Suppose a Christian mother is very religious. She firmly believes in heaven and hell and the fate of the eternal soul. She has two children ages 7 and 5 who are very good Christian kids. She has every reason to think that if they were to die tomorrow, God would certainly accept them into heaven.

But as we know, kids grow up and become influenced by the world. If they both live to be 90, there is always the very real chance that one of them will commit a mortal sin at some point in their lives. So here's my question:

Can you provide a reason why this mother shouldn't kill her two kids now and lock in their eternal fate? I mean, the difference between spending eternity in heaven or hell is not a little thing. It's EVERYTHING! If she kills them now, their souls have a 100% chance of going to heaven. If she lets them live, there will always be some chance greater than zero they will go to hell. So why should she take ANY chance when she doesn't have to?

Now before you say it... I realize this mother would be committing a mortal sin herself by killing them. But suppose her love for her two kids is so great that she's willing to sacrifice her soul for theirs?

It seems to me that if you have any loved ones who are currently worthy of heaven, it would be an incredible act of heroic selflessness to kill them now and guarantee their eternal soul. So why don't more Christians do this? Is it because they place their own eternal fate above that of their loved ones?

Once again, I'm not trying to be cute. This is a serious question. If I truly believed that my kids were either going to heaven or hell when they die, I'm sure I love them enough to where I'd sacrifice my own soul and do whatever it takes to make sure they don't suffer for eternity. So I guess it's a real good thing people like me don't believe this stuff, huh?

Yes she would be committing her eternal fate to be in hell for murdering them.
AND she would be 'playing God' in a sense.
Where would we all be if we killed all babies so that they could go to heaven.
Their mothers and fathers could have been killed so they would have never even had a chance to be born.

Yes she would be committing her eternal fate to be in hell for murdering them.
AND she would be 'playing God' in a sense.
Where would we all be if we killed all babies so that they could go to heaven.
Their mothers and fathers could have been killed so they would have never even had a chance to be born.

Thanks for your response. But since you did nothing to refute the logic of my premise, can I take it you agree?

Refute the logic?
I don't see where I suggested it was a good idea??

Personally I don't see any logic to it at all.

A Christian woman who kills her children to preserve their souls. The better logic would be to have that woman's tubes tied so she doesn't have children in the first place.

I'm sorry, but this post has some seriously psychotic undertones.

I agree J_9 it reminds me of the woman that drowned her kids in the bayou in downtown Houston,Texas and some others where they said that "God told them" to kill their kids.
No logic! If Moses or Jesus told people to kill their kids then many of our ancestors would never have even been born to give birth to our grandparents and parents.

I'm not trying to be cute. This is a serious question.
For some reason, I doubt that this is true.


If Moses or Jesus told people to kill their kids then many of our ancestors would never have even been born to give birth to our grandparents and parents.
Well, there is that troublesome story about God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. 'Course, in the end God said "Just kidding!", so maybe it's not the same.

refute the logic?
I don't see where I suggested it was a good idea?????

But you don't say why it's a bad idea (for the mother). I take it you agree her actions will achieve the results she's after?


For some reason, I doubt that this is true.


Well, there is that troublesome story about God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. 'Course, in the end God said "Just kidding!", so maybe it's not the same.

But it is true and I see it as a serious and legitimate question. I want to know what Christian logic can stop the woman that Nohelp4u mentioned? I don't see any. I'm hoping to find it here.

I think it is stupid psychopath logic and what can stop it is some serious mental help as well as her kids taken off her!

lobrobster disagrees: Zero help to the question asked.

We can agree to disagree. However, this is not only a Christian problem, but a mental health problem as well. Many of these women suffer postpartum depression, or schizophrenia. Both of these disorders have a religious impact on the sufferer.

The Bible says the devil came to steal, kill and destroy. A good parent would trust their child's life to God and teach them the right way just as the Bible teaches Christian parents to do.
Everybody has a free will and to kill somebody so they don't have a chance to choose their free will is 0NLY playing God and not trusting God. Just like with abortion pro life people ask how do you know you didn't 'kill' the next Einstein.

The Bible says the devil came to steal, kill and destroy. A good parent would trust their child's life to God and teach them the right way just as the Bible teaches Christian parents to do.
Everybody has a free will and to kill somebody so they don't have a chance to choose their free will is 0NLY playing God and not trusting God. Just like with abortion pro life people ask how do you know you didn't 'kill' the next Einstein.

But your speaking nothing to the question I asked.

Does killing a child who is worthy of heaven guarantee his eternal soul, or not? If it does, then I don't see how you can blame a parent for doing it.


I think it is stupid psychopath logic and what can stop it is some serious mental help as well as her kids taken off of her!

I have nothing against you calling something stupid, if you show the hole in the logic. But so far, you haven't come close to doing that. You're simply stating your personal (unfounded) opinions that have nothing to do with the question I asked.

If it does, then I don't see how you can blame a parent for doing it.

The parent should not have had the child in the first place. The soul would have stayed pure and with God.

We can agree to disagree. However, this is not only a Christian problem, but a mental health problem as well. Many of these women suffer postpartum depression, or schizophrenia. Both of these disorders have a religious impact on the sufferer.

But you are not speaking to the question I asked.. Would such an action guarantee her kid's eternal fate, or not? If it does, why are you assuming it's a mental health issue?

I would jump in front of a bus right now to save my kid. If I'm also willing to risk my eternal soul for their's, what logic do you propose should stop me from doing so? You're providing no argument against it. You're just throwing other issues into the ring like mental health, without any real answer to my question.

If she lets them live, there will always be some chance greater than zero they will go to hell. So why should she take ANY chance when she doesn't have to?

The Bible has been interpreted all sorts of ways. Some Christian churches say there are mortal sins. Others don't agree. Some Christians say there is a literal hell, others say it is spiritual, some say hell is on earth, and still others aren't sure there is one.

None of us knows the mind of God. The mother in your example is playing God and is like my bipolar neighbor (mother of four children) who wanted to do exactly what you described.

The Bible says God is love. We don't know what decisions He will make about where people "go" after death. We simply have to trust in His love and mercy. And I suspect we will be very surprised when our own turn comes up.

The parent should not have had the child in the first place. The soul would have stayed pure and with God.

When does the birth of a soul take place?

Most of the people that kill because "God told them to" are then evaluted by a shrink as having serious mental issues.
I don't see where you don't follow that if all Christian parents took that route they would be going against the free will God gave us as well as aborting the opportunity for the kids to possibly do something for God and mankind.
Your question is the same as why not abort them before birth so they are saved?
Or what if they kill themselves?
Or what happens if they die (instead of being killed by the mom) same thing happens to the kids the mother kills as happens to the ones in the other three instances other than it isn't their time if the mother kills them.
Bottom line it is NOT the answer and goes against the Bible teachings.


When does the birth of a soul take place?

God says he knew us before we were even conceived so I believe we had our soul at or before conception.

And wondergirl is saying exactly what I have been trying to get across to you.

Okay, look, I would definitely jump in front of a bus to save my child, but to purposely kill them is ridiculous. Does it save their soul, yeah, I'm sure it does if you slaughter them before they commit any act against the laws of God.

But these women who actually do commit murder of their children in the name of God usually have a psychotic illness that makes them commit this horrendous crime against nature. I have spoken in depth with men and women alike who have done this to their children while in my mental health rotation at the forensics unit at the local State mental health hospital.

Any person of sound mind would not commit murder their children, but rather raise them to live a life in Christ.


When does the birth of a soul take place?

I can't answer that because I am not God.

When does the birth of a soul take place?

If someone can answer that, he/she will have solved the abortion/right-to-life question.

Look, Rob, why don't you tell us what you want us to say...

You want us to justify killing innocent children?

Some Christians say there is a literal hell,

I understand that the bible can be interpreted in many different ways, and that's what I'm trying to get at (my motive for this question is not evil like some insist it is).

I just want to know that if someone who's interpretation is that there is a real heaven and hell that we all go to when we die, if that person is wrong to try and ensure a loved one going to heaven. This seems perfectly reasonable to me given such an interpretation. In fact, it would seem unreasonable and downright selfish for a loving parent to do anything else!

Maybe this will help answer whatever it is you are getting at
But it is written from a pro-life anti abortion perspective mostly'

Circle of Prayer - The Sanctity of Life (http://www.circleofprayer.com/life.html)

I just want to know that if someone who's interpretation is that there is a real heaven and hell that we all go to when we die, if that person is wrong to try and ensure a loved one going to heaven.

If a person kills an innocent child because he/she wants to ensure that child a place is heaven, that person is wrong, and seriously mentally ill if they go through with it.

Yes, it's wrong to kill a child solely on the pretense that the child will go to heaven.

I understand that the bible can be interpreted in many different ways

A poem can be interpreted in many different ways, but that does not mean it's what the author intended.

The Bible can also be interpreted in many different ways, but that does not mean it's what God wants. Many verses are interpreted out of context, i.e. apart from the verses surrounding them that help in their comprehension. The historical and cultural contexts are also important in understanding the Bible.

The NT says women are to be silent in the church. Of course, that verse has opened up all sorts of problems for Christians. Again, context is needed to understand what St. Paul meant--and total understanding still may be missing.

Just because I might believe women are not to utter a sound while in church doesn't mean it's true, just like your example of the mother who kills her kids. The Bible also says, "Thou shalt not kill."

Look, Rob, why don't you tell us what you want us to say......

You want us to justify killing innocent children?

I want you to justify why it shouldn't be done given a specific interpretation of the bible. And not only have you failed to do so, you can't even manage to stay on point. You find it more convenient to muddy the waters by bringing up completely unrelated topics like mental health issues, etc. Here's why this subject is so important...

