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

[1robin]

I've nothing personally against Paul. Most everyone I know have does things they regret. That they regret means they've understood they were in error.

The point is that Paul based his letters on his own experiences. Not something that should be accepted as God Breathed.

I find this anti-Paulism very odd. It is most often held by those who wish to cling to an impossible merit based salvation model. For what reason I can not even guess. I think you reject Paul on other grounds. Before you supply the grounds for rejecting Paul let me list a few factors to be considered.

1. The other apostles rabidly defended the consistency of their message, right or wrong, they were exacting in what they adopted or pronounced.
2. The dispensation of the Holy Spirit at least potentially granted certainty on theological matters. The apostles had the greatest claim to access to that certainty.
3. They were skeptical of Paul and questioned him severely. Every single one accepted his commission.
4. he prevailed in every disagreement.
5. If God is granted then the logical deduction would be that he would never permit anyone to hijack the message he had paid such a price to submit. yet Paul wrote most of the NT.
6. There were witnesses to both the events of the road to Damascus and to his being cured upon arrival, yet not a single "I was there and that did not occur" text exists.
7. Paul's life first demonstrates an unswerving determination to oppose Christ but an almost instant change of heart in his unswerving devotion to Christ.


The most reasonable deductions from these reliable claims is that Paul was commissioned by God and his message is divine. In what way do you disagree?

 

[1robin]

“I was shapen in iniquity” who was the “I” in that sentence? David

I asked repeatedly and no one can answer a simple question. Does anyone here was born sinless? Yes or No.
My answer is No or I was not born sinless

I will add that the standard is perfect obedience to divine moral truth. A child is not even aware of that truth and so could not even potentially perfectly obey it. God does not say they never acted against moral fact, he says he does not condemn them based on their inability to sufficiently perceive moral fact. No harm, no foul, no offense, no basis for emotional rhetoric, no possible claim to sinless-ness, no issue, no relevance to the original point, no nothing.

There is nothing here, can we not get off this baby off ramp?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I will take your word for it. In that case that is the point when it became irrelevant in my case.

I don’t think it’s irrelevant, and I’ve explained why that is.

Are no questions tactics. IMO the greatest tactics come posed as questions to give the impression of legitimate concern. Tactic or not it has no relevance to my position.

It has relevance to your position when you are declaring that babies are not innocent beings when any observer can observe that they are innocent beings.

And if you think that god considers babies to be innocent beings, to suit his own ends, then what’s your big problem with abortion? Won’t all those fetuses just end up straight in heaven, getting to avoid this terrible place called Earth where we’re forced to live and become even more depraved and corrupt, thus ensuring that most of us won’t end up in heaven anyway?

It is up to you what you deduce it is up to me if what you deduce is justification of my time. I have no need to define when babies can commit sin. My only need is to show that no one merits heaven and that children get there by grace not merit. Everything is beyond my concern.

If you have no problem with god commanding the murder of innocent babies in the Bible because they get to bypass life on earth and go straight to heaven, then again I have to ask what your problem with abortion is. And how do you feel about the massive amount of naturally induced miscarriages?

That is doctrine whether it employs semantics or not. I defend doctrine and if it includes semantics I can't help it. Your point is wholly semantic and unknowable anyway plus irrelevant in my case. Mine is as relevant as anything can be even if semantic.

Are you saying that the innocence of babies is unknowable?

When I have stated a thing over and over and over why is it necessary to paraphrase it at all. That's an oversimplified version but ok I guess.

For my own understanding. I’m trying to figure out what you’re telling me.

Irrelevant in my case. Unknowable in either. I only need to show God is not unjust. I do not care about infant morality in it's self.

It’s not irrelevant at all because as I said before, it affects the way human beings behave and what they believe about this world we all have to live in together. Our beliefs affect the way we treat each other, among many other things.

Then you do not know what is. In what way in an evolutionary anomaly perfect. Where is the standard? Why kill perfection for convenience? Why do you equate emotional appeal and truth?

Wow! And you think my worldview is depressing and bleak?
A newborn baby is a human being, in my view. A human being who has yet to commit any immoral action of any kind as they are incapable of it. Hence, they are innocent beings.

Who is killing newborn babies for convenience??

Just what I said you do not know what it is you deny. Jesus' perfection is accredited to our account through substitutionary atonement. You can say you do not like it, you can say you reject and even hate it, you cannot say it is not consistent with the faith I have defended or apparently with the one you reject.

Nobody is perfect in your eyes, and that includes newborn babies. The only “perfect” people then, judging from what you’re saying are those who accept and believe in the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, which is not to say that they are actually perfect, but they are just believing in something and getting a pass to heaven. Even if an atheist is closer to “perfection” in their actions and behaviors than a Christian or Muslim is, that atheist or Muslim still isn’t getting into heaven because they lack the crucial belief which would get them there.

I defend God and you baby diversion doe snot attack him. Why is that perplexing?

Why does god need defending?

What’s perplexing is that you think that the argument that babies are innocent beings is irrelevant.

We (as you admitted) were talking about God's judgment, not legality, not law enforcement, not even Islamic Jurist-prudence. Earthly beliefs have no relevant roll unless I suggest incarceration of baby's, if you ever get around to defining what a baby is exactly. .

We’re actually talking about people’s interpretation of god’s supposed judgments. Earthly actions and beliefs are directly tied to those interpretations. I don’t know how you could deny the connection or consider it irrelevant.

