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

[Shuttlecraft]

..I'm not convinced that Jesus even existed.

Haha I bet 2000 years from now there'll be consp-theorists saying Elvis never existed either..

 

[JM2C]

In that scripture,John 9:41, Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees about their admittance of not being ignorant.That is why they remain in sin.If they had admitted being ignorant about the Word of God,then their sin would have been forgiven by God.The Pharisees knew the Word of God and still they said what they did to Jesus.

Jesus told Pharisees of his day that if they were blind, they would have no sin, evidently meaning that their sins could be forgiven by God on the basis of their ignorance; however, because they denied being in ignorance, ‘their sin remained.’ (Joh 9:39-41) Jesus said they had “no excuse for their sin” because they were witnesses of the powerful words and works proceeding from him as the result of God’s spirit on him.


Sin, I — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

I knew that you are one them.
Explain to me John 1:1-2

 

[viole]

Can’t you argue better than this? You could C&P from wiki or google anything about the history of the bible or Christianity and argue from there. Or argue from your ancestors the apes.

I would appreciate it if you also googled biology or anything about our species and realize that we are still apes and it is not very surprising that we have apes as (direct) ancestors.

You still do not understand the meaning of “SINLESS”. Before Adam make his first mistake he was “SINLESS/PERFECT” then after that Adam became a sinner and all men born after Adam became sinners as well –Romans 5:12.

Noah and his family were righteous meaning they were born sinners and became righteous.

As I said, you guys have to make up your mind, for it seems that you do not agree; it is somewhat surprising that if Scriptures is so a reliable guide (not to talk of all the personal relationships you allegedly have with the Boss) you still are not sure about something so fundamental.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Haha I bet 2000 years from now there'll be consp-theorists saying Elvis never existed either..

Or not, since we actually have verifiable evidence of the existence of Elvis.

 

[viole]

who is this guy you are talking about?

It should not be so difficult to get to the post since they are sorted by number.

Let me guess: he is a Jehovah witness and, therefore, not a real Christian.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nada]

Can’t you argue better than this? You could C&P from wiki or google anything about the history of the bible or Christianity and argue from there. Or argue from your ancestors the apes.


You still do not understand the meaning of “SINLESS”. Before Adam make his first mistake he was “SINLESS/PERFECT” then after that Adam became a sinner and all men born after Adam became sinners as well –Romans 5:12.

Noah and his family were righteous meaning they were born sinners and became righteous.

I like how Noah ,even though he was a sinner,was still considered righteous.He was obviously in a drunken state or stupor,after the flood, according to the holy scriptures, at one point.Even so, we can see that he corrected this and was still declared righteous.

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.

2 Peter 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Or not, since we actually have verifiable evidence of the existence of Elvis.

2000 years from now the consp-theorists will be saying the Elvis vids and films were faked, or that the audience were hallucinating, or that it was an impersonator on stage instead of Elvis, and that he never sang his own songs, blah blah..

 

[Pawan Lamsal]

Whatever happens is the god's will. We can't change anything. Wrong doers will be punished in his days. These are the miseries of mankind to believe. Poor are ruled by rich and they convience themselves - god is gonna take care of those evils. But never happens.
Truth is humans have a lot to learn. Society has to be softened, enlightened to be a bit loveful and blissful. And likely man can change the world himself by acting as he must as a human being and you keep on yelling it's god's work. Give a GOD work or blessing if you can or if it really is there. But keeping a divine force infront of you as a solution of every problem, success and life is mysery and your limitation I suppose.

 

[JM2C]

What does imperfection have to do with sin?

In the OT a sin is an act against God. How is being a baby an act against God?

From being the perfect/Adam meaning "Sinless" to imperfect/human after Adam meaning "Sinners"

A simple analogy:

U.S. debt is about 18 trillion UDS. They say that your grandkids will inherit U.S. debt and that was 10 years ago. Now, they are saying that your great grandkids will inherit this 18 trillion USD debt. Can you imagine a baby that is not even conceived yet has a debt already waiting for him/her?

That is how we human, excluding the apes of course, inherited this sin, but the problem is we cannot pay this debt/sin with money but with death, because “the wages of sin is death” –Romans 6:23, “but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord”

Now, would you rather pay your debt with death or would you rather God pay for it for you and just accept it as a gift from God?

Daily common sense is saying, why not?

 

[JM2C]

It should not be so difficult to get to the post since they are sorted by number.

Let me guess: he is a Jehovah witness and, therefore, not a real Christian.

Ciao

- viole

They don't believe that The Lord Jesus Christ is God.

 

[1robin]

Yeah, according to the anonymous people who wrote down the myths. I'm not convinced that Jesus even existed.

According to a consensus of NT scholars (regardless what side they are on) the claim believe his existence is more textually attested that any other figure in ancient history. Not only that, but among many, 4 of the most important historical events are granted by the majority as historical.

1. He appeared on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. He was crucified by the Romans.
3. His tomb was found empty.
4. Even his enemies sincerely believed to have met him post mortem.

You are not justified in expecting half the certainty that surrounds claims of this time period the four above enjoy. Scholars who know, equate the certainty of the above claims with the destruction of the temple and/or the fall of Rome. The evidence for these four events outstrip anything you can rightly request of ancient history. I can offer far more on top of that but we already have more than enough to justify reasoned faith.

 

[1robin]

What does imperfection have to do with sin?

In the OT a sin is an act against God. How is being a baby an act against God?

No one said being a Baby is sinful.

 

[Ingledsva]

They don't believe that The Lord Jesus Christ is God.

Because it doesn't actually say he is.




*

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

According to a consensus of NT scholars (regardless what side they are on) the claim believe his existence is more textually attested that any other figure in ancient history. Not only that, but among many, 4 of the most important historical events are granted by the majority as historical.

