The Problem of Suicide

doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
The Problem of Suicide

When approaching existentialism and atheism, theists often contend that these are depressing ideas that will lead one to suicide.

BUT, I think it is logically proveable that all children should kill themslves and/or we should kill all children if we take Christianity to be true.

P1. Heaven is a great place.

P2. Hell is a terrible place.

P3. All kids go to heaven.

P4. Once reaching a certain, ambiguous age, children are accountable for their actions and may be sent to hell for being bad or disbelieving in God.

Conclusion: Since children have the possibility of going to hell after a certain age, we should either kill all children or tell them to commit suicide in order to ensure passage into heaven.

----

The ATHEIST has much more reason to live than the theist. This is all we got!


Steadfast Love
Theist
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-04-22
User is offlineOffline
doctoro wrote: When

doctoro wrote:

When approaching existentialism and atheism, theists often contend that these are depressing ideas that will lead one to suicide.

Or more to the point, infanticide and abortion. 

doctororo wrote:
BUT, I think it is logically proveable that all children should kill themslves and/or we should kill all children if we take Christianity to be true.

P1. Heaven is a great place.

P2. Hell is a terrible place.

P3. All kids go to heaven.

P3 is neither biblical nor historical although it is believed by many of the newer friendlier churches. 

Quote:
P4. Once reaching a certain, ambiguous age, children are accountable for their actions and may be sent to hell for being bad or disbelieving in God.

You're mixing two sects. Either [1] God is cool enough to cut everyone lots of slack (such as sinners and children) OR [2] God throws the book at everyone. There's not a church that believes God is a laid back hippy before the age of reason and then goes ballistic on the day of your 8th birthday.

Quote:
Conclusion: Since children have the possibility of going to hell after a certain age, we should either kill all children or tell them to commit suicide in order to ensure passage into heaven.

Actualy, killing children is nonsense.

---

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. -- Mother Teresa.

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. --Mother Teresa.


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
taking ones life is meant

taking ones life is meant to be a huge crime agaisnt god so telling children to kill them selves is a bad mode , but other wise it kidna makes sense.

 it would eb a parants biggest sacrfice send them selves to hell to ensure thier kid goes to heavan got to love christains Sticking out tongue

 

i was more sucideal when i was a christian , mainly because i was gay and thouhgt i was an abomanation and thoguht i shuold die .

 

but luckly i became rational and left the church 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Steadfast Love

Steadfast Love wrote:
doctoro wrote:

When approaching existentialism and atheism, theists often contend that these are depressing ideas that will lead one to suicide.

Or more to the point, infanticide and abortion.

doctororo wrote:
BUT, I think it is logically proveable that all children should kill themslves and/or we should kill all children if we take Christianity to be true.

P1. Heaven is a great place.

P2. Hell is a terrible place.

P3. All kids go to heaven.

P3 is neither biblical nor historical although it is believed by many of the newer friendlier churches.

Quote:
P4. Once reaching a certain, ambiguous age, children are accountable for their actions and may be sent to hell for being bad or disbelieving in God.

You're mixing two sects. Either [1] God is cool enough to cut everyone lots of slack (such as sinners and children) OR [2] God throws the book at everyone. There's not a church that believes God is a laid back hippy before the age of reason and then goes ballistic on the day of your 8th birthday.

Quote:
Conclusion: Since children have the possibility of going to hell after a certain age, we should either kill all children or tell them to commit suicide in order to ensure passage into heaven.

Actualy, killing children is nonsense.

---

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. -- Mother Teresa.

You have missed the point of this exercise of reason completely. You look stupid.

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Pro-lifers are inherently

Pro-lifers are inherently stupid.


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Steadfast Love

Steadfast Love wrote:
doctoro wrote:

When approaching existentialism and atheism, theists often contend that these are depressing ideas that will lead one to suicide.

Or more to the point, infanticide and abortion.

doctororo wrote:
BUT, I think it is logically proveable that all children should kill themslves and/or we should kill all children if we take Christianity to be true.

P1. Heaven is a great place.

P2. Hell is a terrible place.

P3. All kids go to heaven.

P3 is neither biblical nor historical although it is believed by many of the newer friendlier churches.

Quote:
P4. Once reaching a certain, ambiguous age, children are accountable for their actions and may be sent to hell for being bad or disbelieving in God.

You're mixing two sects. Either [1] God is cool enough to cut everyone lots of slack (such as sinners and children) OR [2] God throws the book at everyone. There's not a church that believes God is a laid back hippy before the age of reason and then goes ballistic on the day of your 8th birthday.

Quote:
Conclusion: Since children have the possibility of going to hell after a certain age, we should either kill all children or tell them to commit suicide in order to ensure passage into heaven.

Actualy, killing children is nonsense.

---

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. -- Mother Teresa.

Funny you would quote that bitch Mother Teresa. The bitch who spent money on other stuff then promised, the person who has "nurse" buildings, which were nuns who helped people to die. Not to help them live. She believed that people should die if they were good people to ensure they go to heaven, then trust the evil medical science which would lead them away from god.  

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I think this is one reason

I think this is one reason they chose to call suicide a sin - so Christians wouldn't ask forgiveness and then kill themselves beofre they could "sin" again. Be a quick and cheap way to get to heaven and soon there'd be no more Christians (and no more money for the church!)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Steadfast Love wrote: It is

Steadfast Love wrote:
It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. -- Mother Teresa.

Answering why she allowed a child to die instead of giving antibiotics

"he was going to see god anyway"
- Mother Teresa

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Steadfast

Vastet wrote:
Steadfast Love wrote:
It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. -- Mother Teresa.
Answering why she allowed a child to die instead of giving antibiotics "he was going to see god anyway" - Mother Teresa

Not to divert from the OP's topic, she was such a true bitch it isn't even funny. She was directly responsible for so many deaths it is sad. 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, to her aborting a

Yeah, to her aborting a fucking clump of cells was more of a tragedy than an actual person starving to death. Didn't deserve any of the admiration she got.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
doctoro wrote:

doctoro wrote:

When approaching existentialism and atheism, theists often contend that these are depressing ideas that will lead one to suicide.

Steadfast Love wrote:
Or more to the point, infanticide and abortion.

Hold your horses... How does atheism lead to infanticide and abortion? Because "atheists have no ethics?" I did not intend for this to be a debate about abortion. Clearly, however, atheism entails that it is good to reproduce and have SOME children, albeit not all. As I clearly showed with my proof, however, we are morally obligated to kill ALL children as theists and leave none alive. At least some kids survive the holocaust you seem to believe is entailed by atheism. Christianity would cause death to all children by logical necessity, and the end of the world and the human race would be a desirable event.

How about armageddon and the rapture? Are you anxiously awaiting the end of the human race in your lifetime? To hope for the end of the human race is morally bankrupt. If life and reproduction is so important and precious, I see a logical contradiction on the part of rapture believers. The end of the world would END the production of "new souls", something that Christianity holds to such high regard. Does God then create new spirits in heaven asexually? Does he let angels have sex? Reproduction and preserving the POTENTIAL offspring of reproduction is so damn important that you would think this practice would need to continue after the rapture. You honestly don't see the contradiction? Maybe early Christians didn't think that far, so later Christian apologists have to create rationalizations?

doctororo wrote:
BUT, I think it is logically proveable that all children should kill themslves and/or we should kill all children if we take Christianity to be true.

P1. Heaven is a great place.

P2. Hell is a terrible place.

P3. All kids go to heaven.

Steadfast Love wrote:
P3 is neither biblical nor historical although it is believed by many of the newer friendlier churches.

Hmm... This puzzles me. Are you saying that NOT all children go to heaven? SOME 3 year olds who are killed accidentally or purposely do NOT go to heaven?

It doesn't matter how you negate my last response, you still have to create some positive belief that shows me the conditions for entrance into heaven. What do you believe are the criteria for entrance to heaven? Is age related? Innocence? Believing in Jesus? What if a child is too young to even comprehend or understand belief in Jesus?

Any answer you make to this question is a rationalization with no Biblical basis. Ad hoc reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28psychology%29

doctoro wrote:
P4. Once reaching a certain, ambiguous age, children are accountable for their actions and may be sent to hell for being bad or disbelieving in God.

Steadfast Love wrote:
You're mixing two sects. Either [1] God is cool enough to cut everyone lots of slack (such as sinners and children) OR [2] God throws the book at everyone. There's not a church that believes God is a laid back hippy before the age of reason and then goes ballistic on the day of your 8th birthday.

