 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:41 am Post subject: |
 |
|
But you are not understanding that it is only your perception that is labeling this situation 'cruel'.
Allow me a little scenario (good thing you're not Silver Surfer and therefore won't take this too literally).
Some people believe it is 'cruel' to spank children. They would then label another parent who does spank their children as being 'cruel' parents. Whether or not you agree with them is not important. The issue that is important is that these people's label of 'cruel' is subjective. It is 'cruel' by their standards. Therefore, when they label the other parents as 'cruel', their label is incorrect.
We could make up some fantastical example as well (which I hesitate to do for it being so fantastical, but the same principle is applicable no matter how fantastical). I personally think it is 'cruel' not to allow your children to eat sugar-coated cereal for breakfast (it is just so darn good!). I would then label the parents of these children as being 'cruel'.
Do you understand what I am saying? You only say it is 'cruel' for God to do such because of your beliefs. Others may disagree with you. If you are not willing to then discuss the matter and see whether your label of 'cruel' is indeed objective of really subjective, then your label of God being 'cruel' could be absolutely no different than mine of calling the parents that don't feed their children cereal as 'cruel'.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8333
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
Do you understand what I am saying? You only say it is 'cruel' for God to do such because of your beliefs. Others may disagree with you. If you are not willing to then discuss the matter and see whether your label of 'cruel' is indeed objective of really subjective, then your label of God being 'cruel' could be absolutely no different than mine of calling the parents that don't feed their children cereal as 'cruel'. |
I of course agree that the concept of cruelty is subjective, but burning in hellfire is the most extreme possible example of cruelty.
Let's see if you buy the following argument: I argue that it is cruel to stick needles into the eyes of your children. But burning in hellfire for all eternity is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH worse than this. So if sticking needles into eyes is cruel, then burning in hellfire must be cruel as well...
In other words, if it's not cruel, then our language shouldn't have the word 'cruel', and it doesn't apply to ANY scenario.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
P123, there is a difference in an act being cruel, and it being just. If I was to cut off your head, that would be a cruel act. But we do not consider it a cruel act if you are a criminal or murderer deserving of death.
If I was to hit my child upon the hand for the sheer pleasure of doing it, just to please myself, this would be cruel (even if the pain was not that great). Yet if my child was involved in disobedience, my slapping her upon the wrist would not be cruel, but deserving punishment.
Understand? The label of 'cruel' is subjective, by your own admission, and therefore we cannot apply it to just any act without considering the context around which the act was done.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8333
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In what possible interpretation of the words 'cruel' and 'just' is it just to let the souls of innocent babies who have never done anything wrong burn in hellfire for all eternity?
...Maybe on opposite day!
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | In what possible interpretation of the words 'cruel' and 'just' is it just to let the souls of innocent babies who have never done anything wrong burn in hellfire for all eternity?
...Maybe on opposite day! |
P123, it is your perception that says they haven't done anything wrong. You are neither God nor those sentenced to hell and therefore you cannot really speak for either party.
It is like you walking up to two strange men fighting and choosing a side. You are telling one side that they are wrong for what they are doing and there is absolutely no reason why they should feel angry towards the other person. When you do not know either men and have absolutely no idea what has transpired between the two. Your 'judgment' is quite ignorant and unfounded.
Or perhaps I'm wrong. Do you know beyond doubt that these infants are innocent or that God has absolutely no just reason for treating them as He does? If you do, then by all means, do share...
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8333
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
P123, it is your perception that says they haven't done anything wrong. You are neither God nor those sentenced to hell and therefore you cannot really speak for either party.
|
Then explain to me what sin a zygote could possibly have committed which justifies that zygote's soul burning in hellfire for all eternity...
| sofyst wrote: |
It is like you walking up to two strange men fighting and choosing a side. You are telling one side that they are wrong for what they are doing and there is absolutely no reason why they should feel angry towards the other person. When you do not know either men and have absolutely no idea what has transpired between the two. Your 'judgment' is quite ignorant and unfounded.
|
I'd say it's more like waling up to a man who's beating a baby and intervening...
| sofyst wrote: |
Or perhaps I'm wrong. Do you know beyond doubt that these infants are innocent or that God has absolutely no just reason for treating them as He does? If you do, then by all means, do share... |
That's the whole point... I disagree with you that God sends them to hell. For Christianity to be a righteous and just religion, the souls of innocent fetuses / babies must go to heaven.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P123 wrote: | | Then explain to me what sin a zygote could possibly have committed which justifies that zygote's soul burning in hellfire for all eternity... |
I'm not necessarily claiming it is. I was told it is, and I accept it is with faith. You however are claiming that it is not. I then am simply questioning how you know it is not. Do you accept that it is not with the same kind of faith that I accept it is, or do you have some other reason for knowing it is so?
| Quote: | | I'd say it's more like waling up to a man who's beating a baby and intervening... |
Even then, no matter how good your intentions, nor whether you are in fact right for stopping him, you still do not know the whole story and your intervention is one of ignorance.
| Quote: | | That's the whole point... I disagree with you that God sends them to hell. For Christianity to be a righteous and just religion, the souls of innocent fetuses / babies must go to heaven. |
I am beginning to notice a pattern with you my friend. You continually assert that this or this must be so, and yet you do not offer much defense of it. You say that babies must go to heaven for Christianity to be righteous and just, yet you will not offer defense of why this must be so.
