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

[Nakosis]

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.

So your target is someone else's opinion? That's the best you can hope for. Truth isn't going to be found here in forums.

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?

No need to take Newton, Einstein or Darwin at their word. Again I don't think anyone should.

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.

It's not really evidence. It is anecdotal experience. I'm not saying anecdotal experience has no value, however to be valued as proof of some sort, it needs to be testable and verifiable.

 

[1robin]

So your target is someone else's opinion? That's the best you can hope for. Truth isn't going to be found here in forums.

I tried very hard to suggest that no ones conclusion is my target. I am to supply facts as best I can and leave the conclusions up to readers and God. My target is NOT anyone else opinion. I find mountains of truth in these forums, mixed in with garbage. There is nothing about the forum that precludes truth.

No need to take Newton, Einstein or Darwin at their word. Again I don't think anyone should.

Do you accept or deny relativity? Or do you not care either way?

It's not really evidence. It is anecdotal experience. I'm not saying anecdotal experience has no value, however to be valued as proof of some sort, it needs to be testable and verifiable.

It is the exact same type of things the legal profession and professional historians call evidence in most cases. In fact you will find very similar claims in papers by some of histories (if not the) greatest experts on testimony and evidence like Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst. Heck I will even give you a few:

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

Many impartial students who have approached the resurrection of Chris with a judicial spirit have been compelled by the weight of the evidence to belief in the resurrection as a fact of history. An example may be taken from a letter written by Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey: "As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."



These are among the people best trained to know what evidence is. They are talking about the resurrection not Paul but notice the type of evidence is the same. What I stated is what is used in theological historical methodology. You also using an irrational standard for faith. It seems your saying I believe nothing until a level of evidence exists that makes it almost certain. That is not even how secular history works. Theology and history establish what conclusion best fits the data. That is the actual criteria not virtual certainty. You need to provide a better case against Paul than I have for him.

 

[Nakosis]

I tried very hard to suggest that no ones conclusion is my target. I am to supply facts as best I can and leave the conclusions up to readers and God. My target is NOT anyone else opinion. I find mountains of truth in these forums, mixed in with garbage. There is nothing about the forum that precludes truth.

Makes sense you'd believe the truth can be read about. I've found it necessary to think otherwise.

Do you accept or deny relativity? Or do you not care either way?

Einstein was was a theoretical physicist. Others have claimed to have proven the truth of his theories. And others still argue and try to disprove his theories. If I had the resources I might test them. Increase my own certainty. Do I care? I don't have any vested interest. If I could prove any of his theories that'd be cool. If I could disprove any, that's be equally cool. So I suppose I don't care either way.

It is the exact same type of things the legal profession and professional historians call evidence in most cases. In fact you will find very similar claims in papers by some of histories (if not the) greatest experts on testimony and evidence like Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst. Heck I will even give you a few:

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

Many impartial students who have approached the resurrection of Chris with a judicial spirit have been compelled by the weight of the evidence to belief in the resurrection as a fact of history. An example may be taken from a letter written by Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey: "As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

These are among the people best trained to know what evidence is. They are talking about the resurrection not Paul but notice the type of evidence is the same. What I stated is what is used in theological historical methodology. You also using an irrational standard for faith. It seems your saying I believe nothing until a level of evidence exists that makes it almost certain. That is not even how secular history works. Theology and history establish what conclusion best fits the data. That is the actual criteria not virtual certainty. You need to provide a better case against Paul than I have for him.

I don't know any of these people either. Don't know their motivation nor their propensity to lie. Kind of a human fallacy I think, to tend to believe something if it is written down. So you are willing to trust your fellow man on this? That's fine. I find human nature something that requires verification.

I find all men capable of lying in the right circumstances. Exactly what those circumstances are very from individual to individual. You are willing to trust people you don't know. That's foolhardy IMO. The only reason I trust people I do know is that I know them well enough to know the circumstances in which they'd lie. People I don't, trusting them is a crap shoot.

I know you don't see it this way, however for me, what I see you doing is throwing the dice and gambling on what the truth is. It is something that is too important for me to take that risk.

 

[johnhanks]

[God] gave his son for us, how many people have you offered your children's life to redeem?

