things you don't like is a little ingenuous IMHO.

Personally I am more concerned with the justice, or rather the complete lack of any sense of justice, in the belief that anyone who doesn't follow any one particular belief system is going to burn in hell.

That idea has to be the biggest slap in the face of God that humans have ever invented.

that is a bad example, sins of the fathers contaminate the souls of the next generations, the polluted earth is simply a by product of generational sin inbread in a human nature

Hello Poguru and welcome to the WonderCafe.ca

Who is "we?"

I think that you are making a false equivalency argument.

When it is written that, "the sins of the fathers shall be visited uopn their sons" is it proper to interpret that as the sons being punished or that consequences can be far reaching?

With respect to the innocent newborn.  They breathe the air that you and I pollute as a matter of course.  Are we punishing them with that filth or is it a consequence of our poor choices (sin)?

Not as I understand it.

The converse is that God is faithful to a thousand generations of those that love him.  If it is unfair or unjust for God to punish children for the misdeeds of their parents it must be equally unjust for God to bless children for the good deeds of their parents.

Of course, it is unjust if we think that God is first and foremost an individualist and that he treats and respects all as individuals rather than a communist who treats and respects all as members of their communities.

Grace and peace to you.

John 

I think of "visiting the sins of the fathers on the sons" as a sad statement of reality, not as evidence of God seeking to punish anyone. 

Exactly. What we do today is going to affect tomorrow, God or no God. Indeed, a Divine purpose may well be to lead us into a state where we do what is right today so that there will be a better tomorrow. IOW, not only are our sins visited upon our children, but so are our blessings.

Mendalla

what about when the sin is transgressed against another? eg: rape, murder, malice,,,,,,,

Does God tell the victim, don't worrier  its OK, here's a lollipop?

where is justice for the  Victims ?

I believe that is what our court systems are for, dealing with rape, murder, slander, etc etc.

The philosophies etc in the Bible give people a moral framework around which they can categorize the experience and act/react.

Hi John,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. 

Any sane man would agree that there appears to be a lack of justice in this world.  Daily, we see examples of good men suffering and bad men suceeding.  For there to be true justice the good must benefit from their goodness and the bad men must suffer for their badness.  That doesn't seem to happen here in this reality in which we apparently find oursleves.

And yet eastern religions have adopted a stance that allows for them to explain this apparent lack of justice.  In order to rationalize the apparent lack of justice, they have postulated two mechanisms: karma and reincarnation.

The Chrisitians have resorted to a different explanation:  Heaven and Hell in the afterlife with God as the passer of judgement.

Karma. the doctrine of cause and effect, is well entrenched in Christianity under the title of "reaping what you sow".  Where eastern and western theologies differ is the location of the reaping.  In eastern religion, the reaping occurs in the place the place where you had sown, right here on earth owing to reincarnation, in the western it occurs in places called heaven and hell. 

But only the eastern religions can explain why it is just that the decendants of the transgressors suffer for those transgressions.  The answer is that the decendants of the transgressors are the transgressors themselves owing to reincarnation.  Thus justice is served. 

Further, in my opinion,  a loving God would not condemn sinners to an eternity in hell for a trangression.  A lovng God would provide a mechanism whereby the the sinner could recover. 

Some may argue that such a mechanism exists within Christianity in the form of repentance, forgiveness and atonement.  However these require those activities to occur in this current form of existence. 

There are a number of references in the Bible which hint at reincarnation.  And, as we all know, the Bible. as is commonly used, was constructed at the Council of Nicea in ancient times.  At that momentus gathering many concepts contrary to the aims of those of the Council were thrown out and deemed to be heretical. Thus we do not see any direct references in the Bible today.   And let us not forget the Gnostic Gospels and other recently revealed ancient writings.

What do you think?

 SINS OF THE FATHERS -- Euripides (c. 485-406 B.C.), Phrixus, fragment 970: "The gods visit the sins of the fathers upon the children."

Of course the Greeks worshipped many gods...many of whom thought the same way..I guess, once again the jewish redactors borrowed ideas from the Greeks  This  fits Yahweh's ( Ancient Hebrews ) world view..god is a jealous god but I think we need to move from that. 

Never said that there was no justice in the present, bb. Only that the sins of the present generation affect the future generation. They do, of course, affect the present generation as well and it doesn't require a God to make that happen. Society takes care (or should take care) of it. Sins against nature don't even require society. In the realm of the environment, increasing rates of lung disease due to pollution, of food contamination due to pollution, and so on are affecting the present generation as well as the future.

