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

[Nada]

Im sorry you misunderstood.

They were not imperfect in any way.Just because you do not understand something does not make you imperfect.A baby is not considered imperfect because it does not know things.It is considered imperfect because it has inherited death through imperfection by way of our original mother and fathers actions in the Garden of Eden.

Who are you talking to? You said,Bible student clarified : “What is meant by perfect is that Mankind, meaning Adam and Eve, were created without imperfection. Meaning,they would not die. “ Lol... thats funny to me. You're talking to an audience? I thought you were talking to me.Lol....

 

[CG Didymus]

Shush mate, I'm having to dumb it down for the masses, 'apple' and 'snake' are the accepted stereotype words (even though inaccurate) and I don't want to confuse them by using 'fruit' and 'serpent'..

What's dumb is not weather it is technally a serpant or a snake, butt what ever it was... it talked and walked and got it self cursed and now has to crowl on its belly. Does satan crawl on his belly? No. So God cursed the wrong thing. He cursed a whole bunches of inocent reptiles, like some kind of stupid person or something. Didn't he know it wasn't the serpent that did the deseiving and it was that racally devil. So how come God didn't curse the satan and live poor snakes alone, that way they could be walking to this day. So woos so dumb now.

 

[Ingledsva]

What's dumb is not weather it is technally a serpant or a snake, butt what ever it was... it talked and walked and got it self cursed and now has to crowl on its belly. Does satan crawl on his belly? No. So God cursed the wrong thing. He cursed a whole bunches of inocent reptiles, like some kind of stupid person or something. Didn't he know it wasn't the serpent that did the deseiving and it was that racally devil. So how come God didn't curse the satan and live poor snakes alone, that way they could be walking to this day. So woos so dumb now.

Because the Satan of Tanakh is not the evil autonomous being that later Christianity turned him into.


In Tanakh, he is a servant of YHVH, that tests you, and if found wanting, accuses you before YHVH.


His first job in the New Testament is to test Jesus.



*

 

[CG Didymus]

Because the Satan of Tanakh is not the evil autonomous being that later Christianity turned him into.


In Tanakh, he is a servant of YHVH, that tests you, and if found wanting, accuses you before YHVH.


His first job in the New Testament is to test Jesus.



*

So it didn't happen like how Shuttlecraft said:

Surely you don't think a snake really did talk?..
Obviously the snake was just an analogy for Satan-

SATAN - "Hmm, that apple looks yummy.."
EVE - "I'm not supposed to touch it"
SATAN - "Don't be daft, if you don't have it Adam will, and then laugh at you for being a dumb little girly, you know how men are"
EVE - "I'm forbidden to have it"
SATAN - "Hmm...Your skin looks a bit dry, fresh fruit would work wonders for your complexion"
EVE - "Leave me alone!"
SATAN - "It'll just rot if left on the tree, what a waste.."
EVE - "Shut up"
SATAN - "Apples are good for teeth, you don't want yours to turn black do you?"
EVE - "Oh be quiet!"
SATAN - "You'll get scurvy without vitamin C and your gums will puff up like a boxers gumshield"..
EVE - "Clam up!"
SATAN - "Okay okay, scuse me for breathing, none of my business if you want to end up looking like a cross between Mike Tyson and Ugly Betty"..
EVE - "Hmm okay, I'd better eat it, but don't tell anyone"
SATAN - "Sure, sure, you can trust me"..

If it was The Adversary it would be more like:

God- "Hey, I've got a job for you."
The Satan- "Yes, Who do you want me to test?"
God- "Adam and Eve. I put a tree of forbidden fruit right in the middle of Paradise. I told Adam not to eat from it. Do you think you can make break my command?"
The Satan- "That's a piece of cake. They're so naive and gullible. I could do it with my legs and hands tied behind my back."
God- "Good idea. Do you still have that serpent outfit from last Halloween?"