I'll be honest with you and admit upfront that statements like this from Christians leave me baffled. Reasons for bafflement:

1. How exactly is the God-Jesus relationship supposed to be comparable to a human father-son relationship? According to Christian mythology, god by some supernatural means impregnated a woman and "begat" a son; but this begetting had precious little in common with the usual human way of going about the business - do we imagine, for example, that god passed on half of JC's genes? Your question was directed at SkepticThinker and I won't speak for him, but I for one can't simply equate god's attitude to his "son" with mine to my own kids in the manner implied.
2. This difficulty in balancing the equation you imply above only becomes harder when we consider that according to Christians god "begat" his "son" for the sole purpose of seeing him sacrificed. Is god supposed to have suffered anguish at JC's execution, in the way a human parent would, when he brought about the bearded wonder's conception with exactly that in mind?
3. In fact, can god, a perfect being devoid of need, experience anguish at all (or any emotion of loss)? If not, where's the sacrifice?
4. And how exactly would offering my son to be killed (were I insane enough to do so) redeem anybody? In fact, how is anyone's violent death supposed to redeem anybody?
5. And just what are we imagined to be redeemed from, if not a sanction imposed by the very entity that now comes up with this bizarre way of discharging it? (OK, you've messed up big-time; but tellya what, I'll kill my son for you, and we'll be all square...)

Elucidation gratefully received.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.
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’m not sure what’s so perfectly moral about offering up one’s own son to torture and human sacrifice. Sounds a bit twisted to me. Especially when your god could have done literally anything else that didn’t involve torture and human sacrifice.

Maybe it was the "miserable failures" part that threw me off. Or the “babies and children aren’t innocent” part. Or the “the ENTIRE world is under the wicked one, not just adults” part. Or all the “we aren’t worthy of god” stuff. Or the stuff in that Bible that says that the human heart is evil from childhood. Stuff like that.

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.

Yes there is. And we have been over this more times than I care to count. The humanistic point of view, which I try to espouse, doesn’t start off with human beings as fallen, wicked sinful creatures that can only be cured by believing that a perfect Jewish demi-god walked the earth 2000 years ago. It views human beings as creatures who have worth and value simply by virtue of being alive.

Our morals are derived from the only thing that makes any sense –our collective human experience and analysis of the consequences of actions.
Following dictates from above without a second thought is amoral, in the sense that no morality is being exercised at all. There is no analysis of the right or wrong of the situation. It says that something is right or wrong because some deity far removed from the human experience we all share declares it so. A deity that refuses to show itself. Not only that, but the book this deity supposedly inspired can be interpreted in so many different ways by so many different people, it makes it very difficult to discern what it actually wants from us in any objective sense. You say babies aren’t innocent, somebody else says they are – how can we actually know who is right? You’re both reading the same book.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

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

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?


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.

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

The point is, there are so many different people declaring so many different versions of "god's word" that it's nearly impossible to figure out which is the "correct" interpretation. Obviously you think yours is. Well, those guys I linked you to obviously think there's is the correct interpretation. You say I "should believe god's word" but how is one supposed to be able to accurately ascertain which version is god's word, if any? I don't really care what your opinion is of the 3 guys I linked you to. I only did that to demonstrate what I've just said here.


I actually do need to know how people feel about the innocence of babies. Because like I keep saying, our beliefs affect our actions and behaviors.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

I think this may just be a misunderstanding.

In response to something you said, I asked “Who is killing newborn babies for convenience??”

To which you replied, “There is no way what so ever you do not know the answer to that question.”

The former is supported mainly by secular liberals.

And practiced by people from all walks of life and practically every religion – including Christianity.

So while (most?) Christians may not openly support a personal right to choose what people do with their own bodies, they certainly act in accordance with it.

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.

Why do you keep referring to social Darwinism?

