Or if that isn't sufficient, then what about babies who die from complications during pregnancy?

Because they're born with original sin and all...

Plus they also die before being baptized...

Pretty much any modern day Christian will tell you that children who die that have not reached the age of accountability will go to heaven. The problem is that nowhere in the bible does it say such a thing.

If all are born with original sin, all who do not accept Jesus will be toast.

There's nothing like bureaucracy and loopholes in a religion to make you lose your faith in it.

I don't know let me call down to satan and see. Come on! What the fuck kind of question is this? Hell is a fake, excuse me hypothetical place that you can't supposedly go to without dieing, so how would I know who the hell could hypothetically be in this hypothetical place. I have an answer for you. It is just as valid as the basis of your question, when we die we ALL go to disney land so if they aren't here, they are there.

Come on dude, you know they don't. Do you really want to hear people explain why the bible is stupid and not an authoritative source? Seriously, does the bible even say there's a hell?

Come on dude, you know they don't. Do you really want to hear people explain why the bible is stupid and not an authoritative source? Seriously, does the bible even say there's a hell?

No, it doesn't. But, back on topic. That is where the biggest loophole in Christianity comes in. According to Christians, all are born with original sin and unless we repent and accept Jesus is the one true son of God, we are going to hell. Except of course unless you haven't reached the age of "accountability", whatever that means. It's not in the Bible anywhere. The just know that if they say newborn children that die during child birth go to hell, no one would accept their religion because their god sends babies to hell (which doesn't exist).

freeRadical

*Cough* there is no hell *Cough*

But the babies might go into the afterlife, still young, until they come to realize they that they need to choose their next move... much like how they learn motor functions and hand-eye cood.

No, Limbo was abolished by the Church this year :)

Their argument was:

Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that un-baptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us. We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.

What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptise them into the faith and life of the Church. [1]


So, basically, Jesus loves little kids, and wouldn't want them to burn eternally.

On a side note, it's amazing that the Church can abolish a doctrine which has stood for hundreds of years. Kinda makes you question the rest hey...


[1] - http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7529

I love the shit that theists make up to try and justify their belief in a book.

First, hell does not exist.

Second--to address the question--their souls either reincarnate or merge with Spirit, same as the rest of us.

For some creepy laughs, read "Sinners in the hands of an angry God," a famous Puritan sermon which exemplifies the Christian theology of fear and denial. Amazing to think some people once took it seriously.

According to the Christian (Catholic) doctrine, it does...just not by name of 'Hell'. But then, neither did Jesus Christ exist. He was (the Aramaic) Jeshua Messiah (although never actually using the title 'Messiah' himself) translated by Greek into the name we know today.

According to the Christian (Catholic) doctrine, it does...just not by name of 'Hell'. But then, neither did Jesus Christ exist. He was (the Aramaic) Jeshua Messiah (although never actually using the title 'Messiah' himself) translated by Greek into the name we know today.

Nor are we sure 'Jeshua' was his name.

OP, nowhere can I find the concept of 'hell' as you mean it in the bible nor 'original sin'.

OP, nowhere can I find the concept of 'hell' as you mean it in the bible nor 'original sin'.

[Disclaimer: I don't personally believe this, but I am just playing Devil's Advocate, so to speak]

Hell as a place of punishment is derived and inferred from the Old Testament in Genesis 37:35 and Numbers 16:30, and in the New Testament in Psalm 54:16 (esp!), Isaiah 5:14, Ezekiel 26:20 and Philippians 2:10, Matthew 5:29 (esp!); 8:12; 10:28; 13:42; 25:41, 46; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Revelation 21:8, etc.

Of course 'hell' isn't used in the original translation (but consistently used in new translations). However it is the meaning rather than the term that is portrayed in the Bible. Hell is simply the label we have given it.

As for original sin...the concept is that as Adam (as first man) sinned, thus it is pass through his lineage (and thus everyone) - Romans 5:12. As a consequence everyone borne of Adam and Eve are thus 'stained' with the mark of the 'original sin'. The only known exception is the Virgin Mary, who soul was borne of immaculate conception, but this was declared in 1854....

What about retards? Do they EVER reach the age of accountability?

What about the mentally ill? They are never on stable footing to begin with.

What constitutes mentally ill?


There are so many fucking loopholes it is not funny.

[Disclaimer: I don't personally believe this, but I am just playing Devil's Advocate, so to speak]

Hell as a place of punishment is derived and inferred from the Old Testament in Genesis 37:35 and Numbers 16:30, and in the New Testament in Psalm 54:16 (esp!), Isaiah 5:14, Ezekiel 26:20 and Philippians 2:10, Matthew 5:29 (esp!); 8:12; 10:28; 13:42; 25:41, 46; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Revelation 21:8, etc.

