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

[abinormal]

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.

I think I mentioned, and if I didn't I will say it here. I believed I was born-again. Others thrived on telling me they could plainly see the holy spirit in me. No, it is only contradictory to your belief, which I understand that belief, I once believed.

The bible says you must be born again, so according to the christian church, you ask Jesus into your life/heart and poof you are born again, along with some "extra" possibilities like speaking in tongues. Anyone can speak in a tongue, "shouldaboughthonda", so never put too much into that claim, I mean the one that says you aren't born again unless you speak in tongues.

In the bible it also talks about the holy spirit being taken from Saul (King). Now some christians argue that OT people were NOT born again, ok with me, but I read that the holy spirit did indeed dwell in many OT people, but again, I suppose if they don't speak in tongues.

A person can start a new thread on that, were the OT people born-again, or not. Was I born again? Who knows. But because you or anyone says so, or not, holds no water with me. I don't believe because you say so, or disbelieve.

 

[Nakosis]

A person can start a new thread on that, were the OT people born-again, or not. Was I born again? Who knows. But because you or anyone says so, or not, holds no water with me. I don't believe because you say so, or disbelieve.

I recall being in church as a kid and dutifully approaching the front stage, getting on my knees and asking to be born again. The result was support from the church that I was accepted as a Christian. However no divine or spiritual experience was included.

I've spoken in tongues. It is kind of interesting to listen to yourself without consciously controlling it. I can understand how someone might take this as a divine sign. Then you have your interpreters who'll report you've spoke a divinely inspired message.

Unfortunately it is very easy for person to fool themselves into believing they are guided by the Holy Spirit.

I think for the most part Christianity has fooled itself into some ideology that guarantees for themselves entry into "Heaven".

My beliefs are based on my own experiences. Some support the Bible, some do not.

While I do try to understand the position of Christians, unfortunately I don't get a lot of consensus among Christians. I will clearly state the position of one Christian only to have another to argue against it. One claiming the other was obviously not inspired by the HS.

Christians defend their beliefs because that is their guarantee. I think I just stopped needing a guarantee.

 

[1robin]

I think I mentioned, and if I didn't I will say it here. I believed I was born-again. Others thrived on telling me they could plainly see the holy spirit in me. No, it is only contradictory to your belief, which I understand that belief, I once believed.

Now that is the qualification which makes it no longer self refuting.

The bible says you must be born again, so according to the christian church, you ask Jesus into your life/heart and poof you are born again, along with some "extra" possibilities like speaking in tongues. Anyone can speak in a tongue, "shouldaboughthonda", so never put too much into that claim, I mean the one that says you aren't born again unless you speak in tongues.

Anyone can speak in gibberish but speaking in tongues is a little different.

In the bible it also talks about the holy spirit being taken from Saul (King). Now some christians argue that OT people were NOT born again, ok with me, but I read that the holy spirit did indeed dwell in many OT people, but again, I suppose if they don't speak in tongues.

I have no idea if OT people were born again but that is not the context that the verses about Saul are in. The spirit of God did come to perform purposes in peoples lives in the OT but not as a possession. I do not think they were, as the Holy Spirit is said to only have come when Jesus left. However they were to have the same faith in a future messiah as we do in a past one.

A person can start a new thread on that, were the OT people born-again, or not. Was I born again? Who knows. But because you or anyone says so, or not, holds no water with me. I don't believe because you say so, or disbelieve.

Well you have cleared up my problems. There is not conflict with wrongly thinking you were born again and later giving up on faith so I tender the witness.

I am similar to you in that I thought I hoped I was but when I actually was years later it was easy to see the flaw in my earlier belief. It is like asking if someone has been in love, even if they have not they wish to believe they were and so without any reference point it is easy to think you were, but if you have been then you know it.

 

[Nakosis]

Both

Not a normal member of the apostolic group

What makes Paul not normal? If he was directly discipled by Jesus, why wasn't it mentioned in the gospels.

Here's this person who forms much of Christian thinking through his letters. Shouldn't his authority to do so have been made clearer by Jesus?

 

[1robin]

What makes Paul not normal? If he was directly discipled by Jesus, why wasn't it mentioned in the gospels.

Here's this person who forms much of Christian thinking through his letters. Shouldn't his authority to do so have been made clearer by Jesus?

