Using pascals wager and christianity to kill babies

[WileyCoyote]

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

Yet, you ASSUMED. I would tell you what ASSUMING does, but I don't want to get reported. So for the sake of modesty, I'll leave my point at that.

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.

Another ASSUMPTION. You assume now that I am making the passage say what I want it to say. You are accusing me of being dishonest. And on top of that, you are implying that your own interpretation of the verse is the correct one, and for me to take it any other way is to twist it into what I want it to say. I would consider this a pesonal attack. An ad hominem, if you will. Who's to say that YOU'RE interpretation is the only interpretation I have to take without making the passage say what I want it to say?

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

Well when the baby grows older it is no longer a baby, is it? God may know the baby might hate Him in the future, but that doesn't mean God will punish the baby for future sins not yet commited. So your 'Minority Report' argument falls flat!!

What you believe and what reality is could easily be two different things.

That goes BOTH ways.

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.

Well, that's the difference, isn't it? I've given scripture and YOU have given logic. And please stop misrepresenting me. I didn't ignore culture. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove what the passage means culturally, since it was you that made the claim that the culture was different, so the passage meant something different.

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

And you have given me YOUR interpretation. And I didn't give any 'assumptions', but merely a sypnosis of the passage I quoted. I backed my sypnosis.

Wrong definition of sin. See below.

STILL not impressed.

I'm applying the 'missing the mark' definition to babies. We all miss the mark, babies included.

You have yet to prove that.

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.

Well, not really. Our law may punish a person who kills, but God won't if the person didn't know it was wrong. Romans 7 PROVES that. Romans 7 states that knowledge of sin is what brings death. Even Paul said that he was alive apart from knowledge of the law. But when the law was revealed to him, it brought DEATH. But death didn't come until the law was revealed. Go figure.

Now WHO is making passages say what they want it to say?

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.

Most definitely. But do babies have the ability to respond?

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.

That is an arrogant statement. To say something different than what you believe is to read into scriptures what we want to be there? So you are passing your interpretation off as infallable truth? Do you have all the answers?

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.

I would agree, only you have failed to prove that babies miss the mark. Please do so, if you can.

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.

Well, Sheol/Grave isn't really relevant in this debate, because the 2 Samuel passage I gave doesn't contain that word. You simply said that the grave was where the baby went in this passage, something you are teaching from pure silence. And saying I'm not being intellectually honest is the same as saying I'm being dishonest, because I disagree with you. When you are ready to engage me in a debate without insults, assumptions, and claims that you have the right answers and everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong, then let me know. I'll be waiting.

 

[stan1980]

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

snip

 

[cantata]

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.

It wasn't sin for him to cause the death of everyone in the world except for one small family?

 

[stan1980]

Rawr!

Bear in mind that the whole point is that I worship a god I feel is deserving of worship

Such as myself? I have to admit, if i'm not deserving of worship, i really don't know who is.

 

[allhart]

Pascal's wager is a philosophic reason for believing in god. It states your expected value is greater if you believe than if you do not.

If you believe and you are correct, you are rewarded with infinity in heaven.

If you believe and are incorrect, you are not punished.

If you do not believe and and are correct, you are not rewarded.

If you do not believe and are incorrect, you are eternally punished.

So as you can see, if you do not believe in god then 1/2 outcomes brings you infinite pain and suffering and no rewards are possible. If you believe, then 1/2 outcomes is eternal rewards with no possibility of punishment.

This, in my opinion, is why many Christian believe in Christianity. I challenge yourself to look deep into your heart and discover if this is one of the core reasons for your belief, and if it is what made you a believer in the first place.

I myself, think hell is an obvious scare tactic created in the old days to make people convert.

Now onto another philosophic issue, the title of my post.

It is generally agreed that if a baby dies it is not going to hell because god recognizes it was too young to decide for itself what was right and wrong / true and untrue doctrine or whatever.

