Using pascals wager and christianity to kill babies

[CShephard53]

and it's all been very assumptive on your part (the things you've talked about).

I find that most of your arguments require leaps to conclusions that just don't make sense logically or spiritually.

Then perhaps you could give some logic to show how rather than adding to the number of unbacked claims in this thread?

 

[CShephard53]

I don't think ANY assumption is valid. You still have yet to define to me what David meant when he said that he would go to his infant son. Still waiting.
Please define to me what you think a 'red herring' is. You've accused people many times of commiting this fallacy. And yes, you DID accuse me of being dishonest. When you tell me that I'm trying to make the scriptures say what I want it to say, that is an allegation of dishonesty. I'm not trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. This is what I truly believe. And yes, by pretty much calling me a liar, that was an ad hominem. And also, you took one hebrew word and tried to apply the meaning of it to the entire passage. Try looking up in the hebrew what the phrase 'going to my son' means, then come back to me. If it is a physical meaning then you have made your point.

It isn't an argument? Does God punish based on the 'Minority Report' system?

Ok. For real? You mean Israel isn't part of America? Duh. I could see it was a different culture. Well, not really. YOU were the one who brought up the 'culture' argument, so it is on you to prove that what I said didn't match culturally. You told me it was a different culture, but you failed to tell me how what I said didn't match the culture of the time. It isn't burden shifting. It is trying to get you to explain your 'unbacked assumption'. Sound familiar?

Um, you gave NO reasonable doubt. All you've managed to do was tell me that 'sheol' meant the grave (which makes NO sense because the word 'sheol' or hell don't even appear in the passage.) and you've told me that the culture was different at that time, so I quoted this scripture out of context culturally. But notice, you failed to show me HOW.

Well, perhaps you can tell me what Jesus meant when He said that the Kingdom of Heaven was made for children. That might help with your refutation.

You are reading too much into the passage. If the knowledge of the law hasn't penetrated your mind, then it isn't SIN. Here we have an oxymoron. 'Sin without knowledge' isn't sin. It is only sin when you receive the law and break it.

Now you are using a straw man. I never said that. I said a baby has a 'sin nature'. A sin nature is different than commiting sin. First, babies haven't received the law, so they can't break it. Secondly, you STILL fail to show me how babies miss the mark. If they can't sin (because knowledge of the law brings death, and breaking the law is credited as sin) then how can they miss the mark?
I am fully convinced you have no idea what a 'red herring' is.
No, I said they inherited a 'sin nature'. But they can't act on it until they receive the law. First, they have to know what the law says. Then they have to break it. Then, and ONLY then, will it be imputed as sin.

Now I did not say that. You did. Hmm. You accuse me of not backing up my interpretation. However, I have given you plenty of scriptures and you have given me NONE. If there is anybody not backing up their position scripturally, it is you.

1- having sin nature is missing the mark.
2- I already said I was done
3- You have failed to recognize what exactly you quote when you respond to it.

And that adds up to me not willing to respond, even if I had not said I was done, to your post.

 

[stan1980]

This thread should carry a public health warning. If you want a debate with someone with cohesive thought, free of logical fallacies you are most definitely in the wrong place. That is all.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Then perhaps you could give some logic to show how rather than adding to the number of unbacked claims in this thread?

my logic is that God errs on the side of grace and mercy. my logic is that children are what we're to be like, and therefore it is logical that we would not emulate sinful selfish beings at Christ's command. my logic is that without knowledge there is no wrong (you have yet to explain the knowledge of good and evil, vs. OF good and evil).

 

[WileyCoyote]

1- having sin nature is missing the mark.

Prove it.

2- I already said I was done

You never told ME you were done.

3- You have failed to recognize what exactly you quote when you respond to it.

Oh really? I thought I was handling your abuse rather well and in context to what you were saying.

And that adds up to me not willing to respond, even if I had not said I was done, to your post.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is an admission of defeat. Congratulations on just giving me the victory instead of making me work for it. I tip my hat to you.

 

[Braunwyn]

'don't pull this crud or I'll stop speaking with you'? I've already ended the conversation and you're now continuing it. I've said all I want to say and you're continuing it, or trying to. I'll tell you the same thing- don't pull that crud, because I've already stopped speaking with you. I do not rely on debating with you, so it's not much of a threat.

I responded to your response to me which ocurred before your post of not wanting to continue the thread. I didn't see until after I responded to you and wasn't sure who you were referring to any way.

Either way, making a claim that an infant possesses behavior in the womb or should be held accountable in some way for gestation is just too much. You pushed it too far.

and it's all been very assumptive on your part (the things you've talked about).

I find that most of your arguments require leaps to conclusions that just don't make sense logically or spiritually.

Indeed

Then perhaps you could give some logic to show how rather than adding to the number of unbacked claims in this thread?