I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. In truth, there are MANY possible ways that "salvation" could work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

Well, if 1, then I'm saved as an atheist, hooray! I've never seen ANY sect of Christianity tell me that I'm going to heaven regardless of my beliefs. So what sect are you talking about here? So your first "possibility" is completely false. No Christian would agree to that possibility.

If 2, and God throws the book at everyone, there are many children roasting in the fires of hell. Is that something you're prepared to accept? What are the conditions for these children to go to heaven? Are all non-Christian children bound for hell?

Which of those 2 possibilities do you actually believe, may I ask?

Furthermore, you have missed the whole point of my logical proof... Or it has worked better than I ever could have imagined. It is obvious that you see the problem in setting a specific age for moral culpability. That was my intent. BUT, then you create a dichotomy of two possibilities that are JUST as terrible and possibly even worse! (Let's hope it's not option 2!)

You disagree that there are sects who believe that all children go to heaven? I beg to differ. There are such sects. Catholics, in my opinion, believe something like this. And every Christian sect is really just a mutation of Catholicism. I guarantee you that MANY priests have consoled the parents of dead Catholic children with the supposed knowledge that all kids go to heaven.

The fact that we must choose a certain moment in someone's life when he or she becomes morally culpable is a direct consequence of such a belief. AND YES, IT'S ABSURD! That's my whole point.

Do you honestly see either of the scenarios you posed as a viable option? What do you believe? Atheist friends, this is the process of ad hoc rationalization at work! Steadfast is confronted with difficult logical sequela, and he or she is creating "on-the-fly" responses to exclude the consequences of irrational beliefs and rescue them from the trash can.

doctoro wrote:
Conclusion: Since children have the possibility of going to hell after a certain age, we should either kill all children or tell them to commit suicide in order to ensure passage into heaven.

Steadfast Love wrote:
Actually, killing children is nonsense.

Is it really? That sounds like a conclusion with no premises. If we are to judge the truth of a statement without premises, my statement that "Christians are morally obligated to kill children" is equally valid with no evidence or premises.  All propositions would be true if this were the case.  THAT is nonsense.

I agree with you, Steadfast, killing children IS nonsense! It's not good to do! That's why you should dispense with a belief system that entails moral obligation to kill children and become an atheist, where no such nonsense exists!

And if you want to talk about abortion, we're going to have to talk in detail about the falsity of Cartesian substance dualism... Otherwise known as "belief in an immaterial soul apart from your physical body." I believe all other discussions about abortion are pointless, because it really all boils down to whether or not humans have souls.

I believe it is both logically and empirically proveable (to the greatest degree of certainty possible) that we do not have souls.


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
Another proof: P1. 

Another proof:

P1.  Reproduction is one of God's supreme goals for the human race.

P2.   God wants as many people in heaven as possible and as few people in hell.

P3.  We are morally obligated to kill children so that they will be ensured passage into heaven due to their innocence.  (See initial proof.)

P4.  If we kill all children, then no more children will be produced.

Conclusion:  In order to uphold the goals of reproduction and sending people to heaven, we are obligated to:

A)  Have one or two kids that will grow to full age and reproduce -- "breeders".

B)  Every subsequent child must be slaughtered to ensure passage in to heaven.

C)  We must have as many children as humanly possible. 

D)  For our "breeders," we should genetically engineer a higher proportion of women to men, because a 1:1 ratio reduces the amount of babies that could be born, and it wastes resources.  We should have something more like a 1 man to 3 woman ratio to preserve genetic diversity while maximizing our reproductive capacity.  More research may need to be done to find the optimum ratio.

 Who's with me?  Let's start makin' some babies!


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
And now for my proof on

And now for my proof on abortion:

P1. At the moment of conception, a soul is created.

P2. At some ambiguous age, children are subject to judgment and may be sent to hell. Prior to that age, they are innocent and may only go to heaven.

P3. God wants us to reproduce as much as possible. "Be fruitful and multiply."

P4. God wants the maximum number of souls to go to heaven.

P5. An aborted blastocyst's soul automatically goes to heaven.

Conclusion 1: We should employ scientists to harvest multitudes of eggs from women and sperm from men, let them combine in huge "soul creation vats," and then we should boil the vats and burn the remains to ensure all of the newly created souls will escape from their blastocysts and go up to heaven.

Conclusion 2:  As a theist, we are morally obligated to abort as many babies as possible! 

We can make trillions and trillions of new angels!

I'll donate MY sperm, now how 'bout you!


Steadfast Love
Theist
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-04-22
User is offlineOffline
doctoro wrote: Do you

doctoro wrote:
Do you honestly see either of the scenarios you posed as a viable option? What do you believe? Atheist friends, this is the process of ad hoc rationalization at work! Steadfast is confronted with difficult logical sequela, and he or she is creating "on-the-fly" responses to exclude the consequences of irrational beliefs and rescue them from the trash can.
Actualy you're the one creating the "on-the-fly" responses. I certainly didn't write that dreck about "atheists have no ethics" or beliving in the rapture or the half dozen other views you've misattributed to me. (In truth I admire Plato for his ethics and I think the rapture is hogwash.)

Perhaps I should leave you to post to yourself? You're already to writing my lines, hybridizing imaginary Christian sects, citing yourself as an authority on Catholic teaching and triple posting to yourself. Me and facts would only slow you down. Enjoy your conversation! Smiling

 By the way, I'm Catholic. What we believe about the death of children can be found in CCC1261.

---

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. -- Mother Teresa.

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. --Mother Teresa.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Steadfast Love

Steadfast Love wrote:
doctoro wrote:
Do you honestly see either of the scenarios you posed as a viable option? What do you believe? Atheist friends, this is the process of ad hoc rationalization at work! Steadfast is confronted with difficult logical sequela, and he or she is creating "on-the-fly" responses to exclude the consequences of irrational beliefs and rescue them from the trash can.
Actualy you're the one creating the "on-the-fly" responses.

At least he waited until he had refuted you before introducing ad hominem attacks. Where's your refutation?

Steadfast Love wrote:

I certainly didn't write that dreck about "atheists have no ethics" or beliving in the rapture or the half dozen other views you've misattributed to me. (In truth I admire Plato for his ethics and I think the rapture is hogwash.)

What about the views he attributed that aren't misrepresented? No refutation?

Steadfast Love wrote:
Perhaps I should leave you to post to yourself? You're already to writing my lines, hybridizing imaginary Christian sects, citing yourself as an authority on Catholic teaching and triple posting to yourself. Me and facts would only slow you down. Enjoy your conversation! Smiling

So you don't have a refutation at all. No surprise.

Steadfast Love wrote:
By the way, I'm Catholic. What we believe about the death of children can be found in CCC1261.

So you hope. You can't say definitively. Again, no surprise.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Personally I don't find the

Personally I don't find the "Let's hope God's not a Douche-bag" philosophy is very reassuring, but it does explain why you Catholics throw the kids in water as soon as they can breathe on their own...Don't want 'em diein' too soon....

No Gods, Know Peace.


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
Steadfast Love wrote: By

Steadfast Love wrote:

By the way, I'm Catholic. What we believe about the death of children can be found in CCC1261.

This is silly.  I will post a response today, but this tactic is just silly.  You post a link to some interminably long document where I can't find what you're referencing that answers what I'm asking about children and heaven.

 How about you cut and past the actual words in that document that deal with the issue?  I didn't put references in my post telling you to go to the bookstore, purchase a book, and read it cover-to-cover for one paragraph.

St. Michael (a theist on the board) used this tactic all of the time.

 I'm not going to play this game.

Find the quote you need, use control-v, then put it in the dialogue box and type control-c.  You can also use the edit menu top on the upper left side of the screen. 


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote: 1261 As regards

Quote:

>1257</a></p><p><A mce_thref=# onclick=window.opener.SetPage(\"pt2sect2.htm#1250\&quotEye-wink>1250</a></p>&quotEye-wink">1261
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

this was the section he was citing. 

 

No Gods, Know Peace.


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
1261 wrote: As regards

1261 wrote:
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

This says 2 things:

1.  Unbaptized children go to hell.

2.  We should baptize all children so that they MIGHT go to heaven.

 This is totally ambiguous as to whether or not BAPTIZED children go to heaven.

 What is it?  I'm not getting a straight answer.  I'm referenced to other sources to answer simple yes or no answers.  Let's try again.

1.  YES, NO, or I DON'T KNOW (Only THREE options.)  Do all baptized children go to heaven?

 Saying, "Let us hope God takes mercy on them," is not an acceptable answer.  Either it's yes or I don't know.

