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

[1robin]

So the main premise on why you are a Christian is for Justice and a good after-life story? Firstly, Christianity is one of the few religions without justice. All the murderer of your babies has to do is ask for forgiveness and accept Jesus on his death bed and will live in eternal bliss with his victim. So no justice there.

This is completely wrong. Your not talking about justice your talking about revenge. Justice involves the guilty act being sufficiently punished based on the requirements of the judge. God who exceeds all other judges decreed that he alone could pay the debt for the sins of the world. He did so in a form we recognize more than any other with love. Self sacrifice is the greatest possible act of love. We build museums to commemorate them, give medals to reward them, tell the tales to inspire them and have for our entire history. Your suspending the most basic fact only for God is Ludacris. No one can merit heaven, no one can pay for his sin. Only God could and did. Exactly what would you do to make up for taking a life if you stood before God and Christ had never came. Nothing you have or could do would ever make up for what you took. The life you deprived had infinite value, do you have infinite compensation available? God is who the debt is to, he knew you can't repay it so he did. Only he can. Only his demands determine what justice requires and he paid every last bit of it. Justice served. If you don't think so then justice is not what your talking about to begin with and even if it was you have no way to carry it out anyway.

Secondly, does Christianity really have the best after-life story in regards to comfort? I would imagine you wouldn't be able to do things in heaven that are sins in life and I like those things. Personally I like the Viking afterlife story. You get to drink with friends everyday, fight, have sex with warrior women and wake up the next day, everyday, with no hangover. Ha top that!

Heaven is not just having the best of things it is lacking the appetite for the worst of things. Every preacher I talk to says the most depraved and depressed people they council are rich kids. They are not miserable because they lack things, they are utterly depressed and hopeless because they have everything and none of it satisfied them.

Think about that for comfort. Say my cousin Joe dies. What do I say to his loved ones. " Well Joe is in heaven remaining celibate" or "Joe is having a blast drinking with his friends, forever" .... "Good for Joe!" "Yeah"

No you say Joe is in heaven with infinitely greater things than sex and alcohol. If they are your idea of fulfillment even here on earth I don't envy you. I tried to get as much of each as I could and never achieved anything but a temporary distraction from misery. I never felt true peace and contentment until I experienced God. You will constantly be in need of even these half measures you mention where as a Christian will permanently have infinite access to greater rewards without end. In your view you can say little of comfort about Joe at all. The best you can do "is oh well, the rest of us are going to die in eventual heat death anyway, who cares lets get some beer".

Is God (Yahweh) evil, yes. Your always going to arrive at this moral wall when you believe in a monotheistic religion since there is only one supreme entity to take the wrap for the bad stuff.

God is not evil but evil cannot exist unless God does. You must climb in his lap to slap his face. Evil is not choosing God. God is love, God is morality, God is contentment, God is peace. By not choosing God you reject true love, true morality, have little peace, and true contentment and have to fill the void with these half measures and abuses of good things. Evil is rarely a new thing it is the abuse or over evaluation of something that has a good purpose. Alcohol is not evil, it's abuse is, sex is not evil it's abuse is, morality is not evil rejecting it is and they all lead to suffering. You value alcohol, fighting, and sex. Find anyone who has an overabundance of any one of them and they will be quick to tell you they are empty and destructive tools of the weak. You deny God and so try to fill the void with the things God meant for good, but not to replace him with, and doing that will always result in evil and misery and eventually annihilation. You deny the creator but worship the creation.

I don't know what your arguing against but it is not the biblical God. Maybe reason is what your rejecting.

 

[Ingledsva]

One of the greatest virtues possible is selflessness. We give the acts medals, build museums for them, write songs about them, and make timeless plays about the events to stir later generations to do the same. Babies take what they want from whoever they want, whenever they want and can, even if violence and lying is required (depending on age). Moral facts do not change but a mind can know a babies is not sufficiently equipped to properly understand what immorality and why it is to not be acted upon. They are by any possible definition - guilty, but God who overrides everything declares them legally innocent and they are not judged eternally for these acts until they reach a certain age where they do have the capacity to properly chose.

It is Humans not God that kill them (without any known future justice taking place for them) by the millions, for our own mistakes and self centeredness before they ever got a chance to do a wrong thing or any other thing, and that same wicked race feels it is capable of judging a God who did not do these things. You truly can't make that stuff of. Only a genuine moral system's bankruptcy can produce it.

