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

[JM2C]

Do you have any compelling evidence to support this claim?
The biblical authors are unknown and Paul never met Jesus.

By whose definition they were unknown?

1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

“And last of all He was seen” by Paul.

 

[JM2C]

That they were no longer human and capable of error?

Not if one is divinely inspired by God, no they can not make a mistake and you said it yourself.

What God decrees cannot be wrong.

 

[Nakosis]

By whose definition they were unknown?

1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

“And last of all He was seen” by Paul.

Physically or in a vision?

Paul seems to be saying he was born in the wrong time... to have physically met Jesus?

 

[JM2C]

How do you know they were divinely inspired and even if they were, what does that mean?

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
As you can read that Barnabas’ and Hermas’ were just a reinterpretation or commentaries base on their theological views or values at that time therefore, they were not divinely inspired books.
They were post-enlightened reinterpretation of the life of the Lord Jesus Christ. These are nothing but just a reorientation of the Christian thinking about the Lord Jesus Christ ministry here on earth, by these theologians. IOW, they were not eyewitnesses.

 

[JM2C]

Physically or in a vision?

Both

Paul seems to be saying he was born in the wrong time... to have physically met Jesus?

Not a normal member of the apostolic group

 

[Nakosis]

Not if one is divinely inspired by God, no they can not make a mistake and you said it yourself.
[/font]

What I said was in reference to the logical conclusions of the question as stated. Personally I don't think human morality has any bearing regarding God being good or evil.

Divine Inspiration, have you been divinely inspired? Without first hand experience we can only really assume what that means.

Personally I don't believe God would take away freewill. Which to me means that while someone like Paul may have been inspired by some personal vision, he was still free to interpret and rely the meaning of that vision according to his own understanding. As anyone might. If you fell you have been divinely inspired as some Christian claim, you're still not perfect. You still have to apply your own intelligence, experience and understanding to whatever inspiration you received.

 

[McBell]

At least it's not a fantasy, if you know what I mean……

Your continuous repeating of this lie does not make it any truer.

 

[1robin]

Some of us were inquiring about it, which is how it came up.

No it came up connected with Canaanites, and a latter extrapolation by me about no one being innocent technically.

Okay.
Then people started asking about babies.

I do not remember who first segmented the category of children into babies but it is a tactic not an argument.

It was turned into babies, because inquiring minds wanted to know why babies are not considered innocents by some other members of the thread. And yes, some of us think it’s a warped and immoral position to claim that babies are not innocent beings.

I never said babies are not considered innocent. God considers them innocent despite their being guilty. Besides the non-theological acts I pointed out done in very early age the only relevance here is the theological principle of meriting heaven. The context of Christianity places those "babies" in heaven. I don't know what your complaining against, the only (but irrelevant point) would be to claim they deserved heaven which they do not. The criteria for heaven is perfection, regardless of whether a baby at a certain age is sinful they certainly are not perfect. Exactly where is the foul here? If you want to play semantic games by segmenting maybe 5% of the total children into another category by arbitrary means have at it, I can't find any relevance to it and will leave you with it. This has gone way past absurdity long ago.

I think we can all agree that a newborn human being is a baby, that a 1 month old being is a baby, for example. It’s not all that difficult to figure out. Talk about distraction and equivocation.

But if you want to make arguments from semantic technicality then you need rigorous limits and criteria. I am the one with generalized claims, it is your burden. I don't care about your objection what ever but if made it must come with rigid parameters.

So you think the argument that babies are innocent beings is not an argument. Good to know. And people wonder why nonbelievers have problems with religion.

I did not say it was not an argument. It is an irrelevant one. Only if God judged them as guilty and sent to hell would there be any relevance. There is no relevant problem with religion and babies, nor with my claim. You have as usual invented a problem that does not exist in the interest of plausible denial. Where is this problem exactly? and why would a problem with my statements (even if one existed) correlate to a problem with religion specifically. I am not God and though you have the desperate need to create false ones to target, I am not him.

I think we could probably agree that a 1 day old baby isn’t committing sins or carrying out evil actions.

You keep subdividing and your going to be left with a group with a population of 1. Sin is not only a act but the condition of the heart that inspires it. A baby is the most self centered human subgroup in existence. That state of condition can be viewed in the light that we are a fallen race separated from God and sinful. No child has met the standards of God's criteria. They are approved or accepted based on God's grace no their merit. This is getting so silly and so far from anything relevant I am not going to answer anything further about one day old babies.

There are no politicians in your country that represent me.
But since you brought it back to abortion, why care so much if those sinful little babies aren’t born into the world?

I do, God does, what the heck are you talking about? What kind of moral lunacy produces babies that are beyond reproach except if it is convenient to kill them.