You cannot fault somebody else for following through on their unsubstantiated interpretations, just because they don't agree with your own unsubstantiated interpretations (or because you're just not as willing to follow through on them as they are).

So I want to find out if: Is a mother who kills her child, or a man who flies a plane into a building, or another who chops off a person's head for apostacy, are they really acting in a more noble manner than someone who is liberal in their beliefs? At least they (the fundamentalists), are FIRM enough in their beliefs and convictions that they are willing to see them through to the ultimate conclusion. In a way, I respect that more than I do someone who says they belief such and such, yet doesn't live as if they do.

The Bible can also be interpreted in many different ways, but that does not mean it's what God wants.

Thanks wondergirl, and I know you're trying to be helpful and answer my question. I'm not for a minute saying that God would want a mother to kill her child. Not at all. I'm merely asking if she were to do so, would that guarantee this child's eternal fate according to some interpretations of the bible? And if so, what logical reason can we provide to stop her from doint so?

At least they (the fundamentalists), are FIRM enough in their beliefs and convictions that they are willing to see them through to the ultimate conclusion.

And firmness of belief is a GOOD thing, no matter what the belief?

AS wondergirl said anybody can interpret the Bible anyway they want but ONLY God has absolute truth and some come close to having it right BUT killing your kids so they automatically go to heaven is far from the Bible taken as a whole teaching.
You might try asking on the Jewish Board. I believe ETWolverine might be able to give you a good answer to the sanctity to life question better. Of course it would be better to give the question from a Jewish mother instead if you do.

Thanks wondergirl, and I know you're trying to be helpful and answer my question. I'm not for a minute saying that God would want a mother to kill her child. Not at all. I'm merely asking if she were to do so, would that guarantee this child's eternal fate according to some interpretations of the bible? And if so, what logical reason can we provide to stop her from doint so?

You're welcome.

If the interpretation is incorrect, her "efforts" would be worthless. The Bible has to be interpreted as a whole. It also says, as I mentioned in an earlier post, don't kill.

I suspect logic would not be what she is looking for, so any logical reason would be outside of her experience and reasoning. Logic would not stop her.

If a person kills an innocent child because he/she wants to ensure that child a place is heaven, that person is wrong, and seriously mentally ill if they go through with it.

Yes, it's wrong to kill a child solely on the pretense that the child will go to heaven.

This one is MY fault. Sorry. I KNOW that person is wrong. My question is, what should stop them if it will save their loved one's soul?

Of course it would be better to give the question from a Jewish mother instead if you do.

You are just as cute as ever! ET would love it!

I think we have explained it well but then they say Mozart, or was it Beethovan,:D :D couldn't TEACH music !:D

You keep using the word logic. If religion is about believing in an unseen anything, than that really isn't logical to begin with is it? So we are dealing with a woman's personal belief. There's no real logic in that. Heaven and hell aren't tangible.

Plus this woman only assumes that her children are good little kiddies. But how does she know that little Johnny doesn't play doctor with his sister? The woman is in fault because she claims to know the religious minds of her own children.


If all of this was tangible, and not based off a subjective belief. She might have a case. But then again... if she claims to be a good Christian woman, she would know that humans have free will. And she is taking that away from her children by killing them. She isn't just committing a religious sin. She is breaking a law of man.

And firmness of belief is a GOOD thing, no matter what the belief?

I didn't say it was a good thing... I said it was noble.

Say what you want about those hijackers on 9/11. What they did was insanely hideously and wrong. But they certainly were not cowards! They were acting in firm conviction of their beliefs. And I see this mother in the same way... If one REALLY believes their child will face an eternal heaven and hell. How can it be anything but a noble act to sacrifice her soul for that of her children?

Yes, you did. What's the difference between "good" and "noble"?

Originally Posted by lobrobster
At least they (the fundamentalists), are FIRM enough in their beliefs and convictions that they are willing to see them through to the ultimate conclusion.

You aren't reading the very reasonable responses you are being given. Or aren't thinking about them.

Plus this woman only assumes that her children are good little kiddies. But how does she know that little Johnny doesn't play doctor with his sister? The woman is in fault because she claims to know the religious minds of her own children.

So far, I find this to be the first legitimate attempt to answer my question. THANK YOU!

Ok... So she can never be sure about her children's chances of going to heaven. YES! That would be a "legitimate" reason not to carry through.


Yes, you did. What's the difference between "good" and "noble"?

Originally Posted by lobrobster
At least they (the fundamentalists), are FIRM enough in their beliefs and convictions that they are willing to see them through to the ultimate conclusion.

You aren't reading the very reasonable responses you are being given. Or aren't thinking about them.

LOL! You quoted me to prove I used the word "good", but didn't quote the part where I actually used the word, "good".? I suppose the two words share some meanings. I meant noble in the "distinguished" sense. I would never say killing a child, or flying planes into building was "good".

So, killing a child is noble.

So, killing a child is noble.

I think sacrificing your soul to save someone's else's is a noble act. Yes.

It's my understanding that according to Christian beliefs, this life is but a pit stop on the road to eternal glory. If one truly believe this, why would they care about taking a life? (in fact, you might want to notice that this is exactly how people are acting in other parts of the world right now).

Now I don't believe this!. But I'm trying to find out why those that do, have such a problem with such an act. Even if you've prevented a life from reaching the ripe old age of 90, that is completely insignificant when compared to eternity.

I think sacrificing your soul to save someone's else's is a noble act. Yes.

No. You didn't answer my question. Killing a child is a noble act?


But I'm trying to find out why those that do, have such a problem with such an act.

Um, we've told you what we think and believe. Is this question up to five pages yet?

Apparently you want an answer that no one has lucked onto yet.

So far, I find this to be the first legitimate attempt to answer my question. THANK YOU!

Ok... So she can never be sure about her children's chances of going to heaven. YES! That would be a "legitimate" reason not to carry through.
Well, OK then, there you go. Question answered. Phew! I sure am glad that's over.

Well, OK then, there you go. Question answered. Phew!! I sure am glad that's over.


YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYY!!

Is it time for supper yet? What's to eat?

First you are assuming that there is such thing as a mortal sin, thus telling me you must be catholic, since they are the only ones that have motal and non mortal sins, even the Orthodox which split with the Catholics in the 1100's, do not use mortal sin concept.

In general the teachings are once you have accepted Christ and made a committed to him in your heart, your salvation is set.
Also since there are only a few mortal sins, even if you are catholic, a person raised properly would not commit one of those anyway. Even 3/4 of all of our prisons no one there has committed a mortal sin.

And of course a mother who is truly christian would not consider harm to her children

No. You didn't answer my question. Killing a child is a noble act?

If this guarantees the child's eternal soul, and takes away any chance of suffering, crying, and teeth gnashing for ever and ever, until the end of time, yes. How much plainer can I be?




Um, we've told you what we think and believe. Is this question up to five pages yet?

Well then I must I applogize to you. You've wasted your time for nothing. I'm not interested in what you think, or your opinions. I'm interested in the logic that should be used to prevent a believer in heaven and hell from killing a loved one to ensure their place with God.



Apparently you want an answer that no one has lucked onto yet.

Only one person has even come close to actually providing a legitimate answer. The rest of you seem more content to put words in my mouth, twist the subject around, or spout personal opinions on the matter, which I did not ask for.

You have a rule book for answering?

You have a rule book for answering?

Love it... Wish I could rate you on this one.

You keep using the word logic. If religion is about believing in an unseen anything, than that really isn't logical to begin with is it? So we are dealing with a woman's personal belief. There's no real logic in that. Heaven and hell aren't tangible.

Plus this woman only assumes that her children are good little kiddies. But how does she know that little Johnny doesn't play doctor with his sister? The woman is in fault because she claims to know the religious minds of her own children.


If all of this was tangible, and not based off of a subjective belief. She might have a case. But then again...if she claims to be a good Christian woman, she would know that humans have free will. And she is taking that away from her children by killing them. She isn't just committing a religious sin. She is breaking a law of man.

While I was cooking dinner I was thinking basically the same things.



If this guarantees the child's eternal soul, and takes away any chance of suffering, crying, and teeth gnashing for ever and ever, until the end of time, yes. How much plainer can I be?
It doesn't necessarily guarantee anything, as mafiaangel said, what if the child doesn't have the faith and doesn't want to disappoint the mother? Also at what age do you decide they would have to be killed?



...... the logic that should be used to prevent a believer in heaven and hell from killing a loved one to ensure their place with God.
A. sanctity of life
B. Faith by praying God's will for their life rather than playing God yourself
C. Not playing God because you believe God gave your kids a purpose in this life



Only one person has even come close to actually providing a legitimate answer. The rest of you seem more content to put words in my mouth, twist the subject around, or spout personal opinions on the matter, which I did not ask for.

I am not sure what it is you think we aren't answering or what words we are 'putting in your mouth'

Look... I thought I asked a very simple, reasonable, and legitimate question.

It seems to me given these two possibilities when we die... a). Eternal bliss, and b). Eternal suffering, that any means should justify the end. So what logical reason would a mother have NOT to send her child to heaven immediately and eliminate ANY chance this child will suffer eternally?

However, I do sincerely regret posting the question. I should've realized no one would make a reasonable attempt at answering it. Those who didn't have a good answer could've said, "Gee, I don't know", or, "Maybe God would take it out on the kid", or "You can't know the kid's deserving of heaven yet" (the ONLY legitimate answer to appear so far).

