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

[1robin]

Can you explain this better?

I can try. God is perfect, if his standard was not perfect he would not be God. We can't be perfect so he became perfection for us. His perfection is legally substituted for ours when we accept Christ. Now he can let us into heaven without having to compromise his perfect nature. Whatever weakness you find in that is astronomically multiplied by considering it's opposite. If not perfect what standard does he have and why? Who knows what it is? Are there 6 billion different standards? 100? 12? How would I know if I met it? Why does Joe have a higher or lower one. Perfection and substitutionary atonement solves every single problem of the millions that would exists if merit was the standard.

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?

Legal is the technical aspect of our moral standing. It is not the actual case. God calls things that are not, as though they were. We are actually guilty, but by virtue of Christ death we are declared guilty. One is the actual fact, the other is the legal status in God's view.

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

Legal is really just my word. Legal would be our standing with him based on his merits. Actuality would be the fact given our own merits.

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”).

Back it up there. God saved everyone from every sin without distinction. It is only because a person turns down his pardon he is not saved.

Since this issue it probably the foundational necessity for Christianity to have any merit, you unfamiliarity with it is confusing. The rest of the bible is mere commentary compared with this. This is Christianity.

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)?

No, there are two ways to heaven. One is to perfectly obey every law in every detail in every circumstance. None of us have. Christ did because that is the other way to heaven. His death is our perfection. We fail he succeeded. His success is credited to our account through our faith in Christ' death. That is where those hundreds of verse about putting on righteousness, putting on Christ, participating in his death. Paul said he was chief among sinners, do you think it was his record he had faith in or Christ's? There is another vague third category composing the unevangelised but I do not include them because I do not understand the doctrines. They are a bizarre and special case which the bible does not make clear.

Why can someone be “actually guilty” (or “technically guilty”) 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”?.

Because that was the entire reason Christ died. To take my place and give me his record in exchange. My sin is either taken care of on the cross and I will bear the alienation it demands. This is Christianity. How is there anyone who claims to be one without accepting this? What is it you substitute for the only mechanism with comprehensive hope?

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.

Heaven is not a reward. There are two judgments. The first separates those in the book of life (which occurs when we are born again) with those who are not. The former goes to a second judgment. The latter go to eternal estrangement from God. The second judgment looks at works. All ungodly works are burned up. Whatever is left determines rewards in heaven but not heaven it's self. These are the treasures mention in scripture. No one earns heaven. It is infinite and I have nothing to merit infinity.


When I ask how you can be a Christian and not get this most central doctrine on which all things hang. That is not a moral judgment. You may be better than me in every category. It is the result of doctrinal contradiction and the confusion it causes me. If not born again by pure grace I would have no reason to hope in any aspect of Christianity. Without grace the bible is hollow philosophy and history. Grace and merit are mutually exclusive.

 

[1robin]

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.

I am talking about actual imperfection. We are actually guilty, we are declared innocent on the merits of Christ through faith but even this is not enough to qualify us for heaven in actuality. By virtue of Christ shouldering my sin and paying the full price I am innocent but not suited for heaven. That is why we are given new minds, new bodies, a new earth. That is scriptural but I also think we no longer even have the capacity to potentially rebel. We are not only innocent but made actually perfect. Not by merit but by pure grace.

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” .

When born again we no longer are viewed based on our record. That is what all those verses about "it is not I but Christ who lives". Christ's perfection is not what God sees in our case. Dahmers do not get into heaven Dahmers who became little Christ's and are no longer Dahmers do. No Christ becomes actually perfect and so to single out certain sins and call those a bridge to far is kind of arrogant. Every sin a Christ committed or will commit is taken care of on the cross and nothing he does is relevant as to whether we get to heaven or not. All kinds of other stuff is at stake but heaven is not. Christ died for all sins and all my sins were committed post crucifixion and God knows them all and punished them all on the cross. It is not 1robin who gets into heaven but Christ's merit who get s me there. Christ did not die only for what sins you may think are minor. He died for rape, genocide, murder, even liberalism. Once applied it never fails. When born again the Holy Spirit promises to never leave us and is said to be the guaranty of salvation. No if God guaranties it how can I subvert it?