Again - I am so glad I am not Christian - so I don't have to be ashamed, and embarrassed, by the crap you are putting forth about babies!

They have a built in survival mode - which if you are a Christian - you would say IS FROM GOD!


Such cannot be "SIN" unless one can understand what sin is, and then do it anyway.


Babies do not in any sense of the word- sin!!!



*

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is a deduction that is more constant by far with the evidence than any alternative. I never said it was true, I said it was the best deduction by far and once again as soon as it suits you, good science is out the door in favor of terrible science. I have said and many times demonstrated in their own words that far too often science is at the mercy of theological preference. As Vilenkin emphatically stated over and over "all the evidence we have suggests the universe had a beginning".

What science am I throwing out that says your god doesn't need to come from somewhere?

 

[1robin]

Again - I am so glad I am not Christian - so I don't have to be ashamed, and embarrassed, by the crap you are putting forth about babies!

They have a built in survival mode - which if you are a Christian - you would say IS FROM GOD!


Such cannot be "SIN" unless one can understand what sin is, and then do it anyway.


Babies do not in any sense of the word- sin!!!



*

First you cannot know I am wrong even if I was. You can't know if babies violate moral facts or not, mainly because without God you have no moral facts, and with him they clearly are not acting consistent with them. On what basis is stealing food from your siblings not a moral failure or sin. Not I nor God holds them accountable for it but by no rational even coughed up by a materialist have they not done a wrong. Even if survival methods persuade them, and that is one huge if, it is no excuse. Babies are not in any way less wrong for stealing food and toys (what is the survival explanation for stealing your sister's Barney doll?) no more than an adult doing it. It is just plain morally wrong, the difference is that babies are not held accountable for it but it is no less wrong. You fault God for taking the lives he created in the first place and placing them in heaven but you do not condemn adults taking the lives without having created them, by denying them the rights claimed for themselves, and for the sole purpose of not being inconvenienced by their own mistake. I could at least have respect for your view if it was consistent but instead it is arbitrary, self serving, unjustifiable, and solely emotional motivated. Disclaimer, no babies were harmed in the writing of this post.

 

[1robin]

What science am I throwing out that says your god doesn't need to come from somewhere?

I did not say that is why you did it. Once again my claim has to be misstated in order to be argued against. Why can't the bible, doctrine, and the claims of Christians be refuted as they are instead of caricatured? I said the best science we have posits a universe in need of a non-natural explanation. This suggests God, so instantly the best science has is rejected and any less God suggestive science fiction is instantly preferred. I feel pretty certain why you do this but it I did not say why because there is always a chance I do not understand your motivation. I did go on to speak of motivation and science in general, and not specifically concerning you but as I have already provided their own quotes there was no mistaking their motivation.

 

[Clear]

1) REGARDING INFANTS AND THEIR MORAL QUALITIES

Ingledva said : “Babies are obviously innocent!” post # 4045
Robin1 “No, babies are the most self centered beings in the universe. They sin constantly…. Post # 4046

I agree with Ingledsva on this point.

Robin1’s personal theory and personal interpretation that babies commit "sin constantly" is certainly not representative of authentic early Judeo-Christian interpretation.

For example, the Christians of early Sinaiticus New Testament era taught the early Christians to become AS infants “with no wickedness” since “all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him.“

The early Christian worldview that infants had “no wickedness” but instead did not sin was the very reason infants and small children were not merely qualified to enter the kingdom of God in this early interpretation but were “foremost with him”. It was this very context which underlie the early interpretation as to what Jesus was trying to teach when he taught the disciples concerning “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven”.

It was a “little child” whom Jesus set their midst as an example, saying “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:1–4)

It is the moral purity of the infant which formed the early Christian teaching that after forgiveness of sin, mankind could return to their primal moral state inside this renewal. Thus the epistle of Barnabas says :“So, since he renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again.” The Epistle of Barnabas 6:11.

Thus, this was one difference between early and authentic Christian theology that infants were “not wicked” and Robin1s’ Christian interpretation that babies “sin constantly”. In the early Christian interpretation, mankind was to become like a small child specifically because infants and small children were not wicked and because they were great in the kingdom of heaven. It was for these reasons early Christian were told to become LIKE little children in order to enter the kingdom of God.

