Why don't Christians Kill their Children?

philologos · 16-12-2009 03:51PM

Your point can only be regarded as valid if one holds to subjective morality. I regard what is truly moral as being what God has defined as being truly moral. This is a problem if we are discussing concepts such as good, evil, just, unjust (as in Naz_st's post).

Where we do not know what God would do, it's incorrect in my opinion to assume. Assumptions mean that we eventually determine what God is rather than Him revealing Himself to us. That's upside down.

The only thing I can do is trust God in this situation, and of course Christian parents should have more faith in their abilities to share the Gospel with their children and with their family, friends and communities. We are called to be lights to the world. By killing ones child instead of doing and sharing what is right with them, we are making the world darker than it could be.

Why would a parent not want to take up the possibility of being with God with their children following their death or letting their children have the chance to do great things for God?

Wicknight wrote:

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.

Selfishness aside, it is profoundly wrong to deny a child the opportunity to live. Do we want to act like Herod or like Jesus?

The argument is about as silly as the concept of someone disbelieving in God, but yet praying for the sake of it to make sure they are OK just in case.

Sam: It is more dealing with an absence than dealing with a contradiction. The contradiction lies in the reasoning of the video when compared with the New Testament rather than the New Testament with the New Testament. There may be a contradiction between the New Testament and individual attitudes of Christians however.

I'm out, there are some clear things that I need to think about more. However, the concept to begin with is absurd when thinking through what Christianity has actually put forward.

Sam Vimes · 16-12-2009 03:57PM

Jakkass wrote: »

There's still an apparent contradiction.

I know there is. The contradiction is in christian beliefs. Either a child who dies before knowing who Jesus is goes straight to heaven meaning that it makes sense to kill them to protect them before they have a chance to condemn themselves or your god punishes babies for dying too soon. Neither is particularly palatable but one or the other must be true. We don't have to know which one is actually the case because each one is pretty much as horrendous as the other

Turtwig · 16-12-2009 04:01PM

Wicknight wrote: »

This issue is not about heaven. It is about hell.

Yep, got that right. The absurdity of heaven can wait for another day.:)

Naz_st · 16-12-2009 04:08PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Your point can only be regarded as valid if one holds to subjective morality. I regard what is truly moral as being what God has defined as being truly moral. This is a problem if we are discussing concepts such as good, evil, just, unjust (as in Naz_st's post).

So, essentially, if God decides that children who die before they know anything about him should go to hell for eternity, then this would be good and moral by definition?

I suspect that if you stopped 1000 people (Christian or otherwise) on the street and asked them if they thought children if they died up to the age of about 4 should burn in hell for not knowing about God, you would get 0% saying "Yes" (and for good reason, since it's about as evil a concept as can be conceived of). And yet you believe that God is the source of humanity's morals?

On the other hand if God decides all children should go to heaven by default (the option which the same 1000 people polled would likely agree), then the logic in the OP's video stands.

robindch · 16-12-2009 04:12PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I regard what is truly moral as being what God has defined as being truly moral.

And what you believe about your god is defined pretty much by yourself since you selected your religion as being the one that fit best. Hence what you believe is moral is what you believed is moral before you started believing.

Here's a summary of a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which shows, at the neurological level, that religious people simply take their own pre-existing beliefs, and repackage them to make it appear (to themselves) that they originated with their deity instead:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18216-dear-god-please-confirm-what-i-already-believe.html

Zombrex · 16-12-2009 04:12PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I regard what is truly moral as being what God has defined as being truly moral.

But you can't (rationally) "regard" that, because by definition you lose the ability to determine that.

See Euthyphro dilemma

The most you can rationally claim is that you don't know if God is moral or not.

But then rationality doesn't seem to be a big factor in all this.

Jakkass wrote: »

Selfishness aside, it is profoundly wrong to deny a child the opportunity to live.

Why?

I think given the choice between living in a flawed brutal world and then ending up being tortured for eternity and going straight to eternal paradise most people would choose the second.

Are you saying it is better that that someone lives their life and then goes to hell than it is for them to not live their life and end up in heaven?

Jakkass wrote: »

Do we want to act like Herod or like Jesus?

Well Jesus, since the purpose of Jesus' ressurection was to save people from Hell and that is what this woman was trying to do for her children.

If it is not that big a deal going to hell what was the point of Jesus in the first place?

Jakkass wrote: »

The argument is about as silly as the concept of someone disbelieving in God, but yet praying for the sake of it to make sure they are OK just in case.

