Children pose a problem for the doctrine of hell.

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 58
Topic's author
#1
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
There are only two possibilities if we assume hell is real:
  1. Children and infants go to hell.
  2. Children and infants do not go to hell.
Each of these options are problematic for the Christian fundamentalist.


Option 1: Children and infants go to hell. They died before they could accept Jesus as their lord and savior. The children in the old testament that God had violently slaughtered along with their parrents: yeah, they are in hell. They were created by God, killed by God and then tortured by God for all eternity. 

Option 2: Children and infants do not go to hell. This must be explained by at least one of these options: 
  1. You have to actually have a certain level of maturity to be able to commit a sin, and you have to sin before becomming eligible for hell.
  2. Jesus saves all the children regardless of their lack of faith while they were alive. 
  3. Children don't have souls, so they go nowhere. 
1 and 2 have disturbing implications. If children automatically go to heaven, then they are better off being aborted or infanticided. Because if they grow up they have to exchange their ticket to heaven with a ticket to hell. By dying early, they not only avoid the hell here on earth, they also escape the actuall literal hell. And if children don't have souls then they are no better than animals according to Christian logic. 
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,586
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Children and infants go to hell
There were Christians who defended position that non-Christian infants go to hell.

An insane position, you would think.

But actually, the other position (that they dont go to hell, but to heaven) is just as insane, because then it would be immoral to give birth and abortions would actually be greatly beneficial for unborns.
#3
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
i think you are being too legalistic with the mind of God. but it's fair to criticize how empty christian fundamentalism is. 

God knows the heart of everyone. he knows how children would have lived, and he knows their natural tendencies. if you think of heaven and hell as levels of vibration, in which we can improve and decline and move around, children probably just live their lives in the afterlife instead of this life and go to where their nature fits into. 
#4
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 336
Posts: 866
3
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
3
4
4
-->
@Benjamin
@Best.Korea
Babies and children are innocent by nature is that correct?
#5
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 336
Posts: 866
3
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
3
4
4
-->
@n8nrgim
Do you think people struggle with the idea namely atheists that the narrative of God is all knowing which plays a big part in what's reasonable and justified?
#6
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 336
Posts: 866
3
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
3
4
4
-->
@Best.Korea
The question that arises. A baby doesn't deserve hell, what have they done?

But what has a baby done to deserve heaven?

Now with the abortion, God may have mercy on the baby , have them enter into his kingdom. But throw the aborting doctors and parents into the lake of fire.
#7
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
western christians have the concept of original sin, the idea that we are born into sin. eastern christians, though, believe in the idea of 'propensity to sin'. we aren't born sinful, we are merely born with the propensity to sin. if you take western theology seriously, babies are born sinful and never repented, but if you dont assume that, we can imply that babies aren't guilty of sin. after all, they aren't born into it, and they aren't capable of sin as a baby. the fairest definition of sin, is intentionally doing what you know is wrong... it has all those elements, and babies dont have intention or knowing and thus aren't guilty. 

but i like my God as all knowing and the different vibrations theory better. 
#8
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,586
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Mall
Now with the abortion, God may have mercy on the baby , have them enter into his kingdom. But throw the aborting doctors and parents into the lake of fire.
Well, statistically, parents will most likely go to hell anyway since most people go to hell.

You assume that parents going to hell and their children to heaven is a bad thing, and that its better to have both parents and children likely going to hell.

But abortion increases heaven population.

So if baby will go to heaven if aborted, and probably go to hell if given birth too, and parents likely going to hell even if they give birth, abortion seems like a much better choice for the baby and likely doesnt change much for parents.

The other option is that abortion guarantees that parents will go to hell and baby will go to heaven.

So if 2 parents abort 8 babies, then 80% of people from that group go to heaven.

So one cannot really judge parents who sacrificed themselves to send their 8 children to heaven.
#9
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
One can assume anything.
#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mall
Why would an atheist bother to struggle with something that is not worth bothering to struggle with?

Kids die.

So:

1.  Put them in a box and burn them.

Or:

2. Put them in a box in the ground and leave the to decay.

Are the two most popular options.



No problem.



#11
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Benjamin
There's a third option. 

Infants of believers go to Heaven as well. 

That is what many Christians would hold to. 

In most of the church denominations in the world, excluding baptists, churches of christ, charismatic, and SDA and a few other dissident ones, infants are baptised. 

It is only those of the born again - say a prayer to Jesus type that would probably have the issues that you have suggested. 

Why? because the Reformed church for instance doesn't believe in the libertarian free will or choice of people to become believers in the first place. We say - that it is a matter of God deciding who his elect are.  This is why we don't have an issue baptising children. 

Baptists of course would have to find a reason like you suggest. 

