A Pagan's Blog

A Pagan's Blog


Does a fetus have Original Sin?

posted by Gus diZerega

As I was reading some comments on the post immediately below, a “devilish” question came to mind…

From a Christian anti-abortion point of view, if it is a human being, does a fetus have original sin?  Or is it without sin entirely? Or does it sin in the womb?  If so, how?


Advertisement
Comments read comments(54)
post a comment
Michael Strmiska

posted October 10, 2010 at 12:45 pm


I would add, if the fetus is unwilling to admit and repent for its sin, it is a heretic? Should it be punished?



report abuse
 

Martha

posted October 10, 2010 at 2:40 pm


Since you pose this question, you should find out about original sin. Original sin isn’t committed by the individual, it is sin handed down through the generations because of Adam’s fall.
I don’t hold with it, myself, but at least I know what it is.



report abuse
 

kenneth

posted October 10, 2010 at 2:43 pm


Well that’s an interesting bit of theology which is particular to Christianity and dualism. Original sin say the the fetus is in a state of sin merely by being born human, bearing the stain of Adam’s sin of defiance of God in the very beginning. Damn clever marketing ploy, you must admit. You’re in the hole from the moment of conception, so naturally you have no choice but to get yourself to a licensed retailer of salvation, give them a nice cut of your lifetime earnings, PLUS unquestioning deference to anything else they tell you.
This is not the only instance where you can be punished for the actions of ancestors either, at least in Catholicism. There’s a quirky little concept known as “irregularity” and it has nothing to do with lack of fiber in one’s diet. If you become a heretic or apostate, your children and I think even grandchildren are considered “irregular” meaning they cannot take holy orders.
On the other hand, the anti-abortion crowd loves to crow about how fetuses are “innocents” as a way to justify their righteous outrage.



report abuse
 

Cheryl Hill

posted October 10, 2010 at 3:25 pm


Christian mythology has some phrasing indicating that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. So I would imagine that includes fetuses too, since they’re so adamant that a collection of undeveloped cells counts as being human.



report abuse
 

mouseytalons

posted October 10, 2010 at 3:49 pm


Hi Gus and All,
I am going to respond to this not on religious basis, but speaking as someone who has had 2 tubal pregnancies and 3 miscarriages. I am also the mother of 5 living children. I am breaking a personal rule even responding to this, as it is quite a painful subject for me.
My last miscarriage was at 12 weeks along, I believe that baby was most deffinately more than “tissue” as the doctors and other medical professionals so coldly refer to the fetus as. I also believe “original sin” is a ploy to get people hooked into religion by fear. My 3 year old was born with ventricular tacacardia (in womb heart attacks or strokes). She is very much alive and a beautiful child today.
When I had my first tubal pregnancy 20 years ago, I was so against abortion that I was willing to die to save the baby. I was told by a catholic priest (it was a catholic hospital) that god would forgive me for having the pregnancy removed, other choice: both baby and I die inside 3 days.
Back to your questions: Is it a human being? In my opinion yes. Does a fetus have original sin? In my opinion no. Is it without sin entirely? in my opinion yes. Does it sin in the womb? In my opinion no.
Michael,
You asked: If the fetus is unwilling to admit and repent for sin is it a heretic? My answer to you is no. Should it be punished? no.
Kenneth,
I agree with you that “original sin is a damn good marketing ploy using fear to get people into religion.” I also believe fetuses are “innocents”, but I also believe that if the mother’s life is in danger so is the baby’s. I have learned that sometimes you have to look at the big picture, only to realize that both mother and baby could die because of baby, or where it’s located.
Blessings.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted October 10, 2010 at 4:36 pm


Original Sin? No. I don’t believe in the concept of “sin”. To me it is just used by many religions as an attempt to control the flocks. How anyone can believe a baby can be full of “sin” or evil or whatever, upon entering the world is hard for me to believe that some swallow as truth. Conception to birth—no sin. BTW, I’m pro choice, but hope a woman thinks long and hard before ending a pregnancy. Never should be an easy decision.



report abuse
 

Gus diZerega

posted October 10, 2010 at 5:50 pm


Martha –
How do you know I don’t? I asked a question. I have ulterior motives.
I know full well what it is supposed to be, and while a discussion of what is meant by a Fall is interesting to me, a discussion of what constitutes sin is not. I am curious how the “pro-life” Christians handle the question. So far, they haven’t.
Your arrogance is exceeded by your rudeness.
G.



report abuse
 

mouseytalons

posted October 10, 2010 at 5:55 pm


pagansister,
I have had to make those decisions, they are NEVER easy. Even with miscarriage, it agonizes the woman who had it. With the 2 tubal pregnancies I had, making the decision to go through with the removal of the pregnancy that would have killed me and the baby nearly destroyed me.
Blessings.



report abuse
 

jaundicedi

posted October 10, 2010 at 6:20 pm


Since the word that translates to “sin” is a Greek archery term that means “to miss the target” according to the preface to “The Gnostic Gospels” I don’t suppose it matters much. Isn’t that thorny question why the Catholic Church invented Limbo?



report abuse
 

k

posted October 10, 2010 at 6:31 pm


I’m no Christian expert, but I recall that even though Jesus “died for our sins” we are still being punished by God for our Original Sin from when Eve took the bite of the apple of the tree of knowledge, and ever since her insubordinate act all humans are cursed with original sin from inception. So to Christians sin is not something bad you do, but some bad juju you’re born with.



report abuse
 

Gus diZerega

posted October 10, 2010 at 8:26 pm


My interest is in how “pro-life” Christians would answer.
The concept of a”fall” is very interesting to me, but I personally think the concept of ‘Original Sin” is hooey and worse than hooey.
But since most “pro-life” Christians are committed to it, I am genuinely curious to know whether they think a fetus, perhaps even a micro-dot fertilized egg, has it and is in need of salvation.
That so far none have answered suggests to me that they don;t think much about the implications of their theology, but ‘get high’ on emoting self-righteously.



report abuse
 

Kiro

posted October 10, 2010 at 8:28 pm


All humans have human nature, which is imperfect.
As much as some people desperately want to believe that it is the state of being (name-the-group-you-hate) that makes people evil, the truth is that being human is what makes us evil, because evil is part of human nature.



report abuse
 

Charles Thomas

posted October 11, 2010 at 2:20 am


“As much as some people desperately want to believe that it is a state of being(name-the-group-you-hate)that makes people evil,the truth is that being human is what makes us evil,because evil is a part of human nature.”
Since being human IS a state of being,then you must also “desperately want to believe that it is the state of being that makes people evil” by the mere fact that they were born into the human race.



report abuse
 

Makarios

posted October 11, 2010 at 2:23 am


The Augustinian concept of “original sin,” while widely held in the West, is not accepted as such by Eastern Orthodoxy. Even in the West, theologians are increasingly regarding this narrative with skepticism, as being ahistorical and unbiblical. There is nothing about a “fall” or “original sin” in the Old Testament, for example, and Jesus would not have believed in such a thing.
Alternative narratives (not necessarily mutually exclusive)include Matthew Fox’s “Original Blessing” and the emergent churches’ narrative of creation, liberation, and renewal. Both of these are are a bit beyond the scope of a comment box, but Google should be able to provide some information.
As to what the “pro-life” Christians would answer, I have no idea. I can’t get into their way of thinking and have no intention of trying.



report abuse
 

Gus diZerega

posted October 11, 2010 at 2:23 am


I am impressed with so-called “Christians” demonstrated inability to respond to a simple question.



report abuse
 

Martha

posted October 11, 2010 at 11:08 am


I’m glad you have had responses from a number of people.
Your original post seemed to presume that all Christians have the same beliefs about original sin, which is not the case. You pointed out yourself that the question was a bit “devilish” — I supposed you meant by that that you were playing the devil’s advocate.
Just to get us on a better footing, I will tell you: I am pro-choice and I do not believe in original sin.
I am curious about at what point, you as a pagan, think an unborn foetus deserves human rights.
I won’t presume that all pagans have the same beliefs.



report abuse
 

glendalee2585

posted October 11, 2010 at 11:30 am


Recently emerging from the traditional protestant church, if I were still there I believe I would have to answer yes. (this is not the belief I hold now.) I was taught that 1) all beings are born with orignal sin. 2) Fetuses are human beings.
Thus one plus two equals a fetus must then have original sin.
I find this whole idea a little crazy now. I believe none of us were born with original sin and that infants are born clean and pure, it is nuture, sociology etc that teaches them how to act in the world.
I am also pro-choice. Althogh I personally could not have an abortion, I won’t pretned to try to tell another person what choice to make in their life.



