Why don't Christians Kill their Children?

herbiemcc

Ok I have two main problems with this whole thing.

PDN and others keep confusing the rights of the child with that of the adult. You say that we teach children to drive and we will happily leave acid on the shelf because that's free will.

We don't reach 5 year olds to drive and we try to remove dangers and risks from within reach of 5 year olds.

Of course when we're 17 or 18 things are different. Why do you not keep clear distinctions.

Gotta go now...

dvpower

MrPudding wrote: »

Try again. I will help you as his quoting style can make it difficult sometimes.

I said: How will there be no sin? Will free will be removed?

He said: Yes, there is no freedom to sin in heaven. All its inhabitants will have a nature like God, holy, and unable to sin.

How is that misquoting?

MrP

They will be unable to sin, this doesn't mean that free will is removed.
Just like if you went to live on a planet with greater gravity than earth; you would be unable to jump. Your free will isn't restricted, just your environment.

I presume that you retain the free will to do whatever you want within the parameters of heaven's environment.

Sam Vimes

MrPudding wrote: »

Try again. I will help you as his quoting style can make it difficult sometimes.

I said: How will there be no sin? Will free will be removed?

He said: Yes, there is no freedom to sin in heaven. All its inhabitants will have a nature like God, holy, and unable to sin.

How is that misquoting?

MrP

Maybe your free will becomes like that of god's, in that you can do whatever you want but it's not labelled a sin because the word no longer applies to you?

enry

If there is no god whats the point. Your mind can’t imagine nothing. Nothing is not black it’s not white it’s nothing. So it’s as easy to believe in a god and therefore a heaven and if there is no god it’s a shame because there are a few people I’d like to see again.

liamw

enry wrote: »

If there is no god whats the point. Your mind can’t imagine nothing. Nothing is not black it’s not white it’s nothing. So it’s as easy to believe in a god and therefore a heaven and if there is no god it’s a shame because there are a few people I’d like to see again.

Do I smell Pascal's Wager logical fallacy?

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And yet you don't apply that same logic to a multitude of other things where the consequences are far less dire than eternity in hell.

That is a blatant untruth. I have never applied that logic (that it would be better to kill a child and prevent it reaching adulthood to prevent the risk of it making a wrong choice) to anything.

I would consistently argue that the ability grow into an adult, and to make choices for ourselves, is something of infinite value.

Please stop misrepresenting my views.

And you talk as if growing up is more important than going to heaven.

No, again that is untrue. I talk as if the ability to grow and develop as a human being is worth the possibility that one might choose to reject heaven. Your accusation would only be truthful if every single adult went to hell. Then you might have a basis for accusing me of talking as if growing up were more important than going to heaven.

Please stop misrepresenting my views.

If christian teachings are to be believed, heaven is infinitely better than this life so you are valuing their freedom to grow up and make choices over something that is by definition infinitely better.

No. That is false reasoning on your part. In the resurrection from the dead (the future eternal condition of Christians btw, not heaven) our pleasure and enjoyments are linked to the decisions we made in this life.

For everyone to be to consigned to heaven while having had no choices would, in my opinion, make heaven meaningless and would make us less than human. It would be like living in a pod in the Matrix. I would rather be a human being, made in the image of God with the power to make choices.

They're not my views, they're christian views.

Some Christians may hold them, but they are not the orthodox and historical Christian position. Nor are they biblical. The biblical position (and that historically held by Christianity and expressed in the credal statements of most churches) is that eternal life is not infinite bliss, but that there will be different levels of bliss.

However, I think that discussion will take us into a discussion of theological minutae that might necessitate some more knowledge, and indeed interest, in the subject. Probably a bit more off topic than normal, even for here.

And as an aside PDN, honestly if you stopped talking to atheists in general as if they're something extremely devious and dishonest that you just scraped off the bottom of your shoe, these discussions would go a hell of a lot more smoothly

I've actually found most atheists I've met to be decent and honest people. I only talk to people as being devious and dishonest when they behave deviously and dishonestly, for example by deliberately twisting people's words or misrepresenting wilfully Christians.

The whole point of this thread is to argue that Christians should logically kill their children. Therefore, in order to be a Christian, you must be:
a) A child killer
b) An illogical fool
c) A liar who doesn't believe what they claim to believe

Now, how about you drop the ideological posturing for a moment and give me an honest answer to an honest question. How smoothly did you really expect such a thread to go? As I see it it was only ever going to go one of three ways:

a) A thread with no Christian posters, where a bunch of atheists slapped each other on the back for being so clever and laughed at the dumb Christians.
b) A thread where Christian posters participated and said, "Yes, we're all either child-killers, dumbasses, or liars."
c) A thread where Christian posters protested about the way in which their beliefs were being misrepresented.

Now, which of the three is the kind of 'smooth' discussions you desire to see on this forum. Judging by the vitriol with which you habitually reply to any Chistian poster I'm guessing option (a)? And I won't be surprised if that's all you end up with on this forum.

Flamed Diving

enry wrote: »

If there is no god whats the point. Your mind can’t imagine nothing. Nothing is not black it’s not white it’s nothing. So it’s as easy to believe in a god and therefore a heaven and if there is no god it’s a shame because there are a few people I’d like to see again.

The point to a finite existence is life itself. Make the most of it and of the people that you have. There is no value in something that is infinitely available.

PDN

herbiemcc wrote: »

Ok I have two main problems with this whole thing.

PDN and others keep confusing the rights of the child with that of the adult. You say that we teach children to drive and we will happily leave acid on the shelf because that's free will.

We don't reach 5 year olds to drive and we try to remove dangers and risks from within reach of 5 year olds.

Gotta go now...

Actually I never said any such thing.

What I have said, consistently throughout this thread, is that you don't kill the child. You let it grow up to become an adult. Then it can make its own choices as an adult.

Anywhere else other than in this forum I've always found that most people find that to be an eminently reasonable position.

MrPudding

dvpower wrote: »

They will be unable to sin, this doesn't mean that free will is removed.

