Why don't Christians Kill their Children?

Sam Vimes · 15-12-2009 02:12PM

Mr William Lane Craig does endorse the killing of children btw, as we see in his justifcation of god telling the Israelites to kill all the Canaanites, men women and children:

By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable. It was His way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity. God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

So when you kill a child the only wrong done is to you because you have had to endure the act of killing in order to save the child. Poor you

robindch · 15-12-2009 03:11PM

William Lane Craig wrote:

the death of these children was actually their salvation

What an unpleasantly disturbed thing to write.

:mad:

Obni · 15-12-2009 04:00PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Care to explain how exactly it is flawed? Personally I'll be glad if someone can show it to me, because right now I'm not seeing the flaw.:o

Well, my first clue that it might be flawed, was that it is the (alleged) reasoning of an insane child-murderer.

The whole thing is built on the premise that for a christian the sole objective of being alive is to get into heaven.
There are many other objectives generally associated with being a good christian

helping your fellow humans regardless of their own faith
guiding lost souls back to god
acts of charity
generally trying to make the world less awful than it was when you got here
not murdering anyone, but in particular your own children
...etc...

as well as the religious tasks of

worshipping your creator
religious observation

[*]...etc...

People for whom the only meaning of life on this planet is as a pathway to their 'real' and eternal life in heaven, are generally be classified as fundamentalists.

If you want to start a thread about why crazed religious fundamentalists don't murder their children, you might find that in fact they do, sometimes.

Sam Vimes · 15-12-2009 04:05PM

Obni wrote: »

People for whom the only meaning of life on this planet is as a pathway to their 'real' and eternal life in heaven, are generally be classified as fundamentalists.

If you want to start a thread about why crazed religious fundamentalists don't murder their children, you might find that in fact they do, sometimes.

No one's arguing that anyone other than a crazed fundamentalist would kill their children or, as I pointed out above, forcefully take the children of non-christians to save them from damnation. What we're looking for here is a logical reason why not, one that is compatible with christian teachings and not based on the independent sense of right and wrong that many of them deny exists and the rest say is inferior to biblical morality.

Zombrex · 15-12-2009 04:10PM

robindch wrote: »

What an unpleasantly disturbed thing to write.

:mad:

This is the central paradox here.

Why is killing children bad if it sends them straight to eternal paradise? If Christianity is true killing children as bad as an over night road trip to Disneyland.

Except Christians instinctively know that is nonsense. Kill children is horrific. It is a terrible crime. It is a terrible crime because there is no after life. Kill a child and they are gone for ever.

So you have the this conflict between the supernatural nonsense the religion has come up with to help individuals feel better about death and the instincts we are all born with that make us

Some what ironically it is two sides of the same issue.

The fear that produces the idea of heaven as a form of comfort is the same fear that says don't kill your children.

Goduznt Xzst · 15-12-2009 04:15PM

Obni wrote: »

There are many other objectives generally associated with being a good christian

You're right, I wholeheartedly agree.

Might I add, I don't play the lottery for the money. There are a whole host of reasons generally associated with playing the game, picking the number, meeting up with people to form a syndicate, heading down to the shop to buy the ticket, watching the show ticket in hand. Sure it's nice that there is chance of a money reward for playing, but that's not why I do it, no... not at all.

Genghiz Cohen · 15-12-2009 04:17PM

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You're right, I wholeheartedly agree.

Might I add, I don't play the lottery for the money. There are a whole host of reasons generally associated with playing the game, picking the number, meeting up with people to form a syndicate, heading down to the shop to buy the ticket, watching the show ticket in hand. Sure it's nice that there is chance of a money reward for playing, but that's not why I do it, no... not at all.

I just buy my ticket and throw it away TBH.

Zombrex · 15-12-2009 04:20PM

Obni wrote: »

Well, my first clue that it might be flawed, was that it is the (alleged) reasoning of an insane child-murderer.

An insane child-murderer who simply repeated the dogma the majority of Christians.

What does that tell us about Christian belief?

The thing that made this woman insane was that she actually believed and took seriously the things that Christianity teaches, where I suspect the vast majority of Christians don't actually think about it that much.

Obni wrote: »

The whole thing is built on the premise that for a christian the sole objective of being alive is to get into heaven.

No it isn't

Why do people keep saying that?

The whole thing is build on the premise that for a Christian who believes hell exists it is is a horrific place you would not want your children going to and do something to ensure they don't.

And again if Christian belief is true what this woman did wasn't bad at all. Yes it went against God's commandment, but no one was harmed, no one got hurt. It is the equivilant of an over night to Disneyland.

