Using pascals wager and christianity to kill babies

[cantata]

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

It's clearly not selfishness in a moral sense, any more than a puppy is selfish, or a cabbage.

 

[reverend B]

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.

then who could go to hell?

 

[Meshavrischika]

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." I fail to see the point of your emphasis
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.) divine retribution for sin (you still have not proven they DO sin so the def. of wrath and what wrath is is meaningless in the case of children)
Rom 3:6 May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? notice the God judge part - that's important - many christians forget it's God's job to judge.... not ours.
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; I dont' believe Jewish children were sinful either. Just those with the ability to accept or deny (which infants don't have)
Rom 3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; children cannot be morally upright (righteous) or not morally upright. they are a void of morality as they dont' understand.
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." turning aside implies choice, which infants have not developed yet (neither have small children). they cannot understand the concept and therefore cannot "choose"
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, small children were not held to the Law of Moses 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; small children were not held to the Law of Moses 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, again I assert this is speaking to adults. sin is a choice and infants and small children cannot make this choice
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'?

and?

 

[Futuwwa]

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.

In a judicial trial, perhaps. But in a debate, it is common courtesy that the one who makes an assertion (and insists that people believe it) accepts the burden of proof.

 

[CShephard53]

It's clearly not selfishness in a moral sense, any more than a puppy is selfish, or a cabbage.

Still not a blank slate.

 

[CShephard53]

and?

And you can start showing evidence rather than trying to argue against Scripture.

 

[CShephard53]

then who could go to hell?

Demonstrating grace does not necessitate demonstrating it to everyone.

 

[cantata]

Still not a blank slate.

So cabbages are selfish and hence morally bankrupt? Seriously? What about a machine designed to drive around and then seek out more petrol to fuel itself? Is that selfish as well?

You need to rethink. I thought God cared about what intent as well as action. And an infant, who has no sense of self, cannot possibly be selfish or self-centred. That's what their behaviour looks like because we are inclined to think of them "demanding" this or "wanting" that - in a sense, we anthropomorphise them before they're ready. But it is not selfishness.

 

[CShephard53]

So cabbages are selfish and hence morally bankrupt? Seriously? What about a machine designed to drive around and then seek out more petrol to fuel itself? Is that selfish as well?

You need to rethink. I thought God cared about what intent as well as action. And an infant, who has no sense of self, cannot possibly be selfish or self-centred. That's what their behaviour looks like because we are inclined to think of them "demanding" this or "wanting" that - in a sense, we anthropomorphise them before they're ready. But it is not selfishness.

No, you need to rethink the initial claim. The initial claim was that children sin and that babies are selfish and cannot be blank slates. Check psychology if you don't think babies are selfish- I could give you a short list of textbooks.

 

[Braunwyn]

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

Snap!

No, you need to rethink the initial claim. The initial claim was that children sin and that babies are selfish and cannot be blank slates. Check psychology if you don't think babies are selfish- I could give you a short list of textbooks.

This doesn't make sense as far the moral aspect of selfishness goes. Is breathing while a sleep a selfish act? or digestion, defecation, sneezing? Doesn't selfishness include the ability to choose? Babies don't choose and I've never come across such a notion in any psyc text.

 

[cantata]

No, you need to rethink the initial claim. The initial claim was that children sin and that babies are selfish and cannot be blank slates. Check psychology if you don't think babies are selfish- I could give you a short list of textbooks.

Selfishness in a moral sense requires a sense of self. Newborns just don't have that. It also requires choice, and they don't have that either.

How can they be held responsible, by God or anyone else, for something they have no choice about?

 

[reverend B]

Demonstrating grace does not necessitate demonstrating it to everyone.

so that means some are deserving and some are not? i thought grace was for the undeserving?

 

[CShephard53]

Snap!


This doesn't make sense as far the moral aspect of selfishness goes. Is breathing while a sleep a selfish act? or digestion, defecation, sneezing? Doesn't selfishness include the ability to choose? Babies don't choose and I've never come across such a notion in any psyc text.

