right and wrong in the bible

[weepingforloman]

In that case, what about the death of a baby? How can a child, that can't possibly have done anything wrong in this world, not be innocent? I'm assuming I'll get one of the typical responses to this question - the "all people are born sinners" or "humanity's sins are the reason" or the much rarer "It was the parent's sins". Either way, no response is suitable as each is weakly covering up the ineptitude of God's decisions.

You severely underestimate just how screwed up humanity is.

[Morrisonhotel]

You severely underestimate just how screwed up humanity is.

No, I don't. It's the one area that catches every Christian out - no matter what their denomination is - because, simply, there is no justification whatsoever for such actions (and trying to cover it up as sin just seems completely detrimental to serious debate - and the same deal for saying humanity is screwed up. How exactly is that do with the complete innocence of a new-born that drops dead after 5 seconds of living? What has that individual done to deserve to die?)

[Nightshade]

Sorry not a christian, but dont newborn babies, in fact dont children and innocents go straight to heaven by passing the 'grave' and day judgment stages? Because they ar not held accountable for any of ther actions?

[hyperborean]

He never actually made anyone sacrifice another person... you're obviously alluding to Abraham and Isaac... read the end of the story, it's a real twist ending!

Roman soldiers were getting sick to their stomach when christianity took over Rome. These christians started to practice weird rituals, including sacrifice. And let's not forget about the crusades...killing in the name of God. how about president bush saying that he is killing people in this war because god told him to do so? read the end of this article: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...ID=0&listSrc=Y

[weepingforloman]

Roman soldiers were getting sick to their stomach when christianity took over Rome. These christians started to practice weird rituals, including sacrifice. And let's not forget about the crusades...killing in the name of God. how about president bush saying that he is killing people in this war because god told him to do so? read the end of this article: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...ID=0&listSrc=Y

First of all, Christianity "took over" Rome?
Second, I've talked about the Crusades many times before, it was because Christianity under the medieval popes was becoming secularized and politicized to an unhealthy degree.
Third, even if they did practice sacrifices, that was a period of time when everybody was trying stuff out, Paul was the first to make a large-scale, concious effort to clarify Christianity.
Fourth, who says Bush speaks for all Christians?

[weepingforloman]

No, I don't. It's the one area that catches every Christian out - no matter what their denomination is - because, simply, there is no justification whatsoever for such actions (and trying to cover it up as sin just seems completely detrimental to serious debate - and the same deal for saying humanity is screwed up. How exactly is that do with the complete innocence of a new-born that drops dead after 5 seconds of living? What has that individual done to deserve to die?)

You seem to miss the possibility that there is the capability of evil in any person at all--but, besides, no one actually knows what happens to babies that die... I definitely don't.

[Morrisonhotel]

You seem to miss the possibility that there is the capability of evil in any person at all--but, besides, no one actually knows what happens to babies that die... I definitely don't.

That's not much of explanation - if God truly does allow us free will then surely an individual should be allowed to grow into a position where they can use said free will (whether rightfully or wrongfully) (otherwise he is condemning for nothing and thus killing innocents - someone posted previously the claim God didn't do this). You're moving it in to a dangerous area of nature/nurture without really demonstrating one way or the other (or a mixture of both for that matter). If that was an explanation then why would God allow people, who are judged evil by the vast majority of humanity, to live much further past birth? Is it possible that babies who die are potentially more evil than that? Short of exterminating everyone on earth, I guess not.

[kari]

Why does the death of a newborn have to mean something deeper than the death of an adult? Don't people die because their body basically can't overcome an injury, or illness, disease? Our bodies cannot withstand everything. I would imagine that would apply to a child as well. Couldn't it be just as simple that the baby's body was not strong enough? Or that something went wrong within the womb? If you are going to start making theories about newborn babies that died, what would that mean about miscarages? Are those the extra extra evil people that weren't even allowed to grow within the womb? You would be surprised to know how many women experience miscarages that don't even know it, in the very early stages. I think that is a bit of an absurd theory really. What about babies that were dying when first born, almost died, but somehow managed to survive? Were they babies that God hesitated on, then decided to let them through that stage of life and continue on living? Babies are innocent, and they cannot possibly be sinful. They are also known to be so "new" and aware of so much more than us...that they can even still see through the veil. If that is true, which I don't doubt at all (although I am sure some of you might), they can't possibly be anything more than an innocent child, otherswise that wouldn't be possible. That is a bit nonsensical to think that if we are given free agency, we should be allowed to be grown enough to use it. Death is a fact of life, and it should also be a fact that you know not when, or even what age. If a woman smokes while pregnant, or drinks...whatever, and causes that baby within her to have horrible birth defects, again...that is not inflicted on that child because he/she deserves it, it is a newborn that is affected greatly by the sins of another.
Kari

[weepingforloman]

That's not much of explanation - if God truly does allow us free will then surely an individual should be allowed to grow into a position where they can use said free will (whether rightfully or wrongfully) (otherwise he is condemning for nothing and thus killing innocents - someone posted previously the claim God didn't do this). You're moving it in to a dangerous area of nature/nurture without really demonstrating one way or the other (or a mixture of both for that matter). If that was an explanation then why would God allow people, who are judged evil by the vast majority of humanity, to live much further past birth? Is it possible that babies who die are potentially more evil than that? Short of exterminating everyone on earth, I guess not.

Okay: I don't believe in full free will. That's for starters. Secondly, there is no "innocent"-with the possible exception of infants, but if they are, then they would go to heaven. God allows people judged to be evil to live because, a.) if he killed all the evil people, there would be no occasion for instances of radical goodness; b.) death is not the ultimate evil--death does not mean you've been judged as sinful, or even punished that severely; c.) God has His own reasons (I listed this last b/c otherwise you'd call it a cop-out). I don't even see what you mean by the last part.

[Redzeppelin]

In that case, what about the death of a baby? How can a child, that can't possibly have done anything wrong in this world, not be innocent? I'm assuming I'll get one of the typical responses to this question - the "all people are born sinners" or "humanity's sins are the reason" or the much rarer "It was the parent's sins". Either way, no response is suitable as each is weakly covering up the ineptitude of God's decisions.

All are born into sin - the child has not committed any sin, but his/her nature is predisposed towards sin; it begins with selfishness and will continue if the parents do not intervene and teach the child what it means to love.

The death of a child grieves God - always. God allows (not causes) children to die - and that is terrible and we don't understand it and I wouldn't dream of giving a justification because - here on earth, and not knowing what God knows - I cannot offer any good reason. But: your final sentence tells me that explaining anything to you would be pointless: if you conceive of God as being "inept" what you've really said is that you don't believe in Him and you discount how the Bible describes Him - good, loving, kind, compassionate, merciful, just, all-knowing, all-powerful. Think for a moment: if all those things are true, then we have to assume that God has His reasons; if we don't believe those descriptions, then why has He allowed non-believers to continue to exist to mock and dismiss Him? If you believe in Him, you can't have it both ways: either He is or is not as the Bible describes Him; if He's not, then what is He like? An "inept" God is no God at all - but merely a glorified human.

[billyjack]

All are born into sin - the child has not committed any sin, but his/her nature is predisposed towards sin; it begins with selfishness and will continue if the parents do not intervene and teach the child what it means to love.
.

where is the empirical evidence for this blatant attack against unconditioned human nature?

[Redzeppelin]

where is the empirical evidence for this blatant attack against unconditioned human nature?

The Bible. First book, chapter 3. Cf. Romans 3:10-18

[Redzeppelin]

The evidence would be in the fact that the default behavior of humanity is generally selfishness. Unless parents take an active role to discourage this inherent focus on self, it grows into an ego that only sees the world as an extension of itself - and that is the root of all evil. (The love of money is pretty bad too).

[weepingforloman]

where is the empirical evidence for this blatant attack against unconditioned human nature?

Where is the empirical evidence? Look around: war, hatred, murder, robbery... that's not evidence of human nature being disposed toward evil? I'll even throw in one that I think perfectly exemplifies innate selfishness, though you may disagree: abortion. I think it's very selfish for someone to terminate a pregnancy, essentially end a fetus's chance to live (I think this whole deal about life "starting" later is really shallow--if it will become a human, isn't it alive?) to make life easier for the parent. Pretty dang selfish.

[weepingforloman]

Oh, this doesn't count as current politics does it? Hope not.