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

[1robin]

1) REGARDING AGREEMENT WITH ROBIN’S THEORY THAT THERE WAS NO “ETERNAL TORTURE” IN CHRISTIANITY.

1ROBIN : I am pleased with your agreement.4620

I am also pleased that we agree on this point. I do NOT take any joy in our arguments. I hope you realize that I am simply wanting to "co-discover" errors that we both make in our theories. (mine as well).

Well I prefer agreement to disagreement but my first allegiance is truth, second is a defense of faith, everything else is a distant third. I do not attempt to win anything but just to defend adequately what I think is true or discover something I am unfamiliar with. I don't take this stuff personally and hope you don't.

However, you mentioned in 4620, “…when it says to fear the one that can destroy the soul it is because that is going to happen.” Can you give me the reference for “fearing the one that can destroy the soul” since this specific point as it differs from early tradition. Thanks.

I take it you do not disagree that it is canon but you think it should not have been. I need to know what it is specifically you desire. Since I take it you are familiar with the verse what did you want exactly?

SkepticThinker explained : “In order to exercise morality, one has to be aware of the difference between "good" (right) or "bad" (wrong) behavior. Since a baby is incapable of doing this (we know their brains aren't as fully developed as an adult's brain is), I'd say babies are amoral which I see as quite a different thing than being immoral, …” post 4613 (Underlines are added by Clear for Clarity of reference)

That is a basis for accountability not technical guilt. The standard is perfection. A baby does not reach it, or at least it can't be shown any to be expected.

The theory opposite of your theory is more supportable : “Newborns obey all objective moral laws they have been given as far as we can tell. Newborns do not violate a single moral law they are given" as far as we can tell..

Well you at least agree that the final facts cannot be known and that makes this irrelevant but so what? There is no evidence of any special baby morality. There is good reason there wouldn't be since moral truths should not change. I think your getting accountability and technical guilt all switched up.

If newborns do disobey a moral law, tell us which moral law they disobey.

I can't even do that for my best friend in totality. Even if I could it would be on a case by case basis. I see no evidence that they love God with all heir mind body and sole, that they are selfless, or they obey any law except perceived necessity at the expense of every other being in proximity. God's morality is not neutrality or ignorance, it is right action compared with objective moral fact.

For example, it is both logical and reasonable to assume they do not disobey any of the 10 commandments. They do not seem to lie, steal or envy a neighbors wife or his wealth or any other of these commandments, nor empirically have we any evidence that any newborn who has ever lived, done so.

I do not think you believe the ten commandments the totality of Godly duty but even if you did there is no evidence they even obey the first one. In fact I can see the potentiality that they violate most of them. I have seen babies fake all kinds of conditions in order to get what they want, is that not lying? Do they place God above every other consideration, I think the exact opposite is true. Do they not take from others? Are they always acting with honor towards parents? As far back as I can remember I remember times I hated mine and mine were as good as any baby could expect. Anyway it is not enough to show I can't prove their guilty even if I can't. You must show the evidence is that they are obedient instead of not.

1ROBIN - Which of the ten commandments do newborns disobey?

I gave a few above. How many of the ten is necessary?

Whether you came up with this theory that infants “sin” on your own or whether you learned it from a minister or another person or your parents and simply assumed it was correct; Still, it is not as reasonable, nor as logical, nor as consistent with commons sense and common experience as the earliest Christian worldview that infants are innocent of committing any sin.

I think I got it from the impossibility of it's reverse and found it confirmed by the bible though not emphatically so. It is imminently logical. perfectly consistent, and completely rational. Only if they were judged for their actions would anything objectionable be present. They do not obey the rules. You must show evidence is in favor of their obeying them. Again I think sentimentality is getting in the way of reason here.

Good Journey 1Robin

Clear
σετζειφυδρω

Good day clear.

 

[Clear]

1) Clear asked 1robin regarding his claim mentioned in 4620, “…when it says to fear the one that can destroy the soul it is because that is going to happen : ” Can you give me the reference for “fearing the one that can destroy the soul” since this specific point as it differs from early tradition. Thanks.”
1robin replied : Since I take it you are familiar with the verse what did you want exactly?”

1Robin, I wanted the reference. What book, chapter and verse are you referring to regarding “..fearing the one that can destroy the soul…because that is going to happen”?





2)REGARDING 1ROBIN AND JM2C’S THEORY THAT BABIES SIN CONSTANTLY AND THAT BABIES ARE MORALLY “DEPRAVED”.

SkepticThinker explained : “In order to exercise morality, one has to be aware of the difference between "good" (right) or "bad" (wrong) behavior. Since a baby is incapable of doing this (we know their brains aren't as fully developed as an adult's brain is), I'd say babies are amoral which I see as quite a different thing than being immoral, …” post 4613 (Underlines are added by Clear for Clarity of reference)

1ROBIN countered “The ontological issue is that babies do not perfectly obey objective moral law. They violate it.”


1Robin, simply repeating your illogical, unreasonable theory without any supporting data is not helpful to your case. The theory opposite of your theory is more supportable : “Newborns obey all objective moral laws they have been given as far as we can tell. Newborns do not violate a single moral law they are given" as far as we can tell..

If newborns do disobey a moral law, tell us which moral law they disobey.

