September 10, 2009

Children in Hell?

A new Atheist came to me and started to ask some questions. I am very pleased that Atheists do this because it may mean they are still searching for the truth.

I welcome all questions and will do my best to answer any inquiries about God, faith, Christianity, or my beliefs. Just please be serious about these questions. Don't seek to trip me up, seek the knowledge that there possibly is a God and you may have missed something important.

TimAtheist asked: I am glad that you do not take well to saying that young children are not to be held responsible. However, does your religion agree with you?

Yes completely. God is not the evil overlord that many believe He is. God is not "an evil tyrant Who condemns innocent children to eternal destruction." He is kind, loving, and just that knows all things. His righteousness is more then we could ever imagine. God would not arbitrarily send children to hell, just because they are too young. In fact, children go to Heaven.

I found an article written by our friend Kyle Butt, M.A. that makes the case. He wrote:

"In 2 Samuel 12, King David's newborn son fell terminally ill. After seven days, the child died. In verses 22 and 23, the Bible records that David said: "While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?' But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

It is clear that David's dead infant son would never return to this Earth, but David also said that one day, he would go to be with his son. Through inspiration, David documented that his own eternal destination was going to be " in the house of the Lord" (Psalm 23:6). Therefore, we can conclude that "the house of the Lord" would be the eternal destination of his infant son to whom David would one day go. King David was looking forward to the day when he would be able to meet his son in heaven. Absolutely nothing in this context gives any hint that the dead infant son's soul would go to hell."

He also added:

Matthew 18:3-5 "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me."

Luke 18:16-17 "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."

TimAtheist also said: "I hear that a very common teaching is that we immediately inherit Adam's sin, that we are born into a "sin nature."

In that same article Butt shows that children do not “inherit” the sins of their parents. Butt writes:

"In Ezekiel 18:20, the Bible says: "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son." Also, in Exodus 32, Moses pleaded with God to forgive the sins of the Israelites when he said: "Yet now, if You will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written. And the Lord said to Moses, 'Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book' (Exodus 32:32-33). The Bible is plain in its teaching that babies do not inherit the sins of their parents. One commonly misapplied scripture used to teach that infants inherit sin is Psalm 51:5-6, which has been dealt with in detail by Wayne Jackson (2000)"

Butt concludes: "Therefore, we have been given a specific example in the Old Testament of an infant who died and would live forever in heaven. And Jesus Christ Himself, in the New Testament, stated that little children retain the qualities that make a person eligible to inherit the kingdom of God. We see, then, that infants and small children that die are in a safe state, and will live eternally in heaven."

Steven Curtis Chapman just wrote a brand new song about his daughter that he lost because of a very unfortunate accident. God gives us hope, not despair, children go to Heaven. (Revelation 21:4)



tinyurl.com/ChildrengotoHeaven

53 comments:

  1. So when do we stop being sin free and start being sinful? Age 2, 5, 10, puberty, when?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do these sinless, heaven-bound children choose to be sinless, or is that just their nature?

    In heaven, where you claim they'll go, are they afforded the opportunity to sin? Do these children ever get to exercise "free will"?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  3. Failure,

    I was wondering that myself. I am horrible at understanding the Jewish religion but I was going to research the reason behind the bar mitzvah.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Remember Stan that Christians are not perfect, just forgiven.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Remember Stan that Christians are not perfect, just forgiven. 

    Huh? What does that have to do with my questions?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  6. Children don't "choose to be sinless", they are forgiven of their sins because they are not fully understanding the weight of their disobedience/defiance. You do, so you are held responsible for your actions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Children ... are forgiven of their sins because they are not fully understanding the weight of their disobedience/defiance.

    So they get a free pass?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  8. This blog just gets stranger and stranger.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dan said:

    "Children don't "choose to be sinless", they are forgiven of their sins because they are not fully understanding the weight of their disobedience/defiance. You do, so you are held responsible for your actions."

    Sweet! That means atheists get to go to heaven, too! If you don't believe in sin, clearly you don't "fully [understand] the weight of [your] disobedience/defiance."

