/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13118866]

Are there any Christian writers who argue in favour of abortion because it sends the child straight to heaven?

[Anonymous No.13118875]

>>13118866
Fetus isn't baptized. Therefore, it'll burn in hell for eternity.

[Anonymous No.13119031]

They're born of sin in the womb.
Unless baptised, they will reap no reward. People are not innocent. They are terrible creatures and it's only through the grace of Christ they're redeemed and remade and restored to the image of God.

[Anonymous No.13119044]

I prayed for a long time to have an answer for this question until Jesus finally appeared to me in a vision and told me unborn fetuses go to heaven if, and only if, an intrauterine baptism is performed beforehand

[Anonymous No.13119069]

>>13118866
>because it sends the child straight to heaven
it might do that, but it would certainly send the aborter to hell

[Anonymous No.13119075]

There probably isn't because it would be the same as arguing that we should kill everybody and not just the unborn. If God wanted everyone dead he would have it.

[Anonymous No.13119076]

>>13119069
Not if he repents lol

[Anonymous No.13119093]

>>13119031

That sounds awful.

[Anonymous No.13119097]

>>13119093
Humans are awful.

[Anonymous No.13119103]

>>13119097
We must have had an awful creator then

[Anonymous No.13119127]

>>13119103
This one's on me, dawg. Feel free to download and keep a copy for yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

[Anonymous No.13119131]

>>13119127
I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to the literal all-knowing and all-powerful source of everything but nice try

[Anonymous No.13119135]

>>13118866
Only if the fetus repents for being born or is dipped in water sorry brah

[Anonymous No.13119138]

>>13119103
We had a perfect creator.

[Anonymous No.13119140]

>>13118866

yeah but if a baby goes to heaven does it stay a baby forever?

[Anonymous No.13119142]

>>13119138
How can perfection beget imperfection?

[Anonymous No.13119177]

>>13119142
When the creation is given free will to choose. It changes everything. God could have created a perfect teacup but if it's never used or put to the test, it would just sit there, glistening. Man however, was animinated to not just sit there. He, enticed by evil, chose to disobey. Perfectly free to do so. And this grand creation was like an intricate teacup that just fell and crashed into a hundred pieces.

[Anonymous No.13119181]

Maybe ask a priest with a decent education instead of 14 year old racists.

[Anonymous No.13119185]

>>13119177
>free will
There's no such a thing.
>He, enticed by evil, chose to disobey
What evil? The snake? That was God's creation as well.

[Anonymous No.13119189]

>>13119185
>no such thing as free will
Brainlet detected

[Anonymous No.13119197]

>>13119076
based

[Anonymous No.13119201]

>>13119189
Sorry to break it to you, but all your actions are conditioned and not "free" in any higher sense. Free will is a misunderstanding of determinism in human behavior.

[Anonymous No.13119207]

>>13119140
my man asking the important questions.

[Anonymous No.13119216]

>>13119201
That's a huge assumption tho.

[Anonymous No.13119229]

>>13119201
>determinism

[Anonymous No.13119236]

>>13119216
The 'assumption' is to pretend any hypothetical nondeterministic element in your cognitive processes enables free will, when in reality it would only mean your behavior is ultimately random.

[Anonymous No.13119247]

>baptism with water is necessary for salvation
>God condemns babies to hell because muh man made rituals

[Anonymous No.13119254]

>>13118875
>>13119031
>>13119044
We can pass a law to baptise the fetus before abortion

[Anonymous No.13119287]

>>13119254
Man does not establish the law of God.

[Anonymous No.13119305]

>>13119287
God asked me and my family to pass this law for him

[Anonymous No.13119343]

>>13118875
Luckily all your Latin heresies are false.

[Anonymous No.13119371]

>>13119236
how can someone smart enough to care about philosophy be this fucking much of a retard? Read what you just posted.

[Anonymous No.13119375]

>>13119371
I know it's hard to accept but free will is a meaningless concept.

[Anonymous No.13119377]

>>13119069
Isn't that a noble sacrifice? To accept to fires of hell to ensure the salvation of many? I can think of few things more Christian.