Only because you are refusing to address the actual issue here, how terrifying hell is.

dvpower · 16-12-2009 05:01PM

Naz_st wrote: »

I suspect that if you stopped 1000 people (Christian or otherwise) on the street and asked them if they thought children if they died up to the age of about 4 should burn in hell for not knowing about God, you would get 0% saying "Yes" (and for good reason, since it's about as evil a concept as can be conceived of).

I guess that the Christians amongst the 1000 would say that its entirely a matter for God and whatever He decided would be OK.
They might say that since God is good, he is unlikely to send them to Hell, but if He did, He would have a good reason for it (that we are too puny to comprehend).

So, it seems to go something like this:

Q. "Should we beat young children with sticks?"
A. No. Certainly not. That would be awful.

Q. "Should God beat young children with sticks?"
A. Yes. If He wanted to, it would be precisely the right thing to do.

Sam Vimes · 16-12-2009 05:11PM

dvpower wrote: »

I guess that the Christians amongst the 1000 would say that its entirely a matter for God and whatever He decided would be OK.
They might say that since God is good, he is unlikely to send them to Hell, but if He did, He would have a good reason for it (that we are too puny to comprehend).

So, it seems to go something like this:

Q. "Should we beat young children with sticks?"
A. No. Certainly not. That would be awful.

Q. "Should God beat young children with sticks?"
A. Yes. If He wanted to, it would be precisely the right thing to do.

You forgot:
Q. "Should we beat young children with sticks if we think God has commanded us to?"
A. Yes. If He wanted us to, it would be precisely the right thing to do.

GLaDOS · 16-12-2009 05:27PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You forgot:
Q. "Should we beat young children with sticks if we think God has commanded us to?"

I have this book that some guys wrote ages after jesus died and has been translated loads of times and has absolutely no credentials that says we should do just that!

Turtwig · 16-12-2009 05:28PM

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I have this book that some guys wrote ages after jesus died and has been translated loads of times and has absolutely no credentials that says we should do just that!

The Qu'ran, or the bible?

Oh wait, how many times has the Qu'ran been translated?

Flamed Diving · 16-12-2009 05:30PM

Malty_T wrote: »

The Qu'ran, or the bible?
Oh wait, how many times has the Qu'ran been translated?

How many times has the Koran been subject to revision and editing by vested interests?

PDN · 16-12-2009 05:53PM

Interesting indeed. I've been away from the internet for a few days and have just spent the last few minutes skimming through 11 pages of (mostly) drivel.

However, one overarching pattern seems to be emerging. Myself, and other Christian posters, have replied that of course we wouldn't kill our children because we recognise that would be a wrong thing to do.

Then we have a host of atheist posters who all appear to subscribe to a truly chilling philosophy. They say that it is OK to commit a violent act that would be unthinkable to any moral person (killing your own child), providing that you are doing it because the possibility exists that the child might suffer something even worse down the line (going to hell). Then you try to use your own perverted sense of morality as an argument against Christianity. LOL!

I have, in the past, argued that atheists are not necessarily any more immoral than other people. But after reading this thread I don't think I can ever make that argument again. If what the majority of atheists have expressed in this thread really expresses their genuine views then I find it quite scary having to live in the same society with them.

Some of us avoid killing others because we genuinely believe that to be a wrong way for us to behave. I am shocked that so many of you refrain from killing your children only because you don't actually believe that there is a risk of something worse happening to them.

What about the risk that your children may develop inoperable cancer in the future? What about the risk that they may be kidnapped and tortured for days by a homicidal sadistic maniac? At one point do these risks become real enough to you to start living up to the morality you have expressed in this thread and so to start slaughtering your own kids to protect them from those risks?

The real laugh is that this thread, apparently intended to attack Christianity, has only served to reveal the moral bankruptcy of so many atheist posters.

Flamed Diving · 16-12-2009 05:56PM

PDN wrote: »

Interesting indeed. I've been away from the internet for a few days and have just spent the last few minutes skimming through 11 pages of (mostly) drivel.

However, one overarching pattern seems to be emerging. Myself, and other Christian posters, have replied that of course we wouldn't kill our children because we recognise that would be a wrong thing to do.

Then we have a host of atheist posters who all appear to subscribe to a truly chilling philosophy. They say that it is OK to commit a violent act that would be unthinkable to any moral person (killing your own child), providing that you are doing it because the possibility exists that the child might suffer something even worse down the line (going to hell). Then you try to use your own perverted sense of morality as an argument against Christianity. LOL!

I have, in the past, argued that atheists are not necessarily any more immoral than other people. But after reading this thread I don't think I can ever make that argument again. If what the majority of atheists have expressed in this thread really expresses their genuine views then I find it quite scary having to live in the same society with them.

