Using pascals wager and christianity to kill babies

[CShephard53]

or maybe people read into something things that are not there because they have an inner need to be justified.

I agree. If this is the God that someone worships, they might want to reconsider.

Inner need to be justified? Maybe people want God to be completely merciful and gracious because they had a parent who was an authoritarian/dictator. Maybe people want God to be just because they had indulgent parents. But I'm advocating a balance between the two, not one or the other. It is because of that balance I say we don't and cannot know the answer. Worshiping God is your choice. There are things we don't and cannot know within Christianity. If that's unacceptable for you, then go ahead and reject it. That's your God given choice.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Maybe we see Him that way (merciful and full of grace) because He IS that way. His Spirit is the Teacher of all things. I'm sure there are plenty of people who "know". I know Iahovah God and He is not the monster you make him out to be.

 

[CShephard53]

I'm just saying that you shouldn't expect everyone to find all the aspects of your positions interesting enough to discuss. It's all irrelevant when it comes to considering the behavior of a fetus in the womb.


Nice assumption. That doesn't make sense. I'm not assuming to lack interest in commenting on what I find to be make believe. It's a fact, not an assumption.


I'm not arguing where god sends and doesn't send babies since A. I don't believe in dieties B. therefore babies aren't sent any where. I'm arguing the ridiculous claims of selfish infant crying, now behavior that needs to be corrected in the womb and C. How such skewed thinking is bad for society and children in general.


It took you a couple of pages to come up with your separation of deserve and should. And no, it's not based on logic therefore it can't be backed by logic. The very idea of hell doctrine is illogical and irrational so components you assign to it could never be logical in any form.


You've got to be kidding. The very belief in a monothestic diety is illogical. Show me proof that one exists at all let alone that it assigns inherited sin. And as I stated previously, asking a person to prove a negative is very telling about the asker's ability to apply logic in their thinking.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing, and I'm done with that. Your position is framed to be unbeatable because you won't accept a Christian point of view to begin with.

 

[WittyBanter]

Jawsmetroid:

You bring up some interesting points. I actually respect those that stand by a Biblical take on their faith and don't add stuff to "make them feel better".
In saying that, I personally believe that any diety who has - what I consider - worse ethics then myself is not worthy of my praise or belief.
Yes, the Bible is silent on the whole "babies in Hell" issue, but if you actually take it literally, original sin would indicate that they would actually go there. The Catholic church created Purgatory to make people feel better on the subject (and recently Pope Benedict renounced it).

 

[cantata]

Which is why morality cannot be subjective. You could try to say the same for lawmakers, but it still does not negate the fact that they made the law for very specific reasons (though it would be different because they sometimes don't follow their own laws). But that does not negate the fact that the laws were made for very specific and health-centered reasons. Health in a mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual sense.

So you want to whip out God and say, "Aha! Look! Now we have objective morality!"? Well, I'm afraid that God isn't going to help much with that. If God makes the rules, what makes the rules right? The fact that God made them? What makes rules-that-God-makes right?

I think it is morally reprehensible to worship a god who makes rules like "No one can kill anybody except meeeee, mwahahaha!" *stabbity stabbity stab*. If I made a rule like that, I'd be a bad lawmaker. How can someone who exempts themselves from the rules just because they happen to be making them be worthy of the worship of everyone on the planet? Because he made them? If I made a race of tiny people and then did horrible things to them, would I have any business being put out when they didn't worship me?

I'm quite happy with morality, and any other value set, being a human construct, and I'm also quite happy with following my conscience and not worshipping anything that behaves like the God you're describing.

 

[Braunwyn]

You're arguing for the sake of arguing, and I'm done with that. Your position is framed to be unbeatable because you won't accept a Christian point of view to begin with.

True, I don't accept the christian pov, which shouldn't matter. It usually doesn't. I must mention it because you have the gusto to demand logic and evidence from everyone else while your premise requires the employment of a lack of logic to begin with. You want it both ways but you can't have it. Sorry.

k, I must get back to work now. Have a nice afternoon all.

 

[CShephard53]

So you want to whip out God and say, "Aha! Look! Now we have objective morality!"? Well, I'm afraid that God isn't going to help much with that. If God makes the rules, what makes the rules right? The fact that God made them? What makes rules-that-God-makes right?

