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

[CG Didymus]

I don’t know why you can not understand that there is no difference between “babies sin constantly” and infants were morally “depraved”.


No offend here. Read this until you are blue in the face:
Men did not become sinners because men sin. Men sin because men were sinners to begin with.
Constantly sinning, adults or babies, are just the fruits of this depravity.


Human are born depraved and ‘cause of this depravity human can not know God.


Isaiah said, Isa 64:6 “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” in the sight of the almighty God. Meaning no one can do good enough to impress God because human were born depraved.


If you can not understand this simple explanation that all men were born depraved then you are deceived by your belief, whatever that is.

Here's the link to a Jewish site that says this:

The term “original sin” is unknown to the Jewish Scriptures, and the Church’s teachings on this doctrine are antithetical to the core principles of the Torah and its prophets. Moreover, your comment that your Christian denomination teaches that water baptism is essential for the removal of sin may rattle the sensitivities of more Christians than anything I am going to say. Nevertheless, you have raised a number of important issues that must be addressed.
Before answering your question, however, I will explain the Christian doctrine on original sin for those unfamiliar with this creed of the Church. According to Church teachings, as a result of the first sin committed by our first parents in the Garden of Eden, there were catastrophic spiritual consequences for the human race. Most importantly, Christendom holds that these devastating effects extend far beyond the curses of painful childbirth and laborious farming conditions outlined in the third chapter of Genesis.

This well-known Church doctrine posits that when Adam and Eve rebelled against God and ate from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge, all of their descendants became infected with the stain of their transgression.
Moreover, as a consequence of this first iniquity, man is hopelessly lost in a state of sin in which he has been held captive since this fall. As a result, he is powerless to follow the path of obedience and righteousness by his own free will.
Rather, missionaries contend, because all are born with an innate and uncontrollable lust for sin, man can do nothing to merit his own salvation. In essence, man is totally depraved, and true free will is far beyond his grasp. “Totally depraved” may seem to be a harsh way for a Christian doctrine to depict mankind’s dire condition, yet this is precisely the term used by the Church to describe man’s desperate, sinful predicament. It is only through faith in Jesus, Christendom concludes, that hopeless man can be saved.

You stated in your question that the doctrine of original sin teaches that “all human beings are born with an innate tendency to disobey God.” While this statement is superficially correct, it fails to convey the far-reaching scope of this Church doctrine. Although Christianity does teach that the entire human race is born with an evil inclination, this tenet encompasses a far more extreme position than the one that you briefly outlined.

In fact, missionaries insist that as a result of the fall in the Garden of Eden, man’s unquenchable desire for sin is virtually ungovernable. In Christian terms, man is not inclined toward sin but more accurately is a slave to sin. As a result, the Church concludes, short of converting to Christianity, humanity can do nothing to save itself from hell.

Bear in mind, there is good reason for the Church’s uncompromising stand on this cherished doctrine. The founders of Christianity understood that if man, through his devotion and obedience to God, can save himself from eternal damnation, the Church would very little to offer their parishioners. Moreover, if righteousness can be achieved through submission to the commandments outlined in the Torah, what possible benefit could Jesus’ death provide for mankind? Such selfprobing thoughts, however, were unimaginable to those who shaped Christian theology.

Despite the zealous position missionaries take as they defend this creed, the Christian doctrine of original sin is profoundly hostile to the central teachings of the Jewish Scriptures. The Torah loudly condemns the alien teaching that man is unable to freely choose good over evil, life over death. This is not a hidden or ambiguous message in the Jewish Scriptures. On the contrary, it is proclaimed in Moses’ famed teachings to the children of Israel.

In fact, in an extraordinary sermon delivered by Moses in the last days of his life, the prophet stands before the entire nation and condemns the notion that man’s condition is utterly hopeless. Throughout this uplifting exhortation, Moses declared that it is man alone who can and must merit his own salvation. Moreover, as he unhesitatingly speaks in the name of God, the lawgiver excoriates the notion that obedience to the Almighty is “too difficult or far off.” According, he declared to the children of Israel that righteousness has been placed within their reach. The thirtieth chapter of Deuteronomy discusses this matter extensively, and its verses read as though the Torah is bracing the Jewish people for the Christian doctrines that would confront them in the centuries to come. As the last Book of the Pentateuch draws to a close, Moses admonishes his young nation not to question their capacity to remain faithful to the mitzvoth of the Torah:

…if you will hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law; if you turn unto the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul; for this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you neither is it too far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, and make us hear it, that we may do it?” Neither is it beyond the sea that you should say: “Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it that we may do it?” The word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

(Deuteronomy 30:10-14)​

The Jewish people have drawn great comfort and encouragement from this uplifting promise. For the Church, however, Moses’ unwavering message creates a theological disaster. How could the authors of the New Testament reasonably insist that man’s dire condition was hopeless if the Torah unambiguously declared that man possessed an extraordinary ability to remain faithful to God? How could the Church fathers possibly contend that the mitzvoth in the Torah couldn’t save the Jewish people when the Creator proclaimed otherwise? How could missionaries conceivably maintain that the commandments of the Torah are too difficult when the Torah declares that they are “not far off,” “not too hard,” and “you may do it”?

