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

[Simplelogic]

Many people struggle with the commands which required Hebrews to destroy EVERY HUMAN in the cities they conquered. Though this command only existed for specific people groups (not to all nations) which the Israelites conquered, it is still difficult to swallow. Especially for those who don't really believe in evil or the Biblical testimony of the atrocities which were being committed by these people. Many don't believe humans are capable of becoming evil in the way the Biblical narrative states.

Evil is a choice which man makes and the more he chooses to partake in it, the more sinister it becomes. It should be noted that only men and women who are above the age of accountability are held responsible for their evil. Children themselves can be evil, but their parents are the ones held responsible for their actions until they are old enough to choose. Every time the God of Israel demanded a complete annihilation of a people group it was because this evil had overcome the population at large (even the children!).

Boys were being gang raped. Children were having orgies with family members. Babies were being sacrificed on alters. Many try to avoid these Biblical claims while trying to highlight other commands which make the Hebrews look like monsters. Meanwhile denying the VERY PREMISE FOR THE CONQUEST. The God of Israel commands His people to CONFRONT evil and destroy it.

The Nazi party managed to spread evil to the children as well. These children were fighting to the death against the allied forces, even when the war was already over!! How?? They were taught to be evil from birth!! It doesn't mean that God holds them accountable for this. The men and women who did this to them are the ones responsible. Though it was still right to kill them.

THIS STILL GOES ON TODAY!! I have lived in parts of the world were evil has completely taken over the population at large. I have seen cultures where it is normal to offer a young boys to visitors as welcome gifts!!

The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have lived in parts of Africa where INFANT BABIES are continually raped!!
Africa Child Rape Crisis: Babies As Young As 6 Months Victims Of Sexual Violence In Conflict Zones

I have lived in the Mid East where kids have TV shows which cartoon figures teach Muslims how to kill Jews!!

And now the infamous ISIS or ISIL which is teaching children to decapitate other Muslims:
​Photo of boy holding decapitated Syrian soldier’s head ‘barbaric’ - Australia PM — RT News

The God of Israel is the only one who calls His people to respond to such evil. Every campaign waged was AN ATTEMPT TO STOP EVIL FROM SPREADING. People will continue to try to turn things around and make the Canaanites and the Midianites out to be peace loving people who were savagely butchered by the evil Hebrews. The same way people today try to make the modern Israeli's out to be murderers and the Palestinians a harmless, oppressed people…held against their will and forced to fight. It is the same clever slight of hand that some Atheist use to condemn the God of Israel. It is done by relabeling the Canaanites and adding words like "rape" into the Hebrew text.

 

[1robin]

I really doubt that it was you that "deduced" the age of accountability doctrine. So, if it's not too much trouble, could you tell me the history of how this doctrine came to be?

I hate this new formatting. I gave you a verse which if that was all that existed would be more than ample to justify the doctrine. You summarily rejected it without any justification. I will supply the history of it for rejection as well.

It can be traced back to
1. Calvin.
2. The Anabaptists.
3. Augustine.
4. Some even link it with the Bar mitzvah.

How in the world does it matter whether it is 2 days or 3000 years old? It only matter what can be justified by scripture using proper Hermeneutics and Exegesis.

Let me back this way up and offer another verse (for summary dismissal without cause). Take this one as far back as David.

2 Samuel 12:23. But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.

1. The context leaves no doubt David is talking about his son who had just died.
2. He is obviously talking about the after life. So the only question is whether Heaven of Hell. The OT is full of things seen in a dim light that are amplified and fully exposed in the NT. The after life is one of them but the Hebrews did distinguish between destinations and held to resurrection to life everlasting or doom everlasting. So the only question is which one David is referring to.
3. David no where suggests he is going to be eternally damned and here suggests the child and he will wind up in the same place eventually.
4. David and the child will be together after death and David will not be condemned so neither will the child.

But this is a God issue not a Church one. The Church has no role in this either way, I have no roll, you have no roll. It is God's business from A to Z so why would God set aside entire chapters to emphatically dictate every detail of this.