You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately that isn't quite what was said. I specifically asked if free will would be removed, and the first word of his response is yes. I asked two questions, the only one that "yes" could have been an answer to was "is free will removed?"

MrP

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately that isn't quite what was said. I specifically asked if free will would be removed, and the first word of his response is yes. I asked two questions, the only one that "yes" could have been an answer to was "is free will removed?"

MrP

It is unfortunate when these things descend into semantics. A sign of a thread beginning to die in many cases.

There was a comma after the word 'Yes'. He said:

Yes, there is no freedom to sin in heaven.

Most reasonable people, I believe, would see the clause after the comma as qualifying the 'Yes'. In other words, the lack of free will is not absolute, but rather refers to the lack of freedom to sin. I'm not trying to put any words into anyone's mouth - just attempting to discern the intent of the poster.

However, as stated in the OP's transcript of the video, it's probably better avoiding Calvinist interpretations (Wolsbane is a Calvinist) since they have a more limited idea of free will anyway. In that case Christians don't kill their babies because God willed and predestined that they wouldn't kill their babies, so the whole thread is rather moot.

CerebralCortex

Flamed Diving wrote: »

....There is no value in something that is infinitely available.

Dogma alert!

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

That is a blatant untruth. I have never applied that logic (that it would be better to kill a child and prevent it reaching adulthood to prevent the risk of it making a wrong choice) to anything.

I would consistently argue that the ability grow into an adult, and to make choices for ourselves, is something of infinite value.

Please stop misrepresenting my views.

It's funny how you have misrepresented my views in accusing me of misrepresenting yours. But since you have yet again shown your contempt by calling what I said an untruth as opposed to, perhaps, an error and explicitly accusing me of deviousness and dishonesty, I'm not bothered replying to the rest of your post. There's little point in talking to someone who thinks you're permanently engaged in deliberate dishonesty.

herbiemcc

Actually I never said any such thing.

What I have said, consistently throughout this thread, is that you don't kill the child. You let it grow up to become an adult. Then it can make its own choices as an adult.

Anywhere else other than in this forum I've always found that most people find that to be an eminently reasonable position.

---

PDN: I think that your middle paragraph is kind of the crux of the whole thing. You don't really genuinely fear hell. Of course it's reasonable not to kill children but if you follow the simple rules through to conclusion it makes sense to do so.

We're not suggesting you or anyone else does it. But the fact that you can't admit the logic seems clear if you strip away all emotion and tradition is worrying. I have no axe to grind but it just seems totally clear. If I really believed in the risk of hell I wouldn't value some free choices over it.

Would you really sit happily in heaven while your children burned for all eternity thinking "wow they really blew it"?

I don't mean to be insulting but now I expect you to;

- repeat yourself
- accuse me of twisting things (what exactly)
- generally go off on a tangent about killing children being wrong (of course it is !!!)

PDN

herbiemcc wrote: »

PDN: I think that your middle paragraph is kind of the crux of the whole thing. You don't really genuinely fear hell.

I don't fear hell at all. I have never claimed to fear hell. I believe in hell, but I don't fear it.

Of course it's reasonable not to kill children but if you follow the simple rules through to conclusion it makes sense to do so.

No, it doesn't. It only makes logical sense to the atheists on here, not to any Christian. I have already explained why my position is logical. A should not be preferred to B where A is a worse option than B. That is perfectly logical.

Option A is killing a child and thus 100% definitely preventing it from having the opportunity to become an adult human being.

Option B is to risk that the same child will grow up to reject the Gospel and go to hell (a less than 50% risk for Christian parents).

You can disagree with my evaluation of these two options. For example, you can argue that killing a child isn't as bad as I make it out to be, or that the freedom to make choices isn't all its cracked up to be. However, your diagreement is merely with my evaluation of the respective merits of infanticide and human freedom. You have not dented my logic in the slightest.

We're not suggesting you or anyone else does it. But the fact that you can't admit the logic seems clear if you strip away all emotion and tradition is worrying.

Why should I admit false logic?

You want me to admit that it is logical to prefer Option A to Option B even when I consider Option B to be better?

I have no axe to grind but it just seems totally clear. If I really believed in the risk of hell I wouldn't value some free choices over it.

And it is your perfect right to value freedom lower than I do - but don't accuse me of being illogical because I don't share thatr evaluation.

Would you really sit happily in heaven while your children burned for all eternity thinking "wow they really blew it"?

I don't think I've ever made such a claim. I actually can't imagine being happy at the thought of anyone being in hell, whether they are related to me or not.

I don't mean to be insulting but now I expect you to;

- repeat yourself
- accuse me of twisting things (what exactly)
- generally go off on a tangent about killing children being wrong (of course it is !!!)

Your expectations are your business.

herbiemcc

PDN: You don't fear hell? How? From the day we're introduced to christianity hell is portrayed as more horrific than you can imagine. You don't really think you'll ever end up there so you're 'exempt'. Too posh to burn or something. You feel like you know the man on the door so you and yours will be fine.

I'm not just questioning your interpretation of your sound logic. You're coming from a different angle to IMO avoid the very specific issue.

If I can quote you for reference:

---

Option A is killing a child and thus 100% definitely preventing it from having the opportunity to become an adult human being.

Option B is to risk that the same child will grow up to reject the Gospel and go to hell (a less than 50% risk for Christian parents).

---

A - AFAIK the point of religion isn't to allow people the opportunity to be adults but the opportunity ultimately to be returned to god. Which is it?
B - How can you risk it? RISK IT !!! You say 50/50 is ok. That's shocking.

OK you say I'm arguing with your values not your logic so my points aren't relevant. That is a true point that I try to be wary of. Even so all of these A's and B's are just distracting.

I think you actually are agreeing with the point but won't see it or admit it. You admit that life is a risk. That's a crucial distinction.

People who believe (they might end up there) in hell enough aren't prepared to take that risk. If you are happy to 'risk it' (because you somehow don't fear the flames) then you are by default accepting the logic is true.

OH YES !!!!!!!!!!! T-shirt over head, running around with arms out !!!!

