• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Bottom in Greek is “kato” while “torment” is “basanos”. You intentionally mistranslated or changed the word “TORMENT” with “BOTTOM” but gave the right meaning in Greek, and that is, “BASANOS”.


ING - As usual you have it wrong. The word used IS basanos.

basanos
bas'-an-os
Perhaps remotely from the same as G939 (through the notion of going to the bottom); a touch stone, that is, (by analogy) torture: - torment.

Note that - to the bottom - is its actual meaning, and they then add - analogy torment.




*


The rich man was in hades “being in torment” while Abraham and Lazarus were NOT in hades and not “being in torment”




ING - Again wrong! And obviously you ignored the extra material I provided!

Scofield Reference Notes - (Greek, "hadēs", "the unseen world," is revealed as the place of departed human spirits between death and resurrection). The word occurs, (Mat_11:23); (Mat_16:18); (Luk_10:15); (Act_2:27); (Act_2:31); (Rev_1:18); (Rev_6:8); (Rev_20:13); (Rev_20:14) and is the equivalent of the Old Testament "sheol."


Hades is the Greek word replacing SHEOL! There is NO HELL in Sheol! As such NO FIRE!

He finds himself in Sheol, no more time to remedy his wrongs, which have placed him at the bottom. He looks up with a burning yearning for what he has lost, by his own actions.




*


LK 16:23 “In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.
IOW, only the rich man was in hades, and not like you suggested here “First notice that they ALL are in Hades/Sheol.”


ING - They are ALL in Hades/Sheol - as Sheol is where ALL go to await final Judgment. His actions created a gulf he cannot pass, to reach the righteous dead. Let me repeat - there is no "hell" here - so same place.


*


Where did it say they all in hades?
I know what you going say, Christians changed the word “BOTTOM” into “TORMENT”, but Greek does not lie because it says “BASANOS”


ING - I suggest you reread above in this post, where I explain that you are wrong!


*


And here’s another proof that there is no such thing as purgatory.
2Co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Present with the Lord in purgatory?


ING - First off, they are not in Hell. They are in holding. So, why could that not be in the presence of God? His yearning would be intense if he sensed the presence (spirit) of God (in his now spirit body,) and realized how far from him, he placed himself.


Also - 2Co 5:1-8 is talking about human body as apposed to spirit body - which is of God.

2Co 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2Co 5:2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

2Co 5:5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
2Co 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (In the human realm)
2Co 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight)
2Co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be in the presence of the Lord.

Doesn't say anything about being in heaven. Just in the presence of God, no longer in the body.



*


Ac 7:56 "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
Heaven is in purgatory?


ING - First - this is sky/the heavens, not Heaven. It is "ouranos."

ouranos
oo-ran-os'
Perhaps from the same as G3735 (through the idea of elevation); the sky;


Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into the heavens, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Act 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.


And I will add - even if it had been Heaven - what would his looking into heaven - have to do with dead people waiting in Hades/Sheol to be Judged?




*
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST ONE OF TWO

Ingledsva
added from Strongs' : Perhaps remotely from the same as G939 (through the notion of going to the bottom); a touch stone, that is, (by analogy) torture: - torment.


1)REGARDING THE ATTEMPT TO USE STRONGS TO “TRANSLATE” OR CREATE MEANING FOR GREEK
ΒΑΣΑΝΩΣ / BASANOS IN THE CONTEXT OF LUKE 16:23

There are important reasons why translators do not use “Strong’s Concordance” for translation. The Wikipedia article for Strongs sums it up well, saying : :

"Strong's Concordance is not a translation of the Bible nor is it intended as a translation tool. The use of Strong's numbers is not a substitute for professional translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English by those with formal training in ancient languages and the literature of the cultures in which the Bible was written.

Since Strong's Concordance identifies the original words in Hebrew and Greek
, Strong's numbers are sometimes misinterpreted by those without adequate training to change the Bible from its accurate meaning simply by taking the words out of cultural context. The use of Strong's numbers does not consider figures of speech, metaphors, idioms, common phrases, cultural references, references to historical events, or alternate meanings used by those of the time period to express their thoughts in their own language at the time. As such, professionals and amateurs alike must consult a number of contextual tools to reconstruct these cultural backgrounds. Many scholarly Greek and Hebrew Lexicons (e.g., Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Thayer's Greek Dictionary, and Vine's Bible Dictionary) also use Strong's numbers for cross-referencing, encouraging hermeneutical approaches to study.


2)Consider the context surrounding the base words inside Strongs’ list :

G928
Βασανιζω – from 931 to torture : pain, toil, torment, toss, vex.
G929 Βασανισμος - From 928: Torture : - torment
G930 Βασανιστης – From 928 a torturer : tormentor
G931 βασανος - perhaps remotely from the same as G939 (through the notion of going to the bottom); a touch stone, i.e. (by analogy) torture: torment



Notice that In ALL cases of the usage of forms of βασανος, the only actual use (even in Strongs) refers to vexation, torture, shame, discomfort, etc. Only the theory of origin refers to G931 and even then it is described as a “perhaps remotely” related theory of usage (“going to the bottom…”).

