Tweet
Re: Is God pro-life?
This point had already been covered in MY EARLIER POST:
I have no recollection of those unthinking depths because, obviously, I was unthinking. Time does take longer to pass the farther back we go—at age 5 a year is only ⅕ of a lifetime whereas at age 3 it's fully ⅓ of a lifetime and so on—but eventually the child emerges into a slow zone where years are virtually infinite (but not as infinite as a year would seem a month before one was born or even before one's parents were born) anyway eventually joined-up-thinking becomes possible. At least it does for Christians.
Here is where I always object when "christenings" occur. As you said, no decision is possible. My earlier post was not very clear. Here is a summary:
Clergy who attempt infant baptism by any means intercept free will in two ways.
Whether or not they're successful in thwarting the critical decision is a moot point as is what happens to "christened" babies who never undergo confirmation. According to the clergy that is. Not according to me. I don't have an opinion because I can read The Bible.
Catholics, Anglicans, Cooneyites, Plymouth brethren and so on can all become Christians and some who decide to read The Bible have actually done so. But mostly thy don't. Their free will was effectively taken away. The Bible regards this as worse than death.
This forum is not about opinions, what I think or claim, what I would like to be true or any other irrelevant detail. God explains everything we need to know and quite often people will make all sorts of claims about "God" without ever seeming to have read what He's already told us.
I'm always happy to post Scripture. Do people just make up a "God" in their heads and then expect everything in the world to conform to their delusion? And it must be a delusion when their claims about this "God" differ so extremely from what actual God has already told us. Is ongoing revelation possible? Again, I'm not making claims but after Jesus left the world there were indeed revelations. Paul and John are two examples, the point being that when God reveals something it does not contradict something He revealed previously.
Babies suffer because of sin. Every baby is revolting to God - because of sin. Every baby deserves torture and when ancestral sins are piled on (to punish those forebears) worse is the best it can get. Only blood can atone. And not just any old blood, say from a dead ferret or something. Live human blood is all that's good enough. A human never having sinned.
That human is Jesus - a second Adam. Unbelievers don't even accept that there was a first Adam.
Originally Posted by Wavington
Well just the babies that did not have a chance in any way. So what you are saying is the babies have to suffer for their parents failures?
Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor
How are you defining "innocents"
How are you defining "innocents"
I have no recollection of those unthinking depths because, obviously, I was unthinking. Time does take longer to pass the farther back we go—at age 5 a year is only ⅕ of a lifetime whereas at age 3 it's fully ⅓ of a lifetime and so on—but eventually the child emerges into a slow zone where years are virtually infinite (but not as infinite as a year would seem a month before one was born or even before one's parents were born) anyway eventually joined-up-thinking becomes possible. At least it does for Christians.
Here is where I always object when "christenings" occur. As you said, no decision is possible. My earlier post was not very clear. Here is a summary:
Clergy who attempt infant baptism by any means intercept free will in two ways.
ONE - by making the decision themselves
TWO - by promoting the belief that no decision is required
TWO - by promoting the belief that no decision is required
Whether or not they're successful in thwarting the critical decision is a moot point as is what happens to "christened" babies who never undergo confirmation. According to the clergy that is. Not according to me. I don't have an opinion because I can read The Bible.
Catholics, Anglicans, Cooneyites, Plymouth brethren and so on can all become Christians and some who decide to read The Bible have actually done so. But mostly thy don't. Their free will was effectively taken away. The Bible regards this as worse than death.
Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
I'm always happy to post Scripture. Do people just make up a "God" in their heads and then expect everything in the world to conform to their delusion? And it must be a delusion when their claims about this "God" differ so extremely from what actual God has already told us. Is ongoing revelation possible? Again, I'm not making claims but after Jesus left the world there were indeed revelations. Paul and John are two examples, the point being that when God reveals something it does not contradict something He revealed previously.
Babies suffer because of sin. Every baby is revolting to God - because of sin. Every baby deserves torture and when ancestral sins are piled on (to punish those forebears) worse is the best it can get. Only blood can atone. And not just any old blood, say from a dead ferret or something. Live human blood is all that's good enough. A human never having sinned.
That human is Jesus - a second Adam. Unbelievers don't even accept that there was a first Adam.
Comment