1robin
Christian/Baptist
Their thoughts may be worthless, we may break down their arguments, they may be caught in their foolishness by God, but we can not make them admit it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?
- Thread starter Lady B
- Start date
POST ONE OF TWO
JM2C said : 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?
The above is an unusual question. However, If you remember JM2C, the context of the discussion was that , Robin1 had just tried to convince logical and reasonable individuals that “babies sin constantly” and you just tried to convince logical and reasonable individuals that infants were morally “depraved”. If you remember that this was not received well. These individuals are not stupid nor are they driven by blind adherence to a theory their pastor or parent taught them as Christians often are.
1) Regarding Robin1's theory that infants "sin constantly" and JM2Cs theory that infants are morally “depraved”
My point in bringing up the earlier Christian worldview is that forum readers saw your view was a morally repugnant theory and then, correctly so, firmly rejected it. However, they thought by rejecting your theory, they may have assumed that your view represented authentic Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ or his Apostles.
Thus, I wanted to make sure the readers realized that your personal theory had little to do with early and authentic Christian interpretation and that early Christianity was not so heartless as to call infants morally “depraved” as you do. I wanted them to understand that authentic Christianity from an earlier time was more rational. To early Christians, infants were NOT seen as morally “depraved” nor to be “sinful”, nor to “sin constantly”. As CG Didymus’ earlier (and insightful) comment shows, at least he realizes that such irrational interpretations originated at a later date and by a different Christian movement altogether.
Here is what Hermas said :
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
Hermas’ sentiment that infants have “no wickedness” and that they are “more glorious than all those who have been mentioned previously” and that “all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him” needs no “re-interpretation”. I think forum members can read this verse and come to their own conclusion as to whether Herm is indicating that Christians of his time thought infants were morally “depraved” or morally clean, innocent and without wickedness.
2) Regarding JM2C’s offering forum members a faulty translation in Psalms 58:3 to support his theory that infants are morally "depraved"
As long as we are going down this route of criticism, I might as well point out that the scripture upon which you base your premise is incorrectly translated and thus, does NOT support your premise that infants are morally “depraved”.
For example, you said that infants were morally “depraved” and offered forum members a version of Psalm 58:3 to support this premise :
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
I understand that you don’t read greek, but your reliance upon an incorrect English translation of a text does not support your premise that infants are morally “depraved”.
Let me explain. The LXX greek in this verse is
“vs 3 : ”απηλλοτριωθησαν οιαμαρτωλοι απομητρασ επλανηθησαν απο γαστροσ ελαλησαν ψευδη.”
I have divided this sentence into two clauses in different colors below into two Blue and Red..
Psalms 58:3 απηλλοτριωθησαν οι αμαρτωλοι απο μητρασ επλανηθησαν απο γαστροσ ελαλησαν ψευδη.
REGARDING THE FIRST CLAUSE IN BLUE
The greek verse introduces as the subject-noun, a class of individuals called “οι αμαρτωλοι” (“the “sinners”
. It is speaking in the plural rather than a single class. It is not just “sinners”, but, with the article present, it is speaking of THE sinners, as a specific class of individuals who are the main subject of the entire sentence. The subject is NOT “infants” and there is no word implying infants are in the class spoken of.
“απηλλοτριωθησαν” is a verb in past tense that tells us that this class of individuals were previously “distinguished” or “rejected” or “estranged” due to their “difference”, or “separateness” or “strangeness” / (estranged) from another class as a group.” (the verb itself implies a separation from another group) This is the context of this clause in Koine. It is not a transitional verb that one can apply to present and future infants, but is, indeed, in the past tense.
In actual ancient usage for example, the word is used as a way to differentiate something. In Koine Greek from P Oxy VII 1067.6 (iii/a.d.) the word is used an adjective differentiating a “strange woman” who is made an heir. This adjective form was common in its use of differentiating someone belonging to “others”, that is, “another class” of people. The great linguist Wilcken explained that “τους αλλοτριους” meant “outsiders”, using as an example from P Tebt II 285.8. Similarly, Moulton renders the Koine “το γαρ αλλ[οτ]ριο νεποιησα “ as “I did what was “foreign to me”. This context of being “different” or “foreign” can even mean a “change of mind” as it’s used in BGU II 1121.22 (5 b.c.).