“Going to the bottom” is NOT a definition, but a theory of how it might be "perhaps" used to form a relation to G939, (if it is related at all). Even it’s “perhaps” and “remotely” theory of possible origin it is left to theorize a possible usage which never occurs in the biblical text; not even a single time in all of biblical literature and in sacred context. It also was not used in the vernacular for “bottom” in Koine Greek of the era as I will point out.


3) CONSIDER USAGE IN SACRED TEXTS – BIBLICAL USAGE


– This word is only used a few times in the Old and New testament and in no single instance does it refer to “the bottom” in its usage.

Lk 16:28 : I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, so they won’t also come into this place of torment.

Mtt 4:24 : The report about him went out into all Syria. They brought to him all who were sick, afflicted with various diseases and
torments, possessed with demons, epileptics, and paralytics; and he healed them.

Lk 16:23 : in Hades, he lifted up his eyes, being in
torment, and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his bosom

Ez 32:24 : “There is Elam and all her multitude around her grave; all of them slain, fallen by the sword, who are gone down uncircumcised into the lower parts of the earth, who caused their terror in the land of the living, and have borne their
shame with those who go down to the pit.”

Ez 32:30 There are the princes of the north, all of them, and all the Sidonians, who are gone down with the slain; in the terror which they caused by their might they are put to shame; and they lie uncircumcised with those who are slain by the sword, and bear their
shame with those who go down to the pit.

Ez 3:20 : “Again, when a righteous man does turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die: because you have not given him
warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at your hand.

Ez 16:52 : You also, bear you your own
shame, in that you have given judgment for your sisters; through your sins that you have committed more abominable than they, they are more righteous that you: yes, be also confounded, and bear your shame, in that you have justified your sisters

Ez 16:54 : “that you may bear your own
shame, and may be ashamed because of all that you have done, in that you are a comfort to them”

Ez 7:19 They shall cast their silver in the streets, and their gold shall be as an unclean thing; their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of Yahweh: they shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their bowels; because it has been the
stumbling block of their iniquity.

Ez 12:18 : Son of man, eat your bread with quaking, and drink your water with
trembling and with fearfulness

Interestingly, In OT Kings, they use the word to refer to the “trespass” offering. Still, NOTHING in ANY of these texts indicate it means “bottom”.


4)CONSIDER THE USAGE OF
ΒΑΣΑΝΟΣ IN ANCIENT PAPYRI USAGE

In P Oxy I 58.25 (288 c.e.) it is used in the original sense of “test” or “touchstone (which was a specific TYPE of testing) where only certain persons who “stand the test” are appointed to certain offices : “οι και Βασανοις υποκεισονται”. In Leid W.vii.26, this ii/iii a.d. Papyri also uses it in this same sense of a test (which Leemans renders "exploratio" in Latin).

Even the derived senses refer to “torture” as a “test” (usually testing for “truth through the use of torture”). Thus in the Lille Papyri I.29.i, (iii b.c.), the legal code refers to Judges empowered to employ “torture” in gaining evidence from slaves : “...των δε δοθλων μαρτυρησαντων οι δικασται την Βασανον εκ των σωματων...” Also, in a rescript of Augustus in Syll 356.12 (6 b.c.) one could obtain the truth through torture.. “ …εξετασαι προσαξαχ...δια Βασανων...” in cases of slaves (after the murder of their master). In latin, this was rendered “quarere tormentis”.

In the uncanonical Gospel of P. Oxy V. 840.6, the editors also render it as torture : “και πολ[λ]ην Βασανον”.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST TWO OF TWO (CONTINUED)

As I said in my post regarding it’s usage, it is not always βασονον "εκ των σωματων” or a torture "of the body" it refers to, but in other usage, it the phrase is “...ψυχικας βασονους..” and refers to a torture "of the soul" such as mental torment, shame, profound regret for choices made or a life lived poorly… just as Vettius Valens (p. 182.19) uses it in this manner in multiple examples.

As Strongs demonstrated, ALL forms of this word refer to some sort of torture or torment, whether of body or of mind. For example P Oxy VI 903.10 refers to what slaves said under torture : «...βασανιζομενοι ουν επιαν...[FONT=&quot]" [/FONT] (“…they, (slaves) under torture, said …”). Andollent IA.27 (Cnidus tablet) speaks of terrible “..μεγαλας Βασανους Βασανιζομενα…” and the imprecatory tablet 35.8 speaks of “…μετα κυνων Βασονισαι…” . In ALL cases of all uses, this word refers to some sort of torture or discomfort of body or mind (soul)

I suppose the point is made that βασανος does NOT mean “bottom” in Koine or in any biblical usage (that I have found so far – I didn’t check it’s usage in the apocrypha…).

