Calvinists: Defend your idea that God burns babies in hell forever

[jmdrake]

JMdrake, being that we are "at peace" in this thread, don't take the following as some sort of way of causing an argument.

No problem. I'm "at peace" myself at the moment. No arguments here.

What in your opinion is the point of age (roughly) when a human can sin? Do the sins have to be profound enough to be worthy of consideration?

James 4:17 Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.

At what age does someone know when he's doing wrong or not doing right? I'm not a psychologist so I don't know.

I understand that Biblically youy draw your position from Acts 17:30. Is it possible that men from times previous to that had the opportunity to be saved as per 1 Peter 4:6?

I suppose that's possible. I'm not sure how that squares with Eccl 9:5.

For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten.

 

[loveableteddybear]

Are you really accepting the true God, or are you accepting your interpretation of Him? Let me put it another way. What makes Christianity superior to you to say....Hinduism? If you say "Because Christianity is true" that's not a real answer. Someone raised Hindu will more likely believe Hinduism is true. And as for what is or is not "man made religion"...well God made man. And He gave us a moral compass. He did that for a reason IMO. That way when could grow up in darkness, but seek the truth when they hear something that "rights true". If I believed in Zeus I wouldn't serve him because his legend doesn't fit any semblance of a moral compass.

I think a fair way of answering the question is this.

The God of the Bible is the true God and specifically what He reveals about Himself is true. I have zero proof of this, other than the movings of the Holy Spirit within me as to the veracity of Scripture.

Now, what FreeHampshire is putting forward, and perhaps you as you didn't make it explicit, is that God has to be the most moral and least arbitrary, but by our own standards of morality. For example, someone with this viewpoint doesn't like when God said, "Kill all the Canaanites, including their children" or the fact there is a hell and people going there. Why? Because they are using their own moral compass.

My own moral compass would exclude the reality of hell and existence of certain things being classified as sin, such as monogomous homosexuality.

However, my own moral compass is not reality. Neither is your. The truth is beyond our subjective opinions. This does not prove the Bible is true, but if we claim it is, it does prove the wrongheadedness of imposing our view of what is right on wrong as a means of deciding religion. If Christianity is the real religion, God decided it, not us.

Marcion wasn't a bad guy. He gave up his whole fortune, which was built up in shipping, to charity and the church. Marcion really believed the writings of Paul. His heresy was that he used his own moral compass to exclude other parts of God's revelation. What I don't want is others here to repeat the error of Marcion.

 

[loveableteddybear]

No problem. I'm "at peace" myself at the moment. No arguments here.



James 4:17 Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.

At what age does someone know when he's doing wrong or not doing right? I'm not a psychologist so I don't know.



I suppose that's possible. I'm not sure how that squares with Eccl 9:5.

For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten.

Ecc 9:5 maybe speaks to the time before Christ? As for the quotation of James, that sounds like the as soon as someone learns how to lie, which would reflect the knowledge of knowing one thing but purposely saying another. That can be as early as even a few months old, according to some studies.

 

[jmdrake]

However, my own moral compass is not reality. Neither is your.

Actually it is. And it is because God created it. Sure it's warped over the years but that doesn't change the fact that it exists. It's what helps us figure out that even if the God of the OT said "kill all of the Canaanites", that genocide is in general wrong. And while the Canaanite genocide was bad, I take solace in believing that the babies at least only died once.

 

[loveableteddybear]

This then all stems to my original point, on another thread, having to deal with epistemology. If one's theory of the "truth" is that the truth is merely one's own individual perceptions, I can never convince such a person that their view of the truth is wrong. After all, they define truth simply as whatever they think it is. This notion does not seem ridiculous when it is applied to a situation such as, "It feels wrong to lie, so lying is wrong;" but fails miserably as a worldview when it is applied to extremes such as "I think Toronto is the capital of Germany, so it is the capital of Germany." Now, the latter is patently ridiculous, but my point is if the latter is ridiculous, then the method in which the former derives his truth statement is equally ridiculous. After all, a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[jmdrake]

Ecc 9:5 maybe speaks to the time before Christ?

Maybe. Or maybe 1 Peter 4:6 was talking about people who were spiritually dead before hearing the gospel.

