OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[BayBuck]

I don't have any issues with God's judgment of me. Indeed, what I said was, I accept whatever judgment I get. If the nature of God is as I believe, then I'm good to go... if the nature of God is such that my decision to live the way I do is not good enough for him, then so be it. Bothered? Quite the contrary. I accept my fate... why? Because I trust myself.

Ultimately your personal viewpoint on religion or spirituality is as frustrating to discuss as you seem to find those of the Christians on this board, because it is based perhaps even moreso on a completely subjective worldview: your own. I just think you have some real issues with Christianity that stem from your own life experiences, and seem to confuse much of the hypocritical behavior of various Christians with the religion/faith itself; and you tend to go very much on the defensive in any discussion regarding Christianity, as if JWins or BGrad defining the tenets of their own faith or interpretation of the Bible is some direct attempt to force you personally to accept or deny the correctness of their beliefs. These conversations, while civil and often interesting, seem to go around in the same circles every time they come up, and I just believe your own argument could be a lot more convincing if you ever used some reference point besides your own self.

 

[Jagdaddy]

It matters in how we treat each other and how one lives a moral life. If humans are no more significant than a dog, a rock, or pond scum, then how we should be expected to treat each other should be the same as those other objects. Without a divine being bestowing significance on us, then we are the same as a rock and therefore morality would be the same leading to the conclusion it is okay to destroy humans, just as it is a rock; or intentionally destroying a rock is equal to the muder.

I would submit that human history suggests that while religion can certainly restrain any given individual who would not otherwise be restrained from perpetrating atrocities, that on the whole believers treat their fellow man comparably to nonbelievers. I would also submit that evolutionary theory, God or no God, provides a simple explanation for an expectation of some level of human cooperation or restraint: I would posit that in the dim past cooperation conferred a survival advantage over going it alone, even if each individual cooperating was weaker than the lone-wolf bully, making self-restraint/long-term group thinking a characteristic that survived in the human species. You seem to be rehashing the old "I (not you specifically) wouldn't be restrained without God so clearly nobody else would be either" argument, which is one that I've never found convincing.

 

[Bleed S & G]

Of course Jesus didn't die for the non-sinner, there would be no reason for Him to since His death was THE Atoning Sacrifice. However, simply because He died for humankind doesn't mean everyone will accept the gift of justification that is extended through the act of grace.

Why do we need to accept the gift, i don't doubt that maybe we do.. but why is it necassary? Its given.. wheter or not I accept it or not, it's already given, no?

After all, Jesus did say that many are called, but few are the elect.

Agree 100& but I don't think the elect are those who make it into the kingdom. Maybe the elect are those who get to experience the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Maybe those are the saints, prophets, martyrs.. who knows.

Except Paul is very clear in Romans that not knowing the Law is not an excuse for sin and that all will be judged according to their actions regardless of their knowledge.

I may have to disagree with paul here then. If we create our own reality through our perceptions, who is to say whats wrong & right? I mean, how can a person who was born & raised in a village in the rain forest, with no knowledge of what the OT commandments were (etc. what we believe to be Gods rules) how can he be judged for murder if it wasn't wrong at all in his mind?

What about a new born, do they go to hell since they didnt accept Christs message? Or lets say a 3 year old who has sinned? An aborted fetis?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Ultimately your personal viewpoint on religion or spirituality is as frustrating to discuss as you seem to find those of the Christians on this board, because it is based perhaps even moreso on a completely subjective worldview: your own. I just think you have some real issues with Christianity that stem from your own life experiences, and seem to confuse much of the hypocritical behavior of various Christians with the religion/faith itself; and you tend to go very much on the defensive in any discussion regarding Christianity, as if JWins or BGrad defining the tenets of their own faith or interpretation of the Bible is some direct attempt to force you personally to accept or deny the correctness of their beliefs. These conversations, while civil and often interesting, seem to go around in the same circles every time they come up, and I just believe your own argument could be a lot more convincing if you ever used some reference point besides your own self.

I appreciate what you're saying here, but so as not to be misunderstood, I don't find these discussions or the "board christians" frustrating. If I did, I'd simply not talk about it here. My "issues with Chistianity" are focused here in large part because - this being a mostly Christian nation - it's the most talked about thing. But, that said, it is true that I do look at Christianity with a more critical eye than I might some other religions.

