Why did god allow people to be born after the fall ?

[John V]

But torturing them for eternity is insane.

Why? You just say that without giving reasoning.

If that were the case, it's not problematic seeing as God is the creator.

Well for me this is all hypothetical more of an insight into  just how far people are wiling to go once they believe.

So 'for god so loved the world' and ' desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth' is actually a little less clear ?

Yes, he desires all men to come to the truth. That doesn't mean that those who refuse the truth are his beloved children.

for a god who loves the world and desires everyone to come to the knowledge of the truth he is acting very oddly. He is responsible for all creation and everything that happens within it, after all we are all his creation, and therefore his responsibility.

Yes, and he deals with us either in grace or in righteousness.

Well if that were true he could have cut off pro creation as soon as sin occurred, you can't argue a point for yourself, then say 'so what' to the same argument for other believers without resorting to the good old 'his ways are not our ways' get out of jail free card.

You're arguing that he should have. It's not problematic for me to note that he could have.

Yes the writer had realised at this time that Jesus perhaps was not returning soon not willing to admit perhaps they had been had, began to make excuses, a quick read of the new testament will quickly show you how the churches of the time had already began to fall apart.

That has nothing to do with my point. It's just a red herring.

[vorlon13]

Why did God allow people to born after the fall?


He likes watching them being conceived ??

[The Grand Nudger]

But torturing them for eternity is insane.

Why? You just say that without giving reasoning.

You can never turn your back on a person that demands a reason for considering a perpetual torturer insane.  Who has to be argued -out- of thinking it's a legit idea.

This PSA has been brought to you by Strong Christian Moral Character™.  Normalizing torture since 200AD. SCMC, when the bitch has it coming.

[possibletarian]

Why? You just say that without giving reasoning.

Seriously ? you don't think that torturing people that you are responsible for creating in the first place is not insane ?
I would like to say I'm surprised, but given that Christians are dedicated to believing a book written many years ago that thinks it's okay to stone people for trivial offences, and stoning their own children for disobeying them then maybe I'm being naive.

Yes, he desires all men to come to the truth. That doesn't mean that those who refuse the truth are his beloved children.

Well exactly, don't you think he could have done a much better job if that is his desire, for instance only allowing those who will believe to be born, or at the point it became obvious that things were going south to have stopped procreation ?  And also given your earlier argument many who would have believed will miss out on or are punished by not getting a chance.

for a god who loves the world and desires everyone to come to the knowledge of the truth he is acting very oddly. He is responsible for all creation and everything that happens within it, after all we are all his creation, and therefore his responsibility.

Yes, and he deals with us either in grace or in righteousness.

Dealing with is not really what happens, you don't deal with something that was your plan from the start, you simply execute your plan, there is no justice involved in doing what you planned to do anyway.   The point being it is incompatible with biblical claims such as a desire to see all men saved, when all along his plan was definitely that many more go to hell, even potential future believers.
I don't blame you for going to torturous attempts to marry the two, after all I used to spout the same excuses, i think it's like any indoctrination, you have to be on the outside of it to see the insanity of it all.  

Well if that were true he could have cut off pro creation as soon as sin occurred, you can't argue a point for yourself, then say 'so what' to the same argument for other believers without resorting to the good old 'his ways are not our ways' get out of jail free card.

You're arguing that he should have. It's not problematic for me to note that he could have.

Well no, once you believe something to be true, and this is especially true of religious belief given the consequences you think will happen if you challenge it then no, you cannot question it.

Yes the writer had realised at this time that Jesus perhaps was not returning soon not willing to admit perhaps they had been had, began to make excuses, a quick read of the new testament will quickly show you how the churches of the time had already began to fall apart.


That has nothing to do with my point. It's just a red herring.

Then what point were you making ?

[John V]

Seriously ? you don't think that torturing people that you are responsible for creating in the first place is not insane ?

No. You previously allowed free will, but now you're attempting to shift the fault from people's free choices back to God.

I would like to say I'm surprised, but given that Christians are dedicated to believing a book written many years ago that thinks it's okay to stone people for trivial offences, and stoning their own children for disobeying them then maybe I'm being naive.

Or ignorant. For instance, did you know that the Mosaic law which you reference was offered by God to Israel, and the freely accepted it?

Well exactly, don't you think he could have done a much better job if that is his desire, for instance only allowing those who will believe to be born,

Then those will not be the same people, and as noted with Romans 9, they won't get the same knowledge of God.

or at the point it became obvious that things were going south to have stopped procreation ?

And again, that's rewarding enemies at the expense of friends, which makes no sense.

Dealing with is not really what happens, you don't deal with something that was your plan from the start, you simply execute your plan, there is no justice involved in doing what you planned to do anyway.

Either way he's handling his responsibilities, which was your point.

The point being it is incompatible with biblical claims such as a desire to see all men saved, when all along his plan was definitely that many more go to hell, even potential future believers.

With free will, God doesn't get all his desires. That's not incompatible, it's a consequence of free will.

Well no, once you believe something to be true, and this is especially true of religious belief given the consequences you think will happen if you challenge it then no, you cannot question it.

No clue what you're saying here.

---

Then what point were you making ?

That there is a purpose for the unsaved, so you can't simply say that God should have just allowed the birth of those who would be saved.