This staggering problem did not escape the attention of Paul. Bear in mind, the author of Romans and Galatians constructed his most consequential doctrines on the premise that man is utterly depraved, and therefore incapable of saving himself through his own obedience to God. In chapter after chapter, he directs his largely gentile audiences toward the cross and away from Sinai, as he repeatedly insists that man is utterly lost without Jesus.

Yet, how could Paul harmonize this wayward theology with the Jewish Scriptures in which his teachings were not only unknown, but thoroughly condemned? Even with the nimble skills that Paul possessed, welding together the Church’s young doctrine of original sin with diametrically opposed teachings of the Jewish Scriptures would not be a simple task.

Employing unparalleled literary manipulation, however, Paul manages to conceal this vexing theological problem with a swipe of his well-worn eraser. In fact, Paul’s innovative approach to biblical tampering was so stunning that it would set the standard of scriptural revisionism for future New Testament authors.

Hmmm? Who's lying? Who am I to believe?

 

[JM2C]

REGARDING THE FIRST CLAUSE IN BLUE
The greek verse introduces as the subject-noun, a class of individuals called “οι αμαρτωλοι” (“the “sinners&#8221.

It is speaking in the plural rather than a single class.

It is not just “sinners”, but, with the article present, it is speaking of THE sinners, as a specific class of individuals who are the main subject of the entire sentence.

The subject is NOT “infants” and there is no word implying infants are in the class spoken of.

With the definite article as in “THE SINNERS” meaning not “SINNERS”, without the definite article, only meant that the psalmist was describing the whole humanity as “THE SINNERS”, and if it was “SINNERS” only without the definite article, then your analogy of a certain group would be acceptable, but in this case, since you knew Classical Greek very well, I might as well go with the flow or go with your Classical Greek expertise analogy which really just contradicted your arguments that all infants were NOT born depraved.


Since you claim that you knew Greek very well, can you tell the difference between these two verses in Classical Greek?


Jn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

BTW LXX/OG were not written in Koine Greek

 

[JM2C]

Here's the link to a Jewish site that says this: Hmmm? Who's lying? Who am I to believe?

Who said that the word "Original Sin" originated from Christianity? Just like the Judeo-Christian.

 

[CG Didymus]

Here's some more of Rabbi Tovia Singer's article:

A classic example of this biblical revisionism can be found in Romans 10:8 where Paul proclaims that he is quoting directly from Scripture as he records the words of Deuteronomy 30:14. Yet as he approaches the last portion of this verse, he carefully stops short of the Torah’s vital conclusion and expunges the remaining segment of this crucial verse. In Romans

Paul writes,
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach).

(Romans 10:8)​

Predictably, the last words of Deuteronomy 30:14, “that you may do it,” were meticulously deleted by Paul. Bear in mind that he had good reason for removing this clause – the powerful message conveyed in these closing words rendered all that Paul was preaching as heresy.
This startling misquote in the Book of Romans stands out as a remarkable illustration of Paul’s ability to shape Scriptures in order to create the illusion that his theological message conformed to the principles of the Torah. By removing the final segment of this verse, Paul succeeded in convincing his unlettered gentile readers that his Christian teachings were supported by the principles of the Hebrew Bible.
Compare

· [FONT="]Deuteronomy 30:14[/FONT]

But the word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.
· [FONT="]Romans 10:8[/FONT]

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach)
The question that immediately comes to mind is: How can Paul deliberately remove a vital clause from Moses’ message and still expect to gain a following among the Jewish people? While considering this question, we can begin to understand why Paul attained great success among his gentile audiences and utterly failed among the Jews who were unimpressed with his contrived message.
Although both Paul and Matthew quoted extensively from the Jewish Scriptures, it is for this reason that they achieved a dramatically different result. Paul was largely a minister to gentile audiences who were completely ignorant of the Jewish Scriptures (the only Bible in existence at the time). As a result, they did not possess the skills necessary to discern between genuine Judaism and Bible tampering. These illiterate masses were understandably vulnerable, and as a result, unflinchingly consumed everything that Paul wrote. In fact, throughout the New Testament it was exclusively the Jewish apostates to Christianity who challenged Paul’s authority, never the gentile community. Matthew, on the other hand, directed all of his evangelism and Bible quotes to Jewish audiences.


