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

[1robin]

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!

We are a race (the only one) which has had 300 years of peace in 5000 and who has, in their infinite omniscience, progressed to the point of having enough weapons aimed at each other to annihilate all life as we know it and at least twice the moral insanity to have come within seconds of using them and calling that level of evil good. That races moral condition is not debatable. We are flawed, not just that but flawed in astronomical ways. The worst tiger that ever ate an Indian native never plotted the destruction of all Indians and only wanted food or was threatened. A cat may play with a mouse but cats do not burn other cats in furnaces by the millions. They do not even do cat versions of that to anything. We are not only flawed but flawed in perfectly evil ways. This is incontestable.

The only issue is what world view best explains that. Your turn.

 

[1robin]

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.

Well it can I guess but that is not the most often used meaning. I have forgotten what it matters. Do you remember?

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.
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:

Experts using far more sophisticated means to detect and substantiate myth failed to do so concerning the bible. That is why it is officially classed as a historical narrative and not myth. Even if you were a textual critic you would still be outnumbered. I'm going with them especially given the fact that I and I believe millions know for certainty it is not myth. We used the Gospels as a road map and found exactly what it promised, God. Myths do not do that.

What?

What didn't you get. I gave a historical fact. Did you not get that part or did you not get the application.

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

First that is and has always been Christian teaching. Christ suffered the second death. Separation from God. That is how he wound up in Hell and took the keys to it away from Satan but there is also metaphorical teaching here as well. However unlike us he could eventually walk back into God's presence and resume his relationship because he had no sin of his own to prevent that. So yes he suffered for the first time in eternity separation from God. It was not permanent but in my world view neither is it for Christians.

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.

You have never asked that before. I don't evade non existent things. I am very short on time right now. Look up substitutionary atonement. Not only is it the most comprehensive and consistent salvation model it is the only one without glaring error and incoherence. That is probably why tens of millions of the most rational and intellectual of us all have accepted it.

Your conclusions have no relevance. God is the standard by which things are coherent or reasonable. He does not care what you think about it and it is logical that a non believer will not get God's perfect rationality any way. His ways are not our ways and hopefully not an unbelievers ways. You thinking something is weird has no power to make it so given God or even without him. Your not the arbiter or universal reason, nothing you think is acceptable determines anything. You can only accept or reject, that's it. I however find it not only reasonable but the only possible method of salvation that could be coherent. My faith in grace was compounded by the fact no other system is even coherent.

 

[Ingledsva]

I am burned out on this irrelevant issue. I will make this one last response and no longer feel obligated to ever mention the word baby again.

1. I believe that I and JM2C have not only answered you many times but have told we have done so many times. We have had to repeat things, quote scripture, explain doctrine. This just can't go on forever.

2. It is a technical fact a baby either obeys moral law or does not. It has nothing to do with judgment, condemnation, or guilt. It has to do with the factual nature of reality.

3. Sin is a biblical issue not a secular one. Sin is the failure to perfectly obey moral truth. If I only fail once, concerning only a minor command, I have sinned and am a sinner. There is no relevance but the only issue is whether a baby perfectly upholds moral truth.

4. This ignorance add on is irrelevant because God does not judge them because of ignorance. They are technically guilty but not condemned because of ignorance. So the facts and what is done based on those facts are two issues.

5. In the case of children (which was the actual issue) it is apparent they sin and do so horribly and often. The issue here is whether babies do so. So do babies perfectly obey moral law. How can anyone know but what is the best conclusion from the evidence.

a. Starting arbitrarily at age 13 where technical failure is so obvious no one can deny and backing up I see no reason that some unknowable boundary gets crossed where a baby is morally perfect.
b. Nothing in a babies actions suggest they are struggling to obey moral law. They are self centered and only concerned with their desires at the expense of everything else but being cute and smelling good at times.
c. They have no knowledge of a moral code to obey. How do you not transgress a standard you are in ignorance about if it is comprehensive.
d. Without defining it some type of inherited flawed moral nature seems to result from the fall. I have no idea how to quantify this accurately but there is some inherent problem with human nature as a whole. Unless babies lack a human nature they have this problem.
e. Now some have asked how a baby who's motor skills are not even developed can sin. I am not really qualified to be specific but Christ himself named thoughts alone as sinful.
f. All babies that are mortals have been born separated from God. Now if separation from the moral locus of the universe will not result in moral failure then nothing could and we al all perfect I guess.


