Using pascals wager and christianity to kill babies

[CShephard53]

Ok, well maybe baptism doesn't allow a baby to go to heaven after death, however my point still stands that it is unjust to send a baby to hell after death.

How is it unjust? They've sinned, have they not? Regardless of whether or not we think they 'know better', the fact remains that sin brings death.

 

[Hentenza]

Closing thread for staff review.

 

[stumpjumper]

Thread moved to Ethics and Morality for the time being.

 

[Verv]

First, Pascal's wager does not work. If you have illegitimate faith in God, then what does that bode for you? Pascal even said that his wager did not really make sense but was rather a ploy to get people to get started into really looking to God.

Lastly...

That is ridiculous.

There are many people that believe babies are essentially neutral, and more than that, an omnipotent God would still be able to judge the babies because he would know the sort of lives they would lead or He could merely have them reborn in different bodies.

It doesn't make sense.

I do not see God saying,

"Oh, crap! These guys got it figured out! Now I'll never be able to weed out good people from bad people because they're killing all of their children into extinction! .. Oh well, guess I'll let all the people into Heaven and call it a day."

The whole thing depends on the idea that God automatically sends kids to heaven which really is not rooted in any good theology but rather the perceptions of your Mom calling babies 'little angels.'

 

[deathduck]

First, Pascal's wager does not work. If you have illegitimate faith in God, then what does that bode for you? Pascal even said that his wager did not really make sense but was rather a ploy to get people to get started into really looking to God.

Lastly...

That is ridiculous.

There are many people that believe babies are essentially neutral, and more than that, an omnipotent God would still be able to judge the babies because he would know the sort of lives they would lead or He could merely have them reborn in different bodies.

It doesn't make sense.

I do not see God saying,

"Oh, crap! These guys got it figured out! Now I'll never be able to weed out good people from bad people because they're killing all of their children into extinction! .. Oh well, guess I'll let all the people into Heaven and call it a day."

The whole thing depends on the idea that God automatically sends kids to heaven which really is not rooted in any good theology but rather the perceptions of your Mom calling babies 'little angels.'

So what your saying is, now Christianity involves reincarnation, because that is the only acceptable remedy for this situation?

The baby going to hell is not fair, for obvious reasons (which I have already gone over).

Now the baby going to heaven is not fair, because god won't allow himself to be fooled.

So then, babies who once belong to one family and die, are then transplanted into another family by god so he can save some face on his ridiculous eternal punishment system he has going?

Really, that is a leap of faith and it's not even in the bible. The reality is, you need an answer for what happens to dead babies, and while the bible does not provide any clear answers, ALL possible outcomes make no sense.

 

[cantata]

Seems to me it's practically the duty of all non-Christians to kill all Christians asap so that they can't convert to the wrong faith before they die.

Honestly. Isn't religion ridiculous?

 

[Futuwwa]

Try telling a grieving mother that her dead baby is in hell because she was too slow to baptize it. This is just not fair and I would expect better from god. Because of this, we can assume babies go to heaven, but either case supports my main argument (hell does not exist).

This is quite a jump of logic.

How does the evilness of God in a particular religious doctrine prove that doctrine to be false?

 

[cantata]

This is quite a jump of logic.

How does the evilness of God in a particular religious doctrine prove that doctrine to be false?

Indeed.

It all works out fine if God's really unpleasant, but most Christians seem to want to say that he's a nice guy, or at least a just one. And it seems to me that torturing slaughtered babies for eternity is a lot more unjust than killing them in the first place.

 

[Futuwwa]

But it kind of follows directly from a doctrine which explicitly teaches that 1) everyone is born with inherited sin, 2) that sin leads to Hell, and 3) that conscious repentance is the only way to avoid it.

Personally I have found that accepting a bit of grimness into my view of God does wonders at dispelling theological problems. But then, I don't believe in inherited sin in the first place.

 

[CShephard53]

Seems to me it's practically the duty of all non-Christians to kill all Christians asap so that they can't convert to the wrong faith before they die.