As for the quotation of James, that sounds like the as soon as someone learns how to lie, which would reflect the knowledge of knowing one thing but purposely saying another. That can be as early as even a few months old, according to some studies.

Well I haven't known babies a few months old to even be able to talk. But let's go with that. Again, look at how Paul said he was alive until the law. Again, knowing to do good and doing it not is not the same as simply having the mental capacity to do something wrong. Under my understanding of James 4:17, if you grew up in a society where lying was considered normal and moral (a typical political family for instance ) you're not held accountable to the same extent as someone who knows better.

 

[jmdrake]

This then all stems to my original point, on another thread, having to deal with epistemology. If one's theory of the "truth" is that the truth is merely one's own individual perceptions, I can never convince such a person that their view of the truth is wrong. After all, they define truth simply as whatever they think it is. This notion does not seem ridiculous when it is applied to a situation such as, "It feels wrong to lie, so lying is wrong;" but fails miserably as a worldview when it is applied to extremes such as "I think Toronto is the capital of Germany, so it is the capital of Germany." Now, the latter is patently ridiculous, but my point is if the latter is ridiculous, then the method in which the former derives his truth statement is equally ridiculous. After all, a broken clock is right twice a day.

If one attributes an argument to his opponent that he's never made, he can always win the debate. Nobody has said "truth" is "merely one's own perceptions". That said, according to the Bible, God has revealed some levels of truth to everyone through nature. I'm assuming you agree with the Bible. If we agree with the Bible and if the Bible does teach there is some kind of "inherent truth" then we should be able to interpret things outside of someone's "fortune cookie proof text". Does the interpretation make sense? Does it fit what the rest of the Bible has to say about God?

At the end of the day, everybody (Catholic, Calvinist, Arminianist, Anabaptist, ect) has some what to justify whatever it is they believe via the Bible. That's where John 16:13 kicks in.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

The Holy Spirit is eternal (He did quit granting inspiration once the cannon was adopted) and He is personal (He doesn't belong to one particular "church"). How do you know "one's own individual perceptions" aren't being guided by the Holy Spirit?

 

[loveableteddybear]

Let's look at Romans 7:

"Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died." (Romans 7:7-9)

It appears you read this to mean that Paul, in his ignorance, was not subject to God's wrath for he "was alive apart from the law."

However, how do we reconcile that idea, not only with the rest of the Bible, but just a few sentences later:

"Did that [the Law] which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful." (Romans 7:13)

The Law did not make Paul die, he was dead in sin already. Rather, by making him recognize His sin, he realized his need for a savior. In Galatians Paul calls the Law a "tutor" for this reason, because that's how the Law leads us to salvation. Romans 3:20 makes this explicit: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."

"So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me...I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me." (Romans 7:21-23)

So Paul was seemingly alive apart from the Law, but he always had the "law of sin" working within him the whole time. It is just when he became councious of God's Law that he realized that he really was dead, because the Law just made the coming of God's wrath in consequence of his sin all the clearer to him.

 

[jmdrake]

You can explain the meaning away, but if you compare it to James 4 and Acts 17 the meaning is clear. You are held accountable for what you know or at least should have known. That's it.

Let's look at Romans 7:

"Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died." (Romans 7:7-9)

It appears you read this to mean that Paul, in his ignorance, was not subject to God's wrath for he "was alive apart from the law."

However, how do we reconcile that idea, not only with the rest of the Bible, but just a few sentences later:

"Did that [the Law] which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful." (Romans 7:13)

The Law did not make Paul die, he was dead in sin already. Rather, by making him recognize His sin, he realized his need for a savior. In Galatians Paul calls the Law a "tutor" for this reason, because that's how the Law leads us to salvation. Romans 3:20 makes this explicit: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."

"So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me...I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me." (Romans 7:21-23)

So Paul was seemingly alive apart from the Law, but he always had the "law of sin" working within him the whole time. It is just when he became councious of God's Law that he realized that he really was dead, because the Law just made the coming of God's wrath in consequence of his sin all the clearer to him.

 

[loveableteddybear]

Nobody has said "truth" is "merely one's own perceptions".

Using one's personal moral compass to decide whether the moral compass in the bible is adequate would be exactly that, however.

