[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] Dead children go straight to heaven

[DogmaHunter]

Hi there,

Several users of the forum have expressed their belief that every child that dies before reaching a mental state that makes them accountable for their actions, would go straight to heaven.

To me, this has some rather nasty implications when I put all the pieces together.

So first, let's go over a few premises:

• according to most religions with some heavenly salvation, "life" is some kind of test to see if you deserve eternal paradise or eternal hell.
• God wants people to get to heaven. And according to christianity, he even wants that so much that he sacrificed his son (well... himself, actually) to accomplish that. I'll leave it in the middle how a human sacrifice could make that happen and just accept that it can - since that is the christian position.
• Dead babies and toddlers go straight to heaven - no questions asked (according to these users I mentioned above)
• Altruism is a good thing. Meaning that helping someone at the expense of yourself is considered moral and sometimes even heroic. For example, throwing yourself on a grenade to make sure your children standing a few meters away will remain unharmed.
• According to christianity, nobody is beyond salvation - anyone can get "saved".

When I put all these things together, it seems to logically lead to the conclusion that mass murdering babies and toddlers is a moral thing to do....

1. the children go straight to heaven - this pleases god because god wants people to go to heaven
2. you ensure the salvation of children whom otherwise would be more likely to end up in hell, with all the temptation and "false religions" in this world
3. it is the ultimate act of altruism, because by killing children, you break a commandment that can potentially get you to hell - which means that you not only sacrificed your earthly life, you actually sacrificed your eternal life - the ultimate sacrifice I would say


I would like to ask the people who support this notion of "dead babies go straight to heaven" to please point out the flaw in this logic.

Keep in mind that I'm in NO WAY advocating or encouraging the slaughter of babies. I think the above "logic" is absolutely horrid.

But at the same time, if the premises are sound..... well.... YIKES!

So please help me out here.

Regards,
Dogma.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hi there,

Several users of the forum have expressed their belief that every child that dies before reaching a mental state that makes them accountable for their actions, would go straight to heaven.

To me, this has some rather nasty implications when I put all the pieces together.

So first, let's go over a few premises:

• according to most religions with some heavenly salvation, "life" is some kind of test to see if you deserve eternal paradise or eternal hell.
• God wants people to get to heaven. And according to christianity, he even wants that so much that he sacrificed his son (well... himself, actually) to accomplish that. I'll leave it in the middle how a human sacrifice could make that happen and just accept that it can - since that is the christian position.
• Dead babies and toddlers go straight to heaven - no questions asked (according to these users I mentioned above)
• Altruism is a good thing. Meaning that helping someone at the expense of yourself is considered moral and sometimes even heroic. For example, throwing yourself on a grenade to make sure your children standing a few meters away will remain unharmed.
• According to christianity, nobody is beyond salvation - anyone can get "saved".

When I put all these things together, it seems to logically lead to the conclusion that mass murdering babies and toddlers is a moral thing to do....

1. the children go straight to heaven - this pleases god because god wants people to go to heaven
2. you ensure the salvation of children whom otherwise would be more likely to end up in hell, with all the temptation and "false religions" in this world
3. it is the ultimate act of altruism, because by killing children, you break a commandment that can potentially get you to hell - which means that you not only sacrificed your earthly life, you actually sacrificed your eternal life - the ultimate sacrifice I would say


I would like to ask the people who support this notion of "dead babies go straight to heaven" to please point out the flaw in this logic.

Keep in mind that I'm in NO WAY advocating or encouraging the slaughter of babies. I think the above "logic" is absolutely horrid.

But at the same time, if the premises are sound..... well.... YIKES!

So please help me out here.

Regards,
Dogma.

If this made sense theologically, why would we have children anyway? We have birth control methods, we have the choice whether to bring babies into the world. Secondly, if God didn't want us to live out our lives He wouldn't have had us in this world in the first place. Earth is an experience to learn about good and evil, love and hate and suffering and joy. One is needed to understand the other.