 

[CG Didymus]

I hate this new formatting. I gave you a verse which if that was all that existed would be more than ample to justify the doctrine. You summarily rejected it without any justification. I will supply the history of it for rejection as well.

It can be traced back to
1. Calvin.
2. The Anabaptists.
3. Augustine.
4. Some even link it with the Bar mitzvah.

How in the world does it matter whether it is 2 days or 3000 years old? It only matter what can be justified by scripture using proper Hermeneutics and Exegesis.

Let me back this way up and offer another verse (for summary dismissal without cause). Take this one as far back as David.

2 Samuel 12:23. But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.

1. The context leaves no doubt David is talking about his son who had just died.
2. He is obviously talking about the after life. So the only question is whether Heaven of Hell. The OT is full of things seen in a dim light that are amplified and fully exposed in the NT. The after life is one of them but the Hebrews did distinguish between destinations and held to resurrection to life everlasting or doom everlasting. So the only question is which one David is referring to.
3. David no where suggests he is going to be eternally damned and here suggests the child and he will wind up in the same place eventually.
4. David and the child will be together after death and David will not be condemned so neither will the child.

But this is a God issue not a Church one. The Church has no role in this either way, I have no roll, you have no roll. It is God's business from A to Z so why would God set aside entire chapters to emphatically dictate every detail of this.

I was just getting to know how to use the old system. Yeah, this will take some getting used to.

But anyway, Jesus and little children? Are all children sweet and innocent? No. What if a bunch of screaming, rowdy brats came over to Jesus and the apostles? What would he have said then? Or, would he have had some bears came out of the woods and eat them?

"2 days or 3000 years old?" Yeah, is it a new tradition or an old one? Has it been the same from the start of Christianity to the present? No. Is it believed by all Christians? Of course not, Christians have all sorts of Bible-based beliefs. But being in the Bible is a lot different than being deduced from a few Scriptures.

King David? Seriously? I did a search on what ancient Judaism believed about life after death. This first one is from wikipedia about Paradise and the human soul
"There is no concept of a human soul, or of eternal life, in the oldest parts of the Old Testament.[8] Death is the going-out of the breath which God once breathed into the dust all men face the same fate in Sheol, a shadowy existence without knowledge or feeling....[8] In the centuries after the Babylonian exile, a belief in afterlife and post-death retribution appeared in Jewish apocalyptic literature.[8]"

The next one is from a Jewish site about the afterlife.
"For the most part, the Torah describes the afterlife in vague terms, many of which may simply be figurative ways of speaking about death as it is observed by the living.

An early common theme is that death means rejoining one's ancestors. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and other patriarchs are "gathered to their people" after death… In contrast, the wicked are "cut off (kareit) from their people"…

Other imagery emphasizes the finality of death: the dead are like dust returning to dust or water poured out on the ground.

Another recurring biblical image of the afterlife is as a shadowy place called Sheol. It is a place of darkness and silence located in low places… God puts people in She'ol. In Isaiah the departed in Sheol rise up to greet leaders who have now been brought low as they are.

…(C)oncepts of the resurrection of the dead and afterlife seem to have entered Judaism under Hellenistic influence after the Torah was completed. It became one of the fundamental beliefs in rabbinic Judaism, the intellectual successors of the Pharisees."

So what did David believe? He didn't have the bright light of the NT. Probably all he had was the "dim" light of the Torah. Even if they had a belief in a "heaven" or "paradise" in David's time, of course he would believe he was going there. And that his dead son would be there also. But, it has nothing to do with your "age of accountability" doctrine.

 

[walkthetalk]

This was brought out many times by Atheists and agnostics, I would like to discuss it with you in a rational and respectful manner. My disclaimer is I am a true 5 point Calvinist and If that is offensive to you,You are free to close the thread now. If I may suggest , we leave out all slander against My God in the process of this discussion, slander being pre-defined as name calling as If he were real and present.Questioning scriptures depiction of God however you interpret is allowed. Example: Is God evil? Fair enough?