Obni wrote: »

People for whom the only meaning of life on this planet is as a pathway to their 'real' and eternal life in heaven, are generally be classified as fundamentalists.

And what are people who actually believe in hell called?

Mark Hamill · 15-12-2009 04:24PM

Obni wrote: »

The whole thing is built on the premise that for a christian the sole objective of being alive is to get into heaven.
There are many other objectives generally associated with being a good christian
helping your fellow humans regardless of their own faith

guiding lost souls back to god

acts of charity

generally trying to make the world less awful than it was when you got here

not murdering anyone, but in particular your own children

...etc...

as well as the religious tasks of
worshipping your creator

religious observation

[*]...etc...

But the reasoning for being a good christian is so that they get into heaven and avoid hell. This is why one of the first questions I'm ever asked when I tell someone I'm an atheist is "what do you beleieve happens after you die"? This is why theists have such problems with the idea of atheist being moral without any of these rewards in the afterlife. In fact being good in order to get into heaven is one of the biggest driving force of religion for the masses of general believers, and IMO it would be one of the few things that you could guarantee that all the a la carte christians in this country would believe in.

Obni wrote: »

People for whom the only meaning of life on this planet is as a pathway to their 'real' and eternal life in heaven, are generally be classified as fundamentalists.

If you want to start a thread about why crazed religious fundamentalists don't murder their children, you might find that in fact they do, sometimes.

Fundamentalism relates to how strictly someone adheres (and expects everyone else to adhere) to a strict set of guidelines. Nothing to do heaven and hell.

Goduznt Xzst · 15-12-2009 04:27PM

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I just buy my ticket and throw it away TBH.

Oh... I see, you're one of those fundamentalist lottery players who's only after the bottom line. You give the rest of us lottery players a bad name you know that.

Genghiz Cohen · 15-12-2009 04:41PM

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Oh... I see, you're one of those fundamentalist lottery players who's only after the bottom line. You give the rest of us lottery players a bad name you know that.

Don't belittle my beliefs!
I practice my gambling, and you practice yours!
I'll bet you just love to see one of your numbers come up!
It's that kind of self gratification that's destroying the nation!

herbiemcc · 15-12-2009 04:41PM

This issue reminds me of a comedian's sketch I saw a few years ago. He said if christians really, truly believe in heaven why are they so sad when someone dies? Why aren't they on the phone to their friend saying "Yeay, guess what happened? God took my little Jonny yesterday - yes he really did! I told you he was a cutie!" (I know it’s trivial but the whole heaven idea does seem to be a completely understandable comfort blanket and it actually shocks me when I hear people almost in 2010 still fervently and literally believing in their generally pot luck, 'by birth' religion). None of it makes any sense, there are loads of religions all claiming similar superiority. At least science (that equally inflammatory word these days) gives some sort of rational, discursive progress to man's knowledge. There are massive holes and vigorous debates in science but at least it's accountable and if you just say "God did it" you might as well give up. Sorry for digressing a bit. In relation to the clip i think he is logically correct. I can only say that maybe the 'idea' of original sin came about to stop people trying out this theory i.e. your children are bound for hell so you have to raise them well/christen them etc to get them into heaven. Although if he is a 'good god' and won't send infants to hell then it all goes wrong again. I am starting to get a bit fed up with these circular arguments. I like an interesting logical debate (and hats off for the calmness of this forum, I hate it when it breaks down into nonsense 'shouting'). Also one last thing, i had a look at that quote website above, Mr Craig – really scary stuff. You can justify anything with that logic. 'I heard a voice in my head so it’s not morally wrong to kill you'. Every paranoid schizophrenic in the land should be released – sorry we misjudged you guys!!

dvpower · 16-12-2009 12:09AM

I think there's a problem with Premise 4.
"I love my children more than myself. Their well being matters more to me than my own"

That might work on a small time scale (one lifetime), but Christians are playing a much longer game (eternity).

I've read posts on the Christianity forum where Christians were asked how they would feel if they made it to Heaven, but their spouse or children didn't. They basically said that if that was the will of God, then so be it.

Christians also love God more than their children, so His commandment not to kill would carry a lot of force.

Flamed Diving · 16-12-2009 12:19AM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

as was said earlier:

Sophistry... *mumble mumble*... exegesis... *something or other* hermeneutics... *so on and so forth*... ergo, my understanding of the Bible is correct. You can't prove that my God isn't real.

Obni wrote: »

Either way, the distillation of her probable motives into a well presented but flawed bit of youtube sophistry neither adds nor subtracts from the likelihood that god exists.

*ding* We have a wiener!

