Thread 17756330

*babies screaming out in pain*

Jesus: "Guess you shouldn't have been aborted then, huh? Only those who have heard the Gospel and been baptized can enter Heaven. Enjoy the eternal lava pool I made just for you."

>>17756330 (OP)
I asked a priest about this when I was a kid and he straight up told me, "That's why we ought to be sending the women who abort their kids to Hell with them!" Pretty much stopped caring about Christianity altogether after that point.

>>17756330 (OP)
>>17756332
none of that's in the Bible tho

>>17756333
>Mark 16:16
>Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Did the babies believe and become baptized?

>>17756333
Nor is what you put in the mouth of Joseph Smith in his.

>>17756337
That verse isn't saying that NOT being baptized damns you. It says not believing damns you. Also, believing on Christ is the baptism of the Holy Ghost. John the Baptist preached the "baptism of the Holy Ghost."
Anyways, if you actually read the whole Bible you'd be aware that infants are innocent ("knowing not right from wrong") and that they go to where believers go after they die.

>>17756344
>believing on Christ is the baptism of the Holy Ghost
You must be born again.

>>17756347
Yeah that's what that means.

>>17756349
Unless you are born again of SPIRIT you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

>>17756350
That's correct, yes. Believing on Jesus Christ as your savior and accepting his atonement alone for your sins is the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It is simultaneous.

>>17756330 (OP)
see
>>17755965

>>17756344
Wrong, Jesus says:

>Matthew 18:6
>but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

This is because causing them to sin condemns them to Hell. If they never get the chance to believe, then they have eternally sinned and fry. Jesus loves watching them burn.

Dying early isn't a get out of jail free card.

>>17756351
It is vain without immersion of the holy spirit.

babies in hell are there because they have an unredeemed sin nature, nothing unclean shall enter God's presence

>>17756344
>if you actually read the whole Bible you'd be aware that infants are innocent ("knowing not right from wrong") and that they go to where believers go after they die.
THAT'S nowhere in the Bible. Complete headcanon. At least the other anon can justify his position with a verse. You can't. Simply Christcope.

>>17756332
He was right though. Bet you support baby murder now

JESUS LOVES BARBECUING BABIES

He loves it when his Israelites slaughter all the little ones and when they bash them against the rocks and take the virgin girls for themselves!

Love these threads and the unending amounts of cope they produce from Christcucks

>>17756354
>but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin
that's not what it says, it says
>But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me
>offend
>σκανδαλίσῃ

>>17756356
Baptism (which just means immersion literally) of the Holy Ghost occurs the moment one accepts Jesus Christ and his atonement in one's heart.
As John says, "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire."

You must be PURE and RIGHTEOUS, washed in the BLOOD of the LAMB, if you want to enter Jesus the Baby Torturer's Kingdom of Love.

>>17756372
>Quotes some shitty unknown translation

https://biblehub.com/matthew/18-6.htm

Face it, your God tortures fetuses

>>17756376
>Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
-Deut. 1:39

David, in reference to his dead infant son
>But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

Paul, referring to when he was a child
>For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
>inb4 "revived"
he was (spiritually) alive once, before he understood the commandments.

>>17756372
Those babies are being baptized in fire alright. It's the Jesus way!

>>17756344
>kill a bunch of babies
>ask forgiveness
>everyone involved gets to go to heaven
Either babies go to hell or infanticide is moral.

>>17756385
Nah, none of that means anything. Your god burns them in HELL.

>>17756361
I don't support baby murder or sick death cultists who think babies should burn forever just for not being born. If there is a Hell, ironically Christians are most likely to wind up there.

>>17756389
Babies have no reward in the kingdom of God other than simply being there. Believers earn degrees of reward, and literal rule over the earth and heavens according to their works.

