God sends people to Hell

[ManBearPig]

This is one of my pet peeves, so I thought I'd make a topic about it. It's quite common on these forums that a Christian will say

God doesn't send people to Hell. People send themselves!

Not only is this completely nonsensical (would anyone ever say thieves "send themselves" to prison?), but also unbiblical, since the Bible unequivocally declares God to be a Judge, regularly "damning" people and "casting" them into pits and whatnot.

So does God send people to Hell? If so, why do so many Christians refuse to admit it?

[joer]

Beta wrote:

His death actually pictures the dying of our sinful old self necessary first before a new life can begin. Rom.6 says much on that and on other scripture comes to mind Jh.12v24. I see death as very significant whether actual or symbolic.

I can't really picture what your saying "the dying of our sinful old self necessary first before a new life can begin." in Christ's death. But symbolically I see the connection.

What I have pictured and The movie "The Passion" by Mel Gibson bore it out even more. Is that Jesus "lived" his life for us and he gave his life for us but in a very different than paying a ransom to Devil for our Sins so we would be free. He let us kill him without resisting so in our time now when we are becoming more civilized and more respectful of human rights. Less likely to kill people than before, we could see the error of our ways back then. So we could see we killed a non-violent innocent human being who fought for human rights and justice and against oppression. And now recognizing this by seeing the injustice of what we did, it highlights the righteousness of what he taught and moves us to want to stop doing that. Stop killing, stop being unjust, and to turn toward living a live that follows God's Will and God's Love.

[Jester]

I disagree with you that children are born with sin. They have not done anything therefore they cannot have done anything wrong, therefore they are without sin.

Looking over the argument, I did not find a clarification of the term “sin”, but want to argue that the Bible should be considered the authority on this term. (Secular terms may be used to express ethical positions that differ from those of the Bible.)
In this case, the term “sin” would seem to be defined as: not meeting the demands of the commandments of God.

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

If this is the summation of all Biblical commandments, failure to love God or others is the heart of all sin. Therefore, an infant is as capable of sin as an adult (and, I would argue, as capable of being forgiven).

More to the general point of the debate, I believe that the statement of people “sending themselves to Hell” is borne from the belief that Hell is defined as the pain of being outside the presence of God. Within the Christian paradigm, evil does not exist in its own right, but is merely the absence of good. This is to say that an individual who rejects God (i.e. good) will not have goodness forced on him/her, but be allowed to exist in the “outer darkness” (i.e. Hell). Thus, the rejection of God (goodness) is, according to Christian teaching, synonymous with a choice for the alternative (spiritual darkness or Hell).
Whether or not one agrees with these concepts is, of course, another debate, but I do not see a strong case that they are inconsistent with the theology laid out in the Bible.

[joer]

Howdy Jester, Interesting post. You write:

In this case, the term “sin” would seem to be defined as: not meeting the demands of the commandments of God. Matthew 22:37-40 wrote:
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
If this is the summation of all Biblical commandments, failure to love God or others is the heart of all sin. Therefore, an infant is as capable of sin as an adult (and, I would argue, as capable of being forgiven).

" failure to love God or others is the heart of all sin. Therefore, an infant is as capable of sin" Accutually this part about loving God and the ASSUMPTION that failing to love God is Sin may not necessary be true.

Just because one this is true. "Love God is good" doesn't always mean that it's inverse is true. "Not loving God is bad" .

But even if this is true in this case, it's assuming a "choice" to between loving and not loving God

Since a baby can't make that choice. The baby can't "sin" as you've defined it until at such piont and time it can "choose" to "love" or "not love" God.

So I think the MCCulloch statement you addressed is still true. The baby is not born with sin. It's born into a world of sin. Making it likely it will sin at some point in time.

[Jester]

" failure to love God or others is the heart of all sin. Therefore, an infant is as capable of sin" Accutually this part about loving God and the ASSUMPTION that failing to love God is Sin may not necessary be true.

It is very clearly the teaching of the Bible. One may chose to argue the point on the grounds that the Bible may be incorrect, but it can be accepted as a valid conclusion in a discussion on Biblical teachings.
If you wish to debate this point further, please let me know what definition of sin fits more clearly with Biblical instruction, and we can discuss its quality and relevance to the subject.