1. He appeared on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. He was crucified by the Romans.
3. His tomb was found empty.
4. Even his enemies sincerely believed to have met him post mortem.

You are not justified in expecting half the certainty that surrounds claims of this time period the four above enjoy. Scholars who know, equate the certainty of the above claims with the destruction of the temple and/or the fall of Rome. The evidence for these four events outstrip anything you can rightly request of ancient history. I can offer far more on top of that but we already have more than enough to justify reasoned faith.

That's a bunch of nonsense that apologists spew in order to fool the gullible. "He appeared on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority." <<< That is not a historical claim. "Even his enemies sincerely believed to have met him post mortem. " <<< That is not a historical claim, either. I'm not one of the gullible so your propaganda won't work with me. I'm not interested in getting into this, anyway. This horse has been beaten to death over many threads. You're just an apologist, anyway, not a sincere poster interested in honest discussions.

 

[1robin]

I would appreciate it if you do not accuse me of saying things I never said. I never said we come from apes. That would be absurd, for we are still apes.



Well, you tell me that. Your co-believer made it pretty clear that sin is not inherited in a previous post. Only death is inherited, for some reason.

But I am curious. Do you think that a new born child is a sinner? What about a human embryo? What kind of sin would you accuse them of?

Ciao

- viole

We are not classified as ^$*#)@*& stinking apes. As Mr. Hesston would put it. Even those who seek to bind nature by terminology don't classify us that way. BTW what a guy in lab coat classifies something as has no impact on it whatever. If I have 37 degrees would my classifying the Swedish a radishes change anything about anything?

We have more or similar amounts in common (I think) with vegetables. Someone said we are 2% or 4% different in chromosomes from apes, but "Oh that two percent". "In it you have sonnets, rockets, pacemakers, ballad's, philosophy, self awareness, moral consciousness, theology, and the Mona Lisa". There has never been a fraction of the intellectual difference between two things supposedly so closely related as us and primates. Something drastic occurred that nature can't explain.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We are not classified as ^$*#)@*& stinking apes. As Mr. Hesston would put it. Even those who seek to bind nature by terminology don't classify us that way. BTW what a guy in lab coat classifies something as has no impact on it whatever. If I have 37 degrees would my classifying the Swedish a radishes change anything about anything?

We have more or similar amounts in common (I think) with vegetables. Someone said we are 2% or 4% different in chromosomes from apes, but "Oh that two percent". "In it you have sonnets, rockets, pacemakers, ballad's, philosophy, self awareness, moral consciousness, theology, and the Mona Lisa". There has never been a fraction of the intellectual difference between two things supposedly so closely related as us and primates. Something drastic occurred that nature can't explain.

I'd sooner believe that aliens genetically engineered us as a hybrid species than accept the Biblical creation account as fact.

 

[1robin]

That's a bunch of nonsense that apologists spew in order to fool the gullible. "He appeared on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority." <<< That is not a historical claim. "Even his enemies sincerely believed to have met him post mortem. " <<< That is not a historical claim, either. I'm not one of the gullible so your propaganda won't work with me. I'm not interested in getting into this, anyway. This horse has been beaten to death over many threads. You're just an apologist, anyway, not a sincere poster interested in honest discussions.

The word apologists did not appear in my statements. If any apologetics is going on it was in your reply. that id the majority conclusion among NT scholars and countless of them are not men of faith. Do you want some of (if not the) greatest experts in testimony and evidence in history who's claims make it clear that even secular law agree with NT scholarship? How many of the expert's opinions best trained to know would be enough for you? Being convinced by the historical method isn't being gullible it is the opposite.


The sense of divine authority claim is historical. Debating whether he in fact had it is not. He existed and claimed to have that authority and that is confirmed by history. Whether he had it or not was not even part of the discussion. It was not my claim so I included all of it. I made no argument he had it. I think he did but that is another subject. You questioned his existence without justification. That was the issue. Leave my claims in eh contexts given please. The other claim is an exact historical claim as well.

 

[Nada]

I'd sooner believe that aliens genetically engineered us as a hybrid species than accept the Biblical creation account as fact.

I couldn't help but notice what you said.You stated,"I'd sooner believe that aliens genetically engineered us as a hybrid species than accept the Biblical creation account as fact." How can you call yourself a Luciferian polytheist and still say what you did?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The word apologists did not appear in my statements. If any apologetics is going on it was in your reply. that id the majority conclusion among NT scholars and countless of them are not men of faith. Do you want some of (if not the) greatest experts in testimony and evidence in history who's claims make it clear that even secular law agree with NT scholarship? How many of the expert's opinions best trained to know would be enough for you? Being convinced by the historical method isn't being gullible it is the opposite.


The sense of divine authority claim is historical. Debating whether he in fact had it is not. He existed and claimed to have that authority and that is confirmed by history. Whether he had it or not was not even part of the discussion. It was not my claim so I included all of it. I made no argument he had it. I think he did but that is another subject. You questioned his existence without justification. That was the issue. Leave my claims in eh contexts given please.

I have plenty of reasons to doubt the historicity of Jesus and your argument from authority isn't impressing me. This is an old subject to me and I've heard tons from both sides. I'm not interested in getting into it again, since such discussions rarely get anywhere. It's too emotional for most people, especially hardcore Christians like yourself. You'll never admit the possibility that your object of worship never existed. Lol.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I couldn't help but notice what you said.You stated,"I'd sooner believe that aliens genetically engineered us as a hybrid species than accept the Biblical creation account as fact." How can you call yourself a Luciferian polytheist and still say what you did?

I'm not sure what you think a Luciferian is.