>>17756397
>they only avoid eternal torture

>>17756397
fucking lol
>yeah well I may be poor and have nothing to live for but I'm going to be a Grand Duke of Heaven!
the shit they sell to you idiots

>>17756397
>>17756399
Jesus sends all Native Americans who never heard of Jesus, all Chinese who never heard the Gospel because it hadn't reached them, all people that were indoctrinated into the wrong religion, and all Christian who believed the wrong way to burn forever in Hell fire. Why wouldn't he roast babies? It just fits his personality so well.

>>17756399
>>17756404
yeah.
I don't personally care much about unknowable rewards. But you asked.

>>17756330 (OP)
If this is you're conception of your Omni-God is this monstrously Evil Thing, then maybe you should consider running like hell away from your Righter than Right Christuckery now! You won't budge, but in IMHO, this poisonous "Spiritual" Arseholery is abomitable!

>>17756361
If the 'babies' are non White I sure do

>>17756411
>But you asked
I never said anything about rewards, just avoiding hell.

>>17756428
Hell is proportionate to your sins. Not everyone burns as hot. Everyone who is in Hell is receiving what they deserve. Infants have no sin, so they don't go to Hell. I don't see why this in particular scandalizes you, other than that it undermines OP's premise.

>>17756435
>I don't see why this in particular scandalizes you
It doesn't. But it does mean that, logically, killing babies and saving them from eternal torment is moral. When your stick is the worst fate imaginable, no one is going to care about the flavor of the carrot.

>>17756354
This verse says nothing about condemning the little ones to hell
>>17756344
>That verse isn't saying that NOT being baptized damns you. It says not believing damns you.
Now I want to preface this by saying I am a Reformed Christian so that you know I don't believe in magic salvation water that somehow makes you right with God through physical contact, because I am concerned this is an unnatural theologically motivated interpretation. It's very disjointed and disrupts the flow of this verse, this simply isn't how you would interpret any other speaker, it's not hard to follow the contrast. I believe the reason why the Lord equates belief and baptism is as both are necessary to initiation into the covenant, and therefore the meaning is that those who are members of the covenant are grace are they that are saved. Essentially no different from Peter's gospel proclamation "Repent and be baptized".
>Also, believing on Christ is the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
No, the baptism of the Holy Ghost is regeneration.

>>17756435
The requirement for being saved from Hell:
>Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved

Unborn babies have not been baptized. You lose. Babies burn.

>>17756395
>If there is a Hell, ironically Christians are most likely to wind up there.
>because hell was created specifically for people who offend my personal subjective arbitrary sensibilities
You're on the way there

>>17756442
When infants grow up, they could call on the Lord to be saved and go to Heaven. Or, they could try really hard to not be a big sinner and go to not-as-hot Hell.
>le eternal torment
yeah it's pretty bad. Proportionate to what you deserve though.
If you're indignant on the idea that people don't deserve to be judged then so be it.

>>17756344
Also that bit about babies is unbiblical Pelagian bunk

>>17756444
Well my interpretation is the right one and yours is wrong. Enjoy Hell.

>>17756451
Read Romans 1

>>17756330 (OP)
God predestined those babies to go to Hell. They deserved it.

>>17756330 (OP)
>Do the unbaptized go to hell?
Yes.
But the church has also believed in invincible ignorance since Aquinas.
>“those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation” (847, CCC)

Who is mor ignorant of the gospel and sin than newborns?

>>17756475
>do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart
Romanism is so divorced from biblical Christianity

>>17756330 (OP)
The Christian god and his followers are evil motherfuckers. So glad Atheism is true and they just go to eternal nothing and eat shit after they die. All their hopes and dreams of rewards in an afterlife just vanish. The ultimate fuck you.

>>17756475
>quoting something outside the Bible

Nope, doesn't count.

>>17756479
>MAY receive eternal salvation
>MAY
We don't guarantee it because we don't know. But we certainly believe a loving and merciful God wouldn't just condemn someone to hell because he never encounter an English missionary while hunting for food in the arctic.

>>17756488
But God burning fetuses in lava (for the sin of being created with fallen human nature from Adam and Eve) is Love. Those wicked fetuses need to feel God's wrath!

