And if you do, what happens to a 6 year old boy in Africa who dies of cancer having never been taught about Christianity? Does he go to Hell? And how do you know the answer to that question?
I used to, but the fact Nate keeps getting contracts by the Blazers has mad me doubt that there is a God. In all seriousness, there are many scriptures that answer this question. An example I can think of is Matthews 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Now there are also a lot of scriptures that say you have to be born again, so I think, like all of it, that it is about faith. Children belong to God. The question is what is the age of accountability
If I recall my lessons well enough I believe one must be aware of the presence of God and thus have the choice to accept or deny his existence to be condemned to Hell (if they deny/don't accept). The innocent who are unaware (and thus very young children) are accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Heaven and hell? Yes. But to answer your second question requires a little more. We have no right to establish doctrine on the basis of what we hope may be true. We must draw our answers from what the Bible reveals to be true. And depending on worldview verses can be shaped to back up whatever someone wants. There isn't a clear-cut verse that answers the question. So take this as one man's opinion. The interpretation of Romans I choose to believe basically says that God is sovereign over the salvation of all. . It also reveals that we are born marked by original sin, and thus we cannot claim that infants are born in a state of innocence. Any biblical answer to the question of infant salvation must start from the understanding that infants are born with a sin nature. I doubt anyone who's seen a toddler can say that they have no sin in them. To your other points (kid in Africa who's never heard of Christ), Romans 1 states that no one has an excuse for not worshipping the Creator, whether they've seen a missionary or had a bible shipped in or not. Just because he's 6 years old doesn't mean he's "clean." In addition to the quotes of infants above, there's this: Psalms states that God knew what the plan for us was before we were even born...how we were going to live, how we were going to die. In Corinthians it talks about the judgment of all, not just people older than a certain age: God is ultimately in control of our salvation and our lives, as evidenced by his decisions of twin brothers. The main point for me, though, is that everyone...unborn fetuses, infants, toddlers, kids in Africa, adults, etc...are by their nature and actions condemned to be eternally separated from God. Only by his grace, which is indiscernible to us and a mystery to all who attempt to understand God's way, can someone be saved into Heaven and eternal communion with him. The Bible speaks multiple times of people with their last breath acknowledging Christ and being saved into Paradise. If, heaven forbid, my little girl died today, I would know that as a not-even-2-y/o she has sinned and deserves eternal separation from God, but that Jesus' promise that He has saved all the Father gave to him would comfort me. Also, I would also read and reflect about David, who lost a son b/c of his own sin and punishment, but whose son went to Heaven: There's also B.B. Warfield's quote:
apparently the apostle paul was every bit as prejudiced, arrogant, and egotistical as christian fundamentalists are today
I find it rich that you describe someone in those terms while making that assumption based off a fragment of a verse. Pray tell, what is a "fundamentalist" to you? How can you describe someone as "egotistical" who claims that they are nothing without God's grace?
that wasn't directed at you specifically, although if you think my interpretation of the evidence isn't a great excuse for me to not believe in your god you're certainly overrating your abilitiy to think rationally about this subject. someone who takes as much of the bible as they can possible get away with literally it's overtly egocentric to think a universal creator if one exists would give a rats ass whether you accept him or not.
i'm certainly free to brainwash myself to ignore evidence if it were possible for me to do that. unfortunately for my eternal soul i wasn't born with that capability.
I wasn't taking it specifically, I was attributing what you said to Paul. And I'd submit that if you'd comprehended (I'd say "read", but crandc showed many times on here that no matter how much you want to say you've read the bible "cover to cover" you can make horribly inaccurate conclusions) more than a couple of verses of what Paul wrote (13-14 books/epistles of the Bible) you'd have a hard time attributing "arrogant, prejudiced and egotistical" to him. That's all. And you think that there's another way to do so, taught by scripture? Or that only certain things should be taken literally? That's a pretty big fallacy. Using your assumption of "if one exists," He's told us that that's what he requires. Your bias on the issue doesn't change the tenets of the religion.
i have, and from a non-believer's standpoint paul comes off as extremely arrogant - no different than modern christians who say people don't believe what they do because of 'hardened hearts' (etc). that's a conversation ender. like saying any other belief but your own can't possibly be genuine. i wouldn't say that to you about your view of evolution/age of the earth. i think it's ludicrous, but i wouldn't accuse you of not genuinely feeling justified in it. the point i'm making is genuine belief (or lack of belief) is by definition compelled. it is not a matter of free will choice. god assigning culpability to the belief of an adult makes no more sense than god assigning culpability to babies. what i think isn't relevant. i was just defining what i consider a fundamentalist. there are certainly a lot christians who interpret the bible selectively to better fit modern common sense. for example i think original sin is pretty much a minority view now. it requires a high level of egocentricity just to accept that the religion could possible be true.
Does it? By definition, it also required a high level of egocentricity to accept that the religion is definitely not true as well, at least in terms of logic. The religion of atheism is just as faith-based as any other religion.
it requires a tremendous leap of egocentrism (or anthropocentrism if you want) to believe the point of the universe is to be a testing ground for humans. lack of belief in something doesn't require faith. and you would probably define me as an agnostic anyway.
I believe in Heaven and Hell. I believe in the Holy Bible. I believe that the 6-year old boy in Africa was saved by God's Grace and has gone to Heaven.
Which reminds me of......the definition of an agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac is someone who lays awake at night...wondering if there really is a dog.
I feel the same way about much of evolutionary theory, the myth called the Big Bang, and the 'evolution' of organic and animated life from inorganic and inanimate sources.
