What happens to Muslim children when they die?

[Catherineanne]

Doesn't the Bible teach that we are sinners from birth?

No. We have the potential to sin from birth, but we are not sinners until we understand the difference between right and wrong and choose to actually do what we know to be wrong.

Little children can't sin. They can be naughty, and they can throw tantrums, but they can't sin.

Also, it is pretty evident that children do sin otherwise there would be no need for the commandment that children obey their parents.

A child who disobeys its parents once in a while is not a sinner, it is a perfectly normal child. Learning to recognise the self from those around as a distinct person is an important part of normal development, and saying 'no' is part of the process of recognition. As is recognising that, although separate from the parents, they still have an important role to play in the child's life, and that doing as the parent says is often the best choice to make.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

No. We have the potential to sin from birth, but we are not sinners until we understand the difference between right and wrong and choose to actually do what we know to be wrong.

Little children can't sin. They can be naughty, and they can throw tantrums, but they can't sin.

A child who disobeys its parents once in a while is not a sinner, it is a perfectly normal child. Learning to recognise the self from those around as a distinct person is an important part of normal development, and saying 'no' is part of the process of recognition. As is recognising that, although separate from the parents, they still have an important role to play in the child's life, and that doing as the parent says is often the best choice to make.

OK, what scriptures back up your claims here?

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

One the child was not innocent, He was the product of sin. as a consenquence of that sin the child's body died.

It means you are taking a verse written by a OT Jew for other OT Jews and holding New covenant Christians to a standard in which that no longer applies. All the while refusing to look at the texts and doctrine that govern a NT Christian.

Perhaps this is why you do not understand, an press irrelevant questions.. Perhaps if you could answer the following alot of your questions will be answered.

Why did God "go through a dramatic personality change?"

Do you want a biblical answer or a personal one? Because you got both in my opening post. What more do you want?

They are trying to reconcile a doctrine that does not give a "satisfactory" answer all the while trying to give comfort to grief stricken parents.

I'm going to avoid replying to most of this post simply because I don't want to get sidetracked from my primary question. Maybe one day soon I'll make a new thread asking what exactly a New Testament Christian is.

Here, though, I want to address your claim the child was not innocent. Don't you find it disturbing, in any way at all, that God punished David by killing the child, and not by punishing David directly?

 

[Catherineanne]

OK, what scriptures back up your claims here?

I'm an Anglo Catholic, not a fundamentalist.

As long as Scripture does not contradict what I say, and I don't contradict what the Church says (by which I mean mostly Anglican, but sometimes other apostolics as well), it's all good.

Little children do indeed go to God when they die, whatever their faith. The Scriptures do not deny it, and neither does the Church, and common sense says it must be true.

Works for me.

 

[Catherineanne]

Don't you find it disturbing, in any way at all, that God punished David by killing the child, and not by punishing David directly?

This is only the case if the Bible were written by God, from God's perspective. It isn't. The Bible is written by men, about God, and sometimes they interpret what happens in a way that we would not exactly agree with.

In other words, sometimes children die; this is a bad enough situation, without adding the suggestion that God allowed that child to die as some way of punishing the parents. This interpretation is from the parent himself; he feels responsible for the death of his child and blames himself; that is normal. Terribly sad, but normal.

David feels guilty because his child died, and blames himself. Then he concludes that the child's death was punishment for his sins. He does this because he is a part of a culture which is very much focussed on avoiding sin, and on propitiating a vengeful God, who demands a very high standard of behaviour. David decides therefore that the child's death is caused by his own sin.

I think few Christians would take this viewpoint today. Children die because we live in a fallen world, and sickness and death are a part of that. They don't die because God decides to take the sins of the parents out on the children.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

So what? Do you not understand the Christian covenant? were you a quaker or seventh day Adventist? Or even a JW of some kind? You seem to only understand a works based faith, like somehow that living a perfect life is what is required to be a Christian.. You are aware that Legalism is what Paul spent most of his time here speaking out against right? there fore a good 1/3 of the NT is set against the only brand of "Christianity" you seem able to represent. Perhaps you should spend some time redefining what it is you are working so hard against.