And Shuttlecraft said some things are literal, some things aren't. So what are we arguing about. It is not literal. It was just a metaphorical story. If it was The Satan, in real life, God would have said so. Or, he would have dumbed it down and said an apple and a snake, then we would have known for sure what he was talking about.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

God assumed we'd use our COMMONSENSE to figger things out easily enough without him having to nanny us along every step of the way..
Even the disciples couldn't get to grips with some of the things Jesus told them, even when he put it into simple parable format-

Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.”
“Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them" (Matt 15:15/16)

 

[JM2C]

If I put a loaded gun on a table and tell my child not to touch it. Yet the child does and kills someone I am negligent.

God could remove the proverbial gun but did not.
God could of put a supernatural barrier around the tree but did not.
God was watching Adam but did not act until after the event.
God is a horrible parent.

Example: If the law says that you must put your guns in a locked safe then you are not liable by negligence base on what the law is saying about gun safe keeping.

Example: If the gun is in view of a minor then you are negligent even if the minor did not use it.

Why do you think that we should lock our guns when there are minors in the house? So our children cannot be tempted from using it.

So, before this child safety locks and guns safe came into law where do you think adults hide their guns from minors? First they tell the minors not to touch the guns and believe it or not they listen to their parent because minors then were not prone to temptation like the minors today.

Do you think Adam and Eve were prone to temptation having known none of them before they were tempted by satan? NO! They knew no temptation.

You have to understand that Adam and Eve were not tempted by anything before that temptation. Their minds were innocent, sinless, and perfect or they knew no temptation at all. They knew no evil or good and all they know was God and not satan.

Is it fair to ask God why He did not hide the forbidden tree, like locking guns in a safe, so that Adam and Eve could not have eaten the fruit from it? NO! It is not fair because God gave sufficient warning to Adam, like the minors before the child safety lock and guns safe came into law, and God base that warning on their innocence at that time and the same thing to the minors before the law came.

After the facts we asked, why didn’t the lawmakers passed a law for the child safety lock and gun safe, sooner rather than later, that could have saved the killings of innocent people?

After the facts you asked the same thing,

God could remove the proverbial gun but did not.
God could of put a supernatural barrier around the tree but did not.

Reactions with criticism always came after the facts and that is what people are doing to escape responsibility. He could have done this so that he could have avoided that analysis. Instead of learning from facts we blame each other with assumptions base on ignorance.

Assumption is based on fears from facts or the truth to escape responsibilities and that is ignorance or lack of knowledge.

 

[JM2C]

Because the Satan of Tanakh is not the evil autonomous being that later Christianity turned him into.
In Tanakh, he is a servant of YHVH, that tests you, and if found wanting, accuses you before YHVH.
His first job in the New Testament is to test Jesus.
*

In the OT and the NT the word satan is an adversary.

Without the article, the Hebrew word is used in a general sense to denote someone who is an opponent, an adversary and not necessarily against God but with/from God—e.g., the angel who stood in Balaam’s way (Num 22:22 lesatan without the definite article), David as a possible opponent in battle (1 Sam 29:4 lesatan without the definite article), and a political adversary (1 Kings 11:14 adverasy/satan without the definite article).

With the definite article prefixed, it is a proper noun (Job 1-2; Zech 3:1-2), designating Satan as a personality.

Who is the “accuser” of Christians in Revelation 12:10? Satan an adversary.

 

[JM2C]

This is not the point. The point is: did this destruction helped removing sin?

No it did not. And that is exactly the point here that it did not totally eradicate this “SIN”. After the flood we could assumed that all people that inherited Adam’s sin were all dead already.

But why people were/are still sinning after the flood? Was it because “SIN” is inherent to human by nature, and that no matter how God eradicate the roots of this “SIN”, by means of flooding, “SIN” will still be there.

Instead of acknowledging the existence, the reality of this truth, that this “SIN”, is the cause of every evil acts, we human were/are denying it to escape responsibility and blame everything on God instead.