    Also, by that thinking, anyone who's never heard the gospel is also in like Flynn.

    It kind of sounds like the only ones who need to worry are Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey Dan: Off topic. If this person goes to Heaven, will they be a woman, a man, or still a hermaphrodite?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I forgot to include the link.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/runner-a-hermaphrodite-reports/article1282796/

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dan said... "Children don't "choose to be sinless", they are forgiven of their sins because they are not fully understanding the weight of their disobedience/defiance. You do, so you are held responsible for your actions."

    How about an elderly person with alzheimers? By unwittingly acquiring a mental deficit, one can get to heaven too? Or does it spell instant death: "Well, you've not believed thus far, and can't from now on, so you're boned."

    I've often heard apologists say that you should convert because "you could die at any moment". Would "you could get clocked on the head with a random falling object and never be able to be salvaged again due to a brain lesion!" work as well?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dan +†+ said...

    Children don't "choose to be sinless", they are forgiven of their sins because they are not fully understanding the weight of their disobedience/defiance. You do, so you are held responsible for your actions.

    Wrong.

    There is really no such thing as the “innocent” suffering.

    Since "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), there is no one who has the right to freedom from God's wrath on the basis of his own innocence.

    As far as babies are concerned, and others who may be incompetent mentally to distinguish right and wrong, it is clear from both Scripture and universal experience that they are sinners by nature and thus will inevitably become sinners by choice as soon as they are able to do so.



    Dan again:
    It is clear that David's dead infant son would never return to this Earth, but David also said that one day, he would go to be with his son. Through inspiration, David documented that his own eternal destination was going to be " in the house of the Lord" (Psalm 23:6).
     
    How do you know that was inspired? That was just his personal opinion. Remember, there are parts of the bible where David says that after one dies, that's it.

    Ex) Psalm 6:5. He was feeling bad at the time to make such an "inaccurate" statement (inaccurate at least according to the rest of the bible). Maybe he was just feeling hopeful that he'd see his kid again and he made another ideologically inaccurate statement when he said he'd see his son in the afterlife?

    As for Matthew 18:3-5 and Luke 18:16-17 those were referring to kids who had already "chosen" him. They were going to him. That's not something that a baby can do now, is it?

    If you think that babies or the mentally unable can go to heaven, show us the actual verse(s) that say it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. henwli,

    Does the diseases kill a soul? I don't think so. Jesus said that nothing can take the soul away from Him. So the spiritual life still grows, I believe.

    I remember reading about a Catholic Nun stricken with Alzheimer. She was well into her 80's and would tell people that she was 40. She, in her incoherence at times, would still preach to people. Sometimes she wouldn't make sense but her religious rhetoric stayed in tact.

    My brother was born with cerebral palsy and is quite bitter and angry at God these days. Would he love God and be more grateful without the palsy? I just don't know. I knew someone, who had cerebral palsy in his school, that loved and adored God and couldn't wait to get a new body. My brother married someone who is quite content with a life without God. Will he be saved and bow to the Creator? I am hopeful but God is the one that judges hearts.

    If a disease strikes someone with the incoherence of God, I would think that God is just and corrects that part of the person to understand Him at Judgment, much like a child n His Grace. But I am reaching way beyond my comprehension of the Bible, I believe. Maybe the answer is in their and I missed it somewhere and it will be revealed to me at a later time. Today I cannot recall such a thing. To be safe I am forced to say I don't know, if the Bible is silent of a subject, then so should I. I can't wait to find out about such things though. So to answer your question, I haven't a clue.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Reynold,

    How on earth can you make such a claim that I am wrong? You know God more then anyone else?

    Is your appeal to an authority (fallacy) right? You are using reason and yet your worldview cannot even account for reason itself.

    I agree that maybe, just maybe, I have a misunderstanding as to what God will do. I will give you that.

    God gave us our minds, and morals, in His image. Collectively we all, and I mean all, feel that burning babies is wrong so I am sure there is a reason for that. We are, after all, made in His image.

    "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25)

    My answer is yes, He will do the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dan:
    How on earth can you make such a claim that I am wrong? You know God more then anyone else?
     
    Dan...read the link I gave, please. It's the ChristianAnswers people who say that you're wrong. You have a problem with my so-called "argument from authority" you take it up with them.

    You don't even know what an "argument from authority" is. It's only a fallacy when a person tries to use their expertise or "authority" in an unrelated field to try to impress others. When the subject is within that person's field, then they have some weight, though of course you still have to check over their arguments to see if it has any merit.

    That's why I linked to a christian site, Dan. Theoretically they have studied that stuff. It's their job.

    Is your appeal to an authority (fallacy) right?
     
    I've discussed your misunderstanding of that fallacy above.


    You are using reason and yet your worldview cannot even account for reason itself.
     
    I've dealt with that stupidity in your most recent post, and others have dealt with that nonsense in other posts on this blog. Please find a horse to ride that hasn't been whipped to death...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Here Dan, from the Fallacies website, argument from authority:

    This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

    Unless you think that the Christian Answers people are not experts on their own bible then I did not use any fallacy by linking to, and quoting from them.

    Now, you still have yet to refute the verses that they gave which they use to bolster their case. Will you do so or will you keep hiding behing "argument from authority" and ignore their points.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Reynold,

    Thanks for the fallacy clarification.

    That means I can use God as an ultimate authority without a fallacy claim from atheists. Good and thanks

    ReplyDelete
  19. Did you miss my question?

    Children ... are forgiven of their sins because they are not fully understanding the weight of their disobedience/defiance.

    So they get a free pass?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  20. Why do you want that specific question answered? Doesn't the crust or intentions of the post make itself clear?

    I will answer though. No, they do not get a free pass, they get grace from God. An undeserved gift.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dan +†+ said...:

    Reynold,

    Thanks for the fallacy clarification.

    That means I can use God as an ultimate authority without a fallacy claim from atheists. Good and thanks

     
    You have to show that your god exists in the first place. Until then, you're just pulling stuff out of a book written by sheep-herders a few thousand years ago.

    Now, back to the topic: If you disagree with what the Christian Answers people say about this, go ahead and use the bible that both of you people believe in to explain to us how they're wrong.

    As of now, you're just making assumptions. Remember, this is the same god who many times in the OT had children killed just because the parents did something wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Reynold,

    I am sure you saw this coming but, the proof of God’s existence, is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything.

    Moving on.

    I must say that I do agree with the link you provided though, "that there is really no such thing as the “innocent” suffering" and that "there is no one who has the right to freedom from God's wrath on the basis of his own innocence." I get that, I agree.

    God, being omniscient, knows the heart of children as adults. He knows of their rebellion of the future. I trust Him to do the right thing and give those children a chance to follow Him in gratefulness and humility when they are able to make such a "choice". For the moment I do not have additional Scripture to back that up, just my hope.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dan:
    I am sure you saw this coming but, the proof of God’s existence, is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything.
     
    Yeah, I did see that coming...and it's nothing but presupposition without evidence, plus circular reasoning.

    Care to justify that claim? Should I reference you to Stephen Law's blog again?


    Try this one on for size: The proof of evolution is that without evolution having happened, we wouldn't be able to prove anything: We wouldn't have the intelligence to do so. At least with evolution, I can bring up fossil, anatomical and genetic evidence for it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. No, they do not get a free pass, they get grace from God. An undeserved gift.

    So god is able and willing to provide grace to those who haven't requested it?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  25. To be safe I am forced to say I don't know, if the Bible is silent of a subject, then so should I. I can't wait to find out about such things though. So to answer your question, I haven't a clue.

    I love you, Dan! As Wittgenstein said, "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darĂ¼ber muss man schweigen." That is, "about that which one cannot speak, one must remain silent". The world needs more of this!

    Of course, I don't believe there are children in Hell either, but for different reasons. As far as what the authors of the Bible meant, I couldn't say for sure, because it's not spelled out clearly. But I suspect that the concept of an age of accountability (which appears nowhere in Scripture), along with all the other attempts to show that children don't go to Hell, are ex post facto apologia motivated by the natural desire to see God as a good guy. Believing this takes a lot of the sting out of God's orders to kill babies: if they are going straight to Heaven, then it doesn't really matter- tough oats on Earth, but pie in the sky when they die. Or as Samwise said: "all's well as ends better".

    I see at least two problems with this belief. One: as I said, I don't think it can be justified scripturally. Two, and more worrisome: it's part of the general belief of many Christians (and Muslims) that this life on Earth is merely a test; the afterlife is the Real Thing, where justice is done.

    That wouldn't bother me so much, if it didn't often tend to have real-world consequences that affect me too- the Rapture Ready people who gleefully pour weed killer down the drain, the hijackers who fly into buildings because they will get their seventy-two virgins, or the president who starts a war, convinced he is fighting Gog and Magog, and is helping to usher in the final days. This is what Bush told Chirac when he tried to get France's support for the war against Iraq.

    Then it's not so funny.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Stop making me beg, Dan -- this thread is not dead yet, no matter how loudly and obnoxiously you regurgitate Sye's man-seed.

    So god is able and willing to provide grace to those who haven't requested it?

    I'd like an answer.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ok Stan,

    Those who haven't requested it, or those unable to? I would go with the latter? Sure. Maybe. Although, as that link from Reynold said, we are all wicked and deserve hell. I agree with that also. I am one to believe that God can and does do the right thing. Now just in my opinion, a very young baby cannot or has not sinned just yet. So a "free pass" would be just in my eyes. Hopefully God will agree but he may have a better reason that I am missing.

    Besides I like when you beg, feeds that inflated ego of mine. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Those who haven't requested it, or those unable to?

    Irrelevant. If they need grace, and are not deserving of grace, yet they are provided grace, in spite of not having requested grace, then the answer is "yes."

    Clearly, according to you, god is able and willing to provide grace to those who have neither requested it nor deserve it. With this in mind, then, one must wonder why god selectively requires that we grovel and plead for him to extend grace upon us. Why the exception?

    If grace can be provided without being requested or deserved by its receiver, then why not extend it to all without the hoops?

    Obviously, if a free provision of grace is so generously provided to children, god doesn't care about whether every soul specifically chooses him -- unless you want to argue that these children are reincarnated -- so again, why the special rule for those of us lucky enough to survive into adulthood? Why not dispense with the unpleasantry and just extend the magickal grace upon all?

    Hmm?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  29. Why not dispense with the unpleasantry and just extend the magickal grace upon all?

    Hmm?


    Oh come on, Stan. Like you'd do that if you were God.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Zilch,

    Are you claiming that Stan is just? Hmm? Yea, I wouldn't peg him as the coddling type either. I sure wouldn't, I would want 'justice for all.'

    Hey, that would make a good pledge.

    " I pledge allegiance to our God, of the entire universe, and to the republic for which He died for, One race, under God, divisible and potential liberty and justice for all."

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'll let Stan answer for himself, Dan. My impression, based on his cyberpersona, is also that he doesn't seem like a coddler. But I somehow don't think even Stan would order massacres of babies, or torture souls eternally for the "crime" of not believing in Stan the Man, who of course would be just as undetectable as the Christian God.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Are you claiming that Stan is just? Hmm? Yea, I wouldn't peg him as the coddling type either.

    Nice refusal to engage, Danny-boy. I suppose it's difficult, though, what with your nonstop bullshit in the other thread -- you know, the one where you're publicly gargling Sye's semen.

    Seriously -- if, as you say, god can and does extend grace to those who have neither requested nor deserve it, and if, as you say, these grace-recipient souls end up in heaven, then clearly god could have extended grace to the unrequesting and undeserving souls of all, rather than the select group which fails to make it to some arbitrary age.

    Clearly, Adam and Eve fit this same category, when they unwittingly sinned against god without an understanding of good and evil -- god could have immediately and unconditionally extended grace directly upon them such that no such future experience of sin need occur. Even if you insist that such grace was not possible until the Crucifixion, you cannot honestly argue that following that alleged event, god could not have immediately and unconditionally extended grace upon all souls.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  33. Stan,

    I am sure a Judge could just let every criminal go free but would that make him a good and just Judge? Would you respect him more for letting law breakers go free? We will all meet God soon and all our questions will be answered.

    Hopefully His Grace will be far reaching in your life. Hopefully you will be grateful if He is.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I am sure a Judge could just let every criminal go free but would that make him a good and just Judge? Would you respect him more for letting law breakers go free?

    Utter failure, Dan. That has nothing to do with it and you know it. You have said, in this thread, that god can and does extend grace to the undeserving who have not requested it. Based only on that, the question has been posed as to why this clear selection process takes place, and why some are granted such unconditional extensions of grace, whereas others are granted only conditional extensions of grace.

    That is a double standard, and it demands an explanation. Clearly, according to you, considered repentance and an honest request for forgiveness are unnecessary, so I wonder why you insist that it is necessary for me?

    It has nothing to do with your false analogy of a just judge.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  35. "It has nothing to do with your false analogy of a just judge."

    Sure it does, and in that same analogy, if a 4 year old stabbed and killed his little sister with a knife then that would be considered an unfortunate "accident" and the judge would not give prison to that baby.

    Now if you did the same thing, you would do the time to pay for your crime. You would be forced to live with that fate. You are old enough to know right from wrong. Unrepentant sinning is just...wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Missing the point much?

    You admitted that some are granted an extension of grace, who are undeserving, and who have not requested it. Either explain why that unconditional extension is not offered to all, or admit that because it is not, your god is a capricious, sadistic asshole.

    Remember, he can extend grace to those who are undeserving and who have not requested it, so now you must explain why he doesn't in all cases. Please attempt to do so without begging the question.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  37. Missing the point much?

    Ok here it is again

    God does thing that are just and righteous for righteousness sake because that is His nature. To let criminals go free would be unjust.

    I am sure we can all agree that a 4 year old is not capable of comprehending the criminality of his actions. Thus a 'pass' is given until there is maturity.

    Maturity = responsible for actions.

    Better?

    An no you cannot be excused for your crimes because of your immaturity. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  38. I am sure we can all agree that a 4 year old is not capable of comprehending the criminality of his actions. Thus a 'pass' is given until there is maturity.

    Yes, I would give a pass to a four-year-old. But would God? As I pointed out, there's no indication whatsoever in the Bible of any such "age of maturity". Or do you know of such?

    As far as I can tell from my reading of Scripture, the Amalekite babies slaughtered by Saul at God's command are all burning in Hell. Or is there any evidence to the contrary, other than Post-Enlightenment wishful thinking that God wouldn't be that nasty?

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Or is there any evidence to the contrary, other than Post-Enlightenment wishful thinking that God wouldn't be that nasty? "

    Now you are confusing me with Atheists. That is the Atheists hope, that is for sure.

    I am looking into the Bible verses to corroborate my views. TBC

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dan:

         It is not appropriate to incarcerate people in the name of "justice." It is sometimes appropriate to do so for the protection of the general population. And it is never appropriate to make deliberate addition of torments. If there is a lake of fire, it is automatically unjust.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I say:

    "Or is there any evidence to the contrary [of my assertion that the Amalekite babies are roasting in Hell, according to Scripture], other than Post-Enlightenment wishful thinking that God wouldn't be that nasty? "

    Dan reply:

    Now you are confusing me with Atheists. That is the Atheists hope, that is for sure.

    Er, not really, Dan. Methinks you are forgetting what the "a" in "atheist" means. By the same logic, I guess your hope is that Santa won't put coal in your stocking this Christmas, and that Xenu doesn't escape from his electronic mountain trap and inflict you with even more body thetans.

    Pvblivs say:

    It is not appropriate to incarcerate people in the name of "justice." It is sometimes appropriate to do so for the protection of the general population. And it is never appropriate to make deliberate addition of torments. If there is a lake of fire, it is automatically unjust.

