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

[1robin]

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.

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.

Well I'm certainly sorry that the most profound 750,000 words ever written on the most complex and divisive concepts in history is taking an hour out of your busy day of debating.

You do not ever need an answer to the baby question for anything at any point. If God exists then you like every other adult mortal ever born is imperfect. The one thing you need to believe is what Christ did and fortunately this far more necessary issue is also the most certain and clear. Everything else is mere background and commentary in comparison. No blind faith, no digging through obscure texts, not even in deep theology. The majority of NT historians concede 4 core things among many others.

1. Christ appeared on the historical stage with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. Christ was crucified by Rome and died on the cross.
3. That his tomb was found empty.
4. That even his enemies sincerely recorded their meeting him after death.


If that alone was all the NT said it would be sufficient, however it goes on to embarrass us with additional data. No false amplification of uncertainty will can justify rejection, no appeals to different views are relevant because over 95% of Christians believe these things, no resenting a few hours spent researching the most important issues humanity has ever studied, just plain simple historical agreement.

 

[McBell]

please wake me when the sermon is over...

 

[1robin]

1ROBIN[/U] :

Hello clear.

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

The word debt would not appear in me theory. I would use the word result. We bear some of the results of Adams fall. Debt just seems a word loaded with to much baggage.

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 do not use the term debt in my theory (actually my interpretation of doctrine). Debt implies that I awe something that I have the ability to pay. That is not the case. We find ourselves in a position which we do not have the ability to rectify. Your in the ball park but lets dial it in a bit and get rid of that word "debt".

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.

No the doctrine of the fall and/or original sin is not something I can add to. I just find it the best explanation of reality and so have adopted it. I see what I expect to see if true.

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

You do as you must, you have no obligation to me.

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 would not think there are no more than 3 or 4 fundamental positions on original sin at least at their core. However I have found mine to be almost universal in mainstream Protestantism.

Again you may use extra biblical sources but as I firmly claim they are not inspired they have little relevance to me. That source is actually Gnostic which necessarily labels it as mans knowledge not God's. Regardless label or not it has no credibility with me. You use what you want but it is of little use concerning me.

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

Yet again your misrepresenting my claims. I have never said anything about 19 year olds. I have no idea what age children become accountable but most traditions hold it to be in the early teen years. If your premise contains a distorted version of my claims then everything based on it will be flawed. I actually feel sorry for those who do that. They make an initial mistake which forces them to waste a whole post.

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).

I have no specific age but those who are young enough are not held accountable, those who are old enough are. God is the judge so he had no need to state what age that is. I imagine circumstances vary it per person.

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”) as your “cut off” for “suspending” condemnation and automatically“going to heaven” regardless of their actions.

I do not remember doing so, and I have never held that view. I think someone assigned 19 to a statement I made about accountability occurring in our teen age years. I do not have any specific age in mind. It is God's decision and so I have no need of it.

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.

You see this point is only relevant to your flawed understanding of my claims.

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?

I don't think I did and I know I have never held a belief about any specific age. Just guessing I would have said between 12 and 14. Actually I think I have said this many times. You really got off on the wrong foot here.

If you reject that doctrine (regardless of the age issue) then you have only two options left. Babies are accountable or no one ever is. Which is it?

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

I agree our moral capacity increases with age, though I would think it varies in rates quite a bit. What you quoted is evidence for my claim. It appears Ezra agrees with my understanding of our moral competence determining our moral accountability. It appears he separates accountable sinners and unaccountable sinners which I also affirm.

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

I didn't. In my memory you did. However it does not matter. Just know that officially I hold no firm belief about any specific age. My tentative beliefs are early teens but it would vary by person and circumstance. This agrees with early and mainstream Judaism and Christianity.

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

You really let this one get away from you. Every thing you have said is a result on a single initial flaw.

I wish you a good journey 1ROBIN

What are you doing in the fall, starting school?

 

[1robin]

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

I did not say anything about truth. I said it makes sense. It is logical that most people adopt the most coherent explanation of reality.

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.

It means nothing has any meaning. Everything is a hopeless sea of confusing. There are no objective moral facts, no scientific certainties, no theological truths, etc.....

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.

By every historical method, every criteria in textual criticism, and every principle by which testimony and evidence is weighed the Gospels are extremely reliable. Comparing like to like no other text is even in the same ballpark. Not one text of any kind in ancient history is even in second place. The Bible as a work of ancient history surpasses every single reasonable expectation. If you reject he Gospel claim then you should reject every single historical claim of the period or previous to it because none of them has better textual attestation. Not the Peloponnesian wars, not Caesar's Gallic wars, not anything anywhere.