 

[1robin]

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

I didn't say atheists. I said secularists. The hippie secular movement began in the 50's. It did not really get going until the early 60's. If you look at a curve showing secular trends (and BTW it is not just how many were secular, it is that they plus marginal Christians allowed policy to become secular, like kicking God out of schools, etc....). You will find it matches up perfectly with moral decline statistics. It even shows the punch back after 9/11 or so made the stats a little better but the end is still worse than the start. I am not talking about small stuff either. Some stats like gambling debt and 1 or 0 parent homes increased by hundreds of percent.

Ok but the bible god isn't exactly a pacifist.

I would not believe in a God that did not at least some times given evil a black eye. I was not saying any faith that has violence is wrong. I said I reject any faith that has constant meaningless violence. The most Christian nation in history has saved the world from Fascism, Communism, and helped save God's chosen people the Jews. Doing so in spite of having the cancer of liberalism and the attack on it's moral will that secularism has caused. A just God can't never act against evil and never act in favor or at least those that try and expect belief. Islam has consistent senseless violence. I can't say their God does not exist, I can say I have no use for him. Nothing using humanity will be black and white so I look for trends.

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

Oh yes it does and almost every professional debater on either side agrees. Out of hundreds of debates I have seen but one atheist who tried to retain moral facts without God and he admitted it was an assumption. Let me give you the words of the philosopher of science plus an additional well known source that illustrates the facts agreed to by almost every scholar.

The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1194.Richard_Dawkins

Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God's will ...In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding... Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place."
Michael Ruse

No God = No moral fact, just pitiful opinion based ethics derived by popularity or who has the biggest stick.

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.

No, Christians did not fight to get prayer out of school. I live in the bible belt and we recited prayer and the pledge of allegiance every day, and did not have a shooting or a teen pregnancy. Since the 40's the left has been the party of secularism. They finally wrote God out of even their official platform all together with Obama's second term. Liberalism, secularism, and hippies are all separate issues but they follow each other so closely they are not unrelated. Where you get one you usually get the other two.

 

[1robin]

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.

I see. So what is true depends on what you like. I knew that going in, but only rarely get the other to admit it. I defend Christianity so what you like about Hinduism's incoherent doctrines are not really on my radar. Would you want to have to go back through this mess over and over? I wouldn't. Re-incarnation is one of the most irrational ideas any faith has produced. I do find the studies about it interesting but not even a fraction the size of a data set needed to take it seriously.

No Hinduism does not make sense to me. It is one of the belief systems I can't believe any sane person could hang on to. I imagine that unlike Christianity it is so culturally centered.

 

[1robin]

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.

Wow a whole post about stuff I never said.

1. I never said the revolution occurred in 1955. I said it started to head that direction then. It really got moving in the 60's and rose to it's full dysfunctionality in the 70's. It was rejected a bit in the 80's. Put on a tie or pants suite in the 90's. It then claimed to be mainstream in the 2000s but suffered pushback as well. Regardless the stats show immorality increased as it did, stagnate as it did, and partially lower when partial rejection took place but it is too late now. Too many judges, politicians, and slogans got rooted.

2. I never said anything about everything being ruined. Stalin made a few good policy's, so did Hitler. And this countries soul is still Christian so good things do happen. Even hippies got a few things right.

3. I said in almost every way moral statistics got worse corresponding with secularism. Maybe you can try arguing with that instead of everything else instead.

You may think it a little silly but look at any TV guide from the 50's compared with today. Replacing leave it to beaver with sex and the city, Bugs bunny with Texas chain saw massacre, and the flying Nun with desperate housewives of wherever, is not moral progress. Silly or not TV reflects the moral appetite of a nation.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

BBCTV was recently hit by a wave of complaints over a lesbian kiss in Doctor Who.
Also in a previous series, the Doctor (Matt Smith) said two of the American founding fathers were gay and "fancied" him.
I'm surprised there wasn't a huge outcry against that one in America but I never heard a peep..

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I see. So what is true depends on what you like. I knew that going in, but only rarely get the other to admit it. I defend Christianity so what you like about Hinduism's incoherent doctrines are not really on my radar. Would you want to have to go back through this mess over and over? I wouldn't. Re-incarnation is one of the most irrational ideas any faith has produced. I do find the studies about it interesting but not even a fraction the size of a data set needed to take it seriously.

