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

[SkepticThinker]

That is a rational explanation but not a good one. If invented we usually invent systems that justify us. The bible condemned the race who wrote it. Wishful thinking is certainty arguable but the weight of evidence is not on it's side.

Any ancient history with sound myth like 2000 years later but myth sounding is not the test for myth. There is actually quite a methodical process for determining how much myth there is in a historical source. You will never be exact but the bible passes the tests in ever category by such margins that myth is a horrible explanation. Let me give you an example. Paul's passion story alone is a reasonable basis for Christian faith. IT was based and creeds and hymns of churches that were teaching these things within decade of Christ's death, some arrogantly claim within months. They could be wrong but what they can't be is myth. BY myth are you simply meaning inaccurate? Myth is a specific type of inaccuracy so I was looking at it in that context. If you mean only inaccurate then we would have to get specific and go through one event at a time.

Nothing central to my faith requires I understand with certainty what is contained in the Pentateuch. I honestly can't decide how literal or how symbolic certain claims are. Since Christianity's foundations are on Calvary not Mt. Ararat I would suggest we understand the reliability of the Gospels before going pre-historic.

Find any thing I have ever said that suggests or even hints you should not question the bible in general. I still do as does every Christian I know. We spend every day evaluating beliefs and texts. My only complaint is when I see bias or double standards that impede correct evaluation but I encourage everyone who can to responsibly question their faith or rejection of it their whole lives. I do not know how you got that I discouraged questioning of the bible.

myth

1A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

myth: definition of myth in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

 

[1robin]

My parents gave me my life. I thank them for it all the time.

They had a roll in it but if they gave you life in it's entirety of meaning where did they get it? What do you mean by life anyway? Reminds me of a song by the wise old mega death hermit Dave Mustaine. "I here by sentence you to life", response: "life?" "what life?" "I aint got a life".

Where do you get a life? Is there a return policy?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It does not matter. The atheist did not mean feelings specifically either. You may use empathy, feelings, social Darwinism, reason, logic, deduction, optimality, whatever you wish it will always equal an opinion formed without regard for moral truth. Humans do not resolve moral doctrines based on opinions which have no potential objective foundation. Even in Greece and Rome they separated moral truths (those against objective moral fact) and ethical truths (those against social norms or OPINION). Now you do not even have their luxury as you have no source possible for the former and are left with he latter. Murder is no longer wrong it is not socially fashionable at best, in other cases it may be fashionable and here is the real rub. Their opinion is just as valid as yours. You would have to go way outside atheism to judge them in any meaningful way. I am not aware of any society so morally stupid that it gave up having an objective foundation for at least much of it's moral demands or standards. I would even doubt that Stalin's anti-faith of any kind empire of misery used any non-objective basis for much of it's foundations. Humans almost all act as if objective morals exist. If they didn't they would be close to being a psychopath.

Lets say that everyone besides the country you lived in had been conquered by the Nazis and either became a psychopath or died off. Their part of the world would be a bad but legitimate example or case of your moral framework in action. Lets say me and you met to decide what to do about the evil they were causing for the rest of the worlds citizens. How would you argue against them that would not equal that you merely did not agree with them? I can at least rationally claim they are violating objective moral truth, you can't. We need justification to act. What do you have?

I'm sorry but I don't feel like rehashing the exact same argument with you that we've had several times now. This is like word-for-word identical to the same argument you rehash over and over, no matter what my response.

I've already responded to your Nazi scenario at least twice now.

The moral framework I'm talking about is evident via the human experience, psychology, observation and the fact that no two individuals share the exact same moral beliefs.

When you interpret the Bible, you're interpreting it through your own perspective, just like everyone else.

 

[1robin]

So... just to cut to the chase, is this your argument?

- babies are morally depraved
- therefore, it's okay to let babies die
- therefore, God's not evil for letting babies die

Do I have it right?

Please stop attributing my words to JM2C or scripture unless they independently used them. Only I should be required to defend the words I use.

