Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[JM2C]

But I thought Christ's sacrifice washed away their sins?

The most famous verses in the bible, I think.

Jn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Jn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Jn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[Clear]

[FONT=&quot]REGARDING THE QUESTION FOR ROBIN1 AS TO HOW A ONE MONTH-OLD SINS[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Robin1[/FONT][FONT=&quot], said : "babies sin constantly"
Clear gave the example of an infant/baby who is born, lives one month and dies. and asked what sins this baby would have been committing. We are still waiting for Robin1s answer. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]MEANWHILE[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]JM2C[/FONT][FONT=&quot] quotes : “ Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
And then JM2C tells us : No one is “INNOCENT”, all are born depraved.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hi [/FONT][FONT=&quot]JM2C[/FONT][FONT=&quot] :
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) Are you saying that this scripture means that one month-old infants “speak lies” in their "depraved" state ? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2) Is that how you think a one month-old "sins constantly"? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3) Do you think early Christians would have interpreted this text to mean that one month-old infants "speak lies" or can you conceive that, for them, the context and meaning of this text was different than it is for yourself? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]4) Do you think it’s possible that early Christians would have interpreted this text far differently than your modern theory interprets this text? I think their early theological worldview and contexts were quite different than your modern theory.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Clear[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]σετωφιειδρω
[/FONT]

 

[JM2C]

authentic early Judeo-Christian interpretation.

the Christians of early Sinaiticus New Testament era

Kindly explain this please, thanks.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wow, I was gone for the weekend and come back to this? Unbelievable. I swear I've heard Christians quote something about we must become as little Children. I guess those Christians were wrong. It's just darn lucky that God has killed off enough of them. Could you imagine what the world would be like if we had more children in it?

Obviously a horrible, evil, hideous place.

 

[Clear]

[FONT=&quot]

REGARDING THE QUESTION FOR ROBIN1 AS TO HOW A ONE MONTH-OLD SINS

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Robin1[/FONT][FONT=&quot], said : "babies sin constantly"
Clear gave the example of an infant/baby who is born, lives one month and dies. and asked what sins this baby would have been committing. We are still waiting for Robin1s answer. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]MEANWHILE[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]JM2C[/FONT][FONT=&quot] quotes : “ Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
And then JM2C tells us : No one is “INNOCENT”, all are born depraved.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hi JM2C :
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) Are you saying that this scripture means that one month-old infants “speak lies” in their "depraved" state ? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2) Is that how you think a one month-old "sins constantly"? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3) Do you think early Christians would have interpreted this text to mean that one month-old infants "speak lies" or can you conceive that, for them, the context and meaning of this text was different than it is for yourself? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]4) Do you think it’s possible that early Christians would have interpreted this text far differently than your modern theory interprets this text? I think their early theological worldview and contexts were quite different than your modern theory.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Clear[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]JM2C responded by asking what I meant by “authentic early Judeo-Christian interpretation” and “the Christians of early Sinaiticus New Testament era”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I would be happy to respond to these new questions JM2C.

Will you first respond to my prior questions that are the current issues at hand and I will include explanations inside my response to your answers. The current theme can be handled most efficiently if we do not leave the current subject as to how a one month old infant "sins constantly" inside your theory, (and while we are waiting for Robin1 to answer that question.)
[/FONT]
thanks JM2C

[FONT=&quot]Clear
σεδρφιφιτζω
[/FONT]

 

[Ingledsva]

[FONT=&quot]REGARDING THE QUESTION FOR ROBIN1 AS TO HOW A ONE MONTH-OLD SINS[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Robin1[/FONT][FONT=&quot], said : "babies sin constantly"
Clear gave the example of an infant/baby who is born, lives one month and dies. and asked what sins this baby would have been committing. We are still waiting for Robin1s answer. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]MEANWHILE[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]JM2C[/FONT][FONT=&quot] quotes : “ Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
And then JM2C tells us : No one is “INNOCENT”, all are born depraved.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hi [/FONT][FONT=&quot]JM2C[/FONT][FONT=&quot] :
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) Are you saying that this scripture means that one month-old infants “speak lies” in their "depraved" state ? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2) Is that how you think a one month-old "sins constantly"? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3) Do you think early Christians would have interpreted this text to mean that one month-old infants "speak lies" or can you conceive that, for them, the context and meaning of this text was different than it is for yourself? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]4) Do you think it’s possible that early Christians would have interpreted this text far differently than your modern theory interprets this text? I think their early theological worldview and contexts were quite different than your modern theory.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Clear[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]σετωφιειδρω
[/FONT]

Yep! Exactly!


