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

[Nakosis]

Satan doesn't sound much of a pussycat to me..
Jesus said:-"He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44)

And "wiles" means he's a setter of traps, tricks, snares and booby-traps..
"Put on the full armour of God against the wiles of the devil" (Eph 6:11-18 )

I see Satan as the emotional part of our brain. Not a separate being. Just a part of who we are. Emotions cause us to react to them fear, hate, love. The rational part of the brain tries to justify the worth of an action before we act.

Reacting from emotions/passions without rational thought gets one burned.

 

[Ingledsva]

Satan doesn't sound much of a pussycat to me..
Jesus said:-"He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44)

And "wiles" means he's a setter of traps, tricks, snares and booby-traps..
"Put on the full armour of God against the wiles of the devil" (Eph 6:11-18 )

Are you purposely ignoring my last couple of post - on this subject?


It is not "wiles" - it is "methods."


Sheeesh! Read the word - Eph 6:11-18 Invest in the full armor of God, so you can stand beside/up to the methods (μεθοδειας) of the Diabolos.


*

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Are you purposely ignoring my last couple of post - on this subject?..

Sorry, you're hitting me with so many words like YHVH, Tanakh, Chav'vah, μεθοδειας Diabolos etc that I'm feeling punch drunk because I don't know which song sheet you're singing from..
What exactly is your religion or belief?

 

[outhouse]

WHY! WHY! WHY! Does this falsehood keep getting repeated?


Catholics DO NOT pray to statues.


*

You have never been to south America have you?



They factually worship statues. And cards with mary on them.


A poll was done at the Vatican, jesus was #6 and who was prayed to the most.

 

[outhouse]

We don't know the exact nature of Satan,

Please speak for yourself.

You should have stated "I" dont know.

Because I know the exact nature of every aspect of satan, it can be done with study, education in mythology will teach you all you need to know about mythology and how it evolves.

 

[Ingledsva]

Are you purposely ignoring my last couple of post - on this subject?


It is not "wiles" - it is "methods."


Sheeesh! Read the word - Eph 6:11-18 Invest in the full armor of God, so you can stand beside/up to the methods (μεθοδεια&#962 of the Diabolos.

Sorry, you're hitting me with so many words like YHVH, Tanakh, Chav'vah, μεθοδειας Diabolos etc that I'm feeling punch drunk because I don't know which song sheet you're singing from..
What exactly is your religion or belief?

YHVH is an acronym for the name of God, in Tanakh. (Most now use YHWH)

*

Tanakh - We were asked by some of our Jewish members to use this instead of the errant, Old Testament.

*

Tanakh - "Though the terms "Bible" and "Old Testament" are commonly used by non-Jews to describe Judaism's scriptures, the appropriate term is "Tanach," which is derived as an acronym from the Hebrew letters of its three components: Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim." - The Tanakh [Full Text] | Jewish Virtual Library

*

There is actually no Eve in the Genesis story - her name was Chav'vah. See H2332 in your Strong's.

*

(μεθοδεια&#962 is literally methods.


*

Diabolos is a Greek word translated Devil. It is substituted by Christians - whom came in contact with the Greeks, - for Satan.

*

EDIT - Forgot the last question. I believe there is no religion of God. I believe people should be Spiritual.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

You have never been to south America have you?



They factually worship statues. And cards with mary on them.


A poll was done at the Vatican, jesus was #6 and who was prayed to the most.

You have said this before.


But these people are not stupid. They know what wood and plastic are. They know Mary is not stuck in a statue, or a card with her picture.


They are not praying to statues, cards, beads, etc. They use these to focus on the actual entity they pray to.


*

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..I know the exact nature of every aspect of satan, it can be done with study, education in mythology will teach you all you need to know about mythology and how it evolves.

Is Satan just a myth then?

 

[JM2C]

WHY! WHY! WHY! Does this falsehood keep getting repeated?

Catholics DO NOT pray to statues. They are used to focus thought. A prayer to Jesus goes to Jesus. Catholics are not stupid, they know statues are wood, stone, or plastic, and THEY DO NOT PRAY TO THEM!

Erroneous information like this needs to stop.
*

Why not! Why not! Why not!

“there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.”

Mt 6:9 “This, then, is how you should pray: “ ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,

Then after this;

Holy Mary mother of god pray for us

Charlie is communicating directly to God already and then all of a sudden Charlie switches that communication to Mary to ask God to pray for him/Charlie. Open your eyes and see the error here.

WHAT

“there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.”

?
This is the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, a direct communication to God the Father and not through any names.

Jn 16:26 In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf.
Jn 16:27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.

Christians are able to present their petitions to God directly in Jesus name ONLY.

You know why?

Phil 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
Phil 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Phil 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

 

[JM2C]

Catholics DO NOT pray to statues. They are used to focus thought. A prayer to Jesus goes to Jesus. Catholics are not stupid, they know statues are wood, stone, or plastic, and THEY DO NOT PRAY TO THEM!
*

You see how naïve or blinded you are even an atheist knew this facts.

You have never been to south America have you?

They factually worship statues. And cards with mary on them.
A poll was done at the Vatican, jesus was #6 and who was prayed to the most.