Jewish people, however, were well aware that Matthew manipulated their Bible. As a result, the first Gospel completely failed to reach its intended Jewish readers. It required little more than a perfunctory reading of the first few chapters in the Book of Matthew for Jewish people to conclude that there was no prophecy in Isaiah that foretold a virgin birth. Likewise, the Jewish people were doubly unimpressed with Matthew’s claim that the messiah was to be a resident of Nazareth, when no such prophecy existed. The people of Israel grasped that Matthew willfully corrupted their sacred Scriptures. Consequently, the author of the first Gospel failed in his effort to convert his targeted Jewish audiences to Christianity.
Ironically, therefore, no individual in history who was more responsible for the strong resistance of the Jewish people to the Christian message than the author of the Book of Matthew. In contrast, the person most responsible for the Church’s unparalleled success among the gentiles was unquestionably the apostle Paul. Not surprisingly, throughout the biblical narrative, gentiles were unable to discern between spiritual chaff and wheat, truth and heresy. Accordingly, the Jews were repeatedly warned never to emulate them. Tragically, some of our people missed this crucial message.
Paul, however, should have been tipped off that his teachings on original sin were misguided, and his broad-brushed characterization of humanity was without merit. In fact, the Jewish Scriptures repeatedly praised numerous men of God for their unwavering righteousness.
For example, the Bible declared that men like Calev1 and King Josiah2 were faithful throughout their extraordinary lives. Moreover, because of their devotion to their Creator, Abraham and Daniel were the objects of the Almighty’s warm affection as He tenderly referred to Abraham as “My friend,”3 and Daniel, “beloved.”4 These extraordinary men of God did not merit these remarkable superlatives because they believed in Jesus or depended on a blood atonement. Rather, Scripture testified to their faithfulness because of their devotion to God and unyielding obedience to His Torah.
Job’s unique loyalty to God stands as a stunning enigma to Christian theology as well. Here was a man who was severely tested by Satan and endured unimaginable personal tragedies, yet despite these afflictions, Job remains the model of the righteous servant of God. While in Christian theology Job’s personal spiritual triumph is a theological impossibility, in Jewish terms it stands out as the embodiment of God’s salvation program for mankind. Job didn’t rely on Jesus to save him and he certainly did not turn to the cross for his redemption; rather, it was his obedience to God that made his life a paradigm for all humanity.
Paul’s unfounded doctrine of original sin sullies the exemplary legacies of these and many other great men of God. Moreover, Christians must ponder whether it is an insult to the Creator to label all of God’s human creation depraved.

 

[CG Didymus]

Here's the rest of the article:

Quite unwittingly, Luke committed a striking theological blunder that severely undermined Paul’s teachings on original sin. In the first chapter of The Book of Luke, the evangelist sought to portray Elizabeth, who is the cousin of Mary, and her husband Zechariah, as the virtuous parents of John the Baptist. Yet in his zeal to characterize the baptizer’s mother and father as saints, Luke writes,
“Both of them
[Zechariah and Elizabeth][/Zechariah] were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.”

(Luke 1:6)​

The question that comes to mind is how can missionaries possibly harmonize Paul’s claim that every person born into the world is a slave to sin, when Luke insists that Elizabeth and Zechariah were to be regarded as “blameless”? This is a stunning gaffe for Luke to make when it was he who eagerly promoted Paul in his Book of Acts. Luke’s assertion that this couple observed “all the Lord’s commandments” radically contradicts Paul’s central teaching that no one is capable of keeping the mitzvoth of the Torah. After all, according to Christian theology, Luke’s claim that Zachariah and Elizabeth were sinless, is untenable. There can be no doubt that in an effort to portray the parents of John the Baptist as saintly – in a similar manner that their cousin Mary was portrayed in the same Gospel – Luke abandoned Christian theology and forged his story to cast Zachariah and Elizabeth as sinless as well.
Paul never lived to read the Book of Luke, yet throughout his epistles Paul sidesteps any statement in the Jewish Scriptures that could undermine his teaching on original sin. For example, immediately after the sin of Adam and Eve is narrated, the Torah declares that man can master his passionate lust for sin. God turns to Cain and warns him,
If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? If, though, you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you shall master over it.

