Political Crossfire Forums

Todd D. · Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:40 am Post subject:

Quote: My post was concerning babies dying without being baptized and you mentioned babies dying of polio. There is a difference in dying physically and dying spiritually. To die of a disease is to die physically. To die without being baptized, if you believe that one must be baptized to go to heaven, means to die spiritually.
So if someone says a baby dies of polio without being baptized goes to hell, that is an [insert extremely negative word here] statement and even more [insert extremely negative word here] belief.
I understood that to be what you were saying in context to my reply. If that is not the case, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. (I admit, I was having a difficult day so I might have read more into it than was there. If so I truly apologize.)
What I was saying was in the context of understanding Sin as a disease that kills your soul. Polio, unless vaccinated against it, can kill you, and I don't think any parent in their right mind would wait for a child to request vaccination instead of making that choice for them as their parent. Likewise, sin is a disease that, unless protected against, can kill your soul. If you believe that ALL humans inherit our sinful nature from our first spiritual ancestors (Adam and Eve), then even a newborn child inherits that stain. In that context, it is no differet for a parent to choose the wash away the original sin of their infant than it is to vaccinate their child against infectious diseases.

Quote: I still stand behind my comment for those that believe this a baby goes to hell if it is not baptized and there is absolutely no way for anyone to change my mind in this regard.
You called it ignorant. I still fail to understand how it fits the definition of ignorant in any way. It's a different opinion from you, but "ignorant" means that they hold an opinion and refuse to see "the truth". Seeing that you have no real way to prove that what you are saying is "the truth" rather than your opinion, I can not understan how you would stand by your comment. Ironically enough, your refusal to recognize this is, in itsself, ignorant.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Todd D. wrote: What I was saying was in the context of understanding Sin as a disease that kills your soul. Polio, unless vaccinated against it, can kill you, and I don't think any parent in their right mind would wait for a child to request vaccination instead of making that choice for them as their parent. Likewise, sin is a disease that, unless protected against, can kill your soul. If you believe that ALL humans inherit our sinful nature from our first spiritual ancestors (Adam and Eve), then even a newborn child inherits that stain. In that context, it is no differet for a parent to choose the wash away the original sin of their infant than it is to vaccinate their child against infectious diseases.

I agree that sin is a spiritual disease that can kill your soul. That is not what I am concerned with. I don't think, however, that inherit sin in a newborn baby that dies before it's baptized will cause this child to go to hell, no more than I would think an adult with a mental illness will go to hell when they die. The reason is that I believe there has to be a sense of understanding why one needs to ask for forgiveness. If there is no understanding, then I don't think that person (baby or adult) will go to hell. To believe that a baby or person with a mental disability that keeps them from acknowledging their 'inherit sin' (which is means for another debate altogether) goes to hell when they die without being baptized I believe, is an ignorant, stupid, wrong, brutal, very much un-God like, (etc) belief.

If, by refusing to accept something that I believe does not in any way represent a loving, caring God, (saying baptism is needed for everyone regardless of age, mental state of accountability - if no baptism means you go to hell) then by all means you may call me ignorant. I couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks of me for my beliefs. Just as I am sure no one cares what I think of them and their beliefs.

Todd D. · Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:41 am Post subject:

Quote: I agree that sin is a spiritual disease that can kill your soul. That is not what I am concerned with. I don't think, however, that inherit sin in a newborn baby that dies before it's baptized will cause this child to go to hell, no more than I would think an adult with a mental illness will go to hell when they die. The reason is that I believe there has to be a sense of understanding why one needs to ask for forgiveness. If there is no understanding, then I don't think that person (baby or adult) will go to hell. To believe that a baby or person with a mental disability that keeps them from acknowledging their 'inherit sin' (which is means for another debate altogether) goes to hell when they die without being baptized I believe, is an ignorant, stupid, wrong, brutal, very much un-God like, (etc) belief.
You are taking a very "Dante"istic view of Hell. Firery Caves, Little Red Men, eternal torture, all that good stuff. That's not what hell is, at least not strictly. All Hell is is a complete absence of God. Nothing more, nothing less.

