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.
Prove to me that they do not understand. Your assumption is that they do, show me how.children cannot be held to adult standards... God wouldn't deny salvation to one who could never understand to be able to make the choice, sorry.
That would work if an infant was all that is children. They are not, so your argument falls apart when a kid hits 2. Selfish is not all that children are. Try again.in fact, we are instructed to be like children (if what you say is true we're instructed to be like sinful selfish beings).
Seems to me it's practically the duty of all non-Christians to kill all Christians asap so that they can't convert to the wrong faith before they die.
Honestly. Isn't religion ridiculous?
there are many denominations that believe in infant baptism because sin is inherited and a child dying prior to being baptized into the faith is fated to hell. the premise of the thread is not unfounded. killing babies for the Lord only works if one presupposes that the babies are not sinful inherently but rather are a blank slate with no sin upon them, which is certainly an argument that can be made.
though jawsmetroid does have a disinterest in prodding some of these deep questions with real logic and thought, he does bring up one fundamental truth about the faith. we don't imagine we know all the answers. some of us like to delve deeper to find them than he does, but we all come across that dividing line that seperates the natural from the supernatural and the unknown. Christians must make a peace with that, as it will never be completely crossed or the need for faith would disappear. isaiah 55:8-9 tells us that God's ways are higher than our ways, His thoughts higher than our thoughts, so ultimately, we won't get it, and to some degree that has to be ok with a Christian, or any person of faith.
for me arguing points of doctrine is a form of entertainment and mental exercise, as it isn't at the core of the faith. when the non-believers use doctrine as a way of "proving" God's non-being, i find it a bit funny, as whether baptism is the entry into God's love or meerly symbolic of a step taken is not the point that Jesus died over.
with that said, pascal's wager is a punk way out and allows someone to ignore the real issue at hand, which is faith.
personally, i want it on record that i frown on murdering babies. those who pursue this path should get a severe scolding. murdering babies = bad! i feel confident of my position. LOL!!!
babies aren't biblically selfish :It's still not a blank slate. You made my point for me.
Jesus didn't say be like "some children" or "these children" but like a child. My argument doesn't fall apart in the face of reason. Sorry.Prove to me that they do not understand. Your assumption is that they do, show me how.
That would work if an infant was all that is children. They are not, so your argument falls apart when a kid hits 2. Selfish is not all that children are. Try again.
Prove it.babies aren't biblically selfish :
philautos fil'-ow-tos ; fond of self, i.e. selfish:--lover of own self.
they are not mature enough to even somewhat have "like" or "love". they are physical beings in this way.
Do you know what He meant by child? Do you know what was a 'child' and an 'adult' and an 'infant' in His day? It falls apart in lack of specifics and lack of proof- or context.Jesus didn't say be like "some children" or "these children" but like a child. My argument doesn't fall apart in the face of reason. Sorry.
you are equally bound to prove they do. normally you are innocent until proven guilty. the preponderance of the evidence is left to YOU to supply my friend. not me.Prove it.
then you're interpretation is equally as flawed, isn't it?Do you know what He meant by child? Do you know what was a 'child' and an 'adult' and an 'infant' in His day? It falls apart in lack of specifics and lack of proof- or context.
You initially claimed that they did not know better, I have not claimed that they do not. I claimed that they sin- sin is an objective term. It does not depend upon knowing whether or not you are sinning. My position is that we don't know whether or not they know what they're doing, but that it doesn't matter for the above reason. The burden is on you, not I.you are equally bound to prove they do. normally you are innocent until proven guilty. the preponderance of the evidence is left to YOU to supply my friend. not me.
The tree was of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil... not OF good and evil (hence the idea that you have to KNOW)You initially claimed that they did not know better, I have not claimed that they do not. I claimed that they sin- sin is an objective term. It does not depend upon knowing whether or not you are sinning. My position is that we don't know whether or not they know what they're doing, but that it doesn't matter for the above reason. The burden is on you, not I.
