Children in Heaven

[Trey of Diamonds]

Good thing people aren't all that logical or religion wouldn't have lasted so long.

Come to think of it, if people were all that logical, they wouldn't have lasted so long.

 

[Meow Mix]

To be held culpable for rejecting truth it must have been revealed to you.

So, again, isn't the best strategy not to reveal it to anyone -- therefore ensuring ALL get to heaven? Say that you have a bunch of friends and you want your kids to go to heaven. Shouldn't you therefore form a community where you prevent them from ever having anything revealed to them to ensure they get to heaven?

Doesn't this logic also mean that by proselytizing to people, you're actually condemning most of them whereas they might have otherwise been fine?

 

[Meow Mix]

Is it just me or have a couple people missed the relevant part of the question I'm asking? (No offense, I've enjoyed all responses >^.^<)

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Is it just me or have a couple people missed the relevant part of the question I'm asking? (No offense, I've enjoyed all responses >^.^<)

I don't think they were missed, I think they make some folks uncomfortable. I suspect that many also rationalize the idea that all children go to heaven so that they don't have to contemplate a religion that would judge a pagan child the same way that it judges a pagan adult, even though historically their religion did just that.

 

[Photonic]

Come to think of it, if people were all that logical, they wouldn't have lasted so long.

That I disagree with.

For example, Hitlers rise would never have occurred. (Most probably would have not, anyways)

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

That I disagree with.

For example, Hitlers rise would never have occurred. (Most probably would have not, anyways)

So if humanity was more logical Hitler would not have risen to power. Maybe so. But what does that mean in relation to my statment? I'm saying that logic can interfer with progress, causing stagnation and eventual decline. Logic gets in the way of inovation. Logic curbs risk taking. Logic is boring. Lets face it, its the ********* who survive their own stupidity that advance society.

 

[fallingblood]

So one is really better off not having heard the gospel.

If an evangelical is spreading it, probably yes.

 

[fallingblood]

But then isn't it best not to tell anyone about the gospel?

Isn't therefore telling someonet he gospel a potential infinite torture sentence, since then it becomes possible they'd go to Hell?

That's perplexing!

Now this is just from one perspective (one that I think is wrong. 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) but the idea is that if one has been told the gospel, and rejects it, then they are making a decision to go to hell.

 

[Meow Mix]

Now this is just from one perspective (one that I think is wrong. 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) but the idea is that if one has been told the gospel, and rejects it, then they are making a decision to go to hell.

Okay, but then why tell someone about the gospel then, if it's not possible to go to Hell if they haven't heard it? I know you aren't an adherent of Hell, but do you see the relevant question that I'm asking to those that do?

If the goal of spreading the gospel is to keep people out of Hell, but the act of spreading the gospel is what allows people to go to Hell in the first place, isn't there a severe problem here?

 

[Skwim]

If an evangelical is spreading it, probably yes.

Hey! Hell is a very well know retirement community among most Christians, so I'm inclined to believe it's more than just the evangelicals who are getting all kinds of people in dutch with the Big Guy. .

 

[Photonic]

Okay, but then why tell someone about the gospel then, if it's not possible to go to Hell if they haven't heard it? I know you aren't an adherent of Hell, but do you see the relevant question that I'm asking to those that do?

If the goal of spreading the gospel is to keep people out of Hell, but the act of spreading the gospel is what allows people to go to Hell in the first place, isn't there a severe problem here?

Considering that would make gospel spreaders the most evil people on Earth...

 

[Meow Mix]

Considering that would make gospel spreaders the most evil people on Earth...

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?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

Right. Given those premises, Andrea Yates was a model parent.

But then isn't it best not to tell anyone about the gospel?

Isn't therefore telling someonet he gospel a potential infinite torture sentence, since then it becomes possible they'd go to Hell?

That's perplexing!

I remember hearing a story years ago (maybe here) that went something like this:

After listening to a missionary explain the Gospel to him, an Inuit* man says to the missionary, "what would have happened if you had not told me all this?"

The missionary says, "well, then you wouldn't have known. God wouldn't send you to Hell for something that wasn't your fault."

The Inuit man thinks for a moment and says, "then why did you come?"






*it was an Inuit man in the original story I heard, but since it's probably all fictitious anyhow, I'm not sure it matters.

 

[Walkntune]

Usually morality lies on the harder road while logic takes the easiest.

 

[Shermana]

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?

Ancient Jews and Modern Hasidics have long believed in Reincarnation...

 

[Meow Mix]

Ancient Jews and Modern Hasidics have long believed in Reincarnation...

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.

 

[Skwim]

Usually morality lies on the harder road while logic takes the easiest.

False dichotomy. Wanna take another stab?

 

[Corkscrew]

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.


My point, ultimately, is to those that believe these premises: perhaps it's time to re-evaluate them maybe?

Very good point! I think it’s time to come out with a newer testament to work out more of the bugs.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

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.

Paul disagreed with this idea in Romans 1:18-20 when he says since god revealed himself through creation that "people are without excuse." so according to Paul's teachings it's not necessarily better to have never heard the gospel because technically you can still be thrown in hell for never interpreting the beauty of nature as evidence for a god. i think this is a little hairbrained, but he did have his bases covered.

i still think of 'the gospel' as a sickness, but not necessarily one that has consequences after one dies. it's all the trouble it causes before that's the real issue.

Usually morality lies on the harder road while logic takes the easiest.

morality actually comes more naturally to humans than most people get credit for. some moral decisions are more difficult to make simply because one must compare personal consequences with the consequences that will affect others. as far as logic taking the easiest road i think you're confusing ease with parsimony. often the straight line path is not the easiest, though it's the shortest and most concise.

 

[9Westy9]

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?

Just shows that they don't believe it as a definitive proof. They may think that babies go to heaven but it doesn't mean that babies do go to heaven.