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

[SkepticThinker]

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.

The price that god paid for making the world as it is, is our relationship with him? Is that right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Some of us were inquiring about it, which is how it came up.

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.

Okay.
Then people started asking about babies.

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.

It was turned into babies, because inquiring minds wanted to know why babies are not considered innocents by some other members of the thread.
And yes, some of us think it’s a warped and immoral position to claim that babies are not innocent beings.

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 think we can all agree that a newborn human being is a baby, that a 1 month old being is a baby, for example. It’s not all that difficult to figure out. Talk about distraction and equivocation.

I am about to give up on your side having any argument what so ever on this issue.

So you think the argument that babies are innocent beings is not an argument. Good to know. And people wonder why nonbelievers have problems with religion.

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.

I think we could probably agree that a 1 day old baby isn’t committing sins or carrying out evil actions.

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.

There are no politicians in your country that represent me.
But since you brought it back to abortion, why care so much if those sinful little babies aren’t born into the world?

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.

Okay so are you on the record as stating that the actions of a 15 year old are in no way distinguishable from the actions of a one day old newborn baby?
Please excuse me for bringing the discussion back to the thing some of us were inquiring about. My bad.

 

[JM2C]

Um...
Because your favourite story says so?
&&

At least it's not a fantasy, if you know what I mean……

 

[JM2C]

By “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.

“theology that existed in the early Christian movement” base on Matthew’s and “later theological theories derived in the age of later theologians” base on Barnabas’ and Hermas’

Read my post #4107 again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It was first formed by a Christian for Christian reasons. It became an international force to be reckoned with and it's famous name entrenched when an American nurse who was Christian added it's largest chapter for Christian reasons. That is the sum total of my claim. Your contention keeps slightly morphing to counter stuff I never intended to suggest. I can't really get into this anyway. I don't see the point.

What are the “Christian reasons?”

You will not topple the fact Christianity has a greater record of benevolent sacrifice than any similar group.

Who says that is a fact, besides yourself?

Nothing can hardly be more appropriate. In general the deplorable conditions in schools closely mirrors God's removal from schools. Anyone who would deny the connection out of hand is blind. I specifically said, I even went back and made sure I used my school specifically so as to avoid exactly what you did. I know what your going to do and I plan for it but I can't stop it. I tried to avoid going off topic and discussing schools in general again but it didn't work.

And I’d say anyone making this connection is seeing things that aren’t there. It sounds to me like you’re living the “good old days” fallacy.

I hardly see why you consider the things I said irrelevant. You and I have been over the school shooting thing before – school shootings are not a new thing in the US. They go all the way back from the mid-nineteenth century onward.
List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Find anything I ever stated that even hinted that Christianity has ever been anything but flawed in general. I have no problem pointing out it's faults and am frequently the first to do so. However general trends are a little different. Anyone who denies this nation has morally decayed at a greatly increased rate as God was denied is not in reality and hard to have a debate with. I can debate whether that was the cause or not but the correlation is so exact it is only denied out of hand by people with an agenda.

It sounds to me like you’re the one with the agenda .

How godly and wonderful was it when bands of gangs roamed the Wild West? When people were murdered for practicing witchcraft? When armies slaughtered the Natives or separated children from their families to “re-educate” them? When people were murdering and warring with each other over the ownership of human beings? When women and people of colour were denied personhood and autonomy? Are such things considered morally upstanding behaviors?

Let’s not fool ourselves into believing that everything used to be so much better when practically everyone was considered a Christian – before god was removed from the public sphere (whenever that was). Some of us are quite happy to live in the 21st century.

Let me clarify again. You keep arguing against things I never intended to claim. I will rant that my language was not exact enough to handle your cross examination. I made it clear enough above I hope. If it were not for Clara's Christian ideals the red cross as we know it would never have occurred. It was formed out of Christian motivations and originally grew out of Christian ideals. It is the same as trying to separate Christianity's influence from Norway or Sweden. They are officially secular but at their core they have a Christian soul that is inseparable from their identity and what they are. Quite a bit more influential over the centuries of their past than the few decades of their neutral theological stance.

