The age of accountabiliy. Is it Biblical?

[Geezer]

The answer of course, is no. There is nothing in scripture that even hints that such a thing exists. It's obvious why believers "wish" the Bible said that, but it doesn't. That is not to say that apologist haven't cut and pasted unrelated scripture to create new scripture, as well as using some imaginative and creative interpretations to make it seem like that doctrine is biblical, but it isn't.

 

The church had to create it or loose a lot of adherents. If parents believed their young children or babies, who had prematurely died from disease or accident, were going to hell because they didn't "believe" in Jesus they'd likely say screw you Jesus we're out of here. The church created this doctrine out of necessity, not because it was theologically correct.

 

Now, lets apply this doctrine to those militant antiabortion Christians. They believe life begins at conception, and a creditable argument can be made for that. Let's assume life does begin at conception and the fetus has a soul the moment conception occurs. If the fetus dies or is aborted, according to the doctrine of the age of accountability, that fetus soul goes directly to heaven to be with God forever. That fetus will never have to suffer ever. It will exists in glory with God forever and ever.

 

Now, lets say the fetus is brought to term and is born. What are the chances this baby will grown into an adult and make it to heaven? The first and obvious problem is that it has to choose the right religion from among a multitude of choices. That assumes this person even has any interest in religion. Not only does this person have to choose the right religion it must also choose the correct sect within that religion since religions tend to have lots of various groups that believe slightly different things. And these various groups tend to not like each other. The next problem is that this person must believe the right things. Some Christians believe the wrong things and will be doomed to spend eternity in hell because of their error.

 

Even if this person manages to find the right religion and believes the right things, they still have to live a faithful life unto death. And then God still has to give them the final approval at the final judgement. So, I seriously ask this question. What are their chances of making it to heaven? Obviously, their chances are slim or close to zero. So, using Christian logic, wouldn't it have been better for them to have been aborted so they could be with God for all eternity?

 

You say that entire scenario is stupid, illogical, and absurd. Yes, it certainly is, but apparently not if you're a Christian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Geezer]

Our Constitution guarantees American citizens certain protections and rights under the law. A fetus, at some point, becomes a human being and those Constitutional rights attach. We, as a nation, have been unable to determine when that fetus becomes a human being. Our options seem to be: 1. At the moment of conception. 2. When there is a heartbeat. 3. When the fetus is viable and can live outside the mothers womb.

 

Personally, I would go with #1,...or #2.  I could accept that as a compromise. I can't go with #3 and late term abortions should be classified as murder as far as I am personally concerned, but they sadly aren't in many areas of the country. I cannot image how any medical profession could perform a late term abortion, unless the mothers life hangs in the balance and even then it would be a difficult decision. In that situation I think it has to be the mothers call.

[sdelsolray]

19 minutes ago, Geezer said:

Our Constitution guarantees American citizens certain protections and rights under the law. A fetus, at some point, becomes a human being and those Constitutional rights attach. We, as a nation, have been unable to determine when that fetus becomes a human being. Our options seem to be: 1. At the moment of conception. 2. When there is a heartbeat. 3. When the fetus is viable and can live outside the mothers womb.

 

Personally, I would go with #1,...or #2.  I could accept that as a compromise. I can't go with #3 and late term abortions should be classified as murder as far as I am personally concerned, but they sadly aren't in many areas of the country. I cannot image how any medical profession could perform a late term abortion, unless the mothers life hangs in the balance and even then it would be a difficult decision. In that situation I think it has to be the mothers call.

 

The US Constitution, as amended, protects persons and citizens, not fetuses or unborn human beings.  Fetuses and unborn human beings are neither a person or a citizen under the US Constitution, as amended.  Unborn humans are indirectly protected via States Rights, i.e., when a State's rights exceed the rights of a pregnant woman.

[Geezer]

6 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

The US Constitution, as amended, protects persons and citizens, not fetuses or unborn human beings.  Fetuses and unborn human beings are neither a person or a citizen under the US Constitution, as amended.  Unborn humans are indirectly protected via States Rights, i.e., when a State's rights exceed the rights of a pregnant woman.