That said, according to the Bible, God has revealed some levels of truth to everyone through nature. I'm assuming you agree with the Bible. If we agree with the Bible and if the Bible does teach there is some kind of "inherent truth" then we should be able to interpret things outside of someone's "fortune cookie proof text". Does the interpretation make sense? Does it fit what the rest of the Bible has to say about God?

At the end of the day, everybody (Catholic, Calvinist, Arminianist, Anabaptist, ect) has some what to justify whatever it is they believe via the Bible. That's where John 16:13 kicks in.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

The Holy Spirit is eternal (He did quit granting inspiration once the cannon was adopted) and He is personal (He doesn't belong to one particular "church"). How do you know "one's own individual perceptions" aren't being guided by the Holy Spirit?

One's own internal perceptions might be guided by the Spirit. But, as a matter of consistency in how we derive truth, it is important that we don't say we use our own subjectivity to decide whether what a religion dictates is true or not. If we do, we err in dictating our own religion as opposed to following the dictates of what the religion tells us about itself.

I am not a Christian because Christianity makes the most sense, given the evidence. To be fair to everyone, deism makes the most sense given the evidence. So, if we accept a truth higher than ourselves, then why would we hypocritically gauge that truth by deciding "if that higher truth doesn't agree with me, I'll just conjure up something else to believe that does make sense.

If we were to do that many of us here would be deists, atheists, or a couple thousand years ago, old-school idolators.

 

[jmdrake]

Using one's personal moral compass to decide whether the moral compass in the bible is adequate would be exactly that, however.

A) You, lt, cannot decide for anyone else but yourself what the Bible actually means. You can look at your "pet verses", others can do look at theirs. Each side ignoring or explaining away what doesn't fit. Everyone claiming the other is not accepting "truth".
B) Each person also has to come to a realization for himself that the Bible is actually truth. Otherwise someone born Hindu or Muslim would never become a Christian.
C) It's not a "personal moral compass". It's a God created moral compass that the Holy Spirit guides those seeking truth as promised in the Bible.

I am not a Christian because Christianity makes the most sense, given the evidence. To be fair to everyone, deism makes the most sense given the evidence. So, if we accept a truth higher than ourselves, then why would we hypocritically gauge that truth by deciding "if that higher truth doesn't agree with me, I'll just conjure up something else to believe that does make sense.

Really? Deism best fits the rest of the Bible? I don't think so. Maybe you do. If you believe that Deism best fits the teachings of scripture than why are you not a Deist?

Again, what I said, and what you think you are responding to:

Does the interpretation make sense? Does it fit what the rest of the Bible has to say about God?

The key most important characteristic of God revealed in the Bible is that He is love.

If we were to do that many of us here would be deists, atheists, or a couple thousand years ago, old-school idolators.

Actually the opposite is true.

 

[loveableteddybear]

You can explain the meaning away, but if you compare it to James 4 and Acts 17 the meaning is clear. You are held accountable for what you know or at least should have known. That's it.

Being that I am being held "accountable," then according to your theology, Christ is a curse to me. If I had a bunch of wrong opinions about, say, Islam, according to your Gospel I'd be saved by God anyway if I was a good person overall. But, because I know Christ, now I am under "account" and subject to God's wrath. So, hearing of Christ to me was never good news at all, but rather bad news. The word "gospel," then, is a sham.

To repeat what I said in a previous reply:

But, to me, original sin makes the gospel straight forward. Without it we get into a confusing "was it a strike or not" baseball situation for a ton of people and worse yet, it turns knowing about Christ into a curse. Why preach the Gospel if people can be saved without it? In fact, if people hear the Gospel and reject it, they are then subject to judgment. They were better off never hearing about it.

Your "gospel" has very dangerous consequences for its hearers, JMdrake. According to your Gospel, which you have revealed on this thread, people that never heard of Christ can go to heaven, people that have heard of Christ but were brought up a different religion can go to heaven, and people who heard of Christ in a nominally Christian family and then reject Him, like my sister, can go to heaven. I'm not saying you're going to hell for believing this stuff, but if you're Gospel is that the people in the most danger are people brought up in God fearing Christian families with the Bible drilled into their head, then maybe you need to seriously reevaluate what you are putting forth here.