ARE THERE ANY GREEK READERS WHO KNOW OF ANY EXCEPTION TO THIS USE OF ΒΑΣΑΝΟΣ WHERE IT IS USED TO REFER TO THE “BOTTOM” OF ANYTHING?

EVEN A SINGLE EXAMPLE FROM KOINE?




REGARDING THE EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BELIEF IN HADES AS A “WORLD OF SPIRITS” OF THOSE WHO HAVE DIED.


Having said this I also have to agree with ingledsva that JM2C is offering silly erroneous interpretations of irrelevant scriptures to attempt to support his personal theory that “purgatory / hades / world of spirits / sheol, etc.” was not Christian doctrine.

It is quite clear historically that the early Judeo-Christians not only believed in this world of spirits, but their texts describe it, it’s inhabitants and their conditions with great detail. If anyone is interested in a historical re-cap, I will offer it from early historical texts, otherwise it is too obvious from the early textual histories that a world of spirits of the dead / hades/ purgatory (whatever one wants to call it) existed in early christian theology.


Clear
σενετωφιφιω
 
Last edited:

adi2d

Active Member
I'm over by Raymond. I think I can cross the bridge at Astoria. I've got a Seahawk T-shirt as a disguise. I' just got to remember to remove it before I cross the border into California. That might get ugly.

It looks like you're safe. Obviously God loves Seahawks nore than Cheeseheads

Do you live near San Francisco? I hear they have a pretty good semi pro team
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
It looks like you're safe. Obviously God loves Seahawks nore than Cheeseheads

Do you live near San Francisco? I hear they have a pretty good semi pro team
That's the problem. And it's worse than you think. My wife is from Seattle, and we live closer to Raider Nation. It can get terrifying, especially on game day.

The Niners used to be over the hills and a bay away. Now they're down by San Jose. So we no longer have the mote protecting us from them. It could get dangerous with them also.

As far as tonight goes, I'm back to believing God is good. He stayed the hand of Aaron Rodgers and sent his angels to carry the feet of Wilson, Lynch and Harvin. I'm ashamed I ever doubted. He does answer prayer. And my he bless and keep you too, unless you're one of those horrible atheists, then forget it, you're on your own.
 

JM2C

CHRISTIAN
basanos
bas'-an-os
Perhaps remotely from the same as G939 (
through the notion of going to the bottom); a touch stone, that is, (by analogy) torture: - torment.

G939 jAcai>kov" Achaicus, “belonging to Achaia” -1Co 16:17

Note that - to the bottom - is its actual meaning, and they then add - analogy torment.

Who they that added an analogy, the Anonymous They? You keep inventing words that you cannot support.
 

JM2C

CHRISTIAN
The rich man was in hades “being in torment” while Abraham and Lazarus were NOT in hades and not “being in torment”
ING - Again wrong! And obviously you ignored the extra material I provided!

Scofield Reference Notes - (Greek, "hadēs", "the unseen world," is revealed as the place of departed human spirits between death and resurrection). The word occurs, (Mat_11:23); (Mat_16:18); (Luk_10:15); (Act_2:27); (Act_2:31); (Rev_1:18); (Rev_6:8); (Rev_20:13); (Rev_20:14) and is the equivalent of the Old Testament "sheol."
Read these verses and see if there is any positive thought in there.

Mt 11:23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths [G87 a{/dh" Hades, the grave, the place of the dead, “the underworld”]. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.

Mt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades [G87 a{/dh" Hades, the grave, the place of the dead, “the underworld”] will not overcome it.

Lk 10:15 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths [G87 a{/dh" Hades, the grave, the place of the dead, “the underworld”].

Lk 16:23 In hell [G87 a{/dh" Hades, the grave, the place of the dead, “the underworld”], where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.

Ac 2:27 because you will not abandon me to the grave [G87 a{/dh" Hades, the grave, the place of the dead, “the underworld”], nor will you let your Holy One see decay.

Ac 2:31 Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave [G87 a{/dh"
Hades, the grave, the place of the dead, “the underworld”], nor did his body see decay.

Rev 1:18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades [G87
a{/dh" Hades, the grave, the place of the dead, “the underworld”].

No matter how you and Clear interpret this verses, this place, Hades [G87 a{/dh" Hades, the grave, the place of the dead,
“theunderworld”] is not a pleasant place to be after one dies.
 

JM2C

CHRISTIAN
Hades is the Greek word replacing SHEOL! There is NO HELL in Sheol! As such NO FIRE!

He finds himself in Sheol, no more time to remedy his wrongs, which have placed him at the bottom. He looks up with a burning yearning for what he has lost, by his own actions.
Let's say the rich man was at the bottom and not “being in torment” why in Lk 16:24 he would say something like this if there was no fire or flame [G5825 flovx flame, blaze] at all?

Lk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented [G3849 ojdunavw to grieve, be anxious, in agony] in this flame [G5825 flovx flame, blaze].