2.  YES, NO, or I DON'T KNOW (Only THREE options.)  Do all unbaptized children go to hell?

3.  YES, NO, or I DON'T KNOW (Only THREE options.)  Is there a specific age or  "maturity" when baptized children are accountable for their actions and may be sent to hell for sinning?

4.  OPEN ENDED:  How do you define the word, 'children'?

 


Steadfast Love
Theist
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-04-22
User is offlineOffline
doctoro wrote: This says 2

doctoro wrote:

This says 2 things:

1.  Unbaptized children go to hell.

Actualy, it says unbaptised children are entrusted to God's mercy.

Quote:
2.  We should baptize all children so that they MIGHT go to heaven.

 This is totally ambiguous as to whether or not BAPTIZED children go to heaven.

Correct.

Quote:
 What is it?  I'm not getting a straight answer.  I'm referenced to other sources to answer simple yes or no answers.  Let's try again.

1.  YES, NO, or I DON'T KNOW (Only THREE options.)  Do all baptized children go to heaven?

 Saying, "Let us hope God takes mercy on them," is not an acceptable answer.  Either it's yes or I don't know.

Don't know.

Quote:
2.  YES, NO, or I DON'T KNOW (Only THREE options.)  Do all unbaptized children go to hell?

No.

Quote:
3.  YES, NO, or I DON'T KNOW (Only THREE options.)  Is there a specific age or  "maturity" when baptized children are accountable for their actions and may be sent to hell for sinning?

Yes.

Quote:
4.  OPEN ENDED:  How do you define the word, 'children'?

I'd guess from your earlier comments that you think that we think there is a standard chronological age at which a child becomes accountable for their sins? Not so. What distinguishes somone who is mature enough to sin is their maturity not their age.


It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. -- Mother Teresa.

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. --Mother Teresa.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Biblically speaking,

Biblically speaking, suicide is nothing more than self murder.  We read in the bible that no human can judge another, not even a murderer, to hell.  There is only one unforgivable sin (and before it's mentioned, the blasphemy challenge did not address it properly, but that's another thread) but beyond that, all is forgivable by God, even murder

Mark 3:28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them

Suicide is not a condemnable sin.  We as men cannot condemn anyone because they committed suicide.  Period.  As it states in Matthew 7:1-5, we cannot judge or we will be judged in the same light.  All sins are the same (except the one) in God's eyes so all except the one sin can be forgiven by God, even murder, because God knows that we will never be able to rid ourselves of sin (Romans 3).  If God can forgive someone who commits murder (self or otherwise), why can't we?  Do we hate so much that, as it stated in Matthew 7 that we cannot see the plank in our own eye?

 As to the point of children...

Mark 10:15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.

What does this mean?  A child approaches something new with little regard to question but curiosity and intrigue.  Being a child also means to be submissive to elders, just as we should be submissive to God and his word.  God wants us all to approach him in the same way so when we have been called so we can discover him and his word. I hate to say it but this also means removing yourself from dogma (such as the catholic references) that judges anyone for evil with more evil instead of with love.  Everyone knows 1 Corinthians 13 but I've always felt this was just as powerful...

Romans 12:17-21 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him  something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Last point I wanted to make was on baptism.  The bible speaks of it as a changing of one's heart and soul, not the sprinkling of water.  There is a purpose for the act (I liken it to if Jesus did it, so should we) however the change because of the receiving of the holy spirit is which "baptism" matters.  Does a child receive it?  In the bible, all references are to men who were "reborn" if you will when they received the holy spirit.  They then were made aware of God and only then did they desire to be baptised.

1 Peter 3:21 this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God

Here, it is a symbol of what has already occurred in your heart, not before.  Children are free of blemish so a baptism of a child means little as their hearts are not of sin.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Biblically speaking, suicide is nothing more than self murder. We read in the bible that no human can judge another, not even a murderer, to hell. There is only one unforgivable sin (and before it's mentioned, the blasphemy challenge did not address it properly, but that's another thread) but beyond that, all is forgivable by God, even murder

Mark 3:28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them

Suicide is not a condemnable sin. We as men cannot condemn anyone because they committed suicide. Period. As it states in Matthew 7:1-5, we cannot judge or we will be judged in the same light. All sins are the same (except the one) in God's eyes so all except the one sin can be forgiven by God, even murder, because God knows that we will never be able to rid ourselves of sin (Romans 3). If God can forgive someone who commits murder (self or otherwise), why can't we? Do we hate so much that, as it stated in Matthew 7 that we cannot see the plank in our own eye?

As to the point of children...

Mark 10:15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.

What does this mean? A child approaches something new with little regard to question but curiosity and intrigue. Being a child also means to be submissive to elders, just as we should be submissive to God and his word. God wants us all to approach him in the same way so when we have been called so we can discover him and his word. I hate to say it but this also means removing yourself from dogma (such as the catholic references) that judges anyone for evil with more evil instead of with love. Everyone knows 1 Corinthians 13 but I've always felt this was just as powerful...

Romans 12:17-21 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Last point I wanted to make was on baptism. The bible speaks of it as a changing of one's heart and soul, not the sprinkling of water. There is a purpose for the act (I liken it to if Jesus did it, so should we) however the change because of the receiving of the holy spirit is which "baptism" matters. Does a child receive it? In the bible, all references are to men who were "reborn" if you will when they received the holy spirit. They then were made aware of God and only then did they desire to be baptised.

1 Peter 3:21 this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God

Here, it is a symbol of what has already occurred in your heart, not before. Children are free of blemish so a baptism of a child means little as their hearts are not of sin.

So children are not bound by original sin? The sin of Adam and Eve in the garden doesn't affect them?

Hey, doctoro, a protestant agrees with you that children should die as quickly as possible so they can go to heaven with their souls sin-free.

I'll bet he doesn't see it though. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: So children

jcgadfly wrote:
So children are not bound by original sin? The sin of Adam and Eve in the garden doesn't affect them?

Where is it written in the bible that baptism is about the original sin?  Baptism is when your soul receives the holy spirit and in showing of that receival you then perform the act of water to wash away your old life. 

All sin came to the world through one man but salvation came through Jesus (Romans 5:12-20), not water.  All that's necessary to accept the gift is to believe and it through that belief you are baptised through the holy spirit.

jcgadfly wrote:
Hey, doctoro, a protestant agrees with you that children should die as quickly as possible so they can go to heaven with their souls sin-free.

I'll bet he doesn't see it though.

Twisting words again?

Each person born has a purpose on Earth, if it be for 5 minutes or 5 decades, through life or death that purpose is fulfilled.  No one said anything about speeding that up by your own hand. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
So children are not bound by original sin? The sin of Adam and Eve in the garden doesn't affect them?

Where is it written in the bible that baptism is about the original sin? Baptism is when your soul receives the holy spirit and in showing of that receival you then perform the act of water to wash away your old life.

All sin came to the world through one man but salvation came through Jesus (Romans 5:12-20), not water. All that's necessary to accept the gift is to believe and it through that belief you are baptised through the holy spirit.

jcgadfly wrote:
Hey, doctoro, a protestant agrees with you that children should die as quickly as possible so they can go to heaven with their souls sin-free.

I'll bet he doesn't see it though.

Twisting words again?

Each person born has a purpose on Earth, if it be for 5 minutes or 5 decades, through life or death that purpose is fulfilled. No one said anything about speeding that up by your own hand.

You said and I quote, "Children are free of blemish so a baptism of a child means little as their hearts are not of sin."

So, are children exempt from the sin of Adam or not? You seem to be saying that they are so your logic (term used loosely) says that children should be killed so their sin free hearts would go to heaven.

I don't need to twist your words. You need no help shooting yourself in the foot.

And I would've kept my money - you didn't see it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: You said

jcgadfly wrote:
You said and I quote, "Children are free of blemish so a baptism of a child means little as their hearts are not of sin."

So, are children exempt from the sin of Adam or not? You seem to be saying that they're not so your logic (term used loosely) says that children should be killed so their sin free hearts would go to heaven.

I'm going to ask it again, I'll attribute it to you just skimming through my post....what does a child and baptism have ANYTHING to do with the sin of Adam?

I seem to be saying?  How is that not twisting my words?  How is that not assuming your logic (and I'll use that very loosely as well) into my statement? 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
You said and I quote, "Children are free of blemish so a baptism of a child means little as their hearts are not of sin."

So, are children exempt from the sin of Adam or not? You seem to be saying that they're not so your logic (term used loosely) says that children should be killed so their sin free hearts would go to heaven.

I'm going to ask it again, I'll attribute it to you just skimming through my post....what does a child and baptism have ANYTHING to do with the sin of Adam?

