Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why don't Christians Kill their Children?

12357…12

Comments

  • #122
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote:
    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 wouldn't have said it was an obsession, since it's been pointed out quite a few times by myself and others that transmission of religious memes need not be vertical.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Why do you think people evangelise?
    The proximate cause is that they want to "bring the message of Jesus to a fallen world." The ultimate reason is because they've effectively been programmed to think that making other people think the same things as them is one of the most beneficial things they can do.


  • #123
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


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

    I wonder is it possible to set the swear filter to convert "God works in mysterious ways" to what it actually means: "I haven't a clue".


  • #124
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    We're already making efforts to communicate the Gospel to people. This can be done without separating people from their families.

    According to a recent book I have read, and the missionary group OM (Operation Mobilisation) there are 1.6 billion people in Central Asia and the Middle East who have never heard of the Gospel. There are now people attempting to start up indigenous groups in this part of the world, in a lot of cases even risking their own lives while doing so.

    Why do you think Christians are doing this? I personally would say it is because they care.

    I don't see how this case would make sense if you genuinely think that it is true from a Christian perspective that there is no way to God apart from through Jesus Christ. Hence why I find a contradiction between your argument, and what you are saying here. It's a diachotomy.
    Naz_st wrote:
    Don't you have your own opinions on things? Don't you form opinions on other things not revealed in scripture?

    If I am referring to something as great as God, I don't feel I have the authority to speculate.
    Naz_st wrote:
    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!).

    Perhaps there is a third answer, maybe even a fourth or fifth answer.
    Naz_st wrote:
    So it's the business as usual, "God works in mysterious ways" response then?

    It's more the, I don't know so I can't give you an effective answer response. I wish I did know, but I will have to wait and see. I don't claim to have every answer to every question. I am a mere finite human being and I'm willing to be humble enough to accept that.


  • #125
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    We're already making efforts to communicate the Gospel to people. This can be done without separating people from their families.

    According to a recent book I have read, and the missionary group OM (Operation Mobilisation) there are 1.6 billion people in Central Asia and the Middle East who have never heard of the Gospel. There are now people attempting to start up indigenous groups in this part of the world, in a lot of cases even risking their own lives while doing so.

    Why do you think Christians are doing this? I personally would say it is because they care.
    I'm sure it is because they care and they truly believe that it's crucially important that everyone follow the same religion as them. The question is why they stop at gentle cajoling for something as important as another human being's soul, since they wouldn't stop at cajoling for something as comparatively minor as child abuse.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't see how this case would make sense if you genuinely think that it is true from a Christian perspective that there is no way to God apart from through Jesus Christ. Hence why I find a contradiction between your argument, and what you are saying here. It's a diachotomy.
    Eh?


  • #126
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If I am referring to something as great as God, I don't feel I have the authority to speculate.

    Coulda fooled me.

    The problem, as I already said, is that the bible is pretty unequivocal in this matter but what it says doesn't match with what you think it should say if god is perfectly moral


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Killing your child is by no means a certain guarantee of heaven by any means as the video's author makes out.

    Looks like the video's author made the fatal mistake of assuming that God wouldn't inflict an innocent child with an eternity of torture in Hell.


  • #128
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I'm sure it is because they care and they truly believe that it's crucially important that everyone follow the same religion as them. The question is why they stop at gentle cajoling for something as important as another human being's soul, since they wouldn't stop at cajoling for something as comparatively minor as child abuse.

    The best way to put forward the Christian faith as it was intended is to evangelise, put forward convincing argument. If this doesn't happen, people who believe as kids, will not retain their faith anyway.

    I don't believe having encountered Christianity as a teenager that childhood faith is the same thing as adult faith.

    This is the same issue that we always get into. We have profoundly different opinions on how faith is acquired.

    You conclude that teaching a child secures faith for life. I claim that it doesn't, and the vast majority of Christians that I have spoken to have come to faith in adolescence. If you want a ball-park figure, most give figures of roughly 15 - 17.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Eh?

