Using pascals wager and christianity to kill babies

[CShephard53]

Answer the question Jaws:

Should toddlers face criminal charges if they assault or murder another toddler? If not, why not?

Red herring. I don't answer those.

 

[stan1980]

Red herring. I don't answer those.

It's a simple question, so i'd appreciate an answer. I'll ask again:

Should toddlers face criminal charges if they assault or murder another toddler? If not, why not?

 

[CShephard53]

It's a simple question, so i'd appreciate an answer. I'll ask again:

Should toddlers face criminal charges if they assault or murder another toddler? If not, why not?

The question is off topic and in response to taking a statement I made out of its context. I used an example to illustrate a point. It's a simple question that does not pertain to the topic at hand.

 

[stan1980]

The question is off topic and in response to taking a statement I made out of its context. I used an example to illustrate a point. It's a simple question that does not pertain to the topic at hand.

Well if you believe the person you worship might send babies to an eternity of hell, i think it is a perfectly valid question. I'll ask you for a 3rd time:

Should toddlers face criminal charges if they assault or murder another toddler? If not, why not?

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

We aren't to say if anyone goes to heaven or to hell. For all we know God gives a dying person a glimpse of himself before they die and they're saved (whatever that means. Still trying to figure it out) before they breathe their last breath.
Personally I believe it is a matter of love. If the Bible is to be believed then anyone who Loves knows God. Those who know God, are born of God, and what does it take to get to heaven but to be his child? (that verse was so my Christian brothers don't automatically condemn me to hell for heretical thinking. lol. Thankfully it's not man that decides, so I think I'm safe)
There is alot more to heaven, and hell than meets the eye as read in the Bible, and belief in them (thank God) are not nessecary for Salvation. It could be Hell isn't eternal, but simply a knowledge that you are seperate from God, and then oblivion.
We...Just...Don't...Know. Therefore Pascals wager is moot.

As far as being a Christian, I'm a Christian because I want to be. I can only imagine the questions shooting from the brains of people at that statement. Why do I want to be a Christian? After further examination it's the only religion I've found where God is actively interested in what I'm doing. He's not bemused by us, he's not angry at us. He wants us to live our lives with him, eating our bread with him, drinking our drinks with him, walking in the cool rain...with him.

It's a very peaceful thought. I guess I'd say it's the only religion that gives me that peace. *shrug* I still have to understand it, but isn't that the journey we all take?

 

[Braunwyn]

They think.

What do they think about? How does an infant sin?

They interact. They are social and they are human beings. They have actions. Actions and thoughts can be either moral or immoral. Back your claim, I've given you sufficient evidence for mine. In fact, I've beat the dead horse quite a few times now.

How does an infant sin?

I've already pointed out that infants are selfish. I have also pointed out that Romans 3 dictates that all are sinful, and that in order to prove otherwise you would have to give a real example of a human who has not sinned.

A human who hasn't sinned is an infant. And no, you haven't pointed out anything and my constantly reminding you of this is equivalent to beating a dead horse. But that's ok. It's a good practice in patience.

How does an infant sin?

Evidence? You're laughing and giving me claims without backing. I cannot accept that.

yes, I'm laughing. This whole conversation has been on the funny side. thank you for that.

Perhaps you could realize that each post I've done so far has built off of the others. Perhaps you could realize that this is a discussion and one cannot take one post and demonstrate my entire position from it, else you would be taking it out of context. I'll entertain the possibility and now probability that you and others are not understanding the whole of my argument and position because you have not read all of it and given equal weight to all of it. There is nothing wrong with my writing skills here.

I don't think it's your writing skills. I think it's your logic. And I've read the entire thread. It's unlikely that anyone will agree with you that infants are sinners because it's not a rational claim.

No, you have not. You have shown how insistent you are in changing the subject to whether or not an infant is aware of morality. You have also mentioned Piaget when I am talking about Erikson.

Neither of them address the morality of infants or an infants capability of acting morally or immorally. You are trying to claim that Erikson did/does but that's not the case. Again, you are incorrect in your interpretations.