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

It appeared you assume wrong in the bible's case until you have certainty it is right. Paul in not an apostle until someone has what, a u-tube of him, his DNA, God's hand writing. You have way more than you can reasonably request. What more do you need?

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.

Yes it is, and it is without our being able to tell it in a single other person. Your world view requires that every single one of the millions of claims to the miraculous be wrong. Mine only requires one be right, since I can know what I have experienced for certain then which position is more justifiable.

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.

Your honesty was not an issue. What you can know is. The standard for heaven is perfection not being good. 90% of those in prison think they are good. We can't be good enough for heaven so God had to legally credit Christ's perfection to our account. This takes place when we are born again. It is the only coherent salvation system I am aware of.

 

[Clear]

1) 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”.

2) Clear responded in # 4313 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?

3) JM2C asked in # 4339 “How is that possible base on Genesis 3, and Romans 5:12?“


Early christians did not believe Newborns were morally depraved, nor did a newborn sin in their worldview.

The inconsistence between this early Christian worldview and your theory is possible because you are assigning meanings to the scriptures that they did not have for the ancients who wrote them and to those who read them. they simply interpreted them differently.

Their worldview doesn’t make sense to you inside your theological model because your model is NOT the same as the ancient theological model. For them, Newborns are not morally “depraved” “sinners” and newborns did not “sin constantly”.

JM2C, answer my two questions from #2 (post 4313) above and I will answer your question from post 4339.


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?

[FONT=&quot]Clear
σεσετωειφυω
[/FONT]

 

[Nakosis]

I did not say anything about truth. I said it makes sense. It is logical that most people adopt the most coherent explanation of reality.

That kind of doesn't need to be said. Of course people adopt what they see as the most coherent explanation. if they came across something which to them seem more coherent, they adopt that instead.

It means nothing has any meaning. Everything is a hopeless sea of confusing. There are no objective moral facts, no scientific certainties, no theological truths, etc.....

There is moral nihilism. For me that just means I don't see a need for absolute moral values. Therefore man need not explain the actions attributed to God relevant to morality. Otherwise I'm happy to entertain ideas of theological or scientific certainties. Just to me certainty needs verifiable evidence meaning something I or other could actually verify for ourselves. At the same time uncertainty requires the same verifiable evidence. For me to have certainty in something I read means having some evidence that I can verify the truth of.

By every historical method, every criteria in textual criticism, and every principle by which testimony and evidence is weighed the Gospels are extremely reliable. Comparing like to like no other text is even in the same ballpark. Not one text of any kind in ancient history is even in second place. The Bible as a work of ancient history surpasses every single reasonable expectation. If you reject he Gospel claim then you should reject every single historical claim of the period or previous to it because none of them has better textual attestation. Not the Peloponnesian wars, not Caesar's Gallic wars, not anything anywhere.

And I run into differing opinions regarding the truths of these texts. Unlike many, I'm not reassured by truth in numbers. If I had the resources to do all of this textual criticism I'd have a lot more certainty, one way or the other. However that means I have to become an expert in that field. I just don't think it is reasonable for God to expect this of me.

It appeared you assume wrong in the bible's case until you have certainty it is right. Paul in not an apostle until someone has what, a u-tube of him, his DNA, God's hand writing. You have way more than you can reasonably request. What more do you need?

I just believe God should be accessible without becoming a literary expert to know God's will. I'm not the smartest guy in the world. However, not passing judgement, but there are people who have an even more difficult time with someone these idea. I'd expect God to be able to make his will known to even the least of us.

Yes it is, and it is without our being able to tell it in a single other person. Your world view requires that every single one of the millions of claims to the miraculous be wrong. Mine only requires one be right, since I can know what I have experienced for certain then which position is more justifiable.

One? You?... I'm not worried about the claims. I'm worried about the conclusions drawn. The theology based on the claims. I accept the reality of spiritual experiences. What I question is people claiming to have the authority to explain the truth of those experiences to the rest of us.

Your honesty was not an issue. What you can know is. The standard for heaven is perfection not being good. 90% of those in prison think they are good. We can't be good enough for heaven so God had to legally credit Christ's perfection to our account. This takes place when we are born again. It is the only coherent salvation system I am aware of.