(Genesis 4:6-7)​

For the architects of Christian theology, including Paul, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, this declaration of man’s ability to restrain and govern his lust for sin is nothing short of heresy. Moreover, the fact that the Torah places the comforting promise immediately following the sin in the Garden of Eden is profoundly troubling for the Church. How5 can depraved humanity control its iniquity when the Book of Romans repeatedly insists that man can do nothing to release himself from sin’s powerful grip? Yet notice that there is nothing in the Eden narrative that could be construed as support for Paul’s teaching on humanity’s dire condition. On the contrary, in just these two inspiring verses, the Torah dispels forever the Church’s teachings on original sin.
There is one final point to be addressed in a passing statement you raised in your question. I was somewhat puzzled by your comment that your brand of Christianity teaches that “water baptism is required for the removal of this sin.” It is not uncommon for Christians to relate some personal tidbit about their religious beliefs somewhere in the course of their question. What was so surprising about your comment, however, is that your Church has simply replaced one commandment with another. On the one hand, your Church teaches that the commandments explicitly ordained by the Torah are to be abandoned by believing Christians. Yet in the very same breath, your Church then introduces this brand new commandment declaring that its parishioners must undergo a water baptism to be saved. It would seem more logical that if you were going to observe commandments, you ought to consider devoting your loyalty to those mitzvoth ordained by God, rather than those introduced by your pastor and deacons.
The notion that man is saved by emersion in water, or forgiven through human blood is unknown to the Jewish Scriptures. The Almighty does, however, clearly lay out His sovereign plan for His covenant people when he declares, “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil.” (Deuteronomy 30:15) What is this “life” and “good” of which the Torah speaks? Missionaries insist that the Jewish nation must convert to Christianity and believe in a crucified messiah in order to be saved. The Torah, however, disagrees. Throughout the Hebrew Bible the Almighty unambiguously declares that the children of Israel are to draw near to Him with intense love and faithfully keep His commandments. This is the desire of the Creator. Moses beseeches the children of Israel,
I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees, and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

(Deuteronomy 30:16)​

Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, remained intensely loyal to God’s commandments and, as a result, the Torah regards our first patriarch as the paradigm of faithfulness.
I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands, and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.

(Genesis 26:4-5)​

The Almighty did not give us desires that we cannot govern or commandments that we could not keep. The Torah was not delivered to angels or animals. It was given to the children of Israel long after our first ancestors transgressed in the Garden of Eden.
Why would God command His people to observe a Torah that He knew we could not keep, promise us that we can full the mitzvos, and then punish us for not being obedient to commandments that we couldn’t keep in the first place? Would any loving parent raise his child that way? With warmth, the prophets of Israel beseech those who lost their way to turn back to the Merciful One.
In Jewish terms, sin is not a person, it’s an event, and that event happened yesterday. Yesterday ended last night, and today is a new day.
Best wishes for a happy Purim.

Very sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

Come on Christians, where did you come up with the "depraved" thing again? It wasn't from the Hebrew Bible. Unless you're taking a verse from here and there to create a doctrine. You wouldn't do such a thing, would you?

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

1) JM2C said : With the definite article as in “THE SINNERS” meaning not “SINNERS”, without the definite article, only meant that the psalmist was describing the whole humanity as “THE SINNERS”,

JM2C : You are confused and your point makes no sense, The verse in Greek HAS the article. Your statement is therefore Incoherent as well as incorrect. Ask someone you trust who can read greek to show you the article.

Will you explain to us why you think the actual text itself means “the whole humanity”, past, present, and future, since απηλλοτριωθησαν is in past tense? I believe that most of us learned in English grammar that past tense applies to the past.

Can you explain to forum members why do you think the ancients who read this would have assumed οι αμαρτολοι combined with a verb in past tense should mean “the whole humanity” (i.e. past, present, future) since forum members can look the words up and see they mean something entirely different?

If you think that in this verse it applies to present or future, can you explain why we should change the grammatical meaning of this verse to support your theology? For example : If you do think we should change the meaning of the words, Upon what linguistic or translational rule would you change the obvious meaning of the words to take on a different meaning?

JM2C : I quite understand the desire to read one’s personal theology into the words of a verse. It seems you are doing this very thing in this case. The verse truly is in past tense and thus, does not apply to brand new infants and it does not mean that brand new infants are morally "depraved". Please, rather than taking my word for it, copy and paste the greek through a site that can translate greek and you will see this is correct.



2) JM2C said : “and if it was “SINNERS” only without the definite article, then your analogy of a certain group would be acceptable, but in this case, since you knew Classical Greek very well, I might as well go with the flow or go with your Classical Greek expertise analogy which really just contradicted your arguments that all infants were NOT born depraved.

JM2C, You are confused.

First of all, this scripture is not even written in “Classical Greek”.

It is in a dialect of Greek which evolved and changed, THIS is why I keep quoting the time periods associated with my examples from the papyri with the quote, since, some of the readers that have historical backgrounds in the text, realize that both the dialect and the time period affects the meaning.

