A question to Christians...

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


There was death before sin. All plant life is considered a living organism. Unless, of course, Adam and Eve never ate at all. We all know that's not the case though.

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

There was death before sin. All plant life is considered a living organism. Unless, of course, Adam and Eve never ate at all. We all know that's not the case though.

Who said the plants died?

there are starving children, because we as a society failed. God gave us the means and ability to feed all of us.

instead of using that ability, teaching that ability and applying that ability, we oppress and use war to suppress the ability to resist the pillaging of resources.

they are starving in africa, because armed warlords backed by self interested corporate business create a climate of instability and famine.

then they take the resources of that nation.

why are people starving

because the devil

why did god make the devil?

there is no reasonable or logical answer for these questions. god is omniscient and can do ANYTHING. it is only out of some sort of evil mind that one would create life with the ability to sin just so the sinners can be forever punished unless they accept the creator.

better question, why did man make god?

to try and rationalize our existence.

why?

were afraid of death.

the evolution of memory allowed foresight which gave us the unique ability to know we are going to die.

animals dont care because theyre always in the now. we need to follow their example. we are nature, we are animals.

how degrading.

not really. how amazing, how humbling, how beautiful, how wonderful. WE are a part of the WHOLE. we don't need a god. we are everything.

If God doesn't exist, as you are implying, then that means there is no "good" standard to establish a baseline. It is just your opinion versus another's with no one being right. If this is true, why do you care if children are starving, why is that "bad"? We are all just evolved pond scum, the act of starving is just chemical reactions in the body. It can neither be good nor bad, so what exactly are you arguing?

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by halfoldman

 

Oh, when the ignorant speak...

Sin is not imputed where there is no law.

But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven.

Disregard any teachings of the church that disagree with the tenets of its faith. Children such as these are not sinners. Sin is willful rebellion against the knowledge of god or his laws as written on one's heart (conscience) if in ignorance as to the knowledge of god.

You may have your own interpretation, but most of Christianity accepts the doctrine of original sin.

Sin is not just willful acts; we are born into into sin because of Adam and Eve's original sin.

Hence, without willful salvation, anybody who dies goes to hell.

Jesus indeed said the children must come to Him, because if they don't they will go to hell.

That is a very uncomfortable paradox in the whole teaching on mankind's fallen nature and original sin, and various churches have offered (rather unconvincing) ways around the issue of infants, mainly through baptizing them (but the unbaptized still go to hell - or at least purgatory - which according to St. Augustine was paved with the bodies of unbaptized infants).
Nowadays some Christians tell me it depends on the parents, and infants are covered by their parents' salvation - which still doesn't save non-Christian kids, and this has no clear Biblical support.

The fact is that one either views the whole condition of mankind as fallen from birth, or the whole world-view will start to unravel.

I also think that if the heathen who hasn't heard the law on Christ's salvation is not condemned, then we should have no need for missionaries.
Indeed, by bringing knowledge of the teaching the missionaries are then condemning people to hell, who suddenly have to make a choice.
According to that argument it would be better to leave the heathens in an untouched state, where they are all saved by ignorance of salvation!

Good night to all. I just became a member so I could post on this topic.

Let's look at the argument like this. God is usually defined in classical theism as all-good, omnipotent and the source of all morality. These attributes that are usually ascribed to God cannot be apt if we do not reliably observe evidence that is consistent with said attributes. In other words, do we see God (presupposing that He does exist) behaving in a manner that is consistent and reasonably expected of Him given these characteristics? Even more critically, His behaviour cannot be trivially consistent with these characteristics. So, He cannot be all-good or omnipotent some of the time. The evidence concerning His behaviours must always lead us to a logical conclusion that He is indeed all-good or all powerful or whatever the case may be.

Now, with that said, let us return to the OP. I read a little statistic a couple weeks ago about the number of persons who die daily from starvation. It was in the region of about 25,000. It could even be more. Not so sure. Even so, that is a staggering figure. Irrespective of the reasons(s) behind such a statistic (sin or free will or whatever wishful thinking you come up with), the question has to be asked. Why would God in His all-goodness allow such a thing? Or why does God not help? Is it unreasonable of us to expect God to help the situation given his alleged omnibenevolent nature? Is the will to help a necessary consequence of being good, much more, all-good? And of course, if He were to help, it would have have to be in an obvious and unmistakable way else we would have no grounds to conclude that He is indeed all-good. And bear in mind, this is a being who is supposedly omnipotent. This means He could alleviate the situation at virtually no cost to Himself.

To all those posters who say the OP is being insensitive and why does he or she not help the starving children, this poor attempt at a rebuttal is besides the point. You have done nothing to address the original argument. In fact, the argument could have been made by someone who is part of an organisation like Food for the Poor and it would still have the same force.

Thanks for reading.

On the other hand, the Bible also says that the meek shall inherit the earth.

Since starving people tend to be conveniently meek, I guess that means that they will inherit something (the earth?) for their suffering.

In defense of Christianity one could also add that most starvation at present is in regions beyond the control of Christians, or even the major aid and charity groups.
Somalia for example is run by Islamist war-lords.
So without invasive wars that will violate other tenets of Christianity, the hands of individual Christians (and also Muslim and other charities) are often tied.