Wrong. They are written from a secular viewpoint and I am using a Christian viewpoint. I am talking about emotional, social, and cognitive areas of an infant and you are talking about physical needs, as evidenced by your mentioning drooling multiple times. I have quoted it. Both of them. Here, let me quote myself:

Nothing in your quote refers to the moral thought or action of infants. There's no way to read it the way you are reading it. Sorry. And just because you are unsucessfully attempting to superimpose your bibilical understandings, which seem to be flawed, onto a secular text doesn't mean it has merit.

Evidence? It's not nice to make unbacked claims about people.

Um, your posts in this thread are the evidence.

No. I am coming from a biblical perspective and have used biblical terms from the start of my posts on this thread. I've been on point.

WordofFaith2008 and others have offered a reasonable bibilical perspective. You have not.

No, another unbacked claim was given to me.

Que?

Laughing at another's argument shows that you are grasping at straws in an attempt to shut them up. It shows the rest of us that you have no backing except to attempt to ridicule the other person, which is a borderline ad hominem.

I thought you made those posts intentionally as a funny. "I have given you a specific, and I want an answer to what is specified. If it's too general for you, tough". I read that as you being specifically general.

If they were so baseless, they would not be backed by references which I have given.

Again, you have given no referances for your claims x 10000000^100000000.

Ad hominem. I asked a question and you want me to ignore the fact that the question was asked to get evidence from you, which I still do not have.

You haven't asked any questions that haven't been answered. You on the other hand have not answer how infants sin lol.

I never stated that an infant is capable of moral decision making, that is another straw man argument.

You stated that infants choose to cry as if they had a choice. Making a choice requires a decision.

I stated that an infant is capable of making choices that are either moral or immoral.

And you are wrong.

That's not moral decision making. That is making a decision, which they are clearly able to do. I also clarified that in my last large post in case you missed it:

You just contridicted yourself in the same paragraph. Infants do not make decisions. If they could, they could also make moral decisions.

Again for kicks, what sins do they commit? What decision does an infant make that results in a immoral action? Just so you know, I'll keep asking this question till i get an answer from you.

That's not proof. That's referencing an entire book.

Isn't that what you tried to do? lol

In order for me to determine whether or not it is actually proof (or for anyone to do so), they would have to read all of the editions to find it. I've given you specifics.

you have not. Erikson does not speak of decision making processes or moral action.

I've already got Piaget down. Infants are capable of making choices. That is very clear.

Again with the moral reasoning. I have not mentioned moral reasoning. I have mentioned the ability to make decisions. I've then gone on to say that decisions can be moral or immoral. That is not moral reasoning. That is making decisions. Straw man argument, again.

No you're claims are the straw man and every other latin internet lingo term that has ever been mentioned on the net.

Appeal to authority does not get you anywhere.

Well, I hope any student at least tries to learn from their profs. Otherwise what's the point of having them?

An infant crying selfishly is immoral, whether the child knows it or not. Morality is objective, not subjective to one's abilities.

Here you have it. And thanks for saying it. I've been trying to get it out of you all evening.
An infant crying is immoral. lol I have to say, it's a colorful position.


In case it was missed "An infant crying 'selfishly' is immoral."

 

[Braunwyn]

Red herring. I don't answer those.

It's not a red herring therefore you post is an ad hominem. lol

 

[stan1980]

Here you have it. And thanks for saying it. I've been trying to get it out of you all evening.
An infant crying is immoral. lol I have to say, it's a colorful position.


In case it was missed "An infant crying 'selfishly' is immoral."

Hehehehehehe. Thanks for outlining that. I did indeed miss it. Rep on the way.

It's not a red herring therefore you post is an ad hominem. lol

Indeed! Thanks again.

 

[Braunwyn]

Hehehehehehe. Thanks for outlining that. I did indeed miss it. Rep on the way.

Of course now we need to decipher which cries are selfish and which cries aren't. I'm sure the field of pscyhology is buckeling over these impressive questions.

Indeed! Thanks again.

and thank you for providing the circumstance to allow me to use red herring and ad hominem in the same sentence.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

There are things in this world I am willing to burn in hell for.