As far as defensive goes, I was hoping my posts didn't come off that way, as one of my "biggest fears" if you will is sounding A) superior or B) defensive. To me, again, this is just "talking points" stuff. I certainly don't intend to convince anyone to my way of thinking. Fact is, I engage in these discussions because it helps me to further explore/define my beliefs.

As external reference points go, I suppose that's just part of my nature. Even in college, when taking Philo courses, I had little interest in spitting out what Emmanuel Kant thought about things, and more interest in developing my thoughts about things. I suppose that sounds narcissistic, and I suppose it is, in some sense. But, because I know personally that I'm not trying to convert anyone, I don't see the need to appeal to other people's remarks on similar subjects. I mean, it honestly doesn't matter to me who agrees with me. And, of course, I agree with other people's thouhts on things as well.. I don't live in some kind of vacuum, afterall. I can listen to someone talk about an issue they are - in my estimation - educated in, and defer to their reasoning rather than commit myself to a wel thought out reasoning of my own... But, on the issue of religion, I just take it seriously enough that I trust only one authority, and that's what I think God is telling me about the nature of the universe/himself... whatever.

Anyway.... sorry if I sound "defensive" or superior.. my intention is not to convert, or to show the error in ways.... Any "frustration" in my voice here is more with A) my inability to articulate my thoughts adequately enough or B) be understood where I thought I had been clear. But, the underlying discussion itself.. to me, it's not the least bit frustrating.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

I don't understand the hang-up on the lable. I could care less who is mad, I'm more interested in ideas.

It's a C.S. Lewis, George McDowell kind of thing. Trillema and all...

 

[lvbuckeye]

The religious person says human life has significance because God gives it to us. Each religion has different explanations for it, but the significance derives from God. Now, you might say that is not an objective perspective, which I fully agree, but I would never claim it to be, nor would I require it to be.

For the non-believer, or maybe more specifically the natural materialist, subjectivity is not acceptable because they reject religious beliefs/teachings on the basis of it not being objective. If this is the requirement religion must stand upon for them, then objectivity become the requirement for them to justify significance of human life (or anything for that matter).



It matters in how we treat each other and how one lives a moral life. If humans are no more significant than a dog, a rock, or pond scum, then how we should be expected to treat each other should be the same as those other objects. Without a divine being bestowing significance on us, then we are the same as a rock and therefore morality would be the same leading to the conclusion it is okay to destroy humans, just as it is a rock; or intentionally destroying a rock is equal to the murder.

i agree. however, i would replace the word 'religious' at the beginning with 'spiritual.' religious people are the problem (see the Pharisees and Sadducees), spiritual people seek God.

 

[lvbuckeye]

I agree 100% Pleasing God, in my view, has little to do with rigid adherence to ritual and more about how you treat your fellow man.

EXACTLY. when you boil down the Ten Commandments, you only end up with two: 1) Honor the Lord your God, and 2) Love your neighbor as you love yourself. there's a reason that The Golden Rule is called as such. because it encapsulates all the other commandments.

a lot of people get hung up on all the rules in the Pentateuch, but fail to realize that a lot of those so-called arbitrary rules were really there to ensure the general health and welfare of the people. say eating pork or shellfish. there are pretty basic health issues with eating pork or shellfish that hasn't been properly prepared. God wasn't issuing those rules because He was some kind of a control freak. He was issuing them because the technology to eat clean foods didn't really exist at that time... same deal with women during their cycle, or burying your waste, or the others. the levels of cleanliness and sanitation that we take for granted today were virtually non-existant 3500 years ago.

edit: i just deleted at least 1000 words. BKB, i think that your bullshit meter has pulled a fast one on you.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

a lot of people get hung up on all the rules in the Pentateuch, but fail to realize that a lot of those so-called arbitrary rules were really there to ensure the general health and welfare of the people. say eating pork or shellfish. there are pretty basic health issues with eating pork or shellfish that hasn't been properly prepared. God wasn't issuing those rules because He was some kind of a control freak. He was issuing them because the technology to eat clean foods didn't really exist at that time... same deal with women during their cycle, or burying your waste, or the others. the levels of cleanliness and sanitation that we take for granted today were virtually non-existant 3500 years ago.