>>17756486
>sola scriptura meme
lmao
>Luke 23:34 - Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

>>17756488
May the God of torturous love open your eyes.

>>17756499
>laughs at sola scriptura
>proceeds to quote the Bible

May the God of bashing babies against the rocks open your eyes.

Are babies in the afterlife forced to remain as unchanging spiritual babies or can they learn and mature?

>>17756442
>But it does mean that, logically, killing babies and saving them from eternal torment is moral.
No, because we are commanded not to kill. Furthermore, the Bible makes it clear that whoever is going to be saved is going to be saved. It's only the irredeemably damned who will refuse the Gospel, and they won't have any excuse left by the time they get to the day of judgement. You, on the other hand, thinking you can somehow successfully interfere with God's plan or work out some kind of a loophole exception, is not only woefully misguided but also sinful in itself. It smacks of pride, as if you really think that you could do something the Lord doesn't already expect and hasn't already fully taken into account. But in sum, since it's been repeated so often, your idea is evil, prideful and wicked if taken seriously, and if it's being ironic, it wasn't funny or clever the first five hundred times we heard it and still isn't this time. See you next time.

>>17756513
May the God of "kill every male among the little ones" open your eyes

>>17756512
They are babies forever. They just sit and smile at God and smile at the hellfire with other babies burning in it in the distance and giggle.

>>17756397
>Believers earn degrees of reward
Post where the bible says this or burn in hell fire for bearing false witness.

>>17756503
i laugh at sola scriptura because everything in the catechism has already been justified through scripture for a millennia. And once again, protestards are showing their literacy rates with the book they worship.

>>17756524
Matthew 16:27
Revelation 22:12-13

>>17756448
Without a trace of irony lol. Christians are seriously mentally ill

>>17756533
Catholics are the ones that say babies burn

>>17756488
>We don't guarantee it because we don't know
I know because I've read the bible. But while that is grossly unbiblical that isn't what caught my eye. It was this part
>do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart
Romans 1 and 3 specifically say there is no such person. There is none who seeks after God, not even one.

>>17756524
>For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

>Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

>And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
>Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
>And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
>And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
>And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
>And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
>For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
>And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
>But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

>For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
>Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
>Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
>If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
>If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

>>17756536
Why would I be ironic about being a rational person rather than an irrational emotional person?

>>17756537
>Catholics are the ones that say babies burn
completely untrue statement.
One of the 97 Theses posted by Martin Luther was his disagreement with the church on invincible ignorance.
John Calvin was a very outspoken denouncer of invincible ignorance.
And the Baptists are the worst of the bunch, just look at the IFB's here on /his/

>>17756542
This is correct. There is no Reformed theology without original sin.
People denying original sin actually have less in common with the Reformation than Rome does.

>>17756538
Directly contradicted by:

>Matthew 7:7-8
>“Ask, and it will be given to you; SEEK, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

The Bible was written by retards for retards.

>>17756548
That's not really a contradiction. It is the case that every primitive tribe that was never exposed to the Gospel never had a single person who actually genuinely sought the Lord. We know this because if there had been even one, the Gospel would have gotten to them.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
- Romans 1:18-20

>>17756548
The seekers Christ is talking about are "seeking" after hearing the message. He is not talking about for example the atheist who pretends to be neutral about God, He is talking about the people who are coming to church, seeking to understand more and sincerely interested in joining the faith.

>>17756555
So they are seeking God.

RETARD ALERT

>>17756560
>b-but it's the same word!
How embarrassing

>>17756560
After being raised to spiritual life by the Holy Spirit, yes.

>>17756538
>“no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man” (CCC 1860).
You can’t murder your neighbor and pretend you had never heard that murder was wrong.
But “ignorance of Christ and his gospel” (CCC 1792) certainly exists.
How shall such people be judged? Jesus lays out the basic principle in Luke 12:48:
>“Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.”
Everyone has been given something (at least the principles of moral law), and we will be judged based on what we know or should have known, not on what we didn’t know.

>>17756553
No, people on the other side of the planet never tried to seek Yahweh the God of the Jews. They never even knew of such a concept.

