Are Babies Who Have Not Been Saved Comdemned To Hell? (Gospels, Epistles)

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by look3467

Adam's sin?

May I clarify that catchy phrase?

Actually, I should have said "Adam's transgression" because I don't believe it actually qualified as a sin. After all, he didn't know the difference between good and evil until he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

It was because of our ability to be as gods, (made in the image of) that the sentence of separation came into play.

Being a god, is the same as being....quote "Gen_3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

The separation comes after the word "lest".....Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man;.

I mean come on......a god in the flesh without lust?

1Jn_2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Pretty much condemned because of the flesh....don't you think? Not because Adam sin-ed.

I'm really sure I'm not following you. But I do believe Adam and Eve had to eat the forbidden fruit in order to be able to progress and God's plan for the salvation of mankind to get started. Furthermore, I believe that we have been given the capability to ultimately become gods.

So, in a sense you are saying the same thing (a million times before) but not understanding its true meaning.IMO.

Eating of the fruit of the tree is as a child hood story. Even a child can understand what disobedience means.

But one who has left the milk of the word and eaten of the meat of the word aided by the Holy Spirit will see the spiritual side of that story.

A childhood story is...." a no-brainer".

Blessings, AJ

Okay. As I said, I'm not sure I really understood you, but I do want to clarify one thing. You're right, even a child can understand what disobedience means, but that doesn't mean he can understand that disobedience is wrong. Once he is capable of understanding that disobedience is wrong, and still disobeys, he is then sinning by disobeying his mother.

I believe that Adam and Eve had the innocence of little children when they were first in the Garden. After they ate the forbidden fruit, they lost that innocence and were capable of sinning.

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by Howest2008

Well I'm just going to shut this discussion down and give everyone the answers that they are pondering in theirs heads.

Jesus himself the Son of God the son of man said to his disciples Apostles in training (suffer the little children to come unto me)

( and )

Forbid them not for (such is the kingdom of heaven)

The Kingdom of Heaven is (made up of people that are like little children)

Little children have not reached the age of accountability and are Blameless in the eyes of God.

Adults under the authority of JESUS are blameless because they are covered by his perfect Righteousness!!!!


Look it up yourselves it''s in Matt 19:14 in your dust
covered BIBLES...lol...

Yes, we get this and are wondering, per the belief, when a person stops being a "child" and starts being an "adult" accountable for him/herself. You repeat that "little" children have not reached the age of accountability. What's "little"? Ten? Five? Two? What about particularly precocious children who may be way ahead of the pack intellectually? What about intellectually delayed children who are far behind their peers? What about young children who have heard about Jesus and don't "accept him into their hearts" for WHATEVER reason...where's the cutoff?

If you're talking an arbitrary cutoff, where is that? What do you mean by "age of accountability"? Where do they suddenly stop being excused and start being bound for hell for not hitting the mark? Or maybe not suddenly. Gradually, then, as been hinted at above...but in that case...does one just "sort of" go to hell during that hazy in-between time or... It's not adding up.

KATZPUR: Thank you for answering my questions per your perspective. I don't really agree with the answers but you were thoughtful and the answers were very complete. I appreciate your taking the time to reply so patiently and completely.

[Howest2008]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

Hmmmm....I don't think that you thought this one through....

Well to be honest with you the only thing that I have not thought out is what exactly is the age of accountability .

And to be honest with you there are probably billions of different ages of accountability totally unique to the individual child in question.

Listen I am not trying to jam my beliefs down anyone's throat if you want to believe this Believe It or by all means don't believe it but that's what the word of God says that's what the Bible says that's what Jesus said.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Howest2008

Well I'm just going to shut this discussion down and give everyone the answers that they are pondering in theirs heads.

I wish you'd put either this: or this: after your statement. I'm assuming that since you have over 7,000 posts, you were being facetious in thinking your answers would lay the matter to rest.

Jesus himself the Son of God the son of man said to his disciples Apostles in training (suffer the little children to come unto me)

( and )

Forbid them not for (such is the kingdom of heaven)

The Kingdom of Heaven is (made up of people that are like little children)

Little children have not reached the age of accountability and are Blameless in the eyes of God.

Adults under the authority of JESUS are blameless because they are covered by his perfect Righteousness!!!!

Agreed. 100%.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by JerZ

If you're talking an arbitrary cutoff, where is that? What do you mean by "age of accountability"?

The Bible never mentions a specific age, but I think you'll agree that a toddler cannot be held accountable for his behavior to the same degree as a 16-year old can. There's a difference between a 2-year old who empties his cereal bowl on the floor despite the fact that his mother has told him not to and a 16-year old who takes his parents' car keys and takes a 2:00 A.M. joyride in their car without their permission.

KATZPUR: Thank you for answering my questions per your perspective. I don't really agree with the answers but you were thoughtful and the answers were very complete. I appreciate your taking the time to reply so patiently and completely.

You're very welcome.

[Howest2008]

Originally Posted by JerZ

Yes, we get this and are wondering, per the belief, when a person stops being a "child" and starts being an "adult" accountable for him/herself. You repeat that "little" children have not reached the age of accountability. What's "little"? Ten? Five? Two? What about particularly precocious children who may be way ahead of the pack intellectually? What about intellectually delayed children who are far behind their peers? What about young children who have heard about Jesus and don't "accept him into their hearts" for WHATEVER reason...where's the cutoff?

