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

[CG Didymus]

All the entire OT prophetical text is pre-Christ. What are you talking about? I know there are a few things recorded in the NT after the fact but that still leaves hundreds and maybe thousands that were not. We have hundreds of prophecies about Christ written long before he existed, prophecies written 4000 years ago about events that are occurring now, prophecies in the OT written about wars that occurred long after they were predicted.

Jesus was born of a virgin, he went to Egypt, children killed, then after these events supposedly happened, then the NT writers find verses that "fit" the event. None of the verses used were believed to be prophesies until people like Matthew said things like "and this happened to fulfill what was written." The event in Jesus' life and the verses used as being the prophesy about the event were combined after the alleged event happened.

 

[CG Didymus]

I never said it did not matter. Here lately I nor the bible can get anyone to leave our claims as stated. No matter how clear and concise they are they will always be restated in a way not intended by either of us to allow contention where none exist. I have no idea how to rate how important a certain story in the bible being false would be. First you would have to find on that was. Instead you have guessed at what importance I might assign to an unknown that has no specifics. How desperate is that? My point was that whether the Ark was a metaphor or a real ship would not have anything to do with the core aspects of a Christians faith. I was not considering a single OT verse when I was saved. And now that I have met God and know he exists none of the verses are central to my core belief. The clues and evidence is of utmost importance until the facts are known and then they take a back seat. Once you have found the treasure the squabbles over the maps details no longer hold sway. So depending on what they were they would have varying importance but compared to experiencing God they are not vital.

Did Jesus walk on water? Did Peter? Did people come out of their graves and walk around town? These and other things sound to me like things of legend, like embellishments, like myth. Do you believe these are factual and historical events that really happened?

If you believe these then what about events in Jewish Scripture, like the guys not getting burned when thrown in the furnace, like Pharaoh's guys being able to make a snake and then Moses and Aaron able to turn a piece of wood into a snake to eat the other snake? Are these real events or myth and legend?

If you believe those then how about similar miraculous events from other religions, legend and myth or real? I don't think any of them are real. I think they are all myth and legend.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you God? Did you create the lives you mention taking?

How is that relevant? Is the creator of a thing the only one who can embue it with value?

Are you the perfect moral locus of the universe?

If God is "the perfect moral locus of the universe" (which is a big, unsubstantiated if, but for argument's sake), then God's actions would be a perfect moral guide, and I could be sure that if God does a thing, it's a moral act, since a "perfect moral locus" would not commit immoral acts.

IOW, if we grant your assumption, then if it's moral for God to let children die, then I can be sure that it's moral for me to let children die, too.

No, then what was the point here? You could not have tried to equate two more unequal things.

I think you're just uncomfortable with the logical implications of your position.

 

[idav]

IOW, if we grant your assumption, then if it's moral for God to let children die, then I can be sure that it's moral for me to let children die, too.

I do find it strange that theists don't normally question their god, which is strange because we would question ourselves whether something is moral. Perhaps we humans hold ourselves a higher standard than we hold god to.

 

[Clear]

[FONT=&quot]POST ONE OF TWO

CLEAR[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said in posts 4466 and 4467 :

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.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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”?
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
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"?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 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”?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 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”). 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[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
1ROBIN said post 4540 :

“This baby thing has been given far more attention than it deserves. It deserves none and has gotten quite a bit. I have many times said I would no longer waste any more time on something so meaningless and I am going to stick by that. I have even asked someone to explain why this subject has any impotence at all. Only one person even attempted it and even it was arbitrary and vague. I will give one more shot at it. How is either conclusion in this case of vital interest to a theological discussion? They wind up in heaven either. What is at stake here?

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[1robin]

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.

I was justifying the context I took simplistic to be in. I did not state anything about how you meant it. I was only saying why my interpretation was valid not whether it was correct.

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

How about some commentaries consistent with my claims from some of the most respected scholars in history?

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

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

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

Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet."

Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university, upon Story's death in 1846. H. W. H Knott says of this great authority in jurisprudence: "To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is to be ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States." Greenleaf produced a famous work entitled A Treatise on the Law of Evidence which "is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure." In 1846, while still Professor of Law at Harvard, Greenleaf wrote a volume entitled An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In his classic work the author examines the value of the testimony of the apostles to the resurrection of Christ. The following are this brilliant jurist's critical observations: The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling errors that can be represented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, reviling's, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unflinching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come. "Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication."
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

Now if scholars of this caliber are not enough to validate the Bible's classification as historical biography then pray tell what group of scholars exceed them that can?

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

And where would you be without the trusty crutch of appealing to inapplicable fallacy.

Continued below:

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO This POST APPLIES TO # 4545 (I just noticed a post was made between this one and the one it applies to)

Hi 1ROBIN

I can respect your commitment that you "would no longer waste any more time" on this subject and I honor you for wanting "to stick by that" commitment you made. However, Now that you are actually requesting to spend more time on this subject I hope my points will be helpful to your question as to "what is at stake".


Robin;

I think what is at stake is the coherence of your theory and your theory’s implications regarding the justice of God. You and JM2C have theorized that “babies sin constantly”; and that infants are morally “depraved” (respectively) and, thus, all infants (thus all of US) enter the world ALREADY morally depraved. Your specific theory implies something about the justice of God that obviously bothers readers and their sense of justice.

If your theory is that God creates morally imperfect beings and introduces them into the world imperfect and then punishes the imperfect beings for having the very moral imperfections God placed into them, it creates injustice in Gods’ criteria for judgment and condemnation and punishment.

THIS moral dissonance was the reason your theory was seen as illogical and incoherent by agnostics and athiests and christians and other theists in this thread. It was not rejected by agnostics and athiests because they are “bad people” or “god haters” who need to “repent” as JM2C suggested. They and other christians and theists in this thread reject your theory because your theory is less coherent and less logical and less reasonable than the early Christian belief that infants have not yet sinned and do not (yet) sin.

I also think that what is at stake is the creation of active bias against "Christianity". For example, if your interpretation is not authentic Christian doctrine (it certainly is not original christian doctrine as it doesn't appear in the earliest sacred texts), then I am concerned that individuals who reject your theory because of it's inherent injustice will dismiss ALL christian traditions because they were exposed to your specific theory and saw it's injustice. If you are creating such bias against authentic Christian doctrine, then you are harming the christian goals, confusing the investigators of religion and providing them with justification for NOT to look to christianity for meaning, but instead, to look elsewhere for meaning and understanding.

I might also remind you that your question STILL did not answer the question as to what sort of sins you think infants commit.


1ROBIN, I hope you understand these things. I am certainly NOT your enemy in any way. I also hope your life's journey is good and that your vision and understanding and relationship with God continues to deepen and your joy is full.



CLEAR
σεακσεακσιω

 

[1robin]

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?

No they do not. They do not even claim to in large numbers. It is not even a claim available to certainty nor was it intended to be. The claim to experiencing Christ personally is. I have written extensively on the difference in merit and know-ability of these two radically different kinds of claims. How did you miss all of that? Not that it is necessary. A child knows the difference in merit between I believe the north pole is cold and I have been to the north pole and know it's cold.

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

No they do not. Myths provide promises to Eldorado but no actual Eldorado, they promise things they do not have the power to ever deliver. There are billions who claim to have received exactly what the bible promised. My world view only requires that one be right, your requires they all be wrong. How many people claim to have met Zeus, Apollo, Vishnu, Raven, Oden, etc... You could add up everyone who claimed to have met every single other God who it was ever claimed existed and I think the born again Christians alone would outnumber them several times over. But without question no other single God has even a meaningful fraction of the numbers who claimed to have experienced him personally as Christ does.

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

I have seen no statement or objection (much less a question) directed at substitutionary atonement specifically yet. You have mostly been either attacking a books historicity without any justification or trying desperately to equate two vastly unequal things.

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?

The truth of what I state dis not affected by any other personas claims. May claim is made on valid premises' and conclusions that naturally follow. I do not care who agrees or disagrees that statement is valid. Christianity has such a star studded history I do not care what standard you use for rational and intelligent, we still have quite a few of the best as believers. Any list of , Jews, and other theists. This pathetic claim that faith appeals only to the uninformed is arrogant and absurdly false.