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

It is unfortunate when these things descend into semantics. A sign of a thread beginning to die in many cases.

There was a comma after the word 'Yes'. He said:


Most reasonable people, I believe, would see the clause after the comma as qualifying the 'Yes'. In other words, the lack of free will is not absolute, but rather refers to the lack of freedom to sin. I'm not trying to put any words into anyone's mouth - just attempting to discern the intent of the poster.

However, as stated in the OP's transcript of the video, it's probably better avoiding Calvinist interpretations (Wolsbane is a Calvinist) since they have a more limited idea of free will anyway. In that case Christians don't kill their babies because God willed and predestined that they wouldn't kill their babies, so the whole thread is rather moot.

Rubbish. You just can't accept being wrong about something. He was asked "is there no free will in heaven." His answer was yes. And yes he did write more after the text but it is obvious to most "reasonable" people that he is saying there is no free will in heaven. If he had meant there was free will but it was not absolute I am sure he would have said "no" and then gone onto qualify that.

I understand that as a staunch christian you have to take words and twist there meaning to suit your beliefs, but seriously, are you really arguing what yes means in this case. Incidentally, this is not the only time wolfie has said something like this, it is merely the first example I came across.

MrP

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

Actually I never said any such thing.

What I have said, consistently throughout this thread, is that you don't kill the child. You let it grow up to become an adult. Then it can make its own choices as an adult.

Anywhere else other than in this forum I've always found that most people find that to be an eminently reasonable position.

Still breaking the 9th commandment? We also find that to be a largely reasonable position. However, as we have been explaining for the last 20 pages, the logic of the christian religion (although I have a feeling it could be appplied to most any relgion with a god/heaven/hell style belief system) actually contradicts it.

Red Sleeping Beauty

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Most Christians are just following the teachings and actions of their immediate leaders like the local parish priest. They're happy with someone else's interpretation of gods will and would go along with the teachings if it doesn't conflict with the sense of morality ingrained in them from the society they live in.

I'd think a significant number of christians would kill their chrildren if the society they live in has no problems with taking a life and that their religious leaders tells them it's gods will.

Great post. That willingness to follow command and "norms" is so great in Christianity.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Does god have a plan at all?

Mayhem and chaos.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is irrelevant isn't it. If you do this you already resign yourself to hell, God isn't going to send you to hell twice. And he isn't going to send your children to hell to punish you.

If it was a Fianna Fail god then you bet your damn last paycheck your kids will be set directly to hell, do not pass go, do not collect €204 €196.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Wicknight wrote: »

Where do aborted babies end up after they die?

I think most Christians believe they end up in heaven don't they? I've yet to meet a Christian who thinks aborted babies end up in hell to punish the doctor who carried out the abortion.

Do abortions not go to limbo? or was that cancelled?!

An aborted "baby" isn't a life until it's born so that clump of cells aborted after a few weeks won't be going anywhere.

MagicMarker

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Do abortions not go to limbo? or was that cancelled?!

An aborted "baby" isn't a life until it's born so that clump of cells aborted after a few weeks won't be going anywhere.

Christians generally believe that clump of cells is a baby.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Flamed Diving wrote: »

This is the only forum under the 'Religion & Spirituality' category that does not engage in censorship of reasoned criticism of religion.

Amen to that!

PDN

herbiemcc wrote: »

PDN: You don't fear hell? How? From the day we're introduced to christianity hell is portrayed as more horrific than you can imagine. You don't really think you'll ever end up there so you're 'exempt'. Too posh to burn or something. You feel like you know the man on the door so you and yours will be fine.

If you are going to debate Christian beliefs then may be you should find out what Christians actually believe?

My basis for believing in hell is because of the revelation of the Bible. That same Bible states clearly, on a number of occasions, that those who place their faith in Jesus Christ need not fear hell and have assurance of their salvation.

Therefore there are two logical positions I can take.
a) I reject what the Bible says. Therefore I need not fear hell because I have no reason to believe in hell.
b) I accept what the Bible says. Therefore I need not fear hell because the Bible assures me that I am saved from hell on account of my faith.

There is of course the option that I could accept what the Bible says about hell's existence, but reject what the Bible says about salvation. However, that would not be logical.

So, it would appear that my absence of fear of hell is entirely logical, but that you are criticising me for not being illogical in my beliefs. That's quite ironic, isn't it?

I'm not just questioning your interpretation of your sound logic. You're coming from a different angle to IMO avoid the very specific issue.

No, I'm coming from a different angle because that is what I believe as a Christian. And that seems to be annoying a lot of you who think that a Christian should conform to your rather misinformed stereotypes about what Christians believe. Sorry for not being the straw man you want me to be.

A - AFAIK the point of religion isn't to allow people the opportunity to be adults but the opportunity ultimately to be returned to god. Which is it?

I can't speak about the point of religion in general, but the point of Christianity is much more than just being returned to God. If that was the only point then 90% of the New Testament would not have been written. The majority of the New testament is actually telling us how we should live in this life and use our moral choices to glorify God.

I think "AKAIK" counts for very little when it comes to you and what Christianity actually teaches.

B - How can you risk it? RISK IT !!! You say 50/50 is ok. That's shocking.

No, I actually referred to a risk of less than 50%. I didn't say it was OK - but I did say it was better than killing babies. If you are going to quote me then please make some attempt to be accurate.

So an atheist or an agnostic claims to be shocked at something a Christian believes - now there's a surprise.

OK you say I'm arguing with your values not your logic so my points aren't relevant. That is a true point that I try to be wary of. Even so all of these A's and B's are just distracting.

Unfortunately I have to state it in that propositional form because, when I wrote it in normal prose, you managed to completely garble what I was saying and misrepresented me as saying that children should have the freedom to do what they want.

I'm sorry if the idea of A being a worse option than B is too distracting for you, but to be honest I can't see how I could make it simpler without drawing it for you in pictures.

I think you actually are agreeing with the point but won't see it or admit it. You admit that life is a risk. That's a crucial distinction.

