• 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!

I could never blame an atheist for being an atheist

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
You know what? That sounds fair. Are you familiar with the story of Pinocchio? An old man made a puppet out of wood. He really wanted the puppet to be his son. But a puppet made of wood can never be the son of a human man. The man MADE the puppet but he did not father it. So God made a human body out of dust. And God gave life to that body. But the human body was NOT God.\' son. God MADE the human but He did not father it. Just like the wooden puppet. The difference is the God gives humans the chance to BECOME His sons. So how do you interpret John 1:12? It says God gives people the power to BECOME His sons. It does NOT say every living person is automatically God's son. If that were true, why would he need to give them the power to become his sons? Your ideas? Also, if I make a machine that I can put in a doll to make the doll walk and talk, that does NOT make me the father of the doll. If God put a spirit in humans, that also does NOT make God the person's father. Make sense?
Okay, it appears as if you and I are using the phrase "sons of God" differently. I readily acknowledge that, in one sense, God gives us the power to "become" His sons in that we, by our faith in Jesus Christ and our obedience to His commandments, may be what Romans 8:17 refers to as "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." A father typically leaves an inheritance to his children who have remained close to him and not become estranged from the family. A man may have fathered children who have rebelled against him and who, for this reason, may be disinherited. Likewise, when one becomes a child of God, he becomes worthy of inheriting eternal blessings from his Father in Heaven.

On the other hand -- and what I mean when I say that we are all "children of God" is that Hebrews 12:9 refers to God as "the Father of spirits." Latter-day Saints do not believe that the act of intercourse produces a spirit. It produces a physical body into which God places a "spirit" that He has created in His own image. Acts 17:28-29 says that we are "the offspring of God." We may "become" sons of God in a way you and I appear to agree on. But if it literally impossible to "become" God's offspring. It's something that just is. So, we believe that we are the offspring of God and that He is the Father of our spirits, regardless of whether we choose estrangement from Him, and no longer being children deserving of their Father's inheritance. We see God as our Creator, but see ourselves differently than we see His other "creations" in that we see each of us as coming into the world as His spirit son or daughter.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Given that assumption, beliefs like Calvin's "TULIP" resolve many logical problems. They make God out to be a monster, but at least a consistent monster.
I get the "monster" part, but in what way is He "consistent" if He arbitrarily picks and chooses who to save or who to damn, regardless of anything the individual might do?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
the sheer number of non-Christians in the world suggests that God is just bad at convincing people... like way worse than would be expected of a very powerful, very wise being, and irreconcilably worse than would be expected from a perfect being.
Why would God want to convince anyone? God gave us free will so we could think for ourselves and make our own choices. God does not want our belief unless it is given freely.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Trailblazer said: Do you understand that it is illogical to put expectations on an Omnipotent/Omniscient God and why that is illogical?

I don't see why it would be illogical, no.
Let me explain why it is illogical.

If God is omnipotent God is all-Powerful. You are not omnipotent so you do not have all power. A God who has all power does not have to do anything other than what He chooses to do, not what anyone expects Him to do.

If God is omniscient God has all knowledge. You are not omniscient so you do not have all knowledge. That means God knows more than you know. If God knows everything then God knows exactly what to do so nobody should expect God to do anything He is not already doing.
All beings are products of their environment. If the environment that God arose in is solitary, timeless void with no pressures toward sociability, I think it would be illogical to expect that God would be social.
That is a pretty good guess, and actually you are right. God does not socialize with humans. Some people might imagine that God does that, but people are capable of imagining anything.

Most Christians believe that God is their Father and they are God’s children. I consider that belief absurd. God does not have children because God is not a human being. So what these Christians are really trying to do is join partners with God, as if they can somehow be on God’s level and relate to God personally.

The following passage says it all. God is one and alone, has no associates, and God is exalted far, far above humans.

“And now concerning thy reference to the existence of two Gods. Beware, beware, lest thou be led to join partners with the Lord, thy God. He is, and hath from everlasting been, one and alone, without peer or equal, eternal in the past, eternal in the future, detached from all things, ever-abiding, unchangeable, and self-subsisting. He hath assigned no associate unto Himself in His Kingdom, no counsellor to counsel Him, none to compare unto Him, none to rival His glory. To this every atom of the universe beareth witness, and beyond it the inmates of the realms on high, they that occupy the most exalted seats, and whose names are remembered before the Throne of Glory.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 192
Trailblazer said: What would you expect?

That God would be no more interested with human interaction than an octopus or a fungus is.
True. God does not even interact with His Messengers, He simply reveals a message to them, through the Holy Spirit.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I meant that you are no different to the Christians you highlighted as arguing over the correct interpretation of the Bible in a way that is confusing to atheists (and anyone else) looking on from the outside. I’d respectfully suggest that you’re part of the same problem and it’s somewhat hypocritical to complain about the others without at least acknowledging that.
Of course I admit that I interpret the Bible my own way and that I think my interpretation is more correct, so in that sense I am no different from the Christians I was referring to. But there is a difference, because I am a Baha’i, so a different interpretation is to be expected since Baha’is believe that Baha’u’llah was the return of Christ and a Manifestation of God. We also believe that Baha’u’llah had the authority invested in Him by God to interpret the Bible and that He knew its hidden meanings that no Christian knows.
You never really identified any subset and gave no reason why the issues you mentioned would be exclusive to atheists. In general terms, I think it is extremely rare for there to be a valid reason to even use the word “atheist” to define a group of people, especially given how generic, open and disputed it’s meaning is. Most division and conflict is driven by people being lumped in to such generic categories, which generally boil down to “us” and “them”, so I think it’s best to avoid them unless they’re specifically necessary or beneficial.
I agree with that in general but I was trying to say something about atheists in particular, even though it does not apply to all atheists, so I apologize if it does not apply to you.
On your point specifically, I think the focus of atheists actually distracts from a key element of the problem. I’d suggest that believers are just as confused over the “correct” interpretation of scripture and the wider big questions of existence (because the idea that all the answers just need us to work out the correct interpretation of the Christian Bible is ridiculously presumptive and highly arrogant).
That is exactly what I was saying. In my OP I said “Of course it usually takes an atheist to parse this out because those believers who *want to believe* something will find a way to interpret the Bible so they can believe what they want to believe.” What I meant is that atheists can understand the Bible better than believers because they have a more objective view of the Bible since they have nothing invested in beliefs. I think it is the believers who are confused about the meaning of the Bible, not the atheists.
People argue so strongly with each other not because they’re confident other people are wrong but because deep down, they’re not at all confident they’re right. People who are truly comfortable in their own world-view don’t need to argue with anyone else about it.
That might be true of some people but I do not think it is true of all or even most people. Some people are confident that what they believe is true. It is not true that people who are comfortable with their own religion or world-view never argue about it; some people just like to argue. It could be an ego thing but not necessarily. A person might actually care about the person they are talking to and a discussion becomes an argument before they even realize it. This has happens to me with one atheist on my own forum and when I finally realize I am arguing I opt out of responding at all. Some people think they are always right about everything so there is no point even posting to them. No matter what you say they contradict you and criticize you. The dead giveaway is when you ask them poignant questions and they obfuscate or make snide remarks instead of answering.
I’m not saying we’re incapable of having the knowledge, only that I see no natural path for us to gain it. Even if someone happened to stumble of a belief structure that did have the precise right answers, how would they know, for certain, that they were right?
I know I am right but that probably sounds arrogant to you. I think the reason I know is because God guided me, not because I am smarter than other people.But I also did a lot of homework, work most people are not willing to spend their time on. Of course I could be wrong because there is no way to prove a belief is true.

I do not like religion very much and I like God even less, so I tried to run away from the Baha’i Faith and God for most of the years I have been a Baha’i; but no matter how hard I tried I could never disprove it. There is just too much evidence, too many things that line up perfectly. Even if one thing was out of place I would be willing to consider that I might be wrong, but I cannot find anything.
Your statements about your religion sound exactly like all the ones that came before and all the ones that came after. I mean, it could be word-for-word what early Christians told the Jews.
That is a very good observation because Baha’is are in the same position as the early Christians. The early Christians had a *new truth* from God that Jesus revealed and the Jews rejected that Truth. Now history is repeating itself because the Baha’is have a *new truth* from God and all the other believers in the older religions are rejecting it, especially Christians.

