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

[Ingledsva]

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.

Paul was NOT accepted by all, - and we have already discussed the verses containing the information!



*

 

[abinormal]

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.

You're fortunate to have that certainty, I have none based on what I've found.

 

[Edwin]

Still, the only real answer is -- there isn't anything labeled "God" to do any allowing or not allowing children to die.

 

[Clear]

Robin1 :

Forum members understood early on that the reason you could not enumerate a single sin a one month-old commits is because a new infant does not and has never committed any moral sin which one could enumerate. Readers understood my example was not arbitrary but rather was meant to create a specific and clear situation rather than a murky one. I think forum members held you to the discomfort of this example partly to see if you would simply admit what was already obvious to them. I think they felt it was as much an examination of your integrity as it was of your theology and I think they jumped on this point because it pointed out an obvious flaw in your assumptions which, you were unable to admit to. Having said that, this is a weakness that many of us have and not just you.



Robin1 said : “Without getting into the details we inquire a debt associated with original sin in the form of separation from God.”
So, lets discuss the details and specifics, and I will try to agree with you as far as I am able.

How does any sin which Adam committed cause a moral debt to the one month-old infant? The infant did not sin and thus has not yet acquired any moral debt through commiting a personal sin.
If my grandfather stole some candy when he was a boy, why would his “sin” cause me to have any moral debt?
A dancer across the hall steps on a partners toe. I have no obligation to go over and say, “oops, excuse me for stepping on your toe when it was another dancer who caused her pain.”
If my friend creates debt by buying a stereo and cannot pay for it, the creditors do not ask me to pay.

In none of these cases does the moral or legal debt transfer to me. I do not believe moral debt works that way.
New infants similarly, have no moral debt attributable to sin until they DO sin. How does a new infant coming into this life accrue moral debt in your theory?



You are returning to bad habits.
You cried foul when we all took you to task for theorizing that “babies sin constantly”. However, you now re- theorize that a baby “is separated from God (and therefore sinful)”.
If a New baby has no moral debt due to the sins of another person, and the infant itself has not sinned, and the infant is not (yet) sinning, why are you still trying to say an infant is “sinful”? IF this baby is a one month-old infant, how is the baby “therefore sinful”?

You often do not see how contradictory your distinctions are :
For example, you complain that “The subgroup babies is arbitrary and ambiguous. God does not separate babies and children in [t]hat context so I do not.”
And yet in this very post you, yourself, sub-group babies by saying that a baby “is separated from God (and therefore sinful).”

In fact, You, yourself, offered further subgrouping by saying :
“ 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.”
I think that if you slowed down and thought a bit more about your statements, they would be less contradictory (however, I see that you are trying to offer a LOT of responses to a lot of comments from other members and I know how difficult this is).


You're overstating your theory.
For example, you call your theory of all under 20 years of age going to heaven as “classic doctrine” when it is obviously your personal theory and not "classic doctrine". it is in fact, a highly unusual doctrine and not "classic doctrine".
Nineteen (19) year-olds in our prisons who are incarcerated for murder and rape and a multitude of violent crimes are not usually classified as those who “sin without condemnation” in most “classical” Christian doctrines.


Regarding your judgment that I think that “earliest is best”
You are confused and making an incorrect conclusion on this point.
However, I understand how continued references to early Christians beliefs that show contradictions to some of your beliefs is unsettling. However, If you will exercise patience and try to "think historically" about the original Christian movement, it will become clear why it is important to understand what the early Christians believed, what they taught and how they practiced early Christianity and how these things changed as Christianity evolved over time and in differing locales.



In any case Robin1, I honestly wish you happiness and satisfaction as you make this lifes’ journey.


Clear
σεφιτζφιφιω

 

[Ingledsva]

Still, the only real answer is -- there isn't anything labeled "God" to do any allowing or not allowing children to die.

We are not discussing if it is real or not, - just what the Bible stories actually translate to, and some really strange beliefs by "some" Christians.



*

 

[CG Didymus]

...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...

