 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
A fetus / baby has no opportunity to redeem itself. It's completely unfair to send a baby to burn in agonizing hellfire for all eternity without even giving it a chance to save itself. It's totally wrong, and if that's what your God does, then He's a cruel, cruel, evil God.
Don't you see? If you maintain that babies go to hell, then I automatically win every single debate that I have with you... No matter what we're debating, I can always say, "Yeah, whatever; you worship an evil God." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's some relevant scripture which supports my position:
Mat 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put [his] hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | A fetus / baby has no opportunity to redeem itself. It's completely unfair to send a baby to burn in agonizing hellfire for all eternity without even giving it a chance to save itself. It's totally wrong, and if that's what your God does, then He's a cruel, cruel, evil God.
Don't you see? If you maintain that babies go to hell, then I automatically win every single debate that I have with you... No matter what we're debating, I can always say, "Yeah, whatever; you worship an evil God." |
You know as well as I do that this argument holds no water. The issue of 'redeeming oneself' is not an issue of justice or injustice, but rather of mercy or not.
Let us momentarily pretend (for your sake) that it is perfectly just for God to send the infants to hell. If this was so (which I maintain that it is, and you have yet to offer reason as to why it is not), then God would be under absolutely no obligation to give them an opportunity to get out. They would go to hell, justly so, and that would be the end of the issue.
God coming along and offering an escape to some is not God being more just to some or unjust to those that are left, it is God being merciful to those that are given the escape.
If the President was to offer pardon to certain prisoners who were justly condemned to death, it would be foolish for the other prisoners not offered the pardon to say they are condemned to die unjustly because they were not given a pardon. You cannot deny this. You are not speaking about justice when you speak of whether they are given an escape, you are speaking about mercy. Whether God is merciful to everyone or not does not make Him any less good or more evil.
| Quote: |
Here's some relevant scripture which supports my position:
Mat 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put [his] hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. |
The thought that is meant to be conveyed here is skewed given different interpretations. This interpretation says it a little better and conveys the thought better:
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and don't try to stop them! People who are like these children belong to God's kingdom." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
God coming along and offering an escape to some is not God being more just to some or unjust to those that are left, it is God being merciful to those that are given the escape.
If the President was to offer pardon to certain prisoners who were justly condemned to death, it would be foolish for the other prisoners not offered the pardon to say they are condemned to die unjustly because they were not given a pardon. You cannot deny this. You are not speaking about justice when you speak of whether they are given an escape, you are speaking about mercy. Whether God is merciful to everyone or not does not make Him any less good or more evil.
|
You're not making God look very good here.
If it's in your power to stop or prevent suffering, the RIGHT thing to do is to stop or prevent the suffering.
Let's say you're standing on a road and there are thousands of toddlers walking past you to a gas chamber (kind of like at a Holocaust death camp), and all you have to do to save them is snap your fingers. I'll even state the obvious here: the children have never done anything to deserve such a fate.
Do you save them or not?
I assert that if you don't save them, then you're INCREDIBLY evil and immoral.
It's exactly the same deal with God except that burning in hellfire for all eternity is CONSIDERABLY worse than being gassed, and fetuses / babies are even more innocent than infants.
If it's completely evil for you to NOT save them, then why would it be ok for God to NOT save them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Let's say you're standing on a road and there are thousands of toddlers walking past you to a gas chamber (kind of like at a Holocaust death camp), and all you have to do to save them is snap your fingers. I'll even state the obvious here: the children have never done anything to deserve such a fate.
It's exactly the same deal with God except that burning in hellfire for all eternity is CONSIDERABLY worse than being gassed, and fetuses / babies are even more innocent than infants. |
No it is not exactly the same. Again P, if you are going to attack Christianity, you cannot misrepresent what it teaches. The Scriptures teach that EVERYONE is guilty and deserves hell fire. So in this regard, your little picture falls apart.
It is not a bunch of innocent children being led to the gas chambers but rather a bunch of guilty criminals.
Again, if you are going to attack this issue, you cannot do it by saying God is cruel for not saving the innocent children, as there are not innocent children according to Scripture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
It is not a bunch of innocent children being led to the gas chambers but rather a bunch of guilty criminals. |
You think that infants, babies, and fetuses are guilty criminals?!?
What are they guilty of?
You *might* be able to argue that babies and fetuses are born in sin but you can't say this about fetuses, because they have NOT been born in sin; they haven't even been born yet!
If your God thinks that it's ok to punish innocent babies by condemning them to hellfire for all eternity, then your God is not kind, loving, nor merciful...
There's just no way God treats babies in this way. You're making a mistake somewhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If your God thinks that it's ok to punish innocent babies by condemning them to hellfire for all eternity, then your God is not kind, loving, nor merciful... |
Again, quit with the 'innocent'. If you are going to argue this you have to use Scriptural terminology. Otherwise you are not arguing honestly. You know this my friend.