However your view of salvation is based on Paul's interpretation of Christ. Why is Paul special? How come God can take someone like Paul, basically an anti-christian and turn him around but not the rest of us?

 

[JM2C]

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

Or maybe you did not understand it.

 

[Clear]

1) 1Robin said : The word debt would not appear in m[y] theory. I would use the word result. Post #4343

Actually, 1Robin, YOU were the source of the word "debt" since you first used the word “debt” in describing your theory to me :
In post # 4152 you said : Without getting into the details we inquire a debt associated with original sin in the form of separation from God.

As I said, I did not care what term we use if it has similar meaning. I was simply using a term appearing in your theory.



2) Clear asked 1Robin regarding 1Robin 's theory that 19 year olds (i.e. teenagers) automatically go to heaven. (post 4333)

1robin replied : Yet again your misrepresenting my claims (post 4343)

If you remember 1robin, YOU, yourself described your theory that judgment (and any subsequent punishment that might result) was “suspended” for certain groups.

Here is YOUR description : "...babies, adolescents, pre-teens, teens are not required as they all go to heaven in classic doctrine.” (post #4152).

Since YOU wrote “teenagers” I simply took you at your word. NineTEEN, IS a “teenager”.

THIS is why I asked about why you picked “19 years old” as “all go[ing] to heaven”

If you are now saying this is incorrect, this is fine. However I think you throw around the claim that others "misrepresent you" way too much.

I think you often do not see that some of these “misrepresentations” you are blaming others for are originating inside your own descriptions and you simply do not recognize it. I am not trying to be overly critical because you are making a LOT of claims and theorizing inside your responses and I don’t think it would be easy to remember what one said, but I think you should consider this point. I see other posters such as skeptic thinker has received some of your chastisements for “misrepresentation” when, I also agreed with him that he did not "misrepresent you", but rather you simply didn’t remember what you, yourself had told him.

I think we all do this from time to time and I do NOT think it is a personal defect, but sometimes is the nature of communication. The HABIT of doing it can become a personal defect however.




3) 1ROBIN asked : “ What are you doing in the fall, starting school?”

Every fall and especially winter, there is more illness in the population and so my main business becomes busier (It pays for more history books than history itself pays for).
I am also involved in other projects which require more time than I will be able to give them if I become too busy on the forums.

I like the forums since they give me some basic touch with modern Christian theories and how they compare to early christian worldviews, but my main interest is in early Judeo-Christian textual traditions and beliefs.

This is partly why I use multiple early texts in describing early Christian worldviews. For a historian, the bible is a very narrow source of specific raw data. The earliest biblical texts can give us some idea of what someone may have said in an earlier time period.

However, a Christian diary or a popular hymn or mishna or synagogal prayer from the first couple of centuries can tell me how early Christians themselves interpreted their biblical text and other texts they held sacred and early documents can tell me what the earlier Christian movement believed so as to allow me to better understand the earlier Christian doctrines and also allow me to compare early doctrines with changes in doctrine and tradition that occurred as Christianity moved away from its origins in time and geography.

Specific Christian doctrines that are repeated in a hundred early texts that are separated by large swaths of time and large geographical space are more likely to represent early orthodoxy. As examples are the wonderful early traditions surrounding the war in heaven where Lucifer, an archangel fell and thus began the origin of Satan as an enemy to God and Adam, as found in early Jewish, Christian and Islamic Literature in wonderful agreement; the early descriptions of what God was doing before creation and how circumstances there affected God's plan for creation and his purposes for the spirits of mankind. The early Christian doctrines are described in many, many, many wonderful textual traditions.

This is why scholars and historians of the earliest periods of christianity will try to widen their data streams and sources as much as they can. This larger and more accurate context associated with the larger historical data stream is often difficult for a typical "sunday school" christian to understand.

In almost all cases, the earlier Christians doctrines seem to me to be more rational, more logical and more intuitive than the later christian theories that evolved in the later ages. Since you are not particularly historically oriented, I don't think these things will make as much sense to you but they are my chosen interest.

Most Christians grow up with a somewhat arbitrary exposure to a theory that may come from a parent or colleague or a minister and that theology and model becomes their imagination as what Christianity has “always been like”. It is not a defect in the person, it is simply a specific lack of context that all of us suffer, either to a greater or a lessor extent (myself included).

