God's Judgment of Dead Babies

[Tumah]

Greetings, Tumah! Wow, I honestly did not know that Orthodox Judaism has believed in reincarnation. I know even less about Judaism than I had thought. I'm not very familiar about the teachings of the Torah.

The idea is that the Torah only discusses what I need to know for this world. The behind the scenes information is left in the "for further reading" section. So the Torah does not discuss the soul, reincarnation, Heaven and Hell, etc. But its discussed at length in other sources.

 

[JayJayDee]

G'day, JayJayDee! My best friend in high school was a Jehovah's Witness. I had learned a lot about Jehovah and the Bible from Jehovah's Witnesses. One of my questions which remains unanswered is "How did the kangaroos get from where Noah's Ark landed to Australia? Cheers!

This is one question the Bible does not answer. Australia is such a unique country with many unique creatures.
Monotremes are not found in any other part of the world. But then there are other creatures that are unique to other continents as well. Perhaps there were land bridges connecting the continents that seismic activity destroyed, thousands of years ago, perhaps even as a result of the flood, isolating the creatures that located themselves there? Who knows?.....God does.

We know that Noah took representative "kinds" of animals onto the ark and that it was not Noah who selected them. So I don't believe that every single species of very "kind" was on the ark. Nor do I discount what may have occurred as a result of God's blessing on the arrangement. He simply doesn't tell us.

I believe that the animals taken on board the ark represented the "kinds" that God chose to repopulate the earth.
There were 7 of the "clean" animals and two of the others. Why 7? There were three breeding pairs and one for sacrifice. This was the first thing Noah did on coming out of the ark as his expression of gratitude to Jehovah for the salvation of his family. The designation of a "clean" animal was at first only for the purpose of sacrifice but later became the only animals that Israelites could eat according to their law.

Have you ever wondered why it was that God chose to destroy the wicked population of earth by flood in the first place?

He could have just zapped the evil ones out of existence, but he chose to save mankind and the animals in this way. Only air breathing land creatures perished.....those that lived in the water remained as they were.

The flood accomplished much. It symbolically cleansed the earth, eliminating from existence all wicked humanity, including the freakish and violent offspring of rebel angels, who had no right to exist. It was they who were responsible for the violence and bloodshed in the world at that time, influencing others to emulate their destructive disposition.

It also forced the rebels angels back to the spirit realm where God placed them under restraint.

The flood provided many pictorial examples that God has used since to demonstrate how certain things will happen in the future.

e.g. Noah was instructed to build the ark himself. God did not miraculously provide the vessel or the materials to construct it. He provided the 'blueprints' but all the hard work was left to Noah and his sons. Having to start from scratch, he took decades to complete this monumental task, showing us that we also must work hard for our salvation, gathering the materials and making our ark water tight and able to withstand many pressures.

Noah's sons also demonstrate that we have to separate ourselves from the attitudes and conduct of wicked humanity, not allowing their immoral or violent conduct to influence our own children.

The children of all those who died in the flood, perished with them. This demonstrates that the parents are responsible for the lives of their children.

Jesus also used the flood of Noah's day to show how people in our day would respond to his message of salvation. (Matt 24:36-39; 24:14) If we understand why people ignored Noah back then, we will see the same attitude today.

Peter used the flood to highlight the fact that just as surely as God brought the wickedness of that time to an end, he would do it again....God's past judgments picture his future ones. (2 Pet 2:5, 6; 3:3-7)

Fascinating stuff......

 

[Ingledsva]

I understand where you're coming from. I don't believe that. I can go a full day without sinning. What would be examples of sinning unintentionally? I know if someone had a knife to my thought, I wouldn't be thinking "what would God think about this if I killed Him for my life?" Rather, I would from self-dense. That's a sin. I made a conscious intent from a fight or flight response to fight against my opponent to save my life.

Unless maybe someone who has a mental health disability?

I don't think self-defense would be a sin. After all, according to the story, Jesus defended himself, until he was ready for the Sacrifice.

He had swordsmen with him. He rabble-roused and then ducked out the back to escape, several times, etc.