It would be no different than me saying that evolution teaches that one day a monkey momma popped out a little human baby, and then arguing against evolution's validity based upon this.
| Quote: | | You *might* be able to argue that babies and fetuses are born in sin but you can't say this about fetuses, because they have NOT been born in sin; they haven't even been born yet! |
Do tell me how you think these passages should be read:
| Quote: | | Rom 3:10-12 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; (11) no one understands; no one seeks for God. (12) All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." |
And this one:
| Quote: | | Rom 5:12-19 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-- (13) for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. (14) Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (15) But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. (16) And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. (17) For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. (18) Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. (19) For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. |
These are the key passages that describe the doctrine of imputation of condemnation to all men. This is where the Scriptural idea comes from that Adam sinned in the garden and therefore all humanity is condemned because of this trespass. All are condemned to hell because of Adam's sin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
Again, quit with the 'innocent'. If you are going to argue this you have to use Scriptural terminology.
|
Why does the word 'innocent' exist? If it doesn't even apply to babies, then what's the point? Why would we need a word that doesn't apply to anyone at all???
If babies aren't innocent, then nobody is.
| Quote: | | Rom 3:10-12 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; (11) no one understands; no one seeks for God. (12) All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." |
Obviously this passage is not meant for the unborn!!! You can hardly blame a fetus (which hasn't even been born yet) for not seeking God. If your brain hasn't even formed yet, then OF COURSE you can't seek God yet. But that's completely different than a grown adult not seeking God; you can blame the adult since he should know better; you obviously can't blame the fetus...
As for 'turning aside'... Obviously this doesn't apply to fetuses either... They are literally incapable of forming the prerequisite intent to 'turn aside' (ie. spurn God).
It's obvious that this passage isn't talking about the unborn!!!
| Quote: | Rom 5:12-19 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-- (13)
|
Again, this passage clearly doesn't apply to fetuses. It is talking about MEN. A fetus isn't even a baby yet, let alone an infant, toddler, child, or adolescent. There are like four distinct stages of development between a fetus and a man. Why are you taking scripture written for men and trying to apply it to babies, let alone fetuses?
| Quote: |
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. (19) For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. |
Same thing. It's talking about MEN. According to scripture, babies and fetuses are not sinners yet.
| Quote: |
These are the key passages that describe the doctrine of imputation of condemnation to all men. This is where the Scriptural idea comes from that Adam sinned in the garden and therefore all humanity is condemned because of this trespass. All are condemned to hell because of Adam's sin. |
Clearly babies and fetuses are not included in this.
But besides, I would argue that you are further misinterpreting things here. It is completely wrong to punish someone for someone else's crimes. If your uncle robs a bank, would it be ok for the government to throw YOU in jail for 20 years? If your third grade teacher falls on hard times and commits fraud, would it be ok if they threw you in the clink???
This is not what original sin is about. Original sin means that we by nature are corrupt creatures, and not that we are guilty for Adam's sin. We can't help but sin. Even as children we start doing bad things. But this doesn't include babies and fetuses. They really and truly are innocent. You can't do wrong if you don't even know the difference between right and wrong. This concept is called 'intent', and our legal system is based partly on it.
It's why we don't prosecute young children or the mentally retarded; they cannot form intent yet. Certainly babies and fetuses cannot form intent. It's literally impossible for them to sin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Why does the word 'innocent' exist? If it doesn't even apply to babies, then what's the point? Why would we need a word that doesn't apply to anyone at all???
If babies aren't innocent, then nobody is. |
If innocence is the lack of guilt, then it is possible to have an entire world that is guilty, and yet not have anyone that is innocent.
Think of it like darkness or coldness. These are just absences of light and heat. You can have only heat and only light, and therefore not have darkness or coldness. The nonexistence of coldness or darkness does not eliminate the universal existence of heat or light.
| Quote: | Obviously this passage is not meant for the unborn!!! You can hardly blame a fetus (which hasn't even been born yet) for not seeking God. If your brain hasn't even formed yet, then OF COURSE you can't seek God yet. But that's completely different than a grown adult not seeking God; you can blame the adult since he should know better; you obviously can't blame the fetus...
As for 'turning aside'... Obviously this doesn't apply to fetuses either... They are literally incapable of forming the prerequisite intent to 'turn aside' (ie. spurn God).
It's obvious that this passage isn't talking about the unborn!!! |
I'd perhaps give you this one. But not completely.
This passage makes a universal and absolute claim: 'none are righteous'.
It then proceeds to give examples of these unrighteous people's actions. It is not claiming that they are unrighteous because of these actions, but is telling what they do because of their unrighteousness.
| Quote: | | Again, this passage clearly doesn't apply to fetuses. It is talking about MEN. A fetus isn't even a baby yet, let alone an infant, toddler, child, or adolescent. There are like four distinct stages of development between a fetus and a man. Why are you taking scripture written for men and trying to apply it to babies, let alone fetuses? |
Oh P, don't be so naive. You know 'men' or 'man' is a term that is applied to 'humanity'. If we took your narrow definition, we would not see this as speaking about women either, as they are not 'men'. Likewise, if we went along with your train of thought, how would we know what a 'man' is? You gave four distinct stages of development between a fetus and a man, but in different cultures, these stages are viewed differently. Sometimes a 'man' is one at 13, sometimes at 18. This is not 'man' in the sense of adult male, but rather in the sense of humanity.