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.

We are never qualified by merit. We are made perfect by God. WE are literally declared innocent and then made perfect. If only forgiven we would make a hell out of heaven in a week. We are forgiven now and then made perfect at resurrection.

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.

Early is irrelevant here. The absolute bankruptcy of any contending system is. Only grace is coherent. Merit contradicts it's self and scripture from A - Z. Not that I agree with what was earliest. Paul for example is the champion of grace and is earlier than anyone.

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.

Christ makes them not guilty legally. We are but God provided the pardon. That does not make us temporally perfect, but by virtue of it we are made eternally perfect. That is what a resurrection body is and what ours are not.

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.“

Judaism in the opinion of Christ and billions of Christian gets this perfectly wrong so it is not persuasive. Mankind is not making moral progress. We have built the engines to exterminate ourselves and have the moral insanity to have almost done so twice. Is this progress? We now defend the sacred right to take that exact same right from lives in the womb on an industrial scale. Neither reality or the bible suggests we are marching into moral enlightenment, but just the opposite. What moral statistic is not worse between now and even 1950?


Continued, again:

 

[1robin]

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).

A concept isn't bias it is an explanation.

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

Nope but it needs God to work. I need to get into his heaven. He must declare me innocent or forgiven and has done so through a specific set of requirements of which repentance is the beginning.

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.

Socks? This is morality not household ethics. If you murdered a person or group even through negligence what do you have to remove it from your record. Nothing. Only God can blot out sin. In fact the bible states that as emphatically as anything in it.

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.

That is certainly an aspect of repentance but if it was the whole package why the whole crucifixion thing? If I can fix my sin Christ need not have died. Religious repentance is a good thing, it helps restore what was broken in a temporal sense but that I snot the subject. Salvation is.

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.

Christians are certainly prompted to grow morally but no matter how much a tree goes it is not infinity tall or perfect. The issues are getting all mixed. I am talking about salvation, not duty, not our obligations in this life, not how mankind I supposed to grow. I am trying to get to heaven. Being born again at least one thing I have succeeded at. I have not succeeded at being some moral example or paradigm so I would leave that issue for another. God cannot demand less than perfection and be God. We attempt to be as close as possible. We will fail but no matter how bad we fail Christ will make up the difference if we are born again.

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.

I cannot be persuaded by non canonical resources. I do find them fascinating but the process by which the books in the bible were selected is such a vetted issue I have confidence in it. This is also the issue of original sin which I am not much of an expert on and have no dog in the race.

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.

He threw him out of heaven but I can not say he aimed him at anyone. I am more and more inclined to see Genesis' moral issues as analogies. However I have no way to tell where the literal ends and they begin. I am far more at home in the Gospels and least at home in the Pentateuch. Outside a few beginning issues I really hold few firm positions about it. I would strongly recommend Schroeder's "the science of God". I would add here that Adam and even had perfect knowledge they were not to eat of the tree.

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.

I am afraid I won't make too good of a Genesis theological debater at this time. I have spent most of my time trying to find out how to rectify whatever went wrong, not studying in detail exactly ho wit did. I look around and see mountains of evidence that I and humanity haven taken a moral off ramp and no perfect God would be satisfied with it as is or as it can make it's self. So I specialized in what to do about the problem, not how it originated. I can throw my opinions at you about Genesis but I'm giving you virtually certainties about salvation.

Good journey 1ROBIN.

Good destination, clear.

 

[idav]

Neither reality or the bible suggests we are marching into moral enlightenment, but just the opposite. What moral statistic is not worse between now and even 1950?

I can grant you that point but that isn't supposed to be because of secularlism. Governments are largely religious. So moral decline happens even when their is religious majority rule. God may have different motives than us for moral agreement, I am sure ours tend to be human centered.

As long as religious stay preoccupied by bias it can be even worse than human centered. Some cultures won't even grant people their humanity in equal portion, and that can come from largely religious influences.

 

[1robin]

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.

