The Word

[Clear]

Thanks, Clear, for trying to put another perspective on sin in Christianity, but in early Judeo-Christian model, the infants, even while being innocents, were punishable by the jealous YHWH up to third or fourth generation for the sins of their fathers.

Hi @Aupmanyav

I am glad to provide the examples so that you are able to see see that, though there were Christian movements in later eras that came to see newborns as “depraved” and “sinful” (“full of sin”), the early Christians saw newborns as innocent, having never committed any sins.

NEWBORNS IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY WERE INNOCENT AND SINLESS

“be as infants, with no wickedness”….”for all infants are glorious in Gods’ sight and stand foremost with him”.

For example, the 4th century era New Testament Sinaiticus reads : “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

From the same New Testament, Barnabas testimony to readers was that “Christ “… 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.” (Barnabas 6:11)

These early Christians who read these sorts of things regarding infants and young children did not believe that newborns were “sinful” or “depraved”.

For example, IF these early Christians believed their New Testament when it read that “all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him.”, how would they have viewed the tutoring question from Jesus as to Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” of Mtt 18:1-4?

If they believed that infants are glorious and “stand foremost with [God]”, then it made perfect sense for Jesus to use a child as an example, and for Jesus to set the child in their midst and for Jesus to say “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:1–4)

In this early christian worldview on the innocence of Infants and Children, Matthew is a coherent example. In Rrobs theory where newborns are “sinful” being “depraved” and “sinning constantly”, it is less coherent to use a child as an example of what we are to be like.



REGARDING YOUR THEORY THAT GOD PUNISHED INNOCENT INFANTS “up to third or fourth generation for the sins of their fathers.”.

While I believe that I know where you got this theory, it is a silly theory that a just God punishes Innocent infants. If God unjustly punishes innocent infants, he is no longer a just God, but becomes an unjust and evil God if he does unjust and evil things.

The sins against innocents such as infants and children are such gravity that they carry heavier and longer lasting consequences for those that commit sins against innocents. It is in such a context that Jesus says "If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. (mark 9:42).

Thus it is that God repays the iniquity and the evil which Fathers commit upon their children and punish the Fathers for the consequences of those evils for affected generations. He does not punish the children (poor translations notwithstanding), but assigns (פֹּ֠קֵד / αποδοσω) evil and punishment to the Fathers who commit the evil upon children and punishes the Fathers for the effect of the evil of future generations.

He does not punish the innocent for sins they do not commit.

I hope your journey is good and your insights are wonderful.

Clear
τωακφισεω

 

[Aupmanyav]

While I believe that I know where you got this theory, it is a silly theory that a just God punishes Innocent infants. If God unjustly punishes innocent infants, he is no longer a just God, but becomes an unjust and evil God if he does unjust and evil things.

You can't escape that. It is the third commandment, stated very clearly at two places. Abrahamic God is a jealous God. World history is a witness to that.

 

[Clear]

Hi @rrobs



THE CLAIM THAT A RELIGIONIST FORMS BELIEFS FROM A TEXT BUT DOES NOT DERIVE MEANING FROM NOR INTERPRET THE TEXTS WHICH FORMS THEIR BELIEFS
Rrobs, You claim you do not interpret scripture, yet in your posts, you express meaning and consequences the scriptures have in your belief system. To derive meaning and express that meaning IS the definition of interpretation.

Let me give you an example.

In your thread on “Why didn’t the Holy Spirit know”, you quoted Phil 3:21, Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.”

You then explained what the verse means to you by saying : “We'll be getting a new body that will not be at all like the one's we have here. No pain, sorrow, sickness, etc. We will live in a place on earth even better than the Garden of Eden.” (rrobs).

When you read this verse in Phillipians and thought about it and came to a conclusion as to what it meant to you and then explained that meaning to us readers, you were interpreting this scripture.
This is one of MANY, MANY, MANY example of interpreting. AND, EVERY TIME you and I, or anyone else, reads a verse, assigns a meaning to what we read, and explains what we think it means, we are interpreting.

You read and derive meaning and interpret the posts individuals write just as you derive meaning and interpret texts you read. Your claim that you do not derive meaning and interpret what you read is irrational and illogical and is disproved by each of your posts where you express a belief or doctrine based on scriptures you read.


