Does god give every human embryo a soul?

Akrasia

And if he does, what happens to all of the embryos that never reach maturity? (for whatever reason)

Does god recycle them? Do they get a free pass to heaven? Do they not get saved (because they never accepted jesus) (up until recently, miscarried children were not allowed to be buried on consecrated land)

If they are recycled then there is really no harm done, and if they are immediately passed into heaven, why is abortion seen to be wrong by almost all Christians?

Isn't the point of this world only to be preparation to get into heaven? Considering the temptations on this world to sin and reject god, is it not better to skip it altogether and go straight to eternal paradise?

Akrasia

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And you know this how?

Are you gonna answer the questions?

BrianCalgary

Akrasia wrote: »

Are you gonna answer the questions?

In time.

Akrasia

BrianCalgary wrote: »

In time.

alright, I'll be patient

philologos

The issue we have with this Akrasia, is that this isn't really mentioned specifically in the Bible. I don't feel I have the authority to speak on whether embryos recieve damnation, nor do I wish the authority in the difficult decisions such as these. However I do believe that God has a plan for all potential life.

Pompey Magnus

Akrasia wrote: »

if they are immediately passed into heaven, why is abortion seen to be wrong by almost all Christians?

Wierd, I was thinking along the exact same lines yesterday. I heard Christians say that they believe that when a foetus dies it will get a free ticket into Heaven (I don't know if this is Church teaching on the matter), but this raises the problem that the most loving and moral thing that any Christian could possibly do for their unborn child is to abort it. If they let the child develop and be born they are selfishly risking it's eternal soul to hellfire and damnation.

"Deal or No Deal" style situation:

The unborn foetus has 15 boxes in front of it, these are the basics roads of life that the foetus could go through if born. One box has £250,000 (this is believing in Christ and living a very good and holy life, and so getting a ticket to heaven) and all other 14 boxes have 1p (not being Christian and/or not living according to Christian teachings, and so being sent to hell).

The box that the contestant is given is randomly chosen, they have very little say in whether they will be brought up Christian or not.

Before the contestant opens the box which they have been given they get a call from the banker saying "You can either open the box you have been given and have a 1 in 15 chance of getting the £250,000 or else you can accept my offer of £250,000 by being aborted." Tough one.

If I was that foetus, and if Heaven was a real place, and if Christianity is the one true faith to get to Heaven, then I really would be bitterly disappointed if I made it through pregnancy, my chances of getting to heaven will have taken a dramatic turn for the worst. The ideal situation of course would be to experience a natural abortion very soon after conception.

Similarly if they argue that the soul is recycled then it again argues in favour of abortion, would it not be better for that soul to have a chance of being brought up in a loving Christian family which is ready for, and wants, a child than a scared pregnant teenage girl who does not want it?

Fanny Cradock

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Wierd, I was thinking along the exact same lines yesterday. I heard Christians say that they believe that when a foetus dies it will get a free ticket into Heaven (I don't know if this is Church teaching on the matter), but this raises the problem that the most loving and moral thing that any Christian could possibly do for their unborn child is to abort it. If they let the child develop and be born they are selfishly risking it's eternal soul to hellfire and damnation.

Is this a joke?

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Is this a joke?

Well as I don't believe every unborn foetus goes to Heaven because I don't believe there is a Heaven for them to go to I was certainly not being serious, however what I was doing was pointing out what I see as an inconsistency in the Christian side of the debate. Of course as the OP's question has not been answered yet by any believer my characterisation of the Christian opinion on the ultimate destination of dead foetuses might be shown to be wrong, so I will wait and see...

Fanny Cradock

Either you believe that we Christians should be killing foetuses for fear of them developing into non-believers, or you are being sensationalist. I'm going with the latter. There is little point in debating when you bring this rubbish to the table.