 

I agree that is one of the arguments, but the law is inconsistent. Example, a drunk driver kills a woman and her unborn child in an accident. The driver will be charged with double vehicular homicide. In that case, the fetus is recognized by the law as a human being. That clearly nullifies the argument that a fetus is not a human being that qualifies for protection as an American citizen under the law.

 

In some cases it does qualify as a human being and an American citizen and in others situations it doesn't. I think the courts need to clarify the definition of a human being and at least be consistent. It's strictly a legal question for me rather than a moral or religious one. I'm not holding my breath that's going to happen though.

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

At a slight tangent Geezer, how do these militant antiabortion Christians interpret Numbers 5 : 11 - 31?

 

Especially verses 21 & 22..?

 

21

here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

22

May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

 

Is God pro-abortion?

 

[Geezer]

14 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

At a slight tangent Geezer, how do these militant antiabortion Christians interpret Numbers 5 : 11 - 31?

 

Especially verses 21 & 22..?

 

21

here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

22

May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

 

Is God pro-abortion?

 

 

Like most Christians they ignore scripture that they don't agree with. The abortion issue is filled with inconsistencies and contradictions coming from both sides of the argument because it's such an emotional issue. I'm not adamantly for or against abortion. It's strictly a legal issue for me. At some point the fetus becomes a human being. At that point it deserves the protection of the law, but the law can't seem to decide when that is. I noted in the post above how inconsistent the law currently is.

 

If a fetus is terminated by an outside force in a violent and/or illegal act it's considered a human being by the courts, but if the mother terminates it, that is perfectly legal. I just think the law needs to be consistence and clearly state when the law considers a fetus to be a human being. That just seems obvious to me, but apparently that isn't a clear to the rest of the world as it is to me.

 

I'm either way ahead of the cure or way behind it. At my age I'm not even sure where the curve is on most days.

[sdelsolray]

23 minutes ago, Geezer said:

 

I agree that is one of the arguments, but the law is inconsistent. Example, a drunk driver kills a woman and her unborn child in an accident. The driver will be charged with double vehicular homicide. In that case, the fetus is recognized by the law as a human being. That clearly nullifies the argument that a fetus is not a human being that qualifies for protection as an American citizen under the law.

 

In some cases it does qualify as a human being and an American citizen and in others situations it doesn't. I think the courts need to clarify the definition of a human being and at least be consistent. It's strictly a legal question for me rather than a moral or religious one. I'm not holding my breath that's going to happen though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think the law is inconsistent, just nuanced.  You are attempting to equate federal constitutional law and a particular state's statutory law.  You are also confusing the terms "person", "citizen" and "human being".  They are not the same.  I did not say, and neither does the Constitution say, that a fetus is not a human being.  It says a fetus is not a person or citizen.  

 

Just because a state criminalizes harm to a fetus does not make the fetus a person or citizen.  State laws also criminalize harm to animals such as dogs and cats.  That does not give dogs or cats the status of person or citizen under the Constitution.  If a human fetus was a "person" then it would be afforded Constitutional protections, such as due process before its life is taken.  That simply does not happen in the case of abortions.  Indeed, if a fetus was a "person" then abortions would not be legal.

[bornagainathiest]

21 minutes ago, Geezer said:

 

Like most Christians they ignore scripture that they don't agree with. The abortion issue is filled with inconsistencies and contradictions coming from both sides of the argument because it's such an emotional issue. I'm not adamantly for or against abortion. It's strictly a legal issue for me. At some point the fetus becomes a human being. At that point it deserves the protection of the law, but the law can't seem to decide when that is. I noted in the post above how inconsistent the law currently is.

 

If a fetus is terminated by an outside force in a violent and/or illegal act it's considered a human being by the courts, but if the mother terminates it, that is perfectly legal. I just think the law needs to be consistence and clearly state when the law considers a fetus to be a human being. That just seems obvious to me, but apparently that isn't a clear to the rest of the world as it is to me.