The believe everyone's God is the same dude. Official doctrine claims Islam, Christianity, and Judaism believe in the God of Abraham. So we all believe Yahweh exists. We just differ on some details on what Yahweh is. I would hate to have to list all the aspects we share. It would be endless. Some very important ones are different but overall very similar.

Here's a sampling.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."

Well, that does not apply. In this case Jews say God is one being and we do also. Some of us say in addition he is composed of 3 persons and we believe one walked the earth. The rest that that is not so. Since those that killed him have the greatest possible motivation to deny the claim I would not trust them. Also notice the vast difference in the quality of claim. One is a claim from experience. I met Christ, billions claim to. The other is a belief founded not in experience and almost in denial of history. Those two do not even remotely have the same reliability. If I have met Joe's son and you have not. My claim to his having one is astronomically more reliable a type of claim than you simply believing he does not because you have not met him. Just on quality alone the best conclusion is that God has a son and most Jews never met him.

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.

Yahweh not having a son is not a fact. It is an assumption. Just as the best conclusion is the Joe is the same guy but you have not met his son, the best conclusion is the Yahweh has a son most Jews don't know.


This is also a unproven conclusion. You must show that a Joe who is believed to not have a son a Joe who actually has one can't be the same guy. They are not mutually exclusive.

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.

Working is relative. Until one group gets into heaven what works is not demonstrable. I would suggest the evidence Christianity will work is far superior to any other. What do you mean by work?

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.

Babies everywhere. Babies on the moon. Watch out for the babies! If you can tell me what movie that is from I will concede any point you choose.


It makes sense because it's reverse is appallingly irrational and incoherent. Babies go somewhere. If heaven and hell exist we have two choices. One offends some kind of sensibilities I can't even recognize. The other offends every rational deduction possible. If a perfect God exists is it not expected that at least some doctrines won't be perfectly gratifying to those who have rebelled. Regardless, those in hell do not look into heaven, even if I was there and did I would begrudge no baby seen in heaven.


These babies are the most relentless beings ever sent to bedevil the days of man here recently. Move over Issus. Babies do not feel pain, or pity, and the absolutely will not stop. There is no prize this time but what movie is that? from.

 

[1robin]

I can grant you that point but that isn't supposed to be because of secularlism. Governments are largely religious. So moral decline happens even when their is religious majority rule. God may have different motives than us for moral agreement, I am sure ours tend to be human centered.

That argument was only supposed to show that if moral progress is the criteria for heaven we are screwed. I can and have made emphatic and comprehensive arguments that at least in the US secularism and moral decline are so closely linked in every way it is causal. I happen to live here which is why I used the US and can't get data on every nation and would have no reason to think it would be the opposite anywhere else. Regardless my argument here was not for the purpose you claim it failed at.

As long as religious stay preoccupied by bias it can be even worse than human centered. Some cultures won't even grant people their humanity in equal portion, and that can come from largely religious influences.

Whatever bias exists is at least as strong against God (actually it can be shown to be doctrinally far worse on every level) so it would be a universal issue, nor is it proof against truth. That is a genetic fallacy. I do not hold to all faiths so will not defend them. Christianity has it's problems but in general has uplifted man in every category.

 

[1robin]

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

No it is not. In what way would anything in ancient Greece be modern science. You are not familiar with what I was talking about apparently. Modern science is a very specific thing. It is not the technology found in China or even Islam. It is not what the Greeks mused about. It is specifically abstract. Modern science came along with Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Maxwell, Lavoisier, Laplace, Leibniz, Galileo, Descartes, Gassendi, kepler, Bacon, and the hundreds of greats that every school child is taught about. It did not come from Plato or Socrates. It did not even appear in Rome. It is a unique and specific thing. The most authoritative multivolume work quoted by most scholars as concerns the rise of modern science was an atheist (though I can never recall his name). He wrote in his work that he tried his best to find a secular reason for modern sciences explosion and gave it up. It is from secular scholars I learned Christians dominated the modern science revolution. So dig a little deeper before you dismiss a thing please.

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.