>>17756561
>>17756562
Do you live in Africa or Brazil?

>>17756566
Morals are the result of evolution by natural selection, not a god. There was a time when primitive hominids thought bonking another male on the head and raping his female was the rightful thing to do.

>>17756575
>There was a time when primitive hominids thought bonking another male on the head and raping his female was the rightful thing to do.
Can you explain why it isn't?

>>17756567
>No, people on the other side of the planet never tried to seek Yahweh the God of the Jews.
Is that some talmud thing you came up with? Not sure I follow.

>>17756566
>You can’t murder your neighbor and pretend you had never heard that murder was wrong.
That's correct, because the murderer knew God.
>But “ignorance of Christ and his gospel” (CCC 1792) certainly exists.
Yes it does, however what most certainly does not exist is ignorance of God such that the man is not morally culpable before Him for his rejection of Him. Invincible ignorance squarely contradicts Romans 1:19-21. It is purely a byproduct of Rome's deficient gospel and deficient theology.
>How shall such people be judged?
By a man whom He has appointed; and of this He has given assurance to all by raising Him from the dead.

>>17756575
ill take the bait because its fun to make atheists look retarded with their own philosophy.

>"Morals are the result of evolution by natural selection"
>natural selection is survival of the fittest having the highest chances of reproducing
>By your own admission, a society that imprisons its women in breeding camps to create as many humans as possible is a more morally acceptable society than what we have today.

>>17756572
No.

>>17756582
We do that with livestock already and it works well for the goal of reproduction. But the goal of humans isn't to produce as many humans as possible, it's to live sustainably and to avoid suffering. So we are now the natural result of that. Ancient humans wouldn't have been able to sustain that many humans without advanced farming technology, so it would never naturally happen. So we've been morally shaped a different way over millions of years.

All I have to do to make you look stupid is to say you believe in Noah's Ark. You will never defeat science and the discovery of evolution by natural selection.

>>17756587
>But the goal of humans isn't to produce as many humans as possible, it's to live sustainably and to avoid suffering
Why is that?

>>17756587
>But the goal of humans isn't to produce as many humans as possible, it's to live sustainably and to avoid suffering
Where does this "goal" come from? Suffering is irrelevant to natural selection

>>17756593
>>17756595
Hominids developed higher intelligence and adapted to social environments where cooperation and empathy enhanced survival, no it's not divine.

Learn how natural selection works you religious fucking morons.

>>17756598
You won't. That's why your churches are now saying, "Science and religion are compatible. Everything in the Bible is a metaphor for Science's answers. Evolution is God's plan." You lost.

>>17756609
You realize your big bang was developed by a Catholic Priest, right?
Einstein hated it and called it "creationist propaganda"

>>17756606
What do cooperation and empathy have to do with suffering?
>Learn how natural selection works
It works by destroying anything which is not fit to the environment, it does not cause fish to sprout legs. Evolution is false you've been lied to

>>17756609
Our churches are saying Science is a false god. Which it is. Cast down your idol and repent

>>17756513
>you can somehow successfully interfere with God's plan
I'm not planning on doing anything. I'm not concerned about babies going to hell because christianity is fake and gay.
What I'm more getting at is that your religion logically leads to this conclusion and if someone were to take it seriously you'd end up with crazies like the skoptsy but with baby murder instead of auto-castration.

>>17756618
>crazies like the skoptsy but with baby murder
Worried about the competition?

>>17756612
Does your god naturally select which babies he will throw into the fire pit?

>>17756626
Do you naturally select which babies you murder in the womb?

>>17756622
>criticize a religion for inadvertently justifying baby murder
>this somehow means you murder babies

>>17756628
Yes. Are those the ones he grills like chicken?

>>17756629
Christianity does not justify baby murder directly or indirectly. Even thinking this requires enormous ignorance of the Christian worldview.

>>17756637
Don't be so aroused, you'll join them before you know it.

>>17756644
So you admit your god does toast babies like poptarts

>>17756639
Do babies go to hell?