Many forms of Christianity do expect an "all or nothing" commitment. But, how far down the road of believing do people that say they "believe" really go? How far past the basics of believing before a thinking person asks him/herself, "What is going on here?" I imagine a high percentage keep going to church and go through the motions of "being" a Christian, that infamous "lukewarm" status. I suppose many have doubts but they don't express them, because they don't want to look bad in front of their Christian brothers and sisters. But, I'm like you. I left. I'm still listening, but I don't hear anything knew.

It's so strange that those fundy/evangelical ones act as if they "know" the real truth. But there's so many Christianities. There's so many Christian roads a person can go down. Which version is the right one? They all can't be right. Yet, they all claim that they are. And, they all have the Bible verses to prove it. Today, it is easy for the evangelicals to say that all you need to do is to believe in Jesus and that you'll be saved. But really, how long has that concept been around? Sure, they can point to the Bible verses that "prove" it. But, how many centuries of Christianity went by before Protestants "found" that doctrine in the NT? So what happens to those pre-evangelical protestant Christians?

Those people were told by priests, popes and bishops what to believe. They probably never had a clue about getting "saved". Huh, that kind of ties in with this thread. I wonder? What's God going to do with them? I guess hell. What other choice does a "just" God have? At least the kids of those people that were lucky enough to die young will be saved. So, I guess they got that going for them. Which is nice.

 

[CG Didymus]

You are awesome.

No, no, it's not me. I have to thank all the born-again Christians for inspiring me... in reverse. Actually, I wish I could be more like you, a truly skeptic thinker.

Oh, by the way, did you happen to catch 1Robin's post 4157. It's like the things I'm trying to say go right over his head. Which is kind of funny, if Christians only practiced the love, humility, and compassion called for in the NT, we probably would all believe.We'd be stupid not to believe. But that's not what we see. We see too many flawed, phoney, self-righteous people turning and twisting Bible verses into whatever kind of Christianity they like best. So the smart person should be like you and be very skeptical. After all, if they can't live it, and all they do is talk it, why should I believe it's real?

 

[JM2C]

Divine Inspiration, have you been divinely inspired?

If I say yes, then you would say, why my interpretation should be any different from Barnabas’ and Hermas’.
If I say no, then you would say, what I’ve been saying all along was just my interpretation or opinion just like Barnabas and Hermas.
Very tricky question.
Let me ask you, do you think Clear’s reinterpretations of Barnabas’ and Hermas’ “no wickedness” and “did not sin” when compared to Matthew 18:3-4, Psalm 51:5, and Psalm 58:3, were divinely inspired?
And this is not a tricky question. Just read them and you will see the difference.
Suppose one is saying that s/he was divinely inspired and wrote a book about the Lord Jesus Christ and says that this was a revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, then one is claiming that the NT was not the complete and the last revelation of God to humanity.

 

[JM2C]

As anyone might. If you fell you have been divinely inspired as some Christian claim, you're still not perfect.

Only God in His absoluteness is the only ONE who is perfect and that is the reason why the authors of the bible, the very word God, were divinely inspired. The divinely inspired word of God did not come from 2Pe 1:20 “any private interpretation.” Otherwise, they were just like Barnabas’ and Hermas’ reinterpretations.
If one is born without a sin then one is perfect, but no one is born without a sin and therefore no one is perfect. The Lord Jesus Christ was born without a sin, never knew sin -Cor.5:21 therefore Christ is God.

 

[JM2C]

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

You are welcome to debate/argue in this thread

 

[1robin]

Paul was NOT accepted by all, - and we have already discussed the verses containing the information!



*

What? Every single apostle accepted Paul's commission and he prevailed in every disagreement. There was some suspicion at first but it was quickly resolved.

 

[JM2C]

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.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his/Paul’s epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

See how Peter compare Paul’s epistles to the “other scriptures” and this was not canonize yet. The difficulty in Paul's letters stems from the profundity of the God-given wisdom they contain.


Paul’s “SPECIFIC” prophecies to the Gentiles:
Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
Col 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

Then compare these verses or Paul’s “SPECIFIC” prophecies with Moses’ “specific” prophecy to the Israelites:
Dt 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Did you see the similarities of Paul’s and Moses’ prophecies to the Gentiles and to the Israelites?

 

[1robin]

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.

Let me amend that. It is between you and God not you and the general public.

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 think I claimed the entire bible was obvious. Depends on what scripture your talking about. Central claims are pretty straightforward but secondary issues can be tedious.