Mendalla

Interesting way of looking at it. I'm familiar with Karma having studied Eastern Religion but never really considered looking at sin in Christianity in a similar way. Certainly, as you suggest, this whole "sins of the fathers being visited upon the sons" could be looked at that way. I've generally found, however, that Eastern ideas about reincarnation and karma don't sit easily in the Jewish and Chrisitian tradition and require a fair bit of interpretation to fit in. Thus, if I believed as you do, I'd like become a Buddhist or something like that rather than shoehorning it into Christianity.

Also, I'd say that Christianity could be seen to offer another way out: God's creative love. God can bring wholeness to the world through extending God's love to us, eliminating the need for old school ideas of justice. When all embrace that love, justice will flow through the world. No need for reincarnation or even an afterlife. Not necessarily my belief, admittedly, but it's another way to approach it that sits better in the Christian tradition, IMHO.

Mendalla

so in other words you believe that our court systems are perfectly just all of the time?

what about developing countries Governmental injustice ?

a rape victim will suffer all of its living life were as the perpetrator is out in 5 yrs , thats Justice?

Yes I understand Mendalla, I was merely pointing out that in reality there is no justice without consequences , therefore if God is a Just God, then there must be an alternative to transgressing them.

We are human and therefore not perfect in dispensing justice. Society does have means other than the formal, official ones (people are often shunned and punished in other ways long after their jail time ends) to dispense justice. Sometimes, we punish people wrongly (Steven Truscott comes to mind).

I don't believe, however, in a God who dispenses supernatural justice. That doesn't solve the problem unless there really is objective proof of that being's existence and that God functions in the way you say. Eastern ideas on karma and reincarnation as discussed by Poguru actually make more sense to me in some way , but only within those traditions.

In the end, we need to stop relying on God or karma to remedy our injustices. We need to work towards a more just world, knowing all the time that we will never be perfect but also knowing that it is only by doing that work that we even have a chance of achieving it. Think of the US civil rights movement. America may not be a paradise on the racial front today, but without Martin Luther King's work, it would be much worse. Getting closer to true justice now  is more important than believing it exists in some afterlife.

Mendalla

but that belief stance now contradicts the belief of a selfless loving God, for example,, where is Gods love when a 5 yr old is raped by her father or an uncle.

why would a loving God even allow that

Hi Blackbelt.

You have understood the problem perfectly.  Since we know that there are instances of terrible abuse, an explanation of an all loving God in the context of those instances is required for those who will espouse a theistic position.  Of course, for those that know not, they can always fall back on the "mysterious ways of God".  I can accept that those people are being honest in saying they don't know.  Another explanation is that they do know but because of the ineffable quality of their knowing, it is not communicalle to others.

Another explanation which asserts itself is that there is no God, consequently, acts of terrible abuse occur.  This is a powerful argument in that it is difficult to demonstrate a case for God outside your own experience.  Even if you took your own experience as real and true there is no way to communicate the sureness of your position to others.  This is often refered to as the ineffable quality of the mystic experience.  As the Sufis say "He who has tasted knows".

Hi Poguru,

Assuming that we are sane men, for the sake of argument, if there is a lack of justice in this world what takes its place?

Does justice lack because there is too much grace or because there is too much vengeance?

What would true justice look like to the observer?

That is an optic which has been lamented for millenia.

Or conversely it happens without our being aware of it.  How do good men not benefit and how do bad men not suffer?  Are we limiting what we describe as benefit and suffering?

Respectfully, both are scorekeeping.  The primary difference is how score is kept and how the penalties that are meted out are enforced.

I think that is way too heavy a generalization to be useful.  It also treats Eastern and Western theologies as monolithic entities and experience shows such is not the case.

Only if I am my own son.  If I am not my own son then there is a problem in how that explanation actually takes hold.  For example, My father, myself and my son exist here at the same time and, I would argue, we are not the same individuals.  Even if reincarnation were to skip a generation my father is still not my son.

There is much discussion here at the WonderCafe that touches on what Hell is and what it isn't.  I think it is fair to say that while there are some definite opinions held on the matter we are not unanimous in our understanding.

Apart from that there is the problem of whether or not God is bound by our opinions.

There are a number of texts which individuals interpret as being hints at reincarnation.  That is not the same thing as the Bible hinting at reincarnation.

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories.  Particularly those where a truth is claimed and when proof is sought the claimant proclaims that the proof has been destroyed. 

The Council of Nicea was not responsible for establishing Canon.  It was not even discussed according to the proceedings although several Canons existed by that time.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I'm an agnostic. I don't know that there is such a thing as a loving God, hence no contradiction. My core point in that post (which you snipped by removing the last paragraph) was that we should not rely on notions of supernatural justice (which may or may not exist), but work for a more just world ourselves.