This moral worldview underlies the textual witnesses of this principle such as when Jesus taught “… Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” ((Mark 10:14–15)




2) THE IRONY OF TRADING THEOLOGICAL POSITIONS

Ingledsva said : “…I am so glad I am not Christian - so I don't have to be ashamed, and embarrassed, by the crap you are putting forth about babies! Post # 4063

Ingledsva, : While I understand the sentiment underlying this statement, my point historically is that your position IS the same of early Christian theology and that it is Robin1s’ personal theology and Christian religion that differs from these early Judeo-Christian worldviews on this specific point.

Hermas’ instruction and textual witness to early Christians is as follows : “All of you, therefore, who continue,” he said, “ and will be as infants, with no wickedness, will be more glorious than all those who have been mentioned previously, for all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him. Blessed are you, therefore, who have cast aside evil from yourselves and clothed yourselves in innocence; you will live to God first of all.” Hermas 106:3

I hope readers can appreciate the irony of the situation where someone who is NOT Christian is taking the Historically authentic position while someone who IS a Christian is adopting a historically non-christian position.




3) INSIDE THE THEORY WHERE INFANTS "SIN ALL OF THE TIME"

FORUM MEMBERS :

Suppose an infant is born and lives as a normal infant for a month and then dies. Can anyone on the forum describe what terrible and heinous sins this infant would have been committing during this month of life?..... Robin1?



Clear
σεδρτζσιδρω

 

[Ingledsva]

First you cannot know I am wrong even if I was. You can't know if babies violate moral facts or not,


ING - BULL! BULL! BULL!


mainly because without God you have no moral facts,


ING - Also BULL! I do not have to belong to your religion, or any religion, to be moral. The definition of "moral" does not have religion in it.


and with him they clearly are not acting consistent with them. On what basis is stealing food from your siblings not a moral failure or sin.


ING - When you aren't old enough to understand! You know - why we have - age of consent, Bar and Bat mitzvah, etc.


Not I nor God holds them accountable for it


ING - No kidding Sherlock! Because they haven't sinned!


but by no rational even coughed up by a materialist have they not done a wrong. Even if survival methods persuade them, and that is one huge if, it is no excuse. Babies are not in any way less wrong for stealing food and toys (what is the survival explanation for stealing your sister's Barney doll?) no more than an adult doing it. It is just plain morally wrong, the difference is that babies are not held accountable for it but it is no less wrong.


ING - I highly suggest you go to a good site and look up early childhood behavior!


You fault God for taking the lives he created in the first place and placing them in heaven


ING - Because such a "God" would be extremely EVIL, taking the lives of the innocent for the crimes of others. Makes me think of a mob boss going after the children of someone that did him wrong! EVIL!


but you do not condemn adults taking the lives without having created them, by denying them the rights claimed for themselves, and for the sole purpose of not being inconvenienced by their own mistake. I could at least have respect for your view if it was consistent but instead it is arbitrary, self serving, unjustifiable, and solely emotional motivated.


ING - LOL! My views are very consistent. A born (autonomous) baby has rights. A fetus which is not autonomous does not have those same rights. I agree with the law placing a limit on fetal age for abortion, since there is some ambiguity for survival outside the womb after a certain gestation date. This has not changed from when I first debated with you on this subject. Nor is abortion the discussion. Your supposed "God" murdering babies is!


Disclaimer, no babies were harmed in the writing of this post.

Straight out BULL, - as usual!


Quite frankly, the belief you hold, that it is OK for your God to kill babies, is immoral.



*

 

[Draupadi]

First you cannot know I am wrong even if I was. You can't know if babies violate moral facts or not, mainly because without God you have no moral facts, and with him they clearly are not acting consistent with them. On what basis is stealing food from your siblings not a moral failure or sin. Not I nor God holds them accountable for it but by no rational even coughed up by a materialist have they not done a wrong. Even if survival methods persuade them, and that is one huge if, it is no excuse. Babies are not in any way less wrong for stealing food and toys (what is the survival explanation for stealing your sister's Barney doll?) no more than an adult doing it. It is just plain morally wrong, the difference is that babies are not held accountable for it but it is no less wrong. You fault God for taking the lives he created in the first place and placing them in heaven but you do not condemn adults taking the lives without having created them, by denying them the rights claimed for themselves, and for the sole purpose of not being inconvenienced by their own mistake. I could at least have respect for your view if it was consistent but instead it is arbitrary, self serving, unjustifiable, and solely emotional motivated. Disclaimer, no babies were harmed in the writing of this post.