Some of us avoid killing others because we genuinely believe that to be a wrong way for us to behave. I am shocked that so many of you refrain from killing your children only because you don't actually believe that there is a risk of something worse happening to them.

What about the risk that your children may develop inoperable cancer in the future? What about the risk that they may be kidnapped and tortured for days by a homicidal sadistic maniac? At one point do these risks become real enough to you to start living up to the morality you have expressed in this thread and so to start slaughtering your own kids to protect them from those risks?

The real laugh is that this thread, apparently intended to attack Christianity, has only served to reveal the moral bankruptcy of so many atheist posters.

Are you drunk?

Genghiz Cohen · 16-12-2009 06:03PM

Turtwig · 16-12-2009 06:08PM

PDN wrote: »

The real laugh is that this thread, apparently intended to attack Christianity, has only served to reveal the moral bankruptcy of so many atheist posters.

The real laugh is that you're still ignoring my original request to watch the video before commenting.
The real point in this thread is that Christianity can be used to make sane people do insane things.
No Christian has point out a flaw in logic presented in the video.
All they have done is either:
Strawmanned.
Stonewalled.
Or used the best religious argument of all time.
"Because it just is"

Flamed Diving · 16-12-2009 06:23PM

Malty_T wrote: »

The real laugh is that you're still ignoring my original request to watch the video before commenting.
The real point in this thread is that Christianity can be used to make sane people do insane things.
No Christian has point out a flaw in logic presented in the video.
All they have done is either:
Strawmanned.
Stonewalled.
Or used the best religious argument of all time.
"Because it just is"

I think it is clear that PDN has never played...

PDN · 16-12-2009 06:44PM

Malty_T wrote: »

The real point in this thread is that Christianity can be used to make sane people do insane things.

No, the real point is that sane Christians are too moral to do insane things. That is why the thread title is not "Why do Christians kill their children?" :rolleyes:

Another salient point that has now arisen is why the majority of apparently sane atheist posters claim to be so immoral that, if they believed in hell, they would kill their own children.

Absolutely classic! You guys should go into pantomime.

Turtwig · 16-12-2009 06:47PM

PDN wrote: »

No, the real point is that sane Christians are too moral to do insane things. That is why the thread title is not "Why do Christians kill their children?" :rolleyes:

Another salient point that has now arisen is why the majority of apparently sane atheist posters claim to be so immoral that, if they believed in hell, they would kill their own children.

Absolutely classic! You guys should go into pantomime.

Look!

The point of this thread is still behind you!

Flamed Diving · 16-12-2009 06:49PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Look!

The point of this thread is still behind you!

I don't think he is going to get it...

CerebralCortex · 16-12-2009 06:56PM

PDN wrote: »

What about the risk that your children may develop inoperable cancer in the future?

Not as bad as hell.

PDN wrote: »

What about the risk that they may be kidnapped and tortured for days by a homicidal sadistic maniac?

Not as bad as hell.

PDN wrote: »

At one point do these risks become real enough to you to start living up to the morality you have expressed in this thread and so to start slaughtering your own kids to protect them from those risks?

If the risk was as bad as hell.

Genghiz Cohen · 16-12-2009 06:57PM

What are the odds that if we were in the Christianity forum and it were an athiest acting like PDN, that PDN would have banhammered him by now?

Mark Hamill · 16-12-2009 06:59PM

Sorry about the delay in response, was busy today.

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

But wouldn't this would mean your religions entire moral basis is: good=accept Jesus=Heaven, bad=deny Jesus=hell, nothing else matters, not wether or not you kill someone, wether you steal? Nothing else has no basis on wether or not you get into heaven and therefore is entirely irrelevent. That means there is no religiously motviated incentive to do any good, as no punishmenet comes from it anyway as long as you do the one thing that god cares enough to punish about-accept Jesus.

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?

The christian religion does so. If someone accepts Jesus at the age of 20, dies the next day, and ends up at the pearly gates, no question is made of wether that person would have denied Jesus had s/he lived another 50 years, so it cant be held against them. Similarly an infant, killed at birth cannot have what it would have done had it survived till adulthood held agianst it (or could it?) and then would either get into heavne if god is good and merciful, or go to hell if gods a jerk. I can see why christians dont like this line of questioning.

Jakkass wrote:

I believe any murderer can be forgiven if they are genuinely repentant about what they have done.

Whats that got to do with anything? In the first post I multiquoted above, you said nothing has any effect on wether you get into heaven or hell except wether or not you accept Jesus, therefore not everything a christian does is about getting into heaven. So who cares if you are forgiven if you accept Jesus, you'll get into heaven anyway?

Jakkass wrote:

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.