IF there is belief in a loving God, then you could look to process theology, where God is loving but limited, for an answer to the paradox. Basically, God guides us towards justice rather than being able to impose it. Panentheism and RevJamesMurray are the local experts on that viewpoint, not me.

Mendalla

John, why would the possibility of God being loving and forgiving be a "problem" within God's bounds?  Now I realise that you said 'bound within our options' but don't our options exist within the body of God? Isn't our problems and bounds one and the same as God's problems and bounds? Does God really exist externally to us somewhere? Or is God also deep within each of us?

If we are to forgive our trespasses then surely we should expect God to forgive us. Now I also don't mean to throw bible quotes around because I'm sure you anyone could do the same with quotes re a vengeful and unforgiving Jehovah, but I honestly see God as Love and Light (wisdom) and can't imagine any sin being as being so terrible so as to deny the very Life Energy to one of Gods children.

i would have to disagree here, if objective moral values do not exist (God), then who is to say what is Good and what is evil?, since in the absence of an  objective,  only subjective exists (self), and if that is the case, one cannot prove whether Stalin or Hitler did anything wrong because there actions were simply a product of ,  evolution of society .

but the problem with that is,

How do we know what Justice ultimately  looks like if we cannot look or see beyond self?

There are ways of seeing beyond self besides faith in God, bb, although unlike chansen and other atheists I do think that faith can be a way of achieving it. Recognizing that we exist in relationship to our families, our communities, our world, and so on can lead to recognition of what justice looks like. It looks like a world where everyone has a fair chance at reaching their potential and enjoying life, where people don't resort to violence, where everyone has the housing and food they need, and so on. We also know what an unjust world looks like: tyrants oppressing people, people feasting while others starve, crimes going unrecognized and unpunished, and so on. Indeed, an unjust world looks suspiciously like the one we live in. Our sixth principle in UU"ism is that we "covenant to affirm and promote the goal of world community with peace, justice, and equity for all". That calls us to look beyond self at how the world could look with those three qualities.

Mendalla

Hi Neo,

My problem is not with God being loving and forgiving.  My problem is with the limitations of our understanding of both what is "loving" and "forgiving."

For some a loving God is a God who cannot say no and must always say yes.  For others a loving God can say either yes or no.  Does our understanding of what is "loving" and what is "forgiving" free God to be God or are they boxes which limit what God may do or be?

Please read my post again.  I said "opinion" not "option."

Again the problem is not that I have difficulty with the concept of a loving God, I'm rather outspoken on the subject of God's grace here at the WonderCafe.ca I have a problem with a definition of love that is limited to a grandfatherly figure.

The notion of justice is caught up in an understanding of love.  If there is no possibility of justice then there is no possibility of grace and we are left either with a God of vengeance or a God of apathy.  Neither of which strike me as anykind of positive choice.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Point taken.

So what do you think a consequence that serves justice would be in that case? Hell?

Opinions make a lot more sense that options (sheeshh, don't know what's wrong with me today). Is God bound by our "opinions"? I would have to say absolutely, that's why we have forums like this.

I don't view the Love of God as a grandfatherly figure though, that's far too anthropomorphic for me

Thanks John,

Neo.

The problem is that subjective is the only thing we can actually show exists.

You cannot reasonably purport the existence of an objective(God) morality just because you find the consequences of a subjective to be distasteful.

yes and no,,,, because we live by principles we cannot see but believe to be good and true, thouse principles are see in our actions

no, but a good question is, where does the conviction of right or wrong that is felt in our hearts originate from ?

that cant be shown, it can though be lived

Both of your answers show a subjectivity. Where does it originate from? Well al that we can show is that it comes from us. We know that humans write laws and dictate morals, we have the ink to prove it, whether those morals originate further "up the line" than we ourselves, is not something we can show.

The conviction we "feel in our hearts" is likewise subjective, as human emotions are subjective. Again, in order to reasonably say what we feel in our hearts originates from an objective source requires at least that you can conclusivley show that extra human source, and that is something no one has ever been able to do.

To appeal to an objective extra-human source for morality, just because we "feel someting", doesn't really make a very good case, IMHO>

So you're saying that the work the courts do, the work the police do, the work the social workers do, etc etc, are all invalid because they don't practice perfect Justice?

EDIT:  If I am butting in on one of your abstract theological discussions showcasing the mental twists and turns you personally have to go through to justify your abstract concepts (and what then logically follows from them) then I am truly sorry for intruding  and please ignore :3

To both amen

I totally agree, its like saying, what is the origin of a single thought , something that science, nore you or I can prove, we can only see the effects of that thought manifesting in our lives.

at the end of the day, I take it on faith, others attribute it to simply a part of us

Well said.