Here is my premise,
this is my belief based upon my scriptures.
God not only allows children to die, He has pre-ordained them to die. Hard for us to fathom, granted, but True nevertheless in Scripture. If we say he did not cause it and only allowed it to happen then God would be reacting to free will of man to accomplish their own destruction, thus putting too much power in men and essentially tying God's hands. God ordained for this latest tragedy for his own purposes, we cannot know them, we are not our creator, so The bible tells us we must accept that their is a divine plan and God is in control completely.

So you have asked, where is the comfort in that? Why do religious peoples comfort families of these tragedies with this premise of a God in control? Well let me ask you Atheists would you attempt to comfort these mothers with your precept that there is no God? No heaven and no hell? That their children are reduced to dust as they came? That the man who murdered them who took his life is also Dust and there is no justice for them either? Both parties cease to exist, one guilty, one innocent, both have the same fate in the end.

Or could it be more comforting that a God in control is with their babies now, that they know no suffering,feel no pain have no more tears and the man that took their life will be punished by a Just and perfect God. Where is the evil in my premise and the lack of evil in yours? I find evil in evildoing going unpunished.I find evil in a life given for no purpose but to die and cease to exist.
What say you?

Creating evil is not evil, but doing evil is evil. God creates our actions based on what we want, ask for. We ask and he creates. There is goodness common all around the universe. Evil is rare. Goodness prevails over evil sooner or later.

 

[Ingledsva]

You can only make these charges by failing to recognize the laws for Hebrews concerning marriage of females from conquered nations.

10“When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, 11and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, 12then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13“She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14“It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. Deut 21: 10-14

Yes. Hebrews were allowed to marry conquered women. Many try to act like the Hebrews were grabbing women on the day of the slaughter and forcing them to marry. This is just plain silly. The 30 days of mourning was a requirement and it would start the moment the women was taken into the home. This could be months or years after the conquest itself!!

Still Rape, and the armies would not have been dragging around hundreds or thousands of captive women while at war for years! That idea is ridiculous.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

We've been discussing the verses that has God tell Joshua to have women and children killed. In one instance, Joshua has his men kill all the non-virgin women and all the boys that were taken captive. Unless a person believes that these stories are The Word of God, it sounds more like the words of brutal tribal men using their warrior god beliefs to justify what they did.

Is it much different than what other tribal people did when their god gave them a vision that they would have victory over their enemy. And then proceeding to brutally kill the men and "take" the women for themselves. What's weird is when it is in the Bible, it's not rape, it's "marriage". And, it is the "proper" thing to do, because if they didn't "care" for these women, it would be a "death" sentence for them... alone in a harsh world. Well yeah, they just killed the families of those women. But, as in Jericho, God even had the woman, and children, killed? And this is a "good" god that ordered this?

They also commit genocide against one of their tribes, and then kidnap and rape their own young women from the Temple at Shiloh, so the remaining men can breed these new broodmares! They call this RAPE, getting a wife, too!

*

 

[Simplelogic]

They also commit genocide against one of their tribes, and then kidnap and rape their own young women from the Temple at Shiloh, so the remaining men can breed these new broodmares! They call this RAPE, getting a wife, too!

*

You are free to re-label it anything you want. No point arguing your opinions.

 

[1robin]

I was just getting to know how to use the old system. Yeah, this will take some getting used to.

There is no individual quote button. It like a car with no steering wheel.

But anyway, Jesus and little children? Are all children sweet and innocent? No. What if a bunch of screaming, rowdy brats came over to Jesus and the apostles? What would he have said then? Or, would he have had some bears came out of the woods and eat them?