Of course 'hell' isn't used in the original translation (but consistently used in new translations). However it is the meaning rather than the term that is portrayed in the Bible. Hell is simply the label we have given it.

As for original sin...the concept is that as Adam (as first man) sinned, thus it is pass through his lineage (and thus everyone) - Romans 5:12. As a consequence everyone borne of Adam and Eve are thus 'stained' with the mark of the 'original sin'. The only known exception is the Virgin Mary, who soul was borne of immaculate conception, but this was declared in 1854....

Just choosing the one you marked 'esp!', Psalm 54:16.

The word used was sheol.

Now what exactly 'sheol' means is a matter of gentle scholarly debate. But for sure it wasn't a place of eternal punishment. The usual translation would be simply 'the grave' or perhaps the Underworld. A place of nothingness, no thoughts, no pain no nothing.

Which gives the curse in the verse real meaning when you think about it. The absolute horror of being buried alive.

So sorry but no 'hell' (ie eternal inflammability, pitchforks and buffyness) there nor in all the other verses neither. I just can't be asked to go through them all now.

Ok I managed to translate the Hebrew version of Psalms 54:16 and they use sheol. Admittedly there seems to be no link with descriptions of 'Hell' later described in the New Testament. It does make one question whether Hell as we know it was a later invention (or development of sheol) constructed by the Church. The trouble is with absolute definitions of 'Hell' etc. is through the translations and meanings, which invariably change over time.

But in regard to the OP, up until this year, the Catholics believed any child dying without being baptised would have gone to Limbo (the edge of Hell), thus Hell existed. Maybe the nature of Hell was/is different to what was prescribed in the Bible all those years ago, but as I have said before, the definitions and concept of words change over time.

Ok I managed to translate the Hebrew version of Psalms 54:16 and they use sheol. Admittedly there seems to be no link with descriptions of 'Hell' later described in the New Testament. It does make one question whether Hell as we know it was a later invention (or development of sheol) constructed by the Church.

Was a later development and came in with all the other nonsense about us having an 'eternal soul' (another concept unknown in the OT, it came into judaism later, just before Jesus).

According to the Christian (Catholic) doctrine, it does...just not by name of 'Hell'. But then, neither did Jesus Christ exist. He was (the Aramaic) Jeshua Messiah (although never actually using the title 'Messiah' himself) translated by Greek into the name we know today.

Actually, the new testament was written in Greek and it says Jesus Christ is the only name under heaven with power. Do you see the problem if that wasn't his name? Jesus probably spoke Greek.

The historical sources point to a figure who lived near Galilee, and spoke either Aramaic or Hebrew, and that the Anglicisation of Christ was made after, when the New Testament was written.

Actually, the new testament was written in Greek and it says Jesus Christ is the only name under heaven with power. Do you see the problem if that wasn't his name? Jesus probably spoke Greek.

Uhm no not quite. All we can say is that the copies of the NT we have are written mainly in koine.

We assume from various clues in the text that Jesus spoke aramaic and possibly koine.

They will be resurrected in the new system, after Armageddon, and during the 1000 year reign. However, the big $20,000 question remains: Will you be there for the reunion, or will you be pushing daisies with the rest of the bird food?

Glad I could help!

Very helpful speckles and as always you are a font of knowledge and understanding, not an emo kidiot with a baby dick.

LOL.

Did you JUST say "I know you are, but what am I"? I would have preferred the one about rubber, glue and bouncing.

This completely illustrates YOU being a kidiot.

How does you saying "I know you are, but what am I" in any way demonstrate me to be a glutton for punishment?

LOL.

Well... it just demonstrates you're a fucking idiot. Questions?

Actually it doesn't.

Now can you please stop trolling my thread.

Ladies, keep it on topic.

Thank you.

It was on topic, until some moron (we won't name names) opened it's ugly yap. Do you always let these retards roam free around here?

We let you roam around here, why should other retards not be extended the same freedoms?

I hope they go somewhere nice. Maybe not heaven, but most certainly not hell. Somewhere, like a giant daycare with the nicest most wonderful caretakers ever. At least that's where I think my son went. It helps me sleep at night.

I hope they go somewhere nice. Maybe not heaven, but most certainly not hell. Somewhere, like a giant daycare with the nicest most wonderful caretakers ever. At least that's where I think my son went. It helps me sleep at night.

