Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is getting a little crazy.
What exactly are you wanting to challenge here?There is an atheist website called losingmyreligion.com and they have an Essay called;
Why Christians must believe that babies should be killed, by Emery
I'll give you the main point of his argument which I believe is a little tongue in cheek.
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Matt. 16:26
.......Most Christians believe babies that die go to heaven. When Christian parents lose an infant, they usually console themselves with the thought that their child is now with the angels in heaven, and they will be united with them one day. Few lament that their baby is roasting with the devil in hell. Even though the sin nature argument might support the notion that all who have not accepted Jesus must lose their souls, and there are some Christians that believe this, most cannot justify the idea that God would let an infant burn in hell just because it died before having an opportunity to be saved.
So that raises a question: should babies be killed to ensure the salvation of their souls? Remember, almost 3 out of 4 babies that are born will lose their souls. Yet we can ensure this does not happen by ending their lives before they reach the age of accountability. It is a choice between preserving a life and probably losing a soul, or sacrificing a life and saving the soul. According to Jesus, saving the soul would be the more important thing.
What about the commandment "Thou shalt not kill?" Well aside from the fact that this commandment is routinely disregarded in instances such as war, and saving a soul is certainly more important than determining where the boundaries of your property are drawn, Christian doctrine itself lands heavily on the side of killing these infants, despite the 6th commandment. Remember, what matters most to God according to Christians, is what you believe, not what you do. Christians can violate the other 9 commandments without fear of losing their own souls. And violating this one really doesn't get you in trouble either, so long as you believe in Jesus (my pastor used to say that Christians who broke commandments didn't lose their salvation, but might be "punished" with a smaller mansion in heaven). Besides, all you had to do was ask for forgiveness, and God would erase that sin, and remove it "as far as the east is from the west" (also quoting my pastor).
The issue then, becomes this: even though Christians shouldn't kill babies, so long as they believe in Jesus, they will still remain saved if they do, and if they confess their sin, God will forgive this transgression. And, the result of killing this baby is the guaranteed salvation of its soul, which Jesus said was more important than its life anyway."
Mormonism trumps Romans 5.
And Mormonism is restored Christianity?
A Mormon's eight birthday should not be a time of celebration. It is a day of reckoning.
Again, what is your challenge in this thread?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:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.....
I feel like Evangelical Christians don't add in the 13th verse and what do you do with;
James 4:17
17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
How do we know Adam is responsible for all of this?The consequences of Adam's sin fell on all of mankind.
Have you had a child? Did it hurt (a lot)?
Has work not been toil?
Do thorns and weeds not grow where you live?
Do you know anyone who has not died?
Do you know of a dead body that has not eventually turned to dust?
Below are the curses God gave us all because of Adam's sin. Ask yourself if the world is free from these curses. Next, understand that Jesus is the second Adam. He lived a sinless and perfect life of obedience on our behalf. He lived the life I should have lived and died the death I should have died. Through Adam's sin I am cursed, and through Christ's life and death I am blessed. Death was imputed to me through Adam, but life was imputed to me through Christ.
6 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”
The claim that sex is a result of the fall as already been answered. Gen 1 says “be fruitful and multiply.”
But I’d like to respond to the concern about people as filthy rags.
This is a bit hard because different theological traditions have different approaches to original sin. I’m Reformed, so I’ll cite Calvin. He denies that we inherit guilt from Adam’s actual sin. If he’s right, babies aren’t born guilty of any specific sins. What he maintains is that with the Fall, we lost the ability to follow God’s will through our own choice (i.e. without God regenerating us).
In Calvin’s view, that still alienates us from God. So even though infants aren’t guilty of specific acts, they are still in some sense God’s enemies. On the other hand, God still sees his handiwork in them (and us), and loves us. So he sets about to redeem us.
I think it’s important not to talk about original sin without also talking about God's commitment to redemption.
Are we all filthy rags? Well, it’s not unreasonable to say that we are filthy. But God does love us and think we’re worth dying for, so I’d avoid images that make it looks like people are worthless. God certainly didn’t think so, or he wouldn’t have sent Christ.
Adam & Eve were mature, married adults.But some of those ridiculing us say Adam and Eve were having sex. They were roaming around naked in the Garden and having sex until they ate the fruit then they suddenly became ashamed of their nakedness and hid.
Hedrick; The claim that sex is a result of the fall as already been answered. Gen 1 says “be fruitful and multiply.”The claim that sex is a result of the fall as already been answered. Gen 1 says “be fruitful and multiply.”
But I’d like to respond to the concern about people as filthy rags.
This is a bit hard because different theological traditions have different approaches to original sin. I’m Reformed, so I’ll cite Calvin. He denies that we inherit guilt from Adam’s actual sin. If he’s right, babies aren’t born guilty of any specific sins. What he maintains is that with the Fall, we lost the ability to follow God’s will through our own choice (i.e. without God regenerating us).
In Calvin’s view, that still alienates us from God. So even though infants aren’t guilty of specific acts, they are still in some sense God’s enemies. On the other hand, God still sees his handiwork in them (and us), and loves us. So he sets about to redeem us.
I think it’s important not to talk about original sin without also talking about God's commitment to redemption.
Are we all filthy rags? Well, it’s not unreasonable to say that we are filthy. But God does love us and think we’re worth dying for, so I’d avoid images that make it looks like people are worthless. God certainly didn’t think so, or he wouldn’t have sent Christ.
Adam & Eve were mature, married adults.
They didn't have s_x, they made love.
I'm going to disagree with that on the grounds that:But they were children ...
That one is a toughy, and I don't know what all it entails.withwonderingawe said:... not knowing the differences between good and evil.
That's true.withwonderingawe said:And it doesn’t say “Adam knew Eve his wife” until after they were out of the Garden.
Married couples don't "have s_x," they "make love."If they didn't have sex, how did they make babies?
No.Can you back this claim up?
But they were children not knowing the differences between good and evil.
The question of Adam and Eve having sex in the Garden of Eden came up in one of the discussions, Mormons believe Adam and Eve were like children and had no sexual desire until till they ate the fruit.
But some of those ridiculing us say Adam and Eve were having sex. They were roaming around naked in the Garden and having sex until they ate the fruit then they suddenly became ashamed of their nakedness and hid.
Now no children were born to them but hypothetically if Cain and Able had been born to them before they partook of the fruit and say they went several generations until one of them wandered up to the tree of knowledge and took a bite what would have happened?
Would the original sin be retroactive? Would everyone living suddenly be deemed sinful?
There is no evidence that they were children. You are starting with a false assumption which makes everything that follows incorrect.
Since God told them straight away to be fruitful and multiply, we can assume that their bodies were post pubescent. Also, Adam was given a job, he was wasn't playing in a sandbox. Work is for adults, and play for children.
Adam knew good and evil. That's not what the tree was about exactly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?