I agree with this view as it makes quite a bit of sense. It is here, and with this interpretation in mind, that I can show an example of why I believe there is wisdom in the Bible. LV notes that the technology and levels of cleanliness etc. were non-existant... I find that remark true. But, also, it would add medicine was not a practice, in those days, which was particularly accomplished at cause and effect. That is, it was virtually unknown the consequences of uncleanliness, on a "survival of the species" level. And yet, someone or some group of someones figured it out.

This also should illustrate when I say the Bible is in parts an attempt to "control" man, I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way.

edit: i just deleted at least 1000 words. BKB, i think that your bullshit meter has pulled a fast one on you.

Or you... [cue erie music] :p

Leading me to an unrelated question....

jwin.. You seem willing to believe that God talked to a man whilst in the form of a burning bush for example. What is so difficult in believing me when I say I hear God in the wind? If I set my shubbery ablaze and tell you I had a vision are you more likely to believe me because there is biblical precedent of God communicating to people in this manner?

It occurs to me maybe that's your hang up on divine or crazy... you have to reject that I hear God in the wind, or you'd have to accept me as divine (which I'm not, of course). But, of course, believing that I hear God in the wind does not lead to the conclusion that I must therefore be divine... nor does it lead to the conclusion that I must therefore be crazy.

 

[buckeyegrad]

EXACTLY. when you boil down the Ten Commandments, you only end up with two: 1) Honor the Lord your God, and 2) Love your neighbor as you love yourself. there's a reason that The Golden Rule is called as such. because it encapsulates all the other commandments.

a lot of people get hung up on all the rules in the Pentateuch, but fail to realize that a lot of those so-called arbitrary rules were really there to ensure the general health and welfare of the people. say eating pork or shellfish. there are pretty basic health issues with eating pork or shellfish that hasn't been properly prepared. God wasn't issuing those rules because He was some kind of a control freak. He was issuing them because the technology to eat clean foods didn't really exist at that time... same deal with women during their cycle, or burying your waste, or the others. the levels of cleanliness and sanitation that we take for granted today were virtually non-existant 3500 years ago.

Actually a lot of the teachings in the Torah serve a greater purpose than preserving the general health and welfare of the people. That is a modern interpretation being imposed on God's commands and doesn't arise from the text itself. Everything in the Torah goes back to those two Great Commandments. So, what does not eating pork or not getting a tatoo have to do with loving God or loving they neighbor. Well, most of these types of teachings were to prevent any form of idol worship from creeping into the lives of the Israelites; and of course, idol worship is a direct violation of loving God. Ultimately, Torah serves as a hedge of protection around the people of God (it also serves as a signpost for those seeking God). It keeps those who belong to God from going astray of God's Will and falling into violation of the two great commandments.

In John 14:15, Jesus states "If you love me, you will obey what I command." So the question becomes, what are the commands of Jesus that we should obey? What are his commands? Of course, the two great commandments provide a very nice summary of those commands, but the question remains, how do we love God with all of our heart, soul, and strength and how do we love our neighbor as ourselves in our everyday practices and living? The teachings of Torah, where these two great commandments originate, are Jesus' commandments.

Of course, due to the cross and resurrection the parts of Torah that relate to the sacrificial system are fulfilled and no longer need to be followed. However, the other parts of Torah remain in effect. This does not mean our salvation is tied to following the teachings of the Torah, but it is necessary if one wishes to live a righteous life. After all, if getting a tatoo is considered an unrighteous act in the Torah, how does Christ's death and resurrection now make it a righteous one? There is nothing in the New Testament to suggest this is what Christ did to the law.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Taking your example of a tattoo, bgrad....

You claim that getting a tattoo is cautioned against because it is a breech of God's law to worship false idols. Rather than argue about if the Bible actually supports this logic (which, I think, it could be argued is - as you mention to LV - a modern interpretation being imposed on God's commands and doesn't arise from the text itself. Of course, I would fully expect you to have citations at the ready to support where the Bible commands no tats. I'm not going to argue otherwise, I'm simply saying the idea can be argued with. I would have to do a lot more research about tattoos than I'm willing to at the moment to make any such arguement....) Back to the point...