No Hinduism does not make sense to me. It is one of the belief systems I can't believe any sane person could hang on to. I imagine that unlike Christianity it is so culturally centered.

Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's incoherent and irrational. After all, plenty of people feel that way about Christianity. Christians still haven't come up with an Atonement theory that completely explains how Jesus supposedly provided redemption for humanity. You've had close to two millenia to come up with one, but still haven't. Tsk tsk. That's just one example.

 

[viole]

Well stupid or not,it was a mistake.But,it was by his own will.God did not create man as a robot.God created man with free will.Man had a choice.God set the standards and man chose to obey and serve God.There were consequences for disobeying God.If man was created like a robot,then there would be no need for laws and rules.Man was created as a perfect being with free will.

Will people keep their free will in the Kingdom?

Perfect doe not mean that man would do everything correct just because he is perfect.Perfect in this sense means that man was without sin.

Well being perfect seems a bit of an exaggeration here. Why not simply say "created without sin". Perfect means that it cannot be improved. But I could think of a possible improvement: "created without sin and with hate for sin". That, would be closer to the likeness of God, wouldn't it?

After all, we all hate something. For instance, we all agree, I hope, that we hate eating pigs excrements at dinner. And I doubt that a talking serpent can tempt me to eat excrements of animals, even though I will still have my free will intact.
There is no reason to think that free will would be somehow compromised, because in that case it would be already compromised by all the things we hate doing.

This means he was created to live without death.When man committed sin,this meant that man was no longer perfect and inherited death.

Mmh. Is it possible to be perfect (without sin) but still be mortal?

The reason you cannot understand godly wisdom is because you are not God.

You are not God, either, I presume. Do you understand His "wisdom"?.

I explained what in His likeness means.You do not seem to comprehend what Gods attributes are since you so not have an accurate knowledge of the truth in the holy scriptures.

But why do I need a manual, if I am in His likeness? If I am like Him, I should know exactly what His attributes are, because they are mine too. Ok, i would not kill children as often as He does, so maybe I am not really in His likeness.

Lucky me

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..Christians still haven't come up with an Atonement theory that completely explains how Jesus supposedly provided redemption for humanity..

It's simple enough mate, early primitive people's bad vibes were sloshing all around the planet like "spiritual pollution" badly affecting everybody, so Jesus soaked them up on the cross like a lightning conductor to give the human race a clean slate..

 

[viole]

No it did not. And that is exactly the point here that it did not totally eradicate this “SIN”. After the flood we could assumed that all people that inherited Adam’s sin were all dead already.

It did not, of course. I could have guessed that before unleashing the waters. It does not take a huge IQ to realize that. After all He was one third Jesus at that time and I doubt that He wanted to leave His own son unemployed.

But this is intriguing. You seem to indicate that Noah and family were sinless, otherwise this all exercise would have been pointless from the start. Is it true? Were they sinless?

But why people were/are still sinning after the flood? Was it because “SIN” is inherent to human by nature, and that no matter how God eradicate the roots of this “SIN”, by means of flooding, “SIN” will still be there.

Of course. And I wonder how He could have missed that. i think it is pretty obvious that He did not know what He created. Frankenstein syndrome, I presume.

Instead of acknowledging the existence, the reality of this truth, that this “SIN”, is the cause of every evil acts, we human were/are denying it to escape responsibility and blame everything on God instead.

Well, I don't. On account of His not existence which is also His best excuse

Ciao

- viole

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's simple enough mate, early primitive people's bad vibes were sloshing all around the planet like "spiritual pollution" badly affecting everybody, so Jesus soaked them up on the cross like a lightning conductor to give the human race a clean slate..

So Jesus is just a sort of sponge in your view? Well, obviously that was a failure since it didn't produce a better world or a better humanity. In fact, I'd say we're worse off today then the ancients were in some respects.

 

[Nada]

Will people keep their free will in the Kingdom?




Well being perfect seems a bit of an exaggeration here. Why not simply say "created without sin". Perfect means that it cannot be improved. But I could think of a possible improvement: "created without sin and with hate for sin". That, would be closer to the likeness of God, wouldn't it?

