Questions on Christianity: (New Question on page 3)

[Mr. Magoo]

If you would like, I believe that I can answer some, in not all of your questions.  Being atheist I can readily understand why you might not desire this.  

Sure. Start at the beginning if you don't mind and be sure to state which points in which posts you are addressing.

I guess I should say that in all my posts in this thread I have assumed that Christianity is true (I think I have anyways).

[theonlyone]

I know Native Americans did not believe in Jesus because I've read about their religions. Now if you want to get into Bertrand Russell's "The only certainty in life is uncertainty" then yes I'm willing to admit that it is only not probable that they believed in Jesus.

 What else principles do you know except that of Bertrand Russell's??? You seem like a very educated man since you know the principle or two? 

[Mr. Magoo]

What else principles do you know except that of Bertrand Russell's??? You seem like a very educated man since you know the principle or two? 

I don't get the point of your post (along with every other post of yours in this thread). Butterbean was asking how could I know for a fact that the Native Americans who were never taught Jesus did not believe in Jesus. Of course it's always possible, but its not probable, considering the evidence we have.

[theonlyone]

I don't get the point of your post (along with every other post of yours in this thread). Butterbean was asking how could I know for a fact that the Native Americans who were never taught Jesus did not believe in Jesus. Of course it's always possible, but its not probable, considering the evidence we have.

 You're the kind of a guy who end without knowing what hit him!

 
 

[loco]

I sent this in a PM to Butterbean but I think I'll post it here to ask others, and also reply to her answer here.

I think it'll be easier to do it this way. According to Christianity, the following premises are true:

P1: "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God"
P2: All who die in their sins go to hell
P3: Those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior become saved
P4: All and only the saved go to heaven when they die

Isn't it true, by definition, that babies who die must go to hell? They were alive human beings, born in their original sin, came short of the glory of God, yet never accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, and they died. I'm using babies here as an example, but you can put in mental patients (although I'm pretty sure back in bible times they would have understood a mental patients someone who was evil and had "demons") or babies that die in the womb, etc etc.

If babies who die DO go to heaven, then one of the above premises must be false. If Premise 1 is true, and the baby was born into sin, and the baby still went to heaven, then Premise 2 and 4 have to be false. But if sinners can go to heaven, then why become saved? If the baby was NOT born into sin, then premise 1 has to be false, and the idea of "original sin" is false.

It seems to me that accepting the above premises to be true, and then saying that young babies, babies that die in the womb, mental patients, etc etc all go to heaven is inconsistent. Saint Augustine said that of course babies who die go to hell, because we all deserve hell due to original sin so we're in no position to complain. Even if Saint Augustines is consistent with the above premises, can we really make ourselves believe this is fair?

Butterbean replied in part of her PM response to this question, that if babies go to hell, what kind of just God is that? I think this is why Christians don't believe babies go to hell. They think it would be fair if babies did not go to hell. But I think most people only believe this because they want it to be true, not because they have evidence to believe it is true. I don't think most people, apart from St. Augustine, can say with full 100% confidence that it is okay for dead babies to go to hell. Then once you get into the whole "why aren't they held responsible like others are?" then that can get into a huge sociological argument about why others should not be held responsible (other religion followers, those who never heard of Jesus, those who have not had good teachers of Jesus, parents are anti-christian, etc etc)

Perhaps I've steered off track, but maybe this makes sense somewhat.

Mr. Magoo,

I am a Christian.  I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.  I have read the Bible from cover to cover several times, in Spanish and in English, in different versions.  

I still don't know for sure whether or not babies and the mentally ill go to hell, but I personally believe from what I read in the Bible that they do not go to hell.  This is based on what we Christians read in the Bible, and it is not wishful thinking.

David's baby dies:

2 Samuel 12:23
But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”

Like Butterbean said, David had access to the prophets Samuel and Nathan, whom God spoke directly to.  God also inspired David to write many parts of the Bible.

Age of accountability?

Isaiah 7:16
for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

Matthew 19:14
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”


As for the above contradicting Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

It does not contradict Romans 3:23.  Saying that ALL are this or that ALL are that is an expression, a figure of speech.  This verse is directed not at babies or at mental patients.  This verse is directed at those who believe that they have not sinned, that they are good enough, that they deserve heaven.  Romans 3:23 is making it clear to them that they are wrong.

The Bible is the "perfect" word of God, written by imperfect men, inspired by God, written on imperfect "paper" with imperfect "ink", written in imperfect human languages with imperfect expressions and imperfect figures of speech like the one in Romans 3:23.  We ourselves use this expression to make a point when we really don't mean ALL.  

God could have written the Bible himself, on perfect paper or stone, in a perfect heavenly language.  But then we would not be able to read it at all.

