Why does God hate babies who have not sinned?

[MHz]

I fail to see the relevence of quoting the Old Testament- there's probably more wisdom in Mother Goose don't you think?-

Hardly. The Bible even explains how it teaches wisdom, one line in one verse, another lin i a related verse and so on and so on.

Isa:28:9:
Whom shall he teach knowledge?
and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?
them that are weaned from the milk,
and drawn from the breasts.
Isa:28:10:
For precept must be upon precept,
precept upon precept;
line upon line,
line upon line;
here a little,
and there a little:

Proverb:8:1:
Doth not wisdom cry?
and understanding put forth her voice?
Proverb:8:2:
She standeth in the top of high places,
by the way in the places of the paths.
Proverb:8:3:
She crieth at the gates,
at the entry of the city,
at the coming in at the doors.
Proverb:8:4:
Unto you,
O men,
I call;
and my voice is to the sons of man.

You can skip to verse 22 and read the rest if you to to know the wisdom God gave to Christ, the last verse is for us.

Proverb:8:35:
For whoso findeth me findeth life,
and shall obtain favour of the LORD.
Proverb:8:36:
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul:
all they that hate me love death.

 

[JLM]

Hardly. The Bible even explains how it teaches wisdom, one line in one verse, another lin i a related verse and so on and so on.

Isa:28:9:
Whom shall he teach knowledge?
and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?
them that are weaned from the milk,
and drawn from the breasts.

Fill yer boots!

 

[MHz]

Here is a verse you can understand. How many stay as babies as far as being able to read and understand the Bible? I won't pretend it is an easy task, but it is no more difficult than beginning to read (starting with the 4 gospels), some things will be clearer than other parts. When you eventually re-read the parts that were not clear some of them will be quite clear once you have the proper 'background information', repeat as needed and there are no other shortcuts. If I had to do it again from scratch I would lump all passages into either dealing with one bruise or the other.

Nobody starts out as an experienced person in any task they start from scratch.

1Pe:2:2:
As newborn babes,
desire the sincere milk of the word,
that ye may grow thereby:

Being able to write it so those two verses are meant to help each other is not something 40 men could even plot to do let alone do it 100's of time in the same book. You see mostly conflict, I see them as being able to be meshed and there arre xero conflicts which is different from not being fully explained and there are little quizzes along the way, Such as if two woes consume 42 months and the first one uses 5 months how long does the 2nd one last. They are no more harder than that.

 

[French Patriot]

I think you use the word 'sinned' and
'hates' quite narrowly Patriot.

Perhaps but not as broadly as Christians do when calling natural issues sin.
Like thought sins or sexual issues between consenting adults.

Man is the inheritor of Original Sin
through our first parents..

Really.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, itshall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall thefather bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shallbe upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

If you miss your mortgage payment, is it just for the bank to go after your children for the cash?
If no, which is what you should answer, then why is it good for your God to pass your sin to your child?

AND our path to Redemption through
Christ. The Church struggled with the fate of unbaptised children for some
Millenia before more or less putting the issue to rest under JP2 (ie.. they are
not condemned to limbo).

Only immoral people will think that babies or children can be guilty of anything.The fact that your church could not dither that out from the start shows how little they know of morals.

It's not God who hates children.. it's modern human society who hates them.. condemning tens of millions of the innocents in their mother's wombs to death.. for the crime of being 'inconvenient' to their parents 'lifestyle' and an incursion into their
'freedom'.

Is it not your God who allows women to get pregnant knowing in advance that they will abort?[/FONT]As to the tens of millions, the Abrahamic cults like yours number in the billions and if they offered options to these women then the problem would be greatly reduced. Your ilk do not. Do the math of your tens of millions into 7 billion and see how few of you would need to adopt. If Christians acted like Christians there would not be a problem.

As is, if your daughter was raped and or pregnant and unwed, you would likely beg her to abort.

You say it is we who hate babies while it is mostly your ilk who are aborting them. Tose tens of millions are mostly Christians.

