WileyCoyote
Contributor
- Dec 4, 2007
- 6,238
- 670
- 44
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
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.
Red Herring. Jk.Do you believe sinners who haven't accepted Jesus' offer of forgiveness go to hell? Yes you do
Do you believe babies sin? Yes you do
So it follows you MUST believe babies go to hell
You said you wouldn't answer the question because it is a red herring. It wasn't a red herring. Do you even know what a red herring is? I'll keep on asking the question until i get an answer.
So once again, 5th time of asking:
Should toddlers face criminal charges if they assault or murder another toddler? If not, why not?
There is nothing in that section of Scripture, in any of that verse's context, to indicate that that David is talking about the afterlife. There is to indicate it's talking about one's fate. Sheol was the grave, and to them it was used as a place. Regardless of whether one was justified, they still went to Sheol.Actually, there IS evidence that infants go to heaven when they die. In 2 Samuel, King David had an infant son who died.
'And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.' (2 Samuel 12:22-23 Emphasis mine)
That is an assumption based off of nonexistent implication. See above.What did David mean that he would go to his infant son? Through inspiration, David documented that his own eternal destination was going to be 'in the house of the Lord'(Psalm 23:6). It is clear that David believed his son went to heaven. And he would one day be reunited with him.
Sin is sin, regardless of understanding. I've already demonstrated this. Here's the Greek for the word sin in 6:23:The Bible says that the soul who sins will die. Not the soul who has a sin nature. It is actual sins commited that damns a soul. And since babies don't understand the law, they can't break what they don't understand.
Read this very clearly, I will not say it again. We don't know. Anything we might say is speculation.You mentioned that you believe that babies don't go to hell. You are right. That would make God a cruel monster. But they have souls. So if they don't go to heaven, where else would they go? They have to exist somewhere. Are they just floating in outer space? Do they turn into angels? Do they become extras in the cartoon 'Rugrats'? Just pondering.
Now you are misrepresenting what I have clarified thrice now. Straw man.Do you believe sinners who haven't accepted Jesus' offer of forgiveness go to hell? Yes you do
Do you believe babies sin? Yes you do
So it follows you MUST believe babies go to hell
You said you wouldn't answer the question because it is a red herring. It wasn't a red herring. Do you even know what a red herring is? I'll keep on asking the question until i get an answer.
So once again, 5th time of asking:
Should toddlers face criminal charges if they assault or murder another toddler? If not, why not?
Now you are misrepresenting what I have clarified thrice now. Straw man.
I'm perceiving these 'red herrings' from you as attacks. Not just on me but other members. Stop it.Red herring.
Red herring
Take a look at WordofFaith2008 consise well-thought post. She addresses it well in the bibilical language you appreciate.Then I'll be waiting for your evidence that infants are not selfish. Prove it.
Yes, see above.See above.
You are the one attacking and ridculing. It's getting old.Again, ridicule gets you nowhere in a debate.
Again, it has been shown by me and every one else in this thread. You just don't acknowledge it. You instead grasp at this notion of sinful infants. I reject it.Then how come you have not been able to show, with logic and evidence, that they are not sinful?
I have done no such thing. Again, stop attacking me.You're ripping that out of context.
You are using biblical terms that you do not seem to understand. There's nothing to misinterpret. You have made your statements. Infants crying selfishly is immoral. That is what you said.I'm not superimposing anything. I'm using biblical terms to make a valid argument, which you have not even picked at. You've misinterpreted it left and right, then made counter claims that have little to no backing.
"Infants crying selfishly is immoral."Then quote me. Back your claims.
No you have not. Only one person had done so and she's not you.I've offered a logical biblical perspective. I've even clarified my argument and terms.
Because you're wrong.Which no one else has even accepted for the purposes of this discussion.
Everybody else is wrong but you? That's unlikely.What's unreasonable here is you guys- all of you- ignoring what I wrote. I've made my position quite clear, and you've done nothing but ridicule it and make claims and fallacies. Wordoffaith has misinterpreted it twice now.