A similar usage in differentiation occurs when Christ is rejected by the Jews as a stone that was inspected and therefore, rejected through “judgment “, απ-εδοκιμασεν (mtt 21:42). These sinners similarly are rejected through “difference” απ-ηλλοτριωθησαν (estranged) based on their differences from another class of individuals.
Because this is past tense, this is speaking of a specific group of sinners who WERE already differentiated not from Birth, but from the womb.
“απο μητρας” does NOT mean “from birth” (i.e. it is does not mean an infant), but the words mean “from the womb”, that is, from before birth.
Such euphamisms had entirely different meanings for pre-creation spirits Christian theology than for the later evolving Christian theologies. Thus, such comments have a different, and clearer sense in early Christian theology than for later, and different, Christian movements.
I realize that you neither read greek nor are you a historian, but these texts do not mean what you said they mean and you cannot apply them to your premise. You are simply and ignorantly repeating a usage you were taught or that seemed to apply to your use.
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
JM2C said : 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?
The above is an unusual question. However, If you remember JM2C, the context of the discussion was that , Robin1 had just tried to convince logical and reasonable individuals that “babies sin constantly” and you just tried to convince logical and reasonable individuals that infants were morally “depraved”. If you remember that this was not received well. These individuals are not stupid nor are they driven by blind adherence to a theory their pastor or parent taught them as Christians often are.
1) Regarding Robin1's theory that infants "sin constantly" and JM2Cs theory that infants are morally “depraved”
My point in bringing up the earlier Christian worldview is that forum readers saw your view was a morally repugnant theory and then, correctly so, firmly rejected it. However, they thought by rejecting your theory, they may have assumed that your view represented authentic Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ or his Apostles.
Thus, I wanted to make sure the readers realized that your personal theory had little to do with early and authentic Christian interpretation and that early Christianity was not so heartless as to call infants morally “depraved” as you do. I wanted them to understand that authentic Christianity from an earlier time was more rational. To early Christians, infants were NOT seen as morally “depraved” nor to be “sinful”, nor to “sin constantly”. As CG Didymus’ earlier (and insightful) comment shows, at least he realizes that such irrational interpretations originated at a later date and by a different Christian movement altogether.
Here is what Hermas said :
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
Hermas’ sentiment that infants have “no wickedness” and that they are “more glorious than all those who have been mentioned previously” and that “all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him” needs no “re-interpretation”. I think forum members can read this verse and come to their own conclusion as to whether Herm is indicating that Christians of his time thought infants were morally “depraved” or morally clean, innocent and without wickedness.
2) Regarding JM2C’s offering forum members a faulty translation in Psalms 58:3 to support his theory that infants are morally "depraved"
As long as we are going down this route of criticism, I might as well point out that the scripture upon which you base your premise is incorrectly translated and thus, does NOT support your premise that infants are morally “depraved”.
For example, you said that infants were morally “depraved” and offered forum members a version of Psalm 58:3 to support this premise :
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
I understand that you don’t read greek, but your reliance upon an incorrect English translation of a text does not support your premise that infants are morally “depraved”.
Let me explain. The LXX greek in this verse is
“vs 3 : ”απηλλοτριωθησαν οιαμαρτωλοι απομητρασ επλανηθησαν απο γαστροσ ελαλησαν ψευδη.”
I have divided this sentence into two clauses in different colors below into two Blue and Red..
Psalms 58:3 απηλλοτριωθησαν οι αμαρτωλοι απο μητρασ επλανηθησαν απο γαστροσ ελαλησαν ψευδη.
REGARDING THE FIRST CLAUSE IN BLUE
The greek verse introduces as the subject-noun, a class of individuals called “οι αμαρτωλοι” (“the “sinners”
. It is speaking in the plural rather than a single class. It is not just “sinners”, but, with the article present, it is speaking of THE sinners, as a specific class of individuals who are the main subject of the entire sentence. The subject is NOT “infants” and there is no word implying infants are in the class spoken of.“απηλλοτριωθησαν” is a verb in past tense that tells us that this class of individuals were previously “distinguished” or “rejected” or “estranged” due to their “difference”, or “separateness” or “strangeness” / (estranged) from another class as a group.” (the verb itself implies a separation from another group) This is the context of this clause in Koine. It is not a transitional verb that one can apply to present and future infants, but is, indeed, in the past tense.