I seem to be saying? How is that not twisting my words? How is that not assuming your logic (and I'll use that very loosely as well) into my statement?

Are you ever going to reach up and grab this point as it sails over your head again? 

You said children's hearts are free of sin so the baptism doesn't matter. 

I asked you if their freedom from sin included original sin. According to many Christian theologies, original sin still sends you to hell. Is your theology not one of those?

I used " You seem to say" to give you a chance to explain where I was misreading your logic. Since you chose not to correct me, my reading of your logic must be dead on.

Contrary to your bitching and moaning, I was following your logic to its conclusion. If your logic sounds strange when you hear it, rethink your logic.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
So children are not bound by original sin? The sin of Adam and Eve in the garden doesn't affect them?

Where is it written in the bible that baptism is about the original sin? Baptism is when your soul receives the holy spirit and in showing of that receival you then perform the act of water to wash away your old life.

All sin came to the world through one man but salvation came through Jesus (Romans 5:12-20), not water. All that's necessary to accept the gift is to believe and it through that belief you are baptised through the holy spirit.

what if you are not capable of belief?

razorphreak wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Hey, doctoro, a protestant agrees with you that children should die as quickly as possible so they can go to heaven with their souls sin-free.

I'll bet he doesn't see it though.

Twisting words again?

Each person born has a purpose on Earth, if it be for 5 minutes or 5 decades, through life or death that purpose is fulfilled. No one said anything about speeding that up by your own hand.

the point is that with the christian worldview you have described, where heaven is a reward open to children, it seems that it is not that strange that mothers like andrea yates have ended the lives of their own children out of love, and faith in christianity.

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: According

jcgadfly wrote:
According to many Christian theologies, original sin still sends you to hell. Is your theology not one of those?

Really? Which?  I might be mistaken here but I believe in the Catholics believe if you accept Jesus and believe in him your soul can be saved even without baptism...but then I've never dived that far into Catholic dogma.

Let me repeat though...in the New Testament, which is what defines Christanity (all forms, including catholics), baptism is not what saves your soul. 

jcgadfly wrote:
I used " You seem to say" to give you a chance to explain where I was misreading your logic. Since you chose not to correct me, my reading of your logic must be dead on.

That's your invalid assumption of logic that was not present.

You are following your own logic as what I posted is straight from the bible concerning the subject of baptism and children.  It seems that you deducted, with no questions to clairfy and with no regard to God's will in accordance to the bible, you managed to make the bible mean murder children to send them to heaven now.  I'll ask it again, but I'll ask it differently until you answer it, how was that statement by you not imposing your own logic into my statement?

Since I have a feeling I already know your response even though I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, I will say this.  While the death of a child would be beneficial to the child as this child would never know sin, it's all depending on God's will for the child.  If God wants the child to live for 5 minutes or 50 years it is not for us to say we know God's will is to kill the child to send him or her to heaven. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: what if you

mouse wrote:
what if you are not capable of belief?

Everyone can believe if God calls them.  It is not up to the person but God's calling. 

mouse wrote:
the point is that with the christian worldview you have described, where heaven is a reward open to children, it seems that it is not that strange that mothers like andrea yates have ended the lives of their own children out of love, and faith in christianity.

How do you figure?  Nothing in the bible states to murder someone out of love.  

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
According to many Christian theologies, original sin still sends you to hell. Is your theology not one of those?

Really? Which? I might be mistaken here but I believe in the Catholics believe if you accept Jesus and believe in him your soul can be saved even without baptism...but then I've never dived that far into Catholic dogma.

Let me repeat though...in the New Testament, which is what defines Christanity (all forms, including catholics), baptism is not what saves your soul.

jcgadfly wrote:
I used " You seem to say" to give you a chance to explain where I was misreading your logic. Since you chose not to correct me, my reading of your logic must be dead on.

That's your invalid assumption of logic that was not present.

You are following your own logic as what I posted is straight from the bible concerning the subject of baptism and children. It seems that you deducted, with no questions to clairfy and with no regard to God's will in accordance to the bible, you managed to make the bible mean murder children to send them to heaven now. I'll ask it again, but I'll ask it differently until you answer it, how was that statement by you not imposing your own logic into my statement?

Since I have a feeling I already know your response even though I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, I will say this. While the death of a child would be beneficial to the child as this child would never know sin, it's all depending on God's will for the child. If God wants the child to live for 5 minutes or 50 years it is not for us to say we know God's will is to kill the child to send him or her to heaven.

And since no one knows God's will but God (and possibly you, based on many of your statements)...

Doesn't the fact that God doesn't let people in on his will for their lives make God a bit of an asshole?

Incidentally, I love how you insist on saying that I'm imposing my logic when I'm using your words and taking them to your logical conclusion. Too damn funny. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: And since

jcgadfly wrote:
And since no one knows God's will but God (and possibly you, based on many of your statements)...

Doesn't the fact that God doesn't let people in on his will for their lives make God a bit of an asshole?

Who says he doesn't?  I'm sorry where did I say no one knows what God's will is?

I am really hoping you'll see why this discussion is getting no where fast; you continue to add words or make invalid assumptions based upon your own logic or your own prejudices against who knows what (hatred of theists?...my assumption of course).  I really wish you'd stop... 

jcgadfly wrote:
Incidentally, I love how you insist on saying that I'm imposing my logic when I'm using your words and taking them to your logical conclusion. Too damn funny.

Who keeps jumping to conclusions?  You say you are using my words yet I never said murder kids or God doesn't let anyone in on his will for them.  It's your logical conclusion, not mine.  If you want to know mine, ASK. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
And since no one knows God's will but God (and possibly you, based on many of your statements)...

Doesn't the fact that God doesn't let people in on his will for their lives make God a bit of an asshole?

Who says he doesn't? I'm sorry where did I say no one knows what God's will is?

I am really hoping you'll see why this discussion is getting no where fast; you continue to add words or make invalid assumptions based upon your own logic or your own prejudices against who knows what (hatred of theists?...my assumption of course). I really wish you'd stop...

jcgadfly wrote:
Incidentally, I love how you insist on saying that I'm imposing my logic when I'm using your words and taking them to your logical conclusion. Too damn funny.

Who keeps jumping to conclusions? You say you are using my words yet I never said murder kids or God doesn't let anyone in on his will for them. It's your logical conclusion, not mine. If you want to know mine, ASK.

Nah, watching you lie to yourself is getting tedious. I've shown you where your logic leads (others have as well) and you simply stick your fingers in your ears and say "I can't hear you" 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: If God

razorphreak wrote:

If God wants the child to live for 5 minutes or 50 years it is not for us to say we know God's will is to kill the child to send him or her to heaven.

I'm rather curious, what purpose would be served by a child living for 5 minutes?   I assume this would be in keeping with the notions of an all-loving god and intelligent design.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: I'm

zarathustra wrote:
I'm rather curious, what purpose would be served by a child living for 5 minutes? I assume this would be in keeping with the notions of an all-loving god and intelligent design.

I can't speak of a child born for only 5 minutes but I do know what it is like to lose an unborn child.  While there was a huge feeling of loss, the child saved the life of the mother, a woman who I still care for very much, and because of her getting pregnant they discovered uteran cancer in the early stages, she couldn't carry to term but they managed to get rid of the cancer and now, with her new hubby, has a new son.  It was obvious that God sent that child to further that lady's life and reveal a much bigger purpose for her later.  We may not always understand what it is that God is doing but the reasons come to be known in time. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
doctoro wrote: This says

doctoro wrote:

This says 2 things:

1. Unbaptized children go to hell.

steadfast wrote:

Actually, it says unbaptised children are entrusted to God's mercy.

So they may or may not go to hell. Some might, some might not.

This is a convenient way of simply saying, “I don’t know if unbaptised children go to hell, but they probably do.”

Don’t you think this would be something important that God would want us to know? Don’t you think this would be put into the Bible somewhere explicitly? I mean, the problem of children dying is significant! I have read that the most traumatic event that can befall any human being is the death of a child. Psychiatric professionals rate it as the most traumatic event.

But, it would seem that arguments of this vein always fall on deaf ears to all Christians. By this, I mean that when I pose arguments that follow the pattern, “If God is perfect, then wouldn’t X be true,” are ALWAYS rebuffed with some kind of response. No matter how illogical something in the Bible may be, or how illogical the construction of our world may be given God’s properties, Christians always have an answer.

Honestly, it’s very frustrating to me. It’s frustrating because no matter how good one’s argument is, it’s always obscured with strange and bizarre rationalizations that never answer the question at hand.