It’s an incorrect interpretation of “survival of the fittest” anyway.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'll be honest with you and admit upfront that statements like this from Christians leave me baffled. Reasons for bafflement:

1. How exactly is the God-Jesus relationship supposed to be comparable to a human father-son relationship? According to Christian mythology, god by some supernatural means impregnated a woman and "begat" a son; but this begetting had precious little in common with the usual human way of going about the business - do we imagine, for example, that god passed on half of JC's genes? Your question was directed at SkepticThinker and I won't speak for him, but I for one can't simply equate god's attitude to his "son" with mine to my own kids in the manner implied.
2. This difficulty in balancing the equation you imply above only becomes harder when we consider that according to Christians god "begat" his "son" for the sole purpose of seeing him sacrificed. Is god supposed to have suffered anguish at JC's execution, in the way a human parent would, when he brought about the bearded wonder's conception with exactly that in mind?
3. In fact, can god, a perfect being devoid of need, experience anguish at all (or any emotion of loss)? If not, where's the sacrifice?
4. And how exactly would offering my son to be killed (were I insane enough to do so) redeem anybody? In fact, how is anyone's violent death supposed to redeem anybody?
5. And just what are we imagined to be redeemed from, if not a sanction imposed by the very entity that now comes up with this bizarre way of discharging it? (OK, you've messed up big-time; but tellya what, I'll kill my son for you, and we'll be all square...)

Elucidation gratefully received.

I'm right there with you.

 

[CG Didymus]

The point is, there are so many different people declaring so many different versions of "god's word" that it's nearly impossible to figure out which is the "correct" interpretation....

I actually do need to know how people feel about the innocence of babies. Because like I keep saying, our beliefs affect our actions and behaviors.

The answer to that question is absolutely essential to this thread. School kids shot by a teenager wasn't it? Are the kids, regardless of what religion or no religion, all going to heaven? How about the shooter?

I googled Jewish beliefs on the age of accountability, nothing even close to what Christians are saying. More searches on "being born sinful" or "depraved" whatever word they prefer. On all the Jewish sites it said, "no", that we are born innocent and with a clean slate.

So in doing a search for the origin of these types of Christian "doctrine", I found this site on whether we are born sinners.

Many Christians who profess to believe in the doctrine of original sin do not know what it teaches. Even more Christians are ignorant of its history and origin: that it had its roots in a heathen philosophy, that it has evolved, and that it was made a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church in the fifth century A.D., primarily by the influence of Augustine.
Finally, most Christians do not know the fact that the doctrine of original sin is really a theory. In fact, there are more than three differing theories of original sin…
1. The Augustinian Theory... formulated by Augustine in the fifth century…says that Adam's will was the will of the species, so that in Adam's free act, the will of the race revolted against God, and the nature of the race corrupted itself… and we brought guilt and merited condemnation upon ourselves.
2. The Federal Theory. It had its origin with Cocceius in the 17th century A.D. According to this theory, God made a covenant with Adam, agreeing to bestow upon all his descendants eternal life for his obedience, but making the penalty for his disobedience to be the condemnation of all his descendants. Since our legal representative …did sin, God imputes his sin, guilt, and condemnation to all his descendants.
3. The Theory of Mediate Imputation. This theory is also called the Theory of Condemnation for Depravity. This is the theory formulated by Placeus in the 17th century A.D. Placeus originally denied that Adam's sin was in any way imputed to his posterity. But when his first view was condemned by the Synod of the French Reformed Church in 1644, he published this later view. According to this view, all men are born with a depraved nature and are guilty and condemnable for that nature. They are not viewed as being guilty because of the sin of Adam, as in the Federal Theory. Instead it is the corrupted nature which they inherit from Adam that is sufficient cause and legal ground for God to condemn them.
It is probably shocking for the Christian who has been taught these theories as Bible truths to be told that not one word of any of them can be found in the Bible. Christians believe these theories to be Bible doctrines because theologians…teach them as if they were Bible doctrines quoted directly from the Bible, and give them a semblance of credence with Bible texts quoted out of context… where in the Bible can it be found written that "All men are guilty and condemnable for the depraved nature with which they are born"? Nowhere! These theories are not in the Bible.

I found sites that talked about how the early church fathers were influenced by pagan philosophies and early church "heretical" movements. And that influence helped formulate this doctrine of being born sinful. I really didn't want to have to work this hard to try and find the truth. I must have skimmed through at least ten or twelve articles.