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.

I just an average sort. I don't know where question came from. IMO homosexuality is just a form of sin that Christ the penalty for. A Christian is not a perfect person, he is a forgiven person who may have many problem areas left to work on.

 

[JM2C]

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.

Saturated with evidence [4,500 Greek manuscripts] and that was the reason why we are debating here.

 

[JM2C]

Paul was NOT accepted by all, - and we have already discussed the verses containing the information!
*

Read Acts 15
Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

 

[1robin]

Robin1 :

Forum members understood early on that the reason you could not enumerate a single sin a one month-old commits is because a new infant does not and has never committed any moral sin which one could enumerate. Readers understood my example was not arbitrary but rather was meant to create a specific and clear situation rather than a murky one. I think forum members held you to the discomfort of this example partly to see if you would simply admit what was already obvious to them. I think they felt it was as much an examination of your integrity as it was of your theology and I think they jumped on this point because it pointed out an obvious flaw in your assumptions which, you were unable to admit to. Having said that, this is a weakness that many of us have and not just you.

Did you take a poll? I did not realize until well into it the tactic of subdividing children into groups by using the arbitrary label baby. I finally realized that was occurring and could not find any relevance or necessity to bother with categorization beyond Children. What babies do in their heads is unknowable, and therefor it is meaningless to ask me to provide or anyone to use it as a counter claim. It is just a diversion and waste of time. If sin is an act (even of mere thought) against an objective moral code I have no reason to think a baby is sinless, nor any reason to bother.

So, lets discuss the details and specifics, and I will try to agree with you as far as I am able.

How does any sin which Adam committed cause a moral debt to the one month-old infant? The infant did not sin and thus has not yet acquired any moral debt through commiting a personal sin.
If my grandfather stole some candy when he was a boy, why would his “sin” cause me to have any moral debt?
A dancer across the hall steps on a partners toe. I have no obligation to go over and say, “oops, excuse me for stepping on your toe when it was another dancer who caused her pain.”
If my friend creates debt by buying a stereo and cannot pay for it, the creditors do not ask me to pay.

I don't know if I could explain it as I am not God, but it is clear biblical teaching. Dancers, and human monetary debts have nothing what so ever to do with it.

New International Version
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--

Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Romans 5:15
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

You are obviously biblically educated why is it you do not seem to understand this most foundational and clear doctrine.

In none of these cases does the moral or legal debt transfer to me. I do not believe moral debt works that way.

None of those examples is the slightest bit relevant or binding. God's ways are not men's ways. Our pathetic attempts at legality do not govern heaven or God. Sin nor morality are human doctrines to begin with. The begin and end as defined by God's nature and commands.

New infants similarly, have no moral debt attributable to sin until they DO sin. How does a new infant coming into this life accrue moral debt in your theory?

Through Adam. I am not sure debt is the best word but we all come into the world separated from God spiritually which is the mechanism by which God executes judgment.

You are returning to bad habits.
You cried foul when we all took you to task for theorizing that “babies sin constantly”. However, you now re- theorize that a baby “is separated from God (and therefore sinful)”.

I view assumptions concerning we verses you a sign of failure. I would not employ them. It is just another tactic. Babies was an appeal to emotion and us versus you is an appeal to popularity and both are diversions. Splitting off a tiny fraction of the original group children has no relevance. I do not have to know (in fact I shouldn't know how, and no one actually does) a baby can sin. It is no mark against God, it is not a defeater of faith, an unknowable does not contradict the bible, I have not contradicted the bible. It is a goose chase.

If a New baby has no moral debt due to the sins of another person, and the infant itself has not sinned, and the infant is not (yet) sinning, why are you still trying to say an infant is “sinful”? IF this baby is a one month-old infant, how is the baby “therefore sinful”?

You cannot know a single one of the things you assumed and doctrine is against you.

You often do not see how contradictory your distinctions are :
For example, you complain that “The subgroup babies is arbitrary and ambiguous. God does not separate babies and children in [t]hat context so I do not.”
And yet in this very post you, yourself, sub-group babies by saying that a baby “is separated from God (and therefore sinful).”