Soul Winner

Akrasia wrote: »

Does god give every human embryo a soul? And if he does, what happens to all of the embryos that never reach maturity? (for whatever reason)

Henry Drummond defined life as "Capacity to relate to one's environment" can an embryo relate to it's environment? If it’s conceived of fallen mankind then isn't it (the embryo) as a product of a fallen union between two fallen beings itself in a fallen state? And if so in need of redemption from its fallen state? Which said redemption if you accept the New Testament has been provided for in Christ? In said New Testament Jesus Himself speaking says: "Unless you become as this little child you will in no wise enter the Kingdom of God". So don't worry (not that you were) about the embryos, they're already in good with God. Worry about you're own sorry soul.

Akrasia wrote: »

Does god recycle them? Do they get a free pass to heaven? Do they not get saved (because they never accepted jesus) (up until recently, miscarried children were not allowed to be buried on consecrated land)

How can they possibly accept Jesus if they've never heard of Him yet? They don't even have hearing at that age for crying out loud. Can they be preached to about Jesus at that age? If you were God would hold it against them?

Akrasia wrote: »

If they are recycled then there is really no harm done, and if they are immediately passed into heaven, why is abortion seen to be wrong by almost all Christians?

So you're saying that all the people in the world that are against abortion are Christians? And that there are no Muslims, Buddhists, or Atheists against abortion anywhere?

Akrasia wrote: »

Isn't the point of this world only to be preparation to get into heaven?

Do you believe that?

Akrasia wrote: »

Considering the temptations on this world to sin and reject god, is it not better to skip it altogether and go straight to eternal paradise?

Only if you had that option to choose from. Do you remember having that option as an embryo?

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Either you believe that we Christians should be killing foetuses for fear of them developing into non-believers, or you are being sensationalist. I'm going with the latter. There is little point in debating when you bring this rubbish to the table.

Of course I am being sensationalist, but with reason. It would be unimaginable for any person to do such a thing for such a reason and I know that people won't do it, but what I was saying is that this is in spite of their beliefs and not because of it. You may decline to point out how my argument is flawed from a Christian theological viewpoint if you wish, that is assuming I am mistaken in the teachings on what happens to the souls of foetuses should they be aborted which I could very well be.

But let us assume I am correct and most Christians reject the teachings of St Augustine and the infallible Catholic doctrine from XVI Council of Carthage, the Council of Lyons II, and the Council of Florence which all said unbaptized infants are doomed to spend eternity with the damned in hell because they are a soul which never recieved the grace of Christ's sacrifice, and for anyone to claim that a soul can be saved except through baptism Christ is heresy.

Let us instead assume that most Christians would now feel that the Popes are indeed fallible and the heretical teachings of Pelagius might have been closer to the truth all along and original sin will not condemn them, then for the sake of argument, if offered the choice, how many would choose life and the risks of eternal damnation and how many would choose a natural death as a foetus soon after conception which you believe would guarantee you eternal life with God?

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner wrote: »

Henry Drummond defined life as "Capacity to relate to one's environment" can an embryo relate to it's environment? If it’s conceived of fallen mankind then isn't it (the embryo) as a product of a fallen union between two fallen beings itself in a fallen state? And if so in need of redemption from its fallen state?

St Augustine would have agreed with up to this point, he argued that a child that died before birth, although being a fully formed soul, had not experienced life. He deviates from your argument after this though, he uses passages from the New Testament to show that the unbaptized infants are doomed according to Christian teachings:

“And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire.” (Apocalypse 20:14-15)

Fortunately for the doomed foetuses, St Augustine goes on to say that their eternal punishment will be the mildest of all the damned as they did not add to their original sin.

Jrad

Does god give every human embryo a soul?

That is the question on everyone lips,

Devout Christions say "Yeas, and i hope that American goes back to the word of God"

Pro-choice say "No, dont be stupid"

I caught up with the big man earlier this week and he said, he waits until exactly 3 minutes before birth to attach soul.