In actual ancient usage for example, the word is used as a way to differentiate something. In Koine Greek from P Oxy VII 1067.6 (iii/a.d.) the word is used an adjective differentiating a “strange woman” who is made an heir. This adjective form was common in its use of differentiating someone belonging to “others”, that is, “another class” of people. The great linguist Wilcken explained that “τους αλλοτριους” meant “outsiders”, using as an example from P Tebt II 285.8. Similarly, Moulton renders the Koine “το γαρ αλλ[οτ]ριο νεποιησα “ as “I did what was “foreign to me”. This context of being “different” or “foreign” can even mean a “change of mind” as it’s used in BGU II 1121.22 (5 b.c.).
A similar usage in differentiation occurs when Christ is rejected by the Jews as a stone that was inspected and therefore, rejected through “judgment “, απ-εδοκιμασεν (mtt 21:42). These sinners similarly are rejected through “difference” απ-ηλλοτριωθησαν (estranged) based on their differences from another class of individuals.
Because this is past tense, this is speaking of a specific group of sinners who WERE already differentiated not from Birth, but from the womb.
“απο μητρας” does NOT mean “from birth” (i.e. it is does not mean an infant), but the words mean “from the womb”, that is, from before birth.
Such euphamisms had entirely different meanings for pre-creation spirits Christian theology than for the later evolving Christian theologies. Thus, such comments have a different, and clearer sense in early Christian theology than for later, and different, Christian movements.
I realize that you neither read greek nor are you a historian, but these texts do not mean what you said they mean and you cannot apply them to your premise. You are simply and ignorantly repeating a usage you were taught or that seemed to apply to your use.
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
Last edited:
abinormal
Member
I really can't agree with this MORE! I don't think "online" christians are different then in person either, they are just more apt to speak out online, be their true selves. Doesn't remind me of the Jesus I've read about.
POST TWO OF TWO
REGARDING THE CLAUSE IN RED
(επλανηθησαν απο γαστροσ ελαλησαν ψευδη
Επλανηθησαν – This is again, a verb used NOT in a transitional or future tense which one could apply to infants as a class. It is instead, used in past tense and the metaphorical usage of πλαναω as to “lead astray” or “deceive” is well known from much of the early koine papyri (e.g. P Par 47.25 (152 b.c.). The P Oxy VI 898.8 (123 a.d.) text examples a man who claims that another was “injuring me much and ending by deceiving me” (πολλα μ[εα] διακουσα ετι και πλανησασα με...” or ibid I. 119.12 (of ii/iii a.d.) says “they deceived us there…” “…πεπλανηκαν η μω(=α)σ εκε[ι]...”.
Meander gives us multiple examples of the usage of this term, e.g. “επλανηθη…” She strayed away,…”
πλανη is not only used in the sense of “deceit” of people, but was also a term used by hunters when describing their stratagem used against wild beasts. Even the ordinary use of “πλανητης” / ”planetes” for a “planet” was used as a metaphorical reference to “wandering stars” (i.e. stars that had left their appointed orbits). This is the context underlying New Testament Judes use of it in vs. 13 (imagery he derived from Enoch) This is also why Benton in his LXX renders the clause “ …they wander from the belly” (though the verb is past tense and should be rendered “wandered from the belly”
.All of these synonyms in the verse, whether one renders the word as “lead astray”, “deceived”, or “wandered” still are past tense and thus are events that happened in the past. Even the final portion of the second clause “ελαλησαν ψευδη” is NOT present tense, but it is past tense . Thus the word is NOT about lies a group is speaking or will speak (as could possibly apply to infants), but it refers to lies SPOKEN in the past. It is not talking about one month-old infants who “speaks lies” or are morally “depraved”.
Though one cannot tell how the words are chosen to be accompanied by by the harp and musical needs of the psalm, still a more correct rendering is :
The sinners were separated from the womb: they were deceived (wandered) from conception (literally “from the belly”
they spoke lies.. (psalms 58:3)SO, even the scriptures you, yourself used to create and support your premise that infants are morally “depraved” do not support your own theology. You just didn’t know it.
If you did not understand anything I said I can elucidate or if you DO read greek and for some reason used a faulty text then lets discuss the text in more detail. In any case, the text does not support your premise that infants are morally “depraved”.
Clear
σεφιτωφιειω
Last edited:
It would seem to me they are referring to prophecy, but I wouldn't take the passages themselves as prophecies. Which is kind of my point. I think Christians who take everything written by the gospel authors or Paul as prophecy are mistaken.
