Using pascals wager and christianity to kill babies

[CShephard53]

True, we can only do our best with the medium we have. And it's limited for sure.

Nice to see someone finally admitting that on this thread. From reading it, you'd think we know it all...

I know that you have said several times that you don't know where babies go. What's at issue for me is that you believe babies are deserving of hell for whatever reason. And thus far those reasons don't really amount to much.

I've already given the reason. It's the same reason you, me, or George Bush deserves hell. We fall short. We miss the mark, as I've pointed out in Romans 3. Now, as I've already said, what I deserve and what I should get (meaning what would correct the behavior to get a desired response, you might call it conditioning , or attempted conditioning) taking past, present, and future into account are two different things. When someone deserves something it may or may not be good overall, but when someone should get something, if they get that something it will be the best one could do.

What I think you are failing to realize is how damaging these views are for society in general. What actually happens after death to infants is of no consequence in the here and now because nobody knows. People can speculate all they want. I take issue with raising children in a society that holds to an evil overseer. As someone that was raised in the church I have first hand experience in how damaging such world-views can be.

That's nice. But it's very similar to us trying to figure out why Jeffrey Dahmer went and killed 17 people, some children and was a necrophiliac. We can speculate, but we cannot know and therefore must assume the worst and so be better prepared. In other words, because there is a possibility (however slight) that infants do go to hell, we should be doing everything we can with what we have to make sure they have a decent childhood and that they live (rather than aborting them, for example). The best-case speculation and the most accurate I've seen or heard of is that God will judge each individual based on His own foreknowledge of them. That is the best-case scenario I can think of, knowing what I do about God's laws.

As wordoffaith pointed out, sure infants are born with the capability to sin. They're all born with the capability of goodness. Cultivating the negative will only bring negative outcomes. Gabage in, garbage out.

Which is why Christianity has a problem with abortion. Because we do not know.

Unimportant to you maybe. You can't expect everyone to agree with you about what's important or not.

Unimportant from a larger, biblical, and wider viewpoint. I can argue importance and have a fairly reasonable argument.

You brought psych to the table and attempted to speak with authority. And while you have experience working with kids, I highly doubt you have experience working with infants and it's unlikely that you've ever engaged in field work/research to come to your conclusions.

That's nice, but I don't need that in order to make my point. I merely used it to attempt an illustration.

By real, I mean the physical world. Here we have way more information than we do with the spiritual.

Is the spiritual world real?

Again, your argument falls apart because infants don't have previous behavior. And it's only intuitive and common sense to understand that we don't paint infants with the same brush as adults.

My argument rests on the difference between deserve and what one should get. If not for that, if not for other well-specified terms, I have no argument. My argument, just like the example I gave with works being required for salvation, depends on the terms being used. If you're using a different set of terms, then it is not a problem of having a wrong argument, but of using different terms than I am.

 

[Braunwyn]

God does not murder, God kills. Murder is done for sinful reasons, killing is done out of necessity (mainly, such as a war situation) or punishment. God does the latter. Morality is not subjective, it is objective (which is part of the reason you guys went off on me in the first place, I think). If we cannot set morality to a standard, we will be watching torture shows on TV before long, say 400 years. If morality is subjective, then life will do nothing but degrade.

You do have a point in that if morality is subjective we will do nothing but degrade. The current state of affairs, along with our history, speaks of this well. Although this does highlight that morality is indeed subjective lol.

What you understand is limited by what you do not and cannot know. Those cannot have been the base reasons for killing, else God himself would be (by admission) sinning. And that would contradict everything in the Bible. I'd like to see one instance where God killed out of 'spite' as we understand the term today. Show me what your understanding is based off, reference the verse.

I fail to see how any type of killing for whatever reason (even sin) isn't spiteful.

 

[CShephard53]

You do have a point in that if morality is subjective we will do nothing but degrade. The current state of affairs, along with our history, speaks of this well. Although this does highlight that morality is indeed subjective lol.


I fail to see how any type of killing for whatever reason (even sin) isn't spiteful.

Re: point 2. Then you have not understood what killing is in differentiation from murder.

Re: point 1. That is not morality being subjective, that is our view of morality being subjective.

 

[Braunwyn]

Nice to see someone finally admitting that on this thread. From reading it, you'd think we know it all...

Hey, like I said, it's been a good practice in patience and that's always a positive

I've already given the reason. It's the same reason you, me, or George Bush deserves hell. We fall short. We miss the mark, as I've pointed out in Romans 3. Now, as I've already said, what I deserve and what I should get (meaning what would correct the behavior to get a desired response, you might call it conditioning , or attempted conditioning) taking past, present, and future into account are two different things. When someone deserves something it may or may not be good overall, but when someone should get something, if they get that something it will be the best one could do.

As I pointed out, I think it's folly to compare adults with children. Not all things are equal. And if there is a god, I'm sure she knows this.

That's nice. But it's very similar to us trying to figure out why Jeffrey Dahmer went and killed 17 people, some children and was a necrophiliac.

I'm not sure what you mean that it's similar to trying to figure out why.

The driving point for me here is that we don't want to cultivate Jeffrey Dahmer's. We want to cultivate Thich Nhat Han's, DL, compassionate and kind people. I believe that what we hold in our minds and hearts is what we have received from the world and what we give back to it (for the most part). And it goes to show that people are probably more aware of who Jeffrey Dhamer is rather than people like Hanh. Eh, maybe people do have the propensity to lean towards the negative. Imo this inclination should be fought against.