1. Getting a tattoo is forbidden because it "encourages" false idol worship.

LV (and I) would claim (And I don't mean to put words in LVs mouth, so forgive me that, LV) that a tattoo is forbidden because - especially in 50 AD, to pick a date - they are unsanitary to recieve (and give, I figure) and getting tattooed encourages the mixing of blood (and, of course, illness, disease, etc.)

1a. Getting a tattoo is forbidden because it "encourages" unsanitary behavior and disease, illness, etc.

What are we left with where an individual gets a tattoo which is not idol worship, for example my tattoo of my daughters name on my arm... I do not "worship" her, my tattoo is for other reasons. Which have I done? broken "the law against tattooes" per se, simply because I got it, or am I still in good shape with God because I am not marked for the purposes of idol worship?

Seems to me, in LVs rationale it's not even really one of God's concerns in today's day and age of autoclaved tattooing instruments, etc. Although, I suppose in anticipation of LVs response, he'd probably agree that a tattoo recieved (given?) for the purposes of idol worship is a violation of God's law.

In any case... why the "per se" standard of No Tattoos! if the issue is really false idol worship? Is it a matter of "dumbing down the law to the 'lowest common denominator'?"

Not sure who this question is better served to, but... what about the kids game of becoming "blood brothers." What can we assume about God's treatment of this "innocent" practice?

Edit: I decided to do a quick google. Apparently Leviticus 19:28 addresses the tattoo issue directly, while some versions say, for example:

KJV - Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD

and others say, more to the point:

NASB - 'You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD

it appears to me to be a pretty clear statement (especially for the Bible).

However, it would likewise appear that the New Test (as is no surprise to me) is much less clear.....

"The body is meant for the Lord" 1 Corinthians 6:13.
"Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit." 1 Corinthians 6:19.
"You are not your own; you were bought at a price." 1 Corinthians 6:19.
"Honor God with your body." 1 Corinthians 6:20.

So, yeah, using NT text, as I suspected, it can be argued that Tattoos are still forbidden.... but, it can likewise be argued that tats are not forbidden. Take, for example, the Body is meant for the Lord. ...

OK... What could that possibly mean? Who amoung us are even qualified to presume what God should like from a body (given the only vauge remarks noted above) It is an assumption that God doesn't like body art... but upon what basis? Probably the OT text forbbing the tats in the first place.... but there again, the question we're left with there is the issue I'm talking about - the issue of per se violation(s) vs. rationale for the rule. (I should note, the NASB version lables the Tattoo part as falling under "Sundry Laws" which is right "below" "Idolry Forbidden" in the text.)

Another question, and one that to me begs for a rationale... why would God have any use for a body at all... He's a supernatural being for the love of poop...

"Honor God with your body" does that mean I'm required to join a gym and work out? Does that mean I can only eat the healthiest of foods? What about when a food the Docs told me was good for me, but later determined... whoops... not so much. Is it "honor" of the body for a woman to shave of the hair her body normally comes with? How about a man's facial hair (Seems important to some Muslims)? Isn't grooming an attempt to "impove" upon what God gave us for bodies? When I get a hair cut, havent I decided "Gosh, God, I can do better with my hair than you did, since you didnt program my hair to stop growing at a respectable professional cut." If I bathe to rid myself of my natural stink, have I defiled the word of God thru Christ? Is using deoderant unpleasing to the Lord, since it suggests MAN can come up with a better odor for himself than can(did) God?

My point is, as should be clear... seems very vauge when you think about it... and, open to interpreations..... Not unlike, I would add, my daily horosope. We're commanded, here, to do what is pleasing to God, and I think Bgrad would agree.. we're in no position as finite beings to have even the slightest hope of understanding where God comes out on the body hair issue... the bathing issue.. the grooming issue... and so on.

I anticipate the "argument from normalcy" that being, essentially, "It is normal to bathe, thus it's OK in the eyes of God" or "Historic biblical personage so and so is represented as having "washed" so it's no doubt pleasing to the Lord to be clean" These conclusions are, at their core, no more a "rightful" justification than me stating "God could give a rats ass about any of this, and these commands are - as LV indicates - attempts to "educate" people to live a "healthy" life (presumably for the purposes of being productive (and reproductive)).... or to use the words I've used on this thread, man's attempts to control man.

 

[buckeyegrad]

To specify what I was saying about tattoos. It is not that getting a tattoo is idol worship in itself. Rather, it opens oneself up to pagan practices and idol worship. As I said, Torah serves as a hedge of protection from faltering away from God; or as a signpost to God if you do not already belong to Him.

God called the Israelites, originally, and now all followers of Christ to serve as a priesthood to Him and to the nations. Part of being a member of this priesthood is the need to distinguish oneself as belonging to God and separate from the practices of the world. Hence, tattoos were forbidden to indicate the separateness and to prevent backsliding.

As for your question about "innocent" practice. What/who defines "innocent"?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

To specify what I was saying about tattoos. It is not that getting a tattoo is idol worship in itself. Rather, it opens oneself up to pagan practices and idol worship. As I said, Torah serves as a hedge of protection from faltering away from God; or as a signpost to God if you do not already belong to Him.

God called the Israelites, originally, and now all followers of Christ to serve as a priesthood to Him and to the nations. Part of being a member of this priesthood is the need to distinguish oneself as belonging to God and separate from the practices of the world. Hence, tattoos were forbidden to indicate the separateness and to prevent backsliding.

As for your question about "innocent" practice. What/who defines "innocent"?

Wow... didn't think I'd have to argue about whether children becoming "blood brothers" was innocent or not.. just the word I chose I guess... Kids don't make choices in their young days with a knowledge of what's in the Bible in mind... So.. using the definition of "ignorance" as "innocence" if you prefer...

Not sure if you saw my post after the edit... just wondering if the stuff I talk about there is of interest to you at all...

 

[Bleed S & G]

Why do we need to accept the gift, i don't doubt that maybe we do.. but why is it necassary? Its given.. wheter or not I accept it or not, it's already given, no?

I may have to disagree with paul here then. If we create our own reality through our perceptions, who is to say whats wrong & right? I mean, how can a person who was born & raised in a village in the rain forest, with no knowledge of what the OT commandments were (etc. what we believe to be Gods rules) how can he be judged for murder if it wasn't wrong at all in his mind?

What about a new born, do they go to hell since they didnt accept Christs message? Or lets say a 3 year old who has sinned? An aborted fetis?

Bgrad, would like to hear a response to this.. i've never gotten a solid answer to this and you sir, may be just the person to do so

 

[lvbuckeye]

Taking your example of a tattoo, bgrad....

You claim that getting a tattoo is cautioned against because it is a breech of God's law to worship false idols. Rather than argue about if the Bible actually supports this logic (which, I think, it could be argued is - as you mention to LV - a modern interpretation being imposed on God's commands and doesn't arise from the text itself. Of course, I would fully expect you to have citations at the ready to support where the Bible commands no tats. I'm not going to argue otherwise, I'm simply saying the idea can be argued with. I would have to do a lot more research about tattoos than I'm willing to at the moment to make any such arguement....) Back to the point...

1. Getting a tattoo is forbidden because it "encourages" false idol worship.

LV (and I) would claim (And I don't mean to put words in LVs mouth, so forgive me that, LV) that a tattoo is forbidden because - especially in 50 AD, to pick a date - they are unsanitary to recieve (and give, I figure) and getting tattooed encourages the mixing of blood (and, of course, illness, disease, etc.)

1a. Getting a tattoo is forbidden because it "encourages" unsanitary behavior and disease, illness, etc.

What are we left with where an individual gets a tattoo which is not idol worship, for example my tattoo of my daughters name on my arm... I do not "worship" her, my tattoo is for other reasons. Which have I done? broken "the law against tattooes" per se, simply because I got it, or am I still in good shape with God because I am not marked for the purposes of idol worship?

Seems to me, in LVs rationale it's not even really one of God's concerns in today's day and age of autoclaved tattooing instruments, etc. Although, I suppose in anticipation of LVs response, he'd probably agree that a tattoo recieved (given?) for the purposes of idol worship is a violation of God's law.