Soul Winner

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

St Augustine would have agreed with up to this point, he argued that a child that died before birth, although being a fully formed soul, had not experienced life. He deviates from your argument after this though, he uses passages from the New Testament to show that the unbaptized infants are doomed according to Christian teachings:

“And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire.” (Apocalypse 20:14-15)

Fortunately for the doomed foetuses, St Augustine goes on to say that their eternal punishment will be the mildest of all the damned as they did not add to their original sin.

If that was his position on the subject then right there is where I differ with St. Augustine. I wonder if he ever asked himself about whether the thief on the cross had time to get down and get baptised before heading into paradise with Jesus. There is nothing in scripture that supports the argument for infant water baptism. Show me where it says that all babies must be baptised with water. It was fully grown adults who John the Baptist baptised not babies and even then that was not enough they still needed the baptism of the holy ghost which at that time (when John was baptising) had not yet come. And the Word “Baptise” means to be submerged in water not just getting a little sprinkling on the forehead. So unless you were submerged in water as a baby then you were not baptised properly either.

If this was St. Augustine’s position then he was just caught up in (as Jesus would say) the traditions of men that make void the Word of God. What we do know from God’s Word is that He (God) is a God of mercy and compassion and takes no pleasure even in the death of the wicked never mind innocent unborn babies. All you have to do is put yourself in His (God’s) position (figuratively speaking) and ask yourself would you condemn these souls that never even had a chance to make it out the gate to eternal damnation? The question is rhetorical unless you’re a sadist which God is not.

The lake of fire you refer to was prepared for Satan and his angels who will one day be cast into it, along with anyone who appears at the white throne judgment of Revelation and those who receive the mark of the beast, embryonic babies don’t even get a mention here. I would love to know what New Testamnet verses St. Augustine was reading when he made his conclusions. Do you know?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Either you believe that we Christians should be killing foetuses for fear of them developing into non-believers, or you are being sensationalist. I'm going with the latter. There is little point in debating when you bring this rubbish to the table.

If every foetus has a soul from the moment of conception, and every foetus that doesn't make it to birth (either artificial or natural abortion) goes straight to heaven (what else would happen to the soul?), what is the down side to being terminated in the womb?

Its a free pass to heaven. In fact it saves the person from the risk of rejecting God during his/her life and ending up in hell.

While I doubt Depeche_Mode is suggesting that every Christian should terminate their baby, it is a very interesting point about the morality of killing, particularly of abortion, from a Christian perspective.

To an atheist such as myself the negative point of killing someone, foetus/child or adult, is that this person ceases to exist. that is bad, because generally existing is better than not existing.

But to a Christian who believes in heaven, death is in fact a passage to a far far better place, assuming they are "saved"

For example, if I killed you today what exactly would be the down side for you

You would be in heaven, which is ultimately exactly where you want to end up, and you will be infinitely happy and infinitely at peace. Certainly I myself have broken God's law, I have murdered someone. But what exactly is the down side for you?

Pompey Magnus

Well one of the arguments made at the Council of Carthage in the 5th Century was that to claim the unborn go to Heaven without baptism is to belittle the sacrament of baptism. Augustine argued succesfully during the council that the dead unborn are not innocent, their souls were guilty of original sin. To suggest that the unborn get special treatment would obviously cause massive problems to church teaching, what happens if the child dies two minutes after birth without baptism? What about 3 months after birth and no baptism? What about the unborn who would never have heard about Jesus' message had they lived? Where do you draw the line?

It obviously was a considerable theological issue as the very status of the saving power of baptism and the seriousness of original sin was at stake, so the church decided that it must make the stand that we are all guilty from conception and can only be saved by baptism. This became Catholic doctrine and as far as I am aware can never be revoked and for any Catholic to argue that the church was wrong in its decision is to deny Papal Infallibilty and engage in heresy.

To suggest that St Augustine made his decision lightly is extremely unfair on him, he studied the Bible carefully and came to his decision, which the church supported. I'm sure he didn't enjoy telling parents whose children died that their unborn are damned and have gone to hell, and had been more interested in the affairs of man I would suggest that he would have given the opposite decision as it no doubt would be the more popular among the masses in a time of high infant mortality. Of course, as with any subject, the Bible is often contradictory and Augustine and the church would have had to judge issues such as the condemned man on the cross as perhaps suggesting salvation outside of baptism, it would not have been all one way traffic, but the decision was made and it became doctrine.