He was, but not by the earthly Jesus. Paul was accepted as an apostle by every other apostle and prevailed in every disagreement. He was just as apostolic as the others but in a slightly different manner.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

You are awesome.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

I asked what price GOD paid.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Yes, I acknowledged that in my last post where I pointed out to you how it turned into a discussion about babies. It was the point where I and a few others asked questions specifically regarding babies.

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

I showed you in my last post to you.

It’s neither a tactic nor an argument. It’s a question.

I never said babies are not considered innocent.

As contained in one of my most recent posts to you, went like this:
POST#4041:

No one is “INNOCENT” “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” -Romans 3:23

POST#4044:

And that is very obvious BULL!
Babies are obviously innocent!*

POST#4045:

No, babies are the most self centered beings in the universe. They sin constantly but God does not hold them accountable because they lack the knowledge concerning sin. Once again I notice that the race who complains when God takes back to heaven that which he created, even though we kill them in the womb for our sins without being able to know what happens to them. We don't care, they are in our way and must go, and so is God. However God is not so obliging as to die on command.

Should a person not deduce that you think babies are not innocent, from your statement, “No, babies are the most self centered beings in the universe” that you gave in response to someone stating that babies are obviously 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.

So babies are not innocent but god just considers them innocent anyway? Is that where all this confusion is coming from? And you’re complaining that I’m arguing semantics and technicalities?

So they are not innocent, but god gives them a pass.

What I’m complaining against is that idea that babies (let’s say newborns to 6 month olds) are capable of committing evil acts. That a newborn baby doesn’t actually deserve to go to heaven (should one exist). Something that I don’t think anyone would actually believe were it not contained in an ancient book believed to be inspired by a deity.

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.

Well if a newborn baby isn’t perfection, I don’t know what is.

NOBODY is going to be in this heaven of yours, if perfection is the criteria.

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.

See above.
This is getting quite ridiculous.

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.

That’s even more perplexing.

It’s relevant because it applies to beliefs exercised by people in this world we currently live in – the only world we know for sure we’re ever going to experience.

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.

I find that to be an abysmal and inaccurate analysis of the human condition – that we are all born flawed and evil, in need of a cure to a disease we are born with. I don’t agree with that at all. I don’t thing human beings are inherently evil and I definitely don’t believe that babies OR young children are inherently evil either. Babies are not self-centred; rather they are helpless with underdeveloped executive functioning capabilities, especially during the first few months of life.

I find it completely relevant in any world where we care about how we view and treat each other as human beings. We take actions based on the kinds of beliefs we hold. If god thinks we’re basically pieces of crap, why wouldn’t we view each other in the same light? I mean, a BABY isn’t even good enough for this god? He sounds kind of self-centered to me.

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.

Yours.

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.

You have started a career out of not understanding what question marks mean.

 

[1robin]

I asked what price GOD paid.

I told you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I told you.

You told me the price WE paid.

But if you're saying that Jesus was god, what price did he actually pay, in the grand scheme of things?

 

[1robin]

Yes, I acknowledged that in my last post where I pointed out to you how it turned into a discussion about babies. It was the point where I and a few others asked questions specifically regarding babies.

I will take your word for it. In that case that is the point when it became irrelevant in my case.

I showed you in my last post to you.

It’s neither a tactic nor an argument. It’s a question.

Are no questions tactics. IMO the greatest tactics come posed as questions to give the impression of legitimate concern. Tactic or not it has no relevance to my position.

As contained in one of my most recent posts to you, went like this:
POST#4041:
POST#4044:
POST#4045:
Should a person not deduce that you think babies are not innocent, from your statement, “No, babies are the most self centered beings in the universe” that you gave in response to someone stating that babies are obviously innocent?

It is up to you what you deduce it is up to me if what you deduce is justification of my time. I have no need to define when babies can commit sin. My only need is to show that no one merits heaven and that children get there by grace not merit. Everything is beyond my concern.

So babies are not innocent but god just considers them innocent anyway? Is that where all this confusion is coming from? And you’re complaining that I’m arguing semantics and technicalities?

That is doctrine whether it employs semantics or not. I defend doctrine and if it includes semantics I can't help it. Your point is wholly semantic and unknowable anyway plus irrelevant in my case. Mine is as relevant as anything can be even if semantic.

So they are not innocent, but god gives them a pass.

When I have stated a thing over and over and over why is it necessary to paraphrase it at all. That's an oversimplified version but ok I guess.