*

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I personally believe killing for any reason is immoral. Whether it is a sin, well, depends on scripture. A lot of people say "God will understand." That, and of course, it's Jesus--He can do whatever He wants, right?

I don't think self-defense would be a sin. After all, according to the story, Jesus defended himself, until he was ready for the Sacrifice.

He had swordsmen with him. He rabble-roused and then ducked out the back to escape, several times, etc.

*

 

[Smart_Guy]

I chose "God loves all children, they are all innocent and will go to Heaven."

This is the Islamic answer.

 

[BSM1]

I chose "God loves all children, they are all innocent and will go to Heaven."

This is the Islamic answer.

Evident He hasn't met my four-year-old potty-mouthed grandson yet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I chose "God loves all children, they are all innocent and will go to Heaven."

This is the Islamic answer.

I've heard the same thing from Christians, too.

So...

- a person who dies as an innocent child will definitely go to Heaven.
- a person who dies as an adult might end up in Hell.

This means that the most charitable act that a person could do is to kill a young child. After all, what greater gift could there be than ensuring than ensuring that someone will go to Heaven and avoid Hell?

 

[Smart_Guy]

Evident He hasn't met my four-year-old potty-mouthed grandson yet.

God bless your grandson

 

[Smart_Guy]

I've heard the same thing from Christians, too.

So...

- a person who dies as an innocent child will definitely go to Heaven.
- a person who dies as an adult might end up in Hell.

This means that the most charitable act that a person could do is to kill a young child. After all, what greater gift could there be than ensuring than ensuring that someone will go to Heaven and avoid Hell?

Nope, killing innocent young children, or any innocent being for that matter, is forbidden and a sin. Doing something forbidden/sinful simply to achieve something thought to be charitable, is wrong and does not make sense.

Where do you get these thoughts anyways? Man, you're dangerous to society!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope, killing innocent young children, or any innocent being for that matter, is forbidden and a sin. Doing something forbidden/sinful simply to achieve something thought to be charitable, is wrong and does not make sense.

Just because something is forbidden doesn't mean it isn't charitable.

Sure, if God would send you to Hell for doing it, there would a tremendous personal cost, but sometimes, people think that self-sacrifice is worth it. Sometimes, a person (a parent?) will value the well-being of a child more than their own.

Where do you get these thoughts anyways? Man, you're dangerous to society!

Don't worry - I'm an atheist. This is all hypothetical to me.

And I didn't come up with the idea. There have been many cases where devout parents have killed their children to make sure they'd go to Heaven. The Andrea Yates case is one recent example.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Just because something is forbidden doesn't mean it isn't charitable.

Sure, if God would send you to Hell for doing it, there would a tremendous personal cost, but sometimes, people think that self-sacrifice is worth it. Sometimes, a person (a parent?) will value the well-being of a child more than their own.

Don't worry - I'm an atheist. This is all hypothetical to me.

And I didn't come up with the idea. There have been many cases where devout parents have killed their children to make sure they'd go to Heaven. The Andrea Yates case is one recent example.

It is sinful and doing it is a crime. Enough reason to stop people from doing it and for reasonable people to not do it.

Why would someone believe that killing children will take them to heaven and do a sin at the same time, unless they are lunatics? They would contradict with their own beliefs as they believed in a part and intentionally went against another.

Never heard of this Andrea Yates case. Was she a Muslim?

 

[Salvador]

I've heard the same thing from Christians, too.

So...

- a person who dies as an innocent child will definitely go to Heaven.
- a person who dies as an adult might end up in Hell.

This means that the most charitable act that a person could do is to kill a young child. After all, what greater gift could there be than ensuring than ensuring that someone will go to Heaven and avoid Hell?

The problem with this idea is that the person who kills a baby or allows the baby to die would go to Hell. Only God is allowed to kill babies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is sinful and doing it is a crime. Enough reason to stop people from doing it and for reasonable people to not do it.

Why would someone believe that killing children will take them to heaven and do a sin at the same time, unless they are lunatics? They would contradict with their own beliefs as they believed in a part and intentionally went against another.

You told us that you believe innocent children who die go to Heaven. Everything else I've said just flows from that and an assessment of the costs and benefits.

Never heard of this Andrea Yates case. Was she a Muslim?