It sure would have been easier to just trust that Christians were telling me the truth and become a blind follower. After all, ignorance of all conflicting views is very blissful. I could then just go around smiling and singing "Jesus loves me this I know... and that's all I know... and that's all I need to know... and that's all I want to know... and you're wrong and I'm right because Jesus said so." Hey take care and I love your posts too.

 

[1robin]

Makes sense you'd believe the truth can be read about. I've found it necessary to think otherwise.

Makes sense that almost all of humanity agrees with me and not with you. Not one single thing prevents truth from being recorded, not that you even attempted to show any.

Einstein was was a theoretical physicist. Others have claimed to have proven the truth of his theories. And others still argue and try to disprove his theories. If I had the resources I might test them. Increase my own certainty. Do I care? I don't have any vested interest. If I could prove any of his theories that'd be cool. If I could disprove any, that's be equally cool. So I suppose I don't care either way.

Ok, at least your consistent here. Your a total nihilist.

I don't know any of these people either. Don't know their motivation nor their propensity to lie. Kind of a human fallacy I think, to tend to believe something if it is written down. So you are willing to trust your fellow man on this? That's fine. I find human nature something that requires verification.

I started out actually hostile to it and became convinced but that was wrong. You should start neutral and let the weight of evidence decide.

I find all men capable of lying in the right circumstances. Exactly what those circumstances are very from individual to individual. You are willing to trust people you don't know. That's foolhardy IMO. The only reason I trust people I do know is that I know them well enough to know the circumstances in which they'd lie. People I don't, trusting them is a crap shoot.

Of course all men can lie but all men do not mostly lie so I should never assume a less probable lie until the evidence suggests it. Your assuming the exception is the rule and the rule is the exception.

I know you don't see it this way, however for me, what I see you doing is throwing the dice and gambling on what the truth is. It is something that is too important for me to take that risk.

That might be true to some extant but at a certain point my gamble PROVED its self to be true. That is Christianity's unique gift. Every single Christian can know it is true. In fact no Christian does not know it is true. You become a Christian by virtue of the truth becoming a reality. Becoming born again is the proof of the test of faith.

 

[1robin]

Holy moly! I will have to pick up at 4324 tomorrow. These are some demanding posts. Have a good one you non-theist types.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Holy moly! I will have to pick up at 4324 tomorrow. These are some demanding posts. Have a good one you non-theist types.

You have a good one too, you theist type.

 

[Clear]

Hi 1ROBIN :


1) REGARDING THE THEORY THAT OTHERS HAVE MORAL "DEBT" DUE TO ADAMS TRANSGRESSION

The thought occurred to me over my lunch hour that our discussion regarding your theory that infants have moral “debt” because of what Adam did, is not something I want to invest significant time on, but instead, will just chime in episodically. I hope your realize this is not a reflection on you personally.

I realized that if you, yourself are unable to explain your theory (“I don't know if I could explain it as I am not God” 1Robin Post #4196) and the doctrine is NOT clearly taught in the biblical text (as your scripture examples revealed in post # 4231), and your theory does not appear in the early Judeo-Christian sacred textual traditions that I am aware of, then it is probably not a legitimate area of historical study or religious theory that I need to spend time researching.

I have to try to spend my time in selective areas of credible Christian traditions, especially as I have less time as Fall approaches.

Since your theory is, (as others pointed out) simply one theory among literally hundreds of Christian theories, one notes that your theory has no advantages over the early tradition where the Christians taught that “Adam is, therefore not the cause, except only for himself, but each of us has become our own Adam.” Baruch 2 54:18-19. That is, Adam did not cause others to sin, we make our own choices to sin and accept our own consequences.

I am however, somewhat interested in how and why certain Christian theories originate.



2) REGARDING THE THEORY THAT 19 YEAR OLDS (I.E. "TEENAGERS") AUTOMATICALLY GO TO HEAVEN

It intrigues me regarding your logic in adopting a position that “babies, adolescents, pre-teens, teens are not required as they all go to heaven in classic doctrine.” (post #4152).

