Does the Christian god send aborted babies to hell?
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Argument
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Closing Statement
The NIV Bible says that aborted babies do go to hell. My opponent will argue that it doesn't.
1. Assume god exists.
2. Must use NIV Bible when quoting from the Bible.
3. BoP is on Pro.
4. Must assume the Bible is 100% truth.
5. Must assume the dichotomy of afterlife (Heaven and Hell).
6. Must assume they are mutually exclusive.
Reasons for Rules: I want to debate about what makes somebody go to heaven and what makes others go to hell. I don't want the debate to argue about whether or not god exists, heaven and hell exist, and whatnot. I also want to be consistent with the translation of the Bible we will use.
I accept this debate. The Bible (I'm going to assume that the strongs references are allowed) does not say that aborted babies go to hell, and I can prove it using Strongs reference and the NIV Bible.
Thank you for accepting this debate.
Romans 6:23 states, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." God clearly says here that sinning leads to death. John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Those who sin and haven't received the gift of god go to hell. The gift of god is presumable his one and only son. Unborn babies don't have the cognitive ability to believe in his son, even if the child somehow was hearing the gospel from the outside world. Psalm 51:5 says, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." The moment you are conceived, god sees you as sinful. Therefore, if you die before you believe in his one and only son, you go to hell. There must be some sort of grace period right? If there was one, I haven't found it ever mentioned in the Bible. God never states something like, "After age 6, you are accountable for your sins." If you do state that such a thing exists, please point it out in the NIV Bible. Thank you and good luck.
First, I will define a few terms and concepts:
Sin- Breaking the law of God. That includes the laws outlined within scripture and outside of scripture (the ones we do know and the ones we don't).
Truth and Scripture- All truth is God's truth, and all scripture is truth, but not all truth is scripture. This means that everything in the bible is true, but not every truth of an infinite God could possibly be written down in one book. Otherwise God would not be infinite, but finite and limited to a book. (See John 21:25) This leaves a lot of possibility for alternative interpretation of scripture. Not the invalidation of scripture, but rather wiggle room.
Sin Nature vs. Sin- Sin Nature is the natural bent towards sin (an action) that all people who descend from Adam (and according the Christian belief, all people do), and to commit a sin is to break a law against God. My interpretation is that since only so much could sin could be recorded and addressed within biblical era (John 21:25), there is always some sin that we are unaware that we are committing, but since Christ died and paid all sins (John 3:16), as long as you have faith in him, you're sins have been paid, whether you know you've been sinning or not. Sin is also believed by many Christians, including myself, to be any act that offsets your relationship with God (which is bridged by the death of Christ).
What it means to be sinful- To be "full of sin" either by the sinful nature that was inherited from Adam, or to have committed any sin within your lifetime on earth.
Now that a few terms involved have been defined, my argument:
Psalms 51 is a song written by David about the time that Nathan the prophet confronted him about the adultery he had committed with Bathsheba (Second Samuel 11-12). Nathan speaks to David after he had committed adultery with Bathsheba, gotten her pregnant, killed her husband, Uriah (who was a very good man...maybe it was jealousy that motivated David to send him to the front lines-?), and then, after he gave her time to get over the death of her husband, he took her as one of his wives. Right after Bathsheba has had the child, the prophet Nathan comes and tells king David a parable, in which David responds to by rebuking the antagonist (the rich man), who Nathan has created to represent David. David feels convicted and recognizes his sin, and by inference this would make David very fearful because he could have to pay with his life for his sins. We know this because of what Nathan says to him next and because of information in the new testament (Romans 6:23). Nathan, however, tells David that God has forgiven David and because of that forgiveness David will live, but the child will not survive. After 7 days of fasting and laying on the bare floor (I'm not sure whether he was doing this because he was depressed, worshiping, or for another reason entirely), David and Bathsheba's baby dies of a terrible illness. After his servants anxiously tell David of the death of the child, David simply stands, changes clothes, anoints himself with oils, and leaves to the tabernacle to worship, pray, and meditate. When he returns, his servants are astonished by his peace with the recent death of his own child. He explains to them, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." David was at peace because he knew that his son had gone to heaven (or hell, but I don't he'd be in peace, and he was a follower of God, so he had faith that he would be in Heaven with Christ, and scripture would support that). Although this example isn't specifically abortion, it does involve the idea of an age of accountability.
I will conclude that, based off of Psalm 51:5 and the biblical scripture involved with it and assuming the instigator's rules, aborted babies do in fact go to heaven.
"This leaves a lot of possibility for alternative interpretation of scripture. Not the invalidation of scripture, but rather wiggle room."
I won't argue against anything you said up until your argument, however, I would like to address this one particular statement. Alone, I have nothing against it. I just want you to be aware that it may lead to a few logical fallacies. You may argue that how I interpret scripture is part of the "wiggle room" and your argument lies in the "safe area." This would be known as moving the goalposts. It might also lead to special pleading, another logical fallacy, in which you may say that your assumptions are justified simply because god couldn't fit everything into the Bible. Please keep this in mind as you make a rebuttal. Now let's move on to the argument.
"He explains to them, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." David was at peace because he knew that his son had gone to heaven (or hell, but I don't he'd be in peace, and he was a follower of God, so he had faith that he would be in Heaven with Christ, and scripture would support that)."
Perhaps he was referring to the baby's grave. Families were usually buried together in that time. "The one thing expressed most clearly by Israelite burial practices is the common human desire to maintain some contact with the community even after death, through burial in one's native land at least, and if possible with one's ancestors. "Bury me with my fathers," Jacob's request (Gen. 49:29), was the wish of every ancient Israelite. Thus, the aged Barzillai did not wish to go with David, "that I may die in mine own city, [and be buried] by the grave of my father and of my mother" (II Sam. 19:38)" I got that quote directly from this source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... When David claimed he would return to the baby, it may have been their family grave. It is not safe to assume that David was referring to heaven.
Another Problem with this is that David could have been delusional. He may have convinced himself that the baby was in heaven to deal with the depression. People in the Bible are known to say blatant lies. This does not contradict rule #4. The people talked about in the Bible really did say those things, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are true. Some examples are Genesis 27:19 which says, "Jacob said to his father, 'I am Esau your firstborn. I have done as you told me. Please sit up and eat some of my game, so that you may give me your blessing”' and Genesis 39:17 which says, "Then she told him this story: 'That Hebrew slave you brought us came to me to make sport of me.'" The last one is a bit confusing to spot the lie out of context. It is the story of Potifar's wife trying to frame Joseph for rape. To find more occurrences of lies in the Bible, check out this: http://chestertonwilde.hubpages.com... As we can see, people don't always tell the truth, so we can't be sure David was either.
In conclusion, their are two assumptions made regarding this argument.
1. David was telling the truth.
2. David was referring to heaven when he said, "I will go to him."
Thank you and good luck.
In address to your first paragraph, I want to be clear about the fact that there is no real "safe area", but only an apparent one that the church as whole as set as a standard, and simply because an interpretation is common or the majority, certainly does not mean that it is correct (or invalid, for that matter). No matter how many believe something doesn't mean that it is true, whether it be the majority or minority beleif, and that fact applies to everyone and all beleifs- very much so including the church. Quite truly, John 21:25 also means that we will never know for sure exactly (and I mean other than the big things, which are very clear, for example: love your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor, Mark 12:29-30. In fact, if the church followed that one commandment before all others, I guarantee you that Christians and the church wouldn't have the crappy reputation they do today) what any of scriptures mean (although I'd like to think we can get pretty damn close) and that maliciously bickering over all the silly little issues is just that- silly. A waste of time. Fallacies are all over the place, simply because scripture is incomplete- finite. However, that doesn't mean that the Bible is useless or untrue- it is the base, or what the Christian religion holds on to, something to use to get closer to the truth. A huge part of interpretation is determining when certain things apply and when they don't, and ultimately, we will never know whether we are right or not until (or if) we live eternally. That's why it doesn't matter. It's all impractical knowledge in the end.
Alright. Now that I've broken every rule of a rational or standard debate in effort to clear that up, I will continue.
I see no issue with your first response, it is possible that David could have been referring to the child's grave, however the fact that David said that he "will" go to him, not that he "can" go to him, but that he "will", meaning that it hasn't happened yet. I also think that David wouldn't have the peace that he did have if he could do was see him at his grave.
As to David being delusional, unlike other scripture you've referenced (including those in the link), it wasn't written specifically or contextually that he was lying or delusional, as was when we knew that Potifar's wife was lying because the text before told a different story than her own story. This was no obvious lie like the lies in other parts of the bible. Not that it couldn't be the case, but comparing it with other scripture in which characters lie, it seems unlikely. And by claiming that David was delusional and his story was a lie, ever when the text didn't specifically say he lied (and without context to support that claim), as it has in other cases, would negate the honesty within the text, which hovers close to breaking the fourth rule in this debate.
To claim that David is lying is a stretch, considering the other instances in which biblical characters blatantly lie being inconsistant with David's dialogue in 2 Samuel 13-25. The possibility that David was referring to the child's grave is not inconceivable, and furthermore rational, yet I still hold it to be a stretch when considering my interpretation vs. my opponent's.
