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

[SkepticThinker]

The verse is Mathew:

27"What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops. 28"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29"Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.…

But I do not see how the verse is going to determine what tradition of doctrine is earliest, or true, that is why I asked what you wanted.


The verse is Mathew:

27"What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops. 28"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29"Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.…

But I do not see how the verse is going to determine what tradition of doctrine is earliest that is why I asked what you wanted.


It is not really necessary that I give examples. We would have to name a specific child for that but I am making generalizations. You need to show the argument is better for their not violating those principles than the one that they do.

What was you testing methodology? Why have we gone from those too young to be accountable, to children, to babies, and now to new borns. It is as if your position is running out of ambiguity to hide in. For some reason your ignoring the other 95% of the category actually in question where what I claim is evident and have assumed without justification the last 5% has a completely opposite nature.

If every action a baby made was fake how would anyone know. I'm deducting from the obvious attempts to deceive of older children to babies who have the exact same natures. Know one can know but my argument is far more likely than it's opposite. By the way where is this mysterious line in age you use? Why did you draw it there? Why is it relevant?

My niece one time at a very early age (don't remember exactly) noticed that when she crawled to the edge of the bed I would run to put her back on the middle. I started to notice that as soon as sat down she would make for the nearest edge and when close glare at me in expectation. She was very young and so this suggests that the same person with the same nature had always had this tendency.

Re-read SkepticThinkers point as he is correct. To be “sinful” (ful This whole issue has long past run it's course. The obsession with it has long ago began to look suspicious. I will say one more time that that definition has to do with accountability not technical sinfulness. Even that has exceptions, even our own laws do not always allow ignorance as an excuse for anything. Because they do not know they are not accountable, because they either fail to meet or break objective moral law they are however technically guilty. Every possible aspect of justice is accounted for with that view. No wrong is done, no exceptions made, no innocents punished, no guilt hand waived away. Everything is exactly as it should be. Only in denying this principle to vagaries and ambiguity raise their heads.





That explains why they are not accountable. It does not explain how they can violate the requirement and not have failed to meet it. My view leaves no grey areas, yours introduces them in totality.




I must have said it is unknowable dozens of times, just re-read my posts. It however is not beyond reasonable deductions. It is juts plain weird than no matter what I list you just back up until the fact is buried in the unknown. Since the beings in this category do X in 95% of the examinable time frames it is an infinitely better argument to claim they do so in the other 5%. It is just bizarre to examine the issue by ignoring the 95% where answers can be found and concentrate on the 5% where they come harder. It looks exactly like a lawyer trying to get a guilty client off by a procedural technicality while ignoring the evidence.

Continued below:

What's suspicious about it??

 

[SkepticThinker]

1) Clear asked 1robin regarding his claim mentioned in 4620, “…when it says to fear the one that can destroy the soul it is because that is going to happen : ” Can you give me the reference for “fearing the one that can destroy the soul” since this specific point as it differs from early tradition. Thanks.”
1robin replied : Since I take it you are familiar with the verse what did you want exactly?”

1Robin, I wanted the reference. What book, chapter and verse are you referring to regarding “..fearing the one that can destroy the soul…because that is going to happen”?





2)REGARDING 1ROBIN AND JM2C’S THEORY THAT BABIES SIN CONSTANTLY AND THAT BABIES ARE MORALLY “DEPRAVED”.



A) 1ROBIN replied : “I do not think you believe the ten commandments the totality of Godly duty but even if you did there is no evidence they even obey the first one. In fact I can see the potentiality that they violate most of them. I have seen babies fake all kinds of conditions in order to get what they want, is that not lying?.

1ROBIN , We are speaking of newborns, you are switching to older individuals.

If you ARE trying to say newborns “fake” things, then you have not told us when, you think that newborns were given the understanding to do this, nor how nor when newborns acquired the capacity by God to either obey or to rebel against God. Your theory never gets consideration because it is so inconsistent with reality.

For example, forum readers all have experienced newborns (I’ve examined and interacted with thousands… literally). I’ve NEVER seen a newborn FAKE anything. EVER.

HAS ANY OTHER FORUM READER SEEN A NEWBORN “FAKE” SOMETHING?

Your claim to have seen “babies” either does not even apply to the question of newborns, or if you are claiming newborn babies “fake all kinds of conditions” then it is simply not a credible claim.

