Newborn dilemma.

[T00ts]

On the subject of children being pure there are actually many Biblical references and not one that I can find mentions them being in any way tainted with sin. If we are talking about 'original sin' that's illogical too since our original parents Adam and Eve couldn't multiply without eating of the tree of knowledge. God gave them the choice of two instructions that made it impossible for them to obey both.

It was something that they had to weigh up in their own minds and true to form Eve saw the point first. 
The serpent thought he had pulled a fast one by persuading Eve to disobey God but it backfired on him when she saw the subterfuge. His plan then and ever since is to guide as many as possible into his ways (bear with me those who think it's all a fable to engender fear in the masses) and into outer darkness by diligently persuading as many as possible not just with the tale that there is no God but by persuading us all that the laws that govern us and this earth don't matter. There will come a time when we will all have to choose a side once again and that fight will be spectacular.

I am convinced that a child that dies by-passes all the normal processes that you and I will have to experience in this life and beyond. They die sinless and therefore do not have the chance to 'prove' themselves. Someone who takes it upon themselves to create that situation completely misses the point of life as far as I am concerned. To do it knowing that their punishment would be eternal darkness ... well I guess Satan chalks one up for him.

Just as an aside according to my recent study a thought that is new to me - Jesus is the light so He tells us, does outer darkness actually mean that Jesus has abandoned them?

Thank you Naalar - an interesting question.

[johnofgwent]

But what is moral and where do you get your morality from?
History seems to show the best way to show real humanity is to kill your enemies.
Jesus says, "Love your enemies", which is a tall order.

Maybe you get your morality from scripture, and don't realise it?

Is that such a bad thing ?


Put bluntly, is it necessary to share a belief in a supreme being in order to share a belief that a style of behaviour demanded (according to previous believers) by that supreme being has merit in its own right.


I suspect a seriously large number of people calling mg themselves humanists would soundly agree with significant chunks of the behavioural code demanded of followers of one or more flavours of the abrahammic god.


I suspect they take issue with half of Leviticus though ... But that's another matter for another thread.

[johnofgwent]

Unlike JOG I do not believe that we are born with sin, therefore babies and young children are pure...

Well, I don't believe it either, but for different reasons, but I thought it a basic Christian tenet that all are tainted with sin. Now to be fair this is probably a topic for consideration outside this thread... But it's interesting to hear this ....

[cromwell]

But what is moral and where do you get your morality from?
History seems to show the best way to show real humanity is to kill your enemies.
Jesus says, "Love your enemies", which is a tall order.

Maybe you get your morality from scripture, and don't realise it?

Well I've always said on this subject Christianity has laid down some basic tenets of how to treat others.

Doesn't it perhaps occur some people decided to lay down those basic tenets and tried to assure they be followed by appealing to the plebs fear and superstition themselves secure in the knowledge here is no God but it surely would make their aims easier to attain?

[Barry]

It's what is moral,bugger all to do with religion but trying your best to show some real humanity to your fellows

But what is moral and where do you get your morality from?
History seems to show the best way to show real humanity is to kill your enemies.
Jesus says, "Love your enemies", which is a tall order.

Maybe you get your morality from scripture, and don't realise it?

[cromwell]

You can't be sure of that. There's no definites with faith. The only definite is that one day you will know.

And you Baz cannot be sure of the opposite,however if you're wrong you definitely won't know.

[cromwell]

LOL I do understand up to a point but for me the one (life) without the other (afterlife) seems to make it all a bit of a waste of time. Therefore I ask why is there such a value on life - where did the notion that it is wrong to kill come from? Who made that decision? I am not being contrary - it simply lacks logic for me.

I am in total agreement that a child cannot be born tainted with sin, again for me it's illogical that something so new can be tainted - but then why does sin matter anyway? If there is no reason to live as a good person since it makes no difference to the final outcome - why bother?

Why bother? Bloody hell T00ts thinks for a nano second because being a human and all the frailties that accompany that we might as well return to the jungle or perhaps some Stone Age religious state that justifies their clear inhumanity by a corrupted belief in God.

It's what is moral,bugger all to do with religion but trying your best to show some real humanity to your fellows,I was told by another poster there are no morals to human behaviourwhy the fact there is no afterlife doesn't mean you should behave like a total tosser I don't understand your logic.

[Barry]

There is no hell because there's nothing after you die.

You can't be sure of that. There's no definites with faith. The only definite is that one day you will know.

[Barry]

You would be of the opinion that the murdered newborns would be sent to hell?

I don't know the answer to that. I do know that in Matthew 19: 13-14 Jesus said:

Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them.
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

So interpret that how you wish.

[T00ts]

The fact I don't believe in an afterlife but believe murder is wrong and you don't understand why it matters?

Sorry T00ts f you can't grasp that I can't help you.

I can't grasp why you think a new baby is or is not tainted with sin,a baby is innocent not by the grace of God but being born and not having faced lives trials and therefore not made any decisions on what's right or wrong......?it's fairly simple......IMO.

LOL I do understand up to a point but for me the one (life) without the other (afterlife) seems to make it all a bit of a waste of time. Therefore I ask why is there such a value on life - where did the notion that it is wrong to kill come from? Who made that decision? I am not being contrary - it simply lacks logic for me.

I am in total agreement that a child cannot be born tainted with sin, again for me it's illogical that something so new can be tainted - but then why does sin matter anyway? If there is no reason to live as a good person since it makes no difference to the final outcome - why bother?

[cromwell]

I don't think we necessarily need God to tell us we should not kill, what I don't understand is why someone who maintains that there is nothing after death thinks it matters. What is being killed if it simply disappears.

Could anyone give refs that prove that a new baby is tainted with sin?

The fact I don't believe in an afterlife but believe murder is wrong and you don't understand why it matters?

Sorry T00ts f you can't grasp that I can't help you.

I can't grasp why you think a new baby is or is not tainted with sin,a baby is innocent not by the grace of God but being born and not having faced lives trials and therefore not made any decisions on what's right or wrong......?it's fairly simple......IMO.

[T00ts]

I don't think we necessarily need God to tell us we should not kill, what I don't understand is why someone who maintains that there is nothing after death thinks it matters. What is being killed if it simply disappears.

Could anyone give refs that prove that a new baby is tainted with sin?

[cromwell]

Why do you need a god figure to believe murder is wrong,I don't believe but do know that relieving someone of their life is not right as many other things aren't.

Once you're dead that's it finito,I don't need some cobblers about heaven to blackmail me in to believing if I kill someone I will go to hell.

There is no hell because there's nothing after you die.

[Nalaar]

Newborn babies are not good. They are born into sin.

You would be of the opinion that the murdered newborns would be sent to hell?

[Barry]

There are 3 statements I want to use as a groundwork for the thread -
1 - God exists.
2 - God passes judgement after death, the "good" go to heaven, the "wicked" go to hell.
3 - A newborn child is "good"

1 - You already know I believe that.
2 - Is a false premise for salvation. Our "ticket" to Heaven is given to us free of charge if we Have Faith in Christ for our salvation. We are saved by grace not by works. We have no goodness of our own, but when we are saved we are clothed or covered by the righteousness of Christ.
3. Newborn babies are not good. They are born into sin. This is why Jesus had to be born of a virgin, and impregnated by the Holy Spirit.
There is even debate over whether Mary's egg was used or whether Jesus was God made flesh without Mary's eggs. I don't know.

Which makes your discussion about some Herodian child murderer moot.