Psalms are "self beating of the breast," they recognize their own wickedness from the core, they lament, and use flowery language that is meant to connect with other people, - which of course they did - they are in the Bible thousands of years later.


Obviously babies are not evil , or speaking, let alone speaking lies - (having had no life experience to lie about,) - from the womb.


Psa 58:1 To the chief Musician, Altaschith, Michtam of David. Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?

Psa 58:2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth.

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.


I think it is actually teaching that all have problems, but you can tell whom the truly wicked will be, because they go astray very early (not babies.)



*

 

[JM2C]

I think their early theological worldview and contexts were quite different than your modern theory.

You base your theory on Barnabas and Hermas that babies “did not sin” or “no wickedness” at all by trying to harmonize them, Barnabas’ and Hermas’, with Matthew’s

Mt 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mt 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

“Except ye be converted, and become as little children” not because they, the children and babies, are “INNOCENT”, not ‘cause they are pure, nor they are faithful, but of humility and unconcern for social status -read verse 1.

The Lord Jesus Christ advocates humility of mind, not childishness nor innocence of thought.

The thought should shrug off any thought that the kingdom can be gained by personal merit is the lesson in these verses. Its about humility and not about children and babies that they are “INNOCENT”.

Banish the thought.

And here is your interpretation of Barnabas’ and Hermas’

For example, the Christians of early Sinaiticus New Testament era taught the early Christians to become AS infants “with no wickedness” since “all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him.“

The early Christian worldview that infants had “no wickedness” but instead did not sin was the very reason infants and small children were not merely qualified to enter the kingdom of God in this early interpretation but were “foremost with him”.

“no wickedness but instead did not sin” IOW, no wickedness but instead, or in the place of something previously mentioned, did not sin. Did not sin and no wickedness is the same.

Wickedness is the fruit of our fallen human nature therefore all human have sinned -read Romans 5:12.

If “no wickedness” then “it did not sin” at all.

“no wickedness and did not sin” and “were not merely qualified to enter the kingdom of God” but were “foremost with him”

How confusing this statement or interpretation?

Why children and infants were not qualified to enter the kingdom of God if there were “no wickedness” or “did not sin” and at the same time “foremost with him”?

Who can enter the kingdom of God then?

And this is how you misinterpret Matthew’s with your interpretation of Barnabas’ and Hermas’:

It was this very context which underlie the early interpretation as to what Jesus was trying to teach when he taught the disciples concerning “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven”.

It was a “little child” whom Jesus set their midst as an example, saying “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:1–4)

It is the moral purity of the infant which formed the early Christian teaching that after forgiveness of sin, mankind could return to their primal moral state inside this renewal.

Thus the epistle of Barnabas says :“So, since he renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again.” The Epistle of Barnabas 6:11.

“It is the moral purity of the infant” base on Barnabas’ “so that we should have the soul of the children”

Or the sinlessness and un-wickedness of the infant, and not the sinlessness of Christ, so that human can make it right with God.

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The Lord Jesus Christ when He became flesh “knew no sin” and He is the only one who “knew no sin” meaning “born sinless”

Christians’ righteousness was base on the Lord Jesus Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection or “The Gospel of Christ” and not on the “moral purity of the infant” base on Barnabas’ “so that we should have the soul of the children”.

 

[JM2C]

Robin1’s personal theory and personal interpretation that babies commit "sin constantly" is certainly not representative of authentic early Judeo-Christian interpretation.

Judeo-Christian? Gentile proselytes to Judaism were called Christians because they were not under Judaism anymore. IOW, there is no such thing as Judeo-Christian. Its either a Gentile is under Judaism, and that is, a Gentile proselyte, or under Christianity and therefore called Christian or Christ follower and NOT a follower of Judaism anymore. IOW, there is no such thing as Judeo-Christian or it does not exist.