What I’m complaining against is that idea that babies (let’s say newborns to 6 month olds) are capable of committing evil acts. That a newborn baby doesn’t actually deserve to go to heaven (should one exist). Something that I don’t think anyone would actually believe were it not contained in an ancient book believed to be inspired by a deity.

Irrelevant in my case. Unknowable in either. I only need to show God is not unjust. I do not care about infant morality in it's self.

Well if a newborn baby isn’t perfection, I don’t know what is.

Then you do not know what is. In what way in an evolutionary anomaly perfect. Where is the standard? Why kill perfection for convenience? Why do you equate emotional appeal and truth?

NOBODY is going to be in this heaven of yours, if perfection is the criteria.

Just what I said you do not know what it is you deny. Jesus' perfection is accredited to our account through substitutionary atonement. You can say you do not like it, you can say you reject and even hate it, you cannot say it is not consistent with the faith I have defended or apparently with the one you reject.

See above.
This is getting quite ridiculous.

Getting, it is way past that. We have gone to plaid.

That’s even more perplexing.

I defend God and you baby diversion doe snot attack him. Why is that perplexing?

It’s relevant because it applies to beliefs exercised by people in this world we currently live in – the only world we know for sure we’re ever going to experience.

We (as you admitted) were talking about God's judgment, not legality, not law enforcement, not even Islamic Jurist-prudence. Earthly beliefs have no relevant roll unless I suggest incarceration of baby's, if you ever get around to defining what a baby is exactly. .

I find that to be an abysmal and inaccurate analysis of the human condition – that we are all born flawed and evil, in need of a cure to a disease we are born with. I don’t agree with that at all. I don’t thing human beings are inherently evil and I definitely don’t believe that babies OR young children are inherently evil either. Babies are not self-centred; rather they are helpless with underdeveloped executive functioning capabilities, especially during the first few months of life.

So? This was not a discussion about what you find agreeable. I find social Darwinism, abortion, secular moral decline, equating deprivation as progress, and hating the diseases homosexuality produces and/or spreads as being hateful. I did not reject them based on my not liking them.

I find it completely relevant in any world where we care about how we view and treat each other as human beings. We take actions based on the kinds of beliefs we hold. If god thinks we’re basically pieces of crap, why wouldn’t we view each other in the same light? I mean, a BABY isn’t even good enough for this god? He sounds kind of self-centered to me.

When you vote to stop abortion and practicing homosexuality then you have the credibility to assume moral high ground. In the mean time children act self centered, violently, and immorally yet Christians treat them as well or better in spite of it as any group ever has. No foul, no relevance, pure soapbox.

Yours.

I voted against abortion.

You have started a career out of not understanding what question marks mean.

?????

 

[1robin]

You told me the price WE paid.

But if you're saying that Jesus was god, what price did he actually pay, in the grand scheme of things?

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.


You are way too intelligent than to have this level of confusion. I said that we pay it as an example of what we do in fact pay and as an example of the penalty we are relieved of if we repent. We as a race are separated from God. We as Christians can have that penalty revoked if we have faith that Christ paid that identical price in our place. We are all born that way but not all end that way. If it does end that way then that is where it really gets to the permanent part of the substitutionary issue and can't be revoked.

If you do not know what is among the most foundational concepts of Christianity then what in the world are you rejecting? You can't expect you reject X, and then ask what X is to be taken seriously. Do you really not get this? If you actually do not know I will cut out the short hand that is almost universally enough in the west, and get more detailed.

 

[abinormal]

Now that is the qualification which makes it no longer self refuting.

Anyone can speak in gibberish but speaking in tongues is a little different.

I have no idea if OT people were born again but that is not the context that the verses about Saul are in. The spirit of God did come to perform purposes in peoples lives in the OT but not as a possession. I do not think they were, as the Holy Spirit is said to only have come when Jesus left. However they were to have the same faith in a future messiah as we do in a past one.

Well you have cleared up my problems. There is not conflict with wrongly thinking you were born again and later giving up on faith so I tender the witness.

I am similar to you in that I thought I hoped I was but when I actually was years later it was easy to see the flaw in my earlier belief. It is like asking if someone has been in love, even if they have not they wish to believe they were and so without any reference point it is easy to think you were, but if you have been then you know it.