I most commonly hear the following responses when Christians respond to the pattern of argument I was referring to:

1. You can’t know what God would do, because you’re not God.

2. God is mysterious and unknowable.

3. God is perfect by definition and our puny minds cannot possibly fathom God’s infinite wisdom. Since God always does the best, any seemingly bad thing that happens in this world is actually good.

There are certainly other responses, but these are the most common.

Let’s go back to what Steadfast’s response really means: “I don’t know if unbaptised children go to hell, but they probably do.”

I don’t care if we hope for God to have mercy on children. That is not an answer to the question at all. It’s an obfuscation of the topic. Obfuscation means that you purposely muddy the waters and confuse the issue, dance around the argument with a completely irrelevant response in order to dodge the question and end the debate without any winner.

This is unacceptable. I aim to find the truth, and claiming “I don’t know” is not good enough. I say this because a MUCH MORE productive way to go is to look at the REAL possibilities and discuss both. If BOTH possibilities yield unacceptable logical sequela, we cannot throw up our arms and simply claim ignorance and faith in God’s perfection by definition.

At least go as FAR as you can with the logic before you do so. I suppose I’m less annoyed by the fact that Christians appeal to mystery -- and more annoyed by the fact that they use this tactic SO EARLY in the debate. We can go MUCH further than simply stopping the discussion here and appealing to ignorance and the mystery of God.

So we don’t know if God sends unbaptized children to hell. Could it be that ALL options here are seriously damaging to the case of Christianity? I think so. This is why Christians end the debate here.

What real possibilities are there?

 

1. God sends ALL unbaptized children to hell.

2. God sends NO unbaptized children to hell.

3. God sends SOME unbaptized children to hell.

Now here we go. Now we have three possibilities. This is logic at work! Try as I may, going through this step, I see NO other possible alternatives. Strike 1 for the “God is mysterious and I don’t know” response. It simply doesn’t work yet. We have 3 possibilities and absolutely no other possibilities that might be the case.

What are the problems with each? I can show you that EACH of these possibilities creates a logical contradiction that cannot be resolved with Catholic doctrine.

1. God sends ALL unbaptized children to hell.

Well, this simply is heinous.

P1. God is all-perfect: all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good.

P2. Baptism washes away “original sin” from children.

P3. We assume that original sin automatically damns someone to hell.

P4. If original sin does NOT automatically damn someone to hell, then there is NO reason to perform a baptism (in the spiritual realm). It may be some kind of ritual to create social cohesion, but it would have no effect on the spirituality or the damnation of the child.

P5. An all-perfect God cannot, by definition, eternally punish a child for an original sin that was not committed by the child. Children cannot be held accountable for the sins of their parents. If my father commits a murder, they jail him, not me. And if they can’t find him, they’re not going to come to my door and jail me either. Sins are NOT transferable. You are accountable for your own actions, not the actions of others. Without this principle, “justice” fails and becomes meaningless.

P6. Less than 1% of the children who have ever lived were baptized. (Including those living before Jesus. Including all non-Christian children in the world.)

Conclusion: The idea that God sends ALL unbaptized children to hell is completely untenable and must be disregarded. Furthermore, since original sin is not transferable, there is no reason for baptism. (The doctrine of original sin and its relationship with baptism is exclusive to Catholics, I think.)

Do you seriously contend that this is still a possibility after thinking about it, Steadfast?

Next option:

2. God sends NO unbaptized children to hell.

Well, I think this is a much more tenable position. If God’s all-good, then there is no way he can send an “innocent” child to hell. In other words, baptism really probably has NO effect on judgment at all. So why even talk about baptism? Why even bring it up? Because it’s in Catholic doctrinal documents? Like I care. And what are the metaphysical implications of NON-Catholics who are baptized? Does it still work? Or do you have to be a Catholic? If it’s not the same, there are many more people going to hell for not being baptized.

 

Here’s what I’m talking about with obfuscating or obscuring the topic. You’ve unnecessarily introduced other issues in the debate that stray from the original question.

I’m confused, but I’m not going to let you get the better of me.

The original topic was this question, essentially: Do all innocent children go to heaven?

Hmm… What does baptism even have to do with it? We still have the problem, IF we grant that baptised children go to heaven automatically. If so, I argued that we are morally obligated to kill children prior to the age or possibility of accountability of actions to prevent eternal suffering and punishment. And since it seems more likely that baptism has nothing to do with going to heaven and all kids go to heaven, I think we’ve added nothing to the debate by discussing baptism.

I can simply change the scenario… Add ONE more step and baptise all children before you kill them. Presto! The scenario is fixed.

P1. Heaven is a great place.

P2. Hell is a terrible place.

P3. All kids (who are baptized) go to heaven.

P4. Once reaching a certain, ambiguous age, children are accountable for their actions and may be sent to hell for being bad or disbelieving in God.

Conclusion: Since children have the possibility of going to hell after a certain age, we should either kill all children or tell them to commit suicide in order to ensure passage into heaven (after we baptize them).

Finally, let’s look at possibility 3: SOME unbaptized children go to heaven.

This possibility just doesn’t hold any value at all. Completely useless. If SOME baptized children go to heaven, then once again, baptism has nothing to do with the debate. We just throw it out, and my scenario still applies. We would have to shift the criteria for admission to heaven to something else entirely. I’ll get to that later.

doctoro wrote:

2. We should baptize all children so that they MIGHT go to heaven.

This is totally ambiguous as to whether or not BAPTIZED children go to heaven.

Steadfast wrote:

Correct.

What’s correct? That we should baptize all children? Or that it’s ambiguous about all baptized children go to heaven? Regardless, we’ve proven that my scenario still stands. We simply baptize all children; THEN kill them so they can go to heaven.

NEW QUESTIONS:

CAN I BAPTIZE A BLASTOCYST?

DO BLASTOCYSTS HAVE SOULS?

(Blastocysts are the state of the developing potential human right after conception.)

doctoro wrote:

What is it? I'm not getting a straight answer. I'm referenced to other sources to answer simple yes or no answers. Let's try again.

1. YES, NO, or I DON'T KNOW (Only THREE options.) Do all baptized children go to heaven?

Saying, "Let us hope God takes mercy on them," is not an acceptable answer. Either it's yes or I don't know.

Steadfast wrote:

Don't know.

At least you’re honest. But a “don’t know answer” is still unacceptable when we can logically discuss both of the other possibilities. It’s too early to invoke the “God is mysterious” cop-out.

1. All baptized children go to heaven.

This is the most logical. I see no reason why they shouldn’t, providing God is all-good.

So if this one is true, my scenario still stands, and we should kill all children after we baptize them to ensure a place in heaven.

2. Baptism is either not a qualifying factor for entrance to heaven or SOME baptized children go to heaven.

Like before, this renders discussion of baptism completely irrelevant to the debate.

doctoro wrote:

2. YES, NO, or I DON'T KNOW (Only THREE options.) Do all unbaptized children go to hell?

Steadfast wrote:

No.

Ah. So some unbaptized children go to heaven. Then baptism has absolutely nothing to do with the debate.

PWNED.

doctoro wrote:

3. YES, NO, or I DON'T KNOW (Only THREE options.) Is there a specific age or "maturity" when baptized children are accountable for their actions and may be sent to hell for sinning?

4. OPEN ENDED: How do you define the word, 'children'?

Steadfast wrote:

3. Yes.

4. I'd guess from your earlier comments that you think that we think there is a standard chronological age at which a child becomes accountable for their sins? Not so. What distinguishes someone who is mature enough to sin is their maturity not their age.

Alright, then you’ve basically conceded most of the premises of my original proof. At SOME POINT IN TIME, kids are accountable for their actions. For this reason, we should baptize and kill them as QUICKLY as possible in order to prevent them from gaining this accountability.

------

Finally, let’s look at all the questions and points I have raised that you have not addressed. I will repost them in question form.

1. DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE RAPTURE AND THAT CHRIST IS COMING BACK TO EARTH “ANY DAY NOW” WITHIN YOUR LIFETIME?

2. DO YOU ANXIOUSLY AWAIT THE SECOND COMING?

3. WILL REPRODUCTION OF NEW PEOPLE STOP AFTER THE SECOND COMING?

4. WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS FOR A CHILD TO GET INTO HEAVEN -- BESIDES BAPTISM?

5. DO ALL BAPTISED CHILDREN WHO HAVE NOT REACHED ACCOUNTABILITY (1 MONTH OLD) GO TO HEAVEN?

6. ARE YOU PREPARED TO ACCEPT DAMNATION OF ANY CHILD WHO IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE FOR ITS ACTIONS OR EVEN HAVING THE ABILITY TO ACT WHO IS BAPTIZED OR UNBAPTIZED?