But not the Reformed churches, Epicopalian or Catholic or Orthodox churches. The run of the mill dissidents need to find a solution. 

We say it is a matter of God's choice.  Most of us would hold to the view that infants go to heaven when they die. Some of us might qualify it and say only baptised infants. I don't agree since aborted babies can't be baptised  Others say - that infants of believers are saved and everyone else is not of the elect. 

So from my point of view - you not only missed the third position but you have once again revealed your ignorance of the traditional view of Christianity. But hey, what's new? 
Topic's author
#12
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
I am well aware of that option. I was just waiting for someone to raise that point so that I could adress their excact articulation of it.

Infants of believers go to Heaven as well. 
This naturally implies that infants of nonbelievers go to hell. This means that the vast majority of infants are going to hell. In the Bible God enacts multiple genocides and kills thousands of infants. So God chose to create them. He then elects to murder them and torture them for all eternity. So God doesn't love these people he created.


the Reformed church for instance doesn't believe in the libertarian free will or choice of people to become believers in the first place. 
Then they believe in a God that wants to have more people in hell. Without libertarian free will it is God that chose whether or not we believe in him. God in that view is specifically chosing to create people that will end up in hell, instead of people that will believe in him and get saved. So that kind of God does not want everyone saved.
#13
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 336
Posts: 866
3
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
3
4
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Oh maybe struggle is not the right word. Let's say, having trouble understanding.
#14
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 336
Posts: 866
3
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
3
4
4
-->
@Best.Korea
I'm not making any assumptions. I'm just throwing possibilities out there.
#15
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,122
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Once humans developed a language they tried to come up with a reason why life was so horrible.
#16
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 95
0
1
2
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
1
2
-->
@Tradesecret
@Benjamin
There is no biblical reference in what happens to infants' souls when they die.

There is tons of speculation of what would happen and it usually comes with a narrative that helps the certain parents cope with the death of their own baby or miscarriage.  This is also reinforced with some sort of biblical passage to back up their claim.

With that said, no Christian knows what does or does not happen to babies aborted, new born deaths or children deaths.

At some point in age, the person will be responsible for their own actions, but there is also no Bible directive for that age either.

It is unknown and since no baby or fetus has come back to life to tell of theirs tortures or heavenly experiences, we Christians can only know that God is just in his ways.

My personal belief is that God takes the soul of that fetus or infant and give it another chance elsewhere.  Again, no bible on this, just my theory.  Good as any I guess.
#17
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 95
0
1
2
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
1
2
-->
@FLRW
Why do you change your picture so much?  I think I noticed 3 changes since I logged in this morning.
#18
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,122
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@DavidAZZ

I'm Quantum Leaping.
#19
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Benjamin
I am well aware of that option. I was just waiting for someone to raise that point so that I could adress their excact articulation of it. 

Infants of believers go to Heaven as well. 
This naturally implies that infants of nonbelievers go to hell. This means that the vast majority of infants are going to hell. In the Bible God enacts multiple genocides and kills thousands of infants. So God chose to create them. He then elects to murder them and torture them for all eternity. So God doesn't love these people he created.


the Reformed church for instance doesn't believe in the libertarian free will or choice of people to become believers in the first place. 
Then they believe in a God that wants to have more people in hell. Without libertarian free will it is God that chose whether or not we believe in him. God in that view is specifically chosing to create people that will end up in hell, instead of people that will believe in him and get saved. So that kind of God does not want everyone saved.

I hold to the view that most people in the history of the world will go to heaven. This is the biblical idea. God does not murder anyone. Total nonsense. 

You still need to get your head around the idea that God although the author of history is not the second cause. And it is the second cause, who freely of their own volition are responsible for their actions.  The first cause has I suppose for want of a better word, immunity.  
#20
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@DavidAZZ
Okay. 

I think there are enough things in the Bible to indicate that God is good and holy. And just. 

I don't believe in reincarnation. 


#21
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 95
0
1
2
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
1
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I think there are enough things in the Bible to indicate that God is good and holy. And just. 
I hope I didn't indicate that there was no Bible for God being Holy and just.  I was referring to the idea of where children go without the ability to choose.

I don't believe in reincarnation. 
Neither do I, as in live your life and then do better or worse in a next life.  But God can do anything and as for a child who does not have the ability to choose or reject God, I would assume that would put them in a position that they could then choose to reject or accept him.  I don't think that  the infant would recognize this, but if a soul is eternal and the body temporal, then why would God not allow that soul a chance like he did you or me?

Again, just my opinion.  No Bible for any of that.

#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mall
Well.

Data assessment is not difficult, if the data is of a recognisable format.

Though interpretation might take a few moments rather than be instantaneous.