 

[1robin]

What in the Bible was not written after the fact? Especially prophesies about Jesus?

All the entire OT prophetical text is pre-Christ. What are you talking about? I know there are a few things recorded in the NT after the fact but that still leaves hundreds and maybe thousands that were not. We have hundreds of prophecies about Christ written long before he existed, prophecies written 4000 years ago about events that are occurring now, prophecies in the OT written about wars that occurred long after they were predicted.

 

[JM2C]

Actually Purgatory comes from the Hebrew idea of Sheol.

Sheol is where all the dead await final Judgment .

The Hebrew prayed for, and to, their passed relatives.

There is the idea, shown in the colloquialism, "Bosom of Abraham," text, that they realize they placed themselves in a particular order there, in Sheol. "Good" folk are at the head table, in the "Bosom of Abraham," and others are far below looking up, and yearning for a drop of water from that table, to stop their burning desire." Christians mistake this for a hell text
*

Lk 16:26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

No more crossing from here to there as in everything is final after death.

Heb 9:27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
Heb 9:28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Christ will come again for the 2nd time but not to deal with sins again.

 

[JM2C]

Only problem is that there is no evil Satan in Tanakh. Satan is the servant of YHVH, the Tester/Accuser. If found wanting, after testing, he stands beside YHVH to Accuse the "tested.

YHVH puts Satan's attention to Lot - to test him.

Job 1:8 And said YHVH to Satan, do put your regard/attention upon my servant Job for there is none like him on the earth, a man pious and upright, fearing Elohiym and turning from wickedness.

Zec 3:1 And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.

Psa 109:6 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.

Psa 109:7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.

We even find this idea still mixed into their new Greek Diabolos.

Mat 4:1 Then Jesus was led forth into the wilderness by the Holy Spirit to be tested/proved by the devil.

Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Luke 13:16 And ought not this one moreover, a daughter of Abraam, bound to the discernment/attention of the Accuser (satanas) ten and eight years, not, of a necessity, be loosed from this impediment on this day of the Sabbath?

Satan, in these later writings, has now been fully corrupted by foreign influence, to the Greek idea of Diabolos.
*

You know the Diabolos, devil, satanas, satan, accuser, tester, the antichrist, no matter what language you translate them, they will all come out the same as God’s enemy/ies.

Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

John is the last written, and obviously not by the Disciple John. This is well known, and even the language, style, and words, are different.

These texts were written long after Jesus' death. There is no proof that any of the people that supposedly wrote them, - actually did.

You mean the gospel of John is not the apostle John or the writer of the Revelation?

How did you know if you don’t know?

 

[JM2C]

Because I know the exact nature of every aspect of satan, it can be done with study, education in mythology will teach you all you need to know about mythology and how it evolves.

Please explain

 

[JM2C]

I see Satan as the emotional part of our brain. Not a separate being. Just a part of who we are. Emotions cause us to react to them fear, hate, love. The rational part of the brain tries to justify the worth of an action before we act.

Reacting from emotions/passions without rational thought gets one burned.

Two simple verses will says it all on who satan is.

1Jn 4:4 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
2Co 4:4 Satan, the god of this evil world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe, so they are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News that is shining upon them. They don’t understand the message we preach about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

“Who is in the world? -1John 4:4” “Satan, the god of this evil world -2Co 4:4”

 

[1robin]

I agree. I'm more interested in the next link in the chain: the idea that sinful people are disposable.

Why in the world can't you just leave the bible in whatever form it comes in? Why must you re-write it into another form by which you color everything with bias. If you can't contend with what is, it is of no use to confound what isn't. The bible never even hints that they are just trash to be disposed of. It says:

New International Version
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.

No hint of separating unimportant chaff from wheat here.

New International Version
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

No hint he does not regard even he rebellious as valuable.


Ezekiel 33:11
Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?

No careless disregard for his enemies but impassioned pleas.

I have no idea what you meant by disposable. If you meant unnecessary then we all are and necessarily are. A God that requires anything else is not God. If you mean that he has no regard for them or that he considers them supercargo to be disposed of as soon as possible your just wrong. He gave everything to save them.

New International Version
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Now if after all that there are those who just do not want any of it he will not force them to suffer his existence forever. They will get exactly what they wanted. No God. No other action could be more just.

 

[1robin]

Which is?

If the idea that everyone is sinful means that God is justified in killing whoever he wants, would I also be justified in killing whoever I want?

I mean, it seems like you've been building a case that human being are worthless, which certainly has implications for the morality of everyone, not just God.

Are you God? Did you create the lives you mention taking? Are you the perfect moral locus of the universe? No, then what was the point here? You could not have tried to equate two more unequal things.

 

[1robin]

And we will repeat that this idea is totally illogical, and immoral to even hold.

Such ideas are what the Hebrew, and the Inquisition, and other Christians used to defend their torture and murder of babies!


SICK! SICK! SICK!