>>17756653
Yes.

>>17756654
You worship a demon. You worship Moloch.

>>17756656
May God forgive you.

>>17756660
Will he? He doesn't forgive babies.

>>17756665
He is equally as free to save babies as He is adults.

>>17756609
>What I'm more getting at is that your religion logically leads to this conclusion
It doesn't, retard.

>>17756649
What's your actual problem, anon?

>morality is supposed to objectively come from God
>somehow Christians are aware that unborn babies suffering for all eternity is immoral and tries to argue it isn't what's happening even though God says that's what happens

>>17756723
He hardened his heart against the Lord.

>>17756725
>somehow Christians are aware that unborn babies suffering for all eternity is immoral
Hey anon, guess how I know that though? Because the Bible says they don't. And God's judgement is always perfectly just, so that tells me the opposite of what it says that God would do would be immoral.

>even though God says that's what happens
Not according to 2 Samuel 12:23 and Job 3:16-19. According to those verses, unborn children who die do not go to hell. Not sure how many times this has been mentioned by others already. This result is already clear when you realize that, according to the Bible, what separates us from God is sin. Sin requires an agent who knows between good and evil to rebel, to go against God's word in some way and choose that which is called morally evil. You get that even implicitly even without the two verses I just mentioned which just hammer the point home even further.

>>17756740
God isn't real. Babies don't burn in Hell. You can relax.

>>17756749
>Babies don't burn in Hell. You can relax.
True.
>God isn't real.
I'm not sure what you mean to refer to here. The Triune God is real. See pic. Now you've got some truth to think about.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
- Matthew 28:19-20

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
- 1 John 5:7

"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."
- John 8:24

>>17756740
Not that guy, brother
>Not according to 2 Samuel 12:23 and Job 3:16-19
Neither of these texts make such a claim. Neither is about hell or the eternal judgement of God or the status of man. When we go to the texts which are actually about the subject (which is how we derive the deity of Christ from scripture) we hear only about how man is cursed, he is by nature a child of wrath, and all outside of Christ are doomed. I can't conceive the relevance of 2 Samuel 12:23 and can only assume you cited the wrong text. Job 3:17 is Job wishing for his own death. He is not acting righteously here, he is speaking of "rest for the weary" in a worldly sense, as it removes them from the difficulties of life (hence, he also says it removes the troubles of the wicked from the world).
>Sin requires an agent who knows between good and evil to rebel, to go against God's word in some way and choose that which is called morally evil.
So a child is a new Adam? He is pure and stainless in God's sight and untouched by sin?

>>17756755
No, the Triune God is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. It was invented by Plato long before Jesus and further developed by Philo and is a Greek abomination merged with Judaism.

>>17756756
>I can't conceive the relevance of 2 Samuel 12:23 and can only assume you cited the wrong text.
Maybe you should try being a bit more humble then, because the relevance is absolutely blindingly obvious.

"And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."
- 2 Samuel 12:22-23

This is referring to the fact that David himself is saved, and he will go to where the child is when he dies. David in the Psalms often reflects on his eternal home, since he knew that he was a saved man. This is the most basic of the basic. I would be surprised this would throw off someone who is actually seeking the truth, but I don't think that's the case here.

>Job 3:17 is Job wishing for his own death.
Ok, now it's certain you are speaking in bad faith. You clearly missed the actual reference here, which is Job 3:16-19. There is no possible way that one's an accident, and you accidentally decided to just look at one verse in isolation, it was done on purpose. Willfully blind, anon. Possibly trying to provoke a response out of me as well by playing dumb and pretending not to be acting in bad faith. Sad.

The other questions you asked are already answered just by reading the post again but this time actually trying to understand. I'm mainly saying this for the record to everyone else in the thread.