 

I'm either way ahead of the cure or way behind it. At my age I'm not even sure where the curve is on most days.

 

Yeah, you and me both.

[Geezer]

27 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

I don't think the law is inconsistent, just nuanced.  You are attempting to equate federal constitutional law and a particular state's statutory law.  You are also confusing the terms "person", "citizen" and "human being".  They are not the same.  I did not say, and neither does the Constitution say, that a fetus is not a human being.  It says a fetus is not a person or citizen.  

 

Just because a state criminalizes harm to a fetus does not make the fetus a person or citizen.  State laws also criminalize harm to animals such as dogs and cats.  That does not give dogs or cats the status of person or citizen under the Constitution.  If a human fetus was a "person" then it would be afforded Constitutional protections, such as due process before its life is taken.  That simply does not happen in the case of abortions.  Indeed, if a fetus was a "person" then abortions would not be legal.

 

I'm not attempting to do anything. I'm not in the legislature, I'm not a lawyer, a judge, or a policemen. You are replacing my word inconsistent with the your word nuance. Either word is fine with me. I'm simply saying the way it is now makes no sense to me, but lots of things don't make sense to me.

 

The law says when a baby exists it's mother's vagina it magically becomes a person in that instant. One second the baby is an "it" but a millisecond later it's a person and entitled to all the protection under the law granted to any person, unless it's a victim of a late term abortion, in that case disregard the prior definition of a person. A heathy living person magically reverts back to an "it" so that it's life can legally be ended. And that is because the law is "nuanced". So that DWI driver that kills an unborn "it" gets nuanced up the wazoo and charged with murder, but the late term abortion doctor gets a check for services rendered, as does the undertaker. That legal nuance stuff is definitely tricky. My daddy told me life ain't fair and I've found that to be true. So, I'm goanna file this under life ain't fair, but that's the way it is, so deal with it and go on about your business.    

[Deva]

I never understood this "age of accountability."  I couldn't see it in the Bible, and I still don't.  I think it was a Protestant reaction to Catholic teaching that babies must be baptized.

[florduh]

Unlike other religions I know of, the Abrahamic family of beliefs, particularly Christianity, is preoccupied with correct belief. Belief is more important than behavior. The beliefs are deeply mired in minutia and legalistic interpretations. These pedantic beliefs have led to tens of thousands of competing sects in Christianity alone.

 

Obviously the elusive "age of accountability" is one football they can knock around and "when does the baby get its soul" is another. Those who don't subscribe to any of these religious systems still can take emotional and extreme positions on abortion even if they don't believe in an eternal soul. 

 

But it's an endless quest to determine when life begins. Is it at birth when the developed fetus takes its first breath? Is it a fetal heartbeat or brainwave? Is it at conception? Is it at the first twinkle in father's eye? Is it to be originally found in his father's genes? His father's father? In truth, every living thing began their journey at the beginning of time. The rest is detail and points to ponder and argue.

 

"Every Sperm is Sacred"  That has as much evidence for it as any other argument.

 

[mwc]

     So the "age of accountability" thread isn't really about that at all.  It's about abortion.

 

          mwc

 

[florduh]

5 minutes ago, mwc said:

     So the "age of accountability" thread isn't really about that at all.  It's about abortion.

 

          mwc

 

Seems related to me. They're just making up rules about which they know nothing and have no scriptural clarification.

[mwc]

30 minutes ago, florduh said:

Seems related to me. They're just making up rules about which they know nothing and have no scriptural clarification.

     Abortion seems like one part of it.  What if some kid dies from something else?  Anything else?  Up to the supposed age of accountability.  That doesn't seem to matter since the thread has already said the whole thing is bullshit and gone off to discuss abortion.  Not seeing too much Timmy tripped, hit his head and died being discussed.

 

          mwc

 

[Joshpantera]

The age of abortion....