We can speculate, but we cannot know and therefore must assume the worst and so be better prepared. In other words, because there is a possibility (however slight) that infants do go to hell, we should be doing everything we can with what we have to make sure they have a decent childhood and that they live (rather than aborting them, for example). The best-case speculation and the most accurate I've seen or heard of is that God will judge each individual based on His own foreknowledge of them. That is the best-case scenario I can think of, knowing what I do about God's laws.

In practice I don't see this working. I know from watching my own family that expecting the worse brings it. They are driven by fear (of god and demons). They don't trust the world around them or themselves and more often than not this causes them make irrational decisions from what I can tell.

Which is why Christianity has a problem with abortion. Because we do not know.

I don't know about that. There are plenty of christians that don't hold your views and are still against abortion.

Unimportant from a larger, biblical, and wider viewpoint. I can argue importance and have a fairly reasonable argument.

Or you may just lack an understanding of why some consider these views important.

That's nice, but I don't need that in order to make my point. I merely used it to attempt an illustration.

If you didn't speak with authority than maybe but even so, it's not as if you are coming from a place of experience and wealth of knowledge. I do recommend that book I mentioned earlier "sensation and perception" and if you have an open elective in your undergrad career you would probably love a class that addressed brain development. It's fascinating and for a believer in god, it would probably coincide nicely. I can't imagine anyone leaving such class without awe.

Is the spiritual world real?

I couldn't say it was physically real.

My argument rests on the difference between deserve and what one should get.

I fail to see the difference.

If not for that, if not for other well-specified terms, I have no argument. My argument, just like the example I gave with works being required for salvation, depends on the terms being used. If you're using a different set of terms, then it is not a problem of having a wrong argument, but of using different terms than I am.

It might help then if I understood the difference between deserve and "what one should get" in your mind.

 

[stan1980]

God does not murder, God kills. Murder is done for sinful reasons, killing is done out of necessity (mainly, such as a war situation) or punishment. God does the latter.

Oh right, that's okay then. I worry for anyone who thinks it is okay to kill out of punishment.

Morality is not subjective, it is objective (which is part of the reason you guys went off on me in the first place, I think). If we cannot set morality to a standard, we will be watching torture shows on TV before long, say 400 years. If morality is subjective, then life will do nothing but degrade.

Ridiculous. I haven't got the time or the energy to go here right now, and to be honest it's pretty OT.

What you understand is limited by what you do not and cannot know. Those cannot have been the base reasons for killing, else God himself would be (by admission) sinning. And that would contradict everything in the Bible.

Wake up and smell the coffee. The bible DOES contradict itself. Can someone be all loving and yet commit all these atrocities, sometimes for very petty reasons? Check out this i just found http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html

Pretty disgusting read i'm sure you'll agree.

 

[Braunwyn]

Re: point 2. Then you have not understood what killing is in differentiation from murder.

For moral beings, no I do not see the difference. Animals can kill and it's not an immoral act because they are amoral. As far as a god goes, it would make sense to me that she'd be amoral.

Re: point 1. That is not morality being subjective, that is our view of morality being subjective.

To go along with what I stated above, the idea that morality exists in, lets call it an ulitmate reality (god's reality), while simulataneously failing to extend itself to all facets of reality is nonsensical to me. It can either be generalized to all life (and it's not) or not. Since it's not the latter, than I don't see how it's objective. We're left with subjective.

 

[cantata]

So for this vile god who might or might not send babies to hell, but apparently at least attempts to hold them accountable for sins that aren't sins at all, we are allowed to perpetrate the most appalling examples of special pleading (whenever God kills, it isn't murder because he's God).

Seriously, he's really not very nice. I'd rather worship Stan than him, too.

 

[CShephard53]

So for this vile god who might or might not send babies to hell, but apparently at least attempts to hold them accountable for sins that aren't sins at all, we are allowed to perpetrate the most appalling examples of special pleading (whenever God kills, it isn't murder because he's God).

Seriously, he's really not very nice. I'd rather worship Stan than him, too.

Straw man, that was not my argument. There are no examples of God sinning in the Bible or in the world today. Because He's God has nothing to do with it.

 

[CShephard53]

For moral beings, no I do not see the difference. Animals can kill and it's not an immoral act because they are amoral. As far as a god goes, it would make sense to me that she'd be amoral.


To go along with what I stated above, the idea that morality exists in, lets call it an ulitmate reality (god's reality), while simulataneously failing to extend itself to all facets of reality is nonsensical to me. It can either be generalized to all life (and it's not) or not. Since it's not the latter, than I don't see how it's objective. We're left with subjective.

That only furthers the idea that it's the viewpoint and not the morality itself.

 

[CShephard53]

Oh right, that's okay then. I worry for anyone who thinks it is okay to kill out of punishment.



Ridiculous. I haven't got the time or the energy to go here right now, and to be honest it's pretty OT.



Wake up and smell the coffee. The bible DOES contradict itself. Can someone be all loving and yet commit all these atrocities, sometimes for very petty reasons? Check out this i just found http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html

Pretty disgusting read i'm sure you'll agree.

Again, you do not have the full picture, and cannot judge God unless you have the full picture. What you see as petty reasons could be reasons that we as humans are not equipped to handle. If you honestly think there is a contradiction in the Bible, head over to Christian Scriptures and make that argument (seeing as it's a different topic).

 

[Braunwyn]

That only furthers the idea that it's the viewpoint and not the morality itself.

Morality does not exist without the view, does it? I think this could fit along the lines with having knowledge of the law. It's meaningless (or dies) without a subjective being having said view.

 

[CShephard53]

As I pointed out, I think it's folly to compare adults with children. Not all things are equal. And if there is a god, I'm sure she knows this.

You cannot make the argument that God is a she, given the number of times in the Bible where God is referred to in the masculine sense. I'm not talking about equality. I'm talking about justice.

I'm not sure what you mean that it's similar to trying to figure out why.

The driving point for me here is that we don't want to cultivate Jeffrey Dahmer's. We want to cultivate Thich Nhat Han's, DL, compassionate and kind people. I believe that what we hold in our minds and hearts is what we have received from the world and what we give back to it (for the most part). And it goes to show that people are probably more aware of who Jeffrey Dhamer is rather than people like Hanh. Eh, maybe people do have the propensity to lean towards the negative. Imo this inclination should be fought against.

It's similar because we cannot fully understand or know the reasons. We might say he was psychotic or maybe from some perspective merciful, but we still don't know all of the reasons. We cannot. Same with God- we might say He is psychotic or merciful, but we don't know all the reasons He does the things He does because we do not know all things as He does, nor do we understand what He does.

In practice I don't see this working. I know from watching my own family that expecting the worse brings it. They are driven by fear (of god and demons). They don't trust the world around them or themselves and more often than not this causes them make irrational decisions from what I can tell.

Good for them. But I'm not talking about paranoia. I'm talking about planning/preparing, aka assuming, for the worst, not expecting it.

I don't know about that. There are plenty of christians that don't hold your views and are still against abortion.

Yet we're still not told word for word in the Bible- nothing close to conclusive- where babies go. Why else would there be such a fight? To make sure they have the right to live? To make sure we're not pinning our inconvenience on an innocent party? Those are fine and dandy reasons, but they wouldn't be good reasons without some sense of moral obligation, which most Christians have because of the viewpoint they hold.

Or you may just lack an understanding of why some consider these views important.

Or you're again making an assumption.

If you didn't speak with authority than maybe but even so, it's not as if you are coming from a place of experience and wealth of knowledge. I do recommend that book I mentioned earlier "sensation and perception" and if you have an open elective in your undergrad career you would probably love a class that addressed brain development. It's fascinating and for a believer in god, it would probably coincide nicely. I can't imagine anyone leaving such class without awe.

I've had enough talk of wiring brains to last me a lifetime. This is my third semester in a row taking a psych class. Psych is great, but there are certain things we simply do not need to comprehend.

I couldn't say it was physically real.

I didn't ask whether it was physically real, I asked if it was real.

I fail to see the difference.


It might help then if I understood the difference between deserve and "what one should get" in your mind.

Then you probably missed this:

Now, as I've already said, what I deserve and what I should get (meaning what would correct the behavior to get a desired response, you might call it conditioning , or attempted conditioning) taking past, present, and future into account are two different things. When someone deserves something it may or may not be good overall, but when someone should get something, if they get that something it will be the best one could do.

 

[Braunwyn]

You cannot make the argument that God is a she, given the number of times in the Bible where God is referred to in the masculine sense. I'm not talking about equality. I'm talking about justice.

For one, when I use pronouns to refer to something without gender, I tend to use she, her, etc. It's my personal preferance. I'm not sure what you're getting at with justice and my use of a pronouns.

It's similar because we cannot fully understand or know the reasons. We might say he was psychotic or maybe from some perspective merciful, but we still don't know all of the reasons. We cannot. Same with God- we might say He is psychotic or merciful, but we don't know all the reasons He does the things He does because we do not know all things as He does, nor do we understand what He does.

We don't know why Jeff did the things he did but in the end that didn't really matter, now did it? He should have been incarcerated for life, period. There is no justification for killing while there are other options. My moral compass doesn't allow me to condone the act for any reason.

Good for them. But I'm not talking about paranoia. I'm talking about planning/preparing, aka assuming, for the worst, not expecting it.

Good for them? I think not. Why would you think suffering is good? I think always assuming the worse can be a distraction from living to our fullest potential. It may work for you, it doesn't for all.

Yet we're still not told word for word in the Bible- nothing close to conclusive- where babies go. Why else would there be such a fight? To make sure they have the right to live? To make sure we're not pinning our inconvenience on an innocent party? Those are fine and dandy reasons, but they wouldn't be good reasons without some sense of moral obligation, which most Christians have because of the viewpoint they hold.

A person can be against abortion based on moral reasons without the assumption that their god could be potentially twisted enough to send an infant to hell. C'mon now.

Or you're again making an assumption.

I said may. You conceded earlier in the thread that you don't know everything. You could apply that application with not finding value in what others may consider important.

I've had enough talk of wiring brains to last me a lifetime. This is my third semester in a row taking a psych class. Psych is great, but there are certain things we simply do not need to comprehend.

It's not psychology but physiology.

I didn't ask whether it was physically real, I asked if it was real.

The spiritual? As you understand it with a monothesitic diety? Imo, no. But that's neither here nor there. Just because something isn't real for me doesn't mean it can't be real for you.

Then you probably missed this:

Ok, so there's deserve and the correction of behavior. I understand that and still don't see how either provides a condition for infants. They deserve only love. Since they're too new in the world to have behavior that would constitute as immoral then there's nothing to correct. Surely down the line in their lives that won't always be the case but give them time to screw up first so they can be corrected appropriately.

 

[CShephard53]

For one, when I use pronouns to refer to something without gender, I tend to use she, her, etc. It's my personal preferance. I'm not sure what you're getting at with justice and my use of a pronouns.

There was a reason they were not part of the same sentence. There was a period. Equality has nothing to do with this conversation. Justice does.

We don't know why Jeff did the things he did but in the end that didn't really matter, now did it? He should have been incarcerated for life, period. There is no justification for killing while there are other options. My moral compass doesn't allow me to condone the act for any reason.

It does matter, because it could help us understand future offenders. Reasoning matters. It plays a large difference.

Good for them? I think not. Why would you think suffering is good? I think always assuming the worse can be a distraction from living to our fullest potential. It may work for you, it doesn't for all.

Good for them. But I'm not talking about paranoia.

Do you understand those two sentences? By saying 'them' I am making it clear that their behavior and perspective is different from mine. By saying 'but I'm not talking about paranoia', I am making it clear that I do not condone their behavior. I'd take it further to say that it is not Christian behavior. Now, connect the dots. Misunderstanding?

Further:
Listen, I work with kids. If I'm not assuming the worst, I can easily get sued for any number of reasons. Welcome to America, we sue when we're not happy.

A person can be against abortion based on moral reasons without the assumption that their god could be potentially twisted enough to send an infant to hell. C'mon now.

It is a fairly large reason for a fairly large percentage of those who say it is wrong. Fear of the unknown, if you wanted to nail it down further.

I said may. You conceded earlier in the thread that you don't know everything. You could apply that application with not finding value in what others may consider important.

Yet you say that what is important to one person is still important overall. Word choice is very important.

It's not psychology but physiology.

You understand what I am saying.

The spiritual? As you understand it with a monothesitic diety? Imo, no. But that's neither here nor there. Just because something isn't real for me doesn't mean it can't be real for you.

It cannot be both. You're coming close to relativism, which is not logical.

Ok, so there's deserve and the correction of behavior. I understand that and still don't see how either provides a condition for infants.

I'm not talking about correcting the person's behavior. I'm talking about correcting THE behavior. In a wider sense. If someone physically abuses a child and steps are taken to ensure that that person does not do it again, that is correcting the person's behavior. If the person's behavior not only changes and the child is healed of the trauma, that is correcting the behavior. Which is why God has every right to kill people- He knows what the person will do in the future. If it's bad enough, God should end it early. Especially if that person will encourage child sacrifice, be abusive, and lead people away from having the freedom to live life on a massive scale. Not killing people like that, God would allow multiple Hitlers to reign. Yet we only see a handful. That's what I'm talking about when I say correcting behavior. In the widest sense you could possibly imagine- their past, present, and future behaviors.
In summary, the average human being causes enough pain to warrant them not being allowed to live. They deserve death. But that is not what the majority of them should get, given what God can do to use it all to His glory and ultimately our benefit.

They deserve only love. Since they're too new in the world to have behavior that would constitute as immoral then there's nothing to correct. Surely down the line in their lives that won't always be the case but give them time to screw up first so they can be corrected appropriately.

See above, we're on different topics here.

 

[Braunwyn]

There was a reason they were not part of the same sentence. There was a period. Equality has nothing to do with this conversation. Justice does.

Sorry, I'm still not sure what you're talking about. What's this about equality and justice?

It does matter, because it could help us understand future offenders. Reasoning matters. It plays a large difference.

I agree that we should invest time to figure out why some are psycho. I'm just saying that such thinking shouldn't be internally embraced...for me at least.

Do you understand those two sentences? By saying 'them' I am making it clear that their behavior and perspective is different from mine. By saying 'but I'm not talking about paranoia', I am making it clear that I do not condone their behavior. I'd take it further to say that it is not Christian behavior. Now, connect the dots. Misunderstanding?

I don't know why you would say good for them. And you may or may not be speaking of paranoia but you certainly seem to be advocating fear. Is that not the case? Or should people not fear the wrath of god?

Further:
Listen, I work with kids. If I'm not assuming the worst, I can easily get sued for any number of reasons. Welcome to America, we sue when we're not happy.

I don't know if assuming the kids you work with deserve eternal hell is something good for kids to be around. Yes, I see the merit in being cautious. That's an application of reason. I'm speaking of irrational fear, which is undeserved eternal damnation and then instilling that fear in innocents. If and when I become a parent, I would worry about my children being exposed to such world-views.

It is a fairly large reason for a fairly large percentage of those who say it is wrong. Fear of the unknown, if you wanted to nail it down further.

Well, I would hope that most don't hold to an evil overseer. I can't figure christians out half the time.

Yet you say that what is important to one person is still important overall. Word choice is very important.

It may be important over all to the person. That doesn't mean it's important to everyone.

It cannot be both. You're coming close to relativism, which is not logical.

Why is it not logical? If anything the opposite view is illogical since you cannot not provide a shred of evidence that shows an ultimate reality (as far as god goes) is shared by all. To be frank, and I rarely share this position because I see it as disrespectful, I find the belief in a monotheistic diety to be akin to a psychosis. I think it's irrational and neurotic. Now, i understand that some gain benefit from their beliefs. Obviously they're getting something from it that I just don't understand and probably never will. That's ok. That doesn't mean I have to get on a soap box and state that their/your experience has no value to you. That isn't my place regardless of what I know to be true.

So, yea it's relative and respectful to boot.

I'm not talking about correcting the person's behavior. I'm talking about correcting THE behavior.

The behavior. What's that? There is no behavior in an infant that needs to be corrected.

In a wider sense. If someone physically abuses a child and steps are taken to ensure that that person does not do it again, that is correcting the person's behavior. If the person's behavior not only changes and the child is healed of the trauma, that is correcting the behavior. Which is why God has every right to kill people- He knows what the person will do in the future.

Or god could simply remove the person from society via societal laws, not allow such a person to exist etc. If a god were real the options would be endless. Killing is never necessary. Sorry, no excuse will ever be good enough for me.

If it's bad enough, God should end it early.

This makes no sense. If god knows everything, knows what will happen before it happens, then god should just deal with it before it even happens by not allowing said person to even be born.

Especially if that person will encourage child sacrifice, be abusive, and lead people away from having the freedom to live life on a massive scale. Not killing people like that, God would allow multiple Hitlers to reign. Yet we only see a handful. That's what I'm talking about when I say correcting behavior. In the widest sense you could possibly imagine- their past, present, and future behaviors.
In summary, the average human being causes enough pain to warrant them not being allowed to live. They deserve death. But that is not what the majority of them should get, given what God can do to use it all to His glory and ultimately our benefit.
See above, we're on different topics here.

Again, this all sounds pretty irrational to me. It would be like me having the knowledge that if I slipped someone LSD and I knew that action would cause said person to go out and kill someone, I'd give it to them any way, and then call the police so they could be arrested and pay for their crime. That's insane.

 

[WileyCoyote]

You haven't backed that assumption.

You want to talk about backing assumptions? Try backing YOUR assumption that the hebrew word for 'return' applies to the entire passage I quoted. It seems you are taking one word and trying to apply the meaning of it to the entire passage. The baby couldn't 'return' to David, but David could go to it. What did David mean when he said he would go to his infant son? You still have not answered that.

Not in every case. Someone who hates God and has not responded will not be present with the Lord upon death.

Is a baby capable of hating God? Is a baby capable of responding to God when they are not even able to talk? Also, what did Jesus mean when He said that unless we become like children, we would not enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Was He revealing that children enter the Kingdom of Heaven? If not, why use that analogy?

How can you go to someone in physical death? If it's a different culture than ours and they think differently.

Well 1: I don't believe this passage speaks of going to anybody in physical death. And 2: Saying that 'the culture is different so they mean it in a different way than we understand it' doesn't answer the question. Nice try, though.

Yet you did not provide anything but a question in response to the argument.

I've given scripture to back my arguments, which you cleverly tried to explain away. So saying all I did was provide a question in response to an argument is misrepresenting my argument. Nice try.

In the same way every single human being misses the mark, per Romans 3. They fail to follow God's timing, or they fail to love, or they fail in some other way, which is considered sin.

HOW? If sin is not imputed when there is no law, and babies haven't received the law, how can they break it? They don't know what lust is, what selfishness is. It can't be credited to their account as 'sin' because they have not yet received the law. Sin is only imputed when we receive the law and break it. (See Romans 7:7-13)

That is the meaning used in Romans 7, not 3. I'm not applying that to babies, you are.

Actually, you gave me a definition of 'sin' and I was merely quoting one of the definitions YOU gave. If you were not applying it to babies, then maybe you shouldn't have posted it?

And you are still under the misguided assumption that I think babies go to hell. So if there's anyone who doesn't know something, it's you not knowing because you're not understanding. You haven't shown that you are listening to my position and argument.

People wouldn't come to these 'misguided assumptions' if you didn't call babies 'sinners' and say 'Gee, I don't know where they go when they die and neither do you'. Sinners go to hell. So to call babies sinners, and say you don't know where they go when they die gives the impression that you believe they MIGHT be in hell. When you said you didn't know if they were in heaven, it left the possibility open in your mind that they could be in hell. And I'm telling you that is absurd. Not only would that make God a monster, it would make Him unjust, because He didn't even give babies a fair chance to respond to Him before He casted them into a raging fire.

 

[CShephard53]

Sorry, I'm still not sure what you're talking about. What's this about equality and justice?

You stated:

As I pointed out, I think it's folly to compare adults with children. Not all things are equal.

That's what it's about.

I agree that we should invest time to figure out why some are psycho. I'm just saying that such thinking shouldn't be internally embraced...for me at least.

How does anyone expect to find missing children, then? How about diffusing hostage situations?

I don't know why you would say good for them. And you may or may not be speaking of paranoia but you certainly seem to be advocating fear. Is that not the case? Or should people not fear the wrath of god?

I'm advocating a healthy and rational fear. You do know what sarcasm is, correct? Then you know why I would say 'good for them' and continue with 'but that's not what I'm talking about'.

I don't know if assuming the kids you work with deserve eternal hell is something good for kids to be around. Yes, I see the merit in being cautious. That's an application of reason. I'm speaking of irrational fear, which is undeserved eternal damnation and then instilling that fear in innocents. If and when I become a parent, I would worry about my children being exposed to such world-views.

It's a good thing you're not a parent then. Children are not innocent. By the way, children generally refers to anyone under 18 here in the US. 6 and 7 year olds are not innocent. Ever see the case study of the kid who was 7 and deliberately killed another student and manipulated his 'friend' to helping him do it? It was intentional and with knowledge of what he was doing. He is still in jail. I watched that video in my high school psychology class. The first step to improving is to admit there's a problem. If you cannot point out how bad the problem is without introducing the idea of hell, then hell is what needs to be introduced with plenty of reasonings behind why one should improve, hell being among the many. If you think that is dangerous, you can tell that to the multiple people who have been told, however 'insensitively' that if they don't stop a specific behavior they will die. Without that confrontation and tactless approach, many would be dead rather than alive right now. Like the alcoholic after being pulled over for a DWI for the 3rd time. Or the meth addict who just started dealing. Or the prostitute involved in an abusive relationship. Now, if you still think a 'here are the consequences' approach should never be used, I know you are being illogical. But I assume you're a reasonable person and should be able to see the many instances where the hell doctrine should be introduced to kids. I'm not talking about 'believe or you'll go to hell'. I'm talking about giving them the problem, the consequences if there is no change, and the solution along with reasons.

Well, I would hope that most don't hold to an evil overseer. I can't figure christians out half the time.

Hopefully the above will give you a better idea. But it's better to ask questions and test things against the primary source (the Bible) than to assume that all Christians are the same, and that all people who call themselves Christians are actually reflective of a Christian worldview.

It may be important over all to the person. That doesn't mean it's important to everyone.

Bingo. Which is essentially what I just said. Clarity is a wonderful thing.

Why is it not logical? If anything the opposite view is illogical since you cannot not provide a shred of evidence that shows an ultimate reality (as far as god goes) is shared by all.

Since when does reality have to be accepted to be reality? A person who snorts crack or some other hard substance multiple times per week and is physically dependent upon that chemical might not think they are addicted, but that does not change the fact that they are. A rapist might think he/she is being loving by raping someone, but love by definition does not violate those boundaries. It does not have to be shared by all to be reality...

To be frank, and I rarely share this position because I see it as disrespectful, I find the belief in a monotheistic diety to be akin to a psychosis. I think it's irrational and neurotic. Now, i understand that some gain benefit from their beliefs. Obviously they're getting something from it that I just don't understand and probably never will. That's ok. That doesn't mean I have to get on a soap box and state that their/your experience has no value to you. That isn't my place regardless of what I know to be true.

What you perceive to be true, you mean. Truth is not relative, it is absolute. What is true for me is not true for you in some cases and what is true for you is not true for me in some cases, and what either of us view as truth is not necessarily THE truth (and you cannot have two 'truths' that contradict and still have them both be truth). Unless you are able to understand it fully as an actual Christian does and get the overall picture, you are making an argument from ignorance by saying Christianity is psychotic or plain wrong.

So, yea it's relative and respectful to boot.

Truth, as illustrated, is not relative. While truth should be communicated in a respectful manner, it is not and cannot be relative.

[/i]

The behavior. What's that? There is no behavior in an infant that needs to be corrected.

Past present and future, as I have already stated.

Or god could simply remove the person from society via societal laws, not allow such a person to exist etc. If a god were real the options would be endless. Killing is never necessary. Sorry, no excuse will ever be good enough for me.

You've already decided that any explanation would be an excuse. You're again assuming something to be true without even considering all the options. Like the option and reality that the Christian God does not put His sovereignty above free will in most cases, which would be required for what you have suggested. You would make God out to be a hypocrite without considering that angle. You would also be arguing from ignorance.

This makes no sense. If god knows everything, knows what will happen before it happens, then god should just deal with it before it even happens by not allowing said person to even be born.

Which would infringe upon free will and the rules that have been set down by God. While God can do anything, God will not do anything for the sake of His and our benefit because it affects our ability and freedom that He gave us to choose. Why did He allow us freedom to choose? Because He wants willing hearts, and willful obedience and not forced slavery. He persuades, but does not force.

Again, this all sounds pretty irrational to me. It would be like me having the knowledge that if I slipped someone LSD and I knew that action would cause said person to go out and kill someone, I'd give it to them any way, and then call the police so they could be arrested and pay for their crime. That's insane.

No, that is a very inaccurate analogy. It would be more like you knowing beforehand that the person would choose LSD if you allowed them the freedom to make that choice and then, because you allowed them freedom rather than forcing them to do what you wanted, allowing them to choose LSD which would lead to their death. Yet you also know that their death will provide some people the means and reasons to stop doing LSD. So in the end, the cost of one life is worth it to save the many or few.
A similar analogy:
You are the general of an army at war. You receive reliable intelligence that the enemy will be at their weakest in 6 days and can easily formulate a plan to take advantage of that and defeat them, and that the enemy will attack a city of yours with a population of 150,000 people in 3 days, with enough time to evacuate or fortify the city and save most of its people. Would you save the city or sacrifice it to win the war? If you sacrifice the city, you save more lives than there are in the city. If you fortify, you will lose more people to continuing the war and be unable to take advantage of the later weakness because the enemy will have been tipped off to your intel.

