A Religious Paradox
SkulkBait
Join Date: 2003-02-11 Member: 13423Members
Join Date: 2003-02-11 Member: 13423Members
<div class="IPBDescription">....or is it?</div> An interesting idea came to me yesterday. Why aren't religious people (or at least the ones that believe in an afterlife) killing people more often? Now hold on there, before you say "wow this guy is crazy" and move on, think about it. If I were to kill a small child, chances are that child hasn't lived long enough to commit a sin worthly of landing him/her in whatever hell there might be, so I would be sending that child to heaven. Whereas had I let that child live longer it may have grown up to commit such a sin, and gone to hell. Yet religious people aren't drowning their children after birth to ensure them a good seat in heaven, so what am I missing? Well, the obvious answer is that killing is considered a sin in these religions as well, so I would be condeming myself to hell by doing such a thing. But that would make all those non-baby drowning religious folk selfish wouldn't it? I mean, they may wind up in hell for all eternity, but all those kids they slaughtered would get a free ride on the heaven gravy train. So really, what am I missing here?
Please, don't think that I'm only posting this because I'm, to put it mildly, not too fond of religion. I'm really curious. And I'd like to here the point argued for these religions in general, not just for one.
Please, don't think that I'm only posting this because I'm, to put it mildly, not too fond of religion. I'm really curious. And I'd like to here the point argued for these religions in general, not just for one.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
[edit] i missed this
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If I were to kill a small child, chances are that child hasn't lived long enough to commit a sin worthly of landing him/her in whatever hell there might be, so I would be sending that child to heaven.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
both Christians, Jews, and Muslims (I think it's for Muslims, not quite sure) people are born with sin. So if a you belive that a being exists cabably enough to have a soul then you are sentencing that sould to hell by killing that being (this is an iffy point, people have different explinations for how this works). For buddists life is a cycle of suffering caused by attachment to the world (simplified to say the least). The cycle must be broken conciouly, thus a dead baby will simply cycle to its next life, not go to "heaven".
[edit] i missed this
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If I were to kill a small child, chances are that child hasn't lived long enough to commit a sin worthly of landing him/her in whatever hell there might be, so I would be sending that child to heaven.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
both Christians, Jews, and Muslims (I think it's for Muslims, not quite sure) people are born with sin. So if a you belive that a being exists cabably enough to have a soul then you are sentencing that sould to hell by killing that being (this is an iffy point, people have different explinations for how this works). For buddists life is a cycle of suffering caused by attachment to the world (simplified to say the least). The cycle must be broken conciouly, thus a dead baby will simply cycle to its next life, not go to "heaven". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting point about being born with sin, but don't many religions have rituals similar to those of the christian baptism? The point of which is to cleanse the newborn of original sin? I believe I read in an earlier discussion that, at least in the case of christianity, baptism didn't really mean anything. But that would be beside the point, because those practicing it obviously do believe it means something, so why aren't they drowning their children immediatly after such a ritual? I mean, the soul can't get any more clensed...
Besides, nobody actually knows what happens to all the kids who die before they are old enough to make a responsible decision about God. They might og to hell, they might just cease to exist or they might go to heaven. I don't go around killing little kids becasue I am not willing to take that risk.
Besides, nobody actually knows what happens to all the kids who die before they are old enough to make a responsible decision about God. They might og to hell, they might just cease to exist or they might go to heaven. I don't go around killing little kids becasue I am not willing to take that risk. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes but you are not nessesarily indicative of the average mentality of any given religion's people.
I can see your point about how "doing what their told" would stop such behaivior. Lord knows the church often relied on that kind of thinking to get people to do its rather unholy bidding in the past. So I have annother question: If a reverend were to tell his congregation they should kill their children immediatly after baptism, how would the majority of them respond? Would there be a mass child-drowning incident on the 5 O'clock news, or would it be a the hanging of a preacher that makes the top story?
I don't know which way I would place my money, certainly people have done dumber things at the behest of someone they put their faith in, but killing your own child is generally harder for people to do then suicide...
I can see your point about how "doing what their told" would stop such behaivior. Lord knows the church often relied on that kind of thinking to get people to do its rather unholy bidding in the past. So I have annother question: If a reverend were to tell his congregation they should kill their children immediatly after baptism, how would the majority of them respond? Would there be a mass child-drowning incident on the 5 O'clock news, or would it be a the hanging of a preacher that makes the top story?
I don't know which way I would place my money, certainly people have done dumber things at the behest of someone they put their faith in, but killing your own child is generally harder for people to do then suicide... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not talking about some falliable human command, I am talking about the word of God. If the preacher said "go and kill your kids so they get into heaven", the British (i cannot speak for the American) congregation would think he was a loony.
Yes, there have been times that people have used christianity to authorise some terrible things. That says nothing about christianity but it speaks volumes about humanity.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am christian, yet I do nothing because I am told to, or not told to, I find it not only unsatifing to follow the whims of a book, but also quite dangerous. God is not the contents of the Bible, and the Bible makes that perfectly clear. As someone who whould absolutly not accept the religion if I belived that it was as simple as "do as your told" I can asure you that not only is that theologically proven unsound, but actually a brand of christianity that many christians will argue is not even valid. God has no need for robots, if he did, he would have made robots. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So why do you do things then, if you do them not because you are told to, what is the reason?
Yes, there have been times that people have used christianity to authorise some terrible things. That says nothing about christianity but it speaks volumes about humanity. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You would be forgetting a long line of Cult mass suicides (among other things) to limit yourself to just christians. I'm not sure what cults are generally like accrossed the pond, but here its not all that surprising to hear about people taking their lives on the word of their reverend (used as a general term meaning "revered person", not nessesarily christian preacher).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am not talking about some falliable human command, I am talking about the word of God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes but it has been shown that people will often mistake one for the other, and consequently do things their religion would normally prohibit. Case in point: muslim suicide bombers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am not talking about some falliable human command, I am talking about the word of God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes but it has been shown that people will often mistake one for the other, and consequently do things their religion would normally prohibit. Case in point: muslim suicide bombers. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But as I said, people's extreme actions say more about humanity than thier religion. A revered person says to all his followers "kill yourself", when the religion speaks about sanctity of life, just shows that the revered person is a loony, and the people who follow him are gullible fools.
A religion that talks about mass suicides will die out sooner or later, but the people who follow it are most likely, fools looking for a meaning to life.
]
Muslim suicide bobmers believe they are dying in Jihad, Holy war, so they will go to heaven. They may be right, they may be fools, but the religion says it.
(I know I was trying to make a point in that lot, but I am not sure if I manged it. Come to think of it, I cannot even remember what the point that I was trying to make was.)
Hardly. Terrorist leaders using their standing as revered religious figures to make them believe that this kind of behavior is justified by their religion. That is no more true than saying the Crusades were justified by the christian bible.
But this has been getting a bit off topic....
What punishment would hell be without some experience to compare it to? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I just love those little children, i hope they die soon.
You ARE crazy.
You want something to compare it too? What about earth?
You want something to compare it too? What about earth? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what I just said. Little children have no real experiance on Earth.
What punishment would hell be without some experience to compare it to? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What experiance on earth can be compaired to either?
<!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Please, don't think that I'm only posting this because I'm, to put it mildly, not too fond of religion. I'm really curious. And I'd like to here the point argued for these religions in general, not just for one. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've though about this one a bit too.
In the book "Does God believe in Atheists" by John Blanchard, he brought up examples of God ordering the Jews in the OT to "Slaughter everyone, kill the children and rip open the pregnant women" etc whilst dealing with the Arguement from Evil.
He put it that killing these children was actually a mercy action. By killing them before they reached the age of understanding (the age at which they could be judged before God for their actions), it would prevent them from being corrupted by the evil culture of their parents and actually save them from hell.