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

I did not say anything about your not understanding. I said if God exists what you think about it means nothing and it wouldn't. He is the moral architect of the universe, you are not. He is the author of faith, you are not, He is the creator of life, you are not. If he exists he will judge you not the other way around. What you like is irrelevant. It is not an argument, it is not meaningful, and whether God exists or not it is not even true. With him your agreement or denial is never right, and without him there is not even a right you could have ever been.

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

Even if true that has nothing to do with anything. I did not defend non-sense, and you did not provide any rational reasons to contend with any view I hold. Your denial is not even an argument, attempting to equate two most unequal things is not either. I did not even see a challenge to the historicity of the bible.

 

[CG Didymus]

And now that I have met God and know he exists none of the verses are central to my core belief. The clues and evidence is of utmost importance until the facts are known and then they take a back seat. Once you have found the treasure the squabbles over the maps details no longer hold sway. So depending on what they were they would have varying importance but compared to experiencing God they are not vital.

Hmmm? Could it be said that Krishna, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, or Baha'u'llah knew or met God? In fact, it could be said that they drew up a map for the rest of us to find God. Since I doubt you believe the teachings of any of those people, then I suppose you believe there are phony maps out there.

Even your map has a lot of different directions you could have taken to "experience" God. Like one of my all time favorite Christian denominations, the "signs" believers. They probably have amazing stories of "experiencing" God while in trance-like states as they speak in tongues and handle snakes. So do those things that God reveals to them make things written in the Bible not important?

This "map" you say you used to find God also describes what the "treasure" is supposed to be and what it's supposed to look like. Yet, different people find different things to believe about God and how to be saved and how to live. So how reliable is this treasure map if people are finding different things by following it?

And, that dreaded subject, babies, whether they are born in sin or with a clean slate. It really would be nice to know. Are we born in sin and can do nothing on our own to remedy the situation? Then, of course, we all better get on our knees and let Jesus save us. But, again, this road map, the Bible, has some of us questioning the direction it has taken people that have placed too much trust in it. Considering how many of them go in different directions.

Maybe they're holding the map up side down? Or, maybe they started at the wrong spot and walked ten paces the wrong way? By the way, where did you start from? At the end and then worked backwards? That would explain why the directions wouldn't matter. But that is assuming the treasure you found is the real one?

Just think of all the poor people in all those Christian denominations that got it wrong. They think they found God. They think they have the treasure, but they don't do they. They're at the end and trying to make the treasure map lead to the spot where they're at. But you know and I know they are not at the same place as you. What happened? Where did they go wrong? Or, are you wrong also? Oh, I forgot, you experienced God and they, I guess, didn't?

Or, everybody can and does experience God in different ways and can believe in the Bible or in anything, and believe they have the truth.

 

[CG Didymus]

I also think that what is at stake is the creation of active bias against "Christianity". For example, if your theory is not authentic Christian doctrine (it certainly is not original christian doctrine as it doesn't appear in the earliest sacred texts), then I am concerned that individuals who reject your theory because of it's inherent injustice will dismiss ALL christian traditions because they were exposed to your theory and saw it's injustice. If you are creating such bias against authentic Christian doctrine, then you are harming the christian goals, confusing the investigators of religion and providing them with justification NOT to look to christianity for meaning, but instead, to look elsewhere for meaning and understanding.
CLEAR
σεακσεακσιω

That is what is at stake. So many of us find the things believed in by some people's religion don't make sense. How they defend their beliefs often turns us off even more.

You are different. Lady Blue, the starter of this thread, is a Calvinist, something I'll probably never, ever believe in, but she was humble and respectful. You are too. Thanks Clear for being part of this discussion.

 

[1robin]

Jesus was born of a virgin, he went to Egypt, children killed, then after these events supposedly happened, then the NT writers find verses that "fit" the event. None of the verses used were believed to be prophesies until people like Matthew said things like "and this happened to fulfill what was written." The event in Jesus' life and the verses used as being the prophesy about the event were combined after the alleged event happened.