*

I know what you claim because you have said the same unjustifiable thing over and over. It is not even an argument. It is only an appeal to sympathy and emotion. It is not true, and even if it was you could not possible know it was. It is irrelevant since God does not condemn these children. Not that your world view has an objective basis for a single moral truth's existence to even begin with. You can keep repeating this ridiculous mantra all you want and appealing to emotion. Apparently it is all you have left, but it will be just as irrelevant, just an unknowable, and just as silly given your world view, after the 300 time as it was the first.

 

[1robin]

So, then, the entire Bible is not myth? Yet, if part of it is, it doesn't matter because the important part, the about Jesus, is for sure not a myth? Am I wrong or is that what you're saying?

I never said it did not matter. Here lately I nor the bible can get anyone to leave our claims as stated. No matter how clear and concise they are they will always be restated in a way not intended by either of us to allow contention where none exist. I have no idea how to rate how important a certain story in the bible being false would be. First you would have to find on that was. Instead you have guessed at what importance I might assign to an unknown that has no specifics. How desperate is that? My point was that whether the Ark was a metaphor or a real ship would not have anything to do with the core aspects of a Christians faith. I was not considering a single OT verse when I was saved. And now that I have met God and know he exists none of the verses are central to my core belief. The clues and evidence is of utmost importance until the facts are known and then they take a back seat. Once you have found the treasure the squabbles over the maps details no longer hold sway. So depending on what they were they would have varying importance but compared to experiencing God they are not vital.

 

[1robin]

POST TWO OF TWO

H) 1ROBIN said : b. Nothing in a babies actions suggest they are struggling to obey moral law. They are self centered and only concerned with their desires at the expense of everything else but being cute and smelling good at times.
So, are you saying that the specific type of “self-centeredness” God created infants to have is their sin? If not : What sort of sins do newborn infants commit in your theory that “babies sin constantly”?



I) 1ROBIN said : c. They have no knowledge of a moral code to obey. How do you not transgress a standard you are in ignorance about if it is comprehensive.
This is not an answer to the question but a question meant to support the logic that you expect that an infant will, at some point, sin. While I very strongly agree with the question and the logic, it still does not tell us what sin a newborn is even capable of committing. What sort of sins do newborn infants commit in your theory that “babies sin constantly”.



J) 1ROBIN said : d. Without defining it some type of inherited flawed moral nature seems to result from the fall. I have no idea how to quantify this accurately but there is some inherent problem with human nature as a whole. Unless babies lack a human nature they have this problem.


This is not an answer to the question as to what sins a newborn commits, but instead, is a theory regarding human moral tendencies. It theorizes that an infant will, at some point, display a moral flaw in the future (a point none of us seem to disagree on).

Rather than a theory where one is created with moral faults by a God who then punishes the infant for having the faults he placed into it, one could just as easily theorize a morally healthy infant that contacts a moral contagion and THEN sins AFTER the newborn period. (i.e. Born morally perfect, but becomes “infected” with a moral “disease”). My point is not to support either theory, (although I think it is more logical theory than yours), but to point out that both theories end up with a morally culpable person but moral infection does not have the same theological baggage that yours has. Neither does the early Christian belief that newborns are innocent of having committed any sins.



K) 1ROBIN said : “Now some have asked how a baby who's motor skills are not even developed can sin. I am not really qualified to be specific but Christ himself named thoughts alone as sinful.“ This does not answer the question This theory that thoughts can be sinful does not tell us what thoughts an infant has that ARE sinful. What “sins of thought” is a newborn guilty of in your theory?



L) 1ROBIN said : “All babies that are mortals have been born separated from God. Now if separation from the moral locus of the universe will not result in moral failure then nothing could and we al all perfect I guess. “ This does not tell us what sins a newborn commits, merely that they are doomed to moral failure at some point.



M) 1ROBIN : Unless someone makes this relevant to one of them I am done with babies.
1ROBIN, This does not answer the question. It tells us that you are tired of having the question asked and are looking for a way not to deal with the question and disengage comfortably.

If you remember, It was you, who theorized that mankind is BORN full of sin (sin-ful) and morally “depraved” and that “babies sin constantly”. Thus conditions at BIRTH are completely relevant. I think what is frustrating is that you realize that there is no quick “sound bite” that fixes the holes in this theory that are present at birth; no support at it’s basic level of infants and moral action, when the theory is looked at closely.

Robin, You could simply admit what is already apparent to other readers it would be easier for you. You could simply say that you honestly do not know how a newborn can sin or what sin it commits. That you simply have faith in your belief on this point just like others have other theories and believe in their theories. This is perfectly fine to do.

No matter what you decide to do 1ROBIN , I hope your journey is good and your theories evolve as they should over your lifetime as your data stream changes. Please, remember that I am not your enemy; that I respect you, but simply that I want to have us all look more closely at this theory of yours for flaws that I think you do not see in it.


Clear
σεσιφθσιειω

This baby thing has been given far more attention than it deserves. It deserves none and has gotten quite a bit. I have many times said I would no longer waste any more time on something so meaningless and I am going to stick by that. I have even asked someone to explain why this subject has any impotence at all. Only one person even attempted it and even it was arbitrary and vague. I will give one more shot at it. How is either conclusion in this case of vital interest to a theological discussion? They wind yup in heaven either. What is at stake here?