A) 1ROBIN replied : “I do not think you believe the ten commandments the totality of Godly duty but even if you did there is no evidence they even obey the first one. In fact I can see the potentiality that they violate most of them. I have seen babies fake all kinds of conditions in order to get what they want, is that not lying?.

1ROBIN , We are speaking of newborns, you are switching to older individuals.

If you ARE trying to say newborns “fake” things, then you have not told us when, you think that newborns were given the understanding to do this, nor how nor when newborns acquired the capacity by God to either obey or to rebel against God. Your theory never gets consideration because it is so inconsistent with reality.

For example, forum readers all have experienced newborns (I’ve examined and interacted with thousands… literally). I’ve NEVER seen a newborn FAKE anything. EVER.

HAS ANY OTHER FORUM READER SEEN A NEWBORN “FAKE” SOMETHING?

Your claim to have seen “babies” either does not even apply to the question of newborns, or if you are claiming newborn babies “fake all kinds of conditions” then it is simply not a credible claim.

Re-read SkepticThinkers point as he is correct. To be “sinful” (full of sin) an infant has to be morally “aware” . That is, they must have sufficient awareness, knowledge, understanding and free will to make the choice in order to have the moral compentency to make a choice to oppose God in any way. (This is not necessarily true of “transgression” or of those who are “lawless”, but it applies to the conscious choice to “sin” against moral knowledge).



B) REGARDING NEWBORNS AND THEIR “SINS”, 1ROBIN claims : “Do they place God above every other consideration, I think the exact opposite is true. Do they not take from others?

I do not think a newborn has yet learned that God exists in order to defy him nor is oriented enough to even be able to place God above other considerations. Again, refer to Skeptics point that God MUST give all individuals (including newborns) sufficient knowledge and understanding and free will BEFORE he can punish an individual for not obeying a law they have never been given. God is unjust if God creates a being with imperfection and then punishes that individual for having the characteristic which God placed into it UNLESS God give the individual adequate ability and opportunity to change. If you think that they “take from others” in the form of “stealing”, then you will have to give us data and logic to support the claim that newborns are thieves…



C) REGARDING NEWBORNS AND THEIR “SINS”, 1ROBIN claims : “Are they always acting with honor towards parents? As far back as I can remember I remember times I hated mine and mine were as good as any baby could expect.“

I think you are being disingenuous if you claim that you, as a newborn baby in the nursery, “hated your parents”. If you are NOT talking about newborns, but instead, are talking about older children, then it is, once again, an irrelevant point. This feels like a desperate and disingenuous speculation which is HURTING your case that newborns sin instead of helping you. What is so wrong with just telling forum members that you simply don’t know what newborn infants do that is a moral sin?



D) REGARDING 1ROBIN AND JM2C’S THEORY THAT BABIES SIN CONSTANTLY AND THAT BABIES ARE MORALLY “DEPRAVED”.
1ROBIN claims : Anyway it is not enough to show I can't prove their guilty even if I can't.

“prove”? Are you reading your own posts? You haven’t even gotten past the stage of theorizing that infants “sin constantly” or that they are somehow morally “depraved”.
If you have paid attention, this theory has already been pronounced dead multiple times.

Readers, including theists, nontheists, agnostics, Christians, etc. who feel infants are not morally “depraved” are both comfortable with dismissing your theory and feel even more justified in having rejected your theory of infant depravity each time you bring it up again. The early Christian worldview that infants are innocent remains perfectly unshaken as more logical, more rational, more just and more probable than this newer theory of yours where infants are morally depraved. This is what I meant that your arguments are counterproductive.



E) REGARDING 1ROBIN AND JM2C’S THEORY THAT BABIES SIN CONSTANTLY AND THAT BABIES ARE MORALLY “DEPRAVED”.

1ROBIN claimed : “ You must show the evidence is that they are obedient instead of not.“
No. This is another example of desperate, illogical silliness. All one has to show to suggest that one is sinless is to show that one has never sinned and has not yet sinned. Newborn infants have not sinned, nor do they sin (yet). If you think for example, an infant is not sinless in the womb, then what is there about being delivered that changes that status? (or are you saying God creates a sinful product in the first place?)

1ROBIN If you do not have any data or logic or reason to support this theory of yours. I think it is really, really, really dead and it is NOT a superior theory to the early Christian belief in infants as being innocent.

Clear
σετζτωτζτζω

 

[CG Didymus]

...The standard is perfection...

Yes, to many Christians. However, I found two Jewish sites that say that God does not expect perfection. The first one also talks about the Jewish view of hell being similar to the Catholic purgatory. A point that was discussed a few pages ago. [FONT=&quot]From the article: Does Judaism Believe in Heaven and Hell?[/FONT]

Judaism’s view of hell more closely resembles purgatory. However, the pain the soul experiences is not physical. It has been compared to psychological anguish, shame and healing upon reviewing the history of one’s life in a body, and how it wasted opportunities to serve God…
Everyone can merit a portion in the World to Come…
It is essential to our understanding to appreciate that the Hebrew word for repentance is Teshuvah, which literally means “to return to God.” Most people are not completely evil or completely good. God does not expect perfection or He wouldn’t have provided repentance as a way of returning to Him. God’s message of love and compassion is: “Return to Me, says the LORD of hosts, and I will return to you,” (Zechariah 1:3). This is an invitation from God to return directly to Him without the need for an intermediary to help us.
This personal and direct relationship with God is within everyone’s grasp…

The second article is called: Is Your Commitment to Judaism Strong Enough?