 

[Cearbhall]

When I put all these things together, it seems to logically lead to the conclusion that mass murdering babies and toddlers is a moral thing to do....

I, too, have found that some people who express this set of beliefs haven't thought through the implications. However, official Christian teaching usually also includes the belief that only God has the right to decide when to bring someone home, which prevents this from being a problem.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If this made sense theologically, why would we have children anyway? We have birth control methods, we have the choice whether to bring babies into the world.

Good question.

But instead of answering my question with another question, perhaps simply try to answer my question.

Secondly, if God didn't want us to live out our lives He wouldn't have had us in this world in the first place.

But for some reason, he has parasites in this world that kill millions of babies who didn't stand a single chance.

So, that doesn't seem really consistent?
Aren't those millions of babies in heaven?

Why is it okay for children to be ensured salvation when they are killed by parasites, but not when they are ensured salvation by abortion, for example?

Earth is an experience to learn about good and evil, love and hate and suffering and joy. One is needed to understand the other.

So, those millions of babies that are killed by nasty parasites, are in paradise without any notion of what evil, love, hate, joy and suffering is?


Also, you are not really addressing the argument in the OP.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I, too, have found that some people who express this set of beliefs haven't thought through the implications. However, official Christian teaching usually also includes the belief that only God has the right to decide when to bring someone home, which prevents this from being a problem.

I feel it only represents a problem for those people who care more about their own salvation then for the salvation of their (or other people's) children.

That's why I included altruism in the list of premises.
The person who sacrifices his "eternal life" to ensure the eternal salvation of children, doesn't really care about what god thinks to begin with - since that person willingly offers himself up for an eternity in hell to make sure hundreds, thousands of souls are ensured a spot in heaven.

I guess my question for these users is the following:
What argument would you use to persuade this person to not go on a baby killing spree?

I mean, once we include an altruistic premise, it seems to me that there is no argument left to rationally persuade these people to not go on a killing spree.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Good question.

But instead of answering my question with another question, perhaps simply try to answer my question.



But for some reason, he has parasites in this world that kill millions of babies who didn't stand a single chance.

So, that doesn't seem really consistent?
Aren't those millions of babies in heaven?

Why is it okay for children to be ensured salvation when they are killed by parasites, but not when they are ensured salvation by abortion, for example?



So, those millions of babies that are killed by nasty parasites, are in paradise without any notion of what evil, love, hate, joy and suffering is?


Also, you are not really addressing the argument in the OP.

First of all, I believe it is okay for babies no matter the form of death to go to heaven. There could be very good reasons for children to come into the world only to leave it very early in life or even in the womb. I could use my imagination much like Dawkins does to create very plausible reasons for this to happen. Regardless, it is not moral or right to take a life that God gives. It goes against God Himself. Children are to be considered blessings.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I feel it only represents a problem for those people who care more about their own salvation then for the salvation of their (or other people's) children.

That's why I included altruism in the list of premises.
The person who sacrifices his "eternal life" to ensure the eternal salvation of children, doesn't really care about what god thinks to begin with - since that person willingly offers himself up for an eternity in hell to make sure hundreds, thousands of souls are ensured a spot in heaven.

I guess my question for these users is the following:
What argument would you use to persuade this person to not go on a baby killing spree?

I mean, once we include an altruistic premise, it seems to me that there is no argument left to rationally persuade these people to not go on a killing spree.

Do you think it is moral for millions of babies to be aborted?

 

[Desk trauma]

There is a related issue to children going to heaven, embryos and zygotes going to heaven. The majority of fertilized eggs do not implant, are spontaneously aborted or for other reasons do not come anywhere close to term without any intervention. This would make the majority of the citizens of heaven souls who never drew breath or archived awareness prior to being sent to the afterlife.

 

[Armoured]

Hi there,

Several users of the forum have expressed their belief that every child that dies before reaching a mental state that makes them accountable for their actions, would go straight to heaven.

To me, this has some rather nasty implications when I put all the pieces together.