Those words were used before I recognized what the term babies was being used to produce (tactic wise). I used the term as synonymous with children not infants. However I think the case much more substantial that babies are not morally perfect that that available to argue that they are morally perfect and without a single flaw. Does appeal to emotions real well, just makes one terrible argument. Boiled down my claims were only meant to suggest that no reason exist to think babies are sinless. If you want to refute General comments made about the first 13 years of life or so then fine but the appeal to the most unknowable hours or weeks subgroup of that claim is not very persuasive though it probably would make very good liberal news copy. I can just hear it now. "Christian thinks babies not morally perfect", so Christians hate babies, so Christianity is therefore wrong, big relief, read all about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let me ask you this. The bible says Christ was crucified and died on the cross. The Quran says he was not crucified at all but it was made to appear that way. Now would you claim that these differences are hopeless?

Yes.

I can show that every method possible to weight these claims is on the bible's side. How can that be hopeless.

I doubt that.

Also even for these two extremely opposed views yet note what is common. Sin exists, salvation is necessary, God exists and is one being, he sends prophets, he does miracles, he is perfect, etc.... I can grant your hyperbolic claims and still not have any irreconcilable hurdle to reasoned faith.

So?

Should we also determine that similarities between say, Norse and Celtic mythologies is evidence for the truth of their claims?

The bible is 750,000 long and covers human history for 5000 years and comments on the future, morals, divinity, heaven, hell and every other divisive issue that exists. I find the level of disagreement astronomically low compared to what I would have expected. You can eliminate every textually suspicious verse (as scholars would label them), remove any unreliable text whether true or not, and any mutually exclusive claims from major creeds and you still have everything and more to justify faith in Christianity. Differences alone are meaningless unless you show they are prohibitive of something necessary. Let me one more fruitless time point out the double standards here.

That’s nice. The disagreement between the various followers and sects of this religion is seemingly quite massive given the number of Christian denominations in existence.

1. You have many times offered scientific counter views which not only are unknowable but are among the minority view in even theoretical science. Yet science is supposed to have the higher burden here.
2. You reject entire mainstream views of Christianity despite over 90% agreement for the subject that only has the faith burden.
You have it exactly backwards.

Science and religion are two very different things.

Scientific theories are based on consensus of evidence rather than consensus of opinion.

It does not matter. The atheist did not mean feelings specifically either. You may use empathy, feelings, social Darwinism, reason, logic, deduction, optimality, whatever you wish it will always equal an opinion formed without regard for moral truth.

How’s that?

Humans do not resolve moral doctrines based on opinions which have no potential objective foundation.

We resolve moral doctrines by debating the potential consequences and implications of taking certain actions over others, by opinion, by logic and reasoning, by human experience and interaction with others, by analyzing history, etc., etc., etc.

Even in Greece and Rome they separated moral truths (those against objective moral fact) and ethical truths (those against social norms or OPINION). Now you do not even have their luxury as you have no source possible for the former and are left with he latter. Murder is no longer wrong it is not socially fashionable at best, in other cases it may be fashionable and here is the real rub. Their opinion is just as valid as yours. You would have to go way outside atheism to judge them in any meaningful way. I am not aware of any society so morally stupid that it gave up having an objective foundation for at least much of it's moral demands or standards. I would even doubt that Stalin's anti-faith of any kind empire of misery used any non-objective basis for much of it's foundations. Humans almost all act as if objective morals exist. If they didn't they would be close to being a psychopath.

We’ve already had this discussion, many, many times.

I do not have a problem with it, reason does. It is no problem, it is invalid, so I reject it. No problem. You must show that the extreme agreement in Christians doctrine is some how less than required to establish faith. I do not recall you even attempting it. You just equate theological disagreement on any level as hopeless and grant scientific disagreement on any level for a favored view is acceptable. No problem, just invalid as is.

I would probably be a lot more inclined to “establish faith” if you there weren’t so many different Christian denominations in existence (not to mention the other thousands upon thousands of religions that have been created and discarded throughout history). I mean, if you guys can’t all agree on what the Bible is supposed to be saying, what are the unbelievers supposed to think?