However, he also realised the natural conclusion of this, which is what skulkbait has hit upon - why not kill your baby sister and save her from any chance of hell.
The answer was as follows. God pwns everyone and everything. When he told the Israelites to slaughter these poor sods, he had every right to take their lives, given that they belong to him. He would judge the adults, and not judge the children.
However, with me killing my baby sister (not that I have one, but hey), sure it would save her from hell, but given that God hasn't ordered that I kill her, I am actually stealing her life from her, and as such stealing from God. Thus, what the Jews did was not a sin, but what I do is a sin. Same result for the little kids, but not the same for the killer in either scenario. That explanation sits pretty well with me.
Please, don't think that I'm only posting this because I'm, to put it mildly, not too fond of religion. I'm really curious. And I'd like to here the point argued for these religions in general, not just for one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've though about this one a bit too.
In the book "Does God believe in Atheists" by John Blanchard, he brought up examples of God ordering the Jews in the OT to "Slaughter everyone, kill the children and rip open the pregnant women" etc whilst dealing with the Arguement from Evil.
He put it that killing these children was actually a mercy action. By killing them before they reached the age of understanding (the age at which they could be judged before God for their actions), it would prevent them from being corrupted by the evil culture of their parents and actually save them from hell.
However, he also realised the natural conclusion of this, which is what skulkbait has hit upon - why not kill your baby sister and save her from any chance of hell.
The answer was as follows. God pwns everyone and everything. When he told the Israelites to slaughter these poor sods, he had every right to take their lives, given that they belong to him. He would judge the adults, and not judge the children.
However, with me killing my baby sister (not that I have one, but hey), sure it would save her from hell, but given that God hasn't ordered that I kill her, I am actually stealing her life from her, and as such stealing from God. Thus, what the Jews did was not a sin, but what I do is a sin. Same result for the little kids, but not the same for the killer in either scenario. That explanation sits pretty well with me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats all well and good, but why don't you feel selfish about not sacrificing your eternal happiness for your little sister's? or say, a whole bus of kindergartners? I mean, sure, you'd go to hell, but you'd go with the satisfaction that you spared a whole bus of souls that fate.
Not at all. The fate of my sister is not certain. She could grow up, become a Christian, help a lot of people and then die and go straight to heaven. I'm not quite ready to condemn myself to hell on the odd chance she MAY go to hell. And if she does go to hell, that will be her choice - not mine. I have no right to make that choice for other people.
However, if I was convinced that God was ordering me to kill someone, then HE is making the choice, not I, and it would be competely justified. As far as I know, Christians never have and never will be ordered to kill....
That's why we should put pagans on the job. Damned murderers, atheists, admins and other scum of the world have nothing left to lose anyway. Brilliant? Howabout we nuke the crap out of <b>everyone</b>, this way we save billions of souls that haven't even been conceived. Über brilliant?
Now we only need to find a guy, who doesn't believe in god(so he's not afraid of eternal damnation and all that) and has keys for a few missile silos.
And I'm all out of keys.
It is a bit odd. Basically, the Catholic religion is based upon God who "loves unconditionally". According to the Catholic religion, if you kill someone and then confess your sins and "apologize" for what you have done, you go to heaven. Now wait a minute. You are telling me that if I end some innocent person's life prematurely, and I apologize, I'll get into heaven. WTH?
Yes, if you are truly sorry. What exactly is your problem with that?
It is a bit odd. Basically, the Catholic religion is based upon God who "loves unconditionally". According to the Catholic religion, if you kill someone and then confess your sins and "apologize" for what you have done, you go to heaven. Now wait a minute. You are telling me that if I end some innocent person's life prematurely, and I apologize, I'll get into heaven. WTH? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a tad more than that. The fact that you may be sorry for what you did is nice, but the penalty for that sin still hangs above your head like the sword of Damocles. The only way you can get out from under it is to have someone else take it away, which for the most part, is impossible, seeing as everyone else has the same sort of stuff on their shoulders.
Unless, of coure, God took the punishment out on Himself to let you off the hook.
