Using pascals wager and christianity to kill babies

[CShephard53]

children cannot be held to adult standards... God wouldn't deny salvation to one who could never understand to be able to make the choice, sorry.

Prove to me that they do not understand. Your assumption is that they do, show me how.

in fact, we are instructed to be like children (if what you say is true we're instructed to be like sinful selfish beings).

That would work if an infant was all that is children. They are not, so your argument falls apart when a kid hits 2. Selfish is not all that children are. Try again.

 

[deathduck]

Seems to me it's practically the duty of all non-Christians to kill all Christians asap so that they can't convert to the wrong faith before they die.

Honestly. Isn't religion ridiculous?

This statement really hit home for me. I used to be a believing Christian when I was young. My faith started to waver in high school and finally in college I realized what I saw as 'the truth'.

One one philosophy class I heard the professor read "Religion is a fairy tale conceived to make people feel better about the unknown."
That's not what did it, but it was the final nail in the coffin of my beleif.

Now the ironic part is, if someone had killed me while I was still a Christian, and Christianity is true, then I would have been MUCH better off. Better off my an infinite amount.

That said I am not at all worried about hell anymore, because when you truly see it for what it is, a scare tactic, then you see there is nothing to fair.

If the universe is governed by a fair and just god, then he would not send me, or anyone else to an eternal hell.

If the universe is governed by the maniacal Christian god, then I will spend eternity in hell wondering how he gets away with this crap. Sounds like I am taking a big risk, doesn't it?

there are many denominations that believe in infant baptism because sin is inherited and a child dying prior to being baptized into the faith is fated to hell. the premise of the thread is not unfounded. killing babies for the Lord only works if one presupposes that the babies are not sinful inherently but rather are a blank slate with no sin upon them, which is certainly an argument that can be made.
though jawsmetroid does have a disinterest in prodding some of these deep questions with real logic and thought, he does bring up one fundamental truth about the faith. we don't imagine we know all the answers. some of us like to delve deeper to find them than he does, but we all come across that dividing line that seperates the natural from the supernatural and the unknown. Christians must make a peace with that, as it will never be completely crossed or the need for faith would disappear. isaiah 55:8-9 tells us that God's ways are higher than our ways, His thoughts higher than our thoughts, so ultimately, we won't get it, and to some degree that has to be ok with a Christian, or any person of faith.
for me arguing points of doctrine is a form of entertainment and mental exercise, as it isn't at the core of the faith. when the non-believers use doctrine as a way of "proving" God's non-being, i find it a bit funny, as whether baptism is the entry into God's love or meerly symbolic of a step taken is not the point that Jesus died over.
with that said, pascal's wager is a punk way out and allows someone to ignore the real issue at hand, which is faith.
personally, i want it on record that i frown on murdering babies. those who pursue this path should get a severe scolding. murdering babies = bad! i feel confident of my position. LOL!!!

Thanks for the good reply. Obviously murdering babies is unjust hehe. I think 'god thinks on higher levels' is a convenient out for almost all religions. When confronted with something that contradicts itself, doesn't make sense, or is fundamentally flawed anyone can just use this excuse. The thing is, us humans think on a very high level and should not be underestimated.

If I can observe some serious flaws in a simple Christian hell doctrine, then I need to seriously question it's divinity. If there was such thing as a divine doctrine I imagine it's composition and message would be analogous to a brilliant work of art, not a scare tactic and a reason for people to think I am going to spend an eternity in hell.

I mean really, how can any true Christian ever rest while anyone they know of is going to hell for eternity? It's even a scare tactic for Christians to convert more none Christians.

 

[Meshavrischika]

It's still not a blank slate. You made my point for me.

babies aren't biblically selfish :
philautos fil'-ow-tos ; fond of self, i.e. selfish:--lover of own self.

they are not mature enough to even somewhat have "like" or "love". they are physical beings in this way.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Prove to me that they do not understand. Your assumption is that they do, show me how.

That would work if an infant was all that is children. They are not, so your argument falls apart when a kid hits 2. Selfish is not all that children are. Try again.

Jesus didn't say be like "some children" or "these children" but like a child. My argument doesn't fall apart in the face of reason. Sorry.

 

[CShephard53]

babies aren't biblically selfish :
philautos fil'-ow-tos ; fond of self, i.e. selfish:--lover of own self.

they are not mature enough to even somewhat have "like" or "love". they are physical beings in this way.

Prove it.

 

[CShephard53]

Jesus didn't say be like "some children" or "these children" but like a child. My argument doesn't fall apart in the face of reason. Sorry.

Do you know what He meant by child? Do you know what was a 'child' and an 'adult' and an 'infant' in His day? It falls apart in lack of specifics and lack of proof- or context.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Prove it.

you are equally bound to prove they do. normally you are innocent until proven guilty. the preponderance of the evidence is left to YOU to supply my friend. not me.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Do you know what He meant by child? Do you know what was a 'child' and an 'adult' and an 'infant' in His day? It falls apart in lack of specifics and lack of proof- or context.

then you're interpretation is equally as flawed, isn't it?

 

[CShephard53]

you are equally bound to prove they do. normally you are innocent until proven guilty. the preponderance of the evidence is left to YOU to supply my friend. not me.

You initially claimed that they did not know better, I have not claimed that they do not. I claimed that they sin- sin is an objective term. It does not depend upon knowing whether or not you are sinning. My position is that we don't know whether or not they know what they're doing, but that it doesn't matter for the above reason. The burden is on you, not I.

 

[Meshavrischika]

You initially claimed that they did not know better, I have not claimed that they do not. I claimed that they sin- sin is an objective term. It does not depend upon knowing whether or not you are sinning. My position is that we don't know whether or not they know what they're doing, but that it doesn't matter for the above reason. The burden is on you, not I.