After all, we all hate something. For instance, we all agree, I hope, that we hate eating pigs excrements at dinner. And I doubt that a talking serpent can tempt me to eat excrements of animals, even though I will still have my free will intact.
There is no reason to think that free will would be somehow compromised, because in that case it would be already compromised by all the things we hate doing.



Mmh. Is it possible to be perfect (without sin) but still be mortal?



You are not God, either, I presume. Do you understand His "wisdom"?.



But why do I need a manual, if I am in His likeness? If I am like Him, I should know exactly what His attributes are, because they are mine too. Ok, i would not kill children as often as He does, so maybe I am not really in His likeness.

Lucky me

Ciao

- viole

#1 Yes.Free will is something humans will always have.If you read the book of Revelation it tells us that after the great day of Jehovah,meaning Armageddon,when all the wicked will be destroyed on earth,there will be a 1,000 year reign of peace.During this 1,000 year reign is when all the ones who died on earth will be resurrected back to life.There will be a resurrection of the Righteous and the Unrighteous.Those who walked through into the new Kingdom, and survived Armageddon, because they were deemed righteous in the eyes of God,will be the ones to greet these ones who will be resurrected.When they come back to life they will be instructed from the scrolls on what to do in this new system of things.They will be given commands from God.They will have a choice of whether or not to follow.Those that do not follow will be destroyed by God when Satan the devil is released from the abyss, after the 1,000 year reign comes to an end.Thats why this period of the 1,000 year reign is actually called Judgment day.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.


#2 Your interpretation of perfect is not what perfect means in the holy scriptures.Perfect in the HS means without sin,no death,no diseases,no mental illnesses etc..

I wont even touch on the hating pig excrement subject for it is way off base.




#3 How can one be perfect, as a mortal, if being imperfect is what made humans mortal?


#4 No.I am not God.But,as I explained to you before,it is by grace alone that one comes to understand the truth about God and His Word.Grace is a gift.It is not something that one acquires in a University or by any other means.

Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--

God chooses those who He wants.People who have good hearts and are willing.Thats what Gods Word does.When read to people and explained it acts as a beacon and sends out pings to your heart.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Those with good hearts will respond with kindness and with questions.Those who are hungry for knowledge about God will ask about Him.

Those who have hardened hearts will not respond in a good way.Maybe they are not ready at that time or maybe they will not respond at all.Only God knows peoples hearts.

Jeremiah 17:10 "I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve."

#5 Mankind only possesses Gods attributes to an extent.We are not exactly like God.We can create but can we create an entire universe and things like the sun? No.God is all powerful,not man.We can love, but God is love.We have a sense of Justice but God is the one who created law.We as humans can be very wise but God possesses all the wisdom.He is the most wise and no one can ever fully understand godly wisdom.He allows us to understand some things but only by His grace.

Your remark about killing children could be fully understood if only you prayed,read and studied with a sincere open heart.Earnestly seeking answers,then,maybe ,God will allow you to come to an understanding of His Word and bless you with an accurate knowledge of the truth.Those who humble themselves are the ones who please God.Not those who arrogantly think they already know everything.God hates haughtiness.


Proverbs 6:16-19.
16 There are six things the Lord hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

 

[1robin]

You must understand that your own “virtual certainties” must compete with other incompatible and different “virtual certainties” claimed by other Christians and theists.

I see no other potential certainties. I see only other impossibilities or irrationality. I have never seen a contending and coherent salvation system. If a faith lacks certainties it is not much of a faith compared to Christianity. Our core offer is one of personal experience. But that is not what I am talking about. I am saying only one salvation system I know of is free from things that render it void and impossible. I do not have to know what 2 + 2 = to know it does not equal 943, or pizza. Grace is both a philosophic certainty but an experiential one. I have had it and that makes it a certainty to me.

Sherlock made a point of excluding what a thing can't be, to discover what it might be. That is the context here. Re-incarnation, merit based systems, and certainly pyramids as resurrection machines, etc.... can't be true or are incoherent.