I’ll chime in from time to time but I am actually a tiny bit familiar with this theory on total depravity and feel that when Augustine created it, it probably represented as much his personality and outlook that created this theory as any interpretation (especially since personal context affects translation). Given the time period in which this specific theory originated, I think it’s popularity was much easier to achieve and some of the circumstances contributing to it’s popularity were similar to Rabbi Singer’s description offered by CG DIDYMUS(somewhere in the 4241-4245 post range) was fairly insightful.

In any case, this interpretation and theory of depravity does not seem to be represented in the sacred literature prior to Augustines era to any significant extent but mainly comes from the ages of Theologians making their theories.

In any case 1robin I honestly hope your journey in this life is good. As I said, I’ll hang around a bit on specific points, but the theory itself is not going to help me discover and understand the Christianity of the ages before the theory originated.

Clear
σεσετωφιφιω

 

[McBell]

Or maybe you did not understand it.

If no one can understand you, what good are you as a messenger?

 

[JM2C]

If no one can understand you, what good are you as a messenger?

I'm sorry did I wake you up?

 

[McBell]

I'm sorry

No worries, you cannot help it...

did I wake you up?

Nope.

 

[JM2C]

No worries, you cannot help it...



Nope.

Hakuna Matata

 

[McBell]

Hakuna Matata

postatem obscuri lateris nescitis

 

[CG Didymus]

...The Levitical system alone is so complicated that if one applies this system today, one would think, how they did it back then.

Just think about this, during the Lord Jesus Christ earthly ministry there were over a million animals sacrificed and offered in the temple.

How are you going to do that today? You cannot, because you do not have the high priest and priests in the line of Aaron and especially you do not have the temple.

Christians do not do this things, or in other words we do not practice this today because this Levitical system is not for Christians to know. It does not LITERALLY apply to Christianity.

I kind of agree, but for different reasons. Why would God ever want or need animals to be sacrificed to him? If he is real, why didn't he make things more clear to the Hebrews from the start? Why did he make them do all those rituals and follow a bunch of rules that he would later nullify? Why did he have people stoned to death for breaking some of those rules?

What I think is that the Hebrews wrote a mythology that fit their way of life and that explained why they were so special... but so did many other cultures. The NT fits good enough into the Hebrew Scriptures for many to believe it. But, The Koran fits into the Hebrew Scriptures and the NT for a lot of other people to believe that it's part of the same revelation from the one true God.

I do have one other question for you. It's about your use of the Book of Hebrews. Who do you think wrote it? If you think it was Paul, then fine, you're going with tradition. If you don't think it was Paul, then who? And why is it in the Christian canon? Thanks.

 

[CG Didymus]

...This is because there is no moral truth without God to even arrive at.

Or, we needed "objective" morals and invented God. And, since many people have different definitions of who God is and what are his "objective" morals, then even if your God is the right one and the truth, all those other people did make up their own "Gods" and made their own supposed rules and morals and then attributed to their own man made God.

Oh and your post 4335, you talked about Jesus and the gospels not being a myth. But, the problem is, things in it sound mythological. Like the virgin birth, which wasn't written about all that early. People coming out of the graves and walking around. Jesus walking on water. Those things might have happened, after all we're talking about God, but what should people do when they read other religious books and see similar things being talked about in them? We should doubt and question them shouldn't we? We should take them as mythological stories, shouldn't we? Then, why should we think any different about the NT?

Plus, you accept the Hebrew Bible as the Word of God also, and there are so many things in there that sound like religious mythology. Like the world-wide flood, parting of the sea, three boys being tossed into a fiery furnace and not getting burned. They are all great spiritual stories, but how far are we supposed to take all these stories as literal events? Especially, since you yourself probably don't believe similar stories from the Holy Books of other religions.

We all know why you believe the Bible, but why do you pretend that it isn't worth questioning for those of us that don't believe it?

 

[CG Didymus]

postatem obscuri lateris nescitis

Are you guys speaking in tongues?

 

[CG Didymus]

Well I'm certainly sorry that the most profound 750,000 words ever written on the most complex and divisive concepts in history is taking an hour out of your busy day of debating.

You do not ever need an answer to the baby question for anything at any point. If God exists then you like every other adult mortal ever born is imperfect. The one thing you need to believe is what Christ did and fortunately this far more necessary issue is also the most certain and clear. Everything else is mere background and commentary in comparison. No blind faith, no digging through obscure texts, not even in deep theology. The majority of NT historians concede 4 core things among many others.

