The Christian god sends aborted babies to hell.

This will be a defense of my opening in light of Pro’s rebuttal. In my opening, I made this argument:1. If aborted babies are without sin, then the Christian God does not send aborted babies to hell.2. Aborted babies are without sin.3. Therefore, the Christian God does not send aborted babies to hell.In his rebuttal, Pro conceded my first premise but disputed my second premise. I gave five arguments for the second premise that included a rebuttal to Pro’s argument against it in his opening. Let’s see how he responded.2.1 David was sinful from conceptionI argued that David’s statement was a hyperbole. Pro conceded the possibility but challenged me to give a direct reason. In fact, I did give a reason for why we should take it as hyperbole. We should take it as hyperbole because it conforms to a well-understood hyperbolic pattern—saying that somebody was born with a banjo in their hands. I also argued in subsequent points that a literal interpretation is impossible.2.2 No volitionHere, I argued that since the unborn (especially in the earliest stages of development) do not have the faculty of volition that they cannot sin. Rather than denying my argument, Pro just requests me to support my claim that sin requires the faculty of volition with scripture. The support for my claim comes from the very meaning of the words, “sin” and “volition.” Sin is when one does what they shouldn’t do (1 John 3:4) or doesn’t do what they should (James 4:17). Doing and not doing are acts of volition. One cannot obey or disobey the law without the faculty of volition.2.3 No inherited guilt.I argued this point from Ezekiel 18. Pro seems to agree with me. He even quoted the conclusion of the chapter, which says “The child will not share the guilt of the parent.” Pro’s response is that the passage does not say the unborn have no sin at all. But that response commits the strawman fallacy. The point I meant to make from Ezekiel 18 is that children do not inherit their parents sin. This point was meant to stand beside my other arguments which showed that the unborn do not commit sins. If children neither commit sins of their own (as I showed in other points), nor inherit the sins of their parents (as I showed in this point), then the unborn are sinless. So this was not a stand alone argument for the sinlessness of the unborn; rather, it was part of a cumulative case against the sinfulness of the unborn.2.4 Age of accountabilityI argued from Isaiah 7 that prior to some point after birth, people cannot choose between right and wrong and therefore cannot be guilty of sin. Pro seems to think that although the passage does support the notion that the unborn cannot “reject the wrong and choose the right,” they nevertheless can choose the wrong. But that is clearly a misunderstanding of the spirit of the passage. Granted, the passage does not explicitly say that the unborn cannot choose the wrong, but surely it is implied that they can choose neither right nor wrong because they are not moral agents.2.5 No knowledgeHere, I argued from various scripture that one cannot be guilty of sin unless they know right from wrong, and the unborn know nothing at all.The first scripture was John 9:41. Pro’s explanation of the passage seems to be consistent with mine, so I don’t know how he thinks it amounts to a rebuttal. He’s right when he says it’s about our beliefs. If we are blind in the sense that we lack knowledge, then we cannot be guilty of sin. The unborn have no beliefs, therefore no knowledge, therefore no sin.The second scripture was John 15:22 where Jesus said, “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin.” Pro argues that because Jesus is referring to the “world,” and the world includes the unborn, then Jesus must be implying that the unborn have no excuse for their sin either. But the context indicates that “world” does not refer to every living person. Rather, it refers to those to whom he spoke and those who witnessed his miracles. In verse 24, he says, “As it is, they have seen [the miracles], and yet they have hated both me and my Father.” In the New Testament, “world” hardly ever refers to every single person. It is plainly evident that no unborn person has ever seen Jesus’ miracles nor heard him speak, nor heard anything about him. They have no knowledge of Jesus because they are incapable of having knowledge. If a person who has no knowledge can have no sin, then the unborn have no sin.The third scripture was James 4:17, which says that anyone who “knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it” sins. Pro replies that it’s not the definition of a sin but only an example of it. I grant that. But sin is either doing wrong or not doing right. James 4:17 shows that before one can fail in doing right or wrong, they must first know what they ought or ought not to do. So even though James 4:17 only gives one side of the coin, it still shows that knowledge is necessary for sin.Pro’s arguments against my second premisePro says, “I never stated that passages in the Bible can't contradict each other.” However, Rule 4 says, “Assume the Bible is 100% truth.” A contradiction is a certain indication of error, so Pro must assume no contradictions in the Bible or he violates Rule 4.Pro gave seven scriptures to disprove my second premise, to wit:1) Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."I have already responded to this.2) Ephesians 2:2-3 We were by nature deserving of wrath.The “we” in this passage refers to those who, prior to conversion, were “gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts.” Obviously, that doesn’t refer to the unborn since they have no desires or thoughts.3) Genesis 8:21Genesis 8:21 contradicts Pro’s view. It says that “every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood,” not from conception.4) Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god"Pro takes “all” to mean “every single person” but “all” is used frequently in the New Testament to a limited group. For example, in Romans 5:18, it says, “Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.” If “all” means “every single person,” then this would lead to universal salvation. But Pro and I both reject universal salvation. So “all” does not mean “every single person.”5) James 1:15 "Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." Notice that death is a result of sin, hence aborted babies are sinners.This argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It goes like this:5.1 If you sin, then you die.5.2 The unborn die.5.3 Therefore, the unborn sinPro’s argument from James 1:15 is logically invalid.6) Isaiah 64:6 "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf,and like the wind our sins sweep us away." We are all unclean, including babies.Pro again mistakenly takes “all” to mean “every single person, whether born or not.” The “us” in Isaiah 64:6 refers to morally aware Israelites. The unborn are not moral agents, so they are not included.7) Romans 3:20 "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin." When we look at the god's law written in the Bible, nobody is righteous and we become conscious of our sin.Obviously, before the brain forms, the unborn cannot be conscious of sin. They can’t be conscious of anything at all. The unborn can neither obey nor disobey the law because they lack knowledge of the law and they lack the faculty of volition.ConclusionSince none of the seven scriptures Pro brought up refuted my second premise, my second premise remains unrefuted. And since Pro’s attempts to refute my arguments for the second premise all fell short, my arguments still establish that the second premise is true.