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 do not wish to get sidetracked with idle personal commentary. I stand by what I said.

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.

I thought I had. Moral perfection is the absence of moral failure.

1. A perfect God can't have a standard less than perfection and still be God.
2. He will not dwell eternally with imperfection, nor should he, nor can heaven remain heaven if it contains imperfection.
3. We cannot meet perfection through effort.
4. God through Christ exchanges our imperfect record with his perfect one through faith.
5. Christ took my sin and God's wrath was poured out on it and it was finished once and for all. My moral record is made perfect by it being replaced by Christ's.
6. Christ's perfection is accredited to my account by virtue of my faith and God's grace. That is why I am not saved by mercy but by grace alone.
7. This satisfies God's vengeance upon my sin, it retains his perfect justice, it retains his perfect love, it retains heaven's integrity. It is theological perfection.



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)

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?

He created morally perfect beings in the Garden but gave them freewill. Freewill is not imperfection but can be used for imperfection.

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

Yes and that is doctrine. However they were granted freewill (unlike us this appears to be only for a time period unspecified). Most used freewill to choose God. Satan and his followers chose to rebel. When the choice was made they could no longer stay in heaven. BTW that is evidence for my claim. Once they had sinned they no longer could stay in the same way that we cannot enter if our sins have not been blotted out. This is not an exact parallel however. Angels and man plus stages in God's plan make differences along the way. Fallen angels can't repent, we can. Angels had only a window of freewill, we have a lifetime. However nothing I said has an analogy to Satan.

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?

This will quickly become impractical if your including the hosts of heaven. Satan was in heaven and so his rules and results differ from ours in some ways. We have never seen heaven or God and so our requirements are not identical to his.

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?)

I hate it when an argument that makes clear points gets bogged down in semantic technicality. Forget the labels.

1. We are guilty of sin. All of us.
2. For those born again or who died at an early age before accountable our sins were punished on the cross and done away with and Christ's perfection is credited to our account in God's view.

Now I do not care what label you use for 1. or what is used for 2. The difference is what is literally true verses how God views us. We all guilty. Some of us who believe receive a pardon in this life and are made into new and perfect beings in the next life. Call that what you wish. Most of us call it Christianity 101.

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).

Forget Satan, the angels, and semantics. Keep the two categories above in mind.

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.

Moral perfection is actually being without moral flaw or having our moral flaws pardoned by virtue of the perfection of Christ and our faith in it.

[/SIZE][/FONT]
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.

Salvation is not a reward. It is to be in a relationship with God of such a nature as to not prevent our entrance into heaven. It is to have a right standing with God.

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…)

Salvation is to have our spiritual relationship with God restored to right standing. We are made spiritually alive, we are technically qualified to be perfected and to enter heaven.

LDS has a bizarre doctrine on this with the spirit babies, men being God's, being given planets etc.....

Christianity is very simple, emphatic, and comprehensive.


We are physically born spiritually separated from God and Hell is the final fruition of remaining in that state of estrangement until death. Salvation restores (as in to make right) our relationship to God. We are made spiritually alive. The Holy Spirit comes to live in our hearts, we are reconciled to God, our sins are blotted out, our name is written in the book of life, we are born again, spiritually quickened, begin sanctification, have communion with God, etc..........These things either come or begin the moment we are born again and are perfected the moment we are resurrected.

Thanks in advance for the information 1Robin.

I still do not understand your lack of familiarity with Christianity's most important doctrine.
Especially from someone as educated as you. Look up substitutionary atonement if you wish. I am sure you can find more than you wish to read.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

So Jesus is just a sort of sponge in your view? Well, obviously that was a failure since it didn't produce a better world or a better humanity. In fact, I'd say we're worse off today then the ancients were in some respects.

Ah, but after Jesus soaked up the spiritual pollution, it's been slowly building up again over the past 2000 years.
Maybe when it reaches a critical level, we'll all have our chips-
"The time has come for judging the dead,...and for destroying those who destroy the earth” (Revelation 11:18)