The lake of fire you refer to was prepared for Satan and his angels who will one day be cast into it, along with anyone who appears at the white throne judgment of Revelation and those who receive the mark of the beast, embryonic babies don’t even get a mention here.

I assume Augustine felt that "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life," referred to the unborn.

Akrasia

Soul Winner wrote: »

Henry Drummond defined life as "Capacity to relate to one's environment" can an embryo relate to it's environment? If it’s conceived of fallen mankind then isn't it (the embryo) as a product of a fallen union between two fallen beings itself in a fallen state? And if so in need of redemption from its fallen state? Which said redemption if you accept the New Testament has been provided for in Christ? In said New Testament Jesus Himself speaking says: "Unless you become as this little child you will in no wise enter the Kingdom of God". So don't worry (not that you were) about the embryos, they're already in good with God. Worry about you're own sorry soul.

Ok, so you believe all embryos have a soul, and they all get into heaven if they die before they are born? (and presumably for the first few years of a childs life, while they are innocent and not responsible for their own actions.

(of course that leads to another question, at what point does god hold children responsible for their theological and moral beliefs?)

How can they possibly accept Jesus if they've never heard of Him yet? They don't even have hearing at that age for crying out loud. Can they be preached to about Jesus at that age? If you were God would hold it against them?

I agree with you, A just god could not possibly hold it against them, it would be grossly unfair to eternally punish an innocent for something they have no control over. But this raises serious theological questions.

So you're saying that all the people in the world that are against abortion are Christians? And that there are no Muslims, Buddhists, or Atheists against abortion anywhere?

Not at all (and i don't know how you came to that conclusion), I am questioning why all Christians are against abortion. As Depeche Mode has already said, any Christian parent concerned about their childs eternal welfare should consider aborting them for their own protection. There might be some implications for their own souls, but that is a selfish position, where they put their own souls before their children.

At the very least, they should not object to other people's decision to abort their children. There is no harm done to the unborn child, it gets a free ticket to paradise.

Do you believe that?

Nope, but a lot of christians do, isn't that why people devote their lives to god, to prove themselves worthy for heaven? Doesn't christianity teach that the 'meaning of life' is to love and serve the lord so that we will be rewarded in heaven? If you could skip the interview (which many people fail) and get a guaranteed trip straight into heaven, wouldn't that be a very tempting proposition?

Only if you had that option to choose from. Do you remember having that option as an embryo?

This is about the beliefs of adult christians, not the embryo. I'm wondering whether there's a massive inconsistency in this area of Christian belief.

Parents do things for their infant children 'for their own good' without asking them. Do you remember giving permission to be baptised as a baby? If a child is born terminally ill, they are immediately baptised given last rites to guarantee their ticket to paradise (does this imply that unbaptised babies (and unborn children) are actually punished by god for the sin of not being baptised?

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner;54898482] All you have to do is put yourself in His (God’s) position (figuratively speaking) and ask yourself would you condemn these souls that never even had a chance to make it out the gate to eternal damnation?

Of course I wouldn't condemn an unborn child for someone else's sin, but I would do lots of things different to God. I would condemn no-one, a 6 week old foetus or a 90 year old Hindu, for the sins commited by another person, who incidently never even existed to commit that sin. To threaten eternal punishment is to me an action completely opposite to a God who claims to be loving. There is not a crime imaginable which I would condemn anyone to suffer for eternity because of.

Akrasia

Soul Winner wrote: »

If that was his position on the subject then right there is where I differ with St. Augustine. I wonder if he ever asked himself about whether the thief on the cross had time to get down and get baptised before heading into paradise with Jesus. There is nothing in scripture that supports the argument for infant water baptism. Show me where it says that all babies must be baptised with water. It was fully grown adults who John the Baptist baptised not babies and even then that was not enough they still needed the baptism of the holy ghost which at that time (when John was baptising) had not yet come. And the Word “Baptise” means to be submerged in water not just getting a little sprinkling on the forehead. So unless you were submerged in water as a baby then you were not baptised properly either.