Now, if a baby grows into an adult, there is a chance (a very large chance) that it will not believe in Jesus Christ before it dies. It then suffers eternally in hell for this grave mistake, and suffer eternally. However, if you kill the baby before it has a chance to decide, it is always going to heaven and will be rewarded eternally.

Eternity is so long compared to this short life on earth that the babies expected value is MUCH higher if it dies before it has a chance to decided if Christianity is right or wrong.

THEREFORE!! Under Christian doctrine, it would be a righteous thing to go around slaying babies left and right, because you save them from any chance of eternal damnation and send them strait to heaven.

Using this logic you can clearly see and understand that hell is a place made up by man in order to scare people into religious belief. SPREAD THE WORD!

1. Discovering God 2. Growing in truth 3. Having a place for you or me
In having said these thoughts and in looking into your ideas. Then why is it your intent on impacting the world of which wouldn't concern your self with "Heaven." Never the less you seem to be concerned, why is that? Then why are you, so scared. or why are you trying to convince others, otherwise of belief or unbelief. You and others go through painstaking energy to undermine spiritual life and look upon having right turned up on the head God. For a cause in which may be a greater force than you realize or maybe you do? "Evil doers" which is all of us have free will and a choice to love God. Hell bound or not. Also your statements show me no innocence , so there is no ignorance of your character and which you try covering up in the innocent of babies souls. God must judge sin before he can think of forgiving us of our sins. Which come from one that has a change of mind "REPENTANCE" This means that they are thoughtful enough to be accountable for there action regarding sin and the last time I looked at a child they were Innocent not accountable for there ignorance of what they don't know "SIN"Not like you and I can say that honestly.

 

[CShephard53]

Yet, you ASSUMED. I would tell you what ASSUMING does, but I don't want to get reported. So for the sake of modesty, I'll leave my point at that.

Well, you said yourself it's a valid assumption. If it doesn't impact the passage, then David could have left the 'he will not return to me' out and left us all hanging.

Another ASSUMPTION. You assume now that I am making the passage say what I want it to say. You are accusing me of being dishonest. And on top of that, you are implying that your own interpretation of the verse is the correct one, and for me to take it any other way is to twist it into what I want it to say. I would consider this a pesonal attack. An ad hominem, if you will. Who's to say that YOU'RE interpretation is the only interpretation I have to take without making the passage say what I want it to say?

Red herring, given what you quoted. I'm talking about clauses and probability of accuracy and you go on about being dishonest?

Well when the baby grows older it is no longer a baby, is it? God may know the baby might hate Him in the future, but that doesn't mean God will punish the baby for future sins not yet commited. So your 'Minority Report' argument falls flat!!

No, but it's not an argument either. It's speculation. Context.

That goes BOTH ways. Well, that's the difference, isn't it? I've given scripture and YOU have given logic. And please stop misrepresenting me. I didn't ignore culture. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove what the passage means culturally, since it was you that made the claim that the culture was different, so the passage meant something different.

Okay. Fact: David lived over 2500 years ago. Fact: he did not live in America. Fact: the cultural concepts we have now were not entirely existent when David was around. Conclusion: It was a different culture.
I said culture affects meaning. I never stated how or whether or not it applied to the passage, but if you would like to have your interpretation be valid (and I might remind you that you brought up the verse in the first place and firstly told me that it meant David's kid went to heaven), it might behoove you to back your own interpretation. Burden of proof goes with the person making the initial claim, and the refuting side has to show something resembling reasonable doubt. What you've just tried is burden shifting.

And you have given me YOUR interpretation. And I didn't give any 'assumptions', but merely a sypnosis of the passage I quoted. I backed my sypnosis.

Yes, you did give assumptions. You assume that it's talking about afterlife. I didn't give you an interpretation but probability and reasonable doubt. If I wanted to give you an interpretation, I'd tell you what I think the passage means to me. Not trying to refute your idea of it.

STILL not impressed.

I'm not trying to impress you, I'm trying to refute you.