You're demonstrating all the more that babies are blank slates- did you catch the part of everyone sinning? Did you catch the part where I said that children, generically, sin? Did you catch the claim that babies are not blank slates? Did you catch where I'm making that claim upon the fact that babies are selfish- regardless of whether it is right or wrong selfishness? Selfish, when you take a glance at 1 Corinthians 13, refers to someone- anyone- who puts their desires above other people's desires for their own benefit. Babies, any way you want to slice it, even if it is needed for them to survive, do this.
I'll also ask any of you to demonstrate to me that babies have no choice. Show me, back your claim. Notice that I am asking and not making claims. You made the initial claim, not me. So you can back it.

 

[CShephard53]

so that means some are deserving and some are not? i thought grace was for the undeserving?

No one deserves grace, but whether or not someone deserves something when a loving being is the One to give it does not matter. What matters is what is most loving to each individual person. Some need grace, others need justice. So I say again- demonstrating grace does not necessitate demonstrating it to everyone. And I'll add, nor does it mean the grace is deserved or undeserved.

 

[Braunwyn]

You're demonstrating all the more that babies are blank slates-

Ok, so?

did you catch the part of everyone sinning? Did you catch the part where I said that children, generically, sin? Did you catch the claim that babies are not blank slates? Did you catch where I'm making that claim upon the fact that babies are selfish- regardless of whether it is right or wrong selfishness?

It's hard to understand what you're saying here. Your claims don't add up. And I'm not sure where wrong and right comes into play.

Selfish, when you take a glance at 1 Corinthians 13, refers to someone- anyone- who puts their desires above other people's desires for their own benefit. Babies, any way you want to slice it, even if it is needed for them to survive, do this.

I don't know if I'd align it with desire, morally. You might desire to go to the bathroom or you may not. Actually I've read about people that don't desire to defecate (they try with all their might not to) but they do it any way becasue it's not a choice. I don't see how it's any different with babies.

I'll also ask any of you to demonstrate to me that babies have no choice. Show me, back your claim. Notice that I am asking and not making claims. You made the initial claim, not me. So you can back it.

I'm not sure if you're making claims because I'm having a hard time undersanding you. So, you're asking for evidence that babies have no choice. Lets be specific. About what? Do they have a choice to cry or not? Defecate or not? drool or not? Pick one and we'll go from there.

 

[CShephard53]

Ok, so?

So someone had the bright idea of trying to say otherwise and they got shot down. Tabula rasa is not valid.

It's hard to understand what you're saying here. Your claims don't add up. And I'm not sure where wrong and right comes into play.

Sin is the transgression of God's laws. With or without knowledge. That's where right and wrong come into play. If everyone has sinned (and you'd have to show an example to the contrary to prove that wrong), then everyone deserves death- which is separation from God and life.

I don't know if I'd align it with desire, morally. You might desire to go to the bathroom or you may not. Actually I've read about people that don't desire to defecate (they try with all their might not to) but they do it any way becasue it's not a choice. I don't see how it's any different with babies.

Babies have a choice to cry or not to cry based on emotion. Crying demands a response, and babies know this. However, when babies cry they do not take into account what might be going on around them and cry anyway- whether it is good timing or bad. That is selfish. It has nothing to do with physical needs.

I'm not sure if you're making claims because I'm having a hard time undersanding you. So, you're asking for evidence that babies have no choice. Lets be specific. About what? Do they have a choice to cry or not? Defecate or not? drool or not? Pick one and we'll go from there.

Do babies or do babies not have a choice in being selfish, given the definition, in every instance they are selfish?

 

[Braunwyn]

So someone had the bright idea of trying to say otherwise and they got shot down. Tabula rasa is not valid.

What do you say? Do you think they are blank slates?

Sin is the transgression of God's laws. With or without knowledge. That's where right and wrong come into play. If everyone has sinned (and you'd have to show an example to the contrary to prove that wrong), then everyone deserves death- which is separation from God and life.

Again, I'm confused. Are you saying a baby sins?

Babies have a choice to cry or not to cry based on emotion.

I don't think this is true. When a baby a cries it's a response to a physical issue (cold, hunger, hot, whatever). I don't see how you can view this as an emotion unless you are saying that our physiology is based in emotion. I don't get that either.

Crying demands a response, and babies know this.

