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.
That is amusing. I just presented the passage I believe supports my interpretation. You not believing it, does not mean i have not presented it.
Nor does it mean the passage you're presented supports your belief in an age of accountability. I contend it does no such thing. It's not about how god deals with eternal reward or punishment, only how he dealt out a specific temporal punishment. It might be a clue to his general operating principles, but you can't really say that it is, and as I pointed out, there are plenty of scriptures that argue AGAINST what you're suggesting here. If Jesus is for example the ONLY way to reconciliation with god and if ALL are guilty before god then it can be reasonably argued that an age of accountability exemption is ruled out, inherently.
Many fundamentalists are at least honest enough to admit that it is a derived doctrine that is not specifically and directly supportable from scripture.
You are welcome to address my actual points against this passage and we can certainly agree to disagree but if you don't address my objections then you're just back to making assertions rather than supportable arguments. Making a case for scriptural support is not just trotting out a proof-text, it's showing that it IS a proof-text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
The killing of children guaranteed those kids would go to heaven, If the lived past the age of accountability, the chances they would not.
By that logic, the children of all unbelievers are legitimate objects of mercy killing by you and your ilk. Forgive me if I find this ... immoral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
OK, what does age 20 mean in that passage?
It is just the cutoff for that particular edict god supposedly issued for that supposed specific situation.
My point is that I've never heard age 20 or anything near it pondered as a potential age of accountability for any mentally sound human. Some have suggested 13 (the traditional age of adulthood for Jews) or something prior to that since it's fairly easy to lead children to a conversion experience far earlier. I myself was "saved" at the age of five years and 10 months.
There's no justification for taking that OT passage as proving anything beyond what it actually discusses, which is how god provided a specific exemption from a specific and temporal penalty, in the pre-NT era to boot. It's clear overreach to apply it to eternal penalties. The most charitable thing you can say about it is that it's a "potential clue" as to how god "might" think about any present-day age of accountability.
This is also an example of fundamentalist's habit of claiming far more clarity and objectivity in scriptural pronouncements than is reasonably supportable. Exegesis is a FAR more subjective exercise than most of you are wiling to admit. You can't even agree on the interpretive system and principles. Heck, comprehension of written text is far more subjective than you're generally willing to admit. Nor is there one systematic theology used by all fundamentalists, much less by all Christians.
I was suckled on Lewis Sperry Chafer's Systematic Theology for example, and all of my theology instruction was from people educated at Dallas Theological Seminary or institutions highly compatible with it. If I were still a believer I might well consider you far too liberal in your thinking and we'd be having this little discussion for different reasons. ;-)
Answer me this.. When someone is driving in a car and narrowly misses what would have been a horrible car wreck.. Why is that one of God's great actions? But if the same incident were to happen and it ended up killing people in a horrible car wreck.. It is not?
I personally don't believe any creator of ours is purely flawless or we are not meant to understand what our creator(s) or other dimensions or spirits til we are out of this state of being
Nor does it mean the passage you're presented supports your belief in an age of accountability. I contend it does no such thing. It's not about how god deals with eternal reward or punishment, only how he dealt out a specific temporal punishment. It might be a clue to his general operating principles, but you can't really say that it is, and as I pointed out, there are plenty of scriptures that argue AGAINST what you're suggesting here. If Jesus is for example the ONLY way to reconciliation with god and if ALL are guilty before god then it can be reasonably argued that an age of accountability exemption is ruled out, inherently.
The passage I quoted gave a specific age and God said they would be allowed to enter the promised land, and those over that age would not. Posts one Scripture that argue against my understanding.
The age of accountability is not about the way to reconciliation.
Quote:
Many fundamentalists are at least honest enough to admit that it is a derived doctrine that is not specifically and directly supportable from scripture.
Then explain why God gave an age in that passage and what did the age mean.
Quote:
You are welcome to address my actual points against this passage and we can certainly agree to disagree but if you don't address my objections then you're just back to making assertions rather than supportable arguments. Making a case for scriptural support is not just trotting out a proof-text, it's showing that it IS a proof-text.
I did show it and I have just ask you to explain why it is not a proof text. You not accepting it is irrelevant until you answer the questions I just ask.
Quote:
By that logic, the children of all unbelievers are legitimate objects of mercy killing by you and your ilk. Forgive me if I find this ... immoral.