I have looked at every list of the scientific revolution I can find. It is dominated by Christians, a distant second are Jews, a few Muslims way back, and then over the horizon maybe an atheists here and there. I have posted these lists many times. You want to do so here? I make no claim that Christians dominating science makes Christianity true but utterly reject the opposite and common deplorable declarations made out of ignorance.
To remove Christians from history would utterly wreck modern science.

 

[idav]

I can and have made emphatic and comprehensive arguments that at least in the US secularism and moral decline are so closely linked in every way it is causal.

How do you figure? I don't see secular states going around beheading people for being morally inferior. And again morality is subjective so of course theists have a different version of moral decline than theists. Are secularists the only ones committing adultery, atheists the only ones corrupting youths. Having a different morality doesn't mean it is in decline especially when we have the high ground compared to some current attempts at theocracy. Hey maybe ISIS is doing what god wants you think?

 

[1robin]

How do you figure? I don't see secular states going around beheading people for being morally inferior. And again morality is subjective so of course theists have a different version of moral decline than theists. Are secularists the only ones committing adultery, atheists the only ones corrupting youths. Having a different morality doesn't mean it is in decline especially when we have the high ground compared to some current attempts at theocracy. Hey maybe ISIS is doing what god wants you think?

I do not think I can stomach posting page after page of what I have many times, again. I gave hundreds of stats and links to thousands. Virtually every moral curve sharply swerved to the negative about 1955 in the US. That is the exact time the secular revolution began.

Maybe ISSUS is but I have no use for a God that they are obeying. I can say Issus actions offends an almost universal perception of the objective moral realm.

However secularism is not another God, it no God.

BTW you can easily search for all those posts about secular moral history in the US I made.

 

[Clear]

Shuttlecraft : “You'll be telling us next that Paul was spotted on the grassy knoll, and Oswald shot Liberty Valance “ 4722
CG Didymus : “ Didn't John Wayne shoot Liberty Valance? “ 4723
Shuttlecraft : “Well that's what was given out, but some scholars believe he was shot by either Lee Harvey Oswald, Mary Poppins or The Last of the Mohicans.”

CG DIDYMUS :

This has bothered my conscience for many years but I have to get it off my shoulders.

I shot liberty Valance.

I was an evil newborn and wanted to pillage, rage and kill. Liberty was a big mouth and he happened to be carrying a gun and was, if you think about it, a really “bad” guy. So, in my crib I figured he deserved it and I had better hurry up and do it while I still had a “Get out of hell Free” card due to my age. Lots of the other newborns in the nursery were wanting to get in on the action because it was so boring in the nursery. Some of those from the south side of the nursery snuck out and got tattoos of skulls and some of the other guy newborn perverts simply wanted to breast feed (I knew they weren’t hungry….but they were faking it). Still, as a newborn, I was a hardened criminal mastermind and knew that if I involved anyone else, my identity was sure to be revealed by one of these other newborn punks and so, I’d have to kill them as well, because they had seen me and could identify me (I had a pug nose&#8230.

Well, that’s it. I feel a lot better now that you all know the truth. CG DIDYMUS, will you still be my friend and write me in my prison cell should the statues of limitation for newborn crime be longer than it is for other nefarious criminals?

Clear
σεειειακσιω

 

[CG Didymus]

Well that's what was given out, but some scholars believe he was shot by either Lee Harvey Oswald, Mary Poppins or The Last of the Mohicans

No, no, I was there... well, I mean I saw the movie... and everybody thought it was Jimmy Stewart, but it was John Wayne hiding in an alley that shot poor old Liberty. Oswald wasn't even born yet, Well actually he was, but the movie was about the Old West. So I suppose Oswald could have been in the movie and shot him, but he wasn't listed in the credits. So I doubt very much that he was in the movie.

Mary Poppins and the Mohican guy, I don't know? They both were in movies. I guess they could have gone to the set of Liberty Valance, shot him, and then gone back to their movie. But, that's a lot of if's. I'd have to see more proof before I believe.

 

[CG Didymus]

...the problem is not the written law or the “sign” but the lawbreakers by ignoring its punishment or consequences.