You continue to say that there has to be an understanding of WHY you need to ask for forgiveness. That's fine, but that's not anywhere in the Bible. Again using the disease analogy: whether you know what Smallpox does or not, you're still going to die. Ignorance or lack of cognition does not excuse consequence of actions any more than not knowing about gravity will suspend you above a cliff if you walk off.

Quote: If, by refusing to accept something that I believe does not in any way represent a loving, caring God, (saying baptism is needed for everyone regardless of age, mental state of accountability - if no baptism means you go to hell) then by all means you may call me ignorant. I couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks of me for my beliefs. Just as I am sure no one cares what I think of them and their beliefs.
Dude, you're not getting me. I never said that your belief was ignorant. I completely understand where your belief is coming from. What I disputed was you calling someone else's belief "ignorant". In fact, I didn't even have a problem with you objecting to that belief, I just thought it should be pointed out that you didn't use the word correctly. When you continued to argue that you WERE using the word correctly, that's when I called you ignorant.

Izzibeth · Joined: 12 May 2006 Posts: 423

Todd D. wrote: You are taking a very "Dante"istic view of Hell. Firery Caves, Little Red Men, eternal torture, all that good stuff. That's not what hell is, at least not strictly. All Hell is is a complete absence of God. Nothing more, nothing less.

now... i'm an atheist so feel free to let me know if i'm wrong here.... but...

John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 The Lord Jesus ... in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God ... who shall be punished with everlasting destruction.

Revelation 14:10-11 "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God ...he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone ... And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.

Revelation 21:8 The fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.

Todd D. · Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:23 am Post subject:

Much of the description of Hell is based on the greek idea of Hades, except substituting extreme cold for extreme hot. Much ca be attributed to metaphor, though the descriptions of sensation are probably fairly accurate.

Hell is the absence of God, and God is the creator of good, so in Hell there is absolutely nothing good. No oxygen, no warmth, no light, etc. I would imagine being "burned" is probably a fairly accurate metaphor, but it leads to people taking this anthopomorphic view of a Hell that Satan leads (when, in truth, he is just as much a prisoner as the rest). Pope John Paul II desribed it quite well I feel when he said "The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy".

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: Todd D. wrote: Quote: I thought Christian belief was a baby isn't responsible for original sin until age of accountability? If that is so, then doing it early doesn't make any sense (IE waste of time, unless it is strictly for the parent's benefit)- you should do it once you hit age of accountability I believe.
No. That is a modern innovation that comes as the result of Protestants trying to reconcile the idea of Baptism for believers AND the idea that all humans are sinful, thus they came up with the idea of the "Age of Accountability", a concept that is found nowhere in the Bible (which is interesting, considering how much many of them criticize Catholics for doing things that are not in the Bible).

In short: Most Christians, both historically as well as today, do not believe in the Age of Accountability.

So if a 3 month old baby dies, it goes to hell?

Well, the official position of the Catholic Church is "we don't know," however, just in case, let's baptize infants.
The 'just in case, let's baptize' is logical, but the belief that baptism is necessary and there is no age of accountability (regardless of who came up with that idea) makes no sense. A baby can die before it's born, or an hour after it's born, etc.
Another church/bible issue that makes no sense at all.

