God's Judgment of Dead Babies

[Salvador]

If God is completely sovereign, then any situation where human beings end up in different places is unfair.

If God is knowingly, wilfully responsible for the universe and everything in it, then he's responsible for our actions, too. Our failings would be God's failings, and it would be unjust to punish us for them, just as it's unjust to beat a dog as it grows up (or watch and do nothing while someone else beats it) and then put it down for biting someone.

" ... In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

" ... In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

I like the way Eddie Izzard put it:

"If there is a God, his plan is very similar to someone not having a plan."

 

[Ingledsva]

If memories signify the onset of a soul, does that mean that amnesiacs get a free pass for all of the blank spots in their memories/souls?

I'd like to watch a Christian who believes in the doctrine of original sin, and supposedly the whole reason for Jesus' crucifixion, argue with those people who believe that babies are just blank slates who get a free ride until they are cognizant...

Here are just a couple of passages from the text of the Christian deity that don't support the theory of soulless until memory:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Psalms 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Psalms 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Proverbs 22:15
Foolishness [is] bound in the heart of a child; [but] the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

Ephesians 2:3
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Romans 5:19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

And not a single one of these says we are born with sin.

Psalms 51:5 ACTUALLY SAYS -

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.

In other words sex is iniquity = brought forth in iniquity.

Psalms 58:3 Estranged are the wicked from the womb; straying (beten) as they be born, thinking deceitfully.

Again no born with - they stray from birth - colloquialism meaning they were deceitful little monsters from very early on.



*

 

[jonathan180iq]

And not a single one of these says we are born with sin.

Psalms 51:5 ACTUALLY SAYS -

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.

In other words sex is iniquity = brought forth in iniquity.

Psalms 58:3 Estranged are the wicked from the womb; straying (beten) as they be born, thinking deceitfully.

Again no born with - they stray from birth - colloquialism meaning they were deceitful little monsters from very early on.



*

So Romans 3 doesn't explain the crucifixion of Jesus as being necessary for all of mankind, Jews and Gentiles alike, because sin encompasses every part of human existence and nothing else can save humanity but the atonement of Christ?

And Psalms isn't making the point in both passages that, from the very beginning, regardless of class or rank or upbringing, that everyone, including David, walks away from the path of righteousness from the moment of birth?

Are there, then, passages, describing that there is such a thing as an age of accountability? Is there more than one kinda-sorta reference?
Does the age of accountability include or exclude the disabled? What of the still-borns? Does anything specifically state that souls, for example, don't enter the body until the brain is able to be somewhat self-aware?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are there, then, passages, describing that there is such a thing as an age of accountability? Is there more than one kinda-sorta reference?

That comes from the presumption that God is just. I agree that this presumption is not in the Bible.

 

[Salvador]

So Romans 3 doesn't explain the crucifixion of Jesus as being necessary for all of mankind, Jews and Gentiles alike, because sin encompasses every part of human existence and nothing else can save humanity but the atonement of Christ?

And Psalms isn't making the point in both passages that, from the very beginning, regardless of class or rank or upbringing, that everyone, including David, walks away from the path of righteousness from the moment of birth?

Are there, then, passages, describing that there is such a thing as an age of accountability? Is there more than one kinda-sorta reference?
Does the age of accountability include or exclude the disabled? What of the still-borns? Does anything specifically state that souls, for example, don't enter the body until the brain is able to be somewhat self-aware?

Greetings, Jonathan180iq. I'm not aware of any biblical scripture that supports the notion of age of accountability. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any biblical scripture that mentally challenged individuals would be exempted from the biblical God's judgment. Are these some beliefs/ideas that some theists have made up as they go along? Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Greetings, Jonathan180iq. I'm not aware of any biblical scripture that supports the notion of age of accountability. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any biblical scripture that mentally challenged individuals would be exempted from the biblical God's judgment. Are these some beliefs/ideas that some theists have made up as they go along? Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy.

That's my whole point.

"God wouldn't hurt babies because babies are cute and God is good..."

That's a fine thought - but what happens when it's expanded?
And when those conclusions are followed far enough, then why should anyone care about the atonement of Jesus at all? And if we shouldn't, then why is there a religion based on this atonement in the first place? And if the world largest religion is just an idea that we like, and not something of substance, then what does it mean for the root of that religion, Judaism? And if Judaism is a farce as well, when what does that mean for Islam...etc, etc...

 

[Ingledsva]

So Romans 3 doesn't explain the crucifixion of Jesus as being necessary for all of mankind, Jews and Gentiles alike, because sin encompasses every part of human existence and nothing else can save humanity but the atonement of Christ?

