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

[adi2d]

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.

I know very little about why God allows children to die but I do know a little about chess. Your room mate was a master and you mated him in less than a dozen moves? The obvious answer is he let you win. Even the HG has to follow the same rules in chess. No way you beat a master like that if he was not trying to lose




Ok back to lurking and popcorn. Carry on

 

[1robin]

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.

After I hit the post button I started to wonder if I misunderstood you. Just ignore any mistaken assumptions on my part. The bible insists you rigorously test what you are told by every means available so there is no conflict between your view and Christian faith.

 

[1robin]

I know very little about why God allows children to die but I do know a little about chess. Your room mate was a master and you mated him in less than a dozen moves? The obvious answer is he let you win. Even the HG has to follow the same rules in chess. No way you beat a master like that if he was not trying to lose

I was mistaken. He was an expert (somewhere around 1800 I think). It was his dad who was the master. Regardless in several hundred games I beat him in exactly 3. Two was while he was drunk and one was while he gave it everything he had. You may explain it in many ways but his not trying is simply not available.

Ok back to lurking and popcorn. Carry on

"Carry on" brings back nightmares to a former Naval soldier.

 

[adi2d]

I was mistaken. He was an expert (somewhere around 1800 I think). It was his dad who was the master. Regardless in several hundred games I beat him in exactly 3. Two was while he was drunk and one was while he gave it everything he had. You may explain it in many ways but his not trying is simply not available.




"Carry on" brings back nightmares to a former Naval soldier.

It was you winning in less than a dozen moves I had a hard time with. A fools mate is tough to put on someone paying attention


I was army more years ago than seems possible. Some phrases still stick

 

[Nakosis]

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.

What I've experienced agrees with you. So I'm not questioning the truth of what you say.

I was going to say... So since you have experienced the Holy Spirit, should every thing you put to writing be considered the Word of God?

I don't think there is reason to believe that Paul had any greater experience with the Holy Spirit. Of course I can only judge this by my own experiences. Because like you say it is not a constant thing. I don't think it should be assumed that every word written by Paul meets the standard of being prophecy. He was capable of expressing his own opinion based on his experiences in his leadership of the church. Even the Apostles argued among themselves.

I've also found that it is not immediately easy to differentiate between the Holy Spirit and something your own mind presents. There has been trial and error and a lot of error.

All I can do is go forward with what seems the right direction to me.

 

[Nakosis]

I was mistaken. He was an expert (somewhere around 1800 I think). It was his dad who was the master. Regardless in several hundred games I beat him in exactly 3. Two was while he was drunk and one was while he gave it everything he had. You may explain it in many ways but his not trying is simply not available.

1800 is not too difficult to achieve. Masters however talk about calculating 7 or 8 moves ahead like it should be simple for anyone to do. Getting much past 1800 is pretty difficult.

 

[abinormal]

That has a lot to do with my "falling away" from the faith in the bible being the inerant word of god. At least the way I was taught in the church (I went to non-denoms, not the holy roller types) was that the bible was THE WORD of God, written by people inspired by the holy spirit. To explain that clearly, I was taught that the holy spirit wrote the bible:

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,[a] which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,[b] 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[c] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.


After reading these verses again, I think that Peter may have been talking about the OT prophesies, but nevertheless, I was taught that the whole bible was written by the hs.


I guess I better look for another thread as I feel I am drifting off topic. But I guess I do want to try and understand why people put their faith in the bible. Maybe not all "christians" do, but I did, and it let me down (imo). I can't put faith in man/woman. That would be like worshipping me which is ridiculous. The only god I could ever worship, if I ever do again, would have to be perfect. The bible is not. Maybe it was at some point in time, but it is not today.

 

[CG Didymus]

That has a lot to do with my "falling away" from the faith in the bible being the inerant word of god. At least the way I was taught in the church (I went to non-denoms, not the holy roller types) was that the bible was THE WORD of God, written by people inspired by the holy spirit. To explain that clearly, I was taught that the holy spirit wrote the bible:

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,[a] which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,[b] 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[c] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.


After reading these verses again, I think that Peter may have been talking about the OT prophesies, but nevertheless, I was taught that the whole bible was written by the hs.


I guess I better look for another thread as I feel I am drifting off topic. But I guess I do want to try and understand why people put their faith in the bible. Maybe not all "christians" do, but I did, and it let me down (imo). I can't put faith in man/woman. That would be like worshipping me which is ridiculous. The only god I could ever worship, if I ever do again, would have to be perfect. The bible is not. Maybe it was at some point in time, but it is not today.