Regards
DL

Here is a verse you can understand. How many stay as babies as far as being able to read and understand the Bible? I won't pretend it is an easy task, but it is no more difficult than beginning to read (starting with the 4 gospels), some things will be clearer than other parts. When you eventually re-read the parts that were not clear some of them will be quite clear once you have the proper 'background information',.

Yes. Like the fact that most of it is plagiarized and taken from other religions.

Bart Ehrman (3/21/11) - YouTube

You seem to be behind the times and information MHz.

I will add these clips to themix for your consideration. They show who put what in Jesus' mouth and howChristianity has been manipulated. The first which is part of the second speaksto my Gnostic Christian label and the second shows my view of religions overalland the Noble Lie that I think we and our governments should rescind. The thirdclip speaks to the reason that religions were invented in the first place as itshows why social control was required for city states that had to deal with thereality of finite resources. I see these city states as led by a timocraticking who through the religion that he would have created, also realized thatthere had to be a tyrannical part to his benevolent duty and created a religion to be just that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D134B912A5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrMtRm3b8MU&feature=autoplay&list=PLCBF574D134B912A5&playnext=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne1wIEGnPWo

I see the King/God as havingto have the morals shown in the Haigt clip.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

He would have to create hisreligion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by thefirst commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of hisKing/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman systemwould later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through Flavian and later throughConstantine.

http://www.simchajtv.com/movie-secrets-of-christianity-selling-christianity/

Regards
DL

 

[MHz]

God created civil war after the promised land was acquired, taking away the brutality of war it did have a side effect that a larger number are in line for resurrection into a world of permanent peace than would have been possible when being restricted from becoming a great Nation way back then.
Looking after the flock was a right given to the Governments (Romans 13) so that is whose duty it is to protect a child of any age starting at conception. One aspect of that is creating a climate that is healthy for infants in the first place and there will be hell to pay (literally) for being slack when you are a 'servant of God'.

Jer:25:31:
A noise shall come even to the ends of the earth;
for the LORD hath a controversy with the nations,
he will plead with all flesh;
he will give them that are wicked to the sword,
saith the LORD.

What more can God do for the neglected (to death) other than make sure their short life still gets their name put into the book of life. The ones 20 and older are the ones that should be concerned about what their fate is going to be.

 

[DaSleeper]

He would have to create hisreligion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by thefirst commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of hisKing/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman systemwould later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through Flavian and later throughConstantine.

http://www.simchajtv.com/movie-secrets-of-christianity-selling-christianity/

Regards
DL

He would have to create hisreligion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by thefirst commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of hisKing/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman systemwould later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through the Flavian and later throughConstantine.



http://www.simchajtv.com/movie-secrets-of-christianity-selling-christianity/

Regards
DL

He would have to create hisreligion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by thefirst commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of hisKing/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman systemwould later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through the Flavian and later throughConstantine.

http://www.simchajtv.com/movie-secrets-of-christianity-selling-christianity/

Regards
DL

We would have to create hisreligion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by thefirst commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of hisKing/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman systemwould later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through the Flavian and later throughConstantine.

http://www.simchajtv.com/movie-secrets-of-christianity-selling-christianity/

Regards
DL

You're a prolific poster but you tend to repeat yourself a lot.....

From four different threads.................

Notice the bold in the first thread is repeated in all of the others threads....
That usually happens when you copy and paste in half a dozen forums....

 

[darkbeaver]

I fail to see the relevence of quoting the Old Testament- there's probably more wisdom in Mother Goose don't you think?-

You may think you're joking but those old fairy tales are loaded with allegory same as all the good old stories.

 

[DaSleeper]

He would have to create hisreligion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by thefirst commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of hisKing/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman systemwould later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through Flavian and later throughConstantine.

http://www.simchajtv.com/movie-secrets-of-christianity-selling-christianity/

Regards
DL

And every one of those propaganda videos you have posted in the above post, you have already posted 5 or six times....you are starting to sound like...a broken record:roll:

 

[JLM]

You may think you're joking but those old fairy tales are loaded with allegory same as all the good old stories.