ING - Why would that verse matter to this conversation? It does not say anyone is born with sin. It says me all have the capacity, and nature to sin to some degree.

And Psalms isn't making the point in both passages that, from the very beginning, regardless of class or rank or upbringing, that everyone, including David, walks away from the path of righteousness from the moment of birth?

ING - No - they are not! Even 58:3 says after, meaning at some point after birth. And you seem to be ignoring the other words in the sentence.

Did you notice it says THE WICKED are...? Thus the Good aren't! Which plays to the side of no-one being born with sin.

Are there, then, passages, describing that there is such a thing as an age of accountability?

Is there more than one kinda-sorta reference?

ING - This comes from the Jews - 12 or 13 is the age for the ceremony to join the adults, and be accountable.

Deuteronomy 1:39 And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

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

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Luke 2:42-46 And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom. And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem.


Does the age of accountability include or exclude the disabled?

ING - If you have studied this - then you know it depends on mental age if disabled.

What of the still-borns?

ING - According to the Bible and other Hebrew texts, - a fetus is just material, until the first breath of life, so obviously no accountability.

Does anything specifically state that souls, for example, don't enter the body until the brain is able to be somewhat self-aware?

CLICK HIS TO EXPAND -

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The Hebrew understood this to mean that the soul entered at birth, - with the first breath of life. However the child was not accountable until age 12 or 13 when they become part of the adult community. Here - Judaism 101: Bar Mitzvah, Bat Mitzvah and Confirmation

*

 

[Harmonious]

OK. He did heal the Canaanite woman's daughter eventually. But doesn't it seem like she really had to twist The Savior's arm on that one?

That's why I don't care for that particular story. I'm not impressed.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

So... she's a perpetual virgin because she was only ever "entered" by one person?

I'm not sure you understand how virginity works.

Maybe you don't. She was never entered into. She conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

The problem is that there is no logic in the story Christians came up with, - after stealing, - and mistranslating, and misunderstanding, Hebrew texts.

... Also you seem to be missing something. It does not matter which is used, virgin or maiden (probably a virgin,) as he goes in unto her - has sex - she conceives - and gives birth. THUS no longer a virgin/maiden.

*

I had assumed everyone already knew this, but you're the second person who evidently did not -- she never had sex. That's why she's a virgin. You can read about it in the Gospel of Saint Luke 1:26-38

 

[Harmonious]

It is interesting that most belief systems promote the idea that we have an immortal part of us that leaves the body at death. This is not what the Bible teaches. The Jews did not believe in an immortal soul.

Yes, they did, and do. It's just not what was the main focus on day to day doings.

They believed that the soul was the person themselves, and that when death occurred, the person would "sleep" in death until it was God's time to resurrect them.

No. That is what Jews believe happen to our BODIES. The texts of our scripture doesn't talk about the World to Come, but it was very much a part of Jewish philosophy, even as early as Esav selling Jacob the Birthright and why.

 

[Harmonious]

This is a parable, not a literal account.

Read it through and understand that as a Jew, Jesus had no idea of an afterlife

He would have, if he ever listened to Rabbis discussing the Oral Law.

because his Father's word does not teach such a thing.

I would posit that this speaks more of Jesus' ignorance of common Jewish philosophy, rather than accuracy of what Jews believed in. Not all of Jewish thought is encompassed by the text of Jewish scriptures.

It bothers me when Christians of any stripe try to explain what "Jews know and believe."

 

[Harmonious]

Jesus had the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to....these were the only scriptures that the Jews accepted.

In Eccl 9:4-6, 10 Solomon wrote...."There is hope for whoever is among the living, because a live dog is better off than a dead lion. For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten. Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they no longer have any share in what is done under the sun."...."Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, where you are going."

You know... What Jews believe is that, in the World to Come, there is no merit to be had, or choices to be made. However, the soul DOES live on, after this world. It is why on the anniversary of a loved one's death, Jews light candles and specifically learn Torah and otherwise do meritorious things in memory for the one who has passed away.

In essence, when they die, their potential for changing themselves is over. However, what people do in their name increases their merit, where they can earn no merit for themselves.

You are taking a verse and blowing it WAY out of proportion to what it truly means. But please don't try to explain "what Jews believe".

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You know... What Jews believe is that, in the World to Come, there is no merit to be had, or choices to be made. However, the soul DOES live on, after this world. It is why on the anniversary of a loved one's death, Jews light candles and specifically learn Torah and otherwise do meritorious things in memory for the one who has passed away.