You have yet to prove that. Well, not really. Our law may punish a person who kills, but God won't if the person didn't know it was wrong. Romans 7 PROVES that. Romans 7 states that knowledge of sin is what brings death. Even Paul said that he was alive apart from knowledge of the law. But when the law was revealed to him, it brought DEATH. But death didn't come until the law was revealed. Go figure.

Now WHO is making passages say what they want it to say?

Where in Romans 7 does it say that God will not punish sin without knowledge? Nowhere. Go figure.

Most definitely. But do babies have the ability to respond?

Doesn't matter, they miss the mark. You said as much two or three posts ago.

That is an arrogant statement. To say something different than what you believe is to read into scriptures what we want to be there? So you are passing your interpretation off as infallable truth? Do you have all the answers?

Okay, do you understand the difference between possibility and probability? There is a possibility that a meteor exactly 5.4 cm will come through the air around you and strike your laptop square in the CPU, but there's not much probability, is there? Red herring, given that I never claimed to have infallible truth or having all the answers or that I want something to be there. I'd like a cut and dried answer, but we don't have that.

I would agree, only you have failed to prove that babies miss the mark. Please do so, if you can.

You said yourself they inherited sin. Oh, wait, no that was the sermon tonight on Jesus dying for everyone's sins.

Well, Sheol/Grave isn't really relevant in this debate, because the 2 Samuel passage I gave doesn't contain that word. You simply said that the grave was where the baby went in this passage, something you are teaching from pure silence. And saying I'm not being intellectually honest is the same as saying I'm being dishonest, because I disagree with you. When you are ready to engage me in a debate without insults, assumptions, and claims that you have the right answers and everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong, then let me know. I'll be waiting.

If I didn't think I was right, why would I debate? To entertain myself? When you have reasons for me to believe your position and backing for your interpretation, let me know. Otherwise I'll stick with the reasonable doubt to it.

 

[CShephard53]

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.

Straw man argument. I'm not talking about kids, I'm talking about understanding God's reasoning and the need for understanding reasoning in general. See what preceded what you quoted.

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.

Yet you are not giving me your rational for saying that.

That's rude.

It's also rude to tell someone that what they advocate is irrational without telling them why. I at least explained to you why.

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

It does not matter what you consider, you cannot change terms for the sake of being right.

Such children are not the norm.

Really? Then what is the norm? Kids do wrong stuff intentionally all the time, the only difference is that most of it does not result in someone dying.

I would rather cultivate a moral compass in my children from a sense of compassion, not fear.

Which is why I stated that most of the reasons- not just the one- should be given. I'm not talking about giving a kid just the reason of fear, and I have made that clear. Borderline straw man.

Behaving because we don't want to be punished is not morality. It's absolutely the wrong approach.

Why? That is the reason kids behave when they are younger- surely you've heard of Kohlberg?

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?

If they are normal and have the average Christian reasonings behind being a Christian, both. And then some more reasons to boot- like being loving, wanting to improve, etc. As I've already stated.

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.

If it does not work, please explain to me why Christian camps in the US get lasting converts from explaining the entire Gospel message- which includes hell if it is a Christian camp.

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

How is agreeing with you contradicting me? You said:

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

If you measure importance by relativistic standards, all you have are a bunch of people contradicting themselves. If you measure it by objective standards, then you can have every right to say what I just did. If something is not important to everyone, it can be important overall- much as they might deny it. Importance does not rely on acceptance, it relies on logic.

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.

No, I'm arguing that it is not relative to the person. That's how I come up with the idea that whether or not the meth addict accepts the fact that they are a meth addict, they are still a meth addict. It cannot be relative if it doesn't depend on acceptance.

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

Nice claim, prove it. Truth must be able to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise it is just an assumption or generalization.

Oh, yes you can. lol.

Then prove how.

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.

That contradicts your statement that you do not understand Christianity/Christians.

Why not?

You cannot have two contradicting ideas both being truth.