If this was St. Augustine’s position then he was just caught up in (as Jesus would say) the traditions of men that make void the Word of God. What we do know from God’s Word is that He (God) is a God of mercy and compassion and takes no pleasure even in the death of the wicked never mind innocent unborn babies. All you have to do is put yourself in His (God’s) position (figuratively speaking) and ask yourself would you condemn these souls that never even had a chance to make it out the gate to eternal damnation? The question is rhetorical unless you’re a sadist which God is not.

The lake of fire you refer to was prepared for Satan and his angels who will one day be cast into it, along with anyone who appears at the white throne judgment of Revelation and those who receive the mark of the beast, embryonic babies don’t even get a mention here. I would love to know what New Testamnet verses St. Augustine was reading when he made his conclusions. Do you know?

The ironic thing about all this is, the Catholic Church could easily have gotten around this problem by introducing a new sacrament, some kind of blessing of pregnancy, where unborn children are blessed by a priest while they are in the womb and this could be given the status of a baptism as a stop gap before the child is born.

(I'm surprised that they never did considering the benefits to them and their control over the population. If they could pressurise women into registering all pregnancies with the church, they could maintain 'moral rectitude' by monitoring the sexual practises of their congregation)

BrianCalgary

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Of course I am being sensationalist, but with reason. It would be unimaginable for any person to do such a thing for such a reason and I know that people won't do it, but what I was saying is that this is in spite of their beliefs and not because of it. You may decline to point out how my argument is flawed from a Christian theological viewpoint if you wish, that is assuming I am mistaken in the teachings on what happens to the souls of foetuses should they be aborted which I could very well be.?

First off, since you are being sensationalist the desire to answer a question of someone who has already drawn a conclusion diminishes greatly.

There is no flaw in the theology as the Bible teaches 'do not murder'. So we don't end of story.

The Bible does not tell us of unborn children and where they end up, so all we have is conjecture.

What you should be concerned with more is answering the questions: what is happening to your soul and what are you doing to benefit humanity in using the talents that God has given you?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

But let us assume I am correct and most Christians reject the teachings of St Augustine and the infallible Catholic doctrine from XVI Council of Carthage, the Council of Lyons II, and the Council of Florence which all said unbaptized infants are doomed to spend eternity with the damned in hell because they are a soul which never recieved the grace of Christ's sacrifice, and for anyone to claim that a soul can be saved except through baptism Christ is heresy.

Let us instead assume that most Christians would now feel that the Popes are indeed fallible and the heretical teachings of Pelagius might have been closer to the truth all along and original sin will not condemn them, then for the sake of argument, if offered the choice, how many would choose life and the risks of eternal damnation and how many would choose a natural death as a foetus soon after conception which you believe would guarantee you eternal life with God?

Now you show your ignorance: All Christians do not follow the teachings of the RC church, nor do we take them as authoritative. They are like any theologian and will be tested ahainst scripture.

I have highlighted the fallacies in your assumptions.

And you last question is ridiculous as no one has that choice because a foetus can not make an informed decsision.

BrianCalgary

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Of course I wouldn't condemn an unborn child for someone else's sin, but I would do lots of things different to God. I would condemn no-one, a 6 week old foetus or a 90 year old Hindu, for the sins commited by another person,.

You should maybe get your theology staright. The 90 year old Hindu is has condemned himself by the actions of his own sin as have you as have I

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

who incidently never even existed to commit that sin. ..

And you know this how?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

To threaten eternal punishment is to me an action completely opposite to a God who claims to be loving..

God does not threaten eternal punishment, He is informing you what the results of your actions are.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

There is not a crime imaginable which I would condemn anyone to suffer for eternity because of.

And we should utilize you moral code because.......