Honestly. Isn't religion ridiculous?

No. How men treat religion is ridiculous.

 

[CShephard53]

So what your saying is, now Christianity involves reincarnation, because that is the only acceptable remedy for this situation?

I think you're again reading into things. They were giving a hypothetical under YOUR logic. See where it goes?

The baby going to hell is not fair, for obvious reasons (which I have already gone over).

You have gone over no such thing. You have only offered assumptions and jumps in logic. And the jump in logic was based on the assumption.

Now the baby going to heaven is not fair, because god won't allow himself to be fooled.

And your point?

So then, babies who once belong to one family and die, are then transplanted into another family by god so he can save some face on his ridiculous eternal punishment system he has going?

See how ridiculous your argument looks to us now? It contains no logic. It contains a bunch of assumptions and jumps in logic. You've had more than one person pointing this out.

Really, that is a leap of faith and it's not even in the bible.

The reality is, you need an answer for what happens to dead babies, and while the bible does not provide any clear answers, ALL possible outcomes make no sense.

No, YOU need an answer. I'm content not knowing, as are many other Christians. There's quite a few things we don't know. I'm fine with that, you're not. You felt the need to come on here and propose solutions to the problems that come from guessing. That has happened because you reject God and do not have the Holy Spirit. You do not have understanding because of this.

 

[Bombila]

Even if killing babies eliminated their risk of going to hell, it would be counterproductive in that, if practiced 'religiously', soon Christians would have wiped themselves out. I believe the Shakers did that less violently by refusing to have any children at all (I am not sure about the Shakers and haven't time to research right now.)

 

[Verv]

So what your saying is, now Christianity involves reincarnation, because that is the only acceptable remedy for this situation?

The baby going to hell is not fair, for obvious reasons (which I have already gone over).

Now the baby going to heaven is not fair, because god won't allow himself to be fooled.

So then, babies who once belong to one family and die, are then transplanted into another family by god so he can save some face on his ridiculous eternal punishment system he has going?

Really, that is a leap of faith and it's not even in the bible. The reality is, you need an answer for what happens to dead babies, and while the bible does not provide any clear answers, ALL possible outcomes make no sense.

I do not know what happens when babies die before they reach any amount of maturity.

I would assume that it is along the line of God already knowing it and using his own circumstances.

A person cannot be judged until they are conscious of their actions; God spoke greatly against misdirecting children because they are essentially the innocent parties.

But the notion that we can simply kill children and assume they are in heaven seems odd to me.

 

[reverend B]

there are many denominations that believe in infant baptism because sin is inherited and a child dying prior to being baptized into the faith is fated to hell. the premise of the thread is not unfounded. killing babies for the Lord only works if one presupposes that the babies are not sinful inherently but rather are a blank slate with no sin upon them, which is certainly an argument that can be made.
though jawsmetroid does have a disinterest in prodding some of these deep questions with real logic and thought, he does bring up one fundamental truth about the faith. we don't imagine we know all the answers. some of us like to delve deeper to find them than he does, but we all come across that dividing line that seperates the natural from the supernatural and the unknown. Christians must make a peace with that, as it will never be completely crossed or the need for faith would disappear. isaiah 55:8-9 tells us that God's ways are higher than our ways, His thoughts higher than our thoughts, so ultimately, we won't get it, and to some degree that has to be ok with a Christian, or any person of faith.
for me arguing points of doctrine is a form of entertainment and mental exercise, as it isn't at the core of the faith. when the non-believers use doctrine as a way of "proving" God's non-being, i find it a bit funny, as whether baptism is the entry into God's love or meerly symbolic of a step taken is not the point that Jesus died over.
with that said, pascal's wager is a punk way out and allows someone to ignore the real issue at hand, which is faith.
personally, i want it on record that i frown on murdering babies. those who pursue this path should get a severe scolding. murdering babies = bad! i feel confident of my position. LOL!!!

 

[Meshavrischika]

Pascals wager is just crap to begin with. That is NOT a valid reason to cling to God/Christianity IMO. It diminishes Christ to "the best bet". Disgusting.

Anyway, interesting logic. If Pascals wager WAS vaild, I'd say you were spot on... but since it's crap... I'll stand by the idea that God does not support killing babies. (but I also don't support the restriction of abortion because it's not my place to force my beliefs on others)

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Interesting. The fact that I can hear the moderators arguing about whether or not this breaks Nicene codes by *cough* "encouraging" other religions kind of saddens me.

That said, that does attribute it. I never tried to convince myself it doesn't. The idea of a safety net over something as eternal at the afterlife is very calming. But that is not THE reason. THE reason is far more personal, complex and every time I share it on the internet I'm sure at least 3 or 4 people who read it don't believe me because it's so unbelievable.

 

[CShephard53]

there are many denominations that believe in infant baptism because sin is inherited and a child dying prior to being baptized into the faith is fated to hell. the premise of the thread is not unfounded. killing babies for the Lord only works if one presupposes that the babies are not sinful inherently but rather are a blank slate with no sin upon them, which is certainly an argument that can be made.

Yet we can see clear instances of sin in infants. Selfishness being the main one. That is not a blank slate.

though jawsmetroid does have a disinterest in prodding some of these deep questions with real logic and thought,

Ad hominem has no place here. Avoid it. If you think my logic is flawed, then argue against it, do not rip on my character.

he does bring up one fundamental truth about the faith. we don't imagine we know all the answers.

We do not have all the answers. No 'imagining' about it.

some of us like to delve deeper to find them than he does, but we all come across that dividing line that seperates the natural from the supernatural and the unknown. Christians must make a peace with that, as it will never be completely crossed or the need for faith would disappear. isaiah 55:8-9 tells us that God's ways are higher than our ways, His thoughts higher than our thoughts, so ultimately, we won't get it, and to some degree that has to be ok with a Christian, or any person of faith.

Quit the ad hominem.

for me arguing points of doctrine is a form of entertainment and mental exercise, as it isn't at the core of the faith. when the non-believers use doctrine as a way of "proving" God's non-being, i find it a bit funny, as whether baptism is the entry into God's love or meerly symbolic of a step taken is not the point that Jesus died over.

Baptism is symbolic of being born again, which is needed for entrance into the Kingdom.

with that said, pascal's wager is a punk way out and allows someone to ignore the real issue at hand, which is faith.
personally, i want it on record that i frown on murdering babies. those who pursue this path should get a severe scolding. murdering babies = bad! i feel confident of my position. LOL!!!

If you are so confident in your position, perhaps you could give me an argument rather than fallacies when you analyze my position. Indeed, I haven't even laid out all the cards and you automatically assume I don't go deep. So try again.

 

[cantata]

Yet we can see clear instances of sin in infants. Selfishness being the main one. That is not a blank slate.

Flipping heck.

Doesn't intention matter at all? Apart from anything else, if infants weren't selfish, they'd die. It is a biological imperative that they are selfish.

If your God calls that 'sin', he can go to hell.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Yet we can see clear instances of sin in infants. Selfishness being the main one. That is not a blank slate.

Ad hominem has no place here. Avoid it. If you think my logic is flawed, then argue against it, do not rip on my character.

We do not have all the answers. No 'imagining' about it.

Quit the ad hominem.

Baptism is symbolic of being born again, which is needed for entrance into the Kingdom.

If you are so confident in your position, perhaps you could give me an argument rather than fallacies when you analyze my position. Indeed, I haven't even laid out all the cards and you automatically assume I don't go deep. So try again.

children cannot be held to adult standards... God wouldn't deny salvation to one who could never understand to be able to make the choice, sorry.

in fact, we are instructed to be like children (if what you say is true we're instructed to be like sinful selfish beings).

 

[CShephard53]

Flipping heck.

Doesn't intention matter at all? Apart from anything else, if infants weren't selfish, they'd die. It is a biological imperative that they are selfish.

If your God calls that 'sin', he can go to hell.

It's still not a blank slate. You made my point for me.