    Says who, Pvblivs? On what reasoning or authority do you base these assertions? Please answer in twenty-five words or fewer, and using no words of more than three syllables.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Please answer in twenty-five words or fewer, and using no words of more than three syllables.

    :: /me jumps and waves hand wildly ::

    Ooh! Me! I can do this one! I can answer that question using only three monosyllabic words!

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  43. Pvb,

    Of course it seems unjust to the one being punished. How many innocent people are in jail? all of them right. I understand, now, how wicked I have been. I am guilty. I am grateful for God's Grace also.

    Zilch asked "On what reasoning or authority do you base these assertions? Please answer in twenty-five words or fewer, and using no words of more than three syllables."

    Stan said "I can answer that question using only three monosyllabic words!"

    I can name that tune with one monosyllabic word.

    Self.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dan:

         You will note that I said it was sometimes appropriate to incarcerate people for the protection of the general population. (Well, maybe you won't note that because it defeats your response.) You could make an argument for your god keeping the spirits of very dangerous people in an enclosed area. But when you add the lake of fire, whose only purpose can be to cause suffering and has no redemptive value, it becomes irrefutably unjust.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Pvb,

    So unrepentant baby rapers have redemptive value? Does corporal punishment have redemptive value? Do you believe ALL prisoners have redemptive value?

    What if a man raped and brutally murdered your Mom, did his mere 7 years and got out to rape 16 more woman and killed 5 prison guards, escaped to rape 100 more woman but this time they were children.

    Would that man have some redemptive value in him? Should he pay for his crimes?

    What about unrepentant angry Atheists? Do they have redemptive value?

    ReplyDelete
  46. My three monosyllabic words:

    1. God
    2. Did
    3. It

    -------------------

    So unrepentant baby rapers have redemptive value?

    Where did anyone say the person has 'redemptive value'? Pvblivs is noting that the stated purpose of incarceration is to a) protect the general population, and b) rehabilitate, if possible, the incarcerated. When he mentioned 'redemptive value,' he was talking about the addition of explicit torture to a punishment of isolation, and noting that it had none.

    There's no discussion of the 'redemptive value' of a rapist, but of the fact that there is no 'redemptive value' to torture.

    What if a man raped and brutally murdered your Mom, did his mere 7 years...

    If a man raped and brutally murdered someone, and was tried and convicted of those crimes, I daresay there's no state in the union in which he'd only be sentenced to seven years. Since the rest of your absurd-and-demented scenario compounds this error, it collapses into a pathetic appeal to emotion.

    Worse, you've completely missed the point. Incarcerating such an individual is for the primary purpose of protecting those of us who don't want to be raped or brutally murdered, and it doesn't include the explicit use of torture.

    Would that man have some redemptive value in him? Should he pay for his crimes?

    Stupid. I wrote up a response, but your stupid question is unworthy.

    Riddle me this, instead:

    For how long should I 'pay for my crime' if I unrepentantly lie to my wife by telling her I like her cooking?

    While you're at it, riddle me this, as well:

    What's the appropriate earthly punishment for the crime of raping a lone woman in an isolated area?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  47. Stan,

    1. God
    2. Did
    3. It

    nanny nanny, I win with "self"

    "There's no discussion of the 'redemptive value' of a rapist, but of the fact that there is no 'redemptive value' to torture."

    Ah, I see. So the price of a human, after death, has a premium to you? Are you banking on that?

    Let's use stock as an example. No par value shares (NVP) may be disadvantageous to shareholders (mankind) where the firm (God) lowers the value of already issued shares by accepting lower price for the new issue(spirit). There are no negotiations after the fact. You have the option to by the premium stock (Jesus) before the opening bell. Jesus stock is called a redemption premium, without it your stock has a redemption value.

    You had a choice to trade that old Enron stock (evil you) in for Google IPO premium (Jesus) at a 1/1,000,000,000 ratio trade before the bankruptcy, but when Enron died it was too late. There was nothing to trade, Enron stock wasn't worth the paper it was even printed on (evil spirit), so it gets shredded or incinerated. Worthless. You had a choice and banked on Enron.