But most Christians will only answer questions to the point where they back themselves into a corner. Then comes some variation of the inevitable:

"Well, God works in mysterious ways. Your question has been answered! Why are you still bothering me with this?!


I can appreciate FR_Chuck's attempted answer, but it leaves the same problem. There is still the chance the child will stray and wind up in hell. It can be reduced to a very basic math problem that any 6th grader could understand...

Even a .0000000001% chance is a completely unacceptable risk when dealing with burning and suffering for an infinite quanity of time! Therefore, if you can eliminate ANY chance, you should clearly do so.

Suppose a Christian mother is very religious. She firmly believes in heaven and hell and the fate of the eternal soul. She has two children ages 7 and 5 who are very good Christian kids. She has every reason to think that if they were to die tomorrow, God would certainly accept them into heaven.

But as we know, kids grow up and become influenced by the world. If they both live to be 90, there is always the very real chance that one of them will commit a mortal sin at some point in their lives. So here's my question:

Can you provide a reason why this mother shouldn't kill her two kids now and lock in their eternal fate? I mean, the difference between spending eternity in heaven or hell is not a little thing. It's EVERYTHING! If she kills them now, their souls have a 100% chance of going to heaven. If she lets them live, there will always be some chance greater than zero they will go to hell. So why should she take ANY chance when she doesn't have to?

Now before you say it... I realize this mother would be committing a mortal sin herself by killing them. But suppose her love for her two kids is so great that she's willing to sacrifice her soul for theirs?

It seems to me that if you have any loved ones who are currently worthy of heaven, it would be an incredible act of heroic selflessness to kill them now and guarantee their eternal soul. So why don't more Christians do this? Is it because they place their own eternal fate above that of their loved ones?

Once again, I'm not trying to be cute. This is a serious question. If I truly believed that my kids were either going to heaven or hell when they die, I'm sure I love them enough to where I'd sacrifice my own soul and do whatever it takes to make sure they don't suffer for eternity. So I guess it's a real good thing people like me don't believe this stuff, huh?

Because we can't secure their eternal soul. God judges the soul, we don't.

If I could be certain that by killing my children right now, they would go to heaven, I would do it. But I can't be certain. So why risk my soul for a gamble?


1 Corinthians 4
1 Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. 2 Here now it is required among the dispensers, that a man be found faithful. 3 But to me it is a very small thing to be judged by you, or by man's day; but neither do I judge my own self. 4 For I am not conscious to myself of any thing, yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me, is the Lord.

Sincerely,

De Maria

what logical reason would a mother have NOT to send her child to heaven immediately and eliminate ANY chance this child will suffer eternally?


It is murder. That is logical enough. If it is not logical to you, maybe you need some therapy.

Why have a child only to murder them later?

In all actuality, this post is not at all logical. As much as you want it to be, it's not.

And for it not being logical I think we gave some pretty good replies of how it would go against everything God and the sanctity of life stands for not to mention --morals!
Logic of killing off kids so they can go to heaven... all Christians would be dead by their teenage years and Christianity would cease to exist... hmmm maybe that is what they are getting at??

"You can't know the kid's deserving of heaven yet" (the ONLY legitimate answer to appear so far).
How many legitimate answers are you going to demand before you let it go?

Look, I agree with you about the absurdities and inconsistencies of religious dogma, but you're trying to be way too clever here. You really don't have a question or a proposition to discuss. You're just poking a stick in the eye of religious people by ridiculing a narrow and extreme version of what you think they believe. And I'm sure you knew before you started that this would generate a lot more heat than light. Don't you have something more important to do?

How many legitimate answers are you going to demand before you let it go?

Look, I agree with you about the absurdities and inconsistencies of religious dogma, but you're trying to be way too clever here. You really don't have a question or a proposition to discuss. You're just poking a stick in the eye of religious people by ridiculing a narrow and extreme version of what you think they believe. And I'm sure you knew before you started that this would generate a lot more heat than light. Don't you have something more productive to do?

No. FYI- that's not what I'm trying to do. FYI- I happen to be searching for answers that I don't understand. FYI- I used to believe in God and these are some of the reasons I don't anymore and I'm trying to see if I can't make any sense of it! So why don't you and everyone else tell me some more what I'm thinking and what I'm trying to do! Helpful Christians... Yeah right!

No. FYI- that's not what I'm trying to do. FYI- I happen to be searching for answers that I don't understand. FYI- I used to believe in God and these are some of the reasons why I don't anymore and I'm trying to see if I can't make any sense of it!

If you truly want to find answers, this isn't the way to do it. You proposed a scenario that involved only a fundamentalist Christian mindset. Most of us here have progressed beyond that kind of narrowmindedness. That's why you got the responses you did.

If you truly want to find answers, this isn't the way to do it. You proposed a scenario that involved only a fundamentalist Christian mindset. Most of us here have progressed beyond that kind of narrowmindedness. That's why you got the responses you did.

Then how do you propose I do it? I have a REAL problem with a question like this! I was taught to believe, if you're good you go to heaven, and if your bad you go to hell.

Do you know anything about math? Do you realize the disproportion between an 80 year earthly life and INFINITY?! We're not talking about a 5 year sentence of being locked up somewhere. We're talking about an eternity of agony and suffering! So why would you not send a loved one to heaven this second if you could?

It's not a question that's dumb or narrowminded. It's a question you don't like. It's a question you don't know how to answer. And clearly, you never thought much about it, so you wish I'd accept your first half-hearted opinion, and go away.

Well you'll be glad to know that I'll go away and not post any more questions here. It's futile. If you don't understand something, you just get mad at the questioner.

Nobody is getting mad but you don't seem to understand that the sanctity of human life outweighs your argument.
The Bible says be fruitful and multiply and make disciples.
It says the devil comes to steal, kill and destroy but Jesus came to give life more abundantly
Also the Bible doesn't teach the 'be good go to heaven and bad goes to hell'.
That is how man boiled it down in his logic.
But that is a whole 'nother topic.

And clearly, you never thought much about it

I was the first-born child of an evangelical minister. The church was his life--and the family's life. I even became an evangelical church grade-school teacher. In addition, I have taught Sunday School and adult Bible classes for more years than you are old.

I've never thought much about it? That's all I've done all my life. Now I'm at the end of my life, so I'm really thinking about it. A lot. Truly.

Well you'll be glad to know that I'll go away and not post any more questions here. It's futile. If you don't understand something, you just get mad at the questioner.

If you really want to explore fundamentalist beliefs, running out the door isn't the way to do it. Had you been upfront with us and posed the question more clearly, we would have answered more cogently for your purposes.

Then how do you propose I do it? I have a REAL problem with a question like this!
I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced that YOU have a problem you sincerely need help with.

I was taught to believe, if you're good you go to heaven, and if your bad you go to hell.
Any you've made it clear that you no longer hold this belief, so how are the inconsistencies it produces a problem for YOU?

Do you know anything about math? Do you realize the disproportion between an 80 year earthly life and INFINITY?!! We're not talking about a 5 year sentence of being locked up somewhere. We're talking about an eternity of agony and suffering! So why would you not send a loved one to heaven this second if you could?
It's not a math problem, or a problem of logic. If it's a problem at all, it's a problem of morality. But I don't see how it can be any kind of a problem for YOU if you don't believe the premise it's based on.

It's not a question that's dumb or narrowminded.
It is if you don't believe the premise.

It's a question you don't like.
What I don't like is people pretending to have a problem that they don't actually have, and then getting all indignant when it isn't solved to their immediate satisfaction.

It's a question you don't know how to answer.
It has been answered in a way that you yourself agreed was legitimate. The fact that you keep beating this long-dead horse in spite of that, tells me that a legitimate answer wasn't what you were after in the first place.

I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced that YOU have a problem you sincerely need help with.

You should list telepathy in your profile. It's a great skill to have.


Any you've made it clear that you no longer hold this belief, so how are the inconsistencies it produces a problem for YOU?

It's the REASON why I can no longer hold the belief that's the problem. Seriously, I refrain from personal insults, but it's very hard not to question your IQ level if you really can't grasp this.


It's not a math problem, or a problem of logic. If it's a problem at all, it's a problem of morality.

It's both, but the moralistic part is the exact opposite of the way you see it. It is EXACTLY a math and logic problem. Given these beliefs, there is nothing immoral about insuring one's eternal bliss. In fact, THAT'S the question Einstein! How is it NOT moral to send someone to heaven and immoral to take any chance they go to hell?




What I don't like is people pretending to have a problem that they don't actually have,

You should really make some use of yourself and provide us with the winning lottery numbers for tomorrow. Such a waste of telepathic powers!



It has been answered in a way that you yourself agreed was legitimate.

That came from ONE person and it seemed as though by accident. Not one other person agreed with him, elaborated, or even mentioned the same.

I am going to throw in my two cents. Honestly I would think it would be much more noble to raise your children the right way and let them earn their way to where ever you expect them to go!! It wouldn't be noble to kill them and be lazy to the fact that you would have to work really really hard to make sure they were good people!

It's the REASON why I can no longer hold the belief that's the problem.
I'm sorry, I must have missed it. What is the REASON why you can no longer hold the belief, and why is this REASON problematical?

Seriously, I refrain from personal insults, but it's very hard not to question your IQ level if you really can't grasp this.
I appreciate your forbearance.


It is EXACTLY a math and logic problem.
OK, here it is in logical form:

Major Premise: Eternal salvation of the soul is infinitely more valuable than the life of the body.
Minor Premise: Killing children guarantees their soul's eternal salvation with absolute certainty.
Conclusion: Parents should kill their children.

Whether the major premise is true or not (I doubt it, personally), the minor premise is false, so the conclusion is not valid.


