some other dude
New member
A lot of people are uncomfortable with God's Holy Word Nang. They want to make up their own version.
toldailytopic: How does God handle babies when they die?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
A lot of people are uncomfortable with God's Holy Word Nang. They want to make up their own version.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Holy Scripture morally justifies itself, and God in His Word teaches the federal headship of both Adams . . . the first bringing imputation of guilt upon all his seed . . . the last Adam bring imputation of righteousness upon all His seed.
Skavau
New member
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
How does someone show themselves "worthy" to be saved? Are you any more worthy of a sacrifice simply because you believe?
Or just are fallible and have doubts etc. Babies don't even have the comprehension to make any such "choice"....
lain:
Skavau
New member
Only if you just declare whatever "Holy Scripture" as inherently right in and of itself. By that logic though, you literally have no recognisable or sociable morality. You would be capable of justifying the random murder of people if you thought it had scriptural support.
You use words such as 'righteousness' and 'guilt' and suck them clean from any meaning. You just declare anything you think God does as inherently righteous and morally justified. It doesn't mean anything.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
What is your version? Nang is a Calvinist. What are you exactly? Serious question.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I imagine the scribes thought the same thing. Intellectual pomposity and legalism doesn't justify the eternal suffering of children. I hope you get around to realizing that....
I respect and listen to theologians who can back up their teachings, from sound references to Holy Scripture, historical church confessions, and the works and writings of Christian brethren.
None of these sources should be discounted, minimized, or outrightly dismissed.
The eternal suffering of "children" that you refer to, is the eternal suffering of souls who are the seed of Adam, who is solely responsible for their fate. Adam murdered his seed when he fell. That is the tragedy of mankind.
There is no point in refusing to believe what has happened, but there is great comfort in learning about the mercies and grace of Jesus Christ, who loves the little children, and represents many through His redemptive works.
Concentrate on the grace of the last Adam, rather than on the horror of the actions of the first Adam, and you will find more peace in your soul.
Nang
Nang
TOL Subscriber
some other dude
New member
Mark 16:16
"Worthy of a sacrifice"? :idunno:
Worthy of redemption? :thumb:
:idunno:
Not as we understand it, no.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Obviously to you, it does not.
Your faithless and unbelieving argument proves to be empty for it has nothing to do with, and fails to touch upon the basis for my faith or any point of my witness to the sovereign power of the Holy Word of God.
Skavau
New member
To you either, you just don't realise it. When asked to elaborate or defend it you can only repeat yourself unwittingly walking into a circular argument. God is righteous because God is righteous because God is righteous. It is okay that we are tainted with the impact of Adam's disobedience because God is righteous and that action is therefore righteous.
It is as if you're referencing the Department Of Redundancy Department trope.
You mean my humanistic argument that opposes torture. That one?
The basis of your faith is apparently unquestioning obedience and embrace of permanent injustice.
some other dude
New member
I'm unaffiliated at the moment, but I was raised in a mainline protestant church with strong ties to evangelism and lutheranism, a strong liberal background wrt social issues and an ethic of inclusiveness.
I've learned more here at TOL than I did at my home church.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Adam is not solely responsible for the fates of trillions of descendants. He didn't design a system where people, either adult or child are consigned to a state of eternal suffering already preordained by God.
The very notion that a supposedly loving God would set things up in the way you describe, dictate that people would suffer by design and will is just execrable. If you think it should somehow bring 'comfort' that God doesn't send all babies to torment but spares some then it isn't frankly. If only the one baby were sent to such an 'existence' it would be sickening beyond words.
Where it comes to your former I don't respect people because of their supposed academic learning or position but on the content and merit of their posts. As before I reckon the scribes etc would pat themselves on the back. A shame they didn't seem to value compassion and understanding all that much....
lain:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
No, the basis of my faith is the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ.
There is no "injustice" residing in the Godhead, at all.
Else, the Son would not have been sacrificed in the stead of undeserving sinners . . . in order to satisfy ALL Godly justice.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Fair enough. So where are you leaning towards at present? And why?
some other dude
New member
Adam is not solely responsible for the fates of trillions of descendants. He didn't design a system where people, either adult or child are consigned to a state of eternal suffering already preordained by God.
The very notion that a supposedly loving God would set things up in the way you describe, dictate that people would suffer by design and will is just execrable. If you think it should somehow bring 'comfort' that God doesn't send all babies to torment but spares some then it isn't frankly. If only the one baby were sent to such an 'existence' it would be sickening beyond words.
Where it comes to your former I don't respect people because of their supposed academic learning or position but on the content and merit of their posts. As before I reckon the scribes etc would pat themselves on the back. A shame they didn't seem to value compassion and understanding all that much....
then you reject scripture. :idunno:
Skavau
New member
You're just rephrasing what I said. You will accept anything as moral so long as commanded by God. This includes, by your own words eternal torture.
For shame.
This doesn't really mean anything coming from you.
This doesn't make any sense. The notion of 'Godly justice' in light of the selective torture of others doesn't mean anything.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Adam is not solely responsible for the fates of trillions of descendants. He didn't design a system where people, either adult or child are consigned to a state of eternal suffering already preordained by God.
The very notion that a supposedly loving God would set things up in the way you describe, dictate that people would suffer by design and will is just execrable. If you think it should somehow bring 'comfort' that God doesn't send all babies to torment but spares some then it isn't frankly. If only the one baby were sent to such an 'existence' it would be sickening beyond words.
Where it comes to your former I don't respect people because of their supposed academic learning or position but on the content and merit of their posts. As before I reckon the scribes etc would pat themselves on the back. A shame they didn't seem to value compassion and understanding all that much....
Well, Arthur, when you write your better bible, let me know . . . and we will study it and compare it to the revelation of God Almighty to see who is really right and more compassionate . . . o.k.?
some other dude
New member
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Condemnation doesn't equate to eternal suffering.
So you're better than those who don't believe then? You take credit for it?
You ever had doubts at all?
Well what does that mean exactly? Are they given the capacity for choice after passing on somehow? Expand.
- Status