That you're specifically general? Ok, fine. I don't know what you think i'm supposed to do with that.I'm quite serious.
This has already been addressed by other members and they have shown you to be incorrect in your interpretation. Sorry, but they just make more sense to me.When my claims involve terms that are found in the Bible itself (already referenced, 1 Corinthians 13, Romans 3 and 6) and relies upon those terms for the validity of its argument, very few references are needed besides example and common knowledge. Yet in return I've heard that babies are blank slates, that we cannot say babies are sinful using a different definition of sin than I am, and that I cannot be saying babies go to hell (which I've made it clear that I am not saying that in the first place).
I'm sorry, but you have not offered up anything that resembles a debate. What ever this conversation is, it's not debate.Keep ridiculing, see where it gets you. In debate, it gets you a lost argument.
Who are you take make such claims? How do you know? That's what boggles me. Yes, you've taken a couple of psych classes but I don't see what qualifies you to make such an outlandish statement. Maybe we need to define the term decision.Yes. Which they are capable of doing, just as they are capable of expressing or not expressing their desires.
Why would an infant have knowledge about one thing in order to make a decision selfishly but not knowledge about another?I have not contradicted myself. A moral decision implies knowledge of morality. A decision that is moral or immoral does not imply that knowledge.
That they cry. Yes, you have indeed given your reasoning. Please answer me this. When is an infants cries moral and when are they immoral? How do you differentiate?Which I have already given you.
You do realize that all intro psych books are pretty much the same don't you? They all cover the same stuff. I looked up your books on line, checked out the table of contents and saw the "been there done that" themse. I could go into my basement and drag out my old psych text books but that's not necessary. It's not like we're discussing tough material.It's not worth posting specifics if you don't have the book. I clearly have the book, yet you still gave title instead of page and paragraph.
Erikson does not speak of an infants ability to reason. He speaks of the development of trust vs mistrust. Key word here. development. Just like infant-cognitive-development. just like everything with an infant is in development. How in the world can reason be expected when the processes for reason have not yet been development because they are in development?I am not talking about moral action. I am talking about immoral action, regardless of knowledge. I stated that Erikson spoke of an infant's ability to reason, however ineffectively and regardless of what they can do about it (nothing besides cry), whether or not they can depend on others for their needs to be met.
That's already been done by others so I don't want to be redundant. sorry.Prove it.
I think it would be better coming from them, rather than me. You don't acknowledge anything I say. And stating that I am appealing to authority is an attack. Stop it.To teach logic and critical thinking. I hoped you'd be able to avoid a simple fallacy such as appeal to authority. It's not that hard to avoid.
the defintions you are using. Are the terms immoral, selfish, infant somehow different in MN compared to MA?Given the definitions I'm using. Which you're again forgetting.
"An infant crying 'selfishly' is immoral". It's not a very complex statement. It's pretty easy to understand.I'll note for you and anyone else that you're arguing pure semantics. I'm using terms that you are not, yet you are still saying I am wrong. Imagine I made the argument 'works are necessary for salvation' and defined 'works' as 'any act or decision undertaken by a human that relies on God for its ability to be done'. I'd still have people coming after me telling me how wrong I am because they ignore the definition. And I've been there and done that. That didn't get anywhere either.
Sheol and Hades both mean 'the grave'. But in Luke 16:19-31, the story of the rich man and Lazarus, the passage says that the rich man lifted up his eyes when he was in hell. (Translated hades. The grave) In old testament times before Jesus gave his life on the cross, paradise and hell were situated close to each other seperated by a great gulf. (See Luke 16:26) Souls went to either of the two places. But sheol and hades both mean the same thing. And at the end of time, sheol and hades will be thrown into the security prison, gehenna, which is the lake of fire.There is nothing in that section of Scripture, in any of that verse's context, to indicate that that David is talking about the afterlife. There is to indicate it's talking about one's fate. Sheol was the grave, and to them it was used as a place. Regardless of whether one was justified, they still went to Sheol.