REGARDING THE BELIEF THAT NEWBORNS ARE SINFUL OR DEPRAVED OR SPEAK LIES (OR COMMIT ANY OTHER SIN)
Rrobs said : " Is 58:3, The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." I don't see that these need any interpretation either. Pretty simple sentences." (post #180)

Rrobs, can you give us some support or rationale underlying your theory that newborns sin or are "sinful"?
IF you interpret these texts to create a belief that newborns are “sinful” or “speak lies”, then tell us what “sins” does a newborn commit? What “lies” do newborns tell?


Clear
τωακφυνεω

 

[Clear]

Hi @Aupmanyav

REGARDING AUPMANYAVS THEORY THAT GOD PUNISHES INNOCENT CHILDREN
Aupmanyav said : "You can't escape that. It is the third commandment, stated very clearly at two places." (Post #182)

Can you present your data underlying this specific claim that is it "very clearly" stated at two places that God punishes innocent newborns?

Clear
τωακφυνεω

 

[rrobs]

Rrobs, can you give us some support or rationale underlying your theory that newborns sin or are "sinful"?
IF you interpret these text to create a belief that newborns are “sinful” or “speak lies”, then tell us what “sins” does a newborn commit? What “lies” do newborns tell?

Clear
τωακφυνεω

I've suggested you read the first 8 chapters of Romans, paying close attention to when it talks about sin (singular) or sins (plural). Failing to understand the difference leads to error. This has nothing to do with "interpretation." It's just what's written and I didn't write it.

God used the word sin when He meant sin and He used sins when He meant sins. We ought to honor that and read it accordingly, not mixing up things God said to us.

I gave you several verses that clearly say every human born into this world does so with a sin (singular) nature. As I said, a baby does not come out of the womb committing sins, but since it does have a sin (singular) nature, it sure enough will.

Death passes upon all humans because of their natural born sin (singular) nature. The sins (plural) they commit are simply a product of the sin (singular) nature.

 

[Clear]

Clear asked Rrobs : "Rrobs, can you give us some support or rationale underlying your theory that newborns sin or are "sinful"?
IF you interpret these text to create a belief that newborns are “sinful” or “speak lies”, then tell us what “sins” does a newborn commit? What “lies” do newborns tell?" (post #183)
Rrobs replied : "I've suggested you read the first 8 chapters of Romans, paying close attention to when it talks about sin .....As I said, a baby does not come out of the womb committing sins, but since it does have a sin (singular) nature, it sure enough will." (post #185)

Rrobs. Yes, I've read Romans as you suggested. Nothing in Romans suggests that an innocent newborn infant is guilty of having committed any personal sin.

I assume you are tacitly admiting that infants are born innocent of any personal sin?
I assume you believe that if this innocent and sinless newborn becomes older, it will become morally competent and will as it matures eventually commit sin.

Are these two assumptions correct?

If you believe that Infants ARE guilty of personal sin, can you explain what sin they commit or what sin they have committed before birth that they are born guilty of sin?

Clear
τωνενεσεω

 

[Aupmanyav]

Can you present your data underlying this specific claim that is it "very clearly" stated at two places that God punishes innocent newborns?

Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–17.

 

[Clear]

Clear Asked Aupmanyav : "Can you present your data underlying this specific claim that is it "very clearly" stated at two places that God punishes innocent newborns?" (post #184)
Aupmanyav responded : "Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–17." (post #187)

Hi @Aupmanyav

Can you explain to reader why you personally think these quotes "very clearly" states that God punishes innocent newborns as you claimed?

Clear
δρτζειειω

 

[The Anointed]

Clear Asked Aupmanyav : "Can you present your data underlying this specific claim that is it "very clearly" stated at two places that God punishes innocent newborns?" (post #184)
Aupmanyav responded : "Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–17." (post #187)

Hi @Aupmanyav

Can you explain to reader why you personally think these quotes "very clearly" states that God punishes innocent newborns as you claimed?

Clear
δρτζειειω

1 Samuel 15: 1-3; does.

Sorry for the typo, it has now been edited.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Can you explain to reader why you personally think these quotes "very clearly" states that God punishes innocent newborns as you claimed?

The Abrahamic God himself accepts that he is a jealous God. His own admission. Nothing added from my side. Hindu Gods do not care if people don't worship them. That is why even in spite of being a strong atheist, I am happy to be following Hinduism. It just says 'do your duty and refrain from evil deeds' (follow dharma). That is about all.

