Recall Notice

Originally posted by josephw
When a child is disobedient what does a parent do? They hold the child accountable.

The product/child is 100% responsible for his/her actions. The parent is held responsible for a child's actions when and if it can be proven that the parent acted irresponsibly by abuse or neglect.

Besides, there is no comparison between purely human involvement and tha ...[text shortened]... hat the creator is capable of error is of human origin. Error and fault originates with the man.

If I, as a parent, knowingly let my child eat something that will cause him needless and harsh suffering, who's at fault?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Some of the symptoms include:

... A tendency for the vehicle to roll over and catch fire, trapping the occupants in flames for a time estimated to be in excess of the current age of the Universe.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
... A tendency for the vehicle to roll over and catch fire, trapping the occupants in flames for a time estimated to be in excess of the current age of the Universe.

I think it will be a bit longer than 6000 years. 😛

Originally posted by DeepThought
Quite entertaining, but you did unfortunately feel the need to threaten all of us sceptics with a firey furnace. This is not a credible threat and really is hardly ethical.

It is very ethical in my opinion, because unrepaired units will contaminate and infect other units. We see it happening around us all the time. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Prasie the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by FMF
What if the manufacturer knew full well in advance that the "parameters of use" would not be followed and would warrant a 'product recall'? Is the manufacturer still not accountable?

edit: Oh, I see rwingett has beaten me to it on this point

The defects have build up over time in some units more than others. The more defective units call this process "evolution" because they have become to believe they are improving rather than getting more defective. 😏

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
100% of the product is flawed, by the designer's own admission.

If any other manufacturer did this, they'd soon be out of business.

You have become so defective that you are reading imaginary admissions. Perhaps it is you that has becomes 100% flawed.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
Biblical fundamentalists typically say that the problems and pains nonhuman animals suffer today (tumors, parasites, etc) are also the result of human sin. It has never been clear to me why this was a fair thing for God to do to those creatures. Or is it that He wanted to spare them, but falls short of the cleverness He would have needed to keep nonhumans from damage?

Don't forget that the original two units were identified as "prototype" units. This usually means these units are test units to determine if any defects would or could arise.

Originally posted by vivify
Your god, the "Manufacturer", could've stopped the "defect" at Adam and Eve. Instead, he let it continue, and it's resulted in countless amounts of terrible, needless suffering (labor pains, torture, sickness, heartache, etc.)

Because the manufacturer let the defect continue, rather than stopping it at Adam and Eve, your "Manufacturer" is at fault.

You apparently never heard of the Worldwide flood during Noah's lifetime. Read Genesis chapter 6 in the Holy Bible. Later there was the Exodus and the prophets and then Jesus the Lord Himself. Read all about it and get educated. 😏

Originally posted by vivify
If I, as a parent, knowingly let my child eat something that will cause him needless and harsh suffering, who's at fault?

But if you trusted your children to obey you and went away to do some work you needed to do and it was during that brief time that they disobeyed you for the first time and got hurt would you say you are still at fault. If so, then you should be in prison right now, right?

Originally posted by vivify
If I, as a parent, knowingly let my child eat something that will cause him needless and harsh suffering, who's at fault?

If I, as a parent, knowingly let my child eat something that will cause him needless and harsh suffering, who's at fault?

Here is where your analogy fails to represent the fall of man:

1.) The man created by God was given warning that to disobey an eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would be harmful to him.

Genesis 2:16,17 - "And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of it you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

"And He [God] said, Who told you that you are naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" (3:11)

"And to Adam He said, Because you listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree concerning which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it; cursed is the ground because of you; ... etc. etc. " (3:17)

The allowing man to exercise the awesome power of his own free will was not unaccompanied with a clear warning that a wrong choice of disobedience in this ONE AND ONLY prohibition would be harmful.

It is therefore righteous of God to keep His word.

2.) It is true that God was man's Creator. But to be the "parent" of man as in a family life relationship was not established in the mere creation of man. Rather to obtain God as a "parent" was the choice before the neutral and innocent creation.

This relationship of man to a Divine Father was potentially mans in taking in the other tree - "the tree of life".

Genesis 2:9 - "And out of the ground Jehovah God caused to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, as well as the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

The neutral man was created not with a life family union with the Creator as a "Father" initially. It was an option placed before him in the form of "the tree of life" which was the main tree of the crucial pair of two.

"the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

These two trees represented TWO sources existence. One would bring man into union with sin, death and the slandering lying enemy of God. The main tree "in the middle of the garden" also upon to the choice of the neutral man would establish the created man as also possessing the life of God so as to be a real son.

Man was innocent, neutral, and in between these two sources. And he was created with the freedom of will to choose. But to make the choice wrongly would eliminate the possibility of the other choice.

After the choice of rebellion and disobedience God closed off the ability for man to choose the tree of life that God would be eternal Father (parent) in that sense.

Genesis 3:22 - "And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and live forever -

Therefore Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to work the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out. and at the east of the garden pf Eden He placed the cherubim and a flaming sword which turned in every direction to guard the way to the tree of life."

The separation of God's glory (the cherubim of glory), the separation of God's righteousness (the sword), and the separation of God's holiness (the flame of the sword), caused an unbridgeable gulf between the potential child and potential life parent though God remained man's Creator.

If you fault God for "letting" man have the choice of his free will then you fault God for creating a human being. I think you are saying God was therefore wrong to create a human being.

The freedom to choose between God as a source and not God as a source was something consistent with man being a man. Faulting God for warning man yet letting man choose to disregard the warning is faulting God for not creating a robot.

But a human being created in His own image and according to His likeness is what God wanted to create (Genesis 1:26,27)

Originally posted by sonship
These two trees represented TWO sources existence.

You are in the "symbolic" camp then when considering the Eden trees?

Originally posted by divegeester
You are in the "symbolic" camp then when considering the Eden trees?

I believe Genesis 2,3 is history with symbolism of physical things endowed with profound significance.

The answer is both - history and built in symbolism.

Consider the ark of the covenant of Israel. It was both a physical object yet to handle it in an unworthy way could cause death. It was both physical and embodied with profound theological and spiritual significance.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But if you trusted your children to obey you and went away to do some work you needed to do and it was during that brief time that they disobeyed you for the first time and got hurt would you say you are still at fault. If so, then you should be in prison right now, right?

I'm not all-powerful, omnipresent and omniscient, as the bible claims God is. If was, and still allowed my child to eat something that would result in terrible suffering all the rest of his days, who's at fault?

Originally posted by sonship

If I, as a parent, knowingly let my child eat something that will cause him needless and harsh suffering, who's at fault?

Here is where your analogy fails to represent the fall of man:

1.) The man created by God was given warning that to disobey an eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would be harmful to him.

[b]Gene ...[text shortened]... s own image and according to His likeness is what God wanted to create [b](Genesis 1:26,27) [/b]

If I allow my child to exercise his free will and eat something full of lead paint and arsenic, despite having the full knowledge and power to stop him, who's at fault?

Originally posted by vivify

If I allow my child to exercise his free will and eat something full of lead paint and arsenic, despite having the full knowledge and power to stop him, who's at fault?

So you micro manage your kids 24/7 ?

Do you even have experience raising children ?
I am pretty sure that if you had kids you sometimes WARNED them of things NOT to do. But you had to allow them to make their own decision about it.

Am I right?

( You seemed to ignore what I wrote about the tree of life and a family relationship also being man's choice to take or ignore. )