If you're talking an arbitrary cutoff, where is that? What do you mean by "age of accountability"? Where do they suddenly stop being excused and start being bound for hell for not hitting the mark? Or maybe not suddenly. Gradually, then, as been hinted at above...but in that case...does one just "sort of" go to hell during that hazy in-between time or... It's not adding up.

KATZPUR: Thank you for answering my questions per your perspective. I don't really agree with the answers but you were thoughtful and the answers were very complete. I appreciate your taking the time to reply so patiently and completely.

Listen i'm an African American Christian so I don't attempt to jam my Dogma down other people's throat's

Only God knows the age of accountability because that's none of our business he's the one sending people to heaven and hades not us.

However this is just my opinion there are billions of age of accountability of each individual unique child and only God knows that age of accountability,

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

The Bible never mentions a specific age, but I think you'll agree that a toddler cannot be held accountable for his behavior to the same degree as a 16-year old can. There's a difference between a 2-year old who empties his cereal bowl on the floor despite the fact that his mother has told him not to and a 16-year old who takes his parents' car keys and takes a 2:00 A.M. joyride in their car without their permission.

I do agree but does the Bible agree?

I do understand the "suffer the little children" passage but that appears to be an illustration of how adults should enter into belief as "little children." It does not literally seem to be about a physical age. Jesus's style was parables and illustrations.

OTOH Jesus is VERY clear about how certain actions or inaction will guarantee doom so I would think if he were also certain that only after a certain age or stage, one would be bound for heaven based on his/her thoughts or actions, then he'd have said so, but really he doesn't.

I don't see anything Biblical pointing to exemption from hell based specifically on age. I DO see a lot in the Bible about everyone being sinners, full stop. Therefore the only conclusion I can draw is that either a) the whole hell/sinning concept is wrong or b) God does in fact send children to hell. Exactly what age children, who knows? But if it's "just" say an 11-year-old v. a newborn baby how would that make it any less horrific and nightmare-inducing an image? A bright 11-year-old who says "I've read the Bible...I just don't believe it!", horribly winds up struck by a car, dies and then stands shrieking in agony in the flames of hell for thousands and thousands of years? Still not adding up to anything really very palatable. And that's all this "child exemption" non Biblically-supported dogma is doing, really...making images of God as, well, ruthless more palatable for us by changing what the Bible says or doesn't say, to fit what doesn't make us cringe.

Is it is or is it ain't, as my mother used to say.

I personally feel the various writers of the various books didn't really think things through when they were issuing the threatening side of the Biblical edicts and instead thought they were frightening people into obeying the church hierarchy (or earlier, the Jewish religious hierarchy) in an effort to be doing what God "wants" so they would avoid hell. If God had truly inspired the Bible He surely would have seen these upcoming pitfalls and ditches and inconsistencies and would have inspired the thing to be written correctly. I'm not seeing correctness here, I'm seeing implied ruthlessness followed by hasty efforts to brush over same using man-made dogma that doesn't make us all burst into tears (like the image of an 11-year-old, 10-year-old or whatever shrieking in pain in the roaring licking flames for eternity).

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by Howest2008

Listen i'm an African American Christian so I don't attempt to jam my Dogma down other people's throat's

Only God knows the age of accountability because that's none of our business he's the one sending people to heaven and hades not us.

However this is just my opinion there are billions of age of accountability of each individual unique child and only God knows that age of accountability,

Thank you for taking the time to answer.

This still is saying though that there must be a grace period where actual sin hasn't been committed - whereas Ecclesiastes disagrees with that. Or rather, disagrees that anyone - anyone - can be sinless. I have to assume "anyone" includes children since they are someone.

But if indeed there is a grace period then this overturns the need for Jesus thing as there are millions of people every single day who do not need a belief and trust in Jesus in order to avoid punishment. Those people are called children.

I'm not saying "don't believe what you believe," I'm just explaining why the entire sin/hell connection doesn't make sense to me...in any way...for various reasons but most of all because of the "sinless child" illustration which has been a thorn in dogma's side since people were non-terrified enough to admit to having thought of it. Logical people have been questioning this inconsistency for many decades now, I can't claim it. I'm just explaining that I'm not trying to be a pain in the azz but rather, this does not add up - to me - and it isn't about to.

I keep asking the questions, wondering if there will be an answer that makes sense and doesn't sound like a hasty covering-over of the distasteful, but that never happens. Again, for me. For others, their belief is their belief and there you have it.

[Howest2008]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I wish you'd put either this: or this: after your statement. I'm assuming that since you have over 7,000 posts, you were being facetious in thinking your answers would lay the matter to rest.

Agreed. 100%.

In the nineteen-seventies I used to have a girlfriend that was a English major and graduating from college taugh English in the public school system and you remind me of her .

She was always busting my chops for messing up the English language to the point of almost ripping
me a new one....LOL.

And I was Joking knowing City Data Posters Very Well. They will never give up and find new creative
way to call me a dummy that doesn"t know his nose from his butt....LOL.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Howest2008

In the nineteen-seventies I used to have a girlfriend that was a English major and graduating from college taugh English in the public school system and you remind me of her .

She must have been way cool. (I was also an English major. )

And I was Joking knowing City Data Posters Very Well.

Good to know! It's just that I've heard statements similar to yours by people who actually think that all they have to do to set the record straight and clear things up in everybody's minds is present their opinion as if it were an indisputable fact.