I conservatively defined “baby” for you as a human being who is a newborn (1 second old) to 6 months old.

So? This was not a discussion about what you find agreeable. I find social Darwinism, abortion, secular moral decline, equating deprivation as progress, and hating the diseases homosexuality produces and/or spreads as being hateful. I did not reject them based on my not liking them.

Oh I’m sorry, apparently you’re the only one entitled to an opinion. Or stating opinions as facts. My bad. You gave your opinion on why babies are not innocent but I’m not supposed to be able to explain why I disagree with that opinion?

How do you figure that you don’t reject social Darwinism, secular moral decline, etc. based on your dislike for them?

I find social Darwinism disagreeable too. What’s the relevance to the discussion?

What diseases does homosexuality produce? Also I find it odd that you openly state over and over that you have a problem with diseases that homosexuality produces (whatever those are) or spreads but always fail to take equal issue with the heterosexuals that spread all the same diseases.

When you vote to stop abortion and practicing homosexuality then you have the credibility to assume moral high ground. In the mean time children act self centered, violently, and immorally yet Christians treat them as well or better in spite of it as any group ever has. No foul, no relevance, pure soapbox.

You could have addressed what I said, but instead you decided to go on more about the immorality of children. And then you try to assert that Christians treat babies better than everyone else does. Wow.

I voted against abortion.

Which has what to do with the innocence or guilt of babies?

Why do you defend the supposed murder of babies and children as described in the Bible? Do you understand now how such beliefs manifest themselves in the actions of human beings? The people in the Bible apparently had no problem killing babies and children because they thought some god had commanded it because babies and children are no more innocent than adults (or more likely they used some god to justify their heinous actions). How else could you justify such a terrible action (or belief)?

 

[1robin]

I don’t think it’s irrelevant, and I’ve explained why that is.

It has relevance to your position when you are declaring that babies are not innocent beings when any observer can observe that they are innocent beings.

This will be my last baby post with you. I am giving every poster one final response on this meaningless issue but that is it. It is not apparent what babies are to you, me, or anyone else. They are not prescribing to any moral standard because they have little knowledge of one and little reasoning power. It is far more believable that their thoughts and actions violate moral truths unknown to them that correspond to them. However the argument is a doctrinal one if it is to have any relevance to me. God I indicates over and over that all have sinned, no one has met the mark, anyone who suggests he is sinless is a liar. IOW your going to have to find God saying babies are sinless before you have a point that has any application. The evidence, and logic are on my side. Not that there is much of it.

And if you think that god considers babies to be innocent beings, to suit his own ends, then what’s your big problem with abortion? Won’t all those fetuses just end up straight in heaven, getting to avoid this terrible place called Earth where we’re forced to live and become even more depraved and corrupt, thus ensuring that most of us won’t end up in heaven anyway?

I don't, I believe he considers declaring them innocent to be just because he is just. He gains nothing in the transaction. He requires nothing any of us have. My problem with abortion is that the ones making the decision are not God. The children may end up in heaven in my world view but not in the world views of those who are not Christian. I am indicting an action taken in the absence of certainty. That does not apply to God if he exists and he is not guilt if he does not exist. But my main point is the insane doubles standards employed not primarily the tragedy of the action.

If you have no problem with god commanding the murder of innocent babies in the Bible because they get to bypass life on earth and go straight to heaven, then again I have to ask what your problem with abortion is. And how do you feel about the massive amount of naturally induced miscarriages?

Didn't you just ask this above? One is the act of a being who created the life, who has certainty about what takes place after this life, and the power to enact perfect justice. The other is of a being who has exactly none of those things but is justifying an action their own failure created based on nothing but rhetoric or appeals to rights that require God to begin with and they deny to those they kill. The two actions cannot possibly be more unequal. You might as well ask why if I condemn dismemberment in an alley I don't in a hospital. It is a ridiculous comparison.

Are you saying that the innocence of babies is unknowable?

To us yes. To God no. The evidence easily suggests no baby is acting constantly with moral facts they do not yet have but in the end no person can be sure. However you are objecting to God taking lives not me so this is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is doctrine in that case.

For my own understanding. I’m trying to figure out what you’re telling me.

That babies do not merit heaven anymore than Christians do. Yet by God's grace they are allowed into heaven as Christians are so there is no wrong here by which to condemn God at all. The best you can possibly do is show that my choice of wording before I saw what was going on was imperfect. I would have granted that in general to begin with.

It’s not irrelevant at all because as I said before, it affects the way human beings behave and what they believe about this world we all have to live in together. Our beliefs affect the way we treat each other, among many other things.

No because we are not God. We were discussing what God did or did not do and if it was right or wrong. This was never about human morality not legality. That being said our morality seems to be very similar to God's except we have no moral justification for millions of the lives we take. We do not condemn babies, neither does God. We do acknowledge they act in ways that are not consistent with our moral apprehension and God suggests that intuition is based on fact.

Wow! And you think my worldview is depressing and bleak?
A newborn baby is a human being, in my view. A human being who has yet to commit any immoral action of any kind as they are incapable of it. Hence, they are innocent beings.

Yes a world where we kill babies in the womb for our own convenience without any possible moral justification by the millions is astronomically more depressing than God ordering the deaths of a few thousand lives he created and will treat with perfect justice in order that his people do not learn to practice human sacrifice as the Canaanites taught their children (who survived) to do. Yes your world view is a net loss in every category possible.