No, I think the point is, quite frankly, crap. This idea that "I think that you are actually agreeing with it" is the equivalent of Wolsbane telling you guys that you know the Gospel is true but just refuse to admit it.

Of course life is a risk. Nobody I have ever met, Christian or not, would pretend otherwise.

People who believe (they might end up there) in hell enough aren't prepared to take that risk. If you are happy to 'risk it' (because you somehow don't fear the flames) then you are by default accepting the logic is true.

What on earth are you talking about? I'm certainly not risking going to hell, and that has nothing to do with anything I have said.

robindch

CodeMonkey wrote: »

I'd think a significant number of christians would kill their chrildren if the society they live in has no problems with taking a life and that their religious leaders tells them it's gods will.

No doubt. Stanley Milgram's infamous psychological experiment didn't unfortunately include stats on the religious beliefs or otherwise of his subjects, but I'm inclined to suspect that people who are habituated to ceding their moral authority to people in positions of power (such as religious leaders) would be more susceptible to culturally-inspired, or authority-inspired violence than people who are used to making their own ethical judgments.

Milgram's experiment is documented here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_Experiment

herbiemcc

PDN:

You seem to be so set in your views that there is no room for what ifs, or any real progress or interesting debate.

Maybe this reflects religion's overall values. Stick to one story, never waver or even hint at weakness and repeat, repeat, repeat. In few other cirumstances could someone be so vague and circuitous, safe in the knowledge that they can waffle their way out of things with no trouble at all. Other than politics.

I felt that in my last post I was quite clear about the basic issue you've been evading and all you can say is what are you talking about?

---

People who believe (they might end up there) in hell enough aren't prepared to take that risk. If you are happy to 'risk it' (because you somehow don't fear the flames) then you are by default accepting the logic is true.
What on earth are you talking about? I'm certainly not risking going to hell, and that has nothing to do with anything I have said.

---

I fear that this can come across as smug self righteousness that makes people bored of religion. You guys preach in the streets (except the lazy, half arsed majority) about helping your neighbour and the fire of hell (etc etc please don't start picking holes, like as if I could quote every nonsense rant topic).

Then finally, finally you admit that hell doesn't actually apply to you. You actually say "I'm certainly not risking going to hell" I've spoken to street preachers etc and I have to laugh when they look me in the eye and say they're saved !!! Like as if it's a done deal. No matter what they do, say or think - hell isn't a risk for them.

OK - my last point. Maybe it is an individual religious thing whereby in my former c.o.i. protestant religion hell isn't nice and you might go there if you're not a good boy. I think catholicism is quite similar. Some others seem to take the approach (which does seem a bit convenient) that if you just 'accept him' (whatever that means) you are 'saved' - job done. In the latter case, hell isn't as scary then because you'd have to go out of your way to actually say "I reject you Jesus !! Send me to hell, I don't care".

But can you really not see how a woman raised in a more extreme christian environment (which is the same as yours but perhaps more 'purified') could carry out this act with solid belief that it's for the best.

I feel you are stuck (by religion's non wavering nature) in your own view. I would respect you if you just said yes, christianity can create these conflicts but we need to be careful or something or whatever. Anything except running away.

You could say "scientific reasoning is bad" but I'd still listen to you if you had some sensible reason why. People dislike 'science' and I really can't fathom it. It's the only thing that's open for debate - if you don't like something in it just go and research the topic, write a paper and change science!! Religion in comparison is a load of boolocks.

Wacker

*nothing to see here, move along people*

herbiemcc

Well Wacker - does your comment really help?

I retracted that 'idiot' comment because it was said in frustration. I'm not here to insult anybody but when people talk in circles with fingers in ears ......

Sam Vimes

herbiemcc wrote: »

Then finally, finally you admit that hell doesn't actually apply to you. You actually say "I'm certainly not risking going to hell" I've spoken to street preachers etc and I have to laugh when they look me in the eye and say they're saved !!! Like as if it's a done deal. No matter what they do, say or think - hell isn't a risk for them.

That's really it tbh. They can fully accept the reality of hell but have no fear of it because as far as they're concerned hell is something that happens to other people, not them and their loved ones. Hell is where all those atheists go who kept "attacking" their religion and refusing to accept their arguments when the only possible reason for not accepting such good arguments is deliberate dishonesty :rolleyes:

The reason christians don't kill their children even though it supposedly ensures eternal life complete with free will is the "it won't happen to me" factor that causes people to take extreme and often unnecessary risks for what rationally seems to be little reward, such as something like sky diving, bungee jumping or risking the loss of eternal free will for the potential of having it for maybe 80 years.

It's an important part of our psyche, it's what allows us to drive a car to work every day even though there are thousands of accidents every year, but sometimes it can lead to irrational decisions such as the belief that ~80 years free will with a risk eternal torture afterwards > eternal free will with no risk.

PDN

herbiemcc wrote: »

PDN:

You seem to be so set in your views that there is no room for what ifs, or any real progress or interesting debate.

No, I have stated my views and explained them, and I have defended the logic behind them - a logic to which you have signally failed to offer any rebuttal.

I don't notice any of the atheists or agnostics in this thread rushing to change their views - yet you don't accuse them of being so set that there is no room for progress or debate.

I think your real problem is that you don't actually seem to understand what Christians believe, and so when I don't conform to your strawmen or stereotypes you get frustrated.

Maybe this reflects religion's overall values. Stick to one story, never waver or even hint at weakness and repeat, repeat, repeat. In few other cirumstances could someone be so vague and circuitous, safe in the knowledge that they can waffle their way out of things with no trouble at all. Other than politics.

I have not been vague or circuitous. I have explained what I believe. I have stated the logic of those beliefs, and I have (usually patiently) corrected numerous attempts to misrepresent what I believe.

If one believes a 'story' to be true, then one will indeed stick to that story until someone shows it to be false, inconsistent, or incoherent. It's not my fault that you and others are unable to do that, is it?

I felt that in my last post I was quite clear about the basic issue you've been evading and all you can say is what are you talking about?