I am questioning why it would be just, or rather why its opposite would be unjust? Have you perfect knowledge of the situation? Are you in the position of being a perfect judge so as to make a perfect verdict? Or is this claim of your's based upon ignorance and hope that you are correct?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8333
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
I am beginning to notice a pattern with you my friend. You continually assert that this or this must be so, and yet you do not offer much defense of it. You say that babies must go to heaven for Christianity to be righteous and just, yet you will not offer defense of why this must be so.
|
It is wrong to punish someone for something which they did not do. What could a baby POSSIBLY have done for its soul to deserve to burn in hellfire for all eternity?!?
We're talking about the most innocent possible person being given the most heinous possible punishment FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!
There are two possibilities here:
1. The souls of babies / fetuses who die go to heaven.
2. They go to hell.
If it is the second case, then Christianity is a totally evil religion, so I (as an atheist) automatically win every single argument I've ever engaged in on this discussion board.
If the first case is true, then my argument about abortion being better than contraception holds.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | It is wrong to punish someone for something which they did not do. What could a baby POSSIBLY have done for its soul to deserve to burn in hellfire for all eternity?!?
We're talking about the most innocent possible person being given the most heinous possible punishment FOR ALL ETERNITY!!! |
Simple question my friend, how do you know their innocent and how do you know they are punished for something they did not do?
I don't want you to turn the question around and ask me what they could possibly have done, I want you to answer how you know they couldn't possibly have done anything and better still, how you know they did not do anything. The burden is upon you.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8333
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
Simple question my friend, how do you know their innocent and how do you know they are punished for something they did not do?
I don't want you to turn the question around and ask me what they could possibly have done, I want you to answer how you know they couldn't possibly have done anything and better still, how you know they did not do anything. The burden is upon you. |
Because if you're a 5-week old fetus that's just been aborted, you neither have a mind with which you can form the requisite intent to sin, nor the body with which you can physically carry out the sin... It's physically and mentally impossible for them to sin.
Besides, do you have any scriptural basis for believing that babies' souls go to hell?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Because if you're a 5-week old fetus that's just been aborted, you neither have a mind with which you can form the requisite intent to sin, nor the body with which you can physically carry out the sin... It's physically and mentally impossible for them to sin.
Besides, do you have any scriptural basis for believing that babies' souls go to hell? |
Uh huh...
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
You said yourself they haven't a mind with which to form the requisite intent to sin, neither have they the mind with which to form the requisite to believe. In other words, if they cannot believe, they cannot be born again. And as we see, if one is not born again, they cannot see the kingdom of God.
Now, let me turn the table a little, you are claiming that if is acceptable to kill the fetus if it will go to heaven when it dies? Correct?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8333
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
Uh huh...
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
You said yourself they haven't a mind with which to form the requisite intent to sin, neither have they the mind with which to form the requisite to believe. In other words, if they cannot believe, they cannot be born again. And as we see, if one is not born again, they cannot see the kingdom of God.
|
And you're ABSOLUTELY SURE that Jesus was talking about fetuses and innocent babies here? Or was he addressing a crowd of adults?
You are assuming that he's making a universal claim that even covers babies, but this interpretation means that innocent babies who die end up burning in hellfire for all eternity even though they haven't sinned. This makes Christianity a cruel and evil religion, so your interpretation MUST be wrong.
| sofyst wrote: |
Now, let me turn the table a little, you are claiming that if is acceptable to kill the fetus if it will go to heaven when it dies? Correct? |
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. I am claiming that if you actually believe that fetuses have souls, then you should favor abortion over contraception, because non-existence is much worse than spending eternity in the glorious presence of God in heaven.
(Assuming that Christianity is a just religion and that the souls of innocent babies / fetuses go to heaven).
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | And you're ABSOLUTELY SURE that Jesus was talking about fetuses and innocent babies here? Or was he addressing a crowd of adults?
You are assuming that he's making a universal claim that even covers babies, but this interpretation means that innocent babies who die end up burning in hellfire for all eternity even though they haven't sinned. This makes Christianity a cruel and evil religion, so your interpretation MUST be wrong. |
Here is where you are doing bad Theology my friend. You are starting with a presupposition (babies cannot go to hell) and then interpreting Scripture in light of that presupposition.
What you need to do is take Scripture first, and then form conclusions from that.
presupposition: babies cannot go to hell.
Scripture: Jesus says if you don't believe, you won't go to heaven.
Therefore, Jesus could not have been speaking about babies.