Okay so are you on the record as stating that the actions of a 15 year old are in no way distinguishable from the actions of a one day old newborn baby? Please excuse me for bringing the discussion back to the thing some of us were inquiring about. My bad.

You have started a career out mangling beyond recognition everything I say. The certain tactics of a failed argument. When you can leave my comments in the form given you let me know.

 

[Nakosis]

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Sure there are specific prophets and specific prophecies. Paul's letters for example are not prophecies. The are letters of a leader of the early church.

As you can read that Barnabas’ and Hermas’ were just a reinterpretation or commentaries base on their theological views or values at that time therefore, they were not divinely inspired books.
They were post-enlightened reinterpretation of the life of the Lord Jesus Christ. These are nothing but just a reorientation of the Christian thinking about the Lord Jesus Christ ministry here on earth, by these theologians. IOW, they were not eyewitnesses.

That's fine. Whether they were inspired or not by God, who knows. People feel themselves inspired by God today.

Personally I've look for something to support this idea of having eyewitnesses to Jesus. I think if there was credible evidence there would be no more debate. Some still question Jesus' existence. Not me but there is enough not known to make the argument.

 

[Me Myself]

The fact that this has survived all the time i was gone and remains in active threads kind of amuses me.

 

[abinormal]

I'm supposed to believe what you say without any proof. Since there is just your belief, why should I believe yours over anyone elses thoughts/beliefs? I am glad we all can choose what to believe. I for one left fairy-tales behind when I was a child. Then I lived the life of a born-again christian, only to come out of that seeing I bought into yet another fairy-tail. It was nice, until I began reading the bible for myself.

I know the teachings, "well, the holy spirit left you" or "god removed his holy spirit" or "you have probably never truly been saved". When I was a practicing christian, I was sure, sure as you are. But for what ever reason anyone wants to believe, including myself, I no longer believe in the god of the bible.

There are wonderful teachings that I still practice, but no, because I believe there are good things I do not have to believe it is all or nothing, believe all the bible or none.

 

[1robin]

Robin1 :

I do not think it is a mistake to consider how, in christian theology, one acquires a moral debt associated with sin, and then to explore the theological model as to how Christ relieves mankind of this debt by his redemption for all mankind. While I think your claim that "babies sin constantly" is absurd, I do think it is just as good of an entry point into the mechanics of redemption as any.

Without getting into the details we inquire a debt associated with original sin in the form of separation from God. This conversation has lost sight of any relevance it has so lets get back to theology as you have done here. Theologically a baby is separated from God by virtue or original sin. Creation fell and this must be rectified. I am not sure it is technically correct to say a baby is indebted for it's own sin, but it is separated from God (and therefore sinful) regardless and this state must be rectified before the baby can be talked about as meriting anything. That is not to say babies are damned (though many have said so) but they are approved 100% on account of God's merits not their own.

The discussion regarding new infants being innocent beings, (i.e. they come to this world "sinless", not wicked, not morally "depraved) who have not yet sinned goes to the center of Christian theology and is thus an incredibly important and very basic and very simple question. This point relates to what sin is, and the characteristics surrounding sin; the plan of God for dealing with moral incompetents (infants, those who are retarded, the mentally ill, etc)., the nature of relief from "sin" and what sort of moral "debt" Christ paid for.

I have never read a verse that pronounced a single child sinless and have never seen one that acted in such a manner. The subgroup babies is arbitrary and ambiguous. God does not separate babies and children in hat context so I do not. He separates them between accountable and not accountable. This requires an interpretation of the text but it is an easy deduction. Children are not sinless as is obviously the case, but are not condemned for that sin. Depravity doe snot even apply to all adults so is not a term I used. The standard is perfection as God is perfect. Children (to in all likelihood include babies) fail to merit this criteria and so fall short.

The importance of using an Infant as an example :

All individuals who come to the earth, come as infants. Anciently and in third world countries, much of mankind die as infants. It is not a “warped argument” and the question regarding whether infants / babies sin is quite obvious. In most theologies, including the early christians I gave examples of, infants do not enter this world “depraved”, having done nothing (yet), which could place them into the category of the morally depraved. If they are correct, then one can more correctly determine how one actually acquires a moral debt which Christ pays for.

My original points included babies without making it necessary to arbitrary sub classify babies. Children (all of them) are not accountable. They fail but are not damned for failure so babies, adolescents, pre-teens, teens are not required as they all go to heaven in classic doctrine.