Re-read SkepticThinkers point as he is correct. To be “sinful” (full of sin) an infant has to be morally “aware” . That is, they must have sufficient awareness, knowledge, understanding and free will to make the choice in order to have the moral compentency to make a choice to oppose God in any way. (This is not necessarily true of “transgression” or of those who are “lawless”, but it applies to the conscious choice to “sin” against moral knowledge).



B) REGARDING NEWBORNS AND THEIR “SINS”, 1ROBIN claims : “Do they place God above every other consideration, I think the exact opposite is true. Do they not take from others?

I do not think a newborn has yet learned that God exists in order to defy him nor is oriented enough to even be able to place God above other considerations. Again, refer to Skeptics point that God MUST give all individuals (including newborns) sufficient knowledge and understanding and free will BEFORE he can punish an individual for not obeying a law they have never been given. God is unjust if God creates a being with imperfection and then punishes that individual for having the characteristic which God placed into it UNLESS God give the individual adequate ability and opportunity to change. If you think that they “take from others” in the form of “stealing”, then you will have to give us data and logic to support the claim that newborns are thieves…



C) REGARDING NEWBORNS AND THEIR “SINS”, 1ROBIN claims : “Are they always acting with honor towards parents? As far back as I can remember I remember times I hated mine and mine were as good as any baby could expect.“

I think you are being disingenuous if you claim that you, as a newborn baby in the nursery, “hated your parents”. If you are NOT talking about newborns, but instead, are talking about older children, then it is, once again, an irrelevant point. This feels like a desperate and disingenuous speculation which is HURTING your case that newborns sin instead of helping you. What is so wrong with just telling forum members that you simply don’t know what newborn infants do that is a moral sin?



D) REGARDING 1ROBIN AND JM2C’S THEORY THAT BABIES SIN CONSTANTLY AND THAT BABIES ARE MORALLY “DEPRAVED”.
1ROBIN claims : Anyway it is not enough to show I can't prove their guilty even if I can't.

“prove”? Are you reading your own posts? You haven’t even gotten past the stage of theorizing that infants “sin constantly” or that they are somehow morally “depraved”.
If you have paid attention, this theory has already been pronounced dead multiple times.

Readers, including theists, nontheists, agnostics, Christians, etc. who feel infants are not morally “depraved” are both comfortable with dismissing your theory and feel even more justified in having rejected your theory of infant depravity each time you bring it up again. The early Christian worldview that infants are innocent remains perfectly unshaken as more logical, more rational, more just and more probable than this newer theory of yours where infants are morally depraved. This is what I meant that your arguments are counterproductive.



E) REGARDING 1ROBIN AND JM2C’S THEORY THAT BABIES SIN CONSTANTLY AND THAT BABIES ARE MORALLY “DEPRAVED”.

1ROBIN claimed : “ You must show the evidence is that they are obedient instead of not.“
No. This is another example of desperate, illogical silliness. All one has to show to suggest that one is sinless is to show that one has never sinned and has not yet sinned. Newborn infants have not sinned, nor do they sin (yet). If you think for example, an infant is not sinless in the womb, then what is there about being delivered that changes that status? (or are you saying God creates a sinful product in the first place?)

1ROBIN If you do not have any data or logic or reason to support this theory of yours. I think it is really, really, really dead and it is NOT a superior theory to the early Christian belief in infants as being innocent.

Clear
σετζτωτζτζω

Totally with you on the baby stuff. :yes:

 

[1robin]

What's suspicious about it??

What? Concentrating on the most emotionally charged 5% of an arguments it's evidence, something I can't force a relevancy out of from anyone, and what is unknowable but inconsistent with what evidence there is isn't suspicious? Especially when done week after week to almost the exclusivity of anything else. What seems genuine about it?

 

[1robin]

Totally with you on the baby stuff. :yes:

I can't remember but I at least thought babies were brought up by another person. Just as your doing yet again. I do not care enough to bother making sure and do not intend to spend much time on it regardless who brings it up until someone even attempts to make it relevant. That is another 5 minutes I can't get back. Crapola!!!!

 

[1robin]

What? I very specifically say "totally destroyed."

It is saying after Judgment - the wicked are tossed into the Lake of fire, along with Hades/Sheol, and totally destroyed, like dross/impurities in a refining furnace.



*

Many times you make a point in agreement with mine as a way of attempting to make it absurd. I could not tell, that is why I asked. So you agree that at least that is what the bible says?