But what if we Christians are wrong and babies and the mentally ill go to hell.  What if Romans 3:23 does include them when it says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?  Would this make God evil and unjust?  NO!

The Bible is very clear that when we sin, even if we are forgiven, there can be eternal consequences of our sin for generations to come.  Because of Adam and Eve, sin and death entered the world and we all have suffered the consequences of their sin.  And after Adam and Eve, humans have committed sins and made poor choices that have made many generations suffer because of it.  

But likewise, when we obey God and make the right choices, not only are we blessed, but also our children and their children and many people around us can be blessed too even if they had nothing to do with our obedience to God or with our right choices.  

So no, I do not believe that if babies and the mentally ill go to hell because of sin, that this would make God evil or unjust.  God would continue to be good and just even then.  But like I said above, based on what I read in the Bible, babies and the mentally ill do go to heaven when they die.

[theonlyone]

 What is Certain Loco that is all uncertain - Bertrand Russel!!! Ehh??? Love it? Chill. So Mr Magoo says!!!

 

[loco]

What is Certain Loco that is all uncertain - Bertrand Russel!!! Ehh??? Love it? Chill. So Mr Magoo says!!!

 

What is certain is that God is good and just!   

[Mr. Magoo]

What is Certain Loco that is all uncertain - Bertrand Russel!!! Ehh??? Love it? Chill. So Mr Magoo says!!!

 

I still don't understand what you're talking about. Am i the only one that doesn't know why theonlyone posts? 

[loco]

I still don't understand what you're talking about. Am i the only one that doesn't know why theonlyone posts? 

We all have a hard time understanding theonlyone.  Unless he is a gimmick, he seems to be a Russian who is a Christian, who doesn't know English very well.

[Mr. Magoo]

We all have a hard time understanding theonlyone.  Unless he is a gimmick, he seems to be a Russian who is a Christian, who doesn't know English very well.

Just to let you know while you're still here, I'm working on responding to your post. I'm trying to break it up into different sections so it'll be easier to read my response. Stupid me is trying to work out the quote function while my screen keeps jumping on long posts. Thanks for you're response though, you addressed the points I was talking about.

[loco]

Just to let you know while you're still here, I'm working on responding to your post. I'm trying to break it up into different sections so it'll be easier to read my response. Stupid me is trying to work out the quote function while my screen keeps jumping on long posts. Thanks for you're response though, you addressed the points I was talking about.

Thanks Mr. Magoo!  I updated my post a little bit.  Please make sure you quote the latest one.  I'll leave it alone now.     

[Mr. Magoo]

David's baby dies:

2 Samuel 12:23
But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”

Like Butterbean said, David had access to the prophets Samuel and Nathan, whom God spoke directly to.  God also inspired David to write many parts of the Bible

I’ve thought about this since yesterday. Even if the Bible is 100% accurate, isn't it only true that David said this, and that he was comforted by his belief that this was true? It's a quote isn't it, so it's only true that he said it. I'm not trying to split hairs here but part of me is skeptical to automatically assume that just because David is quoted as saying what he believed, and David is generally regarded as a good dude, that belief is automatically true. I believe it's a mistake to assume that Samuel or Nathan told him this if it's not said in the Bible, or to assume that everything Samuel and Nathan said was 100% accurate even though God did speak to them about some things. Again this is just my first reaction, so I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Age of accountability?

Isaiah 7:16
for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste

Is this referring to heaven? Even if it is, which I don't think it is but I could be misinterpreting the context. It seems that the sentence is focused more on “before they know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right”, and I don’t think that thought is applied directly to and only to children. Couldn’t someone expand that to say anyone who “doesn’t know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right” gets a free pass? If that’s the reason why children get a free pass, it should automatically be applied to non-children who have the same lack of capability. Correct? So I’m afraid that this opens the door that anyone who hasn’t heard of Jesus, or were told lies about Jesus, or were coerced by social instructions to not believe in Jesus, etc, all don’t know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. It seems contradictory to traditional Christian belief (which I won’t waste time explaining since you know already) to say that someone can go to heaven who doesn’t know of Jesus. Didn’t Jesus say “no one comes to the father but by me”?

 

Saying that ALL are this or that ALL are that is an expression, a figure of speech.  This verse is directed not at babies or at mental patients

written in imperfect human languages with imperfect expressions and imperfect figures of speech like the one in Romans 3:23

In response to the first part: I think you are trying to shun the idea that all are condemned to hell. If you are saying that All are not condemned to hell, doesn’t this contradict the idea of original sin? I think you are also dancing around the notion that Romans 3:23 is wrong, by saying it is “imperfect”. I think it gets tricky if you start to say that some passages are wrong while others are right.