1. It is irrelevant how sweet children are. This is about whether they are accountable not whether they do wrong. It is also historical nonsense to suggest Jesus just happen to run across a group composed of the sweetest kids in Israel to imply if he had ran across some bad ones what he said would not apply.
2. Jesus never condemned any group except one. Only the religious leaders of Israel did he directly suggest were heading for Hell, because while they acted like they were Godly men they did not have Go din their heart. He made no statement condemning a single child.
3. The bears story is one of the handful of verses I cannot defend, but it was about children deriding a prophet, not about children in general and even does not have any connection with Heaven or Hell. I have never understood that verse but it has nothing to do with Christ or ultimate accountability.
4. Children like Christians do suffer temporally for sins but not eternally.

"2 days or 3000 years old?" Yeah, is it a new tradition or an old one? Has it been the same from the start of Christianity to the present? No. Is it believed by all Christians? Of course not, Christians have all sorts of Bible-based beliefs. But being in the Bible is a lot different than being deduced from a few Scriptures.

1. It is irrelevant how old a thing is as to how true a thing is. Your arbitrary age criteria would leave us with a flat earth, an earth centric solar system, and no quantum or even Newtonian physics. This is what I always complain about from your side, inconsistent double standards.
2. The doctrine is plenty old enough even if age had any relevance. Not to mention that the oldest manuscripts are mostly modern discoveries so even a new doctrine has advantages. Not too awful long ago we had manuscripts by the hundreds. Now we have 5700 in Greek alone.
3. I am not responding to questions that are first meaningless, second that you answer, and their you answer wrongly or irrelevantly. No one asks and answers questions who is serious about learning.

King David? Seriously? I did a search on what ancient Judaism believed about life after death. This first one is from wikipedia about Paradise and the human soul

I know what the OT says about the after life. I know what Jews say about it.

"There is no concept of a human soul, or of eternal life, in the oldest parts of the Old Testament.[8] Death is the going-out of the breath which God once breathed into the dust all men face the same fate in Sheol, a shadowy existence without knowledge or feeling....[8] In the centuries after the Babylonian exile, a belief in afterlife and post-death retribution appeared in Jewish apocalyptic literature.[8]"

Is it hard to get something that wrong? I have no idea about any web site but that is absolutely not what those verse mean. Not to Christians nor Jews. That breath of life is the soul. What separates men from virtually all animals is that we are Nephish creatures. The word literally means soul.

Original Word: נָ֫פֶשׁ
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: nephesh
Phonetic Spelling: (neh'-fesh)
Short Definition: soul
Strong's Hebrew: 5315. נָ֫פֶשׁ (nephesh) -- a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion

The next one is from a Jewish site about the afterlife.
"For the most part, the Torah describes the afterlife in vague terms, many of which may simply be figurative ways of speaking about death as it is observed by the living.

I already said they were vague. What they weren't is arbitrary. There is sheol as in the abode of the dead in general.

An early common theme is that death means rejoining one's ancestors. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and other patriarchs are "gathered to their people" after death… In contrast, the wicked are "cut off (kareit) from their people"…

Sounds like one is good and the other bad JUST EXACTLY AS I SAID.

Other imagery emphasizes the finality of death: the dead are like dust returning to dust or water poured out on the ground.

No orthodox Jewish doctrine ever has physical death as the end.

Another recurring biblical image of the afterlife is as a shadowy place called Sheol. It is a place of darkness and silence located in low places… God puts people in She'ol. In Isaiah the departed in Sheol rise up to greet leaders who have now been brought low as they are.

…(C)oncepts of the resurrection of the dead and afterlife seem to have entered Judaism under Hellenistic influence after the Torah was completed. It became one of the fundamental beliefs in rabbinic Judaism, the intellectual successors of the Pharisees."

So what did David believe? He didn't have the bright light of the NT. Probably all he had was the "dim" light of the Torah. Even if they had a belief in a "heaven" or "paradise" in David's time, of course he would believe he was going there. And that his dead son would be there also. But, it has nothing to do with your "age of accountability" doctrine.

How in the world did incorrect understandings of OT doctrines become the central issue in a Christian debate?

Well what a surprise, your misunderstanding defies every major commentary I could find.