 

[Braunwyn]

Like selfishly crying? lol I have to stop with this.

 

[stan1980]

Of course now we need to decipher which cries are selfish and which cries aren't. I'm sure the field of pscyhology is buckeling over these impressive questions.

Well i've sent the quote to FSTDT to see what they think of it. When someone comes out with such a profound statement like that, it seems only right that a wider audience should appreciate it. I hope Jaws doesn't mind.

 

[WileyCoyote]

I'm saying babies sin.

Um, actually they don't. Babies haven't received the law, so they can't sin.

'What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.' (Romans 7:7-13)

Notice that Paul states that he was alive without the law once. Well, we know Paul didn't mean he was alive before the law came into existence, because it came into existence thousands of years before, when Moses received it via stone tablets. So what did he mean? He meant that he was alive before he received KNOWLEDGE of the law. He didn't know that lust was a sin until he received knowledge of it. And it was this knowledge that made the law effective for him in that area. If he had commited lust after receiving knowledge that it was wrong, it would be credited to his account as sin.

Which brings us to babies. Babies don't have the mental capacity to understand God's laws. Go into any nursery and read the ten commandments out loud. You may get a few coos, giggles, dribbles, and some crying, but you won't get ONE baby that understands what the heck you are saying. It only becomes sin AFTER you received the law, and broke it.

I'm also saying that we have no idea where they go and should not be making arguments based on the assumption that we do know.

Well, I'm not assuming anything. Babies can't sin, so I KNOW that they go to heaven. It is YOU who is teaching assumptions.

I've already explained how they are sinners. They're included in Romans 3, unless they are not flesh and blood- which they are.

Well, Romans 3:23 doesn't state that all flesh and blood sin. It states that all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. Babies are born with a sin nature, but cannot sin until after they received knowledge of the law. Paul was addressing this to grown people who have passed the age of accountability. I highly doubt he was speaking to newborns. Newborns wouldn't understand him anyway. To use Romans 3 to say babies can qualify for a spot in hell is really stretching the meaning of what Paul was actually saying.

 

[Braunwyn]

Ok, interesting thread.

 

[CShephard53]

Um, actually they don't. Babies haven't received the law, so they can't sin.

'What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.' (Romans 7:7-13)

Notice that Paul states that he was alive without the law once. Well, we know Paul didn't mean he was alive before the law came into existence, because it came into existence thousands of years before, when Moses received it via stone tablets. So what did he mean? He meant that he was alive before he received KNOWLEDGE of the law. He didn't know that lust was a sin until he received knowledge of it. And it was this knowledge that made the law effective for him in that area. If he had commited lust after receiving knowledge that it was wrong, it would be credited to his account as sin.

Which brings us to babies. Babies don't have the mental capacity to understand God's laws. Go into any nursery and read the ten commandments out loud. You may get a few coos, giggles, dribbles, and some crying, but you won't get ONE baby that understands what the heck you are saying. It only becomes sin AFTER you received the law, and broke it.

Well, I'm not assuming anything. Babies can't sin, so I KNOW that they go to heaven. It is YOU who is teaching assumptions. Well, Romans 3:23 doesn't state that all flesh and blood sin. It states that all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. Babies are born with a sin nature, but cannot sin until after they received knowledge of the law. Paul was addressing this to grown people who have passed the age of accountability. I highly doubt he was speaking to newborns. Newborns wouldn't understand him anyway. To use Romans 3 to say babies can qualify for a spot in hell is really stretching the meaning of what Paul was actually saying.

Again, I'm not saying babies go to hell. I'm saying they are deserving of it, but we have no idea what happens to them. Romans 3 and 6 support that. It also supports my argument. Sin is sin regardless of whether or not someone knows they are doing it. You said yourself babies have sinful nature. 6:23, where does that get them without any further knowledge or assumption? Separation from God. But we don't have the further knowledge to be able to say that with confidence babies, because God is just, go to hell. We also don't have the further knowledge to be able to say they go to heaven. We don't know. Maybe you missed it the first time I said that. And second, and third.