Sorry for the loss of your potential son, Bast.

My best friend gave birth to a stillborn child nearly two decades ago, one she had carried to full term, with no complications until the actual delivery. Everyone was so concerned that she was in some sort of shock, as the grieving process never quite surfaced for her. The calmness and serenity she exhibited was unexpected and completely out of character for a new mother.

She was visited by the hospital clergy and counseled about life, and love, and God's intentions for her stillborn child. She was convinced that God didn't intervene, but that her child simply chose not to leave the comfortable, familiar shelter of her womb to face this cruel, cruel world. She felt like her body merely accommodated the unspoken wishes of her child-to-be.

When her eldest child asked her if the baby went to heaven, she replied: "The baby was already in heaven. It just wasn't ready to check out yet."

I'm suprised no-one's quoted 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these.' (Mark 10:14-15)

Seeing as this is repeated various times, we might be able to draw a conclusion from it. Possibly.

In anycase, children are born innocent; they make no concious decision to defy God. How many children do you know that whore, gamble and drink? Not many I'd imagine.

Personally I believe Original Sin is when we lose our innocence and become aware of Right and Wrong and I believe it to be an ongoing process. The original sin itself is doing what we know we shouldn't because we feel that it will benefit us. Stealing is born of orginal sin. The Original Sin is not an actual stain on us, but the ability that we posses to decipher between right and wrong, and still choose wrong to gratify the body.

[insert biblical quotes all about the evils of focusing on the physical life]

Whatever we might believe, it was recognised in Church doctrine that unbaptised children do go to limbo (at least until this year when it was abolished...) And children are not born innocent, they contain the original sin of Adam's - Romans 5:12.

Whatever we might believe, it was recognised in Church doctrine that unbaptised children do go to limbo (at least until this year when it was abolished...) And children are not born innocent, they contain the original sin of Adam's - Romans 5:12.

Uhm no, try reading the verse again.

Sorry should have quoted more.

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

This is taken to mean that Adam's sin is transgressed throughout humans. Death was the result of sin, and all men now experience death and have original sin.


Hey, I didn't make the rules...

*Cough* there is no hell *Cough*



There is, but Hell is rather a state of mind than a place. Bad living (hate, bringing pain etc) will eventually fuck you up so bad that you hate yourself as well.
What can be worse than truely hating yourself? (not talking about that emo crap nowadays)

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

This is taken to mean that Adam's sin is transgressed throughout humans. Death was the result of sin, and all men now experience death and have original sin.


Hey, I didn't make the rules...

Ya see why I bang on about people actually reading the bloody book?

What does it actually say? I haven't checked it in the 'brew, but in modern english it'd be something like : Nevertheless everyone who lived in the time between Adam and Moses died, no matter if they had sinned like Adam or not. Adam was the advert for the guy still to come.

At a guess I'd say everyone in the time frame did die. I might be wrong but odds are the bible is right on the money.

Where's the Original Sin there?

Read whats on the page people and not what someone tells you it means. Try and understand what the author was saying.

Ya see why I bang on about people actually reading the bloody book?

What does it actually say? I haven't checked it in the 'brew, but in modern english it'd be something like : Nevertheless everyone who lived in the time between Adam and Moses died, no matter if they had sinned like Adam or not. Adam was the advert for the guy still to come.

At a guess I'd say everyone in the time frame did die. I might be wrong but odds are the bible is right on the money.

Where's the Original Sin there?

Read whats on the page people and not what someone tells you it means. Try and understand what the author was saying.

Holy shit! The guy gives you three excellent passages, directly concerning and fully explaining this question of original sin, and you turn around and rap some irrelevant nonsense out about how people in history died, and then you have the gall to tell people to read the Bible properly. You really take the cake man. I gotta say, I haven't met many like you lately.

Or if that isn't sufficient, then what about babies who die from complications during pregnancy?

Because they're born with original sin and all...

Plus they also die before being baptized...


Problem, you believe there is a hell.

Problem, you believe there is a hell.

Not quite...

There is, but Hell is rather a state of mind than a place. Bad living (hate, bringing pain etc) will eventually fuck you up so bad that you hate yourself as well.
What can be worse than truely hating yourself? (not talking about that emo crap nowadays)

No, that is living while you "hate yourself."


The question was "do stillborn babies go to hell."

That labels Hell as someplace other than LIFE.

Keep it in context, dude.

I read somewhere in some old book (good enough reference as the bible I suppose) that stillborn babies only go to doggy hell.

Fiction can be fun.