Therefore, your theory of “representative of authentic early Judeo-Christian interpretation” is false or just an opinion or no proof at all.

Ac 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

There is another thread called “who really wrote the bible?”
When speaking of the word “authentic” one should have hard evidence, like the bible, as proof. The funny thing is, as much as the veracity, the truthfulness of the bible with its written proof or hard evidence, people still question its authenticity, but here you are saying something like, “authentic early Judeo-Christian interpretation” and no one is questioning its authenticity is really beyond any comprehension.

 

[1robin]

Yep, I don't know from where they are coming up with this crap.


Evil sinning babies, geeeesssss!



*

I was talking about kids doing evil. That has been bent, stretched, and warped into babies being evil. After 3 posts I can no longer recognize my original claims after your side gets done with them.

For everyone who denies reality and insists children are sinless angels please respond to what is below: I am not re-typing it a dozen times.


1. Children pull each others hair in fits of rage.
2. They steal food from siblings.
3. They punch each other.
4. They bite each other.
5. They yell as loud as they can, that they hate those who love them the most.
6. They form factions and exclude others.
7. They taunt the weak and the handicapped.
8. They lie.
9. They prey on perceived weakness.
10. They covet possessions regardless of who owns them.
11. Leave them alone a while and you will always get "Lord of the flies" tribal barbarity, every single time.

etc..... X billions.

There is no argument that children do these things and do them constantly. To try to, is maniacal and ludicrous. So there are only two options available.

1. Children do wrong but they are not ultimately held accountable for them. They suffer loss and are disciplined because the actions are in fact wrong but they are not ultimately held accountable. No if you go with this option then you agree with God, the bible, Christianity, the law, and pretty much every sane person on Earth.
2. These things are not wrong. Then you agree with a few atheist philosophers who admit they have no ground for thinking anything is truly wrong or right and you do not even act as if this is true, as no one beyond psychopaths live this way.


No which is your defense, or do you have a 3rd option straight out of fantasy land to offer? If you deny that children do these things then there is no rational basis to even have a debate on. There is a reason why calling someone childish is an offense.

 

[1robin]

But I thought Christ's sacrifice washed away their sins? Still they deserve to die for the sins of their very first ancestors? Was I present at the moment Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, when I was a baby?

It's no wonder some people do not get Christianity, they have no idea what it is. Christ came to forgive those who are held accountable for sin. Which is every adult, and zero children. Children are not held ultimately responsible for sin eternally as thy are not equipped to properly understand it. They may suffer temporal loss or pain but are not condemned until they reach the age of accountability (usually said to be around 12-14). However Christ's provision does not automatically wash away everyone's sins anyway. It makes that purification available but it is up to us to deny or accept it. BY one may salvation did come into the world but it's mere being here does not apply it to everyone or anyone. For pity sake the most fundamental of Christians doctrines speak on being born again, being made new, accepting Christ, becoming a Christian. You can't hardly turn a page in the NT without this being spelled out in detail. If you do not get this most basic of principles how can you evaluate it. It is like a 5 year old rejecting Boolean Differential Calculus before they understand 2 + 2 = 4.

No one is held responsible for Adam's sin. We inherited a separation from God from his acts, not his acts themselves. No worries, God paid 100% of the price to re-establish that breach between God and man. We have mountains of sins that we did because we wanted to, that we are judged for, Adam's sin is not on our record. What we inherited through no fault of ours through him was repaired through no effort of ours. It washes out, all we have to do is accept it. Our sin is ours not Adams, it was not Adam that told me to drink a beer or yell at anyone. I wanted to do it, did it, and am responsible for it. That is what I would be judged on if Christ had not paid the price for my actions and I accepted it. No need to blame God or Adam we have all done more than enough to alienate us from a perfect God because we wanted to.

 

[JM2C]

I think it is actually teaching that all have problems, but you can tell whom the truly wicked will be, because they go astray very early (not babies.)
*

Can you really tell? Or no one is born sinless except Christ.

When we sin we act on our nature.

Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

The train of thought should be wickedness inside the womb, out of the womb carrying the thoughts of that wickedness, and onto to living, out of womb, with that wickedness and therefore speaking nothing but lies.


Do you think man just went astray from being perfect to being sinful? No! it started from the moment one is conceive by the mother.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

 

[JM2C]

Do you know why the Lord Jesus Christ is the only sinless that was born?

 

[Clear]

[FONT=&quot]JM2C[/FONT][FONT=&quot] : You did not answer my questions at all. Are there any forum members that see the answers to my specific questions in JM2C’s last post?[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]1)REGARDING WHETHER INFANTS “SIN CONSTANTLY” OR NOT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Robin1[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said : “…babies are the most self centered beings in the universe. They sin constantly…. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I asked what sins a one month old is committing “constantly” in post # 4046 and am still awaiting an answer from Robin1.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2)REGARDING WHETHER INFANTS “ARE MORALLY DEPRAVED” OR NOT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In apparent support for Robin1 , JM2C quoted psalms 58:3 “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]And then offers the commentary that all are “[/FONT][FONT=&quot]born depraved.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I asked : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]1) Are you saying that this scripture means that one month-old infants “speak lies” in their "depraved" state ?[/FONT][FONT=&quot] You did not answer this question. Does your scripture actually mean that a one month old infant “speak lies” to us and is, thusly, “depraved”? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I asked : 2) Is that how you think a one month-old "sins constantly"? [/FONT] You did not answer this question either. Do you actually believe it is through “lying” that a one month-old “sins constantly” and is therefore, “depraved”.

[FONT=&quot]I asked 3) Do you think early Christians would have interpreted this text to mean that one month-old infants "speak lies" or can you conceive that, for them, the context and meaning of this text was different than it is for yourself? You offered a bit of “logical philosophizing” in vague support of your point, none of which answered this very simple and very specific question.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]For example, the 4th century era New Testament is different than ours. That early New Testament included a book called “Hermas” (the shepherd). Christians of that era read and used their New Testament just as you use yours.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Their New Testament said :[/FONT][FONT=&quot] “All of you, therefore, who continue,” he said, “ and will be as infants, with no wickedness, will be more glorious than all those who have been mentioned previously, for all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him. Blessed are you, therefore, who have cast aside evil from yourselves and clothed yourselves in innocence; you will live to God first of all.” Hermas 106:3[/FONT]

Do you think these Christians believed that “infants, with no wickedness” actually “sin constantly” or that infants who “are glorious in God’s sight” are “depraved” or could they have believed differently from your theory?

[FONT=&quot]The epistle of Barnabas was also included in this early (4th c.e.) bible. These early Christians would have read Barnabas’ testimony to them that “Christ “… renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again.” (Barnabas 6:11)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]These early Christians who read these sorts of things regarding infants and young children did not seem to believe that infants “sin constantly” or that infants “are depraved”. IF, they did not view infants or a young child in this same way, then they would have viewed early textual witness differently and interpreted them differently. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For example, IF these early Christians believed what their New Testament when it read that “all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him.”, how would they have viewed the equivalent question as to Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” of Mtt 18:1-4.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If they believed that infants are glorious and “stand foremost with [God}”, then it made perfect sense to use a child as an example, to set the child in their midst and for Jesus to say “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:1–4)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In this early christian worldview on the innocence of Infants and Children, Matthew is a coherent example. In your theory of infants being “depraved” and “sinning constantly”, it is less coherent to use a child as an example of what we are to be like. By [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“authentic early Judeo-Christian interpretation”, I meant to make a distinction between theology that existed in the early Christian movement and later theological theories derived in the age of later theologians. In this case, t[/FONT][FONT=&quot]he early Christian theory that infants had “no wickedness” and did not “sin constantly” and were not “depraved” is more coherent than your theory. It is more reasonable and logical than your theory. Your theory is not superior to this early theology in any way. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]JM2C[/FONT][FONT=&quot] – Can YOU tell how YOU think a one month old “sins constantly”, while we are all waiting for Robin1 to answer this specific question?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Do you want to answer the specific questions I’ve already asked you?[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]Clear
σεδρφυφυτζω
[/FONT]

 

[McBell]

Do you know why the Lord Jesus Christ is the only sinless that was born?

Um...
Because your favourite story says so?

 

[idav]

Do you know why the Lord Jesus Christ is the only sinless that was born?

Being in the chosen bloodline.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was talking about kids doing evil. That has been bent, stretched, and warped into babies being evil. After 3 posts I can no longer recognize my original claims after your side gets done with them.

For everyone who denies reality and insists children are sinless angels please respond to what is below: I am not re-typing it a dozen times.


1. Children pull each others hair in fits of rage.
2. They steal food from siblings.
3. They punch each other.
4. They bite each other.
5. They yell as loud as they can, that they hate those who love them the most.
6. They form factions and exclude others.
7. They taunt the weak and the handicapped.
8. They lie.
9. They prey on perceived weakness.
10. They covet possessions regardless of who owns them.
11. Leave them alone a while and you will always get "Lord of the flies" tribal barbarity, every single time.

etc..... X billions.

There is no argument that children do these things and do them constantly. To try to, is maniacal and ludicrous. So there are only two options available.

1. Children do wrong but they are not ultimately held accountable for them. They suffer loss and are disciplined because the actions are in fact wrong but they are not ultimately held accountable. No if you go with this option then you agree with God, the bible, Christianity, the law, and pretty much every sane person on Earth.
2. These things are not wrong. Then you agree with a few atheist philosophers who admit they have no ground for thinking anything is truly wrong or right and you do not even act as if this is true, as no one beyond psychopaths live this way.


No which is your defense, or do you have a 3rd option straight out of fantasy land to offer? If you deny that children do these things then there is no rational basis to even have a debate on. There is a reason why calling someone childish is an offense.

It hasn't been warped into anything. Once again, everyone is talking about babies here. We're all wondering how babies can be considered sinful or evil. You keep trying to steer the conversation to adolescents for some reason, when the rest of us are talking about babies which you apparently acknowledged a few times within the thread (but now deny):

No one is “INNOCENT” “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” -Romans 3:23

And that is very obvious BULL!
Babies are obviously innocent!
*

No, babies are the most self centered beings in the universe. They sin constantly but God does not hold them accountable because they lack the knowledge concerning sin. Once again I notice that the race who complains when God takes back to heaven that which he created, even though we kill them in the womb for our sins without being able to know what happens to them. We don't care, they are in our way and must go, and so is God. However God is not so obliging as to die on command.

O!M!G!
Babies are as they are in order to survive.
They are not in any sense of the word sinning!
At this point I am so happy I got out of Christianity, and don't have to be embarrassed by your words!
I can just be angry by such illogical crap!
*

One of the greatest virtues possible is selflessness. We give the acts medals, build museums for them, write songs about them, and make timeless plays about the events to stir later generations to do the same. Babies take what they want from whoever they want, whenever they want and can, even if violence and lying is required (depending on age). Moral facts do not change but a mind can know a babies is not sufficiently equipped to properly understand what immorality and why it is to not be acted upon. They are by any possible definition - guilty, but God who overrides everything declares them legally innocent and they are not judged eternally for these acts until they reach a certain age where they do have the capacity to properly chose.

It is Humans not God that kill them (without any known future justice taking place for them) by the millions, for our own mistakes and self centeredness before they ever got a chance to do a wrong thing or any other thing, and that same wicked race feels it is capable of judging a God who did not do these things. You truly can't make that stuff of. Only a genuine moral system's bankruptcy can produce it.

Please define innocent or explain what sin are babies guilty of. I know we are born with a sin nature but the sin nature itself is not a sinful act. Why should they be held accountable for anything at that stage of life. If babies are just as guilty as Hitler I find that troubling.

Just in my experience in day care in a small southern town. I have heard adolescents threaten even their siblings will killing them, I have seen them steal food from each other, set up rival factions among themselves, covet others property, rebel against authority, be completely callous towards suffering, condemn the good and glorify the evil, and construct small nuclear explosive devices. Ok that last one was only a joke but the old saying children can be cruel is only the tip of the ice burg. Even before we can speak we are taking things, only interested in our wants, and will do anything imaginable to gratify them. Of course babies are cute and cuddly and not responsible to complex moral codes they are not equipped to understand but that does not mean they are morally good.