1. Christ appeared on the historical stage with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. Christ was crucified by Rome and died on the cross.
3. That his tomb was found empty.
4. That even his enemies sincerely recorded their meeting him after death.


If that alone was all the NT said it would be sufficient, however it goes on to embarrass us with additional data. No false amplification of uncertainty will can justify rejection, no appeals to different views are relevant because over 95% of Christians believe these things, no resenting a few hours spent researching the most important issues humanity has ever studied, just plain simple historical agreement.

I was being sarcastic. That's how easy it was to find some information that makes you out be to mistaken.

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.

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.

Why would Jews believe they are born with a clean slate, if their God knew otherwise? Why wouldn't he make it perfectly clear to them that they had a sin debt from birth that they could never pay?

Hey, and all those things in that site about the origin of the doctrine of being born sinners, they're pretty complex. He's saying that Origin, Tertullain, and Augustine all had some pagan and Christian heretical influences that helped formulate this "depraved" doctrine thing. But you know what, I am way to busy watching reruns of the Big Bang Theory and Modern Family to get into it. So if you say article is not true that's good enough for me.

 

[johnhanks]

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

That's why I took the trouble to enumerate my reasons. (And I wonder if you mean simple, not simplistic?)

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

Smuggling? I used the word mythology in plain print, for anyone to read. Do smugglers usually walk through customs with their contraband held up in plain sight? As to justification, the whole divine-impregnation-of-a mortal-woman shtick resounds through earlier pagan traditions that you would undoubtedly regard as mythologies. Why do you expect non-Christians to treat your version differently?

My statement does not need any comparison like what you mentioned.

Really? You asked a poster "how many people have you offered your children's life to redeem?", thus forcing a comparison between the poster's feelings for his own kids (if any) and god's "feelings" for his "son". Your evasion is noted.

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.

I ask again: in what sense do Christians believe JC was god's son? Sons (and daughters) are begotten when a sperm fuses with an egg and two haploid genomes become a diploid one: presumably nothing like this happened in JC's case. In Christianity's nonsensical insistence that god begat a human son we have nothing more nor less than an expression of a Judaism-derived mythology's patriarchal roots. (Please note: the word mythology was not smuggled in: I hereby declare the item to customs.)

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.

Yes it is, and one that I did not raise. My questions were about comprehensibility, not relative goodness.

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.

Another question evaded by appeal to authority.

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.

Where did I use the word bad, or make any judgment at all about worthiness? Good / bad / indifferent, my argument with this "greatest example of sacrifice" is that the story makes no sense.

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 ... Where is the foul here?

Again you are posting answers to questions that were not asked, and evading those that were. Where did I say anything about a foul?

Elucidation attempted.

... but not, sadly, achieved.

 

[JM2C]

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.

I didn’t know that you were a Christian like some of the guys in this thread. I do apologize for being ignorant of your condition and I pray to God that you find your way to Him again. I believe that all Christians went through and, still going through, to what you went through. Is denying the Lord Jesus Christ a sign of failure as a Christian? No!

The Lord Jesus Christ said to Peter before He went to the cross.

Lk 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
Lk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

After denying the Lord Jesus 3x Peter came back and was reinstated by the Lord Himself, but between Peter’s denial and conversion “when thou art converted” Peter was not condemning a group of people for his lack of faith. He was just confused as should all Christians were or should be, but as the Lord have said to Peter, “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not” as all Christians should be, “that thy faith fail not” because of this confusions among other Christians and some other things.

The Lord Jesus predicted Peter's defection, which He attributes to the direct activity of Satan –Verse31. The Lord Jesus knew that all Christians will go through the same thing like what Peter went through or worst. There is no escaping it, all Christians will go through this sifting like wheat, and as Christians gets finer through siftings then they will understand that those were parts of being a Christian and that what makes a Christian stronger.

Peter understood this part as being a Christian in his epistle.

1Pe 5:8 Be careful! Watch out for attacks from the Devil, your great enemy. He prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for some victim to devour.
1Pe 5:9 Take a firm stand against him, and be strong in your faith. Remember that your Christian brothers and sisters all over the world are going through the same kind of suffering you are.
1Pe 5:10 In his kindness God called you to his eternal glory by means of Jesus Christ. After you have suffered a little while, he will restore, support, and strengthen you, and he will place you on a firm foundation.

“after you have suffered a little while”, or as Christians gets finer through siftings, “He will place you on a firm foundation”

 

[JM2C]

postatem obscuri lateris nescitis

Read post #4359
　
Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.