I shall go to him; to the state of the dead, to the grave, where his body was, or would be; to heaven and eternal happiness, where his soul was, as he comfortably hoped and believed: from whence it appears, that the Old Testament saints did not suppose an annihilation at death; but believed the immortality of the soul, a future state after death of eternal life and bliss: but he shall not return to me; in the present mortal state, though at the resurrection they should meet again. 2 Samuel 12:23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

Claiming resurrection is not an OT doctrine is just dishonest.
"Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead" (Isaiah 26:19).

David meant exactly what I stated.

 

[Ingledsva]

You are free to re-label it anything you want. No point arguing your opinions.

LOL! Dude! There is no arguing this!

They were told to wait in the bushes, spring out and kidnap the young women when they came out to dance, and immediately turn-tail and run, - because their father's and other male relatives would be coming after them!

RAPE! RAPE! RAPE!

*

 

[Simplelogic]

There is no individual quote button. It like a car with no steering wheel.



1. It is irrelevant how sweet children are. This is about whether they are accountable not whether they do wrong. It is also historical nonsense to suggest Jesus just happen to run across a group composed of the sweetest kids in Israel to imply if he had ran across some bad ones what he said would not apply.
2. Jesus never condemned any group except one. Only the religious leaders of Israel did he directly suggest were heading for Hell, because while they acted like they were Godly men they did not have Go din their heart. He made no statement condemning a single child.
3. The bears story is one of the handful of verses I cannot defend, but it was about children deriding a prophet, not about children in general and even does not have any connection with Heaven or Hell. I have never understood that verse but it has nothing to do with Christ or ultimate accountability.
4. Children like Christians do suffer temporally for sins but not eternally.



1. It is irrelevant how old a thing is as to how true a thing is. Your arbitrary age criteria would leave us with a flat earth, an earth centric solar system, and no quantum or even Newtonian physics. This is what I always complain about from your side, inconsistent double standards.
2. The doctrine is plenty old enough even if age had any relevance. Not to mention that the oldest manuscripts are mostly modern discoveries so even a new doctrine has advantages. Not too awful long ago we had manuscripts by the hundreds. Now we have 5700 in Greek alone.
3. I am not responding to questions that are first meaningless, second that you answer, and their you answer wrongly or irrelevantly. No one asks and answers questions who is serious about learning.

I know what the OT says about the after life. I know what Jews say about it.

Is it hard to get something that wrong? I have no idea about any web site but that is absolutely not what those verse mean. Not to Christians nor Jews. That breath of life is the soul. What separates men from virtually all animals is that we are Nephish creatures. The word literally means soul.

Original Word: נָ֫פֶשׁ
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: nephesh
Phonetic Spelling: (neh'-fesh)
Short Definition: soul
Strong's Hebrew: 5315. נָ֫פֶשׁ (nephesh) -- a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion

I already said they were vague. What they weren't is arbitrary. There is sheol as in the abode of the dead in general.

Sounds like one is good and the other bad JUST EXACTLY AS I SAID.

No orthodox Jewish doctrine ever has physical death as the end.

How in the world did incorrect understandings of OT doctrines become the central issue in a Christian debate?

Well what a surprise, your misunderstanding defies every major commentary I could find.

I shall go to him; to the state of the dead, to the grave, where his body was, or would be; to heaven and eternal happiness, where his soul was, as he comfortably hoped and believed: from whence it appears, that the Old Testament saints did not suppose an annihilation at death; but believed the immortality of the soul, a future state after death of eternal life and bliss: but he shall not return to me; in the present mortal state, though at the resurrection they should meet again. 2 Samuel 12:23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

Claiming resurrection is not an OT doctrine is just dishonest.
"Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead" (Isaiah 26:19).

David meant exactly what I stated.

Well said. Here are a few more verses to add:

From the Torah
But now, if you will forgive their sin—but if not, please blot me out of your book that you have written.” Exodus 32:32

Daniel 12:2
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

From the Prophets:

Hosea 6: 1-3 and Ezekiel 37: 1-14 both speak of a resurrection of sorts.