Who is killing newborn babies for convenience??

There is no way what so ever you do not know the answer to that question.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Nobody is perfect in your eyes, and that includes newborn babies. The only “perfect” people then, judging from what you’re saying are those who accept and believe in the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, which is not to say that they are actually perfect, but they are just believing in something and getting a pass to heaven. Even if an atheist is closer to “perfection” in their actions and behaviors than a Christian or Muslim is, that atheist or Muslim still isn’t getting into heaven because they lack the crucial belief which would get them there.

No they are imperfect in my view. They will not be made perfect until the judgment. That reminds me of something:

The issue is doctrine. I am not defending man's wisdom. So what is the doctrine. It does not get any clearer or more emphatic than this:

New International Version
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

So as God defines good, not a single mortal human has ever been such. That rules out babies I think. Now you can hate God for that but that is the only relevant issue here.

Why does god need defending?

Because he is being attacked. You would rather me defend him than him to have to step in. He does not need me nor anything external, but has chosen to act through agency at times. Do you think that I think you are a threat to him?

What’s perplexing is that you think that the argument that babies are innocent beings is irrelevant.

Of course, it depends on what we are talking about. Is it relevant to the price of a bowling ball, the size of the moon,
the strength gravity. What is it relevant to? I am not discussing the legal framework of a new constitution, I do not condemn babies, God does not condemn them. Exactly what is the relevance?

We’re actually talking about people’s interpretation of god’s supposed judgments. Earthly actions and beliefs are directly tied to those interpretations. I don’t know how you could deny the connection or consider it irrelevant.

Not really. God's actions and nature are independent from any belief at least foundationally.

I conservatively defined “baby” for you as a human being who is a newborn (1 second old) to 6 months old.

You arbitrarily slapped a label on something which had no effect on it or the issue.

Oh I’m sorry, apparently you’re the only one entitled to an opinion. Or stating opinions as facts. My bad. You gave your opinion on why babies are not innocent but I’m not supposed to be able to explain why I disagree with that opinion?

I never suggested you were not entitled to as many opinions as you wish. I pointed out which ones were relevant to me. What you like has no bearing on what is.

How do you figure that you don’t reject social Darwinism, secular moral decline, etc. based on your dislike for them?

Because they are not in causal relationships with each other. I happen to believe God exists which makes social Darwinism irrelevant. I would adopt it as the truth if I became convinced of God's non-existence as sad as it is. I hold vast numbers of beliefs that are very inconvenient for me. I do not resolve issues by like, in fact I so dread cognitive dissonance that I constantly test and retest everything I believe.

I find social Darwinism disagreeable too. What’s the relevance to the discussion?

None really. It is just a footnote. I like discussing morality because the issue is so crystal clear and I often view things in that way and make comments that are not really meant to persuade but just color things. You never know what may reach a person, some of the things that meant most to me I could never have predicted. Sometimes I think out loud.

What diseases does homosexuality produce? Also I find it odd that you openly state over and over that you have a problem with diseases that homosexuality produces (whatever those are) or spreads but always fail to take equal issue with the heterosexuals that spread all the same diseases.

We are usually debating morality. Cancer is not a moral issue. I hate all disease but some are not so easily prevented as to restrict (or at least not justify) immoral actions. Drug abuse and others would be and are treated that way.

You could have addressed what I said, but instead you decided to go on more about the immorality of children. And then you try to assert that Christians treat babies better than everyone else does. Wow.

I am on a treasure hunt trying to find out what the relevance is. I touch on Christian behavior, doctrine, God's justifications, etc..... trying to find it. So far it has been fruitless and I am pretty much given it up.

Which has what to do with the innocence or guilt of babies?

As I said it is a matter of relevance.

Why do you defend the supposed murder of babies and children as described in the Bible? Do you understand now how such beliefs manifest themselves in the actions of human beings? The people in the Bible apparently had no problem killing babies and children because they thought some god had commanded it because babies and children are no more innocent than adults (or more likely they used some god to justify their heinous actions). How else could you justify such a terrible action (or belief)?

Not one single thing I said even hinted at any justification to treat babies any different than we do. What the heck are you talking about? If God declares them innocent (for whatever the reason) on what basis can I do otherwise. If you want to be scared by something that actually has occurred then look at social Darwinism. It has been used to kill the infirm after birth, a modern medical scholar lobbied to have (I think the term is viability of life) be 2 days after birth to make it ok to exterminate ones with severe disabilities, it has been used to euthanize the elderly. I can give you actual examples to actually fear for quite some time but that is not the scariest part. The worst part is if God is not then these are justifiable and rational. It is secularism that devalues life not Christianity. Christianity is the only basis on which you can rationally assign infinite value to human life and even those that are burdens on society, that is exactly who Jesus spent so much time with. You have put a black mask on a white face and a white mask on the truly black face. Sort of like slapping Billy Graham and jumping into Freddy Kruger's arms.


However please state what relevance a babies moral status is to my position? I am exhausted trying to fish it out of you. I will give you one last chance to make it important to my position, I cannot justify this any longer.

 

[Nakosis]

I find this anti-Paulism very odd. It is most often held by those who wish to cling to an impossible merit based salvation model. For what reason I can not even guess. I think you reject Paul on other grounds. Before you supply the grounds for rejecting Paul let me list a few factors to be considered.