[Catholic_Lady]

Question 1
If he had simply stopped reproduction then only those responsible will have suffered, instead of the insanity of being born to abusers, religious nut jobs, along with death disease and suffering then he could simply have started again.  We do it it with cattle, animals, even humans if they have a disease that threatens the rest of us  or the rest of a heard of cattle, they isolate and often kill the diseased cattle to stop it infecting others.

I'm not asking why god allows suffering, but rather why he allowed people to be born who had not even existed before procreation to enter a world of suffering?

My guess would be because He saw that ultimately whatever goodness came from allowing humans to exist would far outweigh the suffering. If this weren't the case, I assume He wouldn't have done it.

Question 2
If there is some kind  of argument that there has to be a number god has to reach, then where are these spirits/souls before they are born into human bodies ?  Do you perhaps believe in some kind of re-incarnation, or souls waiting for an incarnation ?

I'm not sure what you are talking about with this "numbers" thing. In my religion, we believe that souls don't exist prior to a person being conceived. They begin existing at that moment. No, I do not believe in reincarnation or souls waiting to be incarnated.

---

For me this is simply not a problem, I believe we procreate hopefully we born in a country that allows us freedoms and then enjoy life to the full.

I have a few questions though for all who believe in original sin, given that sin had entered the world why did god allow more people to be born he could simply have stopped procreation and allowed the generation of sin to die out, just like he barred a generation of Israelites from entering the promised land because of sin.

Question 1
If he had simply stopped reproduction then only those responsible will have suffered, instead of the insanity of being born to abusers, religious nut jobs, along with death disease and suffering then he could simply have started again.  We do it it with cattle, animals, even humans if they have a disease that threatens the rest of us  or the rest of a heard of cattle, they isolate and often kill the diseased cattle to stop it infecting others.

I'm not asking why god allows suffering, but rather why he allowed people to be born who had not even existed before procreation to enter a world of suffering?


Question 2
If there is some kind  of argument that there has to be a number god has to reach, then where are these spirits/souls before they are born into human bodies ?  Do you perhaps believe in some kind of re-incarnation, or souls waiting for an incarnation ?

These really are questions for any theist, contributions though from anyone are welcome.

It seems implicit in your question 1 that God was surprised by the fall. He was not. His purpose did not change because he always knew it would happen. Why in the world do you imagine that "starting over" would produce different results? Without perfect knowledge, free will will always result in sin eventually. 


Regarding question 2, souls don't exist until conception.

This^

I didn't address the whole starting over thing, but this would be my answer.

[Astreja]

You can never turn your back on a person that demands a reason for considering a perpetual torturer insane.  Who has to be argued -out- of thinking it's a legit idea.

The reason that the hell concept is a deal-breaker for me regarding the Christian god is that I can actually emphasize with people trapped in hell.  Where is that empathy in the people defending the actions of that god?

Why do so many people defend the schoolyard bully and claim that the beat-up kid had it coming, rather than calling out the bully?

[John V]

The reason that the hell concept is a deal-breaker for me regarding the Christian god is that I can actually emphasize with people trapped in hell.  Where is that empathy in the people defending the actions of that god?

Why do so many people defend the schoolyard bully and claim that the beat-up kid had it coming, rather than calling out the bully?

The difference with me is that I look at myself and think I deserve hell. So, for me, God isn't a bully. He's a righteous judge.

[vorlon13]

For me this is simply not a problem, I believe we procreate hopefully we born in a country that allows us freedoms and then enjoy life to the full.

I have a few questions though for all who believe in original sin, given that sin had entered the world why did god allow more people to be born he could simply have stopped procreation and allowed the generation of sin to die out, just like he barred a generation of Israelites from entering the promised land because of sin.

Question 1
If he had simply stopped reproduction then only those responsible will have suffered, instead of the insanity of being born to abusers, religious nut jobs, along with death disease and suffering then he could simply have started again.  We do it it with cattle, animals, even humans if they have a disease that threatens the rest of us  or the rest of a heard of cattle, they isolate and often kill the diseased cattle to stop it infecting others.

I'm not asking why god allows suffering, but rather why he allowed people to be born who had not even existed before procreation to enter a world of suffering?


Question 2
If there is some kind  of argument that there has to be a number god has to reach, then where are these spirits/souls before they are born into human bodies ?  Do you perhaps believe in some kind of re-incarnation, or souls waiting for an incarnation ?

These really are questions for any theist, contributions though from anyone are welcome.

It seems implicit in your question 1 that God was surprised by the fall. He was not. His purpose did not change because he always knew it would happen. Why in the world do you imagine that "starting over" would produce different results? Without perfect knowledge, free will will always result in sin eventually. 


Regarding question 2, souls don't exist until conception.

(emphasis mine)

My goodness gracious, can't let such a vile heresy pass unremarked upon. Souls are eternal. But they are only inspirated into human bodies upon successful birth.

Damn, this Sunday School 101 stuff that is totally mysterious to even believers is just awesomely jaw dropping to me.

We REALLY need better, more pious and learned theists posting here.

[Harry Nevis]

But torturing them for eternity is insane.

Why? You just say that without giving reasoning.

So you feel that there are good reasons for eternal torture.  Good to know.