Do not be discouraged if your past behavior was not in keeping with the laws you learn. Judaism is not all or nothing and God does not expect perfection. As your Creator, He knows your struggles and weaknesses. All He asks is that you do your best. Whatever mitzvah you can do, do. Whatever prohibition you can avoid, avoid. As King Solomon says (Ecclesiastes 9:10), “Whatever you are able to do with your might, do it…” No matter how far you have fallen, through repentance, you can pick yourself up and start fresh; that is the power of teshuva; that is your Creator’s gift.

So, again, if "perfection" wasn't a teaching from Judaism, then where did it come from? Did the God of the Jews forget to tell them? Did he not make it clear? If you are right, then apparently not.

Or, could it be that everyone has different opinions of what is true? You have one based on a certain Christian way of believing. Of course you have your verses to prove your point, but like so many Christian "doctrines" too much of it is based on a few verses taken from here and there. That's bad enough, but even NT writers have taken verses out of context and have changed or added a few words here and there to make their points.

That's fallible people making these decisions? Oh, sorry, except for the NT writers, the infallible God told those fallible people exactly what to write. But, who knows, maybe you're right. Your view of Christian truth kind of makes sense. It could be exactly as you say... that we are all hopelessly lost and we need Jesus. However, because it's not there or at least not clear in Judaism, then it seems to me more likely that early Christians made a lot of this stuff up.

And, what has been happening ever since? Christians have kept re-interpreting the NT and refining and redefining their beliefs and creating new denominations of Christianity. It has never been one "objective" God-given truth... just a lot of variations. And all based on the Bible. Each group of believers feels it in their hearts. They have "experienced" God's truth and all swear, they are the ones that have it right. But what was that one verse? A house divided cannot stand or something? I know. I know. There are verses that prove all those other churches are false churches and yours is the one and only true church.

 

[Clear]

REGARDING 1ROBIN’s THEORY THAT GOD EXPECTED PERFECTION OF MANKIND AS A MORAL STANDARD.


CG DIDYMUS said : “Yes, to many Christians. However, I found two Jewish sites that say that God does not expect perfection. The first one also talks about the Jewish view of hell being similar to the Catholic purgatory. A point that was discussed a few pages ago. [FONT=&quot]From the article: Does Judaism Believe in Heaven and Hell?”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hi [/FONT][FONT=&quot]CG DIDYMUS[/FONT][FONT=&quot] : Though 1[FONT=&quot]ROBIN [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]has injected [FONT=&quot]it into his comments[/FONT][/FONT] multiple times, This idea of Perfection[FONT=&quot] as a moral expect[FONT=&quot]ation from an imperfection being,[/FONT][/FONT] is yet another theory that 1ROBIN has never (as far as I can tell) given us support for (as yet). I did not pursue it because it was not a priority and th[FONT=&quot]ere were so many other concepts that were under controversy that it simply got bur[FONT=&quot]ied inside the mul[FONT=&quot]tiple issues.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However, I agree with the Jews on this point that the early Judeo-Christians also understood, in their own traditions and beliefs, that God knew even before Adam's spirit was place[FONT=&quot]d into his body and he [FONT=&quot]was placed into the garden of eden[/FONT][/FONT], that mankind was NOT going to be perfect and in fact did not expect them to BE perfect ([FONT=&quot]that is, [FONT=&quot]he did not expect the modern version of perfection of moral "flawlessness" from mankind)[/FONT][/FONT]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If you remember the discussion regarding the fall of Lucifer and his evolution into an enemy of God, the realization that if God carried forth his program to morally educate the spirits of mankind WOULD result in terrible evils upon the earth. That is, they knew that the spirits were not going to be perfect and we[FONT=&quot]re, in fact, going to [FONT=&quot]do terrible evils upon the face of the earth[/FONT][/FONT].[/FONT]

The early christian model of repentance as a principle of moral improvement in the early christian movement is much like that described in the jewish talmud. [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]Clear[/FONT]

 

[viole]

I was all set up to agree but just couldn't do it. I do not have anything to refute you juts to add to this.

1. Over 90% of the population lived since Christ.
2. We are only judged for the revelation which we have had. I am certain many of those in foxholes met Christ without recognizing his name. I remember a story of a Hindu priest who was in a Ziggurat (or something equivalent) on an island off India's cost. A missionary went there but was soon run to the mainland. He was in a motel when a knock at the door came. He found the chief of the island there to tell him he knew the man who the missionary had described but cam to thank him for giving his name. The before and after pictures of the witch doctor are startling.
3. The claim was no atheists exist in fox holes. Every other "ist" is included technically.
4. The claim was always generalized and not really intended to validate Christianity specifically but to indicate the bankruptcy of atheism when it counts most.

Met Christ without recognizing His name? How can you be certain about that? Is it faith, or evidence?

And I think you take such anecdotes too seriously.