So no, I do not believe that if babies and the mentally ill go to hell because of sin, that this would make God evil or unjust

I’m not saying it would. I’m saying I think it is the fear of God seeming injust that prevents people from saying that babies who die go to hell. I’m saying that it seems at first glance that the beliefs contradict each other.

[Butterbean]

I disagree with the first line. I think children below the age of 13 can commit sin. Saint Augustine said that even he was over greedy when being breastfeed and he felt this was a sin. I think any parent of more than one children under the age of 5-6 will admit to seeing jealously, anger, and pride existing in those children.

I don't agree w/the 13 point either in the accountability theory.  Agree it should be lower.

St. Augustine remembers breastfeeding?  How old was he when he stopped?  Weird!lol

I would like to say thank you for spending the time to actually look this stuff up from sources, as opposed to me who do nothing but sit around and think to myself all day lol.

 

[Butterbean]

Thanks for your post loco!

We all have a hard time understanding theonlyone.  Unless he is a gimmick, he seems to be a Russian who is a Christian, who doesn't know English very well.

I have a very hard time understanding theonlyone...sorry onlyone!  If his posts are at all long I usually skip them entirely because I get very confused.  Again, no offense to onlyone!  His English as a second language is still much better than my extremely limited knowledge of French.


The text box bouncing is very irritating.  We've brought it to Ron's attention but someone said it is a program problem.

[Mr. Magoo]

I don't agree w/the 13 point either in the accountability theory.  Agree it should be lower.

St. Augustine remembers breastfeeding?  How old was he when he stopped?  Weird!lol

 

It wasn't that he remembered exactly I don't think. I think his point was mainly "even babies breastfeeding can be over greedy, and this is a sin."

[Butterbean]

I’ve thought about this since yesterday. Even if the Bible is 100% accurate, isn't it only true that David said this, and that he was comforted by his belief that this was true? It's a quote isn't it, so it's only true that he said it. I'm not trying to split hairs here but part of me is skeptical to automatically assume that just because David is quoted as saying what he believed, and David is generally regarded as a good dude, that belief is automatically true. I believe it's a mistake to assume that Samuel or Nathan told him this if it's not said in the Bible, or to assume that everything Samuel and Nathan said was 100% accurate even though God did speak to them about some things. Again this is just my first reaction, so I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Maybe loco can help but I'm pretty sure Prophets from God are 100% accurate.  That is one way to know they are from God.

I think it's safer to assume that David did speak to them about a lot of stuff, including about his baby.  Wouldn't you?   

The bible doesn't have every single conversation between the "key players" recorded. 

[Butterbean]

It wasn't that he remembered exactly I don't think. I think his point was mainly "even babies breastfeeding can be over greedy, and this is a sin."

Well that just sounds weird to me.  Seems like they'd finish eating if they were full and not be purposefully gluttonous but what do I know.

[loco]

I’ve thought about this since yesterday. Even if the Bible is 100% accurate, isn't it only true that David said this, and that he was comforted by his belief that this was true? It's a quote isn't it, so it's only true that he said it. I'm not trying to split hairs here but part of me is skeptical to automatically assume that just because David is quoted as saying what he believed, and David is generally regarded as a good dude, that belief is automatically true. I believe it's a mistake to assume that Samuel or Nathan told him this if it's not said in the Bible, or to assume that everything Samuel and Nathan said was 100% accurate even though God did speak to them about some things. Again this is just my first reaction, so I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

At this point, it comes down to faith.  You can believe that what David said was wishful thinking, while I'll believe that what David said is accurate.  And David wasn't just generally regarded as a good dude.  David was regarded as a man after God's own heart, by God himself.  And like I said, David was inspired by God to write large parts of the Bible.

Is this referring to heaven? Even if it is, which I don't think it is but I could be misinterpreting the context. It seems that the sentence is focused more on “before they know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right”, and I don’t think that thought is applied directly to and only to children. Couldn’t someone expand that to say anyone who “doesn’t know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right” gets a free pass? If that’s the reason why children get a free pass, it should automatically be applied to non-children who have the same lack of capability. Correct? So I’m afraid that this opens the door that anyone who hasn’t heard of Jesus, or were told lies about Jesus, or were coerced by social instructions to not believe in Jesus, etc, all don’t know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. It seems contradictory to traditional Christian belief (which I won’t waste time explaining since you know already) to say that someone can go to heaven who doesn’t know of Jesus. Didn’t Jesus say “no one comes to the father but by me”?

It is referring to a child's "age of accountability", confirming that there is an age before which children can't knowingly choose right from wrong.

In response to the first part: I think you are trying to shun the idea that all are condemned to hell. If you are saying that All are not condemned to hell, doesn’t this contradict the idea of original sin? I think you are also dancing around the notion that Romans 3:23 is wrong, by saying it is “imperfect”. I think it gets tricky if you start to say that some passages are wrong while others are right.