Here is what happens whenever a *new* Messenger of God appears...

“From the beginning of the world until the present time each ‘Manifestation’ 1 sent from God has been opposed by an embodiment of the ‘Powers of Darkness’.

This dark power has always endeavoured to extinguish the light. Tyranny has ever sought to overcome justice. Ignorance has persistently tried to trample knowledge underfoot. This has, from the earliest ages, been the method of the material world.

In the time of Moses, Pharaoh set himself to prevent the Mosaic Light being spread abroad.

In the day of Christ, Annas and Caiaphas inflamed the Jewish people against Him and the learned doctors of Israel joined together to resist His Power. All sorts of calumnies were circulated against Him. The Scribes and Pharisees conspired to make the people believe Him to be a liar, an apostate, and a blasphemer. They spread these slanders throughout the whole Eastern world against Christ, and caused Him to be condemned to a shameful death!

In the case of Muḥammad also, the learned doctors of His day determined to extinguish the light of His influence. They tried by the power of the sword to prevent the spread of His teaching.

In spite of all their efforts the Sun of Truth shone forth from the horizon. In every case the army of light vanquished the powers of darkness on the battlefield of the world, and the radiance of the Divine Teaching illumined the earth. Those who accepted the Teaching and worked for the Cause of God became luminous stars in the sky of humanity.

Now, in our own day, history repeats itself.

Those who would have men believe that religion is their own private property once more bring their efforts to bear against the Sun of Truth: they resist the Command of God; they invent calumnies, not having arguments against it, neither proofs. They attack with masked faces, not daring to come forth into the light of day.”

Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Trailblazer said: Anyone can buy it, all they have to do is be a confident believer in the One True God.

What would be the cost like. We Indians are very cost conscious. And then why should I buy it when I may not require it.
Nobody should buy it unless they want it.... God is really big on free will.

I was only joking about *buying it* but apparently the RF staff thought I was serious... So much for the :D

:rolleyes:
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I get the "monster" part, but in what way is He "consistent" if He arbitrarily picks and chooses who to save or who to damn, regardless of anything the individual might do?
If we take it as given - as the Christians we're talking about do - that many people don't meet God's criteria for salvation, then there are only two possibilities:

- God often fails in his attempts to save people, or
- God has perfect success, but he didn't try to save anyone beyond the people who ended up meeting the criteria for salvation.

The idea of God failing at something creates major theological contradictions for many people, so the only remaining option - given their beliefs - is that God is only interested in saving some people.

Similarly, there's a presumption that God is just, so therefore anyone damned to Hell - as evidenced by the fact that they didn't fulfill the criteria for salvation - must deserve Hell, otherwise, God would be unjust. A whole set of doctrines and principles then flow from this assumption (e.g. for the Calvinists, "total depravity" - the "T" in TULIP).

I think it's interesting how much theology can be generated just from two principles:

- God is perfect, and
- some people are not saved.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
If we take it as given - as the Christians we're talking about do - that many people don't meet God's criteria for salvation, then there are only two possibilities:

- God often fails in his attempts to save people, or
- God has perfect success, but he didn't try to save anyone beyond the people who ended up meeting the criteria for salvation.
I do not think it is either one of the above because God is not attempting to do anything or trying to have success..

I do not believe in 'saved' in the sense that Christians do, because I do not believe there is anything to be saved from, but as far as God having success 'getting' people to believe in Him, God does not have any part in what people choose to believe, because God has no interest in influencing people to believe in Him. Rather, God honors free will choices to believe or not believe.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
But God is very partial and selfish. All the benefits for people who believe in him and his [Strike]prophet/son/messenger/Later-Day Saint/mahdi[/Strike] manifestation.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Of course I admit that I interpret the Bible my own way and that I think my interpretation is more correct, so in that sense I am no different from the Christians I was referring to. But there is a difference, because I am a Baha’i, so a different interpretation is to be expected since Baha’is believe that Baha’u’llah was the return of Christ and a Manifestation of God. We also believe that Baha’u’llah had the authority invested in Him by God to interpret the Bible and that He knew its hidden meanings that no Christian knows.
Can you seriously not see how that is exactly what everyone else says about their faith? You all believe you have that special source or insight that is somehow better than all the others and you can’t all be right.