Though this theory is obviously NOT “classic doctrine”, still, I am interested why, in this speculation, you picked 19 years of age (i.e. “teens&#8221 as your “cut off” for “suspending” condemnation and automatically“going to heaven” regardless of their actions.

My medical group treated prison inmates for 5 years and I personally knew many 18 and 19 years old unrepentant rapists, arsonists, murderers, and other heinous criminals.

Why did you choose to “suspend” moral judgment for and theorize this age group and individuals, “all go to heaven in classic doctrine” simply because they are “teen aged”? If you are going to give any specific age as your theorys' "cut off", why not pick a younger age?

The early Christian tradition that “the mind grows with us”(4th Ezra) is consistent with increasing moral competence as we normally mature from infant to adult so that by the time one is a morally competent adult, the Prophet Ezras speaks of a group of sinners who “shall be punished, because though they had understanding they committed iniquity” 4th Ezra 7:70-72


Why pick 19 years old as the age of "moral responsibility" in your theory?

Doesn't that seem too old to the rest of you?


I wish you a good journey 1ROBIN


Clear
σεσεειτζνεω[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Nakosis]

Makes sense that almost all of humanity agrees with me and not with you. Not one single thing prevents truth from being recorded, not that you even attempted to show any.

Most all of humanity. Truth in numbers. So who are these many people? I'd like to have a discussion with them about truth.

Ok, at least your consistent here. Your a total nihilist.

Sure if the term means to withhold judgment when there is no verifiable evidence. Although I will agree to being a moral nihilist if that is what you meant.

I started out actually hostile to it and became convinced but that was wrong. You should start neutral and let the weight of evidence decide.

If there is verifiable evidence, I'm all for it. Instead what I fine is a lot of conjecture based on testimony that isn't verified. I understand a conclusion can be reach based on unverified evidence. I just don't see the certainty there that others would like to assume.

Of course all men can lie but all men do not mostly lie so I should never assume a less probable lie until the evidence suggests it. Your assuming the exception is the rule and the rule is the exception.

I'm not really assuming anything. I see it happening everyday. Are you now going to convince me that all men are not sinners?

That might be true to some extant but at a certain point my gamble PROVED its self to be true. That is Christianity's unique gift. Every single Christian can know it is true. In fact no Christian does not know it is true. You become a Christian by virtue of the truth becoming a reality. Becoming born again is the proof of the test of faith.

This is not really helpful unless you can tell who is and is not born again. You can be certain with what is true for you. I'm fine with that. When it comes to other people it's still a crap shoot. I wouldn't expect you to trust me. You don't really know the truth of me, I'm just words on a screen.

People do trust me, don't know why, don't ask them to. Still it is almost like desperation. People willing to trust, respect confidence. Of course I try to live up to it, my morals being what they are. But I'm not perfect and I don't expect others to be perfect either.

 

[1robin]

I'll be honest with you and admit upfront that statements like this from Christians leave me baffled. Reasons for bafflement:

I don't see how your baffled by that simplistic statement.

How exactly is the God-Jesus relationship supposed to be comparable to a human father-son relationship? According to Christian mythology, god by some supernatural means impregnated a woman and "begat" a son; but this begetting had precious little in common with the usual human way of going about the business - do we imagine, for example, that god passed on half of JC's genes? Your question was directed at SkepticThinker and I won't speak for him, but I for one can't simply equate god's attitude to his "son" with mine to my own kids in the manner implied.

First I notice you smuggled in mythology here without any justification. The Gospels have over and over again been shown to not be myth. Scholars show it developed far too fast for myth to be it's foundation.

Clifford Herschel Moore, professor at Harvard University, well said, "Christianity knew its savior and redeemer not as some god whose history was contained in a mythical faith, with rude, primitive, and even offensive elements...Jesus was a historical not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded itself of the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive, historical, and acceptable facts."

Lets try to cut back on these smuggling tactics, ok?

My statement does not need any comparison like what you mentioned. Someone made a statement in the context of God's not being very good. I pointed out he gave the most precious thing he had to redeem those who hate him, and compared that to our own reluctance to do so even for those that do not hate us. The point was God gave everything and we seldom will give anything that is not mandated or enforced. Sometimes we will but that is the exception. God's demonstrated goodness is greater than ours so the original claim was invalid. There is no theological doctrine here that needs an explanation.