I defend God and scripture and at times Christian history. Unless someone makes this relevant to one of them I am done with babies. If (you non-theist folks) continue on without any relevance then that reinforces my idea that this is a tactic not an argument.

And we will repeat that this idea is totally illogical, and immoral to even hold.

Such ideas are what the Hebrew, and the Inquisition, and other Christians used to defend their torture and murder of babies!


SICK! SICK! SICK!



*

 

[CG Didymus]

...Experts using far more sophisticated means to detect and substantiate myth failed to do so concerning the bible. That is why it is officially classed as a historical narrative and not myth. Even if you were a textual critic you would still be outnumbered. I'm going with them especially given the fact that I and I believe millions know for certainty it is not myth. We used the Gospels as a road map and found exactly what it promised, God. Myths do not do that...

So, then, the entire Bible is not myth? Yet, if part of it is, it doesn't matter because the important part, the about Jesus, is for sure not a myth? Am I wrong or is that what you're saying?

 

[CG Didymus]

And we will repeat that this idea is totally illogical, and immoral to even hold... SICK! SICK! SICK!

Why do you keep bringing this tired old argument up for? He's burned out. How many times and how many ways does he have to tell us, babies are born evil. I'm with my wife's one year old grand daughter right now. I'm telling you, I don't trust her. She's up to something, but I don't know what.

One thing for sure, I asked her if she loved Jesus and she acted like she didn't even hear me. I read her a Bible story. I could tell, she wasn't getting it. I'll bet you, that's one of those sins of omission or comission or one of those missions. I'm at a loss at what to do. I'm going to sprinkle Holy water on her tonight. I'll see if that helps. She's just got to stop her evil ways.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

IN THE CONTEXT OF 1ROBINS CLAIM THAT BABIES SIN CONSTANTLY


ROBIN remarked : “ That what actions can be observed do not seem to abide any moral code at all. The only issue motivating them seems to be what they want. I could hardly expect anything different but you are not getting a faultless record that way. Sin is a God disuse not a secular one. Sin is to not perfectly obey an absolute moral standard of truth. I can easily conclude that babies do not know, care, or try to abide any moral code so there is no reason whatever to think they do.“# 4456


Hi 1ROBIN


1) 1ROBIN Said : That what actions can be observed do not seem to abide any abide any moral code at all.

1Robin : You have stated that “babies sin constantly” but that “judgment” for their sins is “suspended”. What sort of “actions” does a newborn commit that makes you assume it is not abiding by “any moral code at all”?

2) 1ROBIN said : “The only issue motivating them seems to be what they want. I could hardly expect anything different but you are not getting a faultless record that way.

1ROBIN : What sort of things to newborn infants want that cause them to have “faults” in a “faultless moral record”? What keeps a newborn from having a "faultless", "sinless" moral record?

Is there something about an newborns desire to be fed when hungry that, in your theory is related to their “sinning constantly?

Is a newborns innate desire to have a clean, comfortable diaper that is related to their “sinning constantly”?

What sort of motives are you presuming newborns have that are evidence of “not abiding by any moral code" and thus contribute to their “sinning constantly” inside your theory that “babies sin constantly”?

You refer to a ”faultless record” that infants’ actions do not contribute to.

What sort of moral faults would a newborn baby have on their moral “record’ that can be attributed to the thoughts and actions of a newborn infant?


3) 1ROBIN said : “Sin is a God disuse not a secular one.”
What sort of “God Disuse” are you referring to in this context of a new born infant?
What “disuse” against God would a newborn be guilty of committing?

4) 1ROBIN said : “Sin is to not perfectly obey an absolute moral standard of truth.”
In your theory that “babies sin constantly”, what sort of “standard of truth” would a newborn infant be able and expected to obey (since the infant is created by God to enter this world with his present, innate, capabilities)?

What sort of sin against this “standard of truth” would a newborn commit so as to be guilty of not obeying this “standard of truth” “perfectly”? Does the newborn tell lies and thus disobey a “standard of truth”?


5) 1ROBIN said : I can easily conclude that babies do not know, care, or try to abide any moral code so there is no reason whatever to think they do.

Inside of your multiple “easy conclusions”, What sort of moral standard of truth do you think God expects a Newborn infant to be able to obey?

IF God creates a newborn infant without “knowledge” of “care” of a moral code, who’s fault is it that the infant was created without this knowledge or care in your theory?

In your theory of ex-nihilo creation, who is responsible for the creation of infants who are formed with certain moral incompetence?

I just examined an infant who was born without an important part of the brain that allows moral messages to be accurately transferred from one part of the brain to another. Is the infant to be punished then for actions that are separated from the moral and creative centers of his brain? Other brand new infants have not yet formed this moral context.



5) 1ROBIN : What sort of sins do newborn infants commit in your theory that “babies sin constantly”.


Clear asked
The question is : What sort of sins do newborn infants commit in your theory that “babies sin constantly”.

A) 1ROBIN said : I believe that I and JM2C have not only answered you many times but have told we have done so many times. We have had to repeat things, quote scripture, explain doctrine. This just can't go on forever.
1ROBIN, You have NEVER answered this question. Even your present post is not an answer to this simple question. These sentences are a diversionary claim to have answered a question that you have, in fact, NOT answered. What sort of sins do newborn infants commit in your theory that “babies sin constantly”?



B) 1ROBIN said : It is a technical fact a baby either obeys moral law or does not. It has nothing to do with judgment, condemnation, or guilt.
Robin, THIS also, is not an answer to the question. It is simply a partial restatement of your theory. It doesn’t tell us WHAT moral law a newborn needs to obey and how that law can be disobeyed. What sort of sins do newborn infants commit in your theory that “babies sin constantly”?



C) 1ROBIN said : Sin is the failure to perfectly obey moral truth. If I only fail once, concerning only a minor command, I have sinned and am a sinner. There is no relevance but the only issue is whether a baby perfectly upholds moral truth.
Robin, this is NOT an answer to the question. You describe your personal definition of sin and what makes you a sinner in this definition. You indicate a baby should “perfectly uphold moral truth”. You do not tell us how a baby does NOT “uphold moral truth” or sins. What sort of sins do newborn infants commit in your theory that “babies sin constantly”?



D) 1ROBIN said : This ignorance add on is irrelevant because God does not judge them because of ignorance. They are technically guilty but not condemned because of ignorance.
Robin, this is NOT an answer to the question. You simply theorize that infants are guilty of sin but that infants are not judged nor condemned for their sin. This does NOT tell us WHAT specific SIN you think infants are guilty OF committing. What sort of sins do newborn infants commit in your theory that “babies sin constantly”?



E) 1ROBIN said : In the case of children (which was the actual issue) it is apparent they sin and do so horribly and often. The issue here is whether babies do so. So do babies perfectly obey moral law. How can anyone know but what is the best conclusion from the evidence.
Robin, this is another example of NOT answering the question. You simply ask the question as to whether babies obey law, yet You and JM2C claimed “babies sin constantly” and they are morally “depraved” You then speak of “evidence” which then you do not give. What sort of sins do newborn infants commit in your theory that “babies sin constantly”?



F) 1ROBIN said : a. Starting arbitrarily at age 13 where technical failure is so obvious no one can deny and backing up I see no reason that some unknowable boundary gets crossed where a baby is morally perfect.
1Robin, This is not an answer to the question. This simply admits a point of ignorance regarding characteristics of age and lack of sin. What sort of sins do newborn infants commit in your theory that “babies sin constantly"?

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

H) 1ROBIN said : b. Nothing in a babies actions suggest they are struggling to obey moral law. They are self centered and only concerned with their desires at the expense of everything else but being cute and smelling good at times.
So, are you saying that the specific type of “self-centeredness” God created infants to have is their sin? If not : What sort of sins do newborn infants commit in your theory that “babies sin constantly”?



I) 1ROBIN said : c. They have no knowledge of a moral code to obey. How do you not transgress a standard you are in ignorance about if it is comprehensive.
This is not an answer to the question but a question meant to support the logic that you expect that an infant will, at some point, sin. While I very strongly agree with the question and the logic, it still does not tell us what sin a newborn is even capable of committing. What sort of sins do newborn infants commit in your theory that “babies sin constantly”.



J) 1ROBIN said : d. Without defining it some type of inherited flawed moral nature seems to result from the fall. I have no idea how to quantify this accurately but there is some inherent problem with human nature as a whole. Unless babies lack a human nature they have this problem.


This is not an answer to the question as to what sins a newborn commits, but instead, is a theory regarding human moral tendencies. It theorizes that an infant will, at some point, display a moral flaw in the future (a point none of us seem to disagree on).