I think it is morally reprehensible to worship a god who makes rules like "No one can kill anybody except meeeee, mwahahaha!" *stabbity stabbity stab*. If I made a rule like that, I'd be a bad lawmaker. How can someone who exempts themselves from the rules just because they happen to be making them be worthy of the worship of everyone on the planet? Because he made them? If I made a race of tiny people and then did horrible things to them, would I have any business being put out when they didn't worship me?

I'm quite happy with morality, and any other value set, being a human construct, and I'm also quite happy with following my conscience and not worshipping anything that behaves like the God you're describing.

Problem is, God doesn't say 'no one can kill but me'. Soldiers can kill. We see it all the time. Heck, you and I could kill. Wrong word choice, try phrasing it better.

 

[CShephard53]

True, I don't accept the christian pov, which shouldn't matter. It usually doesn't. I must mention it because you have the gusto to demand logic and evidence from everyone else while your premise requires the employment of a lack of logic to begin with. You want it both ways but you can't have it. Sorry.

k, I must get back to work now. Have a nice afternoon all.

My premise requires a Christian point of view which there is plenty of evidence for. Drop by Christian Apologetics sometime.

 

[cantata]

Problem is, God doesn't say 'no one can kill but me'. Soldiers can kill. We see it all the time. Heck, you and I could kill. Wrong word choice, try phrasing it better.

The commandment says "You shall not kill."

 

[Braunwyn]

My premise requires a Christian point of view which there is plenty of evidence for. Drop by Christian Apologetics sometime.

I've dropped by CA plenty of times. There's a reason faith is a requirement for belief in any deity...because there simply isn't evidence for it. Religous faith, which as we know is a belief not based on proof, is at the core of the christian point of view. As I stated, I think personal experience has value so evidence doesn't matter as long as it's real for you and you aren't hurting anyone with your faith. But, your glass house is built on sand so throwing stones is definately not a logic move.

 

[CShephard53]

I've dropped by CA plenty of times. There's a reason faith is a requirement for belief in any deity...because there simply isn't evidence for it. Religous faith, which as we know is a belief not based on proof, is at the core of the christian point of view. As I stated, I think personal experience has value so evidence doesn't matter as long as it's real for you and you aren't hurting anyone with your faith. But, your glass house is built on sand so throwing stones is definately not a logic move.

No, that is not what Christianity is about. Faith is based in logic. Faith is the conviction of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). We do not readily see God answering prayers, but we know that He has, and because we know He has, we know He can and will answer them in the future. It's akin to looking at someone larger and heavier than us sit in a chair and deciding that because the chair was able to hold someone larger, it is able to hold us too. That is the same kind of faith we have in God, else it is founded in ignorance and blind trust. True, faith is trust. But it is not blind, it has its basis. We even see that at the end of John:

Joh 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
Joh 20:25 So the other disciples were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."
Joh 20:26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be with you."
Joh 20:27 Then He *said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
Joh 20:29 Jesus *said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."
Joh 20:30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
Joh 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

If you honestly do not think there isn't evidence for Christianity, I urge you to look at the number and time period of the manuscripts for the New Testament. I also urge you to read The Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg, and check out an Apologetics Study Bible. There's plenty of evidence for Christianity.

Now, if that section really meant that we shouldn't doubt and just believe with no basis, why would John have included verse 30 and 31 which contradict that idea? Because that is not Jesus' intent. Jesus' intent is for people to see the works He does and then believe.

 

[CShephard53]

The commandment says "You shall not kill."

Wrong.

Exo 20:13 "You shall not murder7523.

H7523
רצח
râtsach
BDB Definition:
1) to murder, slay, kill
1a) (Qal) to murder, slay
1a1) premeditated
1a2) accidental
1a3) as avenger
1a4) slayer (intentional) (participle)
1b) (Niphal) to be slain
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to murder, assassinate
1c2) murderer, assassin (participle) (substantive)
1d) (Pual) to be killed
Part of Speech: verb

That's not simply killing. That's murder. US courts might call some of what it is manslaughter, but it's still murder.

 

[cantata]

If faith is based in logic, why does it have a special name to separate it from other sorts of belief?

 

[cantata]

1) to murder, slay, kill

Er, kill?