You were not clear at all. You appeared to be quite muddled and confused. What issue am I evading? What risk are you talking about? The risk of growing up into adulthood and thereby possibly rejecting Christianity? That is the only 'risk' that we have been discussing in this thread. So are you saying that there are actually people who refuse to take this risk and don't grow into adulthood?

Make yourself clear, man!

I fear that this can come across as smug self righteousness that makes people bored of religion.

And that is nothing to do with the logic of my opinion, but simply a subjective view with no substance. Your use of it in place of logical argument or debate is an indication that you are clutching and straws.

And, by the way, statistics indicate that you are wrong. The forms of religion that are growing, both worldwide and in Ireland, are those that hold to definite firm beliefs (such as evangelicalism and fundamentalism). People are bored with vague. ritualistic religion (hence the decline of the mainline churches - helped by a liberal dose of scandal) but those forms of religion that teach assurance of salvation are seeing pretty startling growth. To give you an idea, my own church purchased an auditorium that we could only fill 50% six years ago. Now we have to have 3 services one after another to squeeze in the people that want too come.

So, once again it would seem, your opinions on religious matters, and what bores people or attracts them, are misinformed.

You guys preach in the streets (except the lazy, half arsed majority) about helping your neighbour and the fire of hell (etc etc please don't start picking holes, like as if I could quote every nonsense rant topic).

Since neither I, nor anyone in my church, preaches in the streets, then I think it's you that is on a nonsense rant.

What has this to do with the logic of my position?

Then finally, finally you admit that hell doesn't actually apply to you. You actually say "I'm certainly not risking going to hell" I've spoken to street preachers etc and I have to laugh when they look me in the eye and say they're saved !!! Like as if it's a done deal. No matter what they do, say or think - hell isn't a risk for them.

What do you mean "finally"? Since I first posted on this forum I have openly stated that I am an evangelical Christian. Of course I don't believe that I'm going to hell. I've stated that belief loads of times.

And, for Christians such as myself, hell is indeed a 'done deal'. We believe that hell was dealt with by Jesus Christ on the Cross and, according to Romans 10:9, by following Jesus and placing our faith in His death and resurrection we can know that we are saved. That assurance is repeated in numerous passages in the New Testament.

Now, here's the funny thing. This thread is about how Christians are supposed to be so illogical. But now you're getting all pissy with me because I'm being logical.

If I reject the Bible then I have no reason to believe in hell. The only basis I have for believing in hell is because I believe the Bible's revelation.

However, since I believe in hell through the Bible's revelation, I also believe that I am saved from hell by the same biblical revelation. Therefore it is entirely logical for Christians not to be afraid of going to hell.

I am having to repeat this because I stated it once already, but you totally evaded it and instead went on a subjective attack about being smug and self-righteous etc. I fail to see what is self-righteous about simply believing the Bible when it says that I, undeserving sinner that I am, have been forgiven by God and so no longer need to fear hell.

You may disagree with my beliefs, but it is a bit rich, given the context of this thread, for you to attack me for taking a position that is entirely logical, whose logic you cannot refute, and then for you to accuse me of being obstinate and set in my ways.

OK - my last point. Maybe it is an individual religious thing whereby in my former c.o.i. protestant religion hell isn't nice and you might go there if you're not a good boy. I think catholicism is quite similar.

You obviously didn't listen very well in your Church of Ireland days. The CoI teaches, in its creeds, that you are saved from hell by the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross (not by being a good boy), and that by faith in that sacrifice you can have assurance that you are not going to hell.

The Catholic Church teaches that you are saved from hell by virtue of your baptism as a baby. Therefore you might have to worry about purgatory, but not hell unless you commit some kind of mortal sin and get yourself excommunicated.

I think your frustration, and the anger that you express towards me, is caused by the sinking realisation that you are engaging in a debate where you are woefully misinformed about the subject under discussion (Christian beliefs). That is understandable, but it might be more productive to admit that rather than launching into subjective tirades against me.

But can you really not see how a woman raised in a more extreme christian environment (which is the same as yours but perhaps more 'purified') could carry out this act with solid belief that it's for the best.

No, I don't see that at all. Most other posters, even those who are antagonistic towards Christianity, have had the grace and honesty to admit that they don't know of even one single case where this has occurred, except where the woman was clinically insane. (And insane people will use any excuse to commit insane acts. Insane people in the Soviet Union, although atheist, said that Comrade Stalin had told them to kill their babies. Others blame voices in their heads).

So, the debate so far has been why, out of all the hundreds of millions of sane Christians in the world, do none of them kill their children to save them from hell. All participants have agreed that this is something that does not happen.

But now you have jumped the shark and are trying to imply that there is a real danger of this thing happening (despite overwhelming statistical evidence that it doesn't). You are now no different from those nutty fundamentalists who argue that atheism logically leads to people eating babies and therefore is a danger to society. Congratulations.

I feel you are stuck (by religion's non wavering nature) in your own view. I would respect you if you just said yes, christianity can create these conflicts but we need to be careful or something or whatever.

You would respect me if I said, "Yes, out of hundreds of millions of Christians we know of no sane person that has ever done that, but we need to be careful or something"? In that case I don't want your respect. Why would I want to guard against something that statistical evidence demonstrates to be non-existent just so I can earn the respect of someone who misrepresents my views, dodges and evades my logic, launches subjective attacks, and engages in debates on subjects of which they are apparently ignorant?

Anything except running away.

No, you would be happy if I ran away. The reason you are getting so bent out of shape is precisely because I haven't run away. I have stood my ground and have argued the logic of my position, and you don't like that. I recognise that as a Christian I am a visitor and a minority to this forum, and like every Christian who defends their beliefs here I know that I will get mocked, laughed at, my words twisted, and attempts will be made to derail me with a string of off-topic jibes about my moderating of another forum. But the one thing I have not done is to run away - so don't you dare try that one!

You could say "scientific reasoning is bad" but I'd still listen to you if you had some sensible reason why. People dislike 'science' and I really can't fathom it.