Therefore, we cannot blame the lawmaker but the lawbreakers for not reading or understanding the written “sign” with its meaning or consequences properly.

We have the "Written Word of God" that says don't do many things including don't steal. But there was also a punishment for a lot of those laws. God expected his people to stone the lawbreakers to death. If that was really God's wishes, why don't his people still carry out the punishment that God ordained in his Word? If a thief reads the Bible and understands that God prohibit stealing, but then the punishment is no longer enforced, what is going to prevent the thief from continuing to steal? But another problem, what do you do when those in authority are the ones doing the stealing? And, even worse, what do you do when it's religious leaders doing the stealing?

They have the power to bend the rules. They are in authority, and when they bend God's rules, what do the rest of us think? Well, I'll tell you what it makes me think, that those written rules in the Bible don't carry much weight. That, unfortunately is like what one of those Communist guys said, that religion is the opiate for the masses. If you're at the top, you're above the law. And, it's sad but many at the top of religions have taken advantage of the masses, like indulgences centuries ago. But also a lot of what TV evangelists do. Like selling "miracle water" or crying while they beg for money. And who loses credibility along with them? God and God's Word.

Oh, and if you want to keep people from swimming at a certain beach, try a sign that says, "Danger, Raw Sewage" Or, "Danger, Shark Infested Waters" Both those have worked for me. They didn't even have to tell me the consequences.

 

[CG Didymus]

You first must make it relevant to theology. This baby obsession is tripping me out. This is at least three weeks discussion of that which has never been hinted to be relevant to anything. So for me any way until relevance is given no more responses will be given to the great baby debate.

No relevance? Wow. How about what is the truth? Clean slate or tainted with Adam's sin. It makes a bit of a difference.

 

[idav]

I do not think I can stomach posting page after page of what I have many times, again. I gave hundreds of stats and links to thousands. Virtually every moral curve sharply swerved to the negative about 1955 in the US. That is the exact time the secular revolution began.

It isnt secularism but liberalism that swerved. You think there were a bunch of atheits Iin the 50's

Maybe ISSUS is but I have no use for a God that they are obeying. I can say Issus actions offends an almost universal perception of the objective moral realm.

Ok but the bible god isnt exactly a pacifist.

However secularism is not another God, it no God.

God or no god morality doesn't go away. People have to agree on morality and then it becomes objective.

BTW you can easily search for all those posts about secular moral history in the US I made.

I know crime went up in the sixties but where was the spike in atheism to correlate your argument. No instead its a bunch of christians in the sixties doing drugs and making crime go up. Liberalism an issue for you, its not like liberals and atheists eat babies.

 

[CG Didymus]

Shuttlecraft : “You'll be telling us next that Paul was spotted on the grassy knoll, and Oswald shot Liberty Valance “ 4722
CG Didymus : “ Didn't John Wayne shoot Liberty Valance? “ 4723
Shuttlecraft : “Well that's what was given out, but some scholars believe he was shot by either Lee Harvey Oswald, Mary Poppins or The Last of the Mohicans.”

CG DIDYMUS :

This has bothered my conscience for many years but I have to get it off my shoulders.

I shot liberty Valance.

I was an evil newborn and wanted to pillage, rage and kill. Liberty was a big mouth and he happened to be carrying a gun and was, if you think about it, a really “bad” guy. So, in my crib I figured he deserved it and I had better hurry up and do it while I still had a “Get out of hell Free” card due to my age. Lots of the other newborns in the nursery were wanting to get in on the action because it was so boring in the nursery. Some of those from the south side of the nursery snuck out and got tattoos of skulls and some of the other guy newborn perverts simply wanted to breast feed (I knew they weren’t hungry….but they were faking it). Still, as a newborn, I was a hardened criminal mastermind and knew that if I involved anyone else, my identity was sure to be revealed by one of these other newborn punks and so, I’d have to kill them as well, because they had seen me and could identify me (I had a pug nose…).

Well, that’s it. I feel a lot better now that you all know the truth. CG DIDYMUS, will you still be my friend and write me in my prison cell should the statues of limitation for newborn crime be longer than it is for other nefarious criminals?