 

[loveableteddybear]

A) You, lt, cannot decide for anyone else but yourself what the Bible actually means. You can look at your "pet verses", others can do look at theirs. Each side ignoring or explaining away what doesn't fit. Everyone claiming the other is not accepting "truth".
B) Each person also has to come to a realization for himself that the Bible is actually truth. Otherwise someone born Hindu or Muslim would never become a Christian.
C) It's not a "personal moral compass". It's a God created moral compass that the Holy Spirit guides those seeking truth as promised in the Bible.

Drake, my whole view of the Bible can be wrong on the face of it, I don't deny that. But if the way I'd evaluate truth was derived from my perceived right and wrong, then I'm just inventing my own truth. I really don't want to beat this dead horse any more than it needs to be, but the difference between personal interpretation of higher truths to the best of one's ability and to evaluating the veracity of higher truths by comparing them to personal beliefs of what is true are two very different things. The former is like a student that is learning math and is interested in getting the correct answer and the latter has an answer and if the math doesn't agree with it, he'll get the GAO to reinvent the definition of unemployment so the economy will look better before the election.

Really? Deism best fits the rest of the Bible? I don't think so. Maybe you do. If you believe that Deism best fits the teachings of scripture than why are you not a Deist? Actually the opposite is true.

My point is the Bible is 66 different crusty old books that seemingly contradict each other and take a lot of effort to make them relate to one another and propose truisms requiring unverifiable phenomena that cannot be scientifically explained. By anyone's own judgment, Christianity should be rejected right on its faith. And, for that very good reason, atheists do.

So, I ask you, what convincing evidence exists that would prove to an atheist that he is foolish for not believing in an impossible to understand Triune-yet-singular God who needed to kill him,self and rise himself from the dead instead of simply forgiving people for a lot of stuff that is morally relative to begin with?

 

[jmdrake]

Being that I am being held "accountable," then according to your theology, Christ is a curse to me. If I had a bunch of wrong opinions about, say, Islam,. according to your Gospel I'd be saved by God anyway. But, because I know Christ, now I am under "account" and subject to God's wrath. So, hearing of Christ to me was never good news at all, but rather bad news. The word "gospel," then, is a sham.

Why is it bad news? Do you believe that being a Christian is burdensome? If so than I suppose it is bad news. But that contradicts the Bible. Jesus said His yoke is easy and His burden light. John said God's commands are not burdensome. If you are following Islam and truly seeking truth, and the truth is further revealed to it, why would you not accept it? But say if you were seeking truth, and for some reason died in a car accident before getting to the "truth of Christianity crusade". Are you damned? That is "bad news" and a "sham gospel".

To repeat what I said in a previous reply:


Your "gospel" has very dangerous consequences for its hearers, JMdrake.

Only if you think the teachings of Jesus have very dangerous consequences.

According to your Gospel, which you have revealed on this thread, people that never heard of Christ can go to heaven, people that of heard of Christ but were brought up a different religion can go to heaven, and people who heard of Christ in a nominally Christian family and then reject Him, like my sister, can go to heaven.

Did you mistype? Nowhere can you draw the conclusion from what I wrote that people who grew up in a Christian family and reject Christ go to heaven without repenting and accepting Christ. I don't think you meant to type that, but I'm checking to be sure.

As for the first part of your point, it's clear in Acts 17 that Paul was teaching that some Greeks were worshiping the true God and didn't fully realize it and that God "winked at their ignorance". I know what that means. What do you think it meant? And what do you think Paul meant when he said they were now "called to repentance"? Do you think Paul was just talking for the sake of effect?

I'm not saying you're going to hell for believing this stuff, but if you're Gospel is that the people in the most danger are people brought up in God fearing Christian families with the Bible drilled into their head, then maybe you need to seriously reevaluate what you are putting forth here.

Take it up with Jesus.

Luke 12:48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Matthew 11:21-22 "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.

Jesus makes it clear that people are held to different accounts based on their knowledge. I'm sorry if that seems to make things worse for your sister. All I can say is pray for her. I have a brother to pray for. But tell me this. (And I think I've asked you this before). Does it make you feel better for her if you believe she is (or may be) predestined to hell without a chance at salvation at all? How is that "good news"?

 

[jmdrake]

Drake, my whole view of the Bible can be wrong on the face of it, I don't deny that. But if the way I'd evaluate truth was derived from my perceived right and wrong, then I'm just inventing my own truth.

Two yes or no questions.