Just because one this is true. "Love God is good" doesn't always mean that it's inverse is true. "Not loving God is bad" .

That is a perfectly acceptable argument if one is challenging the claims of Christianity. That is out of our current area of discussion, however. We are commenting on the teaching of the religion, in which a failure to love God is clearly considered to be sin.

But even if this is true in this case, it's assuming a "choice" to between loving and not loving God

Since a baby can't make that choice. The baby can't "sin" as you've defined it until at such piont and time it can "choose" to "love" or "not love" God.

So I think the MCCulloch statement you addressed is still true. The baby is not born with sin. It's born into a world of sin. Making it likely it will sin at some point in time.

This argument contains an assumption which I would like to address. We can assume neither faculty of choice nor inability of choice when it comes to the spirituality of an infant (or fetus, as that seems to be what is actually being discussed). Given that brain activity begins before birth, the existence of a means of choice is clearly possible, though I do not pretend to be making a compelling case for the matter (primarily, I believe, because it is beside my original point).
Similarly, the word choice is, in itself, misleading. It implies a certain amount of consciously-directed thought that is not the source of spirituality by any definition, nor is it universally (or even generally) believed to be a vital part. The basic “spiritual state” of an individual is that which is ultimately important. This is similar to the wrestling with a neurosis in that it is largely an unconscious struggle, and conscious thought usually, but not always, becomes involved in the healing process. Thus, one cannot infer that an unborn person’s lack of consciousness prevents them from having certain unconscious traits which the Bible would define as spiritual acceptance or opposition to his/her remarkably weak understanding of God.

[Greatest I Am]

At conception, the Holy Ghost enters the child, follows him or her through fetal development to birth. At birth we can say that we have a perfectly white soul accompanied by the Holy Spirit.
How can this new child have sin or the knowledge of sin. The Bible says that for sin to exist in an individual he or she must know that what they are doing is a sin before it becomes a sin.
In civil law this is called "Menes ray". One must know that they are breaking the law before the law can be applied.
One must be aware of sin before one can sin.
The Church of the day, to solidify their position with it' adherents, created the concept of original sin. They wanted to secure the believers from cradle to grave.

Regards
DL

[joer]

I like your style of argument Jester. But I disagree with some of your tenets.
You say ,

“Given that brain activity begins before birth, the existence of a means of choice is clearly possible, though I do not pretend to be making a compelling case for the matter”

I would disagree that “brain activity” indicates “a means of choice is clearly possible”. There are so many non-conscious functions that the brain directs through it’s autonomic nervous system, “brain activity” could be an indicator of a multitude of other functions without being an indicator of the conscious logic necessary in “making a choice”.

I believe you are stretching the Time Frame of the ability of a baby to consciously participate in cognitive activity to occur before in actually does in reality.

Convenient for purposes of argument. But not necessarily true.

The other tenet you try to put forth that is difficult for me to accept as presented is that spirituality has little if anything to do with thought.

I believe [/u]"thought"[/u] has a tremendous amount to due with spirituality. Simply because it is a basic function in our nature. Where thought in and of itself isn’t spiritual, it is a natural function by which greater heights of spirituality are attained. IMHO.

If we think about and choose to loot, pillage, rape and kill and deny God’s Love, our spiritual growth is stunted. If we think about and choose to help, heal, love and support and embrace God’s Love, our spiritual growth is augmented.

So whereas thought isn’t in and of itself “spiritual”, contrary to what you say,
“nor is it universally (or even generally) believed to be a vital part”, “thought and choice” can be and often is a major contributor to our “spiritually”. Even as it can be, though occurring more seldom, a major factor in our spiritual downfall.

So thought is very important. So much so that Jesus even warned us that, “if we even think of something impure it was the same as doing it.” How clear can that be in terms of indicating how important our thoughts are in regards to knowing and doing God’s will?

I would have to agree with Greatest I Am on the innocence of an unborn baby.

[McCulloch]

I would have to agree with Greatest I Am on the innocence of an unborn baby.