Christianity, and individual Christians, and Christian-based societies have actually done a lot to reduce starvation.
I think this should also be remembered.

Get the basics of Christianity right that God chose you, you do not choose God. Salvation is the Lords so that no man can brag & say they worked a way to heaven. Millions are working their way to hell.

reply to post by halfoldman
Good post, and fair points. The last (need for preaching the gospel) is the stickiest, in my opinion. Star for you.

I can't stay up late tonight to research what I need on this as I have to get up early to go out of town tomorrow, but I will get back on this. I want to research more through to gospels and the words and teachings of Christ himself, and this will be a good illustration of why I find the epistles very useful, but don't put them on the same level as scripture, personally.

You already alluded in a following post to some of what I'll aim at - Christ spoke primarily of living Christlike, sacrificing ourselves to walk according to his teachings and doing the will of his Father to be considered his brother, sister, mother - and righteous.

Admittedly, it's a complex issue - as far as my disagreement with the doctrine of original sin as usually taught by the church - well, there are a few other things I take strong disagreement with accepted teaching on, so there's nothing new there.

Take care, and I'll try to get more back to this before the end of the weekend. Good night and be blessed.

reply to post by halfoldman

The fact is that one either views the whole condition of mankind as fallen from birth, or the whole world-view will start to unravel.

So, let it unravel, I say.
We can not be so depraved, or we could not have produced Jesus. And the world is better since then, since he can send the Christ spirit into the world.

I also think that if the heathen who hasn't heard the law on Christ's salvation is not condemned, then we should have no need for missionaries.
Indeed, by bringing knowledge of the teaching the missionaries are then condemning people to hell, who suddenly have to make a choice.
According to that argument it would be better to leave the heathens in an untouched state, where they are all saved by ignorance of salvation!

The "heathen" will be judged on if they did good or evil. Knowing the Gospel gives them incentive to have hope for a future life beyond the grave, to struggle against evil to attain it.

reply to post by Nosred


Because scientists don't want to feed them.

Now you're entering into the land of reality. The fairy tales sound nice when they're read by a pastor in an expensive church with stained glass murals of the Virgin Mary and all of that fun stuff, but when you really think about / see some of the really screwed up things that have happened and will continue to happen in the world, you would have to be delusional to believe that the God portrayed in the Bible exists.

This might be slightly off topic, but I love this quote about Christianity: "Christianity- The belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so that he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."

Originally posted by Nosred
If God exists, why are there starving children?

Checkmate.

Because of the free will covenant. It's not God's fault man has his head up his ass. Checkmate.

reply to post by halfoldman

various churches have offered (rather unconvincing) ways around the issue of infants

Babies and small children do not go to hell, only when a child has reached the age of accountability, which is when they learn right from wrong and can understand it are they then held accountable for their sins.

Heathen who have not heard the word will go to hell, which is why we have missionaries spreading the word to them, because all people instinctually have a concept of God written on their hearts and deep down they know he exists and it is up to them to seek him out.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


but god already knows everything thats going to happen so he could have prevented it.

check mate

reply to post by TupacShakur


How can Jesus be a Jewish zombie if he's alive? I thought zombies were dead and eat flesh.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


What do you propose happened then?

A lot of interesting points from various positions.
The discussion itself shows that Christianity and its meanings are indeed still highly socially relevant, and it's not all just esoteric visions of hell, an obsession with (homo)sexuality, and fantastical pie-in-the-sky.

Ultimately it returns to the philosophical Problem of Evil: Why does a good God allow evil and suffering in His perfect creation, and why do good people suffer?

To focus on starving children, I'd say that nowhere does God/Jesus promise earthly paradise at present.
Jesus teaches both on the poor and rich, and both can follow compassion, no matter how small.
Even the poor man with just two coats can give one to his brother who has none.

Now hunger and suffering were once virtual prerequisites for a Christian walk.
Some nuns and monks literally fasted themselves to death.

The idea at that time was that earthly misery facilitated faith in God, and as the flesh was denied, the spirit grew stronger.

When the priests first found the Caribbean Indians they complained that their lifestyle was too good and comfortable, and they might never convert unless misery was brought into their lives.
This was later mirrored in the North American colonies, where priests described the mass dying from imported diseases as a "harvest of the souls".
The healthy natives would not convert, but the infected villages were eager to be baptized on their death-beds.

So in that pessimistic understanding, earthly misery facilitates conversion.
Not only have the old gods failed, but accepting the faith of the colonists promised a utopian afterlife.

This was also preached to the slaves for centuries (earthly submission will lead to heavenly rewards), and even in the days of AIDS it was preached that God created this "slow death" for homosexuals because it would give them time to repent.

So, for some Christian trends I see today, starving children are seen as a sign that God is displeased for some reason with a specific country or region, just like natural disasters are blamed on certain sins.
Global hegemony and exploitation do not feature on such peoples' radar at all, and it's really a return to the worst forms of medieval thinking.
But one reply could be that God allows starving children to bring societies to repentance and conversion.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

How can Jesus be a Jewish zombie if he's alive? I thought zombies were dead and eat flesh.

Oh I'm sorry. Jesus just died, was placed in a tomb, emerged from that tomb reanimated, and floated up into the sky in plain sight of several people. That's much more realistic, sorry for misinterpreting the 'historical record'.