It's more than just being sorry for that, it's realizing with every bit of your being that you screwed up so much that you deserve only eternal torment, and then with nothing going for you, on your knees, you ask for what Christ did to apply to you, you ask for Him to carry that burden. THAT is how we are saved, not by having our regrets, but because God Himself chose to transfer the debt.
It is a bit odd. Basically, the Catholic religion is based upon God who "loves unconditionally". According to the Catholic religion, if you kill someone and then confess your sins and "apologize" for what you have done, you go to heaven. Now wait a minute. You are telling me that if I end some innocent person's life prematurely, and I apologize, I'll get into heaven. WTH? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a tad more than that. The fact that you may be sorry for what you did is nice, but the penalty for that sin still hangs above your head like the sword of Damocles. The only way you can get out from under it is to have someone else take it away, which for the most part, is impossible, seeing as everyone else has the same sort of stuff on their shoulders.
Unless, of coure, God took the punishment out on Himself to let you off the hook.
It's more than just being sorry for that, it's realizing with every bit of your being that you screwed up so much that you deserve only eternal torment, and then with nothing going for you, on your knees, you ask for what Christ did to apply to you, you ask for Him to carry that burden. THAT is how we are saved, not by having our regrets, but because God Himself chose to transfer the debt. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So He saves you from Himself?
It is a bit odd. Basically, the Catholic religion is based upon God who "loves unconditionally". According to the Catholic religion, if you kill someone and then confess your sins and "apologize" for what you have done, you go to heaven. Now wait a minute. You are telling me that if I end some innocent person's life prematurely, and I apologize, I'll get into heaven. WTH? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a tad more than that. The fact that you may be sorry for what you did is nice, but the penalty for that sin still hangs above your head like the sword of Damocles. The only way you can get out from under it is to have someone else take it away, which for the most part, is impossible, seeing as everyone else has the same sort of stuff on their shoulders.
Unless, of coure, God took the punishment out on Himself to let you off the hook.
It's more than just being sorry for that, it's realizing with every bit of your being that you screwed up so much that you deserve only eternal torment, and then with nothing going for you, on your knees, you ask for what Christ did to apply to you, you ask for Him to carry that burden. THAT is how we are saved, not by having our regrets, but because God Himself chose to transfer the debt. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So He saves you from Himself? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He saves you from his judgement, by punishing his own son in your place.
He saves you from his judgement, by punishing his own son in your place.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So God punishes His son for the failings of humans, correct?
Despite humans being made flawed by God, not Jesus, right?
And God is supposed to be a loving God, right?
I don't quite understand the logic there.
Despite humans being made flawed by God, not Jesus, right?
And God is supposed to be a loving God, right?
I don't quite understand the logic there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Jesus 'volunteered' to be punished. God needed a way of reconciling himself to his people, but, being perfectly just, he coulnd't just let them off the hook, someone had to go on the hook in their place, a sacrifice. This sacrifice had to be human, and he had to have done nothing wrong.
Humans were created perfect. "And God saw what he had made and it was Good." Not OK or "That'll do", but Good, perfect.
Despite humans being made flawed by God, not Jesus, right?
And God is supposed to be a loving God, right?
I don't quite understand the logic there. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Jesus 'volunteered' to be punished. God needed a way of reconciling himself to his people, but, being perfectly just, he coulnd't just let them off the hook, someone had to go on the hook in their place, a sacrifice. This sacrifice had to be human, and he had to have done nothing wrong.
Humans were created perfect. "And God saw what he had made and it was Good." Not OK or "That'll do", but Good, perfect. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But of course, man can do nothing meaningful unless he is given the free will to do whatever he wants. Man was created perfect, but was given the option to fall. We took that, and we take that way out every day.
It is for these transgressions that Christ was crucified. Not for inherant sinfulness, but for the fact that every single person on the face of the earth has freely chosen against God. Except, of course, for the infants we were discussing earlyer, who could not possibly understand such a thing.