Stillborn babies find there way to your local chinese resturant and wind up on your plate as Kung Po Chicken. Bon appetit.

"Hell does not exist physically, but rather symbolically"... Words of the pope!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21460090-2,00.html

"Hell does not exist physically, but rather symbolically"... Words of the pope!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21460090-2,00.html

It's pretty comical how, for centuries, these conniving little fuckers have been keeping everyone and their "donations" in line with their fiery-hell bed-time story, but now, when they see nobody really gives fuck about religion anymore anyways, they start coming up with these intermittent truths, no doubt trying to save their long-standing charade from extinction. The ironic part is, they are so blood-guilty as fuck, these will be the bulk of the persons who make it as close to a literal hell as possible, when the Creator soon takes more than just a few layers of skin off their ugly and manipulating hides, using the birds of the heavens to deliver His gift of repayment.

Your Creator sounds quite wrathful and vindicative, -SpectraL. Where's the benevolence and forgiveness?

Your Creator sounds quite wrathful and vindicative, -SpectraL. Where's the benevolence and forgiveness?

After a potter spins his wheel to fashion a clay pot, and finds the clay defective of its own accord, he removes the lump from the platter and discards it. He does not use it again, but instead selects good clay, which will serve its intended purpose. This simple and self-explanatory action requires no benevolence or forgiveness on the part of the potter, since the defect of the clay was all its own.

After a potter spins his wheel to fashion a clay pot, and finds the clay defective of its own accord, he removes the lump from the platter and discards it. He does not use it again, but instead selects good clay, which will serve its intended purpose. This simple and self-explanatory action requires no benevolence or forgiveness on the part of the potter, since the defect of the clay was all its own.

When a potter fashions a pot from clay, he is only responsibile for the fashioning. The problem with your analogy is that the Creator (God), not only fashioned the pot, but he also Created the clay from which the pot was fashioned. If the clay is defective, it is simply because the Creator made it so.

When a potter fashions a pot from clay, he is only responsibile for the fashioning. The problem with your analogy is that the Creator (God), not only fashioned the pot, but he also Created the clay from which the pot was fashioned. If the clay is defective, it is simply because the Creator made it so.

Analogies can never impart the exact meaning of a concept, but can only deliver the flavor of the intended thought, which I have done. Yes, the clay is also made by the Creator, but we are not really talking about clay. We are talking about human flesh instead. And with the human flesh comes the desire for free will. And free will comes as an incorporation within the design, as an intended design flaw. However, He has deliberately built the design flaw into the flesh as a possibility only. It is up to the flesh itself whether it will produce a flaw, or whether it decides it will be flawless. The choice is left to the flesh itself, and this is a very workable and fair bit of creation, if I may be so bold as to exclaim.

You assert that the Creator intentionally *built in* such a design flaw. It such were true, it would be ludicrous to expect that such a flaw would not manifest itself. A Creator who would *build in* such a design flaw, and punish any who fail, would be nothing short of malevolent.

This is especially true if the Creator in question is the God of the bible, since He is accredited with the ability to know the future. He would have known who would fail before the creation of the universe. He could have simply not created them in the first place. Not only does He create them anyway, He goes the extra mile and creates an especially nasty environment where their souls can be eternally tortured. All thanks to a design flaw that He *built in*.

If in reality, such a God exists, He certainly does not deserve to be worshipped.

You assert that the Creator intentionally *built in* such a design flaw. It such were true, it would be ludicrous to expect that such a flaw would not manifest itself. A Creator who would *build in* such a design flaw, and punish any who fail, would be nothing short of malevolent.

This is especially true if the Creator in question is the God of the bible, since He is accredited with the ability to know the future. He would have known who would fail before the creation of the universe. He could have simply not created them in the first place. Not only does He create them anyway, He goes the extra mile and creates an especially nasty environment where their souls can be eternally tortured. All thanks to a design flaw that He *built in*.

If in reality, such a God exists, He certainly does not deserve to be worshipped.

With both of us having to live within the crumbling society we have currently fashioned for ourselves, I certainly empathize with your hostility toward the Creator of all things.

However, if we think of the original human, Adam, being something like a perfect construct, we would be sadly mistaken. While Adam was being obedient and conscious of his spiritual need for guidance, he was in fact perfect. But once his heart became corrupted by his greater love for his wife, he ceased to be a perfect human being. This kind of thing cannot be predicted, for the heart is treacherous, and who can really know it, and his action was a result of the free will he was justly given.