. Seriously, you are blaming babies and kids for their immature and undeveloped brains? We are here talking of the death of children and you go on talking about stealing the toys of other kids as a big crime! Yes God should kill those kids who spoil the sleep of their mothers, make them wash their dirty and stinky clothes, etc. Moses's followers raped the women of their enemies and they are exalted in the Bible but these kids are TOTAL EVIL! Your posts are making me scared of the kids *shivers*.

Just wanted to add that Jesus Himself encouraged His followers to interact with the kids because He considered them good.

 

[JM2C]

Please define innocent

Guilty of

sin nature

that

we are born with

 

[JM2C]

or explain what sin are babies guilty of.

All are guilty of

sin nature

that

we are born with

Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

 

[JM2C]

I know we are born with a sin nature but the sin nature itself is not a sinful act.

“the sin nature itself” that “we are born with” produces nothing but sins and therefore became a “sinful act”.
Even our own self-righteousness is the byproduct of that “sin nature” that “we are born with” and therefore also became a “sinful act”

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

 

[JM2C]

If babies are just as guilty as Hitler I find that troubling.

Do you think Hitler and Stalin are guiltier, because they killed millions, than a person who just killed one, or a rapist, or drug dealer, or even the righteous monk?
There is no degree on what a man can sin of, because sin is sin, and like you said, “we are born with a sin nature” and this “sin nature” breeds nothing but “sinful act”

 

[McBell]

You opinion, a mere human, over God’s word?

Yes.
At least until god can get off his backside and do something for himself.

 

[JM2C]

Why should they be held accountable for anything at that stage of life.

Because

we are born with a sin nature

However, if you just meditate on this verse, and see the meaning of it, maybe you will find comfort to all your questions on “Why does [my] God allow children to die?”

Ro 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

This is a perfect absoluteness in God’s will; he will do what he will, and give account to no one.

Will He be gracious and merciful to those babies that died?

 

[1robin]

Robin1[/B]’s personal theory and personal interpretation that babies commit "sin constantly" is certainly not representative of authentic early Judeo-Christian interpretation.

For example, the Christians of early Sinaiticus New Testament era taught the early Christians to become AS infants “with no wickedness” since “all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him.“

The bible which is the ultimate authority does not say anything about children having no wickedness. Who knows what sect taught where, but it does not matter, the bible is the authority which transcends any other. It says: 13Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. 14But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." 15After laying His hands on them, He departed from there.


This has almost always been interpreted as a Child's being sinful but standing in a state of grace anyway like we are to be. It is also linked with a Child's sense of wonder and faith as opposed to an adults Sinicism and doubt. It says nothing about their being morally perfect or free from sin. It implies they are sinful but unaccountable just as Christians are to be.

What is an undeniable certainty is that babies do not obey Hebrew law and break commandments which have no age at which they apply. They do without doubt do that which is said to be sin, they are just not accountable for it. Anyone who watches a child and then pronounces it is free of any wickedness is not telling the truth. They do the most wicked things anyone ever dreamed of but are not culpable for them.

The early Christian worldview that infants had “no wickedness” but instead did not sin was the very reason infants and small children were not merely qualified to enter the kingdom of God in this early interpretation but were “foremost with him”. It was this very context which underlie the early interpretation as to what Jesus was trying to teach when he taught the disciples concerning “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven”.

I do not know what was taught be every sect at every time and have no need to. The bible does not say children are free of wickedness, and anyone with eyes can easily see it is not the case. It also say that ALL have sinned, (not just adults). It says all have fallen short, (not just adults). It says the ENTIRE world is under the wicked one, not just adults. It also says that if anyone denies this he is a liar and the truth is not in him.

The bible only indicates that like a saved Christian out sins are not held against us ultimately, so it is with children. Israel even had laws about putting to death disobedient children, though it required the approval of both parents and a senior priest.

It was a “little child” whom Jesus set their midst as an example, saying “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:1–4)

Yes we are to become as children and have the simple faith of a child. We will just as they do sin but just as they not be held accountable ultimately for them.

It is the moral purity of the infant which formed the early Christian teaching that after forgiveness of sin, mankind could return to their primal moral state inside this renewal. Thus the epistle of Barnabas says :“So, since he renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again.” The Epistle of Barnabas 6:11.