How is it NOT moral to send someone to heaven and immoral to take any chance they go to hell?
Because killing them does NOT guarantee their place in heaven, nor does it avoid any chance that they will go to hell. And since you yourself don't actually believe that it does, and nobody else who has responded here appears to believe that it does, what's the problem?


That came from ONE person and it seemed as though by accident. Not one other person agreed with him, elaborated, or even mentioned the same.
What do you want, a Greek Chorus? I've mentioned it three times, not counting the little logic tutorial above.

OK, here it is in logical form:

Major Premise: Eternal salvation of the soul is infinitely more valuable than the life of the body.
Minor Premise: Killing children guarantees their soul's eternal salvation with absolute certainty.
Conclusion: Parents should kill their children.

Whether the major premise is true or not (I doubt it, personally), the minor premise is false, so the conclusion is not valid.


Because killing them does NOT guarantee their place in heaven, nor does it avoid any chance that they will go to hell.

Well at least now you're sticking in reality. You say you mentioned this 3 times, but I missed it and I'm too lazy to look back. I know you've mentioned numerous times it was mentioned by someone else, but I don't recall you making the argument.

You're saying that kids are not guaranteed heaven. Can you explain why this is? Also, this would seem to imply that no one is guaranteed heaven (even those who accept Jesus). So none of us has any way of really knowing whether we'll be saved. Is this what you're saying? The reason I ask is because many believers seem pretty sure they know exactly what you have to do and that they're going to heaven.

So this IS a valid reason not to perform "mercy" killings of loved ones. I'll accept it and go away. Of course, it brings up what a kid or baby could've done wrong to displease God, but that's another subject for a different time. And if you still think I'm nuts...

Go back and re-read every Christian's response to my question and count how many gave this answer. 99% of the answers had nothing to do with the question! Answers like, it's a sin to kill a child, it's not moral, and you're psychotic, are completley irrelevant! So you're basic problem with me is that I didn't just accept the first person to come up with this and leave it alone. Sorry... I'd like to get at least some form of consensus. But I guess TWO (out of how many?), is the best I'm going to get.

You're saying that kids are not guaranteed heaven. Can you explain why this is? Also, this would seem to imply that no one is guaranteed heaven (even those who accept Jesus). So none of us has any way of really knowing whether or not we'll be saved. Is this what you're saying?
Not only that, none of us know whether any of us will survive death in any recognizable form whatsoever. Belief is a willing choice to behave as if you are certain about something that you can't actually know for sure. I'm more comfortable just admitting that I don't know, but that doesn't work for everybody.

The reason I ask is because many believers seem pretty sure they know exactly what you have to do and that they're going to heaven.
Yes, that emphasis on certainty is unappealing to me, but I don't begrudge them the satisfaction they find in it.

So this IS a valid reason not to perform "mercy" killings of loved ones. I'll accept it and go away. Of course, it brings up what a kid or baby could've done wrong to displease God, but that's another subject for a different time. And if you still think I'm nuts....
I've never thought you were nuts. A bit shrill, maybe, but not nuts.

Go back and re-read every Christian's response to my question and count how many gave this answer. 99% of the answers had nothing to do with the question! Answers like, it's a sin to kill a child, it's not moral, and you're psychotic, are completley irrelevant! So you're basic problem with me is that I didn't just accept the first person to come up with this and leave it alone. Sorry... I'd like to get at least some form of consensus. But I guess TWO (out of how many?), is the best I'm going to get.
It's hard to get good help nowadays.

Okay I'll humor you and take a shot at it - no pun intended.

Fr Chuck mentioned that by using the term Mortal sin you may be Roman Catholic, so I'll answer your question with a question.


4. Salvation. Catholics teach that a person is saved through the Roman Catholic Church and its sacraments, especially through baptism; they do not believe that salvation can be obtained by grace through faith in Christ alone, but that baptism is essential for salvation.
from Roman Catholicism - Christian or Pagan? (http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/catholic.htm)

from The Sacrament of Baptism - Roman Catholic Baptism - The Sacrament of Baptism in the Roman Catholic Church (http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Sac_Baptism.htm)
Baptism has six primary effects, which are all supernatural graces:

The removal of the guilt of both Original Sin (the sin imparted to all mankind by the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden) and personal sin (the sins that we have committed ourselves).

The remission of all punishment that we owe because of sin, both temporal (in this world and in Purgatory) and eternal (the punishment that we would suffer in hell]...


If Roman catholics believe in the Sacrament of Baptism, as noted above, and their child/children are baptised, then there would be no "need to kill them to save them"
right?




BTW

I think wondergirl and ordinaryguy have given you very good answers.


I'm sure you know John 3:16,

God gave His only Son... so you would not have to sacrifice your own soul for your children.;)

But in the Catholic faith, and this is where they differ on salvation from many of the protestant churches, is that they do have mortal sins, sins that can be committed to allow you to lose your salvation.

Most protestant churches have a "once saved always saved" but they also normally require baptism,

But in the Catholic faith, and this is where they differ on salvation from many of the protestant churches, is that they do have mortal sins, sins that can be committed to allow you to lose your salvation.

most protestant churches have a "once saved always saved" but they also normally require baptism,

This is correct.

I'm probably older than most of you here. When I went to Catholic school and church, it was before all the guitars and modern stuff they do now. My daughter just made her 1st communion (my ex-wife insists on religion for the kids), they had guitars, piano, happy songs, etc. When I was a kid it was all this depressing pipe organ stuff. Every song was in a minor key! -lol

And yes, the guilt... But all this has served me well in the end. It defied my own moralistic reasoning to believe any of it. I still say there's nothing wrong with the question I asked. If it's truly believed a child could be saved from what my religion has taught me hell is, it should be done in a second to insure their eternal bliss. Of course, they shouldn't have had kids in the first place, but that's beside the point of my question.

There are all types of other questions I could've asked... Do you really think it's acceptable for a man to murder his non-virgin fiancé on her father's doorstep? What would be wrong with me shooting the next short-order cook I see working on the Sabbath day? There's no end to the list of questions I think Christians should be made to answer to. Not because I think they are bad people. But because even they wouldn't carry out their beliefs to their logical conclusion. Yet many of my Christian friends ask me to come back to faith! What I'm really asking with a question like this is, why when you don't believe it yourself?

Christians believe: what is said in the bible, so they must believe:
1. In a God that is SOOO GREAT that he was able to create the universe in 7 days (which is a universe that contains at least 1.8 million species).
2. In the following scripture: “Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? God feeds the birds of the air” Matthew 6:26


1. Now for the first point: hopefully we can agree that all God has worked on can be said “is a lot” and all these creations are “very complex”. To reinforce these arguments, I’ve divided them up.
God created “a lot”: 1.8 million species is the amount of species humans have thus far been able to document. It is estimated that tens of millions of species have existed on the earth during time.
If you were to give 1.8 million dollars (because money is used all the time in the calculation of things) I’m sure mathematically (because you have already used mathematics in your logic) a large majority of the people receiving 1.8 million dollars would admit it is “a lot” of money.

What God created is “very complex”: Humans will never fully comprehend everything about even 1 specimen (as every specimen is different in its own way because God created every creature differently).


2. The quote given demonstrates how God takes care of the birds of the air. By the way, God gave us dominion over “the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.” Genesis 1:28. So why wouldn’t he take care of the ones he has put in charge of the whole earth if he is taking care of the birds? The answer is obvious… he does because humans are important to God for the simple reason stated above - we are the ones that are to govern all of his creation!


Conclusion: It is obvious that no Christian needs to kill their children to assure their child's life in heaven because as a Christian they trust in the bible. So a Christian that has read (and understands) the whole thing will know that God created a lot of very complex things; they believe that he is the one that created the world in all of its greatness and complexities (which are more complex than our simple lives even though our lives seem very complex at times); they also believe that this creator of the world and since he takes care of even the birds he created and we are more important then the birds, can’t we trust him with our simple lives and the simple lives of our kids considering Christians have already trusted him initially for their salvation and the salvation of their kids!?


Additional info:
That was a statement/argument only using only two passages in the bible; Genesis 1:28 and Matthew 6:26. But there are so many more that can help contribute to this argument, here are a few examples (of interpretations and quotes) in the bible: God says “he is there for those that love him”, “he will answer our prayers”, “he won’t give us more than we can handle”, “he gives us the skills to accomplish our destiny and our desires”.

There are so many things in the bible that show us how important we are to him and considering we have already trusted God with our lives for eternity it should only be logical to trust him with our kids lives for eternity. Especially since God loves us more than we can ever love period. He therefore loves our kids more than we can ever love them. God doesn’t want to see any one of his children goes to hell and if whoever is truly is a Christian they obviously must believe in God’s promises for their children. By the way, if you are one of his children (as he calls Christians), that means he loves you too and doesn’t want to see you in hell either and that would break his heart just as much (or more as I said he loves us more than we can love) as us seeing our children go to hell.

If one is truly a Christian then they should also believe the passages that “he won’t give us more than we can handle”, “he gives us the skills to accomplish our destiny and our desires”. So if our desire is to assure our children will live in heaven then we should believe that God hasn't given us children that we can't handle, we should believe that God has given us the skills to train our kids up in a way so that they stay on the right path with Christ, we should believe that he is there for us and our children and that when we pray to him he will answer our prayers. If someone doesn't believe those parts of the Bible they are picking and chosing from the Bible what they want to believe (and might as well start their own cult in my opinion) and applying their logic to that one passage (regarding entry to heaven and hell) to come up with their own conclusion. If they are a Christian then they believe everything in the Bible not just 1 passage from it!