1. The other apostles rabidly defended the consistency of their message, right or wrong, they were exacting in what they adopted or pronounced.

Haven't argued otherwise.

2. The dispensation of the Holy Spirit at least potentially granted certainty on theological matters. The apostles had the greatest claim to access to that certainty.

Yes, probably. I don't know if that means it was any different then the access you claim the have.

3. They were skeptical of Paul and questioned him severely. Every single one accepted his commission.

As they should be, as you should be.

4. he prevailed in every disagreement.

I don't know that. Unfortunately Paul is not around. I'd probably have a few thing to discuss with him if he were.

5. If God is granted then the logical deduction would be that he would never permit anyone to hijack the message he had paid such a price to submit. yet Paul wrote most of the NT.

No, not unless you are ready to grant God is willing to deny man his freewill. Paul wrote most of the NT. That doesn't mean Paul wrote the most. It only means that what Paul wrote survived and happen to be canonized. Canonized by people I didn't know and have to particular reason to trust. You trust them for whatever reason, great. I'm assuming your assumption in God's willingness to take away man's freewill?

6. There were witnesses to both the events of the road to Damascus and to his being cured upon arrival, yet not a single "I was there and that did not occur" text exists.

I'd suspect a lot of what was written and more of what was said in agreement and disagreement was lost then survived. I'm surprised what we do have left survived.

7. Paul's life first demonstrates an unswerving determination to oppose Christ but an almost instant change of heart in his unswerving devotion to Christ.

Sure, a spiritual vision will do that. Doesn't give a person the authority to speak for God.

The most reasonable deductions from these reliable claims is that Paul was commissioned by God and his message is divine. In what way do you disagree?

As noted. Even accepting what you say. I don't see why this means Paul's letters should be accepted as God's Word. Paul was certainly free to express his opinion, understanding as any Christian is. However to accept Paul as speaking for God, I can't see. I don't even think Paul believed this.

 

[1robin]

Haven't argued otherwise.

Ok, then let me read on to see what you do argue.

Yes, probably. I don't know if that means it was any different then the access you claim the have.

I certainly hoe it was as mine is full of static. I get a few bits and pieces here and there. Not pure revelation. They were the conduits for his primary revelation. He did not spare his own son so I doubt he would risk misunderstandings. I would also point out to the extreme events in the upper room as evidence for their greater access compared to mine. I am born again but never seen tongues of flame nor spoke in tongues.

As they should be, as you should be.

I am skeptical of everything except my own failures. Those are far to apparent. With Paul you get far more information with which to satisfy skepticism than any other biblical author.

I don't know that. Unfortunately Paul is not around. I'd probably have a few thing to discuss with him if he were.

Well the other apostles claimed to have agreed in the end with his positions. The principle of embarrassment would also be in his favor here.

No, not unless you are ready to grant God is willing to deny man his freewill. Paul wrote most of the NT. That doesn't mean Paul wrote the most. It only means that what Paul wrote survived and happen to be canonized. Canonized by people I didn't know and have to particular reason to trust. You trust them for whatever reason, great. I'm assuming your assumption in God's willingness to take away man's freewill?

I do, though I rarely mention it because it is so rare. Did he not harden pharos heart? On rare occasions of drastic importance God will suspend freewill. If he was to do so for any event it would have been for the Gospels. I believe God respects man's freedom in almost all cases but also he acts when he must.

I'd suspect a lot of what was written and more of what was said in agreement and disagreement was lost then survived. I'm surprised what we do have left survived.

Not given God. If God is in the mix then even death will not prevail, so the Biblical textual traditions supremacy and shockingly improbability is not only explained but expected. If God is not in the mix then we are wasting our time here and what we have defies all explanation. In my textual research I have found little evidence to think anything is missing. Even the mistakes in copying are almost always additions. Textual scholars even the critics like Ehrman concede we have virtually all the originals. The problems are we have an additional 5% that were added.

Sure, a spiritual vision will do that. Doesn't give a person the authority to speak for God.

This event like others was not the run of the mill salvation moment. All great commissions came with extraordinary experiences. This event on the road is typical of prophet commissioning events, actually it is superior to many.

As noted. Even accepting what you say. I don't see why this means Paul's letters should be accepted as God's Word. Paul was certainly free to express his opinion, understanding as any Christian is. However to accept Paul as speaking for God, I can't see. I don't even think Paul believed this.

Let me ask a different question. Since 2000 years of scrutiny and tradition has confirmed Paul's writings as not only apostolic but the earliest as well then can you give more compelling evidence to dismiss Paul than we have to trust him? That is actually a much more appropriate question.

 

[Nakosis]

Ok, then let me read on to see what you do argue.

I certainly hoe it was as mine is full of static. I get a few bits and pieces here and there. Not pure revelation. They were the conduits for his primary revelation. He did not spare his own son so I doubt he would risk misunderstandings. I would also point out to the extreme events in the upper room as evidence for their greater access compared to mine. I am born again but never seen tongues of flame nor spoke in tongues.

I am skeptical of everything except my own failures. Those are far to apparent. With Paul you get far more information with which to satisfy skepticism than any other biblical author.

Well the other apostles claimed to have agreed in the end with his positions. The principle of embarrassment would also be in his favor here.

I do, though I rarely mention it because it is so rare. Did he not harden pharos heart? On rare occasions of drastic importance God will suspend freewill. If he was to do so for any event it would have been for the Gospels. I believe God respects man's freedom in almost all cases but also he acts when he must.

