If you've read many of my posts, you know by now that one of the most consistent traits of traditionalist Christians is that they're not very consistent in their theological thinking. This is possibly no more obvious than in their views on the subject of abortion. Most evangelicals I know of, for instance, are extremely anti-abortion, and yet when I consider the issue I would think that they should be the most pro-abortion group of people out there.
Why?
Well, most evangelicals, aside from certain Calvinists, believe in a doctrine called "the age of accountability." A child reaches the age of accountability when they are old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong and can be held accountable for their sins. Up until they reach this age, children who die apparently go to heaven (or so the doctrine goes) because they're too young to understand the consequences of, and hence be held responsible for, their actions. However, once someone reaches this age (which supposedly varies from individual to individual) they will end up in hell forever if they happen to pass away without first becoming a Christian.
Now I'd estimate that 90% or more of the human population will go to hell forever, at least according to the traditional view that this is the fate of non-Christians who die in their sins, so if everlasting torment in hell for non-believers past the age of accountability is true then perhaps abortionists should be considered the greatest missionaries there are as they'd probably be responsible for helping more souls avoid hell than all of the missionaries alive today combined. Not only that, shouldn't those traditionalists who have babies be thought of as the greatest monsters there are, seeing as they're willing to risk the eternal souls of their offspring simply to satisfy a desire (either for children, or simply for sex for those who believe that birth control is wrong)? Since there is a greater than 90% chance that your child will end up in hell if they reach the age of accountability (depending on where and when you happen to live the odds might vary, but they're still pretty grim), wouldn't you be much better off killing them before they get that old? If you believe in everlasting hell for those past this age then would not someone like Andrea Yates, who killed her children so they would be sure to avoid such a terrible eternal outcome, be one of the best examples of good motherhood we have? Sure, it might be a sin to commit murder, but sins can always be forgiven while you're still alive and her children are now guaranteed a place in heaven (or so the logic should go if traditionalists are correct).
If a parent allowed their child to participate in any activity where their kid has a 90% or greater chance of dying, or even just getting seriously injured, one would (rightly) consider that parent to be negligent and report that parent to the child protective agencies, and yet how many Christian parents are willing to gamble their children's soul with a fate far worse, and far longer, than simple death or injury?
No matter how horrible this might sound to you, I challenge you to show me where I'm wrong. I've made this challenge before and have yet to have anyone correct my logic, and I don't expect to have it happen anytime soon either.
Just for the record, since I'm a Christian Universalist I obviously don't believe that anyone ends up in hell for eternity so I am not promoting murder here, nor is this a post in favour of, or against, abortion. This post is simply to challenge yet another inconsistency in traditionalist Christian ideology.
Why?
Well, most evangelicals, aside from certain Calvinists, believe in a doctrine called "the age of accountability." A child reaches the age of accountability when they are old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong and can be held accountable for their sins. Up until they reach this age, children who die apparently go to heaven (or so the doctrine goes) because they're too young to understand the consequences of, and hence be held responsible for, their actions. However, once someone reaches this age (which supposedly varies from individual to individual) they will end up in hell forever if they happen to pass away without first becoming a Christian.
Now I'd estimate that 90% or more of the human population will go to hell forever, at least according to the traditional view that this is the fate of non-Christians who die in their sins, so if everlasting torment in hell for non-believers past the age of accountability is true then perhaps abortionists should be considered the greatest missionaries there are as they'd probably be responsible for helping more souls avoid hell than all of the missionaries alive today combined. Not only that, shouldn't those traditionalists who have babies be thought of as the greatest monsters there are, seeing as they're willing to risk the eternal souls of their offspring simply to satisfy a desire (either for children, or simply for sex for those who believe that birth control is wrong)? Since there is a greater than 90% chance that your child will end up in hell if they reach the age of accountability (depending on where and when you happen to live the odds might vary, but they're still pretty grim), wouldn't you be much better off killing them before they get that old? If you believe in everlasting hell for those past this age then would not someone like Andrea Yates, who killed her children so they would be sure to avoid such a terrible eternal outcome, be one of the best examples of good motherhood we have? Sure, it might be a sin to commit murder, but sins can always be forgiven while you're still alive and her children are now guaranteed a place in heaven (or so the logic should go if traditionalists are correct).
If a parent allowed their child to participate in any activity where their kid has a 90% or greater chance of dying, or even just getting seriously injured, one would (rightly) consider that parent to be negligent and report that parent to the child protective agencies, and yet how many Christian parents are willing to gamble their children's soul with a fate far worse, and far longer, than simple death or injury?
No matter how horrible this might sound to you, I challenge you to show me where I'm wrong. I've made this challenge before and have yet to have anyone correct my logic, and I don't expect to have it happen anytime soon either.
Just for the record, since I'm a Christian Universalist I obviously don't believe that anyone ends up in hell for eternity so I am not promoting murder here, nor is this a post in favour of, or against, abortion. This post is simply to challenge yet another inconsistency in traditionalist Christian ideology.
Posts
21 comments:
Your logic hasn't been challenged because it's dead on!
