Why does God hate babies who have not sinned?

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

The sin was disobedience, not envy.
They ate from the tree of knowledge when God told them not to.
That's the original sin.

The reason she disobeyed was envy.

Hell is where the dead go, Jan.

Who say's that's where the dead go?

You have to understand that in Christian Theology, death only happened to sinners.

So what?
Whose talking about Christian Theology?

...seriously, most denominations believe that baptism cleanses original sin, as it is a symbolic burial and rebirth into Christ. This is why infants are baptized; as it happens, that practice began around the same time as the concept of original sin was first considered in the middle ages.

I don't know anything about most denominations, I'm dealing with the scripture.

I have no idea what you're getting at. What does that have to do with going to hell for original sin?

No scripture (including the Bible) states that you go to Hell through disobedience (your understanding of original sin)

Well, yeah, thats how we think. But theologians back in the middle ages didn't agree.
They believed that original sin prevented a person from getting into heaven, regardless of how old they were at the time of their death, which is why infants--who suffered from a ridiculously high death rate in the early middle ages--were baptized immediately. The practice began as the concept of original sin became popular. That wasn't a coincidence.

Maybe Theologians did think this, I don't know.

jan.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Ok...I just asked Mom...according to her, 2 Samuel 12:23 talks about babies that die go to heaven. David has slept with Bathsheba and the baby dies and he says:
"But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

Apparrently the "I shall go to him" means he will see him later in Heaven.

 

[Balerion]

The reason she disobeyed was envy.

No, she disobeyed because the snake tricked her. Envy never played a role in it. I mean, it's like five sentences in the bible. You could research this yourself.

Who say's that's where the dead go?

The concept of hell is introduced in the New Testament.

So what?
Whose talking about Christian Theology?

...really?

We are.

I don't know anything about most denominations, I'm dealing with the scripture.

I'm not denying that baptism as the cleansing of sin requires a kind of stretching of scripture, but then so does the very concept of original sin. So if you want to strictly talk scripture, we shouldn't be having this conversation.

No scripture (including the Bible) states that you go to Hell through disobedience (your understanding of original sin)

Of course it does. Disobeying God gets you a first-class ticket, according to just about every book in the New Testament.

Maybe Theologians did think this, I don't know.

jan.

They did.

 

[Balerion]

I guess that's one of the differences between different brands of Christianity. In the Southern Baptist faith, babies aren't baptisted....you are baptisted after making a profession of faith.

Absolutely. That's because most accepted concepts in a given denomination are based on interpretations of the texts, and in other cases outright fabrications. Aqueous makes a great case in his above post.

 

[Greatest I am]

I am not Jan , but I believe the word sin started when Cain killed Abel.

That would just about match the Jewish thinking on their myth.

The Christians screwed up when they re-interptreted it.

http://www.mrrena.com/misc/judaism2.php

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Why do you hate god , what did he to you ? you must be a very sick physically person

I cannot hate a myth.
I do dislike the Christian love for a genocidal maniac who even has his own son needlessly murdered though.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

I note you ignored the issue and chose to talk about me. Hmm.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

The age of accountability refutes the entire premise of this thread. Just like a child who believes in Santa does not possess the requisite experience for that belief to be lasting, a child must reach an age of understanding what it actually means to accept or reject a god, or even just exert a genuine conviction.



This is contrary to all of your nonsense posts bemoaning punishment. If you actually held this to be true, you would be forced to admit that God only warned of the consequences before hand and these are all that were experience afterward.

Go count the consequences given before the fact by God and the ones given after.

Tell us who warned of the negative ones and who spoke of the good ones.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Go count the consequences given before the fact by God and the ones given after.

Go try to explain to a child the possible consequences of anything even half as complex as the ability to make value judgments, and then compare what they can understand and duplicate to that of an adult.

Tell us who warned of the negative ones and who spoke of the good ones.

Do we make a habit of telling children all of the good things they should expect (sex, for instance), or do we spend a disproportionate amount of time seeking to keep them safe, by explaining the possible bad consequences?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

No, she disobeyed because the snake tricked her. Envy never played a role in it. I mean, it's like five sentences in the bible. You could research this yourself.

The magician told her what she wanted to hear.

The concept of hell is introduced in the New Testament.

It's used at least 65 times in the OT.

...really?

We are.

Did I ever mention Christian Theology?
Or did I choose to focus on ''The Origin of Sin'' as opposed to ''The Original Sin''.
Do you actually read what is written?

I'm not denying that baptism as the cleansing of sin requires a kind of stretching of scripture, but then so does the very concept of original sin. So if you want to strictly talk scripture, we shouldn't be having this conversation.