It is only necessary for me to forgive your Biblical ignorance and that I will gladly do.
Quote:
It is just the cutoff for that particular edict god supposedly issued for that supposed specific situation.
What was God's point? Be specific.
Quote:
My point is that I've never heard age 20 or anything near it pondered as a potential age of accountability for any mentally sound human. Some have suggested 13 (the traditional age of adulthood for Jews) or something prior to that since it's fairly easy to lead children to a conversion experience far earlier. I myself was "saved" at the age of five years and 10 months.
What you have not heard is irrelevant unless you have heard every possibility and have become omniscient.
Quote:
There's no justification for taking that OT passage as proving anything beyond what it actually discusses, which is how god provided a specific exemption from a specific and temporal penalty, in the pre-NT era to boot. It's clear overreach to apply it to eternal penalties. The most charitable thing you can say about it is that it's a "potential clue" as to how god "might" think about any present-day age of accountability.
It ACTUALLY discusses an age where some were allowed to go into the promised land, no matter what they believed, and some were not because of what they believed.
Quote:
This is also an example of fundamentalist's habit of claiming far more clarity and objectivity in scriptural pronouncements than is reasonably supportable.
I supported it with Scripture. Now it is up to you to use Scripture to reject. Why should I accept your OPINION?
Quote:
Exegesis is a FAR more subjective exercise than most of you are wiling to admit. You can't even agree on the interpretive system and principles. Heck, comprehension of written text is far more subjective than you're generally willing to admit. Nor is there one systematic theology used by all fundamentalists, much less by all Christians.
There is only one definition of systermic theology and evidently you don't understand the term.
Quote:
I was suckled on Lewis Sperry Chafer's Systematic Theology for example, and all of my theology instruction was from people educated at Dallas Theological Seminary or institutions highly compatible with it. If I were still a believer I might well consider you far too liberal in your thinking and we'd be having this little discussion for different reasons. ;-)
Attending classes does not guarantee understanding what is being taught. If you were ever a Christian, you still are. You may be a prodigal.
Think about this---When one is born naturally they can't be unborn. What is true in our natural birth is just as true in our spiritual birth. My son, good, bad or indifferent, will always be my son. NOTHING can change that relationship.
Not possible. If it was 'perfect' then it cannot become 'imperfect'. It is a contradiction. A perfect car cannot break down. If it does then it is imperfect. become imperfect
Not true. Take a perfect piece of music and change some of the notes. Is it still perfect?
Quote:
...but before they ate they had no perception of good or bad. It would be like telling a new born baby not to crap in it's napkin and then cursing it when, due to the fact that it didn't understand the order given, it craps in it's napkin.
Again not true. Telling a baby who does not understand English is not the same as telling an adult something. Adam and Eve were innocent, not ignorant.
There is only one definition of systermic [sic] theology and evidently you don't understand the term.
There is one definition and many attempts at it. They conflict. This is no different than saying that there is only one true god -- the god of the person who proclaims it as such. Likewise all you're saying here is there is only one true theology -- yours.
Theological systems represent the opinion of the theologian(s) who produce it, using scripture (always selectively and with certain interpretational spins, of course, according to their devised system) to support it.
It is entirely a subjective house of cards.
To the point of our particular sub-discussion here, the fact remains that the age of accountability is a derived teaching without scriptural support, and many evangelicals readily admit this, unlike you. Your isolated scripture can be easily argued to be about something else and not what you are trying to concoct a secondary application for.
And to my larger point, all holy books mean what their followers say they mean -- no more and no less.
Of course I no longer have any skin in this game -- I don't give a fig what you believe about this, I'm simply illustrating my points above.
the scriptures talk of the children of evil, which are not God's own. If one willfully chooses to be unholy they turn their back on God's adoption and can not be counted among God's own.
God did not say these things about God's own children.
So we are not all God's children? How are children evil?
I think people who talk like one of our posters may very well be the evil ones.
I was a teacher and then a school administrator. I worked with every kid who walked through the door. Each one, in his own way, had the potential for good, and some really surprised us in positive ways. And if not in middle or high school, sometimes later in life.
He DID, but some people (a lot actually) think they are special in God's eyes and others are not. It is the worst kind of arrogance and self-righteousness.
He DID, but some people (a lot actually) think they are special in God's eyes and others are not. It is the worst kind of arrogance and self-righteousness.
Yup!
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.