| Quote: | | Same thing. It's talking about MEN. According to scripture, babies and fetuses are not sinners yet. |
Men is humanity.
| Quote: | | But besides, I would argue that you are further misinterpreting things here. It is completely wrong to punish someone for someone else's crimes. If your uncle robs a bank, would it be ok for the government to throw YOU in jail for 20 years? If your third grade teacher falls on hard times and commits fraud, would it be ok if they threw you in the clink??? |
But we sometimes do put the burdens of individuals upon their children. I'm thinking of debts in particular. If my parents were to die, all of their debts would be passed onto me as one of their children. I would have to pay this and be responsible for this.
| Quote: | | This is not what original sin is about. Original sin means that we by nature are corrupt creatures, and not that we are guilty for Adam's sin. We can't help but sin. Even as children we start doing bad things. But this doesn't include babies and fetuses. They really and truly are innocent. You can't do wrong if you don't even know the difference between right and wrong. This concept is called 'intent', and our legal system is based partly on it. |
This idea is only part of 'original sin'. Original sin is the idea of all humanity (all men) being held responsible for the crime within the garden, AND the idea of all humanity being corrupt because of this sin.
Besides, you admitted that we by nature are corrupt creatures, why is this not applicable to fetuses? Have they not a human nature? Would this not be a corrupt nature?
I'm not yet arguing from this idea (them having a corrupt nature) to perfect defense of them bearing guilt because of it. But I am about to argue that if they do indeed have a corrupt human nature, then it is perfectly reasonable to treat them accordingly. We treat dogs like dogs, not necessarily because they act like dogs, but because they are dogs. What is so wrong with treating a 'corrupt human' as a corrupt human when they are indeed a corrupt human?
| Quote: | | It's why we don't prosecute young children or the mentally retarded; they cannot form intent yet. Certainly babies and fetuses cannot form intent. It's literally impossible for them to sin. |
But it is not wrong for them to have placed upon them the burden of their father's crimes. A child can be born with the burden of having to pay his father's debt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's just plain immoral!
You can't punish someone for something that someone else did! It's ridiculous!
What would our legal system be like if you could imprison / fine / execute people for crimes committed by their relatives?!?
What kind of justice is that, especially for babies?!?
Let's say your great grandfather killed a man, and let's say you have a 2-week-old baby. Would it be ok to execute your baby for what your great grandfather did?!?
The thought is just totally outrageous!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is Scriptural though P. The Christian doctrine of imputed guilt is one held to by most all of Christians. Adam sinned, and through him the entire human race sinned.
If we do not have Adam's imputed guilt, we cannot either have Christ's imputed righteousness. Wouldn't it be just as wrong to consider one righteous when they didn't do anything as to consider them guilty? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | It is Scriptural though P. The Christian doctrine of imputed guilt is one held to by most all of Christians. Adam sinned, and through him the entire human race sinned.
If we do not have Adam's imputed guilt, we cannot either have Christ's imputed righteousness. Wouldn't it be just as wrong to consider one righteous when they didn't do anything as to consider them guilty? |
I think that most Christians misinterpret the meaning of original sin. Original sin is not about Adam doing something evil, and us being guilty of it. That's just silly. It's totally wrong to blame someone for something that someone else did.
Original sin is about corruption. Before the original sin, mankind was perfect and not corrupt. After the sin, mankind became corrupted and now COULDN'T HELP but sin.
You are NOT guilty for what Adam did (that would be wrong). You are guilty because you are a corrupted creature that cannot help but sin. It is your own sins that you are guilty for, and not his. But your own sins were made possible by his. That's how I interpret the concept of original sin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
And I'm telling you that your interpretation of original sin is not Biblical. You are painting the picture as though the Scripture says simply 'original sin' and we must then interpret this. You interpret it to mean corruption, and others interpret it to mean guilt. But that is not the case, I have already shown you the Scripture wherein the doctrine is derived.
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
Paul says that Adam sinned within the garden, and through this one act sin came into the world and death through the sin.
He then says that death spread to all men, NOT because all men do sin, or have sinned, but because they sinned. Paul does not relegate the act within the garden to only Adam. He does not say it was only Adam's sin within the garden, but all men's. In some way, we all sinned within the garden. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, it's saying that the original sin corrupted all man, but that's not the same as saying that we are guilty of the original sin.
We are the corrupted spawn of Adam, and we can't help but sin. We are CAPABLE of sinning because of Adam and Eve, but the sins that we commit and are guilty of are our own, and not someone else's! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sorry for the delay, my good friend. If you are correct, that the passage in question only speaks about that the original sin corrupted all men, then would it not be wrong for us to find the same passage saying that one act led to the condemnation of everyone? If everyone was merely corrupted or tainted by the sin, then they would not be condemned because of this sin. They would be condemned because of their own sin, but not the sin within the garden. If they ARE condemned for the sin in the garden, then it goes to show that they are guilty of this sin. If they are not guilty of the sin, then they are condemned for something they are not guilty of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