If no one was given the right to free will, then they would make complaint that they were merely a robotic, controlled society (and, in fact, these kinds of robots could not even have enough free will to make a complaint in the first place). Through the loving kindness of the Creator, humans have the absolute ability to undo themselves from what they once were.

This choice of theirs that they make is no fault of the giver of said free will. As for Him predicting what damage will eventually be done, and so shouldn't have initiated anything in the first place, he does not want to know the outcome, but he does in fact know it at any given time. He knows the interior rooms of each persons secret heart at any given time, and so he knows how bad the damage is there. From this, He can deduce the outcome, and He has never been proven to be wrong in any analysis on record.

With both of us having to live within the crumbling society we have currently fashioned for ourselves, I certainly empathize with your hostility toward the Creator of all things.

Actually I feel no more hostility toward the *Creator* than I do toward any other mythical construct, such as Santa or the Easter Bunny. Any hostility I feel is directed at those who claim to know the mind of such a Being, and attempt to impose their ignorant beliefs on society.

However, if we think of the original human, Adam, being something like a perfect construct, we would be sadly mistaken. While Adam was being obedient and conscious of his spiritual need for guidance, he was in fact perfect. But once his heart became corrupted by his greater love for his wife, he ceased to be a perfect human being. This kind of thing cannot be predicted, for the heart is treacherous, and who can really know it, and his action was a result of the free will he was justly given.

First off,*Adam* did not exist. The creation story is a myth. A very poorly constructed myth, at that.

Second. Let's assume(for the sake of argument) that Adam did exist. If as you assert, he could have been corrupted, then he was not perfect in the first place.

Third, an omniscient God would not predict Adam's corruption. He would have known that Adam would eat of the fruit before He created the universe.

If no one was given the right to free will, then they would make complaint that they were merely a robotic, controlled society (and, in fact, these kinds of robots could not even have enough free will to make a complaint in the first place). Through the loving kindness of the Creator, humans have the absolute ability to undo themselves from what they once were.

If in fact the God of the bible exists, and has the attributes granted Him by common belief, then the free will of which you speak is nothing more than an illusion. I personally accept that free will does exist, simply because God does not.

This choice of theirs that they make is no fault of the giver of said free will. As for Him predicting what damage will eventually be done, and so shouldn't have initiated anything in the first place, he does not want to know the outcome, but he does in fact know it at any given time. He knows the interior rooms of each persons secret heart at any given time, and so he knows how bad the damage is there. From this, He can deduce the outcome, and He has never been proven to be wrong in any analysis on record.

Again, the God of the bible would not have to predict what damage will be done. He knew as fact the outcome, before He created the heavens and the earth. The Christian God need not make guesses.

He has never been proven to be wrong in any analysis on record.

Read the bible......
or google bible contradictions.

Either the bible is not the unfaltering word of God, or God is like an absent minded professor.

If it is not the unfaltering word of God, where do you get your information from concerning God, his infalliblity, and his gift of free will?

If it is the direct word of God, he is obviously mentally challenged. A big all powerful being with the mind of a grapefruit is a scary thing indeed.

Makes me wonder how exactly a stillborn baby would benefit from being in Heaven. Wouldn't it be, just, existing? It can't really do anything...

Which just proves that even the slightest amount of thought can tear apart any religious doctrine, which furthermore proves that people who subscribe to that doctrine are incapable of thought.

Makes me wonder how exactly a stillborn baby would benefit from being in Heaven. Wouldn't it be, just, existing? It can't really do anything...

Which just proves that even the slightest amount of thought can tear apart any religious doctrine, which furthermore proves that people who subscribe to that doctrine are incapable of thought.

Think about the nature of the soul.
A stilllborn's soul isn't just 9 months old; one's soul isn't limited to one's current existence/body. It's been part of something greater, and something older.

Babies who die don't sit in a crib in "heaven."

Think about the nature of the soul.
A stilllborn's soul isn't just 9 months old; one's soul isn't limited to one's current existence/body. It's been part of something greater, and something older.

Babies who die don't sit in a crib in "heaven."

If a soul doesn't have consciousness, then what the fuck is the point in even believing in an afterlife?

How can a "soul" experience the joys of heaven?

If a soul doesn't have consciousness, then what the fuck is the point in even believing in an afterlife?

How can a "soul" experience the joys of heaven?

Who said that a soul doesn't have a consciousness?

Why would the absence of a consciousness make BELIEVING in an afterlife pointless?

It experiences the joys by experiencing them.

Think, man.

Think, man.

That's exactly what I'm doing.

I'm trying to rationalize this so called heaven, and I'm having a hard time here...