So it was not all, not most, not even many of the prophecies that were written after the fact. It was only a few you selected or found. I tell you what I can live with that if you can. I do not know if they were ever intended as prophecy but there are some predictions of a sort that were recorded after the some of the events. Not many but a few. Assuming you are right, and that is a lot of assuming that still leaves maybe 2000 plus left to explain. However even for these that are questionable keep this in mind:

1. The story existed as oral tradition long before it was recorded. So it was well known before the event occurred but it was after the event that it was recorded on paper.
2. You may very well be mistaken about the dates. For example some of Paul's writings are recitals of creeds and hymns that date back to just a couple of years of Christ's death. So these teachings in many cases can be shown to exist long before they were written down.
3. You can easily see that the early Jews had everything to gain and nothing to loose by interpreting scripture to not be about Christ. They betrayed and killed him, can you imagine a greater inducement to define prophecies in certain ways. Sometimes it is not so obvious but with ones about being offered vinegar/gall to drink, being the payment for sin, and being crucified obviously are not about the nation of Israel.
4. There are 350 prophecies about Christ. Now how on earth can you even fudge a little and get them to work out about one man who was not the focus of them. How could you get a person to fulfill just 20 much less 350? All the fudging and wish fulfillment there is not even close. It is literally 1/350 X 1/350 ......... 350 times. It is easy to do the reverse with a nation, it has millions of chances to get any one of them right. A single person has only one chance to get them al right. So your preference for the Jewish response to tiny fraction of prophecy is not justifiable.


I would not have the slightest problem with you denying 10% 0r even 20% of biblical prophecies by these types of methods. But when you are inventing weak reasons to deny 2000 of them it just seems desperate.

 

[1robin]

Did Jesus walk on water? Did Peter? Did people come out of their graves and walk around town? These and other things sound to me like things of legend, like embellishments, like myth. Do you believe these are factual and historical events that really happened?

How many things do you think would sound like made up garbage to people in certain places and times but is never the less true. What if you told Caesar that a weapon would be invented the could incinerate a million people in a second what would he think? What if you heard a society was so militaristic that a baby with any imperfection was left in the mountains to die and now their bones fill a valley? What if you told a Spanish sailor that a city larger than any in Spain existed in Mexico with plumbing, gardens, and fed on blood? The point here is that what things sound like has little to do with what they are. Especially if the events themselves by necessity are supposed to be rare exceptions and not the rule. I used to think anyone who claimed to be born again had just convinced themselves they were because they wanted to be so bad, I thought the idea of having God in your heart was trite and sappy, I thought answered prayer was cognitive dissonance. That is until each of those things happened to me, then I was ashamed. The is we have those claims and what best explains their existence. My position is that sincerity and honesty is by far the best explanation for the claims no mater how extraordinary the events.

If you believe these then what about events in Jewish Scripture, like the guys not getting burned when thrown in the furnace, like Pharaoh's guys being able to make a snake and then Moses and Aaron able to turn a piece of wood into a snake to eat the other snake? Are these real events or myth and legend?

I have no reason to deny any OT miracles. There are differing levels of certainty I have for miracles. Personal ones I have virtually absolute certainty of, ones with great evidence I have reasonable certainty in, ones without it I have justifiable faith in. That's a crude and brief way of stating it but you get it I hope. I have differing faith in differing claims.

If you believe those then how about similar miraculous events from other religions, legend and myth or real? I don't think any of them are real. I think they are all myth and legend.

Well I know of no miracles in other cultures that would belong in the first two categories above. For the third category it would come down to the reliability of the source in other areas. For example the bible seems to be extraordinarily accurate in recorded events in detail where they can be checked. Look at Luke's titles for even little known and rare Roman officials, or the bible being right about cultures which science denied until mountains of evidence surfaced, even these days names by the dozens unknown to secular scholarship but in the bible are being found on scroll seals and styli. IOW where I can verify it the bible shockingly accurate so in places where I cannot I am justified in having faith. The Quran for instance has at least a dozen sources it plagiarized, is self contradictory, and not coherent or even consistent many times. The bible is the word of 40 authors over almost 2000 years, the Quran is the word of one guy over a few decades who was extremely immoral and tyrannical. I can list these comparisons for a week but you get the idea.

