• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are babies, "enemies of God" in your faith tradition?

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I am a staunch believer in Evolution. I am a Christian. So...whenever a Christian takes "Adam and Eve" seriously, well...I quit the debate

Why stop there? Once one gives himself the freedom to decide which parts of Christian dogma to take seriously and which to reject, how can he condemn others who do the same, but go further? What you wrote is how the atheist feels about god beliefs. On what basis can one say that that belief should be taken more seriously than the Adam and Eve story?

Also, if there were no first humans as evolution suggests, there was no original sin and no need for Jesus. How can a Christian jettison that belief?

do we think that babies are our enemies to our prosperity, comfort and convenience that we eliminate them?

Those that don't want babies simply don't have them. But yes, babies are a threat to one's prosperity, comfort, and lifestyle. My life would have been much smaller had my wife and I had children. If one isn't the kind of person who revels in being with children - and we all know some, the people whose lives would feel empty without them, the people who run day care centers and become kindergarten teachers - then raising kids is undesirable. It's to be expected when one's options are contracted by theocratic incursions into government that view women as incubators. 'OK, I might not be able to get an abortion, I might be prosecuted for trying, and soon they'll remove birth control as an option if they can, so let's nip that in the bud now.'

For Adam and Eve it was not nurture but they could have refused to do evil

Unattended kids eating an apple is evil? No, it's not. It's what kids do. I recall studies from the past in which children were left alone in a room with cookies and forbidden to eat them. They did anyway, because that's what kids do. The following is similar, but it involves not a threat, but a reward for delayed gratification. The kids predictably failed there as well:

 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Those that don't want babies simply don't have them. But yes, babies are a threat to one's prosperity, comfort, and lifestyle. My life would have been much smaller had my wife and I had children. If one isn't the kind of person who revels in being with children - and we all know some, the people whose lives would feel empty without them, the people who run day care centers and become kindergarten teachers - then raising kids is undesirable. It's to be expected when one's options are contracted by theocratic incursions into government that view women as incubators. 'OK, I might not be able to get an abortion, I might be prosecuted for trying, and soon they'll remove birth control as an option if they can, so let's nip that in the bud now.'

Yes... I understand your point.

I guess it all depends on what you think "smaller" means. I have three children that are changing lives... seems like my life is larger because of them. Not that you can't have the option of not having babies, I think that is a viable, noble and acceptable position.

but to sacrifice babies on the altar of convenience, posterity, comfort and lifestyle seems more like the worship of the god of Molech of the times of old.

That being said and in the context of my signature, my sisters are thankful for the mercy, healing and love when they had abortions.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Also, if there were no first humans as evolution suggests, there was no original sin and no need for Jesus. How can a Christian jettison that belief?
Find me in the Gospels one single passage that says that Jesus' coming took place because of "Adam and Eve" or to erase "original sin". Just one.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member

In the above video Stephen Lett (Governing Body member of the Jehovah's Witnesses) claims babies are, "enemies of God".

He immediately clarifies that he loves babies, but it is worth a good laugh seeing the theological clumsiness of one of 8 leaders of approx. 8.7 million people.

Which brings us to the question, are babies enemies of God in your faith tradition?

In my opinion

Babies poop.

So, if you hold a baby like a machine gun, it would be an awesome weapon. However, just as a gun isn't violent, neither is a baby. It isn't the fact that a baby exists, it's how you use it.

Christianity is a religion of peace, healing, and preserving life. But not how it is practiced today. Membership in the National Rifle Association is required of a Religious Right candidate. So, as the Religious Right takes over the United States by voting, they can also arm their citizens. God said "thou shalt not kill" but what does God know?
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
Yes... I understand your point.

I guess it all depends on what you think "smaller" means. I have three children that are changing lives... seems like my life is larger because of them. Not that you can't have the option of not having babies, I think that is a viable, noble and acceptable position.

but to sacrifice babies on the altar of convenience, posterity, comfort and lifestyle seems more like the worship of the god of Molech of the times of old.

That being said and in the context of my signature, my sisters are thankful for the mercy, healing and love when they had abortions.

Abortions aren't substitutes for condoms.

On the other hand, Christians feel that it is more important to stop the distribution of condoms in high schools because it condones sex. I think that sex will happen whether or not condoms are there. Sex has been around for quite some time (millions of years). Condoms prevent STDs, such as AIDS, and prevent unwanted pregnancies.

If condoms were readily available, we wouldn't see as many abortions. If sex education taught that early withdrawal during intercourse didn't prevent pregnancies, we wouldn't have as many unwanted babies and abortions.

Young people, especially, are harmed by having babies. Girls have to drop out of high school (or elementary school), and find work and take care of a baby. They are too young to take on all of those responsibilities. Babies are a lifelong commitment (unless you toss them out on the street as soon as they turn 18. . . then you have a homeless problem with pregnant teens).

Abortions will be performed legally or illegally. Who is more qualified to abort a baby....an unqualified amateur midwife, or a doctor in a fully staffed and equipped hospital? Why have amateurs with coat hangers deliver babies?
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
I'm trying to recall the last time I saw a kitten eating a cow...

They usually chop it up and put it in a can before feeding it to a kitten.

I try to council kittens on their meat-eating tendancies. I tell them "hey, don't have a cow, man." (catch phrase of Bart Simpson).
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Abortions aren't substitutes for condoms.

On the other hand, Christians feel that it is more important to stop the distribution of condoms in high schools because it condones sex. I think that sex will happen whether or not condoms are there. Sex has been around for quite some time (millions of years). Condoms prevent STDs, such as AIDS, and prevent unwanted pregnancies.

If condoms were readily available, we wouldn't see as many abortions. If sex education taught that early withdrawal during intercourse didn't prevent pregnancies, we wouldn't have as many unwanted babies and abortions.

Young people, especially, are harmed by having babies. Girls have to drop out of high school (or elementary school), and find work and take care of a baby. They are too young to take on all of those responsibilities. Babies are a lifelong commitment (unless you toss them out on the street as soon as they turn 18. . . then you have a homeless problem with pregnant teens).

Abortions will be performed legally or illegally. Who is more qualified to abort a baby....an unqualified amateur midwife, or a doctor in a fully staffed and equipped hospital? Why have amateurs with coat hangers deliver babies?

I'm not sure if your position of condoms vs abortions is correct but you do have a point in what is the problem. Certainly you can get condoms pretty much anywhere.

Young people are having babies but, what is the root? It was never so prolific! Abortion is a bandaid and not the solution. Obviously there are people are having 3 and 4 abortions. Apparently availability of condoms have nothing to do with the solution.

So, where is the problem? Perhaps the grooming of children and youth in the name of "sex education"? Should it be called "Grooming through sex education?"
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I guess it all depends on what you think "smaller" means.

In my case, it means more homebound with less adult interaction and fewer adult activities. Meeting another couple for sushi after work or flying to see a concert are either more difficult or off the table for parents with children. Yesterday, a friend who had been out of the country for months reuned with us at our home, after which we all went down to a local restaurant, had a couple margaritas, and returned to the house for more refreshments and conversation. Later, my wife went to her urban sketchers class, while I watched a ballgame. Picture what our day would have been like instead if we had had children at home.

My wife and I formed bands that played in local restaurants and coffee houses several times a year. How does that work with kids? We also liked to plan Grateful Dead weekends, where we would switch from office attire to tie-dye, fly off to some west coast venue like Phoenix or Las Vegas for a weekend, stay at nice hotel and eat in nice restaurants, take in three shows, and be back to work Monday morning. How does that work with children? Most or all of this would have to be sacrificed if we were raising children instead. That's what I meant by a smaller life.

Not that you can't have the option of not having babies, I think that is a viable, noble and acceptable position. but to sacrifice babies on the altar of convenience, posterity, comfort and lifestyle seems more like the worship of the god of Molech of the times of old.

So which is it, noble, or like worshiping Moloch, which I assume is bad? What's an example of opting to remain childless that you consider noble and not like sacrificing babies to a Semitic god for "convenience" sake? It sounds like you are giving lip service to the option before condemning choosing it. Not that it matters. The secular world is not seeking the endorsement of Christianity, which values it rejects, as is becoming increasingly apparent in America today.

Find me in the Gospels one single passage that says that Jesus' coming took place because of "Adam and Eve" or to erase "original sin". Just one.

Why? This is Christian dogma. It doesn't matter to an unbeliever if it is scripturally sound. Much of Christianity isn't. This abortion issue shows us that the church has no problem creating doctrine without scriptural support. Try your own test there: Find me in the Gospels one single passage that says that abortion violates God's law. Your answer might look like mine - why? It's church doctrine wherever it came from.

Did you want to try to rebut the idea that much if not most of Christianity believes that the fall of man is why Jesus was necessary? I'm a former Christian, and know quite well what Christians are taught, and it is that Jesus was the sacrifice necessary to atone for man's sinful nature, which began with the disobedience in the garden and required nothing less than washing sin away in the blood of the lamb.

Anyway, if you've rejected that story, then you must have some other answer for why Jesus' death was necessary, or why be a Christian? The skeptic doesn't consider himself needing salvation, so he's not a Christian.

But you're in the minority there. Most cannot just call the Garden story allegory any more than that they can call sin and God allegory. That's how Christianity markets itself - it has the only cure to a terrible disease, man's sinful nature, without which one will suffer eternally.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
In my case, it means more homebound with less adult interaction and fewer adult activities. Meeting another couple for sushi after work or flying to see a concert are either more difficult or off the table for parents with children. Yesterday, a friend who had been out of the country for months reuned with us at our home, after which we all went down to a local restaurant, had a couple margaritas, and returned to the house for more refreshments and conversation. Later, my wife went to her urban sketchers class, while I watched a ballgame. Picture what our day would have been like instead if we had had children at home.

As a teenager, I knew, not felt, that I never wanted children. I have never changed in that conviction. Then I met and married a woman, to whom I explained how I felt, and I thought she accepted that she would never have children with me and was OK with it. Some years later, she demanded that she should have a child, and oh, she went off the pill last month. To my eternal regret, I reluctantly and unhappily acceded to her demand. With 20-20 hindsight, I should have told her that I wasn't going to do that and suggest that we should divorce while we both still had a reasonable chance of finding another partner more suited to our desires. It's all long ago and far away, but I often wonder how my life might have been ... (sigh).

I consider you lucky to have a partner that agrees with you and with whom you can share your life. My warning to all though, and it's just part of a general rule ... people change their minds, and most women have this inbuilt need to have children. Also, another general rule ... most things in this life are easier to get into than out of.
 

Vee

Well-Known Member
Premium Member

In the above video Stephen Lett (Governing Body member of the Jehovah's Witnesses) claims babies are, "enemies of God".

He immediately clarifies that he loves babies, but it is worth a good laugh seeing the theological clumsiness of one of 8 leaders of approx. 8.7 million people.

Which brings us to the question, are babies enemies of God in your faith tradition?

In my opinion

That was taken out of context.

PS - Is the sentence "In my opinion" part of your signature? It really doesn't make sense in the post.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
In my case, it means more homebound with less adult interaction and fewer adult activities. Meeting another couple for sushi after work or flying to see a concert are either more difficult or off the table for parents with children. Yesterday, a friend who had been out of the country for months reuned with us at our home, after which we all went down to a local restaurant, had a couple margaritas, and returned to the house for more refreshments and conversation. Later, my wife went to her urban sketchers class, while I watched a ballgame. Picture what our day would have been like instead if we had had children at home.

Again... no problem with you having your life the way you choose.

I'm an empty nester for more than 20 years so we still do what we want to do. Meet couple, have sushi, go to a concert. Even gone cruising on ships with friends.

My question is "what is smaller". Not that yours is smaller but having one chlld help doctors use lasers, another mending family relationships through counseling and a third impacting Asian Pacific theatre through churches, it isn't quite small IMO.

My wife and I formed bands that played in local restaurants and coffee houses several times a year. How does that work with kids? We also liked to plan Grateful Dead weekends, where we would switch from office attire to tie-dye, fly off to some west coast venue like Phoenix or Las Vegas for a weekend, stay at nice hotel and eat in nice restaurants, take in three shows, and be back to work Monday morning. How does that work with children? Most or all of this would have to be sacrificed if we were raising children instead. That's what I meant by a smaller life.

I think that is great. It is a matter of what we call "sacrifice". I find it as an opportunity to impart into the next generation and not make it about what I can do for myself and my pleasure. I guess you can do both? Have pleasure and still impact?

So which is it, noble, or like worshiping Moloch, which I assume is bad? What's an example of opting to remain childless that you consider noble and not like sacrificing babies to a Semitic god for "convenience" sake? It sounds like you are giving lip service to the option before condemning choosing it. Not that it matters. The secular world is not seeking the endorsement of Christianity, which values it rejects, as is becoming increasingly apparent in America today.

Don't misunderstand me. It is noble to not have children if you don't want them.

What I was saying is the sacrifice of children through abortion is like worshiping Molech..
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
That was taken out of context.

PS - Is the sentence "In my opinion" part of your signature? It really doesn't make sense in the post.
The context is explained in the clip, paraphrasing what it says - he is trying to make a point about original sin.

My opinion is that his deduction or conclusion based on his idea about original sin - that babies are "enemies of God" is at best based on flawed premises and at worst an outright non-sequitur. I simply can't tell because he doesn't lay the premises out in the clip.

"In my opinion" is an RF rule requirement.
Although I'm not the type to go reporting it to the mods, technically had I wanted to I could have reported you for not adding words to the equivalent effect to post #53.

In my opinion.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
This is another Christian belief I never really could wrap my head around, and no member of the clergy could offer a logical explanation as to why. Can any Christians here explain to me how a newborn baby is a "sinner?"
It means everyone is born capable of sinning, and all eventually sin, therefore all need to repent.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Free will always has limits. I can't choose to do the impossible.
That doesn't negate our choices. They are still ours alone.

It's impossible not to be a sinner so we're all doomed to an eternity of damnation, we may as well enjoy this short time one earth.
 
Top