In essence, when they die, their potential for changing themselves is over. However, what people do in their name increases their merit, where they can earn no merit for themselves.

You are taking a verse and blowing it WAY out of proportion to what it truly means. But please don't try to explain "what Jews believe".

That sounds really similar to the Catholic and Orthodox practice of praying for the dead.

 

[Harmonious]

That sounds really similar to the Catholic and Orthodox practice of praying for the dead.

In a fashion.

A common one we say is "Kel Maleh Rachamim":

O G-d, full of compassion, Who dwells on high, grant true rest upon the wings of the Shechinah (Divine Presence), in the exalted spheres of the holy and pure, who shine as the resplendence of the firmament, to the soul of

(mention his Hebrew name and that of his father)

who has gone to his [supernal] world, for charity has been donated in remembrance of his soul; may his place of rest be in Gan Eden (the Garden of Eden). Therefore, may the All-Merciful One shelter him with the cover of His wings forever, and bind his soul in the bond of life. The Lord is his heritage; may he rest in his resting-place in peace; and let us say: Amen.

 

[Harmonious]

Says Catholicism. I know we can't agree on these things. Maybe someday.

If you ever want to look into it, you might read a translation of the ancient Hebrew texts or the Greek Septuagint as it was before the destruction of the Temple and the sacred Jewish texts in 70 A.D. Many, many Jews converted to Christianity, especially after the resurrection, because they knew the messianic prophesies in the Septuagint and saw them fulfilled in Christ. That was a thorn in the side of anti-Christian Jews, so they rewrote the Septuagint, intentionally rewording certain verses to obscure these prophesies. For example, where it said in Isaiah that a virgin would give birth to a son, the new version, the Jamnian-Palestinian Translation, said "a young woman will give birth to a son." These changes were preserved in the Masoretic Texts.

Interesting.

You honestly think that Jesus meant enough to Jews SO MUCH SO that Jews had to CHANGE OUR OWN TEXTS just to falsify our own beliefs just so we could go on "refusing to acknowledge the truth"...

Jesus wasn't that important to Jews, as a whole. Ever.

 

[Harmonious]

I understand. All I can say more is that I, as a believer, would never kill a child because I know they are going to heaven. Children have their own lives and I'm in no position to take it from them. This is part of being a believer to me.

So you value God's sovereignty more than the well-being of children?

I don't think that's what he said. Rather, I think he was agreeing with you. He would NOT kill a child, just so it could go to heaven. He would do what he could to help the child HERE.

At least, that's how I read him.

 

[Harmonious]

And not a single one of these says we are born with sin.

Psalms 51:5 ACTUALLY SAYS -

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.

In other words sex is iniquity = brought forth in iniquity.

Actually, no, it isn't.

This verse is poetic hyperbole. The context of the rest of the Psalm is David, who is lamenting the sin Nathan called him on with Batsheva.

Because honestly: marital sex is one of the holiest activities humans can participate in. At least, it is in Jewish philosophy.

 

[Maranatha]

How does God judge the souls of dead babies? Do they all get a free pass to Heaven, even if they would have become evil adults who would have rebelled against God? Does God know the souls of the infants or children who would have grown up to become evil and worthy of Hell? Does God send the would-be evil souls to Hell or does God judge every dead infant as sinless and innocent, despite the fact that they would have chosen evil had they been given the chance? If God judges dead babies to be innocent and automatically worthy of Heaven, then why must adults live through the sufferings of this life to be tested and judged by God before we go to Heaven or Hell; whereas, all the infants or young children who die always go straight to Heaven?

The God that I have in my life does not judge dead babies (or anyone/thing else).

People who believe or experience God in their lives, don't all share the same view or definitions of what God is to them. That's what makes your question hard to answer.

Conservative Evangelican Christians, who mostly believe in an entirely personal, 'king' God, are likely to believe that God is seperate from "his subjects", is located in a 'place' called Heaven, and judges people based on their behaviour and actions.

To me, this legalistic, heavily Pauline notion of Christianity is as far removed from the real heart of Jesus' teachings and messages as it's possible to get. It seems many of these people do most of the judging for God! ......

Paul invented the notion of Hell that exists within conservative Christianity today. The Hell that Jesus may have spoke of, was the same as the Buddhist ideas on Hell - a condition that we put ourselves in, a hell on Earth, in this life, that we can create ourselves by wrong and unskillful actions. The Hell of fire and eternal burning and damnation belongs in a science fiction fantasy novel.

God, to me, does not judge dead babies, God is those dead babies, and the Doctors who lovingly tried to save them, and the Mothers who cried at their passing. God is not separate from the eyes and souls of every living being.