 

[1robin]

Every event on earth is like a crime scene that leave clues behind. Some clues are impossible to recover after so much time but humans are clever.

Now finally something I can agree with.

 

[idav]

What? Concentrating on the most emotionally charged 5% of an arguments it's evidence, something I can't force a relevancy out of from anyone, and what is unknowable but inconsistent with what evidence there is isn't suspicious? Especially when done week after week to almost the exclusivity of anything else. What seems genuine about it?

So babies dying does that mean they are born sinners or just born human? Jesus speaks of intention being involved. I don't know if babies can intend harm on anyone, but certainly not with any decent knowledge of the ramifications. If the baby had the knowledge then babies an evil genius. The point on ignorance carries over to adulthood, knowing more doesn't let us off the hook. So any sentencing of hell must take all this into account for it to be just and fair.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What? Concentrating on the most emotionally charged 5% of an arguments it's evidence, something I can't force a relevancy out of from anyone, and what is unknowable but inconsistent with what evidence there is isn't suspicious? Especially when done week after week to almost the exclusivity of anything else. What seems genuine about it?

I don't know why you're having such a hard time understanding the relevancy of people's views on the sinfulness versus innocence of babies since it's been explained to you several times by several different posters (myself being one of them).

Inquiring minds want to understand why some religious-minded people believe that babies are not innocent beings when all observable reality seems to demonstrate that they are.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can't remember but I at least thought babies were brought up by another person. Just as your doing yet again. I do not care enough to bother making sure and do not intend to spend much time on it regardless who brings it up until someone even attempts to make it relevant. That is another 5 minutes I can't get back. Crapola!!!!

You don't have to worry since I was responding to another poster.

 

[Ingledsva]

What? I very specifically say "totally destroyed."

It is saying after Judgment - the wicked are tossed into the Lake of fire, along with Hades/Sheol, and totally destroyed, like dross/impurities in a refining furnace.

Many times you make a point in agreement with mine as a way of attempting to make it absurd. I could not tell, that is why I asked. So you agree that at least that is what the bible says?

It is what I have said about these verses all along.

Later Christians misinterpreted the Sheol idea, and Satan.

Satan is a servant of YHVH in Tanakh, not the autonomous evil being he was later turned into.

Hades/Sheol is where ALL the dead went to await final Judgment. It is not Hell.

And it says Hades/Sheol gives up her dead, for Judgment, and the wicked are totally destroyed, along with the no longer needed holding place, Hades/Sheol.



*

 

[1robin]

So babies dying does that mean they are born sinners or just born human? Jesus speaks of intention being involved. I don't know if babies can intend harm on anyone, but certainly not with any decent knowledge of the ramifications. If the baby had the knowledge then babies an evil genius. The point on ignorance carries over to adulthood, knowing more doesn't let us off the hook. So any sentencing of hell must take all this into account for it to be just and fair.

I can't believe someone mentioned Babies again. Who could have guessed babies would show up in this debate.

Since you have not prolonged this baby mess before I will answer you briefly.

1. Being human is to be less than perfect. There is no relevant distinction.
2. How does anyone act without intent? Your thinking of accountability not guilt. God may find a baby violated objective moral fact but because they do not fully grasp what they are doing he finds them unaccountable. If they do not suffer where is the wrong or relevance.
3. Babies do not go to Hell. However adults are in every way accountable. Even civil law does not pardon for ignorance in most cases.


Ok your baby time is up because everyone else used their time, your time, and a hundred others time discussing them. I will give you one last shot though. In what way is this relevant to anything?

 

[idav]

1. Being human is to be less than perfect. There is no relevant distinction.

I suppose compared to a higher standard.

2. How does anyone act without intent?

Acting without intending some specific consequence. So not being aware of the consequences.

Your thinking of accountability not guilt.

Sort of but guilt coming from an outsider. We are all accountable to the degree that we are responsible.

God may find a baby violated objective moral fact but because they do not fully grasp what they are doing he finds them unaccountable.

That would make sense

If they do not suffer where is the wrong or relevance.

Being ignorant of the suffering doesn't make it right. So god should punish people especially if they are too dumb to realize its punishment?

3. Babies do not go to Hell.

Well that is good to know.

However adults are in every way accountable.

Only as far as they should be held responsible.

Even civil law does not pardon for ignorance in most cases.