Isaiah 53 clearly speaks of a resurrection

Isaiah 25: 8 Declares that YHVH will “swallow up death in victory”

Isaiah 26:19 19Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.

From the Psalms:
Psalm 17:5
Psalm 73:23-26
Psalm 49:15
Psalm 16: 9-11

From Job.

25For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:26And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Job 19:25-26

It seems apparent from this verse that Job believed in a bodily resurrection as well.

First Samuel 2:6

6The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.

Hannah seems to believe that YHVH can raise men from the grave (physically).


I Samuel 28: 3-25

Although this has little to do with the concept of the resurrection, bringing Samuel back from the dead would, like the previous examples, at least confirm that death is not annihilation and that individuals continue to exist after death.

1 Kings 17:17 – 24, 2 Kings 4:18 – 37 and 2 Kings 13:20 – 21 :

These verses show YHVH raising up three humans from death temporarily. Another example of physical life after death.

 

[CG Didymus]

1. It is irrelevant how sweet children are. This is about whether they are accountable not whether they do wrong. It is also historical nonsense to suggest Jesus just happen to run across a group composed of the sweetest kids in Israel to imply if he had ran across some bad ones what he said would not apply.
2. Jesus never condemned any group except one. Only the religious leaders of Israel did he directly suggest were heading for Hell, because while they acted like they were Godly men they did not have Go din their heart. He made no statement condemning a single child.

Problem: The Christian position is that all humans inherit a sin nature from Adam that separates them from God. There is, supposedly, no other way but to accept Jesus to get the penalty for sin removed. Jesus maybe never made a "statement condemning a single child", but where does he say, or where does Paul say, or anybody, that children get a free pass? But it's your religion and your version of that religion, if you want to believe a few verses prove that all children, no matter what they do or believe, because children do have beliefs and do things that are wrong, are not held accountable then go ahead. But, it's only what you and your church believe, so it's not a Bible doctrine. It is your tradition. And, it still leaves the age of when they do become accountable up in the air.

1. It is irrelevant how old a thing is as to how true a thing is.

Except that this doctrine isn't set in stone, so it isn't "true". It's your guess as to what God does with children. You mentioned Calvin and Augustine in your other post. What did they have to say about the "age of accountability"? Because, I thought they didn't believe in it.

I know what the OT says about the after life. I know what Jews say about it.

Claiming resurrection is not an OT doctrine is just dishonest.
"Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead" (Isaiah 26:19).

David meant exactly what I stated.

Here's another Jewish site that talks about when the resurrection of the dead came into Judaism.

Waking the Dead: Biblical and Rabbinic Sources

There are only two biblical references to the resurrection of the dead, in passages generally held by biblical scholars to be of late date, so that it has been conjectured that the doctrine owes something to Persian influence. The first is: "Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise, awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust, for thy dew is as the dew of light, and the earth shall bring to life the shades" (Isaiah 26:19); and the second: "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence" (Daniel 12:2)…There is no systematic treatment in the Rabbinic literature of the doctrine of the resurrection…

Two passages? And of "late date"? As in after David was dead and gone? Try again. David, what ever he believed about an afterlife, thought that he would be reunited with his dead son. It doesn't sound as if it was the Christian concept of resurrection, though. On top of that, probably every "good" person thought they were going to some good place. Not just children, everybody. So what else you got?

 

[CG Didymus]

Well said....

Then what do you think of the age of accountability question? Do you believe it is "Biblical" that all children are not held accountable?

 

[Simplelogic]

Then what do you think of the age of accountability question? Do you believe it is "Biblical" that all children are not held accountable?

I do not believe that a human is judged for something they are not responsible for. I also do not believe in the Christian doctrine of original sin/ total depravity.

I believe humans are created neutral and can be good or evil. Children are referred to many times in the Tanakh as "the innocent".

"They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and daughters..." Psalm 106:37,38

"For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good... Isaiah 7:16

Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them, But Yahshua said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 19:13,14

And Yahshua called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one little child like this in my name receives me. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:2-6

 

[Simplelogic]

I do not believe there is a specific age that warrants accountability in the scriptures. That is between YHVH and the human being. But I do believe in the concept in general.