What are the “Christian motivations” and “Christian ideals” that you speak of?

Not believing in something is never an inspiration for anything nor the source of a single moral truth.

Atheists believe in lots of things. God just isn’t one of them.

I do not think they are but I have never ever stated that. I don't know, and I am in the case of world aid or in an individual case quite willing to grant their potential moral equality or even superiority depending on what Christian they are compared to. I was responding to your comments on Christianity, I did not originate any judgment of secularism in this discussion with you.

In the very first post I responded to, which you wrote, the very thing I took issue with was what I considered to be your judgement of secularism. Not to mention the fact that most of this post I am responding to contains a judgment of secularism.

 

[JM2C]

#1
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”.

#2
In this case, the 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.

My theory? Read your post carefully. P#1 “no wickedness” but instead did not sin” They are both the same thing to me.

compare that to

P#2 “no wickedness and did not sin constantly”

“did not sin constantly” is still sinning and therefore wickedness is present and your theory of “no wickedness” contradicts your “did not sin constantly”

 

[JM2C]

JM2C – Can YOU tell how YOU think a one month old “sins constantly”, while we are all waiting for Robin1 to answer this specific question?

Read post #4111

 

[1robin]

The price that god paid for making the world as it is, is our relationship with him? Is that right?

Heck, you tell me. You obviously know more about what I am trying to say than me because you restate every thing I say in another way. If you can't contend with the way a thing is then for goodness sake leave it be. You have built a straw man army.

 

[1robin]

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.




*

It sure as heck is not flattering.

 

[1robin]

Being in the chosen bloodline.

Not exactly. He was in one chosen bloodline but was only a hereditary heir in the other but neither mandated he was sinless as every other person in each was sinful.

 

[Clear]

Robin1 claimed "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..."


Robin1 :

I do not think it is a mistake to consider how, in christian theology, one acquires a moral debt associated with sin, and then to explore the theological model as to how Christ relieves mankind of this debt by his redemption for all mankind. While I think your claim that "babies sin constantly" is absurd, I do think it is just as good of an entry point into the mechanics of redemption as any.

The discussion regarding new infants being innocent beings, (i.e. they come to this world "sinless", not wicked, not morally "depraved) who have not yet sinned goes to the center of Christian theology and is thus an incredibly important and very basic and very simple question. This point relates to what sin is, and the characteristics surrounding sin; the plan of God for dealing with moral incompetents (infants, those who are retarded, the mentally ill, etc)., the nature of relief from "sin" and what sort of moral "debt" Christ paid for.


The importance of using an Infant as an example :

All individuals who come to the earth, come as infants. Anciently and in third world countries, much of mankind die as infants. It is not a “warped argument” and the question regarding whether infants / babies sin is quite obvious. In most theologies, including the early christians I gave examples of, infants do not enter this world “depraved”, having done nothing (yet), which could place them into the category of the morally depraved. If they are correct, then one can more correctly determine how one actually acquires a moral debt which Christ pays for.

This is INCREDIBLY simple. I did not give you an arbitrary example, but a very specific example and there are no “semantic tricks” to this question. If infants and babies do not sin, simply tell us that you were mistaken in your claim. Your credibility is damaged more by ruse and refusal than by honest mistake (which all of us make)

There is no need to cry “foul” when someone asks you to explain and support your theory. There is no need to pretend to become offended by this simple question and bail out by refusing to participate. If you believe your statement that babies “sin constantly” then tell us what sins a one month old infant commits?

If there are no sins that this one month-old infant commits, and no one has data or logic or reasoning that can tell us what sins they commit, then we may perfectly and logically conclude that, not having sinned, this infant is “sinless” and “not wicked” and is not morally “depraved”.

Clear
σεδρσεσεσεω

 

[SkepticThinker]

Heck, you tell me. You obviously know more about what I am trying to say than me because you restate every thing I say in another way. If you can't contend with the way a thing is then for goodness sake leave it be. You have built a straw man army.

For some reason you never notice the question marks.

Question mark = QUESTION.

I don't understand what you're saying. Hence the questions.


EDIT:

I asked you what price god paid to “re-establish that breach between God and man.”