So in the end I must say that killing our children so that they may go to heaven is not logic at all because anyone doing this is focusing solely one message (regarding heaven and hell) and forgetting many of the very important messages of the Bible that show us that if we can trust in God as the creator of the earth, as the one that provides to the species less important than us, that he will answer our prayers, that he won’t give us more than we can handle, that he gives us the skills to accomplish our destiny and realize our desires, and as the savior of our soul than there should be nothing that we can’t trust him with, especially the enternal lives of those that he himself calls "his children"!

There's no end to the list of questions I think Christians should be made to answer to. Not because I think they are bad people. But because even they wouldn't carry out their beliefs to their logical conclusion. Yet many of my Christian friends ask me to come back to faith! What I"m really asking with a question like this is, why when you don't believe it yourself?
Sure, there are a lot of inconsistencies and absurdities in religious doctrine and practice, Christian or otherwise. What I don't understand is why it offends you so that professed believers don't take the most extreme interpretation of their doctrine and carry it out to its perfectly absurd conclusion. I'm thankful that most of them have better sense than that.

It sounds like you value logical consistency above any other consideration, and thus have the highest respect for the fanatical extreme precisely because they don't question the premises that underlie their logical conclusions, or temper their actions with more pragmatic considerations. Why do you find that admirable?

This was from your OP"
Suppose a Christian mother is very religious..............Can you provide a reason why this mother shouldn't kill her two kids now and lock in their eternal fate?

I have to agree with Ordinary Guy's responses to you throughout this post. The fact that you aren't happy with the responses you have received shouldn't invalidate them.

lobrobster, how do you propose a Christian should answer your question? You appear to be expecting a "logical and rational" layman's response to a question that is completely religious in nature.

lobrobster, how do you propose a Christian should answer your question? You appear to be expecting a "logical and rational" layman's response to a question that is completely religious in nature.

I would expect an answer that meshes with the belief (such as: No one, not even kids are assured heaven). I didn't know that. So that was informative. I can also live with phil_stl's thoughtful attempt, even though I've got questions about it. What I can't accept are answers like:

"You just shouldn't! Now go away!" Or answers that don't even come close to answering the question, such as: "Where would we be if we all killed our children?". Or answers that are an obvious excuse for not thinking like: ""A better logic is she should have her tubes tied.".

Or... I see nothing wrong with a simple, "I don't know.". It's when people pretend they know and then show nothing but ignorance and contempt for the question that incenses me.

Why do you find that admirable?

Because they are at least committed to what they say they believe. I'm of the opinion that wishy-washy believers (of all religions) pave the way for hard line fundamentalists. How do you tell a guy like Bin Ladin that he should just believe a little less? That doesn't work. Clearly the core premise of what he believes is either right or wrong. Tough questions should be asked and answered of all Muslims and of all faiths.

I know this is difficult to do when you're dealing with belief in the unfounded and invisible. And I'm sure it's obvious that I'm not taken in by any of it in the least, so it looks like I'm trolling. Well, I won't deny that there's some truth to that. But more importantly, I want to understand how the religious mind works. That's why I ask questions.

I would expect an answer that meshes with the belief (such as: No one, not even kids are assured heaven). I didn't know that. So that was informative. I can also live with phil_stl's thoughtful attempt, even though I've got questions about it. What I can't accept are answers like:

"You just shouldn't! Now go away!" Or answers that don't even come close to answering the question, such as: "Where would we be if we all killed our children?". Or answers that are an obvious excuse for not thinking like: ""A better logic is she should have her tubes tied.".

Or... I see nothing wrong with a simple, "I don't know.". It's when people pretend they know and then show nothing but ignorance and contempt for the question that incenses me.
But, lob, you have been very insistent throughout this thread that the people who did respond with rational answers weren't giving adequate enough responses. Based upon your latest posts, you still feel that people should come up with better answers than the ones given. There have been many logical and good answers here.

In the very first post on this thread, Nohelp4u stated that it would be as if the mother "was playing God". You responded that she "refuted the logic of" your "premise." I am not Christian and I understood exactly what she meant. There was nothing wrong with that response within the context in which you presented your question. But, you didn't accept the response, along with her continued responses. Are you saying you didn't understand it or it needed further explanation? You were raised a Catholic so I can't see how further explanation would be needed. Most of those non-answers that you are quoting here were in response to your refusal to accept their initial responses.

Now, you are saying that you are incensed when others show contempt for the question. Let's face it, it is a pretty upsetting question. How can you expect people not to get emotional over a question like that? As I said, I am not Christian and from an outsider's point of view, it appears to be a very combative initial post.

What do you mean by "ignorance?" Are you saying some of the people that responded are ignorant because you didn't think their answer was good enough when they made an honest attempt? I see that J_9's initial response was purely from someone who was looking at the question from a mental health standpoint. She is a nurse and that is the position from which she was responding. I am sure she understands now what your intentions in asking that question are, but it looks as if initially she didn't. And it is logical to assume that a woman who would do that, as a number of them have actually managed to go through with it, has mental health issues. I am sorry lobr, but I am having trouble with your logic on this one. You have received many good responses. But, you are not happy with them.

*EDIT*
Sorry, I didn't see this when I was responding:


And I'm sure it's obvious that I'm not taken in by any of it in the least, so it looks like I'm trolling. Well, I won't deny that there's some truth to that. But more importantly, I want to understand how the religious mind works. That's why I ask questions.
If you were raised a Catholic, you already know how the "religious mind works", so that is just a load of dog poop. I think you just answered my questions here. You have finally admitted to trolling. There is more than "some truth to that", my friend. You are looking to hit people over the head and to pick a fight. Why?

Because they are at least committed to what they say they believe.
I see nothing to admire in fanatical devotion to a narrow-minded belief.


I'm of the opinion that wishy-washy believers (of all religions) pave the way for hard line fundamentalists.
I'm of the opinion that hard line fundamentalists bring undeserved calumny on the vast majority of a faith's adherents who are more sensible--wishy-washy, if you will.

I want to understand how the religious mind works. That's why I ask questions.
Based on your questions, I'd say you understand frighteningly well how the religious mind works.

I'm of the opinion that hard line fundamentalists bring undeserved calumny on the vast majority of a faith's adherents who are more sensible--wishy-washy, if you will.

I get the sense that this forum is strictly for the asking and answering of questions and not for any type of discussion. So I'm just going to say that I couldn't disagree with you more, and strongly encourage you to re-think your opinion on this.

I get the sense that this forum is strictly for the asking and answering of questions and not for any type of discussion. So I'm just going to say that I couldn't disagree with you more, and strongly encourage you to re-think your opinion on this.

I've never considered this site a "chat board" or discussion board in the way you seem to want it to be. The few times I responded to your proposition I had to stand still and think, "Ok, he didn't like my answer and he didn't like X's answer and he didn't like Y's answer, so what answer does he want?" I felt like I was on Jeopardy where there is only one right answer and no one was giving it. In fact, my buzzer broke along the way, as did several others' buzzers.

The people who answered you come from all different family backgrounds, life experiences, and non-religious/religious settings (atheist to evangelical). No one was able to read your mind to figure out the "right" answer that you wanted. I'm sorry if you think we failed you.

I get the sense that this forum is strictly for the asking and answering of questions and not for any type of discussion.
The name of the forum is Religious Discussions, so I'd say feel free to discuss as much as you like.

So I'm just going to say that I couldn't disagree with you more, and strongly encourage you to re-think your opinion on this.
OK, help me out. Elaborate on your statement that:
wishy-washy believers (of all religions) pave the way for hard line fundamentalists
Based on your comments so far, I take it that by "wishy washy believers" you mean nominal adherents to a religious faith who don't practice an extremely observant version of that faith. In what way does the presence of such people among the faith's adherents "pave the way" for the fanatical fundamentalist fringe? You seem to believe that the fanatical fringe is a credit to the faith, while the more moderate, more tolerant, and less logically consistent majority are its disgrace. I still don't get it.

The few times I responded to your proposition I had to stand still and think, "Ok, he didn't like my answer and he didn't like X's answer and he didn't like Y's answer, so what answer does he want?"

Wondergirl, these were the very first responses to my question of: "If a mother can guarantee her child going to heaven, then why shouldn't she, given her beliefs and selfless love for her child?"

Answer: Where would we all be if we killed all babies so that they could go to heaven.

Answer: The better logic would be to have that woman's tubes tied so she doesn't have children in the first place.

Answer: I think it is stupid psychopath logic and what can stop it is some serious mental help as well as her kids taken off of her!


Are you really having that much trouble understanding why these answers do NOT pertain to the question at hand, dear? Then let's agree to think the other is completely clueless and move on.

In what way does the presence of such people among the faith's adherents "pave the way" for the fanatical fundamentalist fringe?

I don't want to run away from your question, so ere's the way I see it. But I really want to move on after this. Feel free to give me your thoughts in a last post and I'll read them. But I'm done after this.

First of all, I'm very concerned for our world right now. There are people who would love nothing more than to cut off your head, because you don't believe what they do. And it's only a matter of time before these same people get their hands on nuclear weapons.

How do you propose telling a guy like Bin Laden that his vile acts are wrong and that he should just believe a little less?

You can't very well say, HIS unfounded beliefs are crazy, while MY unfounded beliefs are perfectly reasonable and OK. Yet this is exactly what you seem to be advocating. That we should honor and respect those who's beliefs are only slightly dellusional. That it's only when these beliefs start REALLY getting dellusional and cause people to fly planes into our skycrapers, we should become appalled enough to speak out against the irrational thought of religion.

The problem I have with this is, where do you draw the line? If you praise your book as being filled with nothing but virtuous truths, then how do you stop those who are willing to carry them all the way to their logical conclusion? Apostacy is either punishable by death, or it's not. We should either kill those who work on the Sabbath day, or we shouldn't.

Anyway, I'm sure you get my point (and no doubt still don't agree with it). I think it's a more serious matter than you obviously do (or at least I think it's becoming one). We currently have a president ( I live in the US), who believes God speaks to him every day and tells him what to do. We have a candidate for presidency who believes Jesus will be in Missouri soon. We're talking about a position that heads the most powerful military on the planet. And these people are asking we elect them to deal with the problems of another powerful ideology with members who are every bit as convinced God is on their side.

Your general point is taken. I'm sure most believers are like wondergirl who are good people, go to church, and wish no harm on anyone. And if everyone were like that, the world would be a better place indeed. But at the same time, I submit that it's people exactly like her who provide a platform for the more dangerous believers. If only because it becomes much harder for people like us to call them out on their most ridiculous and dellusional beliefs. If we're not also willing to call out wondergirl for hers, we can have little to say about the fanatics.

The issue is that if and when a person, starts a discussion with no idea of changing their view point, the entire discussion is really pointless.
It is just merely an exchange of beliefs and perhaps the baiting of others to try to find reasons to attack their faith and beleifs.

Since the entire question to start with is really mute, since no christian mother would do this while sane, it is just a debate that is non real since it could not and would not happen.

The issue is that if and when a person, starts a discussion with no idea of changing thier view point, the entire discussion is really pointless.
It is just merely an exchange of beliefs and perhaps the baiting of others to try to find reasons to attack thier faith and beleifs.

Since the entire question to start with is really mute, since no christian mother would do this while sane, it is just a debate that is non real since it could not and would not happen.


Give me some credit please. I AM willing to change my view point. Are you going to make a believer out me? Probably not. But I would certainly change my view maybe if I had a reasonable understanding for the belief. I've already stated that I think one answer comes very close to being reasonable. At least I can say, "Hmm. Ok, that makes sense", and move on. Unfortunately, most weren't answers at all.

So no. I didn't post the question to become converted, but I had a genuine, sincere, non-malevolant desire to understand something. All I got was attacked, and no one was very helpful.

Wondergirl, these were the very first responses to my question

But they were NOT the only ones you received. You got some good ones, even logical ones. I still don't know what you want to hear.


Are you really having that much trouble understanding why these answers do NOT pertain to the question at hand, dear?

Please don't patronize me. It doesn't help your quest for truth at all.


There are people who would love nothing more than to cut off your head, because you don't believe what they do.

If you read history, it has been this way since the beginning of time and people who don't agree with each other. Read OT stories, read about the Crusades, the Inquisition, the religio-ethnic wars that have taken place and still are taking place all over the world.


speak out against the irrational thought of religion

Religion isn't the problem. The interpretation of religion and religions' holy books is the problem. The men who attacked the WTC towers were Muslim FUNDAMENTALISTS. They twisted the teachings of Islam. The men who lynched blacks in the South were often Christian FUNDAMENDALISTS. They twisted the teachings of the Bible.


The problem I have with this is, where do you draw the line?

Neither you nor anyone else can draw any line. People believe what they believe based on their upbringing, the influences in their lives, their country of origin, their family situation, their personal experiences.


And these people are asking we elect them to deal with the problems of another powerful ideology with members who are every bit as convinced God is on their side.

That has always been the case with war. God is claimed by each side.


it becomes much harder for people like us to call them out on their most ridiculous and dellusional beliefs.

And how do you propose to "call them out"? You (or anyone else) can't control how anyone in the world thinks. You (or anyone else) can't control how Bush or Bin Laden or Obama or even your own child thinks.


All I got was attacked, and no one was very helpful.

That's not true. The posters who responded did their darnest to understand what you were asking, answered in light of their experiences and knowledge, and did their level best to be helpful.

If you were raised a Catholic, you already know how the "religious mind works", so that is just a load of dog poop.

Obviously I don't know how a religious mind works, because I was raised Catholic and I'm still not religious!? :confused:

I seriously wonder if some of you think at all before you write something.

I actually agree with a lot of what you wrote here Wondergirl.


Religion isn't the problem. The interpretation of religion and religions' holy books is the problem.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will), but isn't the interpretation of holy books EXACTLY WHAT RELIGION IS? And if so, wouldn't that make religion the problem?



The men who attacked the WTC towers were Muslim FUNDAMENTALISTS. They twisted the teachings of Islam.

Are you SURE they *twisted* the teachings, and didn't just take them literally? I honestly don't know. Are you familiar with the Koran and what it has to say about jihad and/or those who commit apostacy?

I'm sure you and most everyone else STILL don't see why I asked my question. I want to know HOW you believe moderately. If the book says something and you believe it to be true, what's stopping you from being fundamental about it? If I read in the bible that I must kill my fiancé upon learning she's not a virgin, what' supposed to stop me from doing it? I know you're going to say, don't be silly! But I really want to know what makes one a moderate, and the other a fundamentalist.




The men who lynched blacks in the South were often Christian FUNDAMENDALISTS. They twisted the teachings of the Bible.

Even I wouldn't single out Chirstianity when it comes to racism. I know the bible condones slavery and even the occasional selling of one's daughter into prostitution, but I'm not familiar with anything it has to say concerning blacks. You can correct me if I'm wrong here (and I'm sure you will).


Neither you nor anyone else can draw any line. People believe what they believe based on their upbringing, the influences in their lives, their country of origin, their family situation, their personal experiences.

Now this is the most insightful thing you've said in this whole thread and I couldn't agree more. Religious beliefs have little to do with TRUTH and everything to do with where one was born, where they were brought up, what their parents told them to believe.



And how do you propose to "call them out"? You (or anyone else) can't control how anyone in the world thinks. You (or anyone else) can't control how Bush or Bin Laden or Obama or even your own child thinks.

You're right again, but this is why I see moderates being just as much of the problem. If we were to call them out on their more irrational beliefs, then the fundamentalists surely wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

So I agree with almost everything you wrote here, but I'm positive we see it altogether differently.

If the Mom wants to save the souls of her children and ensure that they go to heaven - the answer isn't to kill them while they are innocent. The answer is to get them into church and let them get educated. Lead them to Christ. Only Christ can save our souls.
I accepted Christ at the age of 8. My daughter accepted Christ at the age of 6. I do not need to kill her to make sure she is going to heaven. She made sure of that on her own.

Suppose a Christian mother is very religious. She firmly believes in heaven and hell and the fate of the eternal soul. She has two children ages 7 and 5 who are very good Christian kids. She has every reason to think that if they were to die tomorrow, God would certainly accept them into heaven.

But as we know, kids grow up and become influenced by the world. If they both live to be 90, there is always the very real chance that one of them will commit a mortal sin at some point in their lives. So here's my question:

Can you provide a reason why this mother shouldn't kill her two kids now and lock in their eternal fate? I mean, the difference between spending eternity in heaven or hell is not a little thing. It's EVERYTHING! If she kills them now, their souls have a 100% chance of going to heaven. If she lets them live, there will always be some chance greater than zero they will go to hell. So why should she take ANY chance when she doesn't have to?

Now before you say it... I realize this mother would be committing a mortal sin herself by killing them. But suppose her love for her two kids is so great that she's willing to sacrifice her soul for theirs?

It seems to me that if you have any loved ones who are currently worthy of heaven, it would be an incredible act of heroic selflessness to kill them now and guarantee their eternal soul. So why don't more Christians do this? Is it because they place their own eternal fate above that of their loved ones?

Once again, I'm not trying to be cute. This is a serious question. If I truly believed that my kids were either going to heaven or hell when they die, I'm sure I love them enough to where I'd sacrifice my own soul and do whatever it takes to make sure they don't suffer for eternity. So I guess it's a real good thing people like me don't believe this stuff, huh?
I suggest that you ask that question to amazonfacts.com they are very knowledgeable about these kind of things. Of course your question is shocking. Number one there are three places the bible speaks of hell,heaven and non existence. You judge from without God judges from within. God alone determine who goes to heaven or hell. Your children may be sweet and God may choose to let them remain sleep forever. As for you. You could end up being very bitter and lost. True Love allows a person to grow just as you have grown. People will not be in heaven because someone killed them but because they have been chosen by God not you. Sister love your children,teach them,pray for them, and leave it up to God. Jesus have a purpose for them and don't you dare cheat them out of fulfilling it. Yours in Christ sylvester 71

isn't the interpretation of holy books EXACTLY WHAT RELIGION IS?
There are some, maybe even many people for whom religion really is nothing more than the interpretation of holy books. But wouldn't you allow that it CAN be more than that, and that for some, it IS more than that?

Are you SURE they *twisted* the teachings, and didn't just take them literally?
That is the real question here, isn't it? Whether a literal, absolutist interpretation of the teachings is twisted, or is it the TRUE teaching and all the versions that deal in shades of gray and degrees of uncertainty are apostasy?

I'm sure you and most everyone else STILL don't see why I asked my question. I want to know HOW you believe moderately.
Now that, my friend is a question worth asking. If you had asked it that way in the beginning, it would have saved a lot of heat.

If the book says something and you believe it to be true, what's stopping you from being fundamental about it?
A sense of proportion and moderation, maybe. An appreciation for the fact that every distinction is fuzzy if you look closely enough. The realization that a strictly mathematical logic will only get you so far along the road to spiritual maturity.

I really want to know what makes one a moderate, and the other a fundamentalist.
Moderates are more tolerant of fuzzy distinctions and more respectful of the limitations of strict logic in moral reasoning.