[*]This difficulty in balancing the equation you imply above only becomes harder when we consider that according to Christians god "begat" his "son" for the sole purpose of seeing him sacrificed. Is god supposed to have suffered anguish at JC's execution, in the way a human parent would, when he brought about the bearded wonder's conception with exactly that in mind?

There was no equation there was a comparison. It was not even supposed to be a comparison between equals just between similar types of things. God did not begat his son for the sole purpose of redeeming us. What verse do you get that from? Of course God suffered when the son he had always been in a perfect loving relationship was severed from him. However this is not a contest about who suffered the most. This was about is God good? If he redeems my mistakes at his expense how is he not good? How good is another subject.

[*]In fact, can god, a perfect being devoid of need, experience anguish at all (or any emotion of loss)? If not, where's the sacrifice?

I think so. Not being able to feel would make God a lesser God. I do not see how lacking empathy is Godlike for example. Ravi describes it this way. He said God did not stand aloof from our pain and misery, he entered into the very vortex of our suffering. He did not conquer in spite of suffering he conquered through suffering. How can you ever label that God other than good?

[*]And how exactly would offering my son to be killed (were I insane enough to do so) redeem anybody? In fact, how is anyone's violent death supposed to redeem anybody?

Again they are similarities not equalities. Our letting our sons risk death in foreign nations for the rights of others is similar to it. In fact self sacrifice is universally thought to be the greatest good we can do. We build museums to show case these acts, we give medals to those who do them, and write stories about these deeds. Yet we have the insanity to suggest the greatest example of sacrifice was actually bad in God's case. Non-theists seem to have one standard for everything but God and a second for God alone.

[*]And just what are we imagined to be redeemed from, if not a sanction imposed by the very entity that now comes up with this bizarre way of discharging it? (OK, you've messed up big-time; but tellya what, I'll kill my son for you, and we'll be all square...)

From the misery a hells we create by rejecting God. When you reject God you reject what he comes with or is the source for. You reject wisdom, you reject objective moral truth, you reject the foundation for life having objective value, you reject any basis for the equality of man, etc.... IOW you create suffering and exclude goodness. We are not forced into the hell of eternal separation from God that is what we demand. We do not want God and we get exactly what we want, no God. The standard for heaven is perfection. Needless to say it is necessarily so or it would not be heaven. God will not dwell with imperfection forever. Also needless to say we cause massive unknowable amounts of suffering by our actions that ripple through time and are not perfect. God paid the entire cost to rectify all these problems that OUR rebellion create. It is free of charge, all we have to do is accept it. Where is the foul here?

Elucidation gratefully received.

Elucidation attempted.

 

[1robin]

I’m not sure what’s so perfectly moral about offering up one’s own son to torture and human sacrifice. Sounds a bit twisted to me. Especially when your god could have done literally anything else that didn’t involve torture and human sacrifice.

As I said most of us have one standard for God and another for everything else. We build museums for human actions of self sacrifice, give them medals, and write songs about them. We count it as the greatest good a human can do. Yet when God does it we can't quite look at it the same way. Why is that? An entity which I have rebelled against paying the cost to reconcile me to him and give me perfection for eternity has no down side.

Maybe it was the "miserable failures" part that threw me off. Or the “babies and children aren’t innocent” part. Or the “the ENTIRE world is under the wicked one, not just adults” part. Or all the “we aren’t worthy of god” stuff. Or the stuff in that Bible that says that the human heart is evil from childhood. Stuff like that.

I have no way to prevent you from being thrown off. I just give doctrine as I see it. You can take it or leave, that is not up to me.

Yes there is. And we have been over this more times than I care to count. The humanistic point of view, which I try to espouse, doesn’t start off with human beings as fallen, wicked sinful creatures that can only be cured by believing that a perfect Jewish demi-god walked the earth 2000 years ago. It views human beings as creatures who have worth and value simply by virtue of being alive.