Akrasia

BrianCalgary wrote: »

God does not threaten eternal punishment, He is informing you what the results of your actions are.

If a mugger says 'If you don't hand over your wallet, I'll shoot you'
That is both a threat, and informing the person of what the results of their actions might be.

God says to worship him and live as a christian, or he will cast us into the lake of fire. That is not much different from what the mugger did. Both God and the mugger make the rules, and both god and the mugger have the power not punish the person for disobeying the command.

BrianCalgary

Akrasia wrote: »

If a mugger says 'If you don't hand over your wallet, I'll shoot you'
That is both a threat, and informing the person of what the results of their actions might be.

God says to worship him and live as a christian, or he will cast us into the lake of fire. That is not much different from what the mugger did. Both God and the mugger make the rules, and both god and the mugger have the power not punish the person for disobeying the command.

The mugger will only shoot me if God allows it, because I want God to look after my life, it is in His hands. So no he doesn't have that power.

What would you do in the case of the mugger? Would you comply with him? I would, he can take my wallet, car keys, whatever he liked.

Akrasia

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The mugger will only shoot me if God allows it, because I want God to look after my life, it is in His hands. So no he doesn't have that power.

What would you do in the case of the mugger? Would you comply with him? I would, he can take my wallet, car keys, whatever he liked.

I probably would comply too, especially if there were other people at risk, but i wouldn't be so stoic about the whole affair.

I think you have managed to skillfully circumnavigate my point about whether god threatening to cast people into hell is the same as a mugger threatening to kill someone

BrianCalgary

Akrasia wrote: »

I probably would comply too, especially if there were other people at risk, but i wouldn't be so stoic about the whole affair.

I have a friend who belongs to the Christain Motorcycle Association. When a friend of his at a motorcycle convention was approached by a Hells Angel and tole that he would be killed by said Hells Angel for wearing the colours he was. The CMA member replied, 'I will only die by the will of God.' He just stood there before the Hells Angel and showed absolutely no fear. Any way after a discussion that Hells Angel turned to Christ and got his life turned around because he learned who was really the boss.

Akrasia wrote: »

I think you have managed to skillfully circumnavigate my point about whether god threatening to cast people into hell is the same as a mugger threatening to kill someone

thanks for the complement.

I think that the two are quite different in degree. If the mugger threatens me remember that death does not frighten me. There is a side of me that actually welcomes it. So death isn't necessarily negative, the mugger is actually sending me to a better place, so there is no threat of something worse.

So all of a sudden th emugger is aying, giv eme everythin or else, well th eor else is actaully good. Whereas Gid is saying, these are the consequences of your actions and th ebenefits of other actions.

I'm curious thogh, you'd comply with a mugger, yet reject God?

Soul Winner

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Well one of the arguments made at the Council of Carthage in the 5th Century was that to claim the unborn go to Heaven without baptism is to belittle the sacrament of baptism.

They were full of it I'm sorry if it sounds offensive but the thoughts of these guys getting together 500 years after the New Testament was written and making decisions like this and thinking its the word of God is one of the things I absolutely despise about the Catholic Church as an institution. They are not the final authority on these matters, it’s just sad that they can never see it that way.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Augustine argued successfully during the council that the dead unborn are not innocent, their souls were guilty of original sin.

What has that got to do with anything? Just because they themselves could not fathom God's Grace does not give them the right to make such assumptions. I don't care who they were. God's Word is supreme, not a bunch of un-liberated in Christ know nothings in the 5th century who think what they say is infallible. They also said that the book of Revelation is past tense. That alone should tell you how infallible they are. If its past tense then when did Christ rule over His Millennial Kingdom? Is the battle of Armageddon an historical fact? So how can the book of Revelation be past tense? It's yet to come, they were worng they are not infallible.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

To suggest that the unborn get special treatment would obviously cause massive problems to church teaching, what happens if the child dies two minutes after birth without baptism? What about 3 months after birth and no baptism? What about the unborn who would never have heard about Jesus' message had they lived? Where do you draw the line?