The Christian claim is almost unique. It is one of experience not intellectual consent to a proposition. There are always exceptions but this is by far the general rule. IOW it is not wish fulfillment I am discussing but actual experience with the divine. Not only are most other faiths virtually devoid of the claim there is no doctrinal reason to expect that type of claim at all. Muslims' and Hindus do not claim to be born again in even fractional comparison. I can't for the life of me speak with a enlightened Hindu to save my life. I gave up the whole effort.

Yes, and Scientology claims are even more unique. Uniqueness does not entail truth. And morality, spirituality, being born again, Holy Ghosts or whatever do not carry any truth towards a metaphysical being. Only evidence does. For what we know, He might laugh at these notions, if He existed. i would

I think the Jesus analogy is out of context but the principle is sound. Atheism is vacuous and is quickly discarded when weighty issues are in front of us. I can't think of a single primary question about life it can even help with. It is like evolution, can't build anything with it, can't find any hope in it, can't get confirmation of it's truth until it is too late to be of any use, can't ensure justice through it, neither is consistent with all of history, neither can even explain just human history alone, and both are heavily against the odds as stand alone explanations.

Well, you have to provide evidence of that. I come from an atheistic country and therefore I know a lot of atheists. I do not know a lot of them who went down of their knees while on their death bed.

And I think you are still giving priority to a belief in God rather than to the actual object of the belief. You really seem to think that believing in ANYTHING transcendent is in some ways preferable than not believing in anything transcendent at all. No matter how weird that belief is.

Even if atheism were bankrupt on the emotional side (need for purpose, justice, hope) I would say that Christianity is bankrupt on the intellectual side every time it feels closer to someone who believes that God has the head of an elephant rather than to a general skeptic. If that is true, then I would have an edge, for beliefs that tend to fill out our little emotional gaps and cravings have the bad habit of being false.

The God they believe in is exactly the same as what we call the father. I do not even know if the Trinity is true nor why it matters but the father and Yahweh are identical entities in personhood regardless.

Are you sure? My Jewish friend does not agree with you.

That does not follow. If I say john is white and you say Asian that does not imply there are two Johns necessarily. In fact the entire concept of my God is dependent on continuity with the OT. We may disagree about what he did but few think these are two different beings.

Well, the disagreements are pretty major. One has a son and is therefore a father, the other does not. Your analogy does not hold, for Asians can be white, while people who have sons and no sons at the same time cannot logically exist.

I did not say martyrdom was proof of anything. This is that lack of certainty equal no value stuff again. Passive martyrdom is juts one line of evidence in thousands that all point to one conclusions. No one of them on their own are conclusive but the total package makes denial look like preference. Having faith in a true God should produce unique actions. Unique abilities or tendencies are evidence for that. Hate filled death in service of vengeance is not unique it is all too common and is not evidence for any benevolent God.

You make the assumption that God is benevolent. Or it can be that He is very jealous against worshipers of the competition and by eliminating them we will reach a higher good. After all, God's ways are mysterious sometimes, aren't they?

I even allowed for that specifically and could not stop the counter comment. It is kind of frightening when you know exactly what the other person is going to say, calibrate for it, and get it anyway. Atheists are predictable if nothing else. I used the word "most" specifically to account for skywriting, etc...

Well, no. I was checking your information theoretical skills. Smoke is always unintelligible since it is usually a highly entropic bunch of atoms. It is the size of the puffs and the interval between them that contains the information, not the smoke. Do you have to fall into my little traps all the time?

Sasquatch. See, I bet you could not predict that, could you? You pick it. It is too late for me. I will respond tomorrow if there is no rapture, have a good one.

They expect cloudless weather in Israel today. Therefore, it is improbable that you will meet Jesus in the clouds. I guess this gives green light for your continuation.

BTW. Do you really believe that there will be something like a rapture and a glorious return of Jesus? Honestly.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Clear]

CG DIDYMUS pointed out : “Judaism’s view of hell more closely resembles purgatory. However, the pain the soul experiences is not physical. It has been compared to psychological anguish, shame and healing upon reviewing the history of one’s life in a body, and how it wasted opportunities to serve God…”

HI CG DIDYMUS

I like your data on this point. .

Just as the specific Rabbinic Jewish description of repentance for one’s sin’s as an important principle in one’s moral progress was similar to early Christian worldviews, the earliest Christian textual traditions were also similar in this specific description of the torments of “Hell”, that is, the torment of those who ended up in a “hell” were not tortured endlessly by burning them with fire, but instead, it was a metaphorical description of somewhat self-imposed torments of loss opportunity, regret for moral mistakes, shame, loss of progress and loss of certain rewards, etc.

For example, The Prophet Baruch describes the “torment” of those who were evil in this life : “...they who will then come will be sad, because they despised my Law and stopped their ears lest they hear wisdom and receive intelligence. This sadness is mainly self-imposed and came from their own realization rather than from the external punishment imposed by God their Father.