All notions of ''sin'', ''original sin'', or ''origin of sin'', have there foundations in the scripture. If we are serious in discussion of these topics,
that is where we must start.

Of course it does. Disobeying God gets you a first-class ticket, according to just about every book in the New Testament.

Maybe you misunderstand (no surprise there) what is written.
Can you give examples of your claim?

They did.

Great! I'm really happy for them. :shrug:

jan.

 

[Balerion]

Balerion,

The magician told her what she wanted to hear.

Now you're quoting the interpretation of some denomination or another. I thought we were discussing scripture?

It's used at least 65 times in the OT.

It's not the same thing. The "hell" that is translated from the OT comes from the word "Sheol," which was the realm of the dead. All dead.

Did I ever mention Christian Theology?
Or did I choose to focus on ''The Origin of Sin'' as opposed to ''The Original Sin''.
Do you actually read what is written?

You joined in a discussion about Christian theology. Particularly, the concept of original sin, which you went so far as to define:

Original sin seems to mean the origin of sin. The first act one can perform, from which the illusion of separation from
God begins.

In other words, you don't see a difference between "original sin" and "the origin of sin." And in fact, there isn't a difference, since "original sin" refers to the first sin committed by man. You just don't seem to know what the first sin was.

All notions of ''sin'', ''original sin'', or ''origin of sin'', have there foundations in the scripture. If we are serious in discussion of these topics,
that is where we must start.

Again, "sin" and "original sin" aren't the same concept. You're in way over your head here, once again.

Maybe you misunderstand (no surprise there) what is written.
Can you give examples of your claim?

What do you think sin is, Jan? God made the rules, and sinning is the act of disobeying him.

 

[Greatest I am]

Go try to explain to a child the possible consequences of anything even half as complex as the ability to make value judgments, and then compare what they can understand and duplicate to that of an adult.



Do we make a habit of telling children all of the good things they should expect (sex, for instance), or do we spend a disproportionate amount of time seeking to keep them safe, by explaining the possible bad consequences?

I see that you did not like what you found and chose not to answer a simple question.

Nice apologetics ( NOT ) that all will see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

All notions of ''sin'', ''original sin'', or ''origin of sin'', have there foundations in the scripture.

Oh my. The religions that existed for 2,000 odd years before Jesus was born will be so pleased that the concept of sin was not in their theologies.

Regards
DL

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Some babies are born into terrible suffering.
It is hard to understand.
The following image is of a baby with congenital ichthyosiform erythroderma.
It is a very upsetting picture, so I will post it as a link.

http://www.health-pic.com/congenital-ichthyosiform-erythroderma/
Why?

Seems an excessive punishment for your great great..........great grandfather's eating of an apple.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

Now you're quoting the interpretation of some denomination or another. I thought we were discussing scripture?

We are discussing scripture.

And the serpent said unto the woman, aYe shall not surely die:

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your aeyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and she did eat.

It's not the same thing. The "hell" that is translated from the OT comes from the word "Sheol," which was the realm of the dead. All dead.

Because two different languages are used. But ultimately the sentiment is the same.

You joined in a discussion about Christian theology. Particularly, the concept of original sin, which you went so far as to define:

I did no such thing, I switched it to the ''origin of sin'', as ''original sin'' or the idea of ''original sin'' is about as vague as darwinian evlolution.

In other words, you don't see a difference between "original sin" and "the origin of sin." And in fact, there isn't a difference, since "original sin" refers to the first sin committed by man. You just don't seem to know what the first sin was.

The former is intended for people like yourself to play with, who enjoy not arriving at a conclusion, the latter gets down to brass tacks.

Again, "sin" and "original sin" aren't the same concept. You're in way over your head here, once again.

You're right, having looked for explanations of ''original sin'', one only seems to find stuffy old ditherers like yourself pretending to relieve yourself of the responsibility of drawing a conclusion.

What do you think sin is, Jan? God made the rules, and sinning is the act of disobeying him.

Sin is a human act of transgression against material nature.
Eve crossed the line when she got into bed with the enemy with the intention of being the same as God, or producing an off-spring just like God.

jan.

 

[Syne]

Go try to explain to a child the possible consequences of anything even half as complex as the ability to make value judgments, and then compare what they can understand and duplicate to that of an adult.

Do we make a habit of telling children all of the good things they should expect (sex, for instance), or do we spend a disproportionate amount of time seeking to keep them safe, by explaining the possible bad consequences?

I see that you did not like what you found and chose not to answer a simple question.

Nice apologetics ( NOT ) that all will see.