 

[rrobs]

Clear asked Rrobs : "Rrobs, can you give us some support or rationale underlying your theory that newborns sin or are "sinful"?
IF you interpret these text to create a belief that newborns are “sinful” or “speak lies”, then tell us what “sins” does a newborn commit? What “lies” do newborns tell?" (post #183)
Rrobs replied : "I've suggested you read the first 8 chapters of Romans, paying close attention to when it talks about sin .....As I said, a baby does not come out of the womb committing sins, but since it does have a sin (singular) nature, it sure enough will." (post #185)

Rrobs. Yes, I've read Romans as you suggested. Nothing in Romans suggests that an innocent newborn infant is guilty of having committed any personal sin.

I assume you are tacitly admiting that infants are born innocent of any personal sin?
I assume you believe that if this innocent and sinless newborn becomes older, it will become morally competent and will as it matures eventually commit sin.

Are these two assumptions correct?

If you believe that Infants ARE guilty of personal sin, can you explain what sin they commit or what sin they have committed before birth that they are born guilty of sin?

Clear
τωνενεσεω

Well, I know there is nothing in Romans that says babies commit sins. What it does say is that babies are born with a sin nature. The sin nature is the cause of death, not the individual sins that person, baby or adult, commits.

The baby is never innocent. Again, innocence is not a matter of the sins a person commits. Adam lost his innocence and that loss was transferred to any of his seed. We are not innocent from birth because we inherit Adam's sin nature.

I mentioned seed in Genesis 1. Seed always produces offspring with the same exact nature as the parent. A parent with a sin nature will produce a like offspring, i.e. one with a sin nature.

As Romans says, "sin (singular, the nature) passed upon all men, and death by sin."

A newborn is not free from sin. Babies are sinners, the same nature as its parent, from the first breath. They just haven't acted out that nature until they commit actual sins.

I also pointed out a couple of verses in Psalms that speak about us being conceived in sin. That doesn't mean our parents sinned when they had sex. The very first thing God told Adam and Eve was to reproduce, so it is clearly not a sin. It means instead that we are sinners at the moment of conception. Again it all goes back to seed and the nature of the parents getting passed on to the baby.

Hope that helps.

Take care.

 

[Clear]

Clear asked : "Can you explain to reader why you personally think these quotes "very clearly" states that God punishes innocent newborns as you claimed?" (Post #188)
Aupmanyav answered : "The Abrahamic God himself accepts that he is a jealous God. His own admission." (post #190)

Hi @Aupmanyav

The word ζηλωτησ (ZELOTES) from Deut 5 that you refer to as "Jealous" is rarely is translated as "jealous", but is most often referring to a "Zealous" God. That is, a God who is "eagerly devoted" to a thing or principle.

However, whether God is EITHER zealous OR jealous is irrelevant to your claim that verses "very clearly" state that God punishes innocent newborns. Can you explain how these verses "very clearly" state that God punishes innocent newborns as you claimed?

Clear

 

[Clear]

Hi @rrobs


THE INNOCENCE OF NEWBORN IN EARLY CHRISTIAN RELIGION VERSUS THE GUILT OF NEWBORNS IN RROBS CHRISTIAN RELIGION
Rrobs claims “The baby is never innocent. Again, innocence is not a matter of the sins a person commits. “ (post #191)

Of course innocence of sin is a matter of commission. The very definition of INNOCENCE is "not guilty of a crime or offense."
The newborn is not guilty of having committed any crime or offense and they did not make the choice Adam made or any other moral choice.
If I did not commit a murder, then, by definition, I am INNOCENT of that murder. The same with ANY crime, offense, or sin. To claim otherwise is simply irrational and unjust.

This is another important difference between your religion, and the religion of the early Christians.
In early Christianity, a newborn was innocent of having committed any sin in this life. The fact that the infant had never sinned WAS what made them innocent of sin.
Similarly, the newborn Jesus was INNOCENT of sin at his birth. Jesus inherited no sin from Marys “sin nature” (as you describe it).

In your religion, how can someone be guilty of sin that they never committed? This, I find very irrational.

rrobs, IF one must actually commit a crime/sin before being guilty of a crime/sin, Can you explain how either a newborn Jesus or any other newborn could possibly have inherited guilt (or a “lack” of innocence) without having ever committed a sin?
How can a newborn be responsible for the sin that someone ELSE committed?
For example, if my great grandfather robbed a bank, should I be put into prison for his crime? Is that how a God of Justice would work?

rrobs, why not consider that early Christians and their belief in the innocence of Newborns and young Children may be correct and see if that model can work?
I think early and more original Christianity makes much more sense than your religion with it’s interpretations.