[Geezer]

1 hour ago, mwc said:

     Abortion seems like one part of it.  What if some kid dies from something else?  Anything else?  Up to the supposed age of accountability.  That doesn't seem to matter since the thread has already said the whole thing is bullshit and gone off to discuss abortion.  Not seeing too much Timmy tripped, hit his head and died being discussed.

 

          mwc

 

 

As a believer you would be convinced little Timmy is in Heaven with God, and as a parent you would believe that no matter what Timmy's age might be because a magic age when Timmy becomes accountable for his actions cannot be determined. The Bible doesn't address this situation so there is no Biblical authority for this belief & therefore no detailed instructions. 

 

As I previously noted this doctrine was apparently created out of necessity to quell the fear of parents that their baby was going to hell because the baby is incapable of accepting Jesus as its personal savior. Parents probably wouldn't love Jesus any more if God sent their babies to hell. The Church had to fix that problem. 

 

As as a non-believer it doesn't matter because we know there is no God, Heaven, or Hell.

 

 

[Blamtasticful]

On ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 4:17 PM, Geezer said:

Our Constitution guarantees American citizens certain protections and rights under the law. A fetus, at some point, becomes a human being and those Constitutional rights attach. We, as a nation, have been unable to determine when that fetus becomes a human being. Our options seem to be: 1. At the moment of conception. 2. When there is a heartbeat. 3. When the fetus is viable and can live outside the mothers womb.

 

Personally, I would go with #1,...or #2.  I could accept that as a compromise. I can't go with #3 and late term abortions should be classified as murder as far as I am personally concerned, but they sadly aren't in many areas of the country. I cannot image how any medical profession could perform a late term abortion, unless the mothers life hangs in the balance and even then it would be a difficult decision. In that situation I think it has to be the mothers call.

 

This is my view on the abortion issue since deconverting.

 

I start with the belief that the biggest disagreement about abortion between theists and atheists is about two theological propositions. 1. That every human no matter how early in development has an immortal soul. 2. That god equates early life to fully formed adult life so if he sees it as murder we should as well.

What I propose instead is that 1. The value of life is based upon cognition, self-awareness, the ability to feel pain, human autonomy, and the good or harmful effects it has on other beings with similar characteristics. Not based on the irrational idea of the soul which I think is a construct that unconsciously causes people to see this issue in certain ways even if they aren't very religious 2. That we don't take a cookie-cutter approach to morality that has been influenced heavily be religious thought and the Bible in particular.

How this plays out practically is about judging based upon the criteria I mentioned how to handle a pregnancy. If the pregnancy is early than it is on one extreme end of the spectrum where self-awareness, higher cognitive function, and the feeling of pain aren't an issue. This can be weighed against keeping the baby which on one extreme end of that spectrum causes health, financial, and psychological harm to the mother and to the child that is being raised. When the fetus is early it isn't different from other various similar types of living tissue and organisms that we rightly don't protect in the same manner. Therefore it would be moral in that particular case example to terminate the pregnancy. The farther both ends of these respective spectrums that I mentioned move closer to their other ends is when the action can rightfully be deemed immoral. That is why I don't support partial birth abortion. I think this is a very powerful approach to the issue using situational ethics.

[Storm]

I am not so much interested in the abortion aspect of it, but there is a nagging question that is heavily related to this, which is: are we all born with sin? I know that the bible says that we are, but if there is an age of accountability, then that appears to quash the whole being born a sinner thing, because if we are all born sinful and yet unable to actually sin until later, then it seems like God is making an exception to the rule that all that sin, die and should be separated from God. I didn't see any asterisks in the bible regarding this.

 

If we are all born into sin, then that also means Jesus was born a sinner, and thus, he is no different than any of us and he could not have been unblemished and sinless on this earth simply due to his human nature. But, if he was born special and without sin, then he is nothing like us and is a unique, one of a kind exception and that everything that Christians believe about his sinless nature is bunk and he cannot relate to us because of this. I believe that as Paul explains it, Jesus was special and as the Second Adam, he was like Adam prior to the fall, which means he was unlike any one else who ever existed (except Adam and Eve). And because of this "uniqueness", he is nothing more than a special exception and is unworthy of the "qualifications" that made him spotless and "worthy" of the sacrifice that supposedly saved us all from sin. The bible says he was tempted in every way as we are, but that isn't really true because we all already have a tainted soul, he did not. We all have a stacked deck against us, but he did not. There isn't even a comparison in my book. Its nothing more than playing Call of Duty in godmode. He couldn't lose. So much for a true sacrifice!

