Do babies deserve hell?

[angellous_evangellous]

Some things said this thread, I can't respond to them there, so I hope they don't mind me starting a new thread so that I and others can ask questions as well.
I find the belief that God won't let us know that babies will be spared eternal torment to be horrendous and borderline psychological abuse for mothers who believe in Heaven and Hell and have lost infants and children. Why wouldn't God give mothers the comfort to know that the little one they lost is safe in Heaven? How can God be so cruel?

I know, I hear you saying, but Amy you don't believe in these things anyway, why do you care? You're right I don't believe in the vengeful, jealous, wrathful Christian God and I don't believe in an afterlife based on reward and punishment or on the whim of God. But I feel I must say something when I see a belief being promoted that is potentially so harmful to anyone who does believe and has lost a child.

Imagine a woman, a believer, who has just lost her infant, she goes to her pastor and pleads, "Please tell me my baby is safe with Jesus in Heaven!" Her pastor responds, "I'm sorry we just can't know for sure." What extra torment does that put on that poor woman! How do you justify this form of torture?

I personally know a pastor that believes exactly that.

If a pastor handles this situation like this, I suspect that he/she will handle other situations with a similar hatred for his/her church and spiritual incompentency.

I would recommend that the woman seeks a more competent pastor - no need to argue or debate with the pastor because they are too incompenent to converse with.

 

[Booko]

Sorry, I didn't specify. It was you (plural). Thanks for answering, it was obvious from your posts what your answer was going to be. I'm more curious as to maybe where Maize or others would draw the line- it appears to be only the fact that it is a baby which they feel means it couldn't possibly go to hell. When is a baby not a baby? Can a very young child go to hell?

You didn't ask me, but that's never stopped me before.

Though I don't believe in hell, my religion teaches that when a child is 15 he/she becomes responsible for his/her actions. Until then, it's the parents who answer if they fail to raise a child responsibly.

Other religious traditions set the age at 13 (thinking of Judaism and Roman Catholics especially).

What we know of human development from psychology seems to bear this general time frame out as a period at which a child becomes able to reason and make decisions about what is moral and not.

 

[Bishka]

I know for Latter-day Saints, we believe the age of accountability is 8, but that doesn't mean that anybody is going to hell.

 

[sahra-t]

Thanks for replying, Booko. I didn't specifically ask anyone, so I'm glad you did!

For me, 15 or even 13 seems too old. I think it's obvious from lots of cases (e.g. the Jamie Bulger case) that there are children younger who are perfectly capable of knowing what they're doing. I don't believe in Hell either, but if I did, I don't think I'd be able to exclude those two boys from it.

 

[alex-f]

As I understand it, those that carry out immoral, evil actions will go to hell and those that are morally sound will go to heaven. A newborn child is incapable of doing either so cannot be accountable.

One becomes accountable whenever they develop a moral understanding and I think that is something people adopt before they are 8 imo.

 

[Katzpur]

As I understand it, those that carry out immoral, evil actions will go to hell and those that are morally sound will go to heaven. A newborn child is incapable of doing either so cannot be accountable.

What, in your opinion, constitutes an immoral action? What constitutes an evil action? And would the training a child had received be a determining factor?

Oh, and welcome to the forum!

 

[jewscout]

Some things said this thread, I can't respond to them there, so I hope they don't mind me starting a new thread so that I and others can ask questions as well.
I find the belief that God won't let us know that babies will be spared eternal torment to be horrendous and borderline psychological abuse for mothers who believe in Heaven and Hell and have lost infants and children. Why wouldn't God give mothers the comfort to know that the little one they lost is safe in Heaven? How can God be so cruel?

I know, I hear you saying, but Amy you don't believe in these things anyway, why do you care? You're right I don't believe in the vengeful, jealous, wrathful Christian God and I don't believe in an afterlife based on reward and punishment or on the whim of God. But I feel I must say something when I see a belief being promoted that is potentially so harmful to anyone who does believe and has lost a child.

Imagine a woman, a believer, who has just lost her infant, she goes to her pastor and pleads, "Please tell me my baby is safe with Jesus in Heaven!" Her pastor responds, "I'm sorry we just can't know for sure." What extra torment does that put on that poor woman! How do you justify this form of torture?

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i love questions like these......

because.............**Drum roll**

I don't believe that Hell exists!

 

[Katzpur]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i love questions like these......

because.............**Drum roll**

I don't believe that Hell exists!

Just curious, jewscout... What is the Jewish doctrine on the fate of the "wicked"? Or on an afterlife in general? I feel like I should know this, but I don't.

Oh, and I don't know if I missed an announcement or what, but when did you go from "not a Jew yet but soon" to being a Jew? I'm really happy for you, by the way. I know that's a step you've been excited to take for a long time.

 

[Booko]

Thanks for replying, Booko. I didn't specifically ask anyone, so I'm glad you did!

For me, 15 or even 13 seems too old. I think it's obvious from lots of cases (e.g. the Jamie Bulger case) that there are children younger who are perfectly capable of knowing what they're doing. I don't believe in Hell either, but if I did, I don't think I'd be able to exclude those two boys from it.

I'm not acquainted with that case at all. Even without a belief in Hell, I still believe in things like consequences, and I'm not referring to the judicial sort.

I've had experience with my own kids, with teaching children's classes, and with being heavily involved in Scouts (both genders) to see how kids function at various ages, and I do think that generally 13 is a good age at which to expect the vast majority of kids really understand right from wrong.

I don't think it pays to set an age of accountability at a point where only half of the kids can be held accountable, but at the point where all but the mentally unsound can understand and be held accountable. So it may be that some 9 or 10 year old is capable of a suitable level of moral comprehension. But lots of others the same age will not be there yet. Why hold them accountable?

I know in Girl Scouts especially, there was a vast difference between 12 and 13 in how they related to each other. I really do think there's nothing more vicious than the tongues of 5th grade girls.

If you look at history, the idea of "teenagers" is a recent one, and even now not a cultural univeral by any means. It does seem that somewhere in there from 13-15 or so you got to be considered a young adult and were expected to act accordingly. Certainly it was not unusual for a 15 year old girl to be married and expected to run a household (though of course not as competently as an older, more experienced woman).

And it's usually somewhere from age 12 and up where we really look at what our parents taught us -- and start to toss overboard those things that we thought our parents were wrong about.

I think I was around 11 when I began to reject some of the more curious beliefs my parents held about people of color, the proper place of women in society, the usefulness of scientific inquiry, and the fate of those who did not believe particular things but were otherwise nice people. Um, not to mention that bit about babies going to hell. Well, my parents never really believed that anyway, not that Mom would admit it in front of the minister, who did in fact teach it as, shall we say, Gospel Truth...

So, yes, I'm content with, say 13 or so being an acceptable age for "accountability" at least in a moral sense. In matters of jurisprudence, well, that's a topic for another thread maybe?

 

[Booko]

I know for Latter-day Saints, we believe the age of accountability is 8, but that doesn't mean that anybody is going to hell.

I wasn't aware of it being so young. I'm assuming you mean morally accountable, as in you surely understand by now what "Thou shalt not <fill in the blanks>" means, is that correct?

But LDS doesn't consider 8 years a sort of delineator between child and adult, yes? I know Mormons tend to marry younger than most Americans these days, but not THAT young...

Is there another age at which LDS considers someone to be fully adult, as in able to engage in all areas of community religious life?

While we consider 15 an age of accountability as far as moral sense goes, Baha'is are not elegible to vote in Baha'i elections or to be elected to any office until they reach 21.

fwiw, Baha'i Writings seem to envision a time when it will be common for 15 and 16 year olds to marry, as it once was. It would certainly do a lot to solve the problems of chastity if we didn't expect people to remain unmarried and chaste at the time when the hormones are raging the most, eh? And there is the check on irrational teenage behaviour in that Baha'is must have permission of parents to marry, so that puts a damper on crazed teenage infatuations turning into marriages from hell later on.

 

[Bishka]

Eight is the age of accountablity, basically where we see the age of, okay, before, you may have sinned, but you arent' held accountable, because you didn't know right or wrong.

I would say 18 would be where we hold people to be adults.

At age 12 you can do baptisms for the dead and you graduate from primary (children's) to young womens' or young mens. When you turn 18 you start to go into the adult classes and relief society and preisthood.

At age 19 then boys usually go on missions and through the temple, girls may be earlier (for going through the temple) because of when they marry.

 

[Bishka]

Oh, and Sharon, Kathryn would be able to answer this MUCH better then me.

 

[Katzpur]

Oh, and Sharon, Kathryn would be able to answer this MUCH better then me.

No I wouldn't!

 

[sahra-t]

I'm not acquainted with that case at all. Even without a belief in Hell, I still believe in things like consequences, and I'm not referring to the judicial sort.

I've had experience with my own kids, with teaching children's classes, and with being heavily involved in Scouts (both genders) to see how kids function at various ages, and I do think that generally 13 is a good age at which to expect the vast majority of kids really understand right from wrong.

I don't think it pays to set an age of accountability at a point where only half of the kids can be held accountable, but at the point where all but the mentally unsound can understand and be held accountable. So it may be that some 9 or 10 year old is capable of a suitable level of moral comprehension. But lots of others the same age will not be there yet. Why hold them accountable?

I know in Girl Scouts especially, there was a vast difference between 12 and 13 in how they related to each other. I really do think there's nothing more vicious than the tongues of 5th grade girls.

If you look at history, the idea of "teenagers" is a recent one, and even now not a cultural univeral by any means. It does seem that somewhere in there from 13-15 or so you got to be considered a young adult and were expected to act accordingly. Certainly it was not unusual for a 15 year old girl to be married and expected to run a household (though of course not as competently as an older, more experienced woman).

And it's usually somewhere from age 12 and up where we really look at what our parents taught us -- and start to toss overboard those things that we thought our parents were wrong about.

I think I was around 11 when I began to reject some of the more curious beliefs my parents held about people of color, the proper place of women in society, the usefulness of scientific inquiry, and the fate of those who did not believe particular things but were otherwise nice people. Um, not to mention that bit about babies going to hell. Well, my parents never really believed that anyway, not that Mom would admit it in front of the minister, who did in fact teach it as, shall we say, Gospel Truth...

So, yes, I'm content with, say 13 or so being an acceptable age for "accountability" at least in a moral sense. In matters of jurisprudence, well, that's a topic for another thread maybe?

I'd direct you towards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bulger#The_Murder for information on the truly horrific case. If you're not easily upset, read the 5th paragraph under the "Murder" subsection to see why I would readily condemn those two 10year old boys to hell. I believe they knew exactly what they were doing, especially after they lied to anyone who questioned their actions.

I do agree with you though, that children age mentally at different paces and it's far too difficult to pin it down. As I don't really have a religion and don't believe in Hell it's difficult for me- if I did believe I suppose I'd just say that the God who condemned them there would know if they could be held accountable or not.

And I've been there with the vicious 5th grade girls, I know what you mean. Thankfully once we're all older the viciousness leaves us!

 

[Bishka]

Thankfully once we're all older the viciousness leaves us!

Are you sure about that?

 

[sahra-t]

Are you sure about that?

Oh dear. I suppose not! I try not to fraternise with those whom it doesn't.


Edit: This was my 100th post! I like how it was so one of my best posts, so profound...

 

[Booko]

I'd direct you towards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bulger#The_Murder for information on the truly horrific case. If you're not easily upset, read the 5th paragraph under the "Murder" subsection to see why I would readily condemn those two 10year old boys to hell. I believe they knew exactly what they were doing, especially after they lied to anyone who questioned their actions.

I certainly see what you mean! But then there's this:

"In court, details of Thompson's and Venables' backgrounds were not admitted. Thompson was one of the youngest of seven boys. His mother, a lone parent, was an alcoholic. His father, who left home when Thompson was five, was also a heavy drinker who beat and sexually abused his wife and children. Despite his quiet and friendly manner, Thompson came from a home in which it was normal practice for the older children to violently attack the younger ones, and Thompson was invariably on the receiving end.
Venables' parents were also separated. His brother and sister had educational problems and attended special needs schools, whilst his mother suffered psychiatric problems. Following his parents' separation, Venables became isolated and attention-seeking. At school he would regularly bang his head on walls or slash himself with scissors. No effort was made to find the cause of his obvious distress."

We're hardly talking about boys who had parents in much of a position to do good parenting. Now I'm *not* suggesting that they had no inkling of the damage they were doing, or that they should somehow be given a slap on the wrist because they were just 10.

But no, I still don't think they should be treated as adults.

I don't know how things are in the UK, but here in the U.S. we have a retarded system that cannot handle kids like these 10 year old boys, who are not really adults, but clearly are such damaged goods at 10 years old that society much be protected against them.

Here in the U.S. we have two options:

1. Try them as juveniles. They go free at 18. (ARGH!!!!)
2. Try them as adults. (??? No, I can't quite go for that either. As least one of them had parents who "taught" them to relate to others through beatings, and no, probably wasn't at the point where you reject the stupid things your parents teach you.)

We have no middle way, and the recent trend is to treat kids who really are just children as if they were adults.

I'd seriously like to see our judicial system changed to take into account crimes that are far more serious than "youthful high spirits" and keep such dangerous people away from society longer than until they are in 18, and in an environment less barbaric than an adult prison, which will only make them worse and better at being a criminal. Not to mention 10 year olds this warped are in serious need of psychiatric care. There may not be much hope for them, but I would not like to just write off 10 year olds, even as warped as this.

That's essentially where I'd like to see Thompson and Venable.

I do agree with you though, that children age mentally at different paces and it's far too difficult to pin it down. As I don't really have a religion and don't believe in Hell it's difficult for me- if I did believe I suppose I'd just say that the God who condemned them there would know if they could be held accountable or not.

I don't believe in hell, though being a theist I do believe that God holds people accountable. Even in the absence of religion or theism, there still remain those questions of morality and jurisprudence.

And I've been there with the vicious 5th grade girls, I know what you mean. Thankfully once we're all older the viciousness leaves us!

Well, most of us, anyway. I regret that a few times in my life I've run across some kids who seem never to have grown up. The most recent was a few years ago when I had dealings with a couple of women in their 50s who appear to have suffered from arrested development. <ahem> Ah, but that's another story...and it's possible they will never know how lucky they are that I matured past where I was in my teens.

 

[Booko]

Oh dear. I suppose not! I try not to fraternise with those whom it doesn't.


Edit: This was my 100th post! I like how it was so one of my best posts, so profound...

Personally, I was watching for my 666th post. Yes, I have a twisted sense of humour. :help:

 

[alex-f]

What, in your opinion, constitutes an immoral action? What constitutes an evil action? And would the training a child had received be a determining factor?

Oh, and welcome to the forum!

thanks for the welcome
It would be hard for anyone to give a difinitive answer as my interpretation would differ to everyone elses due to my individual upbringing and what society deems to be "correct". If a child was taught that stealing was ok to do, and the infant steals, then they have not commited an immoral action. An immoral action must be one where it is known by the offender to be wrong.

 

[Booko]

thanks for the welcome
It would be hard for anyone to give a difinitive answer as my interpretation would differ to everyone elses due to my individual upbringing and what society deems to be "correct". If a child was taught that stealing was ok to do, and the infant steals, then they have not commited an immoral action. An immoral action must be one where it is known by the offender to be wrong.

Is it possible for an action to be immoral, but for the individual committing it to be considered not culpable due to extenuating circumstances (like the one you mentioned)?