Your response was, “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.”

This does not appear to answer the question I asked.

So I asked, “The price that god paid for making the world as it is, is our relationship with him? Is that right?” for clarification.

 

[Ingledsva]

It sure as heck is not flattering.

What isn't flattering?



*

 

[CG Didymus]

Obviously a horrible, evil, hideous place.

The question is: Is God evil for letting little kids suffer and die. Obviously not. That is the ultimate good. Apparently, the little rascals get a free pass until 12-14 anyway, so what's the problem? But, what about all the people that died before Jesus came? I wonder? Do they get some special treatment? I would doubt it. I think the only ones that God saves are those that believed God would send Jesus some day. They definitely believed without seeing. Of course, they couldn't have known exactly who Jesus was, or what he would do for them, but just knowing he was coming was probably enough.

All the rest of the people in the world that never heard of Judaism, let alone the expected Messiah, they're plum out of luck. They were born depraved. Stayed depraved, and died depraved. So in their horrible wickedness, that God allowed them to be in, they definitely deserve hell.

Now their evil, sinful kids, that's different. If they got sick and died or were some other way killed, they go to heaven. They can't be held accountable for something they couldn't understand. Not like their sinful parents, who knew they should obey God, but because they never heard about the true God, they choose not to listen and obey him. They, instead, choose to follow other gods, that weren't real. Unlike the real God that only acts as if he's not around and doesn't care, but that's only so we know how much he does care. Because, he's giving us the opportunity to believe in him by faith.

Except he did talk face to face with Adam and spoke with an audible voice to several people. So it's not like he's totally distant and unavailable. We do have the authentic record of trustworthy people that say they saw him and heard him. Which is too bad for them, because how can they have true faith now? So lucky for us that Jesus has come. We have trustworthy people that wrote down all the things we needed to believe. Now all we have to do is obey his commands and to do his will, except we can't, because we're so sinful and evil.

Hmmm? That must make it tough on people to believe God is real when the people that claim to know him really don't do a very good job at following him? But that's probably for the best. If they were kind, compassionate, and loving people we'd probably all want to be like them. Which misses the point, God wants it to appear as if they are whacked out religious fanatics to make us approach him for the right reason... out of total faith.

So I want to say, thank you God for making, I mean, giving us this miserable place to live in, with all the pain and suffering. That way, we can truly come to know you, as the kind, just and malevolent, oops, I mean benevolent God that you are. Thank you for creating the devil to tempt us and lead us astray, so we can get to know you. Thank you for creating viruses and bacteria and parasites and degenerative diseases, so we can know the real you. Thank you for allowing us the privilege of turning away from you, so you could curse us and make child birth painful and make thorns and thistles to grow. We sinned and are born sinners. We don't deserve an easy life. Thank you for making, I mean, allowing so many religions and wrong interpretations of your truth, so we can study and ponder what could possibly be the real truth. But really, thank you the most for your people. The ones that stumble and bumble and are in no way humble as they thump us with their Bibles. The ones that sound so self-righteous and lacking in compassion that they turn away all but the truly worthy from your name. Without them, we probably would all believe, way too easily, and what good would that do.

 

[Clear]

CG Didymus “The question is: Is God evil for letting little kids suffer and die. Obviously not. That is the ultimate good. Apparently, the little rascals get a free pass until 12-14 anyway, so what's the problem? But, what about all the people that died before Jesus came? I wonder? Do they get some special treatment? I would doubt it.” (post # 4134)


CG Didymus :

You referenced some of the very principles as to why a consideration of the condition of infants at birth is an important theological principle.



1) IS THERE A PRINCIPLE OF "MORAL INCOMPETENCE" (i.e. "special treatment")
It matters whether the early Christian description of infants is correct (i.e. they are “not wicked&#8221 or if Robin1 is correct (i.e. that babies ARE wicked in that they “sin constantly&#8221.

IF infants are “not wicked” and “sinless” at birth (not having yet committed sins) and have a “free pass” due to some mechanism such as “moral incompetence”, then it raises the theological question as what conditions create "moral incompetence", and how such a mechanism might have been applied to other types of individuals who are morally “incompetent” such as those with mental disease, retardation, etc.