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

They move in their mother's womb, they have past behavior. Semantics are important.

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.

Prove it. You say you've been addressing these issues longer than I've been alive, then you would be able to give me reasons along with claims on the first go rather than just telling me that it's unacceptable, unreasonable, and irrational. Tell me why, give me reasons, evidence. You know, the same stuff you want from me.

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.

Where are we given free will to live, exactly? God created oxygen and gives the breath of life, so why is God violating our free will by taking that away? It's His to begin with. Contradictions, true contradictions, cannot have any rational explanations to explain them as paradoxes. And they have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

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.

Jump in logic. You use the terms 'twisted sadist' upon no basis besides your own opinion, then use it to say there is no God.

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

You do know that all analogies are flawed and are not entirely true and are often used to illustrate a point, right? You also know that God at various points in Israel's history did command armies.

 

[CShephard53]

It wasn't sin for him to cause the death of everyone in the world except for one small family?

Sin deserves death. So no, it was not sin. It was justice.

 

[CShephard53]

Given the recent nature and direction of the thread, I am disinclined to continue conversing with people who do nothing more than ridicule.

 

[Braunwyn]

Straw man argument. I'm not talking about kids, I'm talking about understanding God's reasoning and the need for understanding reasoning in general. See what preceded what you quoted.

Straw man? Your analogies are out in left field. You believe they some how fit and yet you call my statement a straw man?

Yet you are not giving me your rational for saying that.

My rationale for thinking your sarcasm is unwarranted? It was a waste of band width.

It's also rude to tell someone that what they advocate is irrational without telling them why. I at least explained to you why.

I've told you at least 10 times why I think your claims are irrational. You determining whether or not I should parent because I wouldn't want your type of views instilled in my offspring is ridiculous.

It does not matter what you consider, you cannot change terms for the sake of being right.

I treat people accordingly. I won't speak to and engage a six yr-old like i would an 18 yr-old. I also wouldn't have the same expectations of 6-yr-old as a 14-15-16- 18 yr-old. That's just common sense so i'm not sure what you're on about.

Really? Then what is the norm? Kids do wrong stuff intentionally all the time, the only difference is that most of it does not result in someone dying.

The norm is that most children are not killers.

Which is why I stated that most of the reasons- not just the one- should be given. I'm not talking about giving a kid just the reason of fear, and I have made that clear. Borderline straw man.

I disagree that hell doctrine needs to be included in cultivating a moral compass. If that's what you want to do with your kids, if you ever have kids, then go for it. Just don't expect everyone or anyone for that matter to find your methods appropriate.

Why? That is the reason kids behave when they are younger- surely you've heard of Kohlberg?

I wrote a paper on Kohlberg when i was an undergrad. I'm familiar with him. I want to let you in on a little secret tho. Psych theories are worthy of consideration but just because they're in a text doesn't mean it's written in stone and that a person can't think for herself. And normally I don't even speak of psych as much as I have here. It's actually a little embarrasing for me.

If it does not work, please explain to me why Christian camps in the US get lasting converts from explaining the entire Gospel message- which includes hell if it is a Christian camp.

Humans are easily indoctrinated. This is nothing new. It's a minority of individuals that are independent thinkers, that examine their religion and understand that one person's interpretation is just that. Fortunately, there are such people on this forum and we've seen as much in this thread, which impresses me.

How is agreeing with you contradicting me? You said:

As I stated, you argued the opposite and then agreed.

If you measure importance by relativistic standards, all you have are a bunch of people contradicting themselves. If you measure it by objective standards, then you can have every right to say what I just did.

Again, you're not making sense. A person is not going to contradict herself if she states that what she finds important to herself as important. It's also not a contradiction to state that what you find important to you is important to you. It is a contradiction for you to state that what I find to be important is both unimportant and important at the same time. That's what you did.

If something is not important to everyone, it can be important overall- much as they might deny it.

Says who?