>>17756761
>Maybe you should try being a bit more humble then
I don't believe I was being arrogant, brother. I did not mean it as an insult and I beg your forgiveness for the confusion.
>This is referring to the fact that David himself is saved, and he will go to where the child is when he dies
I do not understand it that way, I think he was talking about visiting his grave. David is in grief here, he is lamenting. He says "I shall go to him" that is, to his body, but (in sadness) "he shall not return to me" that is, to life.
>I would be surprised this would throw off someone who is actually seeking the truth, but I don't think that's the case here.
Now who needs to learn humility
>There is no possible way that one's an accident, and you accidentally decided to just look at one verse in isolation
I looked at the entire chapter. I never look at a single verse, even when it is cited that way. I focused on verse 17 because that's the only one I could see as possibly having to do with hell. You may have noticed verse 17 specifically does not say Job is wishing for his own death. The surrounding verses support the given interpretation that he is speaking of worldly faiths without attention to the afterlife. Your only actual objection is that I did not put the numbers in my post, rather than talking about their content which I did.
>The other questions you asked are already answered just by reading the post again but this time actually trying to understand.
You'll have to point out the part where you addressed the fact you're making children to be new Adams.
>I'm mainly saying this for the record to everyone else in the thread.
Your behavior is remarkably uncharitable and prideful. It is unbecoming of a Christian. I am telling you in the name of Christ, repent.

>>17756768
>I don't believe I was being arrogant, brother.
So, first stating in no uncertain terms, "Neither of these texts make such a claim." Then in the same paragraph, saying you don't even understand the relevance and can only assume it was cited wrongly. If you don't understand the passage or how it's relevant, how can you say with such certainty that it doesn't make such a claim? Arrogance. The other alternative is a predetermined conclusion. You had already concluded you would contradict me so you wrote that sentence before even thinking about either passage, and only later concluded upon how you wanted to contradict me. I admit it is fully possible it was already pre-decided you would contradict and therefore you wrote that first sentence before even investigating the text of the Scripture passages, which then created the subtle inconsistency that wasn't corrected later.
>I focused on verse 17 because that's the only one I could see as possibly having to do with hell.
Yes, so according to that logic, a passage that explicitly says that the unborn who pass away before birth (verse 16) go to the same place where the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest (verse 17) is clearly not relevant at all. Sure. That's completely a good faith argument, right?

>You'll have to point out the part where you addressed the fact you're making children to be new Adams.
Nowhere, anon. I don't even know where this idea came from.
>Your behavior is remarkably uncharitable and prideful. It is unbecoming of a Christian. I am telling you in the name of Christ, repent.
So you put yourself in the place of Christ, anon? That contrasts pretty sharply with the whole "innocent inquirer" approach you had just a minute ago, unless you're a different anon.

>>17756761
>>17756768
>>17756788
>No your Christcuckery is wrong
>No my Christcuckery is right

This has been going on for 2,000 years and is a sign that Christcucks are low IQ animals

>>17756799
I wouldn't be so fast to jump to conclusions, anon.

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not."
- 2 Peter 2:1-3

That's what these Obama-era, passive-aggressive types who pretend to be Christian but always want to undermine the church and the Bible and to discredit/dishonor the Lord, often are. In this case, they're arguing that unborn and infants are in hell when that's not what the Bible says at any point or even implies.

>>17756755
>"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
- 1 John 5:7

You actually quoted that proven fake verse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

>>17756802
No, the full 1 John 5:7 actually a fully authentic verse.

>>17756801
2 Peter is a forgery

The Bible says Peter was an uneducated fisherman that didn't even know how to read or write. He wasn't writing letters in sophisticated Greek.

>>17756807
No, it's not. I don't give a shit about your random facebook boomer schizo screenshot.

>>17756809
>2 Peter is a forgery
According to 2 Peter 1:1, it was written by Peter.

>The Bible says Peter was an uneducated fisherman that didn't even know how to read or write.
Where does it say that he didn't know how to read or write. Or are you hallucinating that he had a disability or something now? Where's the proof of that, anon.
>He wasn't writing letters in sophisticated Greek.
He wrote the epistles attributed to him. And it has his name in the text of the first verse of both.