Rather than a theory where one is created with moral faults by a God who then punishes the infant for having the faults he placed into it, one could just as easily theorize a morally healthy infant that contacts a moral contagion and THEN sins AFTER the newborn period. (i.e. Born morally perfect, but becomes “infected” with a moral “disease&#8221. My point is not to support either theory, (although I think it is more logical theory than yours), but to point out that both theories end up with a morally culpable person but moral infection does not have the same theological baggage that yours has. Neither does the early Christian belief that newborns are innocent of having committed any sins.



K) 1ROBIN said : “Now some have asked how a baby who's motor skills are not even developed can sin. I am not really qualified to be specific but Christ himself named thoughts alone as sinful.“ This does not answer the question This theory that thoughts can be sinful does not tell us what thoughts an infant has that ARE sinful. What “sins of thought” is a newborn guilty of in your theory?



L) 1ROBIN said : “All babies that are mortals have been born separated from God. Now if separation from the moral locus of the universe will not result in moral failure then nothing could and we al all perfect I guess. “ This does not tell us what sins a newborn commits, merely that they are doomed to moral failure at some point.



M) 1ROBIN : Unless someone makes this relevant to one of them I am done with babies.
1ROBIN, This does not answer the question. It tells us that you are tired of having the question asked and are looking for a way not to deal with the question and disengage comfortably.

If you remember, It was you, who theorized that mankind is BORN full of sin (sin-ful) and morally “depraved” and that “babies sin constantly”. Thus conditions at BIRTH are completely relevant. I think what is frustrating is that you realize that there is no quick “sound bite” that fixes the holes in this theory that are present at birth; no support at it’s basic level of infants and moral action, when the theory is looked at closely.

Robin, You could simply admit what is already apparent to other readers it would be easier for you. You could simply say that you honestly do not know how a newborn can sin or what sin it commits. That you simply have faith in your belief on this point just like others have other theories and believe in their theories. This is perfectly fine to do.

No matter what you decide to do 1ROBIN , I hope your journey is good and your theories evolve as they should over your lifetime as your data stream changes. Please, remember that I am not your enemy; that I respect you, but simply that I want to have us all look more closely at this theory of yours for flaws that I think you do not see in it.


Clear
σεσιφθσιειω

 

[CG Didymus]

What “sins of thought” is a newborn guilty of in your theory?

I don't think he thinks it's a theory. I think he believes it to be Biblical fact. So anything else is not logical and is incoherent because the Bible is fact and any theory derived from the facts of the Bible is no longer a mere theory, it too is fact. Does that make sense?

Of course those that come up with doctrines based on a few Bible verses that don't agree with fact-based Bible doctrine, those people are liars and teaching false doctrines, because they don't use the whole of God's word to come up with their theories. Which then, aren't theories at all, just a bunch of lies. Those false Bible theories should be obvious, since they aren't based on Biblical fact.

So yes the three verses mentioned prove that the whole Bible is in agreement, all babies are sinners. David was a born sinner. The wicked sin from the start. So since it's a Biblical fact that we're all technically wicked, then, therefore, we're all born depraved sinners. It's a fact.

 

[johnhanks]

Well it can I guess but that is not the most often used meaning. I have forgotten what it matters. Do you remember?

There is a useful distinction between simple and simplistic, and it would be a pity if "the most often used meaning" obliterated it. As to whether it matters in the present instance, I was responding to your direct query: if you don't want to bother with the answer, don't ask the question.

Experts using far more sophisticated means to detect and substantiate myth failed to do so concerning the bible. That is why it is officially classed as a historical narrative and not myth.

Officially? What official body has laid down this definitive declaration?

Even if you were a textual critic you would still be outnumbered.

Where would you be without your tried and trusted argumentum ad numerum?

I'm going with them especially given the fact that I and I believe millions know for certainty it is not myth.

Millions of Muslims know for a certainty that Mohamed flew to heaven on a white horse, and they can produce experts who will "prove" the story's non-mythical status. Does that make it historical narrative?

We used the Gospels as a road map and found exactly what it promised, God. Myths do not do that.

On the contrary, that's exactly what myths do: they provide believers with the answers they want.

You have never asked that before.

Yes I have.

Look up substitutionary atonement.

I assure you I have. It is the very thing I am questioning.