Obni wrote: »

Why is this on A&A?

Because the Christianity mods like to lock/delete threads which criticise their religion, and infract those who do. This is the only forum under the 'Religion & Spirituality' category that does not engage in censorship of reasoned criticism of religion.

philologos · 16-12-2009 12:33AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But the reasoning for being a good christian is so that they get into heaven and avoid hell.

Actually, no it isn't.

By accepting faith in Jesus, I am told I have nothing to fear, and that there is nothing that can separate me from Him. I am without condemnation as a result of His grace.

No works of my own bring me to heaven or hell in any way.

Paul writes that we should live in a manner that is worthy of the Gospel we have received. This is my goal, to live for God, and for humanity while I am here, for the mere merit of doing both. Not for going to heaven or hell. I don't have to earn my way to heaven or salvation.

I would fall into point D on this video, which I find to be both disturbing and absurd at the same time.

Zombrex · 16-12-2009 10:53AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually, no it isn't.

By accepting faith in Jesus, I am told I have nothing to fear, and that there is nothing that can separate me from Him. I am without condemnation as a result of His grace.

No works of my own bring me to heaven or hell in any way.

Paul writes that we should live in a manner that is worthy of the Gospel we have received. This is my goal, to live for God, and for humanity while I am here, for the mere merit of doing both. Not for going to heaven or hell. I don't have to earn my way to heaven or salvation.

I would fall into point D on this video, which I find to be both disturbing and absurd at the same time.

What do you mean by accepting faith in Jesus

Could this woman kill her children, thus ensuring they get into heaven, and then accept Jesus, ensuring that she is saved?

Could this woman steal bread to feed her children (stealing is a sin correct?), accept Jesus and be saved?

Is there something particular about killing your children that is particularly bad as sins go?

philologos · 16-12-2009 11:51AM

I don't think killing your children serves any benefit to begin with in terms of salvation. Therefore I'd regard one of the premises as being incorrect. The assumption that killing your children to stop them taking a risk is absolutely absurd, as who is to say that there is a benefit to the children by killing them?

I believe any murderer can be forgiven if they are genuinely repentant about what they have done. Genuinely repentant is the important part. If you kill your children under the perception that they may get to heaven, you are not repentant as you feel you have done good.

To me the video makes a fundamental misunderstanding of salvation in Christianity.

Sam Vimes · 16-12-2009 12:23PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think killing your children serves any benefit to begin with in terms of salvation. Therefore I'd regard one of the premises as being incorrect. The assumption that killing your children to stop them taking a risk is absolutely absurd, as who is to say that there is a benefit to the children by killing them?

Ok so we've established that you don't believe that killing serves any benefit in terms of salvation and that you think killing them to stop them taking a risk is absurd but declaring those things does not explain why you think them.

Why is killing your child to stop them taking a risk absurd? In modern Ireland them not accepting god is a very big risk

And what about the children of people of other faiths? They're pretty much guaranteed to be damned unless you kill them or at least take them away from their parents before they have their minds poisoned.

philologos · 16-12-2009 12:27PM

I've explained why rather clearly, and even made reference to the video. I believe salvation comes as a result of a personal commitment to belief, as this is what is actually claimed by Christian texts. Therefore slaughtering children is absolutely ridiculous and just about as "risky" as raising them in faith, not to mention numerous times more immoral.

It's absurd, because there is no reason why it would automatically mean salvation. The video itself is typical of most atheist critiques of Christianity on youtube in that it is illinformed as to what Christianity itself is claiming in the New Testament.

Dead or alive does not make a better case for salvation, even if they are poisoned

. It's pretty much the same reason why believers don't commit suicide to fast-track getting into heaven. We have a full life to live here so that we can further reach God's potential for us. Every child has this opportunity and it is absolutely wrong to deny it to anyone.

Naz_st · 16-12-2009 12:30PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think killing your children serves any benefit to begin with in terms of salvation.

So you don't think children go to heaven when they die? Why does God deny them eternal bliss? Because of original sin? Because they weren't old enough to accept Jesus? Doesn't that seem a little unfair?

Sam Vimes · 16-12-2009 01:12PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I've explained why rather clearly, and even made reference to the video. I believe salvation comes as a result of a personal commitment to belief, as this is what is actually claimed by Christian texts. Therefore slaughtering children is absolutely ridiculous and just about as "risky" as raising them in faith, not to mention numerous times more immoral.

What Naz_st said. Do children go to hell for the sin of not being old enough to know who Christ is?

Jakkass wrote: »

We have a full life to live here so that we can further reach God's potential for us. Every child has this opportunity and it is absolutely wrong to deny it to anyone.