>>17756810
Wikipedia is an extremely biased source and is not authoritative on matters of Christianity. The admins of wikipedia take atheists, people who oppose and deeply hate Christianity, as authoritative "reliable" sources for their claims. There is all kinds of false and unreliable information on there. There are much better resources out there you could choose from.

Furthermore, the co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, even publicly criticized wikipedia specifically for its blatant anti-christian bias in its various articles, and it hasn't gotten better since then.

>>17756813
reality has an anti-christian bias lol

you literally believe in virgin births and flying rabbis

your bible teaches heaven is a literal kingdom in the clouds which is obviously bronze age proven bullshit

>>17756813
I will trust Wikipedia any day over some schizo Christcuck.

>>17756818
Do you have trouble reading or something, anon? Serious question, because it isn't that hard to do. Me posting primary sources isn't "schizo," in reality, anon.

>>17756811
The Gospel of Thomas says it was written by Thomas, yet it is deemed a forgery.

>>17756788
>So, first stating in no uncertain terms, "Neither of these texts make such a claim."
Yes, regardless of what interpretation you would impose on it, these scriptures do not even mention hell, God's judgement, the status of children before Him etc etc.
>Then in the same paragraph, saying you don't even understand the relevance and can only assume it was cited wrongly
Do you see an inconsistency between that? I'd be fascinated to hear what you believe is inconsistent about that. What if I claimed some random verse like John 1:1 taught there are children under the wrath of God, would the fact the verse is irrelevant imply that it does in fact make such a claim?
>If you don't understand the passage
I have no difficulty understanding the passage and never said otherwise, I had difficulty understanding its relevance. It definitely does not substantiate your doctrine. If your interpretation was 100% correct it would not substantiate your doctrine. Now perhaps if you engaged with humility and charity instead of rushing to the least charitable possible interpretation of my post in your pride, you could have elicited this point. This verse is talking about a specific individual. It does not say anything about any other children. Even if it meant that David's son is not in hell, it would not imply that no children are in hell.
>how can you say with such certainty that it doesn't make such a claim?
Do you believe in the perspicuity of scripture? Do I need to consult you before I can know what a bible verse means?
>I admit it is fully possible it was already pre-decided you would contradict and therefore you wrote that first sentence before even investigating the text of the Scripture passages
Do you admit someone can disagree with you without it being a conspiracy? Lord have mercy, the blindness and pride.
>go to the same place
The "place" is death. Do you think the weary are at rest in *hell*?

>>17756821
You didn't post any early manuscripts proving it's authentic.

>>17756788
>Nowhere, anon. I don't even know where this idea came from.
What is the difference between being sinless and pure and coming into the world in this state, and being a new Adam?
>So you put yourself in the place of Christ, anon?
Sir, your behavior is *sinful*. I do not put myself in Christ's place, I speak in His name.
>>17756801
>That's what these Obama-era, passive-aggressive types who pretend to be Christian but always want to undermine the church and the Bible and to discredit/dishonor the Lord
You should be ashamed of yourself. Is this how you behave in church?

>>17756822
>The Gospel of Thomas says it was written by Thomas, yet it is deemed a forgery.
Exactly, and that's because it self-evidently is.

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
- John 8:47

"Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."
- John 18:37b

If the difference between the Bible and gnostic literature is confusing to a person, that is because they are not of the truth and not of God.

>>17756827
Your god lights babies on fire for fun.

That's not "all-loving".

>>17756830
It's self-evident the Johannine Comma is fake and 2 Peter is a forgery

>>17756835
Imagine, millions of babies rolling around in hot coals screaming while Jesus laughs.

>>17756833
If you ever want to have a serious conversation, try again sometime when you're ready for it.

>>17756840
I'll trust the scholars, not some loser on 4chan

>>17756840
What temperature does Jesus cook babies at? A slow roast at 375? Or does he bake them like ceramic at 2,000 F?

>>17756843
>I'll trust the scholars
I wish you the best, anon.

