(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/

So the question then becomes why would god even allow the babies to come into existence if they're just going to go to hell?

(March 26, 2015 at 10:21 pm)urlawyer Wrote: So the question then becomes why would god even allow the babies to come into existence if they're just going to go to hell?

It appears he does bump off 60 to 80 percent of them and send them directly to.....wherever.

Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by Embryos?

Quote:John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the President's Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal menstrual flows unnoticed.

Whoops!

(March 26, 2015 at 10:21 pm)urlawyer Wrote:

(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/

So the question then becomes why would god even allow the babies to come into existence if they're just going to go to hell?

You are now heading in the direction of another thread. Why create anything:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-32335.html

If you are interested in my opinion on that topic, you can read my posts in that thread. Of course, you might want this to go in another direction, which can be dealt with by quoting things like:


Romans 3:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;


Romans 5:

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


Genesis 8:

21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.


Proverbs 22:

15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.


Psalm 14:

2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.


Psalm 51:

5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.


Psalm 58:

3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.


Basically, according to the Bible, everyone deserves hell. It is only through God's goodness and mercy that anyone gets into heaven.

So, there are three positions. One is to accept these sorts of ideas, which is what Augustine did. Another is to be half-assed about it, and pretend the bits that one does not like are not in the Bible, and embrace some of it. And the third option is to reject the Bible as the ramblings of primitive people who did not know what they were writing about.

Most of the people who post here take the third option. Most "Christians" are half-assed and take the second option. A few take the Bible seriously. Very few. Almost none, really.

I read your first few posts in the linked thread. At first glance it looks like your thoughts are nearly in line with christianity but then you cut through that cloth with great accuracy. I felt like I was watching art being made, bravo

Indeed, your line of reasoning puts the first and third options on nearly equal playing fields. If I were to base my faith in christianity on it, I would have no qualms. Fortunately though, there are so many other reasons to disbelieve the bible.

The best way teach them that all the Abrahamic religions are bullshit and none of it exists the end.

(March 26, 2015 at 10:21 pm)urlawyer Wrote: So the question then becomes why would god even allow the babies to come into existence if they're just going to go to hell?

Yet again, the good colonel provides:

Quote:I would not for my life destroy one star of human hope, but I want it so that when a poor woman rocks the cradle and sings a lullaby to the dimpled darling, she will not be compelled to believe that ninety-nine chances in a hundred she is raising kindling wood for hell.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "How To Be Saved" (1880)

(March 27, 2015 at 1:29 am)urlawyer Wrote: I read your first few posts in the linked thread. At first glance it looks like your thoughts are nearly in line with christianity but then you cut through that cloth with great accuracy. I felt like I was watching art being made, bravo

Indeed, your line of reasoning puts the first and third options on nearly equal playing fields. If I were to base my faith in christianity on it, I would have no qualms. Fortunately though, there are so many other reasons to disbelieve the bible.

Thank you for your kind words. If one is going to argue about some issue, it usually works best to take the ideas seriously and see the implications of them.

I would not put the first and third options on equal footing. But when viewing the matter in isolation (i.e., not considering other aspects of the Bible and the reasons to reject it), I can see how one might.

Certainly, the least respectable position, intellectually speaking, is the second one. Picking and choosing based on personal preference is really just using personal preference as a guide, and only bothering with the Bible when it coincides with what one already wants. It is an intellectually dishonest approach, in which one pretends that one is using the Bible as a guide, but is really just going with personal preference.

That may be "nicer" in practice (or not, depending), but it is intellectually despicable. If the Bible is just another book written by people, as opposed to one that was guided by the hand of God, one should take the third approach and just toss it and stop pretending.

Quote:Certainly, the least respectable position, intellectually speaking, is the second one. Picking and choosing based on personal preference is really just using personal preference as a guide, and only bothering with the Bible when it coincides with what one already wants. It is an intellectually dishonest approach, in which one pretends that one is using the Bible as a guide, but is really just going with personal preference.

That may be "nicer" in practice (or not, depending), but it is intellectually despicable. If the Bible is just another book written by people, as opposed to one that was guided by the hand of God, one should take the third approach and just toss it and stop pretending.

These are actually the biggest reasons I strayed from christianity. Once I started questioning it I found new evidence and ideas that just totally ripped my previous notions to shreds.
I realized I had effectively wasted 20 years of critical thought growth and grieve for what I have lost. Although I don't regret who I became, I still have to deal with my old christian subconscious and wonder how I would have turned out if my parents didn't indoctrinate me like they did.

Indeed I would agree with you that the second option is the most despicable to take. Especially since it gets you in the mind set that it's okay to make up convoluted excuses to cover your ass.

(March 24, 2015 at 2:38 am)robvalue Wrote: You are right, that would be the logical conclusion for christians. It has actually happened before as well, a woman killed her kid to "send it to heaven". Luckily most christians don't really believe it and would rather risk their child going to hell.

It shows how dangerous this kind of magical thinking can be.

Ah, the joys of cognitive dissonance. You show them the logical conclusions of their wacky beliefs, and they start backpeddling, acting like they don't believe those things...

...until the next conversation, where they'll totally say they believe those things, until someone walks them through it, again. You think that'd be a warning flag.

It buggers my mind more than anything, the dissidence. It's so powerful. It's more powerful than god!

I mean really... christians cannot truly believe in hell. If they did, would they ever have children? Would they really put anyone into that situation where there's any chance at all they may end up getting tortured forever?

If they really do believe in proper hell, and have children regardless, they are gambling with someone else's eternal suffering. That is beyond messed up.