7. MOST IMPORTANTLY…

doctoro wrote:

Conclusion: Since children have the possibility of going to hell after a certain age, we should either kill all children or tell them to commit suicide in order to ensure passage into heaven.

Steadfast wrote:

Actually, killing children is nonsense.

doctoro wrote:

Is it really? That sounds like a conclusion with no premises. If we are to judge the truth of a statement without premises, my statement that "Christians are morally obligated to kill children" is equally valid with no evidence or premises. All propositions would be true if this were the case. THAT is nonsense.

I agree with you, Steadfast, killing children IS nonsense! It's not good to do! That's why you should dispense with a belief system that entails moral obligation to kill children and become an atheist, where no such nonsense exists!

I got no response here, to what I felt was the most important point of anything.

WHY IS KILLING CHILDREN NONSENSE? WHY IS MY PROOF NONSENSE?

If I simply change my scenario to state that we baptize all children and kill them before the age of accountability when they could go to hell and suffer for eternity; what is nonsense about that!?!?!? It seems logically sound and irrefutable, in my opinion. Saying it’s nonsense is not an argument. Moreover, you just obscured the entire topic by introducing baptism in the debate, which really has nothing to do with it! Just add one caveat to the proof and it still stands.

After all, as many Christians love to say, “Eternal life is so much more important than this life.”

I, for one, don’t want any human to suffer in hell. The best way to prevent people from going to hell is to kill them as children before they are accountable! Then no one goes to hell and everyone is happy in eternal life!

Worried that the killers will go to hell? Why? All they have to do is confess their sins and/or accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, and all is forgiven! Surely God will understand!

It’s perfectly sound to me. Let the Holocaust begin!

(Or else we could just be atheists and throw all of this out the window, and learn to live and cherish each day on this Earth. And stop pining for an afterlife that doesn’t exist!)


McLeod
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-03-31
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
I'm rather curious, what purpose would be served by a child living for 5 minutes? I assume this would be in keeping with the notions of an all-loving god and intelligent design.

I can't speak of a child born for only 5 minutes but I do know what it is like to lose an unborn child. While there was a huge feeling of loss, the child saved the life of the mother, a woman who I still care for very much, and because of her getting pregnant they discovered uteran cancer in the early stages, she couldn't carry to term but they managed to get rid of the cancer and now, with her new hubby, has a new son. It was obvious that God sent that child to further that lady's life and reveal a much bigger purpose for her later. We may not always understand what it is that God is doing but the reasons come to be known in time.

 

So the mighty all powerful God needed to kill a child in order to save her from cancer? Couldn't he simply will the cancer away, or better yet prevent it from happening in the first place? I think this story definately reaffirms that God is indeed an asshole. Of course, this is all excusable because nobody knows God's will, right?


Steadfast Love
Theist
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-04-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
Don’t you think this would be something important that God would want us to know?


Of course not. Saving without baptism is not something we do so it's not a "need to know" issue.

Quote:
Let’s go back to what Steadfast’s response really means: “I don’t know if unbaptized children go to hell, but they probably do.”

I never said "probably do." If you read what I linked (and NinjaTux posted) you'll see that Catholics are somewhat optimistic. "God desires all men should be saved" is an indication of hope. Ditto with "Jesus' tenderness toward children...."

Quote:
So we don’t know if God sends unbaptized children to hell. Could it be that ALL options here are seriously damaging to the case of Christianity? I think so. This is why Christians end the debate here.

What real possibilities are there?

1. God sends ALL unbaptized children to hell.

2. God sends NO unbaptized children to hell.

3. God sends SOME unbaptized children to hell.


Incorrect. (1) is not an option.

Quote:
Ah. So some unbaptized children go to heaven. Then baptism has absolutely nothing to do with the debate.

PWNED.

Incorrect. Not all baptized are saved and not all unbaptized are condemned is not equivalent to "the same amount of baptized and unbaptized are saved."

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. All people must either (1) be baptized and die in a state of grace or (2) be accepted by God outside the visible confines of the Church.
5. Yes provided that they are in a state of Grace.
6. Yes.
7. You needed to change the scenario as noted below.

Quote:
If I simply change my scenario to state that we baptize all children and kill them before the age of accountability when they could go to hell and suffer for eternity; what is nonsense about that!?!?!? It seems logically sound and irrefutable, in my opinion.

Now it's nonsense because you're taking a handful of facts and pretending that they represent the totality of Christian teaching.

Is it true that we should all hope to die in a state of grace? Yes, but it's nonsense to think that we should shirk a lifetime of responsibilities to God and our fellow man. It's akin to saying "We don't want the other teams to score any points against us therefore we'll forfeit all our games." By fixating on one or two rules, you've totally missed the point. Killing your kids and forfitting all your matches is nonsense.

Quote:
Worried that the killers will go to hell?
Certainly, Jesus says it's better to drown yourself than to harm children. "Use a millstone" he says.

Quote:
(Or else we could just be atheists and throw all of this out the window, and learn to live and cherish each day on this Earth. And stop pining for an afterlife that doesn’t exist!)


If it's just a matter of being more happy, I'm more happy being Catholic thanks. Smile (By the way: Have you thought about being Amish? Statisticaly they're the happiest.) Tongue out

Edit: Yes, any living person (after conception) can be baptised. But please keep in mind the Theology of the Body before you decree what Christians should do with blastocysts. 


 It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. Mother Teresa.

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. --Mother Teresa.


Steadfast Love
Theist
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-04-22
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Really?

razorphreak wrote:

Really? Which? I might be mistaken here but I believe in the Catholics believe if you accept Jesus and believe in him your soul can be saved even without baptism...but then I've never dived that far into Catholic dogma.

We Catholics go even farther than that, you don't even need faith, just the desire to know Jesus and follow his commandments. Abraham for example is totally saved even though he didn't know Jesus' name or have all the comandments yet. He did the best with what he had and God accepted him for it. Same thing for a catechumenate killed on their way to the baptism font or a heathen with fear of the Lord.

On the other hand, we can also baptise someone who's too young to believe (which comes in handy in Acts when whole households are converted.) Have the babies earned salvation by their faith? No, they're too young to have faith. Their salvation is totally unearned -- that why it's called "grace." Wink

As far as the "original sin" thing, we believe in that too. Original sin is our name for the sin that entered the world with Adam. Because of original sin EVERYONE needs Jesus -- even babies.

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. --Mother Teresa.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
McLeod wrote: So the mighty

McLeod wrote:
So the mighty all powerful God needed to kill a child in order to save her from cancer? Couldn't he simply will the cancer away, or better yet prevent it from happening in the first place? I think this story definately reaffirms that God is indeed an asshole. Of course, this is all excusable because nobody knows God's will, right?

OK seriously where are you guys getting that no one knows God's will?  Where did you read that, or more so how did you ASSUME that?

Could God have simply removed the cancer?  I think he did through the doctors.  Could God have just said poof?  Would we learn any sense of humility if we had everything?  Somehow you think this is a democracy with God; it is not our place to question the one who made us this way.  Notice that in the natural flow of things how God gave my friend more than she had in the first place.  Would she have had those things if she had not lost the child?  Would she have been given the wonderful life she has now if she did not ever have cancer?  

Read the book of Job.  You want to speak of loss and redemption that God gives to those who never lose faith..that is the example. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: McLeod

razorphreak wrote:

McLeod wrote:
So the mighty all powerful God needed to kill a child in order to save her from cancer? Couldn't he simply will the cancer away, or better yet prevent it from happening in the first place? I think this story definately reaffirms that God is indeed an asshole. Of course, this is all excusable because nobody knows God's will, right?

OK seriously where are you guys getting that no one knows God's will? Where did you read that, or more so how did you ASSUME that?

Could God have simply removed the cancer? I think he did through the doctors. Could God have just said poof? Would we learn any sense of humility if we had everything? Somehow you think this is a democracy with God; it is not our place to question the one who made us this way. Notice that in the natural flow of things how God gave my friend more than she had in the first place. Would she have had those things if she had not lost the child? Would she have been given the wonderful life she has now if she did not ever have cancer?

Read the book of Job. You want to speak of loss and redemption that God gives to those who never lose faith..that is the example.

Where did we get that no one knows god's will? Let's see...

1. You said that god has given everyone a purpose to fulfill .

2. The vast majority of people either don't know their purpose or have been told what another person thinks their purpose is.