That is exactly what I was saying. In my OP I said “Of course it usually takes an atheist to parse this out because those believers who *want to believe* something will find a way to interpret the Bible so they can believe what they want to believe.” What I meant is that atheists can understand the Bible better than believers because they have a more objective view of the Bible since they have nothing invested in beliefs. I think it is the believers who are confused about the meaning of the Bible, not the atheists.
I disagree that being atheist automatically or implicitly makes someone more objective. I disagree that atheists can’t also be “believers” and can’t “want to believe”. That simple and variable descriptive characteristic doesn’t really tell you all that much about an individual or how they’d approach this question. Atheists aren't as unique or special as many like to think they are either.

I know I am right but that probably sounds arrogant to you. I think the reason I know is because God guided me, not because I am smarter than other people.But I also did a lot of homework, work most people are not willing to spend their time on. Of course I could be wrong because there is no way to prove a belief is true.
”People argue so strongly with each other not because they’re confident other people are wrong but because deep down, they’re not at all confident they’re right.” :cool:

That is a very good observation because Baha’is are in the same position as the early Christians. The early Christians had a *new truth* from God that Jesus revealed and the Jews rejected that Truth. Now history is repeating itself because the Baha’is have a *new truth* from God and all the other believers in the older religions are rejecting it, especially Christians.
I don’t see how all these “new truths” can be valid though. Truth is truth. Loads of people have proposed various adjustments or entire replacements to the various religions at different times and places. Some failed entirely, some caused change in a religion, some ended up creating new sects or faiths. Interestingly, what actually comes out of this kind of thing in the end isn’t always consistent with what was being argued in the first place.

So again, from the outside you come across as no different to all the ones that came before and all the ones who will inevitable come after and your insistence that your line is new, unique and special is just another way in which you’re repeating what came before you. And you should agree with me because by your own assertion, as a non-believer I should have a better understanding than you. :cool:
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Let me explain why it is illogical.

If God is omnipotent God is all-Powerful. You are not omnipotent so you do not have all power. A God who has all power does not have to do anything other than what He chooses to do, not what anyone expects Him to do.

If God is omniscient God has all knowledge. You are not omniscient so you do not have all knowledge. That means God knows more than you know. If God knows everything then God knows exactly what to do so nobody should expect God to do anything He is not already doing.
I can't see a coherent argument in what you just said.

That is a pretty good guess, and actually you are right. God does not socialize with humans. Some people might imagine that God does that, but people are capable of imagining anything.
You are arguing that God does interact with humans. I am saying that I find your claim that God communicates with humanity - through messengers, holy spirits, or two tin cans and a string - to be unreasonable.

True. God does not even interact with His Messengers, He simply reveals a message to them, through the Holy Spirit.
You're testing my patience. Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent what I'm saying?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Why would God want to convince anyone? God gave us free will so we could think for ourselves and make our own choices. God does not want our belief unless it is given freely.
:facepalm:

Please stop assuming Baha'i doctrine as if everyone agrees with it. It's an obstacle to communication.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Okay, it appears as if you and I are using the phrase "sons of God" differently. I readily acknowledge that, in one sense, God gives us the power to "become" His sons in that we, by our faith in Jesus Christ and our obedience to His commandments, may be what Romans 8:17 refers to as "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." A father typically leaves an inheritance to his children who have remained close to him and not become estranged from the family. A man may have fathered children who have rebelled against him and who, for this reason, may be disinherited. Likewise, when one becomes a child of God, he becomes worthy of inheriting eternal blessings from his Father in Heaven.