Don't leave. You're talking from the heart. That is so refreshing. And, that is the problem with too many Christians. They have lost that "first love". They were infants in Christ, surrendered their hearts and were honest, but knew very little about the Bible. And, it really made a big difference into which Church they got "saved" in.

In the 70's, I was a happy go lucky hippie. I felt the power of what I thought was God in the mountains. Then the Baha'is found me. They told me their truth. That God had sent a new messenger, who, they claimed, was not only was the fulfillment of Christ's return, but of every promised one, from every religion. Sounded good to me. I felt the power of God as a Baha'i. Then a friend got "saved", took me to Bible studies and through peer pressure I got "saved." I knew very little of the Bible.

Next, another Christian friend asked if I had been "baptized in the Holy Spirit"? Tongues, no tongues, pre-tribe, post-tribe etc etc. So many doctrines. One Christian I heard on the radio talked about his book on four "Christian" views of hell. What do any of them know for sure? Jesus died for them? Great. After that, it's every Christian for themselves almost. It's follow which ever preacher or evangelist that appeals most to you.

I've often asked why Jews believe so differently than Christians. They don't believe in things like the Christian devil, the trinity, original sin or being born depraved and with a sin nature. Why is that? Why don't Jews get all up in arms with a thread like this, that accused their God as being evil? Because, it's not necessarily their God that's being questioned. It's the Christian version of God.

And I believe a "true" Christian should and could seek to let the Holy Spirit guide them every minute of every day. If they believe in Jesus, he should be in their hearts then. But, we're not blind. We know he's not their, not in the forefront. Maybe in the back of their hearts and mind. And I think that's because they can't have him in the front. It's not practical in the real world. They have to make concessions. They have to be "normal" people. So they keep Jesus in the background somewhere. They know what they should be doing as Christians, but they can't do it, because they know what they have to do to live in society.

Why is it that all Christians don't come knock on my door and talk to me about the "truth"? Where are they? What are they doing that's so important that they aren't trying to save sinners? Why don't all Christians live simple humble lives like the Amish? Instead, the bulk of them don't do much more than go to church on Sundays, which is being a lukewarm Christian, a token Christian, and one that has lost their "first" love.

And where does that "first" love attitude go? Why does it vanish? Could it be too much Bible book learning and not enough true faith and letting the Holy Spirit really be in their hearts? We see them. We tried to be Christians. Many of us couldn't do it. We'd read the books and listen to the preachers and teachers and evangelists. They were our spiritual motivational speakers. They sounded so strong, so sure, but then, we find out about their private lives. Who do you trust? God? Those were the people telling us who God was. They are the ones we trusted were telling us the truth about the Bible. And, even if you find one you like, what do you do with the other "Christian" teachers that contradict the one you follow? You study the word on your own and let the "Spirit" guide you? What if you're wrong? What if you only thought it was the Spirit, but it was you?

Is God for real? I believe love is real. And, Paul's definition of love works as good as any. But I found that love in people in many different religions and people that had no religion. The only Bible doctrine they tried to live by is: Love thy neighbor as thy self. Someone said that the rest is just commentary. In some ways the rest is just garbage. In gets in the way of us loving one another. Hey Draupadi, I hope you're still out there. I was thinking of you, kind of like I was filled with the Spirit. I hope there's something their that you can use.

 

[abinormal]

Don't leave. You're talking from the heart. That is so refreshing. And, that is the problem with too many Christians. They have lost that "first love". They were infants in Christ, surrendered their hearts and were honest, but knew very little about the Bible. And, it really made a big difference into which Church they got "saved" in.

In the 70's, I was a happy go lucky hippie. I felt the power of what I thought was God in the mountains. Then the Baha'is found me. They told me their truth. That God had sent a new messenger, who, they claimed, was not only was the fulfillment of Christ's return, but of every promised one, from every religion. Sounded good to me. I felt the power of God as a Baha'i. Then a friend got "saved", took me to Bible studies and through peer pressure I got "saved." I knew very little of the Bible.

Next, another Christian friend asked if I had been "baptized in the Holy Spirit"? Tongues, no tongues, pre-tribe, post-tribe etc etc. So many doctrines. One Christian I heard on the radio talked about his book on four "Christian" views of hell. What do any of them know for sure? Jesus died for them? Great. After that, it's every Christian for themselves almost. It's follow which ever preacher or evangelist that appeals most to you.