Stop the off-topic crap. I think scientific reasoning is wonderful. A lot of it is too wonderful for me to understand, and I have to rely on dumbed down versions of it like Bill Bryson's 'A Short History of Nearly Everything'.

I am quite open and honest about the limitations of my knowledge, so I refrain from entering into debates about science. But I certainly don't dislike science or belittle it.

It's the only thing that's open for debate - if you don't like something in it just go and research the topic, write a paper and change science!!

If it's the only thing open for debate then why are you participating in debates like this? You are arguing against yourself now!

Religion in comparison is a load of boolocks.

Thank you for finally dropping all pretence of being logical or reasonable, revealing your true colours, and for imparting that particular philosophical gem for our consideration.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Hell is where all those atheists go who kept "attacking" their religion and refusing to accept their arguments when the only possible reason for not accepting such good arguments is deliberate dishonesty :rolleyes:

No, Sam, I never said that. I said that your characterisations and misrepresentations of my arguments were dishonest, not that your refusal to accept my arguments were dishonest. The distinction is, I think, quite easy to understand.

Now, you seemed to get offended by that, telling me that I should consider the possibility that you made an error instead. So, it looks like you've made another error (something you are quite prone to doing when it comes to claiming I've said stuff).

Could you please be more careful?

A Primal Nut

I'm an atheist and its people like the one in the video who give atheism a bad name. His argument is stupid for a number of reasons:

1) Firstly, to debunk one counter-argument he suggests Christians care more about their kids eternal salvation than pleasing God. Not true, there is a passage in the bible where Abraham is prepared to kill his only son to please God (not for the reasons suggested in the video). For Christians, pleasing God comes before everything else; therefore if they truly love God they won't want to make him unhappy by killing their kids. For me the idea that Abraham would kill his only son to please God is shocking, but he did it for reasons completely different to those in the video, reasons which suggested loving God was more important than the love for his kids.

2) For most Christians, getting to heaven is not the be all and end all of Christianity; for most, pleasing the God they love is as important or even more important; this debunks the whole video.

3) It would be easier for the Christians not to have kids at all than to have them and kill them so they don't go to hell. Ok, you might say kids in heaven are better than no kids at all, but this isn't necessarily the case.

4) Premise no.4 suggests that Christians love their kids more than themselves; is this in the bible? I've never come across this. I would imagine they consider them equal, not better. Therefore there is no reason Christians should consider their childs eternal salvation more important than their own, particularly if they are scared of hell. They would be much better to allow their kids to make their own choices in life and hope that everyone gets to heaven. Why should their compromise on their own eternal salvation for another human being, their kid or not.

5) The ideal for Christians and a very important thing is for their whole family (including themselves) to get into heaven, not just themselves; hence honour killings, I guess. It is much easier to just rear their children well and hope they make the right choices; than it is to kill them. Even if they wanted to kill their kids; their is a natural human urge not to.

6) I don't think their kids will be too happy knowing their parents are in hell because they were killed by them. Heaven would be a small consolation for the fact they were never given a life on earth (an important part of Christianity) and to know their parents are in hell. If the parents really loved their kids they would want to be in heaven with them.

7) Atheists make fun of religious people for interpreting their holy books in rediculous ways (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses not accepting blood). Please don't let Atheists start doing the same stuff; there are enough literal stuff in the bible to mention without coming up with this crap.

These are all points I came up with after watching the video once. I could watch it again and probably come up with a load more. Most rediculous video I've watched in a long time.

MagicMarker

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I'm an atheist and its atheists like the one in the video who give atheism a bad name. His argument is stupid for a number of reasons:

1) Firstly, to debunk one counter-argument he suggests Christians care more about their kids eternal salvation, than pleasing God. Not true, there is a passage in the bible where Abraham is prepared to kill his only son to please God. For Christians, pleasing God comes before everything else; therefore if they truly love God they won't want to make him unhappy but killing their kids.

Kinda selfish isn't it? Would you not sacrifice yourself for the sake of your child's eternal soul?

A Primal Nut wrote: »

2) For most Christians, getting to heaven is not the be all and end all of Christianity; for most, pleasing the God they love is as important or even more important; this debunks the whole video

See above.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

3) It would be easier for the Christians not to have kids at all than to have them and kill them so they don't go to hell. Ok, you might say kids in heaven are better than no kids at all, but this isn't necessarily the case.

Now that you mention it, why would any believer have kids if there's even the slightest chance they would go to hell? That's one hell of a risk.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

4) Premise no.4 suggests that Christians love their kids more than themselves; is this in the bible? I've never come across this. I would imagine they consider them equal, not better. Therefore there is no reason Christians should consider their childs eternal salvation more important than their own, particularly if they are scared of hell. They would be much better to allow their kids to make their own choices in life and hope that everyone gets to heaven. Why should their compromise on their own eternal salvation for another human being, their kid or not.

I think any parent would give their life for their children. I think this safely equates to loving your child more than yourself.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

5) The ideal for Christians and a very important thing is for their whole family to get into heaven, not just themselves; hence honour killings, I guess. It is much easier to just rear their children well and hope they make the right choices; than it is to kill them. Even if they wanted to kill their kids; their is a natural human urge not to.

Hope? I don't think I'd want to rely on hope when it comes to eternal damnation.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

6) Atheists make fun of religious people for interpreting their holy books in rediculous ways (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses not accepting blood). Please don't let Atheists start doing the same stuff; there are enough literal stuff in the bible to mention without this as well.

These are all points after watching the video once. I could watch it again and probably come up with a load more. Most rediculous video I've watched in a long time.

I think you missed the point of the video tbh.

A Primal Nut

So the whole premise of the video is "my kids are more important than me."

If I haven't sinned my whole life and am due to go to heaven, and my kids sin enough to get into heaven; then I would say "tough ****"; if I was Christian, that is. There is no way I would sacrifice my ability to go to Heaven just so my kids can go there, as there is a good chance they will go there anyway. And even if they don't go to Heaven its their own fault for turning away from God, why should I feel sorry for them?