True Love allows a person to grow just as you have grown.
This is a gem.

Note*edited post*
Obviously I don't know how a religious mind works, because I was raised Catholic and I'm still not religious! ??? :confused:

I seriously wonder if some of you think at all before you write something.
Up until you started this thread lobr, I thought you were a pretty astute guy. This kind of logic and response, which appears throughout this thread, is uncalled for, and comes under the definition of disparaging others. A no-no under the rules of this site. Up until your most recent posts, you were acting very much the troll from the get go here. So, the responses you have received have a direct correlation to that little factoid. No one is a mind reader my dear. You should have explained what you were concerned about to start with, then asked your initial question. So, please refrain from stooping to derogatory comments like this when it is apparent that YOU are the one having trouble thinking before you write something. Make your intentions clear to people from the start and you won't have the problem you are currently encountering.

I was not raised Catholic. I wasn't raised in Atheism, but a very lax version of my religion. I understand how the religious mind works. Why? Because I read. I read everything. I wanted to understand and went out of my way to research. Once I read something, if I had questions, I asked the religious people that I knew to clarify.
I'm sure you and most everyone else STILL don't see why I asked my question. Of course people STILL don't see why you asked your question. Sheesh! It has taken you up until post #85 to get to the heart of your concerns and to get to the actual question for crying out loud.

Religious beliefs have little to do with TRUTH and everything to do with where one was born, where they were brought up, what their parents told them to believe. This goes to the heart of your recent question and it is very much a part of the answer you are looking for. Children are a reflection of their parents beliefs. When you are talking about religious genocide through the centuries, the parents who are so strong in their convictions cut themselves off as completely as possible from anyone with ideas different from their own. While the rest of the world has made strides in understanding and tolerance, they don't.

I want to know HOW you believe moderately. If the book says something and you believe it to be true, what's stopping you from being fundamental about it? If I read in the bible that I must kill my fiance upon learning she's not a virgin, what' supposed to stop me from doing it? I know you're gonna say, don't be silly! But I really want to know what makes one a moderate, and the other a fundamentalist.
You're right again, but this is why I see moderates being just as much of the problem. If we were to call them out on their more irrational beliefs, then the fundamentalists surely wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Do you seriously believe that if you understand the mind of the "moderates" as you call them, that you are going to be able to get more insight into how to deal with the erratic fundamentalist mindset and be able to flummox them through logical discourse?
If you are simply looking to understand how they become so hard boiled in their convictions enough to commit murder for their faith, you are not looking in the right place. No "moderate" here will ever be able to come up with a response that will satify you. They don't believe in killing in the name of their religion and that is what keeps them from being an erratic fundamentalist. As I said earlier, it is what they have been taught by their parents, in addition to the teachings of the church and community they were raised/live in. You are making a grave tactical error in thinking you will get any closer to the answers you are looking for here on this site. I suggest you start with reading about the Fundamentalist mindset. Doing that should bring you closer to the understanding that you are looking for rather than wasting your time asking questions of the regular members here. Once you have a better understanding, and you still have some lingering questions, come back and ask for the clarifications you need.

Here is an extensive list of books that should help you:
Fundamentalism (http://mainstreambaptists.org/mob2/fundamen.htm)

Here are two that talk about the fundamentalist mindset outside of the U.S.
Understanding Terror Networks | Sageman, Marc (http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/14036.html)

Foreign Affairs - The Great Revival: Understanding Religious "Fundamentalism" - David Aikman (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030701fareviewessay15416/david-aikman/the-great-revival-understanding-religious-fundamentalism.html)

The Scripture vs. killing our children


There's no end to the list of questions I think Christians should be made to answer to. Not because I think they are bad people. But because even they wouldn't carry out their beliefs to their logical conclusion. Yet many of my Christian friends ask me to come back to faith! What I"m really asking with a question like this is, why when you don't believe it yourself?

Can a Christian believe only 1 passage from the bible?
As you've read my other mini essay, I've shown to you that what you mentioned is not the logical conclusion that you believe it to be, because you've taken 1 message out of the Bible and based EVERYTHING on that message. A true Christian believes the Bible in its entirety not one or a couple messages that they themselves decide on! As I said if they are going to pick pieces from the Bible and apply their own logic so they can come to their own conclusions they might as well start their own cult!

The person you describe is not a Christian I'm sorry to say this, but you have misunderstood what it takes to be a Christian; because whether a person is Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican or Protestant every Christian believes in the Bible in its entirety. You can't cut out a passage from the Bible, throw the rest of the Bible in the garbage, then apply your own logic and come to your own conclusions based on this one passage… wow, I continue to repeat myself on this point… so I'm sure by now you understand that anyone that only believes in only one (or a couple) Bible passages CAN NOT call themselves a Christian!

So the only thing you've proven is that the person that you've described is deeply confused about what her religion truly is… because it sure can't be Christianity!

The equation
I think it's funny that you turn the Bible message regarding entry into heaven and hell into some mathematical equation (the percent chance the children will have to go to heaven if their mother kills them now). So since you like to think of things that way and because math for you is logical, then that's fine and I'll answer your question using this same method of logic – mathematical equation.

My basic argument here is that this mother is not God and therefore will never be able to understand all the figures that go into the full mathematical equation regarding entry into heaven vs. entry into hell for her children.

I'm sure you know what happens in math when we have only one figure (as her beliefs are based on one message in the Bible) in the whole equation that we are trying to solve? That's right, we can't solve that equation! Impossible! So why would this mother think she has the answer; wait no; the “logical answer” to a question she can't even solve because she doesn't have all the figures to solve it?! My only explanation is she is confused about the religion and not educated enough about it.

Here are a few examples of figures in this equation she doesn't have which render her ability to solve the equation impossible (or at least render her ability to solve it logically, impossible):

1. What her kids are like behind closed doors? Are they bad? Bad enough to grant them eternity in hell? A mother would only hope not, but a mother will never know!

2. Another figure is whether her children have been taught the correct truths. Considering she is not even a Christian herself (which I have already proved and spoken about many times; but if you see logic in the idea that the Bible can be only 1-2 sentences long and based solely on 1 message, then I will be glad to debate this with you as long as you would like) then I can probably guarantee that if she was the one that had a role in teaching her children about this belief system (or cult as I would call it) that she herself created, then not only is she herself NOT a Christian but neither are her children... and I think that tells you were her kids will end up if she were to kill them! Hell.

3. Finally let's pretend the mother even though she only believes in 1 message from the Bible and has based the idea of killing her kids on this single message… let's also pretend that God accepts the idea of her going to heaven even though she has ignored 99.9999% of everything he tells us in the scripture… Let's just say everything would go according to plan regarding the logistics of salvation that defines the entry into heaven.

Even still the fact is that the mother will never know the depth of the relationship her children have with God; are they actually saved? Will they actually go to heaven? This fact (or the figure that this mother is missing) is similar to the 1st point (1st missing figure), but it just goes to show there are plenty of figures that would come into play that this mother doesn't have knowledge of and will never have knowledge of. Therefore without the knowledge of these figures (and others like them) it is absolutely impossible to come to a logical decision (or in mathematical terms: to solve this equation logically)!

Conclusion
The only answers that will make this mother understand why she shouldn't kill her children lie directly in the 99.9999% of the Bible that she either: hasn't read, didn't understand, decided to ignore, forgot about etc. I suggest she reads at least another few pages in the “book of life” and she will find scriptures such as the ones I've mentioned in the last mini essay I wrote and many more that explain perfectly how God has a much bigger plan for her and her children's lives. So if she can't accept the other scriptures to be true then she is not a Christian and considering that her only true belief in Christianity is that non-Christians will go to hell this means I have just proved logically that this mother would be going to hell (as she is not a Christian)! Thus if she has trained her kids up through this single set of beliefs of hers, that also means her kids logically would be going to hell as well and therefore it wouldn't matter whether she killed them now or let them die later, she has not saved their souls from eternal damnation either way!

____________
Can a Christian believe in what lobrobster calls “the logical conclusion”?
Well let's say the mother reads the Bible and accepts the scriptures and the things that God says in the Bible, well then it is impossible for her to continue to believe that killing her children is the logical thing to do so that they can go to heaven. But why?

Because these two ideas blatantly contradict each other, if she believes in the one she can't believe in the other. It's a very simple concept, but know I must still elaborate: if she continued to believe it is logical to kill her children then she can't believe that God is the creator of “a lot” of “very complex” things and he can handle our simple situations, that he provides to the birds of the air and the fish of the sea and can provide for us, that he doesn't give us more than we can handle, he answer our prayers, he is there for those that love him and he has given us the skills to accomplish our destiny and our desires.

Because if you take any one of these underlined points and relate any of them to the ultimate goal of this mother (which is having her kids live in heaven for eternity) but you still believes it is logical to kill your children for that goal to be achieved. Then it refutes the rest of the scripture which would be showing that this person doesn't trust in the rest of the Bible, thus they don't trust in God's promises, which means they aren't trusting in God… and so they are not even a Christian (and therefore are going to hell anyway, and if their children were taught the same way, then they are going to hell too).

Moreover if a mother believes in the scriptures then they are trusting that God has a plan for her life and her children's lives, and if a mother believes that God has a plan for her children's lives than the mother wouldn't even think of killing her children because if she did that would mean she is not trusting God.

And there we have the full circle… so for someone to believe in one logic means they cannot believe the other (either believing in the Scripture or the idea of killing our children), which means for a real Christian (not someone that thinks they are a Christian by following one scripture passage) then it is un-logical and even inconceivable to kill their own children to guarantee their salvation because as said it refutes the rest of the scripture which would be showing that they don't trust in the rest of the Bible, thus don't trust in God's promises, thus they do not trust in God… and so they are not even a Christian themselves!