 

Then there is the question about grown adults who are incapable of understanding right from wrong. Do they have an age of accountability too? Christianity wants to think that God is merciful and wouldn't unnecessarily punish someone who had no ability to change anything in their lives, but I think that the bible is clear that God just doesn't care about those "technicalities" and will punish everyone regardless because its in his "nature" to do so.

 

Its just more of the cut and paste God that everyone wants to serve and they all think that it sounds reasonable to them, so it must be true.

 

[mwc]

     To me the age of accountability seems related to the bar mitzvah which is the point where the person, a boy in this case, is placed under the law (of the Torah).  Likewise, in (some) xian traditions (mainly Catholic and derivatives like Lutherans) you have to go through a catechism (I did) and it's only after you complete that are you really "accountable" (so to speak) in that you now understand the whole of the religion, the rules and everything that you're now beholden to.

 

     I can see how it also might be used to make people feel better about their babies dying and whatnot but that's not what the whole thing came across as when I went through it.  It was pointed out that we're born sinners (thus the baptizing of babies which a lot of Protestants don't do) except jesus who was sinless (jesus always gets a free pass on everything).

 

          mwc

 

[Blamtasticful]

Yeah I think many non-denominational protestant sects that I was acquainted with aren't very systematic in their theology when it comes to the age of accountability. The whole born in sin issue is the whole reason why many Catholics feel that Mary must have been born by immaculate conception as well as Jesus even though that leads to an infinite regress. I have heard it defended by some protestants than sin is only passed onto a child through man's seed so that's how Jesus was born sinless. But for everyone else I don't see how you can be born in sin, die as a child, and go to heaven without being converted? This is why disgusting things like limbo were invented for unbaptized children.

[Geezer]

That whole original sin thing is clearly a myth. The entire Bible, for that matter, is a collection of theological myths. I realize de-converting is a process, but some of the more obvious stuff should be fairly easy to dismiss as nonsense early on in the process, but maybe not. I've been out for awhile now so maybe my memory of that process has gotten fuzzy. 

[mwc]

8 minutes ago, Geezer said:

That whole original sin thing is clearly a myth. The entire Bible, for that matter, is a collection of theological myths. I realize de-converting is a process, but some of the more obvious stuff should be fairly easy to dismiss as nonsense early on in the process, but maybe not. I've been out for awhile now so maybe my memory of that process has gotten fuzzy. 

     Well, yeah, but then what's the point of asking if something is biblical or not?   Normally things are not and even if they are the bible is a collection of myths so who really cares?

 

          mwc

 

[readyforchange]

10 hours ago, Storm said:

I am not so much interested in the abortion aspect of it, but there is a nagging question that is heavily related to this, which is: are we all born with sin? I know that the bible says that we are, but if there is an age of accountability, then that appears to quash the whole being born a sinner thing, because if we are all born sinful and yet unable to actually sin until later, then it seems like God is making an exception to the rule that all that sin, die and should be separated from God. I didn't see any asterisks in the bible regarding this.

 

If we are all born into sin, then that also means Jesus was born a sinner, and thus, he is no different than any of us and he could not have been unblemished and sinless on this earth simply due to his human nature. But, if he was born special and without sin, then he is nothing like us and is a unique, one of a kind exception and that everything that Christians believe about his sinless nature is bunk and he cannot relate to us because of this. I believe that as Paul explains it, Jesus was special and as the Second Adam, he was like Adam prior to the fall, which means he was unlike any one else who ever existed (except Adam and Eve). And because of this "uniqueness", he is nothing more than a special exception and is unworthy of the "qualifications" that made him spotless and "worthy" of the sacrifice that supposedly saved us all from sin. The bible says he was tempted in every way as we are, but that isn't really true because we all already have a tainted soul, he did not. We all have a stacked deck against us, but he did not. There isn't even a comparison in my book. Its nothing more than playing Call of Duty in godmode. He couldn't lose. So much for a true sacrifice!