Lk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented [G3849 ojdunavw to grieve, be anxious, in agony].

Is this the purgartory you are talking about?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I'm still here in Washington. We're staying one more night to watch the Seahawks game on TV with my wife's son and his wife and... their daughter. Yes, I'm still alive but barely. I'm suffering from sleep deprivation. Every night she pretends to be asleep, then, as soon as I start to doze off, it happens. That shrill, incessant sound...Wah! It doesn't stop, and it won't stop until she gets what she wants. Her mother gets up to hold her. My wife gets up to help, but it's of no avail. She wants me. My wife says, "Come on grandpa. Come sing to her."

"No! Leave me be. I can't take it any more. Let me go back to California where I can go back to work and get some rest."

"Come on, one more time. Sing her a song."

"One more time? I don't think so. It's only one in the morning. There will be at least two more times."

"Get over here now!"

I throw off the covers and roll out of bed. I go to the other bedroom. "Okay, what song this time?"

"She really likes that lullaby by Ozzy Osborne."

"Figures."

Clear, I don't know. One more night. If the Seahawks lose, then what? I told them I prayed that they have a good game? What do I say if they don't win? That God loves the Packers better? It might get ugly. We might have to sneak out of town tonight and make a run for the border.

Just don't chant Allahu seahawkbar and you may by ok.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
So all that stuff about trying to establish that babies are sinners wasn't about justifying why God lets them die? What is your justification based on, then?

This is what I have been on about.

God lets us all die, reluctantly and after providing an all expense paid way out I might add. Why, other that an appeal to sympathy and/or emotion, are you concentrating on the small subcategory of us that will not be judged? I knew I was right this whole time about what was motivating this.

If God exists those children go to heaven. What is the complaint again?

Also how can a member of a race that not only allows it but causes them to die without knowing for certain where they end up. How can that person judge God? On what grounds? By what standards?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I wasn't making an analogy; I was making an inference: if God is the moral standard, then everything that God does is necessarily a moral act.
I see the semantic train made it here. Inferences only are relevant if the two things being compared are equal in specific ways. The ways were are similar is that we are moral agents, and we are personal. Everything else has infinite inequality.

There are no grounds in any category to limit God by our own limitations.


Again, it's not about equality and you're engaging in special pleading. Is letting children die good? Then it's moral to do... for gods or people. Is it evil? Then it's immoral to do... for gods or people.
Whether something is good or not depends entirely on the background information. Cutting someone's arm off is either moral insane if no justification exists or something people go to school for years and receive medals to do with justification. When God acts he has all the information and we usually have none but at lost a tiny fragment. You can't make inferences in those cases. Once in while God gave his justifications and if he exists things like the Canaanites, Amalekites, etc... do have perfect justification and in fact was even proven because the Jews did not do as instructed and paid a massive price for letting them live, in many ways. Within generation the Canaanites had intermarried with Jews and a few of God's chosen people were killing their own children instead of representing God standards. If stopping that is not cause what is.

The only way that God's (disputed) status as a "moral standard" is relevant here is that if letting kids die was immoral, then God wouldn't do it.
Depends on context and circumstances.


If God's moral code isn't the same as ours, then God isn't *our* moral standard. Are you sure you want to argue this?
His moral declarations and conscience are our standards because they reflect his moral nature AND OUR LIMITATIONS. They will not be identical because God does not have our limitations. This is as simple as anything ever gets.


But we're not talking about out-and-out murder; we're talking about letting a child die. If 10 people and God see the same starving child, if any one of them feeds him, the child lives. He only dies if all of them - including God - each decide not to feed him.
Murder is only murder if no moral justification exists not just because a child dies. I have already given an example of this but could add a dozen more in minutes juts from my pathetic memory. You must be under the impression that God can get any world he wants by any means he wants. He can't. Freewill would necessitate a less than optimal world, a world where cured every mistake of ours would not be one that produces faith in the undesirability of sin. You want to ruin a child then take away accountability.

And it's worse for God, since a human being might pass the child and assume that someone else will help. God, with his vast superior knowledge (as you pointed out) would be in a position to know that he's really the child's last hope.
No it is infinitely better. God regardless of who tries to help, who fails, or even when no one is there to try always 100% of the time makes it right for eternity. The best we can off is temporary but God's offers eternity.

Every argument you make is called a false optimization. It falsely says because X is perfect Y must be. The absurdity is instantly seen if you just ramp up the exact same argument and state that even the presence of on stubbed toe is inconsistent with a good God's existing. It is no less absurd at a lower point. It also requires you to do what you will never do. You must prove God could have free world with less suffering but with more faith. As just about everyone knows for the stubborn only suffering reaches them. That is why faith survives and even increases when persecuted and why even the hardest atheist may let in a ray of light at a funeral and why so few foxholes have atheist inhabitants.

That's why I say that letting a child die is a collaborative act between humanity and God: either one could stop it, so it only happens when both agree.
That proves God allowed it, it does nothing to show he was unjust in doing so.