They don't know any such thing. You just made a claim FYI.

However, when babies cry they do not take into account what might be going on around them and cry anyway- whether it is good timing or bad. That is selfish. It has nothing to do with physical needs.

lol this is kind of funny. How can a being that lacks cognitive ability make a decision based on the needs of others in their enviroment? The terms "infant cognitive development" does not imply fully developed cognition. Cognition is developed over time. This is one of the reasons that we do not recall the first months, and for some the first years, of our lives.

Do babies or do babies not have a choice in being selfish, given the definition, in every instance they are selfish?

Again I will ask you, name the instance. Of the one's I have specifically mentioned, no they are not selfish. Pooping, crying, sneezing and drooling is not a choice. If you have some other instance in mind then name it.

 

[CShephard53]

What do you say? Do you think they are blank slates?

I've made the answer to that very clear, even in my last post. Tabula rasa is not valid.

Again, I'm confused. Are you saying a baby sins?

I'm saying everyone sins. Everyone would include infants, yes.

I don't think this is true. When a baby a cries it's a response to a physical issue (cold, hunger, hot, whatever). I don't see how you can view this as an emotion unless you are saying that our physiology is based in emotion. I don't get that either.

When a baby cries, it can sometimes be lack of attention. Or discomfort. Or fear. Infants are not purely physical. They have brains that are developing very rapidly in comparison to the rest of us.

They don't know any such thing. You just made a claim FYI.

Yes, go get yourself a copy of Santrock's Developmental Psychology for its backing. Or Myer's Psychology. Even the 2005 edition will do you good. Ever heard of trust vs. mistrust? I'm aware of the claims I make. I'm also aware of what is generally accepted in psychology, and the claim you're referring to is.

lol this is kind of funny. How can a being that lacks cognitive ability make a decision based on the needs of others in their enviroment? The terms "infant cognitive development" does not imply fully developed cognition. Cognition is developed over time. This is one of the reasons that we do not recall the first months, and for some the first years, of our lives.

Infants are still selfish, whether they realize it or not. Someone who kills someone out of jealousy, whether or not they know what murder is, has just committed murder. In the same way, someone who puts their desires above other's and God's is being selfish, regardless of the circumstances.

Again I will ask you, name the instance. Of the one's I have specifically mentioned, no they are not selfish. Pooping, crying, sneezing and drooling is not a choice. If you have some other instance in mind then name it.

No. I've already given enough specifics.

 

[Braunwyn]

I've made the answer to that very clear, even in my last post. Tabula rasa is not valid.

Valid for what? You didn't answer the question.

I'm saying everyone sins. Everyone would include infants, yes.

Please tell me how an infant sins.

When a baby cries, it can sometimes be lack of attention. Or discomfort. Or fear. Infants are not purely physical.

What does this mean? And how is it relevant to the discussion of babies having a choice when they cry?

They have brains that are developing very rapidly in comparison to the rest of us.

What does this mean and how is it relevent to the discussion?

Yes, go get yourself a copy of Santrock's Developmental Psychology for its backing. Or Myer's Psychology. Even the 2005 edition will do you good. Ever heard of trust vs. mistrust? I'm aware of the claims I make. I'm also aware of what is generally accepted in psychology, and the claim you're referring to is.

One of my undergraduate degrees is in psychology. I've reviewed texts in general and have taken several courses in early human development. My psych advisor's research was in the field. What you are saying is just wrong. I don't doubt these texts speak of development, I just don't think you are interpreting it correctly.

Infants are still selfish, whether they realize it or not. Someone who kills someone out of jealousy, whether or not they know what murder is, has just committed murder.

This makes absolutely no sense. You still haven't provided one shred of evidence...even an idea as to why you think infants/babies are selfish. Just nothing.

In the same way, someone who puts their desires above other's and God's is being selfish, regardless of the circumstances.

How does an infant put their needs above others? Be specific. By pooping, by crying? by drooling? what?

No. I've already given enough specifics.

You have not gone into anything specific at all. You have made some generalized claims that aren't leading any where from what I can tell.

 

[Braunwyn]

I would like you to answer the question...how can a being that lacks cognition make a decision if cognition is required to make the decision?