    I'll explain myself more clearly -

    1) You think that the argument in the video which claims that kids should be killed because of their faith is convincing because according to Christianity that these people will automatically be taken into heaven.

    2) You also think that Christianity argues that there is no other way to the Father apart from Jesus.

    3) However, if the kids which are killed cannot be confirmed to believe in the Gospel and in Jesus Christ, the killing is pointless.

    We have an apparent contradiction.

    Personally the mere fact that people need to discuss how likely Christians are to butcher their children just shows how low anti-theist / atheist argumentation can get.


  • #129
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    dvpower wrote: »
    Looks like the video's author made the fatal mistake of assuming that God wouldn't inflict an innocent child with an eternity of torture in Hell.
    yeah, what an idiot. Has he not read the bible?

    MrP


  • #130
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The best way to put forward the Christian faith as it was intended is to evangelise, put forward convincing argument. If this doesn't happen, people who believe as kids, will not retain their faith anyway.

    I don't believe having encountered Christianity as a teenager that childhood faith is the same thing as adult faith.

    This is the same issue that we always get into. We have profoundly different opinions on how faith is acquired.

    You conclude that teaching a child secures faith for life. I claim that it doesn't, and the vast majority of Christians that I have spoken to have come to faith in adolescence. If you want a ball-park figure, most give figures of roughly 15 - 17.
    You can say that "people come into faith in adolesence" all you want but the fact is that in the overwhelming majority of cases the faith they come into is the one of their parents and peers. I'm sure muslims also "come into faith" at the same time, all the more reason to take them away from the bad influence before that happens

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'll explain myself more clearly -

    1) You think that the argument in the video which claims that kids should be killed because of their faith is convincing because according to Christianity that these people will automatically be taken into heaven.

    2) You also think that Christianity argues that there is no other way to the Father apart from Jesus.

    3) However, if the kids which are killed cannot be confirmed to believe in the Gospel and in Jesus Christ, the killing is pointless.

    We have an apparent contradiction.
    Yes we do. I think the bible is unequivocally clear that these children will not go to heaven because they did not believe in Jesus but that idea is incompatible with a loving god so christians either choose to ignore that bit or claim it's a grey area. The contradiction is in christian beliefs. Either you think that these children go to heaven or you're following a god that punishes innocent children because they died too soon.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Personally the mere fact that people need to discuss how likely Christians are to butcher their children just shows how low anti-theist / atheist argumentation can get.

    Nope, all it shows is the inconsistencies in christianity


  • #131
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    dvpower: I can't make any assumptions on what I don't know from the New Testament. That could well be the case. We have to deal with what we do know from the New Testament.
    Sam Vimes wrote:
    You can say that "people come into faith in adolesence" all you want but the fact is that in the overwhelming majority of cases the faith they come into is the one of their parents and peers. I'm sure muslims also "come into faith" at the same time, all the more reason to take them away from the bad influence before that happens

    I'm not disputing the role of peers and parents in influencing people to think about it. I do not think they confirm faith however. We have profound differences about how people think about adopting beliefs irrespective of whether it is Islam or Hinduism. You seem to wish to ignore that a considerable minority with a large amount of people involved come to Christianity through thought. Even in the cases where parents have influenced their children to consider it, most have to go through period of thought concerning it (I had to go through this for a few years). This is anathema to your position though.

    Actually, having ideas beforehand about other religions is actually useful when coming to find a path for yourself. Comparing and contrasting helps one to find what is more realistic, and which puts forward a more reasonable way of engaging and living with each other in this world. Indeed, especially when it comes to dealing with what will make this world a better place.

    I don't think separating children from their parents by force is going to make these people think any more of Christianity, in fact it may repel people from it. It's an absurd argument almost as ridiculous as the infanticide argument that the guy in this video is making. In introducing people to Christianity without separating them from their family, there is also the opportunity that their family will hear about it. In the book of Acts an entire family believed in Christ through one prison guard (chapter 16 if you are interested).


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    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.

    Well again it should be pointed out that the video author is merely repeating a common (if not the most common) Christian interpretation of a loving God, children and hell.