 

[1robin]

How is that relevant? Is the creator of a thing the only one who can embue it with value?

If a person draws some kind of equality between two things then the most relevant possible aspect is that they be equal. I was pointing out there is hardly two things more unequal in that example. If what a person does has anything to do with what God does I so far have no clue what it is.

If God is "the perfect moral locus of the universe" (which is a big, unsubstantiated if, but for argument's sake), then God's actions would be a perfect moral guide, and I could be sure that if God does a thing, it's a moral act, since a "perfect moral locus" would not commit immoral acts.

That is what is true of a concept, only the concept is in doubt not what is true of it, and it is only in doubt for the people who have no way to know. If you want to know what it feels like at the north pole you ask those who have been there, not those who have not yet chime up anyway. A moral act for God does not in anyway make it moral for us. That is the whole point. It is the same reasons driving for an adult is moral but for a 5 year old it is not. Only the difference between the two is not 30 years it is infinity. So your comparison fails miserably here. What is moral for a being with infinite intelligence may have similarities but only cosmetic ones to beings who have only a flawed and finite amount of knowledge. In fact I do not know what other circumstance could make more of a moral difference than this.

IOW, if we grant your assumption, then if it's moral for God to let children die, then I can be sure that it's moral for me to let children die, too.

God only needs to be moral within his own revelation. I do not like divine command theory, and find it a fact that is almost a liability to adopt. Yet is so absolute I am forced to agree with it regardless. If God exists what you think has no ability whatever to meaningfully judge him. If he was evil you would not know. You completely lack any objective standard capable of doing so. All you can do is accept or deny what he does or who he is. Comments on his moral nature are a waste of breath. I do not like this state of affairs but try and actually reason through an exception to it?

I think you're just uncomfortable with the logical implications of your position.

Well if that helps you to believe that, then carry on but it is not true. My comfort with a thing has nothing to do with whether it is logical or not. I have adopted truths I find objectionable and ones I find delightful. My opinion on the likability is simply irrelevant. What I responded to is no more right whether I am comfortable or uncomfortable. It is flawed logic despite anyone's feelings.

 

[Ingledsva]

Why not! Why not! Why not!


ING - Because it is FALSE - that's why!


Mt 6:9 “This, then, is how you should pray: “ ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,

Then after this;

Holy Mary mother of god pray for us

Charlie is communicating directly to God already and then all of a sudden Charlie switches that communication to Mary to ask God to pray for him/Charlie. Open your eyes and see the error here.

This is the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, a direct communication to God the Father and not through any names.


ING - Being able to pray directly to the father, does not somehow make asking intercession, wrong, or a sin.

The Catholic Church is very ancient, and this practice comes from the Jewish roots. Jews prayed to God, but also to special people that had passed to intercede for them in some way.


Jn 16:26 In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf.
Jn 16:27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
Christians are able to present their petitions to God directly in Jesus name ONLY.

You know why?


ING - See above.


Phil 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
Phil 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Phil 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

And what is your point with those last verses?

Not one of them says you can't ask intercession.



*

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If a person draws some kind of equality between two things then the most relevant possible aspect is that they be equal. I was pointing out there is hardly two things more unequal in that example. If what a person does has anything to do with what God does I so far have no clue what it is.

If the differences aren't relevant, then it's special pleading.

That is what is true of a concept, only the concept is in doubt not what is true of it, and it is only in doubt for the people who have no way to know. If you want to know what it feels like at the north pole you ask those who have been there, not those who have not yet chime up anyway. A moral act for God does not in anyway make it moral for us. That is the whole point. It is the same reasons driving for an adult is moral but for a 5 year old it is not. Only the difference between the two is not 30 years it is infinity. So your comparison fails miserably here. What is moral for a being with infinite intelligence may have similarities but only cosmetic ones to beings who have only a flawed and finite amount of knowledge. In fact I do not know what other circumstance could make more of a moral difference than this.