I don't think Christianity teaches that your kid is more important than yourself. The story about Abraham (a hero in Chrisitianity) being willing to kill his kid to please God proves this.

MagicMarker

A Primal Nut wrote: »

So the whole premise of the video is "my kids are more important than me."

If I haven't sinned my whole life and am due to go to heaven, and my kids sin enough to get into heaven; then I would say "tough ****"; if I was Christian, that is. There is no way I would sacrifice my ability to go to Heaven just so my kids can go there, as there is a good chance they will go there anyway. And even if they don't go to Heaven its their own fault for turning away from God, why should I feel sorry for them?

I don't think Christianity teaches that your kid is more important than yourself. The story about Abraham (a hero in Chrisitianity) being killing his kid to please God proves this.

Would you die for your child?

A Primal Nut

Only in circumstances where they deserved it.

If the threat was the result of an accident, then yes.

If the kid got himself into trouble by committing crimes, then no.

If your kid shot an innocent person, and in revenge that person's relative attempted to shoot your son, would you jump in front of the bullet? Some people would, but I wouldn't.

From a Christian perspective, turning away from God is as worthy of getting you into hell as killing someone.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

No, Sam, I never said that. I said that your characterisations and misrepresentations of my arguments were dishonest, not that your refusal to accept my arguments were dishonest. The distinction is, I think, quite easy to understand.

Well you see the thing is that I am not being dishonest so I must consider other possibilities for why you would think I was. The only thing I can think of is that you can't understand why I would say the things I do unless I was being dishonest because they seem so at odds with logic to you.

One thing that has led me to my conclusion is the large number of times when you have missed the point of people's posts in this thread and attacked straw men. As far as I can see your desire to believe that you are being misrepresented has led you to read every post searching for misrepresentation and of course with that attitude you find it in every one. You have accused me and others of misrepresentation numerous times when the misrepresentation that you accused them of is not actually what they said
(you may remember a comment from me earlier where I said it was funny how you misspersented me in claiming that I misrepresented you)

What I think you should do is stop reading our posts with the assumption of dishonesty and trying to win the debate through trickery and you'll see that without that prejudice, what we're saying is not half as ridiculous as you think it is. I am willing to acknowledge that I might sometimes erroneously miss a point you make but honestly PDN, quite often it is you making the error, it is you erecting the straw man of our points and it is the assumption of dishonesty and condescending attitude you bring with you that leads you to do it

Edit: and maybe I should read the posts of christians more carefully in case I am misunderstanding them

pH

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I don't think Christianity teaches that your kid is more important than yourself. The story about Abraham (a hero in Chrisitianity) being willing to kill his kid to please God proves this.

Which is fair enough, it's what the Christian posters in this thread have been trying to say, just not being able to say - their salvation is more important (or at least equally to) their children's, and while they're willing to help their kids by setting them on the right path, they're not willing to displease their God and risk their own eternal damnation.

Sam Vimes wrote:

As far as I can see your desire to believe that you are being misrepresented has led you to read every post searching for misrepresentation

Par for the course with PDN, he'd rather take offence at the misuse of the word 'the' or argue the meaning of a comma, if it will derail a thread.

PDN

pH wrote: »

Which is fair enough, it's what the Christian posters in this thread have been trying to say, just not being able to say - their salvation is more important (or at least equally to) their children's, and while they're willing to help their kids by setting them on the right path, they're not willing to displease their God and risk their own eternal damnation.

No, I don't think that's what the Christian posters have been trying to say at all. The issue of our own salvation is not an issue here. We have a desire to please God, to do the right thing, and to give the best to our children. These are much more relevant than risking our own damnation.

Par for the course with PDN, he'd rather take offence at the misuse of the word 'the' or argue the meaning of a comma, if it will derail a thread.

Yes, I know you'd like this forum to be a Christian-free zone, but those kind of slurs won't achieve that goal. I have actually striven to remain on topic while other posters tried to goad me into rabbit trails or introduced off topic stuff about the moderating of another forum. So I think your accusation about derailing the thread is based on your dislike of me and your prejudices rather than on facts.

I'm sorry if my attempt to clarify meaning by using rules of grammar is upsetting for you.

If you don't think it's worth arguing over a comma then consider the following sentence:

The moderator of the Christianity forum, says pH, is a prick.

If we remove the two commas from the sentence then you might think it's worth arguing over them. That's why clear language is important if we have ideas we want to communicate - and it is frustrating when people use language sloppily or incorrectly to misrepresent others (either by design or by error).

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I know you'd like this forum to be a Christian-free zone, but those kind of slurs won't achieve that goal.

Par exemple

The statement that PDN often deals with minutae and semantics rather than the main point becomes "I don't want any christians to post on this forum and this is my attempt to drive them away"


Wow. It can't possibly be that he actually thinks that, there must be some dishonest motive behind it :rolleyes:

Edit: I'm sure you'll find that pH shares the common view that any christians are more than welcome here and we would jump at the chance to debate them if they were willing. Would that be accurate pH?

Wacker

herbiemcc wrote: »

Well Wacker - does your comment really help?

I retracted that 'idiot' comment because it was said in frustration. I'm not here to insult anybody but when people talk in circles with fingers in ears ......

If I were to hazard a guess, maybe my comment was one of the factors that resulted in you editing your post. If I'm right, then my comment helped. If not, at least I tried.

But you've gracefully edited your post, so there is nothing to be gained by derailing this thread any further.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Par exemple

The statement that PDN often deals with minutae and semantics rather than the main point becomes "I don't want any christians to post on this forum and this is my attempt to drive them away"

Wow

That particular poster has a track record of posting insults about me and, on at least eight occasions, has accused theists posting in this forum of being trolls (even though he himself is not a moderator, whose job it is to infract trolls). He also has been yellow carded in the past for continuing to abuse a Christian poster (not me) in this forum, despite being asked to stop by one of the moderators here.

Infact I did cease posting in this forum for several months at one time because that same poster continued to post insults and false accusations against me even when told not to do so by the moderators. In the end I got sick of it and just stayed away for a while. Eventually I came back, which may have been a mistake.