No - Christian.

 

[Salvador]

Just because something is forbidden doesn't mean it isn't charitable.

Sure, if God would send you to Hell for doing it, there would a tremendous personal cost, but sometimes, people think that self-sacrifice is worth it. Sometimes, a person (a parent?) will value the well-being of a child more than their own.


Don't worry - I'm an atheist. This is all hypothetical to me.

And I didn't come up with the idea. There have been many cases where devout parents have killed their children to make sure they'd go to Heaven. The Andrea Yates case is one recent example.

I hope Andrea Yates repents for her sins and becomes a strong believer in God, so that she could be reunited with her children whom she killed so that they'd get their free pass to Heaven. Perhaps Andrea Yates could also still get to Heaven if God were to find her innocent by reason of insanity.

 

[Marisa]

Imagine how much we could be accomplishing if we weren't spending our energy worrying over questions that can never be answered? All we can know about what happens after anything dies we already do know. Live your life, be the best you that you can be and if there is any supreme being concerned with passing judgment over you when you're dead you're set. If that being is worth respecting, it doesn't require from us something we can't give, which to my mind is blind faith based on a complete lack of knowledge. Such a being is not worth respect, let alone veneration and worship.

 

[metis]

I think of the soul as a God-given spiritual part of every human; the soul enables humans to experience life after their biological death. Humans will experience life after death; because God will reunite the human soul with its newly formed God-given body that will be forced by God to face God's final judgment. The human souls who are judged by God to be righteous believers of Him will be rewarded by God for their faith and good deeds; whereas, the human souls who are judged as unrighteous unbelievers of God will be punished by God.

The reason why I posted the question was because, not only are there various definitions that people here and elsewhere have said or written, but that it is in reality impossible to either confirm or deny any definition-- it's basically an abstraction. Therefore, my question was sorta tongue-in-cheek, but thanks for responding anyway.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem with this idea is that the person who kills a baby or allows the baby to die would go to Hell. Only God is allowed to kill babies.

Yes - religions that preach that innocent children go to Heaven also usually preach that killing these children would be punished harshly. This gets back to the whole "self-sacrifice" thing I mentioned before.

 

[Smart_Guy]

You told us that you believe innocent children who die go to Heaven. Everything else I've said just flows from that and an assessment of the costs and benefits.
No - Christian.

Yes, I said that. I didn't say that means killing them is right just because of that.

Atheists also know that life is full of hardships, war, diseases, rape, famine, etc. and they know death means getting free from it. Would you kill your child or anyone just because of that (I'd say you wouldn't, you seem like a good person to me)? I wouldn't and I believe anyone with any decency wouldn't too.

Hmm, dunno how it is in Christianity, but in Islam killing innocent children, is forbidden.

 

[Marisa]

The problem with this idea is that the person who kills a baby or allows the baby to die would go to Hell. Only God is allowed to kill babies.

How very profound. God (your god, not any of the other gods that have existed with equivalent evidence for existence and who's followers believed just as fervently as you that they'd found the "truth") is allowed to kill. I can't comprehend why we should judge any entity which kills any differently than we judge our own species' killers. Is this part of the food chain? No. Does this god have reason to fear for his life? Not that we can tell. So, those explanations are out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I said that. I didn't say that means killing them is right just because of that.

Atheists also know that life is full of hardships, war, diseases, rape, famine, etc. and they know death means getting free from it. Would you kill your child or anyone just because of that (I'd say you wouldn't, you seem like a good person to me)? I wouldn't and I believe anyone with any decency wouldn't too.

Even with all life's hardships, I think that life is still a net positive most of the time. At the very least, I'm open to the possibility that someone facing a life of adversity could rationally prefer life to death.

When it comes to Heaven and Hell, though, there's no question of what's rational: if Heaven and Hell exist, then Heaven is preferable to Hell, period.

Hmm, dunno how it is in Christianity, but in Islam killing innocent children, is forbidden.

Yes - it would probably mean incurring the wrath of God. A person wouldn't choose to endure this to protect someone else from God's wrath unless they truly, deeply, selflessly loved them. This is why I said that it would be the ultimate act of charity.