Who are they to draw the line anywhere? They were suppose to be preaching that Jesus died for everyone and that by faith you can enter into this wonderful salvation not trivializing over issues that pertain to the sovereign Lord alone. It's none of the Churches’ business what happens to souls after the die, anyone souls. The primary purpose of the Church is to preach Jesus Christ risen and seated at the right hand of God making intercession for sinners whom He alone died for. He spent His life's blood dying for sinners, no pseudo scholar hold up in a monastery tower somewhere in Carthage ever did that for anyone.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

It obviously was a considerable theological issue as the very status of the saving power of baptism and the seriousness of original sin was at stake, so the church decided that it must make the stand that we are all guilty from conception and can only be saved by baptism.

Absolute balderdash. Baptism alone will not save you. Never has and never will. Faith alone saves you. Baptism can be an act of faith and can be done as a token of your commitment to God which can be repeated if you feel the need but it doesn't save you. And if you are to be baptised then it is a personal decision for you as an individual. I bet Hitler was baptised, does that mean he's going to heaven? The Catholic Church has yet to excommunicate Hitler and yet it passes judgement on unborn innocence. Makes my blood to boil.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

This became Catholic doctrine and as far as I am aware can never be revoked and for any Catholic to argue that the church was wrong in its decision is to deny Papal Infallibilty and engage in heresy.

Yes it became Catholic Doctrine but Catholic Doctrine is not synonymous with actual fact as much as they'd like it to be. The Pope is not infallible, never was and never will be. The first Pope (as Catholics would say) is Peter, and if you read the record, he failed Jesus the most during His (Jesus') earthly ministry. I hate to offend but I refuse to stay silent on this. The Catholic church is not based on Scripture, it is based on Council after council of Churches throughout history. Some things that came from these councils were good and some not good at all. They need to let God's Word reign supreme and take a back seat.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

To suggest that St Augustine made his decision lightly is extremely unfair on him,

I never said that he took it lightly. It’s not his decision to make in the first place.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

he studied the Bible carefully and came to his decision, which the church supported.

Show me the verses of scripture he used to come to his conclusions.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I'm sure he didn't enjoy telling parents whose children died that their unborn are damned and have gone to hell, and had been more interested in the affairs of man I would suggest that he would have given the opposite decision as it no doubt would be the more popular among the masses in a time of high infant mortality.

Not popular is not the same as being right. You can be wrong and unpopular too. I'm telling you the only One who has the right to determine the place of your eternal soul is the One who created it.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Of course, as with any subject, the Bible is often contradictory and Augustine and the church would have had to judge issues such as the condemned man on the cross as perhaps suggesting salvation outside of baptism, it would not have been all one way traffic, but the decision was made and it became doctrine.

Well thank God I'm not bound up in that doctrine. All I need is God's Word thanks.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I assume Augustine felt that "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life," referred to the unborn.

You assume wrong. The book of Ephesians tell us that God chose out from amongst others not chosen for Himself before the foundation of the world. The ones not chosen are the ones not written in the book of life. Who are they? Only God knows. Is it limited to the unborn if at all? Again only God knows.

Pompey Magnus

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You should maybe get your theology staright. The 90 year old Hindu is has condemned himself by the actions of his own sin as have you as have I

Maybe I should get my theology straight, I was under the impression that the primary reason the 90 year old Hindu will not get to Heaven is because he his soul had not been cleansed of the sin of Adam through baptism. Am I wrong in this impression?

God does not threaten eternal punishment, He is informing you what the results of your actions are.

Fine, if you don't like the word threat we shall just say that God pleasantly informs us that if we don't do as he says he will cast us into a lake of fire where we will be eternally tortured...and have a nice day. Much less threatening indeed.

And we should utilize you moral code because.......

You don't have to follow my moral code, you can continue to follow the moral code of Bronze Age farmers if you so wish.