 

Then there is the question about grown adults who are incapable of understanding right from wrong. Do they have an age of accountability too? Christianity wants to think that God is merciful and wouldn't unnecessarily punish someone who had no ability to change anything in their lives, but I think that the bible is clear that God just doesn't care about those "technicalities" and will punish everyone regardless because its in his "nature" to do so.

 

Its just more of the cut and paste God that everyone wants to serve and they all think that it sounds reasonable to them, so it must be true.

 

 

These are good points that I also have asked myself countless times.  If Jesus was tempted in every way as humans could be tempted and experienced everything that humans could ever experience, then I wonder why did Jesus not live as long as humanly possible?  Why did he not live until age 120, the maximum age stated in Genesis 6:3?  Because if Jesus died around age 33, then a major human characteristic he never experienced was old age.  To anyone's knowledge, he never experienced debilitating human conditions like dementia / Alzheimer's or the loss of motor skills or bodily functions associated with aging.  Granted, life expectancy was shorter back then, but he was not what would be considered as old when he died.   

 

[Geezer]

And Jesus presumably never had sex, loved a woman intimately, or fathered children. He never experienced the responsibility of providing for a family. The list of things Jesus never experienced could be potentiomally quite lengthy. 

 

And since I'm convinced Jesus was a literary character in a story, and therefore never existed in the flesh, he never experienced real life either. 

 

[Joefizz]

On 8/12/2017 at 3:58 PM, Geezer said:

The answer of course, is no. There is nothing in scripture that even hints that such a thing exists. It's obvious why believers "wish" the Bible said that, but it doesn't. That is not to say that apologist haven't cut and pasted unrelated scripture to create new scripture, as well as using some imaginative and creative interpretations to make it seem like that doctrine is biblical, but it isn't.

 

The church had to create it or loose a lot of adherents. If parents believed their young children or babies, who had prematurely died from disease or accident, were going to hell because they didn't "believe" in Jesus they'd likely say screw you Jesus we're out of here. The church created this doctrine out of necessity, not because it was theologically correct.

 

Now, lets apply this doctrine to those militant antiabortion Christians. They believe life begins at conception, and a creditable argument can be made for that. Let's assume life does begin at conception and the fetus has a soul the moment conception occurs. If the fetus dies or is aborted, according to the doctrine of the age of accountability, that fetus soul goes directly to heaven to be with God forever. That fetus will never have to suffer ever. It will exists in glory with God forever and ever.

 

Now, lets say the fetus is brought to term and is born. What are the chances this baby will grown into an adult and make it to heaven? The first and obvious problem is that it has to choose the right religion from among a multitude of choices. That assumes this person even has any interest in religion. Not only does this person have to choose the right religion it must also choose the correct sect within that religion since religions tend to have lots of various groups that believe slightly different things. And these various groups tend to not like each other. The next problem is that this person must believe the right things. Some Christians believe the wrong things and will be doomed to spend eternity in hell because of their error.

 

Even if this person manages to find the right religion and believes the right things, they still have to live a faithful life unto death. And then God still has to give them the final approval at the final judgement. So, I seriously ask this question. What are their chances of making it to heaven? Obviously, their chances are slim or close to zero. So, using Christian logic, wouldn't it have been better for them to have been aborted so they could be with God for all eternity?

 

You say that entire scenario is stupid, illogical, and absurd. Yes, it certainly is, but apparently not if you're a Christian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nope abortion is willful murder so while your "theory"'for the most part is accurate according to Christianity's "holy doctrine"(bible) "thou shalt not kill" applies to such a decision because the parent willfully killed their child,though the child/baby is innocent thereby received into heaven,the parent/parents bear the sin according to Christianity's "holy doctrine"(bible).