1) Do you believe in the Holy Spirit's promise to lead you personally into all truth?
2) Do you believe God has given a natural revelation of truth to all men?

If the answer to both of those questions is "yes" then how can you call that a "inventing your own truth"?

My point is the Bible is 66 different crusty old books that seemingly contradict each other and take a lot of effort to make them relate to one another and propose truisms requiring unverifiable phenomena that cannot be scientifically explained. By anyone's own judgment, Christianity should be rejected right on its faith. And, for that very good reason, atheists do.

Maybe you feel that way. I don't. The new testament is one of the most attested books ever. Since you are somewhat Calvinist, you may enjoy this presentation by Dr. James White confirming the reliability of the new testament.

So, I ask you, what convincing evidence exists that would prove to an atheist that he is foolish for not believing in an impossible to understand Triune-yet-singular God who needed to kill him,self and rise himself from the dead instead of simply forgiving people for a lot of stuff that is morally relative to begin with?

Watch the above video. You may find it helpful.

As for the last part of your question, if sin was merely "forgiven" without any penalty being paid by anyone, would God's creation realize the pain sin causes? And where would be the justice in that? Remember, Satan is the "accuser of the brethren". He also stands ready to accuse God as seen in the book of Job.

But tell me this. How do you think Calvinism makes sense to an atheist? In that case God caused sin so that He could kill himself and raise himself form the dead as opposed to allowing free choice and paying the penalty for those who made the wrong choice but repent and accept His sacrifice.

 

[loveableteddybear]

I'll watch that video with my wife, but I never was too convinced by the worthiness of the Bible on the face of it any more than Augustine, who 1650 years ago rejected Scripture for the same exact reason. Try having a debate with a Muslim. The Quran is certainly a much more consistent "revealed" work. It's shorter too and benefits from having one author and being written at one time (during the Caliph Uthman).

If you can come up maybe with one or two points from that 1.5 hour video for our non-Christian friends, that might be helpful.

As for the last part of your question, if sin was merely "forgiven" without any penalty being paid by anyone, would God's creation realize the pain sin causes? And where would be the justice in that? Remember, Satan is the "accuser of the brethren". He also stands ready to accuse God as seen in the book of Job.

My answer to your questions is that God does not require any of us to realize anything, because he is not reliant upon us in any way. Speaking to the non-converted, why does God's creation have to realize anything then? Can you answer that without invoking Scripture? Why can't the world just continue on oblivious to that fact?

But tell me this. How do you think Calvinism makes sense to an atheist? In that case God caused sin so that He could kill himself and raise himself form the dead as opposed to allowing free choice and paying the penalty for those who made the wrong choice but repent and accept His sacrifice.

Oh, it would make no sense whatsoever. It's needlessly fatalistic if man's desires and values were the center to how the universe goverened itself.

 

[jmdrake]

I'll watch that video with my wife, but I never was too convinced by the worthiness of the Bible on the face of it any more than Augustine, who 1650 years ago rejected Scripture for the same exact reason. Try having a debate with a Muslim. The Quran is certainly a much more consistent "revealed" work. It's shorter too and benefits from having one author and being written at one time (during the Caliph Uthman).

If you can come up maybe with one or two points from that 1.5 hour video for our non-Christian friends, that might be helpful.

Well if I can dig it up, there is a debate between James White and a Bible skeptic in which the skeptic is forced to admitted that the new testament is one of the best, if not the best, attested book in history.

My answer to your questions is that God does not require any of us to realize anything, because he is not reliant upon us in any way. Speaking to the non-converted, why does God's creation have to realize anything then? Can you answer that without invoking Scripture? Why can't the world just continue on oblivious to that fact?

You want me to answer a question about God without invoking scripture? Okay. Regardless you are starting with a faulty premise. Two actually. Faulty premise number 1 is that if God does not require us to realize anything that means He doesn't desire us to realize anything either. Faulty premise number 2 is that if God requires something of us, that is the same thing as Him "relying" on us.

I know you said don't invoke scripture, but I can't help it.

Micah 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

If you believe the Bible is true, then God does in fact have requirements for His creation. Those requirements do not imply reliance.

Sorry, but I can't argue from the standpoint of agreeing with faulty premises and then not invoking the Bible to show that they are false.

Oh, it would make no sense whatsoever. It's needlessly fatalistic if man's desires and values were the center to how the universe goverened itself.