You are probably the only one in this thread who does not back claims with reason. Ya know, enough people are seeing the same thing. You might want to pay attention and perhaps consider that your positions need to be reevaluated. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Criada]

Please stick to the topic.
If the ad hominem attacks continue, this will be closed.
Be nice, folks!
​

 

[CShephard53]

Prove it. You never told ME you were done. Oh really? I thought I was handling your abuse rather well and in context to what you were saying.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is an admission of defeat. Congratulations on just giving me the victory instead of making me work for it. I tip my hat to you.

By point:
Romans 3.

I made it very clear and made the post to everyone I was discussing things with, aiming it at no one in particular. It was a very general statement, given that it did not address anyone in particular.

Ad hominem, as has just been pointed out, is unacceptable.

In order to win, you would have had to provide enough evidence to refute my claim, which you did not. You still haven't proven that your 2 Samuel verse talks about babies going to heaven like you claimed earlier. You have not won. You are willing to continue arguing for the sake of arguing and I am not.

 

[CShephard53]

my logic is that God errs on the side of grace and mercy.

God does not 'err' on any given side but assesses each situation according to all of the circumstances surrounding and as part of the situation. That's the most general way I can put it. Another way to say it is that there is a balance between mercy and justice.

my logic is that children are what we're to be like, and therefore it is logical that we would not emulate sinful selfish beings at Christ's command.

Then your logic would be to be completely like children in every way (and they are sinful in many ways) and again ignore the fact that Jesus constantly referred to their faith. Ability to trust, given how trustworthy someone is.

my logic is that without knowledge there is no wrong (you have yet to explain the knowledge of good and evil, vs. OF good and evil).

Your logic does not line up with Romans 3 or 6:23, nor Romans 1:18-22. As I have already pointed out. Your logic fails to see the broader picture and focuses on the fact that I say there's a possibility that infants go to hell and ignore the fact that I've said (repeatedly) that we don't know and that it is not a probability. It also ignores the terms I've used throughout this.

That is not logic. That is how you feel about all of this. You've given opinion with little backing to it.

 

[CShephard53]

I responded to your response to me which ocurred before your post of not wanting to continue the thread. I didn't see until after I responded to you and wasn't sure who you were referring to any way.

Either way, making a claim that an infant possesses behavior in the womb or should be held accountable in some way for gestation is just too much. You pushed it too far.


Indeed


You are probably the only one in this thread who does not back claims with reason. Ya know, enough people are seeing the same thing. You might want to pay attention and perhaps consider that your positions need to be reevaluated. There's nothing wrong with that.

There is something wrong with it when people focus on the one aspect rather than the whole picture. As I have said, this has happened before with salvation. I went on for 15-16 pages on the thread before it finally died. And it died because no one was able to find anything in the Bible that goes against salvation being a process as well as a past and future event, or against the idea that 'works are necessary for salvation'. They focused on the fact that I said 'works are necessary' and completely ignored the definition of works I was using and ignored the Scripture I used. Similarly, you guys have ignored the parts where I've said we don't know and that it is a possibility but not a probability. You've also ignored the difference between deserve and should. So let me be clearer. Ignore what I've said thus far. Forget everything I've said and summarize it like this:
Infants, because they are part of humanity and inherit sin, deserve death. That is what sin brings, death. They are not inherently good, they are inherently sinful. However, we do not know because we are not told in the Bible what God does with situations where the person is unable to decide.

 

[Braunwyn]

There is something wrong with it when people focus on the one aspect rather than the whole picture.

I focus on what interests me.

As I have said, this has happened before with salvation. I went on for 15-16 pages on the thread before it finally died. And it died because no one was able to find anything in the Bible that goes against salvation being a process as well as a past and future event, or against the idea that 'works are necessary for salvation'.

I can't speak as a christian so what can I say of it? You can come here and state that pink unicorns are running a marathon around the globe collecting fairy dust for our salvation. How can comment? It's difficult to comment on make believe.

Similarly, you guys have ignored the parts where I've said we don't know and that it is a possibility but not a probability.

It's also a possibility that you are the ghost of a venus fly trap that has possessed the body of a family dog and decided to utilize the innate telepathic and telekintetic canine ability to post on a message board. There's no shortage of possibilities. So?

You've also ignored the difference between deserve and should.

It should be noted that you have your own personal defintion of should, which rests on "corrected behavior" that has meaning to you. How is anyone supposed to know that?

So let me be clearer. Ignore what I've said thus far. Forget everything I've said and summarize it like this:

Infants, because they are part of humanity and inherit sin, deserve death. That is what sin brings, death. They are not inherently good, they are inherently sinful. However, we do not know because we are not told in the Bible what God does with situations where the person is unable to decide.