I agree that each child has potential to live a full life and from my perspective it's wrong to deny it to anyone but I don't believe that if I do it the child will be given eternal paradise. But forget about killing kids for a minute and answer my other question. do you not feel morally obliged to take children away from non-christian parents? If the child was being physically abused none of us would have any qualms but why do you allow such abuse of their eternal soul?

Zombrex · 16-12-2009 01:14PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think killing your children serves any benefit to begin with in terms of salvation. Therefore I'd regard one of the premises as being incorrect. The assumption that killing your children to stop them taking a risk is absolutely absurd, as who is to say that there is a benefit to the children by killing them?

Well most Christians it seems, who believe that children cannot understand the concepts of sin or what is expected of them by God and thus cannot sin against God. Therefore if they die as children having never been in a position to sin against God they cannot end up in hell.

Do you disagree with this belief?

Jakkass wrote: »

If you kill your children under the perception that they may get to heaven, you are not repentant as you feel you have done good.

What if you feel you have done bad in order to protect your children from far worse?

For example, say a parent steals money to pay a ransom for their children, believing that if they don't their children will be tortured?

They know stealing money is wrong, but are prepared to commit that crime in order to protect their children, and are prepared to suffer the consequences of such an act.

Do you think such a person, if they accepted the crime but still said they would do the same again if it meant saving their children, would be considered by God to be an unrepentant sinner and thus worthy of hell?

philologos · 16-12-2009 01:37PM

Naz_st wrote: »

So you don't think children go to heaven when they die? Why does God deny them eternal bliss? Because of original sin? Because they weren't old enough to accept Jesus? Doesn't that seem a little unfair?

There is a shade of grey around the subject of whether or not people who have never heard of / understood Jesus' message can receive salvation. There is nothing clear in Christian doctrine. What is clear is that genuine personal commitment to the Gospel leads to salvation. Killing your child is by no means a certain guarantee of heaven by any means as the video's author makes out.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What Naz_st said. Do children go to hell for the sin of not being old enough to know who Christ is?

See above.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you not feel morally obliged to take children away from non-christian parents?

No. There are other ways of reaching people. There is this obsession on this forum and in general discourse that parents teaching secures people in religion X or lack of religion Y for life. This isn't the case in a lot of cases. Evangelisation can take place outside of the family, and indeed it does.

I believe children have moral responsibility towards their parents and vice versa. Family is a major concept in both Judaism and Christianity.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If the child was being physically abused none of us would have any qualms but why do you allow such abuse of their eternal soul?

It's not abuse. Christianity is something that is found, it isn't something that is always there. It is the responsibility of Christians to effectively communicate the Gospel.

Flamed Diving · 16-12-2009 01:45PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe children have moral responsibility towards their parents and vice versa. Family is a major concept in both Judaism and Christianity.

Honour thy father and thy mother. Got it. Where is the reverse commandment?

Naz_st · 16-12-2009 02:03PM

Jakkass wrote: »

There is a shade of grey around the subject of whether or not people who have never heard of / understood Jesus' message can receive salvation.

1) What do you think?

2) Given this shade of grey, is it fair to say that one of two possible views could reasonably be taken:

a) Children don't go to heaven because they weren't old enough to accept Christ as their saviour.
b) Children do go to heaven by default as they weren't old enough to have the choice to accept Christ as their saviour.

The problem is that either position has it's issues:

Accepting 2a: God is unjust: he condemns children for nothing other than not being old enough to know about him

Accepting 2b: God is unjust: since he gives some humans a "free pass" into eternal bliss, while the rest of us have a whole lifetime of opportunity to fcuk up our chances [and also leads logically to the video in the OP].

Sam Vimes · 16-12-2009 02:08PM

Jakkass wrote: »

There is a shade of grey around the subject of whether or not people who have never heard of / understood Jesus' message can receive salvation. There is nothing clear in Christian doctrine. What is clear is that genuine personal commitment to the Gospel leads to salvation. Killing your child is by no means a certain guarantee of heaven by any means as the video's author makes out.

To be honest I would have thought that "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" was pretty clear and unequivocal but that excludes an awful lot of people who aren't deserving of punishment such as disabled people, babies and people who were never exposed to christianity. But what it says doesn't match with what christians think it should say so they tend to to say that it's a grey area

Jakkass wrote: »

No. There are other ways of reaching people. There is this obsession on this forum and in general discourse that parents teaching secures people in religion X or lack of religion Y for life. This isn't the case in a lot of cases. Evangelisation can take place outside of the family, and indeed it does.