I've often asked why Jews believe so differently than Christians. They don't believe in things like the Christian devil, the trinity, original sin or being born depraved and with a sin nature. Why is that? Why don't Jews get all up in arms with a thread like this, that accused their God as being evil? Because, it's not necessarily their God that's being questioned. It's the Christian version of God.

And I believe a "true" Christian should and could seek to let the Holy Spirit guide them every minute of every day. If they believe in Jesus, he should be in their hearts then. But, we're not blind. We know he's not their, not in the forefront. Maybe in the back of their hearts and mind. And I think that's because they can't have him in the front. It's not practical in the real world. They have to make concessions. They have to be "normal" people. So they keep Jesus in the background somewhere. They know what they should be doing as Christians, but they can't do it, because they know what they have to do to live in society.

Why is it that all Christians don't come knock on my door and talk to me about the "truth"? Where are they? What are they doing that's so important that they aren't trying to save sinners? Why don't all Christians live simple humble lives like the Amish? Instead, the bulk of them don't do much more than go to church on Sundays, which is being a lukewarm Christian, a token Christian, and one that has lost their "first" love.

And where does that "first" love attitude go? Why does it vanish? Could it be too much Bible book learning and not enough true faith and letting the Holy Spirit really be in their hearts? We see them. We tried to be Christians. Many of us couldn't do it. We'd read the books and listen to the preachers and teachers and evangelists. They were our spiritual motivational speakers. They sounded so strong, so sure, but then, we find out about their private lives. Who do you trust? God? Those were the people telling us who God was. They are the ones we trusted were telling us the truth about the Bible. And, even if you find one you like, what do you do with the other "Christian" teachers that contradict the one you follow? You study the word on your own and let the "Spirit" guide you? What if you're wrong? What if you only thought it was the Spirit, but it was you?

Is God for real? I believe love is real. And, Paul's definition of love works as good as any. But I found that love in people in many different religions and people that had no religion. The only Bible doctrine they tried to live by is: Love thy neighbor as thy self. Someone said that the rest is just commentary. In some ways the rest is just garbage. In gets in the way of us loving one another. Hey Draupadi, I hope you're still out there. I was thinking of you, kind of like I was filled with the Spirit. I hope there's something their that you can use.

I relate to much of what you wrote, although I have no experience with other religions. I feel things have opened up to me now though, since I am no longer so narrow-minded, which I believe I was when only focusing on the bible as the only, true word.

Some might laugh, but I just got finished watching "Ancient Aliens" or something like that, watched 4 back to back stories I think it was. It was really interesting, and I kept thinking, yes, could it be, like the guy/commentator kept saying. Could it be?

Anyway, I'm glad I found this forum because it's got a bit of everything, again, I feel I've really missed out on mingling with other folks because basically, I believed what the bible said about not having anything in common with non-believers. Seems ludicrous now since as far as I know, non-believers in the bible are human just like me. Unless I'm an alien

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

1)CG DIDYMUS “ 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?”

CG DIDYMUS :
I have to recognize that so many of your sarcastic (but very clever and, unfortunately poignant, even accurate) points are correct regarding much of the actions of Christians and religious movements that have existed over the years.

Though I do not think early Christians who took repentance and humility and the gaining of other Godly social interactions seriously, are as guilty of your observations as the Christians who abuse the self-serving interpretations that came up in later years where individuals advertise to simply “believe in Jesus” and then feel both forgiven AND justified in continuing to do evil things, I think self righteousness (i.e. "My religion can beat up your religion") went to the heads of the Christians just as badly as it affected the Jews and it is one of the worse moral contaminations we suffer.

Hypocrisy practiced by Christians as a class, has plagued them since the earliest days when the many, many schisms and different belief systems started forming and arguing. Even in the earliest textual witnesses, this was a problem for Christians who, continued in their societal weaknesses rather than repenting as was part of early Christian theology. Such theory and actions from Christian sources are just a counterproductive nowadays as they were anciently.