A prophecy is a specific event. A vision of communication from God that is that is directly related from God. Like with Moses and the commandments. Not everything Moses said was a matter of prophecy. Moses was even rebuked by God for his words.
The words of an Apostle are not the Word of God. Not all scripture is prophecy. Some of it is history like Acts. Some of it songs, praise, genealogy etc...
Written for the most part by unknown assumed authorship.
You can read an article in a news paper. Read something on the internet. Nothing guarantees just because it is written it is true. You trust what you read for whatever reasons you've justified to yourself.
I've had enough experience to know that just because it is written doesn't make it true. So evidence in this case is evidence to backup/support what is written.
Do you take everyone at their word? It's not advisable to do so. Yet you are willing to take the word of people you've never met, don't really know with regards to God. Very few people I do know I'll take them at their word. No offense to those people but just human nature to lie, exaggerate etc. Alter what they've witness or even that they've witness for various motivations.
People mean well mostly but everything needs to be testing, especially those claiming to speak for God.
So do you have access to the Holy Spirit?
Robin1 :
Robin1 said : “Babies was an appeal to emotion and us versus you is an appeal to popularity and both are diversions.”
As skeptic thinker and others have pointed out, it was YOU who first used the term “babies” and you then blamed others for applying the term in ways that undercut your theory. You have a bad habit of doing this.
For example, you offer the forum another personal theory that ““ 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.” Then, when I then use the term “under 20 years” (i.e. a teen that you theorize will go to heaven), you then complain “I never stated 20 year olds in connection with anything.” You need to read what others are saying before responding.
The point is that your theory that 19 year olds (i.e. a “teen” all go to heaven since God does not attritube their murder, rape, oppression, and other despicable crimes as sins in their case. It is a morally repugnant doctrine, whether you clothe it with scriptures or not.
CG Didymus was correct in his observation that “there's so many Christianities.” (#4186) and the theory you are suggesting is simply one of many, many personal Christian theories that individuals have attached themselves to. And, your theory is a much more morally repugnant one than the earlier Christian belief that infants were innocent.
You ask why I as a biblical educated person do not accept your personal theory and it is because there are much better, much more logical and much more rational Christian worldviews out there.
I prefer the earlier, and more original and more authentic Historical Christian interpretations that the earlier Christians believed in and used rather than your new theory because the earlier Christian doctrines, are, to me, more logical and rational. They are better than your proposed theory as far as I am able to judge.
While I am certainly a convinced Christian, I think the agnostics and the atheists and the early Christians who are, on this point of innocence in infants, agreed, are correct and your theorizing is incorrect. This is why I have not even been tempted to accept your theory. You've never offered us anything better than the early Christian interpretations offered.
Clear
Robin1 said : “Babies was an appeal to emotion and us versus you is an appeal to popularity and both are diversions.”
As skeptic thinker and others have pointed out, it was YOU who first used the term “babies” and you then blamed others for applying the term in ways that undercut your theory. You have a bad habit of doing this.
For example, you offer the forum another personal theory that ““ 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.” Then, when I then use the term “under 20 years” (i.e. a teen that you theorize will go to heaven), you then complain “I never stated 20 year olds in connection with anything.” You need to read what others are saying before responding.
The point is that your theory that 19 year olds (i.e. a “teen”
all go to heaven since God does not attritube their murder, rape, oppression, and other despicable crimes as sins in their case. It is a morally repugnant doctrine, whether you clothe it with scriptures or not.CG Didymus was correct in his observation that “there's so many Christianities.” (#4186) and the theory you are suggesting is simply one of many, many personal Christian theories that individuals have attached themselves to. And, your theory is a much more morally repugnant one than the earlier Christian belief that infants were innocent.
You ask why I as a biblical educated person do not accept your personal theory and it is because there are much better, much more logical and much more rational Christian worldviews out there.
I prefer the earlier, and more original and more authentic Historical Christian interpretations that the earlier Christians believed in and used rather than your new theory because the earlier Christian doctrines, are, to me, more logical and rational. They are better than your proposed theory as far as I am able to judge.
While I am certainly a convinced Christian, I think the agnostics and the atheists and the early Christians who are, on this point of innocence in infants, agreed, are correct and your theorizing is incorrect. This is why I have not even been tempted to accept your theory. You've never offered us anything better than the early Christian interpretations offered.