No, I'm arguing that it is not relative to the person. That's how I come up with the idea that whether or not the meth addict accepts the fact that they are a meth addict, they are still a meth addict. It cannot be relative if it doesn't depend on acceptance.

True. And I suppose the same goes that you might not believe your views involve psychosis, or lets say an active imagination, but that wouldn't change the fact that it was indeed the case. At the same time it wouldn't affect the fact that you perceive it as something else. It's real for you and I think that has value for the person.

Nice claim, prove it. Truth must be able to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise it is just an assumption or generalization.

It's illogical to think you can prove a negative. I suspect you know better.

Then prove how.

Notice my post -

"Oh, yes you can. lol."

Of course I had you in mind. You are my proof lol. Now, it was meant to be a funny as far contradictory truths go but christians do indeed embrace contradictory truths with religion in the "spirit realm" and science in the secular realm. Reason and logic is expected in the day to day and held fast to, but it goes out the window when considering faith.

That contradicts your statement that you do not understand Christianity/Christians.

Christianity or christians?

You cannot have two contradicting ideas both being truth.

I do believe that you something can be true for you. And that's enough.

They move in their mother's womb, they have past behavior. Semantics are important.

Oh, please. Don't even pull this type of crud with me or I'll stop speaking with you. It comes off as if you're not ok and that isn't something I want to converse with. If you think you can charge a fetus with behavior that can be used for an example of behavior that can be corrected than I recommend you go get help sooner than later. It's unhealthy.

Prove it. You say you've been addressing these issues longer than I've been alive, then you would be able to give me reasons along with claims on the first go rather than just telling me that it's unacceptable, unreasonable, and irrational. Tell me why, give me reasons, evidence. You know, the same stuff you want from me.

Something cannot be immoral and moral at the same time.

Where are we given free will to live, exactly?
God created oxygen and gives the breath of life, so why is God violating our free will by taking that away? It's His to begin with. Contradictions, true contradictions, cannot have any rational explanations to explain them as paradoxes. And they have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

If god punishes a person by killing her for killing, then she is preventing that person from killing again (her free will to do so). It's a contradiction to state that god gives free will and then takes free will a way. Taking it a way means it was never free to begin with, hence the contradiction. As you say, semantics are important.

Jump in logic. You use the terms 'twisted sadist' upon no basis besides your own opinion, then use it to say there is no God.

The idea that god is both a twisted sadist while simultaneously loving is too bizarre for me to accept. My conclusion is that no such being exists.

You do know that all analogies are flawed and are not entirely true and are often used to illustrate a point, right? You also know that God at various points in Israel's history did command armies.

Well, we either need to be discussing an omnipotent general or a human general. Pick one.

 

[stan1980]

Given the recent nature and direction of the thread, I am disinclined to continue conversing with people who do nothing more than ridicule.

snip

 

[Meshavrischika]

What a monster.

Internal consistency, at the expense of a morally acceptable deity. Seriously, why would anybody worship this guy?

because jaws has it wrong (sorry, but you do)

i wouldn't worship the God he is selling either. BUT I am Christian to my innermost being.

 

[CShephard53]

because jaws has it wrong (sorry, but you do)

i wouldn't worship the God he is selling either. BUT I am Christian to my innermost being.

Saying I have it wrong without backing again, hmm?
Try again.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Saying I have it wrong without backing again, hmm?
Try again.

ditto

 

[CShephard53]

Straw man? Your analogies are out in left field. You believe they some how fit and yet you call my statement a straw man?


My rationale for thinking your sarcasm is unwarranted? It was a waste of band width.


I've told you at least 10 times why I think your claims are irrational. You determining whether or not I should parent because I wouldn't want your type of views instilled in my offspring is ridiculous.


I treat people accordingly. I won't speak to and engage a six yr-old like i would an 18 yr-old. I also wouldn't have the same expectations of 6-yr-old as a 14-15-16- 18 yr-old. That's just common sense so i'm not sure what you're on about.