3. You have provided no modern examples where God has told anyone about his purpose for them. 

As to your "it is not our place to question the one who made us this way.", do you realize that you just outlawed supplication? Asking god for divine help and guidance, healing or anything else is question the will of him who you claim made us.

With Job, we see a man being used as a pawn in a bet between God and Satan. What's noble about that? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Avecrien
Theist
Avecrien's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-04-25
User is offlineOffline
Lady has cancer. Lady gets

Lady has cancer. Lady gets pregnant. Lady finds out she has cancer. Baby is lost, but cancer is removed and lady's life is saved.

We can say it's coincidence. We can say God orchestrated it. Either way, good for her! If God set it up, its not worth arguing whether he had the means to have her healed in some other way. He could have angels fly down from heaven with laser scalpels, could've used invisible pink ponies. The meat of consequence with attributing this to God is that he 'killed a baby,' no? Or a fetus at least. Is that why he's an asshole? He let a fetus die? That he chose, this person assumes, to save a woman in a way that cost her an unborn child?

There's a hole dug that I don't wanna jump into here in terms of "god's will." What I'm curious about is the perspective of God's demeanor based on capability and action.

Mike Gravel for president!


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Steadfast Love wrote: On

Steadfast Love wrote:
On the other hand, we can also baptise someone who's too young to believe (which comes in handy in Acts when whole households are converted.) Have the babies earned salvation by their faith? No, they're too young to have faith. Their salvation is totally unearned -- that why it's called "grace." Wink

As far as the "original sin" thing, we believe in that too. Original sin is our name for the sin that entered the world with Adam. Because of original sin EVERYONE needs Jesus -- even babies.

As a former Catholic I'm familiar with what you are saying here.  Now I don't mean to start up a debate on this but I'll throw this out there since you mentioned salvation; Is faith earned?  Is salvation something you have to work for?  Is it by what you do that your faith comes from?  In accordance to Catholic dogma, the answer would be yes.  In accordance to the new testament, since salvation is acheived through God's will, the answer is no (Romans 9:16, Ephesians 2:8-9, Matthew 11:27).

As to the original sin, I've often wondered why.  If it states in Romans 5 which reaffirms that Jesus is the FINAL atonement necessary for God meaning that the original sin which brought death no longer needs to be satisfied as Jesus did this, what is the purpose of holding on to that?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Where did

jcgadfly wrote:
Where did we get that no one knows god's will? Let's see...

1. You said that god has given everyone a purpose to fulfill .

2. The vast majority of people either don't know their purpose or have been told what another person thinks their purpose is.

3. You have provided no modern examples where God has told anyone about his purpose for them.

But did I SPECIFICALLY say that no person can ever know God's will?  Please stop making assumptions, it's getting most tiresome.

1. True.

2. Because they don't ask God themselves (hence the verse that states ask and it will be answered)

3.  I know my purpose on what God wants me to do at this point in time.  It can change in accordance to his will which is why, if you ever notice, that most Christians always respond "If it's God's will..."

jcgadfly wrote:
As to your "it is not our place to question the one who made us this way.", do you realize that you just outlawed supplication? Asking god for divine help and guidance, healing or anything else is question the will of him who you claim made us.

Interesting you'd relate it to the unrelated.

Asking God for wisdom, for patience, hell to the the lottery are all permissable but it does not mean they are granted if it's not God's will.  Now what does what you need for your life have anything to do with why you are here or what your purpose is?  Knowing your purpose fomulates your prayers so if you know that you were meant to, say, be a auto mechanic, would you not ask God for the wisdom to understand cars (since it's his will for you to do this) and ask God to help you purchase the tools necessary to help others with car problems?  Do you see how that would be different than asking "why do you want me to be a car mechanic"??

jcgadfly wrote:
With Job, we see a man being used as a pawn in a bet between God and Satan. What's noble about that?

Job's actions are and it's Job's faith that prove what God does for those who remain faithful. 

Avecrien wrote:
We can say it's coincidence.

Of course you can.  Thing is, do you believe that life is a coincidence?

Avecrien wrote:
The meat of consequence with attributing this to God is that he 'killed a baby,' no? Or a fetus at least. Is that why he's an asshole? He let a fetus die? That he chose, this person assumes, to save a woman in a way that cost her an unborn child?

There's a hole dug that I don't wanna jump into here in terms of "god's will." What I'm curious about is the perspective of God's demeanor based on capability and action.

I suppose the same argument could be used on the 1st born of the last plague of Egypt.  How could God kill so many?

The purpose of the plague was to free his people from the grip of a society that did not believe in him (of course this does not mean those that were killed were condemned).  In the case of my friend, it was obvious that God's will was to reveal what was necessary to save her life as God had more work for her to do, part of which was to raise a new family and find her true love.  All it seems you see was the loss of a child, but I see that the child that was lost was a blessing for everyone in that the child sent was an angel for her and for her future purpose.  I can see no evil in that...

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Avecrien
Theist
Avecrien's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-04-25
User is offlineOffline
No sir,  I see no evil 

No sir,  I see no evil  in God killing this woman's fe tus,  by act  or omission. I was asking the person you've been chatting with why god was an asshole. I wanted to know if that opinion rested on the death.

Mike Gravel for president!


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I can only answer to the

I can only answer to the portions addressesd to me so...

 

jcgadfly wrote: Where did

Submitted by razorphreak on Wed, 2007-04-25 22:29.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
Where did we get that no one knows god's will? Let's see...

1. You said that god has given everyone a purpose to fulfill .

2. The vast majority of people either don't know their purpose or have been told what another person thinks their purpose is.

3. You have provided no modern examples where God has told anyone about his purpose for them.

But did I SPECIFICALLY say that no person can ever know God's will?  Please stop making assumptions, it's getting most tiresome.

1. True.

2. Because they don't ask God themselves (hence the verse that states ask and it will be answered)

3.  I know my purpose on what God wants me to do at this point in time.  It can change in accordance to his will which is why, if you ever notice, that most Christians always respond "If it's God's will..."

 -----

I love it when people quibble about semantics - it means they have no real argument.

Now, to business.

1. I'm glad you finally got around to agreeing that you wrote this. I was getting tired of being accused of twisting your words when all I did was quote them.

2. How do you know these people didn't ask god to reveal his will? Or are you implying that you know they asked the wrong questions?

3. You defended my point well. The clause "if it's god's will" usually means that the speaker doesn't know god's will for certain.

----- 

 

jcgadfly wrote:
As to your "it is not our place to question the one who made us this way.", do you realize that you just outlawed supplication? Asking god for divine help and guidance, healing or anything else is question the will of him who you claim made us.

Interesting you'd relate it to the unrelated.

Asking God for wisdom, for patience, hell to the the lottery are all permissable but it does not mean they are granted if it's not God's will.  Now what does what you need for your life have anything to do with why you are here or what your purpose is?  Knowing your purpose fomulates your prayers so if you know that you were meant to, say, be a auto mechanic, would you not ask God for the wisdom to understand cars (since it's his will for you to do this) and ask God to help you purchase the tools necessary to help others with car problems?  Do you see how that would be different than asking "why do you want me to be a car mechanic"??

-----

Way to backpedal. Shame it didn't work. It doesn't change the fact that prayer is asking for God to change his will, something his unchanging nature doesn't allow.

----- 

 

jcgadfly wrote:
With Job, we see a man being used as a pawn in a bet between God and Satan. What's noble about that?

Job's actions are and it's Job's faith that prove what God does for those who remain faithful.

-----

Job's actions (if Job actually existed and wasn't simply a story) were Job's alone. How silly it is to claim that Job's eventual prosperity was gained by placing his faith in the being that ultimately caused all his problems.

----- 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: 1. I'm

jcgadfly wrote:

1. I'm glad you finally got around to agreeing that you wrote this. I was getting tired of being accused of twisting your words when all I did was quote them. - Because you finally said it without adding on your own assumptions!

2. How do you know these people didn't ask god to reveal his will? Or are you implying that you know they asked the wrong questions? - I don't know either.  Your statement of they don't know God's will can be taken as either a. they didn't ask or b. they aren't listening to God but, as you so wrote, to others who are making assumptions on behalf of God which never works.

3. You defended my point well. The clause "if it's god's will" usually means that the speaker doesn't know god's will for certain. -Actually....I'll put my rebuttal below since they are both concerning prayer.

jcgadfly wrote:
Way to backpedal. Shame it didn't work. It doesn't change the fact that prayer is asking for God to change his will, something his unchanging nature doesn't allow.

And you tell me I'm dodging.