You have managed to give me the hebrew defintion of the word 'return'. And you say it is speaking of physical, not spirtual. Well DUH. Of COURSE David's infant son couldn't return to him physically. He was dead and in heaven. But David said he would go to him. Obviously, he didn't mean physical. How can you go to somebody in physical death? The Bible does say to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. So you can go to somebody in a spiritual sense.Besides that, the Hebrew indicates that it is talking about the physical sense, not the spiritual sense:
H7725
שׁוּב
shûb
BDB Definition:
1) to return, turn back
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to turn back, return
1a1a) to turn back
1a1b) to return, come or go back
1a1c) to return unto, go back, come back
1a1d) of dying
1a1e) of human relations (figuratively)
1a1f) of spiritual relations (figuratively)
1a1f1) to turn back (from God), apostatise
1a1f2) to turn away (of God)
1a1f3) to turn back (to God), repent
1a1f4) turn back (from evil)
1a1g) of inanimate things
1a1h) in repetition
1b) (Polel)
1b1) to bring back
1b2) to restore, refresh, repair (figuratively)
1b3) to lead away (enticingly)
1b4) to show turning, apostatise
1c) (Pual) restored (participle)
1d) (Hiphil) to cause to return, bring back
1d1) to bring back, allow to return, put back, draw back, give back, restore, relinquish, give in payment
1d2) to bring back, refresh, restore
1d3) to bring back, report to, answer
1d4) to bring back, make requital, pay (as recompense)
1d5) to turn back or backward, repel, defeat, repulse, hinder, reject, refuse
1d6) to turn away (face), turn toward
1d7) to turn against
1d8) to bring back to mind
1d9) to show a turning away
1d10) to reverse, revoke
1e) (Hophal) to be returned, be restored, be brought back
1f) (Pulal) brought back
Part of Speech: verb
Well, David's son couldn't return to him physically because he was already dead. So I will stick to 'return' meaning 'physical' in that passage.At best for you, it is inconclusive. At worst for you, it is referring to physical death, as context indicates. I'd stick to the former personally.
I saw above, and believe me, I wasn't impressed in the slightest.That is an assumption based off of nonexistent implication. See above.
But sin is not imputed when there is no law. (Romans 5:13) So you can give me all the definitions of sin you want. None of them are going to apply to babies because babies don't have the mental capacity to understand the law. Some of those definitions are 'to miss the mark'. How can a baby miss the mark? 'To wander from the law of God'. How can a baby wander from a law it doesn't understand? It doesn't make sense.Sin is sin, regardless of understanding. I've already demonstrated this. Here's the Greek for the word sin in 6:23:
G266
ἁμαρτία
hamartia
Thayer Definition:
1) equivalent to 264
1a) to be without a share in
1b) to miss the mark
1c) to err, be mistaken
1d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour,to do or go wrong
1e) to wander from the law of God, violate Gods law, sin
2) that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
3) collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many
Part of Speech: noun feminine
No, my friend. Sad to say it, but YOU are the only one who doesn't know. We all know it. Even a sinner who hates God can see the errors in what you are trying to teach. It doesn't line up with the image of a loving God.Read this very clearly, I will not say it again. We don't know. Anything we might say is speculation.
Well, the thing with consistency is, lack of it suggests that there is something wrong with your theology; and by extension, that the deity you worship either does not exist, or is not quite like you thought. I would rather worship a deity which exists than a deity which doesn't.
amazingly inconsistent answer!No one deserves grace, but whether or not someone deserves something when a loving being is the One to give it does not matter. What matters is what is most loving to each individual person. Some need grace, others need justice. So I say again- demonstrating grace does not necessitate demonstrating it to everyone. And I'll add, nor does it mean the grace is deserved or undeserved.