Not at all, "Simple Simon" makes as much sense as the entire O.T. -

 

[darkbeaver]

SHADOW OF THE THIRD CENTURY
The indebtedness of Christianism to ancient Egypt will be outlined at length at a later place in the essay, but it will lend support to Augustine's broad assertion of the existence of an ancient universal true religion to cite a passage such as the following from von Mosheim's well accredited history of the early centuries of Christianity (Vol. I, p. 383):
"Long antecedent to the coming of Christ, there were to be found, not only amongst the Egyptians, but also among the Jews, who copied after the Egyptians (as is placed out of all question by the Essenes and Therapeutae), as well as in other nations, certain persons who made it their study by means of fasting, labor, contemplation and other afflictive exercises, to deliver their rational souls, which they considered as the offspring of the Deity unhappily confined within corporeal prisons, from the bonds of the flesh and the senses, and to restore them to an uninterrupted communion with their God and parent. This discipline arose out of that ancient philosophy of the Egyptians, which considered all things as having proceeded from God, and regarded the rational souls of the human race as more noble particles of that divine nature."


If Augustine stands as the founder of Christian theology, no less surely is Eusebius the founder of the Christian ecclesiastical system, as well as being perhaps its most important early historian. It is indeed a notable circumstance that these two prime instigators of the Christian movement inscribed each statement which in essence and in effect practically negate all the basic claims of the religion they extolled and instituted. Eusebius' remarkable statement adds corroboration to Augustine's and the two must stand together as a challenge to all Christian assertion throughout the ages. Had they been kept steadily before the eyes of the world, Christianity might have been spared its catastrophic miscarriage. Eusebius' affirmation is taken from the seventy-second chapter of Nathaniel Lardner's great work on Christianity:

25​

"That the religion published by Jesus Christ to all nations is neither new nor strange. For though, without controversy, we are of late, and the name of Christians is indeed new; yet our manner of life and the principle of our religion have not been lately devised by us, but were instituted and observed, if I may say so, from the beginning of the world, by good men, accepted of God; from those natural notions which are implanted in men's minds. This I shall show in the following manner: It is well known that the nation of the Hebrews is not new, but distinguished by its antiquity. They have writings containing accounts of ancient men; few indeed in number, but very eminent in piety, justice and every other virtue. Of whom some lived before the flood; others since, sons and grandsons of Noah; particularly Abraham, whom the Hebrews glory in as their father and founder of their nation. If any one, ascending from Abraham to the first man should affirm that all of them who were celebrated for virtue were Christians in reality, though not in name, he would not speak much beside the truth. For what else does the name of Christian denote but a man who, by the knowledge and doctrine of Jesus Christ, was brought to the practice of sobriety, righteousness, patience, fortitude and the religious worship of the one and only God over all? About these things they were no less solicitous than we are; but they practiced not circumcision, nor observed Sabbaths any more than we; nor had they distinction of meats, nor other ordinances, which were first appointed by Moses. Whence it is apparent that they ought to be esteemed the first and most ancient form of religion which was observed by the pious about the time of Abraham, and has been of late published to all nations by the direction and authority of Jesus Christ."




But if this statement of Eusebius is considered perilous to the claims of Christianity, it is as nothing in comparison with another sentence of his which falls with the force of a veritable atomic explosion upon the whole Christian system. If this statement of his is true--and it has everything to support it, little or nothing to controvert it--it stands virtually as a death sentence to Christianity. In a moment of extreme

26​

frankness and speaking in reference to the Essenes or Therapeutae, the esoteric cultists who had flourished for ages in Palestine, he wrote in chapter seventeen of Book II of his famous Ecclesiastical History the following amazing utterance:




"These ancient Therapeutae were Christians and their writings are our Gospels and Epistles."
Then the Epistles of Paul and the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were old, old documents taken from the Essenian libraries and foisted upon a credulous rabble as new writings of the first century. For we turn to the Encyclopædia Britannica and under the article "Essenes" we read that "they preserved in their libraries the books of the ancients and read them not without an allegorical interpretation." What becomes of the Christian faith if it is true that those Gospels and Epistles, with an unhistorical and purely typal figure of Jesus the Christ in them, were in Essene libraries from a very remote period?