You claim knowledge of the bible yet can not discern the nature of God and what He thinks about Children. Maybe you should spend some research time in the gospels looking for the aspects of God we currently have access to rather than the side of God that demands blood for sin. That is if you wish to continue a Christian Dialog.

So what you're saying is that it's okay to disobey the Bible and do what you want? When I used to go to church, and I've been through the Baptist Church, Pentecostal and everything in between, they always preached against sinning. Not all the time of course. But I was always under the impression that we could not simply do whatever we felt like.

It seems to me as if some Christians are trying to hide certain aspects of the Bible, as if they are ashamed of it. They use phrases like "New Testament Christian" and "this doesn't apply to us now". The New Testament is built upon the Old. The Old Testament God, Yahweh, is the same God in the New Testament. Jesus himself said he didn't come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. And this leads me to your statement about not understanding the nature of God. I believe I do. I have the perspective of both the Old and New Testaments. I've tried looking for a loving God in the Bible, and I just can't find one. I see a angry one, given to sporadic outbursts of rage - killing David's son, when David himself deserved the punishment, is just one example. I doubt the best Christian apologist could justify that episode without looking bad themselves.

Also, what exactly is a Christian dialogue? I think my questions are fair and legitimate. Doesn't the Bible command you to always have an answer when questioned about your beliefs?

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

This is only the case if the Bible were written by God, from God's perspective. It isn't. The Bible is written by men, about God, and sometimes they interpret what happens in a way that we would not exactly agree with.

In other words, sometimes children die; this is a bad enough situation, without adding the suggestion that God allowed that child to die as some way of punishing the parents. This interpretation is from the parent himself; he feels responsible for the death of his child and blames himself; that is normal. Terribly sad, but normal.

David feels guilty because his child died, and blames himself. Then he concludes that the child's death was punishment for his sins. He does this because he is a part of a culture which is very much focussed on avoiding sin, and on propitiating a vengeful God, who demands a very high standard of behaviour. David decides therefore that the child's death is caused by his own sin.

I think few Christians would take this viewpoint today. Children die because we live in a fallen world, and sickness and death are a part of that. They don't die because God decides to take the sins of the parents out on the children.

This is actually a good answer. Many "fundie" Christians take the view that the Bible is the "literal" word of God. You seem to be taking the view that the Bible is "inspired" by God. Two very different meanings.

I don't believe the Bible to the literal word (or words) of God. There are just too many errors, inconsistencies and outright scientific blunders in there; any deity would be embarrassed by it. However, I would like to think that perhaps I can come to believe that the Bible is "inspired" by God. Even with it's mistakes we can perhaps glean some truth from it.

 

[bling]

Doesn't the Bible teach that we are sinners from birth? Also, it is pretty evident that children do sin otherwise there would be no need for the commandment that children obey their parents.

No the Bible does not teach children are sinners from birth.

I am not saying: “children can do no wrong”, but the wrong children do is not held against them, as being their sins. At some age children can sin and still be children. God gives them this direction to help them.

 

[bling]

Does not sound right to me. I think children die because all of us die and some of us die as children.

Does death help us fulfill our earthly objective?

 

[Catherineanne]

This is actually a good answer. Many "fundie" Christians take the view that the Bible is the "literal" word of God. You seem to be taking the view that the Bible is "inspired" by God. Two very different meanings.

Ironically enough there is Scripture that says that Scripture is inspired (meaning OT directly, NT by implication). But it does not say anywhere that Scripture is literal. My belief is based on what the Bible says of itself, therefore.