This essay has given you two detailed reasons as to why killing our children is un-logical. You mentioned you had questions for me after I wrote my last mini essay based on the topic at hand so I look forward to hearing them and if you don't understand something in this response, then feel free to ask as well.

Phillip

Thank you phil for another insightful post. The reason I called it a math problem was because I assumed a). God assured heaven to baptized kids and infants, and b). The mother was 100% SURE of this, and that her child was worthy of heaven right then. It's math problem, because clearly when you weigh an eternal life with that of 80 or so years, it becomes a no-brainer.

But as you eloquently explain, it might not be as simple as all that. There are other things to consider and you'ven given me food for thought. Thank you again.

RubyPitbull

Look, whether you consider me astute or a blithering idiot, is none of my concern and I couldn't care less.

The fact is, it's a question that I thought cried out for an answer. There are a myriad of logical answers that could've been put forth, which I would've accepted quite readily.

For instance, an argument could be made for a belief that how one lives out their life and what they do on earth is of eternal significance. That right there, answers the question satisfactorily and requires no further follow up by me.

Another argument could've been made by comparing other risk associated events a parent is willing to take with her child. For instance, you could make the case that similar logic is used every time you allow a child to go swimming. Preventing him from ever swimming would mean 100% certainty he won't drown in a swimming pool accident, but it does not make logical sense to do so. The risk of death and foregoing the next 70 years of his life does not outweigh the important experiences he gains by taking these calculated risks in life. In the same vein, so should a mother also be willing to tale a calculated risk concerning her child's eternal life as well.

There are many, many legitimate answers that coud've been proposed. You are taking issue with me, because I called out the ones that made no sense and were nothing more than shortcuts to thinking. I wasn't polite. That's your choice. But to stick up for nonsensical answers just to earn browny points with your peers on here is inexcusable to me. So you've lost your respect for my astuteness, and I lost respect for you having any kind of a backbone. So it goes...

Interesting response Lobr. I know most of these people as well as I know you, so brownie points have nothing to do with it. Instead of focusing on my upbraiding you (which does require a backbone btw) did you bother to read the rest of my response? Do you think it would be a waste of your time reading up on the fundamentalist mindset to achieve a better understanding?

Why don't we focus on the logical responses and get off the topic of the ones that annoyed you. I am glad Phil was able to give you more input on your original question. I think DeMaria also gave you a very good and concise answer:
Because we can't secure their eternal soul. God judges the soul, we don't.

If I could be certain that by killing my children right now, they would go to heaven, I would do it. But I can't be certain. So why risk my soul for a gamble?


1 Corinthians 4
1 Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. 2 Here now it is required among the dispensers, that a man be found faithful. 3 But to me it is a very small thing to be judged by you, or by man's day; but neither do I judge my own self. 4 For I am not conscious to myself of any thing, yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me, is the Lord.
I wouldn't classify him as a "moderate" but rather, a devout Christian. Along with Wondergirl, OrdinaryGuy, mafiaangel, and some other good responses you have received along the way, Inthebox provided another excellent one:

I'm sure you know John 3:16,

God gave His only Son....... so you would not have to sacrifice your own soul for your children.;) I think when you are considering the original question you proposed, you can't dismiss or ignore scripture. If you want to understand how the religious mind works, scripture is such an integral part of the why they believe what they do and how they deal with the issues in their lives.

This is important so I would like you to focus on it:

I'm of the opinion that wishy-washy believers (of all religions) pave the way for hard line fundamentalists. I want to understand how the religious mind works. That's why I ask questions. When you say that you believe "moderates" pave the way for hard line fundamentalists, what you are suggesting is a theory that you have. So, taking that theory, you have to consider that it really does come down to interpretation of scripture along with outside influences. How do some people come up with different interpretations? One person sees love thy neighbor, another person sees destroy thy enemy. As I stated in my last post, if you look at the life of an extreme fundamentalist, they surround themselves with like-minded people. They completely cut themselves off from any outside influences. Their children grow up in that atmosphere.

You have some people who have faith (moderates) but they are struggling with it or are having a problem finding their purpose in life. That can be the result of social issues, economic ones, or a myriad of things. Those moderates can find their way into an extreme fundamentalist movement because they are susceptible and open to someone, anyone, telling them what their purpose in life is. They want and need to have someone giving them direction. If you look at Jim Jones, David Koresh, or Charles Manson, they were able to take people and bend them to their will. Why? Because these people were looking for something and/or unable to function on their own.

But, those cases really are fewer and far between than your average "moderate" or even your average devout follower. These people are not about to join an extreme fundamentalist movement because they are surrounded by their family, friends, co-workers,. For the most part, they have found the proper balance in their lives, and (of crucial importance) interact with people of other faiths or non-faiths. They don't cut themselves off from the world. I think the interaction with others plays a very vital role in whether they can be "turned" into an extreme fundamentalist.

Am I getting closer to what you are trying to understand or the purpose of why you posted in the first place? This thread has taken so many twists and turns that I might have missed something.

Do you think it would be a waste of your time reading up on the fundamentalist mindset to achieve a better understanding?

Not at all. I was unaware there were even books on this. Thanks for the info. I will definitely be reading up on this.


Why don't we focus on the logical responses and get off the topic of the ones that annoyed you.

Because I was overwhelmed with criticism for the question and my reaction to the first few answers. All I had time to do was deal with those. The pile-on was so fast and furious I didn't even notice (and still haven't seen) De Maria was even in this thread!


This is important so I would like you to focus on it:
When you say that you believe "moderates" pave the way for hard line fundamentalists, what you are suggesting is a theory that you have. So, taking that theory, you have to consider that it really does come down to interpretation of scripture along with outside influences. How do some people come up with different interpretations? One person sees love thy neighbor, another person sees destroy thy enemy. As I stated in my last post, if you look at the life of an extreme fundamentalist, they surround themselves with like-minded people. They completely cut themselves off from any outside influences. Their children grow up in that atmosphere.

Perhaps... But I think it's more because we must take reason off the table when dealing with ANY kind of religious belief (or at least most of them). We (or rather people like yourself), are afraid of offending a religious person's sensibilities. To be frank, I think the way you treat religious people is so much more condescending than anything I could say. You know as well as I do that many of their beliefs are ludricrous. Yet your attitude seems to be, "Let's just leave them to their dellusions. They're not hurting anyone and it makes them feel better". Whereas, I think people should be made to account for preposterous claims.





Am I getting closer to what you are trying to understand or the purpose of why you posted in the first place? This thread has taken so many twists and turns that I might have missed something.

You've definitely given me some food for thought and even new directions to turn for reading material. I have a lot more to say on moderate Vs. fundamental beliefs. But yes.. This thread has become a complete mess and I think we all should just let it die. Thanks for the suggestions.

Perhaps... But I think it's more due to the fact that we must take reason off the table when dealing with ANY kind of religious belief (or at least most of them). We (or rather people like yourself), are afraid of offending a religious person's sensibilities. To be frank, I think the way you treat religious people is so much more condescending than anything I could say. You know as well as I do that many of their beliefs are ludricrous. Yet your attitude seems to be, "Let's just leave them to their dellusions. They're not hurting anyone and it makes them feel better". Whereas, I think people should be made to account for preposterous claims.
This thread has become a complete mess and I think we all should just let it die. Thanks for the suggestions.
If you want to let the thread die, that is your choice. But, I think you are reading my posts wrong. Although you may think I am being condescending to religious people, I can assure you I am not. I don't believe their beliefs are "ludricrous" nor do I think they are "delusional". I am not sure how you came to that conclusion. I honestly don't see the point in beating someone up who has a different belief structure from my own, and ultimately creating a hostile environment. To each his own, live and let live,. Where I draw the line is when someone proselytizes or tries to convince me I am wrong in my beliefs, how I live my life, or simply assuming too much. ;)

Where I draw the line is when someone proselytizes or tries to convince me I am wrong in my beliefs, how I live my life, or simply assuming too much. ;)

I just had to comment on this...

Why? What's wrong with being convinced you have a wrong belief, if it's... WRONG!

Do you deny that it's possible for you to hold an incorrect belief? Do you really think that you live every aspect of your life in the best possible way? That must be nice.

I don't know about you, but when someone points out that I'm believing or thinking about something wrong, I'm grateful. In fact, I'm even MORE grateful the harder they had to argue with me to convince me of it! But I recognize there are many like yourself who are not interested in being shown where they are wrong. But then, I'm not sure why you post what you think in the first place.

I don't know about you, but when someone points out that I'm believing or thinking about something wrong, I'm grateful. In fact, I'm even MORE grateful the harder they had to argue with me to convince me of it! But I recognize there are many like yourself who are not interested in being shown where they are wrong. But then, I'm not sure why you post what you think in the first place.

So, when I, a Christian, tell you that your non belief in God is just plain wrong and that the way you live your life is wrong. And everything else is just WRONG - would you thank me or just call me a bigot or intolerant for not accepting others beliefs?

So, when I, a Christian, tell you that your non belief in God is just plain wrong and that the way you live your life is wrong. And everything else is just WRONG - would you thank me or just call me a bigot or intolerant for not accepting others beliefs?

Of course, I don't agree with these claims now, but I absolutey welcome any of your arguments to show I do in fact live or believe wrong. I wouldn't think this intolerant of you at all. But expect a rigrous counter-debate on my part. In the end, if you make the better argument I'm not above conceding. I wonder if you could say the same?