For example : απαρτι meant “exactly” in Ionic, but, it means “quite the contrary” in Attic (c.f. Rutherford). Various Greek dialects continued to evolve as one exits the period of κοινη. For example, ολιγος drops the γ about the 3rd century and this omission spread over the entire greek-speaking world. (c.f. Thackery) This is important since entire religious theories are created with a single, unfortunate mis-translation. For example, the theology created by the unfortunate rendering the compound word προ-οριζω as “pre-destinated” in Eph 1:5 &11….


Secondly, I do NOT claim to “know greek very well”. In fact, I claim that almost all of us are like “kindergarteners” in our understanding of how the ancient individuals would have understood the greek making up the various sacred manuscripts, myself included.

For example : Even the single and specific effort by Moulton and Milligan who actually examined thousands of koine papyri from Christian enclaves and other sites demonstrated the actual people who used Koine, used words differently than translators of bibles had previously assumed. Entire lexicons and Greek dictionaries were re-written to accommodate this simple but important discovery. AND, there are many, many such linguistic discoveries going on.

No, I am NOT an expert at greek, but, instead, realize very clearly that I am simply learning about these principles just like everyone else with similar interests. I am glad to discover that you have some background and knowledge of greek since you are discussing it in this way. However, you are abusing its meaning in your attempt to convince forum readers to accept your theory that “all humanity”, including innocent new infants” are depraved”.

I’ll use your reference to Isaiah 64:6 and your claim as to what it means as an example of how you are not giving forum readers the correct context, but instead, are forcing YOUR personal meaning onto a scripture.


POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO


REGARDING JM2Cs USE OF ISAIAH 64:6 TO CONVINCE FORUM MEMBERS THAT INFANTS AND ALL OTHERS ARE MORALLY “DEPRAVED”


JM2C said : Isaiah said, Isa 64:6 “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” in the sight of the almighty God. Meaning no one can do good enough to impress God because human were born depraved.
JM2C further adds : “… all men were born depraved then you are deceived by your belief, whatever that is…”



FORUM READERS – Consider this verse that JM2C offers us, claiming it means that all men were born depraved or that brand new infants are morally "depraved".



JM2C offered us ONLY verse 6, and only a portion of that single verse, to support his theory and gives us his theory as to what the verse means. What happens if we add some context by adding the prior verse five (5) to the text?

Both verses 5 and 6 from LXX (Benton) read :
“vs5 For he shall meet with those doing justice and your ways shall be remembered. Behold, you have been provoked to anger, and we have sinned; on account of this we have been made to wander. Vs 6: And we all have become as unclean; all our righteousness is as a rag sitting apart; and we have flowed away as leaves on account of our lawless deeds; thus the wind shall bear us away.” (Isa 64:5-6 Benton, LXX)

Forum readers , NOW, with just a tiny bit of extra context, does verse six actually mean what JM2C says it means? Is Isaiah telling us that infants and the “whole of humanity” is born depraved, or is Isaiah speaking of the moral lapses of Israel in verse six?.

Verse five tells us :
1) there are those in this group who are “doing justice” in this group. It is NOT the entire group and those who are “doing justice” are certainly not morally “depraved”.

2) Isaiah himself is part of the group of people he is referring to since he refers to them as “we” / ημεις (Israel) ”we have sinned” and “we have been made to wander” Isaiah belongs to the very group he is chastising for their sins. (Israel) and his group has “ been made to “wander” (Isaiahs group wanders - Israel)


Verse six tells us :
1) Isaiah says of this group : WE ..have become.. unclean.They did not necessarily start out unclean, but WE ..have become.. unclean. The verb does not say, we WERE unclean, but instead indicates a transition from one state INTO another state of being.

Historically, what group is Isaiah part of that had become unclean? Israel.


2) OUR righteousness (ημων) was as a rag “discarded” (αποκαθημενης does not mean actually mean “filthy. However, one can see why a translator rendered it as "filthy".

In either case ("filthy" or "discarded"), the visual image is of a rag that was used, and thus had become dirty, and thus, for this reason, was discarded – Benton renders this phrase “a rag sitting apart” in LXX, but I think “discarded” is more efficient for the meaning and symbolism. The underlying visual symbolism is that one started with a clean rag, but, because the rag itself became dirty, it was discarded temporarily as tool of cleaning (because it had become dirty, it could no long cleanse what it was supposed to cleanse).

I hope readers can see that this verse in greater context does NOT have the implication that “all humanity” is “depraved” but this represents a specific group of individuals who had been clean but had become unrighteous. The text does NOT tells us that “all of humanity is depraved”, but must be taken OUT of context in order to force a meaning upon it that it never had.

I believe that as individuals look more closely, one notes that such misinterpretations, and abuse of scriptures and their meanings underlie the creation of this theory that all mankind, including innocent infants, “sin constantly” and “are depraved”.