I don't believe the Bible to the literal word (or words) of God. There are just too many errors, inconsistencies and outright scientific blunders in there; any deity would be embarrassed by it. However, I would like to think that perhaps I can come to believe that the Bible is "inspired" by God. Even with it's mistakes we can perhaps glean some truth from it.

I agree, except that I would not blame the Bible for being what it is, and for not being a scientific textbook, or historical work, or whatever. It is what it is, and those 'errors' are only recognisable if we try to make it into something else. In other words, a recipe book cannot be said to contain errors if it happens not have maps of the world in it. What is in error is our expectation of finding maps of the world in such a book.

In my view any church which expects people to leave their reasoning capability at the door is not one to stay with. We are told to love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our mind, with all our soul and with all our strength. To me this means, inter alia, thinking, reasoning and drawing sensible conclusions about Scripture, about people, about God and about the relationship between these.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As per the thread title - what happens to Muslim children (or any other faith for that matter) when they die? They are believing in the wrong God (according to Christians), so do they go to hell? Furthermore, where does it say in the Bible that any child goes to heaven when they die? Where did this doctrine come from because I, personally, have not read about it in scripture at all.

They go to be in the same hands of Divine Mercy as anyone else, and God will be merciful and just as He is--beyond that we cannot say. The same mercy I hope for is the same mercy I hope for others.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Doesn't the Bible teach that we are sinners from birth? Also, it is pretty evident that children do sin otherwise there would be no need for the commandment that children obey their parents.

It also says, "This if a trustworthy saying worthy of full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am foremost." (1 Timothy 1:15)

I have no trouble accepting that I came into this world a sinner, that I am a sinner now, and that I will leave this world a sinner. I have made mistakes my entire life and will no doubt continue to make them until the day I breath my last. But, the Christian confession is that God loves sinners, and Christ died for them, all of them. All of us. God loves each and every one of us, to quote St. Augustine, as though there only were us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GA777]

Here, though, I want to address your claim the child was not innocent. Don't you find it disturbing, in any way at all, that God punished David by killing the child, and not by punishing David directly?

The soul comes back to God, always, and he can easily get him to heaven, where peace reigns, and where the child will be much happier. The punishment is for David and not for the child

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

The soul comes back to God, always, and he can easily get him to heaven, where peace reigns, and where the child will be much happier. The punishment is for David and not for the child

But it was the child who died, not David (though he died eventually of course). My point was that God punished the child for David's sin. Anyway, I don't want to keep going over that. My point seems to be missed on many of you here, or the average Christian seems quite happy than an innocent child can be punished by God for its father's inability to keep his hands to himself.

Secondly, you say that the child's soul always goes back to God. Where in the Bible are you getting this?

 

[GA777]

So ending someone's life on Earth and continuing it in Heaven is a punishment? Getting someone from a bad place into an infintely joyful place is meant to punish the person? You sound very desperate trying to prove the bible wrong or that God doesnt exist.

Ecclesiastes 12: 7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

It is present wordly in the bible, but of course, I wouldnt expect more from someone who doesnt know much about the bible, or who twists everything he reads to his own liking

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

So ending someone's life on Earth and continuing it in Heaven is a punishment? Getting someone from a bad place into an infintely joyful place is meant to punish the person? You sound very desperate trying to prove the bible wrong or that God doesnt exist.

Ecclesiastes 12: 7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

It is present wordly in the bible, but of course, I wouldnt expect more from someone who doesnt know much about the bible, or who twists everything he reads to his own liking

Yes, I do find it immoral to kill someone on the false promise that they'll go to heaven. Also, you seem to have totally glossed over the point that the child was killed, not David, who was the one who sinned. I shall repeat that for you again because it's clearly not going in. David was the one who committed adultery, yet God strikes down and kills the child. Do you believe that was just?

Furthermore, I am not "twisting" the Bible to my own liking. I'm simply using my modern sense of morality to judge what's written in it.