Clear
1robin
Christian/Baptist
The canonization process obviously did not think they were nor do I have any reason to.
That was never the context of the conversation and I have pointed that out repeatedly. I was involved in the original context and it was about God being unjust in taking ordering Canaanite children to be killed. Babies arose from out of no where before I recognized why it was being insisted upon and took over the conversation.
There is nothing morally repugnant about it, nor would that matter in the least. It is not morally repugnant to point out the obvious fact something is terribly wrong with humanity. It is simply fact. Fact may be morally repugnant to some, but not me. This is the almost transparent tactic of an appeal to emotion. It is one of the most obvious and repugnant concepts of the modern era. It is evil. It used to suppress truth and is bankrupting the greatest nation in history. You, I , not anyone knows whether a baby sins, Christina doctrine suggests they do, but it doe snot matter.
I have no basis to have a personal theory on. My position has been one only doctrine can justify. I have supplied verses, the logic behind doctrine, and I do not remember any verses you supplied that countered them. I only recollect an irrelevant arbitrary position based on over active sympathy.
I am not responsible for what extra biblical authors said. Maybe you can post some reason I should be but I have no obligation beyond revelation. On the surface it appears to directly contract scriptures about anyone who claims to be without sin is a liar, and that everyone has fallen short. It appears at least to be a heretical doctrine that posits some kind of grace leading to actual perfection in this life, but you may elaborate as you wish. I certainly know of no one who bears any resemblance to what those verses suggest.
I need some reason to equate his declarations with God's revelations. Surprisingly I have not ran across his work previously. Feel free to establish it's reliability. Be a nice change to learn something.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
What in the world are you talking about? Christian have no claims about being morally perfect so we are acting perfectly consistently with what we claim to be. Forgiven sinners. That is exactly how I act and what I claim. You keep inventing a false religion and then condemning it. It has nothing to do with mine, nor one I have ever heard of.
Now if your objecting to having a lack of examples of almost super human faith in the face of diversity, dedication to the point of death, moral excellence (not perfection), or living a committed life then your just wrong. Christian history is richer than any other in moral excellence, devotion, and wisdom. No person is more associated with moral excellence than Christ, no persons are more associated with devotion than the apostles, no persons are more associated with doctrinal commitment than great Christian leaders. We certainly have our failures but failures are consistent with our doctrines as well. We also have more than our share of excellent moral examples. Like the only case of slavery being exterminated within the system that practiced it and not from outside forces. The only historical case where a conquest was terminated for moral reasons. Our doctrines have founded the most advanced civilizations in history. Our scientists created modern science. Our principles have ended racism, genocides, colonial oppression, and have influenced the world more than any other. If you want hero's of both morality and consistent faith you will die before you run out of Christian examples.
Your statements do not go over my head they find no relevance there.
abinormal
Member
Actually, christians "do" make this claim, but they say it "by Christ" we are perfect, because of what he did. They also say they work towards perfection (my words but heard it preached), and the bible does say "be perfect" :
Matthew 5:48
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Kind of the problem "I" have with this view of Christianity.
There's no need to change. No need to be a better person. The view that man doesn't deserve heaven so there is little point in trying to be worthy.
One just has to show their faith by accepting the correct theology. Something which is beyond me to honestly determine. If I can't get to Heaven by striving to be good and honest I've lost already. I am not capable of understanding God through the Bible. It's beyond me.
Besides, I don't want to be given something I'm not worthy of. Even if I could figure the correct thinking to be given this reward.
While I respect your diligence in supporting your faith I can't duplicate it. So if your understanding is correct, I never had a chance.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I have never suggested I was not the one who first used it. I might not have been, I can't remember but I did not use it to segregate children into groups. I used it as being equal to children. Now you might can fault me semantically as I have already conceded if I did indeed used it first but you cannot fault the intended use I had for it.
Sorry but I just can't invest anymore time on this baby off-ramp. No one has even mentioned the relevant issue that gave rise to this obsession in days but has become transfixed on the factual nature of something neither of us have access to. I am done with this baby issue.
I'm done with babies themselves but will leave open the doctrinal history of accountability. You suggest an earlier, more authentic interpretation but do not provide it here so I have nothing to consider. I have never investigated the doctrinal history of the age of accountability because I have never encountered a critic of it and I have certainly never head any Christian ever subdivide childhood in this manner. If you have some counter doctrine your going to have to supply it because I have never heard of it. You might have already alluded to it but I do not consider extra biblical sources binding so I reject at least those on that basis.