 

[SkepticThinker]

They had a roll in it but if they gave you life in it's entirety of meaning where did they get it? What do you mean by life anyway? Reminds me of a song by the wise old mega death hermit Dave Mustaine. "I here by sentence you to life", response: "life?" "what life?" "I aint got a life".

Where do you get a life? Is there a return policy?

Like I said, my life came from my parents. As in, they created me.

You know about the birds and the bees, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Please stop attributing my words to JM2C or scripture unless they independently used them. Only I should be required to defend the words I use.

Those words were used before I recognized what the term babies was being used to produce (tactic wise). I used the term as synonymous with children not infants. However I think the case much more substantial that babies are not morally perfect that that available to argue that they are morally perfect and without a single flaw. Does appeal to emotions real well, just makes one terrible argument. Boiled down my claims were only meant to suggest that no reason exist to think babies are sinless. If you want to refute General comments made about the first 13 years of life or so then fine but the appeal to the most unknowable hours or weeks subgroup of that claim is not very persuasive though it probably would make very good liberal news copy. I can just hear it now. "Christian thinks babies not morally perfect", so Christians hate babies, so Christianity is therefore wrong, big relief, read all about.

I say there is every reason to believe that.

That is, if you're not relying on personal interpretations of the beliefs of ancient desert dwellers from one very specific part of the world.

 

[Ingledsva]

Please stop attributing my words to JM2C or scripture unless they independently used them. Only I should be required to defend the words I use.

Those words were used before I recognized what the term babies was being used to produce (tactic wise). I used the term as synonymous with children not infants. However I think the case much more substantial that babies are not morally perfect that that available to argue that they are morally perfect and without a single flaw. Does appeal to emotions real well, just makes one terrible argument. Boiled down my claims were only meant to suggest that no reason exist to think babies are sinless. If you want to refute General comments made about the first 13 years of life or so then fine but the appeal to the most unknowable hours or weeks subgroup of that claim is not very persuasive though it probably would make very good liberal news copy. I can just hear it now. "Christian thinks babies not morally perfect", so Christians hate babies, so Christianity is therefore wrong, big relief, read all about.

And as most of us have pointed out to you - that is totally illogical, and wrong!


One has to understand what sin is, - and THEN do it anyway, - to be a sinner!


Obviously babies do not fall into that category for sin.




*

 

[Ingledsva]

I say there is every reason to believe that.

That is, if you're not relying on personal interpretations of the beliefs of ancient desert dwellers from one very specific part of the world.

Yep! Plus as our followers of Judaism have pointed out.


He is wrong about the meaning of their scriptures.




*

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yep! Plus as our followers of Judaism have pointed out.


He is wrong about the meaning of their scriptures.




*

Yes, that too.

 

[CG Didymus]

This is pretty much what my mother believes. I've always thought it sounded pretty awesome.

Hey, when you and I return as born again Christians, do you want to start a church together? And maybe later, expand our ministry to include a TV show?

 

[CG Didymus]

...The bible condemned the race who wrote it...
Any ancient history with sound myth like 2000 years later but myth sounding is not the test for myth.

Isn't it more like it condemns the ones that don't follow God's Law? Doesn't it praise the faithful and the righteous?

And about "myth" sounding. Men wrote the stories. There are many "mythological" flood stories, but only one, the one in the Bible is accurate and not a myth? Tradition says that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. Who's tradition? How much faith can we put in "traditions"? If he wrote it, then God told him all about the history that lead up to the point where he was part of the story?

I'm sorry, but that early history "sounds" like myth. Like I said, parting of the seas, a world-wide flood. Then in Daniel, the three guys getting tossed into a furnace and not getting burned. Then in the NT, one gospel writer, who was it Matthew, that says people came out of their graves and walked around? Did that really happen, or was it an embellishment to the story?

