Hell and reproduction

[sashang]

Hi

Given that there is a chance a Chrisitian's offspring may go to hell, shouldn't Christians have a moral obligation to not reproduce? In other words the safest way to spare more souls from eternal damnation is to stop having babies.

 

[salida]

Oh, but more can go to heaven too.

Your argument is like saying, well, we are going to all die anyway so lets start shooting people. Lets turn the table around and say nonchristians shouldn't have babies because their chance of going to hell is higher. Your missing the point and this solves nothing. God gives everyone a fair chance and free will.

Are you a good person? The Good Test

Why did Jesus have to die for our sins? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[sashang]

Your argument is like saying, well, we are going to all die anyway so lets start shooting people.

No it's not. From an atheist perspective (i.e. this is the only life we have) it would not be more moral to start shooting people because they're going to die anyway. My argument has the opposite moral consequence, i.e. it's more moral for Christians to not reproduce because it means that there is no chance for their offspring to go to hell.

Lets turn the table around and say nonchristians shouldn't have babies because their chance of going to hell is higher.

You've misrepresented what non-christians believe by assuming they believe the same thing Christian's do. In my original question I assumed the validity of the Christian framework and infered a moral dilema. In your question above you change the person to a non-christian and kept the Chrisitan framework. This isn't 'turning the tables' but some sort of unfair misrepresentation. To properly turn the tables on the original question your question should be 'nonchristians shouldn't have babies because there is no hell.'. That way you assume the perspective of the non-Christian as I assumed the perspective of the Christian in the original question.

Your missing the point and this solves nothing.

Whether it was due to a failure of logic or a lack of honesty you misrepresented my original question and never answered it. The original question is pretty a simple yes or no answer: would it be more moral for Chrisitians given what they believe about the afterlife, to not reproduce because it will gaurantee that people will not go to hell?

 

[Faulty]

Hi

Given that there is a chance a Chrisitian's offspring may go to hell, shouldn't Christians have a moral obligation to not reproduce? In other words the safest way to spare more souls from eternal damnation is to stop having babies.

No. We all make our choices, including our children. (Ezekiel 18)

Seems to me that if I were to extend your logic a bit further though, since the children of christians are taught the way of salvation more often than the children of atheists, then it would make even more sense to sterilize all the atheists to prevent them from reproducing, thus ensuring maximum potential. Kind of a silly little number game, isn't it?

 

[Faulty]

You've misrepresented what non-christians believe by assuming they believe the same thing Christian's do. In my original question I assumed the validity of the Christian framework and infered a moral dilema. In your question above you change the person to a non-christian and kept the Chrisitan framework. This isn't 'turning the tables' but some sort of unfair misrepresentation. To properly turn the tables on the original question your question should be 'nonchristians shouldn't have babies because there is no hell.'. That way you assume the perspective of the non-Christian as I assumed the perspective of the Christian in the original question.

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[sashang]

Seems to me that if I were to extend your logic a bit further though, since the children of christians are taught the way of salvation more often than the children of atheists, then it would make even more sense to sterilize all the atheists to prevent them from reproducing, thus ensuring maximum potential. Kind of a silly little number game, isn't it?

Yeah that would make sense if a person, an atheist for example, believed in heaven and hell. Then it would make moral sense for the atheist to sterilze himself/herself. However, as everyone knows, atheists don't believe in heaven and hell. It's Christians that do, and atheists have no obligation to adhere to the consequences of other peoples beliefs. However Christians should try to adhere to the consequences of their belief.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

My argument has the opposite moral consequence, i.e. it's more moral for Christians to not reproduce because it means that there is no chance for their offspring to go to hell.

Your morality violates logic, which includes God's command to be fruitful and multiply. You seem to have forgotten to factor that in?

 

[sashang]

Yoiur morality violates logic, which includes god's command to be fruitful and multiply. You seem to have forgotten to factor that in?

I think the passage you're refering to is from Genesis:

28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

Actually that did cross my mind. I think an arguement could be made that we've multiplied enough, subdued enough of the earth and dominate enough living creatures that the statement can be rendered unapplicable at the current point in time.

 

[sashang]

Your morality violates logic, which includes God's command to be fruitful and multiply. You seem to have forgotten to factor that in?

If my morality violates logic could you please explain how choosing a course of action that prevents souls from entering Hell is not good moral behaviour?

 

[GenetoJean]

Hi

Given that there is a chance a Chrisitian's offspring may go to hell, shouldn't Christians have a moral obligation to not reproduce? In other words the safest way to spare more souls from eternal damnation is to stop having babies.

My answer is no because Christians try to SAVE souls from eternal damnation not SPARE them. The soul has to be there to save in the first place.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

I think the passage you're refering to is from Genesis:



Actually that did cross my mind. I think an arguement could be made that we've multiplied enough, subdued enough of the earth and dominate enough living creatures that the statement can be rendered unapplicable at the current point in time.

This was the argument made by Dora Kapp, church secretary for the parish I grew up in. She said that 40 years ago when I was 7. It was the Episcopal church, and look where this thinking has gotten them! What she failed to consider then, and you fail to consider now, is that none of our opinions on that matter. Even at the age of 7, I knew that much.