For example, CG Didymus mentioned individuals who lived under circumstances when and where they had no knowledge of Jesus. Does inadequate knowledge and or inadequate understanding or inadequate opportunity, create moral incompetence for them as it does for infants. God cannot justly punish anyone for failing to do Gods’ will unless God gives individuals sufficient knowledge and understanding and opportunity that enabled them to do his will and thus, avoid punishment.



2) COMPETING MECHANISMS OF JUSTIFICATION - "They are all depraved" versus "Another mechanism for justice"
Robin1 and JM2C may claim that babies “sin constantly” or babies are all “depraved” and, by this theory, justify apparent inequity by a “the babies deserve what they Got” type of mechanism. There were, however, other mechanisms at work in early Judeo-Christian worldviews that were different, and believed that Infants were BOTH innocent, AND justified specific apparent inequities.

Instead of “everybody is depraved” and “therefore deserves the punishment of hell” (or whatever else befalls them), early Judeo-Christians, in their descensus literature describe early traditions regarding how such things were made just in their worldview.

I am still waiting to hear Robin1s answer as to what sort of sins a one month-old infant might have committed in his theory so as to allow for a comparison between his theory of depravity and early historical versions of Christian interpretation on this specific point.



3) MORALLY UNJUST THEORY IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR RELIGIONISTS - later Christian theory is not better than early christian theory

While everyone is, rightly frustrated with the theory that infants are “depraved” and that “babies sin constantly”, and are therefore rejecting all Christianity as though the current, distasteful theology represents all of Christianity, readers should bear in mind that such theological theories are only one theory among hundreds and such modern interpretations are NOT the same as the early textual descriptions of early Christian theory. CG Didymus' speculation of "special treatment" is actually closer to early textual descriptions than the theology that is currently under fire.


CG Didymus :

As soon as Robin1 gives all of us his answer as to what sins a one month-old infant/baby would be committing, then, perhaps I can give you examples from early Christian textual traditions describing their belief on these matters. I think you will see that the modern theories are NOT the same and NOT as coherent; NOT as logical and NOT as “just” as the early Christian traditions.


Clear
σεδρσισεδρω

 

[JM2C]

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.

Why was the shepherd of Hermas included in the N.T.?

An unknown writer who never witness the Lord Jesus Christ earthly ministry and was written between AD 140-155.

So, this book is nothing but a reinterpretation or just a personal opinion of a theologian or commentaries and not as a divinely inspired book, or should we call them, the shepherd of Hermas and the epistle of Barnabas, post-enlightenment, just like some of the books that other religions were reading today. They were all post-enlightened by Christianity.

 

[JM2C]

Their New Testament said : “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

Again, Hermas was written AD 140-155 and not a divinely inspired book nor an eyewitness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[JM2C]

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?

Base on Hermas and Barnabas? Two very late unknown writers that were preceded by the FIRST Christian generation writers that were eyewitnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ that wrote the 4 Gospels, the book of Acts, Paul’s epistles, and Peter’s and James’, and Jude’s. These authors were divinely enlightened by the Holy Spirit during the writings and not post-enlightened like Hermas and Barnabas, or by any human mind, or theologians.


Would we rather follow the human reinterpretation than the inspired writings of the apostles?


Your analogy of Barnabas’ and Hermas’ against Matthew’s was really just a baseless theory and nothing else.

 

[Nakosis]

Two very late unknown writers that were preceded by the FIRST Christian generation writers that were eyewitnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ that wrote the 4 Gospels, the book of Acts, Paul’s epistles, and Peter’s and James’, and Jude’s. These authors were divinely enlightened by the Holy Spirit during the writings and not post-enlightened like Hermas and Barnabas, or by any human mind, or theologians.

Do you have any compelling evidence to support this claim? The biblical authors are unknown and Paul never met Jesus.

How do you know they were divinely inspired and even if they were, what does that mean? That they were no longer human and capable of error?

 

[JM2C]

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
These are not theories or fanciful human sophistries. These are facts came from the bible, the very word of God.