The early Christian belief that Infants come to this world innocent and are not morally “depraved” is, I think, more coherent and more logical and more sensible than the theory that newborn infants are morally "depraved". .


JM2C , I hope you realize that, although I criticize your theory, it does not reflect upon my personal respect for you, nor does it mean that I do not wish you the best journey in this life. I truly wish you happiness as your beliefs evolve. I hope there are more areas we can agree on in future discussions.


Clear
σεφινεδρειω

 

[Clear]

I should not have introduced any sarcasm in my response in post one above since it obscures my point. Instead of editing the post I wanted to clarify my response to JM2Cs claim.

JM2C said : With the definite article as in “THE SINNERS” meaning not “SINNERS”, without the definite article, only meant that the psalmist was describing the whole humanity as “THE SINNERS”,

JM2C : You are confused and your point makes no sense and perhaps you misunderstood my explanation, The verse in Greek Old Testaments HAS the article ("οι"). Thus your statement is Incoherent as well as incorrect.

Since you do not seem to trust me, ask someone you trust who can read greek to show you the article and explain to you what it means.

Clear

 

[Clear]

Robin1 and other Forum readers :

Regarding the concept of “Debt or obligation to God that individuals come with upon being born”

Hi robin1; I'd like to search for some specific common ground regarding our agreement that individuals have some sort of obligation to God at birth but yet we disagree as to what sort of obligation we have and how it accrued. I am thinking of ways we can consider these theories without causing one another frustration or anger so that our considerations are more efficient and conclusions more a collaboration rather than contentious.


1) When was an obligation accrued (regardless of it's type)

IF an individual comes to earth as an infant (as we all do), and if, upon coming to earth an individual spirit inside the infant, already has some sort of debt or obligation towards God; THEN it is logical and rational that such an obligation is connected to some condition(s) associated with birth or prior to birth.



2) If obligation to God is present AT birth, then it was logically accrued either AT or BEFORE birth

The context of pre-mortal existence of spirits
IF the early Judeo-Christians were correct that all intelligent spirits of mankind had a conscious existence prior to being born, then I believe your claim for obligation at birth is more logical, more rational and more secure inside of this worldview rather than inside the ex-nihilo (i.e. creation from “nothing&#8221 worldview where a new infant is responsible for the sin of another person of another age. Is there any agreement we can come to on this specific point?



3) The context of mortality as a tutoring experience for spirits of mankind
IF the early Judeo-Christians were correct that the earth and it’s experiences of mortality were created as a method to teach spirits by their own experience the concepts and effects of both good and evil and the disastrous consequences of evil, is there some way inside of that worldview that you can imagine any debt or obligation that is created by this apprenticeship?

For example, Jewish Zohar describes this context of the world as a place of tutoring the spirits who come into it. Speaking of the spirits of mankind he first asks : ”...why do they [spirits of mankind] descend to this world only to be taken thence at some future time? “This may be explained by way of a simile: A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace. When the king is informed that his son is now come to maturity, the king, out of his love, sends the matron his mother to bring him back into the palace, and there the king rejoices with him every day." (Zohar – A seal..)

In this simile, does the son accrue a debt or obligation to the Father for his education? (I would be more clear but I don't want to affect your conclusion..)

This same context of mortality as a place of tutoring is used by early Christians For example, the great apostolic Father, bishop Ignatius, speaks to the Christians saying : “For I am only beginning to be a disciple, and I speak to you as my fellow students. For I need to be trained by you in faith, instruction, endurance, and patience”. Ignatius to the Ephesians 3:1 It will become obvious that there was a specific reason why mankind was to learn moral and social laws as a priority and preparation in this worldview.

I believe that the early Christians such as Ignatius understood that IF Gods plan was to prepare spirits to live in a social heaven together in eternal joy and harmony, then the spirits of mankind would have to learn about, understand, and master the living of those moral and social laws which could support such a society in harmony and joy for ever. This is the context underlying the zohar’s example of educating a child “into the ways of the palace”. Relatively uneducated spirits of mankind needed to learn to live together.

It’s not just a future “heaven” which requires beings capable and willing to live certain social laws, but any calm, joyful, unified, civilized existence for any social group also requires the group to live certain social laws. You cannot have bullies and oppressors and rapists and murderers in such a society and still maintain calm unified joyful existence for ever. Thus, the individuals not wanting to live these social laws must be, somehow, identified and separated from those who are willing and able to live those social laws.