Just as no Christian who ever lived returned to any primal state in which he did not sin, no child has ever been born in it. We returned to a state where we still sin but are no longer condemned for it. Watch any child for day and no one can honestly say the child is sinless.

Suppose an infant is born and lives as a normal infant for a month and then dies. Can anyone on the forum describe what terrible and heinous sins this infant would have been committing during this month of life?..... Robin1?

There is a lot of selectivity and steering of the conversation in that statement. I said babies sin, as in babies crawl. That does not imply that those who have no capacity to act do so. Babies do sin but not every baby sins at all times in it's existence. I also have no burden to only point out only heinous sins either. God is perfection and lack of perfection is to fall short, not only gross failures. Without knowing what is going on inside a babies mind that cannot communicate I do know that before reaching adulthood if they live the average child will have lied, stolen, omitted to help, defied authority, at least superficially harmed other children, etc.... ad infintum. Mothers sure do spend a lot of time having to discipline these perfect babies for some reason.

 

[1robin]

Straight out BULL, - as usual!


Quite frankly, the belief you hold, that it is OK for your God to kill babies, is immoral.



*

I'm sorry but I am not in agreement with your omniscience and do not grant your self appointed authority as arbiter of all truth. The next time you see a child pull another child's hair out go and tell them what an angle they are if you want, but the rest of us live in reality and will discipline that evil behavior. To not do so is a form of child abuse and that attitude is probably one of the reasons we are in this moral sink hole these days. You ever seen Lord of the flies?


Your view taken from "creed of this world"

We believe that man is essentially good.

It’s only his behavior that lets him down.

This is the fault of society.

Society is the fault of conditions.

Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that

is right for him.

Reality will adapt accordingly.

The universe will readjust.

History will alter.

We believe that there is no absolute truth

excepting the truth

that there is no absolute truth.

Steve Turner, (English journalist),

 

[1robin]

. Seriously, you are blaming babies and kids for their immature and undeveloped brains? We are here talking of the death of children and you go on talking about stealing the toys of other kids as a big crime! Yes God should kill those kids who spoil the sleep of their mothers, make them wash their dirty and stinky clothes, etc. Moses's followers raped the women of their enemies and they are exalted in the Bible but these kids are TOTAL EVIL! Your posts are making me scared of the kids *shivers*.

Just wanted to add that Jesus Himself encouraged His followers to interact with the kids because He considered them good.

Nope, you can't find a single sentence I have made in 10,000 posts where I blamed kids. I don't think a single word you attributed to me reflects anything I have ever said. As I have said a hundred times they act immorally but are not held ultimately accountable. Christ did not say the kids were good. Read the bible your trashing sometime. He said the kingdom belonged to them because of their simple faith and wonder not because of their moral upstanding nature. They are like Christians, forgiven, not innocent. Jewish law (of which Christ is the chief priest) said to stone a seriously disobedient child once approval of the parents and priests was secured. Your living in a fantasy world, in the real one children pull each others hair out, steal food, lie, cheat, and form rival factions. You ever seen "Lord of the flies"? Why do mothers constantly have to discipline these paradigms of virtue?

 

[Clear]

1) REGARDING INFANTS AND THEIR MORAL QUALITIES

Ingledva said : “Babies are obviously innocent!” post # 4045
Robin1 “No, babies are the most self centered beings in the universe. They sin constantly…. Post # 4046

I agree with Ingledsva on this point.

Robin1’s personal theory and personal interpretation that babies commit "sin constantly" is certainly not representative of authentic early Judeo-Christian interpretation.

For example, the Christians of early Sinaiticus New Testament era taught the early Christians to become AS infants “with no wickedness” since “all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him.“

The early Christian worldview that infants had “no wickedness” but instead did not sin was the very reason infants and small children were not merely qualified to enter the kingdom of God in this early interpretation but were “foremost with him”. It was this very context which underlie the early interpretation as to what Jesus was trying to teach when he taught the disciples concerning “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven”.

It was a “little child” whom Jesus set their midst as an example, saying “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:1–4)

It is the moral purity of the infant which formed the early Christian teaching that after forgiveness of sin, mankind could return to their primal moral state inside this renewal. Thus the epistle of Barnabas says :“So, since he renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again.” The Epistle of Barnabas 6:11.