The Prophet Baruch described in this text that these individuals see others who were less exalted in life then they but in that place are more exalted than themselves. Thus this dawning knowledge of their lack of moral characteristics and moral wisdom becomes part of their regret “ For they will first see and then they will go away to be tormented.” (The apocalypse of Baruch (Baruch 2) 51:2-6) I might point out that this group of individuals includes Christians in the mix as well. (including those who "thought they were saved" yet acted badly)

The Prophet Ezra also describes this shame and regret in the context of explaining that, upon the death of the body, spirits are taken back to a world of spirits, : “And if it is one of those who have shown scorn and have not kept the way of the Most High, and who have despised his Law, and who have hated those who fear God – 80 such spirits shall not enter into habitations, but shall immediately wander about in torments, ever grieving and sad, in seven ways. 81 The first way, because they have scorned the Law of the Most High. The second way, because they cannot now make a good repentance that they may live. The third way, they shall see the reward laid up for those who have trusted the covenants of the Most High. The forth way, they shall consider the torment laid up for themselves in the last days. The fifth way, they shall see how the habitations of the others are guarded by angels in profound quiet. The sixth way, they shall see how some of them will pass over into torments. The seventh way, which is worse than all the ways that have been mentioned, because they shall utterly waste away in confusion and be consumed with shame, and shall wither with fear at seeing the glory of the Most High before whom they sinned while they were alive, and before whom they are to be judged in the last times.” (Fourth Book of Ezra 7; 75-87) This is a description of the world of spirits (spirit world / hades / sheol / purgatory, etc) and not after a final judgment.


My specific point is that none of these torments involve some unending vengeful torture but that this torment is similar to the Jewish version of shame in a world of spirits quite similar to a purgatory-like concept of improvement and purging of attitudes and mind-sets that caused these profound regrets and, it did not seem to be an eternal state without hope of improvement. This Jewish tradition IS quite similar to the early Christian tradition on this point. Both are quite similar to that of the Roman Christian movement. These three sets are quite similar in certain themes.



REGARDING HISTORY ABOUT THE MANY JUDAISMS THAT EXISTED ANCIENTLY

One last thing, Though Jews, (just like Christians) like to feel that their specific brand of tradition is the same as ancient Judaism, it is helpful to keep in mind that there were many “Judaisms” anciently (just as there are many Christianities and Judaisms today) and the type of description one receives of historical Judaism depends upon the opinion of the modern commentator. There is MUCH that neither Jewish nor Christian historians know about what these early Judaisms might have been like.

For example, it is, in the main, RABBINIC Judaism that survived in the modern era. The many modern Judaisms no longer have prophets, they no longer have Temple ordinances nor temple worship, The modern Judaisms no longer have priests as a locus of power and doctrinal influence (but instead modern Judaisms have rabbis which are teachers but do not have priesthood). The many modern judaisms have synagogues as a center of worship and not temples. Modern Judaisms typically have Masoretic versions of the Bible rather than the versions and texts that existed in ancient judaism (the texts are not the same).

My point is that any written description of ancient “Judaism” is the opinion of whoever writes the description in the same manner that Christianity is describes in many different ways depending upon the person who is describing it. These are simply opinions and the lack of information on what ancient Judaisms were like leaves us making historical caricuratures rather than accurate models to some extent. Even our textual descriptions are lacking.

For examples : We don’t (as far as I know) have any specific texts that survived specifically from came from Pharisaic Judaism or from the Sadducees. Even the models concerning the significance and meaning of the dead sea scroll library is evolving, especially since the theory that these 1200 plus texts represent a large portion of the actual ancient Jerusalem library itself (rather than a product of 300 people living in the desert&#8230 Everything is tentative and all models are evolving and changing and improving in their accuracy (or not).


At any rate, I like your points and comments. Good journey DG DIDYMUS


Clear
σετζτωνεσιω

 

[CG Didymus]

The God they believe in is exactly the same as what we call the father. I do not even know if the Trinity is true nor why it matters but the father and Yahweh are identical entities in personhood regardless.

"I do not even know if the Trinity is true nor why it matters"? Hmmm? I don't know, but it might make a slight difference in what a person believes?

Hmmm? Jesus is God? Or, no he's just a man... a real, real good man. In fact, a perfect, sinless man. But that's impossible, because all men are sinners? Therefore, Jesus is not just a man, he must also be divine? Hmmm? He must be half God and half man? No, he must be all God and only seemed to be a man? No, he must be both all God and all man, and yet, without sin. Now where's my Bible so I can find verses that make it seem like that is what the Bible was saying all along. Oh, perfect, Adam sinned and all men inherited sin from him. Oh cool, here in Isaiah I can take this "virgin" or "young woman" story, it shouldn't make too much difference if it was a virgin or young women, both words can sort of mean the same thing... and then, I'll make this story a prophesy about a child born without a father. That way, he doesn't have the inherited sin from Adam. Hmmm, now what? Okay, God got her pregnant. So God is the kids real father, so the kid is... God's son. So the kid is like God? Or, he is God!

So how is the son and the father the same being? Oh, I know, the one God is really two in one, God the father and God the Son. Hmmm? What about Mary, the woman? Mary, mother of God? Some people might buy that, but Mary never married God. That would make God an adulterer. We can't have that. What to do, what to do? I know, she was just a surrogate. She carried God's son, but she's not the real mother. She only donated the egg. So, perfect, God the father and God the son, The Holy Bi-God. Oh no, bi? That doesn't sound right? Hmmm? What to do, what to do? I know. I'll add God the Holy Spirit. Three Gods in one, the Holy Trinity! It's virtually the same God, just different. It shouldn't really matter. Maybe later, we'll add a storm god and a fertility god. And then, who knows, maybe we'll make an evil twin god to fight against the good god.

