- Saving a child from starvation
- Saving a child from atheism, and with that saving the child from 'Hell'
I'm just curious...
2007-03-11 16:09:46 · 36 answers · asked by ? 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Saving a child from starvation.
Saving a child from atheism (this is a weird way to talk about salvation, btw) is ultimately God's job. I believe it is vital to the long-term safety of the soul, and whatever influence I can have toward that end is important. But I have no power to make it happen.
Feeding a starving child is something I can and must do. And something I am commanded by God to do. (Even if it was my enemy, and not an innocent child, I would be obligated to feed him if he was hungry.)
I cannot feed starving children with the intent of coercing them to believe, either. I believe God gives us free will to choose Him. I have to respect that free will as well.
Would I teach the child I feed? Sure, if it was appropriate. But I wouldn't cease to feed a child because he/she wasn't doing what I want, or believing what I believe. I have an obligation to do both because I do believe in hell and wouldn't want anyone to go there. I don't have the right to ignore the physical needs because I believe spiritual needs are more important. They are not mutually exclusive.
No heart is won by manipulation. If I love others, I will do what is best for them whether I approve of what they do or not. If by that love they are persuaded, all the better.
2007-03-12 06:47:42 · answer #1 · answered by Contemplative Chanteuse IDK TIRH 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Tough one.
Saving a child from starvation because then you have planted that seed. Not only are you saving them from a physical starvation, but a spiritual starvation as well. And in that, they'll want to tell everyone so then the word is spread farther and the act can be more relative to everyone the child speaks with.
2007-03-11 16:15:27 · answer #2 · answered by MAC 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The former is a matter of urgent need. This is something I can do for the child. Bringing food to a starving child and saving him from dying due to starvation is within my power.
The latter is a matter of the morals where the child needs to make a decision. I do not have the power to save a child from eternal hell. I can only persuade him of the truth of the Gospel and pray that he will believe and save himself from hell.
Both are different things altogether. To put them as equal choices to be decided upon is IMO an absurd proposition.
2007-03-11 16:18:39 · answer #3 · answered by Seraph 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I expect that if the child is being saved from starvation it is probably because of the Christian people that are heavily involved in the medical work and other projects helping others. It is just the way we are. Mmm
2007-03-12 10:21:56 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Another great post. Let's out the hypocrites while we can. How many people contradict themselves today? Start counting...
(Oh, and starvation. Of course!)
I...oh...(turning green)... oh, heck... ~~*vomits*~~
Are THIS many people so ignorant that they would rather see a child die then not repent to the almighty Lord?! TO THE CHRISTIANS WHO ANSWERED "SAVE THE CHILD FROM HELL" - So many of you tell me I can't compare science and fact with faith yet you would let a child (or anyone for that matter) starve to death just to prove a point? Wow. If your God exists, and is what you say he is, he's should be sending you all to hell for your mass ignorance. Such self-righteouness and complete inhumanity I haven't seen in a while (well, like 2 questions ago, maybe, but this is the worst). Suffer the little children, indeed.
2007-03-11 16:14:33 · answer #5 · answered by Me, Thrice-Baked 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
First of all you save the child from starving. Then when the child is healthy, you can work on the religion part of his or her life. You have to set a good example for the child to follow. You need a good based church to go to and that will helpthe child to learn the ways of the lord. God Be with you and your child and your family.
2007-03-11 16:18:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Both are important and urgent - if you could do both, do it... there is no either .. or ... helping one way or the other is not mutually exclusive
The physical and material help is just another sign of the compassion and neighbourly love Christians (should) display.
Ultimately I guess - living here in the US in abundance - it is soooo easy for most of us to just ignore starving and dying kids in the world -
no excuse for us not to do anything.
However, being saved through Jesus Christ gets you eternal life in heaven, isn't that a great perspective ?
God Bless you
2007-03-11 17:08:02 · answer #7 · answered by ralfbless 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Children aren't responsible for their decisions until they reach the age of accountability. The child isn't going to Hell any way, so the point is moot. He isn't capable of fully understanding what it means to reject Christ as his Savior.
And since we're supposed to take care of those who are in need as if they were Christ Himself Who was hungry or thirsty or in need of warm clothing, I'd say saving the child from starvation takes precedence.
2007-03-11 16:21:31 · answer #8 · answered by Wolfeblayde 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you get involved in your own church and practice your faith by paying your tithe, and offerings to feed the poor and needy you will be saving MANY children from starvation and spiritually.
One person can make a difference.
2007-03-11 16:16:50 · answer #9 · answered by pattycakes 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You can save a child from starvation, but you can't save a child from hell. That's the Holy Spirits job through Jesus Christ.
2007-03-11 16:16:24 · answer #10 · answered by Fish <>< 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