The law sees a difference in murder, for example, when it was an accident or an intentional homicide. It may not change that a crime was committed but intentions should make a difference. Every crime and every event is circumstantial.

 

[1robin]

I suppose compared to a higher standard.

In this case God's perfection is the standard which by the way I specifically stated before. God is the moral judge of the universe.

Acting without intending some specific consequence. So not being aware of the consequences.

That may not be murder but it is still manslaughter, wrongful death, negligent homicide, etc...... Of course the issues are less severe but you get the point. How does anyone take another's stuff without stealing?

Sort of but guilt coming from an outsider. We are all accountable to the degree that we are responsible.

WE are guilty to the degree we fail, we are accountable to the degree we are responsible.

That would make sense

Usually the bible makes sense of what does not without it.

Being ignorant of the suffering doesn't make it right. So god should punish people especially if they are too dumb to realize its punishment?

What suffering? Babies are not punished for their sin eternally.

Well that is good to know.

That is doctrine whether we know it or not is another issue.

Only as far as they should be held responsible.

Good luck determining that for God.

The law sees a difference in murder, for example, when it was an accident or an intentional homicide. It may not change that a crime was committed but intentions should make a difference. Every crime and every event is circumstantial.

It sees a difference in the degree of offense not in guilt of the act. So does God.

Ok, BABIES R US I snow closed.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

1) REGARDING THE THEORY THAT INFANTS ARE MORALLY “DEPRAVED” OR THAT “BABIES SIN CONSTANTLY”

Clear had said to 1robin : “I hope you remember as the other readers can see, you brought this up again rather than me.”

1robin replied : “I find that impossible to believe. I have hated this whole issue since I realized what it was used for weeks ago.”

Robin :
In this case, I think you are probably correct on this point and I am probably wrong.

I had already, mentally, dismissed this theory as invalid and not worth forum consideration and time. So when it cropped up, again, I simply assumed that you had brought it up. It could have been me. Perhaps it was SkepticThinker’s point regarding knowledge and choice as prerequisites for an individual to be a moral agent, thus infants were amoral agents (I thought it was a wonderful point) that gave it a hit on the radar. Perhaps it was MY response to SkepticThinker and thus, I brought it up again in response to his post. I can’t tell. If you did NOT bring it up again (and it makes perfect sense why you would not want to), I apologize. There is no guarantee it will not return, but I think you are probably correct on this specific point Robin. If it was me instead, I apologize.

Since I wrote the sentences above, indav brought up his question. I think since this issue affects 100% of the population (since we come as infants), it will probably come up again with newer posters who will want the “low down” on this issue.

Oops, since I wrote the sentence above, I noticed SkepticThinker replied to your “it’s suspicious” comment. However, you claimed that “Concentrating on the most emotionally charged 5% of an arguments it's evidence” is incorrect. Most of us agree that adults commit moral acts that are “sins” but almost the entire disagreement (100% of the argument, not 5%) regards infants, the very population that early christians traditions describe as “innocent” while your theory of moral depravity makes them sinners. Your attempt to re-context the argument as irrelevant or only affecting 5% of us seems deceptive since almost 100% of the argument regarding innocence regards infants and since 100% of us come to this world as infants.

I know that you feel your theory is somehow "special" and should be given more consideration. However, your theory is only one theory; one interpretation among many and, your theory that infants are morally “depraved” and that “babies sin constantly” is simply seen as less logical and unreasonable when compared with better theories. Instead of incessant arguing over a theory you have been unable to support, you could have swallowed just a bit of pride and admitted that you don’t really know if your theory is correct.




2) REGARDING 1ROBINS THEORY THAT MORAL PERFECTION IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION

1Robin said : While I do not believe a human can achieve a perfect record by effort he may approach it in a single act.

I agree with you that one can consider moral perfection concerning single moral actions and, there is some philosophical insight in doing so. If one never murders, then they are morally perfect in this one thing.

If one never commits adultery, then they are morally perfect in this thing as well. If one never takes the name of God in vain, then one is perfect in that thing as well. That is, one can be morally perfect in certain points. This is partly why “total moral depravity” as an initial state of being does not make sense. However, as one ages and becomes able to steal, if they then steal or then lie, then they are no longer morally perfect in relation to stealing or lying. If I die as a newborn, then I am, morally, perfect. I have broken no commandment that I am able to obey, neither done a thing which was forbidden, nor failed to do a thing which I was able to do. This was partly why the modern Christian theory of TOTAL moral depravity was less rational than the early Christian theory of initial moral innocence.