So first, let's go over a few premises:

• according to most religions with some heavenly salvation, "life" is some kind of test to see if you deserve eternal paradise or eternal hell.
• God wants people to get to heaven. And according to christianity, he even wants that so much that he sacrificed his son (well... himself, actually) to accomplish that. I'll leave it in the middle how a human sacrifice could make that happen and just accept that it can - since that is the christian position.
• Dead babies and toddlers go straight to heaven - no questions asked (according to these users I mentioned above)
• Altruism is a good thing. Meaning that helping someone at the expense of yourself is considered moral and sometimes even heroic. For example, throwing yourself on a grenade to make sure your children standing a few meters away will remain unharmed.
• According to christianity, nobody is beyond salvation - anyone can get "saved".

When I put all these things together, it seems to logically lead to the conclusion that mass murdering babies and toddlers is a moral thing to do....

1. the children go straight to heaven - this pleases god because god wants people to go to heaven
2. you ensure the salvation of children whom otherwise would be more likely to end up in hell, with all the temptation and "false religions" in this world
3. it is the ultimate act of altruism, because by killing children, you break a commandment that can potentially get you to hell - which means that you not only sacrificed your earthly life, you actually sacrificed your eternal life - the ultimate sacrifice I would say


I would like to ask the people who support this notion of "dead babies go straight to heaven" to please point out the flaw in this logic.

Keep in mind that I'm in NO WAY advocating or encouraging the slaughter of babies. I think the above "logic" is absolutely horrid.

But at the same time, if the premises are sound..... well.... YIKES!

So please help me out here.

Regards,
Dogma.

The logic is unimpeachable. Best counter argument you're going to get is people calling you a NAZI or similar.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is a related issue to children going to heaven, embryos and zygotes going to heaven. The majority of fertilized eggs do not implant, are spontaneously aborted or for other reasons do not come anywhere close to term without any intervention. This would make the majority of the citizens of heaven souls who never drew breath or archived awareness prior to being sent to the afterlife.

This is a problem how?

 

[parkerjwill]

Nice post. Witty. And well written.

The whole issue is resolved when you incorporate reincarnation into the equation. The only reason to not consider it, is indeed because of dogma. I cannot see how a person can, without at least a good amount of blinding sentiment, believe in God without accepting and understanding reincarnation.

 

[Desk trauma]

This is a problem how?

It's not so much a problem as an absurdity.

It would become a problem if you conducted your self as if it were actually true, i.e. whooping for joy in the face of a women who just miscarried.

 

[parkerjwill]

One life determining eternal hell or eternal paradise? That also creates impossible-to-reconcile absurdities. Again, reincarnation solves the problem.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's not so much a problem as an absurdity.

It would become a problem if you conducted your self as if it were actually true, i.e. whooping for joy in the face of a women who just miscarried.

So one must hate life to be a Christian...that's logical.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nice post. Witty. And well written.

The whole issue is resolved when you incorporate reincarnation into the equation. The only reason to not consider it, is indeed because of dogma. I cannot see how a person can, without at least a good amount of blinding sentiment, believe in God without accepting and understanding reincarnation.

Why do you need reincarnation? We live before we are born and we live after we are born. Why do we have to come back time and time again?

 

[parkerjwill]

So one must hate life to be a Christian...that's logical.

Nietzsche said essentially that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

One life determining eternal hell or eternal paradise? That also creates impossible-to-reconcile absurdities. Again, reincarnation solves the problem.

If we are all god then why do we need to reincarnate to become something we already are?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nietzsche said essentially that.

Which is not what Christian Theology claims.

 

[Desk trauma]

So one must hate life to be a Christian...that's logical.

If one believes that a miscarriage equals admittance to heaven, rather then the trials of life and the chance that the person will reject Christian doctrine then be tortured for eternity, why would the reaction be anything other then exuberance over the good fortune?

 

[parkerjwill]

I think Nietzsche's power to understand theology outpaces the majority of us. Though I certainly don't arrive at the same conclusions he did.