But I personally prefer my morality. I don't do good because of fear of punishment or hope of reward, my morality won't give my children nightmares of being burned alive by Satan and his demonic minions constantly for all eternity if they sin, my morality doesn't teach that the sins of the father should be passed onto his sons, my morality is not founded on fear, it doesn't claim to be the perfect way to live your life and if you deviate from it you will be damned.

Akrasia

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I'm curious thogh, you'd comply with a mugger, yet reject God?

Yes, I'd probably comply with the mugger because I know that he exists, and I am fairly certain that his gun is real, and because as an Atheist, I believe that this is my only shot at existence and would rather not throw it away for the sake of a few euros in a cheap wallet.

I would only follow the muggers instructions up to a certain point after which I would refuse, and the whole time, I would be looking for a way to escape from the situation, or to gain the upper hand.

God is completely different, First of all I don't believe he exists because I have never seen even the tiniest bit of convincing evidence, but even if there is a higher power out there, I don't believe he has placed any demands on me and I don't believe there are any threats or rewards based on what I choose to do.
If God came out of the sky and pointed his lightning bolt at me and said I must believe in him or else i'll be punished forever, that would be a different kettle of fish. I'd probably have second thoughts then. (after I queried what kinds of mushrooms were in my soup)

BrianCalgary

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Maybe I should get my theology straight, I was under the impression that the primary reason the 90 year old Hindu will not get to Heaven is because he his soul had not been cleansed of the sin of Adam through baptism. Am I wrong in this impression? .

Yes you are wrong in your impression. Baptism is an act of obedience to God. It is also a public demonstration of one's private decision to follow Christ.

Baptism does not wash away sin, only Christ can do that. And He does as a result of one placing their faith in Him.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Fine, if you don't like the word threat we shall just say that God pleasantly informs us that if we don't do as he says he will cast us into a lake of fire where we will be eternally tortured...and have a nice day. Much less threatening indeed..

As parent I remember my oldest child, when as a toddler she was quite taken by the handle of the frying pan on teh stove. She went to reach for it. She had no idea of the consequences and boy did she put up a squawk when I stopped her from grabbing it. At soem point in her life she can make her own informed decision whether or not to grab that frying pan.

Her being burned would have been a result of her actions, just as our ending up in Hell is because of our own actions. If you wopuld like an existence without God, you are welcome to it. You will get your hearts desire. God tells you what it will look like.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

You don't have to follow my moral code, you can continue to follow the moral code of Bronze Age farmers if you so wish..

Probably better than our current secular moral code.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

But I personally prefer my morality. I don't do good because of fear of punishment or hope of reward, my morality won't give my children nightmares of being burned alive by Satan and his demonic minions constantly for all eternity if they sin, my morality doesn't teach that the sins of the father should be passed onto his sons, my morality is not founded on fear, it doesn't claim to be the perfect way to live your life and if you deviate from it you will be damned.

God's moralitry has never given myself, my kids nor my wife nightmares about Hell, just pleasant dreams of Heaven. It's all in the presentation.

Fanny Cradock

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Yes you are wrong in your impression. Baptism is an act of obedience to God. It is also a public demonstration of one's private decision to follow Christ.

Baptism does not wash away sin, only Christ can do that. And He does as a result of one placing their faith in Him.

Indeed, that's why many non-Catholic Christians wouldn't be too fussed about baptising a child.

Pompey Magnus

BrianCalgary wrote: »

God's moralitry has never given myself, my kids nor my wife nightmares about Hell, just pleasant dreams of Heaven. It's all in the presentation.

It may indeed be all in the presentation, but is the sugar coated presentation of fluffy clouds and angels playing harps the full story? Should you and your family be just as worried about Hell as you would be hoping for Heaven?

Whilst as far as I can remember I never woke up in a cold sweat having nightmares about Heaven I certainly always had a fear of Hell and was never in any way very confident about my chances of going to Heaven. This was in spite of me be a good alter boy, going to mass every Sunday and praying every night, what always stood out with me was the emphasis in the NT on how few would be chosen to enter Heaven and I never fancied my chances.