It all depends upon how familiar one is with a particular composition, it's definable parts and how the composer intended it's composition to be representative.

Language and it's definitions, is a broad subject.
Topic's author
#23
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@DavidAZZ
There is no biblical reference in what happens to infants' souls when they die.
The Bible does explain what happens to every single human being: they go to hell, unless they accept the gospel. 

It is unknown and since no baby or fetus has come back to life to tell of theirs tortures or heavenly experiences, we Christians can only know that God is just in his ways.
That has two interpretations. 1. You would still call it justice if God tortured infants for all eternity. 2. You believe God would never do something like that, because he is just.

My personal belief is that God takes the soul of that fetus or infant and give it another chance elsewhere.
But since the fetus hasn't developed any personality traits or conscious memories, so it still has the default soul. To say that the soul is reincarnated has the same effect as saying it never received. The end result either way is that 2 fetuses are born, but only one of them grows up, and only one soul goes to heaven or hell.



Topic's author
#24
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
I hold to the view that most people in the history of the world will go to heaven. This is the biblical idea.
Matthew 7:13-14: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."  JESUS HIMSELF DISAGREES WITH YOU. Secondly, we know for sure that the majority of current and historical people are neither christian nor jews. So according to your idea of heaven being more populated than hell, salvation is not restricted to those that worship the true God. 

God does not murder anyone. Total nonsense. 
You still need to get your head around the idea that God although the author of history is not the second cause.
Let us grant this claim, since you are unwilling to even adress my point about world history being REAL EVENTS WITH REAL PEOPLE, not just a fictional story God wrote. Even in your world, God is still a character in his own story. Humans interact with him, and he holds power in that story. God has written himself to be the biggest asshole in history. He is cannonically present at every rape scene, with every opportunity to prevent the rapes, but he choses to permit the crime. Even his own people, the jews and the christians, get raped -- despite God's claim that he is going to protect them. 

The first cause has I suppose for want of a better word, immunity.  
Let me get this straight: 
  • You do not believe in free will, you believe that God is the author of history that includes our every action.
  • So it was God, not the rapist, that decided the rape should happen.
  • A person is forced to commit rape by God himself. 
  • The rapist is just a pawn in God's book.
  • ???
  • God is not responsible for the rape.

#25
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@DavidAZZ
Tradesecret wrote @DavidAZZ:
I think there are enough things in the Bible to indicate that God is good and holy. And just. #20

This claim has been made many times by the Reverend Tradesecret and many times he has failed to direct us , when asked to,  to  where in the bible god is  shown to be "good and holy. And just". 



#26
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 95
0
1
2
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
1
2
-->
@Benjamin
The Bible does explain what happens to every single human being: they go to hell, unless they accept the gospel. 
True, but in this case we are referring to the children that do have the ability to choose to accept.  So that is why this is a grey area according to the Bible.  I do believe that God will send people to hell who reject him and will give eternal judgement to the devil and his "angels".  But how can God pour judgement on something that is cannot choose to be a devil's angel?

That has two interpretations. 1. You would still call it justice if God tortured infants for all eternity. 2. You believe God would never do something like that, because he is just.
Good point and let me clarify.  Since there is no clear answer to our discussion Biblically, I believe that God would work a way for that infant to receive "salvation" one way or another.  He would show mercy, somehow, I just don't know what would actually happen.  I do not think that God would just say "Oh well!  Into hell you go!"

But since the fetus hasn't developed any personality traits or conscious memories, so it still has the default soul. To say that the soul is reincarnated has the same effect as saying it never received. The end result either way is that 2 fetuses are born, but only one of them grows up, and only one soul goes to heaven or hell.
Again, let me define what I mean.  I suppose there is a lot of interpretation of what is and is not a soul. I would say that a man is made up of 3 parts, body, soul and spirit. We all know what a body is, the spirit is the life inside that man, and the soul is the "forever" part of that man and the personality.  The soul would be the thing that would be required of God and the thing that would be judged right or wrong.  The body is temporal as it will turn back to dust (decompose) and the spirit will leave and go back to God from whence it came when the man dies, but the soul will live on.  SO, in saying all that, it would make sense to me that as a child is born, it receives it's soul (personality) and spirit (breath of life) and if that infant dies, the soul can be "assigned" to another body.

Again, all of this is only my take on this with a little Bible reference.  So this is all speculation on my part.
Topic's author
#27
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@DavidAZZ
I do not think that God would just say "Oh well!  Into hell you go!"
He does excactly this for people that lived in the Amazon Rainforest or some obscure island and never heard about Jesus. Well according to the Bible at least. 