I've already stated that I won't. Can't has nothing to do with it. It is irrelevant.Explain how i have misrepresented you? You believe babies sin, no?
Oh, and once again, 6th time of asking:
Should toddlers face criminal charges if they assault or murder another toddler? If not, why not?
If you can't answer my question, i think it is fairly safe to conclude that your argument has been lost.
The implications have nothing to do with this thread. It is a different conversation. It does not have anything to do with hell.Okay, i'm going to leave this thread for now Jaws. I think you already know the implications of answering my question, which is why you wont do it.
Stan 1 Jaws 0
Amazing how you didn't tell anyone how.amazingly inconsistent answer!
If it makes that little sense to you I suggest you stop following the thread rather than trying to take potshots.I'd rather not worship a god at all if he behaves as despicably as the one being described in this thread. Even if he exists, he's hardly worthy of anyone's praise.
Different contexts determine different meanings. I'm quoting OT, you're quoting NT. That's the first thing. The second thing is that you're quoting a passage that uses a different word than Sheol:Sheol and Hades both mean 'the grave'. But in Luke 16:19-31, the story of the rich man and Lazarus, the passage says that the rich man lifted up his eyes when he was in hell. (Translated hades. The grave) In old testament times before Jesus gave his life on the cross, paradise and hell were situated close to each other seperated by a great gulf. (See Luke 16:26) Souls went to either of the two places. But sheol and hades both mean the same thing. And at the end of time, sheol and hades will be thrown into the security prison, gehenna, which is the lake of fire.
You haven't backed that assumption.You have managed to give me the hebrew defintion of the word 'return'. And you say it is speaking of physical, not spirtual. Well DUH. Of COURSE David's infant son couldn't return to him physically. He was dead and in heaven.
Not in every case. Someone who hates God and has not responded will not be present with the Lord upon death. How can you go to someone in physical death? If it's a different culture than ours and they think differently.But David said he would go to him. Obviously, he didn't mean physical. How can you go to somebody in physical death? The Bible does say to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. So you can go to somebody in a spiritual sense.
Good.Well, David's son couldn't return to him physically because he was already dead. So I will stick to 'return' meaning 'physical' in that passage.
Yet you did not provide anything but a question in response to the argument.I saw above, and believe me, I wasn't impressed in the slightest.
In the same way every single human being misses the mark, per Romans 3. They fail to follow God's timing, or they fail to love, or they fail in some other way, which is considered sin.But sin is not imputed when there is no law. (Romans 5:13) So you can give me all the definitions of sin you want. None of them are going to apply to babies because babies don't have the mental capacity to understand the law. Some of those definitions are 'to miss the mark'. How can a baby miss the mark?
That is the meaning used in Romans 7, not 3. I'm not applying that to babies, you are.'To wander from the law of God'. How can a baby wander from a law it doesn't understand? It doesn't make sense.
And you are still under the misguided assumption that I think babies go to hell. So if there's anyone who doesn't know something, it's you not knowing because you're not understanding. You haven't shown that you are listening to my position and argument.No, my friend. Sad to say it, but YOU are the only one who doesn't know. We all know it. Even a sinner who hates God can see the errors in what you are trying to teach. It doesn't line up with the image of a loving God.
You're right. A debate is usually two sided, with the other trying to refute claims using evidence, not ridiculing them. If you want me to stop calling you on fallacies, then you can stop making them. We're in the discussion and debate section. It's not attacking anything but the points you're making. Debate should not take emotion into account, it is supposed to be objective.I'm perceiving these 'red herrings' from you as attacks. Not just on me but other members. Stop it.
Take a look at WordofFaith2008 consise well-thought post. She addresses it well in the bibilical language you appreciate.
Yes, see above.
You are the one attacking and ridculing. It's getting old.
Again, it has been shown by me and every one else in this thread. You just don't acknowledge it. You instead grasp at this notion of sinful infants. I reject it.
I have done no such thing. Again, stop attacking me.