Letting a child die is a bit of a different animal than driving, though: it's not an individual act. Any time a child dies, it's the result of inaction by every person who could have saved him or her, including God. When we let a child die, the child only dies if God lets him die, too... if God gives the outcome his "stamp of approval", so to speak.

Whatever additional insight that God has is irrelevant to this particular moral question, since the child will only die if God lets him die, too. Death by neglect is a collaborative act between humanity and God.

God only needs to be moral within his own revelation. I do not like divine command theory, and find it a fact that is almost a liability to adopt. Yet is so absolute I am forced to agree with it regardless. If God exists what you think has no ability whatever to meaningfully judge him. If he was evil you would not know. You completely lack any objective standard capable of doing so. All you can do is accept or deny what he does or who he is. Comments on his moral nature are a waste of breath. I do not like this state of affairs but try and actually reason through an exception to it?

What you're saying is illogical. If a moral standard exists - and you say it does - then we can judge God against it. It doesn't matter if God was the author of that standard; if he's consistent, then we'll find him to be good.

Well if that helps you to believe that, then carry on but it is not true. My comfort with a thing has nothing to do with whether it is logical or not. I have adopted truths I find objectionable and ones I find delightful. My opinion on the likability is simply irrelevant. What I responded to is no more right whether I am comfortable or uncomfortable.

I don't believe you.

It is flawed logic despite anyone's feelings.

No, the logic is fine: if God is the moral standard, then what God does serves as a guide to what is moral. If God can't be used this way, then he's not a moral standard.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

:yes:

 

[Ingledsva]

You see how naïve or blinded you are even an atheist knew this facts.

What are you talking about?


Christians in South America don't pray to paper, or wood, or plaster! Period!


You folks need to get a grip.


Looking at a picture of God, to help focus your prayer, is ancient, and they are not praying to the picture. This is not the Iron Age.


These people - very obviously - have been trained into their CHRISTIAN faith.


They know God is not in a paper picture. Their preachers have told them so.


This stuff you guys keep pushing is just ridiculous!



*

 

[1robin]

Hmmm? Could it be said that Krishna, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, or Baha'u'llah knew or met God? In fact, it could be said that they drew up a map for the rest of us to find God. Since I doubt you believe the teachings of any of those people, then I suppose you believe there are phony maps out there.

I imagine it can be said, I do not imagine it can be defended. Joseph Smith died reciting the Masonic mantra and Muhammad said he had no idea if he would make it to paradise or not. Bahaullah made such atrociously inaccurate interpretations of scripture that I would doubt his sanity much more his claims about God. However nothing you said has anything to do with what I did. I compared two types of evidence. Documentary and experiential. You can unjustly place whoever you want in whatever category makes you feel better but my central claim about what evidence is more substantial would remain untouched.

Even your map has a lot of different directions you could have taken to "experience" God. Like one of my all time favorite Christian denominations, the "signs" believers. They probably have amazing stories of "experiencing" God while in trance-like states as they speak in tongues and handle snakes. So do those things that God reveals to them make things written in the Bible not important?

Since I found what the map led to then I would say I know more about it. I did not find it led, hinted that it led, or even left open the possibility that it might hint it led to anything except repentance and being born again. Since you did not find what it led to I doubt you understand what you are reading if in fact your reading it at all. If a recipe for pizza produces a greasy stain in one case and a pizza in the other then I will trust the latter and not the former.

This "map" you say you used to find God also describes what the "treasure" is supposed to be and what it's supposed to look like. Yet, different people find different things to believe about God and how to be saved and how to live. So how reliable is this treasure map if people are finding different things by following it?