[Anonymous No.13119378]

>>13119343
>baptism is a heresy
yikes
>All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age

[Anonymous No.13119397]

>>13119216
Spinoza might help you with this:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/phi/spinoza/corr/corr60.htm

"I say that a thing is free, which exists and acts solely by the necessity of its own nature. Thus also God understands Himself and all things freely, because it follows solely from the necessity of His nature, that He should understand all things. You see I do not place freedom in free decision, but in free necessity. However, let us descend to created things, which are all determined by external causes to exist and operate in a given determinate manner. In order that this may be clearly understood, let us conceive a very simple thing. For instance, a stone receives from the impulsion of an external cause, a certain quantity of motion, by virtue of which it continues to move after the impulsion given by the external cause has ceased. The permanence of the stone's motion is constrained, not necessary, because it must be defined by the impulsion of an external cause. What is true of the stone is true of any individual, however complicated its nature, or varied its functions, inasmuch as every individual thing is necessarily determined by some external cause to exist and operate in a fixed and determinate manner.

Further conceive, I beg, that a stone, while continuing in motion, should be capable of thinking and knowing, that it is endeavouring, as far as it can, to continue to move. Such a stone, being conscious merely of its own endeavour and not at all indifferent, would believe itself to be completely free, and would think that it continued in motion solely because of its own wish. This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined. (…)"

Also: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

[Anonymous No.13119402]

>>13119397
"Thus an infant believes that it desires milk freely; an angry child thinks he wishes freely for vengeance, a timid child thinks he wishes freely to run away. Again, a drunken man thinks, that from the free decision of his mind he speaks words, which afterwards, when sober, he would like to have left unsaid. So the delirious, the garrulous, and others of the same sort think that they act from the free decision of their mind, not that they are carried away by impulse. As this misconception is innate in all men, it is not easily conquered. For, although experience abundantly shows, that men can do anything rather than check their desires, and that very often, when a prey to conflicting emotions, they see the better course and follow the worse, they yet believe themselves to be free; because in some cases their desire for a thing is slight, and can easily be overruled by the recollection of something else, which is frequently present in the mind.

I have thus, if I mistake not, sufficiently explained my opinion regarding free and constrained necessity, and also regarding so-called human freedom: from what I have said you will easily be able to reply to your friend's objections. For when he says, with Descartes, that he who is constrained by no external cause is free, if by being constrained he means acting against one's will, I grant that we are in some cases quite unrestrained, and in this respect possess free will. But if by constrained he means acting necessarily, although not against one's will (as I have explained above), I deny that we are in any instance free."

[Anonymous No.13119421]

>>13119236
>The 'assumption'
>is to pretend
>any hypothetical nondeterministic element(s)
>in your cognitive processes
>enables free will
You literally just said that your own presumption enables free will.
>in reality
>your behavior is ultimately random
How the fuck can it be random when you're your own reality by your own definition?
>le epic you're all in my head and are unreal so Im god anon

[Anonymous No.13119443]

>>13119421
>You literally just said that your own presumption enables free will.
Not mine, the opposite claim (that free will exists) which commonly rests on nondeterminism applied in neuroscience.

>How the fuck can it be random when you're your own reality by your own definition?
By being nondeterministic at its innermost level. You seem to be under the impression that, if behavior is essentially nondeterministic, then you're set apart from the rest of nature, which doesn't follow logically.

>le epic you're all in my head and are unreal so Im god anon
You shouldn't get into these discussions if you can't understand a single sentence post.

[Anonymous No.13119449]

>>13119402
>>13119397
Good old Spinoza writing 400 paragraphs of nothing. Would've been good if he actually put out some arguments for no free will instead of shitty ass rock and babies analogies.

[Anonymous No.13119455]

>>13119449
He did. You're just bound to keep believing in free will because of your intellectual limitations.

[Anonymous No.13119457]

>>13119397
I've never seen a philosopher say so little in so much text.
>I make up my own definition of freedom
>We do not have free will under these absurd requirements
All he argued for is that we can be influenced by the external. That's it.

[Anonymous No.13119460]

>>13119455
Good one, reddit.

[Anonymous No.13119465]

>>13119457
Clearly you haven't read many philosophers.
>I make up my own definition of freedom
He literally presents two definitions of freedom. Do you have a third one?

[Anonymous No.13119467]

>>13119460
>le plebbit shawarman
Imagine being this out of arguments.

[Anonymous No.13119472]

>>13119467
You literally just told me "you're stupid" before that
fucking kek

[Anonymous No.13119479]

>>13119472
Should I have lied to you?

[Anonymous No.13119484]

>>13119479
>Le pseudointelectual shawarman
imagine being this out of arguments

[Anonymous No.13119486]

>>13119484
You haven't posted any counter arguments in this thread, only half-assed knee-jerk replies to things you have yet to understand before we can move on.

[Anonymous No.13119514]

>>13119177
>When the creation is given free will to choose

[Anonymous No.13119531]

>>13119486
How can I discuss free will with someone who is only willing to debate under his own deterministic premises?
I fail to see how free will has anything to do with our cognitive process as you first mentioned. You believe free will is just an "added element" to said process, which is stupid. IMHO there can't be free will without the metaphysical, which you totally disregarded.

[Anonymous No.13119540]

>>13118866
>fetus
>child
lmao that is some mutt logic

[Anonymous No.13119546]

>>13119531
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "metaphysical" here? I hope you're not arguing for magical thinking disguised as philosophy, so I'll give you the benefit of doubt.

[Anonymous No.13119554]

>>13119531
>>13119546
And by the way, I'm not mocking you, I just want you to explain how your idea of free will works.

[Anonymous No.13119566]

>>13119103
Yeah, he's called the demiurge.

[Anonymous No.13119578]

>>13119546
Can you elaborate what you mean by "magical thinking"? I hope you're not implying that the beliefs of God or higher purpose are somehow unreasonable.

[Anonymous No.13119584]

>>13119578
Not necessarily, but far too often. Can you explain your notion of free will?

[Anonymous No.13119608]

>>13118866
No because being good requires you being good all the time, why would immorality suddenly enter and replace morality pertaining specifically in taking an innocent life.
>it’s a fetus
I know, it begins like that, but, guess what, it is still an unborn child, faggot, we, were all in fetus stage/state before birth
>valuing your own life and not someone else’s
Abortion should only be thought of if the pregnancy may cause the woman’s life, and even sometimes the woman wants to have the child regardless, because of the care she has for the unborn child

[Anonymous No.13119618]

>>13119608
would you force your daughter to have a child from a rapist?

[Anonymous No.13119644]

>>13119618
It's what Jesus would have wanted

[Anonymous No.13119645]

>>13119584
My idea of a free will is similar to the christcucks. If I had to argue under atheistic or materialistic premises or whatever I would agree with you that free will is imposible or a mere illusion. However I do believe on a benevolent God, which makes arguing for free will under those conditions easy. My arguments for my belief in God are long tho, but picture a mix of descartes and voltaire. Basically it was my only escape from solipsistic thinking.

[Anonymous No.13119655]

>>13119644
based jesus but women are property and i'm not having a grandson from some criminal

[Anonymous No.13119656]

>>13119618
Emotional Trauma may arise after the birth of the child, so I would take into consideration that, Trauma already arose from the rape, but it is still a child, sure his biological father is an abomination, his actions are, not him, I would not deny that child a chance to inhale oxygen because of who his father is, it would not be fair, to make a decision, that decision of which, considering abortion due to his Fathers heinous action towards the Mother. So yes, let him live.

[Anonymous No.13119666]

>>13119645
How does it work though? What makes a person "choose" evil over good or good over evil and therefore be justified in their punishment or reward?

[Anonymous No.13119672]

>>13119618
Shifting the discussion from ethics to the pragmatic to yikes the opposition. You debated abortion before, haven't you?

[Anonymous No.13119674]

>>13119655
It falls on the individual, not you, it does not matter what he did, it’s about the child’s life, you’re basically saying he has to die because his Father performed a degenerate act. That’s insane. Anyway, each to his own thought process, or is it? ;)

[Anonymous No.13119678]

>>13119443
>you can't understand a single sentence post
Nigger learn to articulate yourself so you don't come off in the opposite of your own fucking meaning.
>nondeterminism applied in neuroscience
This isn't even an argument.
>nondeterministic at its innermost level
There's no one innermost level in nondeterminism. It's literally free will.
>if behavior is essentially nondeterministic
>you're set apart from the rest of nature
Outright illogical. Where does the assumption stem from that free will means to be outside of nature?
>which doesn't follow logically
Considering your own logic is nonexistent, I can see why you'd think so.

[Anonymous No.13119683]

>>13119672
guilty as charged

[Anonymous No.13119685]

>>13118875
>Ah yes god loves ALL humans
>But this child did not touch le holy water so well lets make it suffer in eternity, god is great.

What if the mother is baptised while being pregnant and the child being in the baptised water making it baptised?

[Anonymous No.13119693]

>>13119666
Weak minds gravitate to the illusion of perceiving right as wrong and wrong as right, because, it, "feels good", and it may feel good, but you go back to suffering caused by you and not the world, due to the absence of logic used to operate and overcome problems, not doing what feels nice and that of what, which is right.

[Anonymous No.13119697]

>>13119678
Jesus fuck, you people need to piss off and learn how to write. If you can't respond to people without quoting individual sentences then it probably doesn't need to be said.

[Anonymous No.13119712]

>>13119697
Maybe if you'd say something consistent and worthy of a reply, you wouldn't be a little pussy bitch right now.

[Anonymous No.13119714]

>>13119678
Nigger, how about you shut your dumb mouth and stop for at least half an hour to read what has been posted before making another idiotic reply? You're can't even grasp the difference between deterministic and nondeterministic behavior, but insists on conflating free will with randomness, it's embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.13119725]

>>13119712
>simpleton misreading ANOTHER post
Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous No.13119731]

>>13119693
So a weak mind is the source of evil?

[Anonymous No.13119732]

>>13119714
>insists on conflating free will with randomness
Nigger THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID BY THE RETARD I'M REPLYING TOO.
You fucking retards, I swear.

[Anonymous No.13119735]

>>13119666
Well, the judgement of an omnipresent, eternal and all-powerful being is beyond human comprehension I'm sure of that, and so is the """internal workings""" (to call it something) of free will. Again, you as an atheist probably won't find anything of value from deconstructing the values of theism, as they all stem from the idea that "God did it" or "because God exists". The discussion of "why do you think God exists" or " why do you think He is X" is a much more interesting one.

[Anonymous No.13119739]

>>13119732
I'm the one who said that, faggot. Another anon wrote >>13119697.
You can't argue for randomness and say that it's free will because that also means you have no will of your own.

[Anonymous No.13119742]

>>13119731
It takes strength to be gentle and kind, Yes.

[Anonymous No.13119743]

>>13119378

Like the Eucharist, I doubt Jesus means the ritual itself, never mind it being performed by clergy.

[Anonymous No.13119747]

>>13119739
Randomness and free will are tied with each other you fucking neanderthal. Where the fuck are you going to flip the coin otherwise?

[Anonymous No.13119749]

>>13119201

Free will strictly refers to will, regardless of action.

[Anonymous No.13119755]

>>13119378
>John indeed baptized you with water
>Jesus came to baptize with the Holy Spirit
BUT MUH WATER ELSE HELLFIRE 4 U FAGGET

[Anonymous No.13119756]

>>13119747
You're not flipping shit, retard. If it's random there's no "you" to flip a coin because the next moment "you" are already someone else.

[Anonymous No.13119757]

>>13119140
>imagine ascending to Heaven and being deafened by the sudden cries of a million newborn babies

I'd leave and go straight too Hell t.b.h

[Anonymous No.13119760]

>>13119742
What makes a person strong enough to be gentle and kind?

[Anonymous No.13119762]

>>13119756
Not in a dualism sense where you define randomness.
Nondeterminism already defines it as nonexistent which is outright retarded.

[Anonymous No.13119764]

>>13119287
In practice he does. See: what the Catholic Church has been doing for the past seventeen centuries.

[Anonymous No.13119771]

>>13119762
Dualism is for faggots.

[Anonymous No.13119774]

>>13119757
why would a baby cry in heaven he would be chillin there you fucking dumb piece of shit

[Anonymous No.13119776]

>>13119771
Nondeterminism is for pussies who can't man up to their own failures. So they'll blame the cosmos for them.

[Anonymous No.13119778]

>>13119764
>catholic church
>god's law
pick one

[Anonymous No.13119786]

>>13119776
Nondeterminists blame themselves because they think they have free will. That's the only way they can make sense of a God who dispenses justice.

[Anonymous No.13119791]

>>13119778
not the guy, but isn't the common conception of theism that there's a firm and eternal law of God and as we develop we get closer to it but still it's not quite "it" yet? That's why there are minor changes even in the most traditional churches now and again

[Anonymous No.13119797]

>>13118866
>For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.

ARE there?

[Anonymous No.13119798]

>>13119760
Overcoming childhood trauma, not internally allowing anger to fuel you by the navigation of logic itself
>having an ego as an adult
Letting go of your friend Ego
Obviously none of this happens overnight, it’s all with patience and practice, practice doing good/logically doing right, until you can’t help yourself. Incoming and Oncoming probelms from the world will become easier to solve, as in problems that come your way personally, specifically your problems, because, honestly, you won’t allow yourself to run off into your thoughts, you end up completing tasks, the right way. And if you make a mistake, logically operate through that without complaining. Nothing is a big deal, treat it as such, in that you know endless possibilities exists, and remember no one is special.

[Anonymous No.13119799]

>>13119791
are you talking bout prisca theologia?

[Anonymous No.13119800]

>>13119397
>>13119402
The idea that since we perceive acts as determinated by constraints we should assume evertyhing is perfectly determined strike me as overconfident. This is a case of mistaking an implicit framework used for modeling reality for an innate understanding of things. We have the intuition of things being causally determined. But to which extent is that intuition justified ?

However I agree that we have no clear way of accounting for unperfectly determined actions or results (but then again, when in practice do we ever get to understand perfectly the determination of a result ? never).

Basically it seems like your answer on this depends on whether you feel our cognitive understanding of the world of things should take precedence over our internal sense of autonomy (in terms of accurately reflecting the nature of things). I don't see why any of those two should be the correct view, however.

[Anonymous No.13119808]

>>13119800
>But to which extent is that intuition justified ?
To the fullest extent minus some quantum physics

[Anonymous No.13119810]

>>13118875
>>13119031
>>13119254
>>13119685
Early on in Tristram Shandy, Sterne describes the possibility of baptism in utero via vaginal squirt, and the complaints of theological authorities ob this account. His alternative is to baptize all sperm, such that any individual sperm that eventually unites with the egg and becomes a fetus will have been baptized.

[Anonymous No.13119816]

>>13119800
About internal sense of autonomy, I think that illusion falls apart quite easily upon close inspection.

[Anonymous No.13119830]

>>13119799
yea, isn't that a common belief in Jews and stuff?

[Anonymous No.13119831]

>>13119810
how do you baptize all sperm?

[Anonymous No.13119836]

>>13119830
i think they're more like implement noahide laws among the goyim or somethig

[Anonymous No.13119848]

>>13118875
>what is limbo?
Retard

[Anonymous No.13119852]

>>13119848
A medieval invention lol

[Anonymous No.13119855]

>>13118866
what kind of retarded idea is this

[Anonymous No.13119861]

>>13119831
I presume that it would be practical to keep holy water (or a priest, if a priest be necessary) on hand in the act of coitus such that the holy water may be appropriately sprayed or mixed in with the semen; maybe the husband best ejaculates onto the wife rather than inside of her, and a solution of cum cum holy water is distilled and inserted into the woman, perhaps via a similar squirt device as in the baptism in utero thought.

[Anonymous No.13119873]

>>13118866
Christ preaches amidst the dead, in the Underworld, until His return. Abortion may make their salvation more difficult.

[Anonymous No.13119879]

>>13119140
New bodies, man.

[Anonymous No.13119880]

>>13119861
wouldn't holy water inside the vagina work too?

[Anonymous No.13119891]

>>13119880
That is reasonable insofar as it is necessary for the sperm to travel through the vaginal medium to access the womb, but I would advise caution,...I would suspect that the vaginal secretions and humors typical to an aroused spouse would potentially wash out the holy water, damning one's child (if aborted or stillborn) to eternal hellfire. Best not to take any chances.

[Anonymous No.13119894]

>>13119808
>to the fullest extent minus the most fundamental and thoroughly verified physical theory in history

Kinda undermines the whole thing. If quantum physics isn't deterministic and all apparently deterministic phenomena are fundamentally just giant quantum interactions whose detailed unfolding escapes us, then there is no truly deterministic phenomena.

Anyway I wasn't talking physics but metaphysics here. Physics is a method and practice of producing systemic verifiable (or rather falsifiable) description of observable phenomena. It lives under the umbrella of the epistemological paradigm, it only concerns itself with what human empirical knowledge can reach.

You could always argue that determinism is merely how the theory describe things, for convenience and simplicity, not how they happen. And (again going back to your first point) given how hard physicists have tried to make their most fundamental working theory deterministic without succeeding, that argument seems to hold water.

[Anonymous No.13119898]

>>13119891
yeah, i haven't thought about the holy water washing out during coitus, makes sense

[Anonymous No.13119899]

We truly live in hell.

[Anonymous No.13119903]

>>13119816
I'd agree, but isn't it also the case for deterministic understanding of things, although it demands a more thorough inspection ?
There have been philosophical argument against the validity of determinism for centuries, and for decades even physical sciences have to some extent lowered their ambitions on that.

[Anonymous No.13119907]

>>13119774
Maybe because is mother is in Hell. She sinned to make him after all.

I bet you didn't think of the mother. But anyway

>imagine ascending to Heaven and being deafened by the sudden cries of joy of a million newborn babies

even worse desu

[Anonymous No.13119919]

>>13119879
Why would I want an adult body if I could have a baby body instead ?

I demand reparations !

[Anonymous No.13119924]

>>13119907
why do their need mom they have god, the ultimate mom.
also hell is probably full of futa giantess or MLP feet fetish shit so think twice about going there.

[Anonymous No.13119929]

>>13119608
>why would immorality suddenly enter and replace morality pertaining specifically in taking an innocent life.

Cause it is a guaranteed ticket to heaven for them. It sounds like you are more concerned for yourself than others.

[Anonymous No.13119947]

>>13119855
not an argument

[Anonymous No.13119951]

>>13119924
>also hell is probably full of futa giantess or MLP feet fetish shit so think twice about going there.

Thatd be horrible haha

[Anonymous No.13119983]

>>13119951
haha

[Anonymous No.13119999]

>>13119951
I want go there to see Hitler

[Anonymous No.13120033]

>>13119919
I don't think they'll be human bodies, anon.

[Anonymous No.13120212]

>don't get water poured on your head
>go to hell forever (literally unimaginable amount of time)

[Anonymous No.13120253]

>>13119894
>quantum physics
>thoroughly verified
Lmao we have barely began to explore quantum physics. Newtonian physics is much more like what you're describing, you can't explain anything about the macrocosm without a deterministic framework.
>Anyway I wasn't talking physics but metaphysics here
But you never addressed metaphysics. You can't just use "metaphysical" and "supernatural" as if they were interchangeable without explaining how your system even works. I know a lot of religious do that to make it seem like they have a philosophical basis for their beliefs, but if you brought the bible to Aristotle and told him that's the basis for Christian metaphysics he would laugh at you, because you'd be no different than his superstitious countrymen, who clinged to anthropomorphized gods and magical phenomena.

>>13119903
It would, I'm not discarding the possibility of nondeterminism at the most basic level, I'm saying it doesn't make free will any less devoid of meaning.

[Anonymous No.13120286]

>>13118866
No because that's clearly against all serious christian dogma.

>>13119377
Pure consequentialism is condemned in Christianity. Also the very thing you say should be praised for is the very reason they'd go to Hell. God isn't a shitty if else statement robot.

[Anonymous No.13120295]

>>13118866
They dont deserve to live if they are not believers and will be sent straight into hell to burn for all eternity.

[Anonymous No.13120478]

>>13120295
So everyone who isn't a believer goes to hell?
What about a baptized child who dies before understanding the concepts of God and Christianity?

[Anonymous No.13120779]

>>13119848
A non-biblical theological cope.

[Anonymous No.13120842]

>>13120478
they are gone jim, never had a chance, god is not based on human standards

[Anonymous No.13120902]

>>13120295
You mean gehena, sheol or the hades?

[Anonymous No.13120921]

>>13119743
>>13119743
>>13119743
>>13119743
>>13119743
>>13119743
>>13119743

[Anonymous No.13121604]

>>13118866

People love to crap on Mormons (and I understand why). However, one of the serious strengths of our theology is that we explicitly believe—it's an official doctrine—that unbaptized children under the age of eight immediately go to Heaven. This would not justify abortion, though, because we believe that the purpose of mortal life is to grow and progress within a fallen, suffering-filled reality (a common refrain is "endure to the end"; like some Gnostics, Mormons interpret the Fall as necessary or even good). Also, abortion carried out for its own sake (i.e., outside of extenuating circumstances) would certainly quality as murder, perhaps the most heinous kind. It violates God's laws (as well as His plan for us), it violates the inherent dignity and sanctity of human life, etc. The innocent must be protected—even if they would instantly go to Heaven and bypass the suffering of mortality; it's no one's place to make that call.