This "domestication" and education itself, is based on logical and obvious basic principles. It was said in the context of tutoring as a “domestication” : “There are domestic animals like the bull and the as s and others of this kind. Others are wild and live apart in the deserts. Man plows the field by means of the domestic animals, and from this he feeds both himself and the animals, whether tame or wild. Compare the perfect man. It is through powers which are submissive that he plows, preparing for everything to come into being. For it is because of this that the whole place stands, whether the good or the evil, the right and the left. The Holy spirit shepherds everyone and rules all the powers, the “tame” ones and the “wild” ones, as well as those who are unique.” The gospel of Phillip

The point is that mankind most efficiently plows and organizes and creates mainly through civilized and domesticated processes and beings. "Wild" and unruly ones do not contribute in the same way. It is the domesticated and civilized beings which are able to feed and care for all others who live from their production and that which they organize and prepare for the benefit of themselves AND others who do not produce.

If this early Judeo-Christian model where God created mortality as a process of education is correct, Can you see any way that in such a context where God accomplishes this great and grand organization for the sake of mankind, that an obligation to God is created and exists from birth (or even from before birth?)

My point is NOT to say that such early Christian beliefs are perfectly true or false, but rather to show that these early Christian beliefs create coherent and logical models for obligation to a God who wants to allow mankind to become morally educated for mankinds benefit rather than for his own. I also wanted to demonstrate that your concept of debt or obligation can exist inside earlier and different Christian tradition and worldview in rational and logical ways.

In any case Robin1 I hope it makes sense that multiple models existed for what God was planning and what his purpose was for creating a world where we experience intense and terrible evils and that such evil can serve a purpose for the education of spirits of beings who will exist for billions of years and need to be “immunized” against evil by the very education of what it is and the temporary but terrible experiences associated with it in mortality.

Is there any agreement we can come to as to whether an obligation can exist in both models? (though the type of debt, it’s manner of accrual and the coherency and logic of these models may differ)

Clear
σεφυτζδρτωω

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You opinion, a mere human, over God’s word?

You think that robin1 is God?

 

[Nakosis]

I never said Christian do not change. The change in my life was astronomic and every one who knows me would testify to it but I am a still long way from perfect. Look at Johnny Cash and Foreman or countless other examples and the radical changes in their lives, yet they are not perfect. I never even hinted that perfection was not the goal we strive towards just that no one ever gets there and no one should find any fault in us not doing so. If your waiting to earn or merit perfection you will never find it, it is impossible. It is also arrogant according to the bible. To tell God no thanks concerning what only he can do and resolve to climb into heaven by another door was specifically condemned by Christ. The standard is perfection and only God can provide the satisfaction. To claim we can is to equate ourselves with God.

Yes but why try for doing good if you believe you are defeated before you start? Nothing you do will ever be good enough to please your Father. Whatever good you do has nothing to do with the choices you make. If you're saved you're saved. If you're not you're not. Everything else is window dressing for the Holiday.

Why try to climb the ladder at all. Just wait for God to reach down, grab you by your back-side and haul you up.

 

[CG Didymus]

Who said that the word "Original Sin" originated from Christianity? Just like the Judeo-Christian.

Did you read the article?

 

[JM2C]

POST ONE OF TWO
1) JM2C said : With the definite article as in “THE SINNERS” meaning not “SINNERS”, without the definite article, only meant that the psalmist was describing the whole humanity as “THE SINNERS”,
JM2C : You are confused and your point makes no sense, The verse in Greek HAS the article. Your statement is therefore Incoherent as well as incorrect. Ask someone you trust who can read greek to show you the article.

This is your translation/interpretation

It is not just “sinners”, but, with the article present, it is speaking of THE sinners, as a specific class of individuals who are the main subject of the entire sentence.

Do you know what is definite article? In this case we are talking of the “The” or “ho” in Greek.

“Not just “sinners” but “speaking of The sinners” with the definite article “The”. The definite article “The” with the noun “sinners” becomes more definitive of the noun, ie, “Sinners” and therefore becomes “The Sinners” instead of just “sinners” w/out the definite article.

And this was my response:

With the definite article as in “THE SINNERS” meaning not “SINNERS”, without the definite article, only meant that the psalmist was describing the whole humanity as “THE SINNERS”, and if it was “SINNERS” only, without the definite article, then your analogy of a certain group would be acceptable, but in this case, since you knew Classical Greek very well, I might as well go with the flow or go with your Greek expertise analogy which really just contradicted your arguments that all infants were NOT born depraved.


Can you conjugate this Greek words απηλλοτριωθησαν, επλανηθησαν, ελαλησαν, ψευδη. so that we could understand it better if the word “estranged” is really in the past tense or in aorist tense base on the conjugation of these Greek words.

　

Will you explain to us why you think the actual text itself means “the whole humanity”, past, present, and future, since απηλλοτριωθησαν is in past tense? I believe that most of us learned in English grammar that past tense applies to the past.