That was one thing that was a problem for me with some believers, I couldn't say "I knew" something when I couldn't prove it, not even to myself, not if I was going to be honest. If someone says they know, the bible says they know nothing. I suppose that's one of those cases of taking it out of context, I won't argue. I do think that for me, I can be sure I know, and later wonder what the heck I was thinking.

 

[1robin]

That was one thing that was a problem for me with some believers, I couldn't say "I knew" something when I couldn't prove it, not even to myself, not if I was going to be honest. If someone says they know, the bible says they know nothing. I suppose that's one of those cases of taking it out of context, I won't argue. I do think that for me, I can be sure I know, and later wonder what the heck I was thinking.

Well it is obvious the bible does not mean that claiming to know something erases it from existence. It simply indicates the common occurrence that those most ignorant are the least to admit it. The bible constantly talks of assurance and confidence. Knowing something also has no burden of proof. I can know a thing even if I can't even give any evidence of it to anyone. I am satisfied (after spending 20 years questioning it and as many more left) that I was born again. However each person must be satisfied individually. Your security is your business. I was commenting on concepts not people.

I will explain my comments. If a person claims to have been born again it is analogous to having been dreadfully sick, to have consulted a doctor, taken medicine based on faith, to have been cured. Then to deny that sickness, the cure, and the medical field don't exist.

 

[abinormal]

Well it is obvious the bible means that claiming to know something erases it from existence. It simply indicates the common occurrence that those most ignorant are the least to admit it. The bible constantly talks of assurance and confidence. Knowing something also has no burden of proof. I can know a thing even if I can't even give any evidence of it to anyone. I am satisfied (after spending 20 years questioning it and as many more left) that I was born again. However each person must be satisfied individually. Your security is your business. I was commenting on concepts not people.

I will explain my comments. If a person claims to have been born again it is analogous to having been dreadfully sick, to have consulted a doctor, taken medicine based on faith, to have been cured. Then to deny that sickness, the cure, and the medical field don't exist.

You mention my security being my business but when I was following Jesus, or trying, I was told at every turn, it was my job to carry the message. I think that the main thing that I did go along with in the bible was the fact that I was to place others above myself.

PS I'd like to add, that although the bible-meaning may be obvious to you, it isn't always to me. I suppose that has to do with "the natural" man not being able to understand, only the holy spirit, or the spiritual can understand. So it's really not fair to say it's obvious to some, poor sap that hasn't got an indwelling holy spirit.

I don't know you, haven't read all your stuff so I don't really know what sort of christian you are, I do know there are many kinds. I just saw a little note across the bottom of a post that said "Explain please: Gay Christian" That's a relatively new kind, another topic.

 

[abinormal]

Mankind turned it's back on God and so God turned His back on mankind. When we try to live without God we must face the consequences. We do not allow God in school so how can He protect children there. God allows thing to happen because people do not allow Him to control things His way.

You threw a pie at me, so I'm gonna throw one at you? I am not about to trust in a god that plays those foolish games.

This was posted in 2010, but glad I came across it anyway. I remember being told, over and over that even if I turn my back on god he would never ever leave me. Yet another "form" of christianity, or interpretation of the bible, geesh.

 

[Nakosis]

He was, but not by the earthly Jesus. Paul was accepted as an apostle by every other apostle and prevailed in every disagreement. He was just as apostolic as the others but in a slightly different manner.

You have to make this judgement. Based on what seems true and correct to you.

My judgement is that the Apostles were human. Which means as imperfect as anyone else might be.

 

[Nakosis]

You threw a pie at me, so I'm gonna throw one at you? I am not about to trust in a god that plays those foolish games.

This was posted in 2010, but glad I came across it anyway. I remember being told, over and over that even if I turn my back on god he would never ever leave me. Yet another "form" of christianity, or interpretation of the bible, geesh.

I have a lot of certainty that God is infinitely patient and awaits our return whenever we are ready. There is no other requirement then our desire.

Everything else, every other religious requirement is just man justifying his attachment to anything but God.

 

[Ingledsva]

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.

If they haven't reached the - brain age - generally considered 12 or 13 - for understanding of sin/wrong, - and THEN done it anyway - then they have not committed a sin!!!!!


And obviously it wouldn't be a moral failure either.


I don't know how many time people have to inform you of this logical, and scientific, fact about the brains of babies and children!



*

 

[Ingledsva]

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.

The Bible does tell us YHVH murders children for the "sins" of others!


Evil! Evil! Evil!



*