For example Apostolic era Clement tells his fellow christians : “For the Lord says, “My name is continually blasphemed among all the nations.” And again, “Woe to him on whose account my name is blasphemed. Why is it blasphemed? Because you do not do what I desire. For when the pagans hear from our mouths the oracles of God, they marvel at their beauty and greatness. But when they discover that our actions are not worthy of the words we speak, they turn from wonder to blasphemy, saying that it is a myth and a delusion. 2nd Clement 13:2-3

As CG DIDYMUS pointed out, many of these Christian modern interpretations CG DIDYMUS is referring to did not even exist anciently but were created and proliferated during the reformation as multiple movements split off from the Roman Church. They are not original early Christianity, but they contain remnants; pieces OF original Christian theology; some doctrinal “debri” that become clothed in scriptures that don’t “quite” fit, but may seem to and with some bits of logic and rationale thrown in, support multiple theories.

The value of looking at ancient diaries and mishnas and psalms and texts from Early Christians is Not that they tell us what is objectively true. However, they can tell us what the early Christians believed was true and what they taught and how it differs from or is similar to what various Christian movements of later years taught.

Later Christian movements are not the same as the earliest Christian movements, nor are the later theories the same as early Christian theories. It should surprise no one if the early Christians believed that infants were innocent and sinless and a modern theory from another age believes the complete opposite. How much contamination with non-christian and “non-authentic” personal doctrine is allowed before it is no long “Christianity” I cannot tell. However, some doctrinal contaminations dressed up as Christianity are much more important than others and cause much more problems than others.

For example, Nakosis pointed out one core problem with Christian movements that have abandoned authentic repentance as they emphasize faith that the adherents “feel” saved and even confident, but are, in reality, no different than the “pagans” around them who have similar moral characteristic and similar moral actions and are, thus, just as moral as the Christians.

NAKOSIS said : “[the] 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. “ (actually you should read the whole post since it is quite insightful and common-sensical, plus, there are other points he made that are quite wonderful )


Clear

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

Robin1 :
I very much agree with you regarding the feeling and experience associated with personal revelation and the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. As a born again Christian, I think the spirit feels like intelligence is being poured into me; contemplations are more expansive and more clear and doctrinal relationships take shape and understanding deepens. I also agree that it is not always clear why the spirit manifests itself to us at certain times and at other times it is clear why the spirit is leading one at that point and sometimes the reason becomes obvious only later. Often the experience of the spirits itself carries with it the objective evidence that it was not simply a physiologic experience within the mind (e.g. a hallucination, etc) . I have often wondered if most individuals whether christian or not, don’t feel the spirit episodically but simply have not recognized it for what it was.


REGARDING YOUR THEORY AS TO PERSONAL DEBT ASSOCIATED WITH SOMEONE ELSES SIN

1) Robin1 said : “Without getting into the details we inquire a debt associated with original sin in the form of separation from God.”
2) CLEAR said : 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?
Robin1 said : 1)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.


Robin1 : If it was a “clear biblical teaching” I think the early Christians would have mentioned this interpretation in their vast early writings.

Your premise is that a “debt associated with original sin in the form of separation from God”.

If you are going to create and/or adopt a religious theory, I hope you understand that someone is going to ask you to explain it and it that this request is not criticism, but a simple question meant to gain understanding.

Are you saying that you can’t tell me how and why anyone has a debt “associated with original sin in the form of separation from God”?
It is NOT intuitive that someone else morally transgresses but then I am held morally responsible for their action.


Even your scriptures you quoted do not give me the answer. For examples :

Robin1 offered : NIV : 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—

OK, “Sin entered through one man”. Adam sins and he and his offspring become subject to the death of the body. And all who are considered capable of sinning, sinned, and became subject to death just as Adam did. (if we are going to get technical or into philosophical semantics, I will have to point out that it was Satan who brought sin into the world and it was God who sent Satan into the world in Christian tradition and etc,etc.… please, let’s not get into semantics&#8230

Am I am understanding you up to this point Robin1?

The question remains : So, what sort of debt does the new infant have “associated with original sin in the form of separation from God”


Robin1 offered : Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

I’ve already shown in post 4202 and 4204 that this translation is incorrect and does not apply to the infant. I think a much more accurate translation is : The sinners were separated from the womb: they were deceived (wandered) from conception (literally “from the belly&#8221 they spoke lies.

If you disagree with my reasoning on this verse as I explained the Koine in post 4202 and 4204, then lets discuss the Koine underlying this verse further. If you understand and accept the textual error, then the question still exists : So, what sort of debt does the new infant have “associated with original sin in the form of separation from God”

Robin1 offered : 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!