The tree was of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil... not OF good and evil (hence the idea that you have to KNOW)

 

[CShephard53]

then you're interpretation is equally as flawed, isn't it?

No. You made the initial claim. Sin is the transgression of God's law, regardless of intent or knowledge of the law. You apply a Greek word that has multiple meanings- young child, one just born, or a more mature child. You'd have to determine the contextual meaning in order to apply your verse to this situation. Otherwise you're taking it our of context.

 

[CShephard53]

The tree was of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil... not OF good and evil (hence the idea that you have to KNOW)

Red herring. Sin by its definition does not have to do with knowledge.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Red herring. Sin by its definition does not have to do with knowledge.

evil by hebrew definition is "dysfunctional". I contend that sin is guilt from KNOWLEDGE of evil (and not evil like we think of it now, and requires knowledge to accomplish). without knowledge there is no sin. Sorry.

 

[Meshavrischika]

No. You made the initial claim. Sin is the transgression of God's law, regardless of intent or knowledge of the law. You apply a Greek word that has multiple meanings- young child, one just born, or a more mature child. You'd have to determine the contextual meaning in order to apply your verse to this situation. Otherwise you're taking it our of context.

YOU were the one who first said babies were sinful. Not me.

 

[CShephard53]

This statement really hit home for me. I used to be a believing Christian when I was young. My faith started to waver in high school and finally in college I realized what I saw as 'the truth'.

What you saw as the truth and what is the truth is probably different.

One one philosophy class I heard the professor read "Religion is a fairy tale conceived to make people feel better about the unknown."
That's not what did it, but it was the final nail in the coffin of my beleif.

So you're going to assume he's telling the truth?

Now the ironic part is, if someone had killed me while I was still a Christian, and Christianity is true, then I would have been MUCH better off. Better off my an infinite amount.

That would assume you were actually born again and a Christian.

That said I am not at all worried about hell anymore, because when you truly see it for what it is, a scare tactic, then you see there is nothing to fair.

That's got an unbacked assumption behind it.

If the universe is governed by a fair and just god, then he would not send me, or anyone else to an eternal hell.

That assumes it would be unjust for Him to punish sin and infinite crimes.

If the universe is governed by the maniacal Christian god, then I will spend eternity in hell wondering how he gets away with this crap. Sounds like I am taking a big risk, doesn't it?

It sounds like you're making more unbacked assumptions for the sake of your argument.

Thanks for the good reply. Obviously murdering babies is unjust hehe. I think 'god thinks on higher levels' is a convenient out for almost all religions. When confronted with something that contradicts itself, doesn't make sense, or is fundamentally flawed anyone can just use this excuse. The thing is, us humans think on a very high level and should not be underestimated.

You'd have to show us how any of what you've said is contradictory. Show us how hell contradicts God's character. Do it objectively, if you can.

If I can observe some serious flaws in a simple Christian hell doctrine, then I need to seriously question it's divinity. If there was such thing as a divine doctrine I imagine it's composition and message would be analogous to a brilliant work of art, not a scare tactic and a reason for people to think I am going to spend an eternity in hell.

You've observed some serious assumptions that don't have proof behind them.

I mean really, how can any true Christian ever rest while anyone they know of is going to hell for eternity? It's even a scare tactic for Christians to convert more none Christians.

It's called faith in God. Faith that God is who He says He is. Faith based on history. Faith based on facts. If God is trustworthy with everything else, why not this little area?

 

[CShephard53]

evil by hebrew definition is "dysfunctional". I contend that sin is guilt from KNOWLEDGE of evil (and not evil like we think of it now, and requires knowledge to accomplish). without knowledge there is no sin. Sorry.

Prove your contention. See, all I have to do is point you to Romans 3. And I just did. So you have fun trying to contradict Paul.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Prove your contention. See, all I have to do is point you to Romans 3. And I just did. So you have fun trying to contradict Paul.

I read it and fail to see your point. Paul was writing to adults, speaking to adults and obviously referring to adults. I see no mention of children or the inherant failure or impurity of children.

 

[CShephard53]

I read it and fail to see your point. Paul was writing to adults, speaking to adults and obviously referring to adults. I see no mention of children or the inherant failure or impurity of children.

Rom 3:4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED."
Rom 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)
Rom 3:6 May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world?
Rom 3:7 But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?
Rom 3:8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), "Let us do evil that good may come"? Their condemnation is just.
Rom 3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
Rom 3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
Rom 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
Rom 3:12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
Rom 3:13 "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS";
Rom 3:14 "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS";
Rom 3:15 "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
Rom 3:16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
Rom 3:17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN."
Rom 3:18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."
Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;
Rom 3:20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
Rom 3:22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
Rom 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
Rom 3:26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.

What part of 'No not one' did you miss? Children are made of flesh and bone, last I checked. If children are truly sinless, then Paul would have said 'all those who have knowledge of sin', not just 'all'. Now, if you would still like to say it's only aimed at adults, answer me a few questions:
-Why does God hold generations accountable for generational sin?
-Why should God hold just the parents accountable for not telling their children about God's laws?
-How can you reconcile the fact that the Scriptures say 'all have sinned' with your idea that sinning is only by knowledge, when clearly there are adults who do not know what sin is, if indeed Paul is just referring to adults when He quotes 'all have sinned'?

 

[reverend B]

if no one deserves grace, but they receive it, how can one deserve hell and not the grace that would forgive it?

 

[CShephard53]

if no one deserves grace, but they receive it, how can one deserve hell and not the grace that would forgive it?

If no one deserves grace but it is given to them by the One who states that one is deserving of hell, they are already demonstrating grace- regardless of whether or not they deserve it.