Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What actually happens? I don't know.
Well, mankind would not last very long if infanticide were practiced in order to insure all go to heaven. I believe that the Bible teaches that one has to reject Christ in order to be rejected from heaven. I believe that if man did not interfere with the truth that is God and then choose to believe something else the inevitable result would be eternal life. Each person chooses for themselves.In another thread, someone asked what happens to innocent children that are killed. A few posters indicated that if a child hasn't reached the age of moral culpability yet that they would go to Heaven (or paradise, or whatever) to be with the Lord.
Something bugs me about this, though: isn't it therefore infinitely better to die very young than to live at all?
According to many doctrines, humans are sinful creatures that are prone to "mess up" and fail to attain heaven: in fact, according to many beliefs, many more are going to Hell than are going to Heaven. These are not good odds -- wouldn't it be many times better for as many humans as possible to die very young (and therefore be guaranteed Heaven) than to have ~80 years of life on Earth to possibly lose it all?
Wouldn't, therefore, the most selfless act possible to be killing all children before the age of moral culpability? Sure, those that do the killing lose eternity -- but they've gained eternity for so many countless humans that would probably have ended up in Hell anyway!
Right?
Certainly not a Scriptural position.In their perspective, anyone who has heard the gospel, and has learned about salvation, has had the choice to accept it or reject it.
Those who haven't heard the gospel are not held accountable as they didn't know any better.
So, it comes down to choice.
"I don't like the rules so I'm going to take my bat and ball and go home!"I don't believe in hell, as that, to me, shows a God who is hateful and spiteful, and that simply isn't a god I could believe in)...
Does that matter?Well, mankind would not last very long if infanticide were practiced in order to insure all go to heaven.
The book of Romans in chapter 1 states that everything created knows it's creator and is without excuse. You are arguing a non-Scripural position. It's kind of like arguing that a play was an home run in a football game.Yeah, that's my underlying point here. If the point of spreading the gospel is to save people from Hell, but the only way people can go to Hell is if they've heard the gospel, there seems to be some CAUSATIVE link there between proselytizing and people burning in infinite agony for eternity in Hell.
It's like giving a suicidal person a gun. You might make your conscience feel better by saying it was their choice to pull the trigger, but you ultimately had a causative role in the whole thing.
Furthermore if this whole concept is true (I certainly would be surprised if it were!) then it seems morally best to ensure people die before they're able to make such moral choices. What's better: letting them live ~80 years on a planet that doesn't assure happiness, or given them an assured eternity of happiness? It's an ethical no brainer, given the premises are true!
My point, ultimately, is to those that believe these premises: perhaps it's time to re-evaluate them maybe?
I can only vouch for me.Does that matter?
The bible states that everyone will stand for judgement so you may wish to delve into the form of reincarnation that was believed in.I guess that avoids the problem: if you don't get your chance this time around then you will eventually. It seems fairly inefficient to me, but that's beside the point.
You are arguing a non-Scripural position. It's kind of like arguing that a play was not an home run in a football game.
Kinda missed the point, huh?Right, she's arguing a rational position based on logic. Then again, perhaps you're right - it's kind of pointless to attempt to apply logic to something inherently inconsistent and irrational.
Kinda missed the point, huh?
I'm not sure what your point could be, to be honest. The Bible lays down premises of how the world works; anything logically derived from those premises is fair game, scriptural or not.Kinda missed the point, huh?
In another thread, someone asked what happens to innocent children that are killed. A few posters indicated that if a child hasn't reached the age of moral culpability yet that they would go to Heaven (or paradise, or whatever) to be with the Lord.
Something bugs me about this, though: isn't it therefore infinitely better to die very young than to live at all?
According to many doctrines, humans are sinful creatures that are prone to "mess up" and fail to attain heaven: in fact, according to many beliefs, many more are going to Hell than are going to Heaven. These are not good odds -- wouldn't it be many times better for as many humans as possible to die very young (and therefore be guaranteed Heaven) than to have ~80 years of life on Earth to possibly lose it all?
Wouldn't, therefore, the most selfless act possible to be killing all children before the age of moral culpability? Sure, those that do the killing lose eternity -- but they've gained eternity for so many countless humans that would probably have ended up in Hell anyway!
Right?
Agreed.As I do not believe in a concept of Hell, and I'm ultimately a universalist, I believe that everyone ultimately ends up in the same place, when we "wake up".
I do not believe in punishment for disbelief, much less something like an eternal Hell. Nor do I believe in a reward simply for belief.
I do not believe in punishment for disbelief, much less something like an eternal Hell. Nor do I believe in a reward simply for belief.
With a hell that means that a judgement will come about for humans. I just couldn't see a judgement going badly for a baby even if they are an unbelieving heathen. At most the kid would have to be able be judged on something which really couldn't happen until they know better. Once they are accountable is it really too late for them? If any sort of judgment is supposed to be fair then the hellish punishment should fit the crime which would also include true intentions of the individuals.In another thread, someone asked what happens to innocent children that are killed. A few posters indicated that if a child hasn't reached the age of moral culpability yet that they would go to Heaven (or paradise, or whatever) to be with the Lord.
Something bugs me about this, though: isn't it therefore infinitely better to die very young than to live at all?
According to many doctrines, humans are sinful creatures that are prone to "mess up" and fail to attain heaven: in fact, according to many beliefs, many more are going to Hell than are going to Heaven. These are not good odds -- wouldn't it be many times better for as many humans as possible to die very young (and therefore be guaranteed Heaven) than to have ~80 years of life on Earth to possibly lose it all?
Wouldn't, therefore, the most selfless act possible to be killing all children before the age of moral culpability? Sure, those that do the killing lose eternity -- but they've gained eternity for so many countless humans that would probably have ended up in Hell anyway!
Right?
But those consequences don't happen naturally, and they aren't immutable. God is responsible for them, and so he can rightly be blamed for any injustice they cause.Hell is the result (consequence) of not accepting Jesus as one's Lord and Savior. Heaven is the result (consequence) of receiving God's grace through faith in Jesus as Savior.