Also, I don't know why you got so angry with my reply above. Clearly you have anger issues when someone points out something you don't understand. It's your God, you worship him, not me. I'm just merely pointing out what I see as something I find morally repugnant. If you're happy with your chosen deity killing innocent babies then we really have nothing more to discuss.

 

[drich0150]

I'm going to avoid replying to most of this post simply because I don't want to get sidetracked from my primary question. Maybe one day soon I'll make a new thread asking what exactly a New Testament Christian is.

Here, though, I want to address your claim the child was not innocent. Don't you find it disturbing, in any way at all, that God punished David by killing the child, and not by punishing David directly?

If the child returns to the Father who truly loves him how exactly is that a punishment to the child?

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

If the child returns to the Father who truly loves him how exactly is that a punishment to the child?

This is a really disturbing mentality to have. It's very hard to debate with this kind of warped logic. And this is why religion in general is unsettling. It teaches people that death and suffering are good if they serve a holy cause. You're basically okay with the death of an innocent child on this earth because that child goes to an imaginary place when it dies. Seriously, take a step back and examine your own moral compass. You might end up as disturbed with yourself as I am.

 

[GA777]

Yes, I do find it immoral to kill someone on the false promise that they'll go to heaven. Also, you seem to have totally glossed over the point that the child was killed, not David, who was the one who sinned. I shall repeat that for you again because it's clearly not going in. David was the one who committed adultery, yet God strikes down and kills the child. Do you believe that was just?

Furthermore, I am not "twisting" the Bible to my own liking. I'm simply using my modern sense of morality to judge what's written in it.

Also, I don't know why you got so angry with my reply above. Clearly you have anger issues when someone points out something you don't understand. It's your God, you worship him, not me. I'm just merely pointing out what I see as something I find morally repugnant. If you're happy with your chosen deity killing innocent babies then we really have nothing more to discuss.

When a father loses of his children for some time , he gets hurt. That was the punishment. As for the child , he got into heaven, so no punishment was done for the child. Any idiot would prefer going to heaven if this was a possible way for exemple. It seems now that your judgement is cruel not God's

pun·ish·ment/ˈpəniSHmənt/Noun:
The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.
The penalty inflicted.

No punishment was done because there was no penalty but reward for the child. And I know exactly what you're talking about, but you're completely wrong. If you read a bible verse saying " the shirt is blue ", you'd take it as if the shirt was yellow.

Whose modern sense of morality? Your sense? Because that must have been new to me, but also, to all of us.

Yes, we are all happy of a God, who kills innocent babies flesh body and gets them to heaven in their spiritual form living happily forever and ever. It's completely not because of my anger issues, but your lack of sense, dishonesty, judgemental way and pride.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

When a father loses of his children for some time , he gets hurt. That was the punishment. As for the child , he got into heaven, so no punishment was done for the child. Any idiot would prefer going to heaven if this was a possible way for exemple. It seems now that your judgement is cruel not God's

pun·ish·ment/ˈpəniSHmənt/Noun:
The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.
The penalty inflicted.

No punishment was done because there was no penalty but reward for the child. And I know exactly what you're talking about, but you're completely wrong. If you read a bible verse saying " the shirt is blue ", you'd take it as if the shirt was yellow.

Whose modern sense of morality? Your sense? Because that must have been new to me, but also, to all of us.

Yes, we are all happy of a God, who kills innocent babies flesh body and gets them to heaven in their spiritual form living happily forever and ever. It's completely not because of my anger issues, but your lack of sense, dishonesty, judgemental way and pride.

I was going to debate with you some more, but I really can't be bothered. Apparently I lack sense because I cannot seem to justify the killing of an innocent baby. You also say that I am dishonest and judgemental because I fail to understand how the child should be happy it's dead because it gets to go to heaven. I think I'm done debating with you. Thank you for your opinions and contributions to this thread though. I will conclude our discussion by saying that I disagree strongly with your position and it's best we leave it at that.