. Seriously, you are blaming babies and kids for their immature and undeveloped brains? We are here talking of the death of children and you go on talking about stealing the toys of other kids as a big crime! Yes God should kill those kids who spoil the sleep of their mothers, make them wash their dirty and stinky clothes, etc. Moses's followers raped the women of their enemies and they are exalted in the Bible but these kids are TOTAL EVIL! Your posts are making me scared of the kids *shivers*.
Just wanted to add that Jesus Himself encouraged His followers to interact with the kids because He considered them good.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's no wonder some people do not get Christianity, they have no idea what it is. Christ came to forgive those who are held accountable for sin. Which is every adult, and zero children. Children are not held ultimately responsible for sin eternally as thy are not equipped to properly understand it. They may suffer temporal loss or pain but are not condemned until they reach the age of accountability (usually said to be around 12-14). However Christ's provision does not automatically wash away everyone's sins anyway. It makes that purification available but it is up to us to deny or accept it. BY one may salvation did come into the world but it's mere being here does not apply it to everyone or anyone. For pity sake the most fundamental of Christians doctrines speak on being born again, being made new, accepting Christ, becoming a Christian. You can't hardly turn a page in the NT without this being spelled out in detail. If you do not get this most basic of principles how can you evaluate it. It is like a 5 year old rejecting Boolean Differential Calculus before they understand 2 + 2 = 4.

No one is held responsible for Adam's sin. We inherited a separation from God from his acts, not his acts themselves. No worries, God paid 100% of the price to re-establish that breach between God and man. We have mountains of sins that we did because we wanted to, that we are judged for, Adam's sin is not on our record. What we inherited through no fault of ours through him was repaired through no effort of ours. It washes out, all we have to do is accept it. Our sin is ours not Adams, it was not Adam that told me to drink a beer or yell at anyone. I wanted to do it, did it, and am responsible for it. That is what I would be judged on if Christ had not paid the price for my actions and I accepted it. No need to blame God or Adam we have all done more than enough to alienate us from a perfect God because we wanted to.

What price?

 

[Ingledsva]

Can you really tell? Or no one is born sinless except Christ.

When we sin we act on our nature.

Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

The train of thought should be wickedness inside the womb, out of the womb carrying the thoughts of that wickedness, and onto to living, out of womb, with that wickedness and therefore speaking nothing but lies.


Do you think man just went astray from being perfect to being sinful? No! it started from the moment one is conceive by the mother.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

And obviously I don't agree with this as it is absolutely illogical and ridiculous!


Babies do not sin - nor are they sinners when they are born.


Nor do I believe the Hebrew where that stupid, - as to say such; - which means we are interpreting the verses incorrectly.


Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.


Nothing in that verse says babies are sinners.


Nor does Eph 2:3 says babies are sinners.


I've already given my interpretation of Ps 58:3.




*

 

[1robin]

It hasn't been warped into anything. Once again, everyone is talking about babies here. We're all wondering how babies can be considered sinful or evil. You keep trying to steer the conversation to adolescents for some reason, when the rest of us are talking about babies which you apparently acknowledged a few times within the thread (but now deny):

I am sure I used the word that was introduced because I did not notice it's use to restrict the discussion as a tactic, or heck I may have negligently introduced it for no reasons whatever. That is not how this conversation started. It started in reference to the children killed of the Canaanites. They were not all below 1 or over 15 I don't think. This was turned into babies like all theistic arguments are warped to allow for a counterclaim because one did not exist as is which is why you did not account for a single fact I mentioned above. Babies is an arbitrary term to begin with. What day is a baby no longer a baby and how would anyone know. There is no day on which you can blame for X and the previous day be unable to do the same. This is equivocation and distraction and serves no purpose. I am about to give up on your side having any argument what so ever on this issue. Pray tell, starting at age 15 and counting backwards what day, hour, and minute in the omniscience of non-believers do all children cease to do wrong. Since the politicians who represent you seem to know the exact day a life is no longer valueless and con no longer be destroyed for convenience alone then you must certainly have that exact knowledge, and must to even begin to make a point. No matter what semantics have been employed in recent posts, my claim, and the only relevant issue, has been that children act morally wrong, that is if morally wrong even exists in your world view. If you instead want to keep circling the semantic drain I am not interested.

 

[1robin]

What price?

Our relationship to the father, called spiritual death or the second death. Like I said it does not appear you even know what it is you deny.