This is INCREDIBLY simple. I did not give you an arbitrary example, but a very specific example and there are no “semantic tricks” to this question. If infants and babies do not sin, simply tell us that you were mistaken in your claim. Your credibility is damaged more by ruse and refusal than by honest mistake (which all of us make)

My response was more generalized. It was a response to the arbitrary sub classification beyond necessity within the group children. It has no relevance in my claims. They are all treated equally, and are not subdivided. Only in the case where I claimed children are accountable would subgroups have any relevance. I domed no child (and so no baby).

There is no need to cry “foul” when someone asks you to explain and support your theory. There is no need to pretend to become offended by this simple question and bail out by refusing to participate. If you believe your statement that babies “sin constantly” then tell us what sins a one month old infant commits?

There most certainly is the relevance of requesting the contention in a contentious statement. Where is the contention I need to explain? I still have no idea what the foul is that needs to be rectified. As I have said there is need for subgroups as my statements does not separate between them. My God does not damn any of them for their mistakes so the point at which they are said to be free of them (which is illogical) is irrelevant.

If there are no sins that this one month-old infant commits, and no one has data or logic or reasoning that can tell us what sins they commit, then we may perfectly and logically conclude that, not having sinned, this infant is “sinless” and “not wicked” and is not morally “depraved”.

First the one drawing things into subgroups has the burden to delineate exactly what demarcation separates them. Then you must justify how you know those lines are where you claim they are. Then you must at least give some hint why a behavior virtually universally present on one side of that line vanishes before it with a mechanism to explain it. Then in my case you must explain why this is theologically relevant. Then and only then would I find a need that justifies an effort.

I think the irrelevant but assumption being made here to obscure the original intent behind my claim is an infants capacity to act sinfully. If so consider this:

New International Version
The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?

Do babies lack the internal will to be greedy and self centered referenced by this verse regardless what their capacity to act is. God said only he is good. Are babies divine at some point?

 

[1robin]

For some reason you never notice the question marks.

Question mark = QUESTION.

I don't understand what you're saying. Hence the questions.


EDIT:

I asked you what price god paid to “re-establish that breach between God and man.”

Your response was, “Our relationship to the father, called spiritual death or the second death. Like I said it does not appear you even know what it is you deny.”

This does not appear to answer the question I asked.

So I asked, “The price that god paid for making the world as it is, is our relationship with him? Is that right?” for clarification.

So your admitting you purposely distort what I am saying? There I used a question mark, that means (apparently) that everything that came before it is a legitimate demand on your time.

My response exactly answered your "question" The price we pay for original sin is separation from the father, that is exactly what Christ suffered in our place. I do not know how to clarify that further. Only if you do not understand the Christian doctrine you deny is that a mystery or a non-answer.

BTW I am done with the baby side bar. See my response to clear if you want the justification for that.

 

[Nakosis]

There are wonderful teachings that I still practice, but no, because I believe there are good things I do not have to believe it is all or nothing, believe all the bible or none.

If you don't see any cloths on the Emperor then you should trust the apparent reality of your experience. I find some of the Bible is impressive. Some of the OT Prophets I find inspiring. Certainly the morality of Jesus is worthy of being guided by.

I suppose we have to get to the point were we trust the reality of what we experience for ourselves and not doubt ourselves because of the claims by those who assume authority.

Doesn't mean that the authority is necessarily wrong, just means you need to question and be comfortable with yourself that the authority is justified.

 

[1robin]

What isn't flattering?



*

The thing I responded to. Calm down, I was just joking around. BTW: you never responded to my list of moral failures that children constantly engage in.

 

[abinormal]

If you don't see any cloths on the Emperor then you should trust the apparent reality of your experience. I find some of the Bible is impressive. Some of the OT Prophets I find inspiring. Certainly the morality of Jesus is worthy of being guided by.

I suppose we have to get to the point were we trust the reality of what we experience for ourselves and not doubt ourselves because of the claims by those who assume authority.

Doesn't mean that the authority is necessarily wrong, just means you need to question and be comfortable with yourself that the authority is justified.

Thank you for this, good read, I agree. There are so many teachings in the bible that I have incorporated into my life, or believe. Again, I just can't go with people that "assume authority" as you mentioned.

 

[1robin]

The question is: Is God evil for letting little kids suffer and die. Obviously not. That is the ultimate good. Apparently, the little rascals get a free pass until 12-14 anyway, so what's the problem? But, what about all the people that died before Jesus came? I wonder? Do they get some special treatment? I would doubt it. I think the only ones that God saves are those that believed God would send Jesus some day. They definitely believed without seeing. Of course, they couldn't have known exactly who Jesus was, or what he would do for them, but just knowing he was coming was probably enough.

All the rest of the people in the world that never heard of Judaism, let alone the expected Messiah, they're plum out of luck. They were born depraved. Stayed depraved, and died depraved. So in their horrible wickedness, that God allowed them to be in, they definitely deserve hell.