THE THEORY OF "TRANSFER" OF MORAL GUILT TO AN INNOCENT DESCENDANT
For example, You Rrobs claims “Adam lost his innocence and that loss was transferred to any of his seed. “ (post #191)
This is simply another distinction between your religion and that of the early Christians.
In your religion, a moral choice or moral action (the essence of sin) seems to be somehow “transferred” to a newborn who has not made a moral choice and thus has not sinned.

In the real world, newborns had no part in Adams actions and thus, no sin can be attributed to a newborn. This is what makes them innocent.
If the newborn dies an hour after birth, the dead infant would not be judged nor condemned for having committed any sin. And, if the newborn is sinless, where do sinless persons end up in Christian worldviews?

What could possibly motivate you to interpret texts to mean that newborns are guilty of ANY sin they did not and COULD NOT commit? Why not consider other interpretations of your texts?



Rrobs claimed “We are not innocent from birth because we inherit Adam's sin nature.” (post #191)

Again, I find your interpretation of the texts to be very irrational and illogical.
How in the world do you place ANY moral blame on a newborn, for anything it’s parent (or great, great, great, great parent) did?

Are you confusing and conflating a moral choice (sin), with a physical condition (mortality)?

1) A newborn baby had no moral responsibility for any choice Adam (or anyone else) made, which resulted in a mortal condition where our bodies die.

2) A Newborn who dies within an hour of birth need not make any moral choice in order to be resurrected.

3) Thus a newborn has no need to do anything to repair the condition placed upon them by mortality (i.e. "death" or "dying"; a condition caused by Adams choice).

A Newborn is innocent of sin. A newborn who dies one hour after birth is innocent of sin. Where do sinless/innocent persons end up in Christian worldviews?

Clear
δρτζφυφιω

 

[Aupmanyav]

All Christians are born in sin. If they were not, God would not have needed to send Jesus.

 

[Clear]

All Christians are born in sin. If they were not, God would not have needed to send Jesus.

Hi @Aupmanyav Since you call yourself athiest, I will assume you are describing some modern version of Christian belief that you have heard.
However, like Judaism, Christianity had multiple schizms and the early Christian literature describes a different christianity than what you are presenting.

IF you think a newborn christian must be born "in sin", can you explain what you mean by "born in sin"?
Can you explain to us what sort of sin a newborn possibly could be guilty of? Do they lie? Cheat? Steal?
Can you explain what there is about a newborn that represents a moral choice to do evil or commit sin?


Clear
δρτζσετζω

 

[rrobs]

Hi @rrobs


THE INNOCENCE OF NEWBORN IN EARLY CHRISTIAN RELIGION VERSUS THE GUILT OF NEWBORNS IN RROBS CHRISTIAN RELIGION
Rrobs claims “The baby is never innocent. Again, innocence is not a matter of the sins a person commits. “ (post #191)

Of course innocence is a matter of commission. The very definition of INNOCENCE is "not guilty of a crime or offense."

The newborn is not guilty of having committed any crime or offense and they did not make the choice Adam made or any other moral choice.
If I did not commit a murder, then, by definition, I am INNOCENT of that murder.

You are absolutely guilty of murder. If you are reading Romans, pay special attention to Romans 2:1.

Rom 2:1,

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
​

You are still having problems with the sin nature as opposed to the results of that sin nature, which is the committing of sins. But as I've said over and over, our individual sins are not the problem. The problem is sin and the upshot of having a sin nature is listed in Romans 1:28-32. There you will find the nature of all men. That's why, as per Romans 2:1, it is not wise to judge, since we all have the same sin nature.

Because of our sin nature, there is just no way we can make ourselves righteous. That's why Jesus came. Of course as I said, the baby did not commit any sins, but they also don't confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised him from the dead as per Romans 10:9-10. They will be judged by Jesus based on the deeds and the heart during the second judgment in Revelation 20:12-15. The baby, not having committed sins, will enter the kingdom Jesus will set up for us.