It's the case in >95% of cases. Once someone has gone through a lifetime of believing the wrong religion you only have the tiniest of chances of converting them. Seems an awful risk to take no?

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not abuse. Christianity is something that is found, it isn't something that is always there. It is the responsibility of Christians to effectively communicate the Gospel.

I was talking about the abuse of bringing a child up to believe a non-christian religion and thereby, from your perspective, making it almost certain that they will burn for eternity

philologos · 16-12-2009 02:08PM

1) I don't feel that I have authority to elaborate on what isn't formally revealed to us in Scripture.

2) Given this shade of gray, I would conclude that the possibility of a child getting to heaven based on being killed is about as uncertain as whether or not the child will become a Christian. I am told that this is currently at a 1 in 2 likelihood in the UK, higher in other regions.

There is a third option, apart from 2a or 2b:
God has a reason, we just don't know about it.

I don't take a stance, because I don't feel I have the authority to.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To be honest I would have thought that "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" was pretty clear and unequivocal but that excludes an awful lot of people who aren't deserving of punishment such as disabled people, babies and people who were never exposed to christianity. But what it says doesn't match with what christians think it should say so they tend to to say that it's a grey area

I've made my position on it clear anyway. If you really think this, why do you think the argument in the video is such a good one?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's the case in >95% of cases. Once someone has gone through a lifetime of believing the wrong religion you only have the tiniest of chances of converting them. Seems an awful risk to take no?

I'm in disagreement about the ratio. We clearly use different source data, or have different experiences of this subject. The ratio even in our society is closer to 70:30. In other societies there are less taught by their parents in comparison to converts.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I was talking about the abuse of bringing a child up to believe a non-christian religion and thereby making it almost certain that they will burn for eternity

Why do you think people evangelise? That's why Christian missionary organisations exist, and it is why people want to be ambassadors for Christ in a fallen world.

Sam Vimes · 16-12-2009 02:15PM

Jakkass wrote: »

1) I don't feel that I have authority to elaborate on what isn't formally revealed to us in Scripture.

2) Given this shade of gray, I would conclude that the possibility of a child getting to heaven based on being killed is about as uncertain as whether or not the child will become a Christian. I am told that this is currently at a 1 in 2 likelihood in the UK, higher in other regions.

There is a third option, apart from 2a or 2b:
God has a reason, we just don't know about it.

I don't take a stance, because I don't feel I have the authority to.

well let's think about it logically Jakkass. There are two things we know:

God is perfectly and absolutely moral
Children are born who will never get the opportunity to accept Christ, be it because they die before learning to talk, are physically or mentally disabled or are born in a place or time that christianity has not reached

Punishing someone for something completely out of their control is not the act of a perfectly moral being so how could god possibly do that?

Naz_st · 16-12-2009 02:18PM

Jakkass wrote: »

1) I don't feel that I have authority to elaborate on what isn't formally revealed to us in Scripture.

Don't you have your own opinions on things? Don't you form opinions on other things not revealed in scripture?

2) Given this shade of gray, I would conclude that the possibility of a child getting to heaven based on being killed is about as uncertain as whether or not the child will become a Christian. I am told that this is currently at a 1 in 2 likelihood in the UK, higher in other regions.

I get that there's no concrete answer, but I was merely pointing out that either answer to this question has problems (if God exists that is!).

There is a third option, apart from 2a or 2b:
God has a reason, we just don't know about it.

So it's the business as usual, "God works in mysterious ways" response then?

Sam Vimes · 16-12-2009 02:21PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I've made my position on it clear anyway.

Yes, as usual you have told us what you believe, which we already knew before you posted. We want to know what your basis is for believing it

Jakkass wrote: »

If you really think this, why do you think the argument in the video is such a good one?

I've already explained why it's a good one, because christians have a very difficult time answering it. By the teachings of christianity it makes sense to kill your children and especially those of people of other faiths.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm in disagreement about the ratio. We clearly use different source data, or have different experiences of this subject. The ratio even in our society is closer to 70:30. In other societies there are less taught by their parents in comparison to converts.

Why do you think people evangelise? That's why Christian missionary organisations exist, and it is why people want to be ambassadors for Christ in a fallen world.

Whether it's 95% or 70% there are still massive numbers of people who will burn for eternity because of being raised in the wrong faith. If someone was sexually abusing their child I wouldn't go and talk to them and try to convince them to stop, I'd have the child forcibly removed and abusing their eternal soul is infinitely worse than abusing their temporary body. If I believed in Christianity the case of Edgardo Mortara would make perfect sense

Why don't Christians Kill their Children?

Comments