Clear
σεειειακσιω

You need an alibi? I was a born liar, so one more isn't going to matter. I'll swear in court that you and me were out preaching the Word to newborn babies... That we trying our best to save them from their evil ways.

 

[CG Didymus]

Babies go somewhere. If heaven and hell exist we have two choices.

That's why I like Hinduism and Buddhism. They get to come back and have another chance at life... like millions and millions of chances. Doesn't that make sense? And in the end, our spirit rejoins the eternal spirit and we all live in bliss forever and ever. Now wouldn't that be nice? Now don't burst my bubble and say that all that is just a myth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not think I can stomach posting page after page of what I have many times, again. I gave hundreds of stats and links to thousands. Virtually every moral curve sharply swerved to the negative about 1955 in the US. That is the exact time the secular revolution began.

Heh... so you think that the US was in the throes of a "secular revolution" a year after its government started slapping "in God we trust" on everything in sight?

And seeing how the "moral curve" of the US since 1955 includes things like ending segregation and taking huge strides against sexism, I wonder how you can call it entirely negative.

 

[JM2C]

At least here, the law uses what's called the "reasonable person test": the responsible person has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect others.

If I was to design a road with one curve that had a design speed way less than the rest of the road, then unless there was some very good reason why I absolutely had to do it, I could very well be found liable for someone's crash even if it had a "sharp curve" warning sign.

If other roads has exactly the same “sharp curve” with the same warning sign “sharp curve” like yours then you followed the standard of building a road and should not be liable for any crash a motorist might have. It is the motorist negligence by not following what a “reasonable person” should be doing, and that is, driving with care.

Now, if other roads with the same exact “sharp curve” like yours with the same warning sign “sharp curve” and with this warning sign “sharp curve” put up an additional warning sign “reduce speed to 15mph” on a 55mph zone, then you are liable if a motorist crash by neglecting to follow the standard of building a road even if the motorist is not a “reasonable person” by any standard of driving. “Reasonable Person” always carries responsibilities others should learn from therefore became the standard or pattern.

Let me ask you and I hope that you honestly answer this like a "Reasonable Person" should be.

Base on the two models you and I presented here, if we follow the standard of putting up a sign: “NO SWIMMING NO LIFEGUARD” and “SHARP CURVE” do you think we are liable by negligence if one disregard either warnings and drowned or crash?*
*
If you say yes, then you did not follow the premises presented to you and should not be a model of what a “Reasonable Person” should be.

If you say no then you are a “Reasonable Person”

Now, do you think God is a “Reasonable God” by giving Adam a warning sign in Genesis 2:16-17?*

If you say yes, then you should agree with me that God is not the cause of any human death, but Adam’s negligence by not following the warning sign that brought death to humanity and therefore, he/Adam became the pattern of what an “Unreasonable Person” should be.

 

[Clear]

Hi 1ROBIN :

I read your reply but was so very busy today at work I can only take a small part of it to comment upon and desire clarification.

1) Regarding multiple incompatible claims to virtual certainty about competing theories

I understand your claim : “I’m giving you virtually certainties about salvation”.

You must understand that your own “virtual certainties” must compete with other incompatible and different “virtual certainties” claimed by other Christians and theists. The abuse of the claim to “know” something is true is NOT doing Christianity nor Christ any favors. You must, at some point, come to grips with the effect of the myriads of such claims on Agnostics, athiests and non-christians as they are bombarded with such claims from a multitude of Christians who espouse varying incompatible and competing theories.

Since the readers obviously feel “mere opinions” from others are more credible than “virtual certainties” from you, I hope you will learn to speak with more accuracy and less hyperbole and in greater honesty to others you are trying to influence. I am not your enemy, but you should understand that much of your difficulty in having influence with others beating up on your theories and then discarding them, is your tendency to unfairly and deceptively overstate Christian virtues while unfairly minimalizing the virtues of all others. This tendency to skew data (unfairly in the Christians favor) casts all other things you say into disrepute, and is, I believe, the reason your credibility and influence isn’t greater. I think you are capable of good logic and reason, but you need to be much, much, more careful with your claims. This is just an observation 1robin, you can take it or leave it, but I hope you consider it.