In any case... why the "per se" standard of No Tattoos! if the issue is really false idol worship? Is it a matter of "dumbing down the law to the 'lowest common denominator'?"

Not sure who this question is better served to, but... what about the kids game of becoming "blood brothers." What can we assume about God's treatment of this "innocent" practice?

Edit: I decided to do a quick google. Apparently Leviticus 19:28 addresses the tattoo issue directly, while some versions say, for example:

KJV - Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD

and others say, more to the point:

NASB - 'You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD

it appears to me to be a pretty clear statement (especially for the Bible).

However, it would likewise appear that the New Test (as is no surprise to me) is much less clear.....

"The body is meant for the Lord" 1 Corinthians 6:13.
"Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit." 1 Corinthians 6:19.
"You are not your own; you were bought at a price." 1 Corinthians 6:19.
"Honor God with your body." 1 Corinthians 6:20.

So, yeah, using NT text, as I suspected, it can be argued that Tattoos are still forbidden.... but, it can likewise be argued that tats are not forbidden. Take, for example, the Body is meant for the Lord. ...

OK... What could that possibly mean? Who amoung us are even qualified to presume what God should like from a body (given the only vauge remarks noted above) It is an assumption that God doesn't like body art... but upon what basis? Probably the OT text forbbing the tats in the first place.... but there again, the question we're left with there is the issue I'm talking about - the issue of per se violation(s) vs. rationale for the rule. (I should note, the NASB version lables the Tattoo part as falling under "Sundry Laws" which is right "below" "Idolry Forbidden" in the text.)

Another question, and one that to me begs for a rationale... why would God have any use for a body at all... He's a supernatural being for the love of poop...

"Honor God with your body" does that mean I'm required to join a gym and work out? Does that mean I can only eat the healthiest of foods? What about when a food the Docs told me was good for me, but later determined... whoops... not so much. Is it "honor" of the body for a woman to shave of the hair her body normally comes with? How about a man's facial hair (Seems important to some Muslims)? Isn't grooming an attempt to "impove" upon what God gave us for bodies? When I get a hair cut, havent I decided "Gosh, God, I can do better with my hair than you did, since you didnt program my hair to stop growing at a respectable professional cut." If I bathe to rid myself of my natural stink, have I defiled the word of God thru Christ? Is using deoderant unpleasing to the Lord, since it suggests MAN can come up with a better odor for himself than can(did) God?

My point is, as should be clear... seems very vauge when you think about it... and, open to interpreations..... Not unlike, I would add, my daily horosope. We're commanded, here, to do what is pleasing to God, and I think Bgrad would agree.. we're in no position as finite beings to have even the slightest hope of understanding where God comes out on the body hair issue... the bathing issue.. the grooming issue... and so on.

I anticipate the "argument from normalcy" that being, essentially, "It is normal to bathe, thus it's OK in the eyes of God" or "Historic biblical personage so and so is represented as having "washed" so it's no doubt pleasing to the Lord to be clean" These conclusions are, at their core, no more a "rightful" justification than me stating "God could give a rats ass about any of this, and these commands are - as LV indicates - attempts to "educate" people to live a "healthy" life (presumably for the purposes of being productive (and reproductive)).... or to use the words I've used on this thread, man's attempts to control man.

well...not...exactly... because the NT clearly states that the body is the temple of the Lord. the Lord doesn't live in a church, He lives in our hearts. at the same time, when Christ died, He fulfilled every single part of the Law, which is why we now live under Grace. so from a technical standpoint, getting some innocent ink doesn't preclude our salvation, BUT it also doesn't give us carte blanche to go around doing whatever we want. Paul addresses this issue in Romans when he writes "What shall we say then? shall we continue in sin that Grace may abound? God forbid! how can we that are dead to sin live in it any longer?" (6:1) and again in Corinthians when he writes that "all is lawful for me, but not all is expedient." so, knowing what i know, would i REALLY want to face Christ with some skulls surrounded by flames painted all over my arms? generally, the vast majority of tattoo designs are of occult origin.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Bgrad, would like to hear a response to this.. i've never gotten a solid answer to this and you sir, may be just the person to do so

the Bible specifically mentions an age of accountability. i don't think they go straight to heaven, and i don't think they go straight to hell.