On the other hand -- and what I mean when I say that we are all "children of God" is that Hebrews 12:9 refers to God as "the Father of spirits." Latter-day Saints do not believe that the act of intercourse produces a spirit. It produces a physical body into which God places a "spirit" that He has created in His own image. Acts 17:28-29 says that we are "the offspring of God." We may "become" sons of God in a way you and I appear to agree on. But if it literally impossible to "become" God's offspring. It's something that just is. So, we believe that we are the offspring of God and that He is the Father of our spirits, regardless of whether we choose estrangement from Him, and no longer being children deserving of their Father's inheritance. We see God as our Creator, but see ourselves differently than we see His other "creations" in that we see each of us as coming into the world as His spirit son or daughter.
Thank you. That is a very reasonable answer and I certainly respect your beliefs. But let me offer one more idea. A physical child , of course, results from a union between a man and a woman. That child has a human spirit. When a person is baptized, that person receives God's spirit. In other words there is a joining of God's spirit with the human spirit just like the egg and sperm join to form a new child. This joining of spirits creates a new spiritul being. That new spirit being is then God's child because it resulted from the joining of God's spirit with the human spirit. You could say God's spirit is the sperm and the human spirit is the egg. Since many people are not baptized they never receive God's spirit and do not become his children. I know this may sound strange but I think it makes more sense than saying God has a "spirit factory" and sticks spirits in people and that makes them his children. Thanks for at least reading this.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Thank you. That is a very reasonable answer and I certainly respect your beliefs. But let me offer one more idea. A physical child , of course, results from a union between a man and a woman. That child has a human spirit. When a person is baptized, that person receives God's spirit. In other words there is a joining of God's spirit with the human spirit just like the egg and sperm join to form a new child. This joining of spirits creates a new spiritul being. That new spirit being is then God's child because it resulted from the joining of God's spirit with the human spirit. You could say God's spirit is the sperm and the human spirit is the egg. Since many people are not baptized they never receive God's spirit and do not become his children. I know this may sound strange but I think it makes more sense than saying God has a "spirit factory" and sticks spirits in people and that makes them his children. Thanks for at least reading this.
As I was reading your response, I found myself thinking, "Well, maybe we're making some headway after all. At least we understand each other's position, even if we don't agree." Then you threw in your comment about God having a "spirit factory," and I found myself disappointed once again.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
As I was reading your response, I found myself thinking, "Well, maybe we're making some headway after all. At least we understand each other's position, even if we don't agree." Then you threw in your comment about God having a "spirit factory," and I found myself disappointed once again.
OK maybe "spirit factory" was a poor word choice. But you believe that God somehow puts a spirit in a person and that makes that person God's child. Or is that not what you are saying? I say that there is a spirit is a person and that spirit is a human spirit, not a God spirit. But when that human spirit joins with God's spirit a NEW spirit creature is formed and that new spirit is God's child. I also think we have much in common in our understanding. But, if I am correct, I think you believe that every human is a child of God and I believe that only those whose spirit joins with God's spirit are God's children. I see nothing that says everyone is a child of God but I see where God gives people the power to become his children. Is that where we disagree or do I have something wrong? I would really like to come to a better understanding if there is evidence that I am wrong. Thanks.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
:facepalm:

Please stop assuming Baha'i doctrine as if everyone agrees with it. It's an obstacle to communication.
The sooner you get used to this and the fact it isn't about to change, the sooner you can move on to 'Don't feed the trolls' replacing 'trolls' with 'hard set dogmatists'. It took me a year and a half to figure that out. Downright embarrassing for me.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
OK maybe "spirit factory" was a poor word choice. But you believe that God somehow puts a spirit in a person and that makes that person God's child. Or is that not what you are saying? I say that there is a spirit is a person and that spirit is a human spirit, not a God spirit. But when that human spirit joins with God's spirit a NEW spirit creature is formed and that new spirit is God's child. I also think we have much in common in our understanding. But, if I am correct, I think you believe that every human is a child of God and I believe that only those whose spirit joins with God's spirit are God's children. I see nothing that says everyone is a child of God but I see where God gives people the power to become his children. Is that where we disagree or do I have something wrong? I would really like to come to a better understanding if there is evidence that I am wrong. Thanks.
Perhaps we need to come to an understanding of what is meant by the word "spirit." The Greek word, "pneuma" was sometimes translated in the New Testament as "spirit" and sometimes as "life." When God breathed the breath of life into Adam, He infused Adam's body with a spirit (i.e. the breath of life), resulting in Adam becoming a living soul. If God put Adam's spirit in him, what reason is there to assume that He has not done the same with each one of us? Unlike the animals, we are more than just God's creations. We are the only ones of His creations which He created in His image, after His likeness. When Adam had a son, Seth, the Bible uses the EXACT SAME wording to describe their relationship. Seth was said to be "in Adam's image, after his likeness." That is what it means to be a son.