"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes."
- Psalm 118:8-9

>>17756849
You're not the LORD

>>17756849
Do you have an explanation for the contrast in your conduct of how charitable you were with an atheist hellhound spouting rancid blasphemy every 5 seconds versus how uncharitable you were with a brother for daring to question you?

>>17756852
>You're not the LORD
Right, I'm only telling you what the word of God says.

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
- Romans 10:17

"What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
- Matthew 10:27-28

>>17756853
Christians hate other Christians more than any atheist.

>>17756855
The scholars tell me what the Bible says, not you.

>>17756853
>Do you have an explanation for the contrast in your conduct of how charitable you were with an atheist hellhound spouting rancid blasphemy every 5 seconds versus how uncharitable you were with a brother for daring to question you?
Sure.

"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
- Romans 16:17

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."
- 1 Timothy 6:3-5

>>17756849
>It is better to trust in the man than to put confidence in LORD.
>It is better to trust in the princes than to put confidence in LORD."
>revelation I just had from God

>>17756863
I did not write the Bible, anon.

>>17756862
>cause divisions
That would be you, sir. Why don't you show the elders at your church (assuming you don't in your pride defy the Sabbath command entirely) your behavior tonight and see what they think. Your behavior is unacceptable.

>>17756869
God isn't real

>>17756828
I have never seen anyone move the goalposts on this kind of demand in my entire life of talking about this subject. But let's try. I have Codex Frisingensis and Codex Legionensis as two very old Old Latin manuscripts with the verse. I have four citations by various ancient writers, one in Greek: Origen, Selecta in Psalmos, Ps. 123 (122); and three in Latin: Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, AD 251, paragraph 6 (linked here >>17756813), Cyprian, Letter to Iubaianus 12.2, and Tertullian, Adversus Praxean, c. 213, ch. 25. And I have Codex Montfortianus (MS 61) and MS 629, as well as the manuscript Stephanus used in his second TR edition, as Greek manuscript sources. Montfortianus was what Erasmus seems to have used, but it had an unusual form compared to MS 629 and Stephanus' source text. So there you go, some primary sources for 1 John 5:7.

Hopefully that list of sources helps you out, anon. It's actually got some good support compared to some of the other TR passages of interest, such as the longer version of Acts 10:6 or the longer version of Hebrews 12:20.

>>17756833
It's actually self-evident God is real and you just reject His existence because you are a dick sucking faggot and want to sin.

>>17756541
If you genuinely can't understand I feel sorry for you. Read your post over again and then my reply.

>>17756330 (OP)
>le the baby was not a grown arse man in his past life maymay
Do you think you'll be able to escape the consequences of your actions by dying? Well, think again.

>>17756907
I'll trust the scholars, not some loser on 4chan with late manuscripts

>>17757054
>You just want to sin

In 2,000 years Christians have not come up with any new catch phrases?

>>17757601
Well since your desert Jewgod isn't real, yes.

>”For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”
1 Corinthians 7:14

>>17758159
What about non-believing families?

BABIES GONNA BUUUUURRRRRNNNNNN

LET THE BABIES HIT THE FLOOR
LET THE BABIES HIT THE FLOOR

>>17757522
I feel glad I can't understand the irrational emotional thinking of atheists.

>>17757975
You reject the whole Bible anyway, so I am not sure why you pretend care so much about one verse. You are just a lying little faggot and having more evidence wouldn't change anything.

>>17758203
>God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from the curse he put on Adam and Eve for eating the magic fruit after a talking garden snake tricked them into it

>>17758211
When the Jewish mohel that circumcised Jesus on the 8th day sucked the blood off his penis, did he gain eternal life for drinking the blood of Christ? That's what you believe right? Worshiping Jews and drinking magic Jew blood?

>>17756363
>Love these threads and the unending amounts of cope they produce from Christcucks

enjoy burning in hell asshole

>>17758265
t. Jesus to all the babies

>>17758212
>>God sacrificed himself to himself
Is this what I believe?

>>17758368
Yes

You believe Jesus (God) sacrificed himself to the Father (God) and they are one (God). So God sacrificed God to God.