And it should not be overlooked in this debate that we have that most notable statement of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, France, in the second century, one of the early writers for the Christian movement, in which he says that there were in existence in his day not only the four Gospels later canonized, but a multitude of Gospels! Now the very momentous reflection arises as to this, that if the multitude of Gospels out of which the Council of Nicaea finally decided to select and canonize four, were all documents dealing, as they presumably did, with the biographical career of the man Jesus, written by authors having data to contribute to the narrative of his life, surely every such document would have been presumed to be of practically inestimable value and would not have been suffered to fall into oblivion. Let us imagine what would be considered the value of the sudden discovery now of ten or twenty, or even one, of those other Gospels, which would assumedly contain some data about the life of Jesus not found in the four chosen. Can any one inform us why new or additional data about Jesus would be less sensationally valuable to the Christians at the end of the second century than new data is to the American people coming to light now about Jefferson, Washington or Lincoln, or to the English-speaking world is the new material written by Boswell that

28​

has just come to hand?http://pc93.tripod.com/shadow.htm

 

[MHz]

"in his day not only the four Gospels later canonized, but a multitude of Gospels! Now the very momentous reflection arises as to this, that if the multitude of Gospels out of which the Council of Nicaea finally decided to select and canonize four, were all documents dealing, as they presumably did, with the biographical career of the man Jesus, written by authors having data to contribute to the narrative of his life, surely every such document would have been presumed to be of practically inestimable value and would not have been suffered to fall into oblivion."
How many of those 'extra' ones were written by people who met Him in a moment of being healed themselves or as part of a throng that saw Him do things like the 5 loaves and 5 fishes thing. The 4 that we have today are there because the contain the most eye-witness events of any. That they blend so nicely may not have been much of a factor at all as the Gospel of John is very unlike the other 3 which were penned by people Jesus gathered, the Gospel of John was written by a disciple of an OT Prophet (and High Priest).

 

[darkbeaver]

The point being made MHZ is that those four gospels predate 0 AD by thousands of years as does the force called Christ. There were no eyewitnesses as there could have been no events. The loaves and fishes are explained in detail in the materials by AB Kuhn that I have previously linked for you. Don't be a stubborn old horse, go have a drink.

PS: never underestimate the machinations of evil old scribes

http://pc93.tripod.com/lostlght.htm
Unit life of deity must break itself up into infinite fragments in order to fill empty space with a multitude of worlds and beings of different natures. The primal Sea or Mother must engender a multitudinous progeny, to spawn the limitless shoals of organic fish-worlds. This is the meaning of the promise given to Abraham, that his seed should multiply till it filled the earth with offspring countless as the sands of the seashore. And if life was symboled by bread, as the first birth, and by fish, as the second, then we might expect to find in old religious typology the allegory of a Christ figure multiplying loaves and fishes! Are we surprised to find that the Gospel Jesus does this very thing, multiplying the fish loaves and two small fishes to feed a multitude! This is astonishing enough in all conscience, but it yields in wonder to the next datum of Comparative Religion which came to our notice as a further tie between the Bible and antecedent Egyptian mythology. Who can adequately measure the seriousness of the challenge which this item of scholarship presents to Gospel historicity? For a discovery of sensational interest came to light when a passage was found in the Book of the Dead which gave to Anu the characteristic designation, "the place of multiplying bread"! Here in the long silent tomes of old Egypt was found the original, the prototype, of the miracle of the loaves and the fishes in the Gospels of Christianity. And a meaning never before apprehended had to be read into this New Testament wonder. At last we were instructed to catch in the miracle the sense that the physical body, as A-NU, was the place where the corpus of the Christ’s deific power was broken into an infinite number of fragments and distributed out among a multitude of creatures, enhungered after

 

[MHz]

Not quite, John the Baptist was an OT Prophet, the Jews that are OT only are shunning those works when the are as authoritative as Daniel.