But what if you truely believe (through no fault of your own) that you are doing good? Will god punish someone because they are ignorant if its not their fault?

Sam Vimes · 16-12-2009 07:00PM

PDN wrote: »

Interesting indeed. I've been away from the internet for a few days and have just spent the last few minutes skimming through 11 pages of (mostly) drivel.

However, one overarching pattern seems to be emerging. Myself, and other Christian posters, have replied that of course we wouldn't kill our children because we recognise that would be a wrong thing to do.

Then we have a host of atheist posters who all appear to subscribe to a truly chilling philosophy. They say that it is OK to commit a violent act that would be unthinkable to any moral person (killing your own child), providing that you are doing it because the possibility exists that the child might suffer something even worse down the line (going to hell). Then you try to use your own perverted sense of morality as an argument against Christianity. LOL!

I have, in the past, argued that atheists are not necessarily any more immoral than other people. But after reading this thread I don't think I can ever make that argument again. If what the majority of atheists have expressed in this thread really expresses their genuine views then I find it quite scary having to live in the same society with them.

Some of us avoid killing others because we genuinely believe that to be a wrong way for us to behave. I am shocked that so many of you refrain from killing your children only because you don't actually believe that there is a risk of something worse happening to them.

While it is abundantly clear that you're just being obtuse, allow me to clarify. We don't kill our children because we believe it is a wrong thing to do. the question we are asking is: since you firmly believe that if you kill your child he will gain eternal paradise* and since there is a significant chance that he will do something in his life to earn him eternal torture, why is it wrong to kill him? As William Lane Craig says of the Canaanite children, they are not wronged when killed by the Israelites because they inherit eternal life. The only person wronged in that scenario is you because you end up in hell but isn't it worth it to ensure your child's place in heaven?

I can explain exactly why it's wrong to kill a child but that's because I don't believe that they get eternal bliss if I do

*Unless you think god punishes innocent children, which is a whole other matter

Sam Vimes · 16-12-2009 07:03PM

PDN wrote: »

No, the real point is that sane Christians are too moral to do insane things. That is why the thread title is not "Why do Christians kill their children?" :rolleyes:

Christians are supposed to get their morality from their religion but their religion provides an incentive to kill their child.

The reality of course is that christians don't get their morality from their religion, they get it from the same place as everyone else does. That's why we both know it's wrong to kill a child even though your religion provides a very powerful motivation to do it

Dades · 16-12-2009 07:04PM

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

What are the odds that if we were in the Christianity forum...

We ain't in the Christianity forum. That is all.

dvpower · 16-12-2009 07:05PM

PDN wrote: »

Why watch a video that is obviously crap? The question is stupid.

PDN wrote: »

Interesting indeed. I've been away from the internet for a few days and have just spent the last few minutes skimming through 11 pages of (mostly) drivel.

If you spend the extra 6 minutes watching the video you might have avoided sillyness like this:

Then we have a host of atheist posters who all appear to subscribe to a truly chilling philosophy. They say that it is OK to commit a violent act that would be unthinkable to any moral person (killing your own child), providing that you are doing it because the possibility exists that the child might suffer something even worse down the line (going to hell). Then you try to use your own perverted sense of morality as an argument against Christianity. LOL!

Is there a chance that you are guity of that which you so often accuse Atheist posters of over on the Christianity forum?

PDN · 16-12-2009 07:15PM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

If the risk was as bad as hell.

OK, then, I now know that debating morality with you is meaningless.

Any other atheists prepared to admit this. If you genuinely believed in hell would you kill your children?

Mark Hamill · 16-12-2009 07:19PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I don't think he is going to get it...

Given the way his responses attempt to deflect the actual point onto atheists, I would bet that he has gotten it perfectly. He just doesn't like it and is too fond of breaking commandment number 9 to admit it.

Sam Vimes · 16-12-2009 07:19PM

PDN wrote: »

OK, then, I now know that debating morality with you is meaningless.

Any other atheists prepared to admit this. If you genuinely believed in hell would you kill your children?

I can't answer that question. That's the whole point we're trying to make, that christianity provides a powerful motivation to kill your child even though you know it's wrong. If your child gets eternal bliss if you kill him, then why is it wrong to do it?

Without believing in christianity I can answer it easily but a christian is left with a serious dilemma

Turtwig · 16-12-2009 07:20PM

PDN wrote: »

OK, then, I now know that debating morality with you is meaningless.

Any other atheists prepared to admit this. If you genuinely believed in hell would you kill your children?

To be perfectly honest.
We don't believe.
You do.
And you're not addressing the point at all.

Why don't Christians Kill their Children?

Comments