    Granted it may not be an interpretation you share, but it is inaccurate to imply that the author is producing some kind of straw man here.

    I would be curious how you reconcile a loving God with the idea of a 6 year old suffering eternal suffering in hell (a concept that leads many Christians it seems to conclude that would never happen), but that is possible a different discussion


  • #133
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight: I don't reconcile it. I merely claim honestly that I am ignorant on the subject. I cannot know, and I will not know until I die. That's what I call intellectual honesty. I'd love to know an answer, but I just don't. Such an admission is the truth.


  • #134
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    It's simple Jakkass,

    A baby is born with a difficult birth procedure (far from uncommon) and is put into a immediate life support machine. Doctors schedule life needed surgery for the baby in a weeks time. There is very little risk to the baby's life at this time. The operation get's a further delay.
    Hurricane Katrina strikes and by day three the hospital is out of back up power and partly flooded. The hospital needs to be evacuated unfortunately this means leaving some patients to die. The baby turns out to be one of them.
    Considering that this baby has never been consciously aware or responsive, but would in different circumstances have come to be a fully fledged human being.

    How likely would you rate the following:
    God condemns the baby to hell for not accepting the message of Jesus (even though his parents appeared devout Catholics) - The first thing the baby is aware of is the torment of hell.
    God saves the baby and gives it eternal salvation - The first thing the baby is aware of is the splendour of Heaven.


    I'm not asking for an absolute because I respect your position that God's motives cannot be understood by finite beings. I'm just asking how likely you think the following options are.


  • #135
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Malty T: I can say these things about God if I want, whether or not these things are actually going to be the case is another thing. This is the reason why I am wary about speaking about what is not revealed to us. It is far from simple and I find it dishonest for people to say that it is. I can only ultimately trust that God in His omniscience will do what is truly right in any given situation.


  • #136
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Malty T: I can say these things about God if I want, whether or not these things are actually going to be the case is another thing. This is the reason why I am wary about speaking about what is not revealed to us. It is far from simple. I can only ultimately trust that God in His omniscience will do what is truly right in any given situation.

    I didn't ask for an absolute whether or not.
    I asked for how likely you thought they were.


  • #137
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I've given you the best answer I can give you.


  • #138
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Malty T: I've made clear that I will not be speculating beyond what has been revealed. I trust that God would do what is right in such a situation. If God is truly omniscient and omnibenevolent this is a reasonable expectation.

    So what do you think is right?


  • #139
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Can we proceed with the discussion rather than goading? It is up to God to do what He deems fit in this situation, it is not up to me. I've been entirely honest with you as to what my thoughts are on this.

    I don't believe killing a child is going to make the situation better for you or them in any way in terms of risk due to the nature of what we currently have.


  • #140
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I can only ultimately trust that God in His omniscience will do what is truly right in any given situation.

    But isn't the nature of God that no matter what he decided to do, it would be 'truly right'?


  • #141
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I believe God defines what is right and wrong yes. I have high expectations of Him given what experience I have had of Christianity. Hence why I am perfectly happy to let God do what He will do.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Can we proceed with the discussion rather than goading? It is up to God to do what He deems fit in this situation, it is not up to me.

    Then why are you pro life?
    You claim that the right to life is paramount, yet you cannot tell me whether an aborted fetus would be granted safe passage to heaven or not? Surely if it's granted safe passage there would be no objection.
    So let's get this straight Jakkass, do you ever confront any difficult question on any position that you stand? Or do you just wishy washy over them ignoring them as if they weren't there.
    I was always taught that you should tackle the more difficult aspects to a problem first. If you can't resolve them, then how can you possibly hope to attain a solution.


  • #143
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Wicknight: I don't reconcile it.

    To not reconcile it would be to be open to the idea that God could in fact be an evil bastard, which judging by your previous posts you aren't open to. :confused:

    Otherwise you are just being irrational, which I think was the whole point of the authors video, to highlight the irrational absurdity of Christian belief.


  • #144
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight: Evil by whose standard?

    It's clear that we have a different defintion of what is good and what is evil. If not different definitions certainly different sources. To get into such a debate would be absolutely futile.