Not given God. If God is in the mix then even death will not prevail, so the Biblical textual traditions supremacy and shockingly improbability is not only explained but expected. If God is not in the mix then we are wasting our time here and what we have defies all explanation. In my textual research I have found little evidence to think anything is missing. Even the mistakes in copying are almost always additions. Textual scholars even the critics like Ehrman concede we have virtually all the originals. The problems are we have an additional 5% that were added.

This event like others was not the run of the mill salvation moment. All great commissions came with extraordinary experiences. This event on the road is typical of prophet commissioning events, actually it is superior to many.

Ok, you've expressed your reasons for accepting Paul's authority to speak for God. I continue to find these not sufficiently compelling enough to change my opinion.

Let me ask a different question. Since 2000 years of scrutiny and tradition has confirmed Paul's writings as not only apostolic but the earliest as well then can you give more compelling evidence to dismiss Paul than we have to trust him? That is actually a much more appropriate question.

I'm not dismissing Paul. I afford Paul the same neutrality I afford anyone I don't personally know. He could have the authority you calm. I just don't see it as reasonable for God to expect acceptance of this authority based on the reasons that have been provided so far. I'd have to trust people I don't know or events there is no evidence for. I think truth and God are too important to make a decision like this in such a frivolous manner.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This will be my last baby post with you. I am giving every poster one final response on this meaningless issue but that is it. It is not apparent what babies are to you, me, or anyone else. They are not prescribing to any moral standard because they have little knowledge of one and little reasoning power. It is far more believable that their thoughts and actions violate moral truths unknown to them that correspond to them. However the argument is a doctrinal one if it is to have any relevance to me. God I indicates over and over that all have sinned, no one has met the mark, anyone who suggests he is sinless is a liar. IOW your going to have to find God saying babies are sinless before you have a point that has any application. The evidence, and logic are on my side. Not that there is much of it.

The guy who wrote this seems to think babies are innocent:
Topical Bible Studies

And this guy:
OVER 100 BIBLE TEXTS THAT SHOW THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN IS UNBIBLICAL AND FALSE

And this guy:
Apologetics Press - Are Children Born With Sin?


So who's interpretation am I to believe? You assert yours is the correct one. How is one to know?




I'll have to respond to the rest of your post when I have more time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is no way what so ever you do not know the answer to that question.

Continued below:

How is it that you know the answer?

Newborn babies aren't aborted. So what are you talking about?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not one single thing I said even hinted at any justification to treat babies any different than we do. What the heck are you talking about? If God declares them innocent (for whatever the reason) on what basis can I do otherwise. If you want to be scared by something that actually has occurred then look at social Darwinism. It has been used to kill the infirm after birth, a modern medical scholar lobbied to have (I think the term is viability of life) be 2 days after birth to make it ok to exterminate ones with severe disabilities, it has been used to euthanize the elderly. I can give you actual examples to actually fear for quite some time but that is not the scariest part. The worst part is if God is not then these are justifiable and rational. It is secularism that devalues life not Christianity. Christianity is the only basis on which you can rationally assign infinite value to human life and even those that are burdens on society, that is exactly who Jesus spent so much time with. You have put a black mask on a white face and a white mask on the truly black face. Sort of like slapping Billy Graham and jumping into Freddy Kruger's arms.
.

You keep saying that while espousing the view that human beings are born as wretched, wicked, no-good sinners, including babies.

Like I pointed out before, if god thinks so little of us, what are we to think of each other?

 

[CG Didymus]

You have not answered my question yet. Were you and Clear born sinless or perfect as in without any sin at all? A simple Yes or No

Not according to your view of Christianity. But what are we born with? What is it that guides our thinking? What innate characteristics do babies have? And, later, small children, then teenagers, and finally adults? From infancy we are socialized into the morals and rules of behavior of the group. You believe in a certain form of Christianity that accepts the Bible a certain way. It tells you without Jesus, you cannot please God. But, you have Jesus. You have the Holy Spirit, supposedly, living in you. Do you follow its guidance? Or, do you slack off at times? Do you compromise your beliefs around friends and family and at work? Can you answer me yes or no? Do you have your "first love" relationship with Jesus? Yes or no?

I can't pretend and say I believe in Jesus and do the things that I enjoyed doing. I couldn't keep calling myself a Christian and be a hypocrite. I was in my twenties and I liked looking at girls. No, I loved looking at girls. I loved thinking about making love to them and holding them close. And, I loved doing it. But, Jesus said "No." Christian friends of mine compromised their beliefs and were having sex with their girlfriends. Some were going out with several Christian girls and having sex. At one church, the youth pastor ended up being gay. I found out about it because they were my friends. But, the ones that stayed in church kept it hidden. I couldn't do it. I lasted maybe three months being mentally and physically celibate. But, I stayed going to church and appearing like a good Christian for five years.

So, where do you fall short? What's your "problem" area? Why does our brain work that way? Did we make it that way? Is it the devil in our heads? Or, is it some natural instinctive thing? Like with this thing sex, who made the hormones that get us aroused? Can you really go through life and not only have sex but with only one person, but not even think about having sex with someone else? Those of us that are married, can we only have those "special" feelings for her? What about when she gets older person, do you start to notice younger, prettier woman? And, who made woman's bodies so darn attractive to a man anyhow?