So I don't think it is unreasonable of me to see an ulterior motive at work when that same poster makes no attempt to address my points but rather tries to be snide.

So far, very few posters have made any serious attempt to engage with the logic of my answer to the thread title. I have explained that the behaviour of Christians is logical if they see the value of our children developing into the adult moral beings God intends them to be, as outweighing the risk that they might reject God.

Although posters have flung accusations around about my being illogical, closed-minded, being a bad moderator, determined to derail the thread etc. Nobody has demonstrated where my logic is at fault.

The only serious attempt to challenge my answer has been to argue that:
a) I'm placing too high a value on the value of becoming an adult moral being.
b) I'm underestimating the enormity of the risk involved.

These challenges do nothing to refute my logic. They simply demonstrate that atheists tend to value these two things differently. That does not mean that Christians are illogical. It simply means that Christians could be described as illogical if they shared the preconceptions of athiests about the respective values of freedom and the risk of hell - which is a bit of a non-starter of an argument.

Don't you think it is revealing that, rather than demonstrating a flaw in my logic, or rather than admitting that I have answered the question in the OP, most posters seem to want to pick fights or discuss side issues? Then, when I respond to such evasion, I get accused of trying to derail the thread? That really takes the biscuit.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

So I don't think it is unreasonable of me to see an ulterior motive at work when that same poster makes no attempt to address my points but rather tries to be snide.

If it was someone else I might see your point but I know for a fact that you frequently see ulterior motives where there are none and I also know that every single post you make to me and many other people on this forum is snide. Pretty much all you do is attack my integrity and the integrity of many others and I don't think you should be all that surprised when you bring an insulting, condescending and snide tone wherever you go and the favour is returned. I know that I often respond to you in that tone too, because that is the tone with which you respond to me.

Also, another thing that suggests to me that he does not have an ulterior motive, that he actually believes what he said is that I happen to agree with him and I'm sure Mr Pudding would also agree after your argument over the meaning of a comma.

PDN wrote: »

So far, very few posters have made any serious attempt to engage with the logic of my answer to the thread title. I have explained that the behaviour of Christians is logical if they see the value of our children developing into the adult moral beings God intends them to be, as outweighing the risk that they might reject God.

You are valuing for your child a potential 80 or so years of free will laced with suffering, where our freedom is limited by our circumstances and with a risk of eternal torture afterward over an eternity of free will with no suffering. Doesn't make much sense to me tbh.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If it was someone else I might see your point

Ah, so were attacking the poster (whom you dislike) rather than the point (which you admit might be valid). As you wish.

I know for a fact that you frequently see ulterior motives where there are none and I also know that every single post you make to me and many other people on this forum is snide. Pretty much all you do is attack my integrity and the integrity of many others and I don't think you should be all that surprised when you bring an insulting, condescending and snide tone wherever you go and the favour is returned. I know that I often respond to you in that tone too, because that is the tone with which you respond to me.

It appears that we have remarkably similar views of one another. Interesting, but very subjective.

So let's look at the issue more objectively. I have only ever been infracted once on boards.ie - and that was probably deserved because I had a pop at the Muslims on the Islam forum.

If we leave aside our own interaction (because your dislike of me will hinder any objective discussion of any time I have infracted you) you have got yourself two yellow cards and two red cards from four different moderators.

You have of course posted more times than me (17,500 as opposed to 7,500) so that should be taken into account. But I think the statistics don't support your argument that I am some nasty disruptive person and that you are merely responding to me.

Also, another thing that suggests to me that he does not have an ulterior motive, that he actually believes what he said is that I happen to agree with him and I'm sure Mr Pudding would also agree after your argument over the meaning of a comma.

So three atheists, all of whom have expressed extreme dislike of Christianity and the Church, agree on something over against a sole Christian. Faced with overwhelming proof like that, what can I say?

Now, having exploded that little myth, can we get back to the topic of this thread? I'm getting tired of all these rabbit trails and evasions.

You are valuing for your child a potential 80 or so years of free will laced with suffering, where our freedom is limited by our circumstances and with a risk of eternal torture afterward over an eternity of free will with no suffering. Doesn't make much sense to me tbh.

OK, so it doesn't make sense to you. That's fine, you as an atheist, are perfectly free to value human life and free will less than me, or to place a higher weight than me on the enormity of the risk of going to a hell that you don't actually believe in. I have no problem with that. In fact, I would be rather concerned if I shared your values and priorities.

However, that in no way assails the logic of my position, or the legitimacy of my answer to the OP.

You have not addressed the issue, whereas I have, of why Christians don't kill their babies.

You have addressed the issue of why Christians wouldn't kill their babies if they weren't actually Christians, but were actually atheists trying to imagine how christians would think, but still holding atheist valuations of the value of human life. That, while an intriguing, if somewhat convoluted concept, isn't what the OP asked.

If you really want to address the OP then you should ask why don't Christians, who value human life higher than the risk that their children might choose hell, kill their children? I have answered that question, but you have not addressed it.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The statement that PDN often deals with minutae and semantics rather than the main point becomes "I don't want any christians to post on this forum and this is my attempt to drive them away"

This attitude is one that seems somewhat pertinent from time to time. Many are not willing to be civil with any person who comes in and disagrees. That's reality, and that's probably why the charter of the Christianity forum is the way it is, desiring etiquette before entering discussion.

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The statement that PDN often deals with minutae and semantics rather than the main point becomes "I don't want any christians to post on this forum and this is my attempt to drive them away"

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I know you'd like this forum to be a Christian-free zone

Please drop the personal stuff.

Thanks.

mewso

As an Atheist and as someone who doesn't know PDN too well I have to say that while the early reaction wasn't good he has now explained his point of view quite well as far as I am concerned. I don't agree with his beliefs but I accept them. Some of the Atheists are starting to come off a little worse here if you ask me. Again if PDN is as ph and Sam seem to think perhaps turning the other cheek would be better than responding in kind if you'll forgive the Christian sentiment.

robindch

Train wreck cleared up and thread closed.