That's not simply killing. That's murder. US courts might call some of what it is manslaughter, but it's still murder.

Well, make your mind up, which is it? Murder or manslaughter?

In any case, God murders. You know when he killed everyone on the earth except for one family? That's murder. Not to mention all the other natural disasters he's been responsible for.

 

[Braunwyn]

No, that is not what Christianity is about. Faith is based in logic. Faith is the conviction of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).

Please, do show me the evidence.

We do not readily see God answering prayers, but we know that He has, and because we know He has, we know He can and will answer them in the future.

Again, show me the proof.

It's akin to looking at someone larger and heavier than us sit in a chair and deciding that because the chair was able to hold someone larger, it is able to hold us too. That is the same kind of faith we have in God, else it is founded in ignorance and blind trust. True, faith is trust. But it is not blind, it has its basis. We even see that at the end of John:

Joh 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
Joh 20:25 So the other disciples were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."
Joh 20:26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be with you."
Joh 20:27 Then He *said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
Joh 20:29 Jesus *said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."
Joh 20:30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
Joh 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

Sorry, but none of the above is proof. Just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so.

If you honestly do not think there isn't evidence for Christianity, I urge you to look at the number and time period of the manuscripts for the New Testament. I also urge you to read The Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg, and check out an Apologetics Study Bible. There's plenty of evidence for Christianity.

lol Der, there's obviously evidence for christianity but christianity provides zero evidence for the existance of the preferred deity. It's wishful thinking.

Now, if that section really meant that we shouldn't doubt and just believe with no basis, why would John have included verse 30 and 31 which contradict that idea? Because that is not Jesus' intent. Jesus' intent is for people to see the works He does and then believe.

I see a whole lot of blue with a pretty font. I'm sorry, but you are aware of circular sourcing are you not? That's the bible and christian logic in a nutshell. "the bible is true!" Pray tell, why? "Because the bible says it's true!" This is logic to you? Mmmkaaay.

 

[CShephard53]

[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]
Please, do show me the evidence.


Again, show me the proof.

[/B]
Sorry, but none of the above is proof. Just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so.


lol Der, there's obviously evidence for christianity but christianity provides zero evidence for the existance of the preferred deity. It's wishful thinking.


I see a whole lot of blue with a pretty font. I'm sorry, but you are aware of circular sourcing are you not? That's the bible and christian logic in a nutshell. "the bible is true!" Pray tell, why? "Because the bible says it's true!" This is logic to you? Mmmkaaay.

No. You said faith isn't based on evidence. I just provided you plenty that it is based on evidence. That's not circular, that's common sense.

 

[CShephard53]

Er, kill?



Well, make your mind up, which is it? Murder or manslaughter?

In any case, God murders. You know when he killed everyone on the earth except for one family? That's murder. Not to mention all the other natural disasters he's been responsible for.

Show how God is responsible for natural disasters, for one, and for another show how God murders, given the definition. I gave you definitions from a Hebrew dictionary- context determines meaning. Not what you want. So please enlighten me how you know better than the majority of scholars, language experts, and Bible translators what the word means.

 

[Braunwyn]

No. You said faith isn't based on evidence. I just provided you plenty that it is based on evidence. That's not circular, that's common sense.

You didn't provide a lick of evidence. What do you find in your post (in particular) that shows any kind of evidence? "I know that god will answer prayers" is not evidence, hence you need faith that isn't based on evidence to buy into it. And I'm figuring that you don't understand what circular sourcing is because you did indeed source the bible to show evidence of the bible. Did you not?

 

[CShephard53]

You didn't provide a lick of evidence. What do you find in your post (in particular) that shows any kind of evidence? "I know that god will answer prayers" is not evidence, hence you need faith that isn't based on evidence to buy into it. And I'm figuring that you don't understand what circular sourcing is because you did indeed source the bible to show evidence of the bible. Did you not?

No, I used a book and a study Bible (which by the way has references and articles in it that give you a far more accurate list than I could). Do try to stop the complex questions.

 

[Braunwyn]

No, I used a book and a study Bible (which by the way has references and articles in it that give you a far more accurate list than I could). Do try to stop the complex questions.

Ummm, any article you provide about positions in the bible are going to be sourced via the bible. This isn't all that complex to understand.