For the simple reason or should I ask, were you born perfect or without a sin at all?

 

[JM2C]

Because this is past tense, this is speaking of a specific group of sinners who WERE already differentiated not from Birth, but from the womb.
“απο μητρας” does NOT mean “from birth” (i.e. it is does not mean an infant), but the words mean “from the womb”, that is, from before birth.

Before birth is still in the womb, wicked already, then after birth it becomes an infant.

Are you now saying that when a wicked baby or an infant, that is still in womb, then comes out of the womb, that infant’s status changes from wicked to perfect?

Apple seeds then becomes apple and not an orange.

 

[JM2C]

Did you read the article?

Do you think you were born without a sin or born perfect?
I hope you can answer this with a yes or no

 

[JM2C]

No, I am NOT an expert at greek, but, instead, realize very clearly that I am simply learning about these principles just like everyone else with similar interests. I am glad to discover that you have some background and knowledge of greek since you are discussing it in this way. However, you are abusing its meaning in your attempt to convince forum readers to accept your theory that “all humanity”, including innocent new infants” are depraved”.

You are not an expert in Classical Greek but you call me

You are simply and ignorantly repeating a usage you were taught or that seemed to apply to your use.

You know LegionOnomaMoi speaks fluent Classical Greek, may we could ask him.

We can learn a lot with facts

 

[JM2C]

Both verses 5 and 6 from LXX (Benton) read :
“vs5 For he shall meet with those doing justice and your ways shall be remembered. Behold, you have been provoked to anger, and we have sinned; on account of this we have been made to wander. Vs 6: And we all have become as unclean; all our righteousness is as a rag sitting apart; and we have flowed away as leaves on account of our lawless deeds; thus the wind shall bear us away.” (Isa 64:5-6 Benton, LXX)

I have a Brenton LXX that says, “and all our righteousness as a filthy rags” and NO “sitting apart”

 

[JM2C]

Verse five tells us :
1) there are those in this group who are “doing justice” in this group. It is NOT the entire group and those who are “doing justice” are certainly not morally “depraved”.

Justice? Telling lies, that is injustice, but if one base an argument from the bible, that is justice, and the meaning of justice is telling the truth base on the truth and not on emotion.


Emotions can be intemperance that leads to injustice and fearfulness and then ignorance, just the opposite of what a classic Greek thinkers should have, courage, temperance, justice, and wisdom.

 

[1robin]

Yes but why try for doing good if you believe you are defeated before you start? Nothing you do will ever be good enough to please your Father. Whatever good you do has nothing to do with the choices you make. If you're saved you're saved. If you're not you're not. Everything else is window dressing for the Holiday.

Why try to climb the ladder at all. Just wait for God to reach down, grab you by your back-side and haul you up.

It is amazing how many people reject something without knowing even it's more basic tenants.

1. I am not defeated. I can do good, I can succeed, I can assist God in his work, I can represent Christ by doing things he did at times, I can feed the hungry, I can cloth the poor, I can speak up about systematic murder in the case of abortion, I can resist tyranny, and I can die for freedom, etc..... I will never do them all perfectly but at times I can do them sufficiently.
2. I am not defeated. Christ won the battle for me. My job is to act consistently with that victory and at that I can succeed, but never perfectly. I am not climbing a ladder (in this case the ladder would be infinitely tall). I am reflecting the fact Christ crossed the chasm for me.
3. Besides being able to succeed at times, just the effort alone does some good. People are fed, sickness is cured, science is done. I am not doing them to be approved, I am doing them out of thankfulness of having been approved.
4. Only with no ultimate hope do I lack sufficient reasons to risk my life to help others. If I only get this life, I would selfishly guard it and not risk it in defending anyone else. I would look at the drowning guy and say better you than me, but because I have hope of existing forever in a much better place I can look at him and what Christ did and try and help him.


Atheism is not devoid of reasons to help (although no one actually thinks through social Darwinism's vagaries in order to decide to help or not) but it lacks the quantity and quality of reasons that theism has to help. Theism wins in every category.

 

[JM2C]

It would seem to me they are referring to prophecy, but I wouldn't take the passages themselves as prophecies. Which is kind of my point. I think Christians who take everything written by the gospel authors or Paul as prophecy are mistaken.

This is not a mistake or a misprint.

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The word “theopneustos” in 2Ti 3:16 is a combination of two other Greek words: theos ("God") and pneo ("breathe") or God-breathed.

Propheteia in Greek, signifies the speaking forth of the mind and counsel of God. -Vine’s

The prophets and apostles did not speak from themselves, but what they received from the Lord Jesus Christ that they delivered unto us.