 

[darkbeaver]

Not quite, John the Baptist was an OT Prophet, the Jews that are OT only are shunning those works when the are as authoritative as Daniel.

Look the point is every book in the Bible is older than the Jews, every book was duplicated many times and all before the particular story of Jesus Christ was ever thought of. There is not one revelation in the entire Bible unique to what is now called Christianity. It was old before the Egyptians. No one can appreciate the works without understanding that it is allegorical and that allegory hides the real meat from the uninitiated. The one and only thing that separated Christians from all the other religions of the time was the singular insistence that God had come to earth incarnated in one single man for all time and this was inconceivable to every philosophical school of the time in fact it was the worst heresy imaginable to every educated initiate because they all understood that the gift of God was in every man from birth in fact man owed his birth to that truth. And every one of them taught that faith is step one and only step one of many.

 

[MHz]

There is one that has taken many steps and yes he was around before the Jews, in person.

Ge:14:18:
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine:
and he was the priest of the most high God.

Proverb:8:22:
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way,
before his works of old.

Proverb:8:35:
For whoso findeth me findeth life,
and shall obtain favour of the LORD.

Proverb:8:36:
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul:
all they that hate me love death.

 

[Cliffy]

There is one that has taken many steps and yes he was around before the Jews, in person.

You didn't understand a word the Beav said, did you? The bible is plagiarized from much older texts. Those that understood the real meaning of those texts were initiated (over a period of many years) so they could understand the true meaning of the coded messages contained therein. Taking these texts literally is taking them out of context. Only the initiated could understand them.

 

[MHz]

If that is what it takes to make her (or you) comfortable then so be it, that doesn't mean I have to accept it as being gospel.

So Moses was the one that caused the scattering in 70AD, that's quite a feat considering the Jews didn't even understand anything about the 70 weeks prophecy.

De:4:25:
When thou shalt beget children,
and children's children,
and ye shall have remained long in the land,
and shall corrupt yourselves,
and make a graven image,
or the likeness of any thing,
and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God,
to provoke him to anger:
De:4:26:
I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day,
that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it;
ye shall not prolong your days upon it,
but shall utterly be destroyed.
De:4:27:
And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations,
and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen,
whither the LORD shall lead you.

Da:8:11:
Yea,
he magnified himself even to the prince of the host,
and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away,
and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

Da:9:26:
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off,
but not for himself:
and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;
and the end thereof shall be with a flood,
and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

 

[JLM]

You didn't understand a word the Beav said, did you? The bible is plagiarized from much older texts. Those that understood the real meaning of those texts were initiated (over a period of many years) so they could understand the true meaning of the coded messages contained therein. Taking these texts literally is taking them out of context. Only the initiated could understand them.

I tried my damndest to give him the hint that he could glean and impart more wisdom by reading "Mother Goose"! Young kids just don't listen.-

 

[Cliffy]

I tried my damndest to give him the hint that he could glean and impart more wisdom by reading "Mother Goose"! Young kids just don't listen.-

Yup, he shoulda got Goosed.

Spirituality is not an intellectual enterprise. It is experiential and very personal. It is the narrow path JC was talking about, not the wide path of dogma the herds follow. There is enough information available today in modern English to satisfy the curious, but spending yor life trying to make sense of ancient texts is just silly. That is why I always say, if you want to know the truth, go to the source and the source sure as hell ain't no book. It is impossible for the finite mind to comprehend the infinite. Our little pea brains just were not intended to even try.

 

[MHz]

This act is not for protection from being spiritually mislead, I wouldn't recomment changing the words if you ever thing of using it in time of physical peril.

Lu:18:13:
And the publican,
standing afar off,
would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven,
but smote upon his breast,
saying,
God be merciful to me a sinner.

MGHMOYS

Our little pea brains just were not intended to even try.

That's why we are fed it starting with the milk and moving onto the meaty parts. The milk is just Ge:1-3 and Re:20-22, any more and you are out of your league.

1Co:3:2:
I have fed you with milk,
and not with meat:
for hitherto ye were not able to bear it,
neither yet now are ye able.