 

[stan1980]

Again, I'm not saying babies go to hell. I'm saying they are deserving of it, but we have no idea what happens to them. Romans 3 and 6 support that. It also supports my argument. Sin is sin regardless of whether or not someone knows they are doing it. You said yourself babies have sinful nature. 6:23, where does that get them without any further knowledge or assumption? Separation from God. But we don't have the further knowledge to be able to say that with confidence babies, because God is just, go to hell. We also don't have the further knowledge to be able to say they go to heaven. We don't know. Maybe you missed it the first time I said that. And second, and third.

If you believe babies sin, and sinners go to hell (unless they repent and accept Jesus which babies can't), then you must believe that the person you have chosen to worship sends babies to hell.

Once again answer the question. 4th time of asking:

Should toddlers face criminal charges if they assault or murder another toddler? If not, why not?

Why you so afraid of answering the question?

And babies are deserving of hell??? Are you serious?

 

[WileyCoyote]

Again, I'm not saying babies go to hell. I'm saying they are deserving of it, but we have no idea what happens to them. Romans 3 and 6 support that. It also supports my argument. Sin is sin regardless of whether or not someone knows they are doing it. You said yourself babies have sinful nature. 6:23, where does that get them without any further knowledge or assumption? Separation from God. But we don't have the further knowledge to be able to say that with confidence babies, because God is just, go to hell. We also don't have the further knowledge to be able to say they go to heaven. We don't know. Maybe you missed it the first time I said that. And second, and third.

Actually, there IS evidence that infants go to heaven when they die. In 2 Samuel, King David had an infant son who died.

'And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.' (2 Samuel 12:22-23 Emphasis mine)

What did David mean that he would go to his infant son? Through inspiration, David documented that his own eternal destination was going to be 'in the house of the Lord'(Psalm 23:6). It is clear that David believed his son went to heaven. And he would one day be reunited with him.

The Bible says that the soul who sins will die. Not the soul who has a sin nature. It is actual sins commited that damns a soul. And since babies don't understand the law, they can't break what they don't understand.

You mentioned that you believe that babies don't go to hell. You are right. That would make God a cruel monster. But they have souls. So if they don't go to heaven, where else would they go? They have to exist somewhere. Are they just floating in outer space? Do they turn into angels? Do they become extras in the cartoon 'Rugrats'? Just pondering.

 

[CShephard53]

What do they think about? How does an infant sin?

Red herring.

How does an infant sin?

Red herring, ignoring what I've already stated.

A human who hasn't sinned is an infant. And no, you haven't pointed out anything and my constantly reminding you of this is equivalent to beating a dead horse. But that's ok. It's a good practice in patience.

Then I'll be waiting for your evidence that infants are not selfish. Prove it.

How does an infant sin?

See above.

yes, I'm laughing. This whole conversation has been on the funny side. thank you for that.

Again, ridicule gets you nowhere in a debate.

I don't think it's your writing skills. I think it's your logic. And I've read the entire thread. It's unlikely that anyone will agree with you that infants are sinners because it's not a rational claim.

Then how come you have not been able to show, with logic and evidence, that they are not sinful?

Neither of them address the morality of infants or an infants capability of acting morally or immorally. You are trying to claim that Erikson did/does but that's not the case. Again, you are incorrect in your interpretations.

You're ripping that out of context.

Nothing in your quote refers to the moral thought or action of infants. There's no way to read it the way you are reading it. Sorry. And just because you are unsucessfully attempting to superimpose your bibilical understandings, which seem to be flawed, onto a secular text doesn't mean it has merit.

I'm not superimposing anything. I'm using biblical terms to make a valid argument, which you have not even picked at. You've misinterpreted it left and right, then made counter claims that have little to no backing.

Um, your posts in this thread are the evidence.

Then quote me. Back your claims.

WordofFaith2008 and others have offered a reasonable bibilical perspective. You have not.

I've offered a logical biblical perspective. I've even clarified my argument and terms. Which no one else has even accepted for the purposes of this discussion. What's unreasonable here is you guys- all of you- ignoring what I wrote. I've made my position quite clear, and you've done nothing but ridicule it and make claims and fallacies. Wordoffaith has misinterpreted it twice now.