Those of us who have been saved now enjoy being as righteous as God (Rom 3:21) and as such have already passed judgment. There need be no doubt for any Christian as to their final end. Of course, not all believe that. They have never been told by their church that they are born again of incorruptible seed (1 Peter 1:23). I know many don't believe that incorruptible means incorruptible because that is what their pastor tells them, but it was God who used the word incorruptible and He has no doubt as to what incorruptible means. You could look it up in the dictionary, but it is even better to look at how it is used elsewhere in the scriptures. Romans 1:23 says God is incorruptible, so whatever it means for Him is exactly what it means for us. People like to argue about it, but they are just beating their heads up against God's truth.

 

[Clear]

1) The irrational theory that one who does not commit murder is still guilty of murder

Rrobs claims “The baby is never innocent. Again, innocence is not a matter of the sins a person commits. “ (post #191)
Clear resplied : “Of course innocence of sin is a matter of commission. The very definition of INNOCENCE is "not guilty of a crime or offense." The newborn is not guilty of having committed any crime or offense and they did not make the choice Adam made or any other moral choice. If I did not commit a murder, then, by definition, I am INNOCENT of that murder. The same with ANY crime, offense, or sin. To claim otherwise is simply irrational and unjust. (post #193)
Rrobs replied : “You are absolutely guilty of murder. If you are reading Romans, pay special attention to Romans 2:1. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. “ (post #196)


Rrobs, Your personal interpretation and application of Romans 2:1 is, frankly, bizarre.
Romans 2:1 text has to do more with the theme of hypocrisy rather than your use of it to indicate someone who has not murdered is still guilty of murder. Your personal interpretation and use of this text is irrational and unjust.

If you want to have an irrational and illogical conversation, then such claims will not apply to readers who value logic and rational thought.



2) Rrobs observation that newborns “don’t confess Jesus” and don’t “believe God raised him from the Dead”

Rrobs said : “… I said, the baby did not commit any sins, but they also don't confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised him from the dead as per Romans 10:9-10. They will be judged by Jesus based on the deeds and the heart during the second judgment in Revelation 20:12-15. “ (post #196)

A) Your claim a Newborn “does not “confess Jesus as Lord” is irrelevant since a newborn infant is innocent at birth despite being born without making this confession. (a confession he is unable to make)

B) Your claim a Newborn does not “believe God raised [Jesus] from the dead” is also irrelevant since the newborn is innocent at birth despite being born without this belief (a belief he is unable to express)

C) Your claim that a newborn who dies at one hour old (my example) “will be judged”…”based on the deeds and the heart” during the second judgment is, for the reasons discussed, very strange.

In early Christianity, newborns were innocent of any sin.
What sort of “deeds” will an hour old newborn be “judged by” in your religion?
What could possibly be in the "heart" of an hour old newborn for which he is to be "judged by" in your religion?
Your quote from revelations 20:12-15 says the dead were judged "according to their works". What sort of "works" are you referring to that an hour old newborn can be judged for?

rrobs, I think readers have some expectation that our conversation will have some sort of basic logic and rational thought underlying our points.

We have already spent multiple posts on this theme, Do you actually have any real data for your theory that can support your claim that a newborn is not innocent and guiltless? If you do, this is the time to offer it so that we don't spend wasted time on deflections and irrelevant quotes and irrational claims.

Another question is why should your personal interpretation and theory that newborns are not innocent, take priority over the earlier Christian belief that newborns are innocent of any sin?





Clear
δρειτωνεω

 

[Aupmanyav]

You and rrobs can continue. I do not think, I need to intervene. It is not a Hindu problem. We would have easily said 'You both are right'.

 

[Clear]

You and rrobs can continue. I do not think, I need to intervene. It is not a Hindu problem. We would have easily said 'You both are right'.

Hi @Aupmanyav

Thank you for saving readers wasted time. This is not the first time I've had a discussion regarding the innocence of newborns and I think discerning readers were able to see where your and my conversation concerning whether God punishes an innocent newborn was going to end up anyway.

In any case, I hope your own spiritual journey in this life is wonderful Aupmanyav

Clear
δρεισετωω

 

[Aupmanyav]

In any case, I hope your own spiritual journey in this life is wonderful Aupmanyav .. Clear

Thanks, Clear. I have completed my journey. I am what Hindus term as 'Jeevan-mukta', understanding things and already free of any further Samsara cycle or rebirth.