I have been meaning to ask what your Christian status is but keep getting bogged down with points about infants. You are LDS, is that correct, meaning you accept as authoritative the book of Mormon? The reason I ask is I am a very orthodox protestant and your views seem to clash with that so often I was unsure what context to take them in.
Even if the atheists and agnostics were right they have absolutely no way to know it. Not that a doctrinal matter was ever open to human intuition. I have never attempted to exhaustively examine the sinful nature of babies. I just seem to have found myself in the middle of a discussion before I realized what it was being used for. I have no need to, it has no relevance my position, it is just a terrible waste of time that I can no longer justify.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I believe so. It is not a constant thing. In my case it is far more rare than I would like. When I first became a Christian I had far more spiritual based faith than I do now. I have other people that said they felt the Holy Spirit around me at times back then and I could tell you a few stories you would not believe. However my faith has become far more intellectual in recent years and I no longer experience the Holy Spirit as often or as strong as I used to. To suggest a person has access to the Holy Spirit is to leave open huge swaths of unknowns. Experiencing God is not a uniform thing and varies widely by purpose, need, etc... Just as kind of a lighter antidotal story I will tell you of one bizarre experience. I was room-mates with a chess master. In hundreds of games I could not even give him a challenge. For some unknown reason I felt the Holy Spirit really strong one day, I prayed asking what I was to do with it and never received an answer. I decided on my own I would try and see if I played chess better. I opened the door and told my room-mate what I thought was the case and to set them up. I never made a single wrong move. I check mated him in less than a dozen moves. I have no idea what was going on and I am not suggesting God ever wanted me to play chess that day. I am simply reporting what occurred because it is interesting. He still brings up that story over a dozen years later and the fact I told him before hand what might occur and it did. Most of my experiences were wholly need based and not that unspecific.
Maybe if you qualify your question I can be more specific.
abinormal
Member
This is hard for me to argue with, I mean I can't. I can't say it is not true either, all of it, because I don't know for a fact. I do know many, moral people (what I consider good morals anyway) who have nothing to do with christianity, in the bible sense of christianity, followers of christ.
I think people do a lot of things in the name of christianity, so of course, christianity gets the credit. I think probably 9 out of 10 Americans claim to be christian, for example, but do not read the bible, go to church, or attempt to be like Jesus. They simply like calling themselves christians because they feel they are good people and don't truly know what the bible says you have to be doing to be a christian. Am I making any sense:help:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I never said Christian do not change. The change in my life was astronomic and every one who knows me would testify to it but I am a still long way from perfect. Look at Johnny Cash and Foreman or countless other examples and the radical changes in their lives, yet they are not perfect. I never even hinted that perfection was not the goal we strive towards just that no one ever gets there and no one should find any fault in us not doing so. If your waiting to earn or merit perfection you will never find it, it is impossible. It is also arrogant according to the bible. To tell God no thanks concerning what only he can do and resolve to climb into heaven by another door was specifically condemned by Christ. The standard is perfection and only God can provide the satisfaction. To claim we can is to equate ourselves with God.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I have never heard a Christian claim anyone should have faith on the basis that they said so. No other subject has had as much scrutiny devoted to it.
abinormal
Member
That isn't what I meant, I can see I could have said it better. The christians I've met, the bible I've read, and the sermons I've heard, taught me about God Ok, so I mean, now, I am questioning those teachings, have no faith in the teaching now, as I did before. In the future, as well as now, because someone says something, I am not just going to blindly believe it.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I agree. The Christian claim is ontological not epistemic. I would never say an Atheist cannot be moral, though I think his morality would be in spite of his atheism or coincidental with it.
I have no idea how to set a bar at a certain level which makes not reaching incompatible with being a Christian. I can only say if you desire exemplary moral examples as evidence Christianity is true you will never run out of them. However those who fail to meet the standard cannot be claimed to not be Christians. I am sure many are not but I have no way to establish it in any one case and neither does anyone else. Only God knows who belong to him for certain. No one can expect any more than faith to have a generalized benevolent effect on those who hold it and in spite of our failures it obviously has. You are right to suspect that many who do right and claim to be are not Christians but you can never get beyond speculation in any specific case.