The point it has no basis by which those arbitrary assumptions are ever true. You must engage in a whole series of assumptions from the start to produce ethics and that is not a good recipe given our capacity to screw up. When you untether morality from it's objective foundation it is free to be warped and twisted by a very warped and twisted race. Out of the crooked timber of humanity (or humanism in this case) no straight thing was ever made.

Our morals are derived from the only thing that makes any sense –our collective human experience and analysis of the consequences of actions.
Following dictates from above without a second thought is amoral, in the sense that no morality is being exercised at all. There is no analysis of the right or wrong of the situation. It says that something is right or wrong because some deity far removed from the human experience we all share declares it so. A deity that refuses to show itself. Not only that, but the book this deity supposedly inspired can be interpreted in so many different ways by so many different people, it makes it very difficult to discern what it actually wants from us in any objective sense. You say babies aren’t innocent, somebody else says they are – how can we actually know who is right? You’re both reading the same book.

I know very well where you get ethics without God. As you say we have been over it time and again. It will always and forever equal opinion and opinion is a horrific basis for what you mistakenly think is morality. To save your self time just use the word opinion. I know what is behind the opinion. No need to restate it over and over.

 

[1robin]

The point is, there are so many different people declaring so many different versions of "god's word" that it's nearly impossible to figure out which is the "correct" interpretation. Obviously you think yours is. Well, those guys I linked you to obviously think there's is the correct interpretation. You say I "should believe god's word" but how is one supposed to be able to accurately ascertain which version is god's word, if any? I don't really care what your opinion is of the 3 guys I linked you to. I only did that to demonstrate what I've just said here.

No it is not. No matter what deficiencies we have to arrive at objective moral truth given God we have an infinite more problems without him. This is because there is no moral truth without God to even arrive at. At least with God it exists and can be potentially known. Without God we have as many opinions as people and not a single one is true. An atheist when asked how he determined what morals he adopts answered arrogantly "by feelings what else". Ravi replied well in some cultures they love their neighbors, and in some they eat them, both based on feeling. What is your preference? Even when you artificially invent problems for Christianity it is infinitely better than non-theism.

This is the tactic I refer to as the arbitrary amplification of uncertainty. It involves taking what little disagreement there and amplifying it to what ever point allows dismissal. 90% of Christians agree on 90% of doctrine. That is much better than for many of the scientific theories you believe are valid.

I actually do need to know how people feel about the innocence of babies. Because like I keep saying, our beliefs affect our actions and behaviors.

Well I have no dog in that race. I guarantee you that without God there is no fact in existence that objectively grounds how babies should be treated. Nature does not contain any truth on how something should be. As for us God does not judge them so neither do we. We treat them as imperfect but unaccountable.

 

[1robin]

I think this may just be a misunderstanding.

In response to something you said, I asked “Who is killing newborn babies for convenience??”

To which you replied, “There is no way what so ever you do not know the answer to that question.”

As I have already stated substitute aborted for newborn. However I gave you examples for both cases. With clarification and without both have occurred in large numbers but technically I should have said aborted babies.

And practiced by people from all walks of life and practically every religion – including Christianity.

There is a huge difference between suggesting drugs are good and in a moment of weakness doing them. Not that either is ok. We will al morally fail but our worst failures are when we suggest bad and unjustifiable moral actions are good or good ones bad. I am certain some number of Christians have committed every sin possible. However we generally do not call immorality moral. In general we don't say it is ok, even if we fail to resist at times. Every single Christian got to be one by admitting his moral failure and it's drastic cost.

So while (most?) Christians may not openly support a personal right to choose what people do with their own bodies, they certainly act in accordance with it.

How was the child's right to his own body protected. This is worse than racism or even speciesm, it is me-ism and has the price of death. A mother demands rights which she does not even have without God, but she denies the exact same rights to the unborn child. Even though it was her actions that resulted in the child existing. So for her actions and for her non-existent rights she denies the very same rights to the one she terminates. I literally cannot think of an action more worthy of condemnation. It is the most immoral thing I can possibly think of. If that does not indicate moral insanity then no event possibly can reverse this train wreck. Yes Christian fail in the same way but in general they do not defend it by calling it right. They give in, feel extreme remorse and repent. They don't try to cover it up by calling the greatest possible evil, good.