    Malty T: I won't elaborate about God that I do not have any back up for Scripturally. I don't know, that's my answer. I don't know everything about God, this world, this universe, I am a finite individual.

    It's not about difficult questions. It's about questions I cannot answer full stop. If I can't answer them, that's pretty much it. If I make a breakthrough by the time I die I'd be very impressed with myself.

    I think death is tragic, I can think this without knowing exactly what fate occurs in every single case of death.


  • #145
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass, you asked why I think the author's question is a good one. I think it's a good question because you can't answer it


  • #146
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Evil by whose standard?

    It's clear that we have a different defintion of what is good and what is evil. If not different definitions certainly different sources. To get into such a debate would be absolutely futile.

    Well God gave you a moral compass didn't He?:rolleyes:


  • #147
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Malty T: I won't elaborate about God that I do not have any back up for Scripturally. I don't know, that's my answer. I don't know everything about God, this world, this universe, I am a finite individual.

    It's not about difficult questions. It's about questions I cannot answer full stop. If I can't answer them, that's pretty much it. If I make a breakthrough by the time I die I'd be very impressed with myself.

    Why are you taking a position, if you can never know the answers?
    I mean what if you're wrong?


  • #148
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Wicknight: Evil by whose standard?
    Well yours, obviously.

    What standard did you use to determine God was good?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's clear that we have a different defintion of what is good and what is evil.
    My definition of good and evil is irrelevant, I'm not determining anything about God, who I don't believe has to be good or in fact has to exist.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    To get into such a debate would be absolutely futile.

    Possibly, but it would also simply be deflection from the actual point here.


  • #149
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Jakkass, you asked why I think the author's question is a good one. I think it's a good question because you can't answer it

    There's still an apparent contradiction. Claiming that an argument is good because people cannot determine what exactly happens in every single case of death is arbitrary.

    Is this argument valid because all children who die go to heaven, or invalid due to the contrary.

    Acting moral in Christianity is not due to God's punishment, it's the result of God's mercy. This is a conception that a lot of people seem to distort. I don't do what is right because I will go to hell if I don't, I do what is right out of gratitude to God for His mercy, and to somehow attempt to communicate this good news that we call the Gospel.

    Heaven or hell have become blown up. People have come to regard Christianity as being the equivalent of an airline ticket to heaven. We're just in the waiting room beforehand in this interpretation. We just have to wait.

    My view would be radically different than this. Christianity is about living in this existence, and living the life that God called us to live. I believe all people have this potential. Understandably this is the reason why I am not too fond of Christians killing their own children, due to the abundance of potential that they have.

    I still haven't worked out how best to do that either.

    Going back on topic: I think we have to ask ourselves, what is so good about killing a child for Christians? - I can't think of anything.


  • #150
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Naz_st wrote: »
    1) 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].

    It doesn't matter if you don't know or not Jakkass. Naz_st point stands. It's either one or the other and 'God works in mysterious ways' doesn't cut it as usual. If it's 2a, then God's perfect morals have to be questioned. If it's 2b then the video stands.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Heaven or hell have become blown up. People have come to regard Christianity as being the equivalent of an airline ticket to heaven. We're just in the waiting room beforehand in this interpretation. We just have to wait.

    The authors question is good because every single Christians has become fixated on this point you mentioned above which is actually irrelevant to the author's question.

    This issue is not about heaven. It is about hell. The mother was not trying to get her children into heaven. She was trying to ensure they didn't end up in hell.

    And why wouldn't she? Hell is a place of eternal suffering. Who wouldn't be terrified of their children going there if they actually believed and realised fully what that meant?

    The very fact that this seems to be a point that Christians replying on this thread have tried quite hard to skip around highlights exactly the absurdity being highlighted here by the video's author.

    Christians are trying to make this about selfishness for trying to skip ahead to heaven, when it is actually about fear and terror of suffering in hell.

    It is easy to argue for the merits of not skipping ahead to heaven, but it seems a lot harder to argue for the merits of being terrorified of hell


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement