First nowhere does God tell us that 'the end justifies the means' even if abortions did result in souls going to heaven, that doesnt justify the murder of babies.

I don't see why not. One who kills fetuses and babies does them a favor! It's not murder if one simply gets to go straight to heaven. In fact, they are much better off in a couple ways. 1) They don't have to worry about being tempted during this life, sinning, etc. and ending up in hell. 2) They get to go straight to paradise, thus avoiding suffering in this world.

What you are proposing is a god that insists that children have the ability to suffer and be led astray, even though he claims that he desires all to be with him.

Plus, god is still unjust and Jesus didn't die for everyone's sins.

I'm not sure what the Catholic Chruches opinion of baptism has to do with their view on original sin.

To be honest I'm not certain on modern Catholic theology. I do know that the 'precident' interpertation of OS goes back at least to shortly after the 'Great schism' the Eastern Orthedox church declared it heracy, while the Catholic Church seemed a little more indecisive and allowed both the 'inhereted' and 'precident' views to exist, though I'm not certain if they ever settled on one.

As far as abortions saving souls goes I have two things to say on that

First nowhere does God tell us that 'the end justifies the means' even if abortions did result in souls going to heaven, that doesnt justify the murder of babies.

Secondly, unlike fundies, I dont claim to be 100% certain on when the soul enters the body. Actually the uncertainty is the reason I'm completely pro-life.

FWIW, your assessment of the Age of Accountability is spot-on.

Besides, if we are punished only for our own sins and babies get a "get out of hell free" card, then abortions are saving many souls! Hooray for abortions! One who performs abortions should be a hero for saving many, many souls (the more abortions the better). Oh, and god is not omni-max.

As for why you should care: Well as athiest you really dont need to. From a Christian perspective, on one level we really dont need to either, we're punished for our own sins, not what others living years ago did. But otoh, its not the least bit unhelpful to know where the precident of sin and punishment started.

Yes I did what do you think I ment when I said:

It has to do with A+E setting a pattern, a precident if you will of sin, and punishment. Ie. before they sinned there was no such thing as 'sin'

No, just because some Christians disagree doesnt make them right.

Your comments were that they are wrong, and that a description of original sin that is in the mainstream was wrong. Those are the comments I refer to here.

Children too young to take responsibility for their actions are not held accountable for them. Ie. they are not in need of a savior.

Then abortionists are really angels, god is not just, and Jesus did die for EVERYONE'S sins.

No I do not. It's in line with the way many Christians understand the doctrine. But not the way I do.

Considering that you can't (at least haven't) explicated what original sin is according to your beliefs, and considering that the mainstream and historical view is as described, I think you should be more careful about what you label as wrong in regards to this issue.

No, just because some Christians disagree doesnt make them right.

Yes, I am, and I fail to see how it is justified with the concept of Jesus dying for the sins of everyone.

Children too young to take responsibility for their actions are not held accountable for them. Ie. they are not in need of a savior.

But, you do agree that it's in line with the concept of original sin, do you not?

No I do not. It's in line with the way many Christians understand the doctrine. But not the way I do.

Yes and those sects are mistaken. Your point?

Your comments regarding original sin are in error then, at least for some (many/most?) Xians.

Ok I see your point now. However I think the latter half of your sentence is debateable. Are you familar with the 'age of accountability' doctrine?

Yes, I am, and I fail to see how it is justified with the concept of Jesus dying for the sins of everyone. It's an ad hoc rationalization to account for the uncomfortable position of having to say that infants go to hell.

All of this stems from the idea that a newborn baby is in need of savior, which I dont agree with.

But, you do agree that it's in line with the concept of original sin, do you not? Simply because you have re-defined the concept of original sin doesn't mean that you are right, that when we talk about it we should accept your definition, etc.

Yes and those sects are mistaken. Your point?

Not only are you splitting hairs, but the general position is that all humans need a savior. This includes babies who have not yet attained an age where it can be said that they have sinned.

Ok I see your point now. However I think the latter half of your sentence is debateable. Are you familar with the 'age of accountability' doctrine?

C'mon, this is Xian theology 101 stuff. If a baby who just came from the womb needs a savior, it must be because the baby is sinful. But, what has a baby that has just been born done in order to be regarded as sinful? This comes from original sin. The baby is tainted with the sin of Adam and Eve such that no one is born without some taint of sin and therefore all need saving.

All of this stems from the idea that a newborn baby is in need of savior, which I dont agree with.