That’s right. According to the Bible your kids are hell bound where they will be tortured for all eternity. Poor 4 year old Johnny died and now he is burning in hell. It makes me sad to say, but it is not my religion and I did not make the rules.
I was perusing comments over at Proud Atheists this morning and came across a comment that stated children are exempt from God’s judgment until they are old enough to accept or reject God.
Putting aside the entire host of additional questions that pop up about mental capacity and where the line is drawn in development to make such a decision, those who cannot see or hear etc…. I want to discuss further the idea that God somehow has made any such claim that children are exempt.
It has traditionally been accepted (at least by evangelicals) that because no sin can enter into heaven:
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelations 21:8
And
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life. Revelations 21:27
And because of original sin most notably the sin of Adam :
“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:22
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Romans 5:12
Unless the parents of the child are “saved” then the children of those parents are hell bound along with the parents. However, if the parents are “saved” then the children are covered through the parents salvation until the child reaches the “age of accountability”.
This is a useful tool when evangelizing. If you cannot appeal to a persons sense of self preservation then you can always appeal to their desire to protect their children.
The idea that your sins are damming your children has support, biblically, with the concept of “the sins of the father”. And sin being a generational offense.
“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,” Exodus 20:5
“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,” Deuteronomy 5:9
“Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.” Exodous 34:6-7
The Bible has clearly established that no sin can enter into heaven and that the sins of ones parents (well the bible is very sexist so the sins of ones father) are passed down to their children. Thus a child born in sin is also a sinner and cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.
However, the bible also states that because of Adam’s deed everyone is born a sinner and as we just stated cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.
The solution to get to heaven is a deliberate act of contrition and belief:
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me John 14:6
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16 – 18.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3
There are no Bible verses (at least none that I can think of) that support the idea directly that if a parent is covered by the blood of the lamb then too shall the parents’ offspring so long as the parents remain in obedience to God until the child reaches the “Age of accountability”. There are also no scriptural references to the “age of accountability, it is a fabrication. I suppose Christendom thought it to harsh to inform it’s members that since all are born sinners, all go to hell until one actually receives salvation through a deliberate act of contrition and faith.
On the contrary, as we have seen, there are plenty of verses that support the idea that all are born in sin and that sin cannot enter into heaven. This quite clearly states that your children are hell bound. No amount of applying logic to the situation and asking why God would send little children to hell will change that fact. To ask such questions makes you an Atheist. We know that God has no issues with putting damnation on children, he did it many many times in the bible.
The truth is that to accept the God of the bible is to accept that your kids are going to hell, where they will burn with fire and brimstone and the nashing of teeth and all the other delights God has planned.
~AP~
To teach this to young children is nothing short of abuse. Concepts of death and eternal life and sin and damnation should not be presented to young minds for the simple reason that those minds are not ready to digest/understand such things. Teaching children about the tortures of hell is decidedly cruel. It is on a par with threatening children with the Bogeyman. It terrifies them and, probably worse, makes them feel like they are wicked little beasts who deserve eternal agony unless special precautions are taken .Why do parents do such things? Other than being afraid that if they wait too long they may not be able to brainwash their offspring, there is no excuse for frightening and warping children with ideas of hell. That is emotional extortion in the extreme. There is nothing worse you can threaten a small child with than the idea of endless, agonizing pain in some vague, enormous afterlife. If a parent doesn’t really believe in hell but uses it anyway as intimidation, then it really is outright child abuse. If a parent does believe it, what a shame. They are both doomed to viewing life in a grim, ugly way.
Why frighten children with graphic descriptions (and sometimes drawings) of a blazing inferno and people screaming and devils with pitchforks and all manner of horrors? All children understand pain; but young minds cannot understand damnation and/or atonement. So why not wait until they have reached an age when they can in fact understand such things? I repeat: the real answer is that if you wait too long they may not buy it. If they have been loved and have a healthy self-esteem they might laugh at the idea. And that’s the key word—self-esteem.
The adults who throng to fundamentalist preachers are usually down on their luck and lacking in self-esteem. They may actually loathe the lives they are leading, and preachers play to that. They rail and rant about sins. They’re big on sin. That’s because without appealing to a person’s shame, guilt and embarrassment, they will not be able to sell the idea of hell. Heaven is an easier sell because so many of us think we’re pretty special and therefore deserving of such a reward. But hell? That takes some powerful appeals to self-loathing.
That is why it is so dreadful to teach “hell” to young children. They do not need to be taught to hate themselves. Consider the other topics not taught to young children. Good Christian parents do not discuss rape or bestiality or necrophilia or cannibalism with their young children. But why not? They are a part of life, like it or not. However, most parents teach what is age-appropriate, and necrophilia is not deemed appropriate for a 6-year-old. But hell? Hell, yes! Start frightening them with hell-fire when they’re three! Get ‘em young. Instill fear while you still can! Awful.