Well, even the Catholic Church recognizes an age of accountability for committed sin (original sin is a different issue). It's somewhere around age 7, which is when most Catholic kids first go to confession. The basic viewpoint that most Catholics assume is that baptism is required IF POSSIBLE, but that God is not held by the sacraments. For example, in the case of catecumens (sp?) (converts), it is presumed that while a convert is going through Catholic education classes, and then dies in a car accident the week before his baptism was scheduled, the assumption is that he was baptized by desire.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Todd D. wrote: Quote: I agree that sin is a spiritual disease that can kill your soul. That is not what I am concerned with. I don't think, however, that inherit sin in a newborn baby that dies before it's baptized will cause this child to go to hell, no more than I would think an adult with a mental illness will go to hell when they die. The reason is that I believe there has to be a sense of understanding why one needs to ask for forgiveness. If there is no understanding, then I don't think that person (baby or adult) will go to hell. To believe that a baby or person with a mental disability that keeps them from acknowledging their 'inherit sin' (which is means for another debate altogether) goes to hell when they die without being baptized I believe, is an ignorant, stupid, wrong, brutal, very much un-God like, (etc) belief.
You are taking a very "Dante"istic view of Hell. Firery Caves, Little Red Men, eternal torture, all that good stuff. That's not what hell is, at least not strictly. All Hell is is a complete absence of God. Nothing more, nothing less.

You continue to say that there has to be an understanding of WHY you need to ask for forgiveness. That's fine, but that's not anywhere in the Bible. Again using the disease analogy: whether you know what Smallpox does or not, you're still going to die. Ignorance or lack of cognition does not excuse consequence of actions any more than not knowing about gravity will suspend you above a cliff if you walk off.

Quote: If, by refusing to accept something that I believe does not in any way represent a loving, caring God, (saying baptism is needed for everyone regardless of age, mental state of accountability - if no baptism means you go to hell) then by all means you may call me ignorant. I couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks of me for my beliefs. Just as I am sure no one cares what I think of them and their beliefs.
Dude, you're not getting me. I never said that your belief was ignorant. I completely understand where your belief is coming from. What I disputed was you calling someone else's belief "ignorant". In fact, I didn't even have a problem with you objecting to that belief, I just thought it should be pointed out that you didn't use the word correctly. When you continued to argue that you WERE using the word correctly, that's when I called you ignorant.
So it seems the only issue we have is how the term ignorant is used? Very well - IGNORANT: "lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified" or "destitute of knowledge or education" or "resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence".
When I said "For those who say that a baby goes to hell because there wasn't time to baptize, that it is a statement and belief beyond ignorant.", I could have said: "For those who say that a baby goes to hell because there wasn't time to baptize, that it is a statement and belief beyond comprehension of the thing specified or, "For those who say that a baby goes to hell because there wasn't time to baptize, that it is a statement and belief beyond ignorant (ignorant {resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence".})."
Seems that I used the term correctly. Not that it matters any longer......

Todd D. · Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:46 pm Post subject:

So what you are saying is that if someone believes an infant that was not baptized goes to hell, then they are lacking knowledge or comprehension? What knowledge or comprehension is that? It's not ignorant in any way, shape, or form to say something like that, as much as I might disagree with it.

Saying "Jews are inferior because their genetics make them sneaky" is ignorant because it is not a true statement and easily disproved. "Infants that are not baptized go to hell" is not an ignorant statement because there's no way to prove either way which one is right.

wormwood · Joined: 24 Sep 2005 Posts: 2780 Location: The P-Brane

I am probably wrong, but isn't baptism just a ceremony? I realize that there is significance tied to it, but really it's just a rite. It's what the baptism represents that is important, not the actual act of being dunked in water or having it sprinkled on your head. That was my understanding anyway.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Todd D. wrote: So what you are saying is that if someone believes an infant that was not baptized goes to hell, then they are lacking knowledge or comprehension? What knowledge or comprehension is that? It's not ignorant in any way, shape, or form to say something like that, as much as I might disagree with it.

Saying "Jews are inferior because their genetics make them sneaky" is ignorant because it is not a true statement and easily disproved. "Infants that are not baptized go to hell" is not an ignorant statement because there's no way to prove either way which one is right.

It is an ignorant understanding of God. So yes, that belief is ignorant in every way. Argue what you will, but my statement stands as does my belief. Happy posting.

Todd D. · Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject:

You know what ticks me off more than anything? People that think that they know, for a fact, exactly what God wants. I find that to be presumptious to the absolute core. Oh, so it's an ignorant view of God to have an idea different than yours? That's great, how open-minded of you. Can you prove that your "truth" is correct, or that someone that disagrees with you is lacking knowledge on the subject?

What's double-funny is that by saying that you refuse to hear anything to the contrary, you are yourself being quite ignorant. That's really more amusing than anything else though.

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

Todd D. wrote: You know what ticks me off more than anything? People that think that they know, for a fact, exactly what God wants. I find that to be presumptious to the absolute core. Oh, so it's an ignorant view of God to have an idea different than yours? That's great, how open-minded of you. Can you prove that your "truth" is correct, or that someone that disagrees with you is lacking knowledge on the subject?

What's double-funny is that by saying that you refuse to hear anything to the contrary, you are yourself being quite ignorant. That's really more amusing than anything else though.

Thank you for sharing :roll:
I didn't see ToddyTodd say anything about knowing what God WANTS. He was speaking about the belief, NOT about what God wants. Can you not see that?!? Obviously not. All he seemed to say was that if popular BELIEF of a 'all loving God' is going to bring a life into existence only to let it die & go to hell is hypocrytical of that all loving God. Or who knows, maybe everyone who thinks God is all loving is wrong. Besides, if that is truly the view of God, I (as well as many others) would want no part of him.

Obviously, if you didn't get the point, you are trying to save face. By all means please do if it validates your view of yourself. I doubt anyone but you cares.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

connermt wrote: Todd D. wrote: You know what ticks me off more than anything? People that think that they know, for a fact, exactly what God wants. I find that to be presumptious to the absolute core. Oh, so it's an ignorant view of God to have an idea different than yours? That's great, how open-minded of you. Can you prove that your "truth" is correct, or that someone that disagrees with you is lacking knowledge on the subject?

What's double-funny is that by saying that you refuse to hear anything to the contrary, you are yourself being quite ignorant. That's really more amusing than anything else though.

Thank you for sharing :roll:
I didn't see ToddyTodd say anything about knowing what God WANTS. He was speaking about the belief, NOT about what God wants. Can you not see that?!? Obviously not. All he seemed to say was that if popular BELIEF of a 'all loving God' is going to bring a life into existence only to let it die & go to hell is hypocrytical of that all loving God. Or who knows, maybe everyone who thinks God is all loving is wrong. Besides, if that is truly the view of God, I (as well as many others) would want no part of him.

Obviously, if you didn't get the point, you are trying to save face. By all means please do if it validates your view of yourself. I doubt anyone but you cares.

I think (hope) he missed the point altogether. Which is fine. But you are correct, I mentioned nothing about what God wants, only the belief of a certain practice and the outcome if that practice isn't carried out. I am no biblical scholar, nor have I claimed to be. But logically, to bring a life into existence only to let it die and go to hell (which for those confused I am saying a baby die without the chance to be baptized and thus goes to Hell) is demented and quite contrary to the loving god persona that has been put forth by main stream Christianity.
So either that belief is wrong or that popular view of God is wrong, in my opinion. It isn't being closed minded to believe this and to say I doubt (or there is absolutely no way) anyone will be able to change my point of view on the matter. If someone thinks they can and desire to, I welcome it.

Hyde · Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:36 pm Post subject:

toddytodd wrote: connermt wrote: Todd D. wrote: You know what ticks me off more than anything? People that think that they know, for a fact, exactly what God wants. I find that to be presumptious to the absolute core. Oh, so it's an ignorant view of God to have an idea different than yours? That's great, how open-minded of you. Can you prove that your "truth" is correct, or that someone that disagrees with you is lacking knowledge on the subject?

What's double-funny is that by saying that you refuse to hear anything to the contrary, you are yourself being quite ignorant. That's really more amusing than anything else though.