You will maybe bring up general revelation. But explain to me how an uneducated tribe with no writing system or philosophy degree is going to deduce monotheism. 


 soul (personality)
Personality is not supernatural, only an emergent property of the physical. It is a  word to describe the patterns our brains have formed about how to think, feel and act. 

the soul can be "assigned" to another body.
But that means that the original soul would need to be fired. Also, if a soul can just connect to another body then they are all interchangeable.


Again, all of this is only my take on this with a little Bible reference.  So this is all speculation on my part.
That is the point. The concept of children and the idea of justified hell are not compatible without tons of extrabiblical speculation.
#28
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@DavidAZZ
Tradesecret wrote @DavidAZZ:
I think there are enough things in the Bible to indicate that God is good and holy. And just. #20

This claim has been made many times by the Reverend Tradesecret and many times he has failed to direct us , when asked to,  to  where in the bible god is  shown to be "good and holy. And just". 

IN FACT you had claimed the similar by posing the " goodness of god" as a question to me directly in this thread that you created under your other user name of  DavidAZ:  <<< one Z as opposed to your new double Z




Where, just like that dulcet dunce the Reverend Tradesecret,  you appear to have failed too. You never did finish that conversation but simply deserted it. Would you like to take it up again now you are back and refreshed with your new double Z monica?
#29
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 95
0
1
2
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
1
2
-->
@Benjamin
He does excactly this for people that lived in the Amazon Rainforest or some obscure island and never heard about Jesus. Well according to the Bible at least. 
You will maybe bring up general revelation. But explain to me how an uneducated tribe with no writing system or philosophy degree is going to deduce monotheism. 

You know this for sure? If you read this Bible you claim to know, then you would know that he calls all men everywhere to repent.  He has a way to reach the amazon tribes.  Just because you never heard of it, doesn't mean it never happens.

Also, he has different demands for different people.  I do not believe that the nation of Israel was the only "good" people in the old testament.  Look at different stories from the Bible and how he judged certain nations.  How can one be judged if they are given a law to abide by?  There was a general law of righteousness given in ancient times.  Look at Hammurabi and how his law was very similar to the Mosaic law.  Look at the story of Jonah and how he was sent to the heathen nation of Nineveh to repent and they knew what Jonah was referring to and repented.

I don't know what the afterlife will bring for all people.  I DO know what it will be for ME if I decide to blatantly ignore his word with silly questions and to justify my actions due to my ignorance of how God works.  Most of the American people, if not all, have heard of the Bible and God.  WE are without excuse.  I would give the Amazonian tribe a lot more slack than any of us.

Personality is not supernatural, only an emergent property of the physical. It is a  word to describe the patterns our brains have formed about how to think, feel and act. 
Split the hairs here Benjamin, but my point is the soul is the person that lives on.  Whether you think it's supernatural or not is beyond the point.

But that means that the original soul would need to be fired. Also, if a soul can just connect to another body then they are all interchangeable.
Wow.  You really created a lot of laws here by yourself.  Good work! A soul needs to be fired?  They are all interchangeable?  Who says there is not a God assigning souls to bodies?

That is the point. The concept of children and the idea of justified hell are not compatible without tons of extrabiblical speculation.
I see your point in this comment and I will say that I will have the Bible to help be a roadmap to life, but the Bible does not answer every idle question that we can come up with.  We are not smarter than God because we have a "gotcha" question that no Christian can answer.  We are simply instructed to obey.
#30
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 95
0
1
2
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
1
2
-->
@Stephen
Where, just like that dulcet dunce the Reverend Tradesecret,  you appear to have failed too. You never did finish that conversation but simply deserted it. Would you like to take it up again now you are back and refreshed with your new double Z monica?
Ah, the ever so angry Stephen who is mad at God for some reason and will never reveal it.  Then goes on to state how the Bible is foolish but will believe silly fables like the alien theory of our origins. LOL!

For the record, I AM NOT Tradesecret and you are really ignorant to come up with that idea.  If it was made as a stab to me to identify me as him, then touché, as I think tradesecret doesn't really know what the Bible says either.

And I did mess up my other account with only one Z.  If you must know, it was from a work computer because I was bored one day and wanted stimulating conversation with other people who thought different than me.  I have since lost that login since I no longer work there.  So I made a new one with my own credentials since I enjoyed this site so much.

Now, to answer your question of the goodness of God thread, no, I don't wish to pursue it since it was just a thread to see what you thought, not to argue that God is good or not.  I can see your point of view from what you stated and I still think you are wrong.  Coming from the way you answer certain posts, I see that you are angry at God and want to destroy anything about him in your mind.  You don't believe in him and so you try to use any way to discount his existence.  To each his own, I guess.

BTW, the "monica" reference, is that a UK thing or were thinking that that's my name?