I believe that we are, in fact, "human spirits," but that we are endowed with a spark of divinity because the Father who begat our spirits is divine. You said that "when a person is baptized, that person receives God's spirit." That implies that baptism itself is some sort of magical event. I see baptism as essential for a person to receive the fullness of salvation, but it definitely involves a choice that must be made by a repentant person who believes in Jesus Christ and is committed to follow Him. Do you believe that the millions of week-old babies who are baptized by some Christian denominations are God's children, even though they had absolutely no say whatsoever in the event, but that righteous people who were committed to following Jesus' example of how to treat one's fellow human beings but may not have been baptized are not His children? Seriously? Does it really make sense to you that this is how someone becomes a child of God?
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
"All" ? How about "some" instead of "all".
There are always exceptions I agree. The majority of people in my community recognise the need for laws and will abide to a degree within that framework. There are those who choose not to but much fewer who have no capacity to distinguish right from wrong, truth from falsehood. That is my experience. If you live in a country called the United States of America there’s the highest rate of incarceration in the world.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/incarceration-rates-by-country/

Should I conclude from this statistic and your experience that only some people know right from wrong? I’d avoid making generalisations about Americans and their moral capacity with closer investigation.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Perhaps we need to come to an understanding of what is meant by the word "spirit." The Greek word, "pneuma" was sometimes translated in the New Testament as "spirit" and sometimes as "life." When God breathed the breath of life into Adam, He infused Adam's body with a spirit (i.e. the breath of life), resulting in Adam becoming a living soul. If God put Adam's spirit in him, what reason is there to assume that He has not done the same with each one of us? Unlike the animals, we are more than just God's creations. We are the only ones of His creations which He created in His image, after His likeness. When Adam had a son, Seth, the Bible uses the EXACT SAME wording to describe their relationship. Seth was said to be "in Adam's image, after his likeness." That is what it means to be a son.

I believe that we are, in fact, "human spirits," but that we are endowed with a spark of divinity because the Father who begat our spirits is divine. You said that "when a person is baptized, that person receives God's spirit." That implies that baptism itself is some sort of magical event. I see baptism as essential for a person to receive the fullness of salvation, but it definitely involves a choice that must be made by a repentant person who believes in Jesus Christ and is committed to follow Him. Do you believe that the millions of week-old babies who are baptized by some Christian denominations are God's children, even though they had absolutely no say whatsoever in the event, but that righteous people who were committed to following Jesus' example of how to treat one's fellow human beings but may not have been baptized are not His children? Seriously? Does it really make sense to you that this is how someone becomes a child of God?
I wiil say that this is very interesting. I completely agree with your line that we are "human spirits" although I might prefer to say we HAVE human spirits. But human spirits are not divine. Only God is divine and when our human spirit combines with God's spirit, a new creature is formed ( a new divine spirit ) because it is made from God's divine spirit. But I must question your statement that God "begat our spirits". Let's go back to Pinocchio. The old wood carver did not begat the puppet. Begat usually means the process of making a baby. Adam begat Cain and Able because he had sex with Eve. The fact that God may have breathed a spirit into Adam is not the same. Making a baby requires the joining of something from a man and a woman. Making a spirit that can be called a child of God requires the joining of a human spirit and God's spirit. It requires an act. Not just the fact that a person is alive and has a spirit. And NO I do not believe in baptizing babies. But that is for another discussion. Thanks for listening
 
Top