It does not take a military strategist to tell us what the better option is.

 

[CShephard53]

You want to talk about backing assumptions? Try backing YOUR assumption that the hebrew word for 'return' applies to the entire passage I quoted.

I didn't assume that. I assume that it applies to the meaning of the passage.

It seems you are taking one word and trying to apply the meaning of it to the entire passage. The baby couldn't 'return' to David, but David could go to it. What did David mean when he said he would go to his infant son? You still have not answered that. Is a baby capable of hating God?

I am taking the context of the passage and letting the passage talk rather than what I want it to say talk. I'm not taking one word, I'm taking how that word is applied given the preceding clause. Without that specific meaning- physical- we could assume very easily that the entire sentence is talking about where one goes after they die. But since it is a physical meaning, it takes away from the probability that same assumption being accurate.

A baby is capable of hating God when it grows older, and God is privy to that information.

Is a baby capable of responding to God when they are not even able to talk? Also, what did Jesus mean when He said that unless we become like children, we would not enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Was He revealing that children enter the Kingdom of Heaven? If not, why use that analogy?

Well 1: I don't believe this passage speaks of going to anybody in physical death. And 2: Saying that 'the culture is different so they mean it in a different way than we understand it' doesn't answer the question. Nice try, though.

What you believe and what reality is could easily be two different things. I've given logic to support my answer, and you wish to ignore culture for the sake of what you believe, else you might respond by trying to figure out what it would have meant in that culture.

I've given scripture to back my arguments, which you cleverly tried to explain away. So saying all I did was provide a question in response to an argument is misrepresenting my argument. Nice try.

You've given your interpretation of Scripture to back your argument, and make unbacked assumptions in the process.

HOW? If sin is not imputed when there is no law, and babies haven't received the law, how can they break it? They don't know what lust is, what selfishness is. It can't be credited to their account as 'sin' because they have not yet received the law.

Wrong definition of sin. See below.

Sin is only imputed when we receive the law and break it. (See Romans 7:7-13) Actually, you gave me a definition of 'sin' and I was merely quoting one of the definitions YOU gave. If you were not applying it to babies, then maybe you shouldn't have posted it?

I'm applying the 'missing the mark' definition to babies. We all miss the mark, babies included. Given the context of Romans 7, that is not the same definition being used to say that sin relies upon knowledge to be sin. That's like saying the murderer who murdered someone is innocent because they did not know what murder was.

People wouldn't come to these 'misguided assumptions' if you didn't call babies 'sinners' and say 'Gee, I don't know where they go when they die and neither do you'. Sinners go to hell.

Granted that they have the ability to respond, and using the definition of sin that is found in Romans 7 and not Romans 3:23, yes, sinners go to hell.

So to call babies sinners, and say you don't know where they go when they die gives the impression that you believe they MIGHT be in hell. When you said you didn't know if they were in heaven, it left the possibility open in your mind that they could be in hell.

That is a possibility. I would not think it is a probability, but it is a possibility. To say otherwise would be to read into Scripture what we want to be there.

And I'm telling you that is absurd. Not only would that make God a monster, it would make Him unjust, because He didn't even give babies a fair chance to respond to Him before He casted them into a raging fire.

That is a matter of your opinion, and you putting your idea of what is just and unjust on God. The difference being that every person who misses the mark deserves death and the above statement would assume that NOT every person who misses the mark deserves death.

You take your pick, being intellectually honest and admitting there is a possibility and not putting your own terms of just and unjust on God, or reading into Scripture what is not conclusively there for the sake of saying all babies go to heaven and having peace of mind, which would undermine what Paul states in Romans 3 and 6:23. I'll take intellectually honest, if you don't mind. I'll also note that you did not address Sheol/grave at all and that this is a debate thread. If you don't address it, you're conceding it.

 

[Criada]

Some of the posts here are a little personal.
Please make sure that you address the post and not the poster,
Thanks
​

 

[Braunwyn]

You stated:
That's what it's about.

ok, although I don't understand what justice has to do with infants. I'm getting really confused at this point.

How does anyone expect to find missing children, then? How about diffusing hostage situations?

I don't see what this has to do with what I'm advocating. A. you are not diffusing hostage situations, B. you are not finding missing children. C. None of that has anything to do with viewing infants as sinners or embracing psychopathy. We can understand something, learn how to deal with it without intergrating into ourselves. Or maybe I'm not understanding what you're talking about.

I'm advocating a healthy and rational fear. You do know what sarcasm is, correct? Then you know why I would say 'good for them' and continue with 'but that's not what I'm talking about'.

Guess I don't see the point in the sarcasim. And no, you are not advocating healthy and rational fear. What you are advocating is off the charts as rational goes.

It's a good thing you're not a parent then.

That's rude.

Children are not innocent. By the way, children generally refers to anyone under 18 here in the US. 6 and 7 year olds are not innocent.

I don't consider teens to be children like I do 6 yr-olds.

Ever see the case study of the kid who was 7 and deliberately killed another student and manipulated his 'friend' to helping him do it? It was intentional and with knowledge of what he was doing. He is still in jail. I watched that video in my high school psychology class. The first step to improving is to admit there's a problem.