Interestingly the “trespass” here is greek παραπτωματι which, in the general usage in koine Greek is not so much a willful “sin”, but is more of a “lapse” or a “slip-up”. This is the sense noted in multiple early Koine Papyri. For example, P Tebt I. 5.91 (of 118 b.c.) It’s used in the royal ordinance to revenue officers, describing how much “error’ is allowed. In P Lond 1917.14 (approx. 335.a.d.) it may simply indicate a “lapse” when a man stayed too late in his vegetable garden. The common word for “sin” (αμαρτολο&#962 is not used in either of the two sentences in Romans 5:15. You may make your own judgment as to which verse (Romans 5:12-"sin" entered into the world through one man, or Rom 5:15 version where "many died by the [simple "error"] of one man" is most correct.

In either case, Instead of ALL dying through this lapse, this verse tells us “many” (πολλο&#953 died by this lapse and that many/much more (πολλω μαλλο&#957 [receive?] the charity of God
So, this still does not tell me what sort of debt does the new infant have “associated with original sin in the form of separation from God”.


THE THEORY IS NOT "CLEAR BIBLICAL TEACHING"
If I am to judge by both 1) your own inability to explain this principle and it's mechanism and #2) The verses you offered me which do not illuminate in any coherent manner this mechanism, then obviously your theory is NOT “clear biblical teaching”, but, so far, it feels like this is another overstatement and your theory has to be injected into the text by external bias if it is going to be found there at all. If, as you stated, you cannot explain it, nor do your biblical verses teach it then I hope you do not blame others for not accepting it without asking for some better data. I can certainly accept and I personally DO believe that individuals coming to this life have some sort of debt and obligation to God. But your theory doesn't seem to be a good explanation as to what sort of obligation individuals have upon entry to mortality, nor does it seem to explain how individuals accrued any moral "debt". I do agree that they are affected by Adam's actions since it is because of his fall that we all learn about and experience the difference between good and evil and thereby gain greater moral wisdom and we all die. But, I don't think Adam's transgression itself transferred any "sin" or any moral "debt" to others for what he did.

I would be willing to read an explanation if you can think of one to offer one but, to tell you truthfully, the theory seems like just another one of the many, many theories that sprang up during the protestant era. I also will accept that there are many theological principles that one cannot explain clearly. The experience of the Holy Spirit is one of those examples. I also believe your chess experience without question, not because of my experience with chess, but because of my many, many experiences with the spirit that continue on an ongoing basis.

Clear
σεφιφιδρνεω

 

[CG Didymus]

I have to recognize that so many of your sarcastic (but very clever and, unfortunately poignant, even accurate) points are correct regarding much of the actions of Christians and religious movements that have existed over the years.

I've seen it in myself, and I've seen it in others around me... no matter which religion we were in at the time. Almost all of us hit a point to where we leveled off. We took the foot off the accelerator. Heck, I even slammed on the brakes sometimes. Something about the religion wasn't right. Something seemed made up. Something seemed contrived. So what am I to conclude? Were any of these religions really from God, or we they just people with visions of what they thought was God?

In each religion I had an innocent, naive episode where I believed everything being taught me. I had no reason to doubt. I read the Scriptures of that religion and found truth. I could feel the power and love of God. Most of the religions then expected you to go out and spread the word and show the people the love you've found. After a while, though, all of them, even Christianity, left too many questions either unanswered or with an answer that were worse than if they had given me no answer at all, the contrived, manipulated answers of pulling things from here and there and presenting them as solid evidence of some doctrine or belief.

Unfortunately, I feel a lot of people stay in a religion still have questions and doubts but are afraid to ask. They put them aside or bury them deep somewhere in back of their minds. In Christianity they might be told it's the devil trying to play tricks on them... trying to get them to doubt. And, because they want to believe and because it feels good to believe and it feels good to belong, they accept that and pray to Jesus to keep the devil away.

I went through it several times, in several religions. Like I've mentioned before, they all worked, while I believed. They all felt real. They all had such profound teachings that I thought it must have come from God. But each religion taught something different. When I became convinced that the new one was telling me the truth, I left the old one behind. Looking back it seemed so foolish that I ever bought into such beliefs. But some things weren't so different. There were a few basics that were the same, believe and don't doubt, spread the word and give money to help promote "God's" work.