report abuse
 

Gus diZerega

posted October 11, 2010 at 11:42 am


Answering Martha’s question-
Human rights are difficult in the harder cases. How does the right to freedom of speech and association manifest in a fetus of any age? Human rights seem to me to require the capacity to enter into certain kinds of relationships characteristic of human beings. I have written that rights are derivative of respect, a deeper moral relationship. Liberal human rights are the form respect takes among equal strangers. (For the entire argument go to http://blog.beliefnet.com/apagansblog/ecology.html and scroll down to “Deep Ecology and Liberalism,” and download the PDF.)
Thus a hypothetical space faring alien from another planet would possess “human” rights, because what is central is the ability to enter into relationships of responsibility, deliberate cooperation, and so on. As we discover more and more that certain animals have some of these capacities, the realm where we need to relate to them morally enlarges as well. But always the core is respect. In my view all beings that might have any sense of self or emotional connection need to be treated with a minimum of respect and possibly much more consideration.
I would also argue that reasonable uncertainty regarding capacity should be dealt with so that any error is one of inclusion.
When a fetus is able to survive naturally outside the womb – sometime before birth in other words – I would have no problem arguing as a practical matter that it has human rights based on its potential – with the exception of some difficult to imagine development where the life of the mother would thereby be forfeit. I would hold the mother’s life trumps that of a fetus unless the mother decides otherwise because the mother is fully human in a right bearing sense whereas the fetus is only potentially so.
As to how far before being able to survive naturally outside the womb, I think any general ruling must, like determining the age to receive a driver’s license or join the military, be somewhat arbitrary. That said, I imagine some point such as the beginning of the last trimester, if I remember Roe vs. Wade correctly, would be sufficient to be safe and allow the mother ample time to decide whether she wants to have the baby and keep it, or put it up for adoption.



report abuse
 

Martha

posted October 11, 2010 at 12:28 pm


Thank you for a very well-thought-out answer.
The abortion debate is such a difficult one, I think, because it comes down to your point about the ability to enter into relationships and the “potential” for that ability.
Some people see the foetus as being the same as an infant, and thus equate abortion with infanticide, which in our culture is a criminal act many would consider especially heinous.
People in this group believe it’s the responsibility of the government to protect the rights of the “unborn human being.”
Others are able to somehow make a distinction between abortion and infanticide.
Some place the rights of the mother higher than the rights of the foetus.
Some, including some who would not have an abortion themselves, believe childbearing is a private matter and the government should keep out of the decision-making.
Making ethical decisions about childbearing is sometimes extremely difficult, and advances in medicine make it ever more difficult. Our society has a great need for calm, non-rancorous discussions on this topic.
I think “baiting” people about their most dearly-held beliefs is rude, and it usually doesn’t accomplish anything positive.



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted October 11, 2010 at 1:47 pm


Imo, a fetus isn’t human until it takes it’s simply being born.
This btw, was also the ancient Hebrew definition of when a baby was considered human, when it took its first breath.
As a Wiccan the concept of ‘original sin’ let alone sin, is not apart of my religion.
As a former Christian, one point I remember was how ‘god’ supposedly blamed the child for Adam and Eve’s sin, which I always viewed as being ridiculous, blaming the actions of another on someone who didn’t have a part to play…bias and redundant and simply unfair. Such actions made their god essentially no better than its creation and hardly “divine”.



report abuse
 

Deborah Bender

posted October 11, 2010 at 3:04 pm


As Makarios and Martha pointed out, the Christian churches are not unified on the question of original sin. In Catholicism, original sin is tied in with the idea that Jesus’s death on the cross was a sacrifice to God the Father to atone for the sinfulness of humanity, a doctrine developed by Anselm at the end of the eleventh century (source: Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll).
[This is my reasoning, not necessarily church doctrine] If Jesus’s death atoned for the sinfulness of humanity, and human life begins at the moment of conception, then the original sin of the fetus in the womb has been “paid for”. The fetus cannot sin, because it has no capacity for independent action and choice, nor has it been exposed to any temptation that might become the occasion of a sinful thought.
[back to church doctrine] Babies are baptised soon after birth in part to wash away any sins they might have committed since birth, and to protect them from the wiles of Satan going forward.
As another poster pointed out, Judaism interprets the consequences of Adam and Eve’s disobedience differently and does not have a doctrine of original sin.



report abuse
 

Frank

posted October 11, 2010 at 8:18 pm


As a cradle Catholic, I’m fairly certain that the Original Sin is thinking, because thinking will tempt you to disagree with the Catholic Church. Embryo’s are the only form of human life with a Right To Life (TM) because they are only innocent life form.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted October 11, 2010 at 8:33 pm


Deborah Bender:
I know you were writing Church doctrine, but I fail to understand how any baby can have any “sins” to wash away.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted October 11, 2010 at 8:57 pm


mouseytalons:
I’ve been fortunate that I never had to make that decision, but have known a few women who did,(one cousin and my sister-in-law plus a couple of others) and they agonized over it, but never regretted it, as they knew it had to be.
You mentioned miscarriages. My mother had one between me and my sister.
I was too young to understand, but during the illness that finally took her, she talked about it. She was 85, and still remembered it even though she had 2 other children after it. It never goes away.
Thank you for sharing your story.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted October 11, 2010 at 11:20 pm


Good conversation. I’d just like to toss in that “innocence” is a slippery concept to apply to a newborn. It’s my understanding (correct me if you have expertise in the area and know I’m wrong) that if, e.g. the mother to be were starving the fetus would take its nourishment anyway, even at the cost of the life of the mother.
Admittedly that’s instinctual but so are many of the things we’d consider sins or evil. Admittedly adults and even children can be expected to overcome those instincts but where do we draw the line with that expectation, especially if you consider the fetus to be human?
I’m not saying that to propose we go around punishing fetuses, but that we overcome our instincts to think they, and babies (who are also extremely selfish) are innocent.
And that was a great question to pose.



report abuse
 

Frank

posted October 12, 2010 at 12:45 am


nnms,
you are correct. i know a woman who was malnourished during pregnancies and her babies’ bodies took what they needed leaving her body damaged.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, in Whom we are more than conquerors!

posted October 12, 2010 at 5:59 am


Thanks to Adam and Eve, we are conceived in iniquity and born in sin. That’s why we must be born again. Those who are not born again retain that original sin.



report abuse
 

Snoozepossum

posted October 12, 2010 at 10:09 am


@ Mouseytalons –
Thank you for “suspending policy” and talking about your experiences.
I have an optimistic hope that the more people realize how many pregnancies are simply not successful, and how difficult it is for the parents even when they know it’s a clear “not going to work” issue, they might go do some homework before they make sweeping black and white statements.



report abuse
 

Franklin Evans

posted October 12, 2010 at 10:15 am


nnmns, I’m no expert, but your phrasing is clearly wrong.
1) A fetus is an integrated part of the mother’s biological systems. It has neither choice nor instinct any more than the liver or stomach.
2) On a purely medical level, “blaming” the fetus for damage to the health of the mother is correctly described in terms of diagnosis and prognosis, the fetus being nothing more than that integrated part of the mother.
The main point here is not the balancing of “rights” between the fetus and mother, but in personalizing the fetus as somehow separate from the mother. The debate about abortion is 99.99% emotional. Emotion drives the moral objections to abortion (or any procedure the medical professional is faced with using). If we are to put the focus on choice — and I believe that is the imperative here — then medical ethics should inform the mother of the best procedure or path to follow, and she gets to choose on that basis. If she chooses to die with her fetus, medical ethics must permit that. If she chooses to have an abortion to save her own life, medical ethics must require it. A person entering the medical field where that choice will be faced must either uphold those ethics or choose another field. While we focus on abortion here, let us not forget that the “do not rescusitate” order is the exact same issue, just happening to not have a fetus involved in the general case.
For me, the Pagan perspective starts right there. The Great Mother (Gaia, Nature, fill in name of choice) does not accept emotion as a governing factor, or even of the slightest value. Life happens. Illness happens. Predators kill. Humans raise and kill food animals. Plants kill each other. We eat plants by killing them first. The list goes on and on, and only a complete hypocrit (personal apologies to the Vegans in the crowd, but I’m being honest here) believes he or she can live without causing or indirectly helping to cause the death of another living organism.



report abuse
 

Gus diZerega

posted October 12, 2010 at 11:56 am


So, Mr. Incredible, the aborted fetus goes to hell?



report abuse
 

Gus diZerega

posted October 12, 2010 at 12:09 pm


Martha-
“Baiting” is not what is going on here.
So-called “pro-life” people
1. Applaud terrorist actions against abortion centers and the murder that results.
2. Think the intensity of their belief trumps everyone else’s beliefs, and so they have the right to force their twaddle down others’ throats. They picked the battle after choice finally arrived for women. As has been made clear in comments here, as well as in the Old Testament, their belief is not even rooted firmly in Jewish tradition. Apparently their supposedly powerful God can’t handle things on His own as allegedly once did.
3. Accuse others of murder.
4. Have poisoned public discussion in this country.
5. In their self-rightwous pride they think they speak for God.
6. Very very often support torture, aggressive war, and severe punishment against actual human beings. In other words, they are objectively pro-death, as the post immediately below indicated.
7. Have beliefs that are a tissue of absurdities, as an unpacking of the original sin concept as it applies or does not apply to fetuses would demonstrate. When others showing your beliefs are twaddle is “baiting” then it is time to keep your beliefs to yourself.
People only have a right to be let alone in their beliefs when they let others alone. If they minded their own business I would ignore them. They don’t and are threat to every woman’s life and health.