Yeah, we can have an epic battle in heaven. And all the Earth people can join in and take sides. And the evil god can mate with human woman and make half god and half man super things, that could fly and turn invisible and do all sorts of cool evil things. Then the good god could get a kid with a sling-shot to kill this giant monster evil thing that was terrorizing the Earth. Then the bad god sends an army of flying monkeys to get him, but he escapes by using a magic ring. Hey wait, I'm getting carried away. At some point people are going to quit believing this is true and realize it was just a myth... a really elaborate story that I just made up. Yeah, I better stop now before it gets too unbelievable.

So the absolute truth is: There is one God. He has a spirit, well actually he is a spirit, but he has a special spirit, The Holy Spirit, that got Mary pregnant. She had a son that was God's son, but was also God and was with God from the beginning, even though he hadn't been born yet. But, he was there in spirit. So, in the beginning there was God, an almighty spirit, and the spirit of his yet to be born son and the Holy Spirit, all three spirits, which were all one, one spirit, yet separate. They made a bunch of spirit beings they called angels or for short, messengers. These spirit beings had nothing to do, so one of them got bored and rebelled. One of the Gods, the Father, got mad and cast this bad angel out of heaven into... nothing? No, I remember now, God created the heavens and the Earth, that way he'd have a place to cast the evil angel out to. One third of the billions of angels weren't that smart, they decided to follow the evil angel.

In the mean time, God had created Adam but forgot to create Eve. God's son, the other God, had to remind God of the original plan, the plan of salvation that they had devised before the Earth was even made. This plan needed Eve, because she was going to screw up and listen to a talking serpent and eat a forbidden fruit. Wait, wait, wait, I'm sorry, nobody's going to buy this. It's like its fantasy or Sci-fy or something. Who would ever be gullible enough to listen to a Sci-fy writer? That would be stupid.

So back to the point: is the trinity true? Who knows? And really, why would it even matter. One God, three Gods, one in three, it's all almost the same. Except, if we're going to add Gods, can we make it official and add Krishna? I like him, and it would give Jesus someone to hang out with in heaven.

 

[CG Didymus]

My Jewish friend does not agree with you.

Well, the disagreements are pretty major. One has a son and is therefore a father, the other does not.
Ciao

- viole

I like you. Gnostic atheist, Metaphysical Naturalist and you say "Ciao" at the end of your posts... Wow, what's not to like. You're the best.

Now, if I only knew what a gnostic atheist and a metaphysical naturalist was? Ah, who cares? And besides, does it really matter?

 

[Clear]

CG DIDYMUS

I had to read post 4647 three times. Read it to my wife as well. I wonder which direction the assassination attempts will come from... I very much agree with the complete confusion that investigators of christianity find themselves in. Christians too often abuse the claim to "know" something and their current tentative personal theories are often inadequate to explain how varying versions of theology have anything in common. Even as a Christian, I find this situation fastinating how an early theological movement can schism and undergo apostasy and splits and result in hundreds of theories. This is the value of returning to the earliest christian theology BEFORE so much history occurred and so many strange theories arose to make things so very complicated.

I re-read your post and enjoy your humorous expose of our Christian silliness. Still, I hope the trinitarians don't know where your live...

See you CG. Ciao

(if that's all it takes to be liked, I'm going to start ending my posts in Ciao like Viole does....)

Clear
σετζδρδρτωω



VIOLE - Sprechen sie deutsch order eine andere sprache? Ihre English ist sehr, sehr fein. (wirklich....) Ich hatte einen freund den aus Der Schweitze kam. Nach dem er Die Schweitze discuhtiert (schoen, gutes wetter, kluges volk, etc), seit der zeit, habe ich von Der Schweitz getraumpt. Na Ja, eines tages... Jetz wohne ich en der vereingten staten unt es gibt fast keine gelegenheit deutch zu sprechen. Ihre wortschatz ist auch ausgezeitnet. Ciao

 

[Ingledsva]

POST TWO OF TWO (CONTINUED)

As I said in my post regarding it’s usage, it is not always βασονον "εκ των σωματων” or a torture "of the body" it refers to, but in other usage, it the phrase is “...ψυχικας βασονους..” and refers to a torture "of the soul" such as mental torment, shame, profound regret for choices made or a life lived poorly… just as Vettius Valens (p. 182.19) uses it in this manner in multiple examples.

As Strongs demonstrated, ALL forms of this word refer to some sort of torture or torment, whether of body or of mind. For example P Oxy VI 903.10 refers to what slaves said under torture : «...βασανιζομενοι ουν επιαν...[FONT=&quot]" [/FONT] (“…they, (slaves) under torture, said …”). Andollent IA.27 (Cnidus tablet) speaks of terrible “..μεγαλας Βασανους Βασανιζομενα…” and the imprecatory tablet 35.8 speaks of “…μετα κυνων Βασονισαι…” . In ALL cases of all uses, this word refers to some sort of torture or discomfort of body or mind (soul)

I suppose the point is made that βασανος does NOT mean “bottom” in Koine or in any biblical usage (that I have found so far – I didn’t check it’s usage in the apocrypha…).