1ROBIN said : “God may be pleased by less than perfection but his standard for salvation is perfection.“

REGARDING “PERFECTION” AS A STANDARD FOR SALVATION

Can you explain this better?

For example, your description is confusing since you claim moral “perfection” is the standard for salvation” but then you say Christs’ redemption only makes you “legally” perfect. However, you then elaborate that we are still “technically guilty” morally. How is this actual perfection and actual moral “perfection” that CG DIDYMUS and I were referring to?

Is God’s standard : “actual moral perfection”, or is it : “legal moral perfection”?

If God will not save those who are not “perfect” because they are actually “guilty” then why would he save those who are “technically guilty” (when both groups committed the same sins and neither groups are “actually perfect&#8221.

Are you saying you are not talking about “actual” moral perfection when you said moral “perfection is God’s standard”, but instead, it is less than “actual” perfection? (e.g. “legal” perfection, instead of “actual” perfection)?

Why can someone be “actually guilty” (or “technically guilty&#8221 of sin and still be saved if you maintain God’s standard is “perfection”? Isn’t “legal” perfection someone who, in this case is in, reality, imperfect ? (i.e. that is’ they have already sinned and are therefore “sinners”?.

Could you also define what you mean by “salvation” (since that is the “reward” that one must be perfect to gain in your theory. Thanks.


POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

1Robin asked : “ How can God let imperfection into heaven and it still remain heaven?”

I think this is a very good question. The implications are different if one is NOT talking about “actual” moral perfection, but instead, is speaking of a “legal” moral perfection of those who are actually “technically” guilty. Heaven, must have some degree of “actual” moral perfection if it is to be a social “heaven” and remain so.

For example : Heaven cannot have within it, Christian Hitlers and Christian Jeffrey Dahmers and Christian Rapists, liers, oppressors, etc. who are “legally” morally perfect but remain “actually” morally IMPERFECT just as in their lifetimes. If such individuals have not repented and have not changed their own thoughts and their own actions, yet who are christians and thus, simply not “held responsible”, but continue to oppress and still harm others. Heaven cannot BE a heaven if it’s inhabitants “do evil” .

Inhabitants of an eternally joyful, unified social Heaven, must have learned and mastered social and moral rules and moral characteristics upon which such a society can be established and maintained forever. To teach the spirits of mankind these moral and social rules and to allow them to see what happens in a society where such rules are not lived is one of the things man is to accomplish in mortality. It is not enough to not be “technically guilty” of continuing heinous actions, but one must stop doing immoral actions.

Thus, in early Christian worldviews, it was not enough to simply accept Christ as the redeemer, but one was to enter into a process of repentance (lit. a change of mind) associated with the process of improving moral actions and moral attitudes.

You will have to explain your theory a bit more before it is clear what you mental model on this point is since Christ’s redemption did not actually make anyone “literally”, or “actually”, morally “perfect” in early tradition. Repentance, was important, not because it could make one “perfect”, but instead, because was part of the process of moral improvement in early Christian worldview.



Clear said : “4)The Jewish concept of repentance for moral sins as a mechanism important to mankinds moral progress was similar to the early Christian textual traditions. That is, the Christians describe repentance for sins as important both to forgiveness as well as an integral mechanism in the moral improvement of the individual.“

1ROBIN said : “ Repentance is useless without the mechanism by which it works. “

I think that Viole is right in her observation that you project your Theology onto concepts. I think this is, to a certain extent, unavoidable since we all have bias (myself included).

For example, Repentance does not even need religion in order to “work”.

If I leave my socks on the floor and my wife asks me not to stop doing that, I can, without any need of religion, “repent” of putting my socks on the floor and start putting them into the laundry. If I speak callously to a co-worker and realize this social error, I can repent by apologizing and speaking kindly instead. Neither example of repentance even require religion. An atheist may repent and change their thoughts and actions as easily as a Christian. In these cases, I may obtain “forgiveness” from my wife and co-worker without need of religion.

If I offend God by telling a lie or by stealing an item from another person, I can also repent by a change of mind and action by apologizing and by being telling the truth and restoring what was stolen and more. This specific type of religious repentance and religious forgiveness does not require the death of Christ on the Cross else Christ could not have forgiven a man with palsy (mtt9:2, mk2:5, lk 5:20) until after Christs death.