Sounds like you're saying that when someone dies, they did something to deserve it.
I have never met one who was perfect, have you? God is perfect and could not allow imperfection into heaven or it would only transfer the disease there. That is why atonement is substitutionary atonement. Christ perfection is accredited to me of faith and my sin to him. But is not the issue. I am not saying a Child deserves death, nor is there any basis to say he does deserve it. Deserve it or not another being gave it to him, and by sovereignty take it back or not at some point. Babies are going to die regardless, but only in my view do they have an eternal future free of misery and sin. In yours they just go back to dust and never had any actual value or rights to begin with.


Actual morality restricts one's actions. If your God has no restrictions, then he's not moral.
That is probably why I did not say that. God cannot be evil. BTW there is nothing inherent in morality that requires exception its self. If God's nature excluded nothing as bad then nothing would be bad. However what is evil and God cannot do is not determined by you. What you think is evil is irrelevant. You can only reject or accept God you could never ever judge him. I hate the concept of Allah but my hating it does nothing whatever to make it evil. Fortunately I have no reason to think he exists to begin with.


You're required to present "truth" but not to present it effectively? Suit yourself.
Effectuality has nothing to do with belief. Cognitive dissonance is the most powerful force I am aware of that humans possess. Calling abortion good, God evil, and the bloodiest century in history progress is proof enough. Facts can literally smash you into mist at the same time you deny their existence.

So we can't use God as a standard for human morality, but you say that nothing else can be used either. What do you suggest we use as the basis of morality?
Yes we can. I said we can't always justify our actions by God's. Your habitual habit of taking what I state then torturing into something else entirely is what I was talking of above.


What "factual moral code" are you talking about?
Objective moral truth.

Morals are derived from values. Slaughtering all of humanity would only be moral if humanity had no value, but this lack of value would inform human morality, too.
However arbitrarily assigning all other forms of life with less value than ours based out not having the first clue it is true nor ever could be is just fine I guess. Morality can certainly be based on value but actual objective value can only be based in God. Without him your practicing speciesm which is far worse than racism plus genocide.


Believe me - I don't forget and that bothers me, too. Christian theology is offensive on many levels, but to keep the discussion manageable, we have to deal with it in small chunks.
So far you have not dealt with any of it meaningfully and did not even attempt to answer the question.
You have only been making arbitrary and hypocritical complaints without justification. All you stated is what you don't like, not what is actually wrong.

I think in the discussion about that particular issue, the "slaughtering most of humanity" problem gets lost in the conversation about the "eternal suffering" issue that usually accompanies it. Not many things top the immortality of genocide, but infinite torture does.
I don't hold to any belief about eternal torture other than it's non-existence.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
9-10th Penguin said : “I think in the discussion about that particular issue, the "slaughtering most of humanity" problem gets lost in the conversation about the "eternal suffering" issue that usually accompanies it. Not many things top the immortality of genocide, but infinite torture does.”

1ROBIN replied : “I don't hold to any belief about eternal torture other than it's non-existence.”



I vote with 1ROBIN on this point that “eternal torture” did not exist in early Christian worldviews AND I agree with 9-10ths Penguin on the injustice of a doctrine that tortures beings "without any end - forever - eternally".

However, 9-10ths Penguins criticism cannot apply to authentic early Christian doctrine (the earliest Christians would have probably agreed with 9-10ths Penguin...), but rather this criticism can only apply to later Christian theories created by a different Christian movement(s) than the original or the earliest Christian worldview. For example, There is no reference to “eternal torture” in the earliest Christian worldview or language, nor does it appear in the bible other than in mis-use of the adjective aion / αιον (of which multiple examples exist).

For example, Hebrew “Olam” and Greek “Aion” did not mean “eternal” or “never ending” in their early usage, but they meant a period of "indefinite" duration which depended upon it's subject for context and meaning. When "aion" referred to the life-span of man, it was 70-100 years. If it was applied to a tree then it means perhaps a few hundred years. If it was applied to a mountain perhaps it meant thousands of years.
When aion was used in reference to Jonah in the whale, aion in this instance referred to three days time. It was only in later era’s that these words came to be applied to the concept of “never ending” and it was, historically, the later theologians who gave it this meaning. This is why 9-10ths Penguins criticism cannot apply to the doctrines of the earliest Christian movement.

However, to the degree that the criticism applies to LATER Christian theories of “eternal punishment”, I can agree with 9-10ths Penguins criticism.


Clear
σενεδρακφυω

 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
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.

Also keep in mind there is no certainty possible here. I only need a better case than you. You need to show that there is better evidence they do perfectly meet moral facts as a baby. It is irrelevant whether they have any knowledge of them because God holds them unaccountable for that reason. Technically they are imperfect but are not condemned but approved of in spite of that. Now I need a good reason to think they are technically morally perfect instead of simply being ignorant and cute. Got one or not?