Such children are not the norm.

If you cannot point out how bad the problem is without introducing the idea of hell, then hell is what needs to be introduced with plenty of reasonings behind why one should improve, hell being among the many. If you think that is dangerous, you can tell that to the multiple people who have been told, however 'insensitively' that if they don't stop a specific behavior they will die.

I would rather cultivate a moral compass in my children from a sense of compassion, not fear. Behaving because we don't want to be punished is not morality. It's absolutely the wrong approach.

Without that confrontation and tactless approach, many would be dead rather than alive right now. Like the alcoholic after being pulled over for a DWI for the 3rd time. Or the meth addict who just started dealing. Or the prostitute involved in an abusive relationship. Now, if you still think a 'here are the consequences' approach should never be used, I know you are being illogical. But I assume you're a reasonable person and should be able to see the many instances where the hell doctrine should be introduced to kids. I'm not talking about 'believe or you'll go to hell'. I'm talking about giving them the problem, the consequences if there is no change, and the solution along with reasons.

ok, does that work for people? Are they good because they're afraid of hell or are they good because they have a moral compass?

Hopefully the above will give you a better idea. But it's better to ask questions and test things against the primary source (the Bible) than to assume that all Christians are the same, and that all people who call themselves Christians are actually reflective of a Christian worldview.

The above does not help. The hell doctrine does not work. It works no better than beating a child when they do something wrong. It is teaching violence intellectually and emotionally. It constitutes child abuse.

Bingo. Which is essentially what I just said. Clarity is a wonderful thing.

Excuse me, you stated that what I found to be important is unimportant in the big picture. Why are contradicting yourself?

Since when does reality have to be accepted to be reality? A person who snorts crack or some other hard substance multiple times per week and is physically dependent upon that chemical might not think they are addicted, but that does not change the fact that they are. A rapist might think he/she is being loving by raping someone, but love by definition does not violate those boundaries. It does not have to be shared by all to be reality...

That's exactly my point. It's relative to the person. You may indeed have a psychosis with your mystical beliefs and it may be real for you but that doesn't make your beliefs real for me or anyone else. huh, that's your second contradiction on this page.

What you perceive to be true, you mean. Truth is not relative, it is absolute.

In what sense? God does not exist. That's the truth. Is that an absolute truth for you? I doubt it.

What is true for me is not true for you in some cases and what is true for you is not true for me in some cases, and what either of us view as truth is not necessarily THE truth (and you cannot have two 'truths' that contradict and still have them both be truth).

Oh, yes you can. lol.

Unless you are able to understand it fully as an actual Christian does and get the overall picture, you are making an argument from ignorance by saying Christianity is psychotic or plain wrong.

I was an actual christian for decades. I know what it is to be christian. I devoted a good deal of time to it and understood the overall picture. I then rejected it. I didn't say it's psychotic but I do lean towards the thinking that it could involve psychosis. Keep in mind though that I realize my views are and should be considered irrelevant to christians.

Truth, as illustrated, is not relative. While truth should be communicated in a respectful manner, it is not and cannot be relative.

Why not?

Past present and future, as I have already stated.

yea, but I'm not talking about present and future. I'm referring to past behavior, which infants lack.

You've already decided that any explanation would be an excuse. You're again assuming something to be true without even considering all the options. Like the option and reality that the Christian God does not put His sovereignty above free will in most cases, which would be required for what you have suggested. You would make God out to be a hypocrite without considering that angle. You would also be arguing from ignorance.

A. it's not ignorance. I've been addressing these issues for longer than you've been alive. I know them well. And have found that god not putting her sovereignty above free will is a load of moral bull. It's unreasonable and irrational. It's not acceptable. Now, if god were to be discussed as an amoral being, a coversation could be had. You can't have it both ways.

Which would infringe upon free will and the rules that have been set down by God. While God can do anything, God will not do anything for the sake of His and our benefit because it affects our ability and freedom that He gave us to choose. Why did He allow us freedom to choose? Because He wants willing hearts, and willful obedience and not forced slavery. He persuades, but does not force.

If god did not want to get in the way of our free will than she would not pick off people in the name of punishment. It's an obvious contradiction.

No, that is a very inaccurate analogy. It would be more like you knowing beforehand that the person would choose LSD if you allowed them the freedom to make that choice and then, because you allowed them freedom rather than forcing them to do what you wanted, allowing them to choose LSD which would lead to their death. Yet you also know that their death will provide some people the means and reasons to stop doing LSD. So in the end, the cost of one life is worth it to save the many or few.

I would A. not provide the LSD B. not create people that kill or are capable of killing unless I was a twisted sadist. the reasonable conclusion is that there isn't a god at all.

You are the general of an army at war. You receive reliable intelligence that the enemy will be at their weakest in 6 days and can easily formulate a plan to take advantage of that and defeat them, and that the enemy will attack a city of yours with a population of 150,000 people in 3 days, with enough time to evacuate or fortify the city and save most of its people. Would you save the city or sacrifice it to win the war? If you sacrifice the city, you save more lives than there are in the city. If you fortify, you will lose more people to continuing the war and be unable to take advantage of the later weakness because the enemy will have been tipped off to your intel.

A general is not compariable because she's not omnipotent. Unless you're saying that god is not omnipotent.