Why would I be trying to shun the idea that all are condemned to hell when I already told you that I have no problems if God sent babies and the mentally ill to hell because of sin, if that were true?  I already told you that even then, to me God would still be good and just.  In other words, the answer to your main question makes no difference to me one way or another.  It might if I had ever had a baby who died, or a loved one who was born mentally ill and died.  

I never said that Romans 3:23 is wrong.  It isn't.  I never said that Romans 3:23 is "imperfect."  It is the word of God and it is perfect.  What I said is that English, Spanish, etc. are not perfect.

I’m not saying it would. I’m saying I think it is the fear of God seeming injust that prevents people from saying that babies who die go to hell. I’m saying that it seems at first glance that the beliefs contradict each other.

Maybe there are Christians who feel that way, but I have no such fears.  And I personally don't believe there is a contradiction here.  Yours is a very good question which has been asked for a thousand plus years.  And the reason is that the Bible is very clear on certain things, but in others, such as this, it isn't.  The way that I personally approach these things is:  I am neither a baby nor a person who was born mentally ill, so I am without excuse and the answer to this question, though it is worth discussing, does not affect me one way or another.

[loco]

Maybe loco can help but I'm pretty sure Prophets from God are 100% accurate.  That is one way to know they are from God.

I think it's safer to assume that David did speak to them about a lot of stuff, including about his baby.  Wouldn't you?   

The bible doesn't have every single conversation between the "key players" recorded. 

Si!   

[Mr. Magoo]

Maybe loco can help but I'm pretty sure Prophets from God are 100% accurate.  That is one way to know they are from God.

I think it's safer to assume that David did speak to them about a lot of stuff, including about his baby.  Wouldn't you?   

The bible doesn't have every single conversation between the "key players" recorded. 

I'll respond to the other stuff later when I have more time. But I'll reply to this.

Prophets from God are only accurate about what God tells them right? If they were 100% accurate about everything, then they would be perfect, and nobody was perfect except Jesus, correct? So even IF Nathan and Samuel told David that about his baby, one still has to assume (without evidence) that God told Nathan and Samuel this information. Just because Nathan and Samuel might have said it, does not make it true.

It is also assuming without evidence that David did speak to Nathan and Samuel about his baby. It might make sense to us to say that they did, but we cannot go by the Bible to say that this in fact did happen. That's adding to the Bible, which Revelation explicitly says we shouldn't do, correct?

Therefore IF the Bible is 100% accurate, all the information that we can say is certain is that David said the quote, and that he was comforted by the belief that he expressed in the quote.

[loco]

I'll respond to the other stuff later when I have more time. But I'll reply to this.

Prophets from God are only accurate about what God tells them right? If they were 100% accurate about everything, then they would be perfect, and nobody was perfect except Jesus, correct? So even IF Nathan and Samuel told David that about his baby, one still has to assume (without evidence) that God told Nathan and Samuel this information. Just because Nathan and Samuel might have said it, does not make it true.

It is also assuming without evidence that David did speak to Nathan and Samuel about his baby. It might make sense to us to say that they did, but we cannot go by the Bible to say that this in fact did happen. That's adding to the Bible, which Revelation explicitly says we shouldn't do, correct?

Therefore IF the Bible is 100% accurate, all the information that we can say is certain is that David said the quote, and that he was comforted by the belief that he expressed in the quote.

At this point, it comes down to faith.  You can believe that what David said was wishful thinking, while I'll believe that what David said is accurate.  And David wasn't just generally regarded as a good dude.  David was regarded as a man after God's own heart, by God himself.  And like I said, David was inspired by God to write large parts of the Bible.

[Butterbean]

At this point, it comes down to faith.  You can believe that what David said was wishful thinking, while I'll believe that what David said is accurate.

x2

[Reeves]

Sure. Start at the beginning if you don't mind and be sure to state which points in which posts you are addressing.

I guess I should say that in all my posts in this thread I have assumed that Christianity is true (I think I have anyways).

Allow me to address your concerns regarding children.

"But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

That does not sound like condemnation to this little atheist.

Let us examine this from a regular guys (i.e., me) point of view.  Who among us would condemn an innocent child to an eternity of hell, whatever that may be?  Not a single one of us. If we, being just regular people are capable of rational and fair judgement as regards an innocent child, how much more so an eternal and all knowing God?

It really is that simple.

[theonlyone]

 You're coming from every angle possible, in vain attempt to design a wheel and it's getting you nowhere.

 Accountable age??? 7 years 235 days 3 hours 57 min etc or??? Jesus! Keep typing...I love Americans!!!!

[Dos Equis]

People are held accountable for what they know:  "Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."  James 4:17.  Babies don't fall in that category.