    OK I will work more on that one.

    "it collapses into a pathetic appeal to emotion."

    Rats, I forgot or missed that one. Fine

    "For how long should I 'pay for my crime' if I unrepentantly lie to my wife by telling her I like her cooking?"

    Depends how much it hurt her. Two days on the couch should suffice but, as you know, Hell has no fury like a woman scorned.

    I crack myself up.

    What's the appropriate earthly punishment for the crime of raping a lone woman in an isolated area?

    Life or chair. If I were in charge of the punishment, I would say peel and salt him, but I have issues. Eternity in Hell sounds pretty just.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I asked:

    For how long should I 'pay for my crime' if I unrepentantly lie to my wife by telling her I like her cooking?

    Dan responded:

    Depends how much it hurt her. Two days on the couch should suffice but, as you know, Hell has no fury like a woman scorned.

    You crack me up, too, on occasion. Of course, two days on the couch seems a far cry shorter than an eternity in hell, for unrepentant sin... Care to revise your statement (humor still appreciated)?

    I also asked:

    What's the appropriate earthly punishment for the crime of raping a lone woman in an isolated area?

    Dan responded:

    Life or chair.

    I'll take that as imprisonment for the remainder of one's life, or capital punishment. Considering that I'm asking for an objective standard of punishment, would you say this is a universally applicable standard, or would you care to revise your statement?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  49. C'mon, Stan, everyone knows that "goddidit" is just one word.

    And I think I can guess where this raped woman in a field is going. But Stan [putting on my Creationist for a Day hat], don't you realize the difference between earthly punishments for crimes against people, and afterlife punishments for crimes against God? Whereas all people are sinners and must thus show some mercy to criminals (there but for the grace of my good sense go I), God is infinitely good, and thus any crime against Him is infinitely evil. Thus any crime against God deserves infinite punishment, and He delivers.
    [/hat]

    ReplyDelete
  50. Zilch,

    "C'mon, Stan, everyone knows that "goddidit" is just one word."

    Ouch, I got outsmarted yet again by those intellectuals.

    Grrrrr. Can I ever win here? MAN!!

    I had no clue that my blog's namesake would eventually mean where "Debunking Atheists" gather. Maybe I should add the word "Gather" to be more accurate.

    Zilch that hat fits you like a glove, the job is yours...I quite.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dan, I would agree with you on your final conclusion, but unfortunately I feel that much of the scriptural grounds that Kyle Butt uses is flimsy at best. His appeal to the heart of God for the sake of infants in Heaven is probably the best point he makes.

    "David documented that his own eternal destination was going to be " in the house of the Lord" (Psalm 23:6). Therefore, we can conclude that "the house of the Lord" would be the eternal destination of his infant son to whom David would one day go."

    2 Samuel 12 is quite weak as it applies to this issue. It is likely little more than an understanding that "death is imminent" and even if David did believe that he would join his son in Heaven, it was merely his understanding. David said a lot of things that are not considered theologically sound.

    "The Bible is plain in its teaching that babies do not inherit the sins of their parents."

    No, the Bible is not plain in teaching that. While I agree that Psalm 51 does not make the case of an inherited familial sin - it does teach that we are in sin at birth.

    Where much of your case falls short is in the understanding of types of sin, the penalty for each and how each are addressed by God's redemption. In layman's terms there is inherited, imputed and personal sin.

    Each of us has inherited and imputed sin (or iniquity) - at birth. Our imputed sin demands our natural death. God imparts prevenient grace enough to redeem us from the penalty of inherited sin until that time which transgressions (personal sin) confirms our inherited sin because we know and can choose between evil and good.

    But, nothing in scripture explicitly assures us of the eternal reward of Heaven for infants. Do I believe it to be the case - yes, and am willing to teach it based on principle. But, most passages cited on the issue are insufficient in making a conclusive statement.

    MLK

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>