Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see there are multiple points that need addressing here in separate posts:
1) This OP was the result of a claim that babies for a lack of better terms come into this world neutral, not knowing good or evil.... which that is not true either from the Biblical perspective or secular perspective.
Psalm 22:10, Luke 1:41- 44 Infant Cognition Center at Yale University
May 10, 2010
2) In this OP, there is a claim given that A baby doesn't understand anything at the moment it's born" ... which again that is not true from simply reading what the Bible teaches. 2 Timothy 3:15, Psalm 22:10, Luke 1:41- 44
to respond with "I really do not care what you believe." .... is to really despise the inspired writers.
3) In this OP. there is a claim of unaccountability ( age of accountability)... which again is simply not true according to God Romans 3:19
4)In this OP, the claim of a certain group of people are " automatically saved" ... not only is this not true but actually is offering a different gospel Galations 1:8-9.
5) In this OP, the claim "God doesn't send babies to hell" .... there is no such verbiage coming from God that can be stated unilateral.
No where are we told that people approach the judgment seat at the age in which we die and because of this becomes a factor.
All we know is that
God is Just and his judgments are just
the whole world is accountable
God sends unbelievers to their just judgment to hell and believers are saved by grace through faith.
Last edited by twin.spin; 07-20-2014 at 04:57 PM..
All we know is that " I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just" ... and the Godly thing to do is to trust in that knowing that:
Exodus 20:5
"punishing the children to the 3rd and 4th generation of them that hate me"
is as much as the truth as
Nehemiah 9:31 "you are a gracious and merciful God."
.
to specific responders:
To Finn,
1) the claim "Mike already provided the Bible teaches they do not go o hell." .... far from it.
What Mike has done is to oppose what God has said in certain areas and impose his own from certain Baptist \ Reformed forced theologies.
2) Concerning your reply to pcamps:
Poor pcamps, always looking to kick mud at people........
wholeheartedly.
3) concerning
It sounds more like a personal opinion, and as you can see from the post, the poster actually says the Bible does not teach such views.
As previously stated, the Bible teaches that all are accountable; which then "all" includes babies.
We do know that "without faith it is impossible to please God" and that "faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God".
I purposefully will stop short of stating both of what happens to a baby of unbelievers for good reason ... scriptures teach both are the truth thus making them parallel not meant for us to contemplate other than to heed the urgency of proclaiming the gospel news.
To Heartsong,
Concerning your comment: Twin Spin's assertion that babies are born either evil or good
I made no such assertion of the kind. You are stereotyping the perversion of some to those of us who are properly taught.
Psalm 22:10 is not teaching that some babies are born good. That is contrary to Romans 3:23 and other such passages (OT & NT)
Psalm 22:10 teaches how early God's grace for some can reach and how even the pre-born can trust in God as (in this case) his God.
Concerning your comment: I believe this kind of teaching -- [snip] --- that babies are born either evil or good is partly responsible for the rampant abuse of children.
People who do so is because of the false teachers, poorly trained so called "theologians" and the "ignorant and unstable" who distort other scriptures.
As God said of such people who do they will meet "their destruction" ... in other words will be held accountable.
Last edited by twin.spin; 07-20-2014 at 04:55 PM..
Very nice ...very touching.
Now to the larger points:
faith is a gift of God not a gift of human's cognitive choice
... one no more chooses when they are physically born than they are spiritually born....
.......... "flesh gives birth to flesh but the Spirit gives birth to the spirit" John 3:6
decision theology is the making of coming to faith the responsibility of human choice, not a gift of man.
Your pov undermines the power of God who works faith in the heart using his power and grace by using humanistic idolatry of human reason of thyself.
Very nice ...very touching.
Now to the larger points:
faith is a gift of God not a gift of human's cognitive choice
... one no more chooses when they are physically born than they are spiritually born....
.......... "flesh gives birth to flesh but the Spirit gives birth to the spirit" John 3:6
decision theology is the making of coming to faith the responsibility of human choice, not a gift of man.