ARE THERE ANY GREEK READERS WHO KNOW OF ANY EXCEPTION TO THIS USE OF ΒΑΣΑΝΟΣ WHERE IT IS USED TO REFER TO THE “BOTTOM” OF ANYTHING?

EVEN A SINGLE EXAMPLE FROM KOINE?




REGARDING THE EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BELIEF IN HADES AS A “WORLD OF SPIRITS” OF THOSE WHO HAVE DIED.

Having said this I also have to agree with ingledsva that JM2C is offering silly erroneous interpretations of irrelevant scriptures to attempt to support his personal theory that “purgatory / hades / world of spirits / sheol, etc.” was not Christian doctrine.

It is quite clear historically that the early Judeo-Christians not only believed in this world of spirits, but their texts describe it, it’s inhabitants and their conditions with great detail. If anyone is interested in a historical re-cap, I will offer it from early historical texts, otherwise it is too obvious from the early textual histories that a world of spirits of the dead / hades/ purgatory (whatever one wants to call it) existed in early christian theology.


Clear
σενετωφιφιω

I'm back from camping. I know.


The Strong's info does not say Strong's makes up definitions, nor are Biblical texts the only source for these words. Down is legit.


With that said - your two posts were very interesting.


Like you, I also don't understand why so many Christians don't understand the Sheol connection. Jesus was Jewish.




*

 

[Ingledsva]

Scofield Reference Notes - (Greek, "hadēs", "the unseen world," is revealed as the place of departed human spirits between death and resurrection). The word occurs, (Mat_11:23); (Mat_16:18); (Luk_10:15); (Act_2:27); (Act_2:31); (Rev_1:18); (Rev_6:8); (Rev_20:13); (Rev_20:14) and is the equivalent of the Old Testament "sheol."

The rich man was in hades “being in torment” while Abraham and Lazarus were NOT in hades and not “being in torment”

Read these verses and see if there is any positive thought in there.

Mt 11:23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths [G87 a{/dh" Hades, the grave, the place of the dead, “the underworld”]. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.

Mt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades [G87 a{/dh" Hades, the grave, the place of the dead, “the underworld”] will not overcome it.

Lk 10:15 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths [G87 a{/dh" Hades, the grave, the place of the dead, “the underworld”].

Lk 16:23 In hell [G87 a{/dh" Hades, the grave, the place of the dead, “the underworld”], where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.

Ac 2:27 because you will not abandon me to the grave [G87 a{/dh" Hades, the grave, the place of the dead, “the underworld”], nor will you let your Holy One see decay.

Ac 2:31 Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave [G87 a{/dh"
Hades, the grave, the place of the dead, “the underworld”], nor did his body see decay.

Rev 1:18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades [G87
a{/dh" Hades, the grave, the place of the dead, “the underworld”].

No matter how you and Clear interpret this verses, this place, Hades [G87 a{/dh" Hades, the grave, the place of the dead,
“theunderworld”] is not a pleasant place to be after one dies.

What is your point with these?

Hades is Sheol, where all the dead go.

It is death. It is not thought of as a great place to be, even for the righteous.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

Hades is the Greek word replacing SHEOL! There is NO HELL in Sheol! As such NO FIRE!

He finds himself in Sheol, no more time to remedy his wrongs, which have placed him at the bottom. He looks up with a burning yearning for what he has lost, by his own actions.

QUOTE=JM2C;3921849]Let's say the rich man was at the bottom and not “being in torment” why in Lk 16:24 he would say something like this if there was no fire or flame [G5825 flovx flame, blaze] at all?

Lk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented [G3849 ojdunavw to grieve, be anxious, in agony] in this flame [G5825 flovx flame, blaze].

Lk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented [G3849 ojdunavw to grieve, be anxious, in agony].

Is this the purgartory you are talking about?[/QUOTE]


You seem to have not even noticed your own work - "grieve," "anxious," etc.


You can translate this, - for I am tormented/grieved by this burning.


...now therefore is he comforted, and thou art tormented/grieved.


NO HELL = No FLAMES!


He is in torment/grieving/burning/yearning because he realizes he is dead - no more time to get it right - his own actions placed him where he is in the lineup - now he awaits the Judgment.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

9-10th Penguin said : “I think in the discussion about that particular issue, the "slaughtering most of humanity" problem gets lost in the conversation about the "eternal suffering" issue that usually accompanies it. Not many things top the immortality of genocide, but infinite torture does.”

1ROBIN replied : “I don't hold to any belief about eternal torture other than it's non-existence.”



I vote with 1ROBIN on this point that “eternal torture” did not exist in early Christian worldviews AND I agree with 9-10ths Penguin on the injustice of a doctrine that tortures beings "without any end - forever - eternally".

I am pleased with your agreement. The moment you introduce eternal torture you cease to have a just God. I believe the bible when it says hell will be thrown into the pit and destroyed and I believe that when it says to fear the one that can destroy the soul it is because that is going to happen. I believe hell may be temporally a physical place but in the end is destroyed along with every soul that is in it. That is just, an eternal dungeon is not. I could throw more scripture at it and philosophize more on it but if we agree there is no need.

Well - I'm happy you guys are happy with each other now - however, way back, I posted the verse you mention.

We are talking about Sheol. The only torment is knowing they placed themselves in the position they find themselves in, awaiting judgment, and then we are told Hades/Sheol and those judged evil, are destroyed. No Hell.


Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and Hades/Sheol delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Rev 20:14 And death and Hades/Sheol were cast into the lake of fire.This is the second death.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


Hades/Sheol gives up her DEAD - THEN - they are JUDGED - THEN - tossed into the Lake of Fire = totally destroyed.


That last word translated "fire," comes from the word for a refiner's furnace that burns off/destroys the dross (impurities.)



*

 

[CG Didymus]

CG DIDYMUS ...I very much agree with the complete confusion that investigators of christianity find themselves in. Christians too often abuse the claim to "know" something and their current tentative personal theories are often inadequate to explain how varying versions of theology have anything in common. Even as a Christian, I find this situation fastinating how an early theological movement can schism and undergo apostasy and splits and result in hundreds of theories. This is the value of returning to the earliest christian theology BEFORE so much history occurred and so many strange theories arose to make things so very complicated.

Post? What post? You must have me confused with that other CG. His last name is Didsomethingelse. I can see why you thought that was me. His address is 333 33rd St Somewhere Far Away, East Nowheresville. I believe that is on one of Jupiter's moons. He should be home right now if anybody needs to find him.

And by the way, I like you just fine but doesn't Viole sound like the coolest person in the world... a Gnostic atheist metaphysical naturalist. The only thing better would be a Bible-believing agnostic atheist that is a metaphysical trinitarian Darwinist. But where are you going to find one of those around here? And besides, that's really not better, just different.

Hey, take care, I'm going to be laying low for a few days.

 

[Geoff-Allen]

Interesting questions!

I have wrestled with them a lot during my time.

If God is loving how can evil even exist ... not EASY 2 answer ...

Best wishes 2 all!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interesting questions!

I have wrestled with them a lot during my time.

If God is loving how can evil even exist ... not EASY 2 answer ...

Best wishes 2 all!

Actually, it has one very easy answer: if the state of the world is incompatible with the idea of a loving God, then a loving God must not exist.

I'll leave it to you to decide whether this means that God exists but is not loving, or that God doesn't exist at all.

 

[idav]

Actually, it has one very easy answer: if the state of the world is incompatible with the idea of a loving God, then a loving God must not exist.

Could be an indication that god is loving but evil isn't what we think it is. Maybe god is about some tough love that we mistake for wrath.

 

[JM2C]

First God did not allow sin and now He allowed it to serve a purpose?

You did not read it right. Your conclusion did not follow my premise.

Please read and understand before you jump to a conclusion:
The question is:

Originally Posted by Lady B #
Here is my premise,
this is my belief based upon my scriptures.
God not only allows children to die, He causes them to die. Hard for us to fathom, granted, but True nevertheless in Scripture.

From this premise I based my conclusion that: Sin is the cause of death and God allowed it/death [but not the cause of death from the premise “He causes them to die”] to serve a purpose, and that is, to show His power over sin, that people might see sin as utterly sinful [that causes death] and therefore turn to Him, but people, because of this total depravity, cannot see God over sin [that causes death].

And therefore, blame God for the death while the sin, the real culprit, that causes death got away blameless.

Question: what did God allowed, Sin or Death? Death is the answer and the cause of death is sin and not God. IOW, God is not the cause of death but sin is.

God did not allow Adam to sin that causes death He prevented Adam from sinning by giving him a commandment in Genesis 2:16-17.

Do you understand it now? I cannot explain it to you any better than this.

You are so hang-up or disengage with words that are unrelated to the topics, that you forgot to argue from the premises presented to you, but instead you used words like “spiritual coffee”, “the NSA was not present”, “needs a lot of paperwork”, “less invasive therapies”, “A sort of cosmic Schindler's list” that makes no sense at all. I know you want attention or “need of being noticed” but please argue from the premise presented to you.

 

[1robin]

Well - I'm happy you guys are happy with each other now - however, way back, I posted the verse you mention.

We are talking about Sheol. The only torment is knowing they placed themselves in the position they find themselves in, awaiting judgment, and then we are told Hades/Sheol and those judged evil, are destroyed. No Hell.


Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and Hades/Sheol delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Rev 20:14 And death and Hades/Sheol were cast into the lake of fire.This is the second death.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


Hades/Sheol gives up her DEAD - THEN - they are JUDGED - THEN - tossed into the Lake of Fire = totally destroyed.


That last word translated "fire," comes from the word for a refiner's furnace that burns off/destroys the dross (impurities.)



*

I'm not sure what your saying here. Are you trying to say is eternal torture instead on annihilation? That would be all to predictable of your position. I will let you tell me what it is your trying to say before I go digging through verses to contend with it.

 

[JM2C]

If a no parking sign was a "prevention", there would be no such thing as parking tickets.

Except for the law breaker

Nope.

Where do you live? There are countries where nobody would care about a sign.

Ciao

- viole

You mean uncivilized countries? Oh yeah, they follow rules too but the only rules they follow are their own rules.