Regarding your theories :

Can we break your expanding theories down into smaller pieces so as to make the discussion more simple. If you theorize that one must be morally perfect for God to save them then it makes sense that you define moral perfection and salvation as it applies to your personal theory.



2) Regarding 1Robins’ theory that : GOD’S STANDARD TO SAVE A PERSON IS MORAL PERFECTION

Clear asked regarding 1Robin’s next theory of moral perfection needed for salvation: Can you explain this better?(post 4714)
1ROBIN replied : “… God is perfect, if his standard was not perfect he would not be God. We can't be perfect so he became perfection for us. His perfection is legally substituted for ours when we accept Christ. Now he can let us into heaven without having to compromise his perfect nature. (post 4741)

Regarding the statement that " God is perfect, if his standard was not perfect he would not be God. We can't be perfect so he became perfection for us. Now he can let us into heaven without having to compromise his perfect nature. – 1robin
Since God creates morally imperfect beings (ex-nihilo) inside your theory, I assume in your theory God does not mind creating imperfect beings, but just that he can’t allow them to have salvation? Is this correct?

Are you assuming that Lucifer and his colleagues in heaven were perfect at some point, (since they were in heaven with God for an indeterminant period of time)?

Or does your theory feel Lucifer was imperfect, but was allowed to stay in heaven and even become an arch angel due to some other moral exception?

You started out with the theory that God’s standard for “salvation” of an individual was moral “perfection” : However, you then tell us that “legal” perfection is not really moral perfection, that is “legal” perfection “is not the actual case” but that God “calls things that are not, as though they were”. Why would God call something “perfect” when it is actually “imperfect”. Are you somehow saying God will put up with “actual imperfection”, but can call it “legally” perfect in the same manner that an actual rapist is not truly innocent, but he is “legally” innocent because we cannot prove he committed the crime (when he actually did it?)

Your “simple” definition of God’s moral “perfection” is becoming tied up in strange semantics, and so is very, very difficult to keep straight. You are using a lot of obscuring and “hedging” terms (in red...) such as “legal” and “not actual” and “God calls things that are not, as though they were”, and “not the actual case” and “…actual imperfection. We are actually guilty, we are ‘declared’ innocent”, and “no longer viewed” as, and “not guilty legally” (but pardoned).

Can you tell us CLEARLY what moral perfection is in your theory? IF it means, having no moral imperfection (i.e. no prior or current or future sin) then such a simple sentence would make sense (or a different, simple definition of your choice). There is no need to obscure or use semantics, just basic clear points regarding defining what moral “perfection” is.


3) REGARDING 1ROBIN'S DEFINITION OF "SALVATION" IN HIS THEORY

Clear asked 1robin : 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.

1ROBIN defined it thusly : “ Heaven is not a reward. There are two judgments. The first separates those in the book of life (which occurs when we are born again) with those who are not. The former goes to a second judgment. The latter go to eternal estrangement from God. The second judgment looks at works. All ungodly works are burned up. Whatever is left determines rewards in heaven but not heaven it's self. These are the treasures mention in scripture. No one earns heaven. It is infinite and I have nothing to merit infinity.”


This did not answer the question as to what “salvation” means in your theory. Or did it answer it and it simply isn't clear what the answer is. Are you saying "heaven" is salvation? Can you explain what “salvation” is in your theory? (in some clear and simple manner…)


Thanks in advance for the information 1Robin.

Clear
ιειφιδρδρω

 

[JM2C]

And, by the way, by creating Adam in His image, He should have known better how Adam would act, if being in His image means more than looking like a hairless gorilla. His surprise and disappointment might indicate that He failed, again, to create something like Him.
Ciao
- viole

“hairless gorilla”? NO! Man was created in the image and the likeness of God to rule “over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” including the gorillas –read Gen 1:26. If you think that you came from one of them gorillas then you’ve really improved a lot. Your communication skills alone are far better than most human and you should thank the man who trained you or Ruled over you.