Your pov undermines the power of God who works faith in the heart using his power and grace by using humanistic idolatry of human reason of thyself.
Walking in the Spirit is good exercise, putting into action, use, operation, or effect, that which we learn through experience.
We are to know the true and living Spirit; not idolize the teachings of other men - predicated on what you think of the Bible?
Very nice ...very touching.
Now to the larger points:
faith is a gift of God not a gift of human's cognitive choice
... one no more chooses when they are physically born than they are spiritually born....
.......... "flesh gives birth to flesh but the Spirit gives birth to the spirit" John 3:6
decision theology is the making of coming to faith the responsibility of human choice, not a gift of man.
Your pov undermines the power of God who works faith in the heart using his power and grace by using humanistic idolatry of human reason of thyself.
We understand, Twin . . . you do not want any responsibility for your life or fate (like an innocent baby) . . . you think God simply decides who to punish and who to save, period. It does make things less worrisome . . . unless you happen to think you are in the unfavored group. Oddly enough very few people seem to think they are in the unfavored group. Hmmmm???
Getting back to the original study... From I read, that study provides no definitive evidence that those infants are making a moral judgement. It only indicates they seem to prefer certain characters and objects in certain experiments. Why do they seem to have these preferences? Since infants are incapable of expressing their reasons, and seem incapable of forming conscious reasons, there is absolutely no way to know.
This is yet another perfect example of confirmation bias - some persons are reading something into the study that isn't there based on her/his own ideology. This study isn't really definitive evidence of any kind of innate morality, only evidence of some possible infant preferences. It's not the same thing at all.
Getting back to the original study... From I read, that study provides no definitive evidence that those infants are making a moral judgement. It only indicates they seem to prefer certain characters and objects in certain experiments. Why do they seem to have these preferences? Since infants are incapable of expressing their reasons, and seem incapable of forming conscious reasons, there is absolutely no way to know.
This is yet another perfect example of confirmation bias - some persons are reading something into the study that isn't there based on her/his own ideology. This study isn't really definitive evidence of any kind of innate morality, only evidence of some possible infant preferences. It's not the same thing at all.
Which of course you're including yourself as "another perfect example of confirmation bias" of reading.
From the article:
"The results contradict the theories of Sigmund Freud and others, who thought human beings start out as “amoral animals”, or a moral blank state. Bloom said there is mounting scientific evidence that this may not be true and that “some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone.”
No one claimed that this study would convince any skeptic, secular or Biblical.
Getting back to the original study... From I read, that study provides no definitive evidence that those infants are making a moral judgement. It only indicates they seem to prefer certain characters and objects in certain experiments. Why do they seem to have these preferences? Since infants are incapable of expressing their reasons, and seem incapable of forming conscious reasons, there is absolutely no way to know.
This is yet another perfect example of confirmation bias - some persons are reading something into the study that isn't there based on her/his own ideology. This study isn't really definitive evidence of any kind of innate morality, only evidence of some possible infant preferences. It's not the same thing at all.
A lot of psychological studies are plagued by similar limitations and inferences are usually used as surrogates for what cannot be directly measured. Infants do not have the ability to describe their reasons for choosing . . . but we know that as a rule they are drawn to positive stimuli and avoid negative ones. The inference from their choices are that the ones they want to play with reflect the positivity they associate with it and vice versa. Since the same toys are instantiated with positive and negative associations and the pairings are randomized the results show some validity to the hypothesis.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 07-20-2014 at 06:55 PM..
Which of course you're including yourself as "another perfect example of confirmation bias" of reading.
Absolutely, virtually everyone does it.
But the headline of the OP and the article indicates that infants definitively know right from wrong, when in fact that doesn't seem possible based on all the developmental evidence we have. Children don't begin to develop the capacity for abstract thought until about age 5 or 6, and since "right" and "wrong" are abstract concepts it's impossible for infants to perceive these ideas.
Is this clear enough for you? The OP and headline of this article are indicating something that seems impossible based on all the evidence. It would be like saying a 2 week old infant is capable of independently walking long-distances; based on all evidence that's not possible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
wholeheartedly. 