No, not that you could possibly know if your were right. I was asked to write three papers on salvation and studied it specifically almost obsessively for 3 years straight. During the course of doing so I gathered up thousands of descriptions of the experience of salvation. 95% of them were almost identical in 90% of the central aspects but there is no need for be so consistent only that they are of the same type of event. For example I have never met anyone who described the event the way the apostles did. No tongues of fire, very little speaking in tongues, and no one saw Christ in person. Yet our experiences are of the exact same type. They did the same things, they led to the exact same conclusions, same type different strength which makes sense given the apostles commission. In summary there is remarkable similarity that goes beyond culture, language, , nation, and even time across Christian salvation experiences. The reasons I doubt you would know even if right is it took a herculean and concerted effort on my part to find substantial information on the issue and I had absolute devotion to the issue at the time. Now for doctrine in addition to salvation, even that is agreed to by 90% of us in about 90% of the core issues. Almost al mainstream Christians start off with the same core beliefs and only start diverging later on in details. less important, and less central issues. Given the complexity of the issues and the nature of them I find this to be absolutely remarkable and astounding beyond anything I could reasonably expect. Name anything similar which has greater agreement.

And, that dreaded subject, babies, whether they are born in sin or with a clean slate. It really would be nice to know. Are we born in sin and can do nothing on our own to remedy the situation? Then, of course, we all better get on our knees and let Jesus save us. But, again, this road map, the Bible, has some of us questioning the direction it has taken people that have placed too much trust in it. Considering how many of them go in different directions.

Why would it be nice to know? What exactly do you need to know that for? I would scare me to know someone really needed to know this? Regardless of what babies do or not long before we reach accountability every single one of us has already feel well short of perfection. God I snot God if he dwelt with imperfection for eternity. His standard must be perfection, not one of us has met it. We never will and never could fix that problem. God fixed it for us. That is about all I really need to know. I literally can think of no situation where I would ever need to know a babies moral status. Nor do I know how either side can say what it is in any way. I gave doctrine, not what I wish were true. If God exists it is true if not it is not and we need not worry about it.

Maybe they're holding the map up side down? Or, maybe they started at the wrong spot and walked ten paces the wrong way? By the way, where did you start from? At the end and then worked backwards? That would explain why the directions wouldn't matter. But that is assuming the treasure you found is the real one?

That is what makes the difference. Those who reach the destination have properly interpreted the map. If you have not found what it offers then by what reasoning are your arguments as persuasive as those who have? Where did I start? I started by think I was good to go without a map. Then grew to hate the map, hate those that used the map, and hate a God (if one existed) who invented the map. I attacked the map and anyone who thought it had merit. I was completely wrong. Eventually having no map I wound up so far from the goal I no longer could believe I could guide myself. I for the first time took a serious look at the despised map and just could not find a flaw, every direction worked, every signpost existed, every claim was valid. At a pace that seems a blur at this time I went from hating it to being obsessed in following it and found not only what others said was there but far more than I ever could have predicted. No matter the description the event dwarfs it. I have spent the last 20 plus years learning about the map and listening to the best cartographers who ever lived discuss the map. Now I defend the map and it's promise.

Just think of all the poor people in all those Christian denominations that got it wrong. They think they found God. They think they have the treasure, but they don't do they. They're at the end and trying to make the treasure map lead to the spot where they're at. But you know and I know they are not at the same place as you. What happened? Where did they go wrong? Or, are you wrong also? Oh, I forgot, you experienced God and they, I guess, didn't?

I have belonged to at least five denominations. There was never a shortage of those that get it wrong but the meaningful thing is that in every one of them I found many people who had obviously gotten it right. There is nothing revealing in either missing the mark by an inch or a mile. There is something remarkable in hitting the target. Think about something. For my world view to be justifiable only one of the billions who claim it need be right, yours requires they al be wrong.

Or, everybody can and does experience God in different ways and can believe in the Bible or in anything, and believe they have the truth.

Not only is that indefensible it is not even what is claimed. There is not even a meaningful percentage of other monotheistic faiths who claim to have experienced God.. I know, for years I have been looking for them in debates and in print. I hope it is easy to see that if does not exist in other similar faiths it certainly does not exist in no faiths. I am not even getting into the truth of the matter here, I mean even the claim does not exist in any numbers that are meaningful when compared. I am not saying there are almost none to start with that claim what you suggest.