The norm is that most children are not killers.


I disagree that hell doctrine needs to be included in cultivating a moral compass. If that's what you want to do with your kids, if you ever have kids, then go for it. Just don't expect everyone or anyone for that matter to find your methods appropriate.


I wrote a paper on Kohlberg when i was an undergrad. I'm familiar with him. I want to let you in on a little secret tho. Psych theories are worthy of consideration but just because they're in a text doesn't mean it's written in stone and that a person can't think for herself. And normally I don't even speak of psych as much as I have here. It's actually a little embarrasing for me.


Humans are easily indoctrinated. This is nothing new. It's a minority of individuals that are independent thinkers, that examine their religion and understand that one person's interpretation is just that. Fortunately, there are such people on this forum and we've seen as much in this thread, which impresses me.


As I stated, you argued the opposite and then agreed.


Again, you're not making sense. A person is not going to contradict herself if she states that what she finds important to herself as important. It's also not a contradiction to state that what you find important to you is important to you. It is a contradiction for you to state that what I find to be important is both unimportant and important at the same time. That's what you did.


Says who?


True. And I suppose the same goes that you might not believe your views involve psychosis, or lets say an active imagination, but that wouldn't change the fact that it was indeed the case. At the same time it wouldn't affect the fact that you perceive it as something else. It's real for you and I think that has value for the person.


It's illogical to think you can prove a negative. I suspect you know better.


Notice my post -

"Oh, yes you can. lol."

Of course I had you in mind. You are my proof lol. Now, it was meant to be a funny as far contradictory truths go but christians do indeed embrace contradictory truths with religion in the "spirit realm" and science in the secular realm. Reason and logic is expected in the day to day and held fast to, but it goes out the window when considering faith.


Christianity or christians?


I do believe that you something can be true for you. And that's enough.


Oh, please. Don't even pull this type of crud with me or I'll stop speaking with you. It comes off as if you're not ok and that isn't something I want to converse with. If you think you can charge a fetus with behavior that can be used for an example of behavior that can be corrected than I recommend you go get help sooner than later. It's unhealthy.


Something cannot be immoral and moral at the same time.


If god punishes a person by killing her for killing, then she is preventing that person from killing again (her free will to do so). It's a contradiction to state that god gives free will and then takes free will a way. Taking it a way means it was never free to begin with, hence the contradiction. As you say, semantics are important.


The idea that god is both a twisted sadist while simultaneously loving is too bizarre for me to accept. My conclusion is that no such being exists.


Well, we either need to be discussing an omnipotent general or a human general. Pick one.

'don't pull this crud or I'll stop speaking with you'? I've already ended the conversation and you're now continuing it. I've said all I want to say and you're continuing it, or trying to. I'll tell you the same thing- don't pull that crud, because I've already stopped speaking with you. I do not rely on debating with you, so it's not much of a threat.

 

[CShephard53]

ditto

I've given plenty. That is clearly seen in the last two pages of posts.

 

[Meshavrischika]

I've given plenty. That is clearly seen in the last two pages of posts.

no. you've quoted alot of scripture that isn't applicable to infants with alot of supposition about their development and intents.

 

[CShephard53]

More unbacked claims. Please quit while you're ahead. Development is not all I've talked about here...

 

[Meshavrischika]

and it's all been very assumptive on your part (the things you've talked about).

I find that most of your arguments require leaps to conclusions that just don't make sense logically or spiritually.

 

[WileyCoyote]

Well, you said yourself it's a valid assumption. If it doesn't impact the passage, then David could have left the 'he will not return to me' out and left us all hanging.

I don't think ANY assumption is valid. You still have yet to define to me what David meant when he said that he would go to his infant son. Still waiting.

Red herring, given what you quoted. I'm talking about clauses and probability of accuracy and you go on about being dishonest?

