Jehovah Condemns Babies to Hell

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

B.Malcolm
Matt, you are being just a bit disingenuous when you ask to
be given Biblical evidence that infants/children go to Hell.
You probably know full well that there are no specific verses
dealing with the fates of infants.

Matthew Bell
Oh right, so when an errantist asks questions knowing fine well there is no
direct answers available all they are doing is using logical reasoning by
putting the burden of proof on he who asserts, but when an inerrantist does
the same they are being disingenuous! I will be sure to listen carefully to
anything you say re: double standards are you are obviously efficient in
using them.

POOBAH
Oh Puuleease. The burden of proof issue here is not as clear-cut as you
would have us believe and you are being disingenuous because you
deliberately made the issue sound more cut & dry than it really is. But fair
enough. I'll let other's judge whether me calling your admitted disingenuous
statement what it really was is really hypocrisy on my part.

I'm not worried about whether you listen carefully to me or not, Matt. You
obviously aren't reading my posts carefully, as you snipped everything of
substance and chose to respond with blanket accusations. I'll do you the
courtesy of showing why your verses are inappropriate, something you were
either unable or unwilling to do for mine.


>B.Malcolm

>What the Bible does deal with is absolutes, and I can't see

>that any exceptions are given for infants.


Matthew Bell
Well of course you can't see any exceptions. Such would not fit with your
desire to paint God in as negative a light as possible in order to justify
your rejection of Him. It's called bias.

POOBAH
Skip the ad hominems Matt and show how the verses I quoted allow exception.
Further, demonstrate how I showed a bias by quoting them in the manner I
did. No one is fooled by your personal attacks; you lash out personally when
you have no argument. Your counter-verses hardly bowled me over, and are
only tangentially related to the issue at hand, so I can hardly be called
deceitful for leaving them out. I'll note that you snipped the verses I
analyzed and didn't deal with them at all. Why is that?

Matthew Bell
Your argument has nothing to do with 'the most logical conclusion', but
everything to do with the interpretation which best suits my position. As
skeptics habitually do, you take verses out of the context of what the
Scriptures explicitly say re: infants/children and indeed some from the
mouth of Jesus Himself.

POOBAH
Oh bullshit. Show how I took the verses out of context or admit you're
simply using ad hominems to color the debate. If I quoted them out of
context, you could show what a deceitful hypocritical SOB I am by simply
putting the context back in. Of course, when Christians talk about
"context," they rarely are using the common literary meaning of the word,
which is examining a word/phrase by those that surround it. As Jeff "Wisdom"
demonstrated, context for Bible-thumpers means using one book written in a
different space & time by a different author to interpret another. But I
won't put words in Matt's mouth, I'll let him defend what he means by
context and how I offended it.

If you wanna talk about out of context, I'll show you out of context:

Matthew Bell
Psalm 127:3-5
Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him. Like arrows
in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they
contend with their enemies in the gate.

Scripture calls children a heritage and a reward and calls the man who has
many of them blessed.

POOBAH
How in the hell does this show anything about whether children will be sent
to Hell or not? I'm sure if I dig through the Bible I can find a statement
that a man with a lot of oxen is blessed, but I doubt you'd argue that
cattle go to heaven. I'll note in passing that the passage actually says
that a man who has lots of *sons* in his youth is blessed, not the sons, and
the reference to the children contending with enemies at the gate makes it
clear that "sons" isn't being used to refer to daughters, but that's another
argument.

In summary, non sequitur and fallacy of special pleading.

Matthew Bell
Examining the text of scripture, God has a very high view of children.

POOBAH
Yeah, here's your Jehovah's high view of children:
In Ezek20:26 Jehovah seems almost gleeful in speaking of the ancient
Hebrews, "I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by
fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them" (RSV)

A God so loving that he causes "highly viewed" children to be
burnt-sacrifices in order to horrify those that refuse to pay attention to
him.

Uh-huh.

Matthew Bell
Matthew 18:10
 "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you
that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven."

It can be rightly inferred from this verse that God has a special view of
children, since the remainder of humanity is never spoken of as having an
angel in heaven.

POOBAH
Non sequitur. Does not demonstrate that children have a free ticket to
heaven.

Explain how children having an angel in heaven shows that they are exempted
from Jesus command that only those that believe in him will be saved.

Further, I note you leave out a particularly damning verse from Matt 18:

Matt 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to
stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around
his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

How is it, Matt, that it is such a horrible crime to cause a little one to
stumble if they aren't in fact going to be judged?

As for Matt18:1-3 & Matt 19:13-15, I'll point out that these were both
*analogies*:

"Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and *become like children*,
you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

"But Jesus said, 'Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming
to Me; for the kingdom of heaven *belongs to such as these*.'"

Note that Jesus never says the kingdom of heaven belongs to children, it
belongs to adults who humble themselves as children.

Nonetheless, even if I grant your interpretation of the verses you quoted,
as I pointed out in the area you snipped, you are still left with a
contradiction with the absolute verses I quoted, and unsubstantiated claims
of "out of context!" won't remove that contradiction. Or perhaps you have a
better explanation for why various sub-sects of your cult disagree with your
interpretation?

Matthew Bell
Though I think that perhaps Kerry goes to far in his conclusions, I concur
with him that verses like the above are indirect hints re: the salvation of
infants who die. The conclusion I draw and proclaim is that the Scriptures
do not explicitly state the case one way or the other, hence the sensible
position is that of stating such, adding that whatever the case may turn
out to be Christians can be assured that the Judge of the earth will do
right.

POOBAH
Circular argument. God is good so he must be good to children. That's
precisely the issue, it can't be hand-waved away.

Finally, how can Jehovah have a "very high view of children," and never once
make explicit his plan or requirements for them, or give clear indication to
bereaved parents about their loved one's fate? We're talking about a god who
devotes endless pages telling us how his tabernacle should be set up, who
makes sure we know not to wear cotton-wool blends, making sure we remember
the descendents of Methuselah, and who evidently can't be bothered to make
this most critical of issues clear to us? The very fact that he chose not to
reveal his intentions is cruel.

• Previous message: Jehovah Condemns Babies to Hell
• Next message: Jehovah Condemns Babies to Hell
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]