Inherited sin is one thing, pointing to possible behavior in the womb is another. Although when I dwell on inherited sin long enough I can't deny that I find it up right up there with the insanity of considering possible womb behavior or selfish infant crying that could constitute sin. One of my first memories in church when I was a child and one of the first times it dawned on me that something was amiss was when I considered the concept of inherited sin. I thought it was bullocks then, and still do today. It definately has an element of a caste system, something I intuitively reject.

 

[CShephard53]

I focus on what interests me.

Well, I'm sure you know that your interests may not be what is most important about my position about this, seeing as you think salvation is a fairy tale in the first place.

I can't speak as a christian so what can I say of it? You can come here and state that pink unicorns are running a marathon around the globe collecting fairy dust for our salvation. How can comment? It's difficult to comment on make believe.

Nice assumption, but it has no merit in its connection.

It's also a possibility that you are the ghost of a venus fly trap that has possessed the body of a family dog and decided to utilize the innate telepathic and telekintetic canine ability to post on a message board. There's no shortage of possibilities. So?

So we cannot say with certainty where God sends them.

It should be noted that you have your own personal defintion of should, which rests on "corrected behavior" that has meaning to you. How is anyone supposed to know that?

How? I've written it. I've clarified it. I've even given explanations and examples. It's not very personal in that it is backed by logic, for if there is no difference between what one deserves and what one should get, then love has no power.

Inherited sin is one thing, pointing to possible behavior in the womb is another. Although when I dwell on inherited sin long enough I can't deny that I find it up right up there with the insanity of considering possible womb behavior or selfish infant crying that could constitute sin. One of my first memories in church when I was a child and one of the first times it dawned on me that something was amiss was when I considered the concept of inherited sin. I thought it was bullocks then, and still do today. It definately has an element of a caste system, something I intuitively reject.

So it's based on your experience and apparently what you want to be true is true. But you have not been able to give a logical reason behind it and it is therefore just a personal opinion and a claim.

 

[cantata]

Sin deserves death. So no, it was not sin. It was justice.

So I can go around killing everyone who sins (i.e. everyone)?

 

[WittyBanter]

Seriously, anyone who worships a being that may be sending babies to suffer FOREVER needs to readjust their ethics meter.
If you are arguing that point then please stop, take a deep breath, and realize what is is you are saying. Do you really want to stand next to an omnipotent being who is letting countless infant souls scream in torment for eternity? The Hell doctrine is silly enough without adding the "too dumb to know" people. Are the mentally handicapped also burning forever?

 

[CShephard53]

So I can go around killing everyone who sins (i.e. everyone)?

In theory, but God said 'vengeance is mine', so you'd be violating that one unless God specifically and obviously chose you to met out justice.

 

[CShephard53]

Seriously, anyone who worships a being that may be sending babies to suffer FOREVER needs to readjust their ethics meter.
If you are arguing that point then please stop, take a deep breath, and realize what is is you are saying. Do you really want to stand next to an omnipotent being who is letting countless infant souls scream in torment for eternity? The Hell doctrine is silly enough without adding the "too dumb to know" people. Are the mentally handicapped also burning forever?

A logical and intellectually honest mind cannot ignore possibilities because they are not desirable.

 

[Meshavrischika]

A logical and intellectually honest mind cannot ignore possibilities because they are not desirable.

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.

 

[cantata]

In theory, but God said 'vengeance is mine', so you'd be violating that one unless God specifically and obviously chose you to met out justice.

This is exactly the kind of special pleading I'm talking about. God's allowed to do whatever the hell he likes because he makes the rules - which means he can never sin. How convenient!

In my book, it doesn't matter what God says is right or wrong - if he floods the earth and kills everyone on it, he's behaving evilly, whether he thinks he is or not. The fact that he tries to claim that he's allowed to because he happens to be God makes it even worse.

 

[CShephard53]

This is exactly the kind of special pleading I'm talking about. God's allowed to do whatever the hell he likes because he makes the rules - which means he can never sin. How convenient!

In my book, it doesn't matter what God says is right or wrong - if he floods the earth and kills everyone on it, he's behaving evilly, whether he thinks he is or not. The fact that he tries to claim that he's allowed to because he happens to be God makes it even worse.

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.

 

[Braunwyn]

Well, I'm sure you know that your interests may not be what is most important about my position about this, seeing as you think salvation is a fairy tale in the first place.

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, but it has no merit in its connection.

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.

So we cannot say with certainty where God sends them.

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.

How? I've written it. I've clarified it. I've even given explanations and examples. It's not very personal in that it is backed by logic, for if there is no difference between what one deserves and what one should get, then love has no power.

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.

So it's based on your experience and apparently what you want to be true is true. But you have not been able to give a logical reason behind it and it is therefore just a personal opinion and a claim.

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.