The eminent evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins considers early religious exercises to be a form of abuse. In an interview Dawkins commented: “What I think may be abuse is labeling children with religious labels like Catholic child and Muslim child. I find it very odd that in our civilization we’re quite happy to speak of a Catholic child that is 4 years old or a Muslim child that is 4, when these children are much too young to know what they think about the cosmos, life and morality. We wouldn’t dream of speaking of a Keynesian child or a Marxist child. And yet, for some reason we make a privileged exception of religion.” He makes a valid point. Can you imagine referring to a 4-year-old Republican?
Jesus’ Own Words about Hell
The Jesus of the New Testament, whom Christians portray as gentle and loving, has some nasty things to say:
“He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares [weeds] are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Matt 13:37-42(KJV)
Children need love, encouragement, security and humor. They do not need to have their heads filled with terrifying thoughts of hell and damnation and suffering. Let them live and grow in the warmth of a home filled with affection and a sense of safety. Let them indulge their natural curiosity and expand their minds. Let them be filled with wonder and awe, not fear. Let them be children.
Well stated as always George!
The comment here about adults teaching hell to youngsters but avoiding other subjects is a terrific observation. I haven’t really thought about it that way before. But indeed. When we consider the horrors hell represents it seems to pale in comparison to subjects like…sex…that the christians so want to protect even their teenagers against hearing.
The magic word here is “rationalization”. You’re right (as far as I know) that there are no bible verses discussing the concept of “age of accountability”. This and other teachings were decided by “men of the cloth” at gatherings such as the Vatican Councils, etc. Bottom line is: at some point church leaders realized that sending small children to hell forever was cruel and ridiculous (even for their god) and so the parade of rationalizations began. Moral: stop the mental gymnastics, just let it go. If your beliefs require these sorts of cognitive distortions to continue to exist then they are false.
Well said!
I reckon that mental masturbation is a bit more appropriate than mental gymnastics ! You are too kind ! Nicely said !
[...] May 14, 2009 by The Angry Philistine I recently wrote a post entitled Your Kids are going to hell [...]
George,
I am glod our church is nothing like the one you describe. It would truly be awful. If that is your direct experience you have my sympathy and apologies (vicarious).
If this is not your direct experience, but your extrapolationa nd exageration of what you think Christians do, then it does leave you with a straw man argument. My church is nothing like you suggest. We teach our children about God’s love, over and over again. They know they are loved in word and deed.
If I could volley the ball back into your side of the court. What does teaching a child that they are a meaningless arrangement of elements randomly generated over time by chance do for their self esteem? How does an atheist inject meaning into the life of a broken teenager? There’s some mental gymnastics. You matter because…?
Angry,
Here is a Bible verse that does speak about the faith of the parents vicariously operating on behalf of the children.
1 Corinthians 7:13-14.
Further, your argument lacks an argument.
You haven’t got 2 + 2 = 4 or 5 or anything llike that.
You’ve got 2 = 2 (a tautology)
You sum up the starting position pretty well. All people are basically sinful. I look around the world and see this confirmed by the way the world is. Christianity really explains what is wrong with the world in a way atheism can’t.
You are right, God is a holy God and there is no place in his presence for any sinner.
There’s the 2. The starting point.
But here’s the + 2
God isn’t happy with that situation. His Son came to take our troubles on his shoulders so that a solution could be found. This is the central truth about Christianity. This is why we go on about love, why we say God is love. “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
This leads to the conclusion = 4.
Those who turn to God are saved because of what Jesus has done to make them acceptable to God. If you are a former evangelical, as you claim, I’m surprised you are not aware of this.
2 + 2 = 4.
Sinners in the hands of a holy God
+
A holy man in the hands of sinners
=
Holy sinners in fellowship with God.
Beautiful logic isn’t it.
Michael Hutton
(The Stupid Baptist in question)
I particularly like this verse on what to do with children:
“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” — Psalm 137:9
Kill em! It’s what god wants! He will bless us!
“And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” (1 Corinthians 7:13-14)
Mr. Hutton your verse is absurd. Firstly you are deriving from this verse that children are redeemed by the parents. There is a difference between being holy and being redeemed. You know this. This verse does say though that as long as my wife is a Christian I don’t have to worry because I am sanctified by my wife. I can do what ever I want as long as I am married to her…..does that make sense? Is that what you preach from the pulpit? I think not.
You have decided to apply your lens of religion to this and extract from it that your kids are not hell bound because you are saved. While this is an effective sales pitch it is not reality. The God you serve is NOT, let me repeat, NOT a loving God. He is a blood thirsty, cruel, ruthless God. You and other Christians attempt to portray him as loving because he allowed himself to be killed. This is not love, this is arrogance of the highest degree.
Anyone who reads the Bible for what it says and not what they want it to say will find nothing but death in it. Jesus’ teachings were cruel and merciless just as were the teaching of the OT. True there is an element of universal love in Jesus’ teachings but for each of these there is a counter teaching of death and damnation.
I am sorry but you do not get to pick the bits of the Bible you like and discard the rest. Your own statement of belief for your church states the following:
Try as you may to represent your God as love, he is anything but. If you remove the filter through which you see God and his words you will understand this to be true.
Angry,
Go back to your initial argument. You say babies go to hell because they are sinners. This verse clearly describes children in that situation as holy. That was the original problem. Not holy, now holy.
