The Instigator
lokesh4381
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jellyfysh624
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

What happens to Babies Who Die? Do They Go To Heaven?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Jellyfysh624
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 636 times Debate No: 64266
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

lokesh4381

Con

What happens to Babies Who Die? Do They Go To Heaven? Who have never heard of Jesus Christ...?
Jellyfysh624

Pro

Since you have not made any assertion I suppose I will attempt to answer your question.

If God is good and just, the God would undoubtedly notice that the infant has done nothing wrong or immoral, thus they would not be deserving of an afterlife in hell.

If God sent them to hell just for not knowing what they could not possibly know, he would not be a very kind and just god.

If God expected everyone to know of Jesus Christ in order to gain access to heaven, he would senting people to hell who are to young to know, who have mental challanges, people whomay be blind and deaf, people who have grown up in a place with no knowlege of any religion at all. all of these people should not be considered evil and deserving of hell, thus if God is as good as Christianity describes, then the people that couldnt know of Jesus would still be admited to heaven.

If God does not exist, then babies simply die and nothing happens.
Debate Round No. 1
lokesh4381

Con

lokesh4381 forfeited this round.
Jellyfysh624

Pro

This should not count as a victory for either side, this just a question that I attempted to answer fairly. I had hoped that the comment section would become a place for discussion about the possible responses to the question, and it has.. I intented to forfeit the last round since this is not truly a debate. Vote how ever you wish, ill be interested to see the outcome.
Debate Round No. 2
lokesh4381

Con

lokesh4381 forfeited this round.
Jellyfysh624

Pro

I pass this round as stated in round 2
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
It does, and it brings into question whether one should do anything to repent. If Hitler was already doomed to be the person he was, why wouldn't he be that way? He would already be judged to be a sinful person destined for hell before he was ever conceived. I think in religious terms it's best if free will does exist or else your actions wouldn't change anything about your destination. I find it curious that Christians fight so hard to keep God omniscient when it isn't necessary to be a divine creator. It doesn't hurt the deity's credibility to not know the future, it's just people wanting their superhero to be as overpowered as they can imagine.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
@Atmas

I didn't think of that angle. Hmmm. I know the early streams of Protestantism were somewhat anti-free will. Of course, if there is no free will, judgment becomes kind of pointless. Maybe.
Posted by Luis_Zuniga 2 years ago
Luis_Zuniga
There is no verse of the bible that defines the destiny of babies that pass away.

The debate is still too wide about the destination of grow ups, to dare say the status of infant is clear after physical death.

I prefer believing it's not either heaven nor hell, but a fair destination.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
If everything is part of God's plan, then it's reasonable to think that a child who dies in infancy would not be sent to hell before they've had a chance to do anything, regardless of original sin. I can't see even the old testament God being that callous. Otherwise, there's no point in creating that life when he could've just sent the soul to hell directly.
@Mightbe, the time of judgment is an overlooked point in many biblical interpretations. If there's a universal rule system set up by God, then it's pre-judged and their doomed to wherever their actions take them, unless they go through the appeal process with Jesus as their lawyer. If judgment happens after death, then each case could be reviewed and the person's total good vs bad would be weighed, instead of instant damnation for small stuff like lying. The second one seems more reasonable but prevents God from being omniscient. The first allows omniscience, but prevents free will. So if God is truly acacting as a judge, then it's reasonable to think he won't know a person's future actions, or they'll already be pre-judged.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
Infant damnation is a position held by some Protestant Christians:

http://www.christiandoctrine.net...

According to one interpretation of the Pauline verses I quoted, God forms some to honor, and some to dishonor. This means that humans are ultimately not responsible for their actions, for, like clay in the potter's hands, they did not choose to be born in sin. The entire Calvinist wing of Protestantism is essentially determinism, stating that God chooses who to damn and who to save (double predestination). The idea of "single predestination" is held by some (God just chooses who to save, leaving the rest in the lurch) but this is more of a Public Relations position than anything. It really isn't tenable according to the principles of Calvinism.

Whether or not babies themselves are damned is very ambiguous in the Bible. Babies are clearly born wicked and stinky according to the Bible, but Jesus seems to have been ok with them, even using them as exemplars of proper faith.

The Apostle Paul seems to think that the belief of one spouse can ensure the other is saved, as well as that of the unclean children: "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)
Posted by Jellyfysh624 2 years ago
Jellyfysh624
I would like to note that I am trying to appeal to all forms of Christianity. I'm aware of some disagreement about purgatory so I have chosen to not mention it. Also I was raised Catholic so my knowledge of protestant views is rather limited. Please inform me here in the comments of any views that are important that I didnt mention.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
I think Atmas accurately portrays what I remember the Roman Catholic position as being.

Here's an article I found:

http://www.catholic.com...

Most Anti-abortion Protestants that I've heard are of the opinion that babies (especially aborted ones) go to heaven instantly.

Probably not true though. :(
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
There's two parts to the destination of an innocent young soul. I'll have to look up where these come from, but it's commonly thought that any child who dies before the age of 10 is not subject to judgement and goes to heaven, since they are not capable of sinning with any reasonable intent. The other side concerns the original sin, and states that the soul of a child younger than 10 would still be judged only for the sin of Adam, or the sin of being born, and cannot enter heaven since are not capable of accepting Christ willingly. But they don't go to hell either, they just drift in limbo or purgatory. Either way, an exception has been made, and children are not "punished". Though, purgatory is often described as a kind of torture since the souls can see heaven and God but weep without his presence. Adults who have never heard of Christ or Christianity are still subject to their sins and will all go to hell if they never accept Christ, their ignorance not being an excuse. Take it how you will.
Posted by Jellyfysh624 2 years ago
Jellyfysh624
Im not judging, im stating the fact that God would not comply to the human definition of kind and just, if he did not accept those who cannot know christ into heaven.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
Biblically speaking, no person is in a position to judge God as "unjust" or "unkind", no matter what he does.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)

"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" (Romans 9:21,20)

If God did sentence an infant to eternity in hell, the only basis for claiming that such an act was "unjust" or "unkind" is from the standpoint of human morality --- a morality based upon a heart which is "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9) inasmuch as "GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
lokesh4381Jellyfysh624Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF