[ordinaryguy]

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.

[lobrobster]

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.

[ordinaryguy]

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.

[inthebox]

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?

from The Sacrament of Baptism - Roman Catholic Baptism - The Sacrament of Baptism in the Roman Catholic Church
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.;)

[Fr_Chuck]

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,

[lobrobster]

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?

[phil_stl]

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"!

[ordinaryguy]

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?

[RubyPitbull]

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]

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.

[lobrobster]

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.

[RubyPitbull]

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?

[ordinaryguy]

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.

[lobrobster]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

[ordinaryguy]

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.

[lobrobster]

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.

[lobrobster]

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[lobrobster]

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.