You are using biblical terms that you do not seem to understand. There's nothing to misinterpret. You have made your statements. Infants crying selfishly is immoral. That is what you said.
"Infants crying selfishly is immoral."
No you have not. Only one person had done so and she's not you.
Because you're wrong.
Everybody else is wrong but you? That's unlikely.
That you're specifically general? Ok, fine. I don't know what you think i'm supposed to do with that.
This has already been addressed by other members and they have shown you to be incorrect in your interpretation. Sorry, but they just make more sense to me.
I'm sorry, but you have not offered up anything that resembles a debate. What ever this conversation is, it's not debate.
Who are you take make such claims? How do you know? That's what boggles me. Yes, you've taken a couple of psych classes but I don't see what qualifies you to make such an outlandish statement. Maybe we need to define the term decision.
de·ci·sion
–noun 1.the act or process of deciding; determination, as of a question or doubt, by making a judgment: They must make a decision between these two contestants. 2.the act of or need for making up one's mind: This is a difficult decision. 3.something that is decided; resolution: He made a poor decision.
Do you really think an infant can decide between one action and another. An infant can think to itself "I can cry or not. I think I will cry right now".
Why would an infant have knowledge about one thing in order to make a decision selfishly but not knowledge about another?
That they cry. Yes, you have indeed given your reasoning. Please answer me this. When is an infants cries moral and when are they immoral? How do you differentiate?
You do realize that all intro psych books are pretty much the same don't you? They all cover the same stuff. I looked up your books on line, checked out the table of contents and saw the "been there done that" themse. I could go into my basement and drag out my old psych text books but that's not necessary. It's not like we're discussing tough material.
Erikson does not speak of an infants ability to reason. He speaks of the development of trust vs mistrust. Key word here. development. Just like infant-cognitive-development. just like everything with an infant is in development. How in the world can reason be expected when the processes for reason have not yet been development because they are in development?
That's already been done by others so I don't want to be redundant. sorry.
I think it would be better coming from them, rather than me. You don't acknowledge anything I say. And stating that I am appealing to authority is an attack. Stop it.
the defintions you are using. Are the terms immoral, selfish, infant somehow different in MN compared to MA?
"An infant crying 'selfishly' is immoral". It's not a very complex statement. It's pretty easy to understand.
And you are still under the misguided assumption that I think babies go to hell.
If it makes that little sense to you I suggest you stop following the thread rather than trying to take potshots.
Enjoy being corrected.Okay, then tell me, which part of this have i got wrong:
Yes, but there is no 'all' in front of sinners. I don't know what happens to babies, children, the significantly mentally handicapped. Under the law, they deserve hell. But given the circumstances, I'm not sure God would simply send them there or consider what their future might have been if they had had the opportunity to make the decision or whatever. We do not have that information, it is one of the mysteries in the Bible. I think I've already stated that we don't know. Usually when someone says we, they mean themselves too.Do you believe sinners who haven't accepted Jesus' offer of forgiveness go to hell? Yes you do
The must is a jump in logic based on a word that is not there in my belief- all. I can make theories left and right, but they would be speculation. Which is one of the many reasons I will not answer your question from before.Do you believe babies sin? Yes you do
So it follows you MUST believe babies go to hell
From past form, i wont hold my breath for much of an answer.
You again assume. Try to not do that. It leads to misinterpretation. Oh, and do try to leave out fallacies. I'm getting quite sick of them.What she said was valid. You believe babies go to hell, therefore your god is despicable. Why do you worship someone who is despicable? Says a lot about your character i'd say.
Yes, but there is no 'all' in front of sinners. I don't know what happens to babies, children, the significantly mentally handicapped. Under the law, they deserve hell. But given the circumstances, I'm not sure God would simply send them there or consider what their future might have been if they had had the opportunity to make the decision or whatever. We do not have that information, it is one of the mysteries in the Bible. I think I've already stated that we don't know. Usually when someone says we, they mean themselves too.
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?