Thus, this was one difference between early and authentic Christian theology that infants were “not wicked” and Robin1s’ Christian interpretation that babies “sin constantly”. In the early Christian interpretation, mankind was to become like a small child specifically because infants and small children were not wicked and because they were great in the kingdom of heaven. It was for these reasons early Christian were told to become LIKE little children in order to enter the kingdom of God.

This moral worldview underlies the textual witnesses of this principle such as when Jesus taught “… Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” ((Mark 10:14–15)




2) THE IRONY OF TRADING THEOLOGICAL POSITIONS

Ingledsva said : “…I am so glad I am not Christian - so I don't have to be ashamed, and embarrassed, by the crap you are putting forth about babies! Post # 4063

Ingledsva, : While I understand the sentiment underlying this statement, my point historically is that your position IS the same of early Christian theology and that it is Robin1s’ personal theology and Christian religion that differs from these early Judeo-Christian worldviews on this specific point.

Hermas’ instruction and textual witness to early Christians is as follows : “All of you, therefore, who continue,” he said, “ and will be as infants, with no wickedness, will be more glorious than all those who have been mentioned previously, for all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him. Blessed are you, therefore, who have cast aside evil from yourselves and clothed yourselves in innocence; you will live to God first of all.” Hermas 106:3

I hope readers can appreciate the irony of the situation where someone who is NOT Christian is taking the Historically authentic position while someone who IS a Christian is adopting a historically non-christian position.



3) INSIDE THE THEORY WHERE INFANTS "SIN ALL OF THE TIME"

FORUM MEMBERS :

Suppose an infant is born and lives as a normal infant for a month and then dies. Can anyone on the forum describe what terrible and heinous sins this infant would have been committing during this month of life?..... Robin1?

1) Robin1 said : “The bible which is the ultimate authority does not say anything about children having no wickedness.”
My example regards a one month old infant. The early sinaiticus New Testament DOES tell us to “be as infants, with no wickedness”….”for all infants are glorious in Gods’ sight and stand foremost with him”. I've also shown forum readers that early Christians did not share your interpretation of biblical meaning. The early Christians read similar textual witnesses to you, but they did not come away with your theory that babies/infants "sin constantly".

Robin1, Concerning your theory that "babies sin constantly", What sins would a one-month old baby in my question have been committing?



2) Robin1 said : This has almost always been interpreted as a Child's being sinful but standing in a state of grace anyway…

And yet FORUM MEMBERS can read the example I just gave them from the earliest Christian textual descriptions where early Christians did NOT interpret infants as being wicked or sinful, but rather they interpreted this point just the opposite than you claim.

Robin1, Concerning your theory that "babies sin constantly", What sins would a one-month old baby in my question have been committing?



3) Robin1 theorizes : Just as no Christian who ever lived returned to any primal state in which he did not sin, no child has ever been born in it.

You are simply re-stating your personal theory, which is different than early Christian worldviews concerning infants. Early Christians believed in the sacred texts just as you do, but they did not interpret them the same as your theory does.

Robin1, Concerning your theory that "babies sin constantly", What sins would a one-month old baby in my question have been committing?

Clear
σεδρεισιακ

 

[SkepticThinker]

I did not say that is why you did it. Once again my claim has to be misstated in order to be argued against. Why can't the bible, doctrine, and the claims of Christians be refuted as they are instead of caricatured? I said the best science we have posits a universe in need of a non-natural explanation. This suggests God, so instantly the best science has is rejected and any less God suggestive science fiction is instantly preferred. I feel pretty certain why you do this but it I did not say why because there is always a chance I do not understand your motivation. I did go on to speak of motivation and science in general, and not specifically concerning you but as I have already provided their own quotes there was no mistaking their motivation.

Science says no such thing. YOU do. Hence my question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

. Seriously, you are blaming babies and kids for their immature and undeveloped brains? We are here talking of the death of children and you go on talking about stealing the toys of other kids as a big crime! Yes God should kill those kids who spoil the sleep of their mothers, make them wash their dirty and stinky clothes, etc. Moses's followers raped the women of their enemies and they are exalted in the Bible but these kids are TOTAL EVIL! Your posts are making me scared of the kids *shivers*.

Just wanted to add that Jesus Himself encouraged His followers to interact with the kids because He considered them good.

Anything to take the blame off god, I suppose.