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

In order to exercise morality, one has to be aware of the difference between "good" (right) or "bad" (wrong) behavior. Since a baby is incapable of doing this (we know their brains aren't as fully developed as an adult's brain is), I'd say babies are amoral which I see as quite a different thing than being immoral, which I think you actually agree with, judging from what you've said above.

But, if you say (as I think you have) that god instills us all with his objective morality, then you do not actually agree with me because you'd then have to believe that babies do know the difference between right and wrong behaviors and in being as selfish as you say they are, would intentionally be acting immorally. Knowledge of "moral facts" is not irrelevant to this discussion at all.

And again, as I and others have repeatedly stated, I don't see this discussion as irrelevant at all given that our beliefs affect our actions in this world we live in, and if we view newborn babies as immoral little wretches, we may just treat them accordingly, despite any observational evidence to the contrary.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
and why so few foxholes have atheist inhabitants.

Well, if fear of being drilled by some bullet is what turns unbelievers into Christians, then Christianity rests on a pretty poor metaphysical base. It is not essentially different then acquiring faith in a witch doctor when you get a very bad disease and normal doctors gave up. It just provides further evidence that faith is a product of human fear of dying.

However, I actually think that it is true Christianity that is missing in foxholes. For, if God has a plan for you and you think you are fighting for a just cause and He will protect you or you will go to Heaven, why on earth are you guys hiding in that stinking hole?

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
SkepticThinker explained : “In order to exercise morality, one has to be aware of the difference between "good" (right) or "bad" (wrong) behavior. Since a baby is incapable of doing this (we know their brains aren't as fully developed as an adult's brain is), I'd say babies are amoral which I see as quite a different thing than being immoral, …” post 4613 (Underlines are added by Clear for Clarity of reference)



I think this observation of SkepticThinkers concerning the difference between an Ammoral being and an Immoral being is important inside the model of JUSTICE of moral reward and punishment since it injects reason and rationality and logic into this point and, ironically, since it is similar to the distinction the early Christians themselves made. Early Christians understood that an individual could NOT be justly punished UNLESS the individual had both sufficient knowledge and understanding of right and wrong and then consciously chose wrong.

God taught the Prophet Baruch this same principle that SkepticThinker is trying to teach 1Robin by teaching Baruch (regarding those who transgressed moral laws) : “It is true that man would not have understood my judgment if he had not received the law and if he were not instructed with understanding. But now, because he trespassed, having understanding, he will be punished because he has understanding.” (The Apocalypse of Baruch (Baruch 2) 15:1 and 5-7) An individual does not understand a punishment placed upon him unless that individual has been given sufficient knowledge (instruction) and understanding.

The ancients understood the nuance between “sin” which was a willful act, and “transgression” which was often an unwillful, perhaps even unknown transgression a small child might commit to a moral principle which was NOT understood. (e.g. The 10 month old that "steals" another baby's bottle, etc).

Multiple times in the early literature the Judeo-Christians make the distinction between “intentional” and “unintentional” transgressions. Even the words indicating “sin” and “transgression” are different (though one cannot always see this in the English text).

I think it is Ironic that the atheist SkepticThinker has, on his own, come to a conclusion that is more similar to the early Christian position, more rational, more logical, etc. than the modern Christian position posited in this thread. It’s a very interesting and Ironic thing.



Frubals to you Skeptic for this wonderful, logical and reasonable point you made.

Clear
[FONT=&quot]σενεφιδρφιω
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
SkepticThinker explained : “In order to exercise morality, one has to be aware of the difference between "good" (right) or "bad" (wrong) behavior. Since a baby is incapable of doing this (we know their brains aren't as fully developed as an adult's brain is), I'd say babies are amoral which I see as quite a different thing than being immoral, …” post 4613 (Underlines are added by Clear for Clarity of reference)



I think this observation of SkepticThinkers concerning the difference between an Ammoral being and an Immoral being is important inside the model of JUSTICE of moral reward and punishment since it injects reason and rationality and logic into this point and, ironically, since it is similar to the distinction the early Christians themselves made. Early Christians understood that an individual could NOT be justly punished UNLESS the individual had both sufficient knowledge and understanding of right and wrong and then consciously chose wrong.

God taught the Prophet Baruch this same principle that SkepticThinker is trying to teach 1Robin by teaching Baruch (regarding those who transgressed moral laws) : “It is true that man would not have understood my judgment if he had not received the law and if he were not instructed with understanding. But now, because he trespassed, having understanding, he will be punished because he has understanding.” (The Apocalypse of Baruch (Baruch 2) 15:1 and 5-7) An individual does cannot understand a punishment placed upon him unless that individual has been given sufficient knowledge (instruction) and understanding.

The ancients understood the nuance between “sin” which was a willful act, and “transgression” which an unwillful, perhaps even unknown transgression a small child might commit to a moral principle which was NOT understood. (e.g. The 10 month old that "steals" another baby's bottle, etc).