Why do you keep referring to social Darwinism?

Why not? Would it not be the default. Would not humanism come by evolutionary means? How does evolution explain behavior in one case and not in another? It is the most pliable theory that ever existed.

It’s an incorrect interpretation of “survival of the fittest” anyway.

Give me a label that means morality by opinion by the exclusion of God. I will use it.

 

[JM2C]

Assuming it's something like "falling short of God's standard for us",
if we're sinful right from the beginning, then doesn't this point to a problem with God?
Why would God create a creation that he considers deficient?

You mean, “Assuming” for the sake of argument without admitting it to be the truth, or hypothetically speaking?

We can be more specific and skip the semantic arguments.

Why not say something like this instead, in the bible, the very truth word of God, it says in the book of Romans, [otherwise, if any source or writings known to you that differs from this, then you can present it]

Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

And the reason for that, Romans 3:23, can found in Genesis chapter 3 or the fall of man.

How are you defining "sin"?

Ro 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

This verse is suggestive of the fall of man in Genesis Chapter 3.
“Sin” taking the place of Satan, the tempter in the Garden of Eden, and “by the commandment” of God, the very first commandment of God to man -Gen. 2:16-17,

Ge 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Ge 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Satan, the tempter in the Garden of Eden, deceived Eve, by using the first commandment of God to man -Gen. 2:16-17, then she gave Adam the forbidden fruit that led to death (spiritual death occurred or separation from God then, the physical death would follow later). They were thrown out of the Garden of Eden -Gen 3:24.

Ge 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Before Genesis Chapter 3, or the fall of man, God created Adam and Eve “perfectly” or “sinless“.

IOW, God did not create Adam and Eve with deficiency -read Gen 1:26.

There was no problem at all with God because everything that God created in Genesis 1-2 were good, in fact God said the word “good” seven times, but when it came the creation of Adam/Man God said “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:” which is “perfect” and “sinless” because that is what God is, “perfect” and “sinless“.

Why would God create a sinner if God said “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:” -Gen 1:26?

Clear is now claiming he was born “sinless“.

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.

How is that possible base on Genesis 3, and Romans 5:12?

Maybe Clear was born or created by God before Adam?

Where is your proof “To which of the holy ones will you appeal?”

Do we have to re-write Genesis chapter 3 to make his claim?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You mean, “Assuming” for the sake of argument without admitting it to be the truth, or hypothetically speaking?

We can be more specific and skip the semantic arguments.

Why not say something like this instead, in the bible, the very truth word of God, it says in the book of Romans, [otherwise, if any source or writings known to you that differs from this, then you can present it]

Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

And the reason for that, Romans 3:23, can found in Genesis chapter 3 or the fall of man.

Ro 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

This verse is suggestive of the fall of man in Genesis Chapter 3.
“Sin” taking the place of Satan, the tempter in the Garden of Eden, and “by the commandment” of God, the very first commandment of God to man -Gen. 2:16-17,

Ge 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Ge 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Satan, the tempter in the Garden of Eden, deceived Eve, by using the first commandment of God to man -Gen. 2:16-17, then she gave Adam the forbidden fruit that led to death (spiritual death occurred or separation from God then, the physical death would follow later). They were thrown out of the Garden of Eden -Gen 3:24.

Ge 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Before Genesis Chapter 3, or the fall of man, God created Adam and Eve “perfectly” or “sinless“.

IOW, God did not create Adam and Eve with deficiency -read Gen 1:26.

There was no problem at all with God because everything that God created in Genesis 1-2 were good, in fact God said the word “good” seven times, but when it came the creation of Adam/Man God said “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:” which is “perfect” and “sinless” because that is what God is, “perfect” and “sinless“.

Why would God create a sinner if God said “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:” -Gen 1:26?

Clear is now claiming he was born “sinless“.


How is that possible base on Genesis 3, and Romans 5:12?

Maybe Clear was born or created by God before Adam?

Where is your proof “To which of the holy ones will you appeal?”

Do we have to re-write Genesis chapter 3 to make his claim?

Funny how you managed to write such a long post without answering any of my questions. Care to try again?