Thank you very much for a fun debate. I have really enjoyed this and look forward to seeing how the votes go. If I feel as though a vote is not justified (objectively for either me or Earlee), I will report the vote and I hope that Earlee checks votes too. Please provide an adequate RFD for every point earned or lost. Now let's put some closure to my earlier points in this debate.
Earlee has conceded that King David could have been referring to the child's grave. As per not being able to have peace with this, sometimes it's best to not worry about a situation, especially when it is out of your control. David may have realized that the fate of his baby was not up to him and has already been decided. There is no need to worry about it any more. When David said "I will go to him" [if David is referring to the grave] this could have had two different meanings. He would actually visit his grave while he was still alive or that he would be buried in their family grave.
I believe the evidence given is still valid regarding people lying in the Bible. It is more of a proof of concept, showing that the Bible is allowed to quote people who have told a clear lie. If there was such an example where somebody lied but it appeared as though they were telling the truth, we would have no way of knowing. If there was a way of knowing, it would be a clear lie. Such an example could never exist where the person is telling a lie but it looks like the truth and us knowing that it is indeed a lie. That is why this proof of concept is needed.
I also want to point out that my opponent did not refute my argument regarding the outcome of aborted babies, but merely defended his own argument. Both my argument and his argument are mutually exclusive. If my argument is true, then his is false, making me fulfill the burden of proof and proving the resolution. If his argument is true, then mine is false, making me not fulfill the burden of proof and not proving the resolution. Therefore, the one that is most likely true wins. My argument made 0 assumptions and was not refuted. My opponent has made 2 assumptions regarding his argument, therefore it is less likely. Thank you so much and good luck in the voting round!
I'll be checking votes as well. I think this has been a through study of what I believe. Thanks for a great first debate- I have learned a lot.
It doesn't add up that King David would have peace after the death (realizing that it was out of his control), unless some sort of higher power was deciding his baby's fate, which would mean that the child either went to heaven or hell, or that the passage is irrelevant to such. As I have mentioned earlier (in line with the rules of this debate), all of scripture is truth, but not all truth is in scripture (see previous), meaning that many things such as homosexuality, transexualism, (another debate I wouldn't mind taking someone up on, on a side note), abortion, and other topics couldn't have been talked about in the Bible because the society that they lived in limited them to explaining situations in which they used morals and lifestyle concepts more so than "yes or no" rules. These situations aren't always the exact example we are looking for to conclude things like whether or not aborted babies (as we know abortion today) go to hell or not. However, we do know from scripture (assuming the rules) that the character of God is loving, gracious, and kind, yet no sin can be before him. This is when we turn to general concepts of sin and other natures to prove one thing or another, when precisely, it was left completely to interpretation intentionally. Similarly to "the code" of "The Pirates of the Caribbean" films, there are many concepts outlined and themed in the bible that are not rigid, but loose rules, open for intelligent interpretation. The exception comes down to only a few rigid rules and ideas, so that the integrity of the Church does not fall apart, but even these can lean one way or another, yet they focus more of the big ideas rather than minute things. Examples of character are common for lifestyle as well- which is why the Bible is written as a narrative in some parts, so that we could "get to know" many of the different characters and what they would do.
Ultimately though, my point, is that (breaking most rules of debate- maybe I'll learn after I see the votes against me roll in), your interpretation is no less right than mine, however knowing the nature of scripture (like other passages in which characters lie- see previous link, and how peace has been attained in scripture by other characters), your interpretation is inconsistant. What would be the point of writing about the child's death in more than two lines if his peace wasn't attained by some sort of divine communication? If the moral was about adultery, then the author wouldn't have bother mentioning the child's death so vividly.
Thanks for sifting through and being patient with me- hopefully when I've gained more experience we can debate this topic again! Best of luck!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was something like this: 1. All sinners go to hell unless they believe in Jesus. 2. The unborn are sinners but do not believe in jesus. 3. Therefore, the unborn go to hell when they die. Pro's argument was deductive which makes it a powerful argument if the premises are true and the logic is valid. Con could've refuted the argument by showing that one of the premises is false or that the logic was invalid, but he did neither. Con's argument against the resolution was that David said of his son who had died, "I will go to him, but he will not return to me." This argument was speculative, as Pro pointed out, because it isn't clear whether David means that he will join his son in the grave or in heaven. Con also argued that since David was at peace after his son died, he must've thought he was in heaven. Again, this is speculative, and as Pro pointed out, David's peace may have come from his inability to change anything, as David himself said when asked about it.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.