report abuse
 

mouseytalons

posted October 12, 2010 at 1:22 pm


paganster & snoozepossom,
Thank You for your comments. I realize those experiences will never go away, I only hope my story will help others to understand that noone ever enters this decision lightly or without thought for the physical, mental, emotional, and In my opinion, most importantly, spiritual consequences.
Blessings.



report abuse
 

Jacob

posted October 12, 2010 at 1:33 pm


I think babies are born innocent thanks to Christ.



report abuse
 

Gus diZerega

posted October 12, 2010 at 2:00 pm


Is fetus innocent in the same way? One that consists of a few cells? Did Christ save it, otherwise it would be a sinner?



report abuse
 

WarriorPrincessDanu

posted October 13, 2010 at 10:15 pm


The understanding I have gleaned from spending time around Baptists in Texas is that the fetus inherits original sin at conception. Unless you *consciously* ask Jesus for forgiveness, original sin will send you to hell. Thus abortion is wrong because it forces the fetus (who cannot make any conscious decisions) to go to hell.
Though I don’t agree with it, this theory is a little more coherent. Of course, this also means that miscarriages, still-borns, and infants/toddlers who die also go to hell. At least that’s what a consistent theory would say. It’s not very appealing, and I suspect that church leaders came up with stuff about “innocence” and “limbo” to keep from losing followers, thus making the theory incoherent.



report abuse
 

Gus diZerega

posted October 14, 2010 at 1:11 am


THAT is why I asked the question. Christians say they worship a God of love. People with this point of view worship a demon claiming to be God. They are followers of Sauron. Had they open hearts they would reject it in a flash. They don’t.
Maybe this is why they have not answered mu question? Hey ‘pro-lifers’ – is Warrior Princess wrong, or do you worship a demon?



report abuse
 

Slaine

posted October 16, 2010 at 2:23 pm


I am new to reading your blog, and this is fascinating. Danu I did not know that, and now a lot more of the reasoning of the Christians make sense to me. Though it seems crazy to me: that would be a Sauron type god.
A little story: I had a friend that I helped out in life, in many ways. I thought our friendship was fine. Then one day, out of the blue, she called me, blasting me for being pagan and saying I was going to hell. She had a boyfriend who was a fundie, she had become one, and she, with his help, realized I was satanic. So that was the end of our long-term friendship. I was upset, but life goes on.
A year later she calls me again out of the blue. Wanting to be my friend again. I try not to be a bitter person, so I cautiously let her back in a bit. Then I find out why she wants to be my friend again. *cue the irony type music*
She was pregnant. Her uber Christian boyfriend had dumped her on the spot. Her church lookws at unmarried pregnant women with disdain. Her extremely religious family would have disowned her. So she called the one person who would not judge her: me. I talked to her about all her options, and recommended adoption as that would fit in with her religion and circumstances. I told her I would support her as much as I could financially and emotionally with adoption or keeping the child. My concern was the baby. I also told her I knew a good abortion provider if that was her choice. That was her choice, and she wanted it quick, before she showed.
As I drove her to the clinic (I took care of her before and after), and asked her again if she could live with her choice. She emphatically said yes. And then I did the only preaching I did the entire time: I told her that the President she voted for, W. Bush, would have done anything in his power to take this right from her, forcing her to have a child, while also cutting programs to help her and her child. I asked her the think of that. Anyway, the abortion went fine.
A couple of years after that she married a really nice and handsome Christian guy, one I helped her find him on a dating site, and was there thoughtout the dating, engagement, wedding planning. She was getting along with her family, due to advice, me, her pagan friend, gave her. It was a beautiful wedding, and a year later they had a healthy baby boy. They were quite happy.
Our friendship ended when she called me one day and told me she had voted for W. for the second time, because he was a good Christian man, I was a devil worshipper, and women shouldn’t have the right to abortion, even though she was glad she had one. I was stunned, and I moved out of her life, quietly letting the relationship die. I was just tired of talking to her. I was already moving away and changing my number anyway, so that was easy. I just thought she was, well, crazy.
Two years later she had found my new address (I still don’t know how) and send me a long letter asking for us to be friends again, because she was in another situation where she needed my advice. Then two more letters.
I never answered any of them. This has been similar to my experience to most right wing Christians I know, and I don’t have them in my life anymore, but I also wish them well.
Well away from me, that is.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted October 16, 2010 at 9:54 pm


Mr. Incredible:
Your little post has just continued to support the decision I made as a 17 year old—-leaving Christianity. I’m over 60, so that was a long time ago. No baby is born in sin—that is so much BS. You are basically saying that a zygote, embryo, fetus and ultimately a baby, is “bad” or sinful, as you would probably prefer to say, unless they are “born again.” BS. Thank you, but being born once was just fine.
mouseytelons: If your experience help one person who reads them, that is a plus. I wish you the best. You seem to be a strong, caring woman, and the world could use more like you. Good Night.



report abuse
 

Cheryl Hill

posted October 16, 2010 at 10:57 pm


Slaine, that’s a fascinating and enlightening story.
Although not to the extent that you encountered it, I’ve had similar experiences with Christians who needed my help, both mundane and magickal. I used to help them – sometimes – but not anymore. I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t want to be around most of them.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the ONLY Way to the Father!

posted October 18, 2010 at 6:27 am


pagansister says:
Mr. Incredible:
Your little post has just continued to support the decision I made as a 17 year old—-leaving Christianity.
Mr. Incredible says:
You can’t blame me.
pagansister says:
I’m over 60…
Mr. Incredible says:
Oh, well, now we understand.
pagansister says:
No baby is born in sin—that is so much BS.
Mr. Incredible says:
Essentially, the Word of God says that, thanks to Adam and Eve, we, outta the gate, retain sin. God gives us a way out, through Christ. If you don’t take His offer of Reconciliation, you retain that Original Sin.
pagansister says:
You are basically saying that a zygote, embryo, fetus and ultimately a baby, is “bad” or sinful, as you would probably prefer to say, unless they are “born again.” BS.
Mr. Incredible says:
Take it up with Jesus. HE said that you must be born again. If you want not to be born again, that’s YOUR prob.
pagansister says:
Thank you, but being born once was just fine.
Mr. Incredible says:
We’ll see what you think on Judgment Day. I’ll buy a ticket to see the look on your face.

JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD OVER THE HILLS AND THROUGH THE VALLEYS, TROUNCING GIANTS !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name, the ONLY Name by which we must be saved!

posted October 18, 2010 at 6:35 am


Jacob says:
I think babies are born innocent thanks to Christ.
Mr. Incredible says:
They are not. Christ says a person must be born AGAIN, of the Spirit. One cannot be born again without Knowledge – that is, of God through Christ. From His Knowledge must come Understanding/Comprehension. Only then can one be born again.
Babies are not responsible cuz they don’t have His Knowledge and are utterly incapable of getting it. Once they are capable of getting it, they are held accountable.

AND THE LIGHT SHINETH IN DARKNESS; AND THE DARKNESS COMPREHENDED IT NOT.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the ONLY Way to the Father!

posted October 18, 2010 at 6:42 am


JESUS CHRIST — THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE — THE ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER !

Gus diZerega says:
So, Mr. Incredible, the aborted fetus goes to hell?
Mr. Incredible says:
No, cuz the aborted fetus never had the opportunity to grow to the point where he is capable of getting the Knowledge of God, through Christ. Not responsible. Not accountable. True innocence.
There is a point, however, when a person becomes capable of getting His Knowledge, Understanding and Comprehension. At that point, that person is held accountable.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who has overcome the world and, through Him, we, too!

posted October 18, 2010 at 6:57 am


“THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU, THEY ARE SPIRIT, AND THEY ARE LIFE.” — Jesus

pagansister says:
Mr. Incredible:
Your little post has just continued to support the decision I made as a 17 year old—-leaving Christianity.
Mr. Incredible says:
So, to YOU, the words of the person, or persons, who persuaded you to leave Christianity were more powerful than the Word of God. That’s very telling. Had you been Christian, you would’ve never let that happen cuz Christ would have been stronger in you. That you allow that to happen means that Christ was not stronger in you, that you allowed the world to cancel out His counsel.
And, now, you’re telling me – telling US – that MY words are more powerful than the Word of God, that that person, or persons, and I have some kind-a control over you; we can make you do things and think things. If that’s the case, I want you to vote Conservative next month.
[It doesn't matter whether you vote Conservative, or not, we're gonna change things next month. It's GONNA happen.]
However, let’s be realistic – YOU decided. YOU should be big enough to except responsibility for your own decisions. Nobody forced you. Nobody can make you decide anything. You accept, or reject, ideas, based on what you wanna do, and, then, you go and do, or not do. No other person made you do, or not do. No other person made you think, or not think.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who does not take His eye off the Righteous!

posted October 18, 2010 at 7:04 am


The unborn child is human. The unborn child has forty-six chromosomes, under normal conditions, from the moment of conception, and is the product of a male human and a female human.

“THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU, THEY ARE SPIRIT, AND THEY ARE LIFE.” — Jesus



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the Light That shines on all who believe on Him!

posted October 18, 2010 at 7:05 am


CORRECTION
to except responsibility – – > to accept responsibility



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted October 22, 2010 at 11:04 pm


Mr. I:
All the stuff you posted is only more convincing that JC is one of many prophets—and no, talking to him when I don’t believe in his divinity would be really silly, huh?
And Again— babies certainly are not “sinful”. They are precious, beautiful and innocent. SIN is believing that at the minute of conception there is “sin” and the result of that conception creates a baby who is born with some divine creature condemning it for being born. That is “sin” if one wants to believe in that Christian creation.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name, the Name above ALL names that are named!

posted November 1, 2010 at 4:39 am


pagansister says:
Mr. I:
All the stuff you posted is only more convincing that JC is one of many prophets—…
Mr. Incredible says:
But the only One Who is the Son of God.
pagansister says:
…and no, talking to him when I don’t believe in his divinity would be really silly, huh?
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s not my prob.
pagansister says:
And Again— babies certainly are not “sinful”.
Mr. Incfredible says:
I never said that they are.
All of us are conceived in iniquity, born in sin, thanks to Adam and Eve. That’s why we must be born again. Those who are not born again are not saved. Simple.
pagansister says:
They are precious, beautiful and innocent.
Mr. Incredible says:
They retain original sin, thank you Adam and Eve. However, given that they are utterly incapable of “getting” the Word of God — that is, the Righteousness of God through His Word — they are saved. It is when a person gets to a point when he is able to “get” the Righteousness of God through Christ, the Word, and reject Him that they retain guilt and are not saved.
pagansister says:
SIN is believing…
Mr. Incredible asks:
According to whose definition?
“Sin,” in OUR world, is separation from God.
pagansister says:
… that at the minute of conception there is “sin”…
Mr. Incredible says:
You don’t get t’rewrite God’s rules. It may be “sin” in the eyes of the world, but not to God Who made the rules. I’ll stick with Him.
pagansister says:
…and the result of that conception creates a baby…
Mr. Incredible says:
God creates the baby, not conception.
pagansister says:
… who is born with some divine creature condemning it for being born.
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody is condemned for being born, except those who have abortions — to save their social lives — in anticipation of birth. Those who have abortions have done the condemning.
pagansister says:
That is “sin” if one wants to believe in that Christian creation.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, you portray the propaganda of Christianity, not Christianity. I’m here, thanks to God through Christ, to correct your version.



report abuse
 

Gus diZerega

posted November 1, 2010 at 12:59 pm


Mr. Incredible-
This is not a blog for one liners nor is it a blog where you are free to avoid the major questions a post raises if it’s relevant to your position. We are almost all former Christians I suspect and have heard the opinions you give over and over again. We have rejected them for REASONS. If you cannot give REASONS for your opinions, there is no point in posting as I will eventually start removing your posts.
I take it you do not believe in original sin. Correct?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the Son of God!

posted November 2, 2010 at 7:22 am


JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD OVER THE HILLS AND THROUGH THE VALLEYS, TROUNCING GIANTS !

Gus diZerega says:
Mr. Incredible-
This is not a blog for one liners…
Mr. Incredible says:
Sometimes, an answer is one line. Sometimes, it is more. It depends on a question and whether I feel my answer can be expressed briefly. I’m not here to offer dissertation.
In most cases, I pick apart a post, addressing the elements, the main points. There’s no sense in answering a statement of twenty-five components and taking thirty-five paragraphs to do it. I answer them one at a time. That’s my method. Others have their methods. I’m not required to like their methods, and they are not required to like my methods.
Gus diZerega says:
…nor is it a blog where you are free to avoid the major questions a post raises if it’s relevant to your position.
Mr. Incredible says:
I avoid nothing. I offer responses that I feel are appropriate to the question, or statement. If somebody needs more, they can express the need to get more.
Gus diZerega says:
We are almost all former Christians…
Mr. Incredible says:
No such thing.
Gus diZerega says:
I suspect and have heard the opinions you give over and over again.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s hard to get through to some people.
In any case, when the same issues come up again and again, they require the same answers again and again, given that I have already thought of the best answers to those questions and issues.
Gus diZerega says:
We have rejected them for REASONS.
Mr. Incredible says:
I have rejected yours for REASONS.
Gus diZerega says:
If you cannot give REASONS for your opinions…
Mr. Incredible says:
I give the reasons I have. They are reasons in MY words. I get to decide how to answer a question, or address an issue.
Gus diZerega says:
…there is no point in posting…
Mr. Incredible says:
I have determined that I have a point in posting.
Gus diZerega says:
… as I will eventually start removing your posts.
Mr. Incredible says:
I don’t respond well to threats.
You’re not required to like my answers. I can’t help it you don’t. My answers will never please you. Oh, well.
I base my answers, primarily, on the Word of God. So, it’s understandable why my answers burn people’s eyes.
Gus diZerega says:
I take it you do not believe in original sin. Correct?
Mr. Incredible says:
Not correct. [Your question – "Correct?" – leaves me no option but to answer "not correct." If you wanted more, you would-a asked for more; it's up to YOU to draw me out. I'll give you that opportunity now. However, you gotta do wutchoo gotta do.]
In any case, in order to expand my answer, I would have-ta repeat what I’ve said before, and you don’t like it cuz you say you people have already settled it. So, it’s difficult to know whether you know what you’re talking about.



report abuse
 

Cheryl Hill

posted November 2, 2010 at 8:53 am


“Trouncing Giants”? Looks like your lord failed — the Giants just won the World Series ;->



report abuse
 

Gus diZerega

posted November 2, 2010 at 1:09 pm


The egotist “Mr. Incredible” has made his last post here of one liners. His exhibition of mindlessness as a key requirement to be a ‘Christian’ of the variety he represents has been a valuable reminder of why so many of us are no longer attracted to this kind off ‘religion.’ But we do not need any more reminders for the moment. All future missives from him will be deleted as I see them – until he gets over his ego trip.
Come back when you are ready to genuinely dialogue. Till then, good bye.



report abuse
 

bellamama

posted November 7, 2010 at 10:39 am


Do we remember when we live and stay in the womb? Ia there a different “world”, too? Or it just another zone as we will come to: “after life”. If there is no knowledge of pregnancy and fetal development we can claim as if we never there? I Think about this because my 9 years old daughter said as she looked at fetus picture: “No, I was not like that! I am beautiful and never looked like that!”
Let us think twice. We are created, we are lived.If there is no heaven and no hell, will we still praying for God or searching for Him? Or we will forget and don’t care for Whom we have created.There is egg before Chicken, an there is chicken that product egg> Whatever the first, there is a creator of all.
ORIGINAL SIN>>>.. ASK to GOD!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus

posted December 17, 2010 at 9:23 am


Gus diZerega says:
Come back when you are ready to genuinely dialogue.
Mr. Incredible says:
Can’t. There is no “dialogue” here unless it agrees with you.



report abuse
 

Acceber1978

posted November 29, 2013 at 1:22 am


I believe there is a point of accountability. Babies, including fetuses, inherit sin. But in 2 Samuel 12:23, King David’s infant son passes away. He had been fasting and praying for God to make it part of His will to allow it to live. But when the child dies, he resumes normal activities and people ask him why he mourned when it was alive but no longer, and he replied that he could go to the infant but the infant could not come back to him. David, in all his mistakes, was loved by God and understood God. He has certainly been with God since his death. So if he could go to the baby, then the baby is with God. I’m sure the same policy applies for mentally handicapped people as well. God has given us freewill and we decide our future. We can acknowledge that He is real and right about everything and be with Him forever, or we can think we know more than God and act like He’s not there when He really is and choose to spend eternity without Him, which is a place called Hell. God does not send people there, they send theirself there. God is merciful and just in everything He does.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting A Pagans Blog. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: The Latest on Pagan and Earth-Based Religions Happy Reading!!!

posted 9:39:40am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

Earth Day and the Sacredness of the Earth
I think Earth Day is a particularly important moment for contemplation and commitment by us Pagans.  Often American Christian critics accuse us of “pantheism,” and in a important respect they are right.  We do find the sacred, most of us, in the earth without reference to any transcendental sp

posted 11:57:03am Apr. 20, 2012 | read full post »

Instructive examples on why interfaith work is a good idea
I deeply believe the problems in our country are more of the heart than of the head. Here are some youtubes courtesy of John Morehead of the Evangelical Chapter of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy on Facebook. They speak more eloquently than anything I can write that interfaith work is a good

posted 1:08:25pm Apr. 12, 2012 | read full post »

The controversy over Pink Slime - and what it means.
The controversy over pink slime is helping educate Americans to the fact that corporations are as beneficial to agriculture as they are to politics. Tom Laskawy put it pithily: “What pink slime represents is an open admission by the food industry that it is hard-pressed to produce meat that won’

posted 4:03:07pm Apr. 11, 2012 | read full post »

How the "war on religion' backfired into a war on women
Here  is a really good article by Tina DuPuy on how the Republicans got themselves into such a mess with America's more intelligent women.  Left undiscussed is how the extreme pathological masculinity of both their deity and their leaders made that slip so very easy.

posted 12:12:35pm Apr. 11, 2012 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.