Multiple times in the early literature the Judeo-Christians make the distinction between “intentional” and “unintentional” transgressions. Even the words indicating “sin” and “transgression” are different (though one cannot always see this in the English text).

I think it is Ironic that the atheist SkepticThinker has, on his own, come to a conclusion that is more similar to the early Christian position, more rational, more logical, etc. than the modern Christian position posited in this thread. It’s a very interesting and Ironic thing.



Frubals to you Skeptic for this wonderful, logical and reasonable point you made.

Clear
[FONT=&quot]σενεφιδρφιω
[/FONT]

Thank you. :)
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
SkepticThinker said : “In order to exercise morality, one has to be aware of the difference between "good" (right) or "bad" (wrong) behavior. Since a baby is incapable of doing this (we know their brains aren't as fully developed as an adult's brain is), I'd say babies are amoral which I see as quite a different thing than being immoral, …” post 4613 (Underlines are added by Clear for Clarity of reference)

SkepticThinker :

I think your ability to use such logic and reasoning without extraordinary bias and without illogical loyalty to a religious “party line” is a good thing.


REGARDING THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAKE UP AN AMMORAL (NOT IMMORAL) BEING


If you are correct that an infant is Ammoral , (not Immoral) because it is unaware of the difference between “good” and “evil” (and I think you are correct on this point), then I assume we can apply this rule to all individuals, who are in the same condition as the infant..

For example, does the rule mean that ALL beings that do not know “good” from “evil” are Ammoral, and not just infants? In this model, does an ammoral infant, born with brain damage in cognitive and "moral" areas of the brain which prevent them from gaining that moral knowledge of "good" and "evil" ever leave the state of "Ammorality" and become a "Moral" being without EVER gaining moral knowledge and understanding required for "moral competency"?

What I am coming to is the concept that what makes an infant an Ammoral being is lack of knowledge, lack of understanding (and thus lack of competent choice) regarding moral issues. Age, is not necessarily the only determining factor in becoming a "morally competent being". Is this your understanding as well?

That is, Ammorality , Morallity, and Immorality, all related to the knowledge of, understanding of, and ability to make a moral choice, rather than the fact that one is an infant or one is middle aged. Is this correct? Or am I misunderstanding you?



CAN SIMILAR MORAL INCOMPETENCY BE APPLIED TO OTHER INDIVIDUALS
?

IF
this is correct, then inside this model of moral competency, is a hypothetical Adam, in an initial state of complete innocence and ignorance of Good and Evil an Ammoral being?

Is such an individual, without knowledge and understanding of “Good” and “Evil” capable of exercising competent and mature morality any more than an infant who is deemed “Ammoral” because the infant also is in the same condition of having no knowledge of moral “good” and moral “evil”?

What is your logical opinion on this ?

Clear
σενεφινεσω

 
Last edited:

JM2C

CHRISTIAN
Giving your justification for God's actions. We've established that the arguments you gave about sinful babies were a sideshow, so I'm asking you to provide your argument. Your relevant argument.

I gave my thoughts on the OP almost 2 years ago:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3186117-post19.html
Originally Posted by Lady B #
Here is my premise,
this is my belief based upon my scriptures.
God not only allows children to die, He causes them to die. Hard for us to fathom, granted, but True nevertheless in Scripture.
9-10ths_Penguin: That's my interpretation as well.
Did God really cause people to die, or was it the “sin” that causes people to die? Did God allowed people to sin? No! He did not in the beginning, in fact God warned Adam not to sin against Him.

After the fall of man, men were sinning because men were sinners to begin with.
This is one the tenets of Calvinism, the “T” in “TULIP” as “Total depravity”, on which I also believe, and that was reason why I gave these verses, psalm 51:5, 58:3 and Eph 2:3, as an examples of what total depravity means, but God did not or was not the cause on why men sin that brought death to humanity. Therefore, God did not cause people to die.

He allowed horrible deaths because men were sinners and that is the cause of death and not because God is the cause of death, sin is/was.

Sin is the cause of death and God allowed it to serve a purpose, and that is, to show His power over sin, that people might see sin as utterly sinful and therefore turn to Him, but people, because of this total depravity, cannot see God over sin.

Man’s free will is confined by this wall of sin and cannot go beyond this wall of sin to see God. Only through the Lord Jesus Christ can a man see or go through beyond this wall of sin to see God over sin.

When people die of horrible deaths, they blame God because He allowed it and the cause of it. Banish the thought. God allowed death but not the cause of death, sin is the cause of death.

God can ignore all these sinning and just wait at the end or death of each man and judge from there, but do you think it’s fair for everyone? No!

Where is the justice for throwing the entire humanity in hell without any warning at all?

If humanity ends up in hell, because God ignored and did not give us any warning, at all, by just allowing men to sin that causes death, then where is justice to that?

Only then we can entertain or justify the thought that God is the cause of death and not the sin.

