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

 

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 

Pro-lifers are inherently stupid.

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!)

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. 

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?

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

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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

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

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. 

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'?

 

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.

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.

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. 

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 if you are not capable of belief?

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.

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

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

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... 

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. 

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

PWNED.

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…

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!)

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


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...."



Incorrect. (1) is not an option.


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.


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.

Certainly, Jesus says it's better to drown yourself than to harm children. "Use a millstone" he says.

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

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.

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. 

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.

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..."

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"??

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

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

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...

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.

----- 

 

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? 

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

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.

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.