(August 8, 2015 at 3:12 pm)Shuffle Wrote: 4. Are you implying that, because he created us, he can destroy us? That is a great argument if you create an inanimate object and then decided to destroy it, however, when it comes to killing innocent human beings or animals, it is despicable.

(August 9, 2015 at 7:44 pm)Shuffle Wrote: I never called them innocent. I love the strawman though.

I would worship if my well being depended on someone and through worshiping the party in question i know it would have some kind of significant positive impact on my well being.

(August 10, 2015 at 6:45 am)alpha male Wrote:

(August 8, 2015 at 3:12 pm)Shuffle Wrote: 4. Are you implying that, because he created us, he can destroy us? That is a great argument if you create an inanimate object and then decided to destroy it, however, when it comes to killing innocent human beings or animals, it is despicable.

(August 9, 2015 at 7:44 pm)Shuffle Wrote: I never called them innocent. I love the strawman though.

Yes, I called the infants innocent. Sue me.

(August 8, 2015 at 3:12 pm)Shuffle Wrote:

(August 7, 2015 at 7:51 am)alpha male Wrote: 1. Yes.
2. He created me, saved me from sins, gave me temporal blessings, and promises of eternal blessings.
3-4. I don't know, it's not like I've kept track over the years.
5-6. Yes, possibly because you disagree with me regarding the rights of a creator over his creation.

1. No.
2. Wow. That was one of the most selfish things I have ever heard. Me me me me. He gave me this. He promised me that. He did this for me. He saved me. Don't you think that your answer should take into account anything he did for anyone else?
3. Leave it to the christians to not know where their beliefs are coming from.
4. Are you implying that, because he created us, he can destroy us? That is a great argument if you create an inanimate object and then decided to destroy it, however, when it comes to killing innocent human beings or animals, it is despicable.

---

(August 8, 2015 at 10:05 am)Drich Wrote: You need to go back line by line and answer the counter points I brought up. (which btw does indeed answer your clump of cell theories.)

Why would I want to do that? You completely dodge my sincere questions, and completely pretended like I never said, "...I love that you take offense with abortions when there are several times in the Bible where God orders all infants and unborn children to be destroyed. How hypocritical is that?"

I refuse to answer your points before answering mine. Also, I did answer the counter points you brought up. I think we are confusing eachothers points. I am trying to say that the god that is written about in the Old Testament is the same that is written about in the New Testament. If this is true (which I don't know whether or not you agree with that) then the same god that enforced Old Testament laws and killed millions of people is the father of Jesus. I need you to answer my question to advance the conversation.

(August 10, 2015 at 3:46 pm)Shuffle Wrote: Yes, I called the infants innocent. Sue me.

The innocent above references human beings in general. If you just meant infants, then as I said - they go to heaven.

(August 11, 2015 at 6:43 am)alpha male Wrote: The innocent above references human beings in general. If you just meant infants, then as I said - they go to heaven.

Yes, I was talking about infants. Do you have any basis in scripture to make such a claim, or is this just something you made up to justify the genocide of countless children?

(August 11, 2015 at 2:24 pm)Shuffle Wrote:

(August 11, 2015 at 6:43 am)alpha male Wrote: The innocent above references human beings in general. If you just meant infants, then as I said - they go to heaven.

Yes, I was talking about infants. Do you have any basis in scripture to make such a claim, or is this just something you made up to justify the genocide of countless children?

He made it all up.

(August 11, 2015 at 6:43 am)alpha male Wrote:

(August 8, 2015 at 3:12 pm)Shuffle Wrote: 1. No.
2. Wow. That was one of the most selfish things I have ever heard. Me me me me. He gave me this. He promised me that. He did this for me. He saved me. Don't you think that your answer should take into account anything he did for anyone else?
3. Leave it to the christians to not know where their beliefs are coming from.
4. Are you implying that, because he created us, he can destroy us? That is a great argument if you create an inanimate object and then decided to destroy it, however, when it comes to killing innocent human beings or animals, it is despicable.