Then satan, laughing at us in hell, saying “I told you so, you all end up here in hell”
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Did God really cause people to die, or was it the “sin” that causes people to die? Did God allowed people to sin? No! He did not in the beginning, in fact God warned Adam not to sin against Him.

Of course He allowed Adam to sin. Because Adam did, indeed, sin, and I wonder how an omnipotent being cannot prevent something as simple as that unless He closed an eye, so to speak.

After the fall of man, men were sinning because men were sinners to begin with.
This is one the tenets of Calvinism, the “T” in “TULIP” as “Total depravity”, on which I also believe, and that was reason why I gave these verses, psalm 51:5, 58:3 and Eph 2:3, as an examples of what total depravity means, but God did not or was not the cause on why men sin that brought death to humanity. Therefore, God did not cause people to die.
If men where sinners to start with, then I wonder why He created them. Did He miss that little characteristic of ours? I mean, after all we are in His image, so what is the big surprise? Maybe God is a sinner, too, who knows?

He allowed horrible deaths because men were sinners and that is the cause of death and not because God is the cause of death, sin is/was.
Well, He allowed sin, unless you think that Adam could do things that are not allowed by an almighty being. After all, He is also omniscient, allegedly. So, didn't He see that coming when He decided to create Adam?

Sin is the cause of death and God allowed it to serve a purpose, and that is, to show His power over sin, that people might see sin as utterly sinful and therefore turn to Him, but people, because of this total depravity, cannot see God over sin.
Wait. First God did not allow sin and now He allowed it to serve a purpose? Sounds like an exaptation. No surprise that does not work, given His malfunctioning omnipotence and power of prevention.

Man’s free will is confined by this wall of sin and cannot go beyond this wall of sin to see God. Only through the Lord Jesus Christ can a man see or go through beyond this wall of sin to see God over sin.
I wonder why God did not dispatch the Lord Jesus Christ much sooner. For instance, right after the Fall. After all, if you detect a disease, why wait? Maybe He wanted to try some other less invasive therapies, like flooding the whole world.

I always wondered why He did that, if men are sinful to start with. Did He really think that the generations coming from Noah would be sinless?

When people die of horrible deaths, they blame God because He allowed it and the cause of it. Banish the thought. God allowed death but not the cause of death, sin is the cause of death.
Of course He allowed the cause of death. How could He miss that? Was He having a spiritual coffee while Adam and Eve were conversing with the serpent? I am aware that the NSA was not present at that time and it is difficult to wire naked people and serpents, but an omniscient being should know better, I think.

God can ignore all these sinning and just wait at the end or death of each man and judge from there, but do you think it’s fair for everyone? No!
I think God needs a lot of paperwork for keeping track of all cases. Did you sin? (Stupid question, of course you did). Did you die before knowing anything about the good news? Did you die as a (sinful) embryo or as a few weeks old infant? Did you believe in evolution? etc.

Maybe it is all contained in the book of life, which is also the book of death. A sort of cosmic Schindler's list.

Where is the justice for throwing the entire humanity in hell without any warning at all?
Where is the justice in letting people fry for all eternity because they did not believe in His existence? I wonder if He throws a hissy fit when someone refuses to satisfy His necessarily infinite vanity and need of being noticed.

If humanity ends up in hell, because God ignored and did not give us any warning, at all, by just allowing men to sin that causes death, then where is justice to that?
But He is allowing all this to happen. You make it sound like He is a sort of fireman: guys, do not go there or you might be injured. Simple solution for an almighty fireman: extinguish the fire. What He is waiting for? Every new born child is at risk of getting burned.

Only then we can entertain or justify the thought that God is the cause of death and not the sin.
He is the cause of both. That is the perk of being omnipotent and omniscient.

Then satan, laughing at us in hell, saying “I told you so, you all end up here in hell”
Wait. I heard that Hell has been designed for Satan and his partners. And now Satan is laughing (instead of gnashing his teeth) in Hell?

I suggest to send Gabriel or some other competent angel to check the heating system.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
9-10th Penguin said : “I think in the discussion about that particular issue, the "slaughtering most of humanity" problem gets lost in the conversation about the "eternal suffering" issue that usually accompanies it. Not many things top the immortality of genocide, but infinite torture does.”

1ROBIN replied : “I don't hold to any belief about eternal torture other than it's non-existence



I vote with 1ROBIN on this point that “eternal torture” did not exist in early Christian worldviews AND I agree with 9-10ths Penguin on the injustice of a doctrine that tortures beings "without any end - forever - eternally".
I am pleased with your agreement. The moment you introduce eternal torture you cease to have a just God. I believe the bible when it says hell will be thrown into the pit and destroyed and I believe that when it says to fear the one that can destroy the soul it is because that is going to happen. I believe hell may be temporally a physical place but in the end is destroyed along with every soul that is in it. That is just, an eternal dungeon is not. I could throw more scripture at it and philosophize more on it but if we agree there is no need.
 
Top