Prayer is not about asking God to change his will but to make his will be known to you.  People who ask God to win the lottery are not going to be answered because they are trying to impose their will upon God.  Some will even say that God answered their prayer and, in many cases I've read, they end up screwing themselves with their winnings because they didn't do it for God's glory but their own.  Simply put, there is a right way and a wrong way to pray.

jcgadfly wrote:
Job's actions (if Job actually existed and wasn't simply a story) were Job's alone. How silly it is to claim that Job's eventual prosperity was gained by placing his faith in the being that ultimately caused all his problems.

How odd you'd say it was God who caused his problems.  God did not bring evil to him but allowed evil to persist as God knew where Job's heart was. 

Job 42:10 After Job had prayed for his friends, the LORD made him prosperous again and gave him twice as much as he had before.

 Because of Job's faith, God reconciled to him twice as much as before and gave him a life well beyond what he had had.  It was not Job himself who rebuilt his life but through the grace of God that Job had more than what he began with.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

1. I'm glad you finally got around to agreeing that you wrote this. I was getting tired of being accused of twisting your words when all I did was quote them. - Because you finally said it without adding on your own assumptions!

2. How do you know these people didn't ask god to reveal his will? Or are you implying that you know they asked the wrong questions? - I don't know either. Your statement of they don't know God's will can be taken as either a. they didn't ask or b. they aren't listening to God but, as you so wrote, to others who are making assumptions on behalf of God which never works.

3. You defended my point well. The clause "if it's god's will" usually means that the speaker doesn't know god's will for certain. -Actually....I'll put my rebuttal below since they are both concerning prayer.

jcgadfly wrote:
Way to backpedal. Shame it didn't work. It doesn't change the fact that prayer is asking for God to change his will, something his unchanging nature doesn't allow.

And you tell me I'm dodging.

Prayer is not about asking God to change his will but to make his will be known to you. People who ask God to win the lottery are not going to be answered because they are trying to impose their will upon God. Some will even say that God answered their prayer and, in many cases I've read, they end up screwing themselves with their winnings because they didn't do it for God's glory but their own. Simply put, there is a right way and a wrong way to pray.

jcgadfly wrote:
Job's actions (if Job actually existed and wasn't simply a story) were Job's alone. How silly it is to claim that Job's eventual prosperity was gained by placing his faith in the being that ultimately caused all his problems.

How odd you'd say it was God who caused his problems. God did not bring evil to him but allowed evil to persist as God knew where Job's heart was.

Job 42:10 After Job had prayed for his friends, the LORD made him prosperous again and gave him twice as much as he had before.

Because of Job's faith, God reconciled to him twice as much as before and gave him a life well beyond what he had had. It was not Job himself who rebuilt his life but through the grace of God that Job had more than what he began with.

1. How is asking god for something that he is not currently giving not an attempt to change God's will? Or do you never ask for something (healing, financial help, employment, divine guidance) in prayer?

2. The character Job was set up by God. God bragged on him to Satan. Satan questioned Job's motivations. God bet that Satan couldn't break Job and Satan took the bet.

As God created Satan and dared Satan to take his shots at Job, God was ultimately the source of Job's misfortunes. If God hadn't caused the problems, why would he need to reconcile with Job? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
1. How is asking god for

1. How is asking god for something that he is not currently giving not an attempt to change God's will? Or do you never ask for something (healing, financial help, employment, divine guidance) in prayer? - because God knows what you need before you ask of it (Matthew 7:Cool. God knows when it is time for you to find a job, move, need heath help, whatever. Prayer is asking for God to impose his will upon your life, not asking for your will to be done. If you were laid off from your job and asked God I need a job tomorrow, and you get the first job you apply for, because it was your prayer you needed the job that came along, but this job had people who would hate you because of your beliefs, would God send you into the "lion's den" knowing full well it would make your life miserable? When praying, there is asking for God's will be done and then there is demanding of your will upon God. God's will to answer your prayer is not your will being done but his knowing what you need for your life and for you to serve him.

2. The character Job was set up by God. God bragged on him to Satan. Satan questioned Job's motivations. God bet that Satan couldn't break Job and Satan took the bet. - God did not bet Satan anything. Satan told God that Job would turn his back on him if he did not protect him. You got that one backwards...

Job 1:8-12 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face." (Satan telling God, if you weren't there or if you took all he had, he'd turn on you) The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."

As God created Satan and dared Satan to take his shots at Job, God was ultimately the source of Job's misfortunes. If God hadn't caused the problems, why would he need to reconcile with Job? - again God didn't dare Satan to do anything. Reading it again sounds a bit more like Satan daring God really. God allowed Satan to take all he had except his life as a test of his faith for God.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Avecrien
Theist
Avecrien's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-04-25
User is offlineOffline
Should one assume that

Should one assume that present situations are the will of God? Why?


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Avecrien wrote: Should one

Avecrien wrote:
Should one assume that present situations are the will of God? Why?

Yes and no.  Smiling

OK let me qualify that.

Just as God allowed Satan to test Job, I can see God allowing people to follow their own fleshly desires to see who may be faithful to his word.  While there has always been non-believers, this has always been there and as a Christian I know that it has always been God's will for non-believers to exist which further advances his word to those who have been revealed the truth, but Christians are the bigger issue.  An example that a friend was discussing recently was in relation to a woman as a pastor, the examples of what has happened in one division to the Episcopalians.  While I know many have stated that a woman can do the job just as good as a man, when it comes to the church of God, it is written that a woman can lead only when there is no man capable of doing the job.  This was disturbing to him and I can understand it because it dives directly into a contradiction of actions to the bible, the word.

1 John 2:4 The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

In today's society, it's difficult to follow God's word and not be marked as a bigot or a denier of human rights and so on (much like what has happened to me on this very forum).  But God's word is specific on how to live as the example, and it must be said, no matter how difficult it is or how quickly you will be rejected.

Ezekiel 2:7 You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious.

What makes things more difficult is how society has been trying to redefine the roles of men and woman and it clouds God's word even more so.

Is it God's will that the world is like this?  Yes and no.  Yes because God will give people over to their desires when they stop listening to God's word (Romans 1:24) but no because it has always been God's will that we follow his word and the example of his son while he was on this planet.  No because no evil comes from God's will, only man's will.  Society will repeat the mistakes of the past (like the crucades) because the majority do not understand that if you want to change things it is done with love not hate but yet we see hatred everywhere; image if Virgina Tech was done by a Muslim?  Can you image the backlash?  My question would be why does there have to be a backlash at all?  As Jesus said, forgive and do not judge as your message must also be that of love and of the truth of the message from God.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Steadfast Love
Theist
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-04-22
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Now I

razorphreak wrote:
Now I don't mean to start up a debate on this but I'll throw this out there since you mentioned salvation

I think it's ok to respond since it's on topic and I'm still waiting to hear back from Doctoro.
IS FAITH EARNED?
No. Faith is two things:
(1) Faith is a grace ("Grace" always means God given and not earned.)
(2) And also a human act of free will.

So the paradigm is God gives us the gift of faith and the proper response is to choose to have faith in him.

IS SALVATION SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO WORK FOR?
Salvation is given by grace, but after receiving it as a free gift we get to work for it. "Run the race" as St. Paul says. For to know Jesus is to have Jesus' goal as our own: to do his Father's will. But to those who do not do his Father's will Jesus will say `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'

IS IT BY WHAT YOU DO THAT YOUR FAITH COMES FROM?
In a tail-wags-the-dog sort of way, we strengthen our faith through prayer, fasting, perseverance and so forth but in truth those activities are actually God of strengthening us.

Quote:
As to the original sin, I've often wondered why. If it states in Romans 5 which reaffirms that Jesus is the FINAL atonement necessary for God meaning that the original sin which brought death no longer needs to be satisfied as Jesus did this, what is the purpose of holding on to that?


Check out Rom 5:19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many WILL BE made righteous.

So it's not true to say that original sin WAS satisfied, but rather that original sin WILL BE satisfied and IS BEING satisfied. This is why Jesus did not say "everyone take a break, my work is done" but instead said "Go to the ends of the earth baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." He began the process and gave us instructions how to complete his work of salvation.

As to the second part of your question: What if there was no original sin? Pelagius, a heretic from the 5th century has already imagined that madness. Upon reaching heaven you and I would thank Jesus for his forgiveness, but Pelagius (and the babies) would say: "Thanks for nothing Jesus. I earned my eternal life by not sinning. Actually I received no help from God or the Holy Spirit either -- I ascended into heaven by the power of my Christ-equivalent holiness."

Obviously, the early church could not help but recognise Pelagianism as a false teaching and thus it developed doctrine of original sin to correct it.

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. --Mother Teresa.