Great points. I've often wondered where the mercy is in one's allowing a child to live long enough to reach the "age of accountability" if one also adheres to a belief in eternal torment for those who die in unbelief. I'm not saying that abortion isn't wrong, but I do think that pro-choice demonstrators need to replace placards depicting photographs of mutilated fetuses with photographs of distraught would-be-mothers struggling with post-abortive remorse. Since there is no eternal hell, the aborted baby is home free in the loving presence of the Lord. It's the woman who has had the abortion whose suffering goes on and on, if her conscience is at all affected by what she chose to do.
i used to think about this inconsistency in our treatment of suicide. how could it send you to hell, if you were only depressed and wanted to go to heaven sooner?
but now that i'm much less sure about eternity and hell, i don't give it much thought. it's only when oi was immersed in organized religion that these problems came up. people otherwise are sad when someone suicides, but there isn't this horrible underlying feeling that the dead person is suffering in hell while we eat their funeral food.
I should have checked out your site sooner, I like your thinking.
by the way I'm looking forward to meeting you some day.
Thanks Fred. I'm sure we'll meet one of these days. Enjoy the site. :)
IMO, NO ONE is "pro-abortion". Those of us who identify as "pro-choice" simply believe that reproductive decisions should be left up to the mother, not the government. (I see "pro-abortion" and I see red.)
Anyway. Nowadays I don't get the whole "age of accountability" thing myself. I mean, if -- ultimately -- everyone is going to be saved (and I do believe in Universal Restoration myself), isn't that sort of a moot point? (Not to mention, it's an extra-Biblical concept.)
Not trying to go against the grain, but has anyone checked out some of the ancient "finds" on some of the digs refering to the validity of this bible and it's stories. Ex: Noah's Ark and The Walls of Jerricho.Both have been found and give some credit to these so called "Jesus Freaks"
Romans 3:5-8 "But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just."
See following link:
http://christianpost.com/Opinion/Columns/2009/02/what-makes-abortion-plausible-what-makes-abortion-unthinkable-part-five-07/index.html
That person has a good point. I don't think God is Glorified when evil is done so that good may come of it. The ends does not justify the means. If the aborted babies grow up and deny Christ then there blood is on their own hands. If a baby is aborted and goes straight to heaven, how does that glorfy God? Yes God is happy, but he desires a relationship.
Look at Luke 15:7- "I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent."
THATS why I'm a Calvinist ... you are right, "Christians" as a group are amazingly and sometimes blindingly inconsistent. But ... it continues ... for over 2000 years ... to be the best thing out there.
Hey man, that's an excellent point! Most Christians probably won't have a good answer. I've wondered that too, why not abort babies if they go to Heaven? lol It's a legitimate argument though, and one that doesn't have an easy answer if one is the average evangelical Christian.
Oh, btw, I'm from the tentmaker.org forums. My name on there is "Tim B".
For those that agree that aborted babies will go to heaven....I can see the point of how one could feel that way. But
how do I then get past the issue of sin from the act of murdering the child(Shall not murder in Commandment #6).
The first sin was in disobedience to God, by eating of the tree of the Knowledge of good and evil(This is why I reason-out my sin). My humanity will shift the focus off of me, long enough to take part in the desire I selfishly crave to commit.
In short, murder is wrong.
Notice the Command does not say "kill". Murder is premeditated. It does not happen by accident or self defense, it is the offspring of selfishness.
If I abort a child, I cannot shift the blame and "so called" sin from what my selfishness has chosen to do. Hence the "choice" we talk about.
As I said in my post, sure, it might be a sin to commit murder, but sins can always be forgiven while you're still alive and her children are now guaranteed a place in heaven (or so the logic should go if traditionalists are correct).
That said, the idea that abortion is murder is still up for debate, and not relevant to the point of this post.
On the contrary, how is murder up for debate? Are you saying you can plan out a murder and then plan to ask for forgiveness after that person is dead? Maybe we should read some Romans..........Chapter 1 verse
32 "Although they know Gods righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
Once we have tasted the Grace of God to forgive our sins, we yearn to not return. Although it takes time to change, our inward desire has been reborn to glorify Him in all we do. If I am still bent on sinfulness, I must reflect that I may not know the One who can remove my sin(the One who forgives after we ask for it).
Just asking God to forgive my sin is as good as going to any window and ordering a McDonalds hamburger.
I have to go to the source. I must have a true relationship with my God. It is a Heart issue, not about religion.
The point is, it would be more loving to rescue someone else from an eternity of suffering in hell by aborting or killing them at a young age, regardless of the consequences to oneself, than to almost guarantee their everlasting torment by letting them live (as, statistically speaking, they are almost guaranteed to be damned if the traditionalists are right), even if it is in our best interest to let that happen. I'm not actually arguing for this, because I don't believe in everlasting torment in hell, but if there were such a thing I'd be right.
If sins can always be forgiven; and you don't believe in Hell, can you tell me where sin comes from? I mean since we are saying that we don't need to be saved from it, or its consequences. Your not being consistent with your examples.
If you truly don't know then this site probably isn't directed at you anyway. Not trying to sound snarky, I just don't have the patience to try to explain myself any further right now. Read some of the articles on Universal Reconciliation found on this site if you want some more ideas of what I might believe though.
I understand, some simple questions can be very profound.
Think whatever you like. Everything you need to know about my theology can be found by perusing this site a little.
Oh my goodness. This is the most RIDICULOUS thing I have ever heard ANYONE try to win an argue with!
Let me ask you UR's this:
What is the point of a God/Jesus and their message and salvation if all will end up in Heaven? Those who believe and those who don't? Not just those who don't KNOW, but those who know, have known, and just don't give a damn? I'm sorry, but this sounds just like Atheists' and their "there is nothing in the end for everyone" beliefs. The only difference between the UR's and Atheists, is that the UR's have a "happy ending."
Post a Comment