Clear said : “… the early Judeo-Christians understood, in their own traditions and beliefs, that God knew even before Adam's spirit was placed into his body and he was placed into the garden of eden, that mankind was NOT going to be morally perfect and in fact did not expect them to BE perfect (that is, he did not expect the modern version of perfection of moral "flawlessness" from mankind).

1Robin said : “ I will just assume that is accurate and it may be. However it is because we are not perfect that Jesus determined to save the world before it was made.“

The point is, that God’s initial plan for the spirits of mankind included Adam (and the rest of us) obtaining moral wisdom and knowledge concerning many things, including knowledge of Good and Evil and, part of that experience would include learning the difference between good and evil and the disastrous consequences of evil.

Thus, when the Prophet Sedrach said to God : “It was by your will that Adam was deceived, my master” (Apo Sedrach 5:1-7). (...Sedrach had just questioned God as to why God didn’t simply kill Lucifer), this observation not an accusation, but an observation that God set up circumstances that ensured the fall would happen (it was part of the plan) – in much the same way the agnostics and others (e.g. Viole) are now describing (with very good and insightful observations&#8230.

For example, in these early textual traditions, God throws an angry Lucifer out of heaven, directly into the path of a Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve have forgotten any existence prior to being placed upon the earth whereas Lucifer has full knowledge of events prior to their mortality. They do not have full knowledge, understanding, and context of all important issues. Their level of naivete and inexperience cannot compete with Lucifers level of expertise and knowledge and capability on this specific point. God then placed the naïve and unexperienced Adam and Eve in proximity to BOTH Lucifer AND to the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The early description of this tree as the “TREE OF WISDOM” (1st Enoch 32:3-6) carries with it no negative context. Even Lucifer’s explanation to Adam in early texts as to the source of his enmity describes the on-going motivation for Lucifer to do evil to a naïve and inexperienced and somewhat amoral (not immoral) adam and eve. In such a context is makes perfect sense that Eves' choice to gain moral wisdom was NOT unexpected and that Adams decision to join her in gaining this wisdom was not unexpected. It was the plan from the beginning.

Good journey 1ROBIN.

Clear
σιτζνετζσεω

 

[CG Didymus]

Well, gospel-writer Luke was a doctor..
"We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us" (Romans 12:6-8)
Heck even atheists have God-given gifts of strength and courage if only they knew it..

God said to the young Jeremiah- "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart" (Jer 1:4)

Which Med School did Luke attend? Actually, I'd rather have it that he practiced alternative medicine. Did he do acupuncture? Did he use diet and herbs to heal? Once he got saved, was he able to heal by laying on of hands? That would be far out.

And, speaking of far out. That is the grooviest Jesus in the world. He looks like a hippie, and he's for saving the environment.

 

[Clear]

Regarding amoral vs immoral actions

Indav suggests : “Acting without intending some specific consequence. So not being aware of the consequences.”

1ROBIN replies : “ That may not be murder but it is still manslaughter, wrongful death, negligent homicide, etc...... Of course the issues are less severe but you get the point. How does anyone take another's stuff without stealing? “

There are many ways a transgress of a law can occur yet not be a sin.
If, while shopping I put an object into my pocket (needing a hand for another purpose rather than carrying) and then forget to pay for it, I have not intended to steal, I had no remembrance that the object was in my pocket and it is not a sin. (However, once I find the object and to not try to correct this, then one can argue THAT may be a sin.)

If someone plays a joke by putting an object into my bag while in the store and I walk out, neither knowing of the object nor paying for it, having no knowledge of the object nor intention to steal the object, this is not a sin.


NUANCES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SIN, LAWLESSNESS AND TRANSGRESSION

There is a difference between sin (αμαρτολο&#962, lawlessness (ανομο&#962 and transgression (παραβαινο&#962 even within the same sentence in the greek new testament that reflect nuances of early christian theology. The point is that there are nuances and actions that occur that are not even dependent upon the outcome to determine moral right and wrong.


DIGGING A HOLE FOR ONE’S NEIGHBOR

One neighbor beside me I love is poor and I want to do something good for him. I know there is buried gold in their backyard and dig a hole down to the chest of gold with the intent that they find this gold. My intent is good. However, the neighbor falls into the hole and breaks his neck. The police would like to find the criminal who dug this hole in order to prosecute him. I honestly wanted to do good. In the “judgment”, Does God punish me for this outcome and for my intent?