This verse then directly applies to the problem we are discussing.
Of course there is a difference between being redeemed and being holy. Holiness and lack of it is the root problem, redemption is the solution and holiness is the outcome (again). That is basic evangelical belief. So it is quite legitimate to talk about holiness, sin and redemption all in the same discussion. They are related.
Angry, I know what the “lens of religion” you refer to is. I know the filter that you refer to.
You says, “This is not love, this is arrogance of the highest degree.” I say, “God is God” he is the highest degree. I consciously believe that all the universe does and should revolve around God.
I kno the filter, and I know it’s there because I know God to be true.
If God is who he claims he is then this follows logically. God’s justice is just because he is God. God’s judgement is just. Jesus willing sacrifice is love because he didn’t have to do it and we didn’t deserve it.
You say God is cruel bloodthirsty and merciless, and that Jesus is the same.
Yet you have still not answered my question.
You hate God and want to have nothing to do with him.
Why is it anything but just and appropriate that God give you what you want?
Matthew,
I’m not keen on you fundamentalists who take everything literally and can’t even recognise the charcateristics of a poetic genre when you see it.
Thanks,
Michael.
Fixed your post for you. God didn’t write the Bible any more than Ishmael wrote Moby Dick. Maybe He inspired the authors and editors who put it together. I don’t know; I wasn’t there when it happened. But every word, every sentence, every claim of fact in the Bible was penned by fallible men. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
Mr. Hutton,
I really wish we could have this conversation face to face. It is an interesting field of debate.
It is important that you understand, I do not hate your God. I do not believe he exists, how can I hate him? What I hate, if you want to use this word, is what the concept of God does to our world and the actions performed in his name.
To you, your God (Yahweh) and his dual self (Jesus) and his triple replicated self (The Holy Spirit) is in someway different from the Islamic God (Allah). He is not, in fact the argument can be made quite convincingly that they are indeed the same God. Islam has just retained the God of the Old Testament and they call him Allah (God). All Gods are the same, Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Apollo, Isis etc…… It is not YOUR God I have an issue with it is the actions and behaviors conducted in the name of any God that I have a problem with.
Case in point. You wrote a post to your congregation instructing them that God sends the children of unbelievers to hell. You further instruct them how to tell unbelievers that their children went to hell. I abhor this practice. It is not some imaginary God that I hate; it is the actions of men using the opportunity of a lost child to propagate their religious interests.
You see this as a good thing to do because by telling people their kids are going to hell you can bring people into the fold. Telling people their kids are going to hell no matter what, until your kids takes the proper steps, does not bring or keep people in the fold so it is discarded.
You yourself state there is no clear scriptural reference to absolution of children
So to support your own personal desire to have the children of unbelievers go to hell but the children of believers go to heaven you pull a verse from the teachings of Paul. PAUL?
Now this next part is extremely important.
Paul was a man, and even the most fundamental Christian will state that his teachings were subjective. Paul himself on multiple occasions discuss’ that his teaching were his own opinion and not from God. In fact in 1 Corinthians Chapter 7 where you pull your evidence to state that Children of believers got to heaven Paul states this”
1 Corinthians chapter 7:12 “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: ”
This is immediately before your verse of 1 Cor 7:13-14 Paul clearly states that he is speaking about the children not God.
Paul uses “I” 20 times in Chapter 7 This is clearly and expression of his OPINION not the divine word of God. Yet you prey on the lessor informed minds of both your congregation and the unimformed non-believer and represent his opinion as the will and word of God. As a Biblical scholar, you should be ashamed of yourself for misrepresenting the words of the Bible. If the Bible is all it is reported to be, if God is who he says he is, there should be no need for misleading or incomplete teachings.
Mr. Hutton, it is all pomp and circumstance it is all smoke and mirrors. You hurt good, upstanding people by preaching and teaching your followers that they and their kids are going to heaven because someone 2000 years ago expressed an opinion about the matter. You hurt, degrade, and scheme against those who do not share your religious views and THAT is why I hate the idea of your God.
In one of his letters, the Greek Plutarch says this about children, which I want you to compare with what St. Augustine, the representative of the Asiatic creed, says on the same subject. “It is irreligious,” writes Plutarch, “to lament for those pure souls (the children) who have passed into a better life and a happier dwelling place.” [Plutarch Ad Uxorem. Comp. Lecky's History of European Morals, Vol. 1.] Compare this Pagan tenderness for children with the Asiatic doctrine of infant damnation but recently thrown out of the Presbyterian creed. Yet, if St. Augustine is to be believed, it is a heresy to reject the damnation of. unbaptized infants: “Whosoever shall tell,” writes this Father of the church, “that infants shall be quickened in Christ who died without partaking in his sacrament, does both contradict the apostles’ teaching and condemn the whole church.” [St. Augustine Epist. 166.] It is infinitely more religious to disagree with the apostles and the church, if that is their teaching. The Pagan view of children is the holier view. The doctrine of the damnation of children could only find lodgment in the brain of a slave or a madman.