Not only is it the most comprehensive and consistent salvation model it is the only one without glaring error and incoherence. That is probably why tens of millions of the most rational and intellectual of us all have accepted it.

More smuggling, Robin. Who are "the most rational and intellectual"? Why, those who agree with you, of course! Remember your complaint about choosing words which close down debate?

Your conclusions have no relevance. God is the standard by which things are coherent or reasonable. He does not care what you think about it and it is logical that a non believer will not get God's perfect rationality any way.

"If anyone doesn't agree it's obviously because they're incapable of understanding": the classic backs-to-the-wall cop-out.

His ways are not our ways and hopefully not an unbelievers ways. You thinking something is weird has no power to make it so given God or even without him. Your not the arbiter or universal reason, nothing you think is acceptable determines anything. You can only accept or reject, that's it. I however find it not only reasonable but the only possible method of salvation that could be coherent. My faith in grace was compounded by the fact no other system is even coherent.

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by just admitting you have no way of making sense out of nonsense.

 

[JM2C]

You are making a good point with your analogies here.

I was just thinking. A sixteen year old gets their driver's license. Are they already guilty of breaking any traffic codes? No. Will they? Sure, everybody does. Nobody can, or wants to, follow the laws perfectly.

“Nobody can, or wants to, follow the laws perfectly” The same thing in the Law of Moses

Jas 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Paul said the same thing in Galatians 3:10. Where do you think James and Paul got these quotes from? The Law of Moses. Dt.27:26, Lev 26:14-16.

Ro 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Ro 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

IOW, no one can follow the Law of Moses, for the Jews, and for the Gentiles –Romans 2:14-15, and we just read that in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Some people blatantly break the laws. They drive drunk. They weave in and out of traffic. They tail-gate. They speed. They're a menace on the road. Others, drive too cautiously.

These acts are punishable by the law of land, but in the Law of Moses by death –not the literal analogy you presented here, but what is according to the Law of Moses that is punishable by death.

Lev 26:15 and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant,
Lev 26:16 then I will do this to you: I will bring upon you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and drain away your life. You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it.

They go too slow and cause others to have to slam on their brakes because those drivers have clogged up the freeway.

I have the same thought. Driving below the speed limit on the left lane can cause traffic and not only that, it can cause road rage also. People rushing in the morning to go to work and some drivers driving on the wrong lane can cause road rage.

Others can cause others to act that are punishable by the law of the land, the same way in the Law of Moses,

Ex 23:33 Do not let them live in your land, or they will cause you to sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a snare to you.”

Others do little things like they don't come to a full stop when they come to a stop sign. All of us are guilty and have fallen short of the traffic code. But, is that sixteen year old guilty yet?

Violating the traffic codes is punishable by the law of land.

In the Law of Moses Ro 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death;”

 

[JM2C]

Hmmm? I could carry this analogy out farther. Should someone sacrifice their son to rid us of this guilt? Or, should we pay our own traffic fines and repent, and drive safer and obey the laws?

You said it yourself “Nobody can, or wants to, follow the laws perfectly” The same thing in the Law of Moses.

Jas 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
Paul said the same thing in Galatians 3:10. Where do you think James and Paul got these quotes from? The Law of Moses. Dt.27:26, Lev 26:14-16.

In the law of the land, you could pay every time you violate the law –money or jail time- and from there, do you think people learned or repent? In the Law of Moses they do the same thing year after year.

Heb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

You could pay for your penalty, but can you afford it? Ro 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death;”
Or would you rather have someone pay for it and just accept it as a gift? Ro 6:23 but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If someone did give their only son to pay our traffic debt

This single “TRAFFIC DEBT” is the cause of all the traffic debts that followed. In another analogy; Men did not become sinners because men sin. Men sin because men were sinners to begin with.

The root of sins is “THE SIN –Romans 5:12” and this is what the Lord Jesus Christ paid fully on the cross -“having canceled out the certificate of debt –Col. 2:14”. The sins that were connected OR related to the root –THE SIN -Romans 5:12- were forgiven altogether by the Son’s Father. IOW, this is the right meaning of “clean slate”, or Christians were BORN AGAIN with a clean slate.

This is not like you suggested,

The Jewish sites I looked at say that they believe we are born with a clean slate.

You know the one you think was a Mythology

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.

No human did start with “a clean slate” otherwise, Christ died in vain

and told us to repent and stop breaking the laws, but, since we can't stop breaking the laws and therefore continued to break the laws, what should the person that gave their only son do? Should they, at some point, revoke our license? Or, keep paying our debt every time we get a ticket?

“revoke our license?” Not at all, after the root of sins, I.E., “THE SIN –Romans 5:12” or, your analogy, the traffic debts, was paid for, by the Son, any sin/s that follows should NOT be in anyway related to the “THE SIN –Romans 5:12” anymore that the Son had paid in full already. “having canceled out the certificate of debt –Col. 2:14”

IOW, any sin/s after “THE SIN –Romans 5:12” can be forgiven by simply asking God for forgiveness. How do Christians know that they are forgiven by God of the sins they are committing, after “THE SIN –Romans 5:12”? Or, how do they know that they are communicating directly with God?

Ro 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we/Christians have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Can a non-Christian do this? NO! “Peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” first then communication starts.

How about when we don't get caught? Knowing that even if we do get a ticket, it will be paid for, but what are the chances of us getting caught? Pretty darn slim. So a believer in the "get your tickets paid by my son plan" really can get away with whatever they want.

That is, until they do get caught and everybody tells them: "Hey, part of the deal was that you were to obey the laws. You didn't repent. You're abusing the free gift." What would they say? "No, no, you don't understand. I'm not perfect... Just forgiven."

Christians were justified, acquitted, found not guilty by God.

IOW, Ro 8:1 “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,”

No more condemnation by anyone anymore. Christians cannot be condemned with the same crime anymore. Not by you nor anyone.

Any sin/s after “THE SIN –Romans 5:12” can be forgiven by simply asking God for forgiveness. How do Christians know that they are forgiven by God of the sins they are committing, after “THE SIN –Romans 5:12”? Or, how do they know that they are communicating directly with God?

Ro 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we/Christians have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can't believe it has been over a weak and the unknowable irrelevant baby issue is still going.

I agree. I'm more interested in the next link in the chain: the idea that sinful people are disposable.

 

[JM2C]

We could argue forever and my answer would still be the same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We could argue forever and my answer would still be the same.

Which is?

If the idea that everyone is sinful means that God is justified in killing whoever he wants, would I also be justified in killing whoever I want?

I mean, it seems like you've been building a case that human being are worthless, which certainly has implications for the morality of everyone, not just God.

 

[JM2C]

We all need to transcend our lower natures and strive to become better people.

I see two natures here, one is “lower” and the other is the “better”.

Did people start with the “better” nature first then becomes “lower” nature, or is it the other way around?

The lower self is like an animal, reacting by basic instincts. It will hurt, fight, lie, cheat and steal to satisfy its needs.

 

[JM2C]

Which is?

If the idea that everyone is sinful means that God is justified in killing whoever he wants, would I also be justified in killing whoever I want?

I mean, it seems like you've been building a case that human being are worthless, which certainly has implications for the morality of everyone, not just God.

Why do we exist if “human beings are worthless”?

What is the meaning of John 3:16 if “human beings are worthless”?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do we exist if “human beings are worthless”?

What is the meaning of John 3:16 if “human beings are worthless”?

That isn't your argument? If it isn't, then help me out by filling in the blank:

- children sin
- therefore, ________________
- therefore, it's not evil for God to let children die

 

[JM2C]

It's getting old for all of us. We know what you believe and we disagree.

If your view of the Bible and Jesus makes you a more spiritual person, great.

But, because of its exclusitivity, it makes too many Christians focus more on the right belief rather than the right spiritual action and living.

In other words, it kind of makes them like the Pharisees that Jesus was complaining about.

They had the right spiritual "look".

They had the right beliefs, but on the inside, they weren't all that spiritual.

They missed the whole point of believing.

Because of that, I believe a person from any religion that is doing good and living a good life, is better than a person that thinks they have the right beliefs and is doing little or nothing to be a good spiriitual person.

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 can see where you coming from. You think all Christians are the same base on your experience.

 

[JM2C]

That isn't your argument? If it isn't, then help me out by filling in the blank:

- children sin
- therefore, ________________
- therefore, it's not evil for God to let children die

Trapping me again, huh?
You fill it up

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Trapping me again, huh?
You fill it up

I'm not trying to trap you. I'm just trying to understand your position on this issue. If you have a better way to explain it, I'm all ears.