If your version of Christianity is true, then you should never look upon a woman with lust in your heart. Tell me, yes or no, can you do that? I couldn't. But, I'd absolutely agree that a selfless life of giving of one self to help others, because God and Jesus told you to, is a much more satisfying and rewarding of a life to live... in a spiritual sense. But, we're in the physical world. We need food, shelter, and we need to fight and struggle to keep this body alive sometimes. But, to be true to what Jesus teaches, a person should forget about the physical needs and trust in him completely to supply them for you. Can you do that? Yes or no? I couldn't do it.

I wonder, do you ever question your beliefs? Yes or no? You call people like me an "apostate". But, what if I was Muslim or Jew? If I quit believing in those religions, I'd be called an apostate too, by them, but not by you. You'd call me smart. So how would it happen that I'd leave one of those other religions and get "saved"?

Wouldn't I have to learn about Jesus from a Christian that knew the "correct" way of interpreting the Bible? And, wouldn't I have to question everything I assumed was true? I'd have to compare and study and find out who was telling me the truth. Well guess what, in a way, I tried that. I studied a little of all of them and in a very real way, they are all very much alike.

They all set up a standard of behavior that God wants them to follow. Can they? Never, in all of them it's a struggle. It's fighting your own selfish desires to serve God by doing what? Doing good works. Helping others. And, of course, nobody can do it perfectly. Everyone falls short. You say that you are "forgiven", but just like James said, I paraphrase, show us your faith by your good works and not by your mouth. If you don't have the good works to back up your beliefs, then your faith and words are empty and useless. At some point a Christian becomes complacent, lukewarm, and we all know what happens to lukewarm so-called Christians. Yes or no, you're not one of those are you?

 

[Clear]

Hi JM2C,

JM2C said in post # 4299 : “I asked repeatedly and no one can answer a simple question. Does anyone here was born sinless? Yes or No. My answer is No or I was not born sinless”.


I did not have time to respond earlier. The guard at my facility was watching over me all day, making sure I did not escape my "honey do" list, and I was traveling.


When I was a new infant, just a few hours old, I had not yet committed a single sin in my entire life. Thus, I was born sinless.
Also, all the other hour-old infants in my generation were born similarly. None of them had sinned and thus were born “sinless”.
Something must have changed between my generation and yours?

For example, You say you were not born sinless.

1) Can you describe for readers, the sin you yourself, committed as a new infant after being born?

2) Can you describe for forum readers any sin that it was possible for ME to commit as a newborn infant?

Clear
σεφυσιτζφιω

 

[Clear]

Hi 1ROBIN : re your response in 4268 & 4269

Semantics : Regarding using either the words Moral “debt” or moral “obligation” of an infant. I only used “debt” because you first used the term. We can use my term Moral “obligation”, or another term with similar meaning, that is fine. It honestly doesn't matter as long as it accurately represents the underlying principle.


REGARDING MORAL LAW

1) 1ROBIN said : 1. Is an absolute set or standards or criteria that are reflections of his nature.

I can agree with you that Moral laws are eternal and absolute though we’ll have to disagree on your description of their definition. I think we can still use the degree of agreement we have to continue the discussion however.


2) 1ROBIN’s description of Moral Laws : They apply everywhere, at all times, to every person. However some persons are exempt from the punishment based on ignorance. The violation exists but the judgment is not enacted. These would include Christians, children, and possibly the unevangelised (though I am ignorant about the last).

Regarding your theory that “absolute moral laws” have “exceptions”.

I think you and I agree that authentic eternal Moral laws “Apply everywhere, at all times, to every person.”

I think we disagree on your theory that a Moral law which "applies to every person" actually "DOESN'T apply to every person". It either applies to every person or it doesn't.

Your first sentence tells us that absolute moral laws “apply to every person”. Your second sentence tells us it does NOT "apply to every person", since it makes exceptions for some persons. For example : You theorize that infants sin against “absolute law” but an “exception” is made for them.

I think early Christian interpretation where infants did not sin were superior since this interpretation did not require “exceptions” to “absolute Moral laws”. In this model, since infants were not guilty of sin, no “exceptions” to “absolute laws” had to be made for them.

Perhaps the reason for this lies in the early Christian model of sin.

If intelligence; understanding, and moral intent has a role in sin, this consideration makes the situation more simple. Where no intelligence or understanding; or evil intent exists, no Moral sin exists.

For example, If a rock falls onto a person and kills them, we do not call it “murder”; the rock did not “sin” since the rock had no intelligence, no understanding of what it was doing nor was there any evil “intent” in the harm it did. Similarly, If an infant lacks sufficient intelligence; understanding and evil intent to commit an intentional evil then no moral sin is committed by an infant. A infant born, lacking part of his brain, or a "brain dead" infant, is no more capable of sinning than the rock was.

God cannot punish an infant for moral inability God himself created the infant to have. The same is true of any other moral incompetence (mental disease, retardation, accidents, brain dead, etc.). Intelligence and understanding play a role in moral competence in this model.

For example, in Baruch2, God tells the prophet Baruch that : “ It is true that man would not have understood my judgment if he had not received the law and if he were not instructed with understanding. But now, because he trespassed, having understanding, he will be punished because he has understanding. Baruch 2 15:1-2

Such early traditions make clear that mankind can be punished only when he trespasses the law “having understanding” of the moral choice he is making. Infants and mentally retarded for example, do not have sufficient understanding. God cannot punish them for not having sufficient understanding if he fails to give them understanding. And, they are punished differently according to their degree of culpability.