 

[psychoslice]

Why do we all bring children into the world, knowing their going to die ?.

 

[CG Didymus]

I do not believe there is a specific age that warrants accountability in the scriptures. That is between YHVH and the human being. But I do believe in the concept in general.

Not that I believe in the Christian concept of salvation, but with the age of accountability giving all children, whether they believe in Jesus or not, a free pass into the Christian heaven creates a loophole. Salvation is no longer one way, belief in Jesus and you will be saved. It is believe in whatever you like, or are taught by your parents, and if you die, you go to the Christian heaven? That would be strange. Especially since the kid's parents are expecting to see their child in the place their religion teaches. I think it's a nice thought, but it's a stretch to call it a Bible doctrine.

 

[Simplelogic]

Not that I believe in the Christian concept of salvation, but with the age of accountability giving all children, whether they believe in Jesus or not, a free pass into the Christian heaven creates a loophole. Salvation is no longer one way, belief in Jesus and you will be saved. It is believe in whatever you like, or are taught by your parents, and if you die, you go to the Christian heaven? That would be strange. Especially since the kid's parents are expecting to see their child in the place their religion teaches. I think it's a nice thought, but it's a stretch to call it a Bible doctrine.

I'm not a christian. Yes it can be proven from the scriptures except for Paul's letters.

 

[1robin]

Well said. Here are a few more verses to add:

From the Torah
But now, if you will forgive their sin—but if not, please blot me out of your book that you have written.” Exodus 32:32

Daniel 12:2
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

From the Prophets:

Hosea 6: 1-3 and Ezekiel 37: 1-14 both speak of a resurrection of sorts.

Isaiah 53 clearly speaks of a resurrection

Isaiah 25: 8 Declares that YHVH will “swallow up death in victory”

Isaiah 26:19 19Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.

From the Psalms:
Psalm 17:5
Psalm 73:23-26
Psalm 49:15
Psalm 16: 9-11

From Job.

25For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:26And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Job 19:25-26

It seems apparent from this verse that Job believed in a bodily resurrection as well.

First Samuel 2:6

6The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.

Hannah seems to believe that YHVH can raise men from the grave (physically).


I Samuel 28: 3-25

Although this has little to do with the concept of the resurrection, bringing Samuel back from the dead would, like the previous examples, at least confirm that death is not annihilation and that individuals continue to exist after death.

1 Kings 17:17 – 24, 2 Kings 4:18 – 37 and 2 Kings 13:20 – 21 :

These verses show YHVH raising up three humans from death temporarily. Another example of physical life after death.

I appreciate your additional verses. I have no idea how anyone can read the OT honestly and not get the obvious impression the Jews believed in a judgment, resurrection, and after life. Even the youngest Sunday school kids know this very well. It is appalling to see the desperation of atheists in the bizarre attempt to annihilate eternal hope at all costs.

 

[Simplelogic]

I appreciate your additional verses. I have no idea how anyone can read the OT honestly and not get the obvious impression the Jews believed in a judgment, resurrection, and after life. Even the youngest Sunday school kids know this very well. It is appalling to see the desperation of atheists in the bizarre attempt to annihilate eternal hope at all costs.

Many Atheist have picked up on mainstream Jewish arguments against Yeshua. They are trying to erase the concept of "eternal life" from the text. That way there is no dilemma for Yeshua to solve in the first place! But the Torah clearly states that there is such a dilemma. Many Jews like Tovia Singer have to do bend over backwards apologetics in order to try to cover up these verses. Its kinda fun watching them squirm though.

 

[1robin]

I do not believe there is a specific age that warrants accountability in the scriptures. That is between YHVH and the human being. But I do believe in the concept in general.

Exactly. It is refreshing to find a non-Christian so agreeable to obvious Christian doctrines. True or not their scriptural foundations are unquestionable.