Please define to me what you think a 'red herring' is. You've accused people many times of commiting this fallacy. And yes, you DID accuse me of being dishonest. When you tell me that I'm trying to make the scriptures say what I want it to say, that is an allegation of dishonesty. I'm not trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. This is what I truly believe. And yes, by pretty much calling me a liar, that was an ad hominem. And also, you took one hebrew word and tried to apply the meaning of it to the entire passage. Try looking up in the hebrew what the phrase 'going to my son' means, then come back to me. If it is a physical meaning then you have made your point.

No, but it's not an argument either. It's speculation. Context.

It isn't an argument? Does God punish based on the 'Minority Report' system?

Okay. Fact: David lived over 2500 years ago.

Ok.

Fact: he did not live in America.

For real? You mean Israel isn't part of America?

Fact: the cultural concepts we have now were not entirely existent when David was around. Conclusion: It was a different culture.

Duh. I could see it was a different culture.

I said culture affects meaning. I never stated how or whether or not it applied to the passage, but if you would like to have your interpretation be valid (and I might remind you that you brought up the verse in the first place and firstly told me that it meant David's kid went to heaven), it might behoove you to back your own interpretation. Burden of proof goes with the person making the initial claim, and the refuting side has to show something resembling reasonable doubt. What you've just tried is burden shifting.

Well, not really. YOU were the one who brought up the 'culture' argument, so it is on you to prove that what I said didn't match culturally. You told me it was a different culture, but you failed to tell me how what I said didn't match the culture of the time. It isn't burden shifting. It is trying to get you to explain your 'unbacked assumption'. Sound familiar?

Yes, you did give assumptions. You assume that it's talking about afterlife. I didn't give you an interpretation but probability and reasonable doubt. If I wanted to give you an interpretation, I'd tell you what I think the passage means to me. Not trying to refute your idea of it.

Um, you gave NO reasonable doubt. All you've managed to do was tell me that 'sheol' meant the grave (which makes NO sense because the word 'sheol' or hell don't even appear in the passage.) and you've told me that the culture was different at that time, so I quoted this scripture out of context culturally. But notice, you failed to show me HOW.

I'm not trying to impress you, I'm trying to refute you.

Well, perhaps you can tell me what Jesus meant when He said that the Kingdom of Heaven was made for children. That might help with your refutation.

Where in Romans 7 does it say that God will not punish sin without knowledge? Nowhere. Go figure.

You are reading too much into the passage. If the knowledge of the law hasn't penetrated your mind, then it isn't SIN. Here we have an oxymoron. 'Sin without knowledge' isn't sin. It is only sin when you receive the law and break it.

Doesn't matter, they miss the mark. You said as much two or three posts ago.

Now you are using a straw man. I never said that. I said a baby has a 'sin nature'. A sin nature is different than commiting sin. First, babies haven't received the law, so they can't break it. Secondly, you STILL fail to show me how babies miss the mark. If they can't sin (because knowledge of the law brings death, and breaking the law is credited as sin) then how can they miss the mark?

Okay, do you understand the difference between possibility and probability? There is a possibility that a meteor exactly 5.4 cm will come through the air around you and strike your laptop square in the CPU, but there's not much probability, is there? Red herring, given that I never claimed to have infallible truth or having all the answers or that I want something to be there. I'd like a cut and dried answer, but we don't have that.

I am fully convinced you have no idea what a 'red herring' is.

You said yourself they inherited sin. Oh, wait, no that was the sermon tonight on Jesus dying for everyone's sins.

No, I said they inherited a 'sin nature'. But they can't act on it until they receive the law. First, they have to know what the law says. Then they have to break it. Then, and ONLY then, will it be imputed as sin.

If I didn't think I was right, why would I debate? To entertain myself?

Now I did not say that. You did.

When you have reasons for me to believe your position and backing for your interpretation, let me know. Otherwise I'll stick with the reasonable doubt to it.

Hmm. You accuse me of not backing up my interpretation. However, I have given you plenty of scriptures and you have given me NONE. If there is anybody not backing up their position scripturally, it is you.