What about the innocence of a two hour old baby? A two week old baby? A month old? A year old? A two year old? ... A sixteen year old?

When do you make that transition between being a heaven bound innocent and a hell bound sinner?

[Cathar1950]

I would have to agree with Greatest I Am on the innocence of an unborn baby.

What about the innocence of a two hour old baby? A two week old baby? A month old? A year old? A two year old? ... A sixteen year old?

When do you make that transition between being a heaven bound innocent and a hell bound sinner?

They are innocent until they touch themselves then it is the devil's playground Mack.

What happens if you think about not doing evil?
Let's say I see a hot chick and I look at her and think, I am not going to lust after her, is that thinking about it?

[joer]

McCulloch wrote

When do you make that transition between being a heaven bound innocent and a hell bound sinner?

Well actually we were talking about being born with sin in these last few posts, not going to hell. If you want to go to hell just consistently choose evil and your life will be a living hell. And if you want to enjoy heaven on earth just consistently choose to do the Will of God and you will begin to see what heaven is like. As far as what age do we begin to sin. It's not fixed. It's at the point where we can make our first moral choice. Some religionists call it "when you reach the age of reason".

Cathar1950 wrote:

What happens if you think about not doing evil?
Let's say I see a hot chick and I look at her and think, I am not going to lust after her, is that thinking about it?

You have a built in sense of right and wrong and when you’re doing something wrong you pretty much know it. You don’t have to make an intellectual or mental distinction. You will intuitively know if your doing something wrong. So if you're thinking and lusting you know it. And if your thinking and not lusting you know that too.

[Jester]

I like your style of argument Jester. But I disagree with some of your tenets.

First, thanks.
After that, let’s get to that fun debate stuff.

I would disagree that “brain activity” indicates “a means of choice is clearly possible”. There are so many non-conscious functions that the brain directs through it’s autonomic nervous system, “brain activity” could be an indicator of a multitude of other functions without being an indicator of the conscious logic necessary in “making a choice”.

I must give a bit of an apology. I misspoke (or miswrote, actually) with the term ‘choice’. The possibility of unconscious choice is there, but you are right to say that it is not clear. What I should have written (the way it was meant in spite of my poor communication) was that there is a clear possibility of choice (though it would certainly be unconscious in nature). I hope that strikes you as a more reasonable statement.

I believe [/u]"thought"[/u] has a tremendous amount to due with spirituality. Simply because it is a basic function in our nature. Where thought in and of itself isn’t spiritual, it is a natural function by which greater heights of spirituality are attained. IMHO.

I did not mean to undermine the importance of thought to spirituality with my earlier comment. I personally believe that continual study should be undertaken by all who wish to strengthen their spiritual conditions. I do, however, maintain that, while it is deeply important, it is not vital. The purpose of conscious thought in the spiritual journey is the quest to alter one’s motivations and personality. This makes it a powerful tool, but not the goal in and of itself.

This last explanation is my basic response to the following. I’ll add a few more comments as they apply

If we think about and choose to loot, pillage, rape and kill and deny God’s Love, our spiritual growth is stunted. If we think about and choose to help, heal, love and support and embrace God’s Love, our spiritual growth is augmented.

I agree wholeheartedly, but would like to underline that this is not the only means of achieving positive spiritual traits.

So whereas thought isn’t in and of itself “spiritual”, contrary to what you say,
“nor is it universally (or even generally) believed to be a vital part”, “thought and choice” can be and often is a major contributor to our “spiritually”. Even as it can be, though occurring more seldom, a major factor in our spiritual downfall.

So thought is very important. So much so that Jesus even warned us that, “if we even think of something impure it was the same as doing it.” How clear can that be in terms of indicating how important our thoughts are in regards to knowing and doing God’s will?

I would have to agree with Greatest I Am on the innocence of an unborn baby.

I would agree that thought and choice are vital factors insofar as one possesses them. In my opinion, one cannot ignore one’s capacity for free choice and have a positive spiritual condition. This is, however, not pertinent to the current point (in which there is not likely to be conscious thought to ignore).