There is not the slightest contradiction. I did not say only babies but only used babies as members of the group children because that is the arbitrary label that is being employed by others and specifically asked about. Everyone comes into the world separated from God. Babies are within that group but are do not define that group. No contradictions what so ever.

In fact, You, yourself, offered further subgrouping by saying

:
“ 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.”
I think that if you slowed down and thought a bit more about your statements, they would be less contradictory (however, I see that you are trying to offer a LOT of responses to a lot of comments from other members and I know how difficult this is).

I think you should slow down your reply's there is again nothing contradictory what so ever in my statements. I said God divides people into unaccountable and accountable. That is exactly what I did. Others wanted specifically subgroup babies so I used that label inclusively along with my general point. There is nothing contradictory about saying a set contains members.

You're overstating your theory.
For example, you call your theory of all under 20 years of age going to heaven as “classic doctrine” when it is obviously your personal theory and not "classic doctrine". it is in fact, a highly unusual doctrine and not "classic doctrine".
Nineteen (19) year-olds in our prisons who are incarcerated for murder and rape and a multitude of violent crimes are not usually classified as those who “sin without condemnation” in most “classical” Christian doctrines.

I never stated 20 year olds in connection with anything. I have never thought, that I have never heard that, and it makes no since. In Jewish culture the age is usually in the early teens but no one knows but God. In Jewish age categories are structured to incorporate accountability traditionally. And yes it is a very old and very common doctrine. I have never known a Christina of Jew who did not hold it. Our legal system has no relevance what so ever here.

Regarding your judgment that I think that “earliest is best”
You are confused and making an incorrect conclusion on this point.
However, I understand how continued references to early Christians beliefs that show contradictions to some of your beliefs is unsettling. However, If you will exercise patience and try to "think historically" about the original Christian movement, it will become clear why it is important to understand what the early Christians believed, what they taught and how they practiced early Christianity and how these things changed as Christianity evolved over time and in differing locales.

90% of everything I see are claims that contradict my beliefs. There is nothing shocking or upsetting about that. However constantly labeling them all as earliest is unusual and bizarre. I never said earliest wasn't important, I said being obsessed with pointing it out is strange. Guessing at motivations or emotional reactions is an unnecessary liability that never ever helps your case.

In any case Robin1, I honestly wish you happiness and satisfaction as you make this lifes’ journey.

Too late I work for the DOD.

 

[1robin]

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.

That is not really relevant because it was not through their human agency they claim they were inspired. They were fully human and yet had access to the Holy Spirit which is perfect. To make the point your trying to you would need some good evidence they did not in fact have this access. Good luck, history is not going to be kind to that effort.

 

[1robin]

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!



*

You are making a mistake that dooms whatever you get from it before hand. If you are going to debate the issue of sin then you must use God's definition of it. It has no relevance as a human institution. For example there is no biblical brain age. There is also no separation between intent and an act. It is also is irrelevant if I intended to fail. Even human institutions do not grant ignorance as a defense despite having libraries full of laws 99% of us never heard of. The only thing you or anyone has shown is that you do not prefer biblical doctrine, and judge it by criteria that have nothing to do with it. Sin is a biblical concept and so is defined by the bible. It states that sin is failure to perfectly meet God's moral demands, regardless of whether you intentionally set out to defy them.

 

[1robin]

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


Evil! Evil! Evil!



*

Find the verse. Murder is killing without justification and you can't possibly know whether God is justified or not so therefor you cannot possibly know what you said is true even if it was.

 

[JM2C]

Good scripture use.
However, it is of little use to anyone who ties half of reality behind their back based on preference.

2Co 10:3 We are human, but we don’t wage war with human plans and methods.
2Co 10:4 We use God’s mighty weapons, not mere worldly weapons, to knock down the Devil’s strongholds.
2Co 10:5 With these weapons we break down every proud argument that keeps people from knowing God. With these weapons we conquer their rebellious ideas, and we teach them to obey Christ.

Men barricade themselves with lofty flights of sublime notions, with their self-instructed speculative philosophies, with their ideologies also known as the “wisdom of this world”

1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say,
“God catches those who think they are wise
in their own cleverness.”
1Co 3:20 And again,
“The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise,
that they are worthless.”


Otherwise, nothing here makes sense to me.