Thank you for sharing :roll:
I didn't see ToddyTodd say anything about knowing what God WANTS. He was speaking about the belief, NOT about what God wants. Can you not see that?!? Obviously not. All he seemed to say was that if popular BELIEF of a 'all loving God' is going to bring a life into existence only to let it die & go to hell is hypocrytical of that all loving God. Or who knows, maybe everyone who thinks God is all loving is wrong. Besides, if that is truly the view of God, I (as well as many others) would want no part of him.

Obviously, if you didn't get the point, you are trying to save face. By all means please do if it validates your view of yourself. I doubt anyone but you cares.

I think (hope) he missed the point altogether. Which is fine. But you are correct, I mentioned nothing about what God wants, only the belief of a certain practice and the outcome if that practice isn't carried out. I am no biblical scholar, nor have I claimed to be. But logically, to bring a life into existence only to let it die and go to hell (which for those confused I am saying a baby die without the chance to be baptized and thus goes to Hell) is demented and quite contrary to the loving god persona that has been put forth by main stream Christianity.
So either that belief is wrong or that popular view of God is wrong, in my opinion. It isn't being closed minded to believe this and to say I doubt (or there is absolutely no way) anyone will be able to change my point of view on the matter. If someone thinks they can and desire to, I welcome it.
it is very ignorant to say this though
Quote:
it is ignorant to say this though
IGNORANT: "lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified" or "destitute of knowledge or education" or "resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence".
When I said "For those who say that a baby goes to hell because there wasn't time to baptize, that it is a statement and belief beyond ignorant.", I could have said: "For those who say that a baby goes to hell because there wasn't time to baptize, that it is a statement and belief beyond comprehension of the thing specified or, "For those who say that a baby goes to hell because there wasn't time to baptize, that it is a statement and belief beyond ignorant (ignorant {resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence".})."

you said it lacks knowledge or itelegence. to say that makes you sound like you know God's will. which i can assure you, you do not as no man does.no one can cross out any beleif as impossible for we dont know if it is real or not. there is only personal beleif. most christians believe God is loving and caring but if you are sinful God will not let the sins go unpunished. i, like you, disagree with that belief, but to call it ignorant, is in itself ignorant.

p.s. keep your little friend connermt on a leash. by saying"By all means please do if it validates your view of yourself. I doubt anyone but you cares" he went out of line. connermt, please keep to the disscussion and talk about things relevant. and if you cant, kindly leave. :wink:

Todd D. · Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:01 am Post subject:

Hyde pretty much summed it up exactly.

Hyde · Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:03 am Post subject:

Todd D. wrote: Hyde pretty much summed it up exactly.

:-D glad i could help

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Hyde wrote: toddytodd wrote: connermt wrote: Todd D. wrote: You know what ticks me off more than anything? People that think that they know, for a fact, exactly what God wants. I find that to be presumptious to the absolute core. Oh, so it's an ignorant view of God to have an idea different than yours? That's great, how open-minded of you. Can you prove that your "truth" is correct, or that someone that disagrees with you is lacking knowledge on the subject?

What's double-funny is that by saying that you refuse to hear anything to the contrary, you are yourself being quite ignorant. That's really more amusing than anything else though.

Thank you for sharing :roll:
I didn't see ToddyTodd say anything about knowing what God WANTS. He was speaking about the belief, NOT about what God wants. Can you not see that?!? Obviously not. All he seemed to say was that if popular BELIEF of a 'all loving God' is going to bring a life into existence only to let it die & go to hell is hypocrytical of that all loving God. Or who knows, maybe everyone who thinks God is all loving is wrong. Besides, if that is truly the view of God, I (as well as many others) would want no part of him.

Obviously, if you didn't get the point, you are trying to save face. By all means please do if it validates your view of yourself. I doubt anyone but you cares.