No. You made the initial claim. Sin is the transgression of God's law, regardless of intent or knowledge of the law. You apply a Greek word that has multiple meanings- young child, one just born, or a more mature child. You'd have to determine the contextual meaning in order to apply your verse to this situation. Otherwise you're taking it our of context.then you're interpretation is equally as flawed, isn't it?
Red herring. Sin by its definition does not have to do with knowledge.The tree was of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil... not OF good and evil (hence the idea that you have to KNOW)
evil by hebrew definition is "dysfunctional". I contend that sin is guilt from KNOWLEDGE of evil (and not evil like we think of it now, and requires knowledge to accomplish). without knowledge there is no sin. Sorry.Red herring. Sin by its definition does not have to do with knowledge.
YOU were the one who first said babies were sinful. Not me.No. You made the initial claim. Sin is the transgression of God's law, regardless of intent or knowledge of the law. You apply a Greek word that has multiple meanings- young child, one just born, or a more mature child. You'd have to determine the contextual meaning in order to apply your verse to this situation. Otherwise you're taking it our of context.
What you saw as the truth and what is the truth is probably different.This statement really hit home for me. I used to be a believing Christian when I was young. My faith started to waver in high school and finally in college I realized what I saw as 'the truth'.
So you're going to assume he's telling the truth?One one philosophy class I heard the professor read "Religion is a fairy tale conceived to make people feel better about the unknown."
That's not what did it, but it was the final nail in the coffin of my beleif.
That would assume you were actually born again and a Christian.Now the ironic part is, if someone had killed me while I was still a Christian, and Christianity is true, then I would have been MUCH better off. Better off my an infinite amount.
That's got an unbacked assumption behind it.That said I am not at all worried about hell anymore, because when you truly see it for what it is, a scare tactic, then you see there is nothing to fair.
That assumes it would be unjust for Him to punish sin and infinite crimes.If the universe is governed by a fair and just god, then he would not send me, or anyone else to an eternal hell.
It sounds like you're making more unbacked assumptions for the sake of your argument.If the universe is governed by the maniacal Christian god, then I will spend eternity in hell wondering how he gets away with this crap. Sounds like I am taking a big risk, doesn't it?
You'd have to show us how any of what you've said is contradictory. Show us how hell contradicts God's character. Do it objectively, if you can.Thanks for the good reply. Obviously murdering babies is unjust hehe. I think 'god thinks on higher levels' is a convenient out for almost all religions. When confronted with something that contradicts itself, doesn't make sense, or is fundamentally flawed anyone can just use this excuse. The thing is, us humans think on a very high level and should not be underestimated.
You've observed some serious assumptions that don't have proof behind them.If I can observe some serious flaws in a simple Christian hell doctrine, then I need to seriously question it's divinity. If there was such thing as a divine doctrine I imagine it's composition and message would be analogous to a brilliant work of art, not a scare tactic and a reason for people to think I am going to spend an eternity in hell.
It's called faith in God. Faith that God is who He says He is. Faith based on history. Faith based on facts. If God is trustworthy with everything else, why not this little area?I mean really, how can any true Christian ever rest while anyone they know of is going to hell for eternity? It's even a scare tactic for Christians to convert more none Christians.
Prove your contention. See, all I have to do is point you to Romans 3. And I just did. So you have fun trying to contradict Paul.evil by hebrew definition is "dysfunctional". I contend that sin is guilt from KNOWLEDGE of evil (and not evil like we think of it now, and requires knowledge to accomplish). without knowledge there is no sin. Sorry.
I read it and fail to see your point. Paul was writing to adults, speaking to adults and obviously referring to adults. I see no mention of children or the inherant failure or impurity of children.Prove your contention. See, all I have to do is point you to Romans 3. And I just did. So you have fun trying to contradict Paul.
Rom 3:4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED."I read it and fail to see your point. Paul was writing to adults, speaking to adults and obviously referring to adults. I see no mention of children or the inherant failure or impurity of children.
If no one deserves grace but it is given to them by the One who states that one is deserving of hell, they are already demonstrating grace- regardless of whether or not they deserve it.if no one deserves grace, but they receive it, how can one deserve hell and not the grace that would forgive it?
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?