And then there's things like the gospel writers telling different stories about the scene at the empty tomb. Where did the different versions come from? Were they legends? It doesn't work to say it was different eyewitnesses telling it from their point of view. Sorry, but it sounds more like people had different "traditions" about what happened, like in legends.

The big question of course is, did they embellish the story about Jesus rising from the dead? Unfortunately, when a couple of gospel writers start with a virgin birth and can't get those facts straight, it makes it hard to keep believing the rest of the story is all accurate and factual information. And, just because men voted on and decided which books were to be in the canon, it was still fallible men making that decision.

And why did they reject some of the books? Were they too far fetched? Did they stretch the facts too much? Maybe added a few miracles that were a little over the top? Like the story about Thecla? Or the one where some guy flies in the air then I think Peter prays and the guy falls and dies, but then Peter brings him back to life.

What's so wrong with those stories? Didn't they accurately relate actual events in the life of Peter and Paul? Or, did some guy make it all up? And then, added fantastic miraculous events to spice up his story? Yet, the NT has Jesus walking on water and turning water into wine, and... rising from the dead? And we have to have "faith" that all those stories are true? Maybe, but it ain't all that easy to swallow.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hey, when you and I return as born again Christians, do you want to start a church together? And maybe later, expand our ministry to include a TV show?

Haha! I'm totally in for that! What do you think about some kind of call-in show? Or we could sell miracle water or something.

 

[CG Didymus]

Haha! I'm totally in for that! What do you think about some kind of call-in show? Or we could sell miracle water or something.

Sell? You mean "donation". We'll say, "A donation of any amount... just remember he who sows a little will reap a little. So dig deep into your pockets. Here is a letter from Abigail... a gold star supporter of our ministry. 'I sent Pastor Skeptic and Reverend CG my rent money, the money I was saving to send my two children to college... I sold my car and all my jewelry and sent that too. I must say, when I received my vial of miracle water, my life has never been the same. Now I have to trust the Lord for everything.' There you go folks. What a beautiful testi...mony. And speaking of mony, (We get all teary eyed), you know this ministry can't survive on air. We need your dollars. So in addition to the vial of miracle water, the first 100 people that send one thousand dollars or more, we will send you an autographed CD of us singing all of our gospel favorites. Songs like "Give, Give 'til it hurts" and "Send cash, God don't like checks". Remember, it's not for us and our fleet of limo's and jet planes, it's for doing God's work. Bless you. And tune in next week when we will be offering toothpicks made from pieces of Noah's Ark."

 

[Clear]

REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR 1ROBIN AND JM2C TO TELL US WHAT SINS A NEWBORN INFANT COMMITS

1Robin , (post 4392) claims : I do not recall ever being asked what sin they had committed so you must be talking to JM2C, so I will leave that there.#4392



1Robin : From the moment you claimed (post # 4045) that “….babies are the most self centered beings in the universe. They sin constantly….” BOTH You AND JM2C have been asked MULTIPLE times by multiple posters to answer this simple question regarding how infants could possibly sin.

For example, in post 4057 Agnosticboy asked Jm2C “Please define innocent or explain what sin are babies guilty of”

For example, in post 4066 Clear asked 1ROBIN: “Suppose an infant is born and lives as a normal infant for a month and then dies. Can anyone on the forum describe what terrible and heinous sins this infant would have been committing during this month of life?..... Robin1?” You replied back but did not answer the question.

For example, in post 4078 Clear asked “1ROBIN : “ Concerning your theory that "babies sin constantly", What sins would a one-month old baby in my question have been committing?”(Actually I asked 1ROBIN This same question three times in this same post under differing contexts) He responded, but he did not answer the question.

For example, In post 4184 Clear asked 1ROBIN regarding what would “cause a moral debt to the one month-old infant? The infant did not sin and thus has not yet acquired any moral debt through committing a personal sin.
If my grandfather stole some candy when he was a boy, why would his “sin” cause me to have any moral debt?
A dancer across the hall steps on a partners toe. I have no obligation to go over and say, “oops, excuse me for stepping on your toe when it was another dancer who caused her pain.”
If my friend creates debt by buying a stereo and cannot pay for it, the creditors do not ask me to pay.