I think (hope) he missed the point altogether. Which is fine. But you are correct, I mentioned nothing about what God wants, only the belief of a certain practice and the outcome if that practice isn't carried out. I am no biblical scholar, nor have I claimed to be. But logically, to bring a life into existence only to let it die and go to hell (which for those confused I am saying a baby die without the chance to be baptized and thus goes to Hell) is demented and quite contrary to the loving god persona that has been put forth by main stream Christianity.
So either that belief is wrong or that popular view of God is wrong, in my opinion. It isn't being closed minded to believe this and to say I doubt (or there is absolutely no way) anyone will be able to change my point of view on the matter. If someone thinks they can and desire to, I welcome it.
it is very ignorant to say this though
Quote:
it is ignorant to say this though
IGNORANT: "lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified" or "destitute of knowledge or education" or "resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence".
When I said "For those who say that a baby goes to hell because there wasn't time to baptize, that it is a statement and belief beyond ignorant.", I could have said: "For those who say that a baby goes to hell because there wasn't time to baptize, that it is a statement and belief beyond comprehension of the thing specified or, "For those who say that a baby goes to hell because there wasn't time to baptize, that it is a statement and belief beyond ignorant (ignorant {resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence".})."

you said it lacks knowledge or itelegence. to say that makes you sound like you know God's will. which i can assure you, you do not as no man does.no one can cross out any beleif as impossible for we dont know if it is real or not. there is only personal beleif. most christians believe God is loving and caring but if you are sinful God will not let the sins go unpunished. i, like you, disagree with that belief, but to call it ignorant, is in itself ignorant.

p.s. keep your little friend connermt on a leash. by saying"By all means please do if it validates your view of yourself. I doubt anyone but you cares" he went out of line. connermt, please keep to the disscussion and talk about things relevant. and if you cant, kindly leave. :wink:

I can't speak for my 'friend' connermt (a rather large assumption on your part I might add), they might voice their reply at some point yet again. You will need to take that up with them at that time.

I am sorry you feel my point of view is 'ignorant'. That is your opinion on the issue and that is fine. It is impossible to think of a caring god, (as outlined in the bible) or of any kind allowing an innocent baby to go to this hell for not being baptized. One can say it is hypocritical. That belief in of itself is wrong and ignorant in my opinion.

drobforever · Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 141

Just ignore the word 'ignorant' and you guys will be in agreement on a lot of issues. That's the problem of everyone here (myself included). We come here thinking that what we belief is correct and so others are 'ignorant' and we've to shoot their beliefs down. And then others would think that we're 'ignorant' for trying to shoot down others' beliefs. The cycle goes on and on.

Hyde · Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:16 pm Post subject:

drobforever wrote: Just ignore the word 'ignorant' and you guys will be in agreement on a lot of issues. That's the problem of everyone here (myself included). We come here thinking that what we belief is correct and so others are 'ignorant' and we've to shoot their beliefs down. And then others would think that we're 'ignorant' for trying to shoot down others' beliefs. The cycle goes on and on.
'
thats why i decided a long time ago to never dismiss a belief or religion as insanity. because, if you think about it, any religion can be right, any can be wrong. it is my beleif that all are wrong because i dont bleive any one relgion is the one and only true one. i could be wrong about that, and i accept that possiblity. more people need to be open to other peoples beliefs instead of dismissing it as ignorant or idiocy compared to their own.

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

I have yet to see anyone show where the scriptures say that baptism is not necessary, only opinion that it isn't, in spite of the many verses that have been posted, indicating that it is.

So, in case I missed it, did anyone answer the question as to why Jesus would send his apostles out, telling them that they were to teach and baptize all nations, if baptism was not necessary?

Or - why would Peter teach to repent and be baptized, "every one of you," if baptism wasn't necessary? And why would Paul be commanded to be baptized to wash away his sins, after Jesus appeared to him, if baptism wasn't necessary?