Now their evil, sinful kids, that's different. If they got sick and died or were some other way killed, they go to heaven. They can't be held accountable for something they couldn't understand. Not like their sinful parents, who knew they should obey God, but because they never heard about the true God, they choose not to listen and obey him. They, instead, choose to follow other gods, that weren't real. Unlike the real God that only acts as if he's not around and doesn't care, but that's only so we know how much he does care. Because, he's giving us the opportunity to believe in him by faith.

Except he did talk face to face with Adam and spoke with an audible voice to several people. So it's not like he's totally distant and unavailable. We do have the authentic record of trustworthy people that say they saw him and heard him. Which is too bad for them, because how can they have true faith now? So lucky for us that Jesus has come. We have trustworthy people that wrote down all the things we needed to believe. Now all we have to do is obey his commands and to do his will, except we can't, because we're so sinful and evil.

Hmmm? That must make it tough on people to believe God is real when the people that claim to know him really don't do a very good job at following him? But that's probably for the best. If they were kind, compassionate, and loving people we'd probably all want to be like them. Which misses the point, God wants it to appear as if they are whacked out religious fanatics to make us approach him for the right reason... out of total faith.

So I want to say, thank you God for making, I mean, giving us this miserable place to live in, with all the pain and suffering. That way, we can truly come to know you, as the kind, just and malevolent, oops, I mean benevolent God that you are. Thank you for creating the devil to tempt us and lead us astray, so we can get to know you. Thank you for creating viruses and bacteria and parasites and degenerative diseases, so we can know the real you. Thank you for allowing us the privilege of turning away from you, so you could curse us and make child birth painful and make thorns and thistles to grow. We sinned and are born sinners. We don't deserve an easy life. Thank you for making, I mean, allowing so many religions and wrong interpretations of your truth, so we can study and ponder what could possibly be the real truth. But really, thank you the most for your people. The ones that stumble and bumble and are in no way humble as they thump us with their Bibles. The ones that sound so self-righteous and lacking in compassion that they turn away all but the truly worthy from your name. Without them, we probably would all believe, way too easily, and what good would that do.

Why do a Christians words or doctrine always have to be absurdly distorted into something else entirely to enable argument? No one, not God, not me, not any Christian, not one verse, not one Sunday school lesson ever even hinted that the death of children is either the ultimate good or goal. No wonder your not a Christian, you have no idea what one is. A child going to heaven is the best result given a terrible situation. Despite a single statement of propaganda you made the bible does actually contain these words.

New International Version
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

New International Version
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.

New International Version
Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

New International Version
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


You should make a thread titled the religion I invented so I could hate it. You don't hate mine.

 

[1robin]

It matters whether the early Christian description of infants is correct (i.e. they are “not wicked”) or if Robin1 is correct (i.e. that babies ARE wicked in that they “sin constantly”).

I think you woefully mistake what is truly important. It is not what the earliest teaching was, the last teaching, or any teaching in between, nor mine. It is what God does. I have never encountered anyone more committed to the bizarre view that earliest is right, and that is assuming your right about earliest.

I will not comment further as the post was not aimed at me.


Let me ask you one last thing. If your LDS why in the world have you adopted an earliest is best idea, LDS doctrine was not even early, much less earliest?

 

[1robin]

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
These are not theories or fanciful human sophistries. These are facts came from the bible, the very word of God.

Good scripture use. However, it is of little use to anyone who ties half of reality behind their back based on preference. I could not figure out the relevance behind this baby subcategory that was so vehemently insisted upon, so I only made slight attempts at scripture support. Since it is impossible to know for certain, the only possible motivation I could even think for denying it, was a trivial appeal to emotion. Can you think of any theological relevance to subdividing children into smaller categories except as some kind of strange tactic? The relevance is lost on me.

 

[1robin]

I'm supposed to believe what you say without any proof. Since there is just your belief, why should I believe yours over anyone elses thoughts/beliefs? I am glad we all can choose what to believe. I for one left fairy-tales behind when I was a child. Then I lived the life of a born-again christian, only to come out of that seeing I bought into yet another fairy-tail. It was nice, until I began reading the bible for myself.

I know the teachings, "well, the holy spirit left you" or "god removed his holy spirit" or "you have probably never truly been saved". When I was a practicing christian, I was sure, sure as you are. But for what ever reason anyone wants to believe, including myself, I no longer believe in the god of the bible.

There are wonderful teachings that I still practice, but no, because I believe there are good things I do not have to believe it is all or nothing, believe all the bible or none.

How do you come out of being born again? The claim I was once born again, and no longer believe is one of the most self contradictory statements I have ever heard. That is assuming I have understood what you said correctly.