For example, the servant "...which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." This leveling principle applies equally to all without the exception your theory requires. The principle is the same for all : "... unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required..." Luke 12:47–48

But, IF God gives little or no knowledge, intelligence or understanding of moral law to an individual, then he cannot expect as much as from those who understand the laws. Where much is given, much is required. Where less is given, less is required. Where NOTHING is given, NOTHING is required. These are fair principles and apply equally to all, and there are no exceptions that need be made to these rules..

Regarding the fate of the “unevangelized” , i.e. those who have never heard of Jesus, and thus cannot have specific understanding of and belief in him (having never heard of him). Their condition is described in early Christian decensus literature and it is quite consistent with this principle of fairness. Like infants and others having a degree of moral incompetence, those who are not given knowledge of Jesus are only responsible for the degree of moral knowledge and understanding they have been given. They are not automatically damned.


Whether we ever agree on which model is more logical, rational and fair, I hope your journey is good 1ROBIN


Clear
σεφυσιδρτζω

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

“I was shapen in iniquity” who was the “I” in that sentence? David

And whose iniquity was he talking about? His mother's.

I asked repeatedly and no one can answer a simple question. Does anyone here was born sinless? Yes or No.
My answer is No or I was not born sinless

What sin had you committed before you were born?

As for your question, the answer depends on how you define "sin".

 

[1robin]

You keep saying that while espousing the view that human beings are born as wretched, wicked, no-good sinners, including babies.

Be honest, your never going to let the baby appeal to emotion go are you? It is all that is left and will not be abandoned for any price.

We are miserable failures compared to God's standard yet we are so valuable to him even in a state of rebellion that he paid the dearest price it is theoretically possible for God to pay to redeem them. Your confusing our moral record with our value as creatures made in his image. The two have little to do with each other.

Like I pointed out before, if god thinks so little of us, what are we to think of each other?

Quit taking everything I say and twisting it up. Not one thing I have ever said even hinted that God thinks little of us and most of it suggests emphatically the opposite. Our moral failure is not what gives us value. He gave his son for us, how many people have you offered your children's life to redeem?

I see another long tangent coming so I am going to head this off at the pass. Secularism necessarily devalues life compared to Christian theism because there is no basis in secularism to attribute human life with objective value what so ever. Just like morality and for the same reasons you are left to circle the drain in a sea of meaningless and arbitrary human opinion and subjectivism. With God you have the only possible basis for thinking human life has objective value beyond our meaningless opinions and conjecture. Secularism, as in most cases is a pure net loss. Now please leave that as is, do not restate it as if I said the exact opposite, if you reply.

 

[1robin]

Ok, you've expressed your reasons for accepting Paul's authority to speak for God. I continue to find these not sufficiently compelling enough to change my opinion.

Your opinion is not my target. My target is truth and the most reasonable deductions from it. I leave the rest up to the reader.

I'm not dismissing Paul. I afford Paul the same neutrality I afford anyone I don't personally know. He could have the authority you calm. I just don't see it as reasonable for God to expect acceptance of this authority based on the reasons that have been provided so far. I'd have to trust people I don't know or events there is no evidence for. I think truth and God are too important to make a decision like this in such a frivolous manner.

Where does the standard that God must provide apostles you know come from? Do you use that standard anywhere else? Do you deny gravity because you never met Newton, relativity because you did not know Einstein, or evolution because Darwin is not a family member?

I think God has provided more evidence than anyone can reasonably demand from him for Paul's authority. What I provided was just the tip of the ice burg. I however must leave agreement up to you.

 

[1robin]

The guy who wrote this seems to think babies are innocent:
Topical Bible Studies

In 2000 years worth of interpretation I imagine you can find a source for two mutually exclusive doctrines for most issues. I can think of no reason to consider that persuasive. I will add a point here though. God in his sovereignty can make legal declarations that trump objective qualities. He can and has legally declared Christians innocent on the basis of Christ's actions even though we are technically guilty. He can declare babies innocent on the basis of ignorance though they may be technically guilty of violating the law. We do the same thing in human legality. So in that sense babies may be declared innocent but could still have technically been guilty of acting inconsistently with moral fact. That has been pretty much my position from the word go.

And this guy:
OVER 100 BIBLE TEXTS THAT SHOW THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN IS UNBIBLICAL AND FALSE

That is such a preposterous claim I am not going to bother reading it.

And this guy:
Apologetics Press - Are Children Born With Sin?

Ok you have three down, only 1.99999999999 billion to go. I am not sure what you even want here. Did you want some kind of biblical refutation of the links claims? Would you adopt it no matter what it's merit, if performed?

So who's interpretation am I to believe? You assert yours is the correct one. How is one to know?

You do not need to know. No one does. Unless by some moral perversion you intend to judge babies legally or use it to justify abortion or something similarly screwed up. You should believe God's word and over 2000 years extremely consistent methods have been painstakingly developed in order to make that reasonably certain in most cases. However the most important issue here is that it does not matter. Why would anyone need to know this? Believe me, believe what you want? In this case I see no cost either way. That is why I have been trying (without success) to leave this irrelevant issue behind. I do not want to get deep into a hermeneutic debate on a side bar appeal to emotion.

I'll have to respond to the rest of your post when I have more time.

Take your time. Just type babies a hundred times and copy and paste it every other post. Just kidding.