In none of these cases does the moral or legal debt transfer to me. I do not believe moral debt works that way.
New infants similarly, have no moral debt attributable to sin until they DO sin. How does a new infant coming into this life accrue moral debt in your theory? 1Robin responded to this point, but did not answer the question.

For example, in post 4090 Clear asked 1ROBIN AGAIN : “I have asked you this very, very simple question multiple times now, and we do not care about irrelevant “Lord of the Flies” quotes in relation to this question about babies or infants. You claim that "babies sin constantly". The question is : WHAT SINS WOULD A ONE MONTH-OLD BABY IN MY QUESTION HAVE BEEN COMMITTING? “ Again, 1Robin responded to this point, but he did not answer the question.

In post 4102 Clear asked JM2C “Hi JM2C :

1) Are you saying that this scripture means that one month-old infants “speak lies” in their "depraved" state ?

2) Is that how you think a one month-old "sins constantly"?

3) Do you think early Christians would have interpreted this text to mean that one month-old infants "speak lies" or can you conceive that, for them, the context and meaning of this text was different than it is for yourself?

4) Do you think it’s possible that early Christians would have interpreted this text far differently than your modern theory interprets this text? I think their early theological worldview and contexts were quite different than your modern theory. “
When JM2C tried to distract from questions, then in post 4105 Clear again asked “Will you first respond to my prior questions that are the current issues at hand and I will include explanations inside my response to your answers. The current theme can be handled most efficiently if we do not leave the current subject as to how a one month old infant "sins constantly" inside your theory, (and while we are waiting for Robin1 to answer that question.)” Robin may or may not have seen this but he still did not answer the question. JM2C did not answer this same questions asked of him.

In post 4113 Clear clarified “I asked what sins a one month old is committing “constantly” in post # 4046 and am still awaiting an answer from Robin1.” NEITHER JM2C NOR 1ROBIN answered this question.

In post 4135 Clear again said : “I am still waiting to hear Robin1s answer as to what sort of sins a one month-old infant might have committed in his theory so as to allow for a comparison between his theory of depravity and early historical versions of Christian interpretation on this specific point…..As soon as Robin1 gives all of us his answer as to what sins a one month-old infant/baby would be committing, then, perhaps I can give you examples from early Christian textual traditions describing their belief on these matters. I think you will see that the modern theories are NOT the same and NOT as coherent; NOT as logical and NOT as “just” as the early Christian traditions. Again, NEITHER JM2C NOR 1ROBIN answered this question.
I STOPPED SCANNING THE POSTS AT THIS POINT, There may be multiple requests and failures to answer this question that I missed in my scanning of posts.



1ROBIN Your claim that you don't "recall" this repeated and specific line of questioning is disappointing. Such claims affect one’s credibility and it gives me no pleasure to see a fellow Christian squandering credibility in such silly ways as to win arguments rather than to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ in ways that are helpful and do not "poison the waters". This is not a good thing you are doing.

I have asked you (and JM2C) MULTIPLE times regarding what sort of sins new infants commit (since we ALL come to mortality as newborns). Neither you nor JM2C have been able to describe a SINGLE sin created by a newborn that you call “sinful” (i.e. full of sin,…sin ful).

Now that we have your attention, What sins does a new born baby commit in your opinion?




Look at your present attempt to justify your theory that "babies sin constantly"

1ROBIN claimed : “We offered up doctrinal reasons and a few empirical ones to justify the belief that babies are not sinless.
No, you did not. You simply stated your personal opinion that babies are not sinless and that “babies sin constantly” and then, you and JM2C attempted to offer forum readers faulty texts to support your personal opinion. None of your texts supported your opinion. You also deceptively described and overstated your opinion by including comments such as “it is a Clear” “biblical doctrine” when it was demonstrated multiple times NOT to be a “clear” biblical doctrine. You have not offered a SINGLE empirical reason as to what sort of sin a newborn commits. You have justified nothing except the opinion that forum readers are developing toward you and your doctrine. Your attitudes; your claims and your methods are poisoning the waters for Christianity. This is not a good thing.