I'm not writing so much to try and convince believers that they are wrong. I'm writing for those of us that wanted to find God, that wanted to know the truth, and, for some reason or another, the experiences that we had and the things we learned didn't work for us. We choose not to turn a blind eye to what we saw. And, it's sad, but I think there is a good chance that religions aren't an "opiate" but something very similar. They are more like a placebo. We are told a pill will heal us and when we believe it is real medicine, we are healed.

And speaking of healing, I tried the pentecostal/charismatic types of churches. They were fun, lot's of energy. But, to see people in wheelchairs and with terminal cancer come forward and be prayed for, and then go back to their seats still sick and crippled, what was I to believe? That God healed his people, or that people were playing a con game? Jesus asked which is easier... to say your sins are forgiven or to get up and walk. So what am I to think when these preachers say "your sins are forgiven" and then say, "get up and walk" but the people don't get up. So are their sins forgiven? I don't know.

 

[CG Didymus]

...Some might laugh, but I just got finished watching "Ancient Aliens" or something like that, watched 4 back to back stories I think it was. It was really interesting, and I kept thinking, yes, could it be, like the guy/commentator kept saying. Could it be?

Anyway, I'm glad I found this forum because it's got a bit of everything, again, I feel I've really missed out on mingling with other folks because basically, I believed what the bible said about not having anything in common with non-believers. Seems ludicrous now since as far as I know, non-believers in the bible are human just like me. Unless I'm an alien

I've watched a few those shows. I've watched the "Banned from the Bible" ones and one about where Satan came from. I even watch some of the Christian shows like "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" and all the shows about creations. I took some comparative religion courses in college and enjoy talking with people from the different religions.

In fact, my wife and I are members of an athletic club. On Wednesday I play tennis with a Hindu. My wife's tennis friends are a Jew whose married to a half Chinese lady that's a Catholic, another of her friends is Japanese. Both the women's parents were Buddhists. None of my wife's friend talk about religion unless I bring it up and ask them a question. It's too bad, but in a lot of ways, religion has been pushed into the background. If people want to get along, they kind of have to put their religion aside and find things that they can share in common with others.

So was religion a thing to hold a common group of people together with one belief and one set of rules? Could it be? Did each culture have their own deities and religious codes that fit their way of life? Were any of these religions really from a God, or were they man made concepts to explain the unknown? Could it be? Hey, anyway, it's good to have you here.

 

[abinormal]

I've seen it in myself, and I've seen it in others around me... no matter which religion we were in at the time. Almost all of us hit a point to where we leveled off. We took the foot off the accelerator. Heck, I even slammed on the brakes sometimes. Something about the religion wasn't right. Something seemed made up. Something seemed contrived. So what am I to conclude? Were any of these religions really from God, or we they just people with visions of what they thought was God?

In each religion I had an innocent, naive episode where I believed everything being taught me. I had no reason to doubt. I read the Scriptures of that religion and found truth. I could feel the power and love of God. Most of the religions then expected you to go out and spread the word and show the people the love you've found. After a while, though, all of them, even Christianity, left too many questions either unanswered or with an answer that were worse than if they had given me no answer at all, the contrived, manipulated answers of pulling things from here and there and presenting them as solid evidence of some doctrine or belief.

Unfortunately, I feel a lot of people stay in a religion still have questions and doubts but are afraid to ask. They put them aside or bury them deep somewhere in back of their minds. In Christianity they might be told it's the devil trying to play tricks on them... trying to get them to doubt. And, because they want to believe and because it feels good to believe and it feels good to belong, they accept that and pray to Jesus to keep the devil away.

I went through it several times, in several religions. Like I've mentioned before, they all worked, while I believed. They all felt real. They all had such profound teachings that I thought it must have come from God. But each religion taught something different. When I became convinced that the new one was telling me the truth, I left the old one behind. Looking back it seemed so foolish that I ever bought into such beliefs. But some things weren't so different. There were a few basics that were the same, believe and don't doubt, spread the word and give money to help promote "God's" work.

I'm not writing so much to try and convince believers that they are wrong. I'm writing for those of us that wanted to find God, that wanted to know the truth, and, for some reason or another, the experiences that we had and the things we learned didn't work for us. We choose not to turn a blind eye to what we saw. And, it's sad, but I think there is a good chance that religions aren't an "opiate" but something very similar. They are more like a placebo. We are told a pill will heal us and when we believe it is real medicine, we are healed.