---

Why would I want to do that? You completely dodge my sincere questions, and completely pretended like I never said, "...I love that you take offense with abortions when there are several times in the Bible where God orders all infants and unborn children to be destroyed. How hypocritical is that?"

I refuse to answer your points before answering mine. Also, I did answer the counter points you brought up. I think we are confusing eachothers points. I am trying to say that the god that is written about in the Old Testament is the same that is written about in the New Testament. If this is true (which I don't know whether or not you agree with that) then the same god that enforced Old Testament laws and killed millions of people is the father of Jesus. I need you to answer my question to advance the conversation.

(August 10, 2015 at 3:46 pm)Shuffle Wrote: Yes, I called the infants innocent. Sue me.

The innocent above references human beings in general. If you just meant infants, then as I said - they go to heaven.

The Bible seems to indicate otherwise:

(March 26, 2015 at 6:11 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: I think the most Biblical response to the question is to say that infants go to hell, not heaven.  Just look at the requirements that the Bible says are necessary to get into heaven, and one can easily see that infants do not satisfy those requirements.  None of them believe in Jesus at all, as they are too young to have any understanding about such things.

For example, consider John 3:


15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


Infants do not believe, therefore they go to hell.  That is what the Bible says.  Sissy Christians don't like it, so they pull ideas out of their asses and pretend they are following the Bible.

So, that is why a good Christian should not kill his or her children as infants, because it would condemn them to eternity in hellfire.


And there are Christians who take such a view:

http://nycpastor.com/2015/01/04/where-do...babies-go/

A few passages that support an age of accountability:

Matt 19
13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them.  14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”  

That one speaks for itself. The age could be as high as 20:

Ex 30
14 Everyone who is numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the Lord's offering. 15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you give the Lord's offering to make atonement for your lives.

This next one requires some thought:

Matt 7
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.  14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Rom 5
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more,

The first passage indicates that relatively few will be saved. The second indicates the opposite. This makes sense if there is an age of accountability, and the first passage is referring only to those over the age, which makes sense as they are the ones able to differentiate the paths.

(August 12, 2015 at 8:17 am)alpha male Wrote: A few passages that support an age of accountability:

Matt 19
13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them.  14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”  

That one speaks for itself. The age could be as high as 20:

Ex 30
14 Everyone who is numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the Lord's offering. 15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you give the Lord's offering to make atonement for your lives.

This next one requires some thought:

Matt 7
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.  14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Rom 5
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more,

The first passage indicates that relatively few will be saved. The second indicates the opposite. This makes sense if there is an age of accountability, and the first passage is referring only to those over the age, which makes sense as they are the ones able to differentiate the paths.

Then why wouldn't Christians go around and kill children? Put them out of their misery and get rid of the possibility they would sin later in life and end up in hell.

(August 12, 2015 at 4:20 pm)Shuffle Wrote:

(August 12, 2015 at 8:17 am)alpha male Wrote: A few passages that support an age of accountability:

Matt 19
13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them.  14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”  

That one speaks for itself. The age could be as high as 20:

Ex 30
14 Everyone who is numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the Lord's offering. 15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you give the Lord's offering to make atonement for your lives.

This next one requires some thought:

Matt 7
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.  14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Rom 5
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more,

The first passage indicates that relatively few will be saved. The second indicates the opposite. This makes sense if there is an age of accountability, and the first passage is referring only to those over the age, which makes sense as they are the ones able to differentiate the paths.

Then why wouldn't Christians go around and kill children? Put them out of their misery and get rid of the possibility they would sin later in life and end up in hell.

Indeed, if all children went to heaven, it would be grossly irresponsible to let any one of them reach an age when they might make a mistake and get condemned to hell.  Letting them live is giving them the opportunity for damnation.  Sending them straight to heaven would be doing them a favor.  If, that is, it were true that children who died went to heaven.

But what we have here is someone pretending to believe something, when they do not really believe it.  In this, as in most other cases, actions speak louder than words.  Parents who risk their children's immortal souls do not really love their children, when it would be so easy for them to be sent to heaven instead.