That is a bad Theological method. You need to do this:
Scripture: Jesus says if you don't believe, you won't go to heaven.
Fact: babies cannot believe.
Therefore, according to Jesus' words, the logical conclusion is that babies go to hell...
Here though I think I need to stop you, or rather our discussion. Allow me to give you my opinion on the matter. I actually do not know whether babies go to heaven or not. I am agnostic on the idea.
I can see the point (the one I have been offering), and it IS Scripturally sound. Jesus said if you don't believe, you won't see the kingdom. Babies cannot believe. Therefore, babies cannot see the kingdom. This is logically sound and Scripturally sound. I don't know why you would think it is not unless you allow your presuppositions to influence your interpretation of Scripture.
However, there is this overabundant theme within Scripture of the love of God and the power of God. God can do whatever the hell He wants to do. And God always acts lovingly. With this in mind, there can be a hopeful belief in an 'exception' made by God. The fact can be that babies cannot believe and hence cannot see the kingdom, but God in His love and with His power can say, 'I allow whomever I want into heaven', then allowing for babies to be in heaven despite their lack of fulfilling the requirement. But this is hopeful thinking. It cannot be Scripturally validated as it is not explicitly spelled out.
SO! what do we do? We simply throw it up to mystery. We are told the requirements for heaven, but we are likewise made painfully ignorant of who or who will not go to heaven. This is between God and the person. Any idea or Theology that attempts to say this person will go to heaven or this person will not go to heaven is a foolish Theology as the matter of who or who does not go to heaven is the prerogative of God alone. Now, this is excluding naturally the Theology that recognizes the Biblical teaching that believers will go to heaven and nonbelievers will not.
Do you understand what I am saying?
The argument that babies will go to heaven is an argument that cannot be fully validated with Scripture. The argument that babies will not go to heaven is an argument that has a little more validity, but cannot be completely validated either. This matter is a completely 'non-human' matter that is not supposed to be addressed by humans.
Therefore, you cannot make an argument of babies go to heaven therefore abortion is better than contraception as the Scriptures will not support your basis of babies go to heaven.
| Quote: | I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. I am claiming that if you actually believe that fetuses have souls, then you should favor abortion over contraception, because non-existence is much worse than spending eternity in the glorious presence of God in heaven.
(Assuming that Christianity is a just religion and that the souls of innocent babies / fetuses go to heaven). |
I do see then, I was mistaken as to what you were arguing. I thought you were not arguing for 'nonexistence' against 'life in hell', but rather 'life in hell' against 'life on earth'. MY BAD!
And if you want to be Scripturally sound, my friend, you need to accept that Scripture does teach that there is NO ONE righteous, no not one. Scripture does not allow for any innocent people because of the sin of Adam.
Here is my suggestion to you, if you want to attack Christianity for being unjust, you cannot do so by saying that any just or innocent people go to hell. As Scripture is painfully clear that there are no just or innocent people. What you need to do is attack why there are no just or innocent people. You need to question how babies can be considered unjust or guilty, when they haven't yet done anything good or bad, based upon the sin of their fore-father Adam. Attack the imputation of sin.
I cannot believe I just gave pointers on how to attack Christianity...shhh! don't tell anyone. This is just between you and I.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8333
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
Here is my suggestion to you, if you want to attack Christianity for being unjust, you cannot do so by saying that any just or innocent people go to hell. As Scripture is painfully clear that there are no just or innocent people. What you need to do is attack why there are no just or innocent people. You need to question how babies can be considered unjust or guilty, when they haven't yet done anything good or bad, based upon the sin of their fore-father Adam. Attack the imputation of sin.
I cannot believe I just gave pointers on how to attack Christianity...shhh! don't tell anyone. This is just between you and I. |
Cool, thanks!
But I believe that my claim is scripturally sound. Does it not say in the Bible that God is kind and loving and just?
Would it be kind and loving and just to send a baby / fetus to hell if it hasn't even had the chance to accept Jesus yet? You clearly can't be born again if you have never even been born once in the first place!
It would be totally unfair of God to send someone who hasn't even had the opportunity to accept Jesus to hell, since it wasn't their fault that they didn't accept Jesus.
Since we know from scripture that God is just and loving and kind, we can conclude that the souls of babies must go to heaven.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But you are switching the order. People are not sent to hell because they do not accept Jesus, they are sent to hell because they are not righteous.
If people were sent to hell because they do not accept Jesus, then you would have a very valid point. Hell is the default state of all persons. All persons sinned (through Adam within the garden), and hence all persons were condemned to go to hell within the garden.
Heaven, or belief in Christ, is the escape, if you will, from hell.
You see then why you cannot argue that it is unfair to send the children to hell because they did not believe, and could not believe since they were never given a chance. This confuses the issue, as no one is sent to hell for unbelief, or for not accepting Christ, but rather for being guilty and unrighteous...
Do you have Scripture that says these infants are not unrighteous? I can provide Scripture saying they are.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