1ROBIN said : "Depraved or constantly sinning" were my very hurried words ….
oops.... And yet you spend post after post in unhurried defense of these “hurried words”. Even this present post is an attempt to justify your personal opinion that infants are “sinful”.

IF infants are “sinful”, then tell us what sort of sins a newborn commits or has committed?



1ROBIN said “I will say you have much more of a burden in suggesting they are sinless than I do for stating a faulty race is always faulty.”
This is a very silly statement.

Clears opinion : Newborn Infants are sinless.
Example : Newborns have never sinned in the past and they do not sin as newborns.


Now,
1ROBINS opinion : Newborns are full of sin (i.e. sin ful), they “sin constantly”, they are morally “depraved”

Here, you can tell us : WHAT SINS DO NEWBORNS COMMIT 1ROBIN?

Tell us. No deceptions, no changing of subject, no irrelevant points, no complaining we are using the "wrong words", no semantics; no "difficulty in recalling" that you were asked this question.

What SINS does a newborn commit 1ROBIN?


Clear
σεσιτζδρδρω

 

[Draupadi]

Yay God decides our fates so when evil happens it's only our fault. Snap out of it human beings you are an evil bunch. Believe in the goodness of God who can't decide if His righteous prophet will remain loyal to Him, so takes up the bet of a Devil!

 

[psychoslice]

While you believe you have your own god, then you believe in a false god.

 

[johnhanks]

I thought [simple and simplistic] were almost identical. How do you distinguish them?

Simple means genuinely uncomplicated, devoid of complexity. Simplistic means over-simplified, involving a deliberate or naive ignoring of actual complexity. Ironically, some people (not you, obviously) routinely use simplistic where they mean simple because they think it sounds more sophisticated.

What you did not put in print is all the presuppositions that the word implies. Now you may have had no intent behind that but it is a tactic that I find so obnoxious that I at least suspect it at times. People are funny, they can sneak in all kinds of things by word choice and make a debate impractical ...

We all choose the words that best convey our meanings. To me, all of the ANE's male-god-knocks-up-mortal-woman stories have the same status - they are myths, and I decline to spare your feelings by pretending I feel otherwise.

I expect anyone knowledgeable about textual criticism, testimony, and evidence to rule out myth at the start as so many scholars have.

Should I now complain that you have "smuggled in" the word knowledgeable to apply only to people who have been persuaded by the same commentators that you have, with the clear implication that those who have come to different conclusions are ignorant? 'Cos let's remember:

Originally Posted by 1robin
People are funny, they can sneak in all kinds of things by word choice and make a debate impractical ...

If you wanted the majority of Americans to risk their children's lives to say free the slaves in 1860 you would not only have to force it but we did have to fight draft riots to do so.

What?

God knew very well that for the first time in eternity his perfect loving relationship with his son would be severed by evil men...

Severed? You mean that despite Christian teachings Jesus is actually dead and gone forever? (If not, how has this alleged relationship been "severed"?)

... for the benefit of others yet did so. That act can't possibly be evidence of evil and is evidence of the exact opposite which we rarely if ever match in any way. The bible compares them this way. Only rarely would a man die for those who he loves, but God suffered what is every bit as bad for those who hated him. My conclusion God is not evil and I could give a thousand comparisons just like this.

You continue to evade the central questions: how exactly am I supposed to have been "redeemed" by someone else's violent death? And what am I supposed to have been redeemed from, if not a sanction imposed by the very entity that came up with this bizarre way of discharging it? God rescued me from his own displeasure by letting some Romans kill his "son"? Slice it how you like, it makes no sense.

 

[Draupadi]

While you believe you have your own god, then you believe in a false god.

Was that said to me?

 

[psychoslice]

Not really, it was said to those who have ears to listen.