Jump to content

A Premature Death - When Shall The Young Be Held Accountable?


Recommended Posts

Watching children, especially my own, makes me very puzzled of anyone intentionally wishing to harm his own offspring. Or better yet, neglecting to do all in his power to prevent their suffering, especially if they are about to face eternal torment. Our all loving and eternally wise God in his wisdom has, however, chosen to send a good chunk of the youngsters of our world to exactly this destiny.

 

Let us assume, for the argument's sake, that this is actually true and consider the implications for us. First there are some theological assumptions to consider. The big question is just when are we supposed to be held accountable for the sin we can do nothing about? Let us assume that there is no such a point in time but rather at the moment of conception a sinful human is born. Thus it is a great tragedy that the good many fertile eggs that fail to develop beyond a few cells are then raised in heaven for preparation of their eternal torture. The logical choice for a true believer is then to avoid this suffering by not attempting to have children at all. Many pregnancies end before birth, so this would be creating fodder for hell. Not a loving choice to do, unless of course, one takes an entirely indifferent attitude towards the suffering of the weak.

 

But surely it is wrong to assume that a few cells or a fetus is responsible for sins, nor that he has committed any at all. Certainly a baby needs to be born first. The problem is that the baby has to survive a good number of years before he will be able to even begin to understand the concept of repentance or to be physically able to witness with his mouth. In this case it would be a prudent course of action to attempt to prevent as many babies from being born as possible. Assuming the unborn babies go to heaven, as often is suggested, it is much better to kill all of them in the womb than permit them to be born. This way we get fodder to heaven instead without a risk of any of them being sent to hell.

 

Yet others claim that it is the baptism of a child that bears with it the salvation of the soul. This is wonderful news! The consent of the child is not needed for this, so why would the consent of the parents or other guardians be required? In this case it would be very prudent of the christians to form certain kind of baptism commandos who would sneak upon all the newborns, snatch them from their mothers at least for awhile and perform the ceremony. This should, in fact, be a very top priority of the believers. Why should it matter that a good number of the parents would object to the treatment? Since when has the fear of men been an appropriate guideline? The obvious problem with this approach is that while a baptism certainly saves the child, it is possible later on to give up this baptism, according to the theology of some. This is why it has to be confirmed around 14 or 15 years of age. So if it so happens that a child seems to be rejecting his baptism, he should be killed before he does that, just to be sure. In fact, it would be most efficient to just kill the baby right after the commando baptism, just to ensure he has the proper future in the life eternal.

 

But there are more choices still. Some claim no baptism is needed until one is able to make up his mind about the matter. Some say this can not happen before the age of four, some say not before fourteen. Just to be on the safe side, it could be enough then to just kill of all of the children on their fourth birthday. What would, after all, be a better present for birthday than an ensured ticket to heaven?

 

But since we really do not know which one of these is true, it would really be better to err on the side of caution and ensure the destruction of our species entirely. If it can not be done quickly as it is with traditional arms, and bringing the nuclear holocaust is for some other reasons hard to accomplish, it will perhaps suffice to burn and rape the planet and its biosphere in such a way as to render any human life impossible in the long run. Come to think of it, perhaps this is what is going on in the minds of the so called "Conservative" Christians.

 

But seriously now, where is the fault in my thinking? Would not these conclusions logically follow from the stated premises? Provided, of course, that the fodder of hell is not just an unfortunate and an inevitable byproduct of the fodder of heaven, and it does not matter to God if there are souls created for eternal torment as long as he can have few more buddies to hang out with. No pain no gain, afterall, even if it is someone else's pain. Ah but of course God weeps for those he just has to send to the torture chambers. Really, he truly does suffer more than we can understand. The allmighty in his wisdom. Even had himself mutilated for us and sent to hell and back. And this was all necessary because of some cosmic rules that... well, he himself created. Go figure. I don't anymore.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.