I answered you very concisely, if you could only manage to understand the one-for-one correspondence. Do you suppose a god would be foolish enough to explain things in such detail that could not possibly be comprehended? Well, I guess that is a mistake I have made with you. You have continually proven that even simple concepts are completely beyond your grasp.

Let me try to dumb it down for you.

Would you waste your time explaining something to a small child that they had absolutely no chance of understanding? Calculus, for instance? If not then why would you expect a god to?

If you cannot understand this simple comparison then your supposed gnosis to sorely lacking. Without being able to imagine oneself in the circumstances of a god, ones can hardly call that relio-spiritual enlightenment.

 

[Syne]

Some babies are born into terrible suffering.
It is hard to understand.

Seems an excessive punishment for your great great..........great grandfather's eating of an apple.

That is no "punishment". That is a consequence of living in a world of causation, where genetic and environmental factors lead to natural consequences. There is no "guilt" implied by such, just misfortune.

 

[Balerion]

We are discussing scripture.

And nothing in there says "He's telling her what she wants to hear." Nor does envy come into it. At all.

Because two different languages are used. But ultimately the sentiment is the same.

No, that's completely wrong. The concept is completely different. Hell in the NT is a place dedicated to eternal suffering as punishment for bad deeds. The "underworld" of the OT was where everyone went.

I did no such thing, I switched it to the ''origin of sin'', as ''original sin'' or the idea of ''original sin'' is about as vague as darwinian evlolution.

You don't know the first thing about Darwinian evolution, for one. And no, "original sin" is not a vague concept, it's a very specific one. You changing the terminology doesn't change the concept.

The former is intended for people like yourself to play with, who enjoy not arriving at a conclusion, the latter gets down to brass tacks.

No, you didn't differentiate, you equivocated. You're not fooling anyone with this crap.

You're right, having looked for explanations of ''original sin'', one only seems to find stuffy old ditherers like yourself pretending to relieve yourself of the responsibility of drawing a conclusion.

I have no idea what you mean by "relieve yourself of the responsibility of drawing a conclusion." Chances are, you don't mean anything by it, because you don't understand it. But the reason you can only find that one definition of "original sin" is that "original sin" is a specific Christian concept. It began in the middle ages and was based on a couple of passages from Paul in the NT.

Sin is a human act of transgression against material nature.

Not according Judeo-Christian scripture.

Eve crossed the line when she got into bed with the enemy with the intention of being the same as God, or producing an off-spring just like God.

jan.

Reproduction wasn't the purpose of eating the fruit, and I have no idea where you get that idea. Again, you're punching above your weight in that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Adam and Eve's sin was disobeying God.

 

[Greatest I am]

Some babies are born into terrible suffering.
It is hard to understand.
The following image is of a baby with congenital ichthyosiform erythroderma.
It is a very upsetting picture, so I will post it as a link.

http://www.health-pic.com/congenital-ichthyosiform-erythroderma/
Why?

Seems an excessive punishment for your great great..........great grandfather's eating of an apple.

You see 20/20

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I answered you very concisely, if you could only manage to understand the one-for-one correspondence. Do you suppose a god would be foolish enough to explain things in such detail that could not possibly be comprehended? Well, I guess that is a mistake I have made with you. You have continually proven that even simple concepts are completely beyond your grasp.

Let me try to dumb it down for you.

Would you waste your time explaining something to a small child that they had absolutely no chance of understanding? Calculus, for instance? If not then why would you expect a god to?

If you cannot understand this simple comparison then your supposed gnosis to sorely lacking. Without being able to imagine oneself in the circumstances of a god, ones can hardly call that relio-spiritual enlightenment.

Any child will understand that when one punishment turns into 5 after an infraction that the parent has lied to them and that parent will loose the trust in the parent.

If you tell your child it will be grounded for three days, and after an infraction, ground him for a month, then you are as big a prick as your God shows himself to be.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Any child will understand that when one punishment turns into 5 after an infraction that the parent has lied to them and that parent will loose the trust in the parent.

If you tell your child it will be grounded for three days, and after an infraction, ground him for a month, then you are as big a prick as your God shows himself to be.

You mistake "punishments" for natural consequences. And no, a child will not understand a consequence, beforehand, that is completely beyond its experience.

Not my god. I have told you that before, but you never seem to learn.

Your example is naive and obtuse, at best. It relies solely upon a child have some prior knowledge of what "being grounded" means. Man could not fathom the consequences of the ability to make self-aware value judgments. Any more specific warning would have been as effective as telling a child that sweets will rot their teeth, before they have even experienced a dentist visit.


No doubt, you will blithely avoid considering any of this in favor of the morass of your supposed "enlightenment". Enlightenment is not the end of learning, it is the beginning.