The other neighbor beside me that I hate is poor and want to kill him. I dig a hole in the back yard with the intention of killing him as he, hopefully, falls into the hole and breaks his neck. He does fall into my trap as planned, but isn’t hurt a bit and even finds a hard spot at the bottom of the hole. He finds that this hard thing in the hole was a chest of gold in his backyard. For the rest of his life he is grateful to the unknown person who dug the hole for being the source of wonderful monetary blessings in his life. I honestly wanted to kill him, that was what I was trying to do. In the “judgment”, Does God reward me for this outcome and for my intent?

I believe indav is correct that intent is important in moral judgments.

Clear

 

[CG Didymus]

Some aspects of what we believe about God can be perfectly wrong and we still believe in the same being in essence. I do not even know how you could derive a Christian God except through the OT one. Without the OT my God had no existence or history prior to 1AD.

In essence a Baha'i, a Muslim, a Hindu all believe in the same God, in essence. But you know me, since Christians supposedly evolved out of Judaism, I looked up how Jews define their G-D. Here's a sampling.

There is only one G-d. No other being participated in the work of creation.
G-d is a unity. He is a single, whole, complete indivisible entity. He cannot be divided into parts...
G-d is the only being to whom we should offer praise. The Shema can also be translated as "The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd alone," meaning that no other is our G-d, and we should not pray to any other.
Everything in the universe was created by G-d and only by G-d. Judaism completely rejects the dualistic notion that evil was created by Satan or some other deity.
I have often heard Christians speak of Judaism as the religion of the strict Law, which no human being is good enough to fulfill (hence the need for the sacrifice of Jesus). This is a gross mischaracterization of Jewish belief. Judaism has always maintained that G-d's justice is tempered by mercy, the two qualities perfectly balanced.

So let's say we both know a guy named George. I tell you that he's six foot tall about 200lb and is a plumber. You say, "Yeah, that sounds like him. He has a son, right?" I say, "No, he has two daughters. Must be a different guy."

So the Jewish God doesn't have a God/man son. Your God is different. Maybe without Judaism he wouldn't have existed, but maybe without the influence of other religions, he wouldn't have come to be who he is either. Like dualism... God vs. Satan and you know the rest... rising and dying gods, virgin born man/gods. Hey, but it works for a lot of people, great. But so do other concepts of who God is and what he wants from us.

You and I might agree that some of those beliefs are foolish, but because people believe and apply the teachings, they work. So I'm not saying most versions of Christianity don't work. I'm saying because they, and other religions, do work, that... does it really matter what a person believes? Yes, to you it matters, but it only matters if you are right. Then, all of them are going to hell for believing in the wrong religion or the wrong Jesus. Which I believe makes your concept of God, and what he's putting us through to get to him, kind of sick, or even evil.

And the sickest thing of all... yes it's baby time again...all those adults in those other religions will look up from their place of torment and see their babies and children that died in the bosom of Abraham. How does that make any sense? The baby maybe, but a nine or ten year old? Or, even older? What are they going to tell Jesus? "I am Hindu." Or, "I am Muslim." Or, "I'm an atheist." And then Jesus is going to say, "Enter into heaven. I have prepared a mansion for you.? That's nuts, but if that is what you believe, then whatever.

 

[Shad]

Since modern science is a Christian product they are in many ways the same thing. Abstract science was almost the exclusive result of Christian faith. They believed a rational God would create a rational universe and set out to decode it's rationality. Most of the fields of science themselves were created in that effort. Modern quasi-secular science has no foundation without what Christian did. Look at any list of sciences greats and it will be knee deep in theists.

This is from Greece not Christianity. Another example of Christians taking other's ideas and claiming it as their own.

Look at any list of scientists and you will find many theist disagree over which God is the true God. Should we look at lists of non-Christians? You are hedging your bets by using the word theist when it applies to those that think you are following a false or corrupted religion and vice-versa.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Which Med School did Luke attend?..

We don't know anything about him other than he was a doc..
Paul said- "Our dear friend Luke the doctor, and Demas send greetings.(Col 4:14)
Lukes professional interest in Jesus probably came about when he heard of a bloke from a woodwork shop going around curing people and raising dead bodies and wondered how he did it.
Do you have any theories Doctor?

"Well let's see now....ah...cobalt thorium G.....radioactive half-life of uh,... hmm..."