 

[1robin]

How is it that you know the answer?

Newborn babies aren't aborted. So what are you talking about?

Oh crap. I should know better. You were not asking a question about abortion. You were picking on what may be a semantic technicality. I do not remember the words I used so let me clarify. Lets consider abortion to only apply to unborn human life. lets consider infanticide to apply to recently born infants.

The former is supported mainly by secular liberals.
The latter was supported by Spartans, Canaanites, at one point some Jews who had adopted Canaanite practices because they disobeyed and did not exterminate them, Hitler, maybe China indirectly, etc......


The most important issue here is not who did them but what justification can be used to support them. On social Darwinism these acts find perfect justification. Also some terrible religions can justify them if true, Not Christianity.

 

[1robin]

1) 1ROBIN[/B] said : 1. Is an absolute set or standards or criteria that are reflections of his nature.

I can agree with you that Moral laws are eternal and absolute though we’ll have to disagree on your description of their definition. I think we can still use the degree of agreement we have to continue the discussion however.

In the interest of common ground I can accept this.

2) 1ROBIN’s description of Moral Laws : They apply everywhere, at all times, to every person. However some persons are exempt from the punishment based on ignorance. The violation exists but the judgment is not enacted. These would include Christians, children, and possibly the unevangelised (though I am ignorant about the last).

Regarding your theory that “absolute moral laws” have “exceptions”.

I did not use the word exceptions at all. I believe my statements suggest the exact opposite, I have to allow that rules based on unchanging moral facts may change over time but not the foundations on which they rest. For example it is wrong to take life without justification but not wrong with it. The foundation does not change but the rules that grew from it do.

I think you and I agree that authentic eternal Moral laws “Apply everywhere, at all times, to every person.”

If God based, yes.

I think we disagree on your theory that a Moral law which "applies to every person" actually "DOESN'T apply to every person". It either applies to every person or it doesn't.

I do not remember stating or ever thinking this. I said the punishment or judgment may not apply to all people but the moral facts do. I am just as wrong as an atheist if I lie but unlike them I will not be condemned for it. I may temporally suffer for it but will not be eternally judged.

Your first sentence tells us that absolute moral laws “apply to every person”. Your second sentence tells us it does NOT "apply to every person", since it makes exceptions for some persons. For example : You theorize that infants sin against “absolute law” but an “exception” is made for them.

No, my first sentence deals with moral facts. My second deals with judgments.

I think early Christian interpretation where infants did not sin were superior since this interpretation did not require “exceptions” to “absolute Moral laws”. In this model, since infants were not guilty of sin, no “exceptions” to “absolute laws” had to be made for them.

This is going to be less profitable since you are basing your response on your misunderstanding my claims. My system is actually more consistent. Mine has the same law apply to every human life, but only suspends judgment where convincing reasons compel mercy. On yours laws are suspended for some, not mine.

Perhaps the reason for this lies in the early Christian model of sin.

If intelligence; understanding, and moral intent has a role in sin, this consideration makes the situation more simple. Where no intelligence or understanding; or evil intent exists, no Moral sin exists.

Intent has a role but it not a total roll. Sin differs by severity though we are not given much in the way of a scale. This same concept is reflected in legal theory. We do not excuse killing because intent was not present we just call it manslaughter and assign a lesser penalty. With God it is a little more emphatic. Anything less than moral perfection is sin. They may have differing severity but all are morally judged.

For example, If a rock falls onto a person and kills them, we do not call it “murder”; the rock did not “sin” since the rock had no intelligence, no understanding of what it was doing nor was there any evil “intent” in the harm it did. Similarly, If an infant lacks sufficient intelligence; understanding and evil intent to commit an intentional evil then no moral sin is committed by an infant. A infant born, lacking part of his brain, or a "brain dead" infant, is no more capable of sinning than the rock was.

Rocks do not stand in moral relationships. Humans do. Rocks have no standards they are responsible for. Humans do. Rocks are not called into judgment. Humans are. Most importantly rocks are not moral agents, humans are.

God cannot punish an infant for moral inability God himself created the infant to have. The same is true of any other moral incompetence (mental disease, retardation, accidents, brain dead, etc.). Intelligence and understanding play a role in moral competence in this model.

Back up the truth trolley here a minute. I have consistently and emphatically said God does not punish children. That is not even on the table.

For example, in Baruch2, God tells the prophet Baruch that : “ It is true that man would not have understood my judgment if he had not received the law and if he were not instructed with understanding. But now, because he trespassed, having understanding, he will be punished because he has understanding. Baruch 2 15:1-2

There is something very suspicious about your constant quoting of non apostolic texts. Neither Jews nor mainstream Christian regard Baruch as inspired. What exactly do you expect it's impact to be on me. You might as well be reading from a phone book or quoting Jerry Springer. Regardless this is another response to a claim of punishment that does not exist in my position. You have so far got my position exactly wrong twice in the most fundamental way possible.

Such early traditions make clear that mankind can be punished only when he trespasses the law “having understanding” of the moral choice he is making. Infants and mentally retarded for example, do not have sufficient understanding. God cannot punish them for not having sufficient understanding if he fails to give them understanding. And, they are punished differently according to their degree of culpability.

Babies are not punished in my view so this is irrelevant.

I think I am going to let you catch up with what I actually claimed before I respond any more. I am spinning my wheels responding to counters you have to points I did not make.