 

[1robin]

:yes:

I told 9-10's but let me ask you. On what verse would you base the idea that sinners have no value and are disposable? How does any biblical doctrine produce that resulting re-write of theology?

 

[1robin]

If the differences aren't relevant, then it's special pleading.

I said there is nothing more relevant to an equality than the two things being equal which was the polar opposite from what we had. Now once done that made what was said irrelevant because it was so flawed as to be meaningless. That however has nothing to do with being equal's being relevant to an equality. Using an analogy or equality is not irrelevant unless you wreck what makes equalities equal then it becomes irrelevant.

It looks like we are on a semantic off ramp that I don't want to take. Use whatever terms you like, but comparing a man to God in that case made the argument that unutilized that equality impotent for lacking any actual equality in that case. Call it what you want, it was a poor argument.

Letting a child die is a bit of a different animal than driving, though: it's not an individual act. Any time a child dies, it's the result of inaction by every person who could have saved him or her, including God. When we let a child die, the child only dies if God lets him die, too... if God gives the outcome his "stamp of approval", so to speak.

I was not drawing an equality (mine was actually an inequality) but a similarity between types. I posited out that even the comparative difference in information separated the same event in a moral aspect. Now given that God's informational difference is so astronomically larger than between us and a child then it also will follow that similar events will be morally correct in one case and not in another. I can point out quite a few of these differences that are as vast as things can get that easily justify a different moral code between two moral agents. You are going to have to show that regardless how big the differences that moral codes would always be identical to even begin an argument.

Whatever additional insight that God has is irrelevant to this particular moral question, since the child will only die if God lets him die, too. Death by neglect is a collaborative act between humanity and God.

That is ridiculous. If God can place a person in heaven then that makes whatever actions he takes a lot different than our taking them. In the same way a bum taking an arm off in the alley is wrong but a surgeon doing so in a hospital is justified. God can also know every resultant effect of his actions we can't. No wit may be true that taking life without moral justification is wrong whether God does it or we do but what determines moral justification has a lot to do with what we know.

We do not die because God neglect us. We die because we neglected him. He gave us eternal life and we told him to take a hike. When we were separated from him by our own request we were separated from the thing that sustained us. We not only have doomed ourselves in eternity but for 5000 years we have only had 300 where we were not killing each other whole sale, we not have invented our own destruction, and call the moral insanity to have almost done it twice progress then on top of all that we turn around and blame the only solution to our madness. We do not even have claim to what life we do get.

What you're saying is illogical. If a moral standard exists - and you say it does - then we can judge God against it. It doesn't matter if God was the author of that standard; if he's consistent, then we'll find him to be good.

There is no standard external to God. He is the highest, most objective, most transcendent standard possible. Everything that is came from him. Where is your moral standard that is higher than God, who created it, why is it true? God did not invent morality he is morality. Moral commands are only reflections of his moral nature. Even theoretically what could possibly exist that would bind God? Talk about lacking logic.

I don't believe you.

That is not really important. I hold so many beliefs I do not like that you really can't create any kind of wish fulfillment explanation for them but it really does not matter. I am required to present truth not to make you believe it.

No, the logic is fine: if God is the moral standard, then what God does serves as a guide to what is moral. If God can't be used this way, then he's not a moral standard.

Well God's action would certainly comment on morality but they would never define our exact moral duties. Without God their is no moral truth for anything or anyone to defy or agree with to begin with. Nothing about that fact has anything go do with any action God may do is right for us. You can't prove the latter, nor can it be defended, but it certainly cannot be linked to the former claim.


Let me give you a thought experiment., If God killed every human on earth this second, what moral fact has he violated? How is he guilty of any wrong doing? If we killed a single person without moral justification what moral fact have we acted constantly with? How are we not guilty of breaking factual moral codes?


There something weird you non-theists do that has always tickled me. You will pick on God for a thousand lesser things but almost never mention the fact that he claims to have sentenced us all to death. Jesus was the lamb of God but you forget he is also the lion of Judah. Why worry about what happened to the Canaanites or some hypothetical baby, when we are all sentenced to die?