When people become aware I'm a Christian some will curb, lessen, or apologize for their F-word or S-H word usage around me because they think it offends me. I appreciate their consideration. However, they'll go right on with their exclamations of "Oh my God!" and "Jesus Christ!" to indicate surprise, astonishment, or disgust - obviously not intending to invoke the Lord's help or reference him in any reverential way. Sometimes they'll even use those words ("Oh my God!, "God!" etc.) and I'll have no idea why they're using them - other than perhaps as filler words. Believe it or not, the typical "4-letter" swear words don't offend me at all. They're nothing but coarse and profane language - even though It's better not to use them in polite company. Using God's name in an empty and/or flippant way however makes me wince. It something's going to offend, it's going to be that.
I'm convinced many believe those empty references to God are totally benign, morally-neutral, and non-offensive - because after all, they don't "mean anything" by it. That's precisely the point though: If they don't mean anything by their usage, it is a vain (i.e. empty, worthless) usage and thus a direct violation of The Third Commandment's "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."(Ex. 20:7) Even when we remember the first part of that commandment, we tend to forget the second part, don't we? The second part ("...for the LORD will not hod him guiltless...") should really drive home the fact that this is serious stuff; the words we use have consequences even if the people around us might not care.
I have the same attitude and response regarding empty, ceremonial prayers. I'd rather there be no prayer at all than it be one of these prayers. Unfortunately this type of prayer is the preferred type of prayer by politicians and at political functions. It's the PC prayer. It's the prayer that by it's invocation of no God in particular in fact invokes no God at all. If you take Jesus Christ out, if you ignore the actual character of God and make him a bland old nice Grandpa-type God and ask His blessing on things and actions which Scripture clearly militates against - it can't be anything else than a stench in His nose and a heaping up of wrath. It's using His name in a vain and worthless way - at the very least.
Daytime TV and the general population now finds vain usage of the Lord's name perfectly acceptable - but in the final analysis it is a much more serious thing than the crude 4-letter swear words you think are so much worse. Somehow even the Christian community has seemed to have forgotten this. As for me, I'd much rather raise up children who occasionally use typical 4-letter swear words than children who think lightly of treading God's name underfoot and who think nothing of it when they hear it done. American culture and even the church (generally) seem to care more about propriety and fitting in with polite society and current cultural mores than we do about the Law of God. Christians, we need to reassess our commitments and attitudes. We can start with ourselves and our families.
The "Do babies go to heaven?" question ranks up there with "Is my grandma/grandpa/mom/dad/loved one in hell?" as the most uncomfortable for serious Christians to be asked. A common answer when the question is asked about unbelieving adults is "I don't know...God will judge." While this is a true answer - as far as it goes - , it often ignores serious issues and the logical implications (if we trust Scripture) of things we already might know beyond a reasonable doubt, so in this way it's somewhat deceptive. What's even worse is an assumption that the "good" unbelieving deceased is automatically is in a "better place" by virtue of dying - as if death itself is the only prerequisite for eternal happiness. Well, the "better place" answer is used for just about everyone except really "bad" (as we deem them) people such as Hitler et. al. - as if the rest of mankind is basically "good" and surely have earned the right to eternal happiness/heaven - or at least "a better place." We lie to ourselves so badly! Such answers may be comforting to the grieved, but when we are pretty darn sure the deceased had no love of God or trust in Jesus as Mediator/Savior/Lord our answers are non-thinking at best - lies at worst. Does it really please God to ignore what we supposedly believe to be true about Scripture, death, heaven, and hell - and give ourselves or others false assurance? For an issues as serious as God, salvation, and eternal destinies, I am convinced it does not.
This is a indeed a very sensitive and emotionally-laden topic. When the heaven question concerns babies and the unborn it is even more sensitive. We are faced with the difficulty of these precious human beings (as far as we know) never having heard or accepted the gospel. We sidestep this frequently sidestep this difficulty because we perceive them to be "innocent" - so they must go to heaven, right? The big problem with this is that they're not innocent. They are innocent on a human scale - but they are not innocent on a cosmic scale; they are not innocent before God. If they are human beings, they are "in Adam" and as such have sinned in Adam and are guilty before God. This is the doctrine of Original Sin I'm referring to. Either Adam somehow represented all mankind in the garden as our federal head and thus we all not only inherit a sin nature but also guilt before God - or we (all humanity) were in some sense actually there in the garden, sinning with Adam and becoming guilty that way. Many professing Christians today find this doctrine distasteful, but they can't escape the fact that it has been part of historical Christian belief since at least Augustine. I would argue that it was part of Christian belief since Paul, and before that, Jesus - but the doctrine became more officially recognized with Augustine. Since that time, those who would deny the doctrine of Original Sin were seen as outside the faith and not Christian at all. If, as a Christian you deny original sin and original guilt you must realize you are putting yourself outside the sphere of historical Christian orthodoxy and into a realm of thought both Catholics and Protestants have rejected throughout history. This should at least give you pause.
Another big problem with the "all infants and/or all aborted children go to heaven argument" is that it puts us into the position of either (logically) hoping to be barren (so that we are not bringing into the world any who will go to hell - OR (logically) hoping our unborn and born babies will somehow die so that they will have a 100% chance of going to heaven - since heaven is infinitely better than this life. This might not only be mistaken thinking, but also dangerous thinking. Think of Andrea Yates and the bathtub drownings of her infants for instance. Thankfully, most parents who take this position are not as consistent as Yates! We have children and pray they will LIVE. We teach, train, and pray for them. We rejoice when they show reasoning capability to make important decisions rather than lament because this would mean a greater chance of hell due to greater accountability. Do we pray that our children will be severely mentally disabled so that they will be "innocent" like a child and therefore go to heaven? Concerning accountability, many Christians will also posit the idea of an "age of accountability" before which time a person is not accountable to God for their sins because of not having the level of understanding supposedly needed to be accountable for wrongdoing. They say that those who die before this age (usually said to be thirteen) will go to heaven. Biblical support of this is weak - and, furthermore the "age of accountability" doctrine should be suspect because it would necessarily compromise the more universally recognized and historic doctrine of Original Sin.
So, do all children and unborn who die go to hell? No, I don't think they do. I can't prove it - but I would say "no." The case of King David's deceased son "...I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." (2 Sam 12:22-23) might be evidence for babies (at least some) going to heaven. I think that it is - but I don't think it provides airtight proof that all unborn, babies, or children do. My wife and I have suffered a miscarriage - so the whole issue of babies going to heaven is not just an abstract and academic topic with us. It is emotional and personal as well. We hope that our miscarried child is like King David's young son that died by God's command and that we will someday meet our child in heaven. Even with this being said, I have to say the "all...go to heaven" argument has significant difficulties - and some caution and prudence is needed because of these difficulties. We go to heaven because of the work of Christ - not our own work or any perceived innocence we could attribute to ourselves. A heaven-bound baby who dies in the womb, in infancy, or later as a child will go there (heaven) because of the work of Christ. The usual mechanism for being joined to His saving work is personal faith in Him and His work. However, at the core, it is all due to Him - His work. He saves us. In the end we must simply trust in God and His Purpose - and that He will do whatever is right. We do not see the big picture. We see only part. He however sees the whole picture - the whole plan. He not only sees it but he made it. His ways are higher than our ways. As God and judge of the whole earth and of all creation, He only does those things which are right. It comforts me to leave it at that.
The Star Wars stormtrooper has a measure of popularity the clone trooper does not have. I think one of the reasons is that while the clone trooper is a genetically-engineered super-soldier, the stormtrooper, coming later at the time of the empire, is a more "normal" human conscript or volunteer - like you or I would be. He is not genetically perfect and he most likely doesn't like all of his job or the policies of the empire he works for - and from which he gets his paycheck. In comparison, the Jedi is awesome and has super-type powers. The sith is terrifically evil - and wields special power too. Most of us can't closely identify with either. The stormtrooper is like us - no special powers, imperfect aim, and just trying to make the best out of his respective duty station while keeping a clear enough conscious to be able to sleep at night.