"No matter what you believe, you can find an Episcopalian who agrees with you." - Robin Williams

The fact remains, we do NOT have dominion over the earth. Not even close. And we have not "tilled it, and kept it." These points are really not debatable, regardless of how much you may like Al Gore's ideas or not.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

If my morality violates logic could you please explain how choosing a course of action that prevents souls from entering Hell is not good moral behaviour?

1. You're confusing morality with righteousness

2. You're pretending you have control over anyone other than yourself. The Bible defines this as witchcraft, a sin. (Not the pretense, but the actual control)

3. I would be very surprised if you had a Biblically accurate concept of this whole "entering hell or heaven" idea. When do you think that starts?

 

[sashang]

1. You're confusing morality with righteousness

Possibly. If by righteousness you mean doing what God commands, then yes it is different from morality. However I wouldn't mind reading your explanation about where you think the confusion is.

2. You're pretending you have control over anyone other than yourself. The Bible defines this as witchcraft, a sin. (Not the pretense, but the actual control)

Ok I think you're trying to imply that by not reproducing I'm controlling a potential future soul that could exist but will not, and in doing so I'm practicing witchcraft, which is a sin according to the Bible. Is that what you meant?

3. I would be very surprised if you had a Biblically accurate concept of this whole "entering hell or heaven" idea. When do you think that starts?

I have no idea what a Biblical accurate concept of heaven and hell is. It seems to vary a lot depending on which Christian you talk to.

 

[Timothew]

I have no idea what a Biblical accurate concept of heaven and hell is. It seems to vary a lot depending on which Christian you talk to.

Indeed.

Rather than "heaven and hell" the bible talks a lot more about "eternal life" and "death". The lawyer didn't ask Jesus "What do I have to do to go to heaven?", he asked "What do I have to do to inherit eternal life?" (Luke 10:25)

How can I have eternal life? Isn't this the question we all have, really?
I have a physical every year and I basically ask my doctor the same question. "What do I have to do to keep from dying?"

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Possibly. If by righteousness you mean doing what God commands, then yes it is different from morality. However I wouldn't mind reading your explanation about where you think the confusion is.

This quickly gets complex, but let's start with your own words, where you were injecting morality into the equation. Morality is a purely human concept, which the Bible never speaks to. You won't find any form of the word "moral" in Scripture, but you WILL find G-d deriding our inclination to do "what is right in our own eyes," which is an awfully good working definition of morality.

What is righteousness? If it were simply "doing what God commands," than Abraham would've killed Isaac. But that isn't how the story goes ...

It seems safe to conclude that you know what morality is, but not necessarily from God's POV. And that you are not terribly familiar with God's righteousness. It is the latter that I think would help you here!

Ok I think you're trying to imply that by not reproducing I'm controlling a potential future soul that could exist but will not, and in doing so I'm practicing witchcraft, which is a sin according to the Bible. Is that what you meant?

Nope. Every soul has it's own choices to make. The deck is stacked against anyone choosing God deliberately, but parents are charged with the responsibility of influencing them in that direction, and keeping them alive until they do. The greatest stresses on parents usually occur when actual control shifts to respect as an individual, and then as an equal.

I have no idea what a Biblical accurate concept of heaven and hell is. It seems to vary a lot depending on which Christian you talk to.

Good answer! And THIS, is what I was getting at

The bible really doesn't give us all those details, and I have to conclude that's intentional.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

I have a physical every year and I basically ask my doctor the same question. "What do I have to do to keep from dying?"

At least you wear a helmet!

 

[Timothew]

At least you wear a helmet!

Yep! I don't understand the guys that don't wear helmets. I have a friend of a friend in the hospital, in a coma because he didn't want to wear his helmet.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

I knew a guy like that, that after coming out of the hospital he had grand mall seizures. One time this guy put me in a position where I had to man-handle him. I did avoid killing him, but it was difficult! His response? "Just kill me."

Head injuries are apparently more serious than they're given credit for

 

[bling]

Hi

Given that there is a chance a Chrisitian's offspring may go to hell, shouldn't Christians have a moral obligation to not reproduce? In other words the safest way to spare more souls from eternal damnation is to stop having babies.

Not having Children is up to the individual and I agree with you that we have already fulfilled God’s command concerning being fruitful.

Paul tells people in the first century to not even marry if they can keep from it, due to the coming persecution.

If parents were “responsible” for making sure their children were Christians that might be a good reason not to have children, but we have children to serve them and help them partly as a result of our example to want to be Christians. The child gets to make the free will choice, so if the child chooses to not want to be Loved with a Godly type Love, that is their choice, so all your dong by having Children is allowing them to choose what they want.

 

[Leap]

Hi

Given that there is a chance a Chrisitian's offspring may go to hell, shouldn't Christians have a moral obligation to not reproduce? In other words the safest way to spare more souls from eternal damnation is to stop having babies.

It's not for us to decide the process of life, it is only for us to live within it and trust God.