And speaking of healing, I tried the pentecostal/charismatic types of churches. They were fun, lot's of energy. But, to see people in wheelchairs and with terminal cancer come forward and be prayed for, and then go back to their seats still sick and crippled, what was I to believe? That God healed his people, or that people were playing a con game? Jesus asked which is easier... to say your sins are forgiven or to get up and walk. So what am I to think when these preachers say "your sins are forgiven" and then say, "get up and walk" but the people don't get up. So are their sins forgiven? I don't know.

Ditto, on all of this, it was like reading something I could have written. You hit on so many things I have experienced, thought, and wondered about god and religion. Someone real, flesh and blood, not just intellectual garble typed on a page. For the first time since I left the church, and the bible behind, I think I've met another person that would understand where I've been in my search for spiritual truth.

denise

 

[abinormal]

I've watched a few those shows. I've watched the "Banned from the Bible" ones and one about where Satan came from. I even watch some of the Christian shows like "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" and all the shows about creations. I took some comparative religion courses in college and enjoy talking with people from the different religions.

In fact, my wife and I are members of an athletic club. On Wednesday I play tennis with a Hindu. My wife's tennis friends are a Jew whose married to a half Chinese lady that's a Catholic, another of her friends is Japanese. Both the women's parents were Buddhists. None of my wife's friend talk about religion unless I bring it up and ask them a question. It's too bad, but in a lot of ways, religion has been pushed into the background. If people want to get along, they kind of have to put their religion aside and find things that they can share in common with others.

So was religion a thing to hold a common group of people together with one belief and one set of rules? Could it be? Did each culture have their own deities and religious codes that fit their way of life? Were any of these religions really from a God, or were they man made concepts to explain the unknown? Could it be? Hey, anyway, it's good to have you here.

Thanks so much, I am glad I am here

I started asking questions a long time before I finally gave up on the christianity thing. At this point, I have no desire to learn about "any" other religion because I don't want to ever go through that again. So I say I am open, but I have to be honest in saying I'm not open to other religions. I think religion "is" man-made, and I can't bring myself to trust in any man-made god.

I don't think I'll be saying I "know" anything anytime soon if ever But yet I understand those (in christianity at least) that say it

 

[JM2C]

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.

I like this one “You keep inventing a false religion and then condemning it.” and blame on Christianity.

Something they don't understand that Christians are "Forgiven sinners" or IOW, we knew we were sinners and that is the reason why God forgave us.

1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

 

[JM2C]

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”.

I don’t know why you can not understand that there is no difference between “babies sin constantly” and infants were morally “depraved”.


No offend here. Read this until you are blue in the face:
Men did not become sinners because men sin. Men sin because men were sinners to begin with.
Constantly sinning, adults or babies, are just the fruits of this depravity.


Human are born depraved and ‘cause of this depravity human can not know God.


Isaiah said, Isa 64:6 “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” in the sight of the almighty God. Meaning no one can do good enough to impress God because human were born depraved.


If you can not understand this simple explanation that all men were born depraved then you are deceived by your belief, whatever that is.

 

[JM2C]

If you remember that this was not received well.

By whom? By Christians? Are you looking for sympathy or playing politics?

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.

“These individuals”? are they Christians? Be more specific. If this thread Robin and I are the only Christians.

 

[JM2C]

1) Regarding Robin1's theory that infants "sin constantly" and JM2Cs theory that infants are morally “depraved”

You keep on saying theory.

This is your/CLEAR’S theory:
An interpretation of Barnabas: “So, since he renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again.” The Epistle of Barnabas 6:11.

And your/CLEAR’S reinterpretation of Barnabas‘: “It is the moral purity of the infant” base on Barnabas’ “so that we should have the soul of the children”

And here is another one of your/CLEAR’S theory:
An interpretation of Hermas’:
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

And your/CLEAR’S reinterpretation of Hermas’: “no wickedness” therefore, “did not sin”

Now, these are the facts base on the bible and they are not theories nor my theories:

Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
Ps 51:5 KJV Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Ps 51:5 NLT For I was born a sinner— yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.

My interpretation: No one is “INNOCENT”, all are born depraved.

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

 

[JM2C]

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.

“early Christianity was not so heartless” You base your theories on emotion and not on facts.


In the court of law, as I understand very little of it, an accuse can cry all day to get the sympathy of the jury, but at the end the jury still base their verdicts on facts and not on emotion.


I think this is what you are trying to do here. You are crying for sympathy and not on facts alone.


Can you somehow introduce the third person in this discussion?