I thought you made those posts intentionally as a funny. "I have given you a specific, and I want an answer to what is specified. If it's too general for you, tough". I read that as you being specifically general.

I'm quite serious.

Again, you have given no referances for your claims x 10000000^100000000.

When my claims involve terms that are found in the Bible itself (already referenced, 1 Corinthians 13, Romans 3 and 6) and relies upon those terms for the validity of its argument, very few references are needed besides example and common knowledge. Yet in return I've heard that babies are blank slates, that we cannot say babies are sinful using a different definition of sin than I am, and that I cannot be saying babies go to hell (which I've made it clear that I am not saying that in the first place).

You haven't asked any questions that haven't been answered. You on the other hand have not answer how infants sin lol.

Keep ridiculing, see where it gets you. In debate, it gets you a lost argument.

You stated that infants choose to cry as if they had a choice. Making a choice requires a decision.

Yes. Which they are capable of doing, just as they are capable of expressing or not expressing their desires.

And you are wrong.

Then prove me wrong.

You just contridicted yourself in the same paragraph. Infants do not make decisions. If they could, they could also make moral decisions.

I have not contradicted myself. A moral decision implies knowledge of morality. A decision that is moral or immoral does not imply that knowledge.

Again for kicks, what sins do they commit? What decision does an infant make that results in a immoral action? Just so you know, I'll keep asking this question till i get an answer from you.

Which I have already given you.

Isn't that what you tried to do? lol

It's not worth posting specifics if you don't have the book. I clearly have the book, yet you still gave title instead of page and paragraph.

you have not. Erikson does not speak of decision making processes or moral action.

I am not talking about moral action. I am talking about immoral action, regardless of knowledge. I stated that Erikson spoke of an infant's ability to reason, however ineffectively and regardless of what they can do about it (nothing besides cry), whether or not they can depend on others for their needs to be met.

No you're claims are the straw man and every other latin internet lingo term that has ever been mentioned on the net.

Prove it.

Well, I hope any student at least tries to learn from their profs. Otherwise what's the point of having them?

To teach logic and critical thinking. I hoped you'd be able to avoid a simple fallacy such as appeal to authority. It's not that hard to avoid.

Here you have it. And thanks for saying it. I've been trying to get it out of you all evening.
An infant crying is immoral. lol I have to say, it's a colorful position.

In case it was missed "An infant crying 'selfishly' is immoral."

Given the definitions I'm using. Which you're again forgetting.

I'll note for you and anyone else that you're arguing pure semantics. I'm using terms that you are not, yet you are still saying I am wrong. Imagine I made the argument 'works are necessary for salvation' and defined 'works' as 'any act or decision undertaken by a human that relies on God for its ability to be done'. I'd still have people coming after me telling me how wrong I am because they ignore the definition. And I've been there and done that. That didn't get anywhere either.

 

[CShephard53]

If you believe babies sin, and sinners go to hell (unless they repent and accept Jesus which babies can't), then you must believe that the person you have chosen to worship sends babies to hell.

Once again answer the question. 4th time of asking:

Should toddlers face criminal charges if they assault or murder another toddler? If not, why not?

Why you so afraid of answering the question?

And babies are deserving of hell??? Are you serious?

You can't assume that I believe in a God who sends babies to hell because that would imply that I believe there is sufficient evidence, and there is not.
I have already said I will not answer your question. It's very pointless to keep asking.

 

[stan1980]

You can't assume that I believe in a God who sends babies to hell because that would imply that I believe there is sufficient evidence, and there is not.
I have already said I will not answer your question. It's very pointless to keep asking.

Do you believe sinners who haven't accepted Jesus' offer of forgiveness go to hell? Yes you do

Do you believe babies sin? Yes you do

So it follows you MUST believe babies go to hell

You said you wouldn't answer the question because it is a red herring. It wasn't a red herring. Do you even know what a red herring is? I'll keep on asking the question until i get an answer.

So once again, 5th time of asking:

Should toddlers face criminal charges if they assault or murder another toddler? If not, why not?