Who created man? Who gave man his desires and values? And who works in man to conform those desires and values to Himself? The Bible answers all of those questions. It is God. To deny that God puts a moral compass in man is to deny God.

 

[loveableteddybear]

I wrote a whole careful reply and lost it. I take it as a sign from God to relent. If I click xontrol V, I have the following quote from Genesis 8:21:

"Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood."

God destroyed every human because the inclination of their hearts was "continually evil" (Gen 6:5) and apparently, even though by grace Noah was set apart this woulds be true of his descendants as well, as evident if Genesis 8:21. I think you suffer from too high a view of yourself, myself, and all men Drake. We deserve universal destruction just as mankind did in Noah's time. Genesis 8:21 explicitly says this. Romans 5:12 confirms this and makes it plain, that God's opinion never changed.

But God had mercy on Noah. And the good news is God makes his grace available to all of us, even still, even though the inclination of all our hearts, every human heart, is evil and hatred towards God. So, if God does not save my sister or some ancient Persian guy from 527 BC or anyone else, yes that's very sad, but how great is it that God overlooks any of us? I deserve to be damned as do you, as does every single baby, as does every single Nobel Peace Prize winner. That's what the Bible says in Genesis 8:21 and Romans 5:12. And God gives the reason why:

Your eyes are too pure to look on evil;
you cannot tolerate wrongdoing. (Hab 1:13)

Yet, God has mercy on a sinner like me? On any sinner? Praise God for his unsolicited, unmerited mercy on men through His Son Jesus Christ.

Amen.

 

[jmdrake]

I wrote a whole careful reply and lost it. I take it as a sign from God to relent. If I click xontrol V, I have the following quote from Genesis 8:21:

"Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood."

God destroyed every human because the inclination of their hearts was "continually evil" (Gen 6:5) and apparently, even though by grace Noah was set apart this woulds be true of his descendants as well, as evident if Genesis 8:21. I think you suffer from too high a view of yourself, myself, and all men Drake. We deserve universal destruction just as mankind did in Noah's time. Genesis 8:21 explicitly says this. Romans 5:12 confirms this and makes it plain, that God's opinion never changed.

I think you suffer from an inability to comprehend what people who disagree with you are actually saying. I never said mankind doesn't deserve destruction. I said that God puts in us a moral compass and the Holy Spirit activates it.

Take a break from your Calvinist "total depravity" worldview and read Psalms 139. It might make you truly love God and what He did for you when He created you.

Then mosey on over to Philippians 2:13 and combine it with John 16:13. God isn't the evil tyrant you are making Him out to be. Nor is He an inept creator. He is a loving creator and redeemer. You know that at the same time that men were "doing evil continually" before the flood, Enoch walked with God so completely that God took him to heaven without seeing death? I'm not seeing myself higher than I might. I'm seeing God higher than you see Him. I hope you can better understand His love eventually. His love is not the kind where it would be even possible to burn babies in hell forever. It saddens me that some Christians have such a dim view of the loving creator and redeemer.

One more thing. You said you realize your that it is possible that your understanding of the Bible is not correct. I agree. Same for me. Did you ever in your life consider the possibility that your Judeo-Christian viewpoint itself might not be correct? Have you looked at other religions? I have. And for me a God who has a moral standard (justice) yet was willing to die so that people who failed that moral standard didn't have to (mercy) is worthy of honor, glory and praise. That's the power of the cross. Sure, as Paul said it's "crazy" to some and a "stumbling block" to others. But to humble poor sinners it is the essence of love. That essence is not compatible with a god that would burn babies forever.

 

[Smart3]

It was never an orthodox view that infants go to Heaven by virtue of not reaching an "age of maturity" or "age of reason". That was only introduced when infant baptism was.

Since the New Testament is quite clear that every single human being (save a handful like Job, Enoch, Asa and Jesus) was/is a sinner, the Christian god is free to eliminate them as he deems fit. It can be assumed that all of the children killed by Adam Lanza are now in Hell, as none of them were Calvinists. The Christian response to such massacres is to